Why the Current Liberal Dominated Political System is About to Crash

[daveman]

He certainly is if you only consider Republican propaganda. An unceasing stream of it since Republicans woke up to the fact that their reputation is now saddled with the worst President in American history and the only recovery from that would be to try to drag Obama, Democrats, liberals and the country down to Bush's performance.

They've thrown the country under the bus. You fell for it. No matter.

Republicans are starting to see the total failure of their strategy and are now looking for another scapegoat. It will be extreme conservatives and it won't be pretty.

Kinda looks to me like you're looking for a scapegoat to pin Obama's and the left's failures on.

Not at all. Republican propaganda has it that everything Obama does is a failure.

But under their control the trajectory of the country was sinking like a rock. When Obama took over that was turned around to incessant improvement.

I guess Republicans are not able to tell worse from better.

This is better?

 

[daveman]

Damn, how can I rep the second half only?

Dave, fix the first half of that post and you'll have it on the money. Because the idea that both parties are moving to the left is almost as absurd as the OP here. We've been drifting right for three decades. That's obvious.

Or maybe that was a cleverly cloaked sarcasm...?

No, it was dead-on-balls accurate. It's an industry term.

THERE ya go. Now you got it.

Obama isn't necessarily representative of the entire left.

He's also rather corrupt. And a shameless liar. But for a variety of reasons (not the least of which is they simply believe everything he says), he gets a free pass.

He gets a free pass because the propaganda that you are addicted to is just that. If you payed attention instead, to news, you'd know that what you are falling for is pure Republican spin and half truth.

Just because you disagree with it doesn't make it "propaganda" and "spin" and "half-truths".

 

[daveman]

The rich should labor for the benefit of the poor who intend to make pursuit of pleasure their life's work.

The modern liberal is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for covetousness.

It's called "social justice", usually, though there's little enough of justice about it.

"the search for a superior moral justification for covetousness."

This describes the very essence of conservatism. Enough is never enough.

Yeah, not really.

 

[daveman]

Evidence?

There are many small business owners that are the epitome of ruthless and quite a few even criminal.

There are even more ruthless and criminal poor people.

Evidence?

Maybe you should provide some first.

 

[daveman]

The primary responsibility for communication rests with the originator of the words.

Sometimes the listener deliberately misinterprets the words, based on his own bigotries.

Like this:

"I disagree with Obama's policies."

"You're a racist!!"

The person who disagreed with Obama expressed no racism. The accuser of racism is bigoted against those who disagree with Obama, and ascribes attitudes neither present nor expressed.

How does one guard against that?

The best bet is to ignore those who make spurious charges based on bigotry and emotion.

Profiling is a natural human social skill. When there is no apparent reason for hate, it's natural to assign a probable cause.

It may not always be right, but hate is a pretty easy to determine emotion and racism is a pretty prevalent source.

You're ascribing motivations that the evidence simply doesn't back up.

Many people who have objected to Obama's policies have provided clear, cogent reasons for doing so, backed up with facts and logic, have been called racist for disagreeing with Obama. There is no hatred evident. There is no racism evident.

Yet the spurious charge is flung anyway -- generally by people who cannot defend Obama's policies with clear, cogent reasons backed up with facts and logic.

Such people aren't worth wasting time on. They admit to being unable to think for themselves and to being driven solely by emotion.

 

[PMZ]

Kinda looks to me like you're looking for a scapegoat to pin Obama's and the left's failures on.

Not at all. Republican propaganda has it that everything Obama does is a failure.

But under their control the trajectory of the country was sinking like a rock. When Obama took over that was turned around to incessant improvement.

I guess Republicans are not able to tell worse from better.

This is better?

One metric does not a failure, make.

That particular metric is the result of conservative business executives choosing profits, which they are lavishly rewarded for this year, over growth, which is rewarding for everyone, but over the long term.

There's not much any government can do about that aspect of free enterprise.

 

[PMZ]

Sometimes the listener deliberately misinterprets the words, based on his own bigotries.

Like this:

"I disagree with Obama's policies."

"You're a racist!!"

The person who disagreed with Obama expressed no racism. The accuser of racism is bigoted against those who disagree with Obama, and ascribes attitudes neither present nor expressed.

How does one guard against that?

The best bet is to ignore those who make spurious charges based on bigotry and emotion.

Profiling is a natural human social skill. When there is no apparent reason for hate, it's natural to assign a probable cause.

It may not always be right, but hate is a pretty easy to determine emotion and racism is a pretty prevalent source.

You're ascribing motivations that the evidence simply doesn't back up.

