How stupid are left wingers? This stupid.

[Andylusion]

He was acting surprised, and outraged, that taxes were passed on to the consumer and employees. That is stupid.

You have to be a moron, to think that jacking up taxes won't be passed on to the public, either through higher prices or less employment or wages. This qualifies you as a moron.

(by you, I mean not you, but anyone who thinks this way).

Now, if you accept the fact that taxes will have to be paid by consumers having a lower standard of living, and employees making less money and having fewer jobs... ok. Then that's fine. And every time you raise taxes and regulations, when you see prices to the public go up, and employment go down, I expect you to say "Ok good. The harm to society is worth it".

Then we can debate whether or not the harm to society really is worth it.

The last recession was caused by minimum wage laws, and government regulations on mortgages. Not wars. Had nothing to do with wars.

Further, a right-wing policy is a right-wing policy whether it's a Republican or Democrat who offers it. Equally a left-wing policy, is a left-wing policy, whether a Republican or Democrat offers it.

If Bush had pushed for more government regulation, and it ruined the economy, that's not a right-wing policy. Bush pushing more regulations (like raising the minimum wage for example), doens't magically make raising the minimum wage a right-wing policy. It's a left-wing policy.

Lastly, regulations inherently benefit large corporations. The best pro-small business system is the least possible regulated market. This health care deal is a perfect example. Health care regulations cost businesses millions of dollars. Which company has the ability to pay for that? A small 20-person business, or a large mega corporation? Well of course the mega-corp. So you harm the small business at the benefit of the large corporations.

Right-wingers are not making a system that benefits large corporations. Left-wingers are.

Lastly, you complain about over priced health care, but again, who is the cause of that? Left-wingers. It's your regulations and government programs that have driven up the cost of health care, more than anything else.

Everything you listed, is all the stuff that I would cite as proof of my claims.

The reality is that politicians play to their audience, and seeing as large amounts of the audience choose to be ignorant, choose to accept the simple, means that politicians will then go and appeal to them. Look at Trump. He's doing everything for those who accept the simple.

As for always blaming left wingers.... are you serious? There's a major problem in society and it's not about left and right, it's about society.

I blame, what is to blame. Everything you mentioned is due to left-wing policies. If you want, we can go through each and every single one of them, and I can detail exactly which policy is causing which effect, and how they relate.

Of course every politician play's to their audience. The only difference is that you think one particular group is more ignorant than another. That's not how it looks to anyone else. Left-wingers are just as ignorant and stupid as any other ignorant group of people.



I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage or for gas? Did Obama not play up to that level of ignorance? Of course he did.

What did you think all that "Yes we can" "Hope and Change" "Believe" crap was all about? Playing up to the stupid and easily deceived.

All politicians do this.

But it's not. You don't blame what is to blame. You're blaming what you WANT to blame.

I think one group is more ignorant than the other group? Come on, you're slamming the left, then claiming it's ME that's only looking at one side. Er... contradiction.

Obama worked on hope, Trump did the same thing. There's not that much difference between the messages of Obama and Trump, and neither was ever really going to provide the hope they promised. So what? Different party, same shit. Oh, but you'll just blame the left. Right. It's wearing thin this "it's all the left's fault".

Oh yes it is. You are wrong.

And no, I completely agree that there are ignorant right-wingers. You didn't see me dispute what you said, only add to it.

I blame left-wing policies, because left-wing policies consistently fail across the world, and throughout history.

Blaming things that don't work, for causing problems, isn't partisanship... it's fact based logical thinking.

Blaming Bush, because he was in office when the sub-prime bubble burst, while ignoring the fact that the sub-prime bubble started in 1997 which Clinton was pushing sub-prime mortgages as a way to increase home ownership... is not fact based logical thinking.... that's partisanship.

Facts 'trump' opinion... pardon the pun.

Left wing policies fail, and right wing policies fail.

Zimbabwe failed didn't it? Mugabe is hardly left wing. There are plenty on the right who have failed. The Argentinian Juntas, the Chinese emperors, the Russian Emperors, how many right wing emperors failed and got taken over?

Come on dude, just saying it's all the left's fault because the left have many things that fail is clearly ignoring things so that you can make a false argument.

Oh, so the housing market problems started before Bush, but this doesn't show that Bush had 8 years to sort it out, he didn't. Reagan, Bush snr. etc could also have sorted it out, or the right wing and left wing Congresses through the times could have sorted it out, and none of them did it, right and left.

So, you keep throwing things at me saying it's the left's fault, and it's not hard to show you that it's both sides that are failing.

Huh? Mugabe was extremely left-wing. He was as left-wing as you can get.

If you want to claim that right-wing policies fail... name one.

You mention Mugabe, so here's some of his policies.

Land redistribution. Taking land from the rich and giving it to the poor. In what alternate reality is that a right-wing policy? Isn't taking from the rich, and giving to the poor a left-wing policy? Where in the concept of free-market capitalism, do you find the concept of confiscating land (or anything) by force, and giving it to people who have not earned it?

So they confiscated the land from productive farmers, and gave it to poor people who have never farmed in their lives... and shockingly year over year crop failure?

That's right-wing in your book? Compared to what? If that's right-wing, what do you call left-wing?

Price controls. Mugabe put in place price controls on food, fuel, fertilizer and other goods. Isn't that a left-wing policy of regulating prices for the benefit of the public? In what definition of free-market capitalism, do you find regulating the prices of goods for social benefit?

The result was nation wide shortages, that devastated the economy. That's right-wing in your book? In what concept of limited government, do you find nation wide price controls?

Mugabe pushed for more education and support for poor people to get business training and loans. Only to find the government run out of money, and both students left the country because of 40% unemployment rates, and even the teachers themselves left the country because they would get paid more elsewhere.

I'm sorry, but in which version of right-wing do you find tax and spend until your broke, and provide unlimited education only to have students take their free education and leave the country?

Is not all of that left-wing policies? Isn't free education left-wing? Or even the myth that education itself is a solution, left-wing? Isn't it left-wing policy that government should give money to small business? To encourage loans? To create more government programs?

This argument hinges on one thing... taking out your ideological label maker, and slapping the "right-wing" label on someone, and then saying "see their policies failed".

I look at the actual policies, and determine if those policies are right-wing, or left-wing, and then look at if they failed.

I'd be hard pressed to find a policy of Mugabe, that was right-wing. Where is it? Price controls? Minimum wage laws which increased yearly? Land reform? Education spending?

How about capital controls? The government required all companies over a certain value range, must sell a 51% stake to local Zimbabwe citizens. If not, the owners go to jail. Instead they all simply closed and left.

Is that a right-wing policy? In what universe? That's left-wing!

You tell me. Which Mugabe policy is 'right-wing'? The only right-wing policy that Mugabe ever put forward, as simply a policy to undo the damaging left-wing policy he already implemented. He tried to give the stolen farm land, back to the farmers who originally had it.

But even that isn't really right-wing, because it was only because he left-wing policy failed. Additionally, he still has all his other left-wing policies, like price controls and capital controls. Who is going to come back to Zimbabwe to get back their farm land, when price controls make it impossible to make a profit, and if they make too much money, they'll be forced to sell off a 51% stake?

Ridiculous. Mugabe is yet another perfect example of how left-wing policies always consistently, 100% of the time, fail.

 

[Andylusion]

He was acting surprised, and outraged, that taxes were passed on to the consumer and employees. That is stupid.

You have to be a moron, to think that jacking up taxes won't be passed on to the public, either through higher prices or less employment or wages. This qualifies you as a moron.

(by you, I mean not you, but anyone who thinks this way).

Now, if you accept the fact that taxes will have to be paid by consumers having a lower standard of living, and employees making less money and having fewer jobs... ok. Then that's fine. And every time you raise taxes and regulations, when you see prices to the public go up, and employment go down, I expect you to say "Ok good. The harm to society is worth it".

Then we can debate whether or not the harm to society really is worth it.

The last recession was caused by minimum wage laws, and government regulations on mortgages. Not wars. Had nothing to do with wars.

Further, a right-wing policy is a right-wing policy whether it's a Republican or Democrat who offers it. Equally a left-wing policy, is a left-wing policy, whether a Republican or Democrat offers it.

If Bush had pushed for more government regulation, and it ruined the economy, that's not a right-wing policy. Bush pushing more regulations (like raising the minimum wage for example), doens't magically make raising the minimum wage a right-wing policy. It's a left-wing policy.

Lastly, regulations inherently benefit large corporations. The best pro-small business system is the least possible regulated market. This health care deal is a perfect example. Health care regulations cost businesses millions of dollars. Which company has the ability to pay for that? A small 20-person business, or a large mega corporation? Well of course the mega-corp. So you harm the small business at the benefit of the large corporations.

Right-wingers are not making a system that benefits large corporations. Left-wingers are.

Lastly, you complain about over priced health care, but again, who is the cause of that? Left-wingers. It's your regulations and government programs that have driven up the cost of health care, more than anything else.

Everything you listed, is all the stuff that I would cite as proof of my claims.

The reality is that politicians play to their audience, and seeing as large amounts of the audience choose to be ignorant, choose to accept the simple, means that politicians will then go and appeal to them. Look at Trump. He's doing everything for those who accept the simple.

As for always blaming left wingers.... are you serious? There's a major problem in society and it's not about left and right, it's about society.

I blame, what is to blame. Everything you mentioned is due to left-wing policies. If you want, we can go through each and every single one of them, and I can detail exactly which policy is causing which effect, and how they relate.

Of course every politician play's to their audience. The only difference is that you think one particular group is more ignorant than another. That's not how it looks to anyone else. Left-wingers are just as ignorant and stupid as any other ignorant group of people.



I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage or for gas? Did Obama not play up to that level of ignorance? Of course he did.

What did you think all that "Yes we can" "Hope and Change" "Believe" crap was all about? Playing up to the stupid and easily deceived.

All politicians do this.

But it's not. You don't blame what is to blame. You're blaming what you WANT to blame.

I think one group is more ignorant than the other group? Come on, you're slamming the left, then claiming it's ME that's only looking at one side. Er... contradiction.

Obama worked on hope, Trump did the same thing. There's not that much difference between the messages of Obama and Trump, and neither was ever really going to provide the hope they promised. So what? Different party, same shit. Oh, but you'll just blame the left. Right. It's wearing thin this "it's all the left's fault".

Oh yes it is. You are wrong.

And no, I completely agree that there are ignorant right-wingers. You didn't see me dispute what you said, only add to it.

I blame left-wing policies, because left-wing policies consistently fail across the world, and throughout history.

Blaming things that don't work, for causing problems, isn't partisanship... it's fact based logical thinking.

Blaming Bush, because he was in office when the sub-prime bubble burst, while ignoring the fact that the sub-prime bubble started in 1997 which Clinton was pushing sub-prime mortgages as a way to increase home ownership... is not fact based logical thinking.... that's partisanship.

Facts 'trump' opinion... pardon the pun.

Left wing policies fail, and right wing policies fail.

