One thing that amazes me about right wingers is...

They can gather lots of historical data about the climate and conclude that the either climate is not changing or mankind is not effecting the change.
But they cannot remember the screw ups of their political leaders or their failed policies and conclude that something is amiss there.

This type of thing is not limited to the right but does seem to be more widespread on that side of the aisle.

things were pretty damn good under Reagan ,Bush 1,Bush 2....
Yeah......



handjob.gif


.....and even under Clinton when he was held in check by a republican congress !!!

"Clearly, this is a job-killer in the short-run. The impact on job creation is going to be devastating." - Rep. Dick Armey, (Republican, Texas)

"The tax increase will…lead to a recession…and will actually increase the deficit." - Rep. Newt Gingrich (Republican, Georgia)



This whole politics-thing is relatively-NEW, to you, right??

:eusa_whistle:

Hmmmmm. Occupytogether? Is this y'alls latest kumbya version?
 
Liberals have given us plenty of Failed and or Failing Polices and almost Never admit to a mistake. I mean please.

Well, here's Bill Clinton admitting the mistakes he made...

Clinton Admits Mistake on Deregulating Derivatives

Bill Clinton Admits Free Trade was a Mistake and a Failure

Bill Clinton regrets DADT Policy

Other than Nixon resigning, when was the last GOP President to admit a mistake? George Bush admitting it was a mistake to put up the "Mission Accomplished" banner? That's hardly a POLICY mistake.

The mistake Clinton made was that he interfered in the sovereignty of another nation by imposing American ideals on Haiti. When Republicans do that you call it imperialism, when Democrats do it it is either good, it it works, or a mistake, it it does not.
 
Perhaps 'right wingers' would be more accepting of "facts" regarding climate change if the left had not hijacked it for politics.

Just a thought.

Really? It's the "left" hijacking the climate change debate for politics? You sure about that?

(BTW, I'm still waiting for the link to the thread where I called Tea Partiers racist, ...over there in the Fox is Reporting thread)

If she has any doubts I do not.

an inconvenient truth
 
They can gather lots of historical data about the climate and conclude that the either climate is not changing or mankind is not effecting the change.
But they cannot remember the screw ups of their political leaders or their failed policies and conclude that something is amiss there.

This type of thing is not limited to the right but does seem to be more widespread on that side of the aisle.

Well, even more amzing are people who cling to the debunked notion of man-made global warming (or whatever the climate scammers are calling it today)... not to mention Obama voters.
 
They can gather lots of historical data about the climate and conclude that the either climate is not changing or mankind is not effecting the change.
But they cannot remember the screw ups of their political leaders or their failed policies and conclude that something is amiss there.

This type of thing is not limited to the right but does seem to be more widespread on that side of the aisle.

Probably because if a repug screws up he becomes a distant memory.

When a Dem screws up he improves the country....mainly because doing bad is is a success and not doing bad is failure to adhere to Liberal/Progressive ideology.

Cons don't tolerate a screw up but Libs embrace them. Obama for example.
 
Last edited:
They can gather lots of historical data about the climate and conclude that the either climate is not changing or mankind is not effecting the change.
But they cannot remember the screw ups of their political leaders or their failed policies and conclude that something is amiss there.

This type of thing is not limited to the right but does seem to be more widespread on that side of the aisle.

Kinda like not realizing that their democratic mayor, councilmen, and congressmen are the ones keeping them in the slums?

You're absolutely right!

:eusa_shhh:

You are correct, however that is a different topic, start your own thread.
:D
 
They can gather lots of historical data about the climate and conclude that the either climate is not changing or mankind is not effecting the change.
But they cannot remember the screw ups of their political leaders or their failed policies and conclude that something is amiss there.

This type of thing is not limited to the right but does seem to be more widespread on that side of the aisle.
Global warming or climate change whatever the knuckleheaded enviros are calling it is not manmade. It is a scare tactic orchestrated by the enviromentalists who are backed by the commies.

Just like being gay is purely a choice?
 
They can gather lots of historical data about the climate and conclude that the either climate is not changing or mankind is not effecting the change.
But they cannot remember the screw ups of their political leaders or their failed policies and conclude that something is amiss there.

This type of thing is not limited to the right but does seem to be more widespread on that side of the aisle.
Global warming or climate change whatever the knuckleheaded enviros are calling it is not manmade. It is a scare tactic orchestrated by the enviromentalists who are backed by the commies.

