4 Inconvenient Facts The Right Ignores

[Bfgrn]

Some Of The Lost History In The Civil Rights Movement

Bullshit article with bogus quotes. And you right wingers are full of shit.

HERE is what conservatives thought about civil rights in 1957...

William F. Buckley National Review editorial in 1957:

"The central question that emerges — and it is not a parliamentary question or a question that is answered by merely consulting a catalog of the rights of American citizens, born Equal — is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes — the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race."

For most of the past 70 years or so conservatives have opposed the demands for equal respect and equal rights by blacks, women, and gay people. Then, once any particular battle is over, and the conservative position has been decisively defeated, conservatives accept the new status quo and deny that they were ever on the other side.

Conservatives like Buckley and Goldwater opposed Civil Right on the Principle that it was unnecessary; the only thing preventing blacks from advancing was the racist, sadistic, vile, descendants of slave owners in the Democrat Party.

BUT BUT BUT Frank...you claim in 1957 Ike and the Republicans were for civil rights and Johnson and the Democrats were against it...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Bullshit article with bogus quotes. And you right wingers are full of shit.

HERE is what conservatives thought about civil rights in 1957...

William F. Buckley National Review editorial in 1957:

"The central question that emerges — and it is not a parliamentary question or a question that is answered by merely consulting a catalog of the rights of American citizens, born Equal — is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes — the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race."

For most of the past 70 years or so conservatives have opposed the demands for equal respect and equal rights by blacks, women, and gay people. Then, once any particular battle is over, and the conservative position has been decisively defeated, conservatives accept the new status quo and deny that they were ever on the other side.

Conservatives like Buckley and Goldwater opposed Civil Right on the Principle that it was unnecessary; the only thing preventing blacks from advancing was the racist, sadistic, vile, descendants of slave owners in the Democrat Party.

BUT BUT BUT Frank...you claim in 1957 Ike and the Republicans were for civil rights and Johnson and the Democrats were against it...

find a grown up to point out the difference between conservative and Republican.

conservatives though the law unnecessary Republicans knew you needed new laws to get Democrats to act human

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

 

[Bfgrn]

Conservatives like Buckley and Goldwater opposed Civil Right on the Principle that it was unnecessary; the only thing preventing blacks from advancing was the racist, sadistic, vile, descendants of slave owners in the Democrat Party.

BUT BUT BUT Frank...you claim in 1957 Ike and the Republicans were for civil rights and Johnson and the Democrats were against it...

find a grown up to point out the difference between conservative and Republican.

conservatives though the law unnecessary Republicans knew you needed new laws to get Democrats to act human

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

For most of the past 70 years or so conservatives have opposed the demands for equal respect and equal rights by blacks, women, and gay people. Then, once any particular battle is over, and the conservative position has been decisively defeated, conservatives accept the new status quo and deny that they were ever on the other side.

Why I am Not a Conservative by F. A. Hayek

In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them.

When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike.

To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.

It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits.

In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people - he is not an egalitarian - but he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others.

Closely connected with this is the usual attitude of the conservative to democracy. I have made it clear earlier that I do not regard majority rule as an end but merely as a means, or perhaps even as the least evil of those forms of government from which we have to choose. But I believe that the conservatives deceive themselves when they blame the evils of our time on democracy. The chief evil is unlimited government, and nobody is qualified to wield unlimited power. The powers which modern democracy possesses would be even more intolerable in the hands of some small elite.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

BUT BUT BUT Frank...you claim in 1957 Ike and the Republicans were for civil rights and Johnson and the Democrats were against it...

find a grown up to point out the difference between conservative and Republican.

conservatives though the law unnecessary Republicans knew you needed new laws to get Democrats to act human

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

For most of the past 70 years or so conservatives have opposed the demands for equal respect and equal rights by blacks, women, and gay people. Then, once any particular battle is over, and the conservative position has been decisively defeated, conservatives accept the new status quo and deny that they were ever on the other side.

Why I am Not a Conservative by F. A. Hayek

In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them.

When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike.

To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.

It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits.

In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people - he is not an egalitarian - but he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others.

Closely connected with this is the usual attitude of the conservative to democracy. I have made it clear earlier that I do not regard majority rule as an end but merely as a means, or perhaps even as the least evil of those forms of government from which we have to choose. But I believe that the conservatives deceive themselves when they blame the evils of our time on democracy. The chief evil is unlimited government, and nobody is qualified to wield unlimited power. The powers which modern democracy possesses would be even more intolerable in the hands of some small elite.

^^^^
Hater of the classic liberal Hayek ideal, quoting Hayek as though that gives him credibility.

 

[Bfgrn]

find a grown up to point out the difference between conservative and Republican.

conservatives though the law unnecessary Republicans knew you needed new laws to get Democrats to act human

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

For most of the past 70 years or so conservatives have opposed the demands for equal respect and equal rights by blacks, women, and gay people. Then, once any particular battle is over, and the conservative position has been decisively defeated, conservatives accept the new status quo and deny that they were ever on the other side.

Why I am Not a Conservative by F. A. Hayek

In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them.

When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike.

To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.

It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits.

In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people - he is not an egalitarian - but he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others.

