55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jul, 2008 10:12 pm
Bullshit, Okie. You and the rest of these clowns are pathological prevaricators.

Quote:


McClellan: White House gave FOX commentators talking points

This just in from the Department of the Obvious: Scott McClellan admits to Chris Matthews that the White House made a deliberate effort to use FOX News commentators like Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly to disseminate White House talking points.

Matthews: "Did you see FOX television as a tool when you were in the White House? As a useful avenue to get your message out?"

McClellan: "I make a distinction between the journalists and the commentators. Certainly there were commentators and other, pundits at FOX News, that were useful to the White House." […] That was something we at the White House, yes, were doing, getting them talkng points and making sure they knew where we were coming from.

Matthews: "So you were using these commentators as your spokespeople."

McClellan: "Well, certainly."

Straight from the source. Enough with the "fair and balanced" crap already.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/

0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Reply Fri 25 Jul, 2008 10:42 pm
Every whitehouse gives everyone in the media their policy points, talking points. Get a life, JTT.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jul, 2008 10:46 pm
okie wrote:
Every whitehouse gives everyone in the media their policy points, talking points. Get a life, JTT.


Delusional pathological prevaricators at that.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jul, 2008 04:35 pm
Quote:


PAUL B. FARRELL
11 reasons America's a new socialist economy
How free market ideology backfired, sabotaging capitalistic democracy


ARROYO GRANDE, Calif. (MarketWatch) -- Welcome to the conservative's worst nightmare: The law of unintended consequences. Why? Nobody wants to admit it, folks, but the conservatives' grand ideology is backfiring, actually turning the world's greatest capitalistic democracy into the world's newest socialist economy.

A little history: The core principles of conservative economic ideology are grounded in Nobel economist Milton Friedman's 1962 classic "Capitalism and Freedom." Too late to stop President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, those principles became the battle cries energizing conservatives since Reagan: Unrestricted free markets, free enterprise and free trade; deregulation, privatization and globalization; trickle-down economics and trickle-up wealth to an elite plutocracy destined to rule the new American capitalist utopia.

So what happened? Are you guys nuts? Hey, I'm talking to all you blind Beltway politicians (in both parties) ... plus the Old Boys Club running Wall Street (into the ground) ... plus all you fat-cat CEOs (with megamillion parachutes) ... and all your buddies scamming everybody else to get on the Forbes 400. You are proof of Lord Acton's warning: "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

It's backfiring! You folks turned our America from a great capitalistic democracy into a meddling socialist economy. Still you don't get it. You're acting like teen addicts tripping on an overdose of "greed-is-good" testosterone while your caricature of conservative economics would at best make a one-line joke on Jay Leno.

Here are 11 reasons your manipulations are sabotaging the great principles of leaders like Friedman and Reagan:

...

11 reasons America's a new socialist economy

0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jul, 2008 07:37 pm
Quote:

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/eleven-reasons-america-new-top/story.aspx?guid={D23E1901-728E-4A3C-99D1-7E80F74C3AE3}
Here are 11 reasons [alleged conservative] manipulations are sabotaging the great principles of leaders like Friedman and Reagan:

1. Dumber than a fifth grader with cognitive dissonance
Kids know what it means. They know most adults today can't see past the end of their noses. Liberals tune out candidate McBush for being lost in the past. Conservatives can't hear Obama without seeing that turban.
Cognitive dissonance simply means most brains cannot see past their own narrow ideologies. They dismiss any data that contradicts their old ideologies. Whether you're a conservative Republican or liberal Democrat, you only hear what you already know is "true." All else is tuned out.

2. Where did all the leaders go with their moral character?
Friedman's economics requires leaders of moral character. Did it run into Lord Acton's warning: "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely?" Former Ford and Chrysler CEO Lee Iacocca said yes in "Where Have All the Leaders Gone?"
Friedman's great conservative principles have been commandeered by myopic ideologues whose idea of leadership is balancing the demands of self-interest lobbyists with the need for campaign donations. Unfortunately, a new "change" president won't be enough; there are 537 elected officials in Washington controlled by 42,000 special interest lobbyists.

3. Fed and U.S. Treasury adopted Enron accounting tricks
Bad news: Enron failed several years ago because of its off-balance-sheet accounting scam. The Fed's doing the same thing: Dumping Bear's $30 billion liabilities onto the taxpayer's "balance sheet." Next Treasury proposes adding $5.3 trillion more from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Unfortunately clever accounting tricks by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke aren't going to fool foreign lenders analyzing America's creditworthiness. Worse-case scenario: U.S. Treasury bills with less than a triple-A rating.
With 90 banks on the brink and already too many bail-outs, our so-called leaders are running out of magic bullets. So now the taxpayer's "balance sheet" has become the all-purpose "dumping ground" and it's overcrowding fast as our leaders raise the white flag of socialism.