Zimbabwe failed didn't it? Mugabe is hardly left wing. There are plenty on the right who have failed. The Argentinian Juntas, the Chinese emperors, the Russian Emperors, how many right wing emperors failed and got taken over?

Come on dude, just saying it's all the left's fault because the left have many things that fail is clearly ignoring things so that you can make a false argument.

Oh, so the housing market problems started before Bush, but this doesn't show that Bush had 8 years to sort it out, he didn't. Reagan, Bush snr. etc could also have sorted it out, or the right wing and left wing Congresses through the times could have sorted it out, and none of them did it, right and left.

So, you keep throwing things at me saying it's the left's fault, and it's not hard to show you that it's both sides that are failing.

By the way..... You can't "sort it out". You don't understand how an economic bubble works.

As prices go up, people invest into it for the short term, to make a quick buck. This is called speculative investing.

It feeds on itself. The more people buy, the more the price goes up. The more the price goes up, the more people buy. Thus the bubble itself, creates its own demand, in a runaway chain reaction.

This process continues until you run out of more people to buy. Eventually the limit is reached. When that limit is reached, and the price stops going up... everyone freaks out because they intended to make a quick buck. When they see they can't make a quick buck, they immediately sell.

This create the exact same process in reverse. The more people sell, the more the price drops. The more the price drops, the more people sell.

The only difference is, usually the crash is much faster than the climb, because buying a house is limited by your ability to get financing. But everyone can put their home on the market at anytime they want. The price will drop just as the number of homes on the market goes up. Not limited by bank lending.

My point is, there is nothing Bush could have done to stop the bubble. Once a bubble is started, it will continue until it bursts. What do you think Bush could have done?

Additionally, Bush didn't even know there was a real problem. Nearly everyone in government didn't know there was a problem.



Barnie Frank who was actually pushing through legislation to support even more home loans, openly said there is no bubble. Only 2 years later was proved wrong.

But Bush didn't think there was a Bubble. Few anywhere thought there was a Bubble. Obama himself support sub-prime loans as a way to increase home ownership. I can show you videos of this if you like.

So, when you say "Bush did nothing to stop it".... well yeah. A: He couldn't if he wanted to. B: He didn't know about the problem. No one in government did. Anyone else who was president would have done nothing either.

If you are going to complain about Bush, why not complain about Clinton? He not only created the bubble to begin with, but the bubble was on-going from 1997 to 2000, and he did nothing to stop it either. Why do you expect Bush to stop a Bubble he didn't create, when Clinton didn't stop a Bubble he DID create?

 

[AntonToo]

Well, there are different views on tax. At the end of the day tax needs to be paid. Sometimes there are ideological fights over tax because one way means some people pay more than other, and sometime it just appears that way. A guy coming out and exposing his view doesn't necessarily point to him being stupid.

Your second point suggests it's liberals who destroy the economy. Well... the last economic recession started... well... it started with a US president going to too many costly wars, and a government (both sides) unwilling to deal with banks in a sensible manner.

The problem with your argument is you have the right which has set up a system which claims to create jobs, and yet benefits large corporations over smaller businesses on a massive basis. Is this good for jobs? Yeah, well, Walmart and their massively low wage jobs aren't exactly great.

You talk about things being overpriced but then it's the right who love the massively overpriced healthcare system which just sucks the blood out of people's pay checks just so others can leech off the system.

My point here is that both sides are "stupid", and yet you'll come out and criticize the left for being stupid while promoting policies which are also "stupid". Great.

He was acting surprised, and outraged, that taxes were passed on to the consumer and employees. That is stupid.

You have to be a moron, to think that jacking up taxes won't be passed on to the public, either through higher prices or less employment or wages. This qualifies you as a moron.

(by you, I mean not you, but anyone who thinks this way).

Now, if you accept the fact that taxes will have to be paid by consumers having a lower standard of living, and employees making less money and having fewer jobs... ok. Then that's fine. And every time you raise taxes and regulations, when you see prices to the public go up, and employment go down, I expect you to say "Ok good. The harm to society is worth it".

Then we can debate whether or not the harm to society really is worth it.

The last recession was caused by minimum wage laws, and government regulations on mortgages. Not wars. Had nothing to do with wars.

Further, a right-wing policy is a right-wing policy whether it's a Republican or Democrat who offers it. Equally a left-wing policy, is a left-wing policy, whether a Republican or Democrat offers it.

If Bush had pushed for more government regulation, and it ruined the economy, that's not a right-wing policy. Bush pushing more regulations (like raising the minimum wage for example), doens't magically make raising the minimum wage a right-wing policy. It's a left-wing policy.

Lastly, regulations inherently benefit large corporations. The best pro-small business system is the least possible regulated market. This health care deal is a perfect example. Health care regulations cost businesses millions of dollars. Which company has the ability to pay for that? A small 20-person business, or a large mega corporation? Well of course the mega-corp. So you harm the small business at the benefit of the large corporations.

Right-wingers are not making a system that benefits large corporations. Left-wingers are.

Lastly, you complain about over priced health care, but again, who is the cause of that? Left-wingers. It's your regulations and government programs that have driven up the cost of health care, more than anything else.

Everything you listed, is all the stuff that I would cite as proof of my claims.

The reality is that politicians play to their audience, and seeing as large amounts of the audience choose to be ignorant, choose to accept the simple, means that politicians will then go and appeal to them. Look at Trump. He's doing everything for those who accept the simple.

As for always blaming left wingers.... are you serious? There's a major problem in society and it's not about left and right, it's about society.

I blame, what is to blame. Everything you mentioned is due to left-wing policies. If you want, we can go through each and every single one of them, and I can detail exactly which policy is causing which effect, and how they relate.

Of course every politician play's to their audience. The only difference is that you think one particular group is more ignorant than another. That's not how it looks to anyone else. Left-wingers are just as ignorant and stupid as any other ignorant group of people.



I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage or for gas? Did Obama not play up to that level of ignorance? Of course he did.

What did you think all that "Yes we can" "Hope and Change" "Believe" crap was all about? Playing up to the stupid and easily deceived.

All politicians do this.

But it's not. You don't blame what is to blame. You're blaming what you WANT to blame.

I think one group is more ignorant than the other group? Come on, you're slamming the left, then claiming it's ME that's only looking at one side. Er... contradiction.

Obama worked on hope, Trump did the same thing. There's not that much difference between the messages of Obama and Trump, and neither was ever really going to provide the hope they promised. So what? Different party, same shit. Oh, but you'll just blame the left. Right. It's wearing thin this "it's all the left's fault".

Oh yes it is. You are wrong.

And no, I completely agree that there are ignorant right-wingers. You didn't see me dispute what you said, only add to it.

I blame left-wing policies, because left-wing policies consistently fail across the world, and throughout history.

Blaming things that don't work, for causing problems, isn't partisanship... it's fact based logical thinking.

Blaming Bush, because he was in office when the sub-prime bubble burst, while ignoring the fact that the sub-prime bubble started in 1997 which Clinton was pushing sub-prime mortgages as a way to increase home ownership... is not fact based logical thinking.... that's partisanship.

Facts 'trump' opinion... pardon the pun.

Clinton? Promoting subprime mortgages???

Take you your alt.facts and shove them up your ass. You clearly have little grasp on the real ones.

If Clinton did cobtribute it's because he was a big time financial de-regulator.

 

[owebo]

He was acting surprised, and outraged, that taxes were passed on to the consumer and employees. That is stupid.

You have to be a moron, to think that jacking up taxes won't be passed on to the public, either through higher prices or less employment or wages. This qualifies you as a moron.

(by you, I mean not you, but anyone who thinks this way).

Now, if you accept the fact that taxes will have to be paid by consumers having a lower standard of living, and employees making less money and having fewer jobs... ok. Then that's fine. And every time you raise taxes and regulations, when you see prices to the public go up, and employment go down, I expect you to say "Ok good. The harm to society is worth it".

Then we can debate whether or not the harm to society really is worth it.

The last recession was caused by minimum wage laws, and government regulations on mortgages. Not wars. Had nothing to do with wars.

Further, a right-wing policy is a right-wing policy whether it's a Republican or Democrat who offers it. Equally a left-wing policy, is a left-wing policy, whether a Republican or Democrat offers it.

If Bush had pushed for more government regulation, and it ruined the economy, that's not a right-wing policy. Bush pushing more regulations (like raising the minimum wage for example), doens't magically make raising the minimum wage a right-wing policy. It's a left-wing policy.

Lastly, regulations inherently benefit large corporations. The best pro-small business system is the least possible regulated market. This health care deal is a perfect example. Health care regulations cost businesses millions of dollars. Which company has the ability to pay for that? A small 20-person business, or a large mega corporation? Well of course the mega-corp. So you harm the small business at the benefit of the large corporations.

Right-wingers are not making a system that benefits large corporations. Left-wingers are.

Lastly, you complain about over priced health care, but again, who is the cause of that? Left-wingers. It's your regulations and government programs that have driven up the cost of health care, more than anything else.

Everything you listed, is all the stuff that I would cite as proof of my claims.

The reality is that politicians play to their audience, and seeing as large amounts of the audience choose to be ignorant, choose to accept the simple, means that politicians will then go and appeal to them. Look at Trump. He's doing everything for those who accept the simple.

As for always blaming left wingers.... are you serious? There's a major problem in society and it's not about left and right, it's about society.

I blame, what is to blame. Everything you mentioned is due to left-wing policies. If you want, we can go through each and every single one of them, and I can detail exactly which policy is causing which effect, and how they relate.

Of course every politician play's to their audience. The only difference is that you think one particular group is more ignorant than another. That's not how it looks to anyone else. Left-wingers are just as ignorant and stupid as any other ignorant group of people.



I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage or for gas? Did Obama not play up to that level of ignorance? Of course he did.

What did you think all that "Yes we can" "Hope and Change" "Believe" crap was all about? Playing up to the stupid and easily deceived.

All politicians do this.

But it's not. You don't blame what is to blame. You're blaming what you WANT to blame.

I think one group is more ignorant than the other group? Come on, you're slamming the left, then claiming it's ME that's only looking at one side. Er... contradiction.

Obama worked on hope, Trump did the same thing. There's not that much difference between the messages of Obama and Trump, and neither was ever really going to provide the hope they promised. So what? Different party, same shit. Oh, but you'll just blame the left. Right. It's wearing thin this "it's all the left's fault".

Oh yes it is. You are wrong.

And no, I completely agree that there are ignorant right-wingers. You didn't see me dispute what you said, only add to it.

I blame left-wing policies, because left-wing policies consistently fail across the world, and throughout history.

Blaming things that don't work, for causing problems, isn't partisanship... it's fact based logical thinking.

Blaming Bush, because he was in office when the sub-prime bubble burst, while ignoring the fact that the sub-prime bubble started in 1997 which Clinton was pushing sub-prime mortgages as a way to increase home ownership... is not fact based logical thinking.... that's partisanship.

Facts 'trump' opinion... pardon the pun.

Clinton? Promoting subprime mortgages???

Take you your alt.facts and shove them up your ass.

Yep.....they called it redlining.....