Closely connected with this is the usual attitude of the conservative to democracy. I have made it clear earlier that I do not regard majority rule as an end but merely as a means, or perhaps even as the least evil of those forms of government from which we have to choose. But I believe that the conservatives deceive themselves when they blame the evils of our time on democracy. The chief evil is unlimited government, and nobody is qualified to wield unlimited power. The powers which modern democracy possesses would be even more intolerable in the hands of some small elite.

^^^^
Hater of the classic liberal Hayek ideal, quoting Hayek as though that gives him credibility.

Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

You right wingers have nothing in common with Hayek

 

[Bfgrn]

Conservatives like Buckley and Goldwater opposed Civil Right on the Principle that it was unnecessary; the only thing preventing blacks from advancing was the racist, sadistic, vile, descendants of slave owners in the Democrat Party.

BUT BUT BUT Frank...you claim in 1957 Ike and the Republicans were for civil rights and Johnson and the Democrats were against it...

find a grown up to point out the difference between conservative and Republican.

conservatives though the law unnecessary Republicans knew you needed new laws to get Democrats to act human

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

William F. Buckley National Review editorial in 1957:

"The central question that emerges — and it is not a parliamentary question or a question that is answered by merely consulting a catalog of the rights of American citizens, born Equal — is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes — the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race."

Swing and a miss Frank, what Buckley is professing is white supremacy.

 

[Contumacious]

4 inconvenient facts conservatives conveniently ignore

]

Here we have one fascist criticizing other fascists - "The pot calling the kettle black", According to the Ms Jill, the government ought to be manipulated to control our freedoms but ONLY for reasons the op believe are correct.

.

.

 

[Andylusion]

George W. Bush inherited a strong economy, a budget surplus, and a nation at peace.

Eight years later, he left Obama with a shattered economy, a trillion dollar deficit, and two useless wars.

Obama saved the country from another Great Depression, rebuilt GM, reformed healthcare, reformed Wall Street, doubled the stock market, created 16 straight quarters of GDP growth, created 50 months of private sector job growth, got Bin Laden, got Gaddafi, and got us out of Iraq.

Obama has done a very good job.

LOL You are a nut!

He saved the economy from a great depression? Fail.
He rebuilt GM? Fail.
Reformed health care for the worse. We have dozens of companies who have said openly without waviers from ObamaCrap, they would cancel insurance, and meanwhile insurance premiums have drastically increase more than ever before. Fail.
Reformed Wall St? LOL!!! FAIL!
Doubled the Stock Market? Huh? How did "Obama double the stock market"?
Created 16 straight quarters of GDP growth? Obama doesn't 'create growth'. Companies and business create growth.
Same with job growth. Obama hasn't created a single job. Business and private citizens creating the economy did that.
Got Bin Laden? What exactly do you think Obama personally did to 'get Osama'? Osama was caught by a decade plus of hard difficult work by CIA and the military. Obama saying "ok, do it", is not exactly grounds for complete credit in my book.
Got Gaddafi? So? Between Osama, Saddam, and Gaddafi, Gaddafi was a non-issue. Yippy skippy.
Got us out of Iraq? LOL FAIL! Obama didn't do jack about that. Bush is who won the Iraq war, and smashed the subsequent insurgency. If Bush had left Iraq for Obama to clean up, he would have handed it to Al Qeada and ditched them.

You are just spewing ignorant talking points now. Some of those claims, are so ridiculous, you are just making yourself look like a clown. Obama rebuilt GM.... LOL Oh my goodness you are delusional if you really believe that.

This is fun.

Because it puts on display you folks live in a completely alternative universe.

As to your points.

1. There was no fail. What happened was nothing short of a miracle. You folks don't seem to understand the scope of the economic meltdown. Every financial institution in America was about to collapse. Lehman was just the beginning.

Name one bank that was crashing.... that didn't crash? I'll help you. There was none.

Every bank that was failing before the bailout, failed after the bailout.

You don't understand how the bailout worked. The bailout actually didn't "bail out" a single bank. It bailed out the people who gave money to those banks. How does that help our economy?

The two biggest bond holders of Lehman Brothers, were Wells Fargo, and Asian banks.

Did Wells Fargo crash because the had to take a Write-Down on Lehman Brothers? Did the Asian banks crash, the largest of which was in China? Do you see them crashing?

If we had 'bailed out' Lehman Brothers, we would have paid Wells Fargo and the Asian banks, back in full, with US tax dollars.

I understand you are ignorant of how the bailout worked, and how bankruptcy works. But anyone with any knowledge knows the bailout didn't do anything except saddle American tax payers with trillions in debt. The economy didn't collapse when Lehman Brothers went into bankruptcy. The whole thing was a lie to convince ignorant lemmings that government saved them. It didn't.

2. Had GM dissolved? And that's what it was going to do, that would have been the end of auto manufacturing in the United States.

Now you are just making up crap. Prove it. Do you know how many companies file bankruptcy and emerge back in business?
Cisco Systems went into bankruptcy, without a single penny of tax payer money. Did it dissolve? No?

