Sam is a reasonably well-informed poster and as an endangered species on this board (intelligent conservative) should be protected from mindless sniping and drive-by aggression. So what if he’s often wrong? Who’d you rather have, Sam or some vessel of rancid venom like Mark Levin or Jonah Goldberg?
If there was a contest for phrases I’d be least likely to use in everyday discourse, this would be near the top of the list.
By the way, is it correct to refer to Saskatchwanese?
Are you serious? The left is so well organized and the arguments are so solid here that the only righties who can stand against them must NECESSARILY be well informed, thoughtful, and intellectually powerful, or they’d get trampled. With only a few exceptions (Rand Rover, I’m looking at you) the right on the SDMB are giants.
The second bolded part would seem to refute the first bolded part. Especially if he can’t admit he’s wrong.
If he comes back to the Palin thread and even at least admits there’s a possibility he misconstrued the reasons behind Palin’s selection, then good on him. But if he runs away from it and tries to distract people to a different issue so he can let the original one just fade away without admitting error, then he deserves respect only for his typing skills.
You don’t get points for intelligence when you’re often wrong unless you can admit you’re wrong and learn from your mistake.
Saskatchewanian.
Villains who twirl their moustaches are easier to spot.
Take NPR and Fox. Fox oozes much more shit than NPR. However, I think misinformation coming from NPR is much worse because it’s harder to see it coming. Juan Williams and Mara Liasson do much more damage with their NPR megaphones than their Fox megaphones.
Saskatchewanistas has a better flavor to it.
I say this in all sincerity: if you have evidence of NPR spreading falsehoods and misinformation, please share it with me. I’ve heard NPR called “The Fox News of the left,” a comparison which has always struck me as utterly laughable. While I wouldn’t believe everything I heard from any source, even direct from the Almighty, I consider NPR’s reporting to be a damn sight more thorough, thoughtful, and dare I say “fair & balanced” than the average, which average I think most on the left and right would agree is pretty fucking dismal.
If NPR is up to no good, I’d like to know about it.
Mostly because that’s MSNBC’s role? 
NPR is government-funded and therefore something the Republican ideologues want dead. It has nothing to do with their editