Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Fact: Barrack Obama is an American born Christian. Is there really a need to argue about it, bring it up, use it or stress that fact to the conservatives who post here? Fact: There aren't and haven't been any birthers posting around here.

I don't believe I was addressing anyone who posts here. I was referring to the Republican base and its propensity to believe nonsense in spite of the evidence. Whether you, personally, believe in the Birther nonsense is not relevant. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49554.html

I believe two parents are better than one.

I believe one parent and a new spouse are as good as two natural parents or better, and that one parent, a new spouse, and a wide, strong support group is better than either.

However, I stated already that the values dispute isn't about facts. Values are not held for rational causes, and my disagreement with you about traditional morality does not come down to anything that can be proven scientifically.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

I believe in family, have faith in family because MY family and the families of MY friends, My Dads friends have always been there for me. My family believes in me, has faith in me because I've always been there for it. How many blue voters can say the same thing about their families and themselves? If you don't see it, don't experience it, it's pretty hard to believe in it.

oh, good god. are you serious? do you really think that liberals are more likely to come from broken families than right-wingers?

i'm as lefty as they come, and i grew up in an intact nuclear family.

proud obama voter here. very proud.

Originally Posted by the bouncer

oh, good god. are you serious? do you really think that liberals are more likely to come from broken families than right-wingers?

i'm as lefty as they come, and i grew up in an intact nuclear family.

proud obama voter here. very proud.

Me, too, on all accounts.

Originally Posted by the bouncer

oh, good god. are you serious? do you really think that liberals are more likely to come from broken families than right-wingers?

i'm as lefty as they come, and i grew up in an intact nuclear family.

proud obama voter here. very proud.

No broken home here, and I went Left as I saw the hypocrisy and cruelty of the Right become ever-more objectionable.

Originally Posted by the bouncer

oh, good god. are you serious? do you really think that liberals are more likely to come from broken families than right-wingers?

i'm as lefty as they come, and i grew up in an intact nuclear family.

proud obama voter here. very proud.

I don't think the liberals are, I know liberals come from homes in communities and families that are similiar to mine. As I've said, I'm not a stranger to liberals. I've been inside their homes. I've seen them and there kids. As far as their base, I know broken homes are more likely amongst their base. Have you ever been in the projects? Have ever seen a poor racially mixed nieghborhood? Have you ever had a fairly deep open and honest discussion with a welfare recipient? If you did, you'd know there's a link to broken homes. BTW, there's also a link to parents with no money, no job or not enough resources to provide. BTW, you should know this because they are your base.

My base has plenty of family and friends to help out or support. My base is educated and most have either technical or college degrees. The ones who don't have natural skills that serve them well. Who has what as far as education doesn't matter we're all professionals and we're all economically minded and we all make our living in the private sector.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Sometimes you have to call it like you see it, and that's different from stereotyping. The current Republican base does consist of loonies. That is, it consists of people with a complete disconnect from observable, provable fact. People who believe that Obama is a Muslim, that the earth is 6000 years old, that taxes have gone up over the past four years, that the government is being more lenient on enforcing immigration law under Obama's administration, that FEMA is a government plot to build concentration camps for dissidents, that the government under Obama will take their guns away, that people who vote Democratic are mostly non-taxpayers or "takers" (when actually most Republicans fall into that category -- including most of the people who believe this stuff) -- these are loonies.

Nor is there any equivalent to them of any significance on the other side of the aisle. That's just the way it is. Maybe it's not the way your sense of fairness or whatever is motivating you here thinks it SHOULD be, Bob. But it's the way it is.

I guess I ought to talk a bit about "whatever is motivating you here".

I think tigers look cool. The coloration of yellow and black stripes seems bold and natural. I never really understood tiger stripes, though, until I saw a picture of a tiger in the wild, in its native habitat, in a field of tall grass yellowed through drying. Tiger stripes are really neat camouflage in their native environment.

This is, of course, Darwin in action. If there is a trait in a species, there is apt to be a reason for it. One might ask how something came to be in an evolutionary environment and reasonably expect to find an answer.

Tiger stripes reflect evolution at a genetic level. That's genes. World views and values reflect evolution at a culture level, a competitive environment where memes compete instead of genes. I try to work under an assumption that there are valid reasons why any given world view and value set evolved and became dominant.

