Poll: Liberals, Democrats flunk Economics 101

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by guohua

 

Stopped reading at "Source: MichaelSavage.com"

Really?

I've only been on ATS a short time but every post you make seems really synnical anytime someone says something bad about Democrats. In this post you do a great job of judging a book by the cover and not looking over the content. Have you always been such a closed-minded individual to not even hear out what others have to say before you judge?

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Bush was a liberal.

Conservatives don't start two wars and expand government to three times its size.

Ah...I see...Bush wasn't a true scotsman.

Glad we cleared that up.

Conservatives don't expand government, they contract it.

They contract it back to its constitutional boundaries, hence the term "conservative" - to conserve that which is good while eliminating that which is bad.

Bush, by any definition, was not a conservative.

He was an expansionist totalitarian freak that played a major role in the destruction of our nation.

Obama has continued on with Bush's policies, barely changing anything. He kept the same criminal defense secretary and has put bankers and lobbyists in charge of all important positions within his administration, including the CIA, which is now run by the Chairman of the NYSE.

The treasury is run by a former Goldman Sachs crony, and the Deputy Treasury Secatary himself was a former Goldman executive.

The tarp bailouts were administered by former Goldman executives, and the head of the NY Fed (which actually runs everything) is also a Goldman executive.

The entire system of finance is controlled by commercial bankers.

The entire defense department is controlled by war profiteers.

I can warn you about what is coming, and you are free to mock me or pass blame on to Bush, Reagan, Eisenhower, or whoever else you would like. But in the end, you will get yours. The market always wins in the end.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Conservatives don't expand government, they contract it.

Thats like me saying that the true communist nation is a utopia when evidence points to the fact it never is. Is this how its going to be? Every time a self proclaimed and praised 'conservative' is elected to office and his/her policies lead to opposite results, those on the right will just lump them out as liberals?

Lets take a hypothetical scenario. If Rand Paul is elected president in 2016 and by 2020 as the result of his libertarian policies on the nation is more debt, financially in the goober (again) and government has overgrown, will you lump Rand Paul as a liberal as well? or will you take responsibility in the name of conservatism?

reply to post by Southern Guardian


If Rand Paul became president and expanded government, I would call him a liberal.

Of course, Rand Paul would never do that.

Only a neo-con would do that.

But don't worry your pretty little head about the 2012 elections. I highly doubt the nation will still be around in its current form by the time that election cycle rolls around.

After the dollar implodes you'll see states attempt to institute their own currency systems and declare themselves sovereign entities.

That's assuming of course that Obama doesn't get us into a nuclear shooting war with China or Russia, both of which are distinct possibilities if he attacks Iran like he is planning on doing.




[edit on 8-6-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by black cat

I've only been on ATS a short time but every post you make seems really synnical anytime someone says something bad about Democrats. In this post you do a great job of judging a book by the cover and not looking over the content. Have you always been such a closed-minded individual to not even hear out what others have to say before you judge?

Did you read my second post? I would love for you to comment on that one as well.

You see...I didn't judge the book by the cover...think of it more as I have read 100's of books by the same author...and all those books sucked. So when a new book comes out by the same author...I'm not going to waste my time reading it...I can pretty safely say that it is going to suck.

Making a judgement off of experience is quite different than being close minded and just "judging a book by the cover".


But I would really love for you to comment...in detail...on my second post and then tell me again how wrong I was.

reply to post by mnemeth1

I can warn you about what is coming, and you are free to mock me or pass blame on to Bush, Reagan, Eisenhower, or whoever else you would like. But in the end, you will get yours. The market always wins in the end.

Ok...wise one...I'll be waiting to "get mine" in the end.

In the meantime...I will continue to live my life knowing that the world isn't going to fall apart around me...just because you said so.

And you go ahead living your paranoid scary little version of life.

Life is short...don't waste it.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


keep on with your bad self.

I'll be here to say I told you so, assuming Obama doesn't shut down the internet.

