Get cable before you try tackling the world.
I said I thought it was interesting, ironic, and amusing that a conservative accused liberals of being ignorant of reality, when conservatives have constructed a comprehensive mythology for themselves.
You can see these lists, plural, if you find them for yourself. I don’t have them in front of me and I’m not doing all your research for you. Or go ahead believing that Fox is a reputable news source. I don’t care.
It would be ridiculous, if I didn’t watch it from time to time. I began to occasionally watch it, to see if it really was as bad as some say. I continue to watch it from time to time (that is, it’s on in the background) to see what those crazy conservatives are doing now and because, as you rightly point out, it would be dishonest for me to complain about if I didnt have some idea of the type of thing propagated by that channel.
Since you missed it, I’ll tell you that the point was that no matter how implausible an argument is, if it’s comfortable and people want to believe it, someone will find some way to twist or misrepresent facts in order to support it. I hardly thought you would argue against this point in the abstract, since more or less your entire “liberals are stoopid” argument rests on it.
Again, I don’t have studies saved or anything. You know how to use Google. Spend an hour reading and decide for yourself. Or go on disbelieving. Doesn’t matter to me.
Yeah, you’re right. EVERYBODY thought they had them. Except that even George Tenet admitted there was never any evidence.
[quote]Oh, you see, I would call those irresponsible people. Not poor people. The only way you can see those as the same thing is to think all poor people are irresponsible, and I don’t do that.
OK.
Good retort.[/quote]
It was not a retort. I was saying, “OK, I understand.”
Many conservatives DO deny evolution. Which is what I said. You can cry about it all you want, but you have no point. And no, most liberals are pro-choice. Big difference.
No, I’m just saying, I saw an extremely disingenuous attempt on Fox to paint Anita Dunn as an admirer of Mao just the other day. Furthermore, many conservatives have also expressed admiration of Mao and other controversial political figures, yet you don’t get your panties in a twist over them. Nice try, though.
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
I’m not sure why, but I’ve never had any enthusiasm for the language of blame and excess that you see on both the right and the left regarding this crisis. A banker who didn’t try to maximize profits wouldn’t be doing his job. I’m not saying that “greed is good,” as a personal quality. But let’s not try to make a virtue out of parsimony for its own sake. [/quote]
I understand this impulse. And the job of the banker was - and is - to maximize profits, which is why I can’t lay the blame entirely at the feet of the lenders and securitizers. The incentives were skewed by policy, and to a point, we can’t fault lenders for being profit-seeking lenders.
That said, some blame is appropriate for the banker and securitizers because they bought into an impossible paradigm of “privatized profits, socialized risk” that they knew was impossible.
My “financial libertines” are to blame because they took risks without accepting the consequences of those risks, and that provided a vast misallocation of resources. Capital was given cheaply to investment opportunities (unsuitable borrowers) that were unlikely to pay off without an appropriate cost, whether an interest rate or a stronger equity piece in the beginning of the investment (i.e., a higher down payment).
The lenders should have been more “puritanical” for lack of a better word, because they knew that no matter what the government promised them, (1) high-risk borrowers were still high-risk, and (2) property values could not continue to grow forever.
They knew that. Or, they should have known that. The government policies may have changed the incentive structure, but they couldn’t change the economic fundamentals. But the lenders didn’t care and ran the rope out as far as they could. For that, they deserve some of the blame.
I think this hits pretty close to the bullseye. “Sloppy assumptions” were made by the financial gurus, policy wonks, central bankers and consumers playing with cheap money.
I think my point - in terms of blame - is that no one gets a free pass on “sloppy assumptions” just because the government provides you incentives to make them.
I’d use a rough analogy - despite many, many promises that Social Security will be able to provide a significant amount of pension income in my retirement, I will place no faith in that promises and do my best to amass a retirement fund that completely ignores any Social Security. It would be a “sloppy assumption” on my part to assume otherwise and rely on Social Security.
Same principle for my “financial libertines”.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:You brought up media bias.
I said I thought it was interesting, ironic, and amusing that a conservative accused liberals of being ignorant of reality, when conservatives have constructed a comprehensive mythology for themselves.
