Why Does the Right Embrace Ignorance as a Virtue?

[whitehall]

You almost gotta laugh. A couple of decades ago the ignorant left considered it a virtue to question authority and now they post large print junk to reinforce their new belief that it is a sin against nature to question authority.

 

[daveman]

The purpose envisioned by the FF was appropriate for the times. But they clearly understood that things would change in the future in a way that they could not foresee.

At the time of signing the Constitution the total population was 4 million. Today the military has 2.3 million (including reserves). Overall the government of today (federal, state and local) employs about 22 million people out of a population of 315 million. This averages to 7.3% of the population over the last 5 presidents. For the record under Obama it is only 6.9%.

The Growth Of Government: 1980 To 2012 - Forbes

Big government" is actually not that big in real terms when you consider that the FF never envisioned a standing army capable of striking anywhere in the world at a moment's notice. They never foresaw a network of space satellites making it possible to know exactly where you are to within a couple of yards. They never anticipated a global internet that allows you and I to have this debate even though we have never met in person.

But if we look closer at the things that the FF's actually did we discover that they passed a law to register all guns. They implemented mandatory health insurance for sailors (including a payroll tax) with government run hospitals. They built libraries and encouraged education.

So to answer your question the FF's did sow the seeds for the government we have today and in real terms it isn't all that big. If you want to reduce it then you have to come up with a realistic alternative to the military, police, customs, parks, roads, etc, etc that we have today.

Can you do that?

All Constitutionally-mandated government functions could stand to be trimmed -- some more than others.

All the non-Constitutionally-mandated government functions could stand to be eliminated.

So are you willing to trim the military by 50%?

Not by that much. Certainly the procurement system needs to be overhauled. Assets the Pentagon says they don't need are rammed through by Congress anyway, giving huge money to defense contractors. More base closures could probably be done. Scale back our overseas presence in places.

Let's turn to these "non-Constitutionally-mandated government functions" that you want to eliminate.
Are you willing to eliminate social security, medicare and medicaid since they none of those are "Constitutionally-mandated government functions"?

Eliminate them? No. That toothpaste has been squeezed; no way to get it back in the tube. The bureaucracy running them could definitely be reworked into something more efficient. But the very second anyone suggests making better use of our tax dollars, some idiots start claiming that we want to push Grandma over a cliff.

The purpose of government is not to employ middle managers. A lot of people just don't grasp that.

Here's a list of government waste, totaling $36,986,404,949.

Can you defend any of that as necessary?

Oh, and one thing I'd cut immediately: End ALL foreign aid to nations that hate us.

 

[daveman]

The purpose envisioned by the FF was appropriate for the times. But they clearly understood that things would change in the future in a way that they could not foresee.

At the time of signing the Constitution the total population was 4 million. Today the military has 2.3 million (including reserves). Overall the government of today (federal, state and local) employs about 22 million people out of a population of 315 million. This averages to 7.3% of the population over the last 5 presidents. For the record under Obama it is only 6.9%.

The Growth Of Government: 1980 To 2012 - Forbes

Big government" is actually not that big in real terms when you consider that the FF never envisioned a standing army capable of striking anywhere in the world at a moment's notice. They never foresaw a network of space satellites making it possible to know exactly where you are to within a couple of yards. They never anticipated a global internet that allows you and I to have this debate even though we have never met in person.

But if we look closer at the things that the FF's actually did we discover that they passed a law to register all guns. They implemented mandatory health insurance for sailors (including a payroll tax) with government run hospitals. They built libraries and encouraged education.

So to answer your question the FF's did sow the seeds for the government we have today and in real terms it isn't all that big. If you want to reduce it then you have to come up with a realistic alternative to the military, police, customs, parks, roads, etc, etc that we have today.

Can you do that?

All Constitutionally-mandated government functions could stand to be trimmed -- some more than others.

All the non-Constitutionally-mandated government functions could stand to be eliminated.

Weird, You'd think conservatives would have SCOTUS throw out those 'non constitutional' programs?

You wouldn't think at all.

 

[daveman]

Sure it has. The US Founders were BY FARRRR the most educated AND radical of their times. Know who stood with King George in 1776? The conservatives, Torrie's

Tell me something bad liberals have done.

You PLEASE tell me what policy conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history since the US Founding? Just one, PLEASE?

Civil Rights. Leave your bullshit historical revision at the door, please. Not interested.

