• Welcome to BellGab.com Archive.
 

Proof Conservatives Know They're Done

Started by NowhereInTime, February 06, 2014, 07:30:24 PM

Quote from: NowhereInTime on February 22, 2014, 07:48:58 PM
I would, except there's not one factual thing you just said.  Khadafy was "contained and quiet"?  Ask his citizens how "quiet" he was.  We knew him as a murderer of Americans going back to Pan Am 103 over Lockerbee and he didn't deserve one more day in charge. 

...  Iran wants back in to the world after three decades of isolation...


Yeah, Khadafy was a bad actor.  I'm not saying he was a good guy, only that's it's worse there now.

He'd 'mellowed' quite a bit in recent years and was no longer an active enemy.  Which is the main thing.  He had even been helpful in regional African diplomacy in recent years.  You think the Moslem Brotherhood offshoot in charge there now will be helpful in way way?


The Iranian people are our friends.  Which is why it was an outrage that Obama sat on his thumbs and said nothing during their uprising a few years ago.  It seems he only gets involved when al-Qaeda or the M Brotherhood have a chance to seize power during these uprisings. 

That aside, the thuggy mullahs are still in charge.  Nothing has changed, or will change, until they are deposed.  Tyrants all over the world have shown they would rather be isolated with sanctions than change.  They personally still live the good life.  Do you really see them sending their warships to our shores as friendly?  Or something other than a show of contempt for Obama's weakness?  Sheesh



Quote from: NowhereInTime on February 22, 2014, 07:48:58 PM
... Anyone who has ever studied China knows that they are, since Mao's death, the very model of pragmatism.  They could've told the Brits to stuff it when Maggie came calling in the 80's to keep Hong Kong and taken Hong Kong into the meat grinder.  Instead, Hong Kong is one of the world's most important commercial cities in the world because of the negotiated treaty between Xiopang and the British government (One Country, Two Systems).  The biggest weapon China has is a world class poker face.  Yes, they are mustering their miltary to impress their neighbors in South China Sea and airspace.  Watch how this plays out; not one shot will be fired - the Chinese know how to deal. I'd wager they will form a cartel that they lead, but give off a cut to the neighbors to keep the peace.  Remember, China's real objective is to control a source of oil to fuel their economy, not to be a player on the commodity stage. Plus, they are underway with talks to expand relations with Taiwan, an island they could've taken anytime in the last 70 years but don't because the bloodshed serves no purpose...


Yes, the Chinese are smart savvy players.  They've been eating our lunch since the Clinton era.  They are making these moves now because they know exactly what kind of weak ignoramus Obama is.  Read The Art of War, then some of Mao's thoughts on the military, then pay attention to what the government and the military leaders are saying and doing now.  "Advance where the enemy is soft, retreat where he is hard".  Now is the time for the to announce sovereignty over those sea lanes and islands.  They know Obama is a pussy.

By the way it's 'Deng', not 'Xiaopang'.  In Chinese the family name comes first. 



Quote from: NowhereInTime on February 22, 2014, 07:48:58 PM
... Man, what you don't know about foreign policy would crash every server in the Western Hemisphere.

Wanna try again?


Oh, you do make me laugh.  I'll give you that.

Ben Shockley

oh, Pavlovian*Boy,
  a country full of black hair just chills you to death, don't it??


NowhereInTime

Quote from: Paper*Boy on February 23, 2014, 04:57:19 AM

By the way it's 'Deng', not 'Xiaopang'.  In Chinese the family name comes first. 
And it's Margaret Thatcher, not "Maggie" but leave it to you to grant no artisitic license.


NowhereInTime

Quote from: Paper*Boy on February 23, 2014, 04:57:19 AM

Yes, the Chinese are smart savvy players.  They've been eating our lunch since the Clinton era.  They are making these moves now because they know exactly what kind of weak ignoramus Obama is.  Read The Art of War, then some of Mao's thoughts on the military, then pay attention to what the government and the military leaders are saying and doing now.  "Advance where the enemy is soft, retreat where he is hard".  Now is the time for the to announce sovereignty over those sea lanes and islands.  They know Obama is a pussy.