 

[frigidweirdo]

The reality is that politicians play to their audience, and seeing as large amounts of the audience choose to be ignorant, choose to accept the simple, means that politicians will then go and appeal to them. Look at Trump. He's doing everything for those who accept the simple.

As for always blaming left wingers.... are you serious? There's a major problem in society and it's not about left and right, it's about society.

I blame, what is to blame. Everything you mentioned is due to left-wing policies. If you want, we can go through each and every single one of them, and I can detail exactly which policy is causing which effect, and how they relate.

Of course every politician play's to their audience. The only difference is that you think one particular group is more ignorant than another. That's not how it looks to anyone else. Left-wingers are just as ignorant and stupid as any other ignorant group of people.



I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage or for gas? Did Obama not play up to that level of ignorance? Of course he did.

What did you think all that "Yes we can" "Hope and Change" "Believe" crap was all about? Playing up to the stupid and easily deceived.

All politicians do this.

But it's not. You don't blame what is to blame. You're blaming what you WANT to blame.

I think one group is more ignorant than the other group? Come on, you're slamming the left, then claiming it's ME that's only looking at one side. Er... contradiction.

Obama worked on hope, Trump did the same thing. There's not that much difference between the messages of Obama and Trump, and neither was ever really going to provide the hope they promised. So what? Different party, same shit. Oh, but you'll just blame the left. Right. It's wearing thin this "it's all the left's fault".

Oh yes it is. You are wrong.

And no, I completely agree that there are ignorant right-wingers. You didn't see me dispute what you said, only add to it.

I blame left-wing policies, because left-wing policies consistently fail across the world, and throughout history.

Blaming things that don't work, for causing problems, isn't partisanship... it's fact based logical thinking.

Blaming Bush, because he was in office when the sub-prime bubble burst, while ignoring the fact that the sub-prime bubble started in 1997 which Clinton was pushing sub-prime mortgages as a way to increase home ownership... is not fact based logical thinking.... that's partisanship.

Facts 'trump' opinion... pardon the pun.

Left wing policies fail, and right wing policies fail.

Zimbabwe failed didn't it? Mugabe is hardly left wing. There are plenty on the right who have failed. The Argentinian Juntas, the Chinese emperors, the Russian Emperors, how many right wing emperors failed and got taken over?

Come on dude, just saying it's all the left's fault because the left have many things that fail is clearly ignoring things so that you can make a false argument.

Oh, so the housing market problems started before Bush, but this doesn't show that Bush had 8 years to sort it out, he didn't. Reagan, Bush snr. etc could also have sorted it out, or the right wing and left wing Congresses through the times could have sorted it out, and none of them did it, right and left.

So, you keep throwing things at me saying it's the left's fault, and it's not hard to show you that it's both sides that are failing.

Huh? Mugabe was extremely left-wing. He was as left-wing as you can get.

If you want to claim that right-wing policies fail... name one.

You mention Mugabe, so here's some of his policies.

Land redistribution. Taking land from the rich and giving it to the poor. In what alternate reality is that a right-wing policy? Isn't taking from the rich, and giving to the poor a left-wing policy? Where in the concept of free-market capitalism, do you find the concept of confiscating land (or anything) by force, and giving it to people who have not earned it?

So they confiscated the land from productive farmers, and gave it to poor people who have never farmed in their lives... and shockingly year over year crop failure?

That's right-wing in your book? Compared to what? If that's right-wing, what do you call left-wing?

Price controls. Mugabe put in place price controls on food, fuel, fertilizer and other goods. Isn't that a left-wing policy of regulating prices for the benefit of the public? In what definition of free-market capitalism, do you find regulating the prices of goods for social benefit?

The result was nation wide shortages, that devastated the economy. That's right-wing in your book? In what concept of limited government, do you find nation wide price controls?

Mugabe pushed for more education and support for poor people to get business training and loans. Only to find the government run out of money, and both students left the country because of 40% unemployment rates, and even the teachers themselves left the country because they would get paid more elsewhere.

I'm sorry, but in which version of right-wing do you find tax and spend until your broke, and provide unlimited education only to have students take their free education and leave the country?

Is not all of that left-wing policies? Isn't free education left-wing? Or even the myth that education itself is a solution, left-wing? Isn't it left-wing policy that government should give money to small business? To encourage loans? To create more government programs?

This argument hinges on one thing... taking out your ideological label maker, and slapping the "right-wing" label on someone, and then saying "see their policies failed".

I look at the actual policies, and determine if those policies are right-wing, or left-wing, and then look at if they failed.

I'd be hard pressed to find a policy of Mugabe, that was right-wing. Where is it? Price controls? Minimum wage laws which increased yearly? Land reform? Education spending?

How about capital controls? The government required all companies over a certain value range, must sell a 51% stake to local Zimbabwe citizens. If not, the owners go to jail. Instead they all simply closed and left.

Is that a right-wing policy? In what universe? That's left-wing!

You tell me. Which Mugabe policy is 'right-wing'? The only right-wing policy that Mugabe ever put forward, as simply a policy to undo the damaging left-wing policy he already implemented. He tried to give the stolen farm land, back to the farmers who originally had it.

But even that isn't really right-wing, because it was only because he left-wing policy failed. Additionally, he still has all his other left-wing policies, like price controls and capital controls. Who is going to come back to Zimbabwe to get back their farm land, when price controls make it impossible to make a profit, and if they make too much money, they'll be forced to sell off a 51% stake?

Ridiculous. Mugabe is yet another perfect example of how left-wing policies always consistently, 100% of the time, fail.

No, Mugabe is one of those people who might have started out left wing, but right now there is nothing left wing about him. If he implements land reform, it's not for left wing purposes, in fact it's for similar nationalistic reasons that the Argentinian Junta went to war in the Falklands.

Let's look at your Mugabe policies.

Land redistribution to the "poor". Well, it made the poor poorer. As I just said, it was a Nationalistic policy, not one of actual socialism or communism.

You want to know in what reality it is a right wing policy, well, in the reality of someone who doesn't just label something based on the headline title, like you've just done, but from someone who actually knows what it's about.

Price control isn't a left or a right wing policy. It has been used by both sides of the extreme.

Spain Labor Relations in the Post-Franco Period - Flags, Maps, Economy, History, Climate, Natural Resources, Current Issues, International Agreements, Population, Social Statistics, Political System

Under Frano's regime there were price controls. "Price controls managed to keep inflation well below these levels, at least for a time. "

Benito Mussolini

Mussolini introduced price controls. "In 1938, he also instituted wage and price controls"

So, are you telling me that Mussolini and Franco were left wing?

Are you saying education is a left wing policy?

I'm sorry you look at things so simplistically you can't see the forest for the trees, but hey, it happens.

But then you want me to show he's right wing. Well, right and left is up to interpretation and not everything he does fits in with what is right wing, or left wing. People have said Hitler was left wing. At the end of the day it's a way of trying to explain something that is never really going to be that clear, and can even change from country to country.

You are labeling left wing as bad and right wing as good. This is clearly ridiculous as it's even impossible to really say. Within the US you can kind of do it because people will slot themselves into the assigned places on the spectrum and live up to the stereotype often. But that doesn't mean that you can go around whitewashing history and using all this stuff to make the claims you are making.

Basically what it seems to be is that if someone finds someone inconvenient for their argument, they'll simply label them left wing. Like Hitler. Some on the right find Hitler being right wing inconvenient, so they label him left wing. He wasn't, he was FAR RIGHT, and the fact that people think far right and right are in any way similar are clearly unable to get past partisan bullshittery.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The reality is that politicians play to their audience, and seeing as large amounts of the audience choose to be ignorant, choose to accept the simple, means that politicians will then go and appeal to them. Look at Trump. He's doing everything for those who accept the simple.

As for always blaming left wingers.... are you serious? There's a major problem in society and it's not about left and right, it's about society.

I blame, what is to blame. Everything you mentioned is due to left-wing policies. If you want, we can go through each and every single one of them, and I can detail exactly which policy is causing which effect, and how they relate.

Of course every politician play's to their audience. The only difference is that you think one particular group is more ignorant than another. That's not how it looks to anyone else. Left-wingers are just as ignorant and stupid as any other ignorant group of people.



I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage or for gas? Did Obama not play up to that level of ignorance? Of course he did.

What did you think all that "Yes we can" "Hope and Change" "Believe" crap was all about? Playing up to the stupid and easily deceived.

All politicians do this.

But it's not. You don't blame what is to blame. You're blaming what you WANT to blame.

I think one group is more ignorant than the other group? Come on, you're slamming the left, then claiming it's ME that's only looking at one side. Er... contradiction.

Obama worked on hope, Trump did the same thing. There's not that much difference between the messages of Obama and Trump, and neither was ever really going to provide the hope they promised. So what? Different party, same shit. Oh, but you'll just blame the left. Right. It's wearing thin this "it's all the left's fault".

Oh yes it is. You are wrong.

And no, I completely agree that there are ignorant right-wingers. You didn't see me dispute what you said, only add to it.

I blame left-wing policies, because left-wing policies consistently fail across the world, and throughout history.

Blaming things that don't work, for causing problems, isn't partisanship... it's fact based logical thinking.

Blaming Bush, because he was in office when the sub-prime bubble burst, while ignoring the fact that the sub-prime bubble started in 1997 which Clinton was pushing sub-prime mortgages as a way to increase home ownership... is not fact based logical thinking.... that's partisanship.

Facts 'trump' opinion... pardon the pun.

Left wing policies fail, and right wing policies fail.

Zimbabwe failed didn't it? Mugabe is hardly left wing. There are plenty on the right who have failed. The Argentinian Juntas, the Chinese emperors, the Russian Emperors, how many right wing emperors failed and got taken over?

Come on dude, just saying it's all the left's fault because the left have many things that fail is clearly ignoring things so that you can make a false argument.

Oh, so the housing market problems started before Bush, but this doesn't show that Bush had 8 years to sort it out, he didn't. Reagan, Bush snr. etc could also have sorted it out, or the right wing and left wing Congresses through the times could have sorted it out, and none of them did it, right and left.

So, you keep throwing things at me saying it's the left's fault, and it's not hard to show you that it's both sides that are failing.

By the way..... You can't "sort it out". You don't understand how an economic bubble works.

As prices go up, people invest into it for the short term, to make a quick buck. This is called speculative investing.

It feeds on itself. The more people buy, the more the price goes up. The more the price goes up, the more people buy. Thus the bubble itself, creates its own demand, in a runaway chain reaction.

This process continues until you run out of more people to buy. Eventually the limit is reached. When that limit is reached, and the price stops going up... everyone freaks out because they intended to make a quick buck. When they see they can't make a quick buck, they immediately sell.

This create the exact same process in reverse. The more people sell, the more the price drops. The more the price drops, the more people sell.

The only difference is, usually the crash is much faster than the climb, because buying a house is limited by your ability to get financing. But everyone can put their home on the market at anytime they want. The price will drop just as the number of homes on the market goes up. Not limited by bank lending.