[/quote]
“That’s why they have to have their own special news network that won’t break the seal on their parallel reality, eh? Ohhh, right…”
So, off the top of your head you can name 0 of these… hmm… interesting.
I find it ironic you contribute to their ratings.
Only you can point out 0 examples. I’ve never made a sweeping generalization like you do constantly. There are intelligent liberals. You just aren’t one of them.
I just figured, ya know, you’d have at least some basic backup on your claims. Sounds like you are wanting me to do your research. It is up to you to prove your claims, not me.
Congress and all the dems saw the same evidence and voted for war. Bush couldn’t have done it without congressional approval.
Sorry, I took it as sarcasm.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:ok. but that is a far cry from there to “conservatives deny evolution”. Liberals are pro-abortion => liberals eat babies.
Many conservatives DO deny evolution. Which is what I said. You can cry about it all you want, but you have no point. And no, most liberals are pro-choice. Big difference.
[/quote]
“it’s the conervatives who deny evolution” does not equal “Many conservatives DO deny evolution”
But way to change your story.
They are for an action that kills a child. The rest is semantics.
Really cause I listened to a recent speech of hers where she claim he was one of her 2 most favorite “political philosophers.” Watched the whole speech, I don’t see how I got it out of context or anything.
Who? I would like to put them on my list of people who are idiots.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:ok. but that is a far cry from there to “conservatives deny evolution”. Liberals are pro-abortion => liberals eat babies.
Many conservatives DO deny evolution. Which is what I said. You can cry about it all you want, but you have no point. And no, most liberals are pro-choice. Big difference.
“it’s the conervatives who deny evolution” does not equal “Many conservatives DO deny evolution”
But way to change your story.
They are for an action that kills a child. The rest is semantics.
I don’t watch fox. I have however listened to speeches from high level administration officials claim to admire mao and even talk about bringing down the American way of life with no news intermediary. But good attempt to attack the source because you lose the factual argument.
No, I’m just saying, I saw an extremely disingenuous attempt on Fox to paint Anita Dunn as an admirer of Mao just the other day. Furthermore, many conservatives have also expressed admiration of Mao and other controversial political figures, yet you don’t get your panties in a twist over them. Nice try, though.
Really cause I listened to a recent speech of hers where she claim he was one of her 2 most favorite “political philosophers.” Watched the whole speech, I don’t see how I got it out of context or anything.
Who? I would like to put them on my list of people who are idiots.
[/quote]
You keep a list?
[quote]orion wrote:
You keep a list?
[/quote]
Really, how does he find time for anything else?
It must be a long list indeed.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
orion wrote:
You keep a list?
Really, how does he find time for anything else?
It must be a long list indeed.[/quote]
Crap. that comment probably got my name on a government list.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Get cable before you try tackling the world.[/quote]
Who is tackling the world? and I preffer books, you should give them a try. there is as much disinformation as information on cable.
Besides all that, I have abc, cbs, nbc, and a local fox affiliate all on rabbit ears (and in hd by the way).
Remind me what’s so great about cable.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Remind me what’s so great about cable.[/quote]
especially since you obviously have access to ze interwebz.
Hmm…you seem to be repeating the delusion that the media is biased towards the left…
I didn’t name any off the top of my head because it’s a feat to get a right-winger to acknowledge a fact with pages and pages of documentation in hand. I figured without documentation, there would be no hope whatsoever. I was also correct in assuming that you would take my admonition to do your own research as a tacit admission of Fox’s legitimacy.
But I see you’re too much of a coward to actually look things up. I said I wasn’t doing your research for you, and I intended not too, but your behavior inflames me, and I am now impelled to:
Fox claims John Holdren endorses mandatory sterilization/abortion:
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200909150002
Holdren and his coauthors mention that as one possibility for controlling population, but they do not recommend it.
Fox makes misleading claims about the Bush economy:
http://mediamatters.org/research/200907120009
Fox falsely claims health proposal will result in large deficits:
http://mediamatters.org/research/200910300032
“The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found that the House bill would not only reduce federal budget deficits by $104 billion through 2019, but also that it would continue to reduce the deficit in the subsequent decade.”
