Yet Another Conservative Darling Bites the Dust

[PB the Deplorable]

If only Carter had been elected to a 2nd term none of this would have happened. Such a shame as he  had the country on such a great track.

Speaking of failures who've won a Nobel Prize..

[NowhereInTime]

If only Carter had been elected to a 2nd term none of this would have happened. Such a shame as he  had the country on such a great track.

You know, Carter was, in fact, naive to the workings of Washington but was, and is, a good and decent man.  Camp David accords (which have held to this day) weren't reached because Begin and Sadat were worried Ronnie Ray-gun was on his way to lay down the law.
The "malaise" speech, a political disaster, was a politician trying to tell the truth to an ornery electorate.
I get you don't care for liberals, or Obama, or whatever.  Don't impugn Jimmy Carter.

[PB the Deplorable]

... Really wish I knew why rich people getting richer was such a core value to you...

I also don't hate rich people (as long as they made it legally and ethically).  I'm not willing to wreck the economy to try to punish them

Look at the Occupy idiots.  Or last weeks 'protesters'.  Did they hurt 'the rich'?  The police?  Or did they just damage cars, break windows, set fires, loot stores, block freeways and damage or ruin people's small businesses and get themselves on TV? 

In the name of 'fairness', 'justice', and hate for the '1%'.

[NowhereInTime]

Speaking of failures who've won a Nobel Prize..

Failure?  Camp David Peace Accords.  What do you bring to the table? And before you say,  "Ronnie brought down the Soviets"  look real hard at Russia...

[NowhereInTime]

I also don't hate rich people (as long as they made it legally and ethically).

And there's the rub.  Story after story of how supposed geniuses got wealthy when, in fact, they used inside connections, dodged taxes, broke rules, and were generally belligerent to their own workforce.

I'm not willing to wreck the economy to try to punish them

No, just to make them wealthier.

Look at the Occupy idiots.  Or last weeks 'protesters'.  Did they hurt 'the rich'?  The police?  Or did they just damage cars, break windows, set fires, loot stores, block freeways and damage or ruin people's small businesses and get themselves on TV?

No, but I wan't mentioning them.  You keep redirecting arguments to try for a win.

In the name of 'fairness', 'justice', and hate for the '1%'.

Not for nothing, but they hated first.  Any reason why I should pay taxes that subsidize Wal-Mart?  Goldman Sachs? GE?

[PB the Deplorable]

You know, Carter was, in fact, naive to the workings of Washington but was, and is, a good and decent man...  Don't impugn Jimmy Carter.

The naivety was the least of the problem.  What led to his policy failures was that his worldview was wrong.  He was incompetent as a manager.  Sort of a 'perfect storm' of poor leadership. 

It's true he was a good and decent man.  After losing that election he became a bitter man, and has been very unhelpful in some of his comments and actions meddling in foreign affairs since then - specifically support for Palestine terrorists and thugs like Hugo Chavez.

[PB the Deplorable]

And there's the rub.  Story after story of how supposed geniuses got wealthy when, in fact, they used inside connections, dodged taxes, broke rules, and were generally belligerent to their own workforce...

Any reason why I should pay taxes that subsidize Wal-Mart?  Goldman Sachs? GE?

I'm not for any of this Crony Capitalism either. 

Just as on shouldn't lump everyone in the Republican Party together (calling them ALL Conservatives), everything in the private sector isn't corrupt and dishonest either

And by the way, the public sector (government) is not less greedy, less corrupt, less dishonest than the private sector - it's more so

[PB the Deplorable]

... 3) Oil is low right now because Russia is trying to pump it's way out of sanctions, OPEC is pumping to prevent Russia from dominating market share; we are fracking our landscape to pieces for shale...

Wait, which is it - the market is determined by supply and demand, or the market is manipulated by Goldman Sachs?

... No, really, it's because the rich, after years of taxing the working class via price manipulation, fled the market in fearful advance of lowering prices...

Trust me, the traders are making money on the way down just as they do on the way up.  They do pretty much the same thing, except in reverse.  (Instead of buying contracts, they sell them, they go the opposite way with puts and calls, longs and shorts, etc)

They don't care which way the market moves, as long as it moves and they tag along in the right direction.

And again, what the traders do - speculators, call them what you want - is provide liquidity to the market.  When someone wants or needs to buy or sell, there is always someone there to be on the other side of the trade.  It helps stabilize prices.

[PB the Deplorable]

Failure?  Camp David Peace Accords.  What do you bring to the table? And before you say,  "Ronnie brought down the Soviets"  look real hard at Russia...

So Reagan is responsible for Putin.  Everyone got that?  Never should have been involved in ridding the world of the Soviet menace

Foreign policy is for the long term.  Presidents inherit situations, relationships - hopefully change lousy ones for the better and strengthen the good ones, then pass them along when they leave office.  Clinton, Bush II, and Obama had chances to turn Russia into a friend, if not an ally.  It got harder as time went by, it would have been less difficult pre-Putin, but they each blew it.

