Why are conservatives always on the wrong side of history?

[Dad2three]

I'm getting so tired of racist liberals posting hate on these boards. There are literally no differences in policy from Bush to Obama... Yet Obama has done wonders and Bush destroyed the world economy????

Not only are these liberals incredibly racist, hate filled but also just demonstrate ignorance to a level rarely seen.

Liberals today like to claim their "new ideas" are better yet they fail to see their "new ideas" are all old ideas that failed in the past. Tell us all your new bright ideas and we can point to periods in time over the last couple thousand years where these ideas were tried and failed. Go ahead!

So has Obama ignored regulator warnings on an EPIDEMIC of mortgage fraud that would rival the S&L (Ronnie's) crisis? (2004)

Did Obama change a Clinton era rule that stopped GSE's (Fann/Fredie) from using subprime loans to meet their affordable housing goals? (2004)

Did Obama force the GSE's to UP their goals from 50% to 56% (including allowing that subprime part) in affordable housing (2004)

Did Obama FORCE GSE's to purchase $440 billion of MBS's in the secondary market 2004-2007 (2004)

Did Obama fight ALL 50 state AG's who wanted to reign in the 'predatory' lenders, by invoking a civil war era rule? (2003)

Did Obama, AS the actual regulator of GSE's, allow F/F to chase the PRIVATE MARKETS to the bottom on those subprime loans (NOT to meet ANY goals at this point but BECAUSE they had lost so much market share) (late 2005)


Did Obama pass legislation in the GOP Congress to give away 120,000+ FREE down payments 2004-2007 (2004 ADDI)

Did Obama LITERALLY have regulator going to the wall street floor and use a chainsaw to cut regulations (2004)

Did Obama allow the 5 investment Banks, who fed the subprime bubble with easy credit, to lower their net capital rule which allowed the Banksters to go from 12-1 to 35-1+? (2004)

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Avorysuds]

All threads like this do is scream to me "OH FUCK WERE GONNA LOSE TO REPUBLICANS IN 2016!!!" Obama is one of the least trusted Presidents in US history, he re-started the Iraq war that Bush had to end. He added massive debt to the country, divided the country even further than Bush did, widened the gap between the uber rich and the poor (mainly by handing the uber rich hundreds of billions for 6 strait fucking years.)

Dems lost on history levels to a very weak party (Republicans) in 2014. Democrat ideas are simply bad and not felt by the middle class in a positive way. Obama might be a a mild "upswing" in the polls this month or two but as it has done over the last 6 years it just sinks back down shit levels. If Democrats were so great we would never have a Republican President.... We would have a Democrat congress... But that is not the case, because Democrats suck slightly worse than Republicans.

BTW it's well documented that Clinton gave us the housing crash, Bush only helped...

 

[Dad2three]

Calling his points partisan doesn't actually refute them.

First, they are NOT his points. Which then leads you to conclude that there is nothing he has said that needs refuting. He is parroting his betters.

Second.....Post the raw data (not the sanitized data) and then maybe an actual debate can occur. Simply posting data with no context of methodology is meaningless.

So what if they are not his points? They're still valid.

The validity is in dispute based upon what I said.

You need to comprehend a discussion better.

Go get the raw data from each of his little graphs, and then provide the methodology that was used to arrive at the conclusion.

Remove any methodology by anyone who collects a government check for their research on the topic under discussion. Their objectivity is nonexistent.

SIMPLY GIVE ONE POLICY CONSERVATIVES HAVE BEEN ON THE CORRECT SIDE OF HISTORY ON? Just one PLEASE?

You do understand that simply because you disagree with a policy does not put it on the wrong side of history.

Get back to Me when you can fully explain your own posts.

So, NO you can't show me even ONE policy conservatives were on the correct side of history. Thanks

 

[Avorysuds]

I'm getting so tired of racist liberals posting hate on these boards. There are literally no differences in policy from Bush to Obama... Yet Obama has done wonders and Bush destroyed the world economy????

Not only are these liberals incredibly racist, hate filled but also just demonstrate ignorance to a level rarely seen.

Liberals today like to claim their "new ideas" are better yet they fail to see their "new ideas" are all old ideas that failed in the past. Tell us all your new bright ideas and we can point to periods in time over the last couple thousand years where these ideas were tried and failed. Go ahead!