My point is, there is nothing Bush could have done to stop the bubble. Once a bubble is started, it will continue until it bursts. What do you think Bush could have done?

Additionally, Bush didn't even know there was a real problem. Nearly everyone in government didn't know there was a problem.



Barnie Frank who was actually pushing through legislation to support even more home loans, openly said there is no bubble. Only 2 years later was proved wrong.

But Bush didn't think there was a Bubble. Few anywhere thought there was a Bubble. Obama himself support sub-prime loans as a way to increase home ownership. I can show you videos of this if you like.

So, when you say "Bush did nothing to stop it".... well yeah. A: He couldn't if he wanted to. B: He didn't know about the problem. No one in government did. Anyone else who was president would have done nothing either.

If you are going to complain about Bush, why not complain about Clinton? He not only created the bubble to begin with, but the bubble was on-going from 1997 to 2000, and he did nothing to stop it either. Why do you expect Bush to stop a Bubble he didn't create, when Clinton didn't stop a Bubble he DID create?

You think Bush couldn't have stopped the recession. Well, you're wrong, but that's okay, you're allowed to be wrong, and you're even allowed to be arrogant about it all too.

Bush put in place policies, failed to deal with things that should have happened, that could have kept the recession weaker. But he didn't. A problem in the US is that presidents can only get elected twice. So their first 4 years are all about getting re-elected, it hardly makes for stability.

Two expensive wars didn't help. Not controlling the banks didn't help either. China is trying things in a different way, and perhaps it'll work, it'll be interesting to see.

 

[Freewill]

Well, there are different views on tax. At the end of the day tax needs to be paid. Sometimes there are ideological fights over tax because one way means some people pay more than other, and sometime it just appears that way. A guy coming out and exposing his view doesn't necessarily point to him being stupid.

Your second point suggests it's liberals who destroy the economy. Well... the last economic recession started... well... it started with a US president going to too many costly wars, and a government (both sides) unwilling to deal with banks in a sensible manner.

The problem with your argument is you have the right which has set up a system which claims to create jobs, and yet benefits large corporations over smaller businesses on a massive basis. Is this good for jobs? Yeah, well, Walmart and their massively low wage jobs aren't exactly great.

You talk about things being overpriced but then it's the right who love the massively overpriced healthcare system which just sucks the blood out of people's pay checks just so others can leech off the system.

My point here is that both sides are "stupid", and yet you'll come out and criticize the left for being stupid while promoting policies which are also "stupid". Great.

He was acting surprised, and outraged, that taxes were passed on to the consumer and employees. That is stupid.

You have to be a moron, to think that jacking up taxes won't be passed on to the public, either through higher prices or less employment or wages. This qualifies you as a moron.

(by you, I mean not you, but anyone who thinks this way).

Now, if you accept the fact that taxes will have to be paid by consumers having a lower standard of living, and employees making less money and having fewer jobs... ok. Then that's fine. And every time you raise taxes and regulations, when you see prices to the public go up, and employment go down, I expect you to say "Ok good. The harm to society is worth it".

Then we can debate whether or not the harm to society really is worth it.

The last recession was caused by minimum wage laws, and government regulations on mortgages. Not wars. Had nothing to do with wars.

Further, a right-wing policy is a right-wing policy whether it's a Republican or Democrat who offers it. Equally a left-wing policy, is a left-wing policy, whether a Republican or Democrat offers it.

If Bush had pushed for more government regulation, and it ruined the economy, that's not a right-wing policy. Bush pushing more regulations (like raising the minimum wage for example), doens't magically make raising the minimum wage a right-wing policy. It's a left-wing policy.

Lastly, regulations inherently benefit large corporations. The best pro-small business system is the least possible regulated market. This health care deal is a perfect example. Health care regulations cost businesses millions of dollars. Which company has the ability to pay for that? A small 20-person business, or a large mega corporation? Well of course the mega-corp. So you harm the small business at the benefit of the large corporations.

Right-wingers are not making a system that benefits large corporations. Left-wingers are.

Lastly, you complain about over priced health care, but again, who is the cause of that? Left-wingers. It's your regulations and government programs that have driven up the cost of health care, more than anything else.

Everything you listed, is all the stuff that I would cite as proof of my claims.

The reality is that politicians play to their audience, and seeing as large amounts of the audience choose to be ignorant, choose to accept the simple, means that politicians will then go and appeal to them. Look at Trump. He's doing everything for those who accept the simple.

As for always blaming left wingers.... are you serious? There's a major problem in society and it's not about left and right, it's about society.

I blame, what is to blame. Everything you mentioned is due to left-wing policies. If you want, we can go through each and every single one of them, and I can detail exactly which policy is causing which effect, and how they relate.

Of course every politician play's to their audience. The only difference is that you think one particular group is more ignorant than another. That's not how it looks to anyone else. Left-wingers are just as ignorant and stupid as any other ignorant group of people.



I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage or for gas? Did Obama not play up to that level of ignorance? Of course he did.

What did you think all that "Yes we can" "Hope and Change" "Believe" crap was all about? Playing up to the stupid and easily deceived.

All politicians do this.

On Nov 8th I got the change I was hoping for.

So, you were hoping for a different hair style and color of skin in the White House, and maybe more friction? Because Trump really isn't a change for America, he's just a temporary change.

The change I was wanted was a change away form Obama not more of the same as we would have had with Hillary.

Trump's administration will change the SCOTUS for a very long time. That was my sole reason for supporting him, especially over Hillary.

 

[Freewill]

I blame, what is to blame. Everything you mentioned is due to left-wing policies. If you want, we can go through each and every single one of them, and I can detail exactly which policy is causing which effect, and how they relate.

Of course every politician play's to their audience. The only difference is that you think one particular group is more ignorant than another. That's not how it looks to anyone else. Left-wingers are just as ignorant and stupid as any other ignorant group of people.



I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage or for gas? Did Obama not play up to that level of ignorance? Of course he did.

What did you think all that "Yes we can" "Hope and Change" "Believe" crap was all about? Playing up to the stupid and easily deceived.

All politicians do this.

But it's not. You don't blame what is to blame. You're blaming what you WANT to blame.

I think one group is more ignorant than the other group? Come on, you're slamming the left, then claiming it's ME that's only looking at one side. Er... contradiction.

Obama worked on hope, Trump did the same thing. There's not that much difference between the messages of Obama and Trump, and neither was ever really going to provide the hope they promised. So what? Different party, same shit. Oh, but you'll just blame the left. Right. It's wearing thin this "it's all the left's fault".

Oh yes it is. You are wrong.

And no, I completely agree that there are ignorant right-wingers. You didn't see me dispute what you said, only add to it.

I blame left-wing policies, because left-wing policies consistently fail across the world, and throughout history.

Blaming things that don't work, for causing problems, isn't partisanship... it's fact based logical thinking.

Blaming Bush, because he was in office when the sub-prime bubble burst, while ignoring the fact that the sub-prime bubble started in 1997 which Clinton was pushing sub-prime mortgages as a way to increase home ownership... is not fact based logical thinking.... that's partisanship.

Facts 'trump' opinion... pardon the pun.

Left wing policies fail, and right wing policies fail.

Zimbabwe failed didn't it? Mugabe is hardly left wing. There are plenty on the right who have failed. The Argentinian Juntas, the Chinese emperors, the Russian Emperors, how many right wing emperors failed and got taken over?

Come on dude, just saying it's all the left's fault because the left have many things that fail is clearly ignoring things so that you can make a false argument.

Oh, so the housing market problems started before Bush, but this doesn't show that Bush had 8 years to sort it out, he didn't. Reagan, Bush snr. etc could also have sorted it out, or the right wing and left wing Congresses through the times could have sorted it out, and none of them did it, right and left.

So, you keep throwing things at me saying it's the left's fault, and it's not hard to show you that it's both sides that are failing.

By the way..... You can't "sort it out". You don't understand how an economic bubble works.

As prices go up, people invest into it for the short term, to make a quick buck. This is called speculative investing.

It feeds on itself. The more people buy, the more the price goes up. The more the price goes up, the more people buy. Thus the bubble itself, creates its own demand, in a runaway chain reaction.

This process continues until you run out of more people to buy. Eventually the limit is reached. When that limit is reached, and the price stops going up... everyone freaks out because they intended to make a quick buck. When they see they can't make a quick buck, they immediately sell.

This create the exact same process in reverse. The more people sell, the more the price drops. The more the price drops, the more people sell.

The only difference is, usually the crash is much faster than the climb, because buying a house is limited by your ability to get financing. But everyone can put their home on the market at anytime they want. The price will drop just as the number of homes on the market goes up. Not limited by bank lending.

My point is, there is nothing Bush could have done to stop the bubble. Once a bubble is started, it will continue until it bursts. What do you think Bush could have done?

Additionally, Bush didn't even know there was a real problem. Nearly everyone in government didn't know there was a problem.



Barnie Frank who was actually pushing through legislation to support even more home loans, openly said there is no bubble. Only 2 years later was proved wrong.

But Bush didn't think there was a Bubble. Few anywhere thought there was a Bubble. Obama himself support sub-prime loans as a way to increase home ownership. I can show you videos of this if you like.

So, when you say "Bush did nothing to stop it".... well yeah. A: He couldn't if he wanted to. B: He didn't know about the problem. No one in government did. Anyone else who was president would have done nothing either.

If you are going to complain about Bush, why not complain about Clinton? He not only created the bubble to begin with, but the bubble was on-going from 1997 to 2000, and he did nothing to stop it either. Why do you expect Bush to stop a Bubble he didn't create, when Clinton didn't stop a Bubble he DID create?

You think Bush couldn't have stopped the recession. Well, you're wrong, but that's okay, you're allowed to be wrong, and you're even allowed to be arrogant about it all too.

Bush put in place policies, failed to deal with things that should have happened, that could have kept the recession weaker. But he didn't. A problem in the US is that presidents can only get elected twice. So their first 4 years are all about getting re-elected, it hardly makes for stability.

Two expensive wars didn't help. Not controlling the banks didn't help either. China is trying things in a different way, and perhaps it'll work, it'll be interesting to see.

Bush did stop the Clinton recession.

 

[frigidweirdo]

He was acting surprised, and outraged, that taxes were passed on to the consumer and employees. That is stupid.

You have to be a moron, to think that jacking up taxes won't be passed on to the public, either through higher prices or less employment or wages. This qualifies you as a moron.

(by you, I mean not you, but anyone who thinks this way).

Now, if you accept the fact that taxes will have to be paid by consumers having a lower standard of living, and employees making less money and having fewer jobs... ok. Then that's fine. And every time you raise taxes and regulations, when you see prices to the public go up, and employment go down, I expect you to say "Ok good. The harm to society is worth it".

Then we can debate whether or not the harm to society really is worth it.

The last recession was caused by minimum wage laws, and government regulations on mortgages. Not wars. Had nothing to do with wars.

Further, a right-wing policy is a right-wing policy whether it's a Republican or Democrat who offers it. Equally a left-wing policy, is a left-wing policy, whether a Republican or Democrat offers it.

