• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Elizabeth Warren to Dems: Kill the bill

Commerce can most definitely happen without government participation. It's unclear why anyone could possibly believe that it couldn't, and hasn't.

give us an example of commerce where government has absolutely no role in the activity
 
And Boehner now owes Obama, Reid and Hoyer a pretty big favor going forward.
Hopefully that means some peace in legislation next year.
Also strangely silent this week was McConnell .

I have to admit that I'm far from thrilled about the campaign finance changes and Wall Street giveaways. To me that seems like a major step backwards from where we should be going.
 
And Boehner now owes Obama, Reid and Hoyer a pretty big favor going forward.
Hopefully that means some peace in legislation next year.
Also strangely silent this week was McConnell .

Good point. Where's McConnell?
 
GOP Utah has become a leading state with private/public ventures, especially in the transportation sector .

give us an example of commerce where government has absolutely no role in the activity
 
give us an example of commerce where government has absolutely no role in the activity
Are you familiar with the trade between Europeans and Native Americans during the early exploration of the continent? That's just a small example but traders have been carrying out their business with other peoples for centuries without government involvement.
 
I have to admit that I'm far from thrilled about the campaign finance changes and Wall Street giveaways. To me that seems like a major step backwards from where we should be going.

Heya Eorhn. :2wave: Yeah I didn't like that rider with the Campaign finances which came out the Senate. We need that Senator's Name and then he needs to hear from the people about trying to rig the game anymore.

Who do you think brought that lil piece of legislation that Harry Reid allowed thru? Who was trying to get the Demos some more money for their Elections?
 
Good point. Where's McConnell?

This is why I believe we'll have more peace the next two years than most people think.
Obama showed flexibility supporting this budget.

The last thing McConnell wants to do is overplay his hand and lose the Senate,
especially with 24 GOPs up for reelection in 2016 in a Presidential year compared to only 10 for the DEMs .
 
Heya Eorhn. :2wave: Yeah I didn't like that rider with the Campaign finances which came out the Senate. We need that Senator's Name and then he needs to hear from the people about trying to rig the game anymore.

Who do you think brought that lil piece of legislation that Harry Reid allowed thru? Who was trying to get the Demos some more money for their Elections?

Too bad for you it came from the House, MMC.
Try being just a lil bit more honest next time.

The Senate simply agreed to GOP Rep. Hensarling's poison pill.
He's the same guy who sabotaged the SuperCommittee in late 2011 .
 
Too bad for you it came from the House, MMC.
Try being just a lil bit more honest next time.

The Senate simply agreed to GOP Rep. Hensarling's poison pill.
He's the same guy who sabotaged the SuperCommittee in late 2011 .


Do you have a link that it came from the House? As I was hearing it came as so, with the rider from the Senate.
 
This is why I believe we'll have more peace the next two years than most people think.
Obama showed flexibility supporting this budget.

The last thing McConnell wants to do is overplay his hand and lose the Senate,
especially with 24 GOPs up for reelection in 2016 in a Presidential year compared to only 10 for the DEMs .



Not according to Maxine Waters.


Luke Russert ✔ @LukeRussert
Maxine Waters: We're fighting anybody lobbying for this bill including the President. #CRomnibus
 
You made the statement it came from the Senate--prove it.
Where are all those links you always put up?
The bill came from the House--do I need to link that ?

Do you have a link that it came from the House? As I was hearing it came as so, with the rider from the Senate.
 
Not according to Maxine Waters.


Luke Russert ✔ @LukeRussert
Maxine Waters: We're fighting anybody lobbying for this bill including the President. #CRomnibus

Still cherry-picking your favorite DEMs when it suits you ?
 
Are you familiar with the trade between Europeans and Native Americans during the early exploration of the continent? That's just a small example but traders have been carrying out their business with other peoples for centuries without government involvement.

thank you for making my point
the best example you can point to is commerce many CENTURIES ago
 
You made the statement it came from the Senate--prove it.
Where are all those links you always put up?
The bill came from the House--do I need to link that ?


I just got done telling you I heard that it came from the Senate. I don't know where it came from. As I was out of the loop at the time. That's why I asked you for a link showing it was the House. Also the Bill came from the Senate.

So now do you have a link since you state it was the House.

I only care about getting the name of the politician that is putting more BS into the game. Republican or Democrat. Doesn't matter. But their name does.
 
Still cherry-picking your favorite DEMs when it suits you ?

Yeah, we can see how my Name is Luke Russert. :lamo


Oh, and this would be a good cherry to pick out as being a fake. Since Waters was signed on to DoddFrank before.....but now as usual the Prog, flips flops and fries!
 
She basically said blacks are incapable of making their own personal financial decisions. I mean, how much can be expected of them, right? They're just blacks after all.

But no, WE'RE the racists.

They're brainwashed, not stupid.

Liberals have effectively brainwashed black Americans into the most non-thinking group in the US today. It's as if they want to perpetuate slavery in another form. It's a sad fact.

Black Americans are taught to play the victim, brainwashed into being non-thinking and inferior in their own minds, then subjugated into a dependent unilateral voting block to be used and abused at the whim of liberals and Democrats as needed.

