• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The latest left wing newspeak meme

it's just me said:
No, I haven't forgotten about Clinton committing perjury to get out of a rape charge.
Click to expand...

Your hero Trump spent nearly the entire 1990's, and even 2000's defending Bill Clinton....while also praising him. Does that upset you?
 
ashurbanipal said:
That may be somewhat true, though the financial deregulation that led to the crash was/is primarily a republican position. Clinton-era democrats largely played into the Republican hand. Yes, Clinton signed those policies into law--but they were still conservative policies. Bush had been president for nearly 8 years when the crash happened, and if Obama should have been able to do more, so should Bush.
Click to expand...

The Democrats were the ones who encourages the likes of ACORN to use CRA to bully banks and lending institutions into giving loans to people who had no business getting them. As I said, there is plenty of blame to go around and it is incorrect to say that the crash is Bush's fault.

If Obama could do something to aid or hinder the recovery, Bush could have done something to avert or soften the crash. Indeed, Obama's powers not being any greater than Bush's, Bush had the same control over the economy as Obama...which is really the whole point. If you blame Obama, you cannot sensibly fail to blame Bush. And vice versa.
Click to expand...

Except for the fact that Obama consciously performed acts that hindered American business, while Bush tried to take steps to minimize the crash...and was stopped by Congressional Democrats, most notably Franks.

https://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2008/12/dont_blame_bush_for_subprime_m.html

I've never gotten someone who thinks this give me a straight answer on exactly what Obama did to hinder the recovery. What actions did Obama take that hindered economic growth?
Click to expand...

Obama administration regulations that added to the cost of doing business.

20,642 New Regulations Added in the Obama Presidency

Obama administration EO's and EA's that added to the cost of doing business. Here is but one example:

BREAKING: Obama Issues Executive Order That May Drive Gunsmiths Out of Business - The Truth About Guns

Obama and Democrat Congressional failure to legislate a more favorable business climate. Obamacare.

https://www.cnbc.com/2014/09/09/bill-for-small-business-big-bucks-fewer-jobs.html

Keep in mind that Obama TOLD people what he was going to do...before they elected him.

 
it's just me said:
I don't accept the "fact" of Russian meddling, beyond the meddling they have always done, everywhere. Were you this concerned when Obama tried to meddle in Israel's election?

The Russians aren't tearing democracy down, but some of the people in this thread would like to.
Click to expand...

And now you sound like a troll. How do you know the Russians aren't involved with Trump? How do you know what Putin wants? Did he tell you to say this?
 
Puigb said:
Your hero Trump spent nearly the entire 1990's, and even 2000's defending Bill Clinton....while also praising him. Does that upset you?
Click to expand...

"My hero"?
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
So, by the Atlantic's own account, lots of accusers ( paid? ) but no evidence.
Click to expand...

Nope, it's more women complaining about Trump than complained the others who's careers have been ruined, yet Trump sits in office unconcerned and the Republicans don't care.
 
haymarket said:
no - its just right wing whataboutism that has no substance or point to it other than to pretend that all the crap Trump does is okay because somebody else used the toilet previously.
Click to expand...

Not really, just that its hypocritical to complain about after its been defended when she or someone like her did it previously. Its not ok, but to only complain about when your side isn't the one doing it is wrong.
 
JasperL said:
Well, it is like you are trying to prove my point. Those bolded terms are generalizations, that you've made in response to MY specific point. I'm not "the left" and although you're on "the right," you are apparently not a "trump supporter" that you referred to, some of "them" screamed "lock her up" but are now hypocritically indifferent to people getting cleared to see classified documents. Do "they" not care about restricting access to individuals who can get clearance? Do "they" believe we should do away with background checks? Etc........

See what I've done? You haven't made any of those arguments, but I'm posing questions and making comments as if you did by lumping you in with "the right."

The point is we're now attacking people and avoiding a discussion of the topic? Why not stay on topic? Seems better for the purpose of discussion if I limit my responses to what YOU are actually arguing rather than point out alleged hypocrisy of people NOT YOU.
Click to expand...




It's interesting because as you way we are talking generalities, but is that how it happens?


No the usual back and forth goes like this:



lefty guy: "blarrrghhhhhh trump had porter mishandle classified information"

other guy: "but wait lefty guy, Porter had an interim clearance and was legally able to handle classified information, unlike hillary whom I've seen you defend, who broke two federal laws by storing and disseminating classified information on a private servers, how can you be upset now at a legal handling of a clearance, and classified information, but not show concern in the past of an actual crime in this area? If it was a crime then, you should have been against it then, to still not be against it then but against this porter thing now makes your motives suspect."

Lefty guy: "blaarrrggghhhhh you rabid ape man trump idiot and your whataboutism!!!!!!!!!!!!"



This is how the exchange usually goes. If you are against something that you defended based solely on politics, bringing it up is fair game to show hypocrisy.


That's how it usually happens.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Not really, just that its hypocritical to complain about after its been defended when she or someone like her did it previously. Its not ok, but to only complain about when your side isn't the one doing it is wrong.
Click to expand...

