Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haha, the elites of dcum just can't accept that the unwashed masses of UK (or US) could possibly understand what is in their own interests. No, no - they need an elite bureaucracy like Brussels or DC to rule over them!

The track record of the "guns and religion" crowd in the US for voting in their own economic self interest isn't great. The citizens of the UK voted for austerity in the wake of the global banking collapse, that didn't go well either. Those folks called economists generally do know what they are talking about.

In fact, your "guns & religion" claims dispute your own point. This demographic (much of it hardworking blue-collar folks) did not vote in the current govt. They knew (via common sense), that shipping out over 50,000 factories to Mexico & Asia, giving amnesty and welfare bennies to hordes of illegal immigrants, signing skewed treaties to destroy US balance of trade, just cannot be good for them. And sure enough, it wasn't. That's why people are mad as heck with these ruling globalists.

Right, they voted in the guy who broke the global economy and caused s world wide near depression, mostly by gutting the regulatory agencies and encouraging the housing bubble. Add in two unfounded, unwarranted wars, and a massive tax cut that turned the U.S. Surplus into a pretty significant deficit. All Obama did was stave off that depression, save the auto industry, and get us back to five percent unemployment. The nerve.

Jeez. Nice job making BS up.

1. While Bush '43 was a disaster, the one mess you can't really lay at his feet is the housing bubble. The Bush admin was sounding the alarm on housing, but congress--and Barney Frank in particular--had no desire whatsoever to make a move on housing.

2. The TARP legislation is what staved off the potential global depression. TARP was a Bush '43 program passed with (almost exclusive) Democratic support. Yes, Obama did inherit a mess of an economy, but the chance of a global depression by the time Obama was sworn in was insignificant. To credit Obama with staving off the threat of global depression is pure partisan rewriting of history.

3. Bush was the one who decided to bail out the auto industry by extending TARP to GM and Chrysler. Bush absolutely broke ranks with his party to do that, but he stands behind that decision as the rob thing to do. Yes, Obama came along and expanded the auto bailout which provided some much needed marginal liquidity, but in the process he lbasicalky rode roughshod over the Bankruptcy code to achieve his real goal of bailing out the UAW whose members were going to get wiped out in BK court. To credit Obama with bailing out the auto industry is also a purely partisan interpretation of the facts on the ground. And none of this even addresses the threshold question of whether the auto industry needed to be bailed out given that Ford found a way to survive the economic crisis without Uncle Sam's help.

I am in no way a Bush '43 fan or supporter, BU my question to you is simple: Are you intentionally being misleading or do you just not know and understand what happened in the fall of 2008?

Please, you lost me when you tried to blame a single Congressman with no executive agency responsibilities for the housing bubble when the real problem was the lax management of the banking agencies. CFTC and SEC by Bush appointees. Should I find a link of the OTS agency head appointed by Bush posing with a chainsaw as he claimed he would roll back regulations. You surely are familiar with the institutions his agency was responsible for regulating -- AIG, Countrywide, WaMu, Indy Mac, should I continue?

Compounded it when you said that risk of depression was past when Obama took office. Complete bs and you know it. Post the unemployment numbers from the first half of 2009 and please demonstrate how they support your argument.

PP, I can't resist. Link to the infamous chainsaw press conference. Note that the chairman of the FDIC also present. https://www.propublica.org/article/banks-favorite-toothless-regulator-1125

Anonymous wrote:The French government has already said that there is no change to the Treaty of Le Touquet.

Anonymous wrote:Go down to the segment on Calais. http://www.nytimes.com/live/eu-referendum/in-brussels-despair-and-uncertainty/

"The Treaty of Le Touquet, signed between France and Britain in 2003, allows British police officers to operate a border control post on French soil."

Apparently Calais /France have wanted to move the migrant camp to the UK for years. "“If the British people change their legislation and demand passports and IDs, migrants will be stuck in Calais. We must know in what conditions Britain could open a center to welcome some migrants" Send them back. France doesn't want to bear the "burden" but why should the UK? Calais doesn't need police it needs the military. http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/681614/Calais-migrants-refugees-Britain-UK-EU-referendum-Brexit-Euro-2016

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haha, the elites of dcum just can't accept that the unwashed masses of UK (or US) could possibly understand what is in their own interests. No, no - they need an elite bureaucracy like Brussels or DC to rule over them!

The track record of the "guns and religion" crowd in the US for voting in their own economic self interest isn't great. The citizens of the UK voted for austerity in the wake of the global banking collapse, that didn't go well either. Those folks called economists generally do know what they are talking about.