I would hardly say "eating our lunch", especially since the 'Bam Admin has been taking them to task for everything from counterfeiting to human rights and North Korea.  China has never been more open to our businesses than now (ask Ford, YUM brands, Tesla, etc) precisely because they don't view Obama as an imperialist threat.  Pussy? You don't know how the game is played, especially with a civilization as old and as traditional as China's. Leaving aside the fact that you just regurgitated everything I said about China and repackaged it as your own novel idea, you still don't get that China wants to be safe, secure, and prosperous, not bellicose and dominant.  Where were they in the Iran negotiations?  As it happens, a helpful backstage actor.
About North Korea?  Its still a client state and they cannot lose face by fuly repudiating them but you know by their actions they are fed up with that world class embarassment.
They may call themselves Party Chairman and President but its still classic Mandarin China.

Ben Shockley

Quote from: NowhereInTime on February 23, 2014, 10:11:07 AM
I would hardly say "eating our lunch", especially since the 'Bam Admin has been taking them to task for everything...
...but, he's Black!!! Don't you get it???    Give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile!!  He's killing you just like that goddamned murdering drug-importing rapist Clinton killed you for 8 years!!!
    Hey Nowhere, I know you're no Clinton fan!  Just let me sarcastically analogize!!  :-*

Ben Shockley

Quote from: NowhereInTime on February 23, 2014, 10:11:07 AM
...About North Korea?...
How many Manly-Man Republicans  here have run combat patrols on the Korean DMZ?  I especially mean, more than wimpy-ass Obama-voting me..??


Yorkshire pud

Quote from: Ben Shockley on February 23, 2014, 03:42:27 PM
How many Manly-Man Republicans  here have run combat patrols on the Korean DMZ?  I especially mean, more than wimpy-ass Obama-voting me..??


With that combination, doesn't that make you a liberal/commie/anksy something? Or even Marxist?

Ben Shockley

...no, Pud -- they just inflate their seditionist creds by yelling in the streets with a dime-store rifle strapped to their back making them feel SO SO special.


Quote from: NowhereInTime on April 11, 2014, 10:23:29 AM
This:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/10/rush-limbaugh-stephen-colbert-assault_n_5127182.html

"War on middle America?"  Losers.


I think Steve is a good pick. I hope he can pull it off sans his phony conservative get-up. The good news is, folks will finally get to meet the REAL Steve Colbert. I`m betting people are going to be a little surprised. He just a good ol` boy from a HUGE Catholic family that lived right down the road from me, here in South Carolina.

Quote from: NowhereInTime on April 11, 2014, 10:23:29 AM
This:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/10/rush-limbaugh-stephen-colbert-assault_n_5127182.html

"War on middle America?"  Losers.
An actual know-nothing conservative windbag doesn't find humour in a satirical know-nothing conservative windbag?  Irony is not in Rush's lexicon, apparently.

NowhereInTime

Another "Inconvenient Truth" for P*B, FTF, SciFi Scribbler, and all other baggers:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101589214

Go figure.  Down one TRILLION.  Really screws the narrative, don't it?

Yes, yes, those lefties at CNBC must have it in for you. blah, blah, blah...

SciFiAuthor

Quote from: NowhereInTime on April 16, 2014, 03:23:07 PM
Another "Inconvenient Truth" for P*B, FTF, SciFi Scribbler, and all other baggers:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101589214

Go figure.  Down one TRILLION.  Really screws the narrative, don't it?

Yes, yes, those lefties at CNBC must have it in for you. blah, blah, blah...

Read it more closely:

"Balance sheets, across the spectrum in the U.S.,are far healthier than they have been in years. Banks have a couple trillion dollars in excess reserves, and are far better capitalized than their foreign counterparts. Corporations are sitting on over $2 trillion in cash. Household balance sheets have been de-levered significantly, while household net worth is at a record $80 trillion!"

In other words, there's that capital you keep screaming about and want released. If you didn't simplistically blather on and on about how it's all the 1 percent's fault (which in reality has very little to do with it), there is a kernel there that I would actually agree with. The banks should not be sitting on so much money this far along from 2008 recession. If they've got it, it means they aren't lending it.

He does touch on something interesting however:

"What also doesn't square with reality is the notion that the U.S., as Bridgewater's Ray Dalio describes it, is going through a "beautiful de-leveraging," a reduction in all forms of debt that, while painful, is rebuilding the country's economic foundation, not destroying it, as many claim."