And to make your point valid, all one need do at the time they make that charge is to provide a quote from the person being accused that they did just what you claim they did.
 
haymarket said:
And to make your point valid, all one need do at the time they make that charge is to provide a quote from the person being accused that they did just what you claim they did.
Click to expand...

And back we go to the quote defense. That blurb right there is why you don't have a shred of believability.
 
Moderate Right said:
But that's not the point. The point is that he wouldn't allow anyone else to have two scoops of ice cream. On top of that, he drinks too many diet cokes, eats at McDonalds too much and does the treasoness act of having his steaks cooked well done and, if that wasn't enough, he uses ketchup on his steaks, the sorry rat bastard.
Click to expand...

Ketchup on steak?? That monster!
 
Mycroft said:
The Democrats were the ones who encourages the likes of ACORN to use CRA to bully banks and lending institutions into giving loans to people who had no business getting them. As I said, there is plenty of blame to go around and it is incorrect to say that the crash is Bush's fault.

Except for the fact that Obama consciously performed acts that hindered American business, while Bush tried to take steps to minimize the crash...and was stopped by Congressional Democrats, most notably Franks.
Click to expand...

This is way off topic, but can you explain to me how Barney Frank, a Democrat, and in the minority party from 1995-2007, stopped these reforms pushed by...someone? The minority party in the House cannot stop a damn thing without GOP support. There is no filibuster in committee or on the floor. The GOP can treat him and his preferences like the coffee boy and Frank had no recourse.

The Senate was also controlled by Republicans from 1996-2009. The regulators of the GSEs were in Bush's hands from obviously 2001-2009.

https://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2008/12/dont_blame_bush_for_subprime_m.html
Click to expand...

You should be offended at such obvious hackery. Recall what is simply fact that I highlighted above, then read this line from your link:

Unfortunately, as economist Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute has noted, "the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats [in the minority with no power to stop any bill] opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate [controlled by Republicans] to vote on the matter."

Had they done so, it's likely the mortgage meltdown wouldn't have occurred, or would have been of far less intensity. President Bush [the Bush regulators] and the Republican Congress [controlled by Republicans from at least 1995-2007] might be blamed for many things, but this isn't one of them. It was a Democratic debacle, from start to finish.
Click to expand...

Yes, the GOP controlled the House and Senate and WH but all the blame falls on... Democrats!!!! Hell even the stuff Clinton proposed and backed that IMO did significantly contribute to the crisis a few years later was overwhelmingly backed by Republicans in both the House and Senate in 1999 and especially the end of 2000.

Seriously, that editorial is so offensively dishonest and obvious partisan hackery that no doubt whoever wrote that swill was happy to hide behind the anonymity of an IBD editorial. It ought to offend anyone with a passing knowledge of the facts.

The other funny thing is you're also arguing that Trump as POTUS, and the GOP Congress NOW has really vast power to dismantle the regulatory state, which is why we can credit the good economy to the GOP! But you're also simultaneously arguing that the Bush administration and GOP Congress had NO power to affect the trajectory of the financial crisis. It's pretty fascinating.

So as always, if it's good, we can always credit the GOP. And when it's bad, it's the fault of Democrats and we just have to figure out how to blame them.
 
Last edited:
OpportunityCost said:
And back we go to the quote defense. That blurb right there is why you don't have a shred of believability.
Click to expand...

I don't understand your point. So if I can find someone on "the right" who claims to be a "conservative" I can use statements by this person or maybe alleged beliefs of "the right" in general to legitimately accuse you of hypocrisy? Why would you agree to that? If you comment on something, why is it OK to dismiss your comment or concerns because "the right" who I don't need to name might have taken a hypocritical position on that issue?

Seems to me if I'm going to pull out the "hypocrisy" card in response to your comment, I should have the courtesy and decency of demonstrating YOU are a hypocrite, instead of referring to unnamed "right wingers" or "Trump lemmings" etc.
 
JasperL said:
I don't understand your point. So if I can find someone on "the right" who claims to be a "conservative" I can use statements by this person or maybe alleged beliefs of "the right" in general to legitimately accuse you of hypocrisy? Why would you agree to that? If you comment on something, why is it OK to dismiss your comment or concerns because "the right" who I don't need to name might have taken a hypocritical position on that issue?

Seems to me if I'm going to pull out the "hypocrisy" card in response to your comment, I should have the courtesy and decency of demonstrating YOU are a hypocrite, instead of referring to unnamed "right wingers" or "Trump lemmings" etc.
Click to expand...

FFS, do you ever read about anything Haymarket posts? He plays the quote game all the freakin' time. If you do quote him he just denies that's what it obviously means. When asked direct questions about his beliefs he sidesteps for literally dozens of pages. At least I can state where I stand on issue instead of playing word games. All I want from him is a measure of honesty and according to you, that's too much to ask.
 
OpportunityCost said:
FFS, do you ever read about anything Haymarket posts? He plays the quote game all the freakin' time. If you do quote him he just denies that's what it obviously means. When asked direct questions about his beliefs he sidesteps for literally dozens of pages. At least I can state where I stand on issue instead of playing word games. All I want from him is a measure of honesty and according to you, that's too much to ask.
Click to expand...

