Conservative Certainty

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Phil Ayesho, Oct 9, 2008.

  1. Phil Ayesho

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    5,590
    Likes Received:
    874
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Diego
    Yet more evidence that the absolutism of fundamentalist thinking- whether the dogma of religion, or the dogma of 'free markets', is characterized by an inability to recognize and accept when their beliefs are clearly in error.

    The inability to change your mind based upon new information is one of the hallmarks of the conservative mindset...that previously cited studies have shown to be identifiable at age 3.

    The delusion of certainty is more comforting than the fear of uncertainty... more comforting than the process of trying to understand a changing reality.



    the Certainty that Clinton was a "bad" president- despite Clinton's advancing several long held republican initiatives...the dogma that republicans, with their intense focus on wealth are, somehow, not elitist. The failure to admit that Iraq was an error, that WMDs were NOT there...

    And worst of all- the inability to re-examine economic assumptions that have proven disastrous.

    Einstein said the functional definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results.


    It could just as easily be the definition of conservatism.
     
  2. crescendo69

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2006
    Messages:
    8,142
    Likes Received:
    20
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Knoxville, TN
    I keep posting here - does that make me insane?
     
  3. TurkeyWithaSunburn

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Messages:
    3,543
    Albums:
    5
    Likes Received:
    252
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Denver, Colorado
    So conservatives aren't big fans of Bayes' Theorem ?

    Stay the course!!! Iceberg dead ahead! Stay the course!!!
    (something like that? :biggrin:)
     
  4. B_starinvestor

    B_starinvestor New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Midwest
    Here we go again.

    Funny thing is, if the government hadn't pressured banks and lenders to lend to lower-income borrowers, we wouldn't be in this mess.

    Government needs to stay out of the way or this is the type of result you get. Get them out, don't add more.
     
  5. Phil Ayesho

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    5,590
    Likes Received:
    874
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Diego
    More of your Certainty based in myth.

    In fact... the low income borrowers who purchased under the plan Clinton fielded 12 years ago have had the lowest default rate.


    The BULK of defaults are from folks who have lost their jobs, or seen their real incomes FALL under this administration, and more than half of the defaults are from folks who were trying to PARLEY the market speculation into some cash in their pockets...

    Both, people trying RAISE a real down payment by buying a house they intended to sell in a few years for grossly more...
    And people literally trying to speculate in flipping houses.
    And 90% of the defaults are from mortgages taken out SINCE republican de-regulation of lending practices.

    THUS the REASON we are in a mortgage crisis is because of people SPECULATING in houses the exact same way YOU specualte in stocks.

    The Idea that speculation is a VALID means of garnering wealth is the ETHOS of YOUR party.


    However, You, typically, keep pointing to the SYMPTOM and not the cause, tho.

    The CAUSE of this crisis is Free Market Theory as applied to a nation that has allowed its real productivity to be replaced by an economy predicated upon financial instruments.

    When the fucks in charge allow the GNP to become entirely dependent on BORROWED money- you end up in a spiral of ever increasing borrowing until the whole mess collapses.

    You can not limitlessly DRAW on a future productivity when your only productivity is DRAWING on the future.


    THIS is caused by accepting the insupportable idiocy of unregulated free markets, enabling businesses to act without regard to the needs of the nation, their employees, or the law.

    THis is caused by spending a DECADE focused on helping the rich get richer and IGNORING all the necessary government programs that BUILD productivity in the future.

    Republican policy has been to make it far easier for a very few to get rich NOW, at the expense of ANY form of planning for a future US economy.

    THIS is caused by irresponsible BORROWING to fund tax cuts and Purposeless wars, while utterly failing to ensure REVENUE to meet expenses.


    Face it... a DECADE of republican dominence has resulted in DISASTER.

    Disaster that can ONLY be addressed by the government and the people bailing these fucks out.


    This is the trouble with CERTAINTY.

    Jackasses who are CERTAIN that government IS the problem- will do everything in their power to prove their certainty valid by making sure government becomes a problem.



    Time for your guys to rethink your drink and get the hell outta office until you can accept that government is necessary and, being necessary, MUST be MADE a solution.


    Hell, even Joe Scarborough admitted on television last night that Republicans came into power with a 5 trillion dollar national debt that had been paid down every year for 6 years prior. A balanced budget, and four years of revenue surplus...and Welfare effectively ended...
    ( BTW- a situation any TRUE 'conservative' ought to have recognized as the result of real fiscal conservatism )

    And we now have a 10 trillion dollar debt, A trillion dollar bailout of a failed lending and stock markets, Deficit spending, and two wars that are serving no purpose- one, because it assinine, and the other, because we are focusing all our energy on the assinine war.


