Hitchens surprisingly misunderstands Palin's conservative appeal

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi TAL,

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

Then your problem is with the American people. Every time gay marriage is on the ballot it loses. The people are speaking and they don't want gay marriage. This has little to do with Palin.

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.

Now you are just ignorant of history. Gorbachev, himself, credits Reagan for bankrupting the Soviet Union. You are right about one thing; the Soviet economy was a basket-case which makes one wonder why you believe socialism is a good thing if it was such a failure in the Soviet Union.

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.

Quote:
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? =/

TAL, the Federal Reserve is the government bank of the U.S. The Federal Reserve can print its own money! Can any private institution do that? No. The Federal Reserve can set interest rates for the entire economy. The president appoints who is one the Fed's Board of Governors.

As for Fannie here is a good quote:

On September 11, 2003, the Bush Administration recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis. Under the plan, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae. The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set capital-reserve requirements for the company and to determine whether the company is adequately managing the risks of its portfolios. The New York Times reported that the plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is broken. The Times also reported Democratic opposition to Bush's plan: "These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." [16]

This is from that same wiki page you posted. The federal government determines the capital-reserve requirements of Fannie and overseas their portfolio. And look who resisted reform, none other than Barney Frank (the Banking Queen). Democrats resisted any reform of this terrible organization. The fraud at Fannie is like Enron times a thousand, but since it is a GSE nothing is said about it.

You are clearly wrong. The Federal Reserve is the government bank of the U.S. And Congress basically runs Fannie and Freddie. They are not private entities.

 

[T-Dawg]

Then your problem is with the American people. Every time gay marriage is on the ballot it loses. The people are speaking and they don't want gay marriage. This has little to do with Palin.

I do indeed have a problem with the American people. Anyone who votes against the rights of his fellow man is disgusting to me.

Now you are just ignorant of history. Gorbachev, himself, credits Reagan for bankrupting the Soviet Union. You are right about one thing; the Soviet economy was a basket-case which makes one wonder why you believe socialism is a good thing if it was such a failure in the Soviet Union.

I still don't see how spending a lot of money on the military and threatening people bankrupted the soviets. Besides that, the Soviet economy was a basket-case not because of socialism, it was because, like America, they had a tendency to spend too much on the military, and they took over a lot of countries that didn't want to be taken over.

the Federal Reserve is the government bank of the U.S. The Federal Reserve can print its own money! Can any private institution do that? No. The Federal Reserve can set interest rates for the entire economy. The president appoints who is one the Fed's Board of Governors.

YES, the Fed IS a private institution, and YES, it CAN print money and set interest rates. That's what makes it so scary.

This is from that same wiki page you posted. The federal government determines the capital-reserve requirements of Fannie and overseas their portfolio. And look who resisted reform, none other than Barney Frank (the Banking Queen). Democrats resisted any reform of this terrible organization. The fraud at Fannie is like Enron times a thousand, but since it is a GSE nothing is said about it.

I don't know what gave you the impression that I was a democrat (they are as corrupt as republicans are insane), but anyways, the fact that Bush wanted reform kind of surprises me. It sounds a bit too good to be Bush, but I don't know much about it, so I'll leave it to someone smart like mball or sunstone to argue with you on that one...

 

[Magic Man]

Hi mball,
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.

Who said anything about outrage? Man, I really do love this conservative debate tactic. Counter the opposing claim with something irrelevant. Repeat several times. By this point, the opponent should be sufficiently distracted so that you can throw something even more irrelevant at them and change what the argument is actually about.

This was about you saying that democrats just try to please their supporters and such. I countered by saying that, while democrats do that, it's more of a republican trait. There's no outrage there, just pointing out a fact.

And the point remains. You really need to get off this Obama thing. Let's go ahead and agree that Obama has done what you say. Let's agree that he's given more to big businesses than any other president or politician. We could certainly argue that, but it's pointless right now. With that being true, now you have to show that more democrats than republicans are guilty of giving money to their supporters. Showine one instance doesn't show that the entire group does it more. It only shows that one member of the group has done it a lot.