So has Obama ignored regulator warnings on an EPIDEMIC of mortgage fraud that would rival the S&L (Ronnie's) crisis? (2004)

Did Obama change a Clinton era rule that stopped GSE's (Fann/Fredie) from using subprime loans to meet their affordable housing goals? (2004)

Did Obama force the GSE's to UP their goals from 50% to 56% (including allowing that subprime part) in affordable housing (2004)

Did Obama FORCE GSE's to purchase $440 billion of MBS's in the secondary market 2004-2007 (2004)

Did Obama fight ALL 50 state AG's who wanted to reign in the 'predatory' lenders, by invoking a civil war era rule? (2003)

Did Obama, AS the actual regulator of GSE's, allow F/F to chase the PRIVATE MARKETS to the bottom on those subprime loans (NOT to meet ANY goals at this point but BECAUSE they had lost so much market share) (late 2005)


Did Obama pass legislation in the GOP Congress to give away 120,000+ FREE down payments 2004-2007 (2004 ADDI)

Did Obama LITERALLY have regulator going to the wall street floor and use a chainsaw to cut regulations (2004)

Did Obama allow the 5 investment Banks, who fed the subprime bubble with easy credit, to lower their net capital rule which allowed the Banksters to go from 12-1 to 35-1+? (2004)

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Did Bush have the Fed-R dump 5 Trillion dollars on the rich bankers to make the stock markets look good? Did Bush force Obama to go back into Iraq after Bush ended the war?

I could go on but whats the point, you just copy and paste your arguments but expect others to actually do work in rebuttals.

 

[westwall]

So, Cons are responsible for all of that. Progressives are responsible for the murder of over 200 million people. Based on those facts I would say Cons are way the hell better than progressives. What's your response to that little progressive?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Conservatives on the Wrong Side of History on Mandela, Most Other Things


When has the American right ever—ever—been on the right side of history?

The answer is almost never.


...Do you support the American Revolution? I should hope so. You would not have, however, had you been a conservative in 1785. American Loyalists, perhaps 20 percent of the white population of the day, were devoted to king and crown for mostly the usual reasons: They were older, better established, had more money, were scared of change.


How about the abolition of slavery? I reckon you’re on board with that. Well, Lord knows you wouldn’t have been if you’d been among the 1860 conservatives who started a war over it (and whose apologists today insist the Civil War was not about slavery).

In terms of domestic politics, few polemical tasks are easier than demonstrating how wrong conservatism has been about pretty much everything in all of American history. Eradication of child labor? Why, an imposition on business owners to run their factories as they saw fit, you socialist! Giving women the right to vote? Women?! They simply don’t possess the logical faculties to be entrusted with such a responsibility, and anyway where will it end—I suppose you’ll be suggesting that black people get the franchise next? Segregation. Miscegenation laws. Immigration. Civil rights. The environmental movement. Conservatism’s record: wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong.

Conservatives on the Wrong Side of History on Mandela Most Other Things - The Daily Beast

Dud2.3: Your OP faux "question" cannot be validly answered since it is, itself, a false premise, you mental pygmy. (This is true without even addressing the litany of false charges you attempt to level against conservatives.)

Even an abject drooling shit for brain numbskull like you ought to be able to grasp that ANY example of conservatives being on the RIGHT side of history is enough to demolish you idiotic fake premise.

Now then, conservatives FAVOR limited and enumerated governmental authority and power. It is you cretins on the Statist left who favor the power of government virtually without bounds. Thus, it is collectively the conservatives who are on the right side and you asshole lolberals are on the wrong side.

Accordingly, your premise is false and you, dud2.3, are again shown to be a shit stained moron.

 

[Dad2three]

The Spectacular Myth of Obama's Part-Time America—in 5 Graphs

Feb 7 2014

A falsifiable claim, falsified

The first thing you would expect to see from a Part-Time America is that the number of part-time jobs added would rival the number of full-time jobs added. But in the last year, new full-time jobs outnumbered part-time jobs by 1.8 million to 8,000. For every new part-time job, we're creating 225 full-time positions.

The Spectacular Myth of Obama s Part-Time America mdash in 5 Graphs - The Atlantic


Jul 14 2014

Here's What Obama's 'Part-Time America' Really Looks Like

The president's critics love this talking point. But since 2010, full-time jobs are up 7.6 million (now at 11+ million private sector jobs) , and part-time jobs have declined by more than 900,000.

Here s What Obama s Part-Time America Really Looks Like - The Atlantic

So did the do nothing Republican congress cock block Obama or help him create all these jobs you claim appeared despite less actual people working? Pick a talking point and realize that if you use to many you will find yourself with conflicting talking points because they are bullshit lies meant to mislead the public in that moment, not a fact based on reality.

