CCCToad on 3/8/2010 at 19:30
Sorry to deviate from the established "its all bad because of Bush" line, Good and noble master.
What I was trying to say was that its pretty stupid to say that "The Economy sucks solely because what the President does, and that its incorrect because there are other agents that influence the economy besides the President. It reminds me of a cartoon published in TIME (that, unfortunately, I can't find) that showed Bush excitedly cooing in the backseat of a car labeled "the economy", with Greenspan smugly smiling and holding the real wheel.
edit: I think I see why you blew up in a self-righteous rage. I'm not arguing against "the two positions"(what two positions?) but griping about how stupid it is when political hopefuls(on both sides) go around saying that if only we had a different president, the economy would never have turned bad. The economy might be too complex for me to understand, but my point was too simple for you to understand.
Rug Burn Junky on 3/8/2010 at 20:16
Please do not confuse my derision for your ignorance with "rage," it is nothing of the sort. Your point is not too simple for me to understand, it is, quite simply, incorrect. You make these statements as though you have some profound understanding of economics simply because you know who the Treasury Secretary and Fed Prez are. You don't, and it's embarrassing to see you try. Your ability to appreciate your own ignorance is limited by that ignorance itself.
There are substantial policy differences between administrations that do make a difference in the running of the economy. The root causes of the current recession can be squarely laid at the feet of movement conservatism over the course of the past 15 to 30 years, of which Bush himself was the apotheosis, and Greenspan was a willing participant. Bush didn't cause the current recession, singlehandedly, but everything his administration did contributed to the severity and depth, as well as limit our current options at responding to it.
CCCToad on 3/8/2010 at 20:28
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
Bush didn't cause the current recession, singlehandedly.
Which is all I was trying to say. That and I was whining about the demagogues who say that Bush/Obama did cause the recession singlehandedly. Please don't paint me as someone who adores Bush, because its simply not true. He was a disaster on almost every level: social, international relations, civil liberties, and economic. And it doesn't get any better with time because every week I find out something new about his regime. It still boggles my mind how some conservatives are still in love with him: everything Bush did was based in the ideology of an activist, intrusive government.
Quote:
So the question was posed, is this moral for Democrats to crossover and vote on the Republican side in order to pick a favorable candidate to run against their own candidate?
Underhanded? yes. Immoral? No. You aren't doing anything illegal, or damaging any property, or directly sabotaging anyone else's work. you're making a strategic decision to try to have your candidate win.
Rug Burn Junky on 3/8/2010 at 21:59
Quote Posted by CCCToad
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
Bush didn't cause the current recession, singlehandedly
Which is all I was trying to say.
No, no it wasn't. That contradicts your initial statement. What I said is "Bush isn't THE cause, but he is A cause." What I skipped over, but should be assumed, is that Obama is not A cause at all. He has not yet been the solution, but that's entirely different (and his lack of a solution is entirely related to "conservative" grandstanding in such a way as to prevent the policy solutions which would actually ameliorate the situation).
Your initial statement draws an equivalency between each side blaming the other. You imply that neither side is correct and this is merely rhetorical grandstanding. It is not. The criticisms of Bush may be insufficient to explain the current mess, but they are not incorrect. Understanding this is key to preventing it in the future (hint, conservative deregulation is not a viable solution), and fixing the current situation (hint, tax cuts are not going to help).
The opposing criticisms of Obama, on the other hand, are not even loosely grounded in reality. They have been borne out of a defensive, reactionary ideology refusing to admit its errors.
Concluding that both are equally dismissable is a joke. Drawing this conclusion on the basis of your erroneous assumption that Geithner has more power than either of them only makes it more laughable.
CCCToad on 3/8/2010 at 22:01
No, what I was implying that both statements are histrionic rhetoric and share that in common. All of the rest of your post is merely an attempt to set up a straw dog: you are setting down a list of "Conservative"(aka establishment Republican) talking points in the hopes that I'll jump on one of them. I do not espouse either deregulation, corporate tax cuts, or "top 1 %" tax cuts.
Aerothorn on 3/8/2010 at 22:26
...is a straw dog different than a straw man?
Rug Burn Junky on 3/8/2010 at 23:40
Quote Posted by CCCToad
No, what I was implying that both statements are histrionic rhetoric and share that in common.
Christ, how fucking thick are you?
You keep repeating yourself as though you're explaining something we don't know. I know that's what you meant. In fact, that's what I accused you of meaning (hint: "You imply that neither side is correct and this is merely rhetorical grandstanding."), so why you're saying "no" is totally fucking beyond me.*
*[INDENT][INDENT]RBJ: "You said 'X.'"
CCCTard: "No I didn't, I said 'X.'"[/INDENT]
It's so facepalmingly stupid that it beggars belief that you can't see it for your self.[/INDENT]
It's also what I proved wrong. I don't give a shit if you subscribe to any of those philosophical positions. What I do care about is the fact that failure of those conservative positions is exactly why the criticisms of the Bush administration are valid and not merely grandstanding. Your inability to understand the criticisms of the administration do not render them invalid. That is why you are creating a false equivalency by clinging to the idea that both sides are merely engaging in histrionic rhetoric.
You made an initial statement. It's wrong. You persist in it in spite of arguments to the contrary, while supplying no viable argument of your own other than mere assertion.
Why do you embarrass yourself so?
CCCToad on 4/8/2010 at 00:46
Edit: I yield, its just not worth arguing over some imagined pro-Bush position. That said, though, I can't say that Bush isn't relevant to this election season now that the Democrat strategy is apparently going to be "Campaign against Bush". Its gonna be hard to convince disgruntled, unemployed workers that Bush's failures excuse the current administration's failures, but more illogical arguments have been made successfully before.
Rug Burn Junky on 4/8/2010 at 01:30
Relax there fucktard, I ain't emotional. I really don't give a shit to discuss my feelings on the matter with someone whose understandings of politics, economics and the law are so inferior. As I repeatedly point out, you lack the capability to understand (your basic failures of logic and comprehension in this thread do you no favors), and I get nothing out of it, so I'm not wasting my time.
I have no problem with ideological disagreement. The only thing I find so repulsive about most of your posts is that they are plainly ignorant of facts and you draw ridiculous, erroneous conclusions because your logic chain is so often inadequate, as is the case here. The reason why the discussion went in this direction is that you offered up a trite and quite incorrect view of political discourse, and you are unable to see your error. Trying to play the card of the disinterested moderate and impugning my motives as hopelessly-hellbent-partisan-unable-to-cope-with-ideological-disagreement does not fix your initial, fundamental error.
In fact, you are the only one offering up strawmen. The fact is, you don't see candidates just jumping up and down yelling "it's all bush's fault." What you do see democratic candidates saying is that: conservative candidates are continuing to parrot empty rhetoric that fueled the conservative movement from Reagan to Gingrich right through the Bush administration, and they continue to endorse the same policies of Bush et al. Thus the perfectly valid criticisms of the Bush administration remain relevant not because he fucked it up in the first place, but because there is a unitary bloc of conservative thought bent on continuing those same policies.
Those are connected dots, that is exactly why the histrionics exist primarily on one side of the debate. That is why you were wrong from the get go when you entered this conversation attempting to paint similarities with a broad brush. You can only make that claim by you yourself engaging in broad, functionless generalities, which adds not only error, but hypocrisy as well.
