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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
So is it universally correct to say that the Iraq war is wrong?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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%.
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.