The example of the day seems to be family structure.

I've been working my family's genealogy recently, including reviewing the family stories. My grandfather is recorded as a gentle understanding soul, except when drunk, which was all too often. My grandmother was abused, often told she should leave her husband, but remained loyal and stayed with him for the sake of the children.

One puts it in the contexts of the time. This was before the New Deal and Prohibition. Working conditions were awful. Many workers got stinking drunk a lot. It was a reaction, in part, to the hours and working conditions. This was also a time when the washing machines weren't driven by electric motors, but by a housewife's manual labor. The dryer was a pair of rollers that squeezed the water out, driven manually. Housewife, without modern equipment, was a full time job. Given the pay scales, one needed a full time bread earner and a full time housekeeper to survive. There was no real functioning contraception. Thus, there were children. There were lots of children. The situation was such that the parents almost had to stay together, and social pressure was there to force it.

I know that Prohibition was a failed experiment, but my family history tells me why it was tried. My family history also has something to say about child labor laws, minimum wages, limited work weeks and other changes that came with the New Deal. My own experience has had something to say with how modern contraceptives, two worker families and lower in house labor requirements changed the pattern of families. When I worked while still living in my father's house, I got to keep the wages, contributing some room and board. My father turned his full wages over to his father, who drank some of them. Dad only got to keep his wages when he married and set up his own household.

How does this relate to tiger stripes? There are valid reasons why the traditional values of pre New Deal America evolved to become what they were. There are valid reasons why modern families are different.

The tension between conservative and progressive is natural. Memes -- world views and values -- might change only slowly. If one's values system is absolute, if the Truth is known and never changes, such change would come extremely slowly. If rules that worked sorta kinda well a century or so ago are presented as having been handed down by a perfect God who knows how things have been, are, and shall ever so be, "change would come extremely slowly" becomes an understatement.

This folds into my attitude about vile stereotypes. I assume there are valid reasons why traditional values came to be. I assume that when one lives in a more slowly moving rural culture, the traditional values will still work better than they would in a faster shifting urban environment. I understand cultural inertia is a potent force, that if the way things have always been might seem still to be working, that new fangled radical changes would seem wrong and reflect a lack of morals.

What I would like to see is more effort in understanding how and why the other guy's values came to be. What I'm seeing instead is a tendency to demonize folk that don't share values. Rather than saying, yes, I can see how those beliefs might have come to be and how they might still work for some, I am hearing that the other guy is stupid, evil, insane, brainwashed, loony or otherwise dysfunctional.

The existing meme is that one is right, the other guy is wrong, and one must minimize the damage done by the other guy to society. I'd prefer a meme where both sets of memes have a basis in history and reality, where each side understanding the other allows more live and let live and more creative synergy between conflicting approaches.

Calling each other names doesn't seem overly productive.

While I'd like to see more open minded attempts to understand conservative values, I'm still progressive. There are reasons the newer memes adapting to changing circumstances work better with the new circumstances. I understand that absolute values say nothing should ever change, that what was best once must be best always. I would disagree. Technology is changing society. Changing, adapting, evolving is necessary and nigh on inevitable.

But if one has absolute values, changing, adapting and evolving is never good.

This can lead to cognitive dissonance. If facts conflict with absolute unchangeable values, one must disregard the facts. One has to. If facts force values to change, the facts must be wrong.

Which is where I might have to draw lines in the sand and stand stubborn. To some degree I attempt to respect those clinging to the tried and true. On the other hand, global warming is not a hoax, species do evolve, we should emphasize demand side more, supply side less. Understanding and forgiving others who are comfortable living in the past is important, but those living in the past should not be allowed to prevent the rest of us from moving on.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

I don't think the liberals are, I know liberals come from homes in communities and families that are similiar to mine. As I've said, I'm not a stranger to liberals. I've been inside their homes. I've seen them and there kids. As far as their base, I know broken homes are more likely amongst their base. Have you ever been in the projects? Have ever seen a poor racially mixed nieghborhood? Have you ever had a fairly deep open and honest discussion with a welfare recipient? If you did, you'd know there's a link to broken homes. BTW, there's also a link to parents with no money, no job or not enough resources to provide. BTW, you should know this because they are your base.