    Where we are, now , is the result of an idea that was dangerously flawed from the start. And that has been pushed relentlessly by ONE party. ( not that plenty of Democrats have not drunk the koolaid because their constituents were convinced by Fox propaganda )



    So- seriously- recognize the tendency to prefer the certainty of your delusions and LOOK at what has happened with an unbiased eye.


    Racking up debt to fund a tax cut and a pointless war of aggression is NOT being fiscally conservative.

    NOT regulating the individuals manipulating vast sums of money is NOT fiscal conservatism.

    Ignore the rhetoric. It's their ACTIONS that tell you what they are really up to.
     
  6. B_starinvestor

    B_starinvestor New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Midwest
    More of your Certainty based in myth.

    Wrong. Where did you come up with this bullshit?


    I won't challenge you here. However, the underwriting passe' of no-income-verification allowed the speculators to garner financing. Thanks again Clinton.


    Way off again. Republican de-regulation of lending practices? Comical. No such thing. The Clinton Admin pressured Raines and friends to offer low-doc (no income documentation) loans, and here we are. Bush and Co. aren't even in this game.


    And the speculators had no recourse for financing until the Clinton Admin pushed the no-doc mortgage loan.

    Laughable. The principles of 'My Party" are ambition, work ethic, responsibility and vision.

    Play on words. Financial instruments are available to provide capital, but they are not the foundation of capitalism. One industry - the lending/mortgage industry - backfired due to gov't intervention. The economy, on its own, was very healthy.

    Borrowing has been abused, no doubt.

    Y
    Play on words again.


    Disrupting free markets has caused this disruption. The Gov't is harmful and disruptive to the economy.

    I won't respond to this anymore. Foolish.

    you are a socialist. That's not an insult, but that's where you exist.
     
  7. Skull Mason

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    Messages:
    3,101
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Dirty Jersey
    OCTOBER 14th the Federation of Light will appear in our skies for 3 days. They come in love.
     
  8. lucky8

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2006
    Messages:
    3,716
    Likes Received:
    17
    Gender:
    Male
    I fucking hope so

    but why Alabama?
     
  9. Skull Mason

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    Messages:
    3,101
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Dirty Jersey
    starinvestor, wake the fuck up!!! This is the socialist movement taking place in front of our eyes! Whether that is good or bad, to each their own...but this is it!
     
  10. B_Nick4444

    B_Nick4444 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2007
    Messages:
    7,002
    Likes Received:
    12
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX

    oh, man!

    tight pants, tight bods, big racks, and big bulges, too, I hope!
    :biggrin1:
     
    #10 B_Nick4444, Oct 10, 2008
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2008
  11. Skull Mason

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    Messages:
    3,101
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Dirty Jersey
    I don't think it will be Alabama. But why anywhere right? The lady said they will appear in the Southern Hemisphere, and then they gave her the name Alabama, not fully understanding what that had to do with it. Regardless, they should appear for everyone to see. Unambiguous bulges for everyone.
     
  12. B_24065

    B_24065 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2006
    Messages:
    651
    Likes Received:
    1
    Phil, REBUBLICANS DID NOT DEREGULATE LENDING PRACTICES YOU DUMB LYING FUCK.
     
  13. B_Gravedancer

    B_Gravedancer New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2008
    Messages:
    130
    Likes Received:
    0
    Liberals disguise their pretentious and self-concious and self-infallible thinking with "rebellious" masks

    While it is clearly the status quo. They are the system

    Their pretention comes out most on the internet by trying to impress everyone.

    P.S. Holding religious beliefs mean you believe the religion is TRUE, not that you just think it is cool. Sorry, trendyfuck.
     
    #13 B_Gravedancer, Oct 10, 2008
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2008
  14. B_24065

    B_24065 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2006
    Messages:
    651
    Likes Received:
    1
    Starinvester,

    Way to slap that bitch around! Phil and others on this site are perfect examples of how one chooses to allow a belief system to completely skew and shape how one interprets data and facts. Their narratives are as you say "laughable". This mess was totally caused by govt intervention in the first place. Its just common sense. If you were a business man and a minimum wage worker came to you and asked for a $10,000 loan you'd tell him no way. But if the govt told you that they would penalize you for not lending the money, you would be in a sense forced to do so. And if you had another business man right behind you (fannie and freddie) that said he would buy or guarantee the loan, it would make it easy to do. So dont give me it was caused by that "predatory lenders" and a free market system. anyone with an ounce of business sense could recognize that subprime variable rate lending to people who cant afford it is a terrible idea. But what are you gonna do WHEN THE GOVT FORCES YOU TO DO IT? A truly free market system would have never allowed this bullshit in the first place.
     
  15. B_starinvestor

    B_starinvestor New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Midwest
    You are exactly correct. Sure, Wall Street became aggressive with the low-doc mortgages. However, the gov't pushed them to provide that financing, and now the liberals blame Wall Street for this entire crisis. That's like putting a steak in front of a dog, and then beating the fuck out of the dog after he takes a bite of the steak.
     