OK, didn't mean to wade into a feud there.

All I know is I've seen responses to my posts many times that invoke "the left" or "liberals" and therefore effectively accuse me of hypocrisy when I never said or believe any such thing. When I ask to be quoted, actual positions I have embraced demonstrated, if I'm going to be accused of hypocrisy, I get crickets. That's what I was referring to, and the more general tactic of responding to a named person (like me, or you) with generalized comments invoking the alleged hypocrisy of roughly 100 million people (i.e. the right, or the left).
 
JasperL said:
OK, didn't mean to wade into a feud there.

All I know is I've seen responses to my posts many times that invoke "the left" or "liberals" and therefore effectively accuse me of hypocrisy when I never said or believe any such thing. When I ask to be quoted, actual positions I have embraced demonstrated, if I'm going to be accused of hypocrisy, I get crickets. That's what I was referring to, and the more general tactic of responding to a named person (like me, or you) with generalized comments invoking the alleged hypocrisy of roughly 100 million people (i.e. the right, or the left).
Click to expand...

Check the water first next time. Haymarket isn't worth defending, believe it.
 
JasperL said:
This is way off topic, but can you explain to me how Barney Frank, a Democrat, and in the minority party from 1995-2007, stopped these reforms pushed by...someone? The minority party in the House cannot stop a damn thing without GOP support. There is no filibuster in committee or on the floor. The GOP can treat him and his preferences like the coffee boy and Frank had no recourse.

The Senate was also controlled by Republicans from 1996-2009. The regulators of the GSEs were in Bush's hands from obviously 2001-2009.



You should be offended at such obvious hackery. Recall what is simply fact that I highlighted above, then read this line from your link:



Yes, the GOP controlled the House and Senate and WH but all the blame falls on... Democrats!!!! Hell even the stuff Clinton proposed and backed that IMO did significantly contribute to the crisis a few years later was overwhelmingly backed by Republicans in both the House and Senate in 1999 and especially the end of 2000.

Seriously, that editorial is so offensively dishonest and obvious partisan hackery that no doubt whoever wrote that swill was happy to hide behind the anonymity of an IBD editorial. It ought to offend anyone with a passing knowledge of the facts.

The other funny thing is you're also arguing that Trump as POTUS, and the GOP Congress NOW has really vast power to dismantle the regulatory state, which is why we can credit the good economy to the GOP! But you're also simultaneously arguing that the Bush administration and GOP Congress had NO power to affect the trajectory of the financial crisis. It's pretty fascinating.

So as always, if it's good, we can always credit the GOP. And when it's bad, it's the fault of Democrats and we just have to figure out how to blame them.
Click to expand...

Having "control" doesn't always mean having control. Hell, look at our current Senate. The Republicans have "control", but they couldn't do a simple thing like repeal Obamacare.

In any case, again...I said that there is plenty of blame to go around...to BOTH parties in the government and to people outside the government. Don't get all bent out of shape and defensive when I include the Democrats in that bunch.
 
Mycroft said:
Having "control" doesn't always mean having control. Hell, look at our current Senate. The Republicans have "control", but they couldn't do a simple thing like repeal Obamacare.

In any case, again...I said that there is plenty of blame to go around...to BOTH parties in the government and to people outside the government. Don't get all bent out of shape and defensive when I include the Democrats in that bunch.
Click to expand...

I'm just pointing out that the right wing talking point about Barney Frank is pervasive, and people making it are lying to you/us. And you cited an article to prove your point which is delusional and offensively dishonest by explicitly heaping ALL the blame on Democrats.

FWIW, I don't mind people including Democrats, I've done it too, many times. I think the truth is Wall Street and the big banks wield enormous power, and have effectively bought Congress and the WH without regard to party affiliation. It's why the general allegation that things like CRA "forced" the banks to make crap loans based on fraudulent appraisals, etc. is the core dishonesty in the whole mess. Just to pick CRA, it was a nuisance at best/worst - red tape. I know you're old enough to have lived through the bubble and pay attention, and if it was like where I lived, we were blanketed by ads by regulated banks and the unregulated mortgage originators for everyone who could draw an X on a piece of paper to take out loans, which is what happened. And the banks and others did that because they made record profits, paid out record bonuses, on record stock prices.

The idea that the Feds "forced" them into actions that led to 7 and 8 figure paydays for the guys at the top is offensive to me. They bought the regulatory environment they wanted, paid themselves like royalty in the good times, we bailed them out of their losses, and now they've got an army of propagandists making dishonest claims like the one you cited from IBD, which knows better or they're too stupid and unobservant to write for any paper on which anyone close to investing should rely.
 
jet57 said:
Nope, it's more women complaining about Trump than complained the others who's careers have been ruined, yet Trump sits in office unconcerned and the Republicans don't care.
Click to expand...
Nope. Its just more women maneuvered by the complicit opposing side to stir something up for political purposes...been over a year...nothing but hot air
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom