So, today we learned that the unemployment rate ticked down to 9.0 percent, and that has Democrats acting like we’re now oh-so-lucky. Nancy Pelosi is even saying that had it not been for Obama’s stimulus, the unemployment rate would be 15 percent.
Besides the fact that she merely pulled a bigger number out of her ass to make 9 percent unemployment sound like an achievement, the fact of the matter is that the White House sold the stimulus on the assurance it would keep unemployment below 8 percent.
As you know, it didn’t. Unemployment peaked at 10.2 percent, and has remained well above Obama’s estimates. In fact, according to Obama’s calculations, the unemployment rate would have been between 6 and 7 percent by now.
This graph is particularly telling:
- Image courtesy of The New York Times
The unemployment rate was actually worse than White House projections had there been no stimulus at all.
Blogs For Victory 
Woohoo, and this is from a former 53% that is now part of the U-6 waiting to join the U-3 again (as soon as the doctor approves) and get a paying job again which isn’t too difficult as folks are trying to recruit me now. Maybe I will not make as much but work is work;
9.0 – Oct, 2011 U-3 (Official) Unemployment Rate
16.2 – Oct, 2011 U-6 Unemployment Rate
“The U6 unemployment rate counts not only people without work seeking full-time employment (the more familiar U-3 rate), but also counts “marginally attached workers and those working part-time for economic reasons.” Note that some of these part-time workers counted as employed by U-3 could be working as little as an hour a week. And the “marginally attached workers” include those who have gotten discouraged and stopped looking, but still want to work. The age considered for this calculation is 16 years and over.”
IIRC, the lowest the U-6 rate has been was early this year at 15.x %. Maybe that is where nanny Nancy got her number from?
The regime LIES from the top down.
alinsky-marx 101
DB
great news, Semper Fi
I’m going to go ahead and use you as evidence in the future that drawing a strict line and acting like the “53%” is a static group of people is dumb.
Or acting like it’s fun to pay no taxes…
Or that the Top 1% is a static group?
Economic mobility drastically drops as you approach the top and bottom end of the income spectrum. Yes, some of the top 1% are not always the same people as well, but it is more frequently true than people moving around the 53% mark. That is, of course, not to say that the 99% isn’t silly, of course, but at least they aren’t attacking people that are down on their luck already.
I will follow-up with a more complete post after I gather all of the correct information but part of what people should realize is that the 1% they are protesting is households making over 343K (or maybe 434K) per year. Not individuals but households and quite often multiple earner households that have risked everything in their own small business.
In addition, over the past 10 years (using figures ending in 2005) every group has seen an increase in total income with the largest beneficiaries being those from the lowest ranks moving up into higher groupings.
I know this will start a he said/ she said firestorm but I will put together the actual best figures available and post it ASAP.
Here, I’ll help you out on the research.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/2010/H02AR_2010.xls
That’s a US Census Bureau chart of shares of overall income divided by quintile and additionally a category for the top 5%. The overall percentage of income for the bottom quintile was 4.0% in 1967, 3.7% in 1995, 3.5% in 2005, and 3.3% in 2010. For the top 5%, it was 16.6% in 1967, 21% in 1995, 22.2% in 2005, and 21.3% in 2010.
In fact, the only groups that consistently move upward are the top quintile and the top 5%. The bottom quintiles have very clearly not been the “largest beneficiaries” of increasing income.
The administration fundamentally underestimated the severity of the economic downturn. That’s about the only solid conclusion here. But pretty much everyone with a PhD in economics outside the Chicago school already said that, so …?
“The administration fundamentally underestimated the severity of the economic downturn.”
The fact that the administration made such a blunder (of course in reality they are just covering the a$$ when their policies failed) does not give many confidence that they are the ones to solve it.
Let’s see…..
We have spent over $1 trillion in stimulus, cash for clunkers, green jobs, green economy and various aid schemes, plus extensions of unemployment (which according to many liberal looters are the best stimulus), etc. etc.
…. and we have nothing to show, in the way of improved economy, for it except tremendous debt.
Oh yes, the stimulus was a raving success.
I am sure we are going to see the obAMATEUR run on his record of success….. “FOUR MORE YEARS!!!” will be the chant.
Question: when will he start, he hasn’t yet? Will it be after this massive class warfare campaign?
I don’t have any insight into how Obama will run his reelection campaign and don’t really care.
wow, davey you really are dense today.
I am stating that obAMATEUR does not have a record to run on.
You are just afraid of the fact that he doesn’t, yet you are going to defend his inept policies.
“Question: when will he start, he hasn’t yet? Will it be after this massive class warfare campaign?”
If you used something approaching coherent English, then my responses might be more in line with what you want.
In any case:
1) You’re right, he doesn’t have a record to run on
2) I actually don’t care about Obama’s problems getting reelected. Which inept policies am I defending?
The 8% graph comes from report entitled “The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan”. It was never cited as a promise by the administration, Obama never cited the number at all, they were not “Obama’s calculations” or “Obama’s estimates”, and the report itself contained disclaimers such as the following:
“It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error. There is the more fundamental uncertainty that comes with any estimate of the effects of a program. Our estimates of economic relationships and rules of thumb are derived from historical experience and so will not apply exactly in any given episode. Furthermore, the uncertainty is surely higher than normal now because the current recession is unusual both in its fundamental causes and its severity.”
“Forecasts of the unemployment rate without the recovery plan vary substantially. Some private forecasters anticipate unemployment rates as high as 11% in the absence of action.”
Also, the baseline projection numbers match those provided by other organizations, such as the Congressional Budget Office, so there is no indication of malfeasance in the construction of the report, just a widely incorrectly predicted baseline. Nothing to see here, really.
That is until one joins the ranks of the U-3 due to workforce reduction (I refer to it as the Obama mandatory vacation plan), end up on the U-6 due to surgery and are awaiting clearance to go job hunting with gusto. Until then, all of my bills and the new COBRA payment ($543.84/month) comes directly out of my savings. Right, nothing to see here.
If it is true for you, what do you think the odds are that it is true for other people, as well? Do you think there aren’t other people who end up falling out of the portion of the population paying federal income taxes through no fault of their own? The bottom line is that I’ve never heard rhetoric about people who are “in the 53%, or well they used to be and they hope to be again soon”, because if you start including special cases like that, you end up a lot closer to 99% than 53%.
SO WHAT…
the idiot trail lets them use both sides of the path…its much like the way they published a report and claimed it “could be” subject to all kinds of flaws…as much as it is that reports showing that obummercare would fail to do anything but drive up costs of health care would be hidden and not used in its discussion of how health care costs would drop because of obummercare…its more about the immediate want in support of the liberal agenda than it is for the truth…the whole…truth…and nothing but…the truth…
its all in the eye of the beholder you might say…irrespective of things like personnal responsibility and moral behavior…lots of folks like to think that behind naive stooges is a great personnal characture trait…so they sit on that ledge and do the naive thing….
aint deniability such a grand thing!!!!!!!!!!!!
According to the CBO report, 600,000 to 2 million people have jobs as of now that were “created or retained” because of the $825 billion stimulus. Of course the CBO is totally dependent on data provided by the White House. A real unbiased and truthful source there!!!
If the maximum number of 2 million is accepted, that works out to a cost of $412,500 per job. If the minimum number of 600,000 is accepted, that works out to a cost of $1,375,000 per job.
Yes! It is a huge success along with the “investments” for Solyndra and others that are on the verge of bankruptcy!!!
—————–
“It was never cited as a promise by the administration”
Of course, cory “forgets” that the administration and Congress rammed this plan through citing that unemployment will rise above 8.0% if this does not pass!!!! Hurry! Hurry! Hmmmmm, sounds like a promise to me.
“For every day we wait or point fingers or drag our feet, more Americans will lose their jobs,” Obama said at a speech in Fairfax, Virginia. on Jan. 8. At that time the unemployment rate was 7.2 percent. Obama also claimed that the country would face double-digit unemployment without the stimulus package while the Congressional Budget Office forecast was slightly lower: 9 percent unemployment by 2010.
To boost support for his stimulus, Obama’s economic team released a report that estimated unemployment wouldn’t rise above 8 percent with a stimulus package, according to Associated Press. Even without a stimulus, Obama’s team echoed the CBO claim that the economy would shed 3-4 million more jobs, reaching 9 percent unemployment by 2010.
Nooooo, no promises were made! So when did the administration lie?
Now or then?
http://www.hyatt.jacksonville.com/forums/news/politics_forum/158748
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/07/02/unemployment-spike-defies-%e2%80%98stimulus%e2%80%99-claims/
Want more?
Just search “unemploymet will rise if stimulus not passed”.
No, it will never be near the 99% you so desire but rather 60/40 or even 70/30 until everyone has skin in the game. Then, and only then, will we be able to separate those that really need the assistance from those that are riding the system. Hell, if I went and applied for everything available and told them a sad tale of woe, I could collect somewhere near 75% of my previous salary and benefits–not to say the benefits would be as good as those I pay for now.
Assistance can also only be done at a local level with a check & balance system to catch those trying to scam the system but ever level up from local eg. State or Federal just allows more fraud and abuse.
In my book, basically, there are those people who want to work because it has been the way we were brought up, those that will take advantage of the system to skate even if it is more work than “real work”, and those that truly need assistance and no matter the disparage of pay between executives and employees–there is no 99%. The fat man did not eat the thin man’s piece of pie as the pie is not finite.
There are always options as in starting your own business with your own money and taking on all of the risk and you are free to pay your employees as much as you can afford. Add to that, I have never been offered a job by a poor man–I have no issues with whatever one can command from the employer or your perceived 1%. The more I produce for them–the more I can ask for in return but that will never exceed my value to the corporation (or at least not in one that expects to survive.)
in the old days…
if you could work you didnt qualify for welfare…period…
today..
if you can stay out of work…your benefits will not stop…
huge contrast in the moral characture of those who lived in the old day…and those who refuse to work today
[ re-posting part because of ID-10T or PIBCAK error]
In my book, basically, there are those people who want to work because it has been the way we were brought up, those that will take advantage of the system to skate even if it is more work than “real work”, and those that truly need assistance. This does not matter because of the disparage of pay between executives and employees–there is no 99%. The fat man did not eat the thin man’s piece of pie as the pie is not finite.
[ plus this entire mess should have been indented one level–oops 😉 ]
I am not saying that there are not people who abuse the system, nor am I saying that everything is peachy in the world of government assistance. But you sound like you are a perfect example of why talking about the 53% is kind of silly; just because you are not currently paying federal income taxes does not mean that you have done something to deserve it, nor does it mean that you are a drain on society.
the world is revealed in what you are not saying…
the truth should be more respected…those who have ears, let them hear these words…
Sorry, js, you’ve degenerated into incoherent gibberish. I can’t understand a word of what you are saying.
they say ignorance is bliss…you must be filled with it…
This is just proof that bams didn’t spend enough money. I say we give him, oh 6 or 7 trillion more dollars and see if that doesn’t fix the problem. Oh heck, just give a blank check. The fed can always print more if they run out.
Well, Jesse Ventura has finally lost it:
http://news.yahoo.com/ventura-miffed-court-says-hes-off-mexico-174718110.html
It doesn’t matter what bams said would happen. It was his intention that ue would remain under 8% with the stimulus. Intententions are everything with the donkys.
“It doesn’t matter what bams said would happen.”
