Hitchens surprisingly misunderstands Palin's conservative appeal

[T-Dawg]

So, basically, they think they're still the more or less rational, decent people of the 1950s,

Uh, but the 1950s were a very liberal time compared to now... the ridiculous notions that dominate conservatism today came from the 1980s under that scumbag Reagan. Ironically, the liberal ideologies have been around longer than the "conservative" ones...

Gah, I really, really, HATE Ronald Reagan... if that monster hadn't ever been elected president or attained any power, Americans would be so much more rational, and the conservative section wouldn't be "******* crazy."

 

[Magic Man]

Hi mball,



You are factually incorrect. Obama signed his stimulus bill into law on Febuary 17, 2009.

Stimulus: How to measure success - Feb. 17, 2009

What do you think that disproves? Are you really going to argue that the stimulus bill was all Obama's doing and that Bush had nothing to do with it? Really? Just Google "Bush Stimulus". It's not hard. I already said that Obama was the one in office when it was finally put through and signed.

Keep talking. The more you guys talk about healthcare the more Americans dislike your plans.

No, the more agencies like Faux News spread lies about healthcare the more Americans dislike the plans. That's why if you sat down and talked to most Americans using facts and reality, they'd be on board.

The Wall Sreet Journal is. But I shouldn't expect much from some who cannot tell the difference between the bailout and Obama's stimulus.

You're really going to continue to argue that those are two different things? If so, you really are hopeless and this is a waste of time.

The federal government has huge ownership stakes in GM and AIG. Ask your liberal friends. They probably know more than you.

I'm sorry, my response should have been more like "I'm still waiting for a reliable source to support your original claim".

Let's go back.

Your claim: "The government shouldn't be owning banks, the loan industry, car companies and the health insurance industry. We are seeing that failing before are very eyes."

The government only has any control over certain companies because they kept asking the government for money so they wouldn't go bankrupt. If they knew how to do business well, there would be no need for them to get money from the government and the government would have no interest in them.

Some companies were failing. If they didn't get help from the government, they would have gone bankrupt. They were going bankrupt due to many of their own practices, not because of outside forces. Instead of just giving them money so they could continue their failing operations, the government decided that there were certain conditions they would need to meet to get the money. That's not unreasonable.

And those businesses were failing before the government had any control over them at all. They were failing, which is why the government has any control now.

So, maybe those companies shouldn't be owned at all by the government, but then again, all they have to do is survive without the government's money and they wouldn't be controlled at all by the government.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Sunstone,

Also, elsewhere you incorrectly identify TARP as a spending program. It's a loan program. There's a difference. Loans are expected to be repaid. Spending is not repaid.

How naive can you be? The money is not coming back. You were duped.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi mball,

What do you think that disproves? Are you really going to argue that the stimulus bill was all Obama's doing and that Bush had nothing to do with it? Really? Just Google "Bush Stimulus". It's not hard. I already said that Obama was the one in office when it was finally put through and signed.

I wish your liberal friends could help you out. Bush did sign a stimulus into law, about two years ago. Bush signed the huge bank bailout (TARP). Bush signed the beginning of auto bailout. But Obama signed his 787 billion stimulus plan which was put together by Pelosi and Reid on Feb. 17, 2009. This stimulus was all Obama and the Democrats. And under this stimulus billions of taxpayer dollars are going to corporations.

You're really going to continue to argue that those are two different things? If so, you really are hopeless and this is a waste of time.

TARP and Obama's stimulus are not the same thing. Please, Sunstone or somebody please help mball out.

The government only has any control over certain companies because they kept asking the government for money so they wouldn't go bankrupt. If they knew how to do business well, there would be no need for them to get money from the government and the government would have no interest in them.

Are you finally admitting you were wrong? The government has ownership stakes in AIG and GM. Which is what I have been saying from the beginning.

 

[Magic Man]

Hi mball,

I wish your liberal friends could help you out. Bush did sign a stimulus into law, about two years ago. Bush signed the huge bank bailout (TARP). Bush signed the beginning of auto bailout. But Obama signed his 787 billion stimulus plan which was put together by Pelosi and Reid on Feb. 17, 2009. This stimulus was all Obama and the Democrats. And under this stimulus billions of taxpayer dollars are going to corporations.