Bubba, UNLIKE conservatives, I don't think Gov't creates jobs, I think DEMAND does that. I think Gov't policy can help OR hurt. I guess after the first 7 years of Dubya where US household debt doubled, the ponzi scheme he cheered on collapsed, and Obama inherited a SHITSTORM of conservatives blaming him for the job loses, deficits AND debt, yet can't seem to point to those policies??? lol

 

[Avorysuds]

First, they are NOT his points. Which then leads you to conclude that there is nothing he has said that needs refuting. He is parroting his betters.

Second.....Post the raw data (not the sanitized data) and then maybe an actual debate can occur. Simply posting data with no context of methodology is meaningless.

So what if they are not his points? They're still valid.

The validity is in dispute based upon what I said.

You need to comprehend a discussion better.

Go get the raw data from each of his little graphs, and then provide the methodology that was used to arrive at the conclusion.

Remove any methodology by anyone who collects a government check for their research on the topic under discussion. Their objectivity is nonexistent.

SIMPLY GIVE ONE POLICY CONSERVATIVES HAVE BEEN ON THE CORRECT SIDE OF HISTORY ON? Just one PLEASE?

You do understand that simply because you disagree with a policy does not put it on the wrong side of history.

Get back to Me when you can fully explain your own posts.

So, NO you can't show me even ONE policy conservatives were on the correct side of history. Thanks

Slavery... Dems tried to keep blacks enslaved....


LOL.

 

[Dad2three]

If Presidential debates, or for that matter, political punditry, was done in the old west...

Summing up the Obama Presidency would be easy.

The Democratic cowboy would say: "That Obama is a fine feller", then spit.

The Republican cowboy would say: "He ain't", then he would spit too

So fast forward to 2015...

If you find yourselves unconditionally supporting Obama, or unconditionally opposing Obama, you may have been better of living in simpler times.

I'm all for spirited debate on this site, but some original thought would spice things up around here

Debate? What? Conservative economic policy (laizze affair) has failed EVERY TIME we try it even a little bit! Simple really

 

[Dad2three]

Is the OP really just copy and paste shit in spam form as a way to "debate"?

You can't really get mad at people calling you names when you just spam the hate mail you get onto political debate forums.

Debate? No Bubba, I am pointing out FACTUAL HISTORY. I was hoping SOME right winger would take exception to it and TRY to refute some of it? My mistake...

 

[Dad2three]

All threads like this do is scream to me "OH FUCK WERE GONNA LOSE TO REPUBLICANS IN 2016!!!" Obama is one of the least trusted Presidents in US history, he re-started the Iraq war that Bush had to end. He added massive debt to the country, divided the country even further than Bush did, widened the gap between the uber rich and the poor (mainly by handing the uber rich hundreds of billions for 6 strait fucking years.)

Dems lost on history levels to a very weak party (Republicans) in 2014. Democrat ideas are simply bad and not felt by the middle class in a positive way. Obama might be a a mild "upswing" in the polls this month or two but as it has done over the last 6 years it just sinks back down shit levels. If Democrats were so great we would never have a Republican President.... We would have a Democrat congress... But that is not the case, because Democrats suck slightly worse than Republicans.

BTW it's well documented that Clinton gave us the housing crash, Bush only helped...

"BTW it's well documented that Clinton gave us the housing crash, Bush only helped..."

Weird, Dubya's own group disagrees

Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007


IF you mean Clinton had a successful, well run homes push like EVERY other US Prez since FDR (excepting Ronnnie's S&L failure), I'll agree

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[IlarMeilyr]

If Presidential debates, or for that matter, political punditry, was done in the old west...

Summing up the Obama Presidency would be easy.

The Democratic cowboy would say: "That Obama is a fine feller", then spit.

The Republican cowboy would say: "He ain't", then he would spit too

So fast forward to 2015...

If you find yourselves unconditionally supporting Obama, or unconditionally opposing Obama, you may have been better of living in simpler times.

I'm all for spirited debate on this site, but some original thought would spice things up around here

Debate? What? Conservative economic policy (laizze affair) has failed EVERY TIME we try it even a little bit! Simple really

First of all, dud2.3, it's "laissez faire" not "laizze affair," you ignorant sot.

And secondly, and more importantly, we haven't ever given it much of a try, but to the extent our roots had us close to it, we became an economic powerhouse like the world had never before seen.

So, once again, your ignorance is massive and your contentions are just plain old vacuous.