Now tell me something bad liberals have done.

I don't think you'll have an answer.

 

[daveman]

Weird? Care to point to Dems laws passed 2007-2009 that caused Dubya/GOP great recession? PLEASE?


Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse

That's true...well, it would be, if it wasn't completely false.

BARNEY FRANK? Minority member of the GOP House 1995-2007? What super powers did he have again?


WHAT were the Dems saying (CONTEXT) and WHEN?

The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets OCT 2008


DUBYA FOUGHT ALL 50 STATE AG'S IN 2003, INVOKING A CIVIL WAR ERA RULE SAYING FEDS RULE ON "PREDATORY" LENDERS!

Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources. Later in 2004 Dubya allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 33-1 which flooded the market with cheap money!

Bush drive for home ownership fueled housing bubble


He insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac meet ambitious new goals for low-income lending.

Concerned that down payments were a barrier, Bush persuaded Congress to spend as much as $200 million a year to help first-time buyers with down payments and closing costs.

And he pushed to allow first-time buyers to qualify for government insured mortgages with no money down



Thanks again to the Bush administrations allowing the greedy & unethical brokers to operate at their will.

Yes, you've proven several times you're unable to think for yourself. No need to keep telling us.

 

[daveman]

(Re-)Introducing: The American School of Economics


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


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

protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)

government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)

a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation


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

American School of Economics


American School (economics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Solyndra accounts for less than 2% of the DOE's successful Loan Program

Despite what critics say, the DoE’s guaranteed loan program is a successful program. The default rate for the loan portfolio is less than 4%. By comparison, the loan default rate for the Small Business Administration is nearly 12%, three times as high as the DoE’s loan program.

Secretary Chu also clarified that the actual cost to the taxpayer of DoE's loan program will be roughly $2.5 billion, which is the actual amount appropriated to the program, and not the $38.6 billion that is often cited. Considering the program has created over 60,000 jobs, it cost taxpayers roughly $42,000 per job created


Solyndra accounts for less than 2% of the DOE's successful Loan Program


Reuters: Venture Capitalists Point To Solyndra As One Of The Top 10 Companies "Ripest" To Go Public. Reuters reported in August 2009:
Investors eye top startups as IPO market awakens - Aug. 19, 2009


Market Conditions Shifted Significantly from 2009 to 2011


"advantages that were more important in 2009 when it received a $535 million U.S. loan guarantee to build a factory" than they are now, noting that the price of the silicon-based panels with which Solyndra was competing "has fallen 46 percent since then."
Obama?s Solar Bets May Avoid Solyndra?s Fate With Low Costs - Bloomberg

Up to 50 Obama-backed energy companies financially troubled | The Daily Caller

Obama picked companies not for their potential success, but by how much the owners contributed to his campaign.

Democrats believe the Treasury's purpose is to let them give money to cronies.

TROUBLED? LOL

LESS THAN 4% OF DOE BUDGET DEFAULTED, MUCH BETTER THAN PRIVATE MARKETS



Bush Admin. Advanced16 Projects, Including Solyndra, Out Of 143 Submissions
Hearings and Votes | Energy & Commerce Committee

DOE Under Bush Admin. Set Out Timeline For Completing Solyndra Review
http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/Solar Background Document 1.pdf

In March, The Same Credit Committee Of Career Civil Servants recommended Approval
Exclusive Timeline: Bush Administration Advanced Solyndra Loan Guarantee for Two Years, Media Blow the Story | ThinkProgress

DOE Official: "It's The Same Group Of Career Professionals That Were On The First Committee."
Hearings and Votes | Energy & Commerce Committee



NEXT

Bush Admin. Voted AGAINST Solyndra Loan - Fox Nation

The results of the Congressional probe shared Tuesday with ABC News show that less than two weeks before President Bush left office, on January 9, 2009, the Energy Department's credit committee had voted against offering a loan commitment to Solyndra.

Even after Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009, analysts in the Energy Department and in the Office of Management and Budget were repeatedly questioning the wisdom of the loan. In one exchange, an Energy official wrote of "a major outstanding issue" -- namely, that Solyndra's numbers showed it would run out of cash in September 2011.

There was also concern about the high-risk nature of the project. Internally, the Office of Management and Budget wrote that "the risk rating for the project sponsor [Solyndra] … seems high." Outside analysts had warned for months that the company might not be a sound investment.