[DanTSX]

If Conservatives don't have power why are we in Iraq?

Ask Obama the Nobel Peace Prize holder.....

[DanTSX]

Some of you guys should stick to pretending to be able to argue politics, rather than pretending to argue economics....

[Unquenchable Angst]

The price of oil has gone down  not to screw the Russians but to screw people that are trying to develop the tar sands in the Dakotas, Canada. Already the price of oil is below the cost or nearly so, the price per barrel of tar sands oil. People are already having to sell out.
Who are they selling to? Exxon-Mobil and other Rockefeller interests....

[Unquenchable Angst]

As far as politics. They are all Bankster whores regardless of 'party' There are no parties, just Washington( NewYork)- City of London-Vatican City Bankster whores The empire of the 3 independent city states of bankster gangsters.
US has not had a president since they killed Kennedy that was not a bankster puppet whore.
It is about time people wake up and quit arguing over whether this politicians ass hole smells like roses or shit before these bastards enslave us or start more wars to make more off our lives.

Of course you will put down this  you tube  and shoot the messenger because of who presents this  But there is a lot of truth here but perhaps you people have been too prejudiced, too smug in the beliefs you have been programmed with, too divided by the propaganda   that appeals to you. I do not know.
DIVIDED YOU FALL....
Guess we will all be dead, peons and serfs soon  and it won't matter. If they get their way I hope it ends in a thermonuclear war and I am close enough to be vaporized as I do not want to live in the Bankster Gangster CFR-NWO shit hole world  nor the LibitardDemo-Neo-CONvictrepublicraptic  Nazi-COMMIE Whore or any other dualistic tertiarry syphalitic  elitist bullcrap people fucking fraud.
You(WE) are victims of social engineering , You are and have been duped

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3hNtPwXhdY

[Zoo]

If Conservatives don't have power why are we in Iraq?

Good for business!!1

[Zoo]

Some of you guys should stick to pretending to be able to argue politics, rather than pretending to argue economics....

Arguing about either is a waste of time. Because neither will ever work. History has proven this over and over yet we choose to ignore it!!1

[albrecht]

The price of oil has gone down  not to screw the Russians but to screw people that are trying to develop the tar sands in the Dakotas, Canada. Already the price of oil is below the cost or nearly so, the price per barrel of tar sands oil. People are already having to sell out.
Who are they selling to? Exxon-Mobil and other Rockefeller interests....

Kill two birds with one stone. There also is Saudi and others involved who can produce very cheaply and infrastructure already paid for. But you are right, though interesting that Armand Hammer's former group seems to be getting out of the shale stuff. On the good side, maybe, there is, again maybe, less potential for environmental damage when the "big guys" take over the shale operations. Small companies with lots of debt might tend to "cut corners" whereas the big guys are more risk-adverse  due to share-holders, lawsuits, and want long-term output. Then, again, BP and Valdez. So? Me, I like cheap gas and oil with enough profit in it to keep our economy running, dividends and stock-prices for holders, and provide jobs.

[PB the Deplorable]

... Well, among my "left-wing sources" are Nobel prize winning economists like Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman...

Here's the way the Libs look at the economy:  instead of embracing Capitalism - and understanding and encouraging policies that drive the overall economy to create the most wealth - instead of finding ways to increase opportunity by providing good educations, by encouraging small businesses, by encouraging job creation - instead of that they play politics (intentionally or otherwise), encourage envy and resentment, and drive wedges between people.  Which ends up being to the detriment of the economy as a whole, and especially a detriment to the 'poor'.

In other words, instead of focusing on the health of the economy itself, and increasing access and opportunity for those not doing as well, they focus on 1) deciding who has 'too much' and figuring ways to take it from them, and 2) deciding who doesn't have 'enough' and giving them handouts.  And increasing the size and power of the public sector in order to manage it all - forgetting, or not caring, that the public sector doesn't produce anything, but does suck resources out of the private sector

It doesn't matter who got which awards - even Nobel Prizes, who got the most votes - even if it's for the Presidency, who gets praised by academia and the media - even if it's those supporting ever larger government and ever more handouts.  What matters is the health of the economy and finding ways to help people to reach their potential.  Focusing on who they think has 'too much' or 'too little' and trying to rectify that doesn't work.  It makes things worse, as the last 50 years has shown. 

Taking from one person and giving it to another who is capable of providing for themselves leaves both less motivated and worse off.  Everyone believes in the 'safety net', everyone believes in rounding off the hard edges of Capitalism, but we passed what is prudent long ago and are still going full speed in the wrong direction.  Nobel Prizes or not

[PB the Deplorable]

... I feel bad; Exxon had to have a yard sale (brokered by Goldman Sachs) just to make payroll...

