PDA

View Full Version : Understanding How Modern Liberals Think



Pages : [1] 2

RodB
03-25-2014, 10:23 PM
The following video of a speech given by Evan Sayet illustrates the differences in liberals and conservatives as well as anything I have ever seen. This is not a troll subject, but an ernest effort to show how conservatives differ from liberals and how difficult it will be to ever have any common ground. If any of you libs took the time to watch the following two speeches you would at least realize the difference in perspectives of our polarized nation. You might learn something and you might even find some things you agree with. You will also understand why most conservatives will never come around to the progressive way of thinking.

I doubt many here will bother to watch the entire video, but believe me... millions of conservatives would think this is a clear explanation as to how we differ from the left.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODXgGS50AVY


RodB

RodB
03-25-2014, 10:26 PM
The following is another brilliant speech given by Bill Whittle on : "The Assault on Civilization Structures"
This talk was given in Canada... and also illustrates how different conservatives and liberals view the world.

RodB


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AduC5MsRzdc&list=PLF72A4641E83609AF

Cuyahoga Chuck
03-25-2014, 10:34 PM
I keep tellin' ya' Rod, your preachments here go over like a fart in church. You ain't Jeramiah. You're just a rock solid member of the "Old White-guys Party". And asking us to sit thru' 2 1/2 hrs. of right-wing harangues is asking a lot. Could you do a summary of it and boil it down to five or six bullets?

RodB
03-25-2014, 10:49 PM
I appreciate your remarks Chuck... These speeches are very entertaining ... the second one is in Canada among lots of liberals... but dealing with the realities of today. I know once these are started, that they will draw viewers in because of the subjects and the caliber of the speakers. There is too much lost in a simple summation... thats why these guys are so brilliant and worth watching. . Both are well worth the time and might be of some merit to this forum simply because of the strong liberal slant and complete lack of understanding of the right.

R

Glen Longino
03-25-2014, 11:29 PM
Rod, you remind me of an old time carnival barker hawking rubes into a tent to view the two-headed calf and the gorilla woman and the baby in a bottle and the three legged midget only two feet tall.
We are not your rubes, Pal, and we are not buying your sideshow!
Give it up!

RodB
03-25-2014, 11:32 PM
Rod, you remind me of an old time carnival barker hawking rubes into a tent to view the two-headed calf and the gorilla woman and the baby in a bottle and the three legged midget only two feet tall.
We are not your rubes, Pal, and we are not buying your sideshow!
Give it up!

Glen, you sound like a man who has been to all the side shows...:d kinky liberal Texan.

You would enjoy the videos... trust me, you know I wouldn't steer you wrong.

R

Glen Longino
03-25-2014, 11:35 PM
Ha! You have steered yourself wrong, of course you would steer me wrong!
As I said, we are not your rubes!

tigerregis
03-25-2014, 11:46 PM
As soon as that first speaker asked those rhetorical questions about freedom, bigotry, etc with the assumption that he was correct, I knew there was no point in continuing. TomF's post about binary thinking should have been followed here.

hokiefan
03-25-2014, 11:47 PM
Was considering watching the videos until I saw how long they are. For 5-10 minutes I'll give something I probably won't agree with the benefit of the doubt. For 2-1/2 hours... Ain't happening.

Cheers,

Bobby

PeterSibley
03-25-2014, 11:58 PM
Was considering watching the videos until I saw how long they are. For 5-10 minutes I'll something I probably won't agree with the benefit of the doubt. For 2-1/2 hours... Ain't happening.

Cheers,

Bobby

Seconded, the speaker would have to be Gandhi for me to give him 2 1/2 hours of my life !

RodB
03-26-2014, 12:02 AM
How about just starting them to see if they are good enough to keep your interest... I think they will.


R

David G
03-26-2014, 12:18 AM
Rod - given your track record of faulty logic, extreme ideological bias, and stubborn ignorance... I wouldn't waste 2 minutes on your video. But keep after it. If someone more reliable gives you more latitude, and comes back to say it actually IS worth watching... I'll consider it. But if you do keep up your efforts, I'd plead that you also up your game.

leikec
03-26-2014, 12:32 AM
http://blogs.salesforce.com/.a/6a00e54ee3905b88330147e33dadf6970b-800wi

Chasing moose and squirrel again?


Jeff C

PeterSibley
03-26-2014, 01:08 AM
The following is another brilliant speech given by Bill Whittle on : "The Assault on Civilization Structures"
This talk was given in Canada... and also illustrates how different conservatives and liberals view the world.

RodB


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AduC5MsRzdc&list=PLF72A4641E83609AF

I listened for 8 minutes Rod and he still hasn't said anything worth hearing .

I tried .

Ian McColgin
03-26-2014, 06:51 AM
If it's only a video and no text available I won't see it. The oral only tradition went out with the invention of writing and I see no reason to go back.

bogdog
03-26-2014, 07:01 AM
Conservatives don't believe in the preamble to the Constitution, Liberals do, seems fairly simple.

Rum_Pirate
03-26-2014, 07:13 AM
I keep tellin' ya' Rod, your preachments here go over like a fart in church. You ain't Jeramiah. You're just a rock solid member of the "Old White-guys Party". And asking us to sit thru' 2 1/2 hrs. of right-wing harangues is asking a lot. Could you do a summary of it and boil it down to five or six bullets?


Perhaps the modern liberals view the world with rose tinted glasses, and the 'rich (Republicans)' will pay regardless of how much we spend ?

Keith Wilson
03-26-2014, 07:15 AM
No, thanks. If this is anything at all like what you've posted before, life is much too short to spend that much time listening to a caricature of how I supposedly think. You don't appear to be interested in understanding how liberals really think, but convincing yourself they stink - or at least are wrong. If you genuinely want to learn how liberals think, ask one. Ask me, if you like. I'll tell you the truth as best I understand it, although I only have first-hand experience with my own thinking.

Rum_Pirate
03-26-2014, 07:20 AM
RobB you will have to provide such information in small or tiny 'bite' sizes in order that some on here will be able to consume in their short attention span.

Video clips over 3 minutes are probably far too long, certainly for the modern liberal.

Remember too that many on here will read/view what they think they want to see/hear/read and not necessarily what is posted for discussion.

bogdog
03-26-2014, 07:22 AM
RobB you will have to provide such information in small or tiny 'bite' sizes in order that some on here will be able to consume in their short attention span.

Video clips over 3 minutes are probably far too long, certainly for the modern liberal.

Remember too that many on here will read/view what they think they want to see/hear/read and not necessarily what is posted for discussion.Don't be so hard on yerself.

Paul Pless
03-26-2014, 07:33 AM
You will also understand why most conservatives will never come around to the progressive way of thinking.

I doubt many here will bother to watch the entire video, but believe me... millions of conservatives would think this is a clear explanation as to how we differ from the left.

Rod, I ain't gonna watch those videos. I grow weary of such proclamations that liberals and conservatives can't find common ground or reach compromise. Such divisiveness isn't driven much by individuals, but by organizations and institutions with an agenda served by partisanship.

But I'd happily read a summary of them provided by you; especially if your summary was reinforced by how you feel it is that modern liberals think.

I'm skeptical of, and highly prejudiced against, against any individual either left or right, who dismisses the entire opposite side of the political spectrum by lumping them all together. For example, I'm pretty far left and you're pretty far right, but I'd be willing to bet that based upon our mutual love of the outdoors - boating, fishing and hunting - that there's a great deal of common ground between us with regards to how we feel about the environment.

Peerie Maa
03-26-2014, 07:40 AM
Are those US liberals or English liberals?

Garret
03-26-2014, 08:11 AM
I'm skeptical of, and highly prejudiced against, against any individual either left or right, who dismisses the entire opposite side of the political spectrum by lumping them all together. For example, I'm pretty far left and you're pretty far right, but I'd be willing to bet that based upon our mutual love of the outdoors - boating, fishing and hunting - that there's a great deal of common ground between us with regards to how we feel about the environment.

Bingo!

The US seems focused on differences - where we should be trying to find common ground instead. That doesn't sell airtime though.

delecta
03-26-2014, 08:16 AM
Might not be the most up to date but will give you the gist in print form.

http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/regurgitating-the-apple-how-modern-liberals-think

ljb5
03-26-2014, 08:24 AM
How about just starting them to see if they are good enough to keep your interest... I think they will.


I made it as far as, "The modern liberal will invariably side with evil over good, wrong over right... Give a modern liberal a choice between Saddam Hussein and the United States, he will not only side with Saddam Hussein, he will slander America to do so."

Hogwash.

It should be noted that this speech was from early 2007 when Republicans were riding high on a wave of propaganda and jingosim. A lot of people were getting swept up in that type of faulty logic at the time because they thought we were winning ... or at least fell for the idea that you couldn't prove we weren't.

A few years later, as the economy crashed, and public opinion turned against the Iraq war, a lot of people pulled the wool from their eyes and realized that they'd been duped.

bogdog
03-26-2014, 08:29 AM
Bingo!

The US seems focused on differences - where we should be trying to find common ground instead. That doesn't sell airtime though.

There's the League of Women Voters, League of Conservation Voters, both organizations my wife and I have belonged to for at least a year and a bit, both bi-partisan/nonpartisan. Many conservation organizations are bi-partisan or non-partisan, of course that doesn't mean they'll pull punches when talking about the conservation failures of any politicians. The League of Women Voters has been leading the fight against much of the current voter id legislation around the nation proposed or passed by various state Republican legislatures.

Keith Wilson
03-26-2014, 08:29 AM
A couple of choice nuggets from the screed in delecta's link:


At that moment, I realized: They really do hate America. . . .

I assume that just about everybody in this room agrees that the Democrats are wrong on just about every issue. Well, I'm here to propose to you that it's not "just about" every issue; it's quite literally every issue. And it's not just wrong; it's as wrong as wrong can be; it's 180 degrees from right; it is diametrically opposed to that which is good, right, and successful. And the rest of it resembles nothing that I nor anyone I know has ever thought. With all respect, that article is a complete crock of sh!t.

Todd D
03-26-2014, 08:30 AM
Rod, from my perspective the difference is quite easy to characterize. As a "liberal" I have no desire to push my world view or lifestyle on others. As far as I am concerned, they can live however they want. "Conservatives", on the other hand, seem to feel very strongly that their world views and lifestyles are "right" and that everyone should conform to those positions. They also seem quite willing to do whatever they can to force others to live as they do. Also, as a "liberal" I don't see that there is some intrinsic evil in expecting something useful back for the taxes I pay. By someting useful, I mean a safety net for when things go wrong, health care and a reasonable retirement option. It seems to me that conservatives, don't like the idea of paying taxes at all and don't want anyone to get anything for the taxes they have paid, with the exception of big business which should, in their view, receive benefits from society far out of proportion to their tax contributions.

elf
03-26-2014, 08:42 AM
It seems to me that we have a lot of liberal-ish people on this forum, and that they regularly participate in threads that Rod begins, expressing the way they think there.

So I wonder why Rod thinks he needs to go find explanations of how "liberals" think from secondary sources.

You'd think he'd realize that he has primary sources right here on this own threads.

Paul Pless
03-26-2014, 09:09 AM
A few years later, as the economy crashed, and public opinion turned against the Iraq war, a lot of people pulled the wool from their eyes and realized that they'd been duped.
Rod, from my perspective the difference is quite easy to characterize. As a "liberal" I have no desire to push my world view or lifestyle on others. As far as I am concerned, they can live however they want. "Conservatives", on the other hand, seem to feel very strongly that their world views and lifestyles are "right" and that everyone should conform to those positions. They also seem quite willing to do whatever they can to force others to live as they do. Also, as a "liberal" I don't see that there is some intrinsic evil in expecting something useful back for the taxes I pay. By someting useful, I mean a safety net for when things go wrong, health care and a reasonable retirement option. It seems to me that conservatives, don't like the idea of paying taxes at all and don't want anyone to get anything for the taxes they have paid, with the exception of big business which should, in their view, receive benefits from society far out of proportion to their tax contributions.

As a one time conservative who has undergone a sea change with regards to political ideology over the last decade and a half, I feel the need to comment. I grew up in a conservative family, and lived in a conservative region of the country, was a white male Christian business owner, belonged to community and civic organizations that invariably leaned right, was a member of an exclusive all white all male golf club, attended a conservative school and studied Economics at the von Mises Institute. When I was younger I had learned and had come to the conclusion that conservative political philosophy had the orientation to succeed in protecting the personal liberties of the individual - I took this to the extreme of libertarianism. I also believed that conservative economic philosophy ensured the most efficient distribution of goods, services and resources - a tenant which I still believe to be true with regards to a pure micro-economic standpoint, but now reject as being immoral when applied by a reasoned and advanced society. Looking back, I am forced to admit that much of my earlier right leaning proclivities, were a reaction to the diametrically opposed views of collectivism, socialism, and communism. Further, many of my strongest political opinions were formed at a time during the Clinton administration and I found much to be revolted by from the Clintons with respect their (especially Bill's) personal behavior and their perceived glibness and two facedness and drive.

Over the years, I have come to reject that conservatism, as practiced by the Republicans and the Tea party, not only fails to protect individual freedoms, they actively work to diminish one's freedoms. Further, I have come to accept that Democrats over the last fifty years have actually proactively served to enable individuals, especially but not limited to minorities, to seize the freedoms espoused by our nation's founders. They did this in some very big and momentous ways with regards to civil rights, but continue in many smaller ways today to be the greater voice for protecting the individual from larger institutions. That's not to say that they are without fault because certainly are.

I have not been able to so handily reject the fundamentals of conservative economic thought as I have conservative political thought. However, I have come to reject pure capitalism as I have not been able to reconcile such things as the Tragedy of the Commons, or social safety nets. I strongly advocate for single payer, mainly based on efficiencies and international competitiveness.

Going forward, the two biggest political issues personal to me are:



Withdrawing from the world stage as a militaristic police power with a coinciding reduction in military spending; I don't see either party doing a very good job here.
Addressing sustainability issues through very large and sustained program of infrastructure improvements and a strategy to wean ourselves off of oil and coal


I don't think either of the two above notions are something that conservative economic or political thought can effectively address at this time.

I should also like to say that the dumbing down of the Republican Party recently has been unmatched by any similar trend in American political history that I can think of. And lastly, that two faced drive and willingness to say or do anything or to coddle up to any special interest group to get elected that so revolted me by the Clintons has been far an away surpassed by recent Republican presidential candidates.

BrianY
03-26-2014, 09:11 AM
Don't listen to 'em Rod.

As a life long liberal and Democrat I can confirm that we all hate America, love everyone and anyone who hates America and we're all working 24/7/365 to do everything we can to promote abortion, attack the Christian faith, take guns away from everyone except for criminals and use the tax code to take all the money from hard working people and give it to lazy drug addicts. Our goal really is the distruction of this country because we simply hate everything it stands for.

So don't let your guard down. Vigilance, my friend. VIGILANCE!

bogdog
03-26-2014, 09:16 AM
Don't listen to 'em Rod.

As a life long liberal and Democrat I can confirm that we all hate America, love everyone and anyone who hates America and we're all working 24/7/365 to do everything we can to promote abortion, attack the Christian faith, take guns away from everyone except for criminals and use the tax code to take all the money from hard working people and give it to lazy drug addicts. Our goal really is the distruction of this country because we simply hate everything it stands for.

So don't let your guard down. Vigilance, my friend. VIGILANCE!Ya forgot voter fraud!

ccmanuals
03-26-2014, 09:36 AM
Paul, sounds like you went through your party transformation during your time as a member of this forum. Did the forum in any way influence your transformation from conservative to liberal?

Paul Pless
03-26-2014, 09:44 AM
Paul, sounds like you went through your party transformation during your time as a member of this forum. Did the forum in any way influence your transformation from conservative to liberal?Not that profoundly an influence I think. It probably helped to reinforce the shift. 9/11 and W's Iraq War predated my forum membership and the right's reaction to those events really drove the wedge in hard for me.

Gerarddm
03-26-2014, 09:53 AM
Since regressives seem to gravitate toward simplistic thinking and statements, let me then offer a concise definition of what modern liberals think: 180 degrees from what RodB and his ilk profess.

Simple, eh?

...and now on to more substantive matters...

John Smith
03-26-2014, 10:06 AM
The following is another brilliant speech given by Bill Whittle on : "The Assault on Civilization Structures"
This talk was given in Canada... and also illustrates how different conservatives and liberals view the world.

RodB


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AduC5MsRzdc&list=PLF72A4641E83609AF

If you'd like to explain how people think, please explain the conservative line of thought of those who love their Medicare, but don't want government involved in healthcare. Explain why the conservatives who don't like single moms and/or families on public assistance pass laws creating more of both. How do they explain having no problem starting two wars without paying for them, but insist we have offsets to pay for extending unemployment benefits?

How do you explain how the conservatives have been wrong consistently for 3 decades: they told us Clinton's '93 budget would destroy our economy, they told us we KNEW where the nonexistent WMD's were, and they told us the oil would pay for what would be a very short military exercise in Iraq.

I don't think you can win this argument.

John Smith
03-26-2014, 10:08 AM
How about just starting them to see if they are good enough to keep your interest... I think they will.


R

They didn't keep mine.

John Smith
03-26-2014, 10:10 AM
Perhaps the modern liberals view the world with rose tinted glasses, and the 'rich (Republicans)' will pay regardless of how much we spend ?

Just as a point of fact, we had a balanced budget until the two Bush tax cuts. Tax cuts that bring back the deficit create a revenue problem, not a spending problem.

John Smith
03-26-2014, 10:15 AM
Rod, from my perspective the difference is quite easy to characterize. As a "liberal" I have no desire to push my world view or lifestyle on others. As far as I am concerned, they can live however they want. "Conservatives", on the other hand, seem to feel very strongly that their world views and lifestyles are "right" and that everyone should conform to those positions. They also seem quite willing to do whatever they can to force others to live as they do. Also, as a "liberal" I don't see that there is some intrinsic evil in expecting something useful back for the taxes I pay. By someting useful, I mean a safety net for when things go wrong, health care and a reasonable retirement option. It seems to me that conservatives, don't like the idea of paying taxes at all and don't want anyone to get anything for the taxes they have paid, with the exception of big business which should, in their view, receive benefits from society far out of proportion to their tax contributions.

The conservatives are the ones who want a less intrusive government that intrudes into our private lives, but leaves business alone to pollute our air and water. Liberals want to regulate business in efforts to protect the public from polluted water, but are less intrusive into our private lives.

John Smith
03-26-2014, 10:20 AM
Paul, that is a well reasoned and introspective look into your convictions. It takes a strong individual to be able to break with their childhood teachings when those lessons prove to be detrimental to oneself and to the system as a whole. Moderation in everything is a worthwhile goal. I think that to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal strikes a balance that is the most fair and useful.
I agree. It was a great post.

The one comment I would make is it's hard for one party to do some things without significant support from the other party. Such as dramatically cutting defense spending. As posted elsewhere, we are building tanks and planes that go from the assembly line to the scrap heap, and we can't stop it.

John of Phoenix
03-26-2014, 10:33 AM
RodB, as long as you continue to think, as arch-conservative Mark Levin once said, that liberalism is a mental disorder, then you're never going to gain any traction with stuff like this.

All this sort of crap does is attempt to widen the gap between political philosophies, when, in fact, you really ought to be trying to narrow the gap. If your objective is to persuade people of the correctness of your beliefs, then trying to raise the wall by exaggerating the differences and dismissing all opposing points of view is working AGAINST your interests, not FOR them.

I'm always willing to accept a good argument that could change my mind. So far, you haven't even attempted to do that.Well said. And now a question for the liberals in our little peanut gallery.

Has anything Rod ever posted caused you to be, think, act or VOTE in a more conservative manner?

You know my answer.

John of Phoenix
03-26-2014, 10:42 AM
Good God! Reunited at last!! MY LONG LOST TWIN!!
As a one time conservative who has undergone a sea change with regards to political ideology over the last decade and a half, I feel the need to comment. I grew up in a conservative family, and lived in a conservative region of the country, was a white male Christian business owner, belonged to community and civic organizations that invariably leaned right, was a member of an exclusive all white all male golf club, attended a conservative school and studied Economics at the von Mises Institute. When I was younger I had learned and had come to the conclusion that conservative political philosophy had the orientation to succeed in protecting the personal liberties of the individual - I took this to the extreme of libertarianism. I also believed that conservative economic philosophy ensured the most efficient distribution of goods, services and resources - a tenant which I still believe to be true with regards to a pure micro-economic standpoint, but now reject as being immoral when applied by a reasoned and advanced society. Looking back, I am forced to admit that much of my earlier right leaning proclivities, were a reaction to the diametrically opposed views of collectivism, socialism, and communism. Further, many of my strongest political opinions were formed at a time during the Clinton administration and I found much to be revolted by from the Clintons with respect their (especially Bill's) personal behavior and their perceived glibness and two facedness and drive.

Over the years, I have come to reject that conservatism, as practiced by the Republicans and the Tea party, not only fails to protect individual freedoms, they actively work to diminish one's freedoms. Further, I have come to accept that Democrats over the last fifty years have actually proactively served to enable individuals, especially but not limited to minorities, to seize the freedoms espoused by our nation's founders. They did this in some very big and momentous ways with regards to civil rights, but continue in many smaller ways today to be the greater voice for protecting the individual from larger institutions. That's not to say that they are without fault because certainly are.

I have not been able to so handily reject the fundamentals of conservative economic thought as I have conservative political thought. However, I have come to reject pure capitalism as I have not been able to reconcile such things as the Tragedy of the Commons, or social safety nets. I strongly advocate for single payer, mainly based on efficiencies and international competitiveness.

Going forward, the two biggest political issues personal to me are:



Withdrawing from the world stage as a militaristic police power with a coinciding reduction in military spending; I don't see either party doing a very good job here.
Addressing sustainability issues through very large and sustained program of infrastructure improvements and a strategy to wean ourselves off of oil and coal


I don't think either of the two above notions are something that conservative economic or political thought can effectively address at this time.

I should also like to say that the dumbing down of the Republican Party recently has been unmatched by any similar trend in American political history that I can think of. And lastly, that two faced drive and willingness to say or do anything or to coddle up to any special interest group to get elected that so revolted me by the Clintons has been far an away surpassed by recent Republican presidential candidates.

Keith Wilson
03-26-2014, 10:55 AM
Has anything Rod ever posted caused you to be, think, act or VOTE in a more conservative manner?Not in the slightest. If anything, it's made me more convinced that modern conservatism has gone off the deep end, and needs to be kept far, far away from power.

