quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
If GM and Chrysler had been allowed to collapse that would have wiped out both the 2 million+ jobs the companied employed directly plus the millions more in the businesses that supplied parts to them. In the middle of the worst recession since the Great Depression. That would have essentially shut down our economy.
Is that what you really wanted?

What would have come up in their places, Ken?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mouth4Mistress

How did this country survive the collapse of major corporations before?

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom




You are conflating classical liberalism (still called liberalism on the Continent) with leftism. I, incidentally, am an atheist. My interests include cosmology, quantum gravity, and molecular genetics. I am also familiar with logical positivism and Popper's falsifiability criterion -- among other things. The problem is that your premises about "conservatives" are ones you are treating as universals when they are anything but; and then you assert that liberals (but actually the people you're referring to are leftists) follow Popper when all they really typical follow is power-lusting and control over others making their epistemology rooted in subjectivism and post-modernist thought were nothing is true unless one wants it to be and everything is true at the moment if it happens to serve one's interior purpose.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Skex

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom




You are conflating classical liberalism (still called liberalism on the Continent) with leftism. I, incidentally, am an atheist. My interests include cosmology, quantum gravity, and molecular genetics. I am also familiar with logical positivism and Popper's falsifiability criterion -- among other things. The problem is that your premises about "conservatives" are ones you are treating as universals when they are anything but; and then you assert that liberals (but actually the people you're referring to are leftists) follow Popper when all they really typical follow is power-lusting and control over others making their epistemology rooted in subjectivism and post-modernist thought were nothing is true unless one wants it to be and everything is true at the moment if it happens to serve one's interior purpose.

No you are confusing temporal definitions of discrete political philosophies with what I consider to be a more primal and universal human motivations. The problem is that those discrete philosophies are artifacts of their historical context. It's the underlying (I honestly suspect it's physiological) core value system that I'm talking about when I speak of liberals and conservatives. Liberals thinkers tend to be forward thinking seekers of the new, while conservatives tend to be motivated by security and safety. The political philosophies they gravitate to play to those primal motivators (there is actually some evidence for it being hardwired in our brain structure).

Sure conservatives today can't relate to their ideological ancestors who supported slavery, just as conservatives a century from now will not relate to the conservatives of today who hate homosexuals. Because in a hundred years homosexuality will be an accepted part of the status quo and will no longer be viewed as a threat to the stability of society.

Honestly I can't even hate conservatives because I honestly do not think you can help what you believe. Nor do I believe that anything I say will shift your views or opinions, few people ever do and those who do don't generally do so because someone else offered an impassioned and well thought out argument. Cognitive science has already demonstrated that most people do not allow facts to get in the way of their core beliefs.

I don't consider myself superior either, I'm the result of my genetic structure and my experiences, I didn't decide to be a bleeding heart liberal because it made me feel good or right. I'm a bleeding heart liberal because of my experiences and how my brain's structure interpreted them. I could tell you that my road to liberalism started when a buddy in the Marine's told me to watch what republican's(conservatives) do rather than to listen to what they say. So when they said they wanted to reduce the size of government and get the deficit under control but then took steps that couldn't do anything other than manifest the opposite result (increased spending while decreasing revenue) I started to shift, when I heard them talk about supporting the troops but did nothing to increase my pay or improve my lot in life my shift changed into a slide.

I could tell you that but honestly I don't think I had any more control over where I ended up than I do the orbit of the moon.

However when I say conservatives are mean petty hateful people, I mean it. I can't think anything else of them when I see them talk about shooting children who trekked across a continent to escape certain death, or to deport them which frankly amounts to the same damned thing. Or when they promote and support torturing people for things they can not control (seriously the idea that homosexuality is a choice is completely ludicrous on it's face Yeah I'm so sure they're choosing to be social outcasts who are going to be beaten and tormented by their peers and society) that anyone who can actually believe that just does not compute. I may not think they can help it but I'm certainly not going to respect those beliefs nor am I going to let them pass without pointing out how awful they are.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Skex

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom




You are conflating classical liberalism (still called liberalism on the Continent) with leftism. I, incidentally, am an atheist. My interests include cosmology, quantum gravity, and molecular genetics. I am also familiar with logical positivism and Popper's falsifiability criterion -- among other things. The problem is that your premises about "conservatives" are ones you are treating as universals when they are anything but; and then you assert that liberals (but actually the people you're referring to are leftists) follow Popper when all they really typical follow is power-lusting and control over others making their epistemology rooted in subjectivism and post-modernist thought were nothing is true unless one wants it to be and everything is true at the moment if it happens to serve one's interior purpose.