Category:Companies that have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Look at all those. Dozens of those companies all still in operation. Abercrombie & Fitch. Alliance Tire Company. Kmart. Delta Air Lines. Eastman Kodak. Eddie Bauer.

All of them, not a penny of wasted tax payer money. Again, the companies that 'dissolve', are companies with no viable business. Meaning there was no aspect of the business that was profitable.

GM, even during the worst of the recession, was the number ONE US auto manufacture.... and here we have Captain Forum poster "Sallow", knows that they intended to dissolve the company even though it was the top auto manufacturer in the largest economy in the world......... No... you are ignorant.

3. This is essentially a conservative talking point. Prior to the ACA? Costs were rising and our level of health care was causing 47,000 deaths and many more bankruptcies each year. We ranked 37th in the world. Now? Costs have been staggered and people are getting insurance.

Prices have increased faster than they EVER had before. Back in 2006, I got a health insurance policy in Ohio, for $57 a month. Today, the absolute cheapest policy I can get, is $250. Thanks to the ACA. Costs have not been staggered, and people are not getting insurance, I know I am one of them.

4. Frank/Dodd and the consumer protection board have put some very real regulations on wall street. That and now banks are stressed tested for viability.

There is no regulation possible, to prevent banks from taking bad risks. Banking itself, is naturally a risk based business. In order to eliminate risk, you'd have to eliminate banking.

When the government bails out the bond holders, the bond holders have no reason to exercise prudence. Without the need for prudence, the bank who offers the highest ROI, will always get business.

After Bear Stearns failed, Lehman Brothers actually GAINED money invested into their firm, because the bond holders had nothing to lose. If the high risk investments paid off, they got a huge return on their money. If the investments failed, they believed the government would bail them out.

In Economics, we call that 'moral hazard'. You setup incentives for failure. No amount of regulation is going to stop banks from making bad choices. Allowing the bond holders to lose their money, will instil prudence to invest in banks acting prudently.

Remember, Canada has the least regulated banking system in the world. They had NO FAILURES.

5. The Obama administration's economic policies floated the financial markets long enough that recovery has been both strong and long lasting, albeit slow. And this is what REAL recovery looks like. The administration made some foundational changes that have made America an attractive country to invest in again.

You just don't know what you are talking about. There is nothing to debate here, because you simply don't know what you are talking about.

In 1920, Calvin Coolidge had a much greater economic recession than Obama faced, and all he did was cut taxes, and cut government spending. The economy roared back to the roaring 20s. Bush in 2000-1, faced a recession, and all he did was cut taxes. And by 2004 the economy was in full swing.

In 1930, Hoover and then FDR, both raised taxes and increase spending. Similarly, Bush in 2008, and Obama in 2009, increased spending and programs. The results in 1930s, was a recession, dragged out to a depression. In the 2008-9, it was a recession dragged out into the great recession.

Your system never works. Hasn't throughout history, and isn't today.

6. The Bush administration gave up the search for Bin Laden, as if they were really trying to "get" him in the first place. 9/11 was a convenient excuse for their real agenda, invading Iraq. Under Obama, the CIA was directed to really hunt for and kill Osama Bin Laden. That was a 180 degree shift from the prior administration. That's why he is dead.

Which we should have gone into Iraq anyone. In fact, we should have done it when Clinton wanted to, but he was too spineless. Yes he did hunt for Osama. You are just flat out liar, if you think he didn't. It was the CIA under his direction, that eventually found him after Obama became president. Only an idiot would think otherwise.

7. Gaddafi was a real live terrorist leading a country. That's a terrible message to send the world.

You just rewrite history don't you? Just make it up as you go.

8. Bush created a huge mess in Iraq. It was a self inflicted wound. And NOTHING was "crushed" there. What happened was the "insurgents" were paid off. And there never would have been an insurgency had Bush not disbanded the Iraqi army, putting 300K well trained war fighters out of work.

Yeah, and the only reason they were paid off, is because we were slaughtering them after the Surge.

And yes, I fully agree that disbanding the army was a bad plan. No president makes no mistakes. Doesn't matter. Finishing Iraq was the right thing to do, and without Bush, Obama would never have completed the mission.

 

[Statistikhengst]

LOL You are a nut!

He saved the economy from a great depression? Fail.
He rebuilt GM? Fail.
Reformed health care for the worse. We have dozens of companies who have said openly without waviers from ObamaCrap, they would cancel insurance, and meanwhile insurance premiums have drastically increase more than ever before. Fail.
Reformed Wall St? LOL!!! FAIL!
Doubled the Stock Market? Huh? How did "Obama double the stock market"?
Created 16 straight quarters of GDP growth? Obama doesn't 'create growth'. Companies and business create growth.
Same with job growth. Obama hasn't created a single job. Business and private citizens creating the economy did that.
Got Bin Laden? What exactly do you think Obama personally did to 'get Osama'? Osama was caught by a decade plus of hard difficult work by CIA and the military. Obama saying "ok, do it", is not exactly grounds for complete credit in my book.
Got Gaddafi? So? Between Osama, Saddam, and Gaddafi, Gaddafi was a non-issue. Yippy skippy.
Got us out of Iraq? LOL FAIL! Obama didn't do jack about that. Bush is who won the Iraq war, and smashed the subsequent insurgency. If Bush had left Iraq for Obama to clean up, he would have handed it to Al Qeada and ditched them.

