DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Cuz you say so, 15ppMott.LOL Pwned twice in the same thread! LOL LOL LOL
APP - What Makes People Vote Republican
- Thread starter Mott the Hoople
- Start date
Good Luck
New member
What a crock some of these liberal idiots come up with. Yea, sure. According to Apple it is conservatives (you know the ones who promote private ownership with minimal interference from governing bodies) that want to tell us whather we can build a fence or not. LIAR!
It is liberals who believe in a "few" general, all encompassing laws. (Yea, like the health care bill - HOW MANY PAGES WAS THAT?) Yes, liberals like all encompassing laws, disregarding the fact that one-size-fits-all is a stupid assed way to run a country of this size and diversity. But when it comes to the descriptor "few" - the only way liberals like a "few" laws is when they can write multi-thousand page bills so they can cover a few hundred regulations in one law. They probably call the entire United States Penal Code a single law so they can claim to like just a few laws.
In short, liar. PERIOD. Liberalism is all about controlling things you do not like. Sure you can fuck whoever you want, and say whatever you want (but only if it agrees with liberalism - say something different and then it's regulate this media, tax that media to shut people up you don't like. But make too much money, and they want to control you. Like to shoot, they want to control you. Want to run a business, they'll control it more than you will. Want to cut down a tree on your own land, it will be the liberals who will files a lawsuit to prevent it. Try to paint your house a different color and it will be the liberals of the neighborhood, NOT the conservatives (another pathetic lie), passing covenants to tell you sky blue with royal trim is not acceptable. Try to put up a fence, it will the the liberals who tell you what kind of materials you can or cannot use, how high the damned thing can be, etc. etc. etc.
In short - LIARS about what each philosophy represents, including Haidt and his so-called expose of how to understand why people vote republican. It's just a continuation of the liberal elitist totalitarian attitude that people who think differently than they do and believe in different methods to best keep this country running as smoothly as possible must be "analyzed" for their errant behavior.
And you pissants wonder why you cannot keep in power for any length of time? Because the general populace rapidly gets tired of your elitism, your lies, and your continual push for more and more big government interference.
It is liberals who believe in a "few" general, all encompassing laws. (Yea, like the health care bill - HOW MANY PAGES WAS THAT?) Yes, liberals like all encompassing laws, disregarding the fact that one-size-fits-all is a stupid assed way to run a country of this size and diversity. But when it comes to the descriptor "few" - the only way liberals like a "few" laws is when they can write multi-thousand page bills so they can cover a few hundred regulations in one law. They probably call the entire United States Penal Code a single law so they can claim to like just a few laws.
In short, liar. PERIOD. Liberalism is all about controlling things you do not like. Sure you can fuck whoever you want, and say whatever you want (but only if it agrees with liberalism - say something different and then it's regulate this media, tax that media to shut people up you don't like. But make too much money, and they want to control you. Like to shoot, they want to control you. Want to run a business, they'll control it more than you will. Want to cut down a tree on your own land, it will be the liberals who will files a lawsuit to prevent it. Try to paint your house a different color and it will be the liberals of the neighborhood, NOT the conservatives (another pathetic lie), passing covenants to tell you sky blue with royal trim is not acceptable. Try to put up a fence, it will the the liberals who tell you what kind of materials you can or cannot use, how high the damned thing can be, etc. etc. etc.
In short - LIARS about what each philosophy represents, including Haidt and his so-called expose of how to understand why people vote republican. It's just a continuation of the liberal elitist totalitarian attitude that people who think differently than they do and believe in different methods to best keep this country running as smoothly as possible must be "analyzed" for their errant behavior.
And you pissants wonder why you cannot keep in power for any length of time? Because the general populace rapidly gets tired of your elitism, your lies, and your continual push for more and more big government interference.
Last edited:
Good Luck
New member
Remind me again which administration promoted and then signed into law the repeal of Glass Steagall, which would have prevented the mortgage banks from selling their debts they way they did? And why did they do so? Because it would allow more people to own houses by freeing up more money for lending.