  16. B_24065

    B_24065 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2006
    Messages:
    651
    Likes Received:
    1
    lol. glad to see im not the only voice of reality on this fucked-up board.
     
  17. B_starinvestor

    B_starinvestor New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Midwest
    its few and far between.
     
  18. D_Chocho_Lippz

    D_Chocho_Lippz Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,778
    Likes Received:
    0
    Phil,
    While I think you come off as a pompous prick sometimes, I still respect you and your ideas. I many times feel we are on the same page, but we are coming from different vantage points.

    However, I think that you are being outrageously misleading here and I question your motives. There always is two sides to any story. Many people, from all walks of life and political backgrounds may consider Clinton a "bad" president. "Bad" is a very subjective word to use when trying to describe someone, especially a President, when not everything is in their hands because there is a congress that either works with them or against them as well as an economy that many times does it's own thing. And the same with all the other listed "failures" of a conservative. How can we quantify if a war is good or bad? I mean, we can always say that killing people is bad, but what really makes a war good or bad? With Iraq we can say it was logistically messed up, ill-intentioned, and cost us way too much money. but on the other hand, many Iraqis are glad that we are there and that we liberated them. Many Iraqis are glad that they had the chance to vote without fear of Saddam. So is it universally correct to say that the Iraq war is wrong? As for WMD, same thing. Who are we to say with all conclusiveness that WMDs were there when we said they were there but by the time we got in there Saddam had already been able to move them out of sight. Again, I'm not making a case for either side here. All I am saying is that nothing is really 100% conclusive on issues on this. Many things are subjective based on the beholder.

    With that said, I find it bad taste to insinuate (through Einstein) that conservatives are insane for simply maintaining their beliefs. Maybe they are wrong. Maybe they are right. Can you really prove them wrong 100%. If not, then you have to accept the fact that maybe, just maybe, you are wrong too - even if the facts you have seem to far outweigh your opponnents.

    Lastly, I am really beginning to wonder why you even posted this. You know it was going to invoke hurt feelings and people were going to be offended by it. So, why post it? Are you really that malicious? This action seems to be borderline trollish to me.
     
  19. D_Fiona_Farvel

    D_Fiona_Farvel Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    3,790
    Likes Received:
    17
    That's two of us. :wink:
    Although, I do enjoy the moments where my being politically and ideologically independent allows me to see the bullshit on all sides.
     
  20. Phil Ayesho

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    5,590
    Likes Received:
    874
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Diego
    I will cop to being a prick- but not to being pompous.

    Opinionated, sure... but Pompous?

    Pompous would be making claims that I state are true without be willing to support them with argument, example or evidence.

    Like- most of the republican party's statements about the free market.



    I can not agree... first- HOW am I being misleading? HOW are my motives not clear?

    I am presenting evidence from independent scientific sources that EXPLAIN certain consistent behavoirs that human beings exhibit... and that are particualrly marked among political 'conservatives'.

    Knowing WHY one tends to respond in a certain way can ARM one against allowing your biology to dictate your metal processes.

    For example- IF I know that my BODY responds to any error in anticipation as if I am under THREAT- as an evolved survival mechanism...... then I realize that the immediate flush of Anger I feel when a car cuts me off is NOT truly what I THINK... its just a physiological reaction that I can more easily dismiss.

    So... my motive?
    Is to help those of the more conservative bent RECOGNIZE their own behavoir in these studies and recognize that the republican party is PLAYING on these genetic tendencies to manipulate your opinions and positions.

    And hope that you will not like the idea that you only THINK republicans are fiscally conservative because you have been maneuvered into thinking so... and your own resistance to admitting personal error, your own tendency toward certainty in your own views is what the Party RELIES on enable them to do the exact opposite of what they TOLD you they would do.

    Once they HAVE you as a believer, SAYING the things they know you will respond to... they know you will STAY a believer, and ignore all evidence that their ACTIONS do not align with those beliefs.

    Doesn't that piss you off? When some group can so completely take you for granted?

    Maybe the fact that these studies are Scientifically unbiased and proven will cause some conservatives to take a hard look at the vast gulf between what Republicans politcians CLAIM to be and what they actually DO, in office.



    As to Clinton... You only SAY he is "bad" because you have been manipulated into the absolutist thinking of ASSUMING all democrats are bad.

    Republicans have a Litany of complaints about Clinton... Not one of which has any relation to what he DID as president.

    They call him elitist... which is funny, for Wall Street brokers, Harvard and Yale grads, and country clubbers to call Clinton, from podunk Arkansas, an elitist.
    They complain about a blowjob... which only came to light because Republican spent 40 million dollars LOOKING for something, anything, they could pin on on the guy,--- and they used it to denigrate not only HIS reputation, but that of ALL 'liberals' ....despite the fact that, without any investigation at all, numerous republicans have been caught in their OWN sexual pecadillos... I wonder how any of them would stand up to 40 million dollars of scrutiny?