4. Deregulation creating new socialist housing system
Back in 1999 a Democratic president and Republican Congress were in love with a fantasy called the "new economics." Enthusiastic lobbyists invented the brilliant idea of dismantling the wall between commercial and investment banking: They killed the Glass-Steagall Act that was keeping the sleazy hands of short-term hustlers out of the pockets of long-term lenders.
Flash forward: We lost 85-year-old Bear Sterns and $32 billion IndyMac. Lehman's iffy. And 90 banks. With the virtual takeover of Freddie and Fanny, Wall Street's grand experiment with free-market ideology is backfiring, having socialized the housing market. They have nobody to blame but their self-centered greed.

5. Trade deficits outsourced more of America's wealth than jobs
One look at Forbes lists of fat cats and you know the 21st Century doesn't just belong to Asia, it belongs to everyone but America. Why? Once again, remember Warren Buffett's famous "Farmer's Story" in Fortune: "We were taught in Economics 101 that countries could not for long sustain large, ever-growing trade deficits ... our country has been behaving like an extraordinarily rich family that possesses an immense farm. In order to consume 4% more than they produce -- that's the trade deficit -- we have, day by day, been both selling pieces of the farm and increasing the mortgage on what we still own."
Friedman was right: Congressional spending is the biggest cause of inflation, and, wow, those conservatives sure did love blank-check deficit spending the past eight years!

6. Banking system in meltdown, minting penny stocks
The Friedman conservatives apparently understand Joseph Schumpeter's "creative destruction." Yet, our free-market ideologues can't seem to accept that America is now on the "destructive" downside leg of the cycle, in the economy, markets, trade, politics and, yes, sadly, even with their conservative ideology.
You don't have to be smarter than a fifth grader to figure out that our leaders are clueless about the reality of our crumbling banking system, with many banks trading as penny stocks, while the Fed still panders to conservative pre-election politics rather than getting serious about inflation.

7. Ideologues preach savings, but still push spending
A core principle of conservatism is frugality, saving for the future. Grandparents raised me, struggled during the Depression, passed on strong ideals.
Somewhere over the past generation conservatives forget frugality. This distortion peaked in 2003 when consumers were told to spend, not sacrifice, and fuel the economy even as government spent excessively on war. That was a clear breach of every conservative leader's position in earlier wars.
As a result, in one brief generation, as the power of conservative ideologues grew, America's savings rate dropped precipitously from 11% in 1980 to less than zero today.

8. Warning, the market's under 2000 peak, losing money
Imagine you're on Jeff Foxworthy's fabulous show competing to see if you really are smarter than a fifth grader. Question: "If you put $10,000 in the market in March of 2000 when the Dow peaked at 11,722, how much money would you have today if the market's 10% under 11,722?" So you guess $9,000.
But then two fifth graders raise their hands: One asks if the CPI inflation rate should be considered? If so, maybe $5,000 is closer to the right answer. The other kid wants to know if you're buying stuff in Chicago or Singapore.
The truth is, the best answer for most adults is: "You've lost a hell of a lot of money in the market under the grand conservative ideology the past eight years."

9. Inflation and dollars: Is Zimbabwe the new model for the U.S.?
The Los Angeles Times ran a photo of a Zimbabwe $500 million bank note, worth $20 at noon, less at dinner. Why? Inflation's there is running 32 million (yes million!) percent annually. The German company printing their banknotes finally cut them off.
Things may be worse in America, psychologically. Our ideological obsession with "growth" is not working because there is too much collateral damage, namely inflation. Our dollar has lost substantial value to the euro because our dysfunctional leaders are convinced that a trade policy funded by debt makes sense.
Now we owe China $1.3 trillion, sovereign funds want equity not cheap dollar IOUs, and still our clueless Treasury and the Fed continue debasing our currency, printing money like Zimbabwe.

10. Free-market health care failing 47,000,000 Americans
Big Pharma loves free-market conservatism and no-compete Medicare drug programs. Nobody else is happy. Taxpayers get stuck with the bill.
"The Coming Generational Storm" tells us that without massive reforms and big lifestyle changes for taxpayers (especially retirees), within a couple short decades America's entitlement programs will eat up the entire federal budget. Medicare is the biggest cost item in your future, over $50 trillion in unfunded liabilities.
Conservative ideologues naively believe the answer is more pay-out-of-pocket insurance plans, even with 47 million already uninsured because they can't pay. Here as in so many areas of our economy, free-market junkies really are suffering a severe case of cognitive dissonance, as blind to the facts about the uninsured as they are to their outdated free-market fantasies.

