"Liberal Logic 101"

[gothamhunter]

Saw this posted today, apparently titled "Liberal Logic 101":

REAGAN:
Wanted economic reform, but Democrats wanted to raise taxes. Reagan compromised and Democrats have ever since blamed Reagan for raising taxes
.
BUSH(Sr.)
Wanted economic reform. Democrats wanted to raise taxes. Bush compromised and Democrats have ever since blamed Bush for raising taxes.

CLINTON
Wanted to raise taxes. Republicans wanted economic reform. Clinton compromised and Democrats ever since given him credit for economic reform.

BUSH(Jr.)
Wanted economic reform but Democrats wanted to loosen regulations on banks. Once in control of Congress Democrats forced deregulation and have ever since blamed Bush for it.

OBAMA
Democrats controlled both houses of Congress so he didn't need to compromise, and when it all fell to crap, the Democrats still blame the Republicans.

/discuss

Edit - since some are confused, this isn't MY list; taken from a FaceBook share and thought it'd be an interesting topic.

 

[diesbudt]

That is how politics work.

I did everything right, my opponent did everything wrong.

Which in honesty, once elected they Shouldn't be opponents, but working together toward a common goal. I need to stop being so idealistic.

 

[gothamhunter]

That is how politics work.

I did everything right, my opponent did everything wrong.

Which in honesty, once elected they Shouldn't be opponents, but working together toward a common goal. I need to stop being so idealistic.

:thumbsup:

I think we shouldn't be allowed to know what party members are affiliated with, at least not until after election. Then people would have to use their brains to figure out who they like instead of being left-wing/right-wing sheep.

 

[dank69]

Saw this posted today, apparently titled "Liberal Logic 101":

REAGAN:
Wanted economic reform, but Democrats wanted to raise taxes. Reagan compromised and Democrats have ever since blamed Reagan for raising taxes
.
BUSH(Sr.)
Wanted economic reform. Democrats wanted to raise taxes. Bush compromised and Democrats have ever since blamed Bush for raising taxes.

CLINTON
Wanted to raise taxes. Republicans wanted economic reform. Clinton compromised and Democrats ever since given him credit for economic reform.

BUSH(Jr.)
Wanted economic reform but Democrats wanted to loosen regulations on banks. Once in control of Congress Democrats forced deregulation and have ever since blamed Bush for it.

OBAMA
Democrats controlled both houses of Congress so he didn't need to compromise, and when it all fell to crap, the Democrats still blame the Republicans.

/discuss

I'd like to see evidence of "tax & spend" Democrats that were against raising taxes. I'd also like to see evidence of Democrats forcing deregulation since cutting red tape was Dubya's position. I'll start there and just ignore the whole thing going to crap on Obama's watch when the crash happened in 2008. No, I'll go on. Clinton cut military spending while Republicans screamed that it would hurt the economy. Republicans take credit for fixing the economy during Clinton's terms.

 

[ivwshane]

Sounds like propaganda for history challenged idiots.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Sounds like propaganda for history challenged idiots.

He likely also believes that the Earth was created 6000 years ago by an invisible wizard who lives in the sky.

 

[Tom]

Your list is wrong on so many counts. Here's one way.

Reagan didn't want "reform". He wanted lower income taxes and higher SS tax, which the net effect was to lower taxes on the wealthy only.

This was supposed to work via "trickle down".

He also wanted to vastly increase spending. 600 ship Navy,etc.

Democrats argued it would blow up deficits, and they were right. They went along with Reagan because it was an era when there was some respect for how the people voted in elections.

"Liberals" don't fault Reagan for raising taxes. He's criticized for increasing the income disparity between rich and poor and for a lack of fiscal responsibility.

And lax regulation and supervision, which led to S&L crisis and Iran/Contra.

Given all that I think most "liberals" think he was 1000 times better than G W Bush.

 

[Moonbeam]

Conservatives rationalize and there's lots of money to be made providing them with a ready made alternate reality and talking points. It's like a religion where folk are told the devil is out to convince them to sell their souls and they have to take everything that looks like common sense as a sign they are slipping into the pit. This is how they are turned into sheep and proudly march to their own slaughter. It's natural not to want to feel shame, so nobody wants to know that ourselves are our own worst enemy. Feels much better to blame the other. Hey, you can blame me.

 

[sandorski]

Your list is wrong on so many counts. Here's one way.

Reagan didn't want "reform". He wanted lower income taxes and higher SS tax, which the net effect was to lower taxes on the wealthy only.