If Bush had pushed for more government regulation, and it ruined the economy, that's not a right-wing policy. Bush pushing more regulations (like raising the minimum wage for example), doens't magically make raising the minimum wage a right-wing policy. It's a left-wing policy.

Lastly, regulations inherently benefit large corporations. The best pro-small business system is the least possible regulated market. This health care deal is a perfect example. Health care regulations cost businesses millions of dollars. Which company has the ability to pay for that? A small 20-person business, or a large mega corporation? Well of course the mega-corp. So you harm the small business at the benefit of the large corporations.

Right-wingers are not making a system that benefits large corporations. Left-wingers are.

Lastly, you complain about over priced health care, but again, who is the cause of that? Left-wingers. It's your regulations and government programs that have driven up the cost of health care, more than anything else.

Everything you listed, is all the stuff that I would cite as proof of my claims.

The reality is that politicians play to their audience, and seeing as large amounts of the audience choose to be ignorant, choose to accept the simple, means that politicians will then go and appeal to them. Look at Trump. He's doing everything for those who accept the simple.

As for always blaming left wingers.... are you serious? There's a major problem in society and it's not about left and right, it's about society.

I blame, what is to blame. Everything you mentioned is due to left-wing policies. If you want, we can go through each and every single one of them, and I can detail exactly which policy is causing which effect, and how they relate.

Of course every politician play's to their audience. The only difference is that you think one particular group is more ignorant than another. That's not how it looks to anyone else. Left-wingers are just as ignorant and stupid as any other ignorant group of people.



I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage or for gas? Did Obama not play up to that level of ignorance? Of course he did.

What did you think all that "Yes we can" "Hope and Change" "Believe" crap was all about? Playing up to the stupid and easily deceived.

All politicians do this.

On Nov 8th I got the change I was hoping for.

So, you were hoping for a different hair style and color of skin in the White House, and maybe more friction? Because Trump really isn't a change for America, he's just a temporary change.

The change I was wanted was a change away form Obama not more of the same as we would have had with Hillary.

Trump's administration will change the SCOTUS for a very long time. That was my sole reason for supporting him, especially over Hillary.

What you're saying doesn't mean anything. You just don't want Obama. Why? Because he's not your team and therefore whatever he does you don't like? Come on, what's that for nonsense?

So, Trump will change the Supreme Court somewhat, we don't know how much, and you might not like what you get. But the reality is, you voted for partisan politics and nothing more. That's not change at all.

 

[frigidweirdo]

But it's not. You don't blame what is to blame. You're blaming what you WANT to blame.

I think one group is more ignorant than the other group? Come on, you're slamming the left, then claiming it's ME that's only looking at one side. Er... contradiction.

Obama worked on hope, Trump did the same thing. There's not that much difference between the messages of Obama and Trump, and neither was ever really going to provide the hope they promised. So what? Different party, same shit. Oh, but you'll just blame the left. Right. It's wearing thin this "it's all the left's fault".

Oh yes it is. You are wrong.

And no, I completely agree that there are ignorant right-wingers. You didn't see me dispute what you said, only add to it.

I blame left-wing policies, because left-wing policies consistently fail across the world, and throughout history.

Blaming things that don't work, for causing problems, isn't partisanship... it's fact based logical thinking.

Blaming Bush, because he was in office when the sub-prime bubble burst, while ignoring the fact that the sub-prime bubble started in 1997 which Clinton was pushing sub-prime mortgages as a way to increase home ownership... is not fact based logical thinking.... that's partisanship.

Facts 'trump' opinion... pardon the pun.

Left wing policies fail, and right wing policies fail.

Zimbabwe failed didn't it? Mugabe is hardly left wing. There are plenty on the right who have failed. The Argentinian Juntas, the Chinese emperors, the Russian Emperors, how many right wing emperors failed and got taken over?

Come on dude, just saying it's all the left's fault because the left have many things that fail is clearly ignoring things so that you can make a false argument.

Oh, so the housing market problems started before Bush, but this doesn't show that Bush had 8 years to sort it out, he didn't. Reagan, Bush snr. etc could also have sorted it out, or the right wing and left wing Congresses through the times could have sorted it out, and none of them did it, right and left.

So, you keep throwing things at me saying it's the left's fault, and it's not hard to show you that it's both sides that are failing.

By the way..... You can't "sort it out". You don't understand how an economic bubble works.

As prices go up, people invest into it for the short term, to make a quick buck. This is called speculative investing.

It feeds on itself. The more people buy, the more the price goes up. The more the price goes up, the more people buy. Thus the bubble itself, creates its own demand, in a runaway chain reaction.

This process continues until you run out of more people to buy. Eventually the limit is reached. When that limit is reached, and the price stops going up... everyone freaks out because they intended to make a quick buck. When they see they can't make a quick buck, they immediately sell.

This create the exact same process in reverse. The more people sell, the more the price drops. The more the price drops, the more people sell.

The only difference is, usually the crash is much faster than the climb, because buying a house is limited by your ability to get financing. But everyone can put their home on the market at anytime they want. The price will drop just as the number of homes on the market goes up. Not limited by bank lending.

My point is, there is nothing Bush could have done to stop the bubble. Once a bubble is started, it will continue until it bursts. What do you think Bush could have done?

Additionally, Bush didn't even know there was a real problem. Nearly everyone in government didn't know there was a problem.



Barnie Frank who was actually pushing through legislation to support even more home loans, openly said there is no bubble. Only 2 years later was proved wrong.

But Bush didn't think there was a Bubble. Few anywhere thought there was a Bubble. Obama himself support sub-prime loans as a way to increase home ownership. I can show you videos of this if you like.

So, when you say "Bush did nothing to stop it".... well yeah. A: He couldn't if he wanted to. B: He didn't know about the problem. No one in government did. Anyone else who was president would have done nothing either.

If you are going to complain about Bush, why not complain about Clinton? He not only created the bubble to begin with, but the bubble was on-going from 1997 to 2000, and he did nothing to stop it either. Why do you expect Bush to stop a Bubble he didn't create, when Clinton didn't stop a Bubble he DID create?

You think Bush couldn't have stopped the recession. Well, you're wrong, but that's okay, you're allowed to be wrong, and you're even allowed to be arrogant about it all too.

Bush put in place policies, failed to deal with things that should have happened, that could have kept the recession weaker. But he didn't. A problem in the US is that presidents can only get elected twice. So their first 4 years are all about getting re-elected, it hardly makes for stability.

Two expensive wars didn't help. Not controlling the banks didn't help either. China is trying things in a different way, and perhaps it'll work, it'll be interesting to see.

Bush did stop the Clinton recession.

What does that mean?

 

[Rexx Taylor]

they should tax their own people for every time they swear. like maybe 5 cents a curse?

 

[Marion Morrison]

The reality is that politicians play to their audience, and seeing as large amounts of the audience choose to be ignorant, choose to accept the simple, means that politicians will then go and appeal to them. Look at Trump. He's doing everything for those who accept the simple.

As for always blaming left wingers.... are you serious? There's a major problem in society and it's not about left and right, it's about society.

I blame, what is to blame. Everything you mentioned is due to left-wing policies. If you want, we can go through each and every single one of them, and I can detail exactly which policy is causing which effect, and how they relate.

Of course every politician play's to their audience. The only difference is that you think one particular group is more ignorant than another. That's not how it looks to anyone else. Left-wingers are just as ignorant and stupid as any other ignorant group of people.



I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage or for gas? Did Obama not play up to that level of ignorance? Of course he did.

What did you think all that "Yes we can" "Hope and Change" "Believe" crap was all about? Playing up to the stupid and easily deceived.

All politicians do this.

On Nov 8th I got the change I was hoping for.

So, you were hoping for a different hair style and color of skin in the White House, and maybe more friction? Because Trump really isn't a change for America, he's just a temporary change.

The change I was wanted was a change away form Obama not more of the same as we would have had with Hillary.

Trump's administration will change the SCOTUS for a very long time. That was my sole reason for supporting him, especially over Hillary.

What you're saying doesn't mean anything. You just don't want Obama. Why? Because he's not your team and therefore whatever he does you don't like? Come on, what's that for nonsense?

So, Trump will change the Supreme Court somewhat, we don't know how much, and you might not like what you get. But the reality is, you voted for partisan politics and nothing more. That's not change at all.

Because Obama's priorities were all screwed up. Instead of terrorism and the economy, his focus was on "Climate Change" and pushing lgbtqqxyzttppH ness on an unwilling populace. Not to mention claiming illegal aliens are a positive to the US when clearly they are not.


Clinton' husband signed NAFTA, that hurt the country really badly, and she eschewed the same policies. She had no game plan whatsoever; Well, that's untrue, I have a theory her plan was to get in there, start WW3 and invest heavily in the MIC, all the while grabbing as much bribe money and kickbacks as she possibly could. It's good to have a normal American in the White House now.

 

[AntonToo]

But it's not. You don't blame what is to blame. You're blaming what you WANT to blame.

I think one group is more ignorant than the other group? Come on, you're slamming the left, then claiming it's ME that's only looking at one side. Er... contradiction.

Obama worked on hope, Trump did the same thing. There's not that much difference between the messages of Obama and Trump, and neither was ever really going to provide the hope they promised. So what? Different party, same shit. Oh, but you'll just blame the left. Right. It's wearing thin this "it's all the left's fault".

Oh yes it is. You are wrong.

And no, I completely agree that there are ignorant right-wingers. You didn't see me dispute what you said, only add to it.

I blame left-wing policies, because left-wing policies consistently fail across the world, and throughout history.

Blaming things that don't work, for causing problems, isn't partisanship... it's fact based logical thinking.

Blaming Bush, because he was in office when the sub-prime bubble burst, while ignoring the fact that the sub-prime bubble started in 1997 which Clinton was pushing sub-prime mortgages as a way to increase home ownership... is not fact based logical thinking.... that's partisanship.

Facts 'trump' opinion... pardon the pun.

Left wing policies fail, and right wing policies fail.

Zimbabwe failed didn't it? Mugabe is hardly left wing. There are plenty on the right who have failed. The Argentinian Juntas, the Chinese emperors, the Russian Emperors, how many right wing emperors failed and got taken over?

Come on dude, just saying it's all the left's fault because the left have many things that fail is clearly ignoring things so that you can make a false argument.

Oh, so the housing market problems started before Bush, but this doesn't show that Bush had 8 years to sort it out, he didn't. Reagan, Bush snr. etc could also have sorted it out, or the right wing and left wing Congresses through the times could have sorted it out, and none of them did it, right and left.

So, you keep throwing things at me saying it's the left's fault, and it's not hard to show you that it's both sides that are failing.

By the way..... You can't "sort it out". You don't understand how an economic bubble works.

As prices go up, people invest into it for the short term, to make a quick buck. This is called speculative investing.

It feeds on itself. The more people buy, the more the price goes up. The more the price goes up, the more people buy. Thus the bubble itself, creates its own demand, in a runaway chain reaction.

This process continues until you run out of more people to buy. Eventually the limit is reached. When that limit is reached, and the price stops going up... everyone freaks out because they intended to make a quick buck. When they see they can't make a quick buck, they immediately sell.