You do realize the gas you buy at the pump from Exxon, Chevron, Shell, and any of the other fully integrated oil companies (those who explore, drill, ship to the refinery, refine, ship to their own branded gas stations, and sell it) doesn't go through the hands of the futures market, Goldman Sachs, or anyone else, right?

And between them they sell far more than those selling gas from oil that has been 'manipulated' by Wall St.  Right?

So nothing to do with what we were talking about, other than all gasoline sales are part of the gasoline and greater energy markets

[NowhereInTime]

Here's the way the Libs look at the economy:  instead of embracing Capitalism - and understanding and encouraging policies that drive the overall economy to create the most wealth - instead of finding ways to increase opportunity by providing good educations, by encouraging small businesses, by encouraging job creation - instead of that they play politics (intentionally or otherwise), encourage envy and resentment, and drive wedges between people.  Which ends up being to the detriment of the economy as a whole, and especially a detriment to the 'poor'.

Says you.  You're wrong, of course. Supply side economics, merger and acquisition liberalization, offshoring, and now inversion have caused this horrific inequality and damaged this great nation.

In other words, instead of focusing on the health of the economy itself, and increasing access and opportunity for those not doing as well, they focus on 1) deciding who has 'too much' and figuring ways to take it from them,

No, they look at those who have so much, figure out how they got it (often times illegally and/or immorally) and then ask them to pay a greater share than they do (usually "none" because they hide lucre offshore) for realizing the benefits of living in this society.

.. and 2) deciding who doesn't have 'enough' and giving them handouts.

You mean like Wal Mart hourly employees who are paid minimum wage while the Walton family reaps billions?  Yes, we subsidize WalMart by having to supplement the housing, health care, nutrional, and transportational needs of hundreds of thousands of low end retail and restaurant workers (note: people who have jobs) not to mention our Navy safeguards the seas for WalMarts' "American made" goods from Indonesia.

And increasing the size and power of the public sector in order to manage it all - forgetting, or not caring, that the public sector doesn't produce anything, but does suck resources out of the private sector

I'll be sure to tell my local fire dept, cops, EMTs', DOT crews, water dept crew, sanitation crews that they are all lazy, selfish whores who oppress the libertarian capitalist pole-smoker by "sucking resources" away from the Howard Roarks of the word.  I'm sure they'll appreciate your point of view.

It doesn't matter who got which awards - even Nobel Prizes,

Yes, that way idiot supply siders are giving themselves equal footing against serious, studious people who actually think through these issues.

... who got the most votes - even if it's for the Presidency, who gets praised by academia and the media - even if it's those supporting ever larger government and ever more handouts.  What matters is the health of the economy and finding ways to help people to reach their potential.

Yes, because it's wealth generation that matters.  Society?  Pffffft.  After all, what are people but tools to be used to generate more wealth for the entitled, anyway?  Minions.  Churls.

Yes, and  Focusing on who they think has 'too much' or 'too little' and trying to rectify that doesn't work.  It makes things worse, as the last 50 years has shown.

35 years of which have been utilizing supply side economics, which has led to this disparate income inequality.  So, you're spot on correct again: the last 50 years have demonstrated the folly of conservative economics. 

Taking from one person and giving it to another who is capable of providing for themselves leaves both less motivated and worse off.

This is the never ending mythology of conservatism. 

Everyone believes in the 'safety net',

...except you, Ayn.

...everyone believes in rounding off the hard edges of Capitalism, but we passed what is prudent long ago and are still going full speed in the wrong direction.  Nobel Prizes or not

We haven't even begun to "round off the hard edges of Capitalism".  You could not have typed that with a straight face.  This last omnibus has further gutted Dodd-Frank, which is barely holding the vultures in finance at bay, we are still fracking our terrain to pieces, and there is still a huge deficit of participation in paying for this society by its' wealthiest beneficiaries.

[PB the Deplorable]

No, they look at those who have so much, figure out how they got it (often times illegally and/or immorally) and then ask them to pay a greater share than they do (usually "none" because they hide lucre offshore) for realizing the benefits of living in this society...

Yeah, anyone with a job and an income is a rich greedy pig who lied, stole, and cheated his way.  The noble people are the homeless derelicts, the welfare bums, and the people who sneak into our country for the handouts.  Do I have that about right?

In 2014 a person starts paying 25% on every taxable dollar they make after $36,900.  25%!!  How is that in any way right?  And it goes up from there. 

Then of course nearly every state has it's own income tax on top of that.  And a sales tax.  And payroll taxes taken out before they even get their paycheck.  And gas taxes.  And taxes on real and personal property.  And various other nuisance taxes, licenses, tolls, and fees.  Everything a person buys has taxes the company that made it, shipped it, and sold it paid added into the cost of the product.  Not to mention everything is taxed again at death. 

And it still isn't enough.  We've had multiple years of trillion dollar deficits under this President - because taxation at even those levels isn't enough for the greedy, who feed at the government trough.  And it will never be enough.