This was supposed to work via "trickle down".

He also wanted to vastly increase spending. 600 ship Navy,etc.

Democrats argued it would blow up deficits, and they were right. They went along with Reagan because it was an era when there was some respect for how the people voted in elections.

"Liberals" don't fault Reagan for raising taxes. He's criticized for increasing the income disparity between rich and poor and for a lack of fiscal responsibility.

And lax regulation and supervision, which led to S&L crisis and Iran/Contra.

Given all that I think most "liberals" think he was 1000 times better than G W Bush.

Indeed. Not one of his bullet point assertions are accurate.

Bush Sr: It wasn't the Dems condemning him for raising Taxes. At most they would have mocked him for it, but that's another thing entirely.

 

[dank69]

I knew when I saw the topic we were going to be actually treated to a case of "Conservative Logic 101"

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Gotta love revisionist history. Enough to go around for everyone!

 

[gothamhunter]

Please don't label this as "my list" lol. I just C&P'd it.

 

[dank69]

Please don't label this as "my list" lol. I just C&P'd it.

Then used it to draw conclusions in post 3 without ever questioning it.

 

[gothamhunter]

Then used it to draw conclusions in post 3 without ever questioning it.

What does

I think we shouldn't be allowed to know what party members are affiliated with, at least not until after election. Then people would have to use their brains to figure out who they like instead of being left-wing/right-wing sheep.

have anything to do with the list? I nowhere agreed or disagreed with it; my comment was neutral...

Perhaps it's you who shouldn't be so quick to "draw conclusions"?

 

[fskimospy]

Did this come to you courtesy of a FW: FW: FW: email?

 

[gothamhunter]

Did this come to you courtesy of a FW: FW: FW: email?

FB share.

So yes, basically. Although it's a post from an actual website called liberallogic101

 

[HomerJS]

Saw this posted today, apparently titled "Liberal Logic 101":

REAGAN:
Wanted economic reform, but Democrats wanted to raise taxes. Reagan compromised and Democrats have ever since blamed Reagan for raising taxes
.
BUSH(Sr.)
Wanted economic reform. Democrats wanted to raise taxes. Bush compromised and Democrats have ever since blamed Bush for raising taxes.

CLINTON
Wanted to raise taxes. Republicans wanted economic reform. Clinton compromised and Democrats ever since given him credit for economic reform.

BUSH(Jr.)
Wanted economic reform but Democrats wanted to loosen regulations on banks. Once in control of Congress Democrats forced deregulation and have ever since blamed Bush for it.

OBAMA
Democrats controlled both houses of Congress so he didn't need to compromise, and when it all fell to crap, the Democrats still blame the Republicans.

/discuss

Correction on the Regan portion. Dems NEVER blamed Reagan for raising taxes they just want other GOP members to admit it.

I guess this the same kind of logic as...

ACA individual mandate as proposed by Heritage Foundation........good
ACA individual mandate as implimented by Mitt Romney...............good
ACA individual mandate as proposed by the Kenyan Mooooslim......bad!

 

[dank69]

What does

"I think we shouldn't be allowed to know what party members are affiliated with, at least not until after election. Then people would have to use their brains to figure out who they like instead of being left-wing/right-wing sheep."

have anything to do with the list? I nowhere agreed or disagreed with it; my comment was neutral...

How am I supposed to know how you arrived at that conclusion? Forgive me for assuming it had something to do with your own thread topic.

 

[werepossum]

That is how politics work.

I did everything right, my opponent did everything wrong.

Which in honesty, once elected they Shouldn't be opponents, but working together toward a common goal. I need to stop being so idealistic.

This, exactly.

Also, banking deregulation was under Clinton, was a bi-partisan effort led by Republicans with higher voting percentages than the Dems, and was completely supported by Bush II up until it was apparent that the wheels were coming off. Even then the area circa 2004 - 2006 where Bush pushed for fixing the problems and Dodd and Frank prevented it was in GSE reform, not banking reform per se. It certainly would have helped and it certainly should have been done, but the core damage that allowed a banking crash to take down the whole system was when we repealed the tattered remains of Glass-Steagall. Even in 2004, had the Republicans been united they could have overridden Dodd and Frank by picking up just a few sensible Dems, but there was no widespread GOP recognition of the GSE problem, much less the looming crash. Plus, Bush could have pulled an Obama and enforced much more strict enforcement of remaining banking regulations had he so desired, and outside of the GSEs he did not even make an effort until 2007 or so, by which time virtually everyone agreed we had a major problem. There is no way this issue is a net plus for the Pubbies.

