About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

Dick Morris' take on financial regulation: "Castro doesn't have those powers"

March 29, 2010 9:17 pm ET

From the March 29 edition of Hannity:

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED
Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by IRONY 101 (March 29, 2010 9:30 pm ET)
      2  
      But, like Barack Obama, Castro doesn't have a toe sucking advisor...
      Report Abuse
    • Author by ojnabieoot (March 29, 2010 9:56 pm ET)
      2  
      Does Fox News have any idea what communism actually is?! Jesus!

      By the way, guess what the GOP's anti-financial regulation strategy is? They're claiming that it's another bailout, a claim which seems to have originated from Senator Shelby (R-AL). Yep. The bill designed to prevent us from having to bail out a failing bank is being attacked as a bailout.

      Still, I'm cautiously optimistic that there'll be some Senate Republicans who'll recognize the necessity of stronger financial regulation (and political boon associated with it), and get on board. There has to be a few, right? Right? :-(
      Report Abuse
    • Author by mjh (March 29, 2010 11:01 pm ET)
      2  
      Dick Morris' take on financial regulation: "Castro doesn't have those powers"


      File this one under "no sh!t, Sherlock" . . .

      Oh, 'lil dick, depending on which one you're referring to, when you say "Castro doesn't have those powers", if you're talking about Fidel, you're right -- he doesn't have ANY powers, since he resigned in February 2008 . . .

      Report Abuse
      • Author by eweston8542983 (March 29, 2010 11:26 pm ET)
        2  
        But he lives on as a fearful name in all neocon hearts.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Bobby Jindal fan (March 30, 2010 1:44 am ET)
            6
          Is there really a difference between Castro and Obama? I really don't see one.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by MiniTru (March 30, 2010 8:21 am ET)
               
            Then you're as blind as a bat.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by jjamele2880 (March 30, 2010 8:50 am ET)
               
            "Is there really a difference between Castro and Obama? I really don't see one. "

            Comes as a surprise to no one familiar to your history of posting here, moron.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Bobby Jindal fan (March 30, 2010 2:29 pm ET)
                3
              Barry is worse than Castro. Castro is honest about who he is. He admits he is a Marxist. Barry is a wolf in sheep's clothing, a snake in the grass, pick your metaphor of choice.

              An axe wielding maniac is less of a threat than a cancer from within - you can prepare to face someone with an axe. Castro wields the axe, B Hussein is a cancer from within - he has fooled about 45% of the country into thinking he is pro-American.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by eweston8542983 (March 31, 2010 12:55 am ET)
                1  
                Note: stay out of BJF's nieghboorhood. Axe weilding maniacs are apparently not uncomon.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Bobby Jindal fan (March 31, 2010 2:06 am ET)
                    2
                  If you are a liberal, then yes, I would prefer you stay out of my neighborhood. I would guess that about 3/4 of the people on my block are Republicans. Judging from bumper stickers on cars and lawnsigns during election time, my neighborhood is overwhelmingly Republican - this is part of the reason why I like living where I do.

                  There are no axe wielders, but there are plenty of armed citizens.
                  Report Abuse
          • Author by mjh (March 31, 2010 5:41 pm ET)
               
            "Is there really a difference between Castro and Obama? I really don't see one." -- Piyush Jindal fan


            I do.

            Obama is in power
            Fidel Castro isn't.


            Report Abuse
      • Author by Porkeater (March 30, 2010 1:31 am ET)
        3  
        Funny thing, isn't it; if Obama was anything like Fidel, these very scamps would be languishing in some prison with no hope of release, and a slow, miserable death.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by shaggles (March 30, 2010 11:40 am ET)
         
      WTF? Does he think people have forgotten that it was lack of financial regulation that led to the economic meltdown during Bush's last months in office?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Bobby Jindal fan (March 30, 2010 2:30 pm ET)
          3
        It was too much regulation that led to the meltdown (i.e. mark to market from Sarbannes Oxley).
        Report Abuse
        • Author by eweston8542983 (March 31, 2010 1:00 am ET)
          1  
          no evidence, but he just knows its true.
          Much evidence that the repeal of Glass Steagle openned doors for the financial institutions to take chances that were illeagal pior to this.
          Howcum you didn't blame the poorer parts of our economy for taking unfair advantage of those defencless institutions as well?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Bobby Jindal fan (March 31, 2010 2:04 am ET)
              1
            Glass Steagle was a completely different subject. Glass Steagle was not the problem - it was Sarbannes Oxley that was a major causality of the economic crisis.

            Sarbannes-Oxley was an gross overreaction to a few crooks at Enron. Yes, Enron was egregious, but it is pretty small potatoes in relation to the AIG bailout.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by eweston8542983 (March 31, 2010 10:08 am ET)
                 
              Wikipedia has a more involved perspective. And something about more than one company and billions lost to investors.
              Admittedly there is some controversy over its results. Admittedly most here do not consider you an credible authority on financial matters.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Bobby Jindal fan (March 31, 2010 12:41 pm ET)
                   
                Admittedly most here do not consider you an credible authority on financial matters.


                I'm sure most people here think spending $2 trillion on a new federal entitlement lowers the deficit - that doesn't make it so.

                This isn't about me. Think I am a moron all you like (it's not like a give a hoot what liberals think of me), I am not misstating Glass Steagle and Sarbannes-Oxley.

                Facts are facts even if you do not care for teh bearer of the facts.

                Wikipedia is not a credible source - ANYONE can edit it.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by Bobby Jindal fan (March 31, 2010 12:43 pm ET)
                   
                Even if you don't think I know anything about anything, do yo udeny that the losses of Enron were a drop in the bucket relative to AIG?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by eweston8542983 (March 31, 2010 3:50 pm ET)
                     
                  You aren't misstating, because you arn't giving any details, merely your opinion.
                  You don't want to mention the other companies then just Emron?
                  Nor show how AIG is relevent?
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Bobby Jindal fan (March 31, 2010 6:06 pm ET)
                       
                    Enron is irrelevent (in terms of amount of dollars lost) relative to AIG. Enron lost about $6 million. The AIG bailout is $165 billion and counting

                    There is no opinion involved. AIG losses dwarf those of Enron. Had we not overreacted to Enron with mark-to-market restrictions of Sarbannes-Oxley AIG could have remained solvent.

                    It is TOO MUCH relgulation that caused the collapse - not too little.
                    Report Abuse