Just like being gay is purely a choice?
No. There is actual science supporting that gay is not a choice. There is no science as of yet supporting the significance and/or magnitude of any warming by man-made CO2.

Completely different, but otherwise the same. ;)
 
They can gather lots of historical data about the climate and conclude that the either climate is not changing or mankind is not effecting the change.
But they cannot remember the screw ups of their political leaders or their failed policies and conclude that something is amiss there.

This type of thing is not limited to the right but does seem to be more widespread on that side of the aisle.




The thing that amazes me about libs is you can show them all sorts of historical data that shows them wrong and they will STILL insist on putting a known carcinogen into the gasoline to reduce air pollution. Remember that? It's called MTBE and we warned the libs for years and still they did it. Now after ten years of use and the poisoning of water wells all over the state of California they finally figured out WE WERE correct and pulled it.

Just think of the billions of wasted dollars and the environmental damage they caused that wouldn't have happened if they had listened to us.

I'll raise you your knee jerk pseudo scientific bull crap for the very real environmental damage that YOU caused any day of the fucking week you leftist twerp.
 
Liberals have given us plenty of Failed and or Failing Polices and almost Never admit to a mistake. I mean please.

I have to admit I have seen this characteristic in both parties. I agree that there are more than a few Liberal failed or failing policies, but both sides almost never admit to a mistake.

Correct, it is very Rare that Either Side will admit a mistake, But then there is Not Admitting to a mistake, and then there is Doubling down on Mistakes because you refuse to admit you were wrong.

That is what I see Obama wanting to do right now. the 850 Billion dollar stimulus Failed to give us sustained Private Sector Growth, Which we need. His answer is a 450 Billion dollar Stimulus that again will not give us Sustained Private Sector Growth.

It is the very definition of Insanity. Trying the same thing over and over, and expecting different Results.
 
They can gather lots of historical data about the climate and conclude that the either climate is not changing or mankind is not effecting the change.
But they cannot remember the screw ups of their political leaders or their failed policies and conclude that something is amiss there.

This type of thing is not limited to the right but does seem to be more widespread on that side of the aisle.

Kinda like not realizing that their democratic mayor, councilmen, and congressmen are the ones keeping them in the slums?

You're absolutely right!

:eusa_shhh:

You are correct, however that is a different topic, start your own thread.
:D

But yours are kewler

:cool:
 
They can gather lots of historical data about the climate and conclude that the either climate is not changing or mankind is not effecting the change.
But they cannot remember the screw ups of their political leaders or their failed policies and conclude that something is amiss there.

This type of thing is not limited to the right but does seem to be more widespread on that side of the aisle.

Do you enjoy thinking your in the middle despite the fact that the middle is known for having NO CONVICTIONS?

I respect the left for believing in their agenda full heartedly. I may not agree with them but at least they posess personal convictions.

"Moderates" aren't in the middle on all the issues - they have convictions, they just don't line up with left-right dogma. For example, someone who is pro-gun, but also pro-choice. Or anti-war, but pro-deregulation.

Everyone has an opinion on everything. "Moderates" just have some opinions that match the left, and some the right. The world is nowhere near as black and white as you seem to think it is.
 
What amazes me is how little some of them question the narratives they are fed. Consider the meltdown.

Wall Street created and sold securities they knew to be crap. Then they sold insurance on that crap that far exceeded their ability to pay. More pointedly: they placed massive bets against securities they were pushing on customers. AIG burned several trillion in the derivative market - an amount which was ultimately absorbed by the taxpayer, and will end-up suppressing demand for a decade. Had AIG tried this during the pre-Reagan economy - where financial speculation was more tightly regulated - they would have been stopped long before exploding a WMD over the economy.

When asked why they didn't intervene in this casino of criminal leveraging (i.e., placing bets they could not cover), Greenspan and Bush-fed regulators said "we thought that the self interest of money managers and their customers was the best form of regulation". Greenspan later admitted that he was amazed that the major financial firms exposed their customers and the global economy to system destroying risk.

In essence, the large financial firms profited from stuff they knew would blow-up -and then they cashed-in on wildly leveraged hedge-bets that should never have been allowed (and are not allowed in places with even minimum regulatory functions). Worse: they didn't profit from investment in vital technology or real economy goods & services - the profited from a shell game that left the taxpayer holding the bag.