 

[gothamhunter]

How am I supposed to know how you arrived at that conclusion? Forgive me for assuming it had something to do with your own thread topic.

What conclusion? That some (not all, some) people are sheep? Because it's obvious. That I think we shouldn't know the party affiliation until after election, if at all? Because of the sheep.

I don't understand what we're arguing about...is it some sort of requirement for posting in P&N? We literally have nothing to argue about Dank69.

 

[dank69]

What conclusion? That some (not all, some) people are sheep? Because it's obvious. That I think we shouldn't know the party affiliation until after election, if at all? Because of the sheep.

I don't understand what we're arguing about...is it some sort of requirement for posting in P&N? We literally have nothing to argue about Dank69.

Well that topic was brought up in another recent thread and I laid out my thinking on the issue in it explaining why I disagree with that, too. (Not the sheep part, just that your soultion would not work.) But it is true, that isn't the topic of this thread.

Drop some crazy in P&N without any commentary and you can expect backlash.

 

[ivwshane]

This, exactly.

Also, banking deregulation was under Clinton, was a bi-partisan effort led by Republicans with higher voting percentages than the Dems, and was completely supported by Bush II up until it was apparent that the wheels were coming off. Even then the area circa 2004 - 2006 where Bush pushed for fixing the problems and Dodd and Frank prevented it was in GSE reform, not banking reform per se. It certainly would have helped and it certainly should have been done, but the core damage that allowed a banking crash to take down the whole system was when we repealed the tattered remains of Glass-Steagall. Even in 2004, had the Republicans been united they could have overridden Dodd and Frank by picking up just a few sensible Dems, but there was no widespread GOP recognition of the GSE problem, much less the looming crash. Plus, Bush could have pulled an Obama and enforced much more strict enforcement of remaining banking regulations had he so desired, and outside of the GSEs he did not even make an effort until 2007 or so, by which time virtually everyone agreed we had a major problem. There is no way this issue is a net plus for the Pubbies.

Just a minor correction; Dodd, frank, didn't stop it, they spoke against the changes but nothing was done about it by either party and bush didn't push the issue (he did bring it up though).

 

[Moonbeam]

What conclusion? That some (not all, some) people are sheep? Because it's obvious. That I think we shouldn't know the party affiliation until after election, if at all? Because of the sheep.

I don't understand what we're arguing about...is it some sort of requirement for posting in P&N? We literally have nothing to argue about Dank69.

You are saying that folk who have enough capacity to think rationally, look at Republican practices, and vote Democrat Party are sheep? I don't think you can make a rational argument that people who don't drink from a bottle with a skull and crossbones on it are sheep because the know what the symbol means. We just have these endless examples of folk who create a false sense of superiority for themselves because they fancy themselves above party. They always make this ridiculous claim that the parties are the same. There is plenty wrong with both parties and plenty they are right about. For me I have a moral duty to vote for the party that might actually have a chance of winning and will be better, less worse, than the other. Otherwise I am just engaged in the fantasy that I'm not going to get my hands dirty. But politics is pretty shitty and what's shittier yet, in my opinion, is to vote for somebody who has no chance. We get the candidates we deserve, so make yourself more deserving.

 

[gothamhunter]

You are saying that folk who have enough capacity to think rationally, look at Republican practices, and vote Democrat Party are sheep? I don't think you can make a rational argument that people who don't drink from a bottle with a skull and crossbones on it are sheep because the know what the symbol means. We just have these endless examples of folk who create a false sense of superiority for themselves because they fancy themselves above party. They always make this ridiculous claim that the parties are the same. There is plenty wrong with both parties and plenty they are right about. For me I have a moral duty to vote for the party that might actually have a chance of winning and will be better, less worse, than the other. Otherwise I am just engaged in the fantasy that I'm not going to get my hands dirty. But politics is pretty shitty and what's shittier yet, in my opinion, is to vote for somebody who has no chance. We get the candidates we deserve, so make yourself more deserving.

FFS, no.

I'm saying that people who vote for Republican candidates just because they're Republican, or vice versa, are sheep. People who vote for Republicans for GOOD REASONS? Great, good for you. People who vote for Democrats for GOOD REASONS? Also, good for you. People who vote for either party because they're just part of that party? Sheep.

 

[Attic]

This is pretty standard thinking for the partisans.

It's what gives those in power so much influence (folks don't question their own sides idiocy and failures) and it's a critical reason the two party system serves those in power and fails the public.