Clearly it doesn’t to you guys, because he never made any guarantee that the stimulus would keep us under 8% unemployment.
“he never made any guarantee that the stimulus would keep us under 8% unemployment.”
sorry cory again, I have shown this to be an untrue statement.
I gave you the parameter for which to search. Obviously, you are afraid of the truth.
According to the CBO report, 600,000 to 2 million people have jobs as of now that were “created or retained” because of the $825 billion stimulus. Of course the CBO is totally dependent on data provided by the White House. A real unbiased and truthful source there!!!
If the maximum number of 2 million is accepted, that works out to a cost of $412,500 per job. If the minimum number of 600,000 is accepted, that works out to a cost of $1,375,000 per job.
Yes! It is a huge success along with the “investments” for Solyndra and others that are on the verge of bankruptcy!!!
—————–
“It was never cited as a promise by the administration”
Of course, cory “forgets” that the administration and Congress rammed this plan through citing that unemployment will rise above 8.0% if this does not pass!!!! Hurry! Hurry! Hmmmmm, sounds like a promise to me.
“For every day we wait or point fingers or drag our feet, more Americans will lose their jobs,” Obama said at a speech in Fairfax, Virginia. on Jan. 8. At that time the unemployment rate was 7.2 percent. Obama also claimed that the country would face double-digit unemployment without the stimulus package while the Congressional Budget Office forecast was slightly lower: 9 percent unemployment by 2010.
To boost support for his stimulus, Obama’s economic team released a report that estimated unemployment wouldn’t rise above 8 percent with a stimulus package, according to Associated Press. Even without a stimulus, Obama’s team echoed the CBO claim that the economy would shed 3-4 million more jobs, reaching 9 percent unemployment by 2010.
Nooooo, no promises were made! So when did the administration lie?
Now or then?
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/07/02/unemployment-spike-defies-%e2%80%98stimulus%e2%80%99-claims/
Want more?
Just search “unemploymet will rise if stimulus not passed”.
I’m not really following. Are you saying there would be lower unemployment without the stimulus?
A little dense are we this morning, David?
If you can clarify, feel free.
If you have to have it clarified, then I’m afraid I can’t help you.
I love how the denizens of this blog are too intellectually lazy to do anything but insult someone who would dare question what’s being said.
since you are too intellectually lazy to look it up for yourself (after given the parameters for a search).
Here is a link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2009/07/08/ST2009070802011.html
Here is something interesting in another linked article:
“To boost support for his stimulus, Obama’s economic team released a report that estimated unemployment wouldn’t rise above 8 percent with a stimulus package, according to Associated Press. Even without a stimulus, Obama’s team echoed the CBO claim that the economy would shed 3-4 million more jobs, reaching 9 percent unemployment by 2010.”
There is a link in that statement that takes you to the Associated Press article. When you click on it, the Associated Press website puts up the message that the link is no longer available.
Coincidence? or Covering obAMATEUR’s inept butt?
I am going to assume that your inability to cite anyplace in your boring post that Obama claimed the stimulus would keep us under 8% unemployment is tacit agreement that he didn’t.
Also, my favorite part of the graph in the Heritage blog is that unemployment was sharply above predictions in Q2 2009. The stimulus didn’t even get passed until halfway through Q1, and the money was not distributed until well later. This just confirms that the error was in underestimating the size of the problem in the first place rather than overestimating the effect of the stimulus.
Actually, looking again, unemployment was already substantially higher than the predicted curve by the time the stimulus was passed. Way to make my case for me.
wow, cory we already know you are big on ASSumptions, no need to prove it again.
Of course, links were provided, you just don’t to look at them for fear of being exposed as a drone regurgitating talking points.
Links were provided that did not quote him saying what you’ve claimed he said. Again, I take that as admission that you have absolutely no evidence.
Really cory” From the Business and Media Institute:
“To boost support for his stimulus, Obama’s economic team released a report that estimated unemployment wouldn’t rise above 8 percent with a stimulus package, according to Associated Press. Even without a stimulus, Obama’s team echoed the CBO claim that the economy would shed 3-4 million more jobs, reaching 9 percent unemployment by 2010.”
And as I said the link to the Associated Press was removed.
From the Washington Post:
“Noting that the Obama administration predicted earlier this year that stimulus spending would keep the unemployment rate under 8 percent.”
Uh, okay, what were you saying about being illiterate?
Or was it intellectual laziness, or fear of the truth???
Come on cory, I have gave you the benefit of the doubt that you were not as dense as you appear to be.
Maybe I am wrong.
I didn’t know an estimate was a promise. I’m still not entirely following what’s incendiary here other than the administration mis-predicted how bad the recession would be.
How about a ‘prediction’ based upon an estimate?
And aren’t we supposed to make decisions based upon estimates, such as the estimates of costs associated with Obamacare, savings claimed by implementing Obamacare, jobs created by the “stimulus” package, etc?
If you are claiming that we should not pay any attention to ‘estimates’ and that they are meaningless and should not be used as comparisons to actual figures, please say so.
We make decisions based on predictions that are not definitive all of the time. I have a 50% chance of rain where I am sitting, and thus the windows in my car are rolled up out the parking lot.
There is no argument that the estimates were incorrect. There is, however, a huge difference between someone saying “We think that X is the most likely scenario, and thus we should act accordingly” and “We guarantee X will happen if we take no action, but if we do Y, then instead Z will for sure happen”.
Well, davey, according to the White House projections (without the stimulus) and reality (with the stimulus)…..
…. yes.
You can read a graph can’t you?
Now that wasn’t so hard was it?
So you think that the White House projection for non-stimulus unemployment is accurate, even though the with-stimulus projection was so wildly inaccurate? The reason I’m confused is that you have yet to make a cogent point other than that you don’t think I deserve to be treated with respect. Duly noted.
Good news! We can tell the the projection without stimulus is inaccurate because the graph includes a month and a half where it hadn’t even been passed yet.
I think everyone can agree that the 2009, $787 billion stimulus was a huge success. In fact this Hope & Change thing is working out really well.
Yeah, when we call you guys out for using faulty data as a basis to form your opinions, I think the correct response is to post sarcastically about how we think Obama’s done a great job with the economy, which has nothing to do with anything anybody has posted. Good job.
“Good news! We can tell the the projection without stimulus is inaccurate because the graph includes a month and a half where it hadn’t even been passed yet.”
So cory, you are admitting to the fact that the graph is inaccurate or faulty?
You are aware that the graph is from data provided by the White House and BLS???
The HINT should have been:
Source: BLS, White House
I see you are easily confused by obvious facts.
Tired,
I have said repeatedly that the graph is faulty. Are you illiterate?
No cory, but apparently you are.
Are you admitting that the data from the BLS and the White House is fault, since that is what the graph is based on?
Then if that data is faulty, is unemployment really at just 9%?
As we have been saying all along that the unemployment rate is actually higher than the BLS and the White House are willing to admit??
Again, you are easily confused by simple statements.
I never made any claim that the graph was correct. I don’t know whose point you are trying to argue against, but it isn’t mine.
Davey, as I stated earlier. I really have no confidence in obAMATEUR’s administration predictions much less have the solutions to the economy.
But his graph shows the projections of what his stimulus plan will do and it failed to do so, but you drones will defend its success.
Even though obAMATEUR and you drones keep moving the goal posts as to what are “successful results”.
It is really not a hard concept to grasp, IF YOU ARE WILLING TO CONSIDER IT.
The only way the graph proves what you are saying is if you assume that the baseline of the graph is correct but the stimulus line is not, which as we’ve discussed repeatedly, is not true.
Let’s let Cory and David worry about the nuances of the unemployment rate as it relates to the stimulus. The other 70% of the country is focused on what really matters:
http://www.pollingreport.com/right.htm
Let’s other people concern themselves with stupid things like “factual accuracy”, we’ve got more important things to worry about!
Yes you do have more important things to worry about. Your President is an abysmal failure, and as a result, your country is imploding into class warfare and economic malaise. I am of an age and economic standing that I can survive this debacle, but your generation, and your kids generation, will certainly pay a price for this venture into “progressive liberalism”, if we don’t start turning the ship around.
Obama is by no means “my president”, and if he’s hardly particularly progressive. I just can’t stand all the factually-defunct criticism when there are legitimate complaints to be made. In a world where Sean Hannity can claim Obama said something that he never said at all and thousands of people take it as gospel, how can we possibly make intelligent decisions about our elected officials and government policy?
“Let’s other people concern themselves with stupid things like “factual accuracy”, we’ve got more important things to worry about!”
Ahhhh, the fall-back position when your prior arguments fall apart!
Only for people uninterested in fact is assessing the validity of the factual premise a “fall-back position”.
I’m in the 70%. That doesn’t change the fact that the original blog post was confused of complaints without a coherent conclusion.
…confused jumble* of complaints…
I love how the denizens of this blog are too intellectually lazy to do anything but insult someone who would dare question what’s being said. – David
And equally humorous to note are the liberal posters who are too intellectually lazy to do anything but defend a failed ideology by attacking an opposing ideology they don’t even understand.
Maybe we’d understand your ideology if somebody here bothered explaining their position when we try to engage them in conversation instead of talking at length about how we’re horrible people for disagreeing with you.
I have been around this blog for a long time, and rarely see any liberal wanting to engage in an honest conversation.
I’ll ignore the fact that the people you’re talking about have hardly espoused enough positional commentary to actually be classified as liberals. Your definition of liberal seems to be “doesn’t agree with this blog.” So anyway, basically your point is that all liberals are the same so you’ll treat them all poorly. Excellent life strategy, my friend.
You assume as a premise that all liberals are lying scum and then (Surprise!) you interpret all of their discussion as dishonest.
“positional commentary” – is that suppose to sound smart? My definition of a liberal is one who espouses a “collective” approach to governance, complete with cradle to grave entitlements, administered by a large central bureaucracy.
I also never said anything about treating liberals poorly, so that may be a subconscious freudian slip on your part, and I also don’t think all liberals are the same. I don’t know of any liberal that could achieve the high level of brain damage demonstrated by rodeo clown Ed Schultz of MSNBC.
Cluster, please quote to me my opinion on entitlements, because I don’t think I’ve posting anything specific on this blog. If that’s part of your definition, surely you are able to tell me exactly what part of my expressed opinion on the issue makes me a liberal?
Cluster,
My “positional commentary” point is that in general my criticisms here have been of very specific arguments, not conservative ideology itself. Typically, though, the response to these criticisms from others is to immediately label me a liberal/stooge/drone and then use some sort of guilt by association to attack my character rather than responding to the specific critique that I raised.
….the people you’re talking about have hardly espoused enough positional commentary to actually be classified as liberals…
So that’s the game—if you steadfastly refuse to state a political philosophy you can then come back and claim that it is impossible to identify your political leanings because you have not used the ‘right’ terminology.
Nice try.
In a way, you are actually supporting something I have often said here—that the Libs are really Pseudo-Libs, because they are ignorant of the political philosophy they support and defend through their nonstop attacks on what they foolishly think is “conservatism”. I have tried to lead you into this realization by challenging you to explain and define the political philosophy that goads you into saying what you say, and you refuse.
I don’t know if you refuse because you don’t really know, or if you realize that admitting to your beliefs will lead to being challenged to defend them, but in any case, you are right—you Libs, or Pseudo-Libs, are quite careful to avoid “espousing positional commentary” if by that you mean discussing ideology.