11. Conservative free-market policies inflated oil 300%!
Yep, oil inflated 300% in eight short years under the "leadership of two oil men." But, you can't blame them. We put the foxes in the henhouse, knowing full well "real" oil men love digging holes on the supply side, supporting ethanol subsidies and blaming speculators -- it's in their genes! Talk about cognitive dissonance; real oil men thrive on cowboy images of Marlboro Men in Hummers, Navigators and F-150 trucks.
Net result? Another perfect example of "creative destruction" in action as conservative ideology meets "law of unintended consequences," driving GM, the symbol of America capitalism, closer to bankruptcy ... while turning America into a socialist economy.


All this crap was done by those calling themselves "neo-conservatives." There is nothing conservative about them. They are frauds masquerading as conservatives.

A real conservatives wants to rescue and then save our Constitutional Republic.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jul, 2008 07:44 pm
ican711nm wrote:

All this crap was done by those calling themselves "neo-conservatives." There is nothing conservative about them. They are frauds masquerading as conservatives.

A real conservatives wants to rescue and then save our Constitutional Republic.


And who did you vote for, twice?
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jul, 2008 08:33 pm
Who did you vote for okie?

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jul, 2008 02:12 am
Fundamentally we can reduce conservatism vs liberalism to this:

One side believes that change is dangerous while the other believes it is good.

Obviously there are gradations around these absolutes.

It doesn't take a genius to recognize that some change is good and some is bad, and yet we have two political movements that, ostensibly, formulate around these principles.

How much easier would it be if these two movements recognized and adhered to the absolute expression of their essence?

Not so much as nothing would ever get done without one school of thought utterly conquering the other.

In reality, the fundamental precepts of conservatism and liberalism have very little to do with the dogma of Conservatism and Liberalism.

What fools these mortals be.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jul, 2008 05:45 pm
JTT wrote:
ican711nm wrote:

All this crap was done by those calling themselves "neo-conservatives." There is nothing conservative about them. They are frauds masquerading as conservatives.

A real conservatives wants to rescue and then secure our Constitutional Republic.


And who did you vote for, twice?

I've already answered this question more than once.

I decided that Gore was more incompetent than Bush, so I voted for Bush.

I decided that Kerry was more incompetent than Bush, so I voted for Bush.

I've decided that Obama is more incompetent than McCain, so I shall vote for McCain.

In the case of Obama I've decided there is one more consideration. Obama as president will attempt to nationalize the USA oil industry and thereby cause rapid final destruction of our Constitutional Republic. I am opposed to the nationalization of any of our industries for two reasons. First, governments that permit nationalization of any of their industries eventually collapse into socialist or fascist tyrannies. Second, socialism and fascism promote violation of the 6th, 8th, 9th, and 10th commandments:

Quote:
Exodus, Chapter 20.
Thou shalt not commit murder.
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house; thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his man servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbour's.
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  0  
Reply Sun 27 Jul, 2008 05:48 pm
Bush administration has already practically wrecked relations with Russia by insisting on adding the Eastern European countries to NATO and siting his anti-missile system in the Czech Republic and in Poland. The Russians are right that it represents a threat to their security.

President Bush's lame excuse that the system is designed to protect Europe from Iranian missiles is no doubt another deliberate lie. I can't think of any reason whatsoever for Iran to attack Europe, and I'm sure the Iranians can't, either. Iran hasn't attacked anybody for more than 100 years. They would have absolutely nothing to gain by firing a few missiles at Europe. It doesn't make any sense at all.

Nor does it make any sense to add the small countries of Eastern Europe to NATO. This was a war-fighting alliance set up at the end of World War II specifically to deter and, if necessary, go to war with the Red Army. The Soviet Union set up its own alliance, the Warsaw Pact.

When the Soviet Union collapsed, Russia withdrew its army from Eastern Europe and dissolved the Warsaw Pact. The United States should have dissolved NATO. Its sole purpose vanished with the Soviet Union. It has no enemy, unless fools in the U.S. create one. The American politicians have used it in the Yugoslavian Civil War, and now has it involved in the Afghanistan insurgency. Why the Europeans put up with this nonsense is beyond me.

http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=13200
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jul, 2008 06:47 pm
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Fundamentally we can reduce conservatism vs liberalism to this:

One side believes that change is dangerous while the other believes it is good.

Obviously there are gradations around these absolutes.

It doesn't take a genius to recognize that some change is good and some is bad, and yet we have two political movements that, ostensibly, formulate around these principles.

How much easier would it be if these two movements recognized and adhered to the absolute expression of their essence?

Not so much as nothing would ever get done without one school of thought utterly conquering the other.

In reality, the fundamental precepts of conservatism and liberalism have very little to do with the dogma of Conservatism and Liberalism.

What fools these mortals be.

You wrote:
"One side believes that change is dangerous while the other believes it is good."

