Another fake history action movie?

What's next?

Bill Clinton: International man of mystery?
Ray-gun: republicans in space?
Dubya and Clive: a comedy about a stupid-looking ape and an orang-utan?

Actually, they all sound awesome. I'm totally on board with this. carry on....

Tags for this video have been changed from 'bill, clinton, boris, yeltsin, joke, disaster, reporters, laugh, blooper, russia' to 'bill clinton, boris yeltsin, joke, disaster, reporters, laugh, blooper, russia' - edited by xxovercastxx

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

Dont make Clinton seem to bad, or else people on the sift may...oh, I already said to much!


Clinton killed more Iraqi children then Bush. BAM Bring it Sift!

All the whores and politicians will look up and shout "Save us!"... and Bill Clinton'll look down and whisper "No."

>> ^aurens:

A short and varied list of Americans educated in public high schools before the creation, in 1980, of the Department of Education:
Steve Jobs
Bill Clinton
Hillary Clinton
Ron Paul
Warren Buffett
Toni Morrison
Carl Sagan
Ernest Hemingway
Linus Pauling
Sandra Day O'Connor
John Steinbeck
Bob Dylan
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Milton Friedman
Noam Chomsky
Oprah Winfrey
George Lucas
Jimmy Carter
Paul Newman
Amelia Earhart
Walt Disney
George Carlin
Elvis Presley
Neil Armstrong
Richard Feynman
Aaron Copland
(I could keep going, but I'm sure you get the point.)>> ^ghark:
No public education ... Sounds exciting.



Aye aye, was being sarcastic

Nonetheless, Congress repealed the law and the nation suffered the tragic consequences of the 2008 financial crisis about a decade later.

It may be implied that the repeal of Glass-Steven Seagal led to the 2008 crisis but evidence is scant.

"The legislation was signed into law by President Clinton on November 12, 1999. Clinton's support of the repeal is revealed in the following statement by a Goldman Sachs partner Robert Rubin, Bill Clinton’s Treasury Secretary"

“The banking industry is fundamentally different from what it was two decades ago, let alone in 1933.” He said the industry has been transformed into a global business of facilitating capital formation through diverse new products, services and markets. “U.S. banks generally engage in a broader range of securities activities abroad than is permitted domestically,” said the Treasury secretary. “Even domestically, the separation of investment banking and commercial banking envisioned by Glass-Steagall has eroded significantly.”

And in his own statement upon CLINTON signing the act into law:

"“Over the past seven years we have tried to modernize the economy. And today what we are doing is modernizing the financial services industry, tearing down those antiquated laws and granting banks significant new authority.”

A short and varied list of Americans educated in public high schools before the creation, in 1980, of the Department of Education:

Steve Jobs
Bill Clinton
Hillary Clinton
Ron Paul
Warren Buffett
Toni Morrison
Carl Sagan
Ernest Hemingway
Linus Pauling
Sandra Day O'Connor
John Steinbeck
Bob Dylan
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Milton Friedman
Noam Chomsky
Oprah Winfrey
George Lucas
Jimmy Carter
Paul Newman
Amelia Earhart
Walt Disney
George Carlin
Elvis Presley
Neil Armstrong
Richard Feynman
Aaron Copland

(I could keep going, but I'm sure you get the point.)>> ^ghark:

No public education ... Sounds exciting.

Robert Reich has a little experience... "He served in the administrations of Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter and was Secretary of Labor under President Bill Clinton from 1993 to 1997." I usually agree with his ideas and I especially think the idea of trickle-down economics to be a load of crap.

Banks are not forced to make huge profits that drive up their share price and create huge dividends for their stockholders. They CHOOSE to make huge profits that drive up their share price and create huge dividends because they CAN. They didn't used to.

You speak like banks are supposed to act like a charity, or a public work like a sidewalk. Banks didn't 'used to' try to earn profits? When was that - exactly? Profits on home loans used to be based on the interest. Why did that change? Because politicians changed the laws. Loans became cheap and the poor, middle-class, and rich all started getting bigger loans (or more loans) that they couldn't have gotten under the old system. They all did it not because banks were 'forcing' them, but because they could make out like bandits while it was all clicking.