Unfortunately he doesn't describe it in real terms other than painful. It's actually the average Joe's buying power getting sapped by rising health insurance premiums (i.e. the reason the government is saving money from healthcare costs is because it stopped being paid for by taxes and moved to being paid for by premiums. In effect, this is akin to privatization. You agree with this?). You can see the effect here:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/M2V

The reason neither the Dems nor the Republicans want to claim this is because the underlying reasons for it are more suggestive of a coming recession than a boom period as Mr. Rosegoggles that wrote the article seems to think we're in. This ain't no late 90's Nowhere, that should be abundantly clear to even you. It's in fact a highly unnatural, credit hostile and skewed economy where a handful of corporations and banks are posting growth while everything else is stagnant or shrinking.

NowhereInTime

Quote from: SciFiAuthor on April 16, 2014, 06:55:58 PM
Read it more closely:

"Balance sheets, across the spectrum in the U.S.,are far healthier than they have been in years. Banks have a couple trillion dollars in excess reserves, and are far better capitalized than their foreign counterparts. Corporations are sitting on over $2 trillion in cash. Household balance sheets have been de-levered significantly, while household net worth is at a record $80 trillion!"

In other words, there's that capital you keep screaming about and want released. If you didn't simplistically blather on and on about how it's all the 1 percent's fault (which in reality has very little to do with it), there is a kernel there that I would actually agree with. The banks should not be sitting on so much money this far along from 2008 recession. If they've got it, it means they aren't lending it.

He does touch on something interesting however:

"What also doesn't square with reality is the notion that the U.S., as Bridgewater's Ray Dalio describes it, is going through a "beautiful de-leveraging," a reduction in all forms of debt that, while painful, is rebuilding the country's economic foundation, not destroying it, as many claim."

Unfortunately he doesn't describe it in real terms other than painful. It's actually the average Joe's buying power getting sapped by rising health insurance premiums (i.e. the reason the government is saving money from healthcare costs is because it stopped being paid for by taxes and moved to being paid for by premiums. In effect, this is akin to privatization. You agree with this?). You can see the effect here:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/M2V

The reason neither the Dems nor the Republicans want to claim this is because the underlying reasons for it are more suggestive of a coming recession than a boom period as Mr. Rosegoggles that wrote the article seems to think we're in. This ain't no late 90's Nowhere, that should be abundantly clear to even you. It's in fact a highly unnatural, credit hostile and skewed economy where a handful of corporations and banks are posting growth while everything else is stagnant or shrinking.
I did read it closely. It's why I posted it. 

There's no revelation in there that counters any of my points.  Yes, I've been screaming about capital flow, and this article verifies my belief that the one percent are hoarding cash and they're using it to drive up commodity prices, (where your real "sapping" of buying power occurs) which is the only way they can gin up fat returns by taxing the very consumables the everyday person needs.  Why are chocolate bars smaller than ever?  Why is gas still expensive even after a glut of oil and enhanced refinery production?  Priced Orange Juice at the grocery lately?  There wasn't that much frost in FLA this year.
As to "Mr. Rosegoggles"?  That's Ron Insana, one of the smartest, most in-touch people on Wall Street.  He used to anchor several CNBC shows, has started his own hedge fund, and is a financial consultant to many top firms. 
If "Mr Rosegoggles" , who knows this material inside and out, can see the silver lining, why can't you?
Oh, because then you'd have to admit your conservative pessimism was flat out wrong.

SciFiAuthor

Quote from: NowhereInTime on April 17, 2014, 07:43:58 AM
I did read it closely. It's why I posted it. 

There's no revelation in there that counters any of my points.  Yes, I've been screaming about capital flow, and this article verifies my belief that the one percent are hoarding cash and they're using it to drive up commodity prices, (where your real "sapping" of buying power occurs) which is the only way they can gin up fat returns by taxing the very consumables the everyday person needs.  Why are chocolate bars smaller than ever?  Why is gas still expensive even after a glut of oil and enhanced refinery production?  Priced Orange Juice at the grocery lately?  There wasn't that much frost in FLA this year.
As to "Mr. Rosegoggles"?  That's Ron Insana, one of the smartest, most in-touch people on Wall Street.  He used to anchor several CNBC shows, has started his own hedge fund, and is a financial consultant to many top firms. 
If "Mr Rosegoggles" , who knows this material inside and out, can see the silver lining, why can't you?
Oh, because then you'd have to admit your conservative pessimism was flat out wrong.

The one percenters are provably not holding the capital. You keep saying that, but it's a catch phrase with no truth or reality behind it. It's a bogeyman. It's really the banks and corporations holding it, and they're doing it out of fear of this economy. That's you, the stockholder, at the heart of this. You are the problem. By wanting your stocks to perform well, you compel the management of those entities to be prudent. Prudence means not frivolously blowing money unless you know you'll get a return. They currently aren't confident in that, especially in regards to banks and lending. But you can bet your ass that if they thought they could make money on that capital they're holding, it would be out there in the blink of an eye. Why do you think they aren't confident, Nowhere?