Well, have fun with your head in the sand, then. Good luck with that. Next time you want to talk about reality, I'm here waiting.

TARP and Obama's stimulus are not the same thing. Please, Sunstone or somebody please help mball out.

Please, reality or somebody, please help Joe out.

Are you finally admitting you were wrong? The government has ownership stakes in AIG and GM. Which is what I have been saying from the beginning.

Having ownership stakes in a company and owning an industry are more than slightly different things, but nice try.

I'm not surprised, though, that you avoid the main point. There are plenty of businesses out there, big and small, with no government control of them. Why? Because they don't suck at business and they've been able to keep going without the aid of government money. If the companies you're talking about didn't need the government's money, they wouldn't have had to give in to any of the government's requests.

 

[Smoke]

Uh, but the 1950s were a very liberal time compared to now...

There was no Religious Right, but they had McCarthyism and Jim Crow. Not such a good time to be black or gay.

the ridiculous notions that dominate conservatism today came from the 1980s under that scumbag Reagan. Ironically, the liberal ideologies have been around longer than the "conservative" ones...

Gah, I really, really, HATE Ronald Reagan... if that monster hadn't ever been elected president or attained any power, Americans would be so much more rational, and the conservative section wouldn't be "******* crazy."

I think you give Reagan too much credit. He was more a product of the insanity than the author of it.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Mball,

Before going any further I need to ask one question: Do you believe the bank bailout (TARP) signed by Bush is the same as Obama's stimulus bill signed by Obama?

If you do not believe that these are two separate pieces of legislation that I cannot continue our conversation.

 

[Magic Man]

Mball,

Before going any further I need to ask one question: Do you believe the bank bailout (TARP) signed by Bush is the same as Obama's stimulus bill signed by Obama?

If you do not believe that these are two separate pieces of legislation that I cannot continue our conversation.

Bush gave some money to some companies and then began work on the stimulus bill. You can split hairs and say that they were two separate occurrences, but they were the same thing. And the main point is that Bush was the one who came up with the stimulus bill, and got it going through the legal channels. It was then left for Obama to sign into effect when he came into office.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi mball,

Bush gave some money to some companies and then began work on the stimulus bill. You can split hairs and say that they were two separate occurrences, but they were the same thing. And the main point is that Bush was the one who came up with the stimulus bill, and got it going through the legal channels. It was then left for Obama to sign into effect when he came into office.

We cannot continue. You are the ignorant of basic facts. TARP (the bank bailout) was signed by Bush and was partially implemented by Bush's Treasury Dept. and continues to be implemented during Obama's first term. Obama's 787 billion dollar stimulus is another completely different piece of legislation than TARP. It was put together by Pelosi and Reid and signed by Obama. Bush had nothing to do with Obama's 787 billion dollar stimulus. And how is that stimulus doing by the way?

And you belittle people who watch Fox News? LOL!

 

[Magic Man]

Hi mball,



We cannot continue. You are the ignorant of basic facts. TARP (the bank bailout) was signed by Bush and was partially implemented by Bush's Treasury Dept. and continues to be implemented during Obama's first term. Obama's 787 billion dollar stimulus is another completely different piece of legislation than TARP. It was put together by Pelosi and Reid and signed by Obama. Bush had nothing to do with Obama's 787 billion dollar stimulus. And how is that stimulus doing by the way?

And you belittle people who watch Fox News? LOL!

Watch this. I'm going to do something unprecedented (and something that may be a foreign idea to you). I'm going to admit I was wrong. Yes, they are two different pieces of legislation.

Now that that's out of the way, let's get back to the original point (something you seem to like to forget many times).

Here's the original point by me:

Not that it matters. This whole comment misses the point. First, it's not like Obama is that far from being a Republican. Second, the main point is that, while Democrats do it, too, pleasing big corporations is more of a Republican trait in general.

To which you responded:

LOL! Look at the actual evidence. What is the stimulus doing? Doling out billions to corporations. And this is the biggest stimulus in our history. So, no party rewards corprorations like Obama has.