However, I contend that attacks on what you seem to think is conservatism, and defense of the people who DO represent “positional commentary” is, in and of itself, positional commentary.
You appear to be saying that if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, excretes ducky-poop, and lays eggs that hatch into ducks, it still cannot be “classified” as a duck without the “positional commentary” of declaring I AM A DUCK.
Maybe we’d understand your ideology if somebody here bothered explaining their position,,
You’re kidding, right? Every conservative poster here has posted clear, concise and coherent explanations of the conservative position, and now you are claiming that your failure to understand it is because it has not been explained to you?
I’ll try a new approach.
This nation is basically dealing with two opposing political models, vying for control of the country.
One is based on the historical fact that when this fledgling nation, new and raw and untested, formed and followed a political model based upon severe restrictions of federal scope and power, one which based itself on faith in the individual and on keeping government power as close to that individual as possible, by keeping it at the state and local levels, it exploded into a stunning powerhouse of economic prosperity and personal liberty. This political model made this nation a beacon of promise and opportunity.
One is based on the historical fact that a starry-eyed wish list of “equality” wishes and dreams, as outlined in the writings of Marx, Engles, and Lenin, has resulted in a political model which has never, EVER, resulted in anything but oppression, economic misery, loss of personal liberty, and even in some cases mass murder.
What we see here are people who believe in, advocate, and support the first political model, as it was created and set out as the law of the land in our own Constitution of the United States of America, and people who are passionately supportive of the other, Leftist, model. This is a model of large and powerful central government, and of suspicion of the average individual but belief that there are some who are inherently so superior they should be granted power over the others. It is not based on individualism but on collectivism.
An interesting difference is that the first dilutes power, spreads it out so it is never concentrated, and the other distills power and concentrates it among a select ruling elite.
The primary arguments for each side can be boiled down to:
Constitutional model: IT WORKS
Leftist model: WE THINK IT WILL WORK THIS TIME
OK, I came at this from a different direction. Perhaps THIS will sink in.
BTW, I have been challenging Leftist posters here on this blog to engage in actual discourse on actual political philosophy for about six years now, and none have ever done so. As a matter of fact, we routinely see mindless attacks on an imaginary “conservatism” which does not exist except in the ignorant feverswamp of blind hatred, and a steadfast refusal to explain, much less defend, their support of Leftist ideology.
David, you say …my criticisms here have been of very specific arguments, not conservative ideology itself..
Will you please tell us how you personally define “conservative ideology”?
I know, it’s like an open book test, as the post right before this one actually lays out “conservative ideology”, but perhaps you can explain your perception of it.
See Wallace November 7, 2011 at 2:10 am. // Moderator
wally whines as usual: “So what you people espouse around here isn’t conservatism? What is it, then?”
Fling……squish…..splat!
Again, wally flings his mental poop in the desperation something will stick and as usual he fails.
You have asked this several times, been given answers and only resorts to repeating it.
Again, performing the same actions and expecting different results.
As many times as you’ve been given explanations and you still don’t understand…. well that could be explained by your government education…. there is no hope for you.
Pathetic.
Amazona,
Does it not even register on your irony meter that you are complaining about label and identity politics while simultaneously demanding that we pick one of exactly two political philosophies?
“Will you please tell us how you personally define “conservative ideology”?”
How does that question even make sense? He just told you he wasn’t trying to address the conservative ideology at large. If he isn’t even trying to touch on it, why does it matter if he defines it?
See Wallace November 7, 2011 at 2:10 am. // Moderator
See Wallace November 7, 2011 at 2:10 am. // Moderator
Amazona,
Does it not even register on your irony meter that you are complaining about label and identity politics while simultaneously demanding that we pick one of exactly two political philosophies?
Cory, there is no argument that there are two primary political ideologies competing for how best to run this country. I don’t think it’s as important to pick one as it is to understand what you believe and why, something you have yet to articulate on this blog. And it is, after all, a political blog.
What, now you’re asking me to succinctly define my entire political philosophy in the space of a blog comment, too? Why does nobody seem to understand what a ridiculous request that is?
When I post contradicting evidence against a claim made in this blog, why can’t we just have a discussion about the claim rather than needing for some reason to try to tie it in to some grandiose system of the world? What possible clarification could you get in a conversation about historical economic guarantees made by the president by finding out my opinions on gun control, euthanasia, or Social Security?
See Wallace November 7, 2011 at 2:10 am. // Moderator
It is a simple question cory that can be answered quite easily.
Or, don’t you know what your philosophy is? Is it because you mindlessly regurgitate the party line?
SInce you are so resistant to answering, then it must be the latter.
Aha, Wally has finally, albeit accidentally, made my point for me. He bleats: “So what you people espouse around here isn’t conservatism?”
He goes on to whimper “Well, tired, is it conservatism or not? Amazona is complaining that people who argue against her are arguing against something that is not conservatism. So if her beliefs are not conservative, then what are they?”
Well, what you Pseudo Lib trolls are flailing away at is not what I have outlined as the conservative position. No, you run from an actual discussion of the actual tenets of conservatism like cockroaches scurrying for cover when the light comes on.
You steadfastly refuse to discuss the very elements of the conservative movement that are in opposition to the Leftist model. You focus on the trivial, the superficial, and my only question is whether you do this because this is as deep as your understanding of politics goes, or if you are actually aware of the pitfalls of real discussion about real facts so do whatever you can to avoid it.
You and your kind are quite skillful at steering discussions away from the real nuts and bolts of politics and into areas where your skills are an advantage—the areas of personal insult and attack, of squealing about personalities and scandals and individual decisions and events.
But you won’t, you absolutely won’t, settle down in one spot and have an actual discussion about which of the two prevailing political models you think is the best way to run the country.
You can run and hide behind your straw men and lies, whimpering that I am really just trying to make you admit to being more Marxist than Marx, blah blah blah wah wah wah, but the truth shines through your every feeble excuse.
You either don’t know anything about the real history of success and failure of the Leftist model but are sucked in by the superficial glitter of its promises, and don’t want to admit how ignorant you are, or you do know and realize that this is very dangerous territory.
As for conservatism, you either accept the glib and bogus explanations of the movement as presented by such as Rhodes, Schultz, and so on, or you really do understand the foundation for the movement and the unassailable history of success of its principles when applied, and recognize the dangers of trying to argue against what is so easily proved.
Your role as sneering, snarling, attack dog is perfectly suited to your pathology, but at some point the Left is going to have to send out someone who can and will argue the actual facts of the actual political movements, and when that happens your side will have lost this nation. And your minders know that,which is why they send out intellectual cannon fodder like you.
What, now you’re asking me to succinctly define my entire political philosophy in the space of a blog comment, too?
Cory,
That wasn’t what I asked you at all. All I’d like to know is what your core principles are. It might take more than a sentence or two, but it certainly doesn’t have to be a dissertation, Your stands on individual issues do tend to reflect your core beliefs, but virtually everyone I know has stands on individual issues that vary from their core principles. If you think debating about the use of words like “predict” and “Promise” is a mind expanding exercise, then you have an uninquisitive mind.
As Amazona noted, Conservatives here have stated on numerous occasions what the basic principles are that guide our thinking and our actions. Over the years that I’ve been here, only a couple Liberals have even tried to articulate what it means to be a Liberal. One guy a number of years ago gave the dictionary definition of Classic Liberal, which, in today’s world is pretty much a mainstream Conservative. It was actually kind of humorous, and he was so embarrassed that he left and, to my knowledge, never came back.
There are posters here who think all Liberals are closet Commies, and that doesn’t really further the conversation. But I also think there are Liberals here who are closet Commies and are simply afraid to reveal it by engaging in ideological discussions.
See Wallace November 7, 2011 at 2:10 am. // Moderator
wow, wally, amazona answered your question (a question you have asked dozens of times and we all have answered dozens of times) and again, you don’t like the answer.
The answer won’t allow you to fling your mental excrement hoping something will stick. That is all you can do since you are not here to “have a conversation or discussion” that you so readily regurgitate.
Perhaps I should phrase the response as you would and then you could understand.
“she answered your question, you are just too stupid to understand so simple a response. You need to get your tutor to explain it to you.”
There now you should be able to reach the next step. We have all tried before, but you are just too simple-minded to comprehend.
“As Amazona noted, Conservatives here have stated on numerous occasions what the basic principles are that guide our thinking and our actions.”
I guess part of my problem is that I’m not even sure what the question is. How about this: you provide a description of your political philosophy in the same format that you are expecting from me, and I’ll oblige you with a similarly detailed explanation.
I guess part of my problem is that I’m not even sure what the question is. How about this: you provide a description of your political philosophy in the same format that you are expecting from me, and I’ll oblige you with a similarly detailed explanation.
Well, it’s certainly taken a lot of beating round the bush to get to this point, Cory, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you haven’t been here long enough to read what Conservatives have written about what we believe, so here goes.
The American experiment embarked on in 1789 to determine whether man could govern himself led, over the next 150 years, to a level of prosperity and personal freedom exceeding anything that planet earth has ever known. Over the course of the last century, the modern Progressive movement, in the name of fairness, diversity, social and economic justice, etc., has sought to move the country farther and farther away from those principles that made this country the envy of the rest of the world. Those principles include limited central government, unlimited personal liberty within the constraints of the rule of law, personal responsibility, rugged individualism, entrepreneurism and risk taking.
That’s as short and concise as I can make it. I’m sure others here can expand on that without much difficulty. If Matt is reading this, perhaps he could devote a thread to the topic of what we believe and why. It’s actually the “why” that most interests me, because, as a Conservative, I know why I believe what I believe because it has a long history of success. Other than in tiny microcosms like Norway, the Left can’t really point to any long-term successes for Liberalism. It almost always comes down to, “well, this time it will be different”, but, so far, large scale applications of Liberalism have always ended badly.
OK, your turn.
No, I’m saying if you hear hoofbeats in Texas, don’t expect a zebra (or a duck).
Okay, here’s my best shot.
My goal, as yours is, is to maximize personal liberty. The reason we have a democratic government at all is because of the recognition that individuals and non-government entities are perfectly capable of getting power over us and then taking away those liberties. We collectively invest powers in a government as an external binding arbitrator so that we are guaranteed each a portion of that power rather than it ending up in the hands of whoever happens to have the biggest stick.
Given that, on any particular issue, we have to make an informed decision as to whether government intervention robs us of more or less liberty than allowing market/societal forces decide the issue on their own. If some government intervention is merited, then there needs to be a determination of exactly how much is required to hit the best possible return. On some issues, the answer will be that the government stays completely out of our way, and in some cases heavy government involvement will make sense (on economic issues, these will frequently coincide with natural monopolies).
We also have to be careful to not rob other groups of liberty to increase our own. Any decision we make will probably cost somebody some amount of personal liberty, and the decisions need to be made as much as possible without preference to our own situation. If we all fight only for ourselves and people like us, we go straight to the tyranny of the majority, do not pass go, do not collect $200.
There are a large number of practical considerations that we have to take into account while working towards these goals, but that’s as best as I can do for a general gist without going way outside the scope of what I’m willing to write in this context.
There are a large number of practical considerations that we have to take into account while working towards these goals, but that’s as best as I can do for a general gist without going way outside the scope of what I’m willing to write in this context.
Well, that’s a start, Cory. You wrote a lot, but you really didn’t say very much. I really only have one additional question — well, actually a two-part question, Setting political parties aside, do you (a) generally lean toward liberal solutions to problems or conservative solutions; and (b) why?