In fact, your "guns & religion" claims dispute your own point. This demographic (much of it hardworking blue-collar folks) did not vote in the current govt. They knew (via common sense), that shipping out over 50,000 factories to Mexico & Asia, giving amnesty and welfare bennies to hordes of illegal immigrants, signing skewed treaties to destroy US balance of trade, just cannot be good for them. And sure enough, it wasn't. That's why people are mad as heck with these ruling globalists.

Right, they voted in the guy who broke the global economy and caused s world wide near depression, mostly by gutting the regulatory agencies and encouraging the housing bubble. Add in two unfounded, unwarranted wars, and a massive tax cut that turned the U.S. Surplus into a pretty significant deficit. All Obama did was stave off that depression, save the auto industry, and get us back to five percent unemployment. The nerve.

Jeez. Nice job making BS up.

1. While Bush '43 was a disaster, the one mess you can't really lay at his feet is the housing bubble. The Bush admin was sounding the alarm on housing, but congress--and Barney Frank in particular--had no desire whatsoever to make a move on housing.

2. The TARP legislation is what staved off the potential global depression. TARP was a Bush '43 program passed with (almost exclusive) Democratic support. Yes, Obama did inherit a mess of an economy, but the chance of a global depression by the time Obama was sworn in was insignificant. To credit Obama with staving off the threat of global depression is pure partisan rewriting of history.

3. Bush was the one who decided to bail out the auto industry by extending TARP to GM and Chrysler. Bush absolutely broke ranks with his party to do that, but he stands behind that decision as the rob thing to do. Yes, Obama came along and expanded the auto bailout which provided some much needed marginal liquidity, but in the process he lbasicalky rode roughshod over the Bankruptcy code to achieve his real goal of bailing out the UAW whose members were going to get wiped out in BK court. To credit Obama with bailing out the auto industry is also a purely partisan interpretation of the facts on the ground. And none of this even addresses the threshold question of whether the auto industry needed to be bailed out given that Ford found a way to survive the economic crisis without Uncle Sam's help.

I am in no way a Bush '43 fan or supporter, BU my question to you is simple: Are you intentionally being misleading or do you just not know and understand what happened in the fall of 2008?

Please, you lost me when you tried to blame a single Congressman with no executive agency responsibilities for the housing bubble when the real problem was the lax management of the banking agencies. CFTC and SEC by Bush appointees. Should I find a link of the OTS agency head appointed by Bush posing with a chainsaw as he claimed he would roll back regulations. You surely are familiar with the institutions his agency was responsible for regulating -- AIG, Countrywide, WaMu, Indy Mac, should I continue?

Compounded it when you said that risk of depression was past when Obama took office. Complete bs and you know it. Post the unemployment numbers from the first half of 2009 and please demonstrate how they support your argument.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haha, the elites of dcum just can't accept that the unwashed masses of UK (or US) could possibly understand what is in their own interests. No, no - they need an elite bureaucracy like Brussels or DC to rule over them!

The track record of the "guns and religion" crowd in the US for voting in their own economic self interest isn't great. The citizens of the UK voted for austerity in the wake of the global banking collapse, that didn't go well either. Those folks called economists generally do know what they are talking about.

In fact, your "guns & religion" claims dispute your own point. This demographic (much of it hardworking blue-collar folks) did not vote in the current govt. They knew (via common sense), that shipping out over 50,000 factories to Mexico & Asia, giving amnesty and welfare bennies to hordes of illegal immigrants, signing skewed treaties to destroy US balance of trade, just cannot be good for them. And sure enough, it wasn't. That's why people are mad as heck with these ruling globalists.

Right, they voted in the guy who broke the global economy and caused s world wide near depression, mostly by gutting the regulatory agencies and encouraging the housing bubble. Add in two unfounded, unwarranted wars, and a massive tax cut that turned the U.S. Surplus into a pretty significant deficit. All Obama did was stave off that depression, save the auto industry, and get us back to five percent unemployment. The nerve.

Jeez. Nice job making BS up.

1. While Bush '43 was a disaster, the one mess you can't really lay at his feet is the housing bubble. The Bush admin was sounding the alarm on housing, but congress--and Barney Frank in particular--had no desire whatsoever to make a move on housing.

2. The TARP legislation is what staved off the potential global depression. TARP was a Bush '43 program passed with (almost exclusive) Democratic support. Yes, Obama did inherit a mess of an economy, but the chance of a global depression by the time Obama was sworn in was insignificant. To credit Obama with staving off the threat of global depression is pure partisan rewriting of history.