This create the exact same process in reverse. The more people sell, the more the price drops. The more the price drops, the more people sell.

The only difference is, usually the crash is much faster than the climb, because buying a house is limited by your ability to get financing. But everyone can put their home on the market at anytime they want. The price will drop just as the number of homes on the market goes up. Not limited by bank lending.

My point is, there is nothing Bush could have done to stop the bubble. Once a bubble is started, it will continue until it bursts. What do you think Bush could have done?

Additionally, Bush didn't even know there was a real problem. Nearly everyone in government didn't know there was a problem.



Barnie Frank who was actually pushing through legislation to support even more home loans, openly said there is no bubble. Only 2 years later was proved wrong.

But Bush didn't think there was a Bubble. Few anywhere thought there was a Bubble. Obama himself support sub-prime loans as a way to increase home ownership. I can show you videos of this if you like.

So, when you say "Bush did nothing to stop it".... well yeah. A: He couldn't if he wanted to. B: He didn't know about the problem. No one in government did. Anyone else who was president would have done nothing either.

If you are going to complain about Bush, why not complain about Clinton? He not only created the bubble to begin with, but the bubble was on-going from 1997 to 2000, and he did nothing to stop it either. Why do you expect Bush to stop a Bubble he didn't create, when Clinton didn't stop a Bubble he DID create?

You think Bush couldn't have stopped the recession. Well, you're wrong, but that's okay, you're allowed to be wrong, and you're even allowed to be arrogant about it all too.

Bush put in place policies, failed to deal with things that should have happened, that could have kept the recession weaker. But he didn't. A problem in the US is that presidents can only get elected twice. So their first 4 years are all about getting re-elected, it hardly makes for stability.

Two expensive wars didn't help. Not controlling the banks didn't help either. China is trying things in a different way, and perhaps it'll work, it'll be interesting to see.

Bush did stop the Clinton recession.

No silly, he didn't...unless of course you want to credit him with giant real estate and finance bubble, in which case...HE DIDN'T, considering how spectacularly it exploded.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I blame, what is to blame. Everything you mentioned is due to left-wing policies. If you want, we can go through each and every single one of them, and I can detail exactly which policy is causing which effect, and how they relate.

Of course every politician play's to their audience. The only difference is that you think one particular group is more ignorant than another. That's not how it looks to anyone else. Left-wingers are just as ignorant and stupid as any other ignorant group of people.



I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage or for gas? Did Obama not play up to that level of ignorance? Of course he did.

What did you think all that "Yes we can" "Hope and Change" "Believe" crap was all about? Playing up to the stupid and easily deceived.

All politicians do this.

On Nov 8th I got the change I was hoping for.

So, you were hoping for a different hair style and color of skin in the White House, and maybe more friction? Because Trump really isn't a change for America, he's just a temporary change.

The change I was wanted was a change away form Obama not more of the same as we would have had with Hillary.

Trump's administration will change the SCOTUS for a very long time. That was my sole reason for supporting him, especially over Hillary.

What you're saying doesn't mean anything. You just don't want Obama. Why? Because he's not your team and therefore whatever he does you don't like? Come on, what's that for nonsense?

So, Trump will change the Supreme Court somewhat, we don't know how much, and you might not like what you get. But the reality is, you voted for partisan politics and nothing more. That's not change at all.

Because Obama's priorities were all screwed up. Instead of terrorism and the economy, his focus was on "Climate Change" and pushing lgbtqqxyzttppH ness on an unwilling populace. Not to mention claiming illegal aliens are a positive to the US when clearly they are not.


Clinton' husband signed NAFTA, that hurt the country really badly, and she eschewed the same policies. She had no game plan whatsoever; Well, that's untrue, I have a theory her plan was to get in there, start WW3 and invest heavily in the MIC, all the while grabbing as much bribe money and kickbacks as she possibly could. It's good to have a normal American in the White House now.

So, the economy wasn't a priority? Are you sure about that? Who are you listening to? Terrorism WAS a priority of his, however it wasn't from the point of view of the right which is to show how tough you are and then the hicks can whoop all day long about how damn strong they are. He tried to pull back from what Bush did, which was to make the US less safe and the world less safe.

Man made global warming is a massive issue. Okay, so you're more willing to listen to oil companies telling you that their oil isn't a problem, fine, but that doesn't mean the president is wrong for doing what he's doing.

"a normal American in the White House", if that's what you see as normal, then I'm glad I don't live near you.

 

[Andylusion]

He was acting surprised, and outraged, that taxes were passed on to the consumer and employees. That is stupid.

You have to be a moron, to think that jacking up taxes won't be passed on to the public, either through higher prices or less employment or wages. This qualifies you as a moron.

(by you, I mean not you, but anyone who thinks this way).

Now, if you accept the fact that taxes will have to be paid by consumers having a lower standard of living, and employees making less money and having fewer jobs... ok. Then that's fine. And every time you raise taxes and regulations, when you see prices to the public go up, and employment go down, I expect you to say "Ok good. The harm to society is worth it".

Then we can debate whether or not the harm to society really is worth it.

The last recession was caused by minimum wage laws, and government regulations on mortgages. Not wars. Had nothing to do with wars.

Further, a right-wing policy is a right-wing policy whether it's a Republican or Democrat who offers it. Equally a left-wing policy, is a left-wing policy, whether a Republican or Democrat offers it.

If Bush had pushed for more government regulation, and it ruined the economy, that's not a right-wing policy. Bush pushing more regulations (like raising the minimum wage for example), doens't magically make raising the minimum wage a right-wing policy. It's a left-wing policy.

Lastly, regulations inherently benefit large corporations. The best pro-small business system is the least possible regulated market. This health care deal is a perfect example. Health care regulations cost businesses millions of dollars. Which company has the ability to pay for that? A small 20-person business, or a large mega corporation? Well of course the mega-corp. So you harm the small business at the benefit of the large corporations.

Right-wingers are not making a system that benefits large corporations. Left-wingers are.

Lastly, you complain about over priced health care, but again, who is the cause of that? Left-wingers. It's your regulations and government programs that have driven up the cost of health care, more than anything else.

Everything you listed, is all the stuff that I would cite as proof of my claims.

The reality is that politicians play to their audience, and seeing as large amounts of the audience choose to be ignorant, choose to accept the simple, means that politicians will then go and appeal to them. Look at Trump. He's doing everything for those who accept the simple.

As for always blaming left wingers.... are you serious? There's a major problem in society and it's not about left and right, it's about society.

I blame, what is to blame. Everything you mentioned is due to left-wing policies. If you want, we can go through each and every single one of them, and I can detail exactly which policy is causing which effect, and how they relate.

Of course every politician play's to their audience. The only difference is that you think one particular group is more ignorant than another. That's not how it looks to anyone else. Left-wingers are just as ignorant and stupid as any other ignorant group of people.



I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage or for gas? Did Obama not play up to that level of ignorance? Of course he did.

What did you think all that "Yes we can" "Hope and Change" "Believe" crap was all about? Playing up to the stupid and easily deceived.

All politicians do this.

But it's not. You don't blame what is to blame. You're blaming what you WANT to blame.

I think one group is more ignorant than the other group? Come on, you're slamming the left, then claiming it's ME that's only looking at one side. Er... contradiction.

Obama worked on hope, Trump did the same thing. There's not that much difference between the messages of Obama and Trump, and neither was ever really going to provide the hope they promised. So what? Different party, same shit. Oh, but you'll just blame the left. Right. It's wearing thin this "it's all the left's fault".

Oh yes it is. You are wrong.

And no, I completely agree that there are ignorant right-wingers. You didn't see me dispute what you said, only add to it.

I blame left-wing policies, because left-wing policies consistently fail across the world, and throughout history.

Blaming things that don't work, for causing problems, isn't partisanship... it's fact based logical thinking.

Blaming Bush, because he was in office when the sub-prime bubble burst, while ignoring the fact that the sub-prime bubble started in 1997 which Clinton was pushing sub-prime mortgages as a way to increase home ownership... is not fact based logical thinking.... that's partisanship.

Facts 'trump' opinion... pardon the pun.

Clinton? Promoting subprime mortgages???

Take you your alt.facts and shove them up your ass. You clearly have little grasp on the real ones.

If Clinton did cobtribute it's because he was a big time financial de-regulator.

No. Sorry. Clinton pushed to increase home ownership through Freddie Mac, and Fannie Mae.

Specifically, Freddie Mac in 1997 openly offered to guarantee sub-prime home loans.

This was done through Bear Stearns, and First Union, which became Wachovia. Ironically two of the largest non-government bank failures. (Freddie and Fannie were the largest bank failures).

First Union Capital Markets Corp., Bear, Stearns & Co. Price Securities Offering Backed By Affordable Mortgages

This press release happened in 1997.

First Union Capital Markets Corp. and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a $384.6 million offering of securities backed by Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) loans - marking the industry's first public securitization of CRA loans.​

When this happened, Sub-prime loans began to be bundled in Mortgage Backed Securities, and sold to Freddie and Fannie, and the entire mortgage market.

Notice this happened before 1999, which Bill Clinton supposedly 'deregulated' the market. And the price bubble started before the 1999 so-called 'deregulation'.

So the sub-prime bubble had nothing to do with deregulation. It had to do with government policy supporting and promoting sub-prime loans.

Moreover, the administration specifically targeted and forced banks to make sub-prime loans, with law suits.



Now unless you consider forcing banks to make bad loans, and guaranteeing bad loans through government agencies.... is 'de-regulation' in your bonkers book....

I think I've made my point.

 

[Andylusion]

I blame, what is to blame. Everything you mentioned is due to left-wing policies. If you want, we can go through each and every single one of them, and I can detail exactly which policy is causing which effect, and how they relate.

Of course every politician play's to their audience. The only difference is that you think one particular group is more ignorant than another. That's not how it looks to anyone else. Left-wingers are just as ignorant and stupid as any other ignorant group of people.



I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage or for gas? Did Obama not play up to that level of ignorance? Of course he did.

What did you think all that "Yes we can" "Hope and Change" "Believe" crap was all about? Playing up to the stupid and easily deceived.

All politicians do this.

But it's not. You don't blame what is to blame. You're blaming what you WANT to blame.

I think one group is more ignorant than the other group? Come on, you're slamming the left, then claiming it's ME that's only looking at one side. Er... contradiction.

Obama worked on hope, Trump did the same thing. There's not that much difference between the messages of Obama and Trump, and neither was ever really going to provide the hope they promised. So what? Different party, same shit. Oh, but you'll just blame the left. Right. It's wearing thin this "it's all the left's fault".

Oh yes it is. You are wrong.

And no, I completely agree that there are ignorant right-wingers. You didn't see me dispute what you said, only add to it.

I blame left-wing policies, because left-wing policies consistently fail across the world, and throughout history.

Blaming things that don't work, for causing problems, isn't partisanship... it's fact based logical thinking.