Cory, I know it is not your intent, but you keep making my points for me.
For example, you say: “Does it not even register on your irony meter that you are complaining about label and identity politics while simultaneously demanding that we pick one of exactly two political philosophies?”
You see, here you admit that you don’t know the difference between identity and philosophy.
Let me clarify this for you. Most people in the United States say they are conservative, rather than Liberal. This, you see, is a political philosophy—one of small central government, adherence to the Constitution, etc. etc.
Yet many who call themselves conservative, regarding their actual PHILOSOPHY, still register and vote Democrat. This is an identity. This is a label.
When we here try to get people to be clear, at least in their own minds, about the details of their political philosophy, we are trying to align the identity with the philosophy.
What we have is a hodge-podge of muddled thinking. Someone may be a staunch 2nd Amendment supporter, want more control at the state and local level, and want lower taxes, but still vote Dem because he likes the gay marriage stance. The first is his philosophy, the second is his identity, and they contradict each other.
The first is an intellectual stance, the second an emotional reaction to something that sounds nice, and fair.
“You wrote a lot, but you really didn’t say very much.”
That’s funny, I was thinking the same thing when I had to read to the last sentence of your explanation before I got past a bad history lesson and an attempt to set up liberals as the boogeyman. Is playing the partisan game so central to your belief system that you can’t define your ideology without referencing your opposition to the other team?
“Setting political parties aside, do you (a) generally lean toward liberal solutions to problems or conservative solutions; and (b) why?”
I am going to assume that for the purpose of my answers that by “liberal” you mean “with government intervention” and by “conservative” you mean “limited government” because otherwise I don’t know how to begin to answer.
I’m still not going to give you the response you want, probably, because I don’t know how I’d design an absolute scoring system for these things. For example, how much environmental regulation on businesses do I have to want before it is a liberal position? I doubt most conservatives want factories dumping heavy metals directly into primary sources of drinking water, so I don’t think the answer could reasonably be “any at all”, but at what point do I cross the line from a conservative position to a liberal one? Or how about gun control? Most conservatives probably don’t want people building nuclear weapons in their back yard, so obviously they don’t want me to have any weapon I want. If I want to ban automatic rifles but am in favor of concealed handguns (as a hypothetical, I don’t actually have a strong opinion on gun control), am I supporting a liberal or conservative solution? How strong do antitrust laws have to get before they are liberal?
The only thing I can really come up with is a relative scale based on a gut feeling rather than any objective measure. If I weight it by how important I think the issue is to the success and prosperity of this country, and use the current state of the country as the baseline moderate position to which I am comparing, then I come up with “liberal”.
Question B) is much easier to address. When examining an issue, I assess it using roughly the criteria that I listed above. I could be considered liberal because of the conclusions I have come to; I do not pick positions because they are liberal.
Amazona,
Your whole stupid philosophical dichotomy argument is premised on the two party system, so you don’t get to draw a distinction when it suits you. Either we have exactly two choices because there are two parties to vote for, or we have unlimited options because political philosophies and parties are not the same thing. You can’t have it both ways.
“You wrote a lot, but you really didn’t say very much.”
That’s funny, I was thinking the same thing when I had to read to the last sentence of your explanation before I got past a bad history lesson and an attempt to set up liberals as the boogeyman.
What part of the history did I get wrong?
Is playing the partisan game so central to your belief system that you can’t define your ideology without referencing your opposition to the other team?
Partisanship is one of the main driving forces in American politics. I’m sorry; that’s just the way it is. If everyone agreed on how to do things, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.
I am going to assume that for the purpose of my answers that by “liberal” you mean “with government intervention” and by “conservative” you mean “limited government” because otherwise I don’t know how to begin to answer.
As you’ve noted, there is a lot of nuance involved in almost all controversial issues, but I think, generally, that your assessment is correct and, at least, a good starting point. I do think that Progressives tend to attempt to make many issues more complicated than they really are because they tend to apply dynamics like political correctness, fairness, diversity and so on.
For example, how much environmental regulation on businesses do I have to want before it is a liberal position?
This is an excellent example of one of the really basic differences between Conservatives and Progressives. On the one hand, Conservatives don’t want dirty air and dirty water. On the other hand, Progressives either tend to see environmental issues as a way of redistributing wealth, or they don’t understand the law of diminishing returns — or both.
If I weight it by how important I think the issue is to the success and prosperity of this country, and use the current state of the country as the baseline moderate position to which I am comparing, then I come up with “liberal”.
Can you give an example of an issue that you think is important to the success and prosperity of this country on which your position comes up liberal?
“What part of the history did I get wrong?”
Really, I’m not going to touch that because I don’t think it amounts to an interesting or relevant discussion. I more brought it up to point out that I thought it was a very long-winded way of describing your philosophy, and you were at the time accusing me of doing the same.
“Partisanship is one of the main driving forces in American politics. I’m sorry; that’s just the way it is. If everyone agreed on how to do things, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion”
I can accept the practical necessity of recognizing the partisan nature of our current political system without it being a core tenet of my belief system. When I’m standing in a polling, I have to make a strategic choice. The rest of the time, I don’t see why any political system should reasonably have “not the other guy” as a core value.
I’d also look into some material like George Washington’s farewell address if you believe that the framers unquestionably intended our system to be based on partisan bickering between two parties.
“This is an excellent example of one of the really basic differences between Conservatives and Progressives. On the one hand, Conservatives don’t want dirty air and dirty water. On the other hand, Progressives either tend to see environmental issues as a way of redistributing wealth, or they don’t understand the law of diminishing returns — or both.”
That doesn’t really answer the question I was asking, though. If you want clean water and air, and Al Gore wants us to stop burning all fossil fuels tomorrow, at what point in the middle does the philosophy change from conservative to liberal?
“Can you give an example of an issue that you think is important to the success and prosperity of this country on which your position comes up liberal?”
We’ll go with health care. Our cost per quality of health care that we get in this country is outrageous compared to other industrialized nations. People complain about rationing and long lines in countries with universal coverage, but the reality is that we already have rationing here, we just do it based on wealth rather than some other system. One of the basic (but frequently not directly mentioned) tenets of our society is the idea that it is meritocratic. But disease and injury cost people productivity regardless of merit, so it ends up as a negative feedback loop forcing people with say a chronically sick child to have less ability to generate income to pay their increased costs. In order to be okay with rewarding people at the ratios we see for C-level execs versus blue collar workers in the same company, I have to be convinced that we actually are talking about something approaching a meritocracy. Otherwise it is just a big lottery, and I don’t see how that is productive for a society.
You assume as a premise that all liberals are lying scum and then (Surprise!) you interpret all of their discussion as dishonest. – Cory
This is exactly what I mean by liberals rarely engaging in an honest conversation. Thank you Cory for proving my point. I just didn’t realize it would come so quickly.
Let’s recap. I came to this post, made posts directly contradicting claims made in the blog entry about what this administration has promised about unemployment, and then you come in and try to make out like either David or I ever made any claims at all besides that Obama never made the statement you guys are saying he made. Then you start talking about how almost all liberals are intellectually dishonest without citing anything at all we’ve said that has been dishonest.
I get really tired of being called a liar and not having anybody tell me what they think I’ve lied about. If you aren’t going to provide specifics, then I have no use for you.
waleye
“Then you start talking about how almost all liberals are intellectually dishonest”
alinsky 101
“Pre-emptory accusations of dishonesty from people being dishonest.”
Again, wally shows his inability to understand the concept of irony.
He gets caught in lies all the time and then projects his behavior and faults on others.
Typical liberal drone tactic……
no wally, I didn’t call you a liar.
I PROVED YOU ARE A LIAR!
Big difference and one you continue to prove that you cannot understand.
Oh, it looks like you will have to change your alias sooner than you planned. “Wally” has been ratted out.
oh, wally, there you go again, being selective in your memories.
You are talking of one instance this week alone.
I, of course, am speaking of all instances.
One of your “tells” is losing all coherence (and bladder control) when caught and your posts show it.
Do try to keep up and stop with the usual deflect, distort and dodging tactics. Your projection is pathetic.
It is making “wally” looking very, very foolish and dishonest. I know he will join the ranks of bodie, monty, jeffy, slaccr and any other failed alias not mentioned.
Name one?
The one you named.
The second this past week was your “hitler was not a socialist” lie.
Using the SAME logic you used for David Duke, I used to prove that Hilter was a socialist. And after being caught in a contradiction, you made the claim that I said Duke wasn’t a Republican plus denied your own logic.
Two lies this week alone.
Now here’s the part where you will lose control and regress back to your usual and pathetic tactics.
“OK, so that’s one where ether you lied or you were too stupid to understand a very, very simple sentece”
no wally, your reading comprehension fails you again.
You brought up ONE example of you being caught in a lie, like it was some extreme rarity. I originally stated it was more than one instance of you being a proven liar.
And again, you are distorting and lying about what you said qualified David Duke to be a Republican. Let’s rehash (and embarrass you further) David Duke was originally a Democrat. I said he changed parties for political opportunity only. You said he was a Republican because he a) claimed to be one and b) his only political success happened as a Republican. You are up to two lies now. Now when YOUR logic was applied to Hitler you deny all your logic and reasoning. More lies piled onto the original ones. And they don’t end there.
But you again try to distort everything you say so you believe you can’t be pinned down.
Really, you are getting desperate and more foolish with each passing moment. It is really getting old. Save yourself more embarrassment and forget about your past and start a new alias and try not to repeat your failures.
See Wallace November 7, 2011 at 2:10 am. // Moderator
Wattle, thank you so much for illustrating, once again, your abject ignorance of the actual meaning of “politics”. You make the mistake of thinking that “politics” is about personality, identity, or label. It’s a typical rookie mistake, made by newbies or people like you who have no real interest in real politics, anyway, but are attracted by what you see as a validated reason to indulge your hostile pathology.
Politics is about the nuts and bolts of how best to govern a nation. People use and apply different labels for different reasons. Olympia Snowe, for example, runs as a Republican because her district has a larger number of registered Republican voters, although an examination of her ideology as shown by her voting record shows someone who is farther to the Left than a traditional Republican. Joe Lieberman identified himself as a Democrat until the label redefined itself as being too radically Left for his conscience.
You can allow yourself to be distracted by a label, be too shallow to go beyond superficial political identity, be too lazy to care, or all of the above. But the shrill hysteria of your determination to make something out of nothing—that is, the superficial and probably transient political identity assumed by David Duke—-proves only that you are an idiot, albeit a really crazed and toxic idiot.
And as usual, wally comes full circle with his denials, distortions, lies and whining….
You were caught in your usual lies wally. Notice that wally ignores his being caught in his Hitler lie and tries to deflect and project back on to me.
Get over it. You were crushed. Move on. Create your new alias.
You know …. wash, rinse, repeat ….
…and expect different results when you revert to your pathetic ways.
See Wallace November 7, 2011 at 2:10 am. // Moderator
No wally, you lie again.
I used your logic against you and you can’t stand it. You have to distort and deflect by trying to focus on your imagination that I “freaked out”.
Again, I used your logic against you and now you lie about what happened and you ignore the fact that I proved you wrong and a liar AGAIN!
Now you are trying to revise what happened.
It’s not going to work, but do keep repeating the same tasks and expecting a different result. No matter how many times you say it, it won’t become truth.
