Why are some Left Wing Liberals, So intellectually dishonest

[Phantasman]

................ roll credits.

It did kind of bring back my young Thespian days. LOL

 

[Valjean]

I'm an Independent. Voted for Dem Presidents and Rep Presidents.

I can see your skewed left slant as well as I see skewed right slants.

Obama ran as a Democrat but was a Progressive. No doubts there. Just as Trump ran as a Republican but is more Independent. It's why many Republicans don't like him.

When did Obama even claim to be progressive? What progressive policies did he promote?

You can view Obama any way you want. But his acts were Progessive, like weak world strength and huge spendings on programs with little return (on investment). How can someone like Obama spend so much money to Iran and not get Iranian hostages out? Yet Trump negotiated hostages from NK not costing the US taxpayer anything?

"Weak world strength?" You think it's the president's job to promote world domination? What do you see as our place in the world? What is this obsession with empire? It's bankrupting us, reducing the freedom and prosperity we claim to value so highly.
And by-the-way, Obama expanded our military role immensely, as well as ramping up Latino deportations to previously unheard of rates -- hardly "progressive." He just didn't crow about it or use it to raise his approval ratings.
Spending on programs with little return on investment? When did the US become a for-profit industry or stock fund? The current military hegemony you seem to favor is loosing money hand over fist.

You want lucrative investments? Try free education or healthcare. The GI Bill returned 700% on investment -- in taxes alone, and a not-for-profit single-payer or socialized healthcare system would save taxpayers billions, reduce costs for products and services, promote business and simplify everyone's life immensely. The current empire and government Rube Goldberg benefits only the billionaire class, at the expense of the citizens it's supposed to be serving.

You can argue the Progressive agenda all day long. You can even deny it. But in the end, the actions and results are what I see. Not the talking heads calling names, spinning or excluding actions/results in "their" favor or trying to convince me that they are the good guys here.

Perpetual war, rising debt, rising poverty, decaying infrastructure, health insecurity, decreasing security, and a police-surveillance state -- these are all the result of right-wing policies.

But I am not without wisdom in 68 years to understand when someone tries to tell me a bad thing is good. Or a good thing is bad. I decide that for myself. THIS is Freedom.

68? So when you were a lad we had free education, inexpensive healthcare, a rising standard of living, an expanding social safety net and -- thanks to high taxes -- thriving industry. A man could buy a house, raise a family, take a vacation every year, send his kids to college and retire comfortably all on a single, middle class or even workman's salary. The New Deal, Great Society and other liberal social programs -- which the Right fought tooth and nail, -- enabled all this.

Don't you remember?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Did President Obama’s administration remove children from their parents when they came to the U.S. illegally? Someone on FaceBook is saying this and I want to see if this is true.

NEWSWEEK: OBAMA HELD MORE THAN DOUBLE THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN IN SHELTERS COMPARED TO TRUMP WHITE HOUSE

This is a perfect case of conservatives committing self immolation. It's the ol' "bait and switch" tactic, which is the poster child for intellectual dishonesty.

You claim that Obama separated twice as many children from their families as Trump is. You then cite a story about children who came to border WITHOUT THEIR PARENTS. That's intellectual dishonesty, and it isn't coming from the "left wing" or the "liberals". Those kids weren't separated from their parents because they didn't come to the border with their parents.

 

[Valjean]

This is a perfect case of conservatives committing self immolation. It's the ol' "bait and switch" tactic, which is the poster child for intellectual dishonesty.

You claim that Obama separated twice as many children from their families as Trump is. You then cite a story about children who came to border WITHOUT THEIR PARENTS. That's intellectual dishonesty, and it isn't coming from the "left wing" or the "liberals". Those kids weren't separated from their parents because they didn't come to the border with their parents.

To be completely honest, though, Obama did deport huge numbers of undocumented aliens, many of whom had children in the States. These, though, were not placed in concentration camps or kiddy jails, but with other family members.
Perhaps this is what Faithofchristian heard of.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Now that's amazing how you, yourself lie, Obama ran as a Liberal Democrat, became President as a Liberal Democrat.

Citation? Or is this according to your personal definition of a "Liberal Democrat"?

 

[Phantasman]

When did Obama even claim to be progressive? What progressive policies did he promote?

"Weak world strength?" You think it's the president's job to promote world domination? What do you see as our place in the world? What is this obsession with empire? It's bankrupting us, reducing the freedom and prosperity we claim to value so highly.
And by-the-way, Obama expanded our military role immensely, as well as ramping up Latino deportations to previously unheard of rates -- hardly "progressive." He just didn't crow about it or use it to raise his approval ratings.
Spending on programs with little return on investment? When did the US become a for-profit industry or stock fund? The current military hegemony you seem to favor is loosing money hand over fist.