Canada didn't have the same problems our country had, because they had BANKING REGULATIONS.

Regulations that the US also had before government interfered in the marketplace. Government removed Glass-Steagall - not the banks. Prog-libs may whine about the banks acting unscrupulously, but you don't see mass arrests and prosecutions do you? Why? Because the cold hard reality is that banks did not break any laws. They simply followed the laws that government created. Don't like what they did? Blame the government. Prog-libs say government didn't 'force banks' to lend bad money. True. But you know what? Banks didn't 'force consumers' to borrow bad money either. But both banks and consumers acted stupidly for the same reason... Because government said it was fine.

And when you say the government pushed for subprime lending so everybody could buy a house, don't you mean bank lobbyists told Bush to push the idea in the first place?

The whole push for this started under Jimmy Carter, built up in the 80s & 90s, and finally took place with Bill Clinton in 1999. Did bank lobbyists push for it? Of course - mostly the bigger financial houses who were really limited by Glass-Steagall. The GOP was all OK with it too - alas. Democrats (particularly Barney Frank) were salivating over it. The rhetoric that built up to the final passage was mostly about how banks who were redlining poor minorities, and repealing G/S wouldu help everyone get homes, increase bank profits, fix your truck, and cure cancer. Both the GOP and Dems let this happen. Nowhere near enough people tried to stop it.

But let's call a tiger a tiger here... Standing up for Glass-Stegall in 1999 was a tough position to take. The proponents of the change were blasting anyone who opposed it as a racist, or a rich fat-cat that just didn't want 'the poor' to get a break. If you were against the repeal, all you could do is point at the Great Depression, and very distant macro-economic philosophies. We now have the 20/20 hindsight to see clearly that it was really the people trying to repeal G/S who were the jerks, @$$hats, and slimeballs. But in 1999 it was very different. Bush never 'speechified' it. In fact, Bush tried to get some reforms going in 2005 long before the bubble popped. But it was slapped down for the same reasons as the before. Wasn't until September/October 2007 that reality finally hit.

Well - the video gets one thing right. Repealing Glass-Steagall was a horrible mistake. Where they get it wrong is that it was not 'banks' or 'Wall Street' that was pushing for it.

Glass Stegall's repeal is a long story that begins with Jimmy Carter and ended with Bill Clinton. They leaned hard on banks because they wanted more poor folks owning houses. But the dang awful truth was that the poor folks just couldn't actually AFFORD to pay for those homes, and banks weren't in the business of giving them houses for nothing.

So Congress (with both the GOP and Democrats) began pushing for a change. It is very true that there were companies (notably AIG) who also pushed for this because they saw a way they could profit from it. But "banks" did not want this at all. They were forced into it. Once the housing bubble started they had to start in with the sub-primes just to compete but a lot of them knew it was very risky. But for a while it seemed to be working and everyone was making money hand over fist. And it has to be said also that CONSUMERS weren't exactly ethical either. Many people bought homes they knew they couldn't pay for just to make a quick buck.

That's the history and fact. Glass Steagall didn't go away because of evil banks. It went away because of governmetn social engineering. So bring it back already! Oh - yeah - that would interfere with Obama's CURRENT PRACTICE of forcing banks to give away more loans in minority communities...

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/577794/201107081851/DOJ-Begins-Bank-Witch-Hunt.aspx

The real problem is government. Get the government OUT of the market. Establish a simple set of basic, fair guidelines and then tell government to get out of everyone's way. Glass Steagall would have never been repealed without a corrupt government pushing for it.

So, uh... How old was Bill clinton in the late 50's, and was he ever in England around that time?