 

[Dad2three]

All threads like this do is scream to me "OH FUCK WERE GONNA LOSE TO REPUBLICANS IN 2016!!!" Obama is one of the least trusted Presidents in US history, he re-started the Iraq war that Bush had to end. He added massive debt to the country, divided the country even further than Bush did, widened the gap between the uber rich and the poor (mainly by handing the uber rich hundreds of billions for 6 strait fucking years.)

Dems lost on history levels to a very weak party (Republicans) in 2014. Democrat ideas are simply bad and not felt by the middle class in a positive way. Obama might be a a mild "upswing" in the polls this month or two but as it has done over the last 6 years it just sinks back down shit levels. If Democrats were so great we would never have a Republican President.... We would have a Democrat congress... But that is not the case, because Democrats suck slightly worse than Republicans.

BTW it's well documented that Clinton gave us the housing crash, Bush only helped...

'The Republican Mandate': 50 Percent More People Have Voted Democrat Since 2010



According to a study conducted by FairVote, the 46 Democrats currently sitting in Senate have gotten 20.7 million more votes over the 2010, 2012 and 2014 elections than the 56 Republicans. Tallied up, that’s 67.8 million to Dems, and 47.1 million to Republicans. Or, to put it another way:

Democrats got a full 50 percent more votes than Republicans, and lost nine seats. Or to put it yet another way:

If the Senate actually represented the voting public, it would be 68-32 to Democrats, instead of 54-46 to Republicans.
The Truth About 8216 The Republican Mandate 50 Percent More People Have Voted Democrat Since 2010 Americans Against the Tea Party

 

[Dad2three]

I'm getting so tired of racist liberals posting hate on these boards. There are literally no differences in policy from Bush to Obama... Yet Obama has done wonders and Bush destroyed the world economy????

Not only are these liberals incredibly racist, hate filled but also just demonstrate ignorance to a level rarely seen.

Liberals today like to claim their "new ideas" are better yet they fail to see their "new ideas" are all old ideas that failed in the past. Tell us all your new bright ideas and we can point to periods in time over the last couple thousand years where these ideas were tried and failed. Go ahead!

So has Obama ignored regulator warnings on an EPIDEMIC of mortgage fraud that would rival the S&L (Ronnie's) crisis? (2004)

Did Obama change a Clinton era rule that stopped GSE's (Fann/Fredie) from using subprime loans to meet their affordable housing goals? (2004)

Did Obama force the GSE's to UP their goals from 50% to 56% (including allowing that subprime part) in affordable housing (2004)

Did Obama FORCE GSE's to purchase $440 billion of MBS's in the secondary market 2004-2007 (2004)

Did Obama fight ALL 50 state AG's who wanted to reign in the 'predatory' lenders, by invoking a civil war era rule? (2003)

Did Obama, AS the actual regulator of GSE's, allow F/F to chase the PRIVATE MARKETS to the bottom on those subprime loans (NOT to meet ANY goals at this point but BECAUSE they had lost so much market share) (late 2005)


Did Obama pass legislation in the GOP Congress to give away 120,000+ FREE down payments 2004-2007 (2004 ADDI)

Did Obama LITERALLY have regulator going to the wall street floor and use a chainsaw to cut regulations (2004)

Did Obama allow the 5 investment Banks, who fed the subprime bubble with easy credit, to lower their net capital rule which allowed the Banksters to go from 12-1 to 35-1+? (2004)

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Did Bush have the Fed-R dump 5 Trillion dollars on the rich bankers to make the stock markets look good? Did Bush force Obama to go back into Iraq after Bush ended the war?

I could go on but whats the point, you just copy and paste your arguments but expect others to actually do work in rebuttals.

So AGAIN, NO you can't refute FACTS so you go on a strawman. Got it
Bush ended the war? lol

I guess in right wing world, better for US to go into ANOTHER GOP great depression than allow the fed to buy Gov't bonds!

 

[Dad2three]

So, Cons are responsible for all of that. Progressives are responsible for the murder of over 200 million people. Based on those facts I would say Cons are way the hell better than progressives. What's your response to that little progressive?

Without false premises, distortions and lies, what would the right wingers have? No those totalitarian states, WERE NOT PROGRESSIVE IN ANY WAY... Keep trying Bubba

 

[Dad2three]

Conservatives on the Wrong Side of History on Mandela, Most Other Things


When has the American right ever—ever—been on the right side of history?

The answer is almost never.


...Do you support the American Revolution? I should hope so. You would not have, however, had you been a conservative in 1785. American Loyalists, perhaps 20 percent of the white population of the day, were devoted to king and crown for mostly the usual reasons: They were older, better established, had more money, were scared of change.