IOW, democratic leadership was right in the thick of the whole mess. And the republicans were right along side them, each vying for the better claim to have helped people buy their homes. Any claims that one or the other party was MORE responsible than the other for the recent financial crisis is nothing less that blind partisan lies.
Also, to clear the lies being told by certain democratic apologists, while the repeal of Glass-Steagall did have an exacerbating effect on the banking crisis, it was the failed mortgages that actually caused the damage. (think about it - would those AAA investments turned out bad if the mortgages hadd NOT failed?) And the rate of failed mortgages was significantly affected by lending regulations, passed by democrats to force lending in lower income brackets and poorer neighborhoods. It's called law of unintended consequences - a factor liberalism is constantly stepping in like a blind man walking through a feed lot.
First sentence explained: The man who speaks so eloquently of visiting all 50 states and in ignorance about what we believe is a star on a show called "Top Gear" where they regularly drop pianos on cars... They were talking about another "episode" maybe a season where they'd be taking a road trip in all 50 states.
As for the second sentence, it makes sense to those who watched the video, can actually understand English (you know where he says that "Freedom of Speech is elevated above Justice"), and have a modicum of education in the differences between the liberal "social justice" and the more libertarian "equal justice" as well as a bit of understanding of how the entire document we call the constitution practically screams "equal justice"... (misapplied in the past due to racism, but we have lofty aims and as long as we don't allow ourselves to derail our own constitution we'll get there).
charver
You lookin' at my pint?
To be fair to midcan, i'm not getting any connection to 'Top Gear' here either. Maybe you're confusing Stephen Frys with Jeremy Clarksons? They're both big old units but i'd never dream of hitting Stephen Frys in the face with the exhaust pipe of a 1934 Bugatti Type 57.
apple0154
MEOW
There weren't any government regulations. At least none addressing the problem that caused the near collapse.
That article regarding Falcon is circa 2004. Perhaps we should look a little further back to the mid-1990s.
Interview with Brooksley Born
Question:How did it happen?
Answer: We had no regulation. No federal or state public official had any idea what was going on in those markets, so enormous leverage was permitted, enormous borrowing. There was also little or no capital being put up as collateral for the transactions. All the players in the marketplace were participants and counterparties to one another's contracts. This market had gotten to be over $680 trillion in notional value as of June 2008 when it topped up. I think that was the peak. And that is an enormous market. That's more than 10 times the gross national product of all the countries in the world.
Question: This was something that you discovered, heard about, came across, back in the mid-1990s?
Answer: Yes. When I was chair of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission [CFTC], I became aware of how quickly the over-the-counter derivatives market was growing, how little any of the federal regulators knew about it.
And also, we were seeing some very dangerous things happening in that market. There were some major fraud cases. There was use of over-the-counter derivatives to manipulate the price of commodities. And there were some spectacular failures by institutions that were speculating in the over-the-counter market with little or no restraint. For example, Orange County, Calif., was brought down, went into bankruptcy because of its speculation, gambling with public money in the over-the-counter derivatives market on interest rate swaps. (Emphasis added)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/interviews/born.html
No government regulation. Simple as that. That's why the government had to bail out the banks.
Follow along here. When someone deposits money in a bank the government insures that money (FDIC) regardless of what the bank does with it. Surely logic and common sense tells us the government should have oversight as to what the bank is doing with the money. The problem was the government didn't have any idea what the banks were doing.
The same with Freddie and Fannie. The government backed their loans believing they had a reasonable idea what money Fannie and Freddie had.
Here's an analogy. Let's say you have a son going off to college and you want to give him a credit card to use so you co-sign for the credit card and set a limit. Let's say, $2,000.
A few months later the credit card company increases the limit to $10,000 because they know you co-signed and you're good for it. Then your son runs up $10,000 in debt. Now you own $10,000. (Incidentally, some CC companies have stopped automatically raising limits. Now one has to ask to have their limit raised.)