John of Phoenix
03-26-2014, 10:59 AM
Not in the slightest. If anything, it's made me more convinced that modern conservatism has gone off the deep end, and needs to be kept far, far away from power.You're far too reasonable to call it The Celebration of Stupid. But I'm not.

Osborne Russell
03-26-2014, 10:59 AM
"The least imperialistic nation in history . . . "

Tsk, how can you overlook Iceland.


Why do they hate America . . .

because they reject tribalism !


How can they see imperialism and racism lurking?

By the denial.


Abu Ghraib shouldn't have been a front page story

Brokeback Mtn said heterosexual marriage isn't important

Indoctrination begins with sesame street; rational and moral thought is an act of bigotry

etc.

Osborne Russell
03-26-2014, 11:03 AM
If it's only a video and no text available I won't see it. The oral only tradition went out with the invention of writing and I see no reason to go back.

It's anti-tribal. You can't hear the chest thumping or see the contorted faces, with writing.

Osborne Russell
03-26-2014, 11:17 AM
RobB you will have to provide such information in small or tiny 'bite' sizes in order that some on here will be able to consume in their short attention span.

Video clips over 3 minutes are probably far too long, certainly for the modern liberal.

Remember too that many on here will read/view what they think they want to see/hear/read and not necessarily what is posted for discussion.

Three minutes of stuff repeated 15 times does not make a 45 minute video.

The guy blunders on and on with things like


. . . liberals are against every idea from the past so they are against everything we use to decide what's right . . .

. . . and then tries to rope in Harold Bloom's The Closing Of The American Mind, which he grotesquely distorts. Too bad, because I agree with much of what Bloom says, but I have to explain though I shouldn't have to is that what I mean by "agree" is that his statements are much in accord with my experience and I will evaluate new information to see if it also fits that perspective, along with other perspectives, as many as I can manage, in order of how productive each one seems. IOW I'm not seeking one in order to drive the rest. And that is a difference between modern American "conservatives" and those who, in their ignorance and dishonesty, they consider to be liberals: conservatives are proud of wanting to suppress inquiry. When liberals try to suppress inquiry, they try to deny it and conceal it, because they know it's shameful.

Osborne Russell
03-26-2014, 11:20 AM
As a one time conservative . . .

You're still a conservative, they aren't.

Osborne Russell
03-26-2014, 11:27 AM
It seems to me that we have a lot of liberal-ish people on this forum, and that they regularly participate in threads that Rod begins, expressing the way they think there.

So I wonder why Rod thinks he needs to go find explanations of how "liberals" think from secondary sources.

You'd think he'd realize that he has primary sources right here on this own threads.

All true but he also has the purpose (he says) of wanting us to understand him. What I understand, and I acknowledge his contribution to that understanding, is that although, since Reagan, I have been pointing out the evil that the American right could develop into, it was far greater than I ever imagined. There could be an order of magnitude step backwards in the evolution of human society. Feudalism with corporations instead of hereditary aristocracy.

Phillip Allen
03-26-2014, 11:29 AM
last night I watched a movie called 'Into The White'... a foreign film but mostly in English... about people getting caught in a survival situation in Norway during a winter storm... days in a hunting cabin they found... they learned to put their differences aside in order to survive... it is a good movie though not in any spectacular way

John of Phoenix
03-26-2014, 11:37 AM
they learned to put their differences aside in order to survive.Was it anything they saw on a YouTube propaganda video?

Phillip Allen
03-26-2014, 11:41 AM
it's MOVIE John... is it really neccessary for you to be constantly nasty to me?... I don't follow you around with signature lines or without them

John of Phoenix
03-26-2014, 11:44 AM
That's right, it's a MOVIE and it has nothing to do with the topic of the thread - Understanding How Modern Liberals Think as "demonstrated" by a 2.5 hour propaganda video on YouTube.

You post something that's ridiculous and expect it to be ignored? You never learn.

Durnik
03-26-2014, 11:54 AM
... since Reagan, I have been pointing out the evil that the American right could develop into, [each time] it was far greater than I ever imagined. ...

I could have written that..

At this point, the right has demonstrated adequately that evil is their intent & their utter destruction is completely necessary. Unfortunately, however, they have social & political power. The foxes are guarding the hen house.

WASF

to give poor Rod fits, this (http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/133403-we-should-do-away-with-the-absolutely-specious-notion-that) -


“We should do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living. It is a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are absolutely right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living. We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery because, according to Malthusian Darwinian theory he must justify his right to exist. So we have inspectors of inspectors and people making instruments for inspectors to inspect inspectors. The true business of people should be to go back to school and think about whatever it was they were thinking about before somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living.”

Richard Buckminster Fuller

enjoy
bobby

Boater14
03-26-2014, 01:08 PM
Rod, here's a little tip. Liberals are no more likely to watch a clip of a guy standing in front of a HERITAGE FOUNDATION backdrop than you are going to watch a clip of Chris Matthews. Who are those clowns anyway? I'm a modern liberal. I want no dumb wars, I want people who have had cancer (my wife) to be able to get healthcare, I want to be able to get a glass of drinkable water. O...I want a black man who fought in one of our wars to be able to vote. radical?

John Smith
03-26-2014, 01:33 PM
Rod, here's a little tip. Liberals are no more likely to watch a clip of a guy standing in front of a HERITAGE FOUNDATION backdrop than you are going to watch a clip of Chris Matthews. Who are those clowns anyway? I'm a modern liberal. I want no dumb wars, I want people who have had cancer (my wife) to be able to get healthcare, I want to be able to get a glass of drinkable water. O...I want a black man who fought in one of our wars to be able to vote. radical?

It's hard to stand up and be for all this kind of stuff. I stand with you.

The big conservative lie is that they want less government. Truth is liberals and conservatives have different ideas of what government's role is. One side thinks it should impose the moral standards of a religion on all of us as individuals; the other thinks it should regulate business and commerce to the benefit of all citizens.

ccmanuals
03-26-2014, 01:34 PM
Rod, here's a little tip. Liberals are no more likely to watch a clip of a guy standing in front of a HERITAGE FOUNDATION backdrop than you are going to watch a clip of Chris Matthews. Who are those clowns anyway? I'm a modern liberal. I want no dumb wars, I want people who have had cancer (my wife) to be able to get healthcare, I want to be able to get a glass of drinkable water. O...I want a black man who fought in one of our wars to be able to vote. radical?

well said

BrianY
03-26-2014, 01:47 PM
Hey come on folks. At least he's admitting that Liberals do THINK.... lord knows how any times we've been accused of NOT thinking by conservatives on this and other forums. :d

Ian McColgin
03-26-2014, 02:05 PM
As has been said by plenty besides just me, conservatives think. Even neo-cons think, albeit mostly wrongly. The problem is that the hard right fueled by the Limbaughs must not be allowed to think because then they will see through the manipulations of their oligarch masters.

David G
03-26-2014, 02:18 PM
Pless - very nice post. Cogent. Concise. And to think that I used to believe you were JUST a pretty face! <G>

Peter Malcolm Jardine
03-26-2014, 02:21 PM
I llistened to the first video until it was apparent that the speaker was delusional. That was about two minutes in.

Osborne Russell
03-26-2014, 03:22 PM
to give poor Rod fits, this (http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/133403-we-should-do-away-with-the-absolutely-specious-notion-that) -



enjoy
bobby

Indeed I enjoyed that. A good foil to the assertion of Rod's man that "liberals are against everything which produces morality, prosperity and success."

Osborne Russell
03-26-2014, 03:38 PM
This guy doesn't have any understanding of how Harold Bloom thinks either. A very questionable decision, to name Bloom as his inspiration. But there's no risk because of the even greater ignorance of the audience. They lap it up when he talks about liberals being the enemies of traditional morality which comes to us via MEM and the GOP.

Here's Bloom on MEM and the GOP:


Mr. Romney, earnest and staid, who is deep within the labyrinthine Mormon hierarchy, is directly descended from an early follower of the founding prophet Joseph Smith, whose highly original revelation was as much a departure from historical Christianity as Islam was and is. But then, so in fact are most manifestations of what is now called religion in the United States, including the Southern Baptist Convention, the Assemblies of God Pentecostalists and even our mainline Protestant denominations.

However, should Mr. Romney be elected president, Smith’s dream of a Mormon Kingdom of God in America would not be fulfilled, since the 21st-century Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has little resemblance to its 19th-century precursor. The current head of the Mormon Church, Thomas S. Monson, known to his followers as “prophet, seer and revelator,” is indistinguishable from the secular plutocratic oligarchs who exercise power in our supposed
democracy.

Persuasively redefining Christianity has been a pastime through the ages, yet the American difference is brazen. What I call the American Religion, and by that I mean nearly all religions in this country, socially manifests itself as the Emancipation of Selfishness. Our Great Emancipator of Selfishness, President Ronald Reagan, refreshingly evaded the rhetoric of religion, but has been appropriated anyway as the archangel of American spiritualized greed.

Marxist slogans rarely ring true in our clime, where religion is the poetry (bad and good) of the people and not its opiate. Poetry is a defense against dying. The American Religion centers upon the denial of death, literalizing an ancient Christian metaphor.

Obsessed by a freedom we identify with money, we tolerate plutocracy as if it could someday be our own ecstatic solitude. A first principle of the American Religion is that each of us rarely feels free unless he or she is entirely alone, particularly when in the company of the American Jesus. Walking and talking with him is akin to receiving his love in a personal and individual relationship.

A dark truth of American politics in what is still the era of Reagan and the Bushes is that so many do not vote their own economic interests. Rather than living in reality they yield to what oddly are termed “cultural” considerations:
moral and spiritual, or so their leaders urge them to believe. Under the banners of flag, cross, fetus, exclusive
marriage between men and women, they march onward to their own deepening impoverishment. Much of the Tea Party fervor merely repeats this gladsome frolic.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/13/opinion/sunday/will-this-election-be-the-mormon-breakthrough.html?_r=0


Sound like a conservative to you, Rod?

Durnik
03-26-2014, 03:55 PM
What I call the American Religion, and by that I mean nearly all religions in this country, socially manifests itself as the Emancipation of Selfishness.

Amazing - I agree with a 'conservative'.. ;-)

thanks!
bobby

Canoeyawl
03-26-2014, 04:37 PM
http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/236x/04/4d/83/044d839756ca20f4f5702efb731a6ae6.jpg

RodB
03-26-2014, 08:25 PM
Originally posted by Paul Pless:
Over the years, I have come to reject that conservatism, as practiced by the Republicans and the Tea party, not only fails to protect individual freedoms, they actively work to diminish one's freedoms.



Paul, I'm assuming you say this based on the supposed "war on women" ... I can't think of much else that one could perceive as "diminishing one's freedoms" by republicans. The current crop of democrat's actions have been replete with examples where the government is intruding into peoples lives and diminishing their freedoms.

So, the Obama administration's attack on the "Little Sisters of the Poor" is not attacking individual freedoms, but passing an abortion related law (Texas) that a hospital be within a reasonable distance from any clinic performing abortions is infringing on individual rights...? How can you be so blind. You actually believe such rubbish that there is a war on women by the republican party... but fail to see the destruction caused by Obama and his administration when so many things they have done massively affect all americans negatively... especially Obamacare. The current administration has targeted select businesses based on environmental extremism. Thousands have lost their jobs. I'll not bother to list problems caused by Obamacare..but if you are awake, they are self evident. The economic policies of this administration have not served us well. Your comment on "diminishing ones freedoms" is so wrong headed ... what you accuse the Republicans of in truth applies to the Democrats.

BTW, the general Republican view is not the same as the "Tea Party". The Tea Party simply stands for fiscal responsibility and smaller government. They want the government to stay the hell out of their lives and stick with making us safe and maintaining our infrastructure.

Further... have you ever thought allowing over 11 million illegal aliens amnesty is not a good thing for the country? Do you have any idea of the cost of this to the taxpayers. Did you bother to see the following film? This producer was a non-political individual before making this film.


THEY COME TO AMERICA
The Cost of Illegal Immigration 2012

http://www.angelfire.com/ak2/intelligencerreport/immigration.html


The Dems have pushed this agenda by not enforcing our laws simply to increase their voting bloc but thats just fine I suppose? Do you think the Dems are doing this because they think it is best for the country?

This administration created a climate where the IRS targeted conservative groups simply to stifle their political activities. This is criminal. There is no way you can defend a massive government if you are objective... unless you see cradle to grave entitlement creating a "better nation". Yeah, the democrats are just peachy keeno neat!



Originally posted by Paul Pless:Further, I have come to accept that Democrats over the last fifty years have actually proactively served to enable individuals, especially but not limited to minorities, to seize the freedoms espoused by our nation's founders. They did this in some very big and momentous ways with regards to civil rights, but continue in many smaller ways today to be the greater voice for protecting the individual from larger institutions. That's not to say that they are without fault because certainly are.

Conservatives are for all people seizing all the freedoms expoused by our nations founders, and you know it. The Democrats will pass a law infringing on your right of self determination in a heartbeat. Have you been paying attention lately to whats going on?

Lets talk about freedoms...

Democrats are responsible for massively increasing government spending with no regard to the national debt... and they really seem to desire no debt limit. This puts us all at risk of losing freedoms and rights. You see what happens in places like Greece or California and ignore this most important issue? Obama has spent almost more than all the presidents in the past added together...

Choose Paul... perceived made up social issues or economic survival....

http://www.hyscience.com/anderson_Presidents'%20Avg%20Deficits-1.img_assist_custom-640x480.jpg (http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2011/04/obamas_deficit.php)





Originally posted by Paul Pless: I have not been able to so handily reject the fundamentals of conservative economic thought as I have conservative political thought. However, I have come to reject pure capitalism as I have not been able to reconcile such things as the Tragedy of the Commons, or social safety nets. I strongly advocate for single payer, mainly based on efficiencies and international competitiveness.

Conservatives believe our nation is awesome and can achieve anything... even put a man on the moon duh! Conservatism is about freeing all the people to be awesome. Allowing people to create wealth from nothing. You can write a screenplay, develop a business plan, have a great idea... and create jobs for many and create millions of dollars of wealth for the workers and yourself. Thats capitalism. Real freedom in a democracy allows such freedom to achieve anything you are capable of and willing to work for. The freedom to excel is for all.

The healthcare in the USA was the best in the world before Obamacare even though we had many problems. Folks from other countries came here when they required the best of the best specialists. No one could be turned away from any Emergency facility for care. Seventy something percent of folks who had insurance were satisfied. Revamping the entire healthcare system with a total lack of bipartisanship was flat out wrong.

There were much simpler solutions to deal with those who did not have healthcare insurance like extending and modifying (appropriately) medicaid for example. All the pain that Obamacare has caused was simply not necessary and in the end... was caused by just plain "feel good" ideology and stupidity ... and of course, incompetence.

Perhaps a bipartisan commission formed to address this issue with an ample amount of healthcare professionals in the mix would have been a good start to a healthcare solution for the country. The Democrats just knew they had the majority and wanted to just pass something and fix it later... the problem is that what they passed is such a cluster that its unfixable. The next attempt at national healthcare (to fix or replace Obamacare) will at least have the advantage of seeing all the minefields Obamacare hit!




Originally posted by Paul Pless:Going forward, the two biggest political issues personal to me are:




Withdrawing from the world stage as a militaristic police power with a coinciding reduction in military spending; I don't see either party doing a very good job here.
Addressing sustainability issues through very large and sustained program of infrastructure improvements and a strategy to wean ourselves off of oil and coal

I don't think either of the two above notions are something that conservative economic or political thought can effectively address at this time.

Your first bullet is based on a false premise... we need the military that we need... to manage whatever tasks that are necessary in this world of terrorism. A blanket drawing down without careful analysis of what exactly is needed for our security is shortsighted and wrong.

The Dems proposing a program to work on infrastructure without a realistic way to pay for it is not a solution. Just borrowing the money from our future is also not a solution. The solution to weaning us off oil will be solved by technology... it seems to me the pressure applied by the environmental wacko's blows this point out of proportion.


Originally posted by Paul Pless:I should also like to say that the dumbing down of the Republican Party recently has been unmatched by any similar trend in American political history that I can think of.

"Dumbing down"... gimme a break. What a genuinely "general" statement" that is simply not true. The conservatives I know are highly informed about what freedom is Paul. You seem to be buying the propaganda from the left. There are millions of people who voted for Obama who don't have the faintest idea about 95% of the issues...but they certainly know what they will get from the government. This broad brush is simply ... CRAP.



Originally posted by Paul Pless: And lastly, that two faced drive and willingness to say or do anything or to coddle up to any special interest group to get elected that so revolted me by the Clintons has been far an away surpassed by recent Republican presidential candidates.

I will say that many of us were angered that the Republicans did not keep to a higher level of discourse in the big picture. Note, Obama and Hillary had a pretty good battle too.
The willingness to say anything by the lame stream media far surpassed anything said by the Republican candidates. In case you missed it, the Obama campaign along with massive help from the lame stream media were pretty much lacking in any restraint in the degree of viciousness of their attacks on the Republicans. The Obama administration as seen in action will do or say anything to not only win an election but to avoid telling the truth... see lying about Benghazi... IRS, Fast and Furious.

RodB

Keith Wilson
03-26-2014, 08:43 PM
Paul, I think you may have hit a nerve.


This administration created a climate where the IRS targeted conservative groups simply to stifle their political activities. This is simply a lie.

ljb5
03-26-2014, 08:44 PM
http://www.hyscience.com/anderson_Presidents'%20Avg%20Deficits-1.img_assist_custom-640x480.jpg


I think the graph does a nice job of illustrating our Republican friends' relationship with the truth. When they don't like the numbers, they just kinda move them from one column to the other.

What would this graph look like if we moved the costs of Bush's wars from Obama to Bush? What would it look like Bush paid for his tax cuts instead of letting the lost revenue continue long after he left office?

What would it look like if millions of people hadn't lost their job and stopped paying income tax while Bush was in office?

Why should Obama be held to pay for the economic recovery of Bush's crisis?

Glen Longino
03-26-2014, 08:46 PM
Paul, I'm assuming you say this based on the supposed "war on women" ... I can't think of much else that one could perceive as "diminishing one's freedoms" by republicans. The current crop of democrat's actions have been replete with examples where the government is intruding into peoples lives and diminishing their freedoms.

So, the Obama administration's attack on the "Little Sisters of the Poor" is not attacking individual freedoms, but passing an abortion related law (Texas) that a hospital be within a reasonable distance from any clinic performing abortions is infringing on individual rights...? How can you be so blind. You actually believe such rubbish that there is a war on women by the republican party... but fail to see the destruction caused by Obama and his administration when so many things they have done massively affect all americans negatively... especially Obamacare. The current administration has targeted select businesses based on environmental extremism. Thousands have lost their jobs. I'll not bother to list problems caused by Obamacare..but if you are awake, they are self evident. The economic policies of this administration have not served us well. Your comment on "diminishing ounces freedoms" is so wrong headed ... what you accuse the Republicans of in truth applies to the Democrats.

BTW, the general Republican view is not the same as the "Tea Party". The Tea Party simply stands for fiscal responsibility and smaller government. They want the government to stay the hell out of their lives and stick with making us safe and maintaining our infrastructure.

Further... have you ever thought allowing over 11 million illegal aliens amnesty is not a good thing for the country? Do you have any idea of the cost of this to the taxpayers. Did you bother to see the following film? This producer was a non-political individual before making this film.


The Dems have pushed this agenda by not enforcing our laws simply to increase their voting bloc but thats just fine I suppose? Do you think the Dems are doing this because they think it is best for the country?

This administration created a climate where the IRS targeted conservative groups simply to stifle their political activities. This is criminal. There is no way you can defend a massive government if you are objective... unless you see cradle to grave entitlement creating a "better nation". Yeah, the democrats are just peachy keeno neat!



Conservatives are for all people seizing all the freedoms expoused by our nations founders, and you know it. The Democrats will pass a law infringing on your right of self determination in a heartbeat. Have you been paying attention lately to whats going on?

Lets talk about freedoms...

Democrats are responsible for massively increasing government spending with no regard to the national debt... and they really seem to desire no debt limit. This puts us all at risk of losing freedoms and rights. You see what happens in places like Greece or California and ignore this most important issue? Obama has spent almost more than all the presidents in the past added together...

Choose Paul, perceived made up social issue or economic survival....
http://www.hyscience.com/anderson_Presidents'%20Avg%20Deficits-1.img_assist_custom-640x480.jpg (http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2011/04/obamas_deficit.php)






Conservatives believe our nation is awesome and can achieve anything... even put a man on the moon duh! Conservatism is about freeing all the people to be awesome. Allowing people to create wealth from nothing. You can write a screenplay, develop a business plan, have a great idea... and create jobs for many and create millions of dollars of wealth for the workers and yourself. Thats capitalism. Real freedom in a democracy allows such freedom to achieve anything you are capable of and willing to work for. The freedom to excel is for all.

The healthcare in the USA was the best in the world before Obamacare even though we had many problems. Folks from other countries came here when they required the best of the best specialists. No one could be turned away from any Emergency facility for care. Seventy something percent of folks who had insurance were satisfied. Revamping the entire healthcare system with a total lack of bipartisanship was flat out wrong.

There were much simpler solutions to deal with those who did not have healthcare insurance like extending and modifying (appropriately) medicaid for example. All the pain that Obamacare has caused was simply not necessary and in the end... was caused by just plain "feel good" ideology and stupidity ... and of course, incompetence. Perhaps a bipartisan commission formed to address this issue with an ample amount of healthcare professionals in the mix would have been a good start to a healthcare solution for the country. The Democrats just knew they had the majority and wanted to just pass something and fix it later... the problem is that what they passed is such a cluster that its unfixable. The next attempt at national healthcare (to fix or replace Obamacare) will at least have the advantage of seeing all the minefields Obamacare hit!





Your first bullet is based on a false premise... we need the military that we need... to manage whatever tasks that are necessary in this world of terrorism. A blanket drawing down without careful analysis of what exactly is needed for our security is shortsighted and wrong.

The Dems proposing a program to work on infrastructure without a realistic way to pay for it is not a solution. Just borrowing the money from our future is also not a solution. The solution to weaning us off oil will be solved by technology... it seems to me the pressure applied by the environmental wacko's blows this point out of proportion.