Blaming Bush, because he was in office when the sub-prime bubble burst, while ignoring the fact that the sub-prime bubble started in 1997 which Clinton was pushing sub-prime mortgages as a way to increase home ownership... is not fact based logical thinking.... that's partisanship.

Facts 'trump' opinion... pardon the pun.

Left wing policies fail, and right wing policies fail.

Zimbabwe failed didn't it? Mugabe is hardly left wing. There are plenty on the right who have failed. The Argentinian Juntas, the Chinese emperors, the Russian Emperors, how many right wing emperors failed and got taken over?

Come on dude, just saying it's all the left's fault because the left have many things that fail is clearly ignoring things so that you can make a false argument.

Oh, so the housing market problems started before Bush, but this doesn't show that Bush had 8 years to sort it out, he didn't. Reagan, Bush snr. etc could also have sorted it out, or the right wing and left wing Congresses through the times could have sorted it out, and none of them did it, right and left.

So, you keep throwing things at me saying it's the left's fault, and it's not hard to show you that it's both sides that are failing.

Huh? Mugabe was extremely left-wing. He was as left-wing as you can get.

If you want to claim that right-wing policies fail... name one.

You mention Mugabe, so here's some of his policies.

Land redistribution. Taking land from the rich and giving it to the poor. In what alternate reality is that a right-wing policy? Isn't taking from the rich, and giving to the poor a left-wing policy? Where in the concept of free-market capitalism, do you find the concept of confiscating land (or anything) by force, and giving it to people who have not earned it?

So they confiscated the land from productive farmers, and gave it to poor people who have never farmed in their lives... and shockingly year over year crop failure?

That's right-wing in your book? Compared to what? If that's right-wing, what do you call left-wing?

Price controls. Mugabe put in place price controls on food, fuel, fertilizer and other goods. Isn't that a left-wing policy of regulating prices for the benefit of the public? In what definition of free-market capitalism, do you find regulating the prices of goods for social benefit?

The result was nation wide shortages, that devastated the economy. That's right-wing in your book? In what concept of limited government, do you find nation wide price controls?

Mugabe pushed for more education and support for poor people to get business training and loans. Only to find the government run out of money, and both students left the country because of 40% unemployment rates, and even the teachers themselves left the country because they would get paid more elsewhere.

I'm sorry, but in which version of right-wing do you find tax and spend until your broke, and provide unlimited education only to have students take their free education and leave the country?

Is not all of that left-wing policies? Isn't free education left-wing? Or even the myth that education itself is a solution, left-wing? Isn't it left-wing policy that government should give money to small business? To encourage loans? To create more government programs?

This argument hinges on one thing... taking out your ideological label maker, and slapping the "right-wing" label on someone, and then saying "see their policies failed".

I look at the actual policies, and determine if those policies are right-wing, or left-wing, and then look at if they failed.

I'd be hard pressed to find a policy of Mugabe, that was right-wing. Where is it? Price controls? Minimum wage laws which increased yearly? Land reform? Education spending?

How about capital controls? The government required all companies over a certain value range, must sell a 51% stake to local Zimbabwe citizens. If not, the owners go to jail. Instead they all simply closed and left.

Is that a right-wing policy? In what universe? That's left-wing!

You tell me. Which Mugabe policy is 'right-wing'? The only right-wing policy that Mugabe ever put forward, as simply a policy to undo the damaging left-wing policy he already implemented. He tried to give the stolen farm land, back to the farmers who originally had it.

But even that isn't really right-wing, because it was only because he left-wing policy failed. Additionally, he still has all his other left-wing policies, like price controls and capital controls. Who is going to come back to Zimbabwe to get back their farm land, when price controls make it impossible to make a profit, and if they make too much money, they'll be forced to sell off a 51% stake?

Ridiculous. Mugabe is yet another perfect example of how left-wing policies always consistently, 100% of the time, fail.

No, Mugabe is one of those people who might have started out left wing, but right now there is nothing left wing about him. If he implements land reform, it's not for left wing purposes, in fact it's for similar nationalistic reasons that the Argentinian Junta went to war in the Falklands.

Let's look at your Mugabe policies.

Land redistribution to the "poor". Well, it made the poor poorer. As I just said, it was a Nationalistic policy, not one of actual socialism or communism.

You want to know in what reality it is a right wing policy, well, in the reality of someone who doesn't just label something based on the headline title, like you've just done, but from someone who actually knows what it's about.

Price control isn't a left or a right wing policy. It has been used by both sides of the extreme.

Spain Labor Relations in the Post-Franco Period - Flags, Maps, Economy, History, Climate, Natural Resources, Current Issues, International Agreements, Population, Social Statistics, Political System

Under Frano's regime there were price controls. "Price controls managed to keep inflation well below these levels, at least for a time. "

Benito Mussolini

Mussolini introduced price controls. "In 1938, he also instituted wage and price controls"

So, are you telling me that Mussolini and Franco were left wing?

Are you saying education is a left wing policy?

I'm sorry you look at things so simplistically you can't see the forest for the trees, but hey, it happens.

But then you want me to show he's right wing. Well, right and left is up to interpretation and not everything he does fits in with what is right wing, or left wing. People have said Hitler was left wing. At the end of the day it's a way of trying to explain something that is never really going to be that clear, and can even change from country to country.

You are labeling left wing as bad and right wing as good. This is clearly ridiculous as it's even impossible to really say. Within the US you can kind of do it because people will slot themselves into the assigned places on the spectrum and live up to the stereotype often. But that doesn't mean that you can go around whitewashing history and using all this stuff to make the claims you are making.

Basically what it seems to be is that if someone finds someone inconvenient for their argument, they'll simply label them left wing. Like Hitler. Some on the right find Hitler being right wing inconvenient, so they label him left wing. He wasn't, he was FAR RIGHT, and the fact that people think far right and right are in any way similar are clearly unable to get past partisan bullshittery.

Price control isn't a left or a right wing policy. It has been used by both sides of the extreme.

lol.... That statement is contradictory. Price controls, are not right-wing. The policy of price controls is inherently not right-wing... it's inherently left-wing.

It's not possible for a right-wing person, to implement price controls, because the act of putting in place price controls is contradictory to 'right-wing'.

This again is exactly what a pointed out in the prior post. The person doesn't change the ideology of the action. The action, changes the ideology of the person.

Let's say that I am the president of the World Vegan society. I am the leading Vegan in the world. There is no other person in a higher position in the world Vegan movement.

Then say that I go home, and eat a chicken. Since the new policy is eating a chicken, and I'm the leading Vegan in the world.... well I guess that means Vegan's eat chicken. Right?

No, it simply means I'm not a vegan anymore. That's what it means. The person doesn't change the ideology of the policy... the policy changes the ideology of the person.

Left-wing ideology is the belief system that government knows better than people, how much something is worth paying for, or selling for.

Right-wing ideology is the belief system that people know better than politicians, how much they are willing to pay for a given item, and how much they are willing to sell a given item for.

So when you say 'person x engaged in price controls'.... it doesn't matter who that person is. Is price controls a right-wing or left-wing ideology? It's left-wing. Not right wing.

The policy determines the ideology of the person. Not the person determines the ideology of the policy.

If Ronald Reagan had engaged in price controls... that policy would still be left-wing.

Are you saying education is a left wing policy?

"education" isn't a policy. Therefore, it isn't left-wing or right-wing.

Government paid for education, is a policy. Is that right-wing or left-wing?

Left-wing is the belief that government knows better than people what they should have, and what they should pay. If government ownership and control, which providing free education would quality as ownership and control.... is that left-wing or right-wing?

It's left-wing. I'm for education.... I read books. I'm reading Lucky Dog, about the crash of Canadian health care, right now. But I determined what education I wanted, and how much it was worth me paying for it. So that 'education' is right-wing. Government schools that are producing uneducated students... that's left-wing.

But "education" in an of itself, isn't a policy that is left or right.

Land redistribution to the "poor". Well, it made the poor poorer. As I just said, it was a Nationalistic policy, not one of actual socialism or communism.

Well free-market capitalism is the bedrock of right-wing ideology... the ideology that people know best what transactions to engage in (such as land ownership).

Now is forcing people to sell land, and giving people who can't afford it free land... is that right-wing free-market capitalism? Or is that government control, which would be left-wing socialism?

So, are you telling me that Mussolini and Franco were left wing?

Yes! For heaven sakes. They were all left-wing. What do you think "national SOCIALISTS" meant? Nazis.... were socialists. All those people were left-wingers!

And by the way, other people have been saying this, long before I came to the same conclusion.

Was Fascism Right-Wing (Again)?, by Jonah Goldberg, National Review

Before the 1930s, Nazis and Fascists were all considered left-wing. It was only when they attacked the Soviets, that they magically became right-wing.

And they are only considered to be right-wing compared to Soviet and Communist left-wingers.

This is like Serena Williams going to Africa, and being told she was 'light-skinned'. Yeah, compared to some of the people there. But compared to most white skinned people, she's dark.

Communists only claimed that the Nazis were right-wing, when compared to themselves. But compared to true right-wing free-market capitalism, Nazis and Fascists are LEFT-WING.

Well, right and left is up to interpretation and not everything he does fits in with what is right wing, or left wing

...sigh.... ok. So what is your definition then.



This is my definition. It's the only definition I've found, that actually makes any logical sense.

 

[LeftofLeft]

With Sales Depressed by Soda Tax, Philly Grocers Look to Cut Jobs as Mayor Blames 'Greedy' Soda Industry

"I didn't think it was possible for the soda industry to be any greedier," Kenney said in an emailed statement to Philly.com reporter Julia Terruso. "They are so committed to stopping this tax from spreading to other cities, that they are not only passing the tax they should be paying onto their customer, they are actually willing to threaten working men and women's jobs rather than marginally reduce their seven figure bonuses."

Raise taxes on something and shocked that tax gets passed on to the customer. Democrats are fucking retards.

Increased Regulation led to the cost being passed on to the consumer which led to a decrease in demand. That was the cause.

 

[frigidweirdo]

But it's not. You don't blame what is to blame. You're blaming what you WANT to blame.

I think one group is more ignorant than the other group? Come on, you're slamming the left, then claiming it's ME that's only looking at one side. Er... contradiction.

Obama worked on hope, Trump did the same thing. There's not that much difference between the messages of Obama and Trump, and neither was ever really going to provide the hope they promised. So what? Different party, same shit. Oh, but you'll just blame the left. Right. It's wearing thin this "it's all the left's fault".

Oh yes it is. You are wrong.

And no, I completely agree that there are ignorant right-wingers. You didn't see me dispute what you said, only add to it.

I blame left-wing policies, because left-wing policies consistently fail across the world, and throughout history.

Blaming things that don't work, for causing problems, isn't partisanship... it's fact based logical thinking.

Blaming Bush, because he was in office when the sub-prime bubble burst, while ignoring the fact that the sub-prime bubble started in 1997 which Clinton was pushing sub-prime mortgages as a way to increase home ownership... is not fact based logical thinking.... that's partisanship.

Facts 'trump' opinion... pardon the pun.

Left wing policies fail, and right wing policies fail.