3. Bush was the one who decided to bail out the auto industry by extending TARP to GM and Chrysler. Bush absolutely broke ranks with his party to do that, but he stands behind that decision as the rob thing to do. Yes, Obama came along and expanded the auto bailout which provided some much needed marginal liquidity, but in the process he lbasicalky rode roughshod over the Bankruptcy code to achieve his real goal of bailing out the UAW whose members were going to get wiped out in BK court. To credit Obama with bailing out the auto industry is also a purely partisan interpretation of the facts on the ground. And none of this even addresses the threshold question of whether the auto industry needed to be bailed out given that Ford found a way to survive the economic crisis without Uncle Sam's help.

I am in no way a Bush '43 fan or supporter, BU my question to you is simple: Are you intentionally being misleading or do you just not know and understand what happened in the fall of 2008?

Anonymous wrote:It is hard to imagine the UK accepting Norway's deal with the EU after this campaign about freedom and independence.

Norway enjoys full access to the EU's internal market because it is part of the European Economic Area. In return, Norway is obliged to implement all the EU's laws relating to the internal market.

Because Norway is not a member of the EU, it has no representation in any of its institutions and no right to participate in its decisions, but has had to implement about three-quarters of all EU legislation, and also has to pay into the EU budget.

Anonymous wrote:The French government has already said that there is no change to the Treaty of Le Touquet.

Anonymous wrote:Go down to the segment on Calais. http://www.nytimes.com/live/eu-referendum/in-brussels-despair-and-uncertainty/

"The Treaty of Le Touquet, signed between France and Britain in 2003, allows British police officers to operate a border control post on French soil."

Apparently Calais /France have wanted to move the migrant camp to the UK for years. "“If the British people change their legislation and demand passports and IDs, migrants will be stuck in Calais. We must know in what conditions Britain could open a center to welcome some migrants" Send them back. France doesn't want to bear the "burden" but why should the UK? Calais doesn't need police it needs the military. http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/681614/Calais-migrants-refugees-Britain-UK-EU-referendum-Brexit-Euro-2016

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haha, the elites of dcum just can't accept that the unwashed masses of UK (or US) could possibly understand what is in their own interests. No, no - they need an elite bureaucracy like Brussels or DC to rule over them!

The track record of the "guns and religion" crowd in the US for voting in their own economic self interest isn't great. The citizens of the UK voted for austerity in the wake of the global banking collapse, that didn't go well either. Those folks called economists generally do know what they are talking about.

In fact, your "guns & religion" claims dispute your own point. This demographic (much of it hardworking blue-collar folks) did not vote in the current govt. They knew (via common sense), that shipping out over 50,000 factories to Mexico & Asia, giving amnesty and welfare bennies to hordes of illegal immigrants, signing skewed treaties to destroy US balance of trade, just cannot be good for them. And sure enough, it wasn't. That's why people are mad as heck with these ruling globalists.

Right, they voted in the guy who broke the global economy and caused s world wide near depression, mostly by gutting the regulatory agencies and encouraging the housing bubble. Add in two unfounded, unwarranted wars, and a massive tax cut that turned the U.S. Surplus into a pretty significant deficit. All Obama did was stave off that depression, save the auto industry, and get us back to five percent unemployment. The nerve.

Jeez. Nice job making BS up.

1. While Bush '43 was a disaster, the one mess you can't really lay at his feet is the housing bubble. The Bush admin was sounding the alarm on housing, but congress--and Barney Frank in particular--had no desire whatsoever to make a move on housing.

2. The TARP legislation is what staved off the potential global depression. TARP was a Bush '43 program passed with (almost exclusive) Democratic support. Yes, Obama did inherit a mess of an economy, but the chance of a global depression by the time Obama was sworn in was insignificant. To credit Obama with staving off the threat of global depression is pure partisan rewriting of history.

3. Bush was the one who decided to bail out the auto industry by extending TARP to GM and Chrysler. Bush absolutely broke ranks with his party to do that, but he stands behind that decision as the rob thing to do. Yes, Obama came along and expanded the auto bailout which provided some much needed marginal liquidity, but in the process he lbasicalky rode roughshod over the Bankruptcy code to achieve his real goal of bailing out the UAW whose members were going to get wiped out in BK court. To credit Obama with bailing out the auto industry is also a purely partisan interpretation of the facts on the ground. And none of this even addresses the threshold question of whether the auto industry needed to be bailed out given that Ford found a way to survive the economic crisis without Uncle Sam's help.