I grow bored dealing with mindless useful idiot leftist drones such as yourself.
See Wallace November 7, 2011 at 2:10 am. // Moderator
Wally’s delusions continue: “See, this is what makes it look as though you suffer from full-blown derangement…………”
….. and the gerbil continues to run in his wheel.
Unaware that he is in the same position as before and is getting nowhere.
See Wallace November 7, 2011 at 2:10 am. // Moderator
Gee wally, I don’t answer questions?
More projections by you and no understanding of irony!
I asked you questions time and again, and the only response I kept getting was “he is a republican… he is a republican”. And I never denied that, but for some reason you keep regurgitating the same lie that I have.
Again, you are trying to revise what actually happened. The only one you can convince with your lies and distortions is yourself.
You have run this into the ground and have gotten nowhere. You just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper.
See Wallace November 7, 2011 at 2:10 am. // Moderator
wow, wally, are you that incapable of simple reading comprehension.
As I said, the only response I kept getting was “he is a republican….he is a republican”, WHILE IGNORING other questions and points that I made to you.
You once again acknowledge what you think may score you a point and ignore what makes you foolish and the liar that you are.
Don’t bother responding, it will be another regurgitation of a prior response, since you have once again come full circle in your dodging and deflecting.
See Wallace November 7, 2011 at 2:10 am. // Moderator
See Wallace November 7, 2011 at 2:10 am. // Moderator
wally whines again: “Begging the moderator to come to your rescue.”
More lies and delusions…..
I guess that is what you have to do in order for you to cope with your massive shortcomings.
Looks like wally is about to create another alias since this one didn’t last as long as the previous one.
We know it is hard for you to stop the rants and meltdowns, but you keep demonstrating the exercise in futility all mindless drones have.
See Wallace November 7, 2011 at 2:10 am. // Moderator
…. and with Wally the lies continue.
You once again demonstrate your belief that if you repeat it enough it will be true.
Sadly, the “rescue” was a result of your ability to offer nothing but insult and invective with absolutely no substance.
Pathetic.
But do continue the whining, it proves my point every time.
See Wallace November 7, 2011 at 2:10 am. // Moderator
Wally, wally, wally, sadly, you are trying to distort and revise what you said.
Simply if that is only what you did then your post would not have been deleted. You post not only being highly inaccurate, was full of insult and invective. The predictable result of it being deleted was obvious. Your surprise indicates you have no understanding of the rules here. Those rules being so simple that anyone can follow them without much thought. But in your case, all you offer is insult, attacks and invective.
Apparently, you have done is so much that you are immune to recognizing it. As a drone, you automatically and instinctively, resort to such behavior.
Again, keep up the whining, with every post you prove my point.
Wally continues the shrill whining: “No wonder you always run crying to the moderator to protect you–you are utterly unable to protect yourself.”
Ah, more lies presented for him to cope with his fragile ego. 1) Prove any of the two. 2) Protect myself? From what? So, you admit to posting baseless personal attacks with no contribution to substance. I have protected myself. I have shown you to be the fool and the liar that you cannot help yourself from portraying.
It is too easy to do. That is why you have had SEVERAL aliases here at B4V. You’re required to create a new one to escape from your foolish talking point regurgitations, your lies, personal attacks and just the simple embarrassment you accumulate.
Your shrill cries of revision and distortion prove that you are incapable of standing behind what you have said – you acknowledge what you believe will score you points and ignore challenges and points made against you that show you to be an utter fool.
Give it up. You lost. Get over it and create that special new alias. But, do try to learn from this unpleasant experience that way you will not continue to repeat history.
See Wallace November 7, 2011 at 2:10 am. // Moderator
Wally, no matter how many lies and ASSumptions you post, there will be one true result in the end.
You will create another alias, since you have thoroughly discredited yourself with this one.
As in all useful idiot liberals, you blame others for your self-created problems.
I notice you did not answer my challenges to prove that “I ran to the moderator” and that you did not deny my accusation that you only have personal attacks since you have nothing of substance to contribute, nothing more. This once again proves my point that you only acknowledge what you THINK will give you a point and will always IGNORE facts and challenges that reveal you to be the liar and fool that you are.
Thanks for proving all my points once again.
Now post another screeching response void of any sort of facts – in short, keep up with your lies and delusions.
cluster said, “My definition of a liberal is one who espouses a “collective” approach to governance, complete with cradle to grave entitlements, administered by a large central bureaucracy.”
I thought that was what passes today as a conservative. Seriously. We had this discussion a month or so ago. What we learned is that conservatives such as Mark and NeoClown believe all entitlements should be banned–except the ones they are entitled to. Social Security? Conservatives are entitled. Clown and every other retired poster here is depending on it right now. They paid for it, they say, so they’re entitled. Mark admitted that he has failed to provide for his own retirement and is entitled to Social Security because he paid for it.
Medicare? According to you guys, all the conservatives are “forced” onto it, so you’re entitled. You won’t see any of you retired conservatives EVER giving up your Medicare. Of course, you could look to Green Mountain Boy, whose closed society eschews Medicare. So much for the “forced onto Medicare” argument. Clown, I think you should pay a visit to Boy and see if you can join him.
Those are by far the two biggest entitlement costs to the federal government. Virtually all of you conservatives, save perhaps GMB, are hypocrites when it comes to entitlements. But maybe you are different, cluster.
waspdouche
stuck on stupid eh wasp?
46% pay NO federal tax
53% pay LESS than 3% of all taxes.
lets start there ALL PAY and the same rate.
THEN we can talk about the INSURANCE the govt with held for ME and is re paying at a monthly pittance.
Hundreds of Occupy D.C. Protesters Block Conservatives From Leaving Summit
Car strikes three demonstrators in street showdown…
…children pulled into middle of brawl
=====================================================
‘We are Free but Not Equal’: Jesse Jackson Compares Occupy Wall Street to the Civil Rights Movement.
US
Occupy Atlanta linked to Nation of Islam?
You forgot social security. I will never see a dime of the money I have paid in. Thats quite a lot of over my lifetime working so far. I should never have left the farm to begin with if I had wanted to keep all that money. Then again I would never have earned that money if I had stayed on the farm.
Yet I am not worried at all when socialist do finally bring this system to an end. None of you are committed to lifting anyone up from proverty but are committed to bringing everyone down into poverty.
It is the history of socialism. It has never worked. Ever. Every place it has been tried it has failed. Tell me socialist and please be honest. Which country do you want to make The United States look like. North Korea? Cuba? China? Why must you have a top down system? What is the attraction?
Why pick failed socialist states rather than mixed economies that rank among the most prosperous countries in the world, like Sweden and Norway?
Because even in Norway and Sweeden the solcialist welfare state is failing. Look at Sweedens recent tax cuts and Norways deficits.
Not as bad as the PIIGS but sooner or later they will get there.
Sooner or later you run out of other peoples money. It is one law of economics that is irrefutable.
Norway’s deficits? Really?
See Wallace November 7, 2011 at 2:10 am. // Moderator
Once again, a Lib, or rather one of the superficial Pseudo-Libs, proves his total ignorance of what “conservative” means in 21st Century American Politics.
It’s always funny to see them babbling on about things they clearly do not understand, and posturing as political pundits when they can’t even bother to learn what they are babbling about.
And, of course, there is their total dependence on insult instead of content.
See Wallace November 7, 2011 at 2:10 am. // Moderator
Wally, I often wonder if you really are as stupid as you sound, or if you just don’t mind sounding this stupid if it gives you an opening to hurl your insults.
But no, you silly silly twit, I do NOT say that “…any opposition to conservatism is de facto “socialism….” I say that when you attack one side, you are supporting and enabling the other side.
This does not have to be your intent. But it is the effect.
And you would know, if you had any reading comprehension at all, that I have also made dozens, if not more, comments to the effect that I think most if not all of you on this blog who so viciously attack what your foolishly think is conservatism are, in fact, ignorant of the tenets of the system you support by attacking its opposition.
You;re just a tool, easily recruited for this kind of thing because of your inherent need to be vile and vicious and to attack people.
See Wallace November 7, 2011 at 2:10 am. // Moderator
Yes Cory deficits. Norway is lucky enough to have access to lots of oil in the North Sea. If it were not for oil profits Norway would be well on its way to being a carbon copy of Greece.
It’s a good thing they have a socialist program to have nationalized oil in their country, then!
Yes it is good thing they using thier capital to subsidise thier welfare state. What happens when they start spending more than they can take in? What happens if thier capital drys up?
Will they reduce thier spendings levels? LOL No true socialist will ever reduce thier spending. Hello Athens. Its only a matter of time.
http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/20752288-2010-table-nor/index.html;jsessionid=1r4993xk8g5vh.epsilon?contentType=/ns/KeyTable,/ns/StatisticalPublication&itemId=/content/table/20752288-table-nor&containerItemId=/content/tablecollection/20752288&accessItemIds=&mimeType=text/html
From 2001-2008 government revenues exceeded expenditures in Norway.
Also, I should note that the unemployment level has been quite stable throughout the crisis.
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=no&v=74
Norway’s GDP growth since 2005 has averaged less than 1%. They’re not last in the world, but they’re a lot closer to the bottom than the top.
And somehow they’re better able to provide for their citizens’ needs that the world economic leader: the United States. I guess those guys really don’t know what they’re doing over there…
Norway intentionally keeps their growth low by reinvesting their oil revenues into foreign bonds. The have continued putting money into bonds even during the crisis (although at a rate somewhat slower that their target rate for good economic times), so clearly they are looking to some other benefit besides short term GDP growth.
socialism is a reflection of mand desire for power over other men…forcing what they think is the good of the people on each individual…its never worked…it might have small success for short periods of time…but the innate human nature brings corruption…that power insures it failure…
when free men chose to do whats right…we florish…that freedom…is what our constitution and the declaration of independence are all about…because without freedom we have nothing…and if we refuse to fight to make sure that others are free…the the very freedom we cherish is not freedom at all…but a selfish illusion that hides the chains of bondage to a lie
David are you paying attention? Did you see the word “oil”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-06/norway-sees-structural-non-oil-deficit-at-nk122-bln-tv2-says.html
I am sure if you feel like it you can find previous years deficits. 2012 is the first year that Norway is expected to not run a non oil budget deficit. They are using a decidely capatalistic method to sustain thier welfare state.
So the question I would ask is. Which system is the failure? Capatilism or solcialism.
A nationalized energy industry isn’t a socialist method? Do you even know what socialism is, other than a dirty name you call people?
I never said either system is a failure. The problem is far more complicated that picking which label you’re going to cheer for.
Btw,
“Sooner or later you run out of other peoples money. It is one law of economics that is irrefutable.”
So…. whose capital are the Norwegian oil reserves? Not Norway’s?
The problem is far more complicated that picking which label you’re going to cheer for.
No, the problem is in thinking politics is about labels, and focusing on the identity instead of the philosophy.
Though it IS a lot easier, if you also reduce ”politics’ to picking an identity and then “cheering” for it.
I agree completely.
Speaking of Norwiegan oil and when it might run out. What will the welfare state do when it does? Quit spending money? Double LOL.
http://theenergycollective.com/index.php?q=Home/26797
Egad, by then they will have a huge cash reserve that they can continue making interest from and a bunch of hydro power to fulfill their own energy needs. It is almost like they are planning for that!
Again using thier capital to sustain a welfare state. They are lucky to have that capital. Without it they are greece. Do you disagree?