Fox News error in Jennings controversy:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/200910020026
Fox makes false murder allegations:
http://mediamatters.org/press/releases/200909160021
Now, these are factual errors, but they’re just the tip of iceberg when it comes to why Fox News is not a legitimate news outlet. It is a propaganda network. Which is fine, but people shouldn’t dishonestly pretend that they are like the other news agencies.
I have no interest in their ratings one way or t’other.
Of data supporting Holocaust denial? Are you seriously still on this? I’ve never actually looked for any, so, uh, sorry?
That’s the way I like my generalizations. Sweeping.
Well, I should hope not. In case the hammer and sickle wasn’t enough to clue you in, I am not a liberal. You are, though.
No, like I said, I want YOU to do YOUR research.
Mmmmm…no, when the world’s scientists have come into consensus, I think it’s up to YOU to prove your claims.
Quite true. A good demonstration of the parties’ sameness on most important issues.
But, of the people who deny evolution, the far largest part are conservatives. Only an idiot would have extrapolated my statement to “every single conservative.”
I can see you’re not a nuanced thinker.
Well hell, YOU are for actions that kill children, too. In fact, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have killed more than just children. Over a million have died as a consequence, direct or indirect, of that war. So come off of your horse. You don’t really care about children, or anyone else dying. Like Voltaire said, “It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.”
The bottom line is, pro-choice people are AGAINST society taking away a woman’s control over her own body. Try to obfuscate the issue all you want, this is what it comes down to.
Hmmm…not a good admission. Here’s the transcript:
“And then the third lesson and tip actually come from two of my favorite political philosophers, Mao Zedong and Mother Teresa – not often coupled with each together, but the two people that I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point, which is, you’re going to make choices.”
If you “don’t see” how you got it out of context, you’re even dumber than you let on.
Ralph Reed, Stephen Shadegg. Bush Jr. recommended a Mao biography to Rove. McCain has quoted Mao.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:“That’s why they have to have their own special news network that won’t break the seal on their parallel reality, eh? Ohhh, right…”
Hmm…you seem to be repeating the delusion that the media is biased towards the left…
So, off the top of your head you can name 0 of these… hmm… interesting.
I didn’t name any off the top of my head because it’s a feat to get a right-winger to acknowledge a fact with pages and pages of documentation in hand. I figured without documentation, there would be no hope whatsoever. I was also correct in assuming that you would take my admonition to do your own research as a tacit admission of Fox’s legitimacy.
But I see you’re too much of a coward to actually look things up. I said I wasn’t doing your research for you, and I intended not too, but your behavior inflames me, and I am now impelled to:
Fox claims John Holdren endorses mandatory sterilization/abortion:
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200909150002
Holdren and his coauthors mention that as one possibility for controlling population, but they do not recommend it.
[/quote]
Personally I see co-authoring a book that endorses positive aspects of eugenics an endorsement of those practices. Maybe thatâ??s just me.
The CBO ran itâ??s calculations based on assumptions given to it by congress (DEMS).
However, would you like to place a bet? I will bet you that if passed, the dem legislation will cost more than the current system, increase the deficit, lead to more bureaucracy, worse care for the majority, and that current cost estimates are gross underestimates. I assume all that because thatâ??s what always happens with everything the government touches. Problem being we are betting with our childrenâ??s future.
Would you like me to post worse things done by nbc, msn, cnn, est. or do you want to do your own research? Really, if thatâ??s the best you got, I think fox is doing pretty well.
No, not holocaust denial, stick with the conversation. Measurable evidence the holocaust never happened, as YOU CLAIMED.
Lol. Me a liberal.
While we werenâ??t specifically addressing global warming, there is not a scientific consensus. I happen to know the EAS department of Georgia tech openly mocks anthropomorphic climate change. Oh, maybe you mean there is a consensus among political factions, in which case youâ??re probably right.
I actually agree with you.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:“it’s the conervatives who deny evolution” does not equal “Many conservatives DO deny evolution”
But, of the people who deny evolution, the far largest part are conservatives. Only an idiot would have extrapolated my statement to “every single conservative.”
But way to change your story.
I can see you’re not a nuanced thinker.
[/quote]
Let my try ryan speak then. Commies murder people. If you take that to mean there is causation between communist and homicidal tendencies you are an idiot.
If you donâ??t understand the connotation with given sentence structure, I donâ??t have time to teach you English.