Many people who have objected to Obama's policies have provided clear, cogent reasons for doing so, backed up with facts and logic, have been called racist for disagreeing with Obama. There is no hatred evident. There is no racism evident.

Yet the spurious charge is flung anyway -- generally by people who cannot defend Obama's policies with clear, cogent reasons backed up with facts and logic.

Such people aren't worth wasting time on. They admit to being unable to think for themselves and to being driven solely by emotion.

I've never personally encountered what you describe.

It could happen for sure, but when I have seen "people who have objected to Obama's policies (with) clear, cogent reasons for doing so, backed up with facts and logic", which in itself is rare, it's irrefutable.

 

[daveman]

Not at all. Republican propaganda has it that everything Obama does is a failure.

But under their control the trajectory of the country was sinking like a rock. When Obama took over that was turned around to incessant improvement.

I guess Republicans are not able to tell worse from better.

This is better?

One metric does not a failure, make.

That particular metric is the result of conservative business executives choosing profits, which they are lavishly rewarded for this year, over growth, which is rewarding for everyone, but over the long term.

There's not much any government can do about that aspect of free enterprise.

That particular metric is the result of liberal policies saddling business with burdensome regulations, giving many with no choice but to relocate, scale back, or shut down entirely.

The government needs to stay out of the way of business, outside of a few basic rules.

That's the only way government can create long-term growth.

 

[PMZ]

No, it was dead-on-balls accurate. It's an industry term.

Obama isn't necessarily representative of the entire left.

He's also rather corrupt. And a shameless liar. But for a variety of reasons (not the least of which is they simply believe everything he says), he gets a free pass.

He gets a free pass because the propaganda that you are addicted to is just that. If you payed attention instead, to news, you'd know that what you are falling for is pure Republican spin and half truth.

Just because you disagree with it doesn't make it "propaganda" and "spin" and "half-truths".

Correct. But reporting the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth is my standard.

 

[Indeependent]

This is better?

One metric does not a failure, make.

That particular metric is the result of conservative business executives choosing profits, which they are lavishly rewarded for this year, over growth, which is rewarding for everyone, but over the long term.

There's not much any government can do about that aspect of free enterprise.

That particular metric is the result of liberal policies saddling business with burdensome regulations, giving many with no choice but to relocate, scale back, or shut down entirely.

The government needs to stay out of the way of business, outside of a few basic rules.

That's the only way government can create long-term growth.

Those "few basic rules" led to The Great Depression.
Oops! I forgot, Obama caused The Great Depression!

 

[PMZ]

This is better?

One metric does not a failure, make.

That particular metric is the result of conservative business executives choosing profits, which they are lavishly rewarded for this year, over growth, which is rewarding for everyone, but over the long term.

There's not much any government can do about that aspect of free enterprise.

That particular metric is the result of liberal policies saddling business with burdensome regulations, giving many with no choice but to relocate, scale back, or shut down entirely.

The government needs to stay out of the way of business, outside of a few basic rules.

That's the only way government can create long-term growth.

I see no evidence of Obama adding "burdensome regulations". Do you have a bunch of examples?

 

[daveman]

Profiling is a natural human social skill. When there is no apparent reason for hate, it's natural to assign a probable cause.

It may not always be right, but hate is a pretty easy to determine emotion and racism is a pretty prevalent source.

You're ascribing motivations that the evidence simply doesn't back up.

Many people who have objected to Obama's policies have provided clear, cogent reasons for doing so, backed up with facts and logic, have been called racist for disagreeing with Obama. There is no hatred evident. There is no racism evident.

Yet the spurious charge is flung anyway -- generally by people who cannot defend Obama's policies with clear, cogent reasons backed up with facts and logic.

Such people aren't worth wasting time on. They admit to being unable to think for themselves and to being driven solely by emotion.

I've never personally encountered what you describe.

Your limited world-view is irrelevant.

It could happen for sure, but when I have seen "people who have objected to Obama's policies (with) clear, cogent reasons for doing so, backed up with facts and logic", which in itself is rare, it's irrefutable.

24% Believe Obama Opponents Driven By Racism - Rasmussen Reports?

According To Oprah If You Oppose Obama?s Policies You?re A Racist Who Should Maybe Just Die | The Lonely Conservative

A Modern Timeline of Liberals Claiming That Opposition to Obama = Racism - Hit & Run : Reason.com

Virginia state senator: Opposition to Obama 'all about race' - National Elections | Examiner.com

Facts and logic are presented to you all the time. That you refuse to acknowledge them in no way changes that reality.

 

[PMZ]

You're ascribing motivations that the evidence simply doesn't back up.