My base has plenty of family and friends to help out or support. My base is educated and most have either technical or college degrees. The ones who don't have natural skills that serve them well. Who has what as far as education doesn't matter we're all professionals and we're all economically minded and we all make our living in the private sector.

it's not as clear-cut as you try to make it.

i know people who have been on government assistance who voted republican in this last election. they bought into that classic "i got mine, screw you" attitude. they felt they were the "worthy" poor and those "other" people were unworthy. ugly stuff.

i also know rich, educated people who vote for democrats.

Just my two cents worth.

If the family structure is the basis of whether one turns out to be Liberal or Conservative, then explain how kids raised in the same family can grow up with different political ideas? My brother is a staunch Republican and I'm a progressive. Most of his political beliefs came from his wife's side of the family.

There are so many variables in why we believe what we believe, but I think most of our values come from a combination of our life experiences and the courage to question.

Originally Posted by playwrite

We seem to be dealing with two problems here. First, you're continuing to add 2 plus 2 and coming up with bullshit. Second, your apparent memory deficiency

On this thread alone, we have debunked the Barney, Freddie/Fannie, CRA bullshit...

-Uh, no. Playdude has yet to "debunk" progessive Barney Frank, the self-admitted archtitect of the housing bubble:

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...e_to_the_facts

[Congresscritter Barney Frank said] "... it was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn't afford and couldn't really handle once they had it... I had been too sanguine about Fannie and Freddie."

...I don't know what Playdude's problem is. It is funny to watch him "debunk" the self-admitted arctitect

And AGAIN, what Frank admitted is something which even the NY Times saw coming years before:

Originally Posted by JDG 66

Originally Posted by JDG 66

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Mae

In 1999, The New York Times reported that with the corporation's move towards the subprime market "Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980s."

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-Uh, no. Playdude has yet to "debunk" progessive Barney Frank, the self-admitted archtitect of the housing bubble:

[/COLOR][/COLOR]

...I don't know what Playdude's problem is. It is funny to watch him "debunk" the self-admitted arctitect

And AGAIN, what Frank admitted is something which even the NY Times saw coming years before:

[COLOR=#ff0000][COLOR=#000000]

Sorry, you've literally have added nothing to what has been repeatedly debunk in Glickism #1 -

http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...889#post377889

The Glick's Schticks thread was specifically developed to efficiently and effectively deal with your tactic of drive-by zombie meme attacks.

Go back and crawl under that rock again for a month or two.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Sorry, you've literally have added nothing to what has been repeatedly debunk in Glickism #1 .

-Strange.

Barney Frank admits that backing loans to people who couldn't afford it was a bad idea:

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...e_to_the_facts

[Congresscritter Barney Frank said] "... it was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn't afford and couldn't really handle once they had it... I had been too sanguine about Fannie and Freddie."

...and Playwrite thinks that means that it wasn't resposible.

He either needs to learn to understand English, or he needs to get off that platypus.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-Strange.

Barney Frank admits that backing loans to people who couldn't afford it was a bad idea:

[/COLOR][/COLOR]

...and Playwrite thinks that means that it wasn't resposible.

He either needs to learn to understand English, or he needs to get off that platypus.

Again, handled here -

http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...889#post377889

What happened, did shakin pudding kick you out from under the rock and you now have no place to go?

Originally Posted by playwrite

again, handled here -

http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...889#post377889

Clearly not:

Originally Posted by jdg 66

-
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...e_to_the_facts

[congresscritter barney frank said] "... It was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn't afford and couldn't really handle once they had it... I had been too sanguine about fannie and freddie."

...why can't Playwrite understand English as spoken by one of the doyens of progressivism?

Originally Posted by playwrite

...
what happened, did shakin pudding kick you out from under the rock and you now have no place to go?

...One wonders what he's talking about. Perhaps he should explain...

Originally Posted by JDG 66

Clearly not:



...why can't Playwrite understand English as spoken by one of the doyens of progressivism?



...One wonders what he's talking about. Perhaps he should explain...

The real estate meltdown was international with some countries experiencing much worse than we did.