Just as an after thought here. Will anyone outside of Norway be able to afford to buy electricity from anyone. Electricity prices are skyrocketing in the EU. Got to stop all that carbon don’t ya know.
If nobody is buying your product, how can you divvy up the profits?
It’s not like their per capita GDP is substantially higher than ours, and Sweden’s is lower. So your point is that they’ve used their capital responsibly?
You can’t trust anyone in our government … and you can’t believe anything that, Democrats in particular, say. Honesty is not found in their vocabulary.
Whats your point Cory?
Norway would be in no better position than Greece if it did not have a wealth of natural resorces to use in a capatalistic manner. When those resorces are used up or unaffordable for export, Norway will be in the same position as Greece.
An unsustainable welfare state.
You keep pointing out that what they are doing involves capatalism as if somebody here said that we should get rid of capatalism. This, of course, is not true. I’ve never made the claim that using a market mechanism is always a bad idea, just that it isn’t the right answer in all cases ever. It is a tool in a tool bag with no inherent ethical superiority.
And again, yes Norway has more resources than Greece. Per capita, our GDP is much much closer to Norway than to Greece, so which country would you like to compare the US to?
Cory, why don’t you quit your tap dancing around and just come out and tell us——which of the two political, governmental, choices do you feel is the best way to run the United States?
The small-federal-government, state-and-local-controlled Constitutional model, or the large central government, central-control, Leftist model?
Each of these models will provide some opportunities to point out specific successes and failures but it is foolish to take a micro view when what is necessary to make a real decision, based on objective criteria, without stepping back and looking at the big picture of success and failure over, say, 100 years.
And it does come down to this first very basic choice. If you are determined to focus on the minute details of what you can identify as a success on one side or a failure on the other, to support an emotion-based inclination toward one side or the other, you can do this till the cows come home, and remain irrelevant.
We need to understand our choices, make a choice, and then work to make that choice as effective as possible. People who just complain about the wallpaper and don’t even know how to evaluate the structure are just noisemakers.
There are substantially more than two political, governmental choices and trying to boil it down to be that simple is grossly irresponsible. There are thousands of important choices to be made about the scope of the powers and responsibilities of our government, and I am entirely uninterested in picking a “team” at your behest.
……….I am entirely uninterested in picking a “team” at your behest.
What a lame cop-out.
Nice effort to duck and dodge the observation that you appear to be both politically ignorant and cowardly. But your response only supports my contention.
The most basic choice we have in this country boils down to the two opposing political systems I described. Yes, I know this is awkward for those who don’t want to bother with educating themselves about the origins of each system, and most of all of each system’s proven history of success and failure when fully implemented. I know it is hard for people deeply invested in moral relativism to accept the hard cold fact that the basic ideology of each side is, in fact, quite a contrast to the other, and that a choice between the two is made even when it is made by the intellectually sloppy who think they are voting for the superficial aspects and not the underlying ideology.
This is what you Lefties and Pseudo-Lefties don’t understand—that when you think you are voting for a warm-fuzzy idea that appeals to your emotions, like “fairness”, you are really casting your vote for a clearly defined political ideology about which you are evidently quite ignorant.
Just look at all the sheeple who felt so virtuous voting for the platitudes of ‘HOPE AND CHANGE” and who later discovered that they had really voted for the vast expansion of scope and power of the federal government, unsustainable debt in the pursuit of shoring up that central power base, and shoving the nation in the direction of Leftist ideology. Those of us who understand the two ideologies and where Mr. Obama stands regarding those two opposing views of ideal government knew what direction he would want and try to take the country, but few of those who voted for him had the same understanding, and voted as you suggest for various independent choices with no concept of the fact that they were built upon the basic ideology.
“The most basic choice we have in this country boils down to the two opposing political systems I described.”
No, it doesn’t. You can keep trying to generalize and demonize your political opponents ad infinitum, but it’s never going to be true.
Let me let you in on a little secret. The most basic tenet of your typical liberal’s ideology is that they want people to have the most personal freedom they can possibly have. They just disagree with you on the methodology.
See Wallace November 7, 2011 at 2:10 am. // Moderator
There are substantially more than two political, governmental choices
I put this in bold letters because I want to call attention to it.
This is what Cory posted. So tell us, Cory, about all those “governmental choices”.
Can it be that you truly do not grasp the fact that when you think you are voting for a specific special interest, you are really voting for the underlying ideology of the party which has dangled this interest in front of you?
I cannot thank you enough for expressing the very thing that has polluted and corrupted our politics. This shallow, superficial, perception of politics, this unbelievably naive and ignorant belief, is what has turned our elections into popularity contests based on who can dangle the shiniest lures in front of a gullible public.
Your response goes into my archives, to be brought out when the abysmal political ignorance of the American voter is discussed.
Actually, Cory has outdone himself in the Political Ignorance category, by saying this:
The most basic tenet of your typical liberal’s ideology is that they want people to have the most personal freedom they can possibly have. They just disagree with you on the methodology.
Oh, I don’t doubt that Cory believes this. It’s just that it is based on that starry-eyed wishful thinking thing I mentioned earlier. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the harsh political reality of the Liberal movement, or of its underlying political foundations.
See, this is how the well-meaning, sincere, but intellectually lazy get sucked into the Leftist trap. All they know of the Left is what the Left chooses to tell them, just as all they know of the Right is what the Left chooses to tell them.
To hell with history, say the Corys. Who cares about the reality of what happens to personal freedom under Leftist governance? It’s the ILLUSION that they love, the ILLUSION that draws them in.
I guess it was this vastly expanded “personal freedom” that has been shown so clearly in the past century, in Leftist-run nations, where people were actually fenced IN to keep them from fleeing. Or maybe it is shown in the mass murder of those who challenged the regimes, in the gulags and other political prisons, in the inspections of vehicles crossing from East Germany into West Germany, etc.
The Corys go no deeper than the rhetoric of the Leftist mouthpieces. They do no independent reading, no study of the actual FACTS of what has happened under the two vying political philosophies.
Yes, I am sure that Cory has a lovely, wistful, and heartfelt attraction to the promises of the Left. But the fact that he could make the statement I quoted is absolute proof that he has never gone beneath those promises to see what has happened to other people who have fallen for the same shiny lures.
See Wallace November 7, 2011 at 2:10 am. // Moderator
“Can it be that you truly do not grasp the fact that when you think you are voting for a specific special interest, you are really voting for the underlying ideology of the party which has dangled this interest in front of you?”
That’s cute. Which special interest do you think I am voting based on?
The reality is that the two party us vs. them thinking is what has turned our political system into a festering cesspool. My beliefs don’t come remotely close to matching those of either party, because both parties are filled with incompetent buffoons who are all willing to sell our personal liberties to the highest bidder day after day while convincing people like you via clever use of wedge issues that you are voting for two platforms that are completely different in all ways.
mattployment:
ho hum
i stop and visit
and it’s the same 6-7 neorightlibertarigodtrustatarians spouting off the same ole’ stuff
with a few insertions by the latest round of argumentors who will soon tire of the circle jerk
next…??… a few more new argumentors will jump in
to mix it up with mattneo and gang
and ho hum……..the same ole same ole jerry springer’esque back and forth continues…
ok……time to move on
love and kisses!
::))
The mothership stop by earth for refueling or did it crash?
baggi is a perfect example of my response to Cory, above. He thinks he so cute and darling, simpering about the trivial and being totally unaware of the serious.
I have absolutely no idea who bagni is. If you want to argue with him, I would try arguing with him instead of arguing with me.
Do work on your reading comprehension, Cory. Not everything is about you. I responded to your post, and then referred baggi to that response instead of repeating it.
Sorry if you got bumfuddled by the fact that there were two sentences in my response to baggi. One referred him to my response to you, the other commented on his silliness.
I’m sure we’ve all noticed the new Lefty tactic. They can’t argue politics, unless they reduce politics to personality and scandal, they can’t argue issues, they can’t argue policy—so they carp about semantics.
I’ve seen this developing—-the huge fuss made over quibbling over every word, every syllable. Can/do they discuss the very real facts of unemployment? Not hardly. They are on the wrong side. But what they CAN do, and what they DO do, is spend endless words on sniveling about whether or not the word “promise” was used, and when, and by whom.
This is chaff. Chaff was developed in the early days of radar, in WW2, when clouds of shredded tinfoil were released by airplanes to try to confuse the radar signal. The rabidly radical Left and their tools, such as Wally and Cory, have absolutely nothing of substance to say, yet are compelled to say SOMETHING, so they throw up verbal chaff to try to distract from the fact that they are not offering solutions, alternatives, or really anything but fluff. Hostile, nasty, insulting, hate-driven fluff.
Excellent analogy, Amazona.
You would think, sooner or later, that we’d get an intelligent Lefty or two that really has thought out the basic (and yes, they are pretty basic) differences between the conservative, limited government model and the liberal (modern Leftist, not classical liberal) model of collectivism and a powerful central government, and is prepared to defend the latter. As it is, they mostly come here to pick fly sh*t out of the pepper, as Cory and David have so profoundly illustrated in this thread.
Spook, I have yet to see one single person indicate even a basic understanding of theLeftist ideology he supports and defends by attacking some invented cartoonish perception of “conservatism”. Not one.
They not only appear to be willfully ignorant of the system they appear to support, they refuse to admit they support it.
So we are supposed to pay attention to whining, carping, bitching and moaning, and nonstop attacks coming from a contingent which defines itself as politically ignorant and politically cowardly—the only way to view people who don’t even understand what they are talking about and who lack the courage to stand up and admit to any political stance and then defend it.
See Wallace November 7, 2011 at 2:10 am. // Moderator
Oh, Wally Wally Wally, what a fool you are.
Here’s an idea. Radical, I know, but give it some thought.
Stop wallowing in your ugly need to attack and insult,and take the time to actually STUDY Leftist ideology, then come back here and point out what I have said about it that you THEN find “cartoonish”
Don’t hold your breath, folks. Wally won’t bother. Wally is an attack dog here only to insult and sneer, and to indulge his sick ugly pathology. He won’t ever let facts get in the way.
See Wallace November 7, 2011 at 2:10 am. // Moderator
That all these lefty drones do is regurgitate the latest “buzz” words, as in this case, “guarantee” and “promise”.
These drones expected us to believe their “valid” argument. The obAMATEUR said that unless the stimulus is passed unemployment will rise above 8%. That implies something. Their own tactic of implication (they used it for Bush in which they claimed Bush implied that Hussein was involved in 9/11) was used against them. But in this case it was very accurate. Unless we did what they wanted there would have been a negative result.
Now they attempt to spin it where there was no guarantee or promise. Just like when the desired results were not obtained after the passage of the stimulus, the talking points then were “we didn’t spend enough” or “It was worse than we thought” or “It’s Bush’s fault”, etc. etc.
These lefty useful idiot drones have nothing to contribute but regurgitated talking points and then there are those that just fling mental excrement hoping something will stick. Then whine, cry and rant when they don’t get there way or proven wrong at every turn.
We have too many examples of their behavior and it is really pathetic that this is all they can do.
We argue the specifics because sometimes we are undecided or actually agree with you to some degree bigger picture. In this thread, for instance, I’ve repeatedly argued against nailing Obama for saying something he didn’t say, but at the same time, I don’ think he’s done a great job. I also argued at length about Scandinavian socialism, but in no way do I think we should take either the Swedish system or the Norwegian system and implement it verbatim in our country.