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Jon Stewart Interviews Bill Clinton (Sept 20 07). Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

Monday, August 15. 2011

Nero in the White House
By Mychal Massie

Three significant historical events have been eclipsed by Obama: 1) Jimmy Carter will no longer be looked upon as the worst president in American history; 2) Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton will no longer be recognized as the greatest liars in presidential history; 3) Clinton's stain on Monica's dress, and what that did to the White House in general and the office of the president specifically, will forever pale in comparison to the stain and stench of Obama.

I need not spend much time on the failure of Obama as president. His tenure has been a failure on every measurable level. So much so, in fact, that some of the staunchest, most respected liberal Democrats and Democratic supporters have not only openly criticized him – some even more harshly than this essayist – but they have called for him to step down.

Richard Nixon's words "I am not a crook," punctuated with his involvement in Watergate, and Bill Clinton's finger-wagging as he told one of the most pathetic lies in presidential history, in the aftermath of Obama, will be viewed as mere prevarications.

Mr. Nixon and Clinton lied to save their backsides. Although, I would argue there are no plausible explanations for doing what they did, I could entertain arguments pursuant to understanding their rationales for lying. But in the case of Obama, he lies because he is a liar. He doesn't only lie to cover his misdeeds – he lies to get his way. He lies to belittle others and to make himself look presentable at their expense. He lies about his faith, his associations, his mother, his father and his wife. He lies and bullies to keep his background secret. His lying is congenital and compounded by socio-psychological factors of his life.

Never in my life, inside or outside of politics, have I witnessed such dishonesty in a political leader. He is the most mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed. Even by the low standards of his presidential predecessors, his narcissistic, contumacious arrogance is unequalled. Using Obama as the bar, Nero would have to be elevated to sainthood.

As the stock markets were crashing, taking with them the remaining life saving of untold tens of thousands, Obama was hosting his own birthday celebration, which was an event of epicurean splendidness. The shamelessness of the event was that it was not a state dinner to welcome foreign dignitaries, nor was it to honor an American accomplishment – it was to honor the Pharaoh, Barack Hussein Obama. The event's sole purpose was for the Pharaoh to have his loyal subjects swill wine, indulge in gluttony and behavior unfit to take place on the property of taxpayers, as they suffer. It was of a magnitude comparable to that of Tyco CEO Dennis Kozlowski's $2 million birthday extravaganza for its pure lack of respect for the people.

Permit me to digress momentarily. The U.S. Capitol and the White House were built with the intent of bringing awe and respect to America and her people. They were also built with the intent of being the greatest of equalizers. I can tell you, having personally been to both, there is a moment of awe and humility associated with being in the presence of the history of those buildings. They are to be honored and inscribed into our national psyche, not treated as a Saturday night house party at Chicago's Cabrini-Green.

The people of America own that home Obama and his wife continue to debase with their pan-ghetto behavior. It is clear that Obama and family view themselves as royalty, but they're not. They are employees of "we the people," who are suffering because of his failed policies. What message does this behavior send to those who today are suffering as never before?

What message does it send to all Americans who are struggling? Has anyone stopped to think what the stock market downturn forebodes for those 80 million baby boomers who will be retiring in the next period of years? Is there a snowball's chance in the Sahara that every news program on the air would applaud this behavior if it were George W. Bush? To that point, do you remember the media thrashing Bush took for having a barbecue at the White House?

Like Nero – who was only slightly less debaucherous than Caligula – with wine on his lips Obama treated "we the people" the way Caligula treated those over whom he lorded.

Many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of color was elected president, but instead, they have been witness to a congenital liar, a woman who has been ashamed of America her entire life, failed policies, intimidation and a commonality hitherto not witnessed in political leaders. He and his wife view their life at our expense as an entitlement – while America's people go homeless, hungry and unemployed.

All evidence demonstrates that Obama wanted to cut spending and not raise taxes.

Bill Clinton told Paul Ryan that "don't worry, we'll cut Medicare": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOrSURZKrcw

Obama told Cantor "don't call my bluff": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixF0GWqJigI

It's all a theatrics of good cop, bad cop, and tea party is the boogeyman...while they rob the people.