Freddie, Fannie, and the CRA are all domestic entities/programs. Please explain how they caused a real estate meltdown on the global stage?

What a nitwit.

http://www.stripes.com/blogs/the-rup...-year-1.197788

A total of 17 Iraq and Afghanistan War veterans will serve in Congress next session, now that Rep. Allen West has conceded his congressional race in Florida...

Sixteen Iraq and Afghanistan War veterans won election or re-election to Congress this month and will join incumbent Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., in next year’s Congress.

For the first time, the list includes two female Iraq veterans. Illinois’ Tammy Duckworth and Hawaii’s Tulsi Gabbard are the only Democrats among the 17. Seven incumbent Republicans won re-election...

Originally Posted by playwrite

The real estate meltdown was international with some countries experiencing much worse than we did.

Freddie, Fannie, and the CRA are all domestic entities/programs. Please explain how they caused a real estate meltdown on the global stage?

-Because they pushed the same sort of progressive policies that Barney was pushing, even worse. Wow. What a complicated explanation.

Again, PW is arguing in the face of progressive Congressman Barney Frank, the self-admitted archtitect of the collapse. The man admitted he was wrong. I say we should go with that. But instead, PW will just argue that Frank didn't say what he said he said...

CNN's Julian Zelizer blames the Tea Party for a lot of the Republican's problems. Not a lot of new ground covered.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

[URL]

-Because they pushed the same sort of progressive policies that Barney was pushing, even worse. Wow. What a complicated explanation.

Okay, let's see if you have a clue of what your talking about to back that up.

Of the 5 non-US nations that had the biggest RE meltdowns, exactly what legislation/program do you believe caused the meltdown - the name as well as the specific aspects?

Originally Posted by JDG 66

Again, PW is arguing in the face of progressive Congressman Barney Frank, the self-admitted archtitect of the collapse. The man admitted he was wrong. I say we should go with that. But instead, PW will just argue that Frank didn't say what he said he said...

No one is arguing that people who could not afford a home were not part of the problem. However, that is a long way from providing any rational argument that Freddie, Fannie and CRA had much to do with the meltdown.

First, a big part of the problem was "flippers" getting loans from mortgage origination firms that were fronts for the big banks (because Freddie/Fannie had lost huge market shares and were not allowed to originate the loans that caused most of the problems). Second, you are leaving out completely the role of securitization and the development of risk tranches for combined MBS sold by the big brokers like Lehman Brothers. Third, you're leaving out the role of Credit Default Swaps (CDS) that AIG and other insurers issued around the globe that made the meltdown get to an international level. Fourth, you are implying that the progressive objectives of Freddie/Fannie/CRA where at the heart of the problem when anyone credible looking at their role sees it coming out of their becoming more like private corporations as a result of the conservative movement's influence on the financial sector in the 1980s/90s - that is what lead them to seek market share, stretch their lending requirements and fraudulent accounting - which they were busted for PRIOR to the real estate run-up and kept them out of the craziness of the bubble that the banks/brokers/insurers created.

In short, your viewpoint doesn't reach even a sophomoric understanding of what happen; it is an infantile understanding. It is one more clue as to why you live under a rock.

Originally Posted by playwrite

...No one is arguing that people who could not afford a home were not part of the problem. However, that is a long way from providing any rational argument that Freddie, Fannie and CRA had much to do with the meltdown...

-Sounds like PW is arguing against what progressive hero Barney Frank has already admitted to:

Originally Posted by JDG 66

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...e_to_the_facts

..."I hope by next year we'll have abolished Fannie and Freddie... it was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn't afford and couldn't really handle once they had it." He then added, "I had been too sanguine about Fannie and Freddie."

Oh well. I suggest he take it up with him the next time they're hanging out.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-Sounds like PW is arguing against what progressive hero Barney Frank has already admitted to:



Oh well. I suggest he take it up with him the next time they're hanging out.

Question: does being of a general political persuasion obligate one to agree with, believe, or go along with the assessments of, everyone (or even persons in leadership positions) of that same general political persuasion?

I see Playwrite presenting some reasonable argument against Frank's assessment (or rather, an interpretation thereof--the quote given is simply a statement of regret about backing Fannie and Freddie, not an actual statement blaming them exclusively or even mostly for the whole shebang) on one side (albeit with some abrasiveness), and a rather strange Appeal to Authority on the other.