"Dumbing down"... gimme a break. What a genuinely "general" statement" that is simply not true. The conservatives I know are highly informed about what freedom is Paul. You seem to be buying the propaganda from the left. There are millions of people who voted for Obama who don't have the faintest idea about 95% of the issues...but they certainly know what they will get from the government. This broad brush is simply ... CRAP.


.

I will say that many of us were angered that the Republicans did not keep to a higher level of discourse in the big picture. Note, Obama and Hillary had a pretty good battle too.
The willingness to say anything by the lame stream media far surpassed anything said by the Republican candidates. In case you missed it, the Obama campaign along with massive help from the lame stream media were pretty much lacking in any restraint in the degree of viciousness of their attacks on the Republicans. The Obama administration as seen in action will do or say anything to not only win an election but to avoid telling the truth... see lying about Benghazi... IRS, Fast and Furious.

RodB

I rest my case!
As evidence that every condemnation and rude observation that I have ever made on this forum regarding Troglodytes has been just and fair, I offer Rod's post!

Arizona Bay
03-26-2014, 09:48 PM
That's a huge delusional pile of festering, stinkin' filth you believe there, Robby.

Glen Longino
03-26-2014, 09:54 PM
That's a huge delusional pile of festering, stinkin' filth you believe there, Robby.

:D I rest my case....again!
(BTW, it's RoDDy!:)!

Arizona Bay
03-26-2014, 09:59 PM
I forgot the smiley too!
Must be the scrambled RW energy I'm tapping into, gotta enhance my bubble... :D

RodB
03-26-2014, 10:15 PM
Posted by RodB:This administration created a climate where the IRS targeted conservative groups simply to stifle their political activities.

Edited to add: Conservatives targeted simply because of this: "that people who dislike taxes or complain about the government can’t possibly be promoting social welfare." The end results were stifling their political activities.


Posted by Keith:This is simply a lie.

Sorry Keith, I think you are wrong... as usual.... At first this looks like a likely "innocent type of rationale"...but it turns out they damn well targeted conservative groups (Tea Party etc)



RodB


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/13/why-did-the-irs-target-conservative-groups.html

Why Did the IRS Target Conservative Groups?

Was it a legitimate reaction to an explosion of tax-exempt electioneering?
Kevin Drum outlines (http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/05/irs-shoots-itself-foot-then-reloads) what I take to be the emerging case for the defense of the IRS agents who applied special scrutiny to tax-exemption applications from Tea Party groups:


,,, Roughly speaking, what seems to have happened is that three years ago the IRS was facing an explosion of newly formed 501(c)4 groups claiming tax exempt status, something that’s legal only for groups that are primarily engaged in promoting education or social welfare, not electioneering. So some folks in the Cincinnati office tried to come up with a quick filter to flag groups that deserved extra scrutiny. But what should that flag be? Well, three years ago the explosion happened to be among tea party groups, so they began searching their database “for applications with ‘Tea Party,’ ‘Patriots,’ or ‘9/12’ in the organization’s name as well as other ‘political sounding’ names.” This was dumb, and when senior leaders found out about it, they put a quick stop to it ...The problem is that the explosion of 501(c)4 groups is a genuine problem: they really have grown like kudzu, lots of them really are used primarily as electioneering vehicles, and the IRS has been either unwilling or unable to regulate them properly. So the fact that some of the folks responsible for processing these applications were looking for a way to flag potentially dubious groups is sort of understandable.


However, if I were accused of this thing, and this was my defense, I’d be looking forward to a guilty verdict from any semicompetent jury.
For one thing, though the IRS is claiming that they told employees to knock it off in 2011, they went back and came up with an almost equally troubling set of standards (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2013/05/13/lingering-questions-about-the-irs-targeting-of-conservative-groups/) in January 2012:
The IRS adopted a more generic set of standards the next month, but it changed the criteria again in January 2012, deciding to look at “political action type organizations involved in limiting/expanding Government, educating on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, social economic reform movement,” according to the audit documents.
But even if that weren’t the case, this would be an incredibly stupid defense. It’s not like the IRS needs a way to flag the new groups that were created in the wake of the Citizens United decision. They have all the information they need to do that without any special filter. They can search for the date of the application. If what you’re concerned about is that most of the new groups being created are in fact thinly disguised electioneering vehicles, then what you want to do is take a random sample of the new groups, review them, and see what percentage turn out to be self-dealing or otherwise engaged in inappropriate behavior.


Instead, the IRS method for dealing with the volume was to take an unrandom sample. And how did they decide that you deserved extra scrutiny? Because you had “tea party” or “patriot” in your name. Since the Tea Party was a brand-new movement in 2010, they couldn’t possibly have had any data indicating that such groups were more likely to be doing something improper. So how exactly did they come up with this filter? There is no answer that does not ultimately resolve to “political bias.”

If Tea Party groups really were driving much of the post–Citizens Unitedexplosion, there was no need to specifically search for the words “tea party” or “patriot,” because those words would naturally be overrepresented in a random sample of new applications. The reason you specifically search for those words is that you want to target those groups specifically, and not, say, applications with “Progress,” “Organizing,” or “Action” in them.
For that matter, even if they also targeted liberal keywords, it would still be just as big a problem. It’s hard to think of any reasonable standard for extra review that starts with “I didn’t like their name.”


Further evidence: given that they don’t seem to have taken action against any of the groups they hassled, it seems clear that this was, in fact, an objectively bad filter.
Rather than learning from this, the IRS instead did basically the same thing again, apparently on the logic that people who dislike taxes or complain about the government can’t possibly be promoting social welfare.

Now, maybe 501(c) organizations are a big scam and don’t promote social welfare and we should get rid of them, as I’ve seen some columnists complain. But this doesn’t actually seem like the right time to have that conversation. Rather, it seems like a distraction from the fact that IRS employees decided that groups that advocated for smaller government were somehow specially untrustworthy, and acted on this opinion by singling them out for extra bureaucratic hassles. This is hugely disturbing, and right now our focus should be on making sure it doesn’t happen again, not reforming the laws governing tax-exempt organizations.


Good night Irene.... and you too Glen...
r

Glen Longino
03-26-2014, 10:17 PM
:D:D Nobody ever said it was easy being a Humanitarian in the middle of a herd of wall-eyed Troglodytes!
Persevere, amigo!;)

Glen Longino
03-26-2014, 10:21 PM
louder, rod, we can't hear you!!!!!!!

Arizona Bay
03-26-2014, 10:22 PM
You forgot already, eh?


"The Treasury inspector general (IG) whose report helped drive the IRS targeting controversy says it limited its examination to conservative groups because of a request from House Republicans.
A spokesman for Russell George, Treasury’s inspector general for tax administration, said they were asked by House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) “to narrowly focus on Tea Party organizations.”


Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/307813-irs-ig-says-audit-limited-to-tea-party-groups#ixzz2x86UCuVN

Ian McColgin
03-26-2014, 10:29 PM
No, they did not forget. They are just following the Goebbles theory of repetition.

It should be noted that it's only a coincidence that it's right wingers on this Forum who so ably employing Goebbles', himself a right winger, repetition principle. Extreme left wing types, like Stalinists, of whom there are none I've seen here, have done the same. The people who don't are the thoughtful conservatives and liberals who actually discuss issues rather than trade and repeat one line falsehoods.

John Smith
03-26-2014, 10:35 PM
Paul, I'm assuming you say this based on the supposed "war on women" ... I can't think of much else that one could perceive as "diminishing one's freedoms" by republicans. The current crop of democrat's actions have been replete with examples where the government is intruding into peoples lives and diminishing their freedoms.

So, the Obama administration's attack on the "Little Sisters of the Poor" is not attacking individual freedoms, but passing an abortion related law (Texas) that a hospital be within a reasonable distance from any clinic performing abortions is infringing on individual rights...? How can you be so blind. You actually believe such rubbish that there is a war on women by the republican party... but fail to see the destruction caused by Obama and his administration when so many things they have done massively affect all americans negatively... especially Obamacare. The current administration has targeted select businesses based on environmental extremism. Thousands have lost their jobs. I'll not bother to list problems caused by Obamacare..but if you are awake, they are self evident. The economic policies of this administration have not served us well. Your comment on "diminishing ones freedoms" is so wrong headed ... what you accuse the Republicans of in truth applies to the Democrats.

BTW, the general Republican view is not the same as the "Tea Party". The Tea Party simply stands for fiscal responsibility and smaller government. They want the government to stay the hell out of their lives and stick with making us safe and maintaining our infrastructure.

Further... have you ever thought allowing over 11 million illegal aliens amnesty is not a good thing for the country? Do you have any idea of the cost of this to the taxpayers. Did you bother to see the following film? This producer was a non-political individual before making this film.



The Dems have pushed this agenda by not enforcing our laws simply to increase their voting bloc but thats just fine I suppose? Do you think the Dems are doing this because they think it is best for the country?

This administration created a climate where the IRS targeted conservative groups simply to stifle their political activities. This is criminal. There is no way you can defend a massive government if you are objective... unless you see cradle to grave entitlement creating a "better nation". Yeah, the democrats are just peachy keeno neat!




Conservatives are for all people seizing all the freedoms expoused by our nations founders, and you know it. The Democrats will pass a law infringing on your right of self determination in a heartbeat. Have you been paying attention lately to whats going on?

Lets talk about freedoms...

Democrats are responsible for massively increasing government spending with no regard to the national debt... and they really seem to desire no debt limit. This puts us all at risk of losing freedoms and rights. You see what happens in places like Greece or California and ignore this most important issue? Obama has spent almost more than all the presidents in the past added together...

Choose Paul... perceived made up social issues or economic survival....

http://www.hyscience.com/anderson_Presidents'%20Avg%20Deficits-1.img_assist_custom-640x480.jpg (http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2011/04/obamas_deficit.php)






Conservatives believe our nation is awesome and can achieve anything... even put a man on the moon duh! Conservatism is about freeing all the people to be awesome. Allowing people to create wealth from nothing. You can write a screenplay, develop a business plan, have a great idea... and create jobs for many and create millions of dollars of wealth for the workers and yourself. Thats capitalism. Real freedom in a democracy allows such freedom to achieve anything you are capable of and willing to work for. The freedom to excel is for all.

The healthcare in the USA was the best in the world before Obamacare even though we had many problems. Folks from other countries came here when they required the best of the best specialists. No one could be turned away from any Emergency facility for care. Seventy something percent of folks who had insurance were satisfied. Revamping the entire healthcare system with a total lack of bipartisanship was flat out wrong.

There were much simpler solutions to deal with those who did not have healthcare insurance like extending and modifying (appropriately) medicaid for example. All the pain that Obamacare has caused was simply not necessary and in the end... was caused by just plain "feel good" ideology and stupidity ... and of course, incompetence.

Perhaps a bipartisan commission formed to address this issue with an ample amount of healthcare professionals in the mix would have been a good start to a healthcare solution for the country. The Democrats just knew they had the majority and wanted to just pass something and fix it later... the problem is that what they passed is such a cluster that its unfixable. The next attempt at national healthcare (to fix or replace Obamacare) will at least have the advantage of seeing all the minefields Obamacare hit!





Your first bullet is based on a false premise... we need the military that we need... to manage whatever tasks that are necessary in this world of terrorism. A blanket drawing down without careful analysis of what exactly is needed for our security is shortsighted and wrong.

The Dems proposing a program to work on infrastructure without a realistic way to pay for it is not a solution. Just borrowing the money from our future is also not a solution. The solution to weaning us off oil will be solved by technology... it seems to me the pressure applied by the environmental wacko's blows this point out of proportion.



"Dumbing down"... gimme a break. What a genuinely "general" statement" that is simply not true. The conservatives I know are highly informed about what freedom is Paul. You seem to be buying the propaganda from the left. There are millions of people who voted for Obama who don't have the faintest idea about 95% of the issues...but they certainly know what they will get from the government. This broad brush is simply ... CRAP.


.

I will say that many of us were angered that the Republicans did not keep to a higher level of discourse in the big picture. Note, Obama and Hillary had a pretty good battle too.
The willingness to say anything by the lame stream media far surpassed anything said by the Republican candidates. In case you missed it, the Obama campaign along with massive help from the lame stream media were pretty much lacking in any restraint in the degree of viciousness of their attacks on the Republicans. The Obama administration as seen in action will do or say anything to not only win an election but to avoid telling the truth... see lying about Benghazi... IRS, Fast and Furious.

RodB

If our healthcare system was the best in the world, how come it ranked so low in results?

Why is it putting a man on the moon was a mission conceived by a democrat?

Why do abortion clinics, with great safety records, need to meet new standards that are impossible for them to meet?

You can't win this argument.

And, please tell me how much of the deficit/debt under Obama stems from polices Obama got enacted, and note it was Clinton who has such good numbers.

Jimmy W
03-26-2014, 10:42 PM
I listened to the first video until it was apparent that the speaker was delusional. That was about two minutes in.
I made to 1:58.

John Smith
03-26-2014, 10:49 PM
I learned one thing on this thread: I must not be a modern liberal.

Chip-skiff
03-26-2014, 10:56 PM
I learned one thing on this thread: I must not be a modern liberal.

That's one possibility. The other is that the guy knows his audience and is working them in a shameless way.

RodB
03-26-2014, 11:08 PM
"The Treasury inspector general (IG) whose report helped drive the IRS targeting controversy says it limited its examination to conservative groups because of a request from House Republicans.
A spokesman for Russell George, Treasury’s inspector general for tax administration, said they were asked by House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) “to narrowly focus on Tea Party organizations.”


Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-mone...#ixzz2x86UCuVN (http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/307813-irs-ig-says-audit-limited-to-tea-party-groups#ixzz2x86UCuVN)

I read this but I have seen it nowhere else and if it was true I'm sure it would be a major story or this is BS or just not relevant to what the IRS did in the real world.




If our healthcare system was the best in the world, how come it ranked so low in results?

An awful lots of folks with serious medical problems sure come to the old USA if they can... BTW, the majority of doctors I have talked to about medicine in other countries sure make the point that none of em practice medicine as we do in the USA in regards to resources and the latest technology.



Why is it putting a man on the moon was a mission conceived by a democrat?

Why is it that a Republican President ended slavery? ( just as relevant as your dopy comment).
I'd say it took a team of Americans... divisive forumite!


Why do abortion clinics, with great safety records, need to meet new standards that are impossible for them to meet?

They are not impossible and improving the safety net for risky medical procedures is a good thing.


You can't win this argument. Wanna bet? Elections are coming.


And, please tell me how much of the deficit/debt under Obama stems from polices Obama got enacted, and note it was Clinton who has such good numbers.

Boy you sound like a squeaky broken record... Obama owns this economy now... and his policies have served us poorly!!!
No jobs... stagnant economy in relation to jobs...

R

Gerarddm
03-26-2014, 11:08 PM
Hucksterism at its zenith.

David G
03-27-2014, 01:04 AM
“Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something.” -- Plato

ljb5
03-27-2014, 07:52 AM
0 Obama owns this economy now... and his policies have served us poorly!!!
No jobs... stagnant economy in relation to jobs...

Hogwash.

Since January of 2010, the US economy has added 7.5 Million jobs --- about twenty times the number of jobs added in the entire Bush presidency.

http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/latest_numbers_CES0000000001_2009_2014_all_period_ M02_data.gif

The unemployment rate has dropped 3.5%.

The DOW has gone up more than 7,000 points (80%).

Inflation remains very low and stable. Mortgage rates are still very close to all-time lows.

Gasoline is cheaper now than it was 7 years ago.

The number of uninsured people is dropping.

Housing starts are up. Foreclosure rates are down.

The US deficit is shrinking at the fastest rate in modern history.

Consumer confidence is at the highest level in seven years... and GDP growth appears to be on the upswing.

Exports are up and the US trade deficit is at its smallest level in 14 years. (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/20/business/us-current-account-deficit-is-smallest-in-14-years.html?_r=0)

Sure, it's been a long, tough recovery, but no one who knows how to read a calendar could possibly blame Obama for the crash or fail to credit him for the recovery.

Rum_Pirate
03-27-2014, 08:06 AM
You forgot mention, among there things,


The Outstanding Public Debt as of 27 Mar 2014 at 01:04:33 PM GMT is:


http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/debtiv.gif


The estimated population of the United States is 317,905,454
so each citizen's share of this debt is $55,238.02.The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$2.75 billion per day since September 30, 2012!

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

oznabrag
03-27-2014, 08:40 AM
Hucksterism at its zenith.

If only this were so.

I'm afraid it is going to get much worse.

Tom Montgomery
03-27-2014, 08:41 AM
An excellent post, Paul, that mirrors my own experience and position.

I too started out as a William F. Buckley, National Review type conservative. But after grasping the long-term Conservative strategy of "Starve the Beast," relentless pandering to the religious right, and interventionist neo- con foreign policy (what has ever been more feckless than Reagan cutting and then running in Beirut after a terrorist attack?) I eventually rejected the GOP as irresponsible.

The 21st century T-publican clown car is a dangerous joke.
m

John Smith
03-27-2014, 08:52 AM
I read this but I have seen it nowhere else and if it was true I'm sure it would be a major story or this is BS or just not relevant to what the IRS did in the real world.




An awful lots of folks with serious medical problems sure come to the old USA if they can... BTW, the majority of doctors I have talked to about medicine in other countries sure make the point that none of em practice medicine as we do in the USA in regards to resources and the latest technology.




Why is it that a Republican President ended slavery? ( just as relevant as your dopy comment).
I'd say it took a team of Americans... divisive forumite!
Nothing more recent. You think today's Republican party would end slavery?

They are not impossible and improving the safety net for risky medical procedures is a good thing.
Find a source that tells us how many women suffered from abortion related problems in the clinics, as compared to how many suffered giving birth in hospitals. Hint: giving birth is statistically more dangerous to the mother than having an abortion.
Wanna bet? Elections are coming.

Which mans what. People vote what they believe. What they believe is often not true. And they vote against their own best interest all the time.

Boy you sound like a squeaky broken record... Obama owns this economy now... and his policies have served us poorly!!!
No jobs... stagnant economy in relation to jobs...
How does he own it? What economic policies has he gotten through congress. I remember several efforts to rebuild our infrastructure using American supplies, but none got past Republicans in congress, so how does he own it?
R
Christopher Reeves lived here but went to Israel for his care.

How do people in Canada, England, etc. pay for medical care they come here to get? There universal health insurance doesn't work outside their borders unless they purchase travel insurance.

Give me a list of people that come here for medical care. Exclude those with the resources to pay for it all themselves, and see how long your list is.

John Smith
03-27-2014, 08:53 AM
You forgot mention, among there things,

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/[/FONT][/COLOR]

And YOU will not tell us how much of that debt is from Obama policies. Or you won't tell us, because so little of it is. I don't think you can attribute as much as $1 trillion of that debt to policies he's put in place.

Rum_Pirate
03-27-2014, 09:04 AM
And YOU will not tell us how much of that debt is from Obama policies. Or you won't tell us, because so little of it is. I don't think you can attribute as much as $1 trillion of that debt to policies he's put in place. Many (certainly the 'us' and 'our gang') forumites blame President Bush for everything that happened in his term in office and also for lots of what happened under President Obama's term of office.
So the 'our gang' rule is that everything bad that happens under President Obama's term of office is not his fault and everything good that happens under President Obama's term of office is his doing.
Kinda have your cake and eat it.

Keith Wilson
03-27-2014, 09:04 AM
I'll give our friend Rod an economic analogy. Two brothers share a car. One goes for a joyride with his friend, a rich kid with a fondness for margaritas and recreational Colombian powder; they crash it. The other brother gets it pulled out of the ditch, puts in a new radiator, pounds out the fenders so the wheels turn, replaces the windshield, and gets it running again. It isn't like it was, looks kinda rough, but it works, and he's made an appointment at the body shop to get the rest of the work done. The weekend rolls around, brother #1 has a date and wants the car. Brother #2 says, "Hell no; look what you did to it last time we let you drive!" His brother responds: "Me? You've been working on it for a week now, and just look at the thing! All bashed up, leaking oil, the front end out of alignment; looks like total crap! Don't whine at me; you own it now! You don't know what you're doing; time to let somebody competent take over!"

http://angrybearblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Unemployment-IC-to-CLF.gif

ljb5
03-27-2014, 09:18 AM
You forgot mention, among there things,

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/debtiv.gif


I didn't forget it. I'm just trying to give you a little history and perspective.

If you want to present yourself as a person who thinks you have to make an effort to dig a little deeper than just the headline number.

The debt clock didn't start on January 20th, 2009.

Until you are willing to ask yourself questions like which policies create that debt and who supported them, you're not really addressing the subject.

Stop being so superficial in your analysis. You must be willing to challenge yourself to dig deeper into the numbers, seek greater understanding, ask questions that challenge your preconceived notions and strive to understand complex issues instead of trying to reduce them to simple jabs.

As a matter of simple math, there is no way to deny the fact that tax revenues took a huge drop right before Obama was sworn in, declining from about $2.7 trillion in 2007 to $2.1 trillion in 2009. That is entirely related to the economic crisis that started before Obama was sworn in.

Anyone who understands the simple mathematical relationship between tax revenues and deficits will understand how that effects the national debt. Even if Obama had not increased spending at all, this still made it impossible for the debt to not increase.

This isn't a political argument. This is simple math. If you can't do simple math, you have no business even attempting to discuss this issue.

Now, we've already seen that you don't understand simple chemistry or physics (like Le Chatlier's Principle and the 1st Law of Thermodynamics).... but let's see if you can understand simple math.

Rum_Pirate
03-27-2014, 10:23 AM
I didn't forget it. I'm just trying to give you a little history and perspective.. You just conveniently forgot to mention it.|;)

John of Phoenix
03-27-2014, 10:30 AM
Paul, I think you may have hit a nerve.

This administration created a climate where the IRS targeted conservative groups simply to stifle their political activities.

This is simply a lie.Keith it does my heart good to see you call this for what it is without any sugar coating. "Reasonable" doesn't work with psychosis.

But as we're witnessing, nothing does. When one is so far removed from reality, there's no hope and it seems about 20% of the population is in this condition. On a positive note, The Angry White Guys are a dying breed.

John of Phoenix
03-27-2014, 10:32 AM
You just conveniently forgot to mention it.|;)Is there anything "convenient" about not understanding what it means or is it just your particular handicap?

bogdog
03-27-2014, 10:37 AM
...On a positive note, The Angry White Guys are a dying breed.

I still worry that dying empires can be very destructive while thrashing about in their death throes.