Originally posted by indianajoe77
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

Show me where I said the poll was good?

Hmmmm. I am not sure you read or understood my post. I did not say you said the poll was good. What I said was actually a bit different.

My point, and let me be very clear on this, is that if you (in this case the OP) use a proxy source (in this case savage.com) instead of the original source (in this case WSJ) some people (in this case you) will dismiss the article based on the "bad" source, not the actual article or its original source.

I never disputed that. I read that post. I agreed with you. I am not sure why you are repeating it to me.

You, sir, went on a tirade about Savage in the very first post you made.

The OP, sir OPENED UP WITH SAVAGE AS A SOURCE IN THE SECOND LINE.

You seem lost within your own little circle of logic. You are telling the OP not to link to sources like Savage because people will dismiss it as I did. You are also arguing with me for dismissing it, as I did? Make up your mind. If you understand people are going to do that and why as you told the OP, then butt the hell out when people do. If you do not understand, your post was someone else talking, and you plan to stand guard swatting away any Savage bashers... then you should have introduced yourself.

(Granted you did go on to read it, and I agree that the questions were leading as everyone else has said).

So the material is faulty and the source is faulty. I pointed out how bad it is to use that source for anything. So did you. What are you arguing here? Are you saying that I should not dismiss bad information from a bad person?

I really do not understand what your beef with me is at all here.

I am not defending any of the talking heads because they all push their own BS. I simply pointed out that if your going to take sarcastic stabs at someone, get your facts straight.

If that was simply what you did, there would not have been more... and yet there was. You had to bring up Maddow and Olbermen for some reason. I am still waiting for you to explain why. What did they have to do with "simply pointing out" my facts were crooked?

In fact, it seems the only contributions you make to any post is arguing with people about things that have nothing to do with the original post.

Been reviewing my extensive posting history have you? Or are you judging all my contributions based on one post in this thread. If you feel that I am not offering enough about the OP in my responses to you, perhaps you are not discussing the topic at all giving me nothing OP related to to respond to. See how that works. It seems the only contributions you make are jabs at MSNBC and myself. Maybe you can justify that without damaging that glass house you built around yourself?

Stop now, I know your already going to say your standard question of "show me where........". I don't have to, others can read your thread posts and make up thier own mind.

10-4 on this post

Actually, I only ask that when someone either resorts to making up things that I said or was just not bright enough to read carefully before attempting to quote me. Good job avoiding that this time. It would seem you are not paying attention at all because I am not even sure what I could ask that about. You made no claims about me here. Logic eludes you some, no?

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Conservatives don't expand government, they contract it.

Clearly demonstrated by TARP and The Patriot Act.

The government did nothing but shrink from 2000 - 2008 huh?

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Conservatives don't expand government, they contract it.

Clearly demonstrated by TARP and The Patriot Act.

The government did nothing but shrink from 2000 - 2008 huh?

Thanks for making my point for me.

Neo-cons are not conservatives, they are liberals.

While this might seem like an important revelation, and therefore help guide us to finding the enemy and the cause for all our woes...

Don't forget that almost everyone, no matter the label, is a "useful idiot" in politics.

The real game is being run by those who possess the exclusive privileges of the creation of money and the control of credit and interest rates.

These are the people to set your sights on when you're looking to root out the evil that corrupts our world.

reply to post by 30_seconds


There are only two parties in American politics:

The party of big government and the party of bigger government.

There is only one conservative in all of congress and the Senate.

Ron Paul.

Everyone else is a liberal.

Both sides of the aisle are guilty of making policies that PO economists. Liberals generally favor rent control in crowded rental markets like San Francisco and Boston. Economists say rent control is bad hurts renters because it keeps the supply of rentals down.

Conservatives turn a blind eye towards economic externalities. They do not want big businesses to internalize the costs of externalities. For example, two months ago (and perhaps now) Conservatives would have favored policies that allowed offshore drilling to go largely unregulated. Conservatives would have favored caps on liabilities for offshore drilling. Conservatives would strongly oppose any sort of carbon tax.