You want lucrative investments? Try free education or healthcare. The GI Bill returned 700% on investment -- in taxes alone, and a not-for-profit single-payer or socialized healthcare system would save taxpayers billions, reduce costs for products and services, promote business and simplify everyone's life immensely. The current empire and government Rube Goldberg benefits only the billionaire class, at the expense of the citizens it's supposed to be serving.

Perpetual war, rising debt, rising poverty, decaying infrastructure, health insecurity, decreasing security, and a police-surveillance state -- these are all the result of right-wing policies.
68? So when you were a lad we had free education, inexpensive healthcare, a rising standard of living, an expanding social safety net and -- thanks to high taxes -- thriving industry. A man could buy a house, raise a family, take a vacation every year, send his kids to college and retire comfortably all on a single, middle class or even workman's salary. The New Deal, Great Society and other liberal social programs -- which the Right fought tooth and nail, -- enabled all this.

Don't you remember?

You need to brush up on what Progressivism is.

Obama put so many restrictive laws against industry that they had to move their labor and product to other countries. That's what a Progressive does. Yes people are important, but Progressivism provides for the people through the government. Tax the wealth, give to the poor. It's anti capitalistic, and makes people run to the government, which knows best. The government becomes a social nanny. Sounds good on paper, never works.

When Trump repealed the Obama tax burden, and restrictive laws choking capitalism, the country responded. Businesses were free to run (without choking) and hied Americans, and workers on jobs for years saw raises. This stimulates the economy, new workers pay taxes. Instead of a few people paying high taxes, many pay a lower tax. The many stimulate the economy from their new found dollars each month. When the economy grows, it needs even more workers. Hence a low unemployment rate.

Obama made the people pay to refuse the ACA. This created more burden on workers. The ACA said that employers were to pay for any employee that worked a 38+ work week. So businesses dropped employees and hours to 35 or less. The plan was a disaster. Add to that that all ACA recipients were covered for pre existing conditions, those are the people who signed up. Pre existing payouts almost bankrupted the insurance companies as they all dropped out. If a person totals his car, then applies for insurance to pay for it, how long would that insurance company survive.

All these decisions by Obama hurt the country. They were an implementation of progressivism. Once removed, the economy responded in favor. I voted for Obama first term by what he said. I ditched him second term from what he did.

The immigration is is the same. What really gets my goat, is that people like Obama, Pelosi, Schumer made their wealth through capitalism, yet want to destroy it for others. Which is why the elite live under one set of rules, and the common people others. Geoge Soros is the master of such thinking.

 

[Valjean]

Policy-wise, I'd count his policies as moderate Republican, by the standards of the day.

Of course, the political mainstream has been moving steadily to the right for decades, so by the standards of America's golden age in the '40's to '70s, even Bernie would be considered Republican.
From the 1956 election's Republican Platform:

1. Provide federal assistance to low-income communities;
2. Protect Social Security;
3. Provide asylum for refugees;
4. Extend minimum wage;
5. Improve unemployment benefit system so it covers more people;
6. Strengthen labor laws so workers can more easily join a union;
7. Assure equal pay for equal work regardless of sex.

Sound Republican to you?

 

[Sleeppy]

If someone has a bowell movement in a toilet and doesn't flush and I go in there and see and smell it when I lift the lid I'd say I have the right to call them out on it, especially if someone is blaming me for it.

Except when it comes to the economy, employment, or..

 

[Valjean]

You need to brush up on what Progressivism is.

Obama put so many restrictive laws against industry that they had to move their labor and product to other countries. That's what a Progressive does. Yes people are important, but Progressivism provides for the people through the government. Tax the wealth, give to the poor. It's anti capitalistic, and makes people run to the government, which knows best. The government becomes a social nanny. Sounds good on paper, never works.

No, when "liberal" policies were in force American industry thrived as did the workers, who got to share in the profits. It was the right wing "economic royalists," as Roosevelt put it, trying to recreate the Gilded Age, who "globalized" industry and even provided tax incentives to move industry overseas.
Neoliberalism is a right wing philosophy.

When Trump repealed the Obama tax burden, and restrictive laws choking capitalism, the country responded. Businesses were free to run (without choking) and hied Americans, and workers on jobs for years saw raises. This stimulates the economy, new workers pay taxes. Instead of a few people paying high taxes, many pay a lower tax. The many stimulate the economy from their new found dollars each month. When the economy grows, it needs even more workers. Hence a low unemployment rate.