No you are confusing temporal definitions of discrete political philosophies with what I consider to be a more primal and universal human motivations. The problem is that those discrete philosophies are artifacts of their historical context. It's the underlying (I honestly suspect it's physiological) core value system that I'm talking about when I speak of liberals and conservatives. Liberals thinkers tend to be forward thinking seekers of the new, while conservatives tend to be motivated by security and safety. The political philosophies they gravitate to play to those primal motivators (there is actually some evidence for it being hardwired in our brain structure).

Sure conservatives today can't relate to their ideological ancestors who supported slavery, just as conservatives a century from now will not relate to the conservatives of today who hate homosexuals. Because in a hundred years homosexuality will be an accepted part of the status quo and will no longer be viewed as a threat to the stability of society.

Honestly I can't even hate conservatives because I honestly do not think you can help what you believe. Nor do I believe that anything I say will shift your views or opinions, few people ever do and those who do don't generally do so because someone else offered an impassioned and well thought out argument. Cognitive science has already demonstrated that most people do not allow facts to get in the way of their core beliefs.

I don't consider myself superior either, I'm the result of my genetic structure and my experiences, I didn't decide to be a bleeding heart liberal because it made me feel good or right. I'm a bleeding heart liberal because of my experiences and how my brain's structure interpreted them. I could tell you that my road to liberalism started when a buddy in the Marine's told me to watch what republican's(conservatives) do rather than to listen to what they say. So when they said they wanted to reduce the size of government and get the deficit under control but then took steps that couldn't do anything other than manifest the opposite result (increased spending while decreasing revenue) I started to shift, when I heard them talk about supporting the troops but did nothing to increase my pay or improve my lot in life my shift changed into a slide.

I could tell you that but honestly I don't think I had any more control over where I ended up than I do the orbit of the moon.

However when I say conservatives are mean petty hateful people, I mean it. I can't think anything else of them when I see them talk about shooting children who trekked across a continent to escape certain death, or to deport them which frankly amounts to the same damned thing. Or when they promote and support torturing people for things they can not control (seriously the idea that homosexuality is a choice is completely ludicrous on it's face Yeah I'm so sure they're choosing to be social outcasts who are going to be beaten and tormented by their peers and society) that anyone who can actually believe that just does not compute. I may not think they can help it but I'm certainly not going to respect those beliefs nor am I going to let them pass without pointing out how awful they are.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

Wait a sec...

So, are you saying that Clinton wasn't actually impeached?

Might you be saying that there was an impeachment hearing that resulted in him not being impeached?

That cannot possibly be true, as many of the Conservatives I follow on this board quite often talk about when Clinton was impeached.

Unless....

Being impeached equals being charged. Clinton was charged by the House, however the trial was held in the Senate which did not convict. So Clinton was impeached but not convicted.
Johnson (Andrew not Lyndon) was impeached but not convicted.
Nixon was impeached but resigned before the trial in the Senate began.
Many people are confused by this due in large part to the poor teaching of American History and government. It is only natural that someone who lives in a place where these things are (with good reason) not a priority would have problems with that conversation.

Nixon was not impeached. Speaking of the poor quality of the knowledge of American history...

Again you show your ignorance.
The House passed articles of impeachment, introduced by Paul Sarbans. It was the centerpiece of his next campaign.
Once they passed this he was impeached, but the trail in the senate was avoided by his resignation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mouth4Mistress

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
If GM and Chrysler had been allowed to collapse that would have wiped out both the 2 million+ jobs the companied employed directly plus the millions more in the businesses that supplied parts to them. In the middle of the worst recession since the Great Depression. That would have essentially shut down our economy.
Is that what you really wanted?

What would have come up in their places, Ken?

Nothing for years. You understand that right. For many of the people put out of work no equivalent job would ever have come along.