    Or they apply the term "liberal" which they have successfully manipulated you into thinking is a BAD THING... without the slightest explanation of HOW or WHY being liberal is tantamount to being jack the ripper.


    They are PURPOSEFULLY POLARIZING YOU... Depsite the fact that Republicans have quadrupled the amount of money spent on the single LARGEST "socialized" program in the world... the Department of Defense.
    Despite the fact that government contracts awarded to Halliburton are precisely equivalent to "corporate welfare".

    So- I have to say that there is NO criteria of JOB PERFORMANCE in Which Clinton could be fairly characterized as a "bad" president.

    You have not offered one.

    And I, for one, think that the BEST presidents are the ones that BALANCE the extremist agendas of Left and Right... and the only parameters that matter in evaluating them are their ACTIONS AS President.

    Clinton and Bush 1 were GOOD presidents.

    Nixon was bad in many respects...but the ONE LIBERAL thing he did- normalizing relations with China...was the one GREAT thing he did.


    It is EASY to determine. ALL you have to do is include the MORAL dimension of the actions that got you into it.
    We now know for CERTAIN that the administration KNOWINGLY lied to congress about Iraq. That Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld were pressing to invade Iraq YEARS before Bush even was elected.

    We KNOW that the administration falsified evidence, and knowingly falsified interpretation of evidence.
    We have BOTH the original intelligence reports submitted to Tenet AND the EDITED reports that Bush passed to congress where the conclusions stated are precisely the OPPOSITE of what the analysts who wrote the reports concluded.

    On that basis alone... this war is morally bankrupt. Our congress voted on the basis of LIES meant to cover the REAL objectives of the NeoCon Blueprint for a New American Century...

    Bush 2 waged an immoral war. They demanded Saddam Surrender arms he DID NOT HAVE--- and that they fully KNEW he did not have- thus ENSURING their invasion...


    Bush 1 waged a morally defensible war- HE told Saddam to get out or he would be kicked out.

    He did PRECISELY what he said he would do, and then he STOPPED.

    Bush 1 waged a war against UNPROVOKED AGRESSION.

    Bush 2 COMMITTED an act of unprovoked agression.

    Bush 1 would have rightfully gone to war to STOP Bush 2.


    Yes.
    The only people saying otherwise are apologists for their own eagerness to invade a country that did NOTHING to us.
    Trying to EVADE the concession that they were wrong.


    Perhaps you should look into the findings of the man BUSH HIRED to FIND the WMDs.... He offered a million dollars, Immunity from prosecution, AND guaranteed immigration to ANY country on earth for the whole family... to ANY iraqi who could show documentation or evidence of WMD programs.

    In 2 years of looking, NOT ONE PERSON CAME FORTH with a single verifiable document or piece of evidence.

    You can not have a WMD program without personnel. LOTS of them. The idea that when things in Iraq were at their WORST... that not ONE guy involved would take the immunity, money and better life for his family is insupportable.

    The FACT is that the UN inspections and sanctions WORKED. Clinton actually did a good job of ENFORCING them... not at all shy to toss a cruise missile to force Saddam into compliance.

    But, of course... this does not jibe with the absolutist mythology of Clinton as the embodiment of evil... so conservatives will dismiss it to preserve their own illusion of infallibility.




    um... no.
    Evidence is EVIDENCE....it is NOT subjective. A document that the Bush Administration DOCTORED to say the opposite... whether about global warming, or WMDs, is UNAMBIGUOUS. It shows clear INTENT to deceive.

    Radioactive materials do NOT disappear without a trace. A report saying that Aluminum tubes are NOT suitable for centrifuging uranium is NOT evidence FOR the centrifuging of uranium.


    These were not error of interpretation... these were ALTERATIONS of interpretation to fit the agenda they had every intention of pursuing regardless of just cause.


    Yes, I can , and yes, I have.
    C'mon... give me a REAL argument, an analogy an example, of how Spending more than you take in is fiscally conservative.

    Explain to me how REMOVING law and oversight over the operations of the richest corporations is fiscally conservative?

    I do not think you are insane for standing by a belief in fiscal conservatism. That is a position that is based upon your perspective.

    I think you are insane for continuing to believe that republicans are fiscally conservative in the light of their ACTIONS to the contrary.


    I ask you and all conservative...
    What the HELL would it TAKE to get you to accept that republicans in power have NOT acted conservatively in regards to money?

    Apparently not even the END of the world economy is enough to get you guys to abandon an idea that events have PROVEN to be false.
     
    #20 Phil Ayesho, Oct 10, 2008
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2008
Draft saved Draft deleted