David G
03-27-2014, 10:42 AM
https://scontent-b-sea.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/l/t1.0-9/1488033_10152067144361275_1778014415_n.jpg

Osborne Russell
03-27-2014, 12:13 PM
An excellent post, Paul, that mirrors my own experience and position.

I too started out as a William F. Buckley, National Review type conservative. But after grasping the long-term Conservative strategy of "Starve the Beast," relentless pandering to the religious right, and interventionist neo- con foreign policy (what has ever been more feckless than Reagan cutting and then running in Beirut after a terrorist attack?) I eventually rejected the GOP as irresponsible.

The 21st century T-publican clown car is a dangerous joke.
m

They have no interest in governing. They're in it for the money. See, e.g. Sarah Palin.

Osborne Russell
03-27-2014, 12:20 PM
The current administration has targeted select businesses based on environmental extremism. Thousands have lost their jobs.

Name one.


BTW, the general Republican view is not the same as the "Tea Party". The Tea Party simply stands for fiscal responsibility and smaller government. They want the government to stay the hell out of their lives and stick with making us safe and maintaining our infrastructure.

Why do you need an extra party?


Conservatives believe our nation is awesome and can achieve anything... even put a man on the moon duh! Conservatism is about freeing all the people to be awesome. Allowing people to create wealth from nothing. You can write a screenplay, develop a business plan, have a great idea... and create jobs for many and create millions of dollars of wealth for the workers and yourself. Thats capitalism. Real freedom in a democracy allows such freedom to achieve anything you are capable of and willing to work for. The freedom to excel is for all.

American exceptionalists believe that horse S, not conservatives.

Osborne Russell
03-27-2014, 12:23 PM
I still worry that dying empires can be very destructive while thrashing about in their death throes.

They've bought a mountain of arms & ammo since Obama was elected.

oznabrag
03-27-2014, 12:32 PM
They've bought a mountain of arms & ammo since Obama was elected.

That's the funny part.

One of the most famous quotes from NB Forrest came from the battle of Bryce's Crossroads.

Having routed the Yankees, he pursued them across the wide bottomland through churned-up mud and over several, narrow bridges. Their small arms and packs lay everywhere, and as Forrest crossed one of the bridges, he found a broken wagon hitched to a crippled horse blocking his way.

Without hesitation, he used his mount to push the obstacle into the creek and screamed at his men to get after them! "They're getting away with my cannon!"

HIS cannon.

Keith Wilson
03-27-2014, 12:32 PM
I don't think RodB actually has the slightest interest in understanding how modern liberals think. If he did, he would read things written by liberals and those that liberals regularly listen to. Instead, he posts things purporting to explain how liberals think, but which actually go on at length about how awful they are. A reasonable conclusion is that what he really wants is to have his opinions supported.

ccmanuals
03-27-2014, 12:35 PM
I don't think RodB actually has the slightest interest in understanding how modern liberals think. If he did, he would read things written by liberals and those that liberals regularly listen to. Instead, he posts things purporting to explain how liberals think, but which actually go on at length about how awful they are. A reasonable conclusion is that what he really wants is to have his opinions supported.

Spot on.

David G
03-27-2014, 12:39 PM
Hmmmm... ya think?

There's a reason I have him on ignore. He is the epitome of the lost cause. For those of you who choose to attempt to engage with him on a serious level... bless you. I will pray to St. Jude on your behalf.

Lew Barrett
03-27-2014, 12:40 PM
I don't think RodB actually has the slightest interest in understanding how modern liberals think. If he did, he would read things written by liberals and those that liberals regularly listen to. Instead, he posts things purporting to explain how liberals think, but which actually go on at length about how awful they are. A reasonable conclusion is that what he really wants is to have his opinions supported.

I believe this was the point Emily was making. He quotes conservative pundits in an effort to demonstrate liberal thinking. That's exactly like harvesting the oats not from the plant, but after the horse has digested them.

RodB
03-27-2014, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by John Smith:Nothing more recent. You think today's Republican party would end slavery?

This comment illustrates your pathology... you fricking libs believe a lot of pure BS if you can write something like this. How can you expect to find any common ground with such delusions?


Originally posted by John Smith:How does he own it? What economic policies has he gotten through congress. I remember several efforts to rebuild our infrastructure using American supplies, but none got past Republicans in congress, so how does he own it?

The improvements in the economy are not because of Obama but in spite of him. I am absolutely certain the economy would have been significantly better if Romney had been elected. Most of the proposed bills the Dems have wanted to pass (suggested by Obama in speeches etc) would have made things worse, not better by just increasing the debt with no reasonable cap on spending. Luckily the congress was able to impede such bill passage. Obama's poor economic performance is due to the fear stemming from Obamacare and other economic policies of this administration that have had a very negative effect on the economy by adding a high degree of uncertainty for business. Further his lack of action on projects like the Canadian pipeline have been lost opportunities to help the economy due to poor judgement.



Originally posted by Keith Wilson: I'll give our friend Rod an economic analogy. Two brothers share a car. One goes for a joyride with his friend, a rich kid with a fondness for margaritas and recreational Colombian powder; they crash it. The other brother gets it pulled out of the ditch, puts in a new radiator, pounds out the fenders so the wheels turn, replaces the windshield, and gets it running again. It isn't like it was, looks kinda rough, but it works, and he's made an appointment at the body shop to get the rest of the work done. The weekend rolls around, brother #1 has a date and wants the car. Brother #2 says, "Hell no; look what you did to it last time we let you drive!" His brother responds: "Me? You've been working on it for a week now, and just look at the thing! All bashed up, leaking oil, the front end out of alignment; looks like total crap! Don't whine at me; you own it now! You don't know what you're doing; time to let somebody competent take over!"

Although I don't believe it, many sources have chimed in that there was plenty of blame for the financial crisis to go around. I think Barny Frank and his cohorts get a lot of blame for pushing for loans for all ...whether they could afford it or not. The majority of the American people were against TARP and it is likely that the only reason Bush went along in the first place was that they did not know what would happen with no TARP and he was able to leave the Presidency to Obama with some grace time and let him solve the ongoing problems watching how things developed. Now, with the President in office for five plus years we have the slowest recovery in history from some of the sources I read. Obama wrongly blocks the Canadian pipeline which would have many positive effects on our economy and create jobs...which by the way... this has been the most studied project in history for environmental impact. How many jobs have been lost to an out of control EPA? How many jobs have not been available to the country because of Obamacare.

Your analogy above should be changed in that the first brother was not really responsible for the damage... only spending some extra money (Iraq war) on accessories to increase the cost some. Actually, once the first brother walked away... the auto was totally owned by the second brother with full responsibility to repair and keep her running. For at least 5 years he has spent lots of money on many things that sounded good but only made the auto at best look ok...but did not repair the real problems (create jobs). The end results is an auto not much different than when the first brother walked away simply because the second brother has spent resources unwisely and had no skills to repair the car himself or the smarts to get it done with the resources he has. He continues to dream up newer ways to fix the car but his image of a functioning auto is an auto with 43 after market additions at a cost of 10 times the original auto.

RodB


http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/07/28/theres-an-economic-boom-lurking-once-president-obamas-2nd-term-ends/


There's An Economic Boom Lurking Once President Obama's 2nd Term Ends

The magician’s trick is deception, based on misdirection and distraction. He draws your attention over here, while he is carrying out the trick over there. President Obama’s economic policy speech last week at Knox College in Galesville, Ill. was a classic case of such misdirection, distraction, and deception.


He talked a lot about championing the middle class, a ploy he learned from Saul Alinsky, while all his policies have been trashing the middle class. He talked a lot about economic growth, while all his policies have been trashing economic growth. That is because the trick he is carrying out is to deceive you into supporting an Americanized version of his leftist ideology, which inherently trashes economic growth and the middle class.
For Barack Obama, the whole purpose of his public life is to foist the leftist ideology of his father on a mesmerized American public. He uses the middle class to achieve this goal like a cheap date, dazzling her with big talk of economic growth, which he has no intention of ever delivering.
The truth is Obama disdains economic growth and the middle class, because both are the progenitors of financial and political independence. What he treasures is the neediness of government dependency, which is the progenitor of a political machine, trading government handouts for votes.
Obama said in his speech he is for “Good jobs. A better bargain for the middle class and folks working to join it. An economy that grows from the middle out.” So where has that been for the last 5 years that he has been President?...

To see more: http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/07/28/theres-an-economic-boom-lurking-once-president-obamas-2nd-term-ends/

Paul Pless
03-27-2014, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by Paul Pless:
Over the years, I have come to reject that conservatism, as practiced by the Republicans and the Tea party, not only fails to protect individual freedoms, they actively work to diminish one's freedoms.
Paul, I'm assuming you say this based on the supposed "war on women" ... I can't think of much else that one could perceive as "diminishing one's freedoms" by republicans.

That is one area yes. But not even close to what I consider to be the largest nor most insidious attack against 'the rights of the individual'. I see Republicans standing almost without fail on the side of big business and big oil and against the personal and property rights of individuals. I cherish my access to clean air and water, I consider that a right. Big oil and energy could give a damn about that in their quest for quick and easy extraction. I see Republicans siding with big business to reduce culpability or responsibility for wrongs committed by corporate America - things like capping damages for oil spills. I see Republicans taking the side of a certain type of Christian, in a way that gets between me and my pursuit of no religion and others' pursuits of their non Christian religions. Rod, we are not a Christian nation. You may decry that, but that's a fact.

John of Phoenix
03-27-2014, 12:53 PM
The magician’s trick is deception, based on misdirection and distraction. He draws your attention over here, while he is carrying out the trick over there. And reds have fallen for the same deception time after time, year after year, election after election, "world without end" - the consummate victims of "Fear, hate and lies".

Lew Barrett
03-27-2014, 12:54 PM
+1 Y>

Thanks. I enjoyed penning it and I believe the sentiment (not just the way I expressed it, but as has been said regularly by several folks throughout this thread) is all that needs be said in response to the videos.

I too watched them for as long as I could tolerate giving them time. Beyond all else, those videos commit the unpardonable sin of being boring.

If I want to know what, for example, Noam Chomsky, Al Franken or Theodore Roosevelt have to say on a topic, that's who I would read. The problem with lazy people is that they seem to need information already digested and processed for themselves. I would personally prefer not to chew on anything that I cannot myself change the color, aroma or texture of.

John of Phoenix
03-27-2014, 12:57 PM
Lew:
The problem with lazy people is that they seem to need information already digested and processed for themselves.That's why they can't understand nuance - black or white, nothing is gray.

David G
03-27-2014, 01:01 PM
That is one area yes. But not even close to what I consider to be the largest nor most insidious attack against 'the rights of the individual'. I see Republicans standing almost without fail on the side of big business and big oil and against the personal and property rights of individuals. I cherish my access to clean air and water, I consider that a right. Big oil and energy could give a damn about that in their quest for quick and easy extraction. I see Republicans siding with big business to reduce culpability or responsibility for wrongs committed by corporate America - things like capping damages for oil spills. I see Republicans taking the side of a certain type of Christian, in a way that gets between me and my pursuit of no religion and others' pursuits of their non Christian religions. Rod, we are not a Christian nation. You may decry that, but that's a fact.

Just so. We are a nation dedicated to Religious FREEDOM. I think where people get confused is that we were founded by folks who were largely Christian. And thus we have remained for a long time. But that is changing now. Because part of the motivation for our founding was resistance to having a particular brand of Christianity forced upon us... the founders made it clear that we were a land of personal choice when it came to such matters. And they took particular pains to eschew the mixing of ANY religious influence with governing.

Lew Barrett
03-27-2014, 01:07 PM
And you believe this, despite a nearly 100 year history that shows, without any doubt whatsoever, that the economy ALWAYS does much better with a Democrat in the White House (I'm talking about economic history, a provable fact... not speculation. Entire books have been written which prove this point). The fact that you believe this with 'absolute certainty' demonstrates your irrationality. I'm sure you'd LIKE it to be the case... you just have no evidence that it would be.

Yes. See the quote from Paul that David liked and I'll re-quote because it expresses a fundamental issue: the growth of the structure that we Americans currently have to wrestle with; corporate domination of power. This is demonstrable with facts (Paul simply states the proposition) if Rod feels compelled to argue the statement.



........not even close to what I consider to be the largest nor most insidious attack against 'the rights of the individual'. I see Republicans standing almost without fail on the side of big business and big oil and against the personal and property rights of individuals. I cherish my access to clean air and water, I consider that a right. Big oil and energy could give a damn about that in their quest for quick and easy extraction. I see Republicans siding with big business to reduce culpability or responsibility for wrongs committed by corporate America - things like capping damages for oil spills. I see Republicans taking the side of a certain type of Christian, in a way that gets between me and my pursuit of no religion and others' pursuits of their non Christian religions. Rod, we are not a Christian nation. You may decry that, but that's a fact.

Paul Pless
03-27-2014, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by Paul Pless:Going forward, the two biggest political issues personal to me are:





Withdrawing from the world stage as a militaristic police power with a coinciding reduction in military spending


Your first bullet is based on a false premise... we need the military that we need... to manage whatever tasks that are necessary in this world of terrorism. A blanket drawing down without careful analysis of what exactly is needed for our security is shortsighted and wrong.

I never mentioned anything about a blanket drawing down.

First, I believe that our energy policy and our foreign policy are intricately related and are much more complex than they were during the Cold War. During the Cold War we built a military and military industrial complex that had one purpose - contain communism from spreading. We did so spectacularly well. During the time, the Middle east was an after thought, except for that it was necessary that we control the flow of oil as much as was possible. And we did that as well. By installing dictatorships and sowing discord and imbalance among the various nations in the Middle East. They were and remain tribal and were and continue to be easily manipulated towards chaos - that's their cross to bear.

Coinciding with the end of the Cold War we have a seen a rise in drives towards independence from a wide variety of voices in the Middle East. They want independence from colonialism, and to the truth, who can blame them, we've been horrible stewards to them. Terrorism is a response to our military and our economic presence there. I'm not so naive to think that withdrawing completely and quickly from the middle east would be to the benefit of the U.S. or the world. But I do think a reduced 'heavy handedness' would be a very good thing. Further, I would very much never again again like to see a president kiss or hold the hand of Saudi king. So I do agree with you that we need to maintain a vigilance over regional security and terrorism in the Middle East.

But, our military budget is larger than the next twelve nations combined. That serves us poorly. for one thing, we defend the borders for some of largest and most competitive rivals in trade. Why do we keep 50,000 troops on the Korean border so that we may buy cheaper Hyundai cars, plasma tv's, and cell phones. Similarly with Japan. And Europe. We subsidize their militaries and their defense, so that their tax burdens are lessened and so that they can take that money and invest it in being more competitive then we are in manufacturing. It fucking boggles my mind that this continues to be promoted and advocated twenty five years after the fall of the communism as an economic system.

Let me tie some themes together. We should cut our military spending in locations were it makes sense to - the Far East and Europe. We should remain vigilant in the Middle East. In the mean time we should take that money we were spending in Korea and Japan and Europe and give it to our military industrial complex to develop alternative energies and to employ Americans and to make our society better. And, when we have accomplished that, energy independence, then we can pull back from the sandbox - as we should have done a long time ago - this was an issue in the 1960's and came to head in 1973-74 - and it still an issue now, we've never addressed it, we've only kicked the can down the road. And you know what Rod, as oil continues to get harder and harder to extarct and the demand for it by emerging economies continues to grow, the politics and militarization of the politics of it, are going to get nothing but uglier, dirtier and more expensive from both a cost of money perspective and cost of American lives perspective.

I think a major difference in the Republican approach to these issues and the liberal approach (note i did not say democrat) is that liberals want to 'progress' beyond this status quo. We want a solution to energy, pollution, and wars. Republicans focus only on extraction and protecting the ability to extract by threat of military force overseas and eminent domain domestically.

That's how a modern liberal thinks, and I'm proud to be one.

John of Phoenix
03-27-2014, 01:13 PM
I am absolutely certain the economy would have been significantly better if Romney had been elected.

Psychosis is a loss of contact with reality that usually includes:



False beliefs about what is taking place or who one is (delusions)

John Smith
03-27-2014, 01:26 PM
Many (certainly the 'us' and 'our gang') forumites blame President Bush for everything that happened in his term in office and also for lots of what happened under President Obama's term of office.
So the 'our gang' rule is that everything bad that happens under President Obama's term of office is not his fault and everything good that happens under President Obama's term of office is his doing.
Kinda have your cake and eat it.

G.W. Bush will always be responsible for things he did, no matter how many presidents come along. That's the way it works. It also works that no president enters office with a clean slate; he inherits the problems/benefits created by those who went before him.

The simple fact of history is G.W. inherited a world at peace and a balanced budget. He changed both of those.

It's a really simple question that you avoid answering: how much of our present debt is the result of Obama policies? If you are going to blame his policies for our debt, you ought to be able to point to those policies and tell us how much debt they've added.

Is it your view that Bush took his two wars, his unpaid Medicare part D, and his two tax cuts with him when he left office? He didn't.

All presidents, including Lincoln and Washington, will always be accountable for the things they did. As will G.W. As will Obama, but it's only fair you blame Obama for policies Obama puts in place.

John Smith
03-27-2014, 01:32 PM
This comment illustrates your pathology... you fricking libs believe a lot of pure BS if you can write something like this. How can you expect to find any common ground with such delusions?



The improvements in the economy are not because of Obama but in spite of him. I am absolutely certain the economy would have been significantly better if Romney had been elected. Most of the proposed bills the Dems have wanted to pass (suggested by Obama in speeches etc) would have made things worse, not better by just increasing the debt with no reasonable cap on spending. Luckily the congress was able to impede such bill passage. Obama's poor economic performance is due to the fear stemming from Obamacare and other economic policies of this administration that have had a very negative effect on the economy by adding a high degree of uncertainty for business. Further his lack of action on projects like the Canadian pipeline have been lost opportunities to help the economy due to poor judgement.





Although I don't believe it, many sources have chimed in that there was plenty of blame for the financial crisis to go around. I think Barny Frank and his cohorts get a lot of blame for pushing for loans for all ...whether they could afford it or not. The majority of the American people were against TARP and it is likely that the only reason Bush went along in the first place was that they did not know what would happen with no TARP and he was able to leave the Presidency to Obama with some grace time and let him solve the ongoing problems watching how things developed. Now, with the President in office for five plus years we have the slowest recovery in history from some of the sources I read. Obama wrongly blocks the Canadian pipeline which would have many positive effects on our economy and create jobs...which by the way... this has been the most studied project in history for environmental impact. How many jobs have been lost to an out of control EPA? How many jobs have not been available to the country because of Obamacare.

Your analogy above should be changed in that the first brother was not really responsible for the damage... only spending some extra money (Iraq war) on accessories to increase the cost some. Actually, once the first brother walked away... the auto was totally owned by the second brother with full responsibility to repair and keep her running. For at least 5 years he has spent lots of money on many things that sounded good but only made the auto at best look ok...but did not repair the real problems (create jobs). The end results is an auto not much different than when the first brother walked away simply because the second brother has spent resources unwisely and had no skills to repair the car himself or the smarts to get it done with the resources he has. He continues to dream up newer ways to fix the car but his image of a functioning auto is an auto with 43 after market additions at a cost of 10 times the original auto.

RodB


http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/07/28/theres-an-economic-boom-lurking-once-president-obamas-2nd-term-ends/

I must have forgotten about all those jobs bills the Republican house has voted on. Must have been a coincidence that Obama's stimulus passed and things started improving.

How many permanent jobs will that pipeline create, and how much of American's drinking water is it apt to destroy?

ccmanuals
03-27-2014, 01:35 PM
Republicans fought tooth and nail to deny medical care for 9/11 First Responders. Yea, they are quite the fun bunch.

RodB
03-27-2014, 01:42 PM
That is one area yes. But not even close to what I consider to be the largest nor most insidious attack against 'the rights of the individual'. I see Republicans standing almost without fail on the side of big business and big oil and against the personal and property rights of individuals. I cherish my access to clean air and water, I consider that a right. Big oil and energy could give a damn about that in their quest for quick and easy extraction. I see Republicans siding with big business to reduce culpability or responsibility for wrongs committed by corporate America - things like capping damages for oil spills. I see Republicans taking the side of a certain type of Christian, in a way that gets between me and my pursuit of no religion and others' pursuits of their non Christian religions. Rod, we are not a Christian nation. You may decry that, but that's a fact.

Paul, both parties have unhealthy connections to big business. The system needs to be realigned so that money alone does not make the winner of elections. For me its issues like the foreign policy missteps and seemingly complete lack of understanding how to deal with difficult governments displayed by the current administration that disappoint. For me its the lack of action in areas where commonsense dictates the right choice... pipeline, enforcing the Immigration laws in a way thats best for the country (protecting citizens in Arizona from harm)...etc. Further, the scale of the negative effects caused by the badly thought out Obmamcare (ACA) plan is astounding and certainly has dampened the spirits and made for a negative outlook by the majority of the country. This also has a strong negative effect on our economy.

I think conservatives are rational concerning the environment. I do not like what I have seen with fracking taking place in west Texas. This process definitely needs lots of oversight to protect the people. I have seen a story where locals were having some problems close to a plant.

I do not like many of the stances of the Republican "old guard" and much prefer the conservative take on most issues. Big business needs to be replaced with "whats best for the country". True conservatives... not just the "somewhat conservative" Republicans believe in a basic set of ideals... from freedom for every american (to be awesome and have no limitations on what they can achieve and the life they can have if they work for it), unfettered capitalism, virtue and right and wrong (this has played an important part of our success since our early beginnings), etc. The conservatives I know certainly cherish access to clean water and air and consider it a right. I think more and more people are coming around to the idea that the government is not going to do a good job at much ... and that this long term situation where the government continually does not do whats best for the country is pushing americans to the edge of tolerance.



RodB

John of Phoenix
03-27-2014, 01:51 PM
protecting citizens in Arizona from harm:D You and reality = oil and water. How many bodies have you counted? :D

John Smith
03-27-2014, 01:58 PM
Republicans fought tooth and nail to deny medical care for 9/11 First Responders. Yea, they are quite the fun bunch.
It is also the GOP who is making it harder for people they believe vote for Democrats to vote. They also oppose women controlling their own health; they want a less intrusive government sticking itself inside a woman's body. They are against equal pay for equal work and laws against violence against women.