I am in no way a Bush '43 fan or supporter, BU my question to you is simple: Are you intentionally being misleading or do you just not know and understand what happened in the fall of 2008?

Anonymous wrote:Go down to the segment on Calais. http://www.nytimes.com/live/eu-referendum/in-brussels-despair-and-uncertainty/

"The Treaty of Le Touquet, signed between France and Britain in 2003, allows British police officers to operate a border control post on French soil."

Apparently Calais /France have wanted to move the migrant camp to the UK for years. "“If the British people change their legislation and demand passports and IDs, migrants will be stuck in Calais. We must know in what conditions Britain could open a center to welcome some migrants" Send them back. France doesn't want to bear the "burden" but why should the UK? Calais doesn't need police it needs the military. http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/681614/Calais-migrants-refugees-Britain-UK-EU-referendum-Brexit-Euro-2016

Anonymous wrote:Maybe it's school kids doing research?

Maybe it's people who already know much about the EU but wanting to find more information about the requirements for withdrawal?

Maybe it was primarily from those who didn't vote (the remaining 28% who didn't turn out).

There are many reasons why people may be doing google search with those terms.

I wouldn't be surprised if the top google search on election day this November will relate to what is the presidency, what is the election and so forth.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ They voted against their own economic interests, but I think they knew that. Other issues were deemed more important to them.

Or not.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/06/24/the-british-are-frantically-googling-what-the-eu-is-hours-after-voting-to-leave-it/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_switch-google-1145a-top%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

Not pp, but for those too lazy to click, article says that goggle trends showing most popular search in Great Britian TODAY is "what is the EU". Apparently, large number of people had no clue what they were voting to do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haha, the elites of dcum just can't accept that the unwashed masses of UK (or US) could possibly understand what is in their own interests. No, no - they need an elite bureaucracy like Brussels or DC to rule over them!

The track record of the "guns and religion" crowd in the US for voting in their own economic self interest isn't great. The citizens of the UK voted for austerity in the wake of the global banking collapse, that didn't go well either. Those folks called economists generally do know what they are talking about.

In fact, your "guns & religion" claims dispute your own point. This demographic (much of it hardworking blue-collar folks) did not vote in the current govt. They knew (via common sense), that shipping out over 50,000 factories to Mexico & Asia, giving amnesty and welfare bennies to hordes of illegal immigrants, signing skewed treaties to destroy US balance of trade, just cannot be good for them. And sure enough, it wasn't. That's why people are mad as heck with these ruling globalists.

Right, they voted in the guy who broke the global economy and caused s world wide near depression, mostly by gutting the regulatory agencies and encouraging the housing bubble. Add in two unfounded, unwarranted wars, and a massive tax cut that turned the U.S. Surplus into a pretty significant deficit. All Obama did was stave off that depression, save the auto industry, and get us back to five percent unemployment. The nerve.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haha, the elites of dcum just can't accept that the unwashed masses of UK (or US) could possibly understand what is in their own interests. No, no - they need an elite bureaucracy like Brussels or DC to rule over them!

The track record of the "guns and religion" crowd in the US for voting in their own economic self interest isn't great. The citizens of the UK voted for austerity in the wake of the global banking collapse, that didn't go well either. Those folks called economists generally do know what they are talking about.

In fact, your "guns & religion" claims dispute your own point. This demographic (much of it hardworking blue-collar folks) did not vote in the current govt. They knew (via common sense), that shipping out over 50,000 factories to Mexico & Asia, giving amnesty and welfare bennies to hordes of illegal immigrants, signing skewed treaties to destroy US balance of trade, just cannot be good for them. And sure enough, it wasn't. That's why people are mad as heck with these ruling globalists.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only two major politicians to support Brexit outside of the U.K. were Trump (once it was explained to him) and Putin. Putin's reasons were obvious - he wants to weaken the European Union.

Switzerland and Norway did not join the EU. Are they bad too?

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If it passes, Obama will blame the weak economy on brexit, and Donald Trump win is a sure thing in November.

Why would Britain voting to leave the EU cause Americans to vote for Trump?

The anti-immigration side won. Fairly significantly in fact.
This is the side represented by Trump in America. Trump was also for Brexit.
Obama urged them to remain. Obama's side lost.
What this portends for the election in the U.S. is unclear - but I will say that right up to the day of the vote most peopl though "remain" was going to win.

A week ago, Trump didn't even know what Brexit was.