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
My problem is more that both sides pretend they hate each other while maintaining the status so that both sides are employed. What is the loss of one seat for one politician? Nothing, not when that pol can just sign a million dollar book deal or get a job somewhere else with "help..."
I guess I think status-quo bias is mostly just baked into the way Congress was set up in the Constitution. More recently, it's baked into the idea that the Senate can't pass a damn thing without a 3/5ths majority, which is really pretty much something new as of 2009.
To the degree that politicians themselves work to maintain the status quo, I say that's usually lobbyist pressure talking. Businesses don't want the environment fixed, they want the freedom to make a profit polluting the world. Businesses don't want health care universal and inexpensive, they want it to be a huge profit-making industry.
Businesses also have wealth that makes the government's budget look like a triviality, and certainly have more wealth than any individual politician does. Bribery can be a strong motivator, and it's effectively legal now.
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
For example; Charlie Christ ran against Marco Rubio. By himself, he would have won as a non-party candidate. However, Kendrick Meek (Democrat), a jackass with no chance in hell, not even Ralph Nadar close, kept in the race declaring he would be the victor. Either the man is mildly brain-damaged, or the quo was kept by two opposing allies. That's not paronia, that's simple math. Rubio won with Meek's full support, otherwise, the threat of someone who got tired of his party's bullshit would have threatened his precious "R"

In this case, I just don't think you have your facts right. Charlie Crist was the Republican governor of Florida, who stepped down to run for Senate as a Republican. Democratic party officials didn't really think they stood much of a chance against Crist, so they didn't really try to recruit a strong candidate, or devote much money to the race. Essentially, the Senate seat was going to be Crist's.
But, Crist made the fatal error of publicly endorsing the Obama stimulus package, and the rabid crazies that run the Republican party demanded he be primaried. In comes Marco Rubio to challenge Crist for the Republican nomination for Senate. This turns into a big, ugly battle, and both Crist and Rubio spend boatloads of cash on the primary. Rubio ultimately wins in a landslide -- 20 points, and gets endorsed by all the bigwigs, i.e. Boehner, McConnell, the NRSC, Michael Steele, etc.
Instead of taking the defeat and walking off the stage, Crist vowed to keep campaigning. At that point there was a ton of talk about whether Crist would run as an Independent, or a Democrat. A bunch of Democratic bigwigs, including Bill Clinton, personally approached Crist about running as a Democrat, even though Meek had already won the Democratic nomination.
Crist rejected that offer, and immediately started running ads slamming both Meek and Rubio. He burned his bridges with both parties.
So the election was a big three-way clusterfuck. Rubio was the Republican nominee, Meek was the Democratic nominee, and Crist chose to try to fight both parties. Even so, Democrats asked Meek to drop out and endorse Crist, but Meek thought that was a bridge too far -- Crist had not made any commitment to the Democratic party, and he was a Congressman and a full-fledged candidate for Senate in his own right, why should he drop out to help someone who wasn't a Democrat?
In the end, Rubio came out on top, but that was because he was the only one with any serious backing to his campaign, both monetarily and in terms of grassroots support (Rubio was a Tea Party darling). Meek had no money, and no grassroots support, and neither did Crist at the end of the day.
I remember it vividly because I was tantalized by the possibility of flipping Crist to the Democratic party and turning a sure Republican hold (due to Crist) into a situation where it became a likely Democratic pickup (due to Crist!). That kinda thing doesn't happen too often. <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/smile.gif">


Christ to me will always have lost because he was tag-teamed. Meek was asked to drop out because he was a loser that siphoned votes. He intentionally stayed for what purpose? I can't think of one besides pride, and that doesn't motivate politicians often enough to be valid.

Crist had a huge grassroots, and large support even if it wasn't tea party fanatics. He should have never been the one to walk off stage. He did the right thing, but right typically loses to the wrongs. I think Crist would never have been happy being a slave to either party--and that's why he left the insanity that is Florida's republicans.

He supported the Obama stimulus and that's fine. He went on attacks but even then kept a positive attitude. And this is why winners cannot be politicians.