What? Way to really go out there on a limb for that straw man to avoid the subject. Though ironically, coming from a collective sort of guy, does it not therefore flow a society has a right to self defense? You current thinking shows a measure of individualism that shouldnâ??t be tolerated.
What about the right over my body? Do I not have a right to bend at the waist, clasp my hand, raise my arm and squeeze my finger? So what if those actions cause a bullet to kill someone. I have the right to my own body. Need I remind you that in a abortion the body most affected is the child?
â??favorite political philosophers, Mao Zedongâ?? how is that out of context? In my opinion it would have been less bad for her to of said Hitler.
And I already hate all politicians you listed anyway. Then again I pretty much hate all politicians on account of their existence.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:The CBO ran it�¢??s calculations based on assumptions given to it by congress (DEMS).
However, would you like to place a bet? I will bet you that if passed, the dem legislation will cost more than the current system, increase the deficit, lead to more bureaucracy, worse care for the majority, and that current cost estimates are gross underestimates. I assume all that because that�¢??s what always happens with everything the government touches. Problem being we are betting with our children�¢??s future.[/quote]
So in other words, facts be damned, you’ll stick with your assumptions. That’s fine, and exactly what I expected, but anytime the CBO reports bigger deficits due to some Democratic proposal, these qualifications and excuses mysteriously disappear, and the results are shouted from the mountaintops. Basically, I knew you were dishonest already, but thanks for acknowledging it.
Of course you think they’re doing well: you’re a republican troglodyte, and no lie of omission or commission, no matter how blatant, could convince you that they’re not golden-throated angels. Like I said, keep believing they’re an honest news outlet. It makes no difference to me, and only makes it funnier in debates to spring a fact on a conservatives that they’re never heard because Fox doesn’t report it, or lies about it.
Yes, that is what I talking about all along. I don’t have any. Like I siad, if YOU are looking for evidence that the Holocaust never happened, then YOU will have to look for it. I can’t believe you’re actually this stupid.
Learn a little bit about basic political ideology.
Is this what you feel, or did Fox tell you? Either way it’s wrong.
I’m pretty sure they marry their cousins down there, too.
Well you know, believe whatever makes you comfortable, as you do with everything else.
But in this case, there are many, many, MANY other groups that also kill people. Whereas in my example, most of the people who deny evolution come from one political persuasion.
Just a little bit of thought is all I’m after, here.
There’s no avoiding the subject, except on your end. You are the one who so self-righteously expressed his indignation at any action that would, GASP, kill a CHILD, and then when confronted with an action that you support that, GASP, kills MANY children, you get flustered and accuse me of avoiding the subject. He then proceeds to pull out his OWN strawman with “collectivism” stamped on its forehead, and then misapplies the notion of “self-defense.” Nothing about the Iraq or Afghanistan wars has anything to do with self-defense.
Once you have a coherent argument, let me know.
Of course you do, you simply may not do it while pointing the gun at anybody. Furthermore, the right to your own body would not even necessitate you have a gun. So go ahead, sit there like an idiot and squeeze your fingers like you’re holding a gun all day long.
You may, though it makes no difference. You still claim that you have a the right to interfere on the fetus’s behalf, and that this FETUS gives YOU the right to deprive a woman of control of her own body. It’s asinine.
Well, that is not out of context, but again you fail to see that it makes no difference. So what if he’s a favorite political philosopher? That doesn’t mean she approves of mass muder. It doens’t necessarily even mean she agrees with him. Even more conservatives have praised Lenin, the Vietcong, etc., but no one accuses them of being subversives. People like Mao, Stalin, etc., are no worse than certain US presidents, such as LBJ, Truman, or Reagan. Yet you’re not censured for looking up to one of them. It’s becoming painfully clear that you’re just another buffoon who looks for things to confirm his prejudices.
Why? The modern republican party pretty much shares your sentiments?
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:The CBO ran it�?�¢??s calculations based on assumptions given to it by congress (DEMS).
However, would you like to place a bet? I will bet you that if passed, the dem legislation will cost more than the current system, increase the deficit, lead to more bureaucracy, worse care for the majority, and that current cost estimates are gross underestimates. I assume all that because that�?�¢??s what always happens with everything the government touches. Problem being we are betting with our children�?�¢??s future.