They've also been WRONG about everything for 3 decades. Dems have only been wrong some of the time. The GOP has a perfect track record.

elf
03-27-2014, 02:23 PM
It's really sad how poorly Rod handles reality.

Even sadder is the number of people who are like him.

RodB
03-27-2014, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by Paul Pless: But, our military budget is larger than the next twelve nations combined. That serves us poorly. for one thing, we defend the borders for some of largest and most competitive rivals in trade. Why do we keep 50,000 troops on the Korean border so that we may buy cheaper Hyundai cars, plasma tv's, and cell phones. Similarly with Japan. And Europe. We subsidize their militaries and their defense, so that their tax burdens are lessened and so that they can take that money and invest it in being more competitive then we are in manufacturing. It fucking boggles my mind that this continues to be promoted and advocated twenty five years after the fall of the communism as an economic system.

Let me tie some themes together. We should cut our military spending in locations were it makes sense to - the Far East and Europe. We should remain vigilant in the Middle East. In the mean time we should take that money we were spending in Korea and Japan and Europe and give it to our military industrial complex to develop alternative energies and to employ Americans and to make our society better. And, when we have accomplished that, energy independence, then we can pull back from the sandbox - as we should have done a long time ago - this was an issue in the 1960's and came to head in 1973-74 - and it still an issue now, we've never addressed it, we've only kicked the can down the road. And you know what Rod, as oil continues to get harder and harder to extarct and the demand for it by emerging economies continues to grow, the politics and militarization of the politics of it, are going to get nothing but uglier, dirtier and more expensive from both a cost of money perspective and cost of American lives perspective.

Agree with most of this... especially the nations we handle the "military tasks" for paying their own freight. The strategic placement of our troops around the world needs to be very very carefully handled to provide access and input where its needed to provide overall security for the USA.



Originally posted by Paul Pless: Terrorism is a response to our military and our economic presence there.
You are leaving out the muslim extremist problem for the entire planet. I do not believe your comment here is all of the answer at all. The jihadists will continue to try to kill us and any of the West... and it will not stop. Anyone with any intelligence will take them at their word... history shows that if they have any capability, they immediately use it against the infidels.


RodB

RodB
03-27-2014, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by Elf:
It's really sad how poorly Rod handles reality.

Even sadder is the number of people who are like him.



I have often thought the same about you.

R

John of Phoenix
03-27-2014, 02:27 PM
You are leaving out the muslim extremist problem for the entire planet. "Be afraid, be very afraid. You're of no use to us unless you're very afraid."

John of Phoenix
03-27-2014, 02:45 PM
On a positive note, The Angry White Guys are a dying breed.


I still worry that dying empires can be very destructive while thrashing about in their death throes.

Good point.

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/zACFcUAbfJSwcCxKt9FWRYKkirwV3pcbq0GJYAPTmA=w503-h894-no

RodB
03-27-2014, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by John Smith: It is also the GOP who is making it harder for people they believe vote for Democrats to vote. They also oppose women controlling their own health; they want a less intrusive government sticking itself inside a woman's body. They are against equal pay for equal work and laws against violence against women.

They've also been WRONG about everything for 3 decades. Dems have only been wrong some of the time. The GOP has a perfect track record.

Do you actually believe the crap you write. Republicans are against equal pay for equal work and laws agains violence against women... hogwash!

Why don't you read the bill the Democrats have proposed before make such statements. I can find only one bill on the "violence" comment and it was just recently redone with some changes the Rebs disagreed with. They voted for it before. Certainly any reasonable person with any commonsense would have no problem with people showing a photo ID to vote. Abortion is a more difficult issue... we are having significantly more than one million abortions in the country today... when do you think a fetus is a person.... I'm curious?

RodB



http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2014/03/rick-perry-says-talk-of-equal-pay-in-texas-governors-race-is-nonesense.html/


Democrat Wendy Davis is making pay-equity an issue in the Texas governor’s race against Republican Greg Abbott. Perry vetoed a bill in the last legislative session that would have made it easier for Texas women to file suit if they’re paid less than men for the same job. An Abbott campaign spokesman says he would have vetoed the bill too – putting Abbott and Davis on opposite side of an issue important to women voters.
On the MSNBC show “Morning Joe,” Perry defended his decision to veto the bill. “Why do we need to muddle up our statutes when we already have laws on books that clearly take care of this?” said Perry. Federal law allows women to sue for equal pay when the discrimination is discovered. State law makes it harder to file suit. Women must go to court within 180 days after the discrimination began, not when it’s discovered. The bill was designed to give women filing suit in state court the same opportunity as in federal court. Perry and Abbott say that’s unnecessary.
Perry says women have fared well in his administration: “I’ve probably had more female chiefs of staff than anybody in Texas history and they get paid well because of the performance they do. I support and lift up women in the state of Texas.” As for the Davis/Abbott dustup over equal pay, Perry said, “If they want to talk about substantive issues in Texas in this governor’s race, then let’s talk about tax policy, regulatory policy, legal policies. But to go focus on this issue of a piece of legislation that we already have laws that protect, is nonsense.”






http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/05/politics/senate-pay-equity-bill/


...Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, standing at a news conference with pay equity advocate Lilly Ledbetter, accused Republicans of "wanting to stick their heads in the sand" about the longstanding issue of women being paid less than men. "But it's clear where Democrats stand," Reid said.
The bill, which Democrats said would close loopholes in the 1963 Equal Pay Act, would require employers to prove that differences in pay were related to job performance, not gender; would prevent employers from forbidding employees from sharing salary information with each other; and would allow women who believe they were discriminated against to sue for damages.
Democrats acknowledged privately that they expected to make political gains with women by pressing to close the pay gap, which they said has women earning just 77 cents on the dollar compared with men.
Republicans, fearful that Democrats were trying to portray them as insensitive to women, argued that they oppose pay discrimination but disagree with the Democrats' bill, which was written without their input. Republicans remained largely silent about the issue in the days leading up to the vote, even as Democrats, led by the president, made an all-out push for the legislation.
Only one Republican senator, Dean Heller of Nevada, who is in a tight re-election race against Democratic Rep. Shelley Berkley, spoke on the floor against the bill. In his brief speech, Heller proposed an alternative bill to combat the problem, but Democrats criticized it as insufficient...

ljb5
03-27-2014, 02:59 PM
You just conveniently forgot to mention it.|;)

No, I did not "forget to mention it."

As I already explained, it is far too simplistic to look at just that one number and declare that it is meaningful.

I didn't mention it because I am not a simpleton.

Only a simpleton would cling to one number with such alacrity.

If you want to have a real discussion, you're going to have to open your mind up to ideas more complex than what you normally deal with.

Where did that $17 trillion in debt come from? If you're not interested in finding out, you're not really a thinker.

RodB
03-27-2014, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by Norm: Are we to presume that 'common sense' aligns precisely with your political views? I'm always amused by armchair diplomats who seem so certain when they criticize the current administration without EVER pointing out any particular actions for which they could offer alternatives.

Norm, moral cowardice in the face of those threatening invasion will come back to haunt us, not only from Russia but from Iran, North Korea, etc. We should redeploy the missile shield in Europe to negate the Russian's nukes (or at minimum put it on the table) ... arm the Ukraine and all Nato nations should anti up to comply with the article 5 of the Nato treaty if necessary.

http://www.nato.int/terrorism/five.htm

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations (http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/bt-un51.htm), will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.I have never seen a better layout of the muslim problem in the world and how badly the ground zero mosque was handled. The moral cowardice comments are explained clearly in this 13 min video.

http://youtu.be/Qg_iDPRud_c

RodB

Keith Wilson
03-27-2014, 03:05 PM
Do you actually believe the crap you write. Republicans are against equal pay for equal work . . .And then Rod posts two news items detailing Republicans opposing pay-equity bills, one in Texas, on at the national level. Nice own goal.

RodB
03-27-2014, 03:09 PM
posted by bog dog:I still worry that dying empires can be very destructive while thrashing about in their death throes.

So, are you saying Ameraica is thrashing around in it's death throes?

RodB

bogdog
03-27-2014, 03:14 PM
So, are you saying Ameraica is thrashing around in it's death throes?

RodB
Don't believe that's what I said, nope, not at all.

RodB
03-27-2014, 03:16 PM
And then Rod posts two news items detailing Republicans opposing pay-equity bills, one in Texas, on at the national level. Nice own goal.



Read the posts Keith.... the first one shows why Perry vetoed the bill, it would make it more difficult for a woman to sue and.... there are Texas laws already on the books to handle the problem. The law was proposed to simply try to make political hay by the dems.

The second example shows me that the same type of bill has been voted for by the Reps in the past... and this new version made some changes they did not approve of. Again, this law was proposed to make political hay by the dems. Ninety nine percent of the time when comments are made to demonize one party for a vote, there will always be an underlying issue that explains the vote more than simply the issue.

Perhaps, Keith, it flew over your head.

RodB

RodB
03-27-2014, 03:20 PM
I feel sorry for the Ukrainians living in the Crimea.... but I can't feel hostile towards the ethnic russians living there who widely supported reuniting with Russia. Anytime there is a geopolitical border which disrespects ethnic lines, there are going to be situations like this... and if we're very lucky, this will be as far as it goes. We have no strategic interest there which involves any threat to the security of the United States. While we may WISH we could do something, we can't. And THAT is 'common sense'.

'Moral cowardice'? Give me a frikkin' break.



When the Nato members become involved, the moral cowardice will become evident.

There is a good chance smarter/bolder behavior by our President and the other Nato members over the past 5 years could have prevented the Crimea invasion.

Now what???

RodB

RodB
03-27-2014, 03:23 PM
Where did that $17 trillion in debt come from? If you're not interested in finding out, you're not really a thinker.

When the administration is spending like a drunken sailor... we have every right to be concerned about the national debt and to point it out.

RodB

Canoeyawl
03-27-2014, 03:39 PM
There is a good chance smarter/bolder behavior by our President and the other Nato members over the past 5 years could have prevented the Crimea invasion.




"Let me fix that for you"

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42451000/jpg/_42451564_ap416collar.jpg

Peter Malcolm Jardine
03-27-2014, 03:40 PM
Norm, moral cowardice in the face of those threatening invasion will come back to haunt us, not only from Russia but from Iran, North Korea, etc. We should redeploy the missile shield in Europe to negate the Russian's nukes (or at minimum put it on the table) ... arm the Ukraine and all Nato nations should anti up to comply with the article 5 of the Nato treaty if necessary.

http://www.nato.int/terrorism/five.htm
I have never seen a better layout of the muslim problem in the world and how badly the ground zero mosque was handled. The moral cowardice comments are explained clearly in this 13 min video.

http://youtu.be/Qg_iDPRud_c

RodB

You gotta love this guy.....he can explain the entire history of the last century in just one short presentation!!
I bet he thinks the world was created in seven days too!!

BrianY
03-27-2014, 03:41 PM
We should redeploy the missile shield in Europe to negate the Russian's nukes (or at minimum put it on the table) ... arm the Ukraine and all Nato nations should anti up to comply with the article 5 of the Nato treaty if necessary.



Yes! Let's antagonize the hell outta Russia and see what they do! We might even get a chance to actually use that missile shield.

Boy, I miss the Cold War, don't you?

RodB
03-27-2014, 03:45 PM
I just LOVE pronouncements like this. Since when have you been a great, deep thinker about geopolitics and diplomacy? On exactly WHAT do you base this pronouncement? Got any experience in the field? Ever been an international diplomat? Written academic papers on the topic? Studied the history and politics of the Ukraine and Crimea on a graduate level?

Everyone likes to second-guess... especially the people least qualified and capable of doing so. Like you.

Norm, I have listened to multiple interviews of former State dept officials, ambassadors, etc.. (John Bolton) and other very knowledgable folks who have worked in foreign policy professionally... Pretty much all have said about the same things... Arm Ukraine, reinstitute the missile shield program, and "do what you say you are going to do"... when dealing with Putin.

edited to add: Appearing weak and not doing what you say you'll do is exactly the wrong thing to do.

Former Ambassador John Bolton interview from today...

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3395321315001/amb-bolton-obama-is-living-in-a-world-of-words/#sp=show-clips

RodB

John of Phoenix
03-27-2014, 03:47 PM
This has become too sad to be funny.

Michael D. Storey
03-27-2014, 03:50 PM
Glen, you sound like a man who has been to all the side shows...:d kinky liberal Texan.

You would enjoy the videos... trust me, you know I wouldn't steer you wrong.

R

perhaps we should treat this as the finger on the pulse. Just look how soon it broke down into name calling. Why not just say 'you're a great big poopie?'
Lookit, if I were the administrator who had to wade through this crap I'd find a new job, or close this forum to all persons.

Paul Pless
03-27-2014, 03:55 PM
I think conservatives are rational concerning the environment. I do not like what I have seen with fracking taking place in west Texas. This process definitely needs lots of oversight to protect the people.
The conservatives I know certainly cherish access to clean water and air and consider it a right.

Given these two statements, do I count you on the side of increasing regulation and monitoring for environmental compliance and safety of the oil, gas, and coal industries, both at the federal and the state levels?

Peter Malcolm Jardine
03-27-2014, 03:56 PM
Yessireee....a big ole poopie poop pants. I have a hard time debating a serious subject when the opening video says about five or six blatantly untrue statements in the first minute or so.

ccmanuals
03-27-2014, 04:07 PM
John Bolton? Wow, scraping the bottom of the barrel for that one. :)

ljb5
03-27-2014, 04:08 PM
Norm, I have listened to multiple interviews of former State dept officials, ambassadors, etc.. (John Bolton) and other very knowledgable folks who have worked in foreign policy professionally... Pretty much all have said about the same things... Arm Ukraine, reinstitute the missile shield program, and "do what you say you are going to do"... when dealing with Putin.


http://video.foxnews.com/v/3395321315001/amb-bolton-obama-is-living-in-a-world-of-words/#sp=show-clips

RodB

Is that what they did when Putin invaded South Ossetia and Abkhazia in 2008?

Or had you forgotten about that?

Let me guess... that doesn't count because when a Republican administration shows weakness, it doesn't count.


When the administration is spending like a drunken sailor... we have every right to be concerned about the national debt and to point it out.

Good point... except that you're about 13 years too late to the party.

Where were you when Bush nearly doubled the debt with two wars and massive tax cuts? Oh... I forgot... Dick Cheney says, "Deficits don't matter" (when there's a Republican in office.)

And what is this spending like a drunken sailor? You do realize, don't you that about 80% of the expenditures are mandatory, meaning that the current administration has no choice other than to pay the bills racked up by previous administrations.

Obama is still paying for the policies that Bush put in place. We knew that was going to happen ten years ago... but for some reason, Republicans didn't think it mattered at the time.

According to a study last year at Harvard (http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/operations/290981-study-iraq-afghanistan-wars-will-cost-more-than-4t), the Iraq war has already cost us trillions and we still have several trillion more to pay for years to come.

That's on Bush, not Obama.

The biggest line-item on the budget is the Department of Defense, which is about eight times larger than then next largest item. Since Republicans don't want to cut that one.... (and don't want to raise taxes), there are no options to cut the deficit.

This isn't politics. It's basic math. Deficit = Expenditures - Revenues. If you don't want to increase Revenues and you won't allow a decrease in the single largest Expenditure, what else can be done?

You could cut ever single penny out of the EPA or the SBA, or the NSF, but since they're only one sixty-fourth the size of the department of defense, it just wouldn't have any impact on the debt.

Keith Wilson
03-27-2014, 04:11 PM
Do you actually believe the crap you write. Republicans are against equal pay for equal work . . .And then excuses for actual votes against laws to help ensure pay equity. Nice rhetoric, but when a law is actually proposed, there's always something wrong with it, always some reason to oppose this particular law. Look, conservatives have been on the wrong side of just about every issue of equality for the past century. They were against votes for women, they were against civil rights laws, they actually managed to defeat the Equal Rights Amendment, they were against equal pay for women, (and still are in practice, despite the rhetoric), they're still against equal rights for gay folks, they're against the FAIR act . . . take your pick. Rand Paul, although he doesn't much talk about it, has supported the freedom of individuals and business to discriminate against anyone for any reason - individual freedom, don'cha know? Keep the government off your back and let people do what they want, right? And no Irish need apply. No, it did not 'go over my head". http://www.reduser.net/forum/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Glen Longino
03-27-2014, 04:37 PM
perhaps we should treat this as the finger on the pulse. Just look how soon it broke down into name calling. Why not just say 'you're a great big poopie?'
Lookit, if I were the administrator who had to wade through this crap I'd find a new job, or close this forum to all persons.

I'm actually glad Rod and his ilk have a place like this forum to express their fears, angst, phobias, and wrong-headed beliefs. Otherwise, we would not know they exist. If people that scary are lurking about, I want to know about them.:)

RodB
03-27-2014, 04:54 PM
Posted by ljb5:
This isn't politics. It's basic math. Deficit = Expenditures - Revenues. If you don't want to increase Revenues and you won't allow a decrease in the single largest Expenditure, what else can be done?

You could cut ever single penny out of the EPA or the SBA, or the NSF, but since they're only one sixty-fourth the size of the department of defense, it just wouldn't have any impact on the debt.


Since I am obviously for smaller government and believe in the T-party's fiscal responsibility agenda, I have no problem with any cuts ... especially when the funds are for non-essential items. As far as defense is concerned, I'm particularly skeptical about military spending considering the size and power of the military industrial complex. We just need to maintain enough capability to handle the future security needs for the country and any of our allies we need to support.



Posted by Keith Wilson: And then excuses for actual votes against laws to help ensure pay equity. But a law is actually proposed, there's always something wrong with it, always some reason to oppose this particular law. Look, conservatives have been on the wrong side of just about every issue of equality for the past century. They were against votes for women, they were against civil rights laws, they actually managed to defeat the Equal Rights Amendment, they were against equal pay for women, (and still are in practice, despite the rhetoric), they're still against equal rights for gay folks, they're against the FAIR act . . . take your pick. Rand Paul, although he doesn't much talk about it, has supported the freedom of individuals and business to discriminate against anyone for any reason - individual freedom, don'cha know? Keep the government off your back and let people do what they want, right? And no Irish need apply. No, it did not 'go over my head". http://www.reduser.net/forum/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

You guys see all issues as equity issues...simply because your record of "wins" has been increased using it recently. I am mainly talking about same sex marriage, which I will die disagreeing with... I just think all people can have the same rights without changing the definition of marriage and the repercussions of same. It seems a simple thing to address some of these issues but when you look into them, its certainly not as simple as you libs make out. I doubt any republican politicians are against same pay for women or bills to combat violence towards women...however, I'm sure the bills that have been mentioned had some objectional additions that make sense if you know all the facts. If not, then the politician has to stand by and explain his voting record.

I am a conservative and do not go along with either party when they both spend us into oblivion and have the same connections to powerful businesses and corporations. I'm for individual freedom and equity for all people...however, I will not vote for a Democrat simply because the Republican voted no on a bill which has many more line items besides the main issue they are being criticized for.

Massive government, income redistribution, entitlement society, a president who ignores our laws and processes, inane laws that hurt people all over the country (ACA) ... these I cannot ever vote for.

RodB

Keith Wilson
03-27-2014, 05:05 PM
You guys see all issues as equity issuesNonsense. Not all issues are equity issues. Some are. I mentioned a series of issues over the past century which genuinely involved equality, on which conservatives were really wrong , and which they fought until they lost. Then ten years later they acted like supporting them was the most obvious thing in the world. Well better late than never, I guess. It's surprising the number of issues in my lifetime on which the US right has been wrong - wrong at the time, which is what counts.

Over the past 35 years we have already had massive income redistribution - from the rest of us to the very rich. It's long past time to fix it.

RodB
03-27-2014, 05:06 PM
I'm actually glad Rod and his ilk have a place like this forum to express their fears, angst, phobias, and wrong-headed beliefs. Otherwise, we would not know they exist. If people that scary are lurking about, I want to know about them.:)

I'm willing to help you improve your vocabulary, Glen. We can hook up an electrical collar and I'll have the control. Every time I see you write the word "troglodyte", I'll just zap you. In a few weeks, you won't be able to abide the word and you will be fixed! |:)

RodB

RodB
03-27-2014, 05:09 PM
I'm only concerned with their platform now, and evaluating the two choices... choosing one. I want someone who governs like Scott Walker, Gov of Wisconsin... with solid results, smart and lots of commonsense.

RodB

Keith Wilson
03-27-2014, 05:10 PM
And I will oppose people like Scott Walker until my last breath. Minnesota is doing far better than Wisconsin in almost every respect, with Democrats controlling both houses and Mark Dayton as governor.

bogdog
03-27-2014, 05:17 PM
I'm only concerned with their platform now, and evaluating the two choices... choosing one. I want someone who governs like Scott Walker, Gov of Wisconsin... with solid results, smart and lots of commonsense.

RodBScott Walker supports the ACA.

Canoeyawl
03-27-2014, 06:00 PM
And what's up with the attack on drunken sailors?

The sailors that I know are the most frugal people on the planet, drunk or sober.

ljb5
03-27-2014, 06:44 PM
[COLOR=#333333]Since I am obviously for smaller government and believe in the T-party's fiscal responsibility agenda, I have no problem with any cuts ... especially when the funds are for non-essential items. As far as defense is concerned, I'm particularly skeptical about military spending considering the size and power of the military industrial complex. We just need to maintain enough capability to handle the future security needs for the country and any of our allies we need to support.

If all that were true, you'd be a Democrat.

But you try to have it both ways.

You say you're okay with cuts to the Military Industrial Complex.... but you support the party that refuses to allow any cuts to it....

....and then you blame the Democrats for the spending!

You can't have it both ways.

If you're complaining about the debt, you're complaining about the Iraq War, the Bush tax cuts and the Bush economic crisis. They are the same thing. You cannot complain about one without complaining about the others.

And you cannot blame Obama for any of them.

RodB
03-27-2014, 07:39 PM
If all that were true, you'd be a Democrat.

But you try to have it both ways.

You say you're okay with cuts to the Military Industrial Complex.... but you support the party that refuses to allow any cuts to it....

....and then you blame the Democrats for the spending!

You can't have it both ways.

If you're complaining about the debt, you're complaining about the Iraq War, the Bush tax cuts and the Bush economic crisis. They are the same thing. You cannot complain about one without complaining about the others.

And you cannot blame Obama for any of them.