I can tell you why candy bars are smaller and orange juice is more expensive. It's more expensive to produce and transport them. You default to suspicions of gouging, apparently, but I need a bit more meat and potatoes than that and I find that increased costs always increase the end cost of a product. But what I don't understand is why you would have a problem with it. Increased cost reduces consumption which reduces strain on resources. You want things more expensive, Obama said that before he was elected, so that better sustainability can be achieved. You can't have it both ways, sustainability means that you must consume less. It's your ideas being implemented, and here you are bitching about it. Well, what exactly do you want here? Cheap and affluent or sustainable? You can't have both.

Insana presents an overly optimistic viewpoint. It's even a balanced overly optimistic viewpoint where he wonders why both the D's and R's won't take credit for it. I'd buy into his rosey view gladly as I'm sick and tired of bad news and I love it when the deficit drops, but then I have my FED graphs that don't fucking back it up Nowhere. If it can't be backed up that we're doing so well, it ain't fucking true no matter how many times you appear on CNBC.

NowhereInTime

Quote from: SciFiAuthor on April 17, 2014, 11:40:08 AM
The one percenters are provably not holding the capital. You keep saying that, but it's a catch phrase with no truth or reality behind it. It's a bogeyman. It's really the banks and corporations holding it, and they're doing it out of fear of this economy. That's you, the stockholder, at the heart of this. You are the problem. By wanting your stocks to perform well, you compel the management of those entities to be prudent. Prudence means not frivolously blowing money unless you know you'll get a return. They currently aren't confident in that, especially in regards to banks and lending. But you can bet your ass that if they thought they could make money on that capital they're holding, it would be out there in the blink of an eye. Why do you think they aren't confident, Nowhere?

I can tell you why candy bars are smaller and orange juice is more expensive. It's more expensive to produce and transport them. You default to suspicions of gouging, apparently, but I need a bit more meat and potatoes than that and I find that increased costs always increase the end cost of a product. But what I don't understand is why you would have a problem with it. Increased cost reduces consumption which reduces strain on resources. You want things more expensive, Obama said that before he was elected, so that better sustainability can be achieved. You can't have it both ways, sustainability means that you must consume less. It's your ideas being implemented, and here you are bitching about it. Well, what exactly do you want here? Cheap and affluent or sustainable? You can't have both.

Insana presents an overly optimistic viewpoint. It's even a balanced overly optimistic viewpoint where he wonders why both the D's and R's won't take credit for it. I'd buy into his rosey view gladly as I'm sick and tired of bad news and I love it when the deficit drops, but then I have my FED graphs that don't fucking back it up Nowhere. If it can't be backed up that we're doing so well, it ain't fucking true no matter how many times you appear on CNBC.
First, let me congratulate you for being the premiere expert on everything.  Take no heed of the fact that everytime I produce a document (or several) to substantiate my position you deflect it with anecdotal evidence.  But, since you are so in tune with, well, it appears, everything I must defer to your wisdom.

Except that you talk in circles.  Who the hell do you think controls the banks and corporate boards?  Homeless latinos?!?  Michelle Obama?!? You keep saying because you add up the Forbes 500 you've got it all figured out.  You do realize 1% of the population is about 3.3 million people.  Unless of course you have more anecdotal evidence that the population's dropped to about 50,000 people, in which case I bend knee before your greatness again.

I am a shareholder, it is true.  One of my happiest investments is in Ford Motor.  I'm not there because of prudence, I'm there because of huge growth in the Asian markets.  Ford will be delivering big number these next few years, noticeably with Ford Fusion and Ford Focus Electric (China is developing electric charging infrastructure) and I want to reap some of the windfall, yes.
Because I sure as hell ain't going to make it working in retail.

Clearly you don't pay attention to the commodities markets.  I'm not accusing producer or transport sector of gouging.  In fact most producers are trying to hold price so they don't lose market but it's the well-heeled using their tax break money to finance federal debt and drive up prices on bid at the exchanges.  Get them the fuck out of there!  If they are not a direct interest party (wholesaler, retailer or someone who takes delivery) then we don't need them involved in pricing! Check your FED sheet for that!