Peter Lynch, a New York-based solar energy analyst, told ABC News it took only a cursory glance through Solyndra's prospectus to see there was a problem with their numbers.

"It's very difficult to perceive a company with a model that says, well, I can build something for six dollars and sell it for three dollars," Lynch said. "Those numbers don't generally work. You don't want to lose three dollars for every unit you make."​

Obama made the loan...or more accurate, gift...not because he thought it was a good investment.

No, it was purely political payback.

As TheDC previously reported, Solyndra officials, including Kaiser himself, donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to Barack Obama.

Kaiser personally donated $53,500 to Obama’s presidential campaign in 2008. Ben Bierman, executive vice president of operations donated $5,500 to Obama, and Karen Alter, senior vice president of marketing gave $23,000, just to name a few.

In 2009, Solyndra secured a $535 million loan guarantee from the U.S. Treasury to produce solar panels. But on August 31, 2011, the company shut its doors and announced its intent to file for bankruptcy.​

Naturally, you will refuse to accept this reality.

 

[daveman]

Article I of the Constitution sets forth most of the powers of Congress, which include numerous explicit powers enumerated in Section 8. Constitutional amendments have granted Congress additional powers. Congress also has implied powers derived from the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution.

Yes it does, drooling little sycophant.

Of course none of this has a damned thing to do with your ignorant claim that the Constitution places limits on the people.

Hatred and stupidity are the twin pillars of leftism, which you exemplify so well, Cletus.

Care to give that quote? PLEASE?



I never meant to say that the conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.

John Stuart Mill, in a letter to the Conservative MP, John Pakington

You have no business calling anyone else stupid.

 

[daveman]

The one YOU gave that said I was wrong to reply how ignorant conservatives are too the REAL meaning of the US Constitution!

Now see, this one sounds more like you're sloppy drunk, rather than tripped out on LSD.

Hey, you dropped acid AND downed a fifth of gin, is that it?

Like nearly all Khmer Rouge democrats, you've never read the Constitution and depend on the leftist hate sites for misinterpretations.

The "real" meaning of the Constitution is precisely what it says, you ignorant baboon.

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION - We the People

Good, glad you know how to link, now about the meaning of that STRONG FEDERAL CONSTITUTION?

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE , and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

And there it is. Liberals hear the word "welfare", and get in line to get money taken from people who earned it.

Dumbass.

 

[daveman]

the question should be why does the left think they have a right to push off their hate and ignorance on everyone in this country?

and I really think they believe it's one of their better virtues...because they damn sure have no honor, civility, tolerance and for sure NO shame


and you can take this thread as the perfect example

Right? Hell, they think they have an obligation!

 

[daveman]

The purpose envisioned by the FF was appropriate for the times. But they clearly understood that things would change in the future in a way that they could not foresee.

At the time of signing the Constitution the total population was 4 million. Today the military has 2.3 million (including reserves). Overall the government of today (federal, state and local) employs about 22 million people out of a population of 315 million. This averages to 7.3% of the population over the last 5 presidents. For the record under Obama it is only 6.9%.

The Growth Of Government: 1980 To 2012 - Forbes

Big government" is actually not that big in real terms when you consider that the FF never envisioned a standing army capable of striking anywhere in the world at a moment's notice. They never foresaw a network of space satellites making it possible to know exactly where you are to within a couple of yards. They never anticipated a global internet that allows you and I to have this debate even though we have never met in person.

But if we look closer at the things that the FF's actually did we discover that they passed a law to register all guns. They implemented mandatory health insurance for sailors (including a payroll tax) with government run hospitals. They built libraries and encouraged education.

So to answer your question the FF's did sow the seeds for the government we have today and in real terms it isn't all that big. If you want to reduce it then you have to come up with a realistic alternative to the military, police, customs, parks, roads, etc, etc that we have today.

Can you do that?

I've given my ideas before, but I'm not sure why you're asking me to totally redesign the government.

The poster isn't, just pointing out right wingers OPINIONS on what the Founder wanted or not, are generally based on what right wingers base their opinions on, IDEOLOGY over history or facts!

That's nice. Run along now.

 

[itfitzme]

I found a great article that casts some light on the puzzling, reality-denying, seemingly insane behavior of so many of the rightwingnut AGW denier cultists who post on this forum. It could have been written with them in mind. It perfectly describes their rejection of science and evidence, as well as logic and rationality, in the service of their political/economic ideologies.