You are just spewing ignorant talking points now. Some of those claims, are so ridiculous, you are just making yourself look like a clown. Obama rebuilt GM.... LOL Oh my goodness you are delusional if you really believe that.

This is fun.

Because it puts on display you folks live in a completely alternative universe.

As to your points.

1. There was no fail. What happened was nothing short of a miracle. You folks don't seem to understand the scope of the economic meltdown. Every financial institution in America was about to collapse. Lehman was just the beginning.

Name one bank that was crashing.... that didn't crash? I'll help you. There was none.

Every bank that was failing before the bailout, failed after the bailout.

You don't understand how the bailout worked. The bailout actually didn't "bail out" a single bank. It bailed out the people who gave money to those banks. How does that help our economy?

The two biggest bond holders of Lehman Brothers, were Wells Fargo, and Asian banks.

Did Wells Fargo crash because the had to take a Write-Down on Lehman Brothers? Did the Asian banks crash, the largest of which was in China? Do you see them crashing?

If we had 'bailed out' Lehman Brothers, we would have paid Wells Fargo and the Asian banks, back in full, with US tax dollars.

I understand you are ignorant of how the bailout worked, and how bankruptcy works. But anyone with any knowledge knows the bailout didn't do anything except saddle American tax payers with trillions in debt. The economy didn't collapse when Lehman Brothers went into bankruptcy. The whole thing was a lie to convince ignorant lemmings that government saved them. It didn't.



Now you are just making up crap. Prove it. Do you know how many companies file bankruptcy and emerge back in business?
Cisco Systems went into bankruptcy, without a single penny of tax payer money. Did it dissolve? No?

Category:Companies that have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Look at all those. Dozens of those companies all still in operation. Abercrombie & Fitch. Alliance Tire Company. Kmart. Delta Air Lines. Eastman Kodak. Eddie Bauer.

All of them, not a penny of wasted tax payer money. Again, the companies that 'dissolve', are companies with no viable business. Meaning there was no aspect of the business that was profitable.

GM, even during the worst of the recession, was the number ONE US auto manufacture.... and here we have Captain Forum poster "Sallow", knows that they intended to dissolve the company even though it was the top auto manufacturer in the largest economy in the world......... No... you are ignorant.



Prices have increased faster than they EVER had before. Back in 2006, I got a health insurance policy in Ohio, for $57 a month. Today, the absolute cheapest policy I can get, is $250. Thanks to the ACA. Costs have not been staggered, and people are not getting insurance, I know I am one of them.



There is no regulation possible, to prevent banks from taking bad risks. Banking itself, is naturally a risk based business. In order to eliminate risk, you'd have to eliminate banking.

When the government bails out the bond holders, the bond holders have no reason to exercise prudence. Without the need for prudence, the bank who offers the highest ROI, will always get business.

After Bear Stearns failed, Lehman Brothers actually GAINED money invested into their firm, because the bond holders had nothing to lose. If the high risk investments paid off, they got a huge return on their money. If the investments failed, they believed the government would bail them out.

In Economics, we call that 'moral hazard'. You setup incentives for failure. No amount of regulation is going to stop banks from making bad choices. Allowing the bond holders to lose their money, will instil prudence to invest in banks acting prudently.

Remember, Canada has the least regulated banking system in the world. They had NO FAILURES.



You just don't know what you are talking about. There is nothing to debate here, because you simply don't know what you are talking about.

In 1920, Calvin Coolidge had a much greater economic recession than Obama faced, and all he did was cut taxes, and cut government spending. The economy roared back to the roaring 20s. Bush in 2000-1, faced a recession, and all he did was cut taxes. And by 2004 the economy was in full swing.

In 1930, Hoover and then FDR, both raised taxes and increase spending. Similarly, Bush in 2008, and Obama in 2009, increased spending and programs. The results in 1930s, was a recession, dragged out to a depression. In the 2008-9, it was a recession dragged out into the great recession.

Your system never works. Hasn't throughout history, and isn't today.



Which we should have gone into Iraq anyone. In fact, we should have done it when Clinton wanted to, but he was too spineless. Yes he did hunt for Osama. You are just flat out liar, if you think he didn't. It was the CIA under his direction, that eventually found him after Obama became president. Only an idiot would think otherwise.

7. Gaddafi was a real live terrorist leading a country. That's a terrible message to send the world.

You just rewrite history don't you? Just make it up as you go.

8. Bush created a huge mess in Iraq. It was a self inflicted wound. And NOTHING was "crushed" there. What happened was the "insurgents" were paid off. And there never would have been an insurgency had Bush not disbanded the Iraqi army, putting 300K well trained war fighters out of work.

Yeah, and the only reason they were paid off, is because we were slaughtering them after the Surge.

And yes, I fully agree that disbanding the army was a bad plan. No president makes no mistakes. Doesn't matter. Finishing Iraq was the right thing to do, and without Bush, Obama would never have completed the mission.