History is history. Jeesh... leave Bush out of it. He's long gone. This is March 2014. Obama is president. This administration's ability to spend is phenomenal. Blaming Bush for the economic crisis is wrong. Lots of folks get blame on this and you know it. Lets talk about the Obama administration and the Dems in the senate not willing to deal with entitlements... and demonizing the right for even mentioning the issue. Lets talk about the Dems not willing to put forth any legislation that involves any compromise (like a way to pay for it). Lets talk about the scores of bills passed by the House sitting on Harry Reid's desk... never to be seen again... get the picture.

I think the defining index on military size and scope is real life need... based on solid analysis and reflection to meet our needs.

RodB

elf
03-27-2014, 08:15 PM
Let's talk about responsibility and accountability.

Let's talk about Bush, and Bush and Reagan.

Glen Longino
03-27-2014, 08:16 PM
I'm willing to help you improve your vocabulary, Glen. We can hook up an electrical collar and I'll have the control. Every time I see you write the word "troglodyte", I'll just zap you. In a few weeks, you won't be able to abide the word and you will be fixed! |:)

RodB

This is the most honest post you've made on this thread.
I do believe you and your ilk would put shock collars on me, women who want abortions, gays and lesbians, illegal immigrants, atheists, and anybody else who challenges your narrow and warped notions of "freedom" and "liberty".
You make a mockery of such ideals everytime you post here!

ljb5
03-27-2014, 08:16 PM
[INDENT]History is history. Jeesh... leave Bush out of it. He's long gone.

If only that were true.

But the reality is that his economic impact remains.

Earlier I posted a study from Harvard saying the Iraq war is still costing us trillions of dollars.

Don't tell me that's gone.

One of the very first things Obama did was pass an economic recovery act.

Which economic crisis do you think he was trying to recover from? His own? Don't be silly.

You blame him for passing the stimulus act, but you act like it doesn't matter who left the economic mess that need to be cleaned up.


Blaming Bush for the economic crisis is wrong.

Blaming Obama for the economic crisis is much more wrong. He wasn't even in office at the time!!


Lots of folks get blame on this and you know it.

So stop trying to blame Obama!


Lets talk about the Obama administration and the Dems in the senate not willing to deal with entitlements.

Sorry. I ain't buying it. Bush had four years of Republican control of the House and the Senate and he didn't deal with entitlements either. The simple fact is that no one wants to "deal" with entitlements because people like their entitlements and everyone is afraid of pissing off elderly voters.

Complaining about the other party not dealing with entitlements is something that both parties do when they're out of power... but it has nothing to do with actually fixing the problem... it's just complaining.

The only reason the Republicans supported the Ryan plan is because they knew it had no chance of ever passing. They just wanted to look like they were doing something without having to withstand the consequences of actually doing it. Even then, they got such an earful from their own constituents that they immediately abandoned the whole idea.

==========================

And I'm really not sure which bills you're talking about. Last time I checked, Boehner had passed zero jobs bills, but had held something like fifty votes to repeal Obamacare despite the fact that he knew they would never pass. That's not governance. That's showmanship.

Only fools fall for that.

elf
03-27-2014, 08:19 PM
Hogwash.

Since January of 2010, the US economy has added 7.5 Million jobs --- about twenty times the number of jobs added in the entire Bush presidency.

http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/latest_numbers_CES0000000001_2009_2014_all_period_ M02_data.gif

The unemployment rate has dropped 3.5%.

The DOW has gone up more than 7,000 points (80%).

Inflation remains very low and stable. Mortgage rates are still very close to all-time lows.

Gasoline is cheaper now than it was 7 years ago.

The number of uninsured people is dropping.

Housing starts are up. Foreclosure rates are down.

The US deficit is shrinking at the fastest rate in modern history.

Consumer confidence is at the highest level in seven years... and GDP growth appears to be on the upswing.

Exports are up and the US trade deficit is at its smallest level in 14 years. (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/20/business/us-current-account-deficit-is-smallest-in-14-years.html?_r=0)

Sure, it's been a long, tough recovery, but no one who knows how to read a calendar could possibly blame Obama for the crash or fail to credit him for the recovery.
Just in case you don't remember, Rod.

oznabrag
03-27-2014, 10:08 PM
That is one area yes. But not even close to what I consider to be the largest nor most insidious attack against 'the rights of the individual'. I see Republicans standing almost without fail on the side of big business and big oil and against the personal and property rights of individuals. I cherish my access to clean air and water, I consider that a right. Big oil and energy could give a damn about that in their quest for quick and easy extraction. I see Republicans siding with big business to reduce culpability or responsibility for wrongs committed by corporate America - things like capping damages for oil spills. I see Republicans taking the side of a certain type of Christian, in a way that gets between me and my pursuit of no religion and others' pursuits of their non Christian religions. Rod, we are not a Christian nation. You may decry that, but that's a fact.
BRAVO!!!

BRAVO!!!

BRAVO!!!

Thank you, Sir!

RodB
03-27-2014, 10:22 PM
Blaming Obama for the economic crisis is much more wrong. He wasn't even in office at the time!!

Never said that! I just think it is disingenuous at the least... to say Obama is just a bystander for the past 5 years and responsible for nothing on his watch.


The only reason the Republicans supported the Ryan plan is because they knew it had no chance of ever passing. They just wanted to look like they were doing something without having to withstand the consequences of actually doing it. Even then, they got such an earful from their own constituents that they immediately abandoned the whole idea.


They also got slammed by the Dems for even considering it. It was quite obvious that the Dems only saw this attempt by Republicans to deal with entitlements as an political bat to hit the Republicans with. They obviously cared nothing about the needs of the country longterm... only damaging the Reps.

RodB

oznabrag
03-27-2014, 10:56 PM
Hogwash.

Since January of 2010, the US economy has added 7.5 Million jobs --- about twenty times the number of jobs added in the entire Bush presidency.

http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/latest_numbers_CES0000000001_2009_2014_all_period_ M02_data.gif

The unemployment rate has dropped 3.5%.

The DOW has gone up more than 7,000 points (80%).

Inflation remains very low and stable. Mortgage rates are still very close to all-time lows.

Gasoline is cheaper now than it was 7 years ago.

The number of uninsured people is dropping.

Housing starts are up. Foreclosure rates are down.

The US deficit is shrinking at the fastest rate in modern history.

Consumer confidence is at the highest level in seven years... and GDP growth appears to be on the upswing.

Exports are up and the US trade deficit is at its smallest level in 14 years. (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/20/business/us-current-account-deficit-is-smallest-in-14-years.html?_r=0)

Sure, it's been a long, tough recovery, but no one who knows how to read a calendar could possibly blame Obama for the crash or fail to credit him for the recovery.


Never said that! I just think it is disingenuous at the least... to say Obama is just a bystander for the past 5 years and responsible for nothing on his watch.

RodB

I think you will find that both Obama AND his supporters are actually quite eager to take responsibility for the economic performance on his watch.

The fact that this has to be pointed out to you time and time and time again...

...

I feel constrained to silence.

oznabrag
03-27-2014, 11:28 PM
less people workin' since Carter, the world is turning away from the dollar because the fed is printing 85 billion a month to keep the market going, we might make it, in spite of, but not because of, O'bama.

You just hate him 'cause he's Irish.

PeterSibley
03-28-2014, 02:47 AM
less people workin' since Carter, the world is turning away from the dollar because the fed is printing 85 billion a month to keep the market going, we might make it, in spite of, but not because of, O'bama.

I love a good joke .:D

Too Little Time
03-28-2014, 03:35 AM
Over the past 35 years we have already had massive income redistribution - from the rest of us to the very rich. It's long past time to fix it.

While I agree in principle, "the rest of us" is often used by the rich, top 10%, to claim poverty - or at least inclusion in the middle class.

Income is a misdirection. Wealth is a bigger problem.

Rum_Pirate
03-28-2014, 06:56 AM
You just hate him 'cause he's Irish.

May he have the luck of the Irish

http://l.yimg.com/ea/img/-/120316/st_patrick_s_day_17m5gf3-17m5gf8.jpg?x=400&sig=MS4NW.R9l0Mj4nyGqAOYsQ--
http://files.coloribus.com/files/adsarchive/part_718/7184055/file/brand-to-be-sure-small-11932.jpg

Paul Pless
03-28-2014, 07:19 AM
I think conservatives are rational concerning the environment. I do not like what I have seen with fracking taking place in west Texas. This process definitely needs lots of oversight to protect the people.
The conservatives I know certainly cherish access to clean water and air and consider it a right.

Given these two statements, do I count you on the side of increasing regulation and monitoring for environmental compliance and safety of the oil, gas, and coal industries, both at the federal and the state levels?

Keith Wilson
03-28-2014, 07:23 AM
This administration's ability to spend is phenomenal. RonB keeps going on about the unusual spending habits of the Obama administration. Either he's simply lying, or he doesn't understand numbers, since this has been explained to him multiple times.

Federal spending. Note the direction in the curve over the past few years, and compare with historical levels going back 40 years. We're spending the same amount we did during most of the Reagan administration.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ccxOaz-W_p0/UsgZkuJp-jI/AAAAAAAAARM/UTNEklb75JA/s1600/USfederalspend.png


and the deficit:

http://dattaman.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Federal-Budget-Deficit-Percent-of-GDP.jpg


Now one can reasonably argue that the government should spend less, or that the deficit is still too large. But pretending that the Obama administration hasn't made a bad situation much better, that there is an immediate crisis, or that the situation now is at all unusual, is either ignorance or lying.

ljb5
03-28-2014, 07:41 AM
less people workin' since Carter, the world is turning away from the dollar because the fed is printing 85 billion a month to keep the market going, we might make it, in spite of, but not because of, O'bama.

Less people working since Carter!?!

http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/latest_numbers_CES0000000001_1977_2014_all_period_ M02_data.gif

Paul Pless
03-28-2014, 07:48 AM
RonB keeps going on about the unusual spending habits of the Obama administration. Either he's simply lying, or he doesn't understand numbers, since this has been explained to him multiple times.

Federal spending. Note the direction in the curve over the past few years, and compare with historical levels going back 40 years. We're spending the same amount we did during most of the Reagan administration.

Now one can reasonably argue that the government should spend less, or that the deficit is still too large. But pretending that the Obama administration hasn't made a bad situation much better, that there is an immediate crisis, or that the situation now is at all unusual is either ignorance or lying.


Less people working since Carter!?!



Its almost enough to make you cry. Modern Republicans scourging liberals for how they think.

oznabrag
03-28-2014, 09:46 AM
May he have the luck of the Irish

http://l.yimg.com/ea/img/-/120316/st_patrick_s_day_17m5gf3-17m5gf8.jpg?x=400&sig=MS4NW.R9l0Mj4nyGqAOYsQ--
http://files.coloribus.com/files/adsarchive/part_718/7184055/file/brand-to-be-sure-small-11932.jpg



It is my understanding that the 'luck of the Irish' is feeling fortunate that things are not worse.

For example, 'My goodness! You're lucky it only took your legs! That thing could have KILLED you!"

So.

I don't know how you meant your comment, but I hope that your wishes for his luck return to you threefold!

And the top o' the mornin' to YOU, sir!

John of Phoenix
03-28-2014, 10:55 AM
RonB keeps going on about the unusual spending habits of the Obama administration. Either he's simply lying, or he doesn't understand numbers, since this has been explained to him multiple times.It's their rejection of reality. It's truly psychotic and affects about 20% of the voting population.

Glen Longino
03-28-2014, 11:11 AM
troglodyte...troglodyte...troglodyte...
Nope, I don't feel a thing!
I reckon Rod forgot to switch on my shock collar this morning!:D

ljb5
03-28-2014, 11:37 AM
Its almost enough to make you cry. Modern Republicans scourging liberals for how they think.

It's called "lying."

They don't even care.

We wouldn't tolerate this behavior among three year-olds, but because they call it an "ideology" we're all supposed to pretend that it's a legitimate way of looking at the world.

elf
03-28-2014, 12:15 PM
If the numbers don't come from Fox or Breitbart, then they're suspect. Don't you guys understand?

RodB
03-28-2014, 07:06 PM
RonB keeps going on about the unusual spending habits of the Obama administration. Either he's simply lying, or he doesn't understand numbers, since this has been explained to him multiple times.

Federal spending. Note the direction in the curve over the past few years, and compare with historical levels going back 40 years. We're spending the same amount we did during most of the Reagan administration.

Keith, I'm a simple fellow and certainly not educated in the field of economics. Virtually none of our politicians have done right by the country in the past... or present... least of all the current administration.... See the following just to focus in on trade and our serious problems in that area. The current administration is culpable in many ways because of their policies and we are not even delving into the many other problematic areas like the social issues (Obama's social engineering). The only way to rebuild a nation is to develop a strong economy and all that entails not try to socially engineer some hypothetical society (that at least half of the country are against...) Obama has in his imagination. Obama has forgotten to fix the economy while trying to do all this social engineering.

RodB

http://economyincrisis.org/solutions

The United States is facing economic disaster on a scale few nations have ever experienced. Most people are unaware of the easily observable signs of this emerging crisis. While we persist in our superpower mentality, we have quietly become a second-class country in many respects.
We no longer manufacture what we need to sustain ourselves, we import much more than we export, and we are selling off our assets and taking on massive debts to sustain a standard of living we can no longer afford. Not only is this not the way America became a superpower but it is a sure way to lose this status.
We are failing even to acknowledge predatory foreign trade practices undermining US industry. Instead we encourage US manufacturers to design, engineer, and produce in third world markets like Mexico and China.


Reversing the Trend: Some Suggestions for Action
Access to our markets must be conditioned on a strategic analysis of our own national needs first and foremost. As things stand, we have handed our sovereign rights to our domestic markets to international bodies like the World Trade Organization and are committed to disastrous “one-way free trade” agreements such as Value Added Tax regulations and NAFTA. We are in a dramatically different position from emerging low-wage markets. They have everything to gain, and we have everything to lose. Our policies should carefully protect our wealth and resources rather than simply provide the lowest consumer cost regardless of the impact on our industries and our workers.
Promoting open markets and economic growth abroad will not alone rebalance America’s trade accounts and domestic industrial collapse. Our industries have been so disarmed and dismantled that we now lack the knowledge, capacity, and investment capital to facilitate self-sustaining production. Dramatic new direction is required...


(lots more details on the link....) http://economyincrisis.org/solutions




... Suggested Solutions to America’s Economic Problems

The following suggestions should be considered as part of a new plan to recover American industry and economic health:
• Appoint an economic minister, a major cabinet post, to develop an industrial policy that would:
http://www.n-georgia.com/images/waving-us-flag.jpg (http://www.n-georgia.com/images/waving-us-flag.jpg)


1. Create conditions to make manufacturing competitive and profitable through tax changes and subsidies where needed2. Protect our economy from foreign predatory practices
3. Create an industrial research and development division similar to government sponsored National Institute of Health (NIH) in medicine or the Apollo project.

Or, copy Japan’s very successful system conducted by their Ministry of International Trade & Industry (MITI) that focuses on needs and development procedures for their new and existing industries.
• Change the tax structure for select industries that are vital to strategic American interests – steel, transportation, cement and others.
• Control the balance of trade deficit. The majority of this money leaves our economy and never returns. The money that does return is the means through which foreign companies are able to accumulate funds to purchase our best companies.
• Amend or get out of our agreement with the WTO. It places our domestic trade laws in the hands of an undemocratic organization whose decisions have been consistently and unfairly adjudicated.
• Eliminate the foreign Value Added Tax (VAT) discrepancy. It unjustifiably subsidizes foreign exports to us, while simultaneously penalizing our exports to them.
• Amend or get out of NAFTA. It incentivizes our companies to move productive facilities out of our country.
• We must analyze every international trade deal by considering if it benefits America; currently most deals do not.
• Use tariffs selectively to prevent the loss of strategic and endangered industries.
• Curtail subsidies foreign owned companies receive from state governments and discourage technology transfer and outsourcing manufacturing that results in the loss of industries.
• Prevent the sale of strategic companies or institutions to foreign ownership.
• Faster depreciation on capital equipment investment – it will lessen the need to outsource manufacturing.
Free trade has been a disaster. It must be replaced with intelligent trade that prevents foreign predatory practices and better serves U.S. interests...


additional links...

http://economyincrisis.org/content/is-barack-obama-really-that-naive

http://economyincrisis.org/content/special-interests-are-pushing-misinformation-on-the-american-people

Paul Pless
03-28-2014, 07:16 PM
I think conservatives are rational concerning the environment. I do not like what I have seen with fracking taking place in west Texas. This process definitely needs lots of oversight to protect the people.
The conservatives I know certainly cherish access to clean water and air and consider it a right.

Given these two statements, do I count you on the side of increasing regulation and monitoring for environmental compliance and safety of the oil, gas, and coal industries, both at the federal and the state levels?

Glen Longino
03-28-2014, 08:46 PM
You've lost it. You've descended into that liberal pit of designing utopia. Human nature will always drive some to gain, and others to lose. Stealing from the prosperous to prop up the non-prosperous is not only not right, but such a program will be certainly be manipulated by the lazy.

Whew! Lordy!

ljb5
03-28-2014, 08:48 PM
You've lost it. You've descended into that liberal pit of designing utopia. Human nature will always drive some to gain, and others to lose. Stealing from the prosperous to prop up the non-prosperous is not only not right, but such a program will be certainly be manipulated by the lazy.

The laziest people I know are Republicans. I'm sure that's not representative of all lazy people, but speaking just of my own experience, it's amazing how many lazy, stupid unsuccessful people blame the government for all their problems.

At my last few jobs, all the 'front office' people like the CEO, CTO, Chief Scientist and VP of Engineering are liberals, and all the back factory people like the maintenance guy, the shipping guy, and the fork-lift operator are loud-mouth Tea Party guys.

Worse yet, they're so much louder about it and they don't seem to understand that work is not the place to express those views. You'll never hear me and the chief scientist discussing politics at work, except behind closed doors, in private, but you can always here some Tea Party doofus complaining about Obama raising his tax rate while he's on his fifteen minute break making a bit more than minimum wage.

I almost feel sorry for these guys because there's so much they just don't seem to understand about the world.... but I remember what they were doing in school while some of us were studying our asses off to get into "elite" colleges. They brought it on themselves and they deserve it and they have no one to blame but themselves.

oznabrag
03-28-2014, 08:51 PM
You've lost it. You've descended into that liberal pit of designing utopia. Human nature will always drive some to gain, and others to lose. Stealing from the prosperous to prop up the non-prosperous is not only not right, but such a program will be certainly be manipulated by the lazy.

You seem to have descended into the neo-con pit where utopia is defined as the rich having the right to steal from the poor.

elf
03-28-2014, 09:00 PM
You've lost it. You've descended into that liberal pit of designing utopia. Human nature will always drive some to gain, and others to lose. Stealing from the prosperous to prop up the non-prosperous is not only not right, but such a program will be certainly be manipulated by the lazy.
And your recommendation for the fate of the losers and lazy ones is?

S.V. Airlie
03-28-2014, 09:05 PM
perhaps we should treat this as the finger on the pulse. Just look how soon it broke down into name calling. Why not just say 'you're a great big poopie?'
Lookit, if I were the administrator who had to wade through this crap I'd find a new job, or close this forum to all persons.I'd rite a book!

ljb5
03-28-2014, 09:57 PM
Sheeesh! Go back and look up who voted for LBJ's Civil Rights Act. Being a conservative, I won't just come out and call you a liar, this time.

I think we've been over that already. The primary discriminant in who voted for it was geographic location, not party.

In the South, 7% of House Democrats voted for it and 0% of House Republicans voted for it.

In the South, 5% of Senate Democrats voted for it and 0% of Senate Republicans vote for it.

In the North, the Democrats were in favor 94% in the House and 98% in the Senate, whereas the Republicans were only 85% and 84%.


So, basically, in both chambers and in both regions, the Democrats supported it more than the Republicans.

Keith Wilson
03-28-2014, 10:06 PM
Go back and look up who voted for LBJ's Civil Rights Act. Being a conservative, I won't just come out and call you a liar, this time.Either you really don't understand the regional party shifts since 1964, or you're deliberately trying to deceive. the parties were not divided left-right along ideological lines like they are today. There were very conservative Southern Democrats, and liberal Democrats from the North. There were moderate and liberal New England Republicans and very conservative Western ones. At that point, almost the former Confederacy was solid Democratic because of history; the Republicans started as the party of abolition, Abe Lincoln was the first Republican president, and the Radical Republicans (there were such things in those days) tried to impose something like racial equality on the south during reconstruction. White southerners took over 100 years to forgive the party. The votes on civil rights laws were divided ideologically and regionally, not by party. Conservatives mostly voted against them, liberals voted for them. Again, whatever their party, conservatives have been on the wrong side of just about every issue of equality for the past century.

elf
03-28-2014, 10:29 PM
He's not deliberately trying to deceive. But the sources he pays attention to definitely are. It's a Tea party meme. Facts, logic and reason have nothing to do with it.

RodB
03-28-2014, 10:36 PM
The laziest people I know are Republicans. I'm sure that's not representative of all lazy people, but speaking just of my own experience, it's amazing how many lazy, stupid unsuccessful people blame the government for all their problems.

At my last few jobs, all the 'front office' people like the CEO, CTO, Chief Scientist and VP of Engineering are liberals, and all the back factory people like the maintenance guy, the shipping guy, and the fork-lift operator are loud-mouth Tea Party guys.

Worse yet, they're so much louder about it and they don't seem to understand that work is not the place to express those views. You'll never hear me and the chief scientist discussing politics at work, except behind closed doors, in private, but you can always here some Tea Party doofus complaining about Obama raising his tax rate while he's on his fifteen minute break making a bit more than minimum wage.

I almost feel sorry for these guys because there's so much they just don't seem to understand about the world.... but I remember what they were doing in school while some of us were studying our asses off to get into "elite" colleges. They brought it on themselves and they deserve it and they have no one to blame but themselves.



This post is utter nonsense... Conservatives would feel sorry for you for your obviously deluded mind. Don't ya think lazy, stupid unsuccessful people are everywhere... irrespective of party affiliation.
Your comments are illogical and illustrate irrational political bias.
RodB

ljb5
03-28-2014, 10:48 PM
This post is utter nonsense... Conservatives would feel sorry for you for your obviously deluded mind. Don't ya think lazy, stupid unsuccessful people are everywhere... irrespective of party affiliation.