As to your FED sheet? If you read Insana's work you realize he's talking about CBO projections.  The FED always runs pessimistic (because it is so conservative) and doesn't factor in the cost savings (yes, SAVINGS) Obamacare is already producing, as well as other dividends from sequestration.  In other words, your data is obsolete. And anecdotal.
Really, do you want to question the conservative cred of CNBC? Home of King Teabagger Rick Santelli himself?

Ok, then maybe you'll believe Bloomberg:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-06/america-s-fiscal-health-affirmed-as-treasuries-demand-rebounds.html

No? then how about Forbes, since you refer to them all the time:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2014/02/04/the-cruel-political-paradox-of-deficit-reduction/

To be fair, Forbes' article really spells out that the next President and Congress need to meet possible increases in deficit if spending is left unchecked and there is no change to revenue, but still, facts are facts.  The deficit is dropping.

Unless you want to ask them to check their FED sheets, too...

Quote from: SciFiAuthor on April 17, 2014, 11:40:08 AM
The one percenters are provably not holding the capital. You keep saying that, but it's a catch phrase with no truth or reality behind it. It's a bogeyman. It's really the banks and corporations holding it, and they're doing it out of fear of this economy. That's you, the stockholder, at the heart of this. You are the problem. By wanting your stocks to perform well, you compel the management of those entities to be prudent. Prudence means not frivolously blowing money unless you know you'll get a return. They currently aren't confident in that, especially in regards to banks and lending. But you can bet your ass that if they thought they could make money on that capital they're holding, it would be out there in the blink of an eye. Why do you think they aren't confident, Nowhere?

I can tell you why candy bars are smaller and orange juice is more expensive. It's more expensive to produce and transport them. You default to suspicions of gouging...


Good luck explaining the economy to people who get their worldview from places like Daily Kaos.

Once a persons worldview is set, they just cherry pick everything else for info to support it.

SciFiAuthor

Quote from: NowhereInTime on April 17, 2014, 12:39:03 PM
First, let me congratulate you for being the premiere expert on everything.  Take no heed of the fact that everytime I produce a document (or several) to substantiate my position you deflect it with anecdotal evidence.  But, since you are so in tune with, well, it appears, everything I must defer to your wisdom.

Except that you talk in circles.  Who the hell do you think controls the banks and corporate boards?  Homeless latinos?!?  Michelle Obama?!? You keep saying because you add up the Forbes 500 you've got it all figured out.  You do realize 1% of the population is about 3.3 million people.  Unless of course you have more anecdotal evidence that the population's dropped to about 50,000 people, in which case I bend knee before your greatness again.

I am a shareholder, it is true.  One of my happiest investments is in Ford Motor.  I'm not there because of prudence, I'm there because of huge growth in the Asian markets.  Ford will be delivering big number these next few years, noticeably with Ford Fusion and Ford Focus Electric (China is developing electric charging infrastructure) and I want to reap some of the windfall, yes.
Because I sure as hell ain't going to make it working in retail.

Clearly you don't pay attention to the commodities markets.  I'm not accusing producer or transport sector of gouging.  In fact most producers are trying to hold price so they don't lose market but it's the well-heeled using their tax break money to finance federal debt and drive up prices on bid at the exchanges.  Get them the fuck out of there!  If they are not a direct interest party (wholesaler, retailer or someone who takes delivery) then we don't need them involved in pricing! Check your FED sheet for that!

As to your FED sheet? If you read Insana's work you realize he's talking about CBO projections.  The FED always runs pessimistic (because it is so conservative) and doesn't factor in the cost savings (yes, SAVINGS) Obamacare is already producing, as well as other dividends from sequestration.  In other words, your data is obsolete. And anecdotal.
Really, do you want to question the conservative cred of CNBC? Home of King Teabagger Rick Santelli himself?

Ok, then maybe you'll believe Bloomberg:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-06/america-s-fiscal-health-affirmed-as-treasuries-demand-rebounds.html

No? then how about Forbes, since you refer to them all the time:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2014/02/04/the-cruel-political-paradox-of-deficit-reduction/

To be fair, Forbes' article really spells out that the next President and Congress need to meet possible increases in deficit if spending is left unchecked and there is no change to revenue, but still, facts are facts.  The deficit is dropping.

Unless you want to ask them to check their FED sheets, too...

I took the banks and corporations thing from your article genius. That's not anecdotal, it's in the damned article you were defending and flaunting yesterday.