We've been hearing this since Reagan's supply side, 'trickle down' revolution of 1980. It created a bubble, then 30+ years of wage stagnation. I expect the current reiteration to do the same.
As for high taxes, it was high taxes that forced industry to plow its profits back into America's factories and to share with the workers, instead of pocketing it. Far from depressing industry, it created the greatest industrial spurt in the country's history.
I think you need to bone up on your economic history. Sometimes effects are complex, even counter intuitive.

Obama made the people pay to refuse the ACA. This created more burden on workers. The ACA said that employers were to pay for any employee that worked a 38+ work week. So businesses dropped employees and hours to 35 or less. The plan was a disaster. Add to that that all ACA recipients were covered for pre existing conditions, those are the people who signed up. Pre existing payouts almost bankrupted the insurance companies as they all dropped out. If a person totals his car, then applies for insurance to pay for it, how long would that insurance company survive.

All these decisions by Obama hurt the country. They were an implementation of progressivism. Once removed, the economy responded in favor. I voted for Obama first term by what he said. I ditched him second term from what he did.

No, the ACA was originally a Republican initiative, traceable all the way back to the Nixon administration. It did not hurt the country. It allowed millions to get insurance who previously couldn't afford it, and mandated certain minimal standards.

That said, It was junk. It was not a progressive policy in any sense of the word, but perhaps it was the best Obama could get through. As a policy proponent and negotiator, Obama was hopeless.

There are dozens of other healthcare systems in the world, which Americans are, apparently, unaware of: simpler, much cheaper, and with better outcomes. Obamacare was never favored by progressives.
As for insurance companies, why even have them? They deliver no services, they just restrict care and rake in a lot of money to do so.

The immigration is is the same. What really gets my goat, is that people like Obama, Pelosi, Schumer made their wealth through capitalism, yet want to destroy it for others. Which is why the elite live under one set of rules, and the common people others. Geoge Soros is the master of such thinking.

If it's the income and privilege divide between the elite and the people you're concerned with, then why are you supporting the Right? It's Republican policies over the past four decades that have created this divide. It was liberal policies that created a thriving middle class after the crash of '29.

 

[Faithofchristian]

This is going to get a bit technical, so hold on. Are you ready?

It's not 1997.

Pretty tough, eh?

Yeah, but what is happening now, is because of what bill Clinton did in 1997.
Seeing that liberal democrats don't like what is happening then they should meet with President Trump to do something about the Illegal immigrants reform.
But instead all the liberal democrats wants to do is complain, and complain which is getting no where. Nor helping the kids.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

To be completely honest, though, Obama did deport huge numbers of undocumented aliens, many of whom had children in the States. These, though, were not placed in concentration camps or kiddy jails, but with other family members.
Perhaps this is what Faithofchristian heard of.

The current policy, one enacted by the Trump administration, states that mothers who are with their children and illegally cross the border will have their children taken from their arms and placed into custody. That didn't exist in the Obama administration. It exists now. It is this policy that is under attack.

It is SO intellectually dishonest to claim that another president did the same thing when that simply isn't the case. In a thread where conservatives are trying to claim that liberals are intellectually dishonest the conservatives start the entire thread with intellectual dishonesty. Go figure.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Seeing that liberal democrats don't like what is happening then they should meet with President Trump to do something about the Illegal immigrants reform.

Sessions could rescind the recent DOJ order that there will be a zero tolerance policy towards all immigrants which is what led to the current situation. It is entirely within the power of the White House and DOJ to end this because they are the ones who started it.

 

[Faithofchristian]

"I think you lie, so I'm going to go right ahead and lie too!"

Seems to be what you're saying. Do you think that's an honest position?

Seeing it has been a while ago, not sure what your talking about me lying. But if you wish to want to lie. That's totally up to you.

But anyway,
it's evidence that Obama sure didnt run as a conservative Republican, that's for sure.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Sessions could rescind the recent DOJ order that there will be a zero tolerance policy towards all immigrants which is what led to the current situation. It is entirely within the power of the White House and DOJ to end this because they are the ones who started it.