Uh, Calvin Coolidge was not President in 1920. Woodrow Wilson was President in 1920. Warren Gamaliel Harding was ELECTED in 1920 and inaugurated in 1921. He died of a heart attack in 1923, whereupon VP Calvin Coolidge became president and then won a term in his own right in 1924 and was, of course, inaugurated to his first full term in 1925.

You do understand how US elections work, right?

You can turn around that form of ignorance by reading and learning. Good luck to you.

 

[usmcstinger]

Bullshit article with bogus quotes. And you right wingers are full of shit.

HERE is what conservatives thought about civil rights in 1957...

William F. Buckley National Review editorial in 1957:

"The central question that emerges — and it is not a parliamentary question or a question that is answered by merely consulting a catalog of the rights of American citizens, born Equal — is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes — the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race."

For most of the past 70 years or so conservatives have opposed the demands for equal respect and equal rights by blacks, women, and gay people. Then, once any particular battle is over, and the conservative position has been decisively defeated, conservatives accept the new status quo and deny that they were ever on the other side.

Conservatives like Buckley and Goldwater opposed Civil Right on the Principle that it was unnecessary; the only thing preventing blacks from advancing was the racist, sadistic, vile, descendants of slave owners in the Democrat Party.

70 years of Democratic Conservatives! Since the socialists have taken over the Democratic Party, what paths have they created for Blacks to do better economically?

 

[koshergrl]

This is fun.

Because it puts on display you folks live in a completely alternative universe.

As to your points.

1. There was no fail. What happened was nothing short of a miracle. You folks don't seem to understand the scope of the economic meltdown. Every financial institution in America was about to collapse. Lehman was just the beginning.

Name one bank that was crashing.... that didn't crash? I'll help you. There was none.

Every bank that was failing before the bailout, failed after the bailout.

You don't understand how the bailout worked. The bailout actually didn't "bail out" a single bank. It bailed out the people who gave money to those banks. How does that help our economy?

The two biggest bond holders of Lehman Brothers, were Wells Fargo, and Asian banks.

Did Wells Fargo crash because the had to take a Write-Down on Lehman Brothers? Did the Asian banks crash, the largest of which was in China? Do you see them crashing?

If we had 'bailed out' Lehman Brothers, we would have paid Wells Fargo and the Asian banks, back in full, with US tax dollars.

I understand you are ignorant of how the bailout worked, and how bankruptcy works. But anyone with any knowledge knows the bailout didn't do anything except saddle American tax payers with trillions in debt. The economy didn't collapse when Lehman Brothers went into bankruptcy. The whole thing was a lie to convince ignorant lemmings that government saved them. It didn't.



Now you are just making up crap. Prove it. Do you know how many companies file bankruptcy and emerge back in business?
Cisco Systems went into bankruptcy, without a single penny of tax payer money. Did it dissolve? No?

Category:Companies that have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Look at all those. Dozens of those companies all still in operation. Abercrombie & Fitch. Alliance Tire Company. Kmart. Delta Air Lines. Eastman Kodak. Eddie Bauer.

All of them, not a penny of wasted tax payer money. Again, the companies that 'dissolve', are companies with no viable business. Meaning there was no aspect of the business that was profitable.

GM, even during the worst of the recession, was the number ONE US auto manufacture.... and here we have Captain Forum poster "Sallow", knows that they intended to dissolve the company even though it was the top auto manufacturer in the largest economy in the world......... No... you are ignorant.



Prices have increased faster than they EVER had before. Back in 2006, I got a health insurance policy in Ohio, for $57 a month. Today, the absolute cheapest policy I can get, is $250. Thanks to the ACA. Costs have not been staggered, and people are not getting insurance, I know I am one of them.



There is no regulation possible, to prevent banks from taking bad risks. Banking itself, is naturally a risk based business. In order to eliminate risk, you'd have to eliminate banking.

When the government bails out the bond holders, the bond holders have no reason to exercise prudence. Without the need for prudence, the bank who offers the highest ROI, will always get business.

After Bear Stearns failed, Lehman Brothers actually GAINED money invested into their firm, because the bond holders had nothing to lose. If the high risk investments paid off, they got a huge return on their money. If the investments failed, they believed the government would bail them out.

In Economics, we call that 'moral hazard'. You setup incentives for failure. No amount of regulation is going to stop banks from making bad choices. Allowing the bond holders to lose their money, will instil prudence to invest in banks acting prudently.

Remember, Canada has the least regulated banking system in the world. They had NO FAILURES.



You just don't know what you are talking about. There is nothing to debate here, because you simply don't know what you are talking about.

In 1920, Calvin Coolidge had a much greater economic recession than Obama faced, and all he did was cut taxes, and cut government spending. The economy roared back to the roaring 20s. Bush in 2000-1, faced a recession, and all he did was cut taxes. And by 2004 the economy was in full swing.

In 1930, Hoover and then FDR, both raised taxes and increase spending. Similarly, Bush in 2008, and Obama in 2009, increased spending and programs. The results in 1930s, was a recession, dragged out to a depression. In the 2008-9, it was a recession dragged out into the great recession.

Your system never works. Hasn't throughout history, and isn't today.