Question: Since the 2012 election cycle is over, should we not be on a 2014 or 2016 thread? I found two 2016 threads when I searched.

Originally Posted by Bad Dog

Question: Since the 2012 election cycle is over, should we not be on a 2014 or 2016 thread? I found two 2016 threads when I searched.

This is only around to talk about the "aftermath". And there are already 2014 and 2016 threads.

~Chas'88

Thanks. I'll go to one of the 2016 threads, as 2016 will be a Presidential race with no incumbents (in the Oval Office).

Originally Posted by Tussilago

No, but it was mainly settled by Europeans so it's best looked at as a branch of European culture. Europeans led it, built it and defined it. The next largest group (around 10 percent) who were dragged to the colonies/the US against their will then added their mix to the American character. The rest is of marginal importance. Yes, the US is not Europe, but on the other hand, Poland is not the same as Norway either. What we share as a culture outweighs what sets us apart.For instance, it only sounds like a dog whistle to you because both the US and Europe is so completely steeped in Cultural Marxism that we immediately think "thought crime" as soon as one says a forbidden word, even if it's the matter of a truism, like pointing out our own existence. Acknowledging ourselves - as "white men" if you prefer - is forbidden, at least in positive terms, while at the same time we are forced to acknowledge, be positive about and respect everyone else.As for the term itself, I use European Man in preference to "white men" beacuse the latter is a biological and racial term, and I want to emphasize the spritual and cultural values that transcends it.

Which, to be preserved, would seem to require a future not unlike the Byzantine Empire- alone in the world, but determined to hold its own.

Breaking News from Newsmax.com

Obama First Since ’56 to Win 51% Twice

Barack Obama is the first president in more than five decades to win at least 51 percent of the national popular vote twice, according to a revised vote count in New York eight weeks after the Nov. 6 election.

State election officials submitted a final tally on Dec. 31 that added about 400,000 votes, most of them from provisional ballots in the Democratic stronghold of New York City that were counted late in part because of complications caused by Hurricane Sandy.

The president nationally won 65.9 million votes — or 51.1 percent — against Republican challenger Mitt Romney, who took 60.9 million votes and 47.2 percent of the total cast. Obama is the first president to achieve the 51 percent mark in two elections since Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower, who did it in 1952 and 1956, and the first Democrat to do so since Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Nate Silver has come up with an interesting aspect of the past election - the role of Silicon Valley types in backing the obvious high-tech advantage of Democratic candidates at least on the national level or perhaps in states with similiar high-tech firms -

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...o-p-campaigns/

I realize the Libertarians might find something in that last line about Ron Paul, but it is likely that a lot of the high tech people (Birkenstock and Granola bars), particularly in CA, are peaceniks that liked Paul's seeming anti- involvement message. Take that away and the $42K probable gets wacked pretty hard.

Worth considering:

1. Information technology has a disproportionate number of Jews. Such reflects the disproportionate number of Jews among the well-educated -- including mathematicians, physicists, engineers, and creative people. We know how Jews vote.

2. Information technology has a disproportionate number of Asian-Americans. Again, look at the demographics and how Asian-Americans voted.

3. Information technology has a disproportionate number of gays and lesbians. Look at how they voted.

But that would not in itself explain why IT people voted so heavily D with ballots and money.

Unlike some other businesses that have as a focus of their product model keeping taxes (real estate) and employee pay (agriculture, restaurants and retailers) down, eliminating environmental regulations (energy, forest products), an aggressive foreign policy (defense contractors), or creating a 'safe' legal environment for the product (firearms), IT depends more obviously on the overall strength of the economy. Just look at the entertainment industry: the motion picture industry does not depend keeping costs down by cutting corners as it depends more upon having an audience willing to pay to attend a movie or at least buy the recorded video. To be sure it is possible to make a low-budget movie enjoyable and have a critical success and a box-office hit, but in general it is the high-cost blockbuster that brings in the crowds.

Poor people do not buy the latest IT objects or services. Policies that create mass poverty as a spur to economic growth (the GOP idea of how to solve economic distress -- create wealth by making more people destitute) are bad for IT.