Gotta love the feigned indignation. Major props for Matthews sticking it to the bastard. It's amazing that after all this time, those fuckers are still trying to convince everyone that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. No shame.

Absolutely. I can't believe that piece of shit actually said "how can we take the chance that Saddam might not strike again?" in the context of 9/11.

What a jackass. Why aren't these people cowering in shame or imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay? Is shame nonexistent in this world?

"He came in with a recession" -- WHAT?!?!?!

Ugh,

I'm so glad these videos will be gone eventually too. Well not GONE like vanished forever, but I won't have to keep seeing them. I know I shouldn't watch but I do. Comments like this just make me so angry.

It's a shame none of these people (bushes administration) will ever have criminal charges filed against them.

I'm liking Chris Matthews more and more.

>> ^Ickster:
Absolutely. I can't believe that piece of shit actually said "how can we take the chance that Saddam might not strike again?" in the context of 9/11.

indeed, when did Saddam strike? That's perpetuating a very harmful myth that some retards still believe. Or did he mean Kuwait, that was quite some time ago.

>> ^StukaFox:
"He came in with a recession" -- WHAT?!?!?!


He's sorta and sorta-not right about that one.

According to NBER, that recession started in March 2001 which is after Bush was in power, but in fairness that wasn't Bush's fault. That was coming no matter what he did in that first month.

For the record, NBER says the current recession started in December 2007.

Kinda not Obama's fault either!

OMFG god I want to break something. Better yet, I'll find a video that relays my feelings and sift it!

here: http://www.videosift.com/video/Arnold-is-Going-to-Break-Your-Goddamn-Spine

"if we were attacked again, would you say it happened on Obama's watch?"

Why yes, yes I would.

>> ^Crake:
"if we were attacked again, would you say it happened on Obama's watch?"
Why yes, yes I would.


Another great example of the spoiled, entitled liberal's need to be "factual."

We weren't even attacked on September 11.

>> ^StukaFox:
"He came in with a recession" -- WHAT?!?!?!


Clinton's entire term was a dot-com stock market bubble whose inevitable and proportionate bust began to occur in 2000 when Bush took office. Greenspan was very loose with money as Fed chairman under both Clinton and Bush, and Bernanke is even worse. Not wanting the painful withdrawal to happen under his watch, Bush did what was politically expedient and shot up the veins with record deficit spending and artificially low lending rates. Greenspan price fixed interest rates down to a record low 1% rate in the middle of a recession and held them there for a year. That transformed the speculative misallocations from stocks to real estate, got consumers borrowing and spending instead of saving to produce, and the day of reckoning was effectively postponed and enlarged until Obama's term. Obama is essentially choosing the same reinflationary path, and it's really only a matter of time before our creditors become net sellers of our bonds and turn the game into a hyperinflationary nightmare.

It also helped that Clinton repealed Glass-Steagall, which allowed much higher leverage and the securitization of mortgages. Ideally, we'd just get rid of the spiker and stop trying to regulate the drunken behavior, but Republicrats don't seem to think in those terms, they're quite party-whipped. I talk to Democrats who think Clinton decreased the national debt, social security is a success, Vietnam was a Republican war, banks don't create money, the dollar is still backed by gold, trade deficits are good. It's quite sad, just two socialist parties who spend all day trying to figure out who's more to blame while libertarians sit back and watch the country go to hell.

^ When is our hyperinflation coming? What's going to be the inflation rate that makes you call it "hyper"?

Just asking, so we can mark our calendars, check the inflation rate at that point, and then call you a quack for getting it wrong, or give you a medal for getting it right.

>> ^NetRunner:
^ When is our hyperinflation coming? What's going to be the inflation rate that makes you call it "hyper"?
Just asking, so we can mark our calendars, check the inflation rate at that point, and then call you a quack for getting it wrong, or give you a medal for getting it right.


Within 5 years, if you don't see abnormally rising prices across the board on products, I'll virtually lick your boots. The amount of monetary expansion right now is insane, and NONE of it is going towards creating exportable production, it's all consumption. So you won't have to wait long before foreign creditors on which we've depended for years to reduce their buying of our bonds (debt), forcing the Fed to step in and buy them directly with pure inflation/counterfeit (quantitative easing). Deleveraging, liquidation sales, and kneejerk flooding into treasuries will eventually give way to massive price increases as a result of too many dollars chasing too few goods. I also predict price controls within 10 years, similar to what we had in the 70s.