The corporate boards are controlled openly by the management. There is no cabal of the nation's millionaires, most of which are old retired people living on their savings, telling them what to do or withholding capital. It ain't the majority of the billionaires either. It's simply a bunch of corporations and banks that are holding capital because they don't think they can make money on it and they don't want to have to justify a loss to you, the shareholder.

Ford? Oh you mean the company that wants to build everything with robots in Brazil. Well, enjoy your windfall. If it's too big though, be sure to advocate that someone take it from you because it was too big and be sure to willy nilly brand yourself a criminal for the obscene margin you're making from making a good decision. You won't be consistent if you don't.

You sidestepped the sustainability question. How exactly can you be dually for less consumption and still want cheap prices? As far as commodities, don't ignore the government's role in this. Here in cornfield flyover land, we know all about government farming subsidies, market manipulation to skew towards the farmer and Barack Obama's biofuel mandates and their effect on food prices. You will simply have to eat less candy bars. That is the policy of your president. I think it's insane. You on the other hand prefer to push the blame elsewhere so you don't have to admit that there's a problem. That's not living in reality Nowhere, that's deluding yourself. Don't advocate that we steal people's money just so you can delude yourself, Jeeezus. 

The CBO, yes that's a good one. I'm glad you like their analyses because they also predict that the US entitlement system may collapse the government into bankruptcy due to at least 55 trillion in unfunded liabilities within the next few decades. That might be a good topic if you're going to treat the CBO as a flawless source trumping the Fed charts because the CBO's mid to long-term view is WAY less rosey than the Fed. My Fed charts look like antelope farting clouds of joy compared to some of the gloomy shit the CBO's tossed out there over the last few years.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2013/09/17/cbo-warns-longterm-debt-will-overwhelm-federal-budget-n1702405

Enjoy. If you dig in and really look around you'll see that the CBO consistently dismisses projected deficit reduction in 2013, i.e. what we're seeing now, as fundamentally irrelevant. It can't be sustained for any length of time as things are operating now, nor does it affect the outcome long term.

Quote from: Paper*Boy on April 17, 2014, 03:45:35 PM

Once a persons worldview is set, they just cherry pick everything else for info to support it.
A shockingly honest admission on your part. Kudos.

SciFiAuthor

Quote from: Paper*Boy on April 17, 2014, 03:45:35 PM
Once a persons worldview is set, they just cherry pick everything else for info to support it.

Pretty much. It amounts to self-brainwashing. Political thought should be dynamic, and I see that on the conservative side. The hated tea party, as an example, is really just various fed up parts of the GOP rejecting the internationalism and Neoconservatism that set the party's agenda in the 90's. This is a healthy thing, it's the GOP questioning itself and rethinking.

Yet look how it's perceived. If the liberals were to be believed, the Teaparty is the Nazi Party reborn. Trouble is, just a mere decade ago, they were bitching about Neocons like you wouldn't believe. Well, the Tea Party is the rejection of Neoconservatism. It's what liberals a decade ago claimed to want from the right.

I don't see any self-examination on the left. The liberals are the Borg, they have a rigid inflexible ideology that they don't question and that scares the shit out of me. You throw out inconvenient fact or non-conventional thought, and they fucking freak and start ranting. That ain't healthy.

If everyone woke up and started each day by questioning their own politics, the world would be a much better place. The left isn't doing that, they're monolithic and they're going to seriously fuck the world up for everyone.


onan

Quote from: SciFiAuthor on April 17, 2014, 10:40:13 PM
Pretty much. It amounts to self-brainwashing. Political thought should be dynamic, and I see that on the conservative side. The hated tea party, as an example, is really just various fed up parts of the GOP rejecting the internationalism and Neoconservatism that set the party's agenda in the 90's. This is a healthy thing, it's the GOP questioning itself and rethinking.

Yet look how it's perceived. If the liberals were to be believed, the Teaparty is the Nazi Party reborn. Trouble is, just a mere decade ago, they were bitching about Neocons like you wouldn't believe. Well, the Tea Party is the rejection of Neoconservatism. It's what liberals a decade ago claimed to want from the right.

I don't see any self-examination on the left. The liberals are the Borg, they have a rigid inflexible ideology that they don't question and that scares the shit out of me. You throw out inconvenient fact or non-conventional thought, and they fucking freak and start ranting. That ain't healthy.

If everyone woke up and started each day by questioning their own politics, the world would be a much better place. The left isn't doing that, they're monolithic and they're going to seriously fuck the world up for everyone.

I don't see any civil discourse from the right side either.