 

[Magic Man]

Hi TAL,
Then your problem is with the American people. Every time gay marriage is on the ballot it loses. The people are speaking and they don't want gay marriage. This has little to do with Palin.

This gets really old. I'm not sure whether you're even trying to do it at this point, or whether it's just so natural for you to veer off course in a discussion like this. Whether or not the American people agree, his problem with Palin is that she opposes same-sex marriage. And since Palin's the one we're talking about, we're not worried about what the American people say, only what Palin says.

With that said, where has same-sex marriage been on the ballot? It seems to me it's been made legal in several states recently. The only one I remember it being on the ballot of is California. Besides, what does that have to do with anything? Yeah, some people are stupid, but that's changing.

 

[Smoke]

Then your problem is with the American people. Every time gay marriage is on the ballot it loses. The people are speaking and they don't want gay marriage.

Hey, maybe your problem is with the American people. The American people want Social Security and Medicare and they want kids to get lunch every day even if their parents are crackheads or dead, and they want at least a public option for healthcare.

So if we're going to play the "American" card, and talk about the will of the people, then maybe you ought to pack up and move to some libertarian paradise like Liberia or Somalia, and then you can be truly happy.

Jesus, if the best argument you've got to support your position is waving the flag, maybe you don't have an argument at all.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi TAL,

I do indeed have a problem with the American people. Anyone who votes against the rights of his fellow man is disgusting to me.

Sure, homosexuals are so oppressed here in the U.S. Please. By the way, in every state that has put on the ballot gay marriage has been defeated (30 states I believe).

I still don't see how spending a lot of money on the military and threatening people bankrupted the soviets. Besides that, the Soviet economy was a basket-case not because of socialism, it was because, like America, they had a tendency to spend too much on the military, and they took over a lot of countries that didn't want to be taken over.

Well, let me explain it to you. As we spent more on our military this forced the Soviets to spend more on their military. As we agreed upon, the Soviet economy was a basket-case thus they couldn't keep up with their military spending.

And the Soviet economy failed because it was based on socialism. There was no free market; bureaucrats set the price for everything. Since the bureaucrats had limited knowledge of where resources should be allocated the economy was plagued by shortages and surpluses. The Soviet economy failed because it is impossible for the government to set prices and run an economy. It was a complete failure because it wasn't free. But don't take it from me. Do a little research for yourself and you'll see.

YES, the Fed IS a private institution, and YES, it CAN print money and set interest rates. That's what makes it so scary.

You are just wrong. The Fed is our government's bank. Countries have central banks and the Fed is ours. The chairman of the Fed is appointed by the president. The board of governors is appointed by the president. The Fed was created by the Federal Government in 1913.

I don't know what gave you the impression that I was a democrat (they are as corrupt as republicans are insane), but anyways, the fact that Bush wanted reform kind of surprises me. It sounds a bit too good to be Bush, but I don't know much about it, so I'll leave it to someone smart like mball or sunstone to argue with you on that one...

Why don't you do a little research on this stuff on your own? If you did you wouldn't believe things like the Fed is a private bank and Bush was 'too good' to try to reform Fannie Mae.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi mball,

This gets really old. I'm not sure whether you're even trying to do it at this point, or whether it's just so natural for you to veer off course in a discussion like this. Whether or not the American people agree, his problem with Palin is that she opposes same-sex marriage. And since Palin's the one we're talking about, we're not worried about what the American people say, only what Palin says.

And my point was that Palin has little to no effect on the question of gay marriage.

With that said, where has same-sex marriage been on the ballot? It seems to me it's been made legal in several states recently. The only one I remember it being on the ballot of is California. Besides, what does that have to do with anything? Yeah, some people are stupid, but that's changing.

In every state that gay marriage has been on the ballot it has lost. I think it is now 30 states where gay marriage has lost when put up to a vote.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Smoke,

Hey, maybe your problem is with the American people. The American people want Social Security and Medicare and they want kids to get lunch every day even if their parents are crackheads or dead, and they want at least a public option for healthcare.