So, forgetting who wrote which stimulus legislation, please explain how this responds to my statement. I said that Obama isn't very far from a Republican, and that while democrats get into bed with big businesses, it's more of a republican trait. Saying that Obama gave money to big businesses doesn't really refute anything.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi mball,

So, forgetting who wrote which stimulus legislation, please explain how this responds to my statement. I said that Obama isn't very far from a Republican, and that while democrats get into bed with big businesses, it's more of a republican trait. Saying that Obama gave money to big businesses doesn't really refute anything.

What I am disputing is that it is more of a Republican trait. Obama is giving corporations billions via his stimulus package. And this is the biggest stimulus bill in our history. So, it looks like Obama, a Democrat is giving corporations more money that any president ever.

Even if I ceded the point to that it is a Republican trait (and I don't) Obama has outdone every Republican in history.

I understand your point that you weren't saying Democrats don't do it and only Republicans do it. I'm merely contesting your claim that it is a bigger Republican trait.

 

[Magic Man]

Hi mball,



What I am disputing is that it is more of a Republican trait. Obama is giving corporations billions via his stimulus package. And this is the biggest stimulus bill in our history. So, it looks like Obama, a Democrat is giving corporations more money that any president ever.

Even if I ceded the point to that it is a Republican trait (and I don't) Obama has outdone every Republican in history.

I understand your point that you weren't saying Democrats don't do it and only Republicans do it. I'm merely contesting your claim that it is a bigger Republican trait.

That's great, but one (supposed) Democrat giving out money doesn't prove that it's a Democratic trait. Showing that more Democrats do it than Republicans would help support your claim.

 

[Darkness]

What are some specifics of this 'wretched ideology'?

• Her belief that homosexuality is a sin.
• She stated on the O'Reilly Factor that she would threaten/intimidate Russia to try to get them to impose sanctions on Iran. That one policy position makes me incredibly scared to think she could be in a position of power.
• Her belief in the supremacy of the Free Market. If there is anything we've learned from the current world-wide meltdown, it is that we need a lot more government regulation.
• The fact that Palin basically sees the world in black and white.
• Palin claims to be a bible-believing Christian. In the Bible, God slaughters innocent men, women and children. Moses stones girls to death for having premarital sex and that is seen as righteous, yet modern-day Muslims stoning girls to death for the same reason is morally reprehensible. I do not want a Fundamentalist leading my country.
• Modern Conservatism as a political ideology is wholly repugnant to the ethics of humanism. It concentrates wealth in an elite group of people (who are not necessarily more deserving of that wealth) and purports hypocritical morality.

 

[JMorris]

• Her belief that homosexuality is a sin.
• She stated on the O'Reilly Factor that she would threaten/intimidate Russia to try to get them to impose sanctions on Iran. That one policy position makes me incredibly scared to think she could be in a position of power.
• Her belief in the supremacy of the Free Market. If there is anything we've learned from the current world-wide meltdown, it is that we need a lot more government regulation.
• The fact that Palin basically sees the world in black and white.
• Palin claims to be a bible-believing Christian. In the Bible, God slaughters innocent men, women and children. Moses stones girls to death for having premarital sex and that is seen as righteous, yet modern-day Muslims stoning girls to death for the same reason is morally reprehensible. I do not want a Fundamentalist leading my country.
• Modern Conservatism as a political ideology is wholly repugnant to the ethics of humanism. It concentrates wealth in an elite group of people (who are not necessarily more deserving of that wealth) and purports hypocritical morality.

& she believes in a medieval idea of witches, watch out wiccans

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi mball,

That's great, but one (supposed) Democrat giving out money doesn't prove that it's a Democratic trait. Showing that more Democrats do it than Republicans would help support your claim.

You are ignoring that Obama is giving more money to corporations than any president ever has. If giving taxpayer money to corporations is a terrible thing then you must think Obama is a terrible president.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Darkness,

Her belief that homosexuality is a sin.

How does this have any bearing her political philosophy?

She stated on the O'Reilly Factor that she would threaten/intimidate Russia to try to get them to impose sanctions on Iran. That one policy position makes me incredibly scared to think she could be in a position of power.

I know; it didn't work out for Reagan either, right? Putin just said that he thinks there is no reason for sanctions on Iran and that there is no evidence Iran is building nukes. That she would try to apply pressure on Russia to change their position is hardly controversial.