The new, hidden financial instruments were nothing short of gambling. And as with all gambling, as I can attest to
, the winning streak ends.
apple0154
MEOW
The overriding point is more regulation is needed. It doesn't matter which party started it. As soon as problems are seen they need to be corrected. If the Dems start a program and then the Repubs come into power surely it's the Repub's responsibility to address any problems.
As an analogy when a new person comes on shift to steer a ship he/she doesn't keep going on the same course if correction is needed.
As for freeing up more money the government had no idea where that money was coming from and the way it was generated. That is/was the problem.
In the article I previously noted it states, "There was also little or no capital being put up as collateral for the transactions." It was a gambling table full of IOUs.
The government was not aware of that because those transactions were hidden.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
There weren't any government regulations. At least none addressing the problem that caused the near collapse.
That article regarding Falcon is circa 2004. Perhaps we should look a little further back to the mid-1990s.
Interview with Brooksley Born
Question:How did it happen?
Answer: We had no regulation. No federal or state public official had any idea what was going on in those markets, so enormous leverage was permitted, enormous borrowing. There was also little or no capital being put up as collateral for the transactions. All the players in the marketplace were participants and counterparties to one another's contracts. This market had gotten to be over $680 trillion in notional value as of June 2008 when it topped up. I think that was the peak. And that is an enormous market. That's more than 10 times the gross national product of all the countries in the world.
Question: This was something that you discovered, heard about, came across, back in the mid-1990s?
Answer: Yes. When I was chair of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission [CFTC], I became aware of how quickly the over-the-counter derivatives market was growing, how little any of the federal regulators knew about it.
And also, we were seeing some very dangerous things happening in that market. There were some major fraud cases. There was use of over-the-counter derivatives to manipulate the price of commodities. And there were some spectacular failures by institutions that were speculating in the over-the-counter market with little or no restraint. For example, Orange County, Calif., was brought down, went into bankruptcy because of its speculation, gambling with public money in the over-the-counter derivatives market on interest rate swaps. (Emphasis added)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/interviews/born.html
No government regulation. Simple as that. That's why the government had to bail out the banks.
Follow along here. When someone deposits money in a bank the government insures that money (FDIC) regardless of what the bank does with it. Surely logic and common sense tells us the government should have oversight as to what the bank is doing with the money. The problem was the government didn't have any idea what the banks were doing.
The same with Freddie and Fannie. The government backed their loans believing they had a reasonable idea what money Fannie and Freddie had.
Here's an analogy. Let's say you have a son going off to college and you want to give him a credit card to use so you co-sign for the credit card and set a limit. Let's say, $2,000.
A few months later the credit card company increases the limit to $10,000 because they know you co-signed and you're good for it. Then your son runs up $10,000 in debt. Now you own $10,000. (Incidentally, some CC companies have stopped automatically raising limits. Now one has to ask to have their limit raised.)
The new, hidden financial instruments were nothing short of gambling. And as with all gambling, as I can attest to
Of course there were, since the agencies could not have been created without and Act of Congress, along with governmental oversight by Bwarney Fwank. In 2003 the Bush Administration's called to more tightly regulate Fannie and Freddie in exact anticipation of the current recession:
But Bwarney Fwank had already made up his mind and refused:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_house_hearings&docid=f:92231.wais
Good Luck
New member
Using ignorance in defense of the "superiority" of liberalism is a poor tactic. The records clearly show that new regulation was proposed by the Bush administration from concern over the housing market - and blocked by Frank and the democrats who "saw no impending crisis"
Quit the mindless partisan finger pointing. Trying to imply the republicans are primarily at fault because they failed to correct mistakes made by democrats is the most glaring example of partisan apologist spin I have seen in a long time.
Of COURSE the federal government knew where the money was coming from. They wrote the law repealing Glass Steagall and other bills for the very purpose of creating the cyclic cash flow so more money would be made available for their program of opening housing credit in poor neighborhoods. THEY DESIGNED IT! How could they not know?