Totally. After all, it's not like there are any other automotive / aircraft / farm equipment / similar manufacturers in America, who would love to have a fresh pool of skilled & experienced workers to hire from. If GM closed their doors, then Ford, Toyota, Nissan, Boeing, Lockheed, and all the other guys would just disappear into thin air as well. It would be (drumroll, please) the EEEEENNNNDD OF THE WOOOOOOORLD!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mouth4Mistress

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
so, Nixon was impeached by your same reasoning.

LET ME GOOGLE THAT FOR YOUR DUMB ASS

Clinton was impeached.
Nixon was about to be impeached, but resigned before the impeachment could be formalized.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mouth4Mistress

Conservatives were for slavery? Where the hell are you getting your "facts" from?

Here's a little history lesson, verbatim from my friend's blog:

---

Prompted by yet another “Republicans hate minorities” Twitter argument.

A little history lesson for the liberals in the audience: the first African-American US Senator and the first SIX African-American US Representatives were members of the Republican Party.

Senator Hiram Rhodes Revels from Mississippi
Representative Benjamin Sterling Turner from Alabama
Representative Josiah Thomas Walls from Florida
Representative Jefferson Franklin Long from Georgia
Representative Joseph Hayne Rainey from South Carolina
Representative Robert Brown Elliott from South Carolina
Representative Robert Carlos De Large from South Carolina

Side note: the Currier & Yves drawing captions Jefferson Franklin Long as “Jefferson H. Long” (F becomes H), and Joseph Hayne Rainey as “Joseph H. Rainy” (missing the “e”).
So there’s some disagreement between spelling versions on Wikipedia & the original.

[Removed image that was too large for the forum.]

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Who had the capital in 2009 to buy all those plants? No one. All those people suddenly being out of work would have further hurt demand further damaging the economy sinking the whole country deeper into recession.

Companies don't just suddenly expand in the middle of a bad recession.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mouth4Mistress

How did this country survive the collapse of major corporations before?

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Who had the capital in 2009 to buy all those plants? No one. All those people suddenly being out of work would have further hurt demand further damaging the economy sinking the whole country deeper into recession.

Companies don't just suddenly expand in the middle of a bad recession.

And it isn't like the government could have backed loans to such investors, rather than propping up the failed models, is it, Ken?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Who had the capital in 2009 to buy all those plants? No one. All those people suddenly being out of work would have further hurt demand further damaging the economy sinking the whole country deeper into recession.

Companies don't just suddenly expand in the middle of a bad recession.

And it isn't like the government could have backed loans to such investors, rather than propping up the failed models, is it, Ken?

Loans to foreign owned companies? I think not. And Ford could not possibly have absorbed all of GM and Chrysler.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Who had the capital in 2009 to buy all those plants? No one. All those people suddenly being out of work would have further hurt demand further damaging the economy sinking the whole country deeper into recession.

Companies don't just suddenly expand in the middle of a bad recession.

And it isn't like the government could have backed loans to such investors, rather than propping up the failed models, is it, Ken?

Loans to foreign owned companies? I think not. And Ford could not possibly have absorbed all of GM and Chrysler.

If the need to bail out was so urgent why did Ford recover better and faster without "help"
than those who got it?
Funny how nobody worries about the affect it will have on unemployment when military people are cut left and right.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Don't be an idiot, Ken. Oh wait. Nevermind...

You are really fucking up Skex's view of liberals here, as you insist that only the major existing companies and players could have played a role. Nothing new or innovative even exists in the view you present.

Maybe he'll decide to educate you about who you are.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Who had the capital in 2009 to buy all those plants? No one. All those people suddenly being out of work would have further hurt demand further damaging the economy sinking the whole country deeper into recession.

Companies don't just suddenly expand in the middle of a bad recession.

And it isn't like the government could have backed loans to such investors, rather than propping up the failed models, is it, Ken?

Loans to foreign owned companies? I think not. And Ford could not possibly have absorbed all of GM and Chrysler.

If the need to bail out was so urgent why did Ford recover better and faster without "help"
than those who got it?
Funny how nobody worries about the affect it will have on unemployment when military people are cut left and right.

Ford has historically been better managed and had a better relationship with the UAW.

People do worry about reducing the military. You are as usual simply full of shit.