Frequently, I also find myself in the position of bringing up some piece of history or something that I would never have touched on my own only so that I can demonstrate that another poster’s logic is fallacious, and then another poster will try to take me to task for bringing up stupid, unrelated like somehow it was my primary argument rather than a satiric mirror to another poster’s reasoning.
And finally, when things like that manage to actually not happen, people start yelling at me for debunking details they have brought up because I’m not looking at it big picture. This is incomprehensible to me; how can we assess the big picture without knowing the details? Do you not understand that if you can’t provide a solid empirical and logical foundation for your arguments, you are proving without doubt that you are expressing nothing more than your gut emotional reactions to an issue with no basis in reason at all? How do I debate against that?
What it really comes down to, though, is examining our reasons for posting in the first place. I have two reasons for being here. First, I engage in debate with conservatives and dip into conservative news/opinion sources for the intellectual challenge. I know that if I surround myself with only like-minded people and only listen to Noam Chomsky, I’m not likely to ever critically assess my own beliefs. Second, there is the vague hope that I can change somebody’s mind about something. I can’t do that by running in and yelling “Rich people should pay more taxes” and throwing a lot of exclamation marks on it. My only hope is to pick the small fights and hope it eventually causes people to re-asses their opinion at large on an issue.
My question for you guys is what you goal for posting here is. Do you have any interest in trying to convince us to change our opinions? Do you think repeatedly posting the liberals are dishonest scumbags or using words like “drone” and “regurgitated” enough times will convince us of our error? Or is the goal really to score points on some imaginary scoreboard for a game I’m not even playing? Are you just trying to convince us to leave so that you can go back to patting each other’s backs and not having your beliefs questioned?
First, I engage in debate with conservatives and dip into conservative news/opinion sources for the intellectual challenge.
Cory,
I can’t speak for other Conservatives here, but this sentence reflects the same reason I’ve been coming here for nearly 8 years. We only learn and grow as individuals by challenging what we believe to be true on a regular basis. I’ve followed your comments pretty closely, and, I have to confess, I haven’t seen any evidence that you come here to challenge your beliefs, only, as J.R. put it earlier, to “pick fly sh*t out of the pepper”. Why else would you spend an inordinate amount of time arguing a differentiation between “predicted” and “promised”? You don’t engage in debate about ideas; you engage in debate about minutiae.
I know that if I surround myself with only like-minded people and only listen to Noam Chomsky, I’m not likely to ever critically assess my own beliefs.
This sentence says more about you than anything you’ve posted here to date. When you’re coming from a position that’s that far left, I don’t think it’s realistic to engage Conservatives in an effort to “critically assess [your] own beliefs”.
I discussed in the very same post that you replied to as to why I stick to the small battles. This is a perfect example of the difficulty I have even arguing that though. Here’s what I see:
1) People post about Obama breaking his promise about unemployment, which is my mind intended as evidence that A) he’s a bad president and B) economic stimulus is a bad idea. If we call the promise-breaking premise C, in terms of formal logic the claim is that (C implies A and B).
2) The only logical response to this is to try to disprove C, which is what I believe I have done in this case
3) Then damage control kicks in. You guys move from (C implies A and B) to (A and B are true and C doesn’t matter at all, why are you spending so long arguing about it)? If the promise doesn’t matter to your argument, why did Matt bring it up in the first place? Why are some of you so vigorously defending the claim if it is immaterial?
What’s doubly difficult to handle is that at the same time you guys are claiming that I’m wasting all of your time by arguing against the entire point of the initial blog post, you still have tiredoflibbs continuing to try to prove that while Obama didn’t technically promise anything, he actually did. So if I continue arguing with him, in your mind I am continuing to argue dishonestly about a meaningless detail even though it was a detail that Matt brought up and tired continues to defend.
How does that even make sense?
And as a related note, Noam Chomsky was brought up as a bit of hyperbole. I am not all the way on board with whatever he says, so quit getting your panties all up in a wad. I’ve spent a lot more time listening to Mark Levin and Glenn beck than I have Noam Chomsky.
Cory,
At least you normally have something to say rather than just throwing everything out to see if anything sticks and a great many of us on this blog do try to keep it civil but strongly disagree not only with your facts but the premise of those facts like the Statist Swedish, and Norwegian systems as compared to the US model.
You discount the American model as being or the need to be a two-party system when that is exactly how it was designed to be. You use models like Norway (like a previous poster) which has very strict immigration and emigration controls, a general population of 4.7 million, slightly larger than New Mexico, and only has 4 cities with populations larger than 100.000 to America which has cities like NYC (which I don’t know why anyone visits) which bust your entire example countries population just in visitors per year.
America is America and we, as a nation, can not be compared to any other nation in this world. We, as a nation of individuals, can not be compared to any nation state that believes government and / or a collective solution is the answer.
dbschmidt,
As I said before, I agree that we should not be directly copying either Sweden or Norway, but the initial argument started because GMB pointed to China, Cuba, and the Soviet Union as proof that “socialist” (nevermind how broad a stroke that term actually is) ideas were doomed to collapse our nation. Even if I don’t think we should be doing the exact same thing, Sweden and Norway do make perfectly good examples of thriving mixed economies.
There is a deeper and more nuanced discussion to be had about which specific social programs could make sense in this country and which current programs we should alter or drop, but what hope could I possibly have bringing it up when people here seem to be convinced that my “political philosophy” (nevermind that they don’t even know really what it is, except for “knowing” that I’m either 100% or 0% liberal) is likely to cause the next Holocaust?
corky =
pure BS from a forker flying monkey.
Cory, do you agree that if you vote for a party because of a specific thing it promises or represents, you also get the rest of what that party means? That even if you do not understand the underlying ideological foundation of that party, when you put it in power because you liked some of its POLICIES you have put in power that underlying foundational ideology?
If you agree that this is what happens, then isn’t it incumbent upon you to take the time to study that underlying foundational ideology? Because that is really what you are voting for, consciously or not.
Ah, I finally see where this is going. You’d rather argue against the Democratic Party platform than me, so you keep trying to change the subject. How about this: you can hold me accountable for the Democratic Party’s ideology if I can hold you accountable for the War in Iraq, the Patriot Act, the ballooning national budget we’ve had under every Republican president in decades, Iran-Contra, Watergate, and McCarthyism.
Or you can stop trying to pull a bait and switch every time you post because you don’t have the intellectual wherewithal to address my points instead of somebody else’s.
How about this: you can hold me accountable for the Democratic Party’s ideology if I can hold you accountable for the War in Iraq, the Patriot Act, the ballooning national budget we’ve had under every Republican president in decades, Iran-Contra, Watergate, and McCarthyism.
Cory, I know this was aimed at Amazona, but I’d like to take a stab at it.
The statements by top Democrats supporting regime change in Iraq have been played over and over on this blog, and the Authorization for use of force in Iraq would not have passed either house of Congress without substantial Democrat support.
The Patriot Act passed the Senate 98 – 1 with Mary Landrieu not voting and Russ Feingold the ONLY senator voting against it. The Patriot Act passed the House with strong bi-partisan support 357 – 66.
Assuming Barack Obama is re-elected, he is on track to accumulate as much debt in 8 years as ALL OF THE REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS in my lifetime put together. If he’s stopped at one term, he’ll accumulate more debt in 4 years than Bush 43 did in 8.
Iran Contra was, while I believe, wrong, nevertheless a noble response to outright support of Communists in Nicaragua by Democrats in Congress.
I’ll give you Watergate. I don’t know anyone who defends Nixon’s actions.
McCarthy may have been a demagogue, but history has proved that he was more right than wrong about Communists in high levels of our government at the time.
Or you can stop trying to pull a bait and switch every time you post because you don’t have the intellectual wherewithal to address my points instead of somebody else’s.
And just exactly what would those points be?
The point wasn’t to say Republicans were exclusively responsible for any of those things, it was to point out that Republicans have been supportive of some activities that I’m sure a large portion of you don’t agree with. I end up frequently voting for what I consider the lesser of two evils as I am sure you guys do as well, but that’s an indictment of political system rather than any of our personal value systems or moral characters.
We’ll get a lot farther in this conversation if we talk to each other instead of having me complain about Boehner while you complain about Obama.
“And just exactly what would those points be?”
You can usually tell those by reading my posts. In this blog post, it was first and foremost a discussion of the interpretation of the graph displayed prominently at the top of the page, and then moved on for a little while into a discussion as to whether a mixed economy was automatically doomed to failure. In the most recent blog post on gay marriage, it was a suggestion for a possible compromise solution on the issue of gay marriage (which has no responses at all, because people don’t seem to try to nail down my grand political philosophy unless I disagree with them on a specific issue on which I assume they have run out of related arguments).
Cory, I have no idea where you get your weird ideas. I have said absolutely nothing to imply that I hold you responsible for anything. As a matter of fact, I think many of my posts indicate that I don’t even hold you very responsible for what you actually post.
You are most definitely not responsible for the Democratic Party platform. What you, and people like you, ARE responsible for is the turning over of the United States to a group of people whose representative openly admitted that his goal was to “fundamentally transform” the country, to someone whose cadre of advisers known colloquially as “czars” are openly hostile to the Constitutional form of government, to someone deeply invested in collectivist government, to someone who when not reading from a script blurts out his real agenda, such as the statement that “when the wealth is spread around everyone benefits”.
You asked a very silly question. I have no way of knowing if you asked it seriously or with intent to try to make a point. But you seemed to latch onto the phrase “special interest”.
If you vote for something promised by a Dem candidate, you are voting for the entire Dem platform, like it or not. If you put a Dem into office because you liked what he said about, for example, Iraq, you are also responsible for putting him in the position of being able to implement the other agendas of his core ideology and that of his party. Drop the offensive phrase “special interest” if it bothers you. It can be anything.
If you never delve beneath the surface of what any candidate says, if you never bother to understand the core ideology of his party, then you can vote for one of those “thousand” government issues quite unaware of the fact that the issue you voted for is not separable from the whole of the ideology.
Picture a pyramid. The underlying political philosophy, the core ideology, is the broad base of the pyramid. Too many people see, and make decisions upon, only the upper tier or two of the pyramid, unaware or uncaring of the foundation of ideology below that pyramid.
So if all you can see, and all that can sway your decision, is for example a belief in gay marriage, or in “free” health care, and you vote for someone who promises these specific things, you are also voting to put in place the rest of the ideology as well.
This is why I keep saying “study the ideology and base your decisions on the core beliefs of how best to govern the nation” and then choose candidates who are most likely to implement those core beliefs. Start at the bottom of the pyramid and work your way up.
Study the actual writings of each of the two opposing systems, and learn what inspired them. Then look at the histories of these two systems, look at what has happened when each of them has been applied in governing a nation.
If you do this and you find a sincere, educated, commitment to Leftism, at least when you vote to put Leftist ideology in place at the top of our nation’s government it will be a decision based on actual knowledge and not just an emotional attraction to one of the superficial aspects of that ideology.
But people like me will still ask you why you have made this choice and will challenge you to defend it, based on the actual background and history of the movement.
“Cory, I have no idea where you get your weird ideas. I have said absolutely nothing to imply that I hold you responsible for anything.”