Specific transaction may have been "hidden", but the infrastructure that allowed the transactions was of deliberate design. The purpose of repealing Glass Steagall was two fold: to mitigate the risk of engaging in high risk lending (ie: allowing the mortgage lenders to sell investment companies a pig in a poke) AND to increase cash flow to the lenders so they could mortgage more high risk properties.
And, one more time: the Glass Steagall is not the most important factor in the crisis. Had the CRA on the part of the democrats and deregulation on the part of the republicans (with help from democrats) not forced/enticed lending into high risk areas, the crisis would probably have never happened. It was the failed mortgages that did the real damage. If mortgage default had not spiked, there would have been no crisis in the first place, and lack of Glass Steagall would not have been the exacerbater it was. And the high incidence of defaulted mortgages was (and still is) in direct response to the bi-partisan competition in wanting to be known as the party most responsible for "getting people into their own homes."
Last edited:
From previous debates I think you are not a child and have lived through enough to have a more educated opinion than just calling everyone who disagrees with your assumptions liar. And liberal and totalitarian go together like horse and V8 engine. The one thing Haidt does is he shows clearly where the conservative world view and the liberal differ in video below.
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?t=24890
But in debate things become what they are not and spin and rhetoric and distortion make all things something else. I have been reading how Eisenhower more or less ignored the ultra conservative hawks of those times, but the interesting thing for me was the arguments from the republicans were similar to the arguments that led a less experienced president to invade Iraq in 2003 with consequences that can only be called tragic.
"If by a 'Liberal' they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a 'Liberal,' then I'm proud to say I'm a 'Liberal.'" President John F Kennedy
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
As usual you like to define "liberal" your way. But contemporary liberals have worked tirelessly since FDR to usurp the Constitution. Why do you hate the Constitution?
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Why do you reactionary right wingers hate America? Why is freedom and liberty just words to you guys? How comes you scream and cry like little spoiled babies when some one actually practices them? Why do you hate working class people? Why do you resent them the same right to earn a lving wage and charge what the market will bear for their work that you have? Why do you lack a social conscience? Why would you rather see poor people starve in the streets? Why do you hate people of color? Why do you insist that they remain second class citizens and resist allowing them equal oppurtunities? Why do you reactionaries want to kill people of color so badly? Why is your solution to any problem with a non-white nation to kill them? Why do you reactionaries fear the outside world so much that you want to build a wall around our country so you don't have to worry about those brown skinned Spanish speaking Mexican or those French speaking people and their foriegn ideas about freedom and liberty? What are you so scared of that you hate them so much?
There are two words that sum up reactionaries like you and Dixie and Bravo and Webway and Tinhat.
FEAR AND HATE
It must be hard being a coward.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Why do you reactionary right wingers hate America? Why is freedom and liberty just words to you guys? How comes you scream and cry like little spoiled babies when some one actually practices them? Why do you hate working class people? Why do you resent them the same right to earn a lving wage and charge what the market will bear for their work that you have? Why do you lack a social conscience? Why would you rather see poor people starve in the streets? Why do you hate people of color? Why do you insist that they remain second class citizens and resist allowing them equal oppurtunities? Why do you reactionaries want to kill people of color so badly? Why is your solution to any problem with a non-white nation to kill them? Why do you reactionaries fear the outside world so much that you want to build a wall around our country so you don't have to worry about those brown skinned Spanish speaking Mexican or those French speaking people and their foriegn ideas about freedom and liberty? What are you so scared of that you hate them so much?
There are two words that sum up reactionaries like you and Dixie and Bravo and Webway and Tinhat.
FEAR AND HATE
It must be hard being a coward.
LOL 15ppMoot. "Right to Work" is a conservative principle. Why do you insist people join a socialist union in order to work? Why do you hate freedom?