In essence, during the Bush years, the surplus capital (made possible by the tax cuts) flowed into a Wall Street casino. Yet, we're supposed to call these folks "job creators". (Why does the Right trust their government leaders so much? -like when Eric Cantor says "job creator", why don't people ask him to explain the flow of money away from job creation and into speculative garbage? Why do they have such faith in their pundits and government leaders?)

We only hear simplistic cliches about tax cuts and job creators BUT we never hear an analysis about where the tax cuts are actually going.

Indeed, we never hear sophisticated analysis on the right about why the massive tax cuts starting with Reagan and continuing through Bush/Clinton/Obama have coincided with such staggering job loss, coupled with an unhealthy credit-debt market to make-up for the failed trickle down. (That is, when we realized that tax cuts were not turing into solid jobs, we started to loan consumers more and more money to keep the economy alive. Reaganomics turned into a ponzi scheme that transferred fraudulent speculative profits into the hands of billionaires who pay lower taxes than their wage monkeys (who are pumped full of credit in order to buy their stuff). How did this happen?)

The problem: "real economy" job creation has been dying for decades. Indeed, the globe has spent the last 30 years reducing wages & benefits in order to raise profits and un-burden capital. But: capital needs customers with wages/benefits high enough to buy things. Once demand dies, there is no incentive to invest in the real economy, therefore, investment flows disproportionately into risky speculation & asset bubbles. Don't take my word for, look at where the Bush tax cuts went - they didn't go to Main Street, they went overwhelmingly into phantom securities and derivate markets. You won't find this stuff on FOX News because it is owned by the interests which profit from the rigged game).

Ultimately, the Wall Street mega-firms participated in a fraud. On the one hand they funnel money into movement conservatism, which pays an army of pundits to preach "free market" principals, and scream socialism at anybody who wants to "look under the hood" at their systemic over-leveraging. On the other hand, they seek the opposite of the free market by securing FDIC insurance for what amounts to online gaming. That is, the sultans of free market capitalism LOVE big government safety nets, which allows them to gamble with the houses money. Any attempt to reform this system is met with cries of "socialism", which is screamed by the useful idiots who get all their information from sources which are subsidized by the folks who blew-up the system.

Wall Street has brilliantly deflected criticism by pouring money into groups like "Freedom Works", which re-directs Tea Party rage at another Wall Street chimera: government. Why is it a chimera? Because everyone knows that government is a bogus holding of the private sector, used to subsidize costs and absorb losses.

When will the Right wake up and investigate the narrative they have been given?

(I won't mention the Left because there is no Left. They too are owned by Wall Street)
 
Last edited:
What amazes me is how little some of them question the narratives they are fed. Consider the meltdown.

Wall Street created and sold securities they knew to be crap. Then they sold insurance on that crap that far exceeded their ability to pay. More pointedly: they placed massive bets against securities they were pushing on customers. AIG burned several trillion in the derivative market - an amount which was ultimately absorbed by the taxpayer, and will end-up suppressing demand for a decade. Had AIG tried this during the pre-Reagan economy - where financial speculation was more tightly regulated - they would have been stopped long before exploding a WMD over the economy.

When asked why they didn't intervene in this casino of criminal leveraging (i.e., placing bets they could not cover), Greenspan and Bush-fed regulators said "we thought that the self interest of money managers and their customers was the best form of regulation". Greenspan later admitted that he was amazed that the major financial firms exposed their customers and the global economy to system destroying risk.

In essence, the large financial firms profited from stuff they knew would blow-up -and then they cashed-in on wildly leveraged hedge-bets that should never have been allowed (and are not allowed in places with even minimum regulatory functions). Worse: they didn't profit from investment in vital technology or real economy goods & services - the profited from a shell game that left the taxpayer holding the bag.

In essence, during the Bush years, the surplus capital (made possible by the tax cuts) flowed into a Wall Street casino. Yet, we're supposed to call these folks "job creators". (Why does the Right trust their government leaders so much? -like when Eric Cantor says "job creator", why don't people ask him to explain the flow of money away from job creation and into speculative garbage? Why do they have such faith in their pundits and government leaders?)

We only hear simplistic cliches about tax cuts and job creators BUT we never hear an analysis about where the tax cuts are actually going.

Indeed, we never hear sophisticated analysis on the right about why the massive tax cuts starting with Reagan and continuing through Bush/Clinton/Obama have coincided with such staggering job loss, coupled with an unhealthy credit-debt market to make-up for the failed trickle down. (That is, when we realized that tax cuts were not turing into solid jobs, we started to loan consumers more and more money to keep the economy alive. Reaganomics turned into a ponzi scheme that transferred fraudulent speculative profits into the hands of billionaires who pay lower taxes than their wage monkeys (who are pumped full of credit in order to buy their stuff). How did this happen?)