Economists would say that a Carbon tax would be necessary to eliminate externalities. Our current energy policy is inefficient because of externalities. Oil companies and oil consumers are not paying for the entire cost of oil. They are not paying for environmental damage and they are not paying for the wars to secure an oil supply.

reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint


A conservative would say that we have environmental problems because we refuse to enforce property rights.

If my property is damaged by BP, I should be able to sue them for the cost of the damage.

Of course, since the government prohibits fishermen and oil companies from purchasing plots of territorial waters, it is impossible to sue on property damage grounds.

This applies to air, water, and land pollution as well.

These problems could be rectified in court on a per-case basis depending on the plaintiff proving property damages.

Any other proposed solution is a liberal solution, because liberals abhor property rights.

To a liberal, there is no such thing as private property. Only property that the government controls. Including your labor and your body.



[edit on 8-6-2010 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Neo-cons are not conservatives, they are liberals.

Neo-cons are liberals?



Say again?
It looks like any excuse to shout liberal and evil together works for you. Tell me something, do you call liberals liberals because they are all about liberty?

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint

 

A conservative would say that we have environmental problems because we refuse to enforce property rights.

Environmental problems exist only because we do not have the right to stop people from making them happen? How do you not see that an environmental problem is BECAUSE someone is mucking up the environment.

Have the ability to sue after the fact would not stop them either. I do not see any logic in your post.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Neo-cons are not conservatives, they are liberals.

Neo-cons are liberals?

Say again?
It looks like any excuse to shout liberal and evil together works for you. Tell me something, do you call liberals liberals because they are all about liberty?

Liberals are liberals because they believe government is the solution to all problems.

Liberal means "liberal" government, excessive government, government control over everything.

Conservative means "to conserve" government, to reduce it back to its constitutional levels, to conserve that which is good and eliminate that which is bad.

By definition, neo-cons are not conservative.

Expanding government is not something a conservative would do.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint

 

A conservative would say that we have environmental problems because we refuse to enforce property rights.

Environmental problems exist only because we do not have the right to stop people from making them happen? How do you not see that an environmental problem is BECAUSE someone is mucking up the environment.

Have the ability to sue after the fact would not stop them either. I do not see any logic in your post.

Having the ability to sue after the fact would prevent it from occurring in the first place.

I don't see your logic in ignoring this fact.

I guess we shouldn't have murder laws either since they are only good "after the fact"

I really liked these findings, they confirm what a lot of Conservative's have long suspected. Of course had the results been that Conservatives were the less educated, I'm sure this study would be close to every front page. As it is, it'll be lucky to get a mention.

Overall it makes me want there to be some kind of educational requirements in order for people to vote. 50 years of Liberals has hardly done anything to correct the educational problems, that contradict their rich-white, skape goat, ideology.

Originally posted by Liberal1984
I really liked these findings, they confirm what a lot of Conservative's have long suspected. Of course had the results been that Conservatives were the less educated, I'm sure this study would be close to every front page. As it is, it'll be lucky to get a mention.

Overall it makes me want there to be some kind of educational requirements in order for people to vote. 50 years of Liberals has hardly done anything to correct the educational problems, that contradict their rich-white, skape goat, ideology.

If government was restricted to its constitutional levels, you could elect monkeys to run it and they couldn't screw it up.

When you have a large powerful government, who gets elected becomes vitally important.

When you have a limited government, it doesn't matter who gets elected.

There used to be a time when the president could walk around out in public without any security and often allowed citizens to come into his office to complain. He could get away with this because he wasn't a very important person. He was no more important than a military general, and they don't require personal security details.

Today, the president has to be guarded by an entire army of secret service - the reason for this is obvious. Now, he is wildly powerful. Much too powerful.

[edit on 8-6-2010 by mnemeth1]