Good Luck
New member
When one uses lies to promote their argument, I will call them lies. If you don't like it, don't lie, and don't use people who do as your references.
The problem with Haidt pointing out the differences between liberal and conservative philosophies is he misrepresents both philosophies in pointing out the differences. For instance, the idea that conservatism adheres to a philosophy of deference to authority through government. WRONG. One of the primary cores of modern American conservatism is it's reverence to the responsibility of the individual. While conservatism also reveres the concept of the individual VOLUNTEERING to place the needs of society aboive themselves, we clearly do not believe such should be mandated.
It is clearly liberalism, with it continual call for more and more direct government interference and regulation, claiming the "promoting the general welfare" implies providing for the people, that are the ones who hold the reverence to authority in their every day lives. It is liberals who consider the idea of mandating civil service to be an acceptable ideal.
Now if Haidt is unable to recognize that promotion of bigger government and more government regulation as authoritarian in his writings, and rather defines the idiology that the individual holds ultimate responsibility to be authoritarian, then he is either lying, or he got his credentials from a cracker jack box.
And, no, liberalism and totalitarianism go together far better than a V8 on a horse. You promote the ideas that government should control the majority, if not all the economy. You promote the idea that the government has the right, nay, the DUTY, to FORCE individuals to conform to your ideas of social responsibility. You promote the idea of a civil duty draft. As the philosophy of liberalism adds to its definition of what government can and should regulate, you continue down the road toward absolute totalitarianism.
Modern liberalism is not antithetical to totalitarianism at all. In fact, totalitarianism is the natural end result of the modern liberal policies of socialism and liberal concept of forced social responsibility. Because to control the economy, as you clearly desire the government to do, then government must control all aspects of economy. You cannot control a car using only the gas pedal. If the socialist bent of modern liberalism were given free reign, it would try to control more and more of the economy, and as instabilities develop, add more controls over more aspects of the economy. This is inevitable. Using only the gas pedal doesn't work, so you add brakes, and when that doesn't work because all brakes will do is stop "progress", you grab the steering wheel, first loosely, then more tightly, and next thing ya know, freedom is long gone with no-one left to remember it.
FULL control of the economy is the ONLY way socialism will work, and that means control of EVERYTHING in the economy, including the workers - who does what, where, and for how long. The socialist state cannot afford to waste a good engineer who would rather wait tables while waiting for their big acting break. The public education system, mostly controlled by modern liberalism, is already doing things like conducting profession aptitude tests in the 6th grade. How much longer will it be before, in the interests of efficiency, when those tests will determine who goes to which type of school? Liberty will make way for the needs of the state/society under the guise of social responsibility - in small ways it already has, and there is no reason to believe it will stop when the needs of "socail responsibility" grow.
Joe on voting republican - listen to all you may learn a bit.
One of the best books i have read on topic.
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Deer-Hunting-Jesus-Dispatches-Americas/dp/0307339378/ref=sr_1_1?s=books"]Amazon.com: Deer Hunting with Jesus: Dispatches from America's Class War (9780307339379): Joe…@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51hRJOpHNDL.@@AMEPARAM@@51hRJOpHNDL[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYzS7bXGpxE"]YouTube- (2 of 5) - Joe Bageant Interview[/ame]
One of the best books i have read on topic.
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Deer-Hunting-Jesus-Dispatches-Americas/dp/0307339378/ref=sr_1_1?s=books"]Amazon.com: Deer Hunting with Jesus: Dispatches from America's Class War (9780307339379): Joe…@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51hRJOpHNDL.@@AMEPARAM@@51hRJOpHNDL[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYzS7bXGpxE"]YouTube- (2 of 5) - Joe Bageant Interview[/ame]
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
This is a central theme of libtards on this board, especially Midcan. Thanks for nailing him.
Absolute balderdash!
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Oh, I just noticed that Midcan quoted one of America's greatest presidents and human beings ever: JFK. LOLZ
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Name one FDR program and explain to me how its Constitutional.