Which we should have gone into Iraq anyone. In fact, we should have done it when Clinton wanted to, but he was too spineless. Yes he did hunt for Osama. You are just flat out liar, if you think he didn't. It was the CIA under his direction, that eventually found him after Obama became president. Only an idiot would think otherwise.



You just rewrite history don't you? Just make it up as you go.

8. Bush created a huge mess in Iraq. It was a self inflicted wound. And NOTHING was "crushed" there. What happened was the "insurgents" were paid off. And there never would have been an insurgency had Bush not disbanded the Iraqi army, putting 300K well trained war fighters out of work.

Yeah, and the only reason they were paid off, is because we were slaughtering them after the Surge.

And yes, I fully agree that disbanding the army was a bad plan. No president makes no mistakes. Doesn't matter. Finishing Iraq was the right thing to do, and without Bush, Obama would never have completed the mission.

Uh, Calvin Coolidge was not President in 1920. Woodrow Wilson was President in 1920. Warren Gamaliel Harding was ELECTED in 1920 and inaugurated in 1921. He died of a heart attack in 1923, whereupon VP Calvin Coolidge became president and then won a term in his own right in 1924 and was, of course, inaugurated to his first full term in 1925.

You do understand how US elections work, right?

You can turn around that form of ignorance by reading and learning. Good luck to you.

Let's hear it for wiki, statist's favorite "knowledge in an instant" site. Makes him look smarter than he really is. He didn't know any of these dates or names prior to 20 minutes ago, and he won't remember them tomorrow.

 

[Meister]

4 inconvenient facts conservatives conveniently ignore

1. The religious right started because of segregation, not abortion.

As Randall Balmer, a Darthmouth professor writing in Politico, explained in a recent article, the organized religious right started as a movement to protect white-only schools from federally mandated desegregation. As Balmer explains, there were many other attempts to rally evangelical Christians to become a conservative movement to support Republicans—“pornography, prayer in schools, the proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution, even abortion”—but none took. Under the guidance of Jerry Falwell, however, it was discovered that evangelical leaders would rally to keep black students out of private schools set up specifically so white kids didn’t have to go to desegregated public schools. Even though it was actually the Nixon administration that kickstarted the process of the IRS stripping tax-exempt status from “whites only” school, Falwell and his buddies blamed Jimmy Carter and used the issue to start rallying support for Ronald Reagan’s challenge. It was only after the evangelical right was organized that they started expanding into other issues, like abortion.

2. NRA used to support gun control.

The NRA is a gun industry lobby that likes to present itself as a “rights” group. With that level of deceit, no wonder many people, especially on the right, assume that the group has always existed to lobby against any restriction on access to firearms, or that gun control is a relatively new phenomenon only invented by pansy liberals in the past few decades. In reality, the government has been controlling access to guns for a long, long time. While there have been limits on gun ownership throughout the country’s history—often for sexist and racist reasons, such as bans on black people owning guns—the first modern federal gun control law passed in 1934, to stop the proliferation of automatic sub-machine guns that were popular with organized criminals. Prior to that, many states passed laws regulating guns, laws conservatives would reject today, such as waiting periods and requiring gun sellers to share information with police. The NRA actually helped write these laws.

And why not? The NRA was started as a marksman and sporting club, so there was no real reason to oppose gun control laws, until recent decades when it morphed into a lobby to protect the profits of gun manufacturers. Even as late as 1963, the NRA supported gun control laws. It was only as the culture wars began to build and the conservative movement developed that the NRA turned into the organization it is now, feeding paranoia and faux-patriotism to gullible conservatives in order to convince them to buy more guns.

3. Conservatives have always been the voting bloc to stop civil rights.

A lot of pundits and other charlatans like to deflect discussion of modern racism by claiming that Democrats were the ones who tried to stop the Civil Rights Act and Republicans were the ones who tried to pass it. Considering that it was a liberal Democrat—Lyndon B. Johnson—who signed the CRA, it’s clear that it was much more complicated than that. Yes, it’s true that some Democrats opposed the CRA and plenty of Republicans supported it. But the party lines were not drawn the same back then. Back then, both parties had a mix of liberals and conservatives, and since then, the parties have realigned, with all the conservatives—who voted against the CRA—stampeding to the Republican party and all the liberals—who voted for the CRA—running to the Democrats.

As Harry Enten, writing for the Guardian, notes, party was a poor predictor of a politician’s vote for the CRA in 1964. A far better predictor was state of origin. In the House, 90 percent of politicians from former Union states voted for it and only 8 percent of politicians from the South did. In the Senate, 92 percent of lawmakers from the Union states voted for the CRA, but only 5 percent—1 out of 22—of Southern senators did so. In other words, the votes against it came primarily from what we now consider the immovable “red” states—a permanent bloc of Republicans. And it was anger over the CRA that switched those previously Democratic states to Republican voters. The only states that voted for Barry Goldwater in 1964, besides Arizona,were Southern states.

Indeed, the best way to understand what happened in 1964 is that the CRA kicked off a process where the Republicans started to gather up all the conservative voters and Democrats expelled the racist vote but picked up all the liberals. Focusing on race instead of ideological leaning is a fundamentally dishonest tactic, when any honest assessment of the situation shows that the real divide was between conservatives and liberals, which remains the divide that governs our country today, even as the parties have rebranded themselves.