So if we're going to play the "American" card, and talk about the will of the people, then maybe you ought to pack up and move to some libertarian paradise like Liberia or Somalia, and then you can be truly happy.

Jesus, if the best argument you've got to support your position is waving the flag, maybe you don't have an argument at all.

My point was that Palin has little to no effect on gay marriage. And in every state where people can actually vote on the issue, gay marriage loses.

So, this whole 'Palin will stop gay rights' argument that someone else was making is nonsense because many Americans have already been rejecting gay marriage.

 

[Magic Man]

Hi TAL,
Sure, homosexuals are so oppressed here in the U.S. Please.

Wow...just wow. You really need to start paying attention. Next thing you know, you'll be telling us that racism is a thing of the past.

By the way, in every state that has put on the ballot gay marriage has been defeated (30 states I believe).

And?

 

[Magic Man]

Hi mball,
And my point was that Palin has little to no effect on the question of gay marriage.

Well, I don't know about that, but I'm not really sure what it has to do with anything either. The point was made that she is against same-sex marriage and against homosexuality. For reasonable people, that's a strike against her. Also, if she was president, she could have a hell of a lot of effect on the question of same-sex marriage.

In every state that gay marriage has been on the ballot it has lost. I think it is now 30 states where gay marriage has lost when put up to a vote.

Let's go ahead and assume that's true. What does that mean? What point does that make? The only point it makes to me is that the majority of people who voted in those states are bigotted and/or ignorant. What does it say to you?

 

[Magic Man]

Hi Smoke,



My point was that Palin has little to no effect on gay marriage. And in every state where people can actually vote on the issue, gay marriage loses.

So, this whole 'Palin will stop gay rights' argument that someone else was making is nonsense because many Americans have already been rejecting gay marriage.

First, why don't you go back and show us where someone made that argument?

Second, who cares what Americans are doing? Some states are doing it the right way and not leaving it up to the retarded masses. They're just passing laws that need to be passed.

I guess it would be fine with you if the majority in your state voted to ban the practice of Catholicism in your state, right? Or if they voted to ban the legal status of your marriage, right? I mean, if the majority says so, then that's the way it should be, right?

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi mball,

Wow...just wow. You really need to start paying attention. Next thing you know, you'll be telling us that racism is a thing of the past.

I know, it must be tough to be a homosexual in the U.S. Being in shackles in all and not allowed to work in many industries here.

Well, I don't know about that, but I'm not really sure what it has to do with anything either. The point was made that she is against same-sex marriage and against homosexuality. For reasonable people, that's a strike against her. Also, if she was president, she could have a hell of a lot of effect on the question of same-sex marriage.

That is my point. Palin would have basically no effect on gay marriage or the lives of homosexuals.

Let's go ahead and assume that's true. What does that mean? What point does that make? The only point it makes to me is that the majority of people who voted in those states are bigotted and/or ignorant. What does it say to you?

The point again is, Palin has little to do with gay marriage. States are already handling the issue and they all (the ones that voted on it) voted against gay marriage. What I am saying is people are making their impact felt without the need of Palin.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi mball,

Darkness said that part of her wretched political ideology was that she believes homosexuality is a sin. Then TAL brought up the whole gay marriage issue.

 

[Magic Man]

Hi mball,
I know, it must be tough to be a homosexual in the U.S. Being in shackles in all and not allowed to work in many industries here.

Yeah, because that's the only kind of mistreatment that ever goes on. Jesus, Joe, I knew you were pretty far gone, but this is ridiculous. I'll tell you again to pay more attention. There's a whole world out there, and it's pretty amazing. Check it out some time.

That is my point. Palin would have basically no effect on gay marriage or the lives of homosexuals.

Saying it doesn't make it true. The president has a lot of effect on a lot of things. Having a president that is opposed to treating homosexuals like human beings is not exactly a good thing. For instance, would you support someone who wanted to ban Catholicism and take away Catholics' rights?

The point again is, Palin has little to do with gay marriage. States are already handling the issue and they all (the ones that voted on it) voted against gay marriage. What I am saying is people are making their impact felt without the need of Palin.