Oh yeah, the Libs really go after the rich.  It would be nice if the swooners put down their Left-wing propagandized reading material, turned off the Elizabeth Warren speeches, went outside, looked around, and thought for themselves every once in awhile.

You mean like Wal Mart hourly employees who are paid minimum wage...

No, I mean the takers.  The people who should be supporting themselves but have been told they don't need to.  The bureaucrats who ought to be in the private sector producing something of value.

I'll be sure to tell my local fire dept, cops, EMTs', DOT crews, water dept crew, sanitation crews that they are all lazy, selfish whores...

I point to the bloated, unresponsive, wasteful, useless bureaucracy, and you point to some of the few people working for the government who are actually necessary.  Way to go.  I'll be sure to tell them when a Lib is told there is waste in government, they are who come to mind

Yes, that way idiot supply siders are giving themselves equal footing against serious, studious people who actually think through these issues...

Oh yes, let's look at a few economies who have and are now following the policies people like Paul Krudman advocate:  The US during the FDR years.  The US during the Carter years.  Japan from the mid-90s to now.  The US during the Obama years.  Most of the Third World quasi-Socialist dictatorships (which is why those countries stay poor).  I could go on, but those are some of the economies you should be familiar with.

As far as Nobel Prizes in Economies, Milton Friedman also has one.  But somehow you don't read his work, quote him, or advocate his policies.  So I guess it isn't the Nobel Prize itself that impresses you - it's that you've sifted through the dustbin and found someone who agrees with you who also happens to have one.

By the way, Friedman is much more well known, much more admired, did much more real work in the field, and has been shown to be right about much of his theories and ideas.  Unlike the people you reference.

[DanTSX]

You know, Carter was, in fact, naive to the workings of Washington but was, and is, a good and decent man.  Camp David accords (which have held to this day) weren't reached because Begin and Sadat were worried Ronnie Ray-gun was on his way to lay down the law.
The "malaise" speech, a political disaster, was a politician trying to tell the truth to an ornery electorate.
I get you don't care for liberals, or Obama, or whatever.  Don't impugn Jimmy Carter.

So was Mr. Rogers and Forrest Gump.


Carter's "decency" relied on feigned ignorance of politics to throw some serious monkey-wrenches into the system in order to deconstruct policy and precedent that he had an irrational left-leaning hatred of.

[NowhereInTime]

Yeah, anyone with a job and an income is a rich greedy pig who lied, stole, and cheated his way.

No. Just the ones who leverage out a company, bankrupt it then charge out fees to manage said bankruptcy.  Sound familiar?  This is how your friend Mitt got rich. Or how about people who arrange for financial products to be brokered to unsuspecting clients while he counterparties the trades (and hand picks the securities to be sold!)  like John Paulson did with Goldman.  Or, how about people who leverage the commodity markets and bid up pricing to essentially tax working people, like the Koch brothers do?

The noble people are the homeless derelicts, the welfare bums, and the people who sneak into our country for the handouts.  Do I have that about right?

No but you exponentially overstate their impact on our national budget. 

In 2014 a person starts paying 25% on every taxable dollar they make after $36,900.  25%!!  How is that in any way right?  And it goes up from there.

How is it right that the wage earnings of American workers have been stagnant for 30 years while their buying power is whittled away by upsold commodities like coffee and bacon?  How is it ok that an incestuous cabal of wealthy elite hire each other onto each other's boards of directors, rubber stamp each others' horrific golden parachute compensation packages, then vote each other bonuses and options as compensation for average performance?

Then of course nearly every state has it's own income tax on top of that.  And a sales tax.  And payroll taxes taken out before they even get their paycheck.  And gas taxes.  And taxes on real and personal property.  And various other nuisance taxes, licenses, tolls, and fees.  Everything a person buys has taxes the company that made it, shipped it, and sold it paid added into the cost of the product.  Not to mention everything is taxed again at death.

You guys are the ones insisting on a $600 billion a year military machine to safeguard Walmart's goods on the water and to try to possess Afghanistan's rare earth minerals.

And it still isn't enough.  We've had multiple years of trillion dollar deficits under this President - because taxation at even those levels isn't enough for the greedy, who feed at the government trough.  And it will never be enough.

Yet we've had a reduction in the budget deficit 4 years running.  You seem to forget that Ronnie Reagan started running massive deficits (to GDP) to build his war maachine (and we paid far higher interest on that debt than current issues), W. started two wars and a prescription drug plan on credit, (while cutting high taxes) , and authorized the backstop for all his and Hank Paulson's  Wll Street miscreants who damn near destroyed our economy financing house flippers and real estate tycoon wannabes.

Oh yeah, the Libs really go after the rich.

Not as much as they should.  why shouldn't the rich pay more?  It will hardly impact their lifestyles; lifestyles they were able to achieve under the auspices of this society and its protections!