4. They were for Common Core before they were against it.

The most recent and possibly silliest about-face of the modern conservative movement has to be the turnaround on Common Core, a program initiated by the National Governors Association to standardize and elevate educational standards across the country. Originally, conservatives were indifferent to outright supportive of the program—many Republican governors considered themselves fans—and pretty much all the criticism came from people on the left, who were concerned that it would be used as cover for attacks on teacher’s unions and would favor “teach the test”-style memorization over actual education.

Then President Obama endorsed it in 2012. Immediately, the right decided that Common Core was a sinister conspiracy to shove liberal ideology down children’s throats (never mind that many educational experts on the left are against it). Liberals make measured criticisms of Common Core, saying it might squelch imagination and writing skills. Conservatives, on the other hand, have taken to accusing the Obama administration of using Common Core to steal children away and teach them to have sex and get divorced so they’ll vote for Democrats. A calm, rational discussion of the program is basically impossible, because the entire debate has been taken over by right-wing nuts who have forgotten that, a mere two years ago, they were cool with a program they now compare to Nazi indoctrination.

4 inconvenient facts conservatives conveniently ignore - Salon.com

AlterNet?
And you don't call yourself a progressive.

Darlin'....thank you for the chuckle

 

[g5000]

3. Conservatives have always been the voting bloc to stop civil rights.

I have pointed this out numerous times, but it causes serious cognitive dissonance in the heads of some people. The truth does that sometimes.

4. They were for Common Core before they were against it.

I have been pointing this out a lot recently. Common Core was developed on the state level in cooperation with the business community so that our kids would start acquiring the skills they will need to get good jobs in the future. Many of our country's problems could be greatly alleviated with improved education.

Common Core was developed without federal funds or direction, and it was enacted in 44 states.

44 states.

We don't have 44 blue states, folks.

Big conservative icons were on board with Common Core. Jan Brewer, Bobby Jihdal, Jeb Bush, Mike Huckabee.

Then one day, Barack Obama gave his approval of Common Core.

The next thing you know, the retards are treating Common Core like it is Satan's left testicle. The way the Right has completely flip-flopped on Common Core is a textbook example of Obama Derangement Syndrome. And our kids are going to pay the price for their hypocritical turnabout.

Bobby Jindal is now acting like a complete two-faced hypocritical asshole and is flipping and flopping all over the place over Common Core.

Mike Huckabee has shown serious integrity by sticking to his guns on Common Core and asking the Right not to be ******* jackasses just because Obama said he liked it.

 

[koshergrl]

Yes, if by *cognitive dissonance* you mean *don't fall for propaganda* I guess you're right.

 

[Listening]

Jillian posting more crap. Where are the links for these?

1)the religious right was for segregation? WTF???? Where do you people come up with this shit?
2)Again a link? There was the 1934 law banning automatic weapons....but that's it...

3)so was Al Gore Sr a conservative, Woodrow Wilson? ? The republican party defended civil rights until this day, but lets use your liberal souther strategy in the late 60s. Before that time, name the last democrat more conservative than the republican?

Jillians take on the NRA's evolution from a sporting organization to one more primed to defend gun manufacturers is historical fact.

"The NRA formed its Legislative Affairs Division to update members with facts and analysis of upcoming bills,[17] after the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) became the first federal gun-control law passed in the U.S.[18] The NRA supported the NFA along with the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), which together created a system to federally license gun dealers and established restrictions on particular categories and classes of firearms."-Wikipedia

Now-"Since 2005, the gun industry and its corporate allies have given between $20 million and $52.6 million to it through the NRA Ring of Freedom sponsor program. Donors include firearm companies like Midway USA, Springfield Armory Inc, Pierce Bullet Seal Target Systems, and Beretta USA Corporation. Other supporters from the gun industry include Cabala's, Sturm Rugar & Co, and Smith & Wesson.

The NRA also made $20.9 million — about 10 percent of its revenue — from selling advertising to industry companies marketing products in its many publications in 2010, according to the IRS Form 990.

Additionally, some companies donate portions of sales directly to the NRA. Crimson Trace, which makes laser sights, donates 10 percent of each sale to the NRA. Taurus buys an NRA membership for everyone who buys one of their guns. Sturm Rugar gives $1 to the NRA for each gun sold, which amounts to millions. The NRA's revenues are intrinsically linked to the success of the gun business".

There are two reasons for the industry support for the NRA. The first is that the organization develops and maintains a market for their products. The second, less direct function, is to absorb criticism in the event of PR crises for the gun industry.

It's possible that without the NRA, people would be protesting outside of Glock, SIG Sauer and Freedom Group — the makers of the guns used in the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre — and dragging the CEOs in front of cameras and Congress. That is certainly what happened to tobacco executives when their products continued killing people."

LINK: http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-industry-funds-nra-2013-1#ixzz33vgOaxJu

of course it's historical fact. but the right doesn't like historical fact. they'd rather pretend.

there was also NEVER a private right of gun ownership until Heller... justices used to laugh at the very idea.

pity they were able to pervert the Court.