The problem: "real economy" job creation has been dying for decades. Indeed, the globe has spent the last 30 years reducing wages & benefits in order to raise profits and un-burden capital. But: capital needs customers with wages/benefits high enough to buy things. Once demand dies, there is no incentive to invest in the real economy, therefore, investment flows disproportionately into risky speculation & asset bubbles. Don't take my word for, look at where the Bush tax cuts went - they didn't go to Main Street, they went overwhelmingly into phantom securities and derivate markets. You won't find this stuff on FOX News because it is owned by the interests which profit from the rigged game).

Ultimately, the Wall Street mega-firms participated in a fraud. On the one hand they funnel money into movement conservatism, which pays an army of pundits to preach "free market" principals, and scream socialism at anybody who wants to "look under the hood" at their systemic over-leveraging. On the other hand, they seek the opposite of the free market by securing FDIC insurance for what amounts to online gaming. That is, the sultans of free market capitalism LOVE big government safety nets, which allows them to gamble with the houses money. Any attempt to reform this system is met with cries of "socialism", which is screamed by the useful idiots who get all their information from sources which are subsidized by the folks who blew-up the system.

Wall Street has brilliantly deflected criticism by pouring money into groups like "Freedom Works", which re-directs Tea Party rage at another Wall Street chimera: government. Why is it a chimera? Because everyone knows that government is a bogus holding of the private sector, used to subsidize costs and absorb losses.

When will the Right wake up and investigate the narrative they have been given?

(I won't mention the Left because there is no Left. They too are owned by Wall Street)




Very well laid out. Correct in all respects as well.
 
They can gather lots of historical data about the climate and conclude that the either climate is not changing or mankind is not effecting the change.
But they cannot remember the screw ups of their political leaders or their failed policies and conclude that something is amiss there.

This type of thing is not limited to the right but does seem to be more widespread on that side of the aisle.
things were pretty damn good under Reagan ,Bush 1,Bush 2,and even under Clinton when he was held in check by a republican congress !!! .....but you know what maybe you are right so lets do it your way lets raise the tax rate ,and spend trillions more on social programs ......that ought to stimulate the economy !!!:doubt:

If you believe dad trading his good paying union job so dad,mom and the kids can work at Walmart and live off high interest credit cards good....
 
So now running up $12 trillion in debt, including interest, by Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II was "PRETTY DAMN GOOD." :eek:
Reagan + Bush 1 + Bush 2 = 20 years.

Obama did it in less than 3

:clap2:
A typical CON$ervative lie. Obama has not run up $12 trillion in debt. We are paying nearly half a trillion in interest on the GOP debt every year!!!!!

There is no end to the lengths you guys will go to defense Obama is there. The very same people that Beratted Bush for 2 Wars that cost 1 Trillion over 10 Years, are now defending a President who has added 4 Trillion in new Debt in less than 3 years, and who has increased Repeating annual Spending Dramatically, Which means we will add another 7 Trillion in new Debt in the next 10 years.

I can see Blaming Bush for the 1 Time Stimulus Package, But to try and Blame Bush for Obama's Massive Increase in Annual Spending Commitments is ludicrous, that's All Obama.
 
Liberals have given us plenty of Failed and or Failing Polices and almost Never admit to a mistake. I mean please.

I have to admit I have seen this characteristic in both parties. I agree that there are more than a few Liberal failed or failing policies, but both sides almost never admit to a mistake.

Correct, it is very Rare that Either Side will admit a mistake, But then there is Not Admitting to a mistake, and then there is Doubling down on Mistakes because you refuse to admit you were wrong.

That is what I see Obama wanting to do right now. the 850 Billion dollar stimulus Failed to give us sustained Private Sector Growth, Which we need. His answer is a 450 Billion dollar Stimulus that again will not give us Sustained Private Sector Growth.

It is the very definition of Insanity. Trying the same thing over and over, and expecting different Results.

How true it is that it is so seldom that a politician on either side would admit an error. When it does happen, I find it a bit of fresh air and admittance of being human.

But the other side would naturally use that as an attack issue and I just wish the one who owns up to his own error would just say, "Friend, the next time you walk on water, can I come along?"

Something about casting the first stone...Allowing politicians be real.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top