Just describing the reality that I see. I'm sure there are a lot of lazy, unsuccessful people whose paths I never cross, but it really is remarkable how many low-skill, low-education, unsuccessful people around here are Tea Partiers.... and the guys with Ph.D.s and M.D.s are liberals.

I can't say the members of this forum have done anything to change that impression. Have you noticed how often I have to correct you about basic facts? Is that because you work so hard to be accurate, thorough and truthful? Or are you kinda cutting corners and winging it?

That's the reality around here. Sorry if it's tough for you.

Keith Wilson
03-29-2014, 08:40 AM
I really should read What's The Matter With Kansas. The conversion of the white lower-middle and working class to laissez-faire economics and a fairly extreme brand of social conservatism over the past, say, 70 years is something I don't much understand. It wasn't always so, and you'd think it would be hard to get people to vote against economic self-interest for so long. I suspect it's a combination of the civil rights movement plus southern regionalism, the immoderation of the 60's left - the whole Vietnam/counterculture thing, evangelical Christianity's alliance with conservative Roman Catholicism, a rural-urban split, increased economic stratification and hard times for those without a lot of education, some effective manipulation on the part of monied interests, and a sense that the world is moving on, leaving them behind. I expect it will diminish considerably over the next 20 or 30 years; it's partly generational, and that part of the population is shrinking demographically.

elf
03-29-2014, 09:03 AM
It seems obvious to me, Keith. The working class has been squeezed so badly by the death of manufacturing that they're hanging on by a thread. Anybody who proposes taking more of what remains of their money, primarily by increasing taxes, scares the s**t out of them. They already don't have enough cash and they don't participate in any other part of the economy. They become easy targets for any anti-tax or anti-government proposal, so scared of being dead broke that they don't believe the promises of improved health care or educational opportunities that are offered in exchange for the higher taxes. In fact, most of them haven't experienced improved lifestyle from better health care, because they haven't been able to afford health care at all since their decent manufacturing jobs left, and they know that the benefits of a good education aren't going to fall to them, since they're too old to compete with their children.

Add to that that they were raised in a secure family setting with a stay-at-home mother and working father and that their current situation is so dire that both of them have to work just to keep from losing everything, and their sense of how the world should be is disintegrating before their very eyes.

Pile on top of that the incessant advertising about the good life that they see on TV every day - I'd be depressed and turn to god and limited taxation too.

Paul Pless
03-29-2014, 09:06 AM
RODB, why are you unwilling to respond to this post? Does this question present you with a moral dilemma?

I was having an interesting and polite dialogue with you and I feel that you have shut me out against reason.


I think conservatives are rational concerning the environment. I do not like what I have seen with fracking taking place in west Texas. This process definitely needs lots of oversight to protect the people.
The conservatives I know certainly cherish access to clean water and air and consider it a right.

Given these two statements, do I count you on the side of increasing regulation and monitoring for environmental compliance and safety of the oil, gas, and coal industries, both at the federal and the state levels?

elf
03-29-2014, 09:11 AM
RodB doesn't respond to questions like that. It's a well-researched factor in deep conservatives called cognitive dissonance. When they encounter such situations they shut down.

We've seen it over and over with him. When he asserts that the Federal government should be operating on a balanced budget, I ask him whether he owns his house and how he got the money to pay for it.

Silence.

When he asserted the balanced budget question again, someone asked him where the government would get the money to deal with Katrina type events.

Silence.

Cognitive dissonance. They can't deal with the logic. It's a disability fostered by their religion, and the abject lack of education in the art of thinking.

Keith Wilson
03-29-2014, 09:14 AM
Of course it presents him with a dilemma (not sure if it's 'moral' or what). Today's US right is opposed to government regulation on principle. The only effective way to protect the commons is by law and regulation - which can be done well or badly, but it's the only way. Unregulated capitalism does terrible damage to the environment. The principle conflicts with the reality, and something has to give. Leaving out self-interest, that's the root of global warming denial; there's no solution except through international regulation, and that's so unpalatable that it must not be real.

LeeG
03-29-2014, 09:29 AM
This has become too sad to be funny.

Yup, I made it to your post and stopped. At first it's a fun over the top political troll then after awhile it's like reasoning with a fundamentalist. You either believe and scratch each other's cerebral cortex or you're an apostate. RodB spends considerable effort defining himself in opposition to others.

Good for you RodB, you're not a (fill in the blanks).

Lew Barrett
03-29-2014, 02:48 PM
Rod, if you want to know what how some liberals think, watch this video. I will say in advance that it might make your head explode.

Maher's defense of speaking up and calling out Republicans (Tea Party and Conservatives of the new "mold") on their reality is the only reason for allowing this thread to go 11 pages. Just responding to this gibberish from a sense of outrage is not sufficient justification.

Take the time, it's only seven minutes. (http://rackjite.com/new-rules-bill-maher-democrats-man-march-28-2014/)


Rod, you'll hate it, so don't say you weren't warned;)

Osborne Russell
03-31-2014, 01:04 PM
Rod, you appear not to have noted what happened.

You quoted a guy that purports to base his argument on the criticism of Harold Bloom. That is clearly fraudulent.

You quote him in aid of how modern liberals think. Instead you give a breathtaking view of the American right that is by turns ignorant and dishonest. How do we think that way? Because you show us, time and again.

Boater14
03-31-2014, 05:41 PM
I don't think working people voting against their own interests goes back 70 years. I think it is since the late '60's give or take. I think the dems had a big part to play in alienating working people. I'm a liberal but I saw the dems take liberalism to an extreme.

RodB
03-31-2014, 05:44 PM
Given these two statements, do I count you on the side of increasing regulation and monitoring for environmental compliance and safety of the oil, gas, and coal industries, both at the federal and the state levels?

No Paul, no! . (On answering your question...been busy lately...) The EPA is out of control and I wouldn't trust them to keep my dog safe. They have an agenda and it trumps any commonsense science... more like the religion of global warming. Water and air have been quality controlled for a long time... why do you think we are losing all the oil based paints and varnishes... and driving itty bitty cars. The problem is that the EPA is just like the proponents of our ever expanding massive government... they will continue to push and harass any business they have predetermined (by their green religion) must be destroyed... as the Government, like any bureaucracy by its very nature will expand forever.

If fracking in south Texas is damaging the environment or hurting the locals with pollution, it needs to be stopped... monitored well... lots of oversight... and make sure all safety policies are followed to protect our citizens. I say this even if it meant stopping fracking completely. There certainly are a lot of over the top declarations on that subject on both sides of the argument.

I'm sure to say yes to your question would involve a complete {other level" of restrictions and harassment for the oil companies and that would have to be assessed by experts to truly see what commonsense policies need to be enforced. Personally, after seeing what the EPA has been doing over the past several years... I simply don't trust them. The current administration could care less if the citizens of this country had to suffer all kinds of pain as long as they can enforce their agenda. In case you haven't noticed, their agenda can be quite wrong headed or even complete nonsense.

Most conservatives would have a hard time sleeping at night if some of the folks on this forum were in charge... too much liberal "pie in the sky" delusional thinking going around.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/19/author-epa-playbook-report-claims-notorious-fraudster-was-behind-costly-epa/

Author of ‘EPA Playbook’? Report claims notorious fraudster was behind costly EPA regulations

John Beale, the former EPA official who fooled his bosses into believing he worked for the CIA, was deeply involved in crafting costly environmental standards which still are having an impact today -- though he came into the job with little, if any, environmental experience.
The details were included in a 67-page report from Republicans on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=b90f742e-b797-4a82-a0a3-e6848467832a), which claims the fraudster's role should now throw those rules into question.
The report is the product of months of research into the case of Beale, a top official in the Office of Air and Radiation, who was sentenced to prison in December for defrauding the agency with his CIA lie. It details Beale's role in crafting an aggressive regulatory approach which the report dubs the "EPA Playbook."
"Ultimately, the guiding [principle] behind the Playbook is the Machiavellian [principle] that the ends will justify the means," the report says.
Sen. David Vitter, R-La., top Republican on the committee, said in a statement that the study "connects the dots between John Beale and the numerous air regulations that he's responsible for." ...







http://forces.org/Archive/evidence/119-EPA+Corruption+Unveiled+By+Its+Own+Personnel.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/02/epa_corruption_and_scandal.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/13/epas-use-secret-email-addresses-was-widespread-rep/

elf
03-31-2014, 06:06 PM
OK. So you don't think the Environmental Protection Agency is the right organization to protect the environment.

So let's go back a step further. What would you think, in concrete points, protecting the environment should be?

Try answering this question this way:

I would protect jobs in the fracking industry by _________________________.

Paul Pless
03-31-2014, 06:18 PM
Rod, would consider completely turning off the media sources that you are most accustomed to for one month? Take a 30 day hiatus and listen to NPR each morning and evening for an hour, read The New York Times daily and take The Economist once a week. Is that a challenge that you would be up for?

please note i don't really consider those three sources to be very liberal, more like reality based journalism; its not like i recommended mother jones or the democratic underground, or rachel maddow and john stewart

Canoeyawl
03-31-2014, 06:21 PM
Rod, would consider completely turning off the media sources that you are most accustomed to for one month? Take a 30 day hiatus and listen to NPR each morning and evening for an hour, read The New York Times daily and take The Economist once a week. Is that a challenge that you would be up for?


He might turn into a pinko commie tree hugger

Paul Pless
03-31-2014, 06:24 PM
He might turn into a pinko commie tree huggeri think that that would take more like sixty or ninety days at least :D

bogdog
03-31-2014, 06:32 PM
NPR is a shill for the Republican agenda, they are owned by Republicans. I'll stick with Pandora

Garret
03-31-2014, 07:00 PM
We're driving "itty bitty cars" because of the EPA? Really? Not because they are less expensive to run? Besides - a Denali or Excursion or Escalade is an "itty bitty car"? I see 'em all the time & they're (by definition - thanks to W & his stoopid order) over 6,000 pounds. That makes them 500 lbs heavier than the biggest 1960 Cadillac (the 149" wheelbase Fleetwood 75 limo) & over 1,000 lbs heavier than the rest of the 1960 Cadillacs.

http://www.carnut.com/specs/gen/cad60.html

Please check your facts!

David G
03-31-2014, 07:44 PM
Garret - I used to read Rod's postings. Unless he's changed, I can assure you - without hesitation or fear of contradiction - that every time Rod enters a Bilge discussion he assiduously checks his facts. At the door. That's why he's on ignore.

Rod - I heartily recommend you take the Pless Challenge. I suspect you'll enjoy being better informed. I know I certainly feel more grounded for regularly reading The American Standard, Taki's Magazine, Keith Hennessy, Marginal Revolution, and other conservative and libertarian sources.

Keith Wilson
03-31-2014, 08:05 PM
. . . he assiduously checks his facts. At the door. Ouch! :D

David G
03-31-2014, 08:49 PM
Ouch! :D

I haven't given up on Rod. He's not like some here - who will likely never be capable of carrying on intelligent and informed discourse. Look at his above-decks contributions. Woodworking. Tools. Things he knows. He's great. Helpful, thoughtful, and smart. I believe he's simply fallen prey to the nasty and cynical campaign of misinformation and disinformation perpetrated upon swaths of the public by Fox, Rush, et.al. If he ever took it upon himself to deep six the whacko sources... he could become a formidable correspondent, methinks.

elf
03-31-2014, 10:02 PM
Amazing you would say that, because he clearly is unable to think or carry on a conversation here, and if he can't do it here then whatever he does upstairs is so compartmentalized that it's not representative of his general intelligence.

David G
04-01-2014, 12:29 AM
I think that propaganda is a powerful tool. It works on our emotions, then provides plausible rationalizations for the uncertainty, fear, frustration, anger, and even hatred that it taps into. Once planted... it's pernicious. Our own brain takes over. Confirmation bias. The whole panoply of Logical Fallacies. The ability to tune out cognitive dissonance. I think those who are less educated are more susceptible. It takes work and training to be able to read with good comprehension, think critically, use formal logic, recognize logical inconsistencies in others (let alone ourselves), and own our emotions without being totally ruled by them. None of us are perfect at it.

And yet... and yet... I've seen people shake it off. Being a woodworker/boat builder who grew up in rural Oregon, and goes boating/fishing with a wide range of folks... I have plenty of redneck friends. Some of them are totally captive to the Fox brainwashing. Others are naturally more skeptical, and escape the trap that way. And some (not many, but some) have had a personal epiphany. One I know of was around healthcare. A family crisis brought him into stark and immediate contact with the nitty-gritty of our system. His family lost their comfortable house, and one of their cars. The realization that a single-payer system made so much more sense led him to question his other assumptions, and those who still argued against his new understanding. He realized that the whole RW mob was, and had been, lying to him. He's in Paul Pless territory now. There are a few other stories as well. But the point is... it CAN happen. Just because Rod doesn't seem to be able to think straight or carry on an honest conversation about the topics he's been wound up about... doesn't mean there's no hope, or that he's stupid. I don't believe that, based on his above-decks performance.

RodB
04-01-2014, 12:48 AM
Amazing you would say that, because he clearly is unable to think or carry on a conversation here, and if he can't do it here then whatever he does upstairs is so compartmentalized that it's not representative of his general intelligence.

Elf, you should move to LA... you'd fit right in... like one of those clueless movie stars willing to describe the problems and solutions of the world with their "all knowing" grasp of the "truth"...

Try to understand this with your limited capacity of discernment... I would vote against your political philosophy simply based on observing the actions of the people you voted for and watching them lie (if they are talking they are usually lying). Mostly, they are quite dishonorable and as I have observed, there is nothing they will not do or say to stay in power. Additionally, their method of political battle is to put no limits on vitriol while ignoring decency in how they attack the opposition. Their goal is complete personal destruction of republicans ... simply because they cannot win with their arguments alone... but only by demonizing their foes with lies and of course hiding the real truth of their legislation from the voters.

Finally, the earlier charts that show the economy is improving... do show that... minimally in truth... I admit that. Its not that I don't believe the economy is improving slightly....its that it could be so much better by now if someone like Romney had been elected. The stagnant economy is the fault of this administration's poor policies. Many here continue to only blame the republicans in the House for lack of compromise, but the President has consciously decided to move forward with no compromise... his way or the highway... he's just such a great leader!!!!



that every time Rod enters a Bilge discussion he assiduously checks his facts. At the door. That's why he's on ignore.


Heres some facts for you libs to chew on....from "The Weekly Standard" ... no less! I'm hoping liberal thinking will allow for some facts to be interjected into the discussion.

RodB

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/big-picture-obamacares-politics_786275.html


Today is the last day of open enrollment in the Obamacare exchanges. Last week the administration had announced six million enrollments, with about five days left to go. If they enroll new people into the system at the same rate as they had the previous 10 days, that would put the final, nominal number around 6.5 million. If there is a surge of enrollments, then that could place it higher still.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/sites/all/files/imagecache/teaser-large/images/teasers/Obamacare%20signing.jpg
Does any of this really matter? Yes and no.
NO: The reality is that the number of people who actually get health insurance will be less than what the administration is saying. Industry expert Bob Laszewski--who has of late become a fixture on television and in news reports--says the number will be 80 percent of the nominal total. Additionally, the handful of states that have reported paid enrollments show them to be running at about 80 percent of the nominal total.
What is more, there is a massive churn operation going around here, which is to say that the bulk of new enrollments appears to be people who previously had health insurance. An as-yet-unreleased report from RAND (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obamacare-uninsured-national-20140331,0,6550360,full.story#axzz2xYVbfomi) says that about a third of exchange enrollees were previously uninsured. It is reasonable to expect that this percentage will increase with the end of open enrollment, but it still is not a great number.

YES: These are people who previously had not been insured. Factor in the people newly enrolled in Medicaid, and we are looking at something like 5 to 6 million people previously uninsured (http://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/2014/03/31/taking-stock-of-the-aca/#more-72011) (let's exclude those who received insurance from their parents under the age of 26, as this is an uncontroversial measure that would survive any reform effort). That is a substantial group of people for political purposes. Add to this group the people whose net costs have decreased because of significant premium and deductible support, and Obamacare now has a substantial constituent base.
For context, the United States government still runs a special railroad retirement insurance program (https://secure.rrb.gov/), as if it is still 1915. I can assure you that the number of constituents for the Railroad Retirement Board is much fewer than 6 million people, yet the program remains in place--99 years after it was established as part of Woodrow Wilson's courtship with industrial workers in advance of the 1916 presidential campaign. (Yes, we are still paying the price for Wilson's 600,000 vote margin over Charles Evans Hughes!).
What does this mean going forward for the politics of the law? Unlike Medicare and Social Security, Obamacare creates clear winners and clear losers. Of course, people end up losing in the deals in Medicare and Social Security (e.g. a person who has worked his whole life but dies at the age of 59 and thus never collects), but such people are never actually aware of the loss. Obamacare losers know that they have been made worse off, just as its winners know that they have been made better off.
Losers in the schema include people whose new insurance is more expensive or otherwise less satisfactory because of the new regulations, seniors whose Medicare Advantage program will be peeled back (or whose local hospital stops taking them because of cuts to Part A), businesses who cannot afford the mandates, people who lose their employer insurance as a consequence of the new business mandates, young and health people who, and others. Importantly, the administration's delays speak to the potential coalition of the losers, as almost all of them have been designed to keep these groups from realizing the harm they are due to suffer before the 2014 midterm election.
Two inferences to be drawn from this, one moral and one political.
The moral inference: Shame on the Democrats and the left for setting up Obamacare this way. The people who are losers in this schema have long been protected by both sides in an unwritten political agreement, which vouches that the only people the government "takes" from are those with plenty to spare. The rule was: you do not redistribute money and security away from the middle class to accomplish some policy objective. The Democrats broke this rule, largely out of cowardice. They wanted to hide the trust costs of the legislation. Rather than put together a straightforward tax that hit everybody equally (like the Social Security tax), they created a convoluted system to fund the program, such that people whose premiums have gone up are paying an implicit tax, one that happens not to be collected by the government.


The president deserves particular criticism. The president is the one elected official who can claim to represent all the people and thus has long been the agent to vouchsafe this political bargain. Barack Obama broke the deal, and he lied about it, to boot, with, "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan."
Next time you hear a liberal talking about radical conservatives breaking generations of tradition, remember that Obamacare is actually the break with the past. And a perverse one at that.
The political inference: The politics of this moving forward is a lot more complicated than people on both sides seem to think. This law cannot be repealed in a straightforward manner, nor is it securely in place. That is because there are winners and losers to be mobilized on both sides. The final fate of Obamacare depends upon (a) the relative size and strengths of both groups; (b) how well the two parties bid for their support.
This, then, is the goal for conservatives moving forward. The next week the Democrats and their water carriers in the media will cheer about how Obamacare is vindicated because of 6-7 million "enrollments." Nonsense. The real battle is going to be fought over the next few election cycles, as both sides mobilize their coalitions. Republicans must mobilize the losers and also present an appealing counter-offer to the winners. In any new program put forward by the GOP, people who are made better off under Obamacare must be left at least as well off. Not only that, but the program must be straightforward enough that Obamacare's winners will be able to understand clearly that in the GOP proposal their benefits will not disappear; after all, the Democrats and their friends in the media will do anything and everything to convince these people that they will be made worse off

RodB
04-01-2014, 01:07 AM
Right as rain for many liberals...

RodB


http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/regurgitating-the-apple-how-modern-liberals-think


....That's what 9/11 was to me. For years and years I'd hear my friends from the Left say how evil and horrible and racist and imperialistic and oppressive America is, and I'd chuckle to myself and think, "Oh, they always say that; they love America." Then on 9/11, we were beaten up, and when I grabbed them by the collar, and I said, "Come on, let's help her. Let's help America," and they said, "Nah, she deserves it."
At that moment, I realized: They really do hate America. And that began me on what's now a five-plus-year quest to try to understand the mindset. How could you possibly live in the freest nation in the history of the world and see only oppression? How could you live in the least imperialist power in human history and see us as the ultimate in imperi*alism? How could you live in the least bigoted nation in human history and, as Joe Biden said, "see racism lurking in every dark shadow"?
Over the next five years, what I came to think through, what I came to learn, what I came to find in conversations and studying, listening, and read*ing became this talk and very soon will be the book Regurgitating the Apple: How Modern Liberals "Think."


I assume that just about everybody in this room agrees that the Democrats are wrong on just about every issue. Well, I'm here to propose to you that it's not "just about" every issue; it's quite literally every issue. And it's not just wrong; it's as wrong as wrong can be; it's 180 degrees from right; it is diametrically opposed to that which is good, right, and successful.
What I discovered is that this is not an accident. This is part of a philosophy that now dominates the whole of Western Europe and the Democratic Party today. I, like some others, call it Modern Liberalism. The Modern Liberal will invariably side with evil over good, wrong over right, and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success. Give the Modern Liberal the choice between Saddam Hussein and the United States, and he will not only side with Saddam Hussein; he will slander America and Americans in order to do so. Give him the choice between the vicious mass murderer corrupt terrorist dictator Yasser Arafat and the tiny and wonderful democracy of Israel, and he will plagia*rize maps, forge documents, engage in blood libels--as did our former President Jimmy Carter-- to side with the terrorist organizations and to attack the tiny democracy of Israel.


It's not just foreign policy; it's every policy. Given the choice between promoting teenage abstinence and teenage promiscuity--and believe me, I know this from my hometown of Hollywood--they will use their movies, their TV shows, their songs, even the schools to promote teenage promiscuity as if it's cool: like the movie American Pie, in which you are a loser unless you've had sex with your best friend's mother while you're still a child. Conversely, NARAL, a pro-abortion group masquerading as a pro-choice group, will hold a fund-raiser called "'F' Abstinence." (And it's not just "F." It's the entire word, because promoting vulgarity is part of their agenda.)
So the question becomes: Why? How do they think they're making a better world? The first thing that comes into your mind when trying to under*stand, as I've so desperately tried to understand, is that if they side always with evil, then they must be evil. But we have a problem with that, don't we? We all know too many people who fit this category but who aren't evil: many of my lifelong friends, the people I grew up with, relatives, close relatives.
If they're not evil, then the next place your mind goes is that they must just be incredibly stupid. They don't mean to always side with evil, the failed and wrong; they just don't know what they're doing. But we have a problem with this as well. You can't say Bill Maher (my old boss) is a stupid man. You can't say Ward Churchill is a stupid man. You can't say all these academics are stupid people. Frankly, if it were just stupidity, they'd be right more often. What's the expression? "Even a broken clock is right twice a day," or "Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn now and again."
But if they're not stupid and they're not evil, what's their plan? How do they think they're making a better world by siding with Saddam Hussein, by keeping his rape and torture rooms open, by seek*ing the destruction of a democracy of Jews? I don't know if you've seen the list going around the Inter*net of all the Nobel Prize-winning scientists from this tiny state of Israel. How do they think they're making a better world by promoting to children behaviors that are inappropriate and cause diseases and unwanted pregnancies and ruin people's lives? How do they think they're making a better world?
What I discovered is that the Modern Liberal looks back on 50,000 years, 100,000 years of human civilization, and knows only one thing for sure: that none of the ideas that mankind has come up with--none of the religions, none of the philos*ophies, none of the ideologies, none of the forms of government--have succeeded in creating a world devoid of war, poverty, crime, and injustice. So they're convinced that since all of these ideas of man have proved to be wrong, the real cause of war, pov*erty, crime, and injustice must be found--can only be found--in the attempt to be right.
If nobody ever thought they were right, what would we disagree about? If we didn't disagree, surely we wouldn't fight. If we didn't fight, of course we wouldn't go to war. Without war, there would be no poverty; without poverty, there would be no crime; without crime, there would be no injustice. It's a utopian vision, and all that's required to usher in this utopia is the rejection of all fact, reason, evi*dence, logic, truth, morality, and decency--all the tools that you and I use in our attempts to be better people, to make the world more right by trying to be right, by siding with right, by recognizing what is right and moving toward it.
When this first started to dawn on me, I would question my Liberal friends--and believe me, there were plenty of them in Hollywood. The thing about Hollywood is that it is overwhelmingly Liberal: upper-case "L," not lower-case "l." There are a lot more of us conservatives than you would suspect, but they are afraid. It's hard to come out because what's so Orwellian--and virtually everything about this philosophy is Orwellian--is that the Lib*erals are as illiberal as you can imagine. As much as they scream "McCarthyism," there is a "graylist" there that sees people not get hired because they don't toe the Leftist line.
What you have is people who think that the best way to eliminate rational thought, the best way to eliminate the attempt to be right, is to work always to prove that right isn't right and to prove that wrong isn't wrong. You see this in John Lennon's song "Imagine": "Imagine there's no countries." Not imagine great countries, not imagine defeat the Nazis, but imagine no religions, and the key line is imagine a time when anything and everything that mankind values is devalued to the point where there's nothing left to kill or die for...

PeterSibley
04-01-2014, 02:15 AM
Rod, you are an intelligent man, please act like one .

Lew Barrett
04-01-2014, 02:54 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwCMe4KJCkQ

A lonely battle in the Bilge, one man alone, betrayed by the country he loves who is now their only hope..........

elf
04-01-2014, 08:45 AM
Elf, you should move to LA... you'd fit right in...
Weird.

I can't imagine living in a city any longer, prefer all four seasons, not basically one, love my home place in New England.

If I had to live in California, I'd love to live in Humboldt County, but would settle for Marin. West Marin.

Rod, you clearly have missed the signals about me.

John Smith
04-01-2014, 09:17 AM
We're driving "itty bitty cars" because of the EPA? Really? Not because they are less expensive to run? Besides - a Denali or Excursion or Escalade is an "itty bitty car"? I see 'em all the time & they're (by definition - thanks to W & his stoopid order) over 6,000 pounds. That makes them 500 lbs heavier than the biggest 1960 Cadillac (the 149" wheelbase Fleetwood 75 limo) & over 1,000 lbs heavier than the rest of the 1960 Cadillacs.

http://www.carnut.com/specs/gen/cad60.html

Please check your facts!

As I recall, the popularity of smaller cars came from the gas lines in the 70's. They were easier to park, cost less to operate, and were of high quality and surprising comfort. Hardly anything the EPA was involved in.

John Smith
04-01-2014, 09:21 AM
Elf, you should move to LA... you'd fit right in... like one of those clueless movie stars willing to describe the problems and solutions of the world with their "all knowing" grasp of the "truth"...

Try to understand this with your limited capacity of discernment... I would vote against your political philosophy simply based on observing the actions of the people you voted for and watching them lie (if they are talking they are usually lying). Mostly, they are quite dishonorable and as I have observed, there is nothing they will not do or say to stay in power. Additionally, their method of political battle is to put no limits on vitriol while ignoring decency in how they attack the opposition. Their goal is complete personal destruction of republicans ... simply because they cannot win with their arguments alone... but only by demonizing their foes with lies and of course hiding the real truth of their legislation from the voters.

Finally, the earlier charts that show the economy is improving... do show that... minimally in truth... I admit that. Its not that I don't believe the economy is improving slightly....its that it could be so much better by now if someone like Romney had been elected. The stagnant economy is the fault of this administration's poor policies. Many here continue to only blame the republicans in the House for lack of compromise, but the President has consciously decided to move forward with no compromise... his way or the highway... he's just such a great leader!!!!




Heres some facts for you libs to chew on....from "The Weekly Standard" ... no less! I'm hoping liberal thinking will allow for some facts to be interjected into the discussion.

RodB

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/big-picture-obamacares-politics_786275.html

















The right's hero (Reagan) was a movie star, and was as clueless as anyone. Why is it you only like Hollywood types voicing political opinions if they agree with yours?

What do you have against clean air and water? Or more people having health insurance? Or some security in their old age? Or being able to live on what they make working?

Why do you oppose programs that help poor families AND oppose those things that will cut down on the number of poor families? (contraception and abortion)

What this thread has proven to me is that conservatives simply don't think.

BrianY
04-01-2014, 09:22 AM
... I would vote against your political philosophy simply based on observing the actions of the people you voted for and watching them lie (if they are talking they are usually lying). Mostly, they are quite dishonorable and as I have observed, there is nothing they will not do or say to stay in power. Additionally, their method of political battle is to put no limits on vitriol while ignoring decency in how they attack the opposition. Their goal is complete personal destruction of republicans ... simply because they cannot win with their arguments alone... but only by demonizing their foes with lies and of course hiding the real truth of their legislation from the voters.


It's funny but I feel pretty much the exact same way about Republicans...I guess that's indicative of how split this country is. Everything that people of one side accuses the other of doing and being applies equally as well to their own side.

Paul Pless
04-01-2014, 09:26 AM
It's funny but I feel pretty much the exact same way about Republicans...I guess that's indicative of how split this country is. Everything that people of one side accuses the other of doing and being applies equally as well to their own side.imagine how tough it is on free thinkers and independents like myself :p

bogdog
04-01-2014, 09:40 AM
It's even harder on socialists the only true Americans.

Keith Wilson
04-01-2014, 09:52 AM
Neither Rod nor Mr. Sayet appear to have much interest in understanding how liberals think.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_cvdgPlEKW9k/TRq7nI9HNjI/AAAAAAAABlA/ETl9RrJu0kU/s1600/Straw_Man.jpg

Arizona Bay
04-01-2014, 10:14 AM
Nope, that was evident in the OP. :D

Maybe we should have an "Ask a Liberal" thread.

Garret
04-01-2014, 10:39 AM
Nope, that was evident in the OP. :D

Maybe we should have an "Ask a Liberal" thread.

Huh? Ask a Liberal how Liberals think? Why on earth do that? Don't Conservatives know better how they'd think? Wouldn't you ask an Arab how Israelis think? A Chinese how the Russians think? Sheesh.......

bogdog
04-01-2014, 10:45 AM
I think an "Ask a Liberal" thread would be great for conservatives seeking truth...a dial-up internet connection should be sufficient.

Chip-skiff
04-01-2014, 10:47 AM
"The Modern Liberal will invariably side with evil over good, wrong over right, and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success.

This is funny stuff, Rodster. Sounds a bit like the Rev. Paisley on the alliance between the Devil and the Pope.

Arizona Bay
04-01-2014, 10:52 AM
Huh? Ask a Liberal how Liberals think? Why on earth do that? Don't Conservatives know better how they'd think? Wouldn't you ask an Arab how Israelis think? A Chinese how the Russians think? Sheesh.......

Yeah, I wasn't thinking. ;)
We'd just lie about it.

Osborne Russell
04-01-2014, 11:25 AM
Name one? Gibson Guitar

Was targeted by the administration, based on environmental extremism, when?

Canoeyawl
04-01-2014, 11:32 AM
The bottom line...


imagine no religions, and the key line is imagine a time when anything and everything that mankind values is devalued to the point where there's nothing left to kill or die for...

Killing and dying, that's the deal is it?

Cuyahoga Chuck
04-01-2014, 11:42 AM
This post is utter nonsense... Conservatives would feel sorry for you for your obviously deluded mind. Don't ya think lazy, stupid unsuccessful people are everywhere... irrespective of party affiliation.
Your comments are illogical and illustrate irrational political bias.
RodB

Now now Rod, baby. You gotta' get away from these "ad hominem" attacks. I kinda' lost count but you must be up to a couple of dozen by now.

RodB
04-01-2014, 01:38 PM
OReilly is becoming more of centrist every day... and he does do a decent job in summarizing the situation today...
RodB






The truth about Obamacare and global warming



By Bill O'ReillyTonight is the deadline to sign up for Obamacare but it's really not. There is no deadline -- the rollout of the affordable healthcare law complete chaos. So sign up when you want, just tell the IRS you had trouble with the Web site, everybody does. That's all you've got to do.
Now, that doesn't mean mandatory national health insurance will not work eventually. It might. But for now, nobody knows. Republicans despise Obamacare because it expands big government and forces people to buy insurance they may not want. Democrats love it because it subsidizes health insurance for the poor.
But there is no question that after four years the Obama administration has not been able to sell the affordable healthcare law.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN BARRASSO (R), WYOMING: I think they are cooking the books on this. People want to know the answers to that.
JAY CARNEY, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: If we were cooking the books, don't you think we've got to cooked them in October and November? We could have saved ourselves a lot of pain.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O'REILLY: Well, they could have saved themselves a lot of pain by hiring private sector companies to run the machinery and sending Kathleen Sebelius back to Kansas where she can do little harm.
President Obama's entire historical legacy is riding on Obamacare. If it's running smoothly and costs are under control by the time he leaves office, he'll get credit for courage and innovation. If it's a chaotic disaster, he'll go down in history as a poor President. That's it. So we, the people, have to wait because, again, we will not know the facts for a while.
Now, on to the global warming. Big front page article in the "New York Times" that says "The earth is in peril, grave danger, especially for the poor who are apparently are going to be harmed by manmade climate change more than others". A U.N. report says that. But again, nobody really knows whether it's true. Nobody that is, except Brian Williams.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRIAN WILLIAMS, NBC NEWS ANCHOR: We've never been warned like this before, all of us, about climate change. Unless the world changes course quickly and dramatically, the fundamental systems that supports human civilization are at risk.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O'REILLY: Scary lead-ins aside, you cannot destroy your economy or allow villains like Putin to blackmail people with his fossil fuels while embracing some kind of phantom global warming theory even if that theory might someday be valid. But It'll give me one concrete thing that all responsible people should be rooting for.
On "60 Minutes" last night the report on the Tesla electric car which is a game changer. The car runs extremely well, looks good, it doesn't use gas, no gas at all. Now that car in the next few years could be available to millions at a decent price.
So everybody on the planet should be rooting for Tesla. I mean everybody even the traditional car companies that will have to compete. If Tesla can make a clean car, the entire automotive industry can. Therefore, the air would be cleaner everywhere and our wallets thicker. So let's get on it, people. But there will be resistance. Many conservatives don't believe in global warming and oppose alternative energy. I hope you guys rethink the energy part.
I completely understand that many in the green lobby are self- righteous, arrogant and dumb. But we would all be better off if clean, cheap energy becomes the norm. And that's the truth.
And that's "The Memo

RodB
04-01-2014, 01:39 PM
Now now Rod, baby. You gotta' get away from these "ad hominem" attacks. I kinda' lost count but you must be up to a couple of dozen by now.

Chuck, stop taking things out of context.. I was responding to personal attacks in kind... only I was nicer



"The Modern Liberal will invariably side with evil over good, wrong over right, and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success.

This is funny stuff, Rodster. Sounds a bit like the Rev. Paisley on the alliance between the Devil and the Pope.


Sayet gives plenty of examples to illustrate...!
RodB

bogdog
04-01-2014, 01:55 PM
Chuck, stop taking things out of context.. I was responding to personal attacks in kind... only I was nicer




Sayet gives plenty of examples to illustrate...!
RodBI'm sure he does, but Evan's a prime example of David Hannum's famous quote, even more so today.

Keith Wilson
04-01-2014, 01:58 PM
Sayet gives plenty of examples to illustrate...!No, sir, he does not. His entire rant is an exercise in inventing straw men, radically distorted versions of what people really think. Those who think invading Iraq was a bad idea are not "siding with Saddam Hussein". Those who support comprehensive sex education because abstinence-only programs don't work are not "promoting teenage promiscuity". Those who want to make our country better in way that you disagree with do not "hate America". Mr. Sayet is just making sh!t up. If you actually wanted to know what liberals think, reading polemics against them is not the way to do it. But of course you don't; you want your opinions validated. As you wish. But don't pretend you're looking for knowledge.

elf
04-01-2014, 02:12 PM
Was targeted by the administration, based on environmental extremism, when?
Gibson, and many other companies who manufacture things like clarinets, piano keyboards (not electronic, real pianos) which use ivory have been having problems because they must be able to show evidence of the source of their ivory. This new restriction on selling items with ivory which cannot be legally sourced is also impairing the antiques business in some serious ways as so many real antiques predate paper trails.

In an effort to stop animal poaching in Africa the US has passed sourcing laws which require a complete trail. The fines are very large in an effort to get to the middlemen who are facilitating the poaching. Even the salvaging of ivory from trashed pianos, which is one of the ways scrimshandlers get legal ivory, is being caught up in this problematic law.

Whether protecting endangered elephants and rhinos in Africa is environmental extremism or not depends on your point of view.

As usual, the real tragedy is human fecundity combined with extreme poverty. There is also a modicum of greed but not so much at the actual poaching level. Smaller families and better quality work wouldn't hurt.

But then people like Rod oppose things which would promote smaller families.

John of Phoenix
04-01-2014, 02:49 PM
Folks, you've presented some compelling facts but this guy simply isn't going to connect with reality.

Lew Barrett
04-01-2014, 03:05 PM
Was targeted by the administration, based on environmental extremism, when?

He's talking about the time(s) Gibson imported illegal and protected species for use as tone woods. They admitted guilt and paid some fines. So they were guilty, not just "targeted." They'd been warned previously as well, but willfully went ahead and continued to buy illegally sourced wood.

Yeah, they did it. (http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2012/0807/Gibson-Guitar-Corporation-admits-to-importing-endangered-wood) Targeted? Another way of saying it is that they engaged in criminal behavior.

Gibson, by the way, (I guess somebody can say this is just hearsay but as a 40 year veteran of the industry, I'm here to say it) is among the most loathed and disliked musical instrument manufacturers on the planet to do business with. They do make some lovely instruments, but their business practices are disliked by virtually every local reseller I've ever met.

Lew Barrett
04-01-2014, 03:09 PM
Folks, you've presented some compelling facts but this guy simply isn't going to connect with reality.

Or liberals. If the intent is to prove a point and win some agreement, another approach might be more effective.

bogdog
04-01-2014, 03:11 PM
...
Gibson, by the way, (I guess somebody can say this is just hearsay but as a 40 year veteran of the industry, I'm here to say it) is among the most loathed and disliked musical instrument manufacturers on the planet to do business with. They do make some lovely instruments, but their business practices are disliked by virtually every local reseller I've ever met.Are they sorta like a cheap version of a Martin?

Tom Montgomery
04-01-2014, 03:14 PM
If you actually wanted to know what liberals think, reading polemics against them is not the way to do it. But of course you don't; you want your opinions validated. As you wish. But don't pretend you're looking for knowledge.
Correct. Which is why contributing to this thread is a mistake. Doing so only feeds RodB's need and encourages him.

Lew Barrett
04-01-2014, 03:15 PM
Are they sorta like a cheap version of a Martin?

Not at all. They are entirely different. Everybody has their adherents. I think it's fair to say Martin is the established big name (I prefer them myself) in acoustic guitars, but Gibson has a huge and deserved following (in respect to quality) as regards their electric instruments and there are those who prefer Gibson's acoustics; they're just not the big name in that. Their mandolins are admired, especially the older ones.

Different product focus, really. I've never been much on the Hummingbird, but Emmy Lou likes hers. If you get that I am a Martin fan, you'd be right but I wouldn't call the Gibsons cheap Martins.

Lew Barrett
04-01-2014, 03:22 PM
Correct. Which is why contributing to this thread is a mistake. Doing so only feeds RodB's need and encourages him.

I always feel this way, but the conversation isn't just about Rod, much as he might (or might not...I don't know) think so. It's between the rest of us too. I do wish the trollers would raise less fish sometimes, but once the game is engaged, it's on.

Canoeyawl
04-01-2014, 03:26 PM
but once the game is engaged, it's on.
I think of it as "Catch and release"

bogdog
04-01-2014, 03:31 PM
Sometimes release is irresponsible that's why I carry a "preacher" when I'm fish'n.
http://shop.epicadventures.co.nz/Images/Products/13/2eafa275-4762-49f4-bcab-0f730f4b4ca8.jpg

Lew Barrett
04-01-2014, 03:34 PM
I think of it as "Catch and release"

Fair enough. I'm killing time at home waiting for a call from the vet. Dog's in getting his teeth cleaned so I can't ride my pickle today and I'm too lazy to start on a small rot repair I need to make on my deck. Rod rarely answers me, so I always feel I'm just talking with you other folks on these threads. It's OK, just don't set the hook too deep in my mouth! I'm mighty tender there my good friend!

And you....the living embodiment of a mean, cruelly intentioned liberal! (I had to add that!).

Keith Wilson
04-01-2014, 04:28 PM
There's an interesting, and quite serious, political science paper that Jonathan Chait mentioned in an article (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/04/obamacare-train-did-not-wreck.html) today. The original paper is here. (http://t.co/ZZrR3qEMPj) Chait is talking about health care specifically, but the paper applies to many areas. Here's the gist of it.


. . . two opposing camps who not only have different ideas about the role of government, but different kinds of ideas about the role of government.

One of my longstanding fixations, going back almost a decade now, is that we make a mistake when we think of liberalism and conservative as symmetric ways of thinking. On economic policy, at least, they are asymmetric. Liberals believe in activist government entirely as a means to various ends. Pollution controls are useful only insofar as they result in cleaner air; national health insurance is valuable only to the extent that it helps people obtain medical care. More spending and more regulation are not ends in and of themselves. Conservatives, on the other hand, believe in small government not only for practical reasons — this program will cost too much or fail to work — but for philosophical reasons as well.

A new political science paper by Matt Grossman and David Hopkins bears out this way of thinking about American politics. The authors find a fundamental asymmetry between the Republican and Democratic coalitions. They examined survey results and other data among voters, activists, and elites, and found that Republicans express their beliefs about government as abstract ideology (big government is bad) while Democrats express their beliefs in the form of benefits for groups. The differences are enormous:

http://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intelligencer/2014/04/01/01-ideologies-benefits-graph.o.jpg/a_560x375.jpg

The different ways of conceptualizing the debate over government spills over into every other way in which the parties operate. Democrats are more favorable toward moderation and political compromise; Republicans toward ideological purity and principle. It’s not coincidental that Republicans have instigated more high-stakes partisan escalation in Congress.This seems to be mostly the case with our small sample here.

Lew Barrett
04-01-2014, 06:29 PM
Thanks, Keith.

On a related topic; I don't so much resent having my ideas disagreed with, disparaged or thought to be naive, regardless of the substance or lack of same in the critique. I do resent the notion that I think the way I do because I am evil and have malicious intent. That's the beginning of an entirely different view of people that leads to nothing good.

htom
04-01-2014, 06:34 PM
No, sir, he does not. His entire rant is an exercise in inventing straw men, radically distorted versions of what people really think. Those who think invading Iraq was a bad idea are not "siding with Saddam Hussein". Those who support comprehensive sex education because abstinence-only programs don't work are not "promoting teenage promiscuity". Those who want to make our country better in way that you disagree with do not "hate America". Mr. Sayet is just making sh!t up. If you actually wanted to know what liberals think, reading polemics against them is not the way to do it. But of course you don't; you want your opinions validated. As you wish. But don't pretend you're looking for knowledge.

That's why it's so important to discover what conservatives really think by reading polemics denouncing them!

RodB
04-01-2014, 10:34 PM
A society predicated on the assumption that everyone in it should want to get rich is not well situated to become either ethical or imaginative.

Imagination plays a big part in creating wealth from nothing... a business plan, a movie script, a work of literature... only in a free capitalistic society can every american be free to be awesome in their endeavors.
A society predicated on cradle to grave entitlement from a massive government will create a nation of mediocrity at best and certainly not maintain the 200 year plus success of America in which the idea of america maintained for over a couple hundred years is to offer freedom to achieve anything you are willing to work for or anything you can envision and have the drive to make it happen.

Our nation is the single most successful and most powerful civilization ever in history on this earth. If we can just get rid of this progressive sickness, we can continue on as a completely free nation full of people who prize self reliance and a strong work ethic, a small government that stays out of our way to live our lives. The progressive ideas that have been growing insidiously as a disease over these past 40-50 years have been tried many times in history and failed EVERY TIME.

Every major civilization that became successful and powerful declined from within, not from without when at their zenith. Our "within" is taking place as I write this, and it aint the conservatives causing it.

This is what this conservative thinks...

RodB

Chip-skiff
04-01-2014, 10:43 PM
Imagination plays a big part in creating wealth from nothing... a business plan, a movie script, a work of literature... only in a free capitalistic society can every american be free to be awesome in their endeavors.

Creating literature is not a good way to amass capital. And I'd rather not be "awesome," thanks.

You must have written that last bit yourself.

elf
04-01-2014, 11:11 PM
Imagination plays a big part in creating wealth from nothing... a business plan, a movie script, a work of literature... only in a free capitalistic society can every american be free to be awesome in their endeavors.
Suggest you read some biography. Start with Bach, Mozart, Schubert, Haydn.

Creative people don't do much when they're sick, worried and hungry.

oznabrag
04-01-2014, 11:19 PM
worked for Mark Twain.

Right.

Actually, Mark Twain made a living as a newspaper reporter and editor until he made his big break by becoming the grandfather of stand-up comedy.

It was only then that he had any real commercial success.