I'll grant you that as long as you admit there never was a right to privacy.

 

[Listening]

3. Conservatives have always been the voting bloc to stop civil rights.

I have pointed this out numerous times, but it causes serious cognitive dissonance in the heads of some people. The truth does that sometimes.

4. They were for Common Core before they were against it.

I have been pointing this out a lot recently. Common Core was developed on the state level in cooperation with the business community so that our kids would start acquiring the skills they will need to get good jobs in the future. Many of our country's problems could be greatly alleviated with improved education.

Common Core was developed without federal funds or direction, and it was enacted in 44 states.

44 states.

We don't have 44 blue states, folks.

Big conservative icons were on board with Common Core. Jan Brewer, Bobby Jihdal, Jeb Bush, Mike Huckabee.

Then one day, Barack Obama gave his approval of Common Core.

The next thing you know, the retards are treating Common Core like it is Satan's left testicle. The way the Right has completely flip-flopped on Common Core is a textbook example of Obama Derangement Syndrome. And our kids are going to pay the price for their hypocritical turnabout.

Bobby Jindal is now acting like a complete two-faced hypocritical asshole and is flipping and flopping all over the place over Common Core.

Mike Huckabee has shown serious integrity by sticking to his guns on Common Core and asking the Right not to be ******* jackasses just because Obama said he liked it.

You've got my interest.

So, was common core going to be one core or were the states going to tailor it to their liking.

Did Obama hijack it ?

 

[Statistikhengst]

3. Conservatives have always been the voting bloc to stop civil rights.

I have pointed this out numerous times, but it causes serious cognitive dissonance in the heads of some people. The truth does that sometimes.

4. They were for Common Core before they were against it.

I have been pointing this out a lot recently. Common Core was developed on the state level in cooperation with the business community so that our kids would start acquiring the skills they will need to get good jobs in the future. Many of our country's problems could be greatly alleviated with improved education.

Common Core was developed without federal funds or direction, and it was enacted in 44 states.

44 states.

We don't have 44 blue states, folks.

Big conservative icons were on board with Common Core. Jan Brewer, Bobby Jihdal, Jeb Bush, Mike Huckabee.

Then one day, Barack Obama gave his approval of Common Core.

The next thing you know, the retards are treating Common Core like it is Satan's left testicle. The way the Right has completely flip-flopped on Common Core is a textbook example of Obama Derangement Syndrome. And our kids are going to pay the price for their hypocritical turnabout.

Bobby Jindal is now acting like a complete two-faced hypocritical asshole and is flipping and flopping all over the place over Common Core.

Mike Huckabee has shown serious integrity by sticking to his guns on Common Core and asking the Right not to be ******* jackasses just because Obama said he liked it.

Well written.

 

[Samson]

I have pointed this out numerous times, but it causes serious cognitive dissonance in the heads of some people. The truth does that sometimes.



I have been pointing this out a lot recently. Common Core was developed on the state level in cooperation with the business community so that our kids would start acquiring the skills they will need to get good jobs in the future. Many of our country's problems could be greatly alleviated with improved education.

Common Core was developed without federal funds or direction, and it was enacted in 44 states.

44 states.

We don't have 44 blue states, folks.

Big conservative icons were on board with Common Core. Jan Brewer, Bobby Jihdal, Jeb Bush, Mike Huckabee.

Then one day, Barack Obama gave his approval of Common Core.

The next thing you know, the retards are treating Common Core like it is Satan's left testicle. The way the Right has completely flip-flopped on Common Core is a textbook example of Obama Derangement Syndrome. And our kids are going to pay the price for their hypocritical turnabout.

Bobby Jindal is now acting like a complete two-faced hypocritical asshole and is flipping and flopping all over the place over Common Core.

Mike Huckabee has shown serious integrity by sticking to his guns on Common Core and asking the Right not to be ******* jackasses just because Obama said he liked it.

Well written.

One example, Bobby Jindal....and one exception, Huckabee lead to an indictment of the "Right."

"Well written," in the sense that it's typical ideological blather.

 

[francoHFW]

Jillian posting more crap. Where are the links for these?

1)the religious right was for segregation? WTF???? Where do you people come up with this shit?
2)Again a link? There was the 1934 law banning automatic weapons....but that's it...

3)so was Al Gore Sr a conservative, Woodrow Wilson? ? The republican party defended civil rights until this day, but lets use your liberal souther strategy in the late 60s. Before that time, name the last democrat more conservative than the republican?

The OP is full of links, dingbat. And yes, on civil rights duh.

 

[jillian]

Jillian posting more crap. Where are the links for these?

1)the religious right was for segregation? WTF???? Where do you people come up with this shit?
2)Again a link? There was the 1934 law banning automatic weapons....but that's it...

3)so was Al Gore Sr a conservative, Woodrow Wilson? ? The republican party defended civil rights until this day, but lets use your liberal souther strategy in the late 60s. Before that time, name the last democrat more conservative than the republican?

i'm sorry, your disagreement and dementia does not diminish the value of my link and the article i posted.

unlike the obama deranged wackadoodles, it is not based on speculation or disingenuous "questions"....

i understand that might confuse you.

no surprises.