Many people who have objected to Obama's policies have provided clear, cogent reasons for doing so, backed up with facts and logic, have been called racist for disagreeing with Obama. There is no hatred evident. There is no racism evident.

Yet the spurious charge is flung anyway -- generally by people who cannot defend Obama's policies with clear, cogent reasons backed up with facts and logic.

Such people aren't worth wasting time on. They admit to being unable to think for themselves and to being driven solely by emotion.

I've never personally encountered what you describe.

Your limited world-view is irrelevant.

It could happen for sure, but when I have seen "people who have objected to Obama's policies (with) clear, cogent reasons for doing so, backed up with facts and logic", which in itself is rare, it's irrefutable.

24% Believe Obama Opponents Driven By Racism - Rasmussen Reports?

According To Oprah If You Oppose Obama?s Policies You?re A Racist Who Should Maybe Just Die | The Lonely Conservative

A Modern Timeline of Liberals Claiming That Opposition to Obama = Racism - Hit & Run : Reason.com

Virginia state senator: Opposition to Obama 'all about race' - National Elections | Examiner.com

Facts and logic are presented to you all the time. That you refuse to acknowledge them in no way changes that reality.

I assume that you're kidding about articles by racists denying racism.

 

[Indeependent]

One metric does not a failure, make.

That particular metric is the result of conservative business executives choosing profits, which they are lavishly rewarded for this year, over growth, which is rewarding for everyone, but over the long term.

There's not much any government can do about that aspect of free enterprise.

That particular metric is the result of liberal policies saddling business with burdensome regulations, giving many with no choice but to relocate, scale back, or shut down entirely.

The government needs to stay out of the way of business, outside of a few basic rules.

That's the only way government can create long-term growth.

I see no evidence of Obama adding "burdensome regulations". Do you have a bunch of examples?

How long are you willing to wait for that list?

 

[PMZ]

You're ascribing motivations that the evidence simply doesn't back up.

Many people who have objected to Obama's policies have provided clear, cogent reasons for doing so, backed up with facts and logic, have been called racist for disagreeing with Obama. There is no hatred evident. There is no racism evident.

Yet the spurious charge is flung anyway -- generally by people who cannot defend Obama's policies with clear, cogent reasons backed up with facts and logic.

Such people aren't worth wasting time on. They admit to being unable to think for themselves and to being driven solely by emotion.

I've never personally encountered what you describe.

Your limited world-view is irrelevant.

It could happen for sure, but when I have seen "people who have objected to Obama's policies (with) clear, cogent reasons for doing so, backed up with facts and logic", which in itself is rare, it's irrefutable.

24% Believe Obama Opponents Driven By Racism - Rasmussen Reports?

According To Oprah If You Oppose Obama?s Policies You?re A Racist Who Should Maybe Just Die | The Lonely Conservative

A Modern Timeline of Liberals Claiming That Opposition to Obama = Racism - Hit & Run : Reason.com

Virginia state senator: Opposition to Obama 'all about race' - National Elections | Examiner.com

Facts and logic are presented to you all the time. That you refuse to acknowledge them in no way changes that reality.

My worldview is what I've observed and learned. It's the basis for my beliefs. It doesn't come prepackaged by others.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[PMZ]

That particular metric is the result of liberal policies saddling business with burdensome regulations, giving many with no choice but to relocate, scale back, or shut down entirely.

The government needs to stay out of the way of business, outside of a few basic rules.

That's the only way government can create long-term growth.

I see no evidence of Obama adding "burdensome regulations". Do you have a bunch of examples?

How long are you willing to wait for that list?

Take your time.

 

[daveman]

One metric does not a failure, make.

That particular metric is the result of conservative business executives choosing profits, which they are lavishly rewarded for this year, over growth, which is rewarding for everyone, but over the long term.

There's not much any government can do about that aspect of free enterprise.

That particular metric is the result of liberal policies saddling business with burdensome regulations, giving many with no choice but to relocate, scale back, or shut down entirely.

The government needs to stay out of the way of business, outside of a few basic rules.

That's the only way government can create long-term growth.

I see no evidence of Obama adding "burdensome regulations". Do you have a bunch of examples?

You should know better than to ask.

Government report finds regulations have spiked under Obama | TheHill

The number of regulations from Washington has spiked since President Obama took office, according to a new government report.

The Obama administration published more “major” final rules in its first term than the George W. Bush administration did in its second, according to the Congressional Research Service (CRS).

At the same time, the Obama White House’s review period for pending regulations was longer in 2012 than any point going back to at least to 1994, according to the report from the CRS, Congress’s research arm.