I can't find the video anymore but there is one particular moment where a few tea party people had a counter protester on the ground and were stepping on the protester's head. Yeah... I know, anecdote.

Look, like it or not what the US is today isn't going to change drastically in the next generation. All the doom and gloom from both sides is ignored. And always because there is no reasoned debate. And honestly, that is certainly apparent on the right.

One on the right, on this forum, was all for starting a war. Another is all for shooting a government official.

So please, stop believing the left is the only one that is inflexible.

onan

To add some fair minded discourse:


QuoteLunger

Re: Politics
« Reply #2735 on: Today at 08:11:36 AM »

   
HA!

Since when do liberals have any interest in choice?  Sure a liberal will give you choice as long as you choose what they want.
A liberal will give you a chance to vote as long as it is for their candidate and then you can vote as many times as you want.
A liberal will give you fair courts especially when those courts can overturn a decision by the people who chose incorrectly.
A liberal will will give you the right to redress a grievance, but if it is against liberalism watch out.  Both barrels will be brought against you.
A liberal will mouth off slogans like 'social contract's to 'ending suffering' and feeling very good about themselves while leaving a path of destruction and pain in their wake.

Fuck Liberals!

NowhereInTime

Quote from: Paper*Boy on April 17, 2014, 03:45:35 PM

Good luck explaining the economy to people who get their worldview from places like Daily Kaos.

Once a persons worldview is set, they just cherry pick everything else for info to support it.
Perfect definition of conservative.

SciFiAuthor

Quote from: onan on April 18, 2014, 05:01:37 AM
I don't see any civil discourse from the right side either.

I can't find the video anymore but there is one particular moment where a few tea party people had a counter protester on the ground and were stepping on the protester's head. Yeah... I know, anecdote.

Look, like it or not what the US is today isn't going to change drastically in the next generation. All the doom and gloom from both sides is ignored. And always because there is no reasoned debate. And honestly, that is certainly apparent on the right.

One on the right, on this forum, was all for starting a war. Another is all for shooting a government official.

So please, stop believing the left is the only one that is inflexible.

In any crowd, you'll always have people fighting and shit disturbing. It happens on the left too, they weren't very many republican voters rioting in LA over Rodney King or Republican Occupiers attacking stores. That said, that's what the police are for. What I'm interested in is what the factions within the GOP are saying and the fact is I've watched the GOP go from a monolithic old boy's club to a seething hotbed of libertarian/neocon/religious right idea exchange in less than a decade. That means they're self examining and doing some thinking and debating. It's very much like what the Democratic Party did in the late 60's and early 70's when it shifted fundamentally liberal. As an example, Libertarian ideas would have NEVER been taken seriously within the GOP of the 1990's. That Rand Paul even has a chance indicates something fundamental has changed.

Democrats already defacto admit this with the "radicalized" Republican Party rhetorical talking point that pops up every now and again. Well, if it's radicalized, then obviously something changed.

But on the left all I see are bobbleheads. Yes, great leader *nod*. The Kos has issued the orders and talking points for the day *nod*. If the ideas were coherent and meshed with each other, I could see that sort of thing as benign. It would simply be consistent ideology. But they don't mesh, as I've pointed out until purple in the face in here, things are being done in the name of liberals under the auspices of 'sustainability' that are outright atrocities completely at odds with stated liberal goals, but yet necessary to achieve liberal goals. More, you guys are actually the first political party in history to be able to promise people a worse life and still win an election. You can do that because people can't make the connection between policy and what policy does after implementation. No questioning is being done at this point.

While I'll throw you personally a bone in that you'll rethink stuff, most of the left doesn't and it's highly unhealthy. People should question everything.







SciFiAuthor

Quote from: onan on April 18, 2014, 06:42:36 AM
To add some fair minded discourse:

You know though, if you take him point by point, there is a kernel of truth in every point he made. He's a symptom, not a cause. Perhaps what's happening is that your president is creating a whole lot of people that feel disaffected and unrepresented. I certainly feel that way, I'm apparently footing everyone's healthcare bills now just by virtue of being self-employed, 38 years-old and middle class. He's cranky about it, just like you guys were cranky about Bush. You don't think that sort of talk wasn't widespread on the left during the Bush years? I remember that it was.