Why Does the Right Embrace Ignorance as a Virtue?
Dxismissing facts and science has become a staple of conservative ideology.
AlterNet
By Amanda Marcotte
June 11, 2014
(excerpts)
Spouting off about stuff you know nothing about is traditionally considered unwise. But as the Republican war on science intensifies, ignorance has started to become not only less of a handicap, but a point of pride. In the face of expertise and facts, being belligerently ignorant—and offended that anyone dare suggest ignorance is less desirable than knowledge—has become the go-to position for many conservative politicians and pundits. Sadly, it’s a strategy that’s working, making it harder every day for liberals to argue the value of evidence and reason over wishful thinking and unblinking prejudice. ... But for modern Republicans, being downright proud of their ignorance has become a badge of honor, a way to demonstrate loyalty to the right-wing cause while also sticking it to those liberal pinheads who think there’s some kind of value in knowing what they're talking about before offering an opinion.

The thing is, shameless lying and ignorance work surprisingly well as debate tactics. It’s hard to argue with someone who not only has signaled that he doesn’t care what the truth is but is downright proud of how little he actually knows. Such a person is not amenable to being educated. Once the pretense of really caring one way or another about what is right and what is wrong has been abandoned, all avenue of discourse is shut down. The problem here is that someone who is not only so catastrophically wrong but downright proud of being an ignoramus is not going to actually bother to listen to an explanation like that. That’s why the wall of ignorance is such a powerful rhetorical tool. When you have nothing but contempt for the facts, attempts to educate you will only make your pride in your own ignorance grow stronger. The more you try to educate the proudly ignorant, the dumber they get. At the end of the day, the problem is one of identity. The conservative identity is one of being opposed to everything liberal, to the point of despising anything even associated with liberalism. As liberalism has increasingly been aligned with the values of empiricism and reason, the incentives for conservatives to reject empiricism and reason multiply. To be a “conservative” increasingly means taking a contemptuous view of reality. And so the proudly ignorant grow more belligerent, day after day.

Because it feels so good. You know, that look that you see in a toddlers eyes as they shit in their diaper, forgetting that they had a painful rash just yesterday.

 

[S.J.]

You almost gotta laugh. A couple of decades ago the ignorant left considered it a virtue to question authority and now they post large print junk to reinforce their new belief that it is a sin against nature to question authority.

Or a federal offense.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

By rejecting reality and science you can stir people up convincing themselves their petty issues and concerns have merit. If you conceed God isn't going to prevent a big huge rock from hitting the planet wiping us ALL out because we're "special" then issues like whether gays can marry or not become rather trivial.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Conservatives, since they were loyalists standing with King George in 1776, have a LONG history of being on the wrong side of history

BWAHAHAHAHA

What a drooling fucktard you are.

They were the slavers, the confederates, isolationists during both WW's, fought union rights, labor laws, woman's and civil rights, environmental laws, SS, Medicare, etc

Of course they were, stupid fuck. Those democrats like you...

 

[Uncensored2008]

Weird, Madison wanted a STRONG federtal Gov't right? The federalist won right?

No stupid, the Federalists and anti-Federalists compromised; which is much of the reason we have a Bill of Rights - that you democrats work so hard to end.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Leftist did that?
Weird



That Time Ronald Reagan Hosted Those 'Freedom Fighters' At The Oval Office

Those 'freedom fighters' (Mujahideen) turned into the Taliban...HMM

No, they didn't - you mindless monkey.

Look, you're stupid - you have the intellect of a lamppost. You fling shit from the hate sites with no grasp of what it means.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kjpnfDwWd7Y]Fidel Castro Interview on Ed Sullivan - 1959 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Uncensored2008]

Shame on Reagan for not being able to foresee the future.

Leftists lie.

I cut the feral baboon some slack because he is not evolved enough to have thoughts. He's just a monkey flinging shit on behalf of his masters.

The Mujahideen were mostly the mountain people from Northern Afghanistan, who were the "Northern Alliance" that worked with America during the invasion.

The Taliban, which arose under Clinton's administration, is made up mostly of Pashtuns, from the Southern portion of the country and from Pakistan. The Taliban has always been controlled by Pakistan.

The monkey doesn't know this, nor does it care. It is trained by it's masters to fling shit, as a feral baboon is apt to do...