From 2009 through last year, there were more than 13,000 final rules published in the Federal Register, while fewer than 12,400 were finalized from 2005-2008, the report found. That’s an increase of nearly five percent.​

Under Obama, 11,327 Pages of Federal Regulations Added | CNS News

Over the past three years, the bound edition of the Code of Federal Regulations has increased by 11,327 pages – a 7.4 percent increase from Jan. 1, 2009 to Dec. 31, 2011. In 2009, the increase in the number of pages was the most over the last decade – 3.4 percent or 5,359 pages.

Over the past decade, the federal government has issued almost 38,000 new final rules, according to the draft of the 2011 annual report to Congress on federal regulations by the Office of Management and Budget. That brought the total at the end of 2011 to 169,301 pages.

That is more than double the number of pages needed to publish the regulations back in 1975 when the bound edition consisted of 71,244 pages.
Randy Johnson, senior vice president of labor, immigration and employee benefits at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, distributed a handout of a Congressional Research Service analysis of a 2008 study commissioned by the Small Business Administration that estimated the annual compliance price for all federal regulations at $1.7 trillion that year.

Seventy percent of the regulations were economic, accounting for $1.236 trillion of the annual cost. The other regulations were, in order of cost, environment regulations ($281 billion), tax compliance ($160 billion) and occupational safety and health and homeland security ($75 billion).

“I think these kinds of figures, if you put yourself in the place of a business person you’ll find them fairly mindboggling,” Johnson said.

Economists with the Chamber also analyzed the OBM’s report on the study, calculating that if every U.S. household paid an equal share of the federal regulatory burden, it would mean a $15,586 tab for each household in 2008.

Ronald Bird, economist with the USCC, told CNSNews.com that the 7.4 percent increase in pages of regulations during the first three years of the Obama administration is higher than the increase over the first three years of the George W. Bush administration (2001, 2002, and 2003) when the publication grew by 4.4 percent.​

Morning Bell: Obama's New Regulations Cost Billions | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation

In our “Red Tape Rising: Obama-Era Regulation at the Three Year Mark” report, James Gattuso and Diane Katz detail how the Obama Administration has imposed new regulations costing $46 billion annually, with nearly $11 billion more in one-time implementation costs. That is about five times the cost of regulations imposed during the first three years of President George W. Bush’s administration, but the burden is even higher. The red tape of the past three years helps explain why the economic recovery has been so slow and job creation so anemic.

Don’t take our word for it, but those of President Obama himself. In January 2011, he said that “rules have gotten out of balance” and “have a chilling effect on growth and jobs.” And he’s right. Where the President breaks with reality is his pledge for a get-tough policy on overregulation and a comprehensive review of regulations imposed by Washington. In fact, to hear President Obama tell the story, you would think he’s a champion of slashing red tape and that his Administration has set its sights on slashing overregulation.

Over just the last year, the Obama Administration has added 32 regulations that together impose more than $10 billion in annual costs and $6.6 billion in one-time implementation costs. Those regulations include mandates covering a broad range of activities and products, ranging from refrigerators and freezers to clothes driers to air conditioners, limits on automotive emissions, employer requirements for posting federal labor rules, product labeling, health plan eligibility under Obamacare, and higher minimum wages for foreign workers. The most expensive regulation came from the Environmental Protection Agency, which added five major rules at a cost of more than $4 billion annually.​

 

[daveman]

I've never personally encountered what you describe.

Your limited world-view is irrelevant.

It could happen for sure, but when I have seen "people who have objected to Obama's policies (with) clear, cogent reasons for doing so, backed up with facts and logic", which in itself is rare, it's irrefutable.

24% Believe Obama Opponents Driven By Racism - Rasmussen Reports?

According To Oprah If You Oppose Obama?s Policies You?re A Racist Who Should Maybe Just Die | The Lonely Conservative

A Modern Timeline of Liberals Claiming That Opposition to Obama = Racism - Hit & Run : Reason.com

Virginia state senator: Opposition to Obama 'all about race' - National Elections | Examiner.com

Facts and logic are presented to you all the time. That you refuse to acknowledge them in no way changes that reality.

I assume that you're kidding about articles by racists denying racism.

I assume you're trying to change the subject.

I proved my point. You will not acknowledge it.

 

[daveman]

That particular metric is the result of liberal policies saddling business with burdensome regulations, giving many with no choice but to relocate, scale back, or shut down entirely.

The government needs to stay out of the way of business, outside of a few basic rules.

That's the only way government can create long-term growth.

I see no evidence of Obama adding "burdensome regulations". Do you have a bunch of examples?

How long are you willing to wait for that list?

He only had to wait 13 minutes.

 

[Indeependent]

Of course regulations have spiked...remember Sep 2008?