It would be nice if the swooners put down their Left-wing propagandized reading material, turned off the Elizabeth Warren speeches, went outside, looked around, and thought for themselves every once in awhile.

Says the Conservabot 2016 who has two ideas for government: "cut taxes, smaller government".

No, I mean the takers.  The people who should be supporting themselves but have been told they don't need to.  The bureaucrats who ought to be in the private sector producing something of value.

Like who?!?  You make this sound like some horde of lazy asses who living fat and happy in mansions with satellite tv drinking Courvosier?  Who are these people?
The point is, most people receiving assistance do, in fact, work.  They just aren't paid dick for it.

I point to the bloated, unresponsive, wasteful, useless bureaucracy, and you point to some of the few people working for the government who are actually necessary.  Way to go.  I'll be sure to tell them when a Lib is told there is waste in government, they are who come to mind

No, actually you said:


And increasing the size and power of the public sector in order to manage it all - forgetting, or not caring, that the public sector doesn't produce anything, but does suck resources out of the private sector

Not one fucking thing about "the bureacracy".

I don't know about Oakland, but out here people in government put in a day's work for a day's pay and are weeded out if they don't, so don't misquote me and lay some shit on me like that.

Oh yes, let's look at a few economies who have and are now following the policies people like Paul Krudman advocate:  The US during the FDR years.

Which recovered from the Great Depression, thanks to lazy ass laissez faire libertarian cunts like Hoover.

The US during the Carter years.

Not good but compared to the Bush meltdown?!?

The US during the Obama years.

You mean coming back from 10% unemployment?  Stock market at an all time high?  Corporate profits at record highs (just not being paid to the people actually generating them )?  Oil and energy prices lower?  What the hell are you talking about?  Oh, the people still out of work?  How about you supply siders start reinvesting your cash in building some new damn businesses, then.  Wasn't that the point of funneling all of our cash your way in the first place?

Most of the Third World quasi-Socialist dictatorships (which is why those countries stay poor).  I could go on, but those are some of the economies you should be familiar with.

Gratuitous and unsubstantiated.  As usual.

As far as Nobel Prizes in Economies, Milton Friedman also has one.  But somehow you don't read his work, quote him, or advocate his policies.

Because he believes in that fairy dust "invisible Hand" bullshit. 

So I guess it isn't the Nobel Prize itself that impresses you

No, it does, and I respect the work but not what motivated the work; finding academic excuses for selfishness.

...- it's that you've sifted through the dustbin and found someone who agrees with you who also happens to have one.

And speaking of dust, Uncle Miltie's been discredited over and over again:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2013/06/26/the-origin-of-the-worlds-dumbest-idea-milton-friedman/


http://mic.com/articles/57659/101-years-later-milton-friedman-is-still-wrong


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/12/opinion/krugman-milton-friedman-unperson.html?_r=0

By the way, Friedman is much more well known...

No he's not, he's dead.  Now you tea baggers are quoting that Austrian Hayek.  Seems about right you guys loving the philosophies of some Austrian loon...

...much more admired,

By who?  George Will?  Paul Ryan?  Fucking greedy bastards who hate their own countrymen.

...did much more real work in the field, and has been shown to be right about much of his theories and ideas.  Unlike the people you reference.

Not at all true.


http://reasonpapers.com/pdf/11/rp_11_3.pdf

http://seekingalpha.com/article/2719835-milton-friedman-was-wrong-inflation-is-not-always-a-monetary-phenomenon

I will give Friedman credit for one thing, though: he disgreed with Hayek and found him "rigid".

[PB the Deplorable]

... Yet we've had a reduction in the budget deficit 4 years running...

We've also had a Republican House for 4 years.  They were elected in 2010 to replace Nancy Pelosi's Democrats, in part due to the Obama and Pelosi fiscal policies

... You seem to forget that Ronnie Reagan started running massive deficits...

You know, it's funny (funny odd, not funny haha).  Reagan refuses to sign the Democrat House and Senate spending bills, and Big Media says he's 'shut down the government'.  He negotiates with the D's in Congress for what he can get as far as a reduction of their spending, signs that, and is accused by Big Media of being responsible for those deficits.

Fast forward to the Clinton years.  The Republican Congress under Newt Gingrich won't pass the level of spending Clinton wants, so he refuses to sign the budget bills.  This time it's the Congress being accused by Big Media of 'shutting down the government'.  They negotiate and Clinton gives in.  The deficit is reduced and in one of those years the budget is nearly balanced.  Big Media give Clinton the credit

But those are simply details, corrections of the public record.  I think everyone knows the Democrats are the party of Big Government, and that it's silly to blame anyone else for our deficits and national debt.  At least up to 2001



I will say that the globalists and crony capitalists fully took over the DC leadership of the Republican Party under Bush II (not the base, not the grassroots, not at the state levels), and their grip on the Party continues today.  Joining with Democrat irresponsibility, both parties are responsible for the deficits and government growth in those years.  Too many times Bush II and the R's joined with people like Ted Kennedy on new spending bills to bloat up the budget. 