Her belief in the supremacy of the Free Market. If there is anything we've learned from the current world-wide meltdown, it is that we need a lot more government regulation.

Yeah, that's the ticket; more Federal Reserve misallocating trillions of dollars with artificial interest rate cuts and Fannie and Freddie lending to people who can't pay back the loans. If you think that is the free market in action then you are clueless.

The fact that Palin basically sees the world in black and white.

I know; she probably believes the 9/11 hijackers were evil people. Shocking.

Palin claims to be a bible-believing Christian. In the Bible, God slaughters innocent men, women and children. Moses stones girls to death for having premarital sex and that is seen as righteous, yet modern-day Muslims stoning girls to death for the same reason is morally reprehensible. I do not want a Fundamentalist leading my country.

This has what to do with her political ideology?

· Modern Conservatism as a political ideology is wholly repugnant to the ethics of humanism. It concentrates wealth in an elite group of people (who are not necessarily more deserving of that wealth) and purports hypocritical morality.

No wonder you believe conservatism is wretched, you don't even know what it is.

 

[Magic Man]

Hi mball,



You are ignoring that Obama is giving more money to corporations than any president ever has. If giving taxpayer money to corporations is a terrible thing then you must think Obama is a terrible president.

I'm not ignoring anything. You're ignoring what I'm saying. Whether or not Obama is actually doing that and why is irrelevant. For the sake of this discussion we'll just assume he is doing what you say. That's still only one democrat. You still have to show that more democrats do that than republicans. I'm just shocked you're even taking it this far, but good luck taking it farther.

 

[T-Dawg]

How does this have any bearing her political philosophy?

She's willing to deny marriage rights to a certain group of people. I think that's pretty signifigant.

I know; it didn't work out for Reagan either, right? Putin just said that he thinks there is no reason for sanctions on Iran and that there is no evidence Iran is building nukes. That she would try to apply pressure on Russia to change their position is hardly controversial.

Oh, right, because it's been done before, that makes it ok . And no, it didn't work out for Reagan, either. While the USSR collapsed during his presidency, this had more to do with their internal problems (ie, overexpansionism and having spent too much on the military) than anything Reagan did. Reagan's idea of building a big army and threatening Russia to get what he wanted is what originally got us into debt in the first place, and it didn't accomplish anything other than what would have already happened anyways.

Yeah, that's the ticket; more Federal Reserve misallocating trillions of dollars with artificial interest rate cuts and Fannie and Freddie lending to people who can't pay back the loans. If you think that is the free market in action then you are clueless.

Sure sounds like the free market in action to me. The Federal Reserve is a private institution that operates separately from government control. And I just did a quick google on Fannie Mae - it's a private institution.

Fannie Mae was established in 1938 [8] as a mechanism to make mortgages more available to low-income families. It was added to the Federal Home Mortgage association, a government agency in the wake of the Great Depression in 1938, as part of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal in order to facilitate liquidity within the mortgage market. In 1968, the government converted Fannie Mae into a private shareholder-owned corporation in order to remove its activity from the annual balance sheet of the federal budget.[9] Consequently, Fannie Mae ceased to be the guarantor of government-issued mortgages, and that responsibility was transferred to the new Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae).

Fannie Mae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Care to explain to me how that's NOT the free market in action? =/

I know; she probably believes the 9/11 hijackers were evil people. Shocking.

She probably also believes that the civilians in Iraq are evil people too.

No wonder you believe conservatism is wretched, you don't even know what it is.

YOU are the one who does not know what conservatism has become.

 

[Smoke]

No wonder you believe conservatism is wretched, you don't even know what it is.

I think it's clear he knows exactly what it is that passes for conservatism today.

YOU are the one who does not know what conservatism has become.

Oh, he knows -- but he's enamored of it.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi mball,

I'm not ignoring anything. You're ignoring what I'm saying. Whether or not Obama is actually doing that and why is irrelevant. For the sake of this discussion we'll just assume he is doing what you say. That's still only one democrat. You still have to show that more democrats do that than republicans. I'm just shocked you're even taking it this far, but good luck taking it farther.

Yes and this one Democrat is outdoing any politician of any party ever in U.S. history in giving taxpayer money to corporations. Your outrage seems misplaced.