The guy who is blasting Warren because he believes she said blacks are too stupid to make our own financial decisions, regularly calls us brainwashed pawns of the left. Yo, Erod, want to debate your bull**** statements and how similar your actual statements are to - what you think are - Warren's "racist" remarks? ;) No? Seems par for the course. Now, move along, sweetheart.
 
Last edited:
I'm very scared of her. If she was elected president, she would make Obama look like a great president.

Republicans do a pretty good job of making Obama look like a great president.
 
Well, the GOP are moron's if nothing else. Boehner has to go or these numbnuts will allow another Dem trifecta in 2016...
 
I just got done telling you I heard that it came from the Senate. I don't know where it came from. As I was out of the loop at the time. That's why I asked you for a link showing it was the House. Also the Bill came from the Senate.

So now do you have a link since you state it was the House.

I only care about getting the name of the politician that is putting more BS into the game. Republican or Democrat. Doesn't matter. But their name does.

Please allow me to interject here.

The following article seems to be an objective look at this Dodd-Frank stuff that everyone is talking about. I think it'll clear up some misunderstandings.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/12/09/wall-street-seeks-to-tuck-dodd-frank-changes-in-budget-bill/
 
Obama was 100% correct when he said that, just FYI. He was talking about the infrastructure that allows businesses to thrive.

He was promoting the virtues of big govt. That is not what built most of this country. Trouble with your thinking is you think people would never start a business until some govt agency built a ****ing road. It's the other way around. Obama was being a 100% big govt ass.
 
You want me to get specific when you spouted nothing but generalities and biased opinion? :roll: You need to seriously get off your high horse.

I am aware of her history. When she started practicing law, it was he job to go after those "cheats." It was only though going over thousands of cases, she changed her views. She saw for herself that in many cases, these people were honest people who fell on hard times:



But it goes much deeper.



So just try to see things in more grey. It will do you some good.

LMAO! I've seen idiotic posts, but this one takes the cake.

Let me break it down for you slowly. Here was my post that got you all worked up:

Elizabeth Warren, a woman whose entire career entailed ensuring that consumers can screw creditors out of money legally owed to them through easy bankruptcy. Only in America can someone like her be considered positive for the economy or consumers. I don't know what you people think happens to the charged off balances, but FYI, they get passed on to us.

Elizabeth Warren whose overburdensome regulations on community banks and credit unions is going to drive most of your local banks out of business, which will result in the big banks getting even bigger, and credit becoming harder to get for small businesses and consumers.

Yes, she's wonderful.


1. I never mentioned "cheats", so who you're quoting, I can't imagine. You called them cheats....I didn't.
2. You post a bunch of unsourced garbage about bankruptcy that has nothing to do with what I posted.
3. You didn't address my comment - nor refute the "nonsense" - about what happens to the dollars that are charged off.
4. You didn't address my comment - nor refute the "nonsense" - about what her "consumer protection" efforts already have done to consumers, and will continue to do to consumers, until such a day when the community banks - the ones that lend to consumers and small businesses in the communities (you know, the old "Main Street") - are all but gone.

Incredible fail on your part.

You go back to worshipping the woman who thinks you all need protection from your own stupidity and inability to responsibly borrow money, and I'll continue to post the truth about her.
 
He was promoting the virtues of big govt. That is not what built most of this country. Trouble with your thinking is you think people would never start a business until some govt agency built a ****ing road. It's the other way around. Obama was being a 100% big govt ass.

Obama was promoting the virtues of government and collective problem solving, not big government. Regardless of which came first, Republicans are glad to use the infrastructure that facilitates business growth while calling government the enemy of business. Funny how that works out.
 
LMAO! I've seen idiotic posts, but this one takes the cake.

Let me break it down for you slowly. Here was my post that got you all worked up:

Elizabeth Warren, a woman whose entire career entailed ensuring that consumers can screw creditors out of money legally owed to them through easy bankruptcy. Only in America can someone like her be considered positive for the economy or consumers. I don't know what you people think happens to the charged off balances, but FYI, they get passed on to us.

Elizabeth Warren whose overburdensome regulations on community banks and credit unions is going to drive most of your local banks out of business, which will result in the big banks getting even bigger, and credit becoming harder to get for small businesses and consumers.

Yes, she's wonderful.


1. I never mentioned "cheats", so who you're quoting, I can't imagine. You called them cheats....I didn't.
2. You post a bunch of unsourced garbage about bankruptcy that has nothing to do with what I posted.
3. You didn't address my comment - nor refute the "nonsense" - about what happens to the dollars that are charged off.
4. You didn't address my comment - nor refute the "nonsense" - about what her "consumer protection" efforts already have done to consumers, and will continue to do to consumers, until such a day when the community banks - the ones that lend to consumers and small businesses in the communities (you know, the old "Main Street") - are all but gone.

Incredible fail on your part.

You go back to worshipping the woman who thinks you all need protection from your own stupidity and inability to responsibly borrow money, and I'll continue to post the truth about her.


So what did you mean by this:

consumers can screw creditors out of money legally owed to them through easy bankruptcy.
 
Back
Top Bottom