And the R's in the current Congress have managed to lower Obama and Pelosi's irresponsibility, but it hasn't been enough.  They aren't doing nearly enough

... No but you exponentially overstate...

Sheesh.  That's hilarious.  I think you are the one who peruses every scrap of information, looking for anything that helps substantiate your worldview, while ignoring the rest.  Then 'exponentially overstates' it.  You are the ideologue.

[DanTSX]

Arguing about either is a waste of time. Because neither will ever work. History has proven this over and over yet we choose to ignore it!!1

It tends to be a self-solving problem.......the aim is the explain the behavior, not dictate it. 




Agree that it's pointless to argue.  Plenty of examples of the futility are in this thread.

[NowhereInTime]

We've also had a Republican House for 4 years.  They were elected in 2010 to replace Nancy Pelosi's Democrats, in part due to the Obama and Pelosi fiscal policies

And in part because conservatives lied about Obamacare, and ginned up code word scandals like "Benghazi" and "IRS memos", an, frankly, had an underwhelmed demographic that never bothers to vote except in Presidentials. 

You know, it's funny (funny odd, not funny haha).  Reagan refuses to sign the Democrat House and Senate spending bills, and Big Media says he's 'shut down the government'.  He negotiates with the D's in Congress for what he can get as far as a reduction of their spending, signs that, and is accused by Big Media of being responsible for those deficits.

So, trillions of debt is Obama's fault, but billions (adjust for inflation 30 years on, trillions) under Reagan is Congress' fault.  Typical conservative analysis.  To throw the Bill Bennett back at you, "Which one is it?"

Fast forward to the Clinton years.  The Republican Congress under Newt Gingrich won't pass the level of spending Clinton wants, so he refuses to sign the budget bills.  This time it's the Congress being accused by Big Media of 'shutting down the government'.  They negotiate and Clinton gives in.  The deficit is reduced and in one of those years the budget is nearly balanced.  Big Media give Clinton the credit

It's called politics.  Clinton (and I'm not a fan) played you guys like a fiddle.  Including your self-righteous impeachment attempt.

But those are simply details, corrections of the public record.

No, just your NeverNverland version of it.

I think everyone knows the Democrats are the party of Big Government, and that it's silly to blame anyone else for our deficits and national debt.  At least up to 2001

Well, the party of using a government of the people to solve national problems, yes.

I will say that the globalists and crony capitalists fully took over the DC leadership of the Republican Party under Bush II (not the base, not the grassroots, not at the state levels), and their grip on the Party continues today.  Joining with Democrat irresponsibility, both parties are responsible for the deficits and government growth in those years.  Too many times Bush II and the R's joined with people like Ted Kennedy on new spending bills to bloat up the budget. 

And the R's in the current Congress have managed to lower Obama and Pelosi's irresponsibility, but it hasn't been enough.  They aren't doing nearly enough

They aren't doing anything but circle jerking vote after vote to repeal Obamacare. Losers.

Sheesh.  That's hilarious.  I think you are the one who peruses every scrap of information, looking for anything that helps substantiate your worldview, while ignoring the rest.  Then 'exponentially overstates' it.  You are the ideologue.

So, let me see if I understand your point: I substantiate my points with articles that support my statements while you bluster assertion after hyperbolic assertion, but I'm the guy "ignoring" the rest?  While you ignore reality, Peter Pan?


I may be an "idealogue" but at least I bother to document my beliefs and statements.  You assert fantasy based off of your prejudicial prejudices, make vague statements about "correcting the public record" or how you "could go on" and then never bother to substantiate any of it.


Irresponsible, at best.  But then I'd expect nothing more from a conservative.

[PB the Deplorable]

... I may be an "idealogue" but at least I bother to document my beliefs and statements.  You assert fantasy based off of your prejudicial prejudices, make vague statements about "correcting the public record" or how you "could go on" and then never bother to substantiate any of it...

You agree you 'may' be an ideologue?  I guess that's a start.

You know good and well Big Media isn't objective or honest.  Neither are the shills you reference, fancy awards or not - at least those are opinion pieces, and not presented by the publishers as 'news'.  I guess a person either respects them and finds them credible, or they don't.

What I mostly post are my own ideas supported by my person observations, and personal experiences as applicable.  I too could comb thru the internet looking for support, then link to it - but I figure people can do their own research if they are interested.  And most of what I'd link to would be rejected as being from the 'wrong' sources - i.e., not 'mainstream media, or Left-wing commentary outlets, seeing as they won't normally print anything that doesn't serve their narrative. 