By no way did Sessions or the DOJ start anything, it all comes down to bill Clinton who pass the illegal immigrants law back in 1997, Trump has been asking the democrats to meet with him to get a new illegal immigrant policy. But no show democrats, just want to complain, and that's all.
Trump ask the democrats months back to meet with on DACA But no show democrats.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

By no way did Sessions or the DOJ start anything,

"Attorney General Jeff Sessions today notified all U.S. Attorney’s Offices along the Southwest Border of a new “zero-tolerance policy” for offenses under 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a), which prohibits both attempted illegal entry and illegal entry into the United States by an alien. The implementation of the Attorney General’s zero-tolerance policy comes as the Department of Homeland Security reported a 203 percent increase in illegal border crossings from March 2017 to March 2018, and a 37 percent increase from February 2018 to March 2018—the largest month-to-month increase since 2011. "
Attorney General Announces Zero-Tolerance Policy for Criminal Illegal Entry

That is what started the separation of children and parents at the border.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Just in case this isn't clear enough, this is what Jeff Sessions said about the recent change in DOJ policy:

"Compounding this problem, the previous administration wouldn’t prosecute illegal aliens who entered the country with children. It was de facto open borders.

The results were unsurprising. More and more illegal aliens started showing up at the border with children. To illustrate, in 2013, there were fewer than 15,000 family units apprehended crossing our border illegally between ports of entry. Five years later, it was more than 75,000—a five-fold increase in five years. It didn’t even have to be their child—it could be anyone. You can imagine the horrible abuses that resulted."
Attorney General Sessions Addresses Recent Criticisms of Zero Tolerance By Church Leaders

This is their justification for their own change in policy, one that happened last April. It has been the Trump administration's decision to start separating families at the border. They can stop doing it at any time, but they don't.

 

[Faithofchristian]

"Attorney General Jeff Sessions today notified all U.S. Attorney’s Offices along the Southwest Border of a new “zero-tolerance policy” for offenses under 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a), which prohibits both attempted illegal entry and illegal entry into the United States by an alien. The implementation of the Attorney General’s zero-tolerance policy comes as the Department of Homeland Security reported a 203 percent increase in illegal border crossings from March 2017 to March 2018, and a 37 percent increase from February 2018 to March 2018—the largest month-to-month increase since 2011. "
Attorney General Announces Zero-Tolerance Policy for Criminal Illegal Entry

That is what started the separation of children and parents at the border.

In case you miss it, That's the law that Bill Clinton pass back in 1997, Which is law. So if liberal democrats have a beef with it, my advice is to take it up with the democratic Party.seeing their the ones with Bill Clinton pass it into law 1997.
So President Donald Trump is only enforcing the law that the liberal democratic Party pass into law 1997.
So maybe before people go jumping at Trump, maybe people should jump at Liberal democratic Party for passing such a law 1997.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm for a return to the Fairness Doctrine, under which any station that aired something that could be said to be an opinion was required to give equal air time to an opposing point of view.

In an era when literal fascists are entering the mainstream, I’m personally not interested in telling news outlets that if they air someone saying that fascism is bad, they have to give a platform to someone to say that fascism is good.

 

[Phantasman]

No, when "liberal" policies were in force American industry thrived as did the workers, who got to share in the profits. It was the right wing "economic royalists," as Roosevelt put it, trying to recreate the Gilded Age, who "globalized" industry and even provided tax incentives to move industry overseas.
Neoliberalism is a right wing philosophy.

We've been hearing this since Reagan's supply side, 'trickle down' revolution of 1980. It created a bubble, then 30+ years of wage stagnation. I expect the current reiteration to do the same.
As for high taxes, it was high taxes that forced industry to plow its profits back into America's factories and to share with the workers, instead of pocketing it. Far from depressing industry, it created the greatest industrial spurt in the country's history.
I think you need to bone up on your economic history. Sometimes effects are complex, even counter intuitive.


No, the ACA was originally a Republican initiative, traceable all the way back to the Nixon administration. It did not hurt the country. It allowed millions to get insurance who previously couldn't afford it, and mandated certain minimal standards.

That said, It was junk. It was not a progressive policy in any sense of the word, but perhaps it was the best Obama could get through. As a policy proponent and negotiator, Obama was hopeless.

There are dozens of other healthcare systems in the world, which Americans are, apparently, unaware of: simpler, much cheaper, and with better outcomes. Obamacare was never favored by progressives.
As for insurance companies, why even have them? They deliver no services, they just restrict care and rake in a lot of money to do so.
If it's the income and privilege divide between the elite and the people you're concerned with, then why are you supporting the Right? It's Republican policies over the past four decades that have created this divide. It was liberal policies that created a thriving middle class after the crash of '39.

OK. I'll bid you farewell. And just agree to disagree. (the crash was '29).

 

[Valjean]

OK. I'll bid you farewell. And just agree to disagree. (the crash was '29).

D'oh!
OK -- fixed it.