How about the abolition of slavery? I reckon you’re on board with that. Well, Lord knows you wouldn’t have been if you’d been among the 1860 conservatives who started a war over it (and whose apologists today insist the Civil War was not about slavery).

In terms of domestic politics, few polemical tasks are easier than demonstrating how wrong conservatism has been about pretty much everything in all of American history. Eradication of child labor? Why, an imposition on business owners to run their factories as they saw fit, you socialist! Giving women the right to vote? Women?! They simply don’t possess the logical faculties to be entrusted with such a responsibility, and anyway where will it end—I suppose you’ll be suggesting that black people get the franchise next? Segregation. Miscegenation laws. Immigration. Civil rights. The environmental movement. Conservatism’s record: wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong.

Conservatives on the Wrong Side of History on Mandela Most Other Things - The Daily Beast

Dud2.3: Your OP faux "question" cannot be validly answered since it is, itself, a false premise, you mental pygmy. (This is true without even addressing the litany of false charges you attempt to level against conservatives.)

Even an abject drooling shit for brain numbskull like you ought to be able to grasp that ANY example of conservatives being on the RIGHT side of history is enough to demolish you idiotic fake premise.

Now then, conservatives FAVOR limited and enumerated governmental authority and power. It is you cretins on the Statist left who favor the power of government virtually without bounds. Thus, it is collectively the conservatives who are on the right side and you asshole lolberals are on the wrong side.

Accordingly, your premise is false and you, dud2.3, are again shown to be a shit stained moron.

 

[Dad2three]

So what if they are not his points? They're still valid.

The validity is in dispute based upon what I said.

You need to comprehend a discussion better.

Go get the raw data from each of his little graphs, and then provide the methodology that was used to arrive at the conclusion.

Remove any methodology by anyone who collects a government check for their research on the topic under discussion. Their objectivity is nonexistent.

SIMPLY GIVE ONE POLICY CONSERVATIVES HAVE BEEN ON THE CORRECT SIDE OF HISTORY ON? Just one PLEASE?

You do understand that simply because you disagree with a policy does not put it on the wrong side of history.

Get back to Me when you can fully explain your own posts.

So, NO you can't show me even ONE policy conservatives were on the correct side of history. Thanks

Slavery... Dems tried to keep blacks enslaved....


LOL.

True, those MAINLY conservatives of the South (today's GOP base) did do that. Good thing the PROGRESSIVES fought them right?

 

[Dad2three]

If Presidential debates, or for that matter, political punditry, was done in the old west...

Summing up the Obama Presidency would be easy.

The Democratic cowboy would say: "That Obama is a fine feller", then spit.

The Republican cowboy would say: "He ain't", then he would spit too

So fast forward to 2015...

If you find yourselves unconditionally supporting Obama, or unconditionally opposing Obama, you may have been better of living in simpler times.

I'm all for spirited debate on this site, but some original thought would spice things up around here

Debate? What? Conservative economic policy (laizze affair) has failed EVERY TIME we try it even a little bit! Simple really

First of all, dud2.3, it's "laissez faire" not "laizze affair," you ignorant sot.

And secondly, and more importantly, we haven't ever given it much of a try, but to the extent our roots had us close to it, we became an economic powerhouse like the world had never before seen.

So, once again, your ignorance is massive and your contentions are just plain old vacuous.

Thanks for correcting my spelling, going so fast shooting down you right wingers on your false premises, distortions and lies, I lost it there Bubba

The closest the US has had "laissez faire" was under Ronnie and Dubya over the past 80 years. Before them it was Harding/Coolidge. Hmm what 3 things are tied to those 3 periods? Oh right BANKSTERS giving US credit bubbles AND busts!


(Re-)Introducing: The American School of Economics

When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.


Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:

1. protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)
2. government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)
3. a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation.

It is a capitalist economic school based on the Hamiltonian economic program. The American School of capitalism was intended to allow the United States to become economically independent and nationally self-sufficient.

Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.

The goal, most forcefully articulated by Hamilton, was to ensure that dearly won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe. The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce, was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny


American School economics - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Muhammed]

The OP is clearly too stupid to differentiate conservatism from Christianity.

What a fucking dumbass.

Reading comprehension issues from the low infoprmed. Shocking

I agree that you are very uninformed.

 

[Dad2three]

The OP is clearly too stupid to differentiate conservatism from Christianity.

What a fucking dumbass.

Reading comprehension issues from the low infoprmed. Shocking

I agree that you are very uninformed.