For example they believe in Socialism, Big Government, redistribution of wealth, and Keynesian economics - so they are going to play up anything in support of that and ignore anything that doesn't.  And it's the same with most of the issues of the day.  When is the last time you read a news article in any way sympathetic to those who are against 'gay marriage', perhaps something about why someone running a small bakery should not be forced to bake a 'gay wedding' cake against their will?  Answer:  never.  What would you have me link to?

Make sense?  Yes, it does.

[NowhereInTime]

You agree you 'may' be an ideologue?  I guess that's a start.

I prefer 'idealist", actually.

You know good and well Big Media isn't objective or honest.

Especially since most are owned by corporations looking to shape message 

Neither are the shills you reference, fancy awards or not - at least those are opinion pieces, and not presented by the publishers as 'news'.  I guess a person either respects them and finds them credible, or they don't.

They're thoughtful, analytical, lauded by fellows, highly regarded by studious people, and are recognized time and again for their research.  Yet you audaciously dismiss them as "shills".  Could you at least try to cite one of your right wing harpies from the New York Times?  Washington Post?  Even the Economist?  Anywhere besides tge CATo institute?

What I mostly post are my own ideas supported by my person observations, and personal experiences as applicable.

Yes, after you and Alice enjoyed a trip to Wonderland together.

I too could comb thru the internet looking for support, then link to it...

But then you'd find that absolutely no one of intellectual merit agrees with your pedestrian worldview

...- but I figure people can do their own research if they are interested.'

I do, and all I find are people like Will and Krauthammer, two guys you wouldn't let babysit your kids, screaming about "invisible hands", "free markets" and "liberal menace".  Substance free commentary.

And most of what I'd link to would be rejected as being from the 'wrong' sources

Because all you could find was right wing think tank horsecrap which works backward from conclusion and tries to find evidence, no matter how specious, to substantiate justifications for greed and selfishness.

Many of my sources are Forbes magazine, CNBC, and other such "leftist" sites.  You don't even bother to read those.

- i.e., not 'mainstream media, or Left-wing commentary outlets, seeing as they won't normally print anything that doesn't serve their narrative. 

For example they believe in Socialism, Big Government, redistribution of wealth, and Keynesian economics - so they are going to play up anything in support of that and ignore anything that doesn't.  And it's the same with most of the issues of the day.  When is the last time you read a news article in any way sympathetic to those who are against 'gay marriage', perhaps something about why someone running a small bakery should not be forced to bake a 'gay wedding' cake against their will?  Answer:  never.  What would you have me link to?

How about a link to why the hell it's ok to discriminate against other people?

This example is nonsense, anyway. Lazy ass crybaby Brent Bozell bellyaching.  "Wah, wah! Journalists and studious people won't take my self righteous indignation and irrational tantrums seriously! Bias! Bias!"

Make sense?  Yes, it does.

Maybe to you, Mad Hatter, but to no one else.

[PB the Deplorable]

... How about a link to why the hell it's ok to discriminate against other people?...

Because this is a free country, or used to be.  People are entitled to their opinions, whether you or I like them or not.  They are also entitled to decide how they are going to spend their time, what business they want to agree to conduct, and all the rest. 

Especially, but not exclusively if their reasons are based on their religious beliefs.  We can have a conversation about what is and is not in the Constitutions, what some of the clauses that are applicable and claimed to be applicable actually mean, and whether these judges have ruled correctly or not if you wish, but it would probably be a waste of time and you wouldn't admit it when you lost.

Lots of people want to see marriage remain between a man and a woman.  Not two people of the same sex, not multiple wives or husbands, not to those under a certain age.  Not because they're 'mean', but because they think that's what's best for our society. 

As a matter of fact, the majority in this nation believe that.  I don't think 'gay marriage' has passed anywhere it's been placed on the ballot, and only in a few State Legislatures (where the issue belongs).  And this IS The United States - since when do we the people not have the right to determine something so important and so basic as what defines marriage?


As far as discriminating against other people, let me tell you how the Gay Mafia really works.  Big Media sure isn't going to tell you.  A gay couple wanting a cake doesn't stumble upon a bakery that turns them down, then decide they are going to fight it out in court instead of going down the street to the next bakery.  No.  What happens is the Gay Mafia sends their agents out to make sure everyone is knuckling under to their most recent demands, whichever those are.  When they find someone who isn't, litigation ensues.  Big Media conducts a hit and run propaganda campaign is support, which people like you swallow whole.  And by the way, those activists don't give a hoot about anyone else or anyone else's rights.

Just a reminder - I've lived here in the San Francisco Bay Area my entire adult life, I've had a front row seat observing how this works.  If a person doesn't like bullies, or doesn't think it's wise to give in to them, it really makes it tough to support them on anything.  So I'll see your bias and raise you a fascism.  The rest of us have rights too.

[NowhereInTime]

Because this is a free country, or used to be.

Yes, but what your and your ilk fail to comprehend is that means free for EVERYBODY, not just white male property owners! 