NowhereInTime

Quote from: SciFiAuthor on April 18, 2014, 09:03:01 AM
You know though, if you take him point by point, there is a kernel of truth in every point he made. He's a symptom, not a cause. Perhaps what's happening is that your president is creating a whole lot of people that feel disaffected and unrepresented. I certainly feel that way, I'm apparently footing everyone's healthcare bills now just by virtue of being self-employed, 38 years-old and middle class. He's cranky about it, just like you guys were cranky about Bush. You don't think that sort of talk wasn't widespread on the left during the Bush years? I remember that it was.
There's not a shred of truth in any point he's made but I wouldn't expect you to understand.  You have created this entire fantasy world of "Whut Libralls Done Done ta Me" wherein any tree huggin', spotted owl lovin', tax and spendin' leftie is your personal enemy and has but one goal: to terminate all joy and happiness in your life.

Leaving aside the incredibly egocentric nature of your pyschosis, you have never provided any evidence that it is the Commisars of Unorthodoxy who are causing your distress.  Could it be you just suck as an author? 
If your rantings and uninformed bombastic postings here are any indication, then chances are your fiction is deluded, predictable, and unfulfilling.  As I am sure your ex-wife feels about your marriage. Relax, I doubt you'll sell enough books to warrant paying even the fine for refusing coverage.  At least your care can be subsidized (and that earned income tax credit's a neat thing, too!)

As to the Bush years? No, we weren't grumbling about the Prescription Drug benefit he steered through Congress (although we did wonder how he was going to pay for it - turns out he left that for the next fellow...) That grumbling you heard had to do with the fucking wars he was waging on the national credit card.  No in-country strategy, no exit strategy, and, surprise, surprise, billions unaccounted for in Iraq. But of course, its all the same thing to you, isn't it.
If nothing else, conservatives are great at moral false equivalents.

Perhaps what my President is doing is creating some sense of balance; some sense of fairness that will help disadvantaged people regain their economic footing and include them in society rather than pursue the dream of exclusion so dearly important to you and your fellow conservatives.

SciFiAuthor

Quote from: NowhereInTime on April 18, 2014, 09:49:11 AM
There's not a shred of truth in any point he's made but I wouldn't expect you to understand.  You have created this entire fantasy world of "Whut Libralls Done Done ta Me" wherein any tree huggin', spotted owl lovin', tax and spendin' leftie is your personal enemy and has but one goal: to terminate all joy and happiness in your life.

Leaving aside the incredibly egocentric nature of your pyschosis, you have never provided any evidence that it is the Commisars of Unorthodoxy who are causing your distress.  Could it be you just suck as an author? 
If your rantings and uninformed bombastic postings here are any indication, then chances are your fiction is deluded, predictable, and unfulfilling.  As I am sure your ex-wife feels about your marriage. Relax, I doubt you'll sell enough books to warrant paying even the fine for refusing coverage.  At least your care can be subsidized (and that earned income tax credit's a neat thing, too!)

As to the Bush years? No, we weren't grumbling about the Prescription Drug benefit he steered through Congress (although we did wonder how he was going to pay for it - turns out he left that for the next fellow...) That grumbling you heard had to do with the fucking wars he was waging on the national credit card.  No in-country strategy, no exit strategy, and, surprise, surprise, billions unaccounted for in Iraq. But of course, its all the same thing to you, isn't it.
If nothing else, conservatives are great at moral false equivalents.

Perhaps what my President is doing is creating some sense of balance; some sense of fairness that will help disadvantaged people regain their economic footing and include them in society rather than pursue the dream of exclusion so dearly important to you and your fellow conservatives.

LOL, I must have hit a nerve! Here, have a pot cookie to calm you down so you don't have a stroke. I'll take his statement point by point when I get time later and enlighten you with truth.

NowhereInTime

Quote from: SciFiAuthor on April 18, 2014, 10:49:06 AM
LOL, I must have hit a nerve! Here, have a pot cookie to calm you down so you don't have a stroke. I'll take his statement point by point when I get time later and enlighten you with truth.
No, please, don't trouble yourself.
And, despite sterotype, I do not at all enjoy narcotics.

wr250

Quote from: NowhereInTime on April 18, 2014, 11:36:38 AM
No, please, don't trouble yourself.
And, despite sterotype, I do not at all enjoy narcotics.

well then its a good thing pot is not a narcotic

NowhereInTime

Quote from: wr250 on April 18, 2014, 11:52:44 AM
well then its a good thing pot is not a narcotic
...or hallucinogen or any other mind altering drugs, including the very alcohol I sell for a living.  Although I will enjoy a glass of Pinot Grigio with my crabcakes and a Gewurz with my ham on Sunday.

Powered by SMFPacks Menu Editor Mod