The stereotypical characterizations of conservatives and liberals is probably correct for some conservatives and some liberals, but not all conservatives and not all liberals. There are conservatives that are passionate for change to the status quo, while there are others opposed to any change to the status quo. There are liberals passionate for change to the status quo, while there are others opposed to any change to the status quo.

Among my acquaintenances all are passionately opposed to the current drift of America away from strict adherence to the Constitution, as amended and as written, and as the "supreme law of the land." They view the status quo today as a rapid drift away from such strict adherence. They anticipate that if this trend is not stopped our Constitutional Republic is doomed. They want our Constitutional Republic restored and then secured.

Their and my position conforms to the following:
Quote:
Lord Woodhouselee, circa 1778

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average of the world's greatest civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, and from dependency back to bondage."
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Reply Sun 27 Jul, 2008 11:57 pm
ican711nm wrote:

Their and my position conforms to the following:
Quote:
Lord Woodhouselee, circa 1778

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average of the world's greatest civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, and from dependency back to bondage."

If only we would have honest elected officials that actually upheld the constitution as they swear to do, and if only the unconstitutional government programs were declared unconstitutional, as they are, then we might have a chance.

As it is, we now see hoards of people, mostly young people chomping at the bit to vote for Obama, because they visualize dollar signs rolling into their pocket books, finally to right all the wrongs, which to them is to take all the money from the well to do or who they consider to be rich and give it to them. Social and economic justice is their battle cry.

How many countries have been run into the ground by folks bent on social and economic justice, as they see it, or fairness.

I have news for them, life isn't fair, and to make a success, you need to study, get educated, and or go to work every day, and don't blow it on lottery tickets and sit on your behind and whine each and every day.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jul, 2008 01:04 pm
okie - You talk about things as if you aren't a contributor to what you condemn. I've heard you now say that you voted for republicans in the last two elections and now again in the upcoming because you thought them to be the least incompetent, not because you liked them. This is intellectual cowardice. You had third party options you could have voted for that would have better matched your ideals, but you seem to put a higher premium on voting for victory over your own beliefs.

Then you complain about it. You're really in no place to point fingers. Why not vote for Barr? What's your beef with him? Is he incompetent? It seems your voting record reflects a high premium on who is least incompetent. Is he more or less competent than McCain? Give me your reasons why yes or no.

You characterize Obama's supporters as being "mostly young." While many young voters certainly agree with Obama, it's not as if this is the only demographic that supports him. Formal Fallacy. Why target young voters? You think that identifying them as young means that your stance comes with a greater authority? It doesn't work that way.

Speaking of demographics, isn't it you who claim democrats see people in groups as opposed to individuals? Aren't you grouping people in your attack of Obama's supporters? Tell me what's the difference? I reject the notion that conservatives have some superior perspective on looking at people.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jul, 2008 02:34 pm
I think Barr is less incompetent than Obama, but more incompetent than McCain. I think think the rest of the other candidates are more incompetent than Obama.

So yes I vote for the least incompetent candidate rather than not vote at all. I think that is in all our best interests--short and long term.



By the way, I think we are all incompetent--some more than others.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jul, 2008 02:45 pm
ican711nm wrote:
I think Barr is less incompetent than Obama, but more incompetent than McCain. I think think the rest of the other candidates are more incompetent than Obama.


Are you just saying this, or is there any substance to this belief? Tell me why you think this. What are you basing this on?

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jul, 2008 03:41 pm
I am basing it on the content of Barr's speeches.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jul, 2008 03:48 pm
Like what?

What has he said? What makes him incompetent?

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Mon 28 Jul, 2008 04:12 pm
Diest TKO wrote:
Like what?

What has he said? What makes him incompetent?

T
K
O

http://youtube.com/results?search_query=bobbarr&search=tag

I will not do anymore of your research for you!
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  2  
Reply Mon 28 Jul, 2008 04:23 pm
I'm not asking you for research. I'm asking you to back up your statement. If you don't know anything about Barr, then it hardly seems genuine to say he is incompetent.

Since you can't seem to articulate how exactly why you feel this way about him in reference to McCain, I think you're just playing the partisan republican party line.

I bet you'd rather vote for someone with a chance of winning over someone who actually represents what you CLAIM to believe in.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Mon 28 Jul, 2008 05:08 pm
You are asking me for research, when you ask me to back up my statement. How else can I provide you evidence except by research of and excerpts from Barr's actual statements. I gave a link to those statements, but you want me to research them and excerpt them for you.

My statement:
I think Barr is less incompetent than Obama, but more incompetent than McCain. I think the rest of the other candidates are more incompetent than Obama.

Your statement:
I bet you'd rather vote for someone with a chance of winning over someone who actually represents what you CLAIM to believe in.

What is your evidence that Barr actually represents better than McCain what I CLAIM to believe in?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 09/21/2024 at 02:37:30