Zimbabwe failed didn't it? Mugabe is hardly left wing. There are plenty on the right who have failed. The Argentinian Juntas, the Chinese emperors, the Russian Emperors, how many right wing emperors failed and got taken over?

Come on dude, just saying it's all the left's fault because the left have many things that fail is clearly ignoring things so that you can make a false argument.

Oh, so the housing market problems started before Bush, but this doesn't show that Bush had 8 years to sort it out, he didn't. Reagan, Bush snr. etc could also have sorted it out, or the right wing and left wing Congresses through the times could have sorted it out, and none of them did it, right and left.

So, you keep throwing things at me saying it's the left's fault, and it's not hard to show you that it's both sides that are failing.

Huh? Mugabe was extremely left-wing. He was as left-wing as you can get.

If you want to claim that right-wing policies fail... name one.

You mention Mugabe, so here's some of his policies.

Land redistribution. Taking land from the rich and giving it to the poor. In what alternate reality is that a right-wing policy? Isn't taking from the rich, and giving to the poor a left-wing policy? Where in the concept of free-market capitalism, do you find the concept of confiscating land (or anything) by force, and giving it to people who have not earned it?

So they confiscated the land from productive farmers, and gave it to poor people who have never farmed in their lives... and shockingly year over year crop failure?

That's right-wing in your book? Compared to what? If that's right-wing, what do you call left-wing?

Price controls. Mugabe put in place price controls on food, fuel, fertilizer and other goods. Isn't that a left-wing policy of regulating prices for the benefit of the public? In what definition of free-market capitalism, do you find regulating the prices of goods for social benefit?

The result was nation wide shortages, that devastated the economy. That's right-wing in your book? In what concept of limited government, do you find nation wide price controls?

Mugabe pushed for more education and support for poor people to get business training and loans. Only to find the government run out of money, and both students left the country because of 40% unemployment rates, and even the teachers themselves left the country because they would get paid more elsewhere.

I'm sorry, but in which version of right-wing do you find tax and spend until your broke, and provide unlimited education only to have students take their free education and leave the country?

Is not all of that left-wing policies? Isn't free education left-wing? Or even the myth that education itself is a solution, left-wing? Isn't it left-wing policy that government should give money to small business? To encourage loans? To create more government programs?

This argument hinges on one thing... taking out your ideological label maker, and slapping the "right-wing" label on someone, and then saying "see their policies failed".

I look at the actual policies, and determine if those policies are right-wing, or left-wing, and then look at if they failed.

I'd be hard pressed to find a policy of Mugabe, that was right-wing. Where is it? Price controls? Minimum wage laws which increased yearly? Land reform? Education spending?

How about capital controls? The government required all companies over a certain value range, must sell a 51% stake to local Zimbabwe citizens. If not, the owners go to jail. Instead they all simply closed and left.

Is that a right-wing policy? In what universe? That's left-wing!

You tell me. Which Mugabe policy is 'right-wing'? The only right-wing policy that Mugabe ever put forward, as simply a policy to undo the damaging left-wing policy he already implemented. He tried to give the stolen farm land, back to the farmers who originally had it.

But even that isn't really right-wing, because it was only because he left-wing policy failed. Additionally, he still has all his other left-wing policies, like price controls and capital controls. Who is going to come back to Zimbabwe to get back their farm land, when price controls make it impossible to make a profit, and if they make too much money, they'll be forced to sell off a 51% stake?

Ridiculous. Mugabe is yet another perfect example of how left-wing policies always consistently, 100% of the time, fail.

No, Mugabe is one of those people who might have started out left wing, but right now there is nothing left wing about him. If he implements land reform, it's not for left wing purposes, in fact it's for similar nationalistic reasons that the Argentinian Junta went to war in the Falklands.

Let's look at your Mugabe policies.

Land redistribution to the "poor". Well, it made the poor poorer. As I just said, it was a Nationalistic policy, not one of actual socialism or communism.

You want to know in what reality it is a right wing policy, well, in the reality of someone who doesn't just label something based on the headline title, like you've just done, but from someone who actually knows what it's about.

Price control isn't a left or a right wing policy. It has been used by both sides of the extreme.

Spain Labor Relations in the Post-Franco Period - Flags, Maps, Economy, History, Climate, Natural Resources, Current Issues, International Agreements, Population, Social Statistics, Political System

Under Frano's regime there were price controls. "Price controls managed to keep inflation well below these levels, at least for a time. "

Benito Mussolini

Mussolini introduced price controls. "In 1938, he also instituted wage and price controls"

So, are you telling me that Mussolini and Franco were left wing?

Are you saying education is a left wing policy?

I'm sorry you look at things so simplistically you can't see the forest for the trees, but hey, it happens.

But then you want me to show he's right wing. Well, right and left is up to interpretation and not everything he does fits in with what is right wing, or left wing. People have said Hitler was left wing. At the end of the day it's a way of trying to explain something that is never really going to be that clear, and can even change from country to country.

You are labeling left wing as bad and right wing as good. This is clearly ridiculous as it's even impossible to really say. Within the US you can kind of do it because people will slot themselves into the assigned places on the spectrum and live up to the stereotype often. But that doesn't mean that you can go around whitewashing history and using all this stuff to make the claims you are making.

Basically what it seems to be is that if someone finds someone inconvenient for their argument, they'll simply label them left wing. Like Hitler. Some on the right find Hitler being right wing inconvenient, so they label him left wing. He wasn't, he was FAR RIGHT, and the fact that people think far right and right are in any way similar are clearly unable to get past partisan bullshittery.

Price control isn't a left or a right wing policy. It has been used by both sides of the extreme.

lol.... That statement is contradictory. Price controls, are not right-wing. The policy of price controls is inherently not right-wing... it's inherently left-wing.

It's not possible for a right-wing person, to implement price controls, because the act of putting in place price controls is contradictory to 'right-wing'.

This again is exactly what a pointed out in the prior post. The person doesn't change the ideology of the action. The action, changes the ideology of the person.

Let's say that I am the president of the World Vegan society. I am the leading Vegan in the world. There is no other person in a higher position in the world Vegan movement.

Then say that I go home, and eat a chicken. Since the new policy is eating a chicken, and I'm the leading Vegan in the world.... well I guess that means Vegan's eat chicken. Right?

No, it simply means I'm not a vegan anymore. That's what it means. The person doesn't change the ideology of the policy... the policy changes the ideology of the person.

Left-wing ideology is the belief system that government knows better than people, how much something is worth paying for, or selling for.

Right-wing ideology is the belief system that people know better than politicians, how much they are willing to pay for a given item, and how much they are willing to sell a given item for.

So when you say 'person x engaged in price controls'.... it doesn't matter who that person is. Is price controls a right-wing or left-wing ideology? It's left-wing. Not right wing.

The policy determines the ideology of the person. Not the person determines the ideology of the policy.

If Ronald Reagan had engaged in price controls... that policy would still be left-wing.

Are you saying education is a left wing policy?

"education" isn't a policy. Therefore, it isn't left-wing or right-wing.

Government paid for education, is a policy. Is that right-wing or left-wing?

Left-wing is the belief that government knows better than people what they should have, and what they should pay. If government ownership and control, which providing free education would quality as ownership and control.... is that left-wing or right-wing?

It's left-wing. I'm for education.... I read books. I'm reading Lucky Dog, about the crash of Canadian health care, right now. But I determined what education I wanted, and how much it was worth me paying for it. So that 'education' is right-wing. Government schools that are producing uneducated students... that's left-wing.

But "education" in an of itself, isn't a policy that is left or right.

Land redistribution to the "poor". Well, it made the poor poorer. As I just said, it was a Nationalistic policy, not one of actual socialism or communism.

Well free-market capitalism is the bedrock of right-wing ideology... the ideology that people know best what transactions to engage in (such as land ownership).

Now is forcing people to sell land, and giving people who can't afford it free land... is that right-wing free-market capitalism? Or is that government control, which would be left-wing socialism?

So, are you telling me that Mussolini and Franco were left wing?

Yes! For heaven sakes. They were all left-wing. What do you think "national SOCIALISTS" meant? Nazis.... were socialists. All those people were left-wingers!

And by the way, other people have been saying this, long before I came to the same conclusion.

Was Fascism Right-Wing (Again)?, by Jonah Goldberg, National Review

Before the 1930s, Nazis and Fascists were all considered left-wing. It was only when they attacked the Soviets, that they magically became right-wing.

And they are only considered to be right-wing compared to Soviet and Communist left-wingers.

This is like Serena Williams going to Africa, and being told she was 'light-skinned'. Yeah, compared to some of the people there. But compared to most white skinned people, she's dark.

Communists only claimed that the Nazis were right-wing, when compared to themselves. But compared to true right-wing free-market capitalism, Nazis and Fascists are LEFT-WING.

Well, right and left is up to interpretation and not everything he does fits in with what is right wing, or left wing

...sigh.... ok. So what is your definition then.



This is my definition. It's the only definition I've found, that actually makes any logical sense.

No, that statement is not contradictory. Who decided what was right and left wing in the first place? Do you actually know? So your argument is this. Anyone who puts in place price control is automatically left wing, simply because you decided that price control is left wing, and then you can then say that anyone who put in price control and failed proves that left wing policies don't work.

This is like dealing with someone who has so much of an agenda they're not willing to actually see things properly.

It's not possible for a right wing person to implement price controls? Oh, come off it. I'm not going to waste my energy speaking to someone who comes out with such nonsense. Really, I'm glad you didn't go down the insulting road, but this is futile.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

With Sales Depressed by Soda Tax, Philly Grocers Look to Cut Jobs as Mayor Blames 'Greedy' Soda Industry

"I didn't think it was possible for the soda industry to be any greedier," Kenney said in an emailed statement to Philly.com reporter Julia Terruso. "They are so committed to stopping this tax from spreading to other cities, that they are not only passing the tax they should be paying onto their customer, they are actually willing to threaten working men and women's jobs rather than marginally reduce their seven figure bonuses."

Raise taxes on something and shocked that tax gets passed on to the customer. Democrats are fucking retards.

Did you see the hilarious tweet that politician made? That is hysterical.

View attachment 114100

I had this mental image of people jumping off a cliff, and some Democrat screaming that gravity is greedy for killing off his constituency.

So.... what's stupid about it, exactly?

Pretending that consumers wouldn't know that a politician trying to hide a tax on them by placing it on a product they consume would not be figured out.

 

[Avatar4321]

With Sales Depressed by Soda Tax, Philly Grocers Look to Cut Jobs as Mayor Blames 'Greedy' Soda Industry

"I didn't think it was possible for the soda industry to be any greedier," Kenney said in an emailed statement to Philly.com reporter Julia Terruso. "They are so committed to stopping this tax from spreading to other cities, that they are not only passing the tax they should be paying onto their customer, they are actually willing to threaten working men and women's jobs rather than marginally reduce their seven figure bonuses."

Raise taxes on something and shocked that tax gets passed on to the customer. Democrats are fucking retards.

You would think after centuries of the same thing happening, people would learn