So in other words, facts be damned, you’ll stick with your assumptions. That’s fine, and exactly what I expected, but anytime the CBO reports bigger deficits due to some Democratic proposal, these qualifications and excuses mysteriously disappear, and the results are shouted from the mountaintops. Basically, I knew you were dishonest already, but thanks for acknowledging it.
[/quote]
No, I gave you the factual bad assumptions given to the cbo that lead to the calculations, you are denying the facts. Iâ??ll note your refusal to take the challenge also.
Are you really this bad at arguing. I hate republicans, probably more so than I hate dems. Youâ??re a damn idiot. I have never made any such argument that fox is honest or even a â??good news outletâ??. Iâ??ve only made the argument that they are no worse than anyone else. All news is biased. If you donâ??t see that youâ??re blind. You only get upset with fox because they arenâ??t biased in your direction.
Okay, now your are apparently inventing conversations in your head. You made the claim you could find measurable evidence the holocaust didnâ??t happen and I called you on your shit. YOU MADE THE CLAIM. Now you admit no such evidence exist, completely voiding your original argument and you are saying that itâ??s my job to find the evidence to back your claim? And this makes me stupid? Seriously? No one is this dumb.
Iâ??ve said over and over, I donâ??t even watch fox, and no scientists tell me.
It happens to be one of the top universities in the nation. But this did prove youâ??re a bigot. Either way, intelligent, mature retort to the facts.
[quote]
Oh, maybe you mean there is a consensus among political factions, in which case you�?�¢??re probably right.
Well you know, believe whatever makes you comfortable, as you do with everything else.[/quote]
Coming from a person that would have probably been on the â??scientificâ?? consensus bandwagon of global cooling in the 70s. But hey donâ??t let the fact bother you.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:Let my try ryan speak then. Commies murder people. If you take that to mean there is causation between communist and homicidal tendencies you are an idiot.
But in this case, there are many, many, MANY other groups that also kill people. Whereas in my example, most of the people who deny evolution come from one political persuasion.
Just a little bit of thought is all I’m after, here.
[/quote]
Causation vs. correlation. Iâ??d say to go learn it, but science doesnâ??t seem to be your strongpoint.
I would like to point out that Christian ideology (closely relating to the topic) is generally integrated into the â??conservativeâ?? party. However, Christian ideology is liberal in philosophy and practice. As a conservative I reject most Christian political ideology. (government control of marriage, legislation of morality, governmental institution of charity, working for your fellow man ect. Are liberal Christian philosophies held by many â??conservativeâ?? republicans)
Great, however, Iâ??m not for the wars. That was the strawman I was referring to.
You are logically inconsistent. Instead of gun use abortion equipment. And it does if I want to use my body to make or buy a gun. And legal restriction restricts physical actions. If denying abortion denies a right to self, so do most laws.
Yes, I have the right to interfere on the behalf of a HUMAN BEING (this too is a scientifically correct term. The same way I would physically restrain a woman beating a child on the street. This too would deny her the physical right of her own body.
Please inform me as to who admires Lenin and such? And no one is discussing censure. However, the political philosophy of â??public servantsâ?? that hold power over me, is important, and criticism of it is valid public discussion.
You obviously have no idea what my beliefs are.
[quote]valiant knight wrote:
Liberals are ignorant about the real world.[/quote]
As a former one myself (in my younger days), I don’t think that’s always the case. In my experience, they fall into two broad categories. Some are more or less uninformed about the real world and specific issues; often falling victims to mis-information.
I was one of these in college. For example, I used to actually believe that many conservatives had racist tendencies and that conservatives didn’t give a rat’s ass about the environment. I also had the typical youngster’s pie-in-sky notions that all social ills can be cured if we’re just willing to try hard enough.
The second type of liberal has more of a committed left-wing ideology. For them, it’s not a question of being ignorant of history or current events. If you firmly believe that capitalism is wrong, or that government officials know better than ordinary citizens what’s good for them - like a wise parent knows what’s good for a toddler - it’s pretty unlikely that you’ll ever outgrow that mindset. I think most of our liberal political leaders fall into this second category.