People are entitled to their opinions, whether you or I like them or not.  They are also entitled to decide how they are going to spend their time, what business they want to agree to conduct, and all the rest.

Except they can't offer a public service to one person but tell another "oh no, your sexual preference offends me, so go to hell."  There needs to be equality of opportunity for all citizens, up to and including buying a damn cake.

Especially, but not exclusively if their reasons are based on their religious beliefs.  We can have a conversation about what is and is not in the Constitutions, what some of the clauses that are applicable and claimed to be applicable actually mean, and whether these judges have ruled correctly or not if you wish, but it would probably be a waste of time and you wouldn't admit it when you lost.

Except if you're a muslim, right?

Look, if you establish your business as a faith based or faith oriented enterprise, then have at it. Otherwise, turn the other damn cheek, hold your nose, and serve your customers.

Lots of people want to see marriage remain between a man and a woman.

Most people don't care and/or respect people's rights to pursue their happiness.

Not two people of the same sex, not multiple wives or husbands, not to those under a certain age.  Not because they're 'mean', but because they think that's what's best for our society.

And those people cry loudest about "freedom" while trying to restrict others.  Those people would call themselves "conservative'; most of us call them "hypocrites".

As a matter of fact, the majority in this nation believe that.

Wrong.  As usual.  Let me supply one of those inconvenient facts to refute your assertion:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/169640/sex-marriage-support-reaches-new-high.aspx

I don't think 'gay marriage' has passed [/font]anywhere it's been placed on the ballot, and only in a few State Legislatures (where the issue belongs).

Wrong. Again.  Jesus, God in Heaven, you don't even read, do you???

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/gay-marriage-victory_n_2085900.html

And this IS The United States - since when do we the people not have the right to determine something so important and so basic as what defines marriage?

For themselves, they do.  Not for others.  What happened to all of your bluster about "freedom"??

As far as discriminating against other people, let me tell you how the Gay Mafia really works.

An insider's perspective?

Big Media sure isn't going to tell you.  A gay couple wanting a cake doesn't stumble upon a bakery that turns them down, then decide they are going to fight it out in court instead of going down the street to the next bakery.  No.  What happens is the Gay Mafia sends their agents out to make sure everyone is knuckling under to their most recent demands, whichever those are.  When they find someone who isn't, litigation ensues.  And by the way, those activists don't give a hoot about anyone else or anyone else's rights.

No, just their own.  But at least they fight for them.

Just a reminder - I've lived here in the San Francisco Bay Area my entire adult life, I've had a front row seat observing how this works.  If a person doesn't like bullies, or doesn't think it's wise to give in to them, it really makes it tough to support them on anything.  So I'll see your bias and raise you a fascism.  The rest of us have rights too.

And I hope you exercise them; just don't try to deny others theirs.

[PB the Deplorable]

... Yes, but what your and your ilk fail to comprehend is that means free for EVERYBODY, not just white male property owners!...

That is your favorite fallback line.  You should  ask yourself why it bothers you so much that people work hard, save their money, and invest it wisely.  Because when they do, people get jobs (despite what Hillary Clinton thinks) and  goods and services are produced that people want and need

... Except if you're a muslim, right?...

Certainly the ones that think such things as 'honor' killings, 'suicide' bombings, child rape, stonings, murder and beheadings of 'infidels', and throwing acid in the faces of women who won't do their bidding is part of the religion.  The problem is, we don't know which of them are which, or which ones will become radicalized once here or raise children who turn out to be radicals - so until we do know, they shouldn't becoming here.  Problem solved.


I have a friend from Bangladesh who is a Sufi (religious philosophical branch of Islam).  He gave a speech to fellow Bay Area Sufis a couple weeks ago with the premise that it is in Islam's best interest to align with the West.

Now looking at Islam in general, I'd expect a higher percentage of those living in the West to be 'pro-Western' than those not living here (they did choose to live here).  Of those, I'd expect the ones living in the US to be more so than those living in other Western countries (we are the Great Satan, after all).  Of those choosing to live in the US, I'd assume those living in the SF Bay Area to be more 'pro-West' than those living elsewhere (this is a really nice place to live as far as climate, work opportunity, race relations (mostly), perhaps a higher percentage are educated and have good jobs in such industries as high-tech, etc).  Of those living around here, I'd expect the Sufi's to be more 'pro-Western' than the non-Sufi's (being more learned and philosophical), and I'd expect Bay Area Sufi's that would attend such an event to be the most 'pro-Western' of all (they must have been interested in the subject top attend).  Or very nearly so.

Turns out half of them argued against the premise, didn't trust the West, weren't 'pro-Western', and didn't want to be.  To me that's a shocking commentary.  What the fuck do we need these people here for?, fuck them.


On a lighter note, apparently about 100 foreign ISIS recruits (many or most from Western countries) wanted to quit and come home.  ISIS had them shot as deserters.  Good.