And the real point here is that many of us don't like her opinion on homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Whether or not that actually ended up in tangible, obvious problems when she was president is irrelevant. The idea of having someone like that in office is scary in and of itself, which was the point of the original comment.

And I'm really curious where this notion of yours is coming from that the president doesn't have any effect on the country. It's an interesting and very ignorant one.

 

[Magic Man]

Hi mball,

Darkness said that part of her wretched political ideology was that she believes homosexuality is a sin. Then TAL brought up the whole gay marriage issue.

So, this whole 'Palin will stop gay rights' argument that someone else was making is nonsense

First, why don't you go back and show us where someone made that argument?

Darkness said that part of her wretched political ideology was that she believes homosexuality is a sin. Then TAL brought up the whole gay marriage issue.

:sarcastic

So, I ask again for you to show me where someone put forth "the whole 'Palin will stop gay rights' argment".

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi mball,

TAL said this in post 38:

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

 

[Mr Spinkles]

This is actually why a lot of people join the conservative side; they are disgusted at how the politicians use the government to reward their generous supporters.

That is a very interesting statement coming from the same guy who posted the following, in this thread: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/north-american-politics/82955-sticky-issue-lobbying.html

I love my lobbyists. They support causes and issues that are important to me. ... I want to influence my representative, that is why I sometimes give their campaigns money or give a group money. I hope they listen to me. And now you guys want to take that freedom away from me.
...
Don't we want money to influence politicians?
...
Like I said before, I love my lobbyists; keep your dirty hands off them.
​

There we have it, folks. It's okay to buy politicians and expect something in return, but it's "disgusting" to cast a vote and expect something in return. It's fascinating to see democracy turned upside down in this way, and the hysteria with which real democracy is regarded as an assault on freedom.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Hi mball,
I know, it must be tough to be a homosexual in the U.S. Being in shackles in all and not allowed to work in many industries here.

A perfect illustration that the people who call themselves "conservatives" in the U.S. believe in certain principles, but only in a very special sense. "Rights" is one such principle. The right of the wealthiest bidder to influence public policy is sacred. The right to be treated equally without regard to sexual orientation is treated as a joke.

 

[Magic Man]

Hi mball,

TAL said this in post 38:

So, I ask again for you to show me where someone put forth "the whole 'Palin will stop gay rights' argment".

This is getting to be a trend with you, me having to ask you a question several times in hopes of getting a relevant answer.

 

[T-Dawg]

You are just wrong. The Fed is our government's bank. Countries have central banks and the Fed is ours. The chairman of the Fed is appointed by the president. The board of governors is appointed by the president. The Fed was created by the Federal Government in 1913.

No, you stated that the Fed was owned by the government, and if we're to go by wikipedia, that is wrong.

Federal Reserve System is subject to the Administrative Procedure Act. According to the board of governors: "It is not 'owned' by anyone and is 'not a private, profit-making institution'. Instead, it is an independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects."[7] In particular, neither the Federal Reserve System nor its component banks are owned by the US Federal Government.

Federal Reserve System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Also according to the same source, the Federal reserve is not a wholly private institution and does not operate for profit. It is, however, run by a collection of private banks who act as shareholders would for a corporation.

Sure, homosexuals are so oppressed here in the U.S. Please.

Have fun saying that when YOUR marriage rights are denied.

As we spent more on our military this forced the Soviets to spend more on their military.

Actually, didn't the soviets already have a larger military than the US? I have this quote from Reagan's autobiography (or whatever Ronald Reagan... National Defense is supposed to be):

At the beginning of my first term, Pentagon leaders told me appalling stories of how the Soviets were gaining on us militarily, both in nuclear and conventional forces. The Soviets were spending fifty percent more each year on weapons than we were; meanwhile, in our armed forces, the paychecks were so small that some married enlisted men and women were eligible for welfare benefits. Many military personnel were so ashamed of being in the service that as soon as they left their posts, they put on civilian clothes.

So it seems that according to Reagan himself, the Soviets were already overspending on the military even without our aggression... O_O