You are trying over and over to hold me responsible for the Democratic party by blaming me for voting for them. You did it just now, in the same post that you said this in. For like the whole long, boring post. In fact, that’s the only thing you’ve done in any post here for days as near as I can tell. And then after that, you try to claim that the modern Democratic party has the same ideology as all liberals in power anywhere have ever had, which is also ridiculous. There are hundreds of Democrats in national office, and they don’t even all vote with each other consistently, much less agree on everything with every liberal in history.
Your whole point in posting is to link me to ideas that are not my own, no matter how you want to phrase it, so that you can try to convince me to defend those positions instead of the ones I’ve posted. It is woefully transparent, and I’m still not going to bite.
Let’s turn this around a little. The Republican Party, for all your protestations of wanting limited government, has expanded the federal government’s budget and scope repeatedly every time they have been in power for decades. They have lowered taxes under the false premise of shrinking the government, but the associated reduction in governmental scope hasn’t followed. Was the correct response to stay at home or vote for the Democrats come election day because you think that the Republicans are doing kind of a bad job? Or did it make more sense to try to change the party from the bottom via the Tea Party movement?
There are always more choices to be made than the one we make in November at the polls, and which party that I don’t really like that I end up voting for ends up being relatively uninteresting. I am much more interested in defining my own belief system and using any other effort I am going to give on the subject towards getting what I actually want out of my government and not settling for the least sucky option. That might entail a movement to allow for instant runoff voting to break the two party system, or it could involve holding just a few specific politicians accountable as I can, or it might just involve swaying just a few minds either among personal acquaintances or random strangers where I can. Any of those things will matter a lot more than my personal presidential vote, because I live in a state that isn’t anything close to a swing state and the electoral college system throws my vote right out a window.
Cory, Cory, Cory, get over yourself. No, YOU ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.
You are not responsible for the fact that it exists. You are not responsible for the fact that it is sliding inexorably, and with increasing rapidity, into hard-core Leftist ideology.
What you are responsible for is your vote. YOUR VOTE. And if you vote for a party which is intent on implementing more and more radical Leftist policies, either because you agree with them or because you only skim the surface of politics and pick and choose the sparkly things that catch your attention without realizing that when you vote for the warm fuzzy feel-good item you also vote for the whole package, then yes, you share the responsibility for the fact that this party is in charge.
Are you really denying any responsibility for the fact that the Dems have the White House? Did you vote for Obama? Do you attack what you seem to think is conservatism? Conservatives?
But no, YOU ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. Just for what you have done to support it.
Perhaps in a Cory-centric world, you ARE the center of everything. But not here.
“Your whole point in posting is to link me to ideas that are not my own,”
So what ARE your ideas??
The Republican Party, for all your protestations of wanting limited government, has expanded the federal government’s budget and scope repeatedly every time they have been in power for decades.
And thank you, yet again, for proving my point.
“Republican” is an identity.
Conservatism is a philosophy.
When the identity and the philosophy are in conflict, chaos ensues and changes are in order.
So we see 9,000-12,000 attendees at CPAC calling themselves “conservative” and not “Republican” because the party has slid so far from the philosophy.
So we see the TEA Party, consisting of Republicans, Democrats and Independents, turning their backs on these identities and focusing on the philosophy.
And yes, no matter how shrilly you squeal in contradiction, there ARE only two basic political philosophies vying for control in the United States in 2011-2012. One is Conservative/Constitutional and one is Liberal/Leftist
Let me get this straight. You aren’t arguing that I only have two choices because our country has a two party political system. You are just so deluded that you think on a whole slew of issues ranging from social to economic to foreign policy, there is something that compels me to either choose everything from column A or everything from column B. I am not allowed to choose some mix of the two, or option C on any given issue, because the whole discipline of political philosophy can be boiled down to one big, stupid dodgeball game.
corky
on dope? or just one?
Out of curiosity, how is it that Wally gets all his posts deleted, but neocon1 can post things like this consistently and never get touched? It’s okay to post nothing but personal insults as long as you only insult liberals?
See Wallace November 7, 2011 at 2:10 am. // Moderator
Ah, wally is still on the same delusions as before?
When are you going to learn wally, that repeating something false over and over does not make it true? If you past record is any indication then the answer is never.
I know you can’t help posting crap that you know will get deleted. There are posts from those of us on the right that have crossed the line that have been deleted.
It is not our fault that you drones are more sensitive to criticism than we are. You present whining indicates this ultra-sensitivity that you demonstrate over and over.
Time for that new alias now isn’t it?
See Wallace November 7, 2011 at 2:10 am. // Moderator .
Wally continues the lie (knowing the rules of the blog): “I’m not the one who went whining to the moderator, tired.”
I haven’t….. and you have yet to prove otherwise.
Plus, you posted your usual personal attacks and vitriol. Then you act surprised that your posts were deleted.
Again, you are living with delusions that it is everyone else’s fault that your posts were deleted.
Also, you are still whining about it.
If you don’t want your posts deleted, post something of substance and not your usual attacks, vitriol and mental excrement.
That new alias is looking better and better, isn’t it?
See Wallace November 7, 2011 at 2:10 am. // Moderator
Yeah, wally/bodie/monty/jeffy/etc/etc/etc, just keep repeating the lies.
We know it makes you feel better inside.
We also know that reading comprehension is as foreign to you as obAMATEUR sounding intelligent when making a speech without a teleprompter.
Your first hint should have been the warning the moderator kept giving you in your prior deleted insulting with no substances posts.
And by surprised, I mean you know that your posts are going to be deleted for their insulting content and yet you do it anyway. How can you expect a different result for the same unacceptable behavior?
Oh that’s right, you are a mindless drone.
Continue the whining wally, you prove my point every time!
How’s that proof coming? You know the proof for your BASELESS (more like lies) claims.
See Wallace November 7, 2011 at 2:10 am. // Moderator
Gee wally, if you know your posts are going to be deleted then why are you complaining? Again, you act surprised to seem them gone and complain that they are.
Are you not expecting them to be or are you?
EIther way, it is your own fault that they are being deleted not mine.
But I see you are still desperate to score any types of point….
… which is pretty pathetic, but if that is the only way you can feel good about yourself have at it.
Just don’t blame others for your actions that get your posts booted.
But then again, you are a liberal useful idiot drone, who proves my point each and every time you post your usual bilge.
“Again, you act surprised to seem them gone”
You really don’t know the definition of the word “surprised,” do you? Not once have I acted surprised; I even went so far as to explain why it isn’t a surprise at all that you ran to the moderator to delete my posts, as it’s part of your typical cycle. But to you, knowing exactly what’s going to happen means I’m surprised when it happens; another calamitous failure from the guy who thinks that asking somebody why they aren’t reciting their talking points is an accusation of using talking points.
English, tired: You really need to learn how to both understand and use it.
Again, wally, you don’t seem to understand the word ACT.
You complain that your posts are removed, but admit to you expect them to be removed since their content breaks the rules.
Then you lose control of your bladder when they are. So you ACT SURPRISED – it is not a hard concept to understand.
But you are desperate to score political points and forget your prior position and again make a fool of yourself.
“You complain that your posts are removed”
Where did I complain? Why do you always have to lie, tired?
“but admit to you expect them to be removed”
Yes, which is why I’m not surprised that they are–you always ask for posts to be removed after you’ve melted down. It’s the denouement of your freakout routine. But somehow you think me not being surprised means I am surprised. But basic reading comprehension (and basic honesty) always seem to elude you. How sad for you.
And, wally comes full circle again with his illogic.
Where did you complain? Oh please, when you whined about how I “went running to the moderator, after my meltdown”.
What are going to move back to next since this little dodge didn’t work out? Hmmmm?
Stop it, wally. You again get caught and in your desperation to “win” at something you jump backward and claim another lie.
Still, where is your proof that I ran to the moderator and made him remove your posts.
The cold hard fact (that you can’t stand) is that you broke the rules (AGAIN) with your usual poop flinging insults. Plus, you are mad that you cannot post anything of substance that is not easily refuted and shot down.
Typical and pathetic, little drone.
Where should I send the crying towel?
“I “went running to the moderator, after my meltdown”.”
That’s not complaining, that’s just pointing out what you did. But I can see how you would fail to understand that, given the frequency with which you failed at basic reading comprehension in this thread alone. Have you figured out that not being surprised is not the same as being surprised? Have you figured out that asking somebody why they aren’t reciting their usual talking points is not the same as accusing them of reciting their usual talking points? Have you figured out what the words “everything,” “may,” and “prove” mean?
Of course you haven’t. The English language remains an inscrutable mystery to you.
Wally is being a little dense again today.
That was not an example you complaining – that was in reference to the post WHEN you were complaining. Sheesh, your reading comprehension problems again rear their ugly heads.
I have heard of people being purposefully obtuse, but you have gone straight to insanely ridiculous.
Still waiting for your “proof” that I did what you claim and not just some simple declarative statement you keep repeating over and over with the belief that it will come true.
Once again, you prove my point.
“That was not an example you complaining – that was in reference to the post WHEN you were complaining.”
Yeah, uh, here’s what you said:
“Where did you complain? Oh please, when you whined about how I “went running to the moderator, after my meltdown”.”
Once again, basic English has flummoxed you again. Or is it dishonesty, tired? After all, in addition to being demonstrably stupid, you are a proven liar. You’re just an all-around human failure.
wally has more delusions: “Once again, basic English has flummoxed you again.”
Oh wally, you cannot judge others about “basic English” when you have no clue yourself.
Again: “Where did you complain? Oh please, WHEN you whined about how I “went running to the moderator, after my meltdown”.”
Wow, can’t any more basic than that. In the post WHEN you first whined about how I “went running to the moderator, after my meltdown” is when you complained.
Sheesh, you are either a blithering idiot or being deliberately obtuse or just plain lying AGAIN.
It won’t be the first time you were caught in a lie.
Wow, you are so desperate to score some point that you are once again reduced to incoherence and jumping around and around in your poor logic.
Again, you dodge my request for proof that your posts were deleted because I “ran to the moderator” and not because your posts are loaded with the typical liberal drone BS that breaks the rules of this blog. You just keep proving my point again and again and again.
Thanks for proving me right for the umpteenth time, tired. And I 100 percent guarantee that you don’t even understand that you did so because of your massive struggles with the English language. Because this quote of yours is exactly in line with what I said:
“In the post WHEN you first whined about how I “went running to the moderator, after my meltdown” is when you complained.”
That’s when you accused me of “complaining,” when, of course, I was merely pointing out what you did and not complaining about it at all but rather reveling in the fact that you had bottomed out for the time being. But I know how you consider facts to be “personal insults,” so a pathetic pile of failure like yourself can’t do anything but get it wrong.
So, wally, the answer would be “no”, you have no proof of your wild claims. You find it necessary to lie and make stuff up in order to satisfy your OH SO FRAGILE ego.
I cannot describe it any plainer than I have when you complained. You did complain and found it necessary to blame me for your posts being deleted and not for the truthful reason that your posts are nothing but vitriol and insult with absolutely no substance.
I have not “proven you right” on anything. That is your poor reasoning again soothing and convincing your fragile ego that you cannot possibly be proven wrong again and again – which is in reality what happened. You just cannot accept the fact that you have lost again – your posts were deleted due to the fact that you cannot follow simple rules.
Thanks for playing.
“You find it necessary to lie and make stuff up in order to satisfy your OH SO FRAGILE ego.”
This bit of projection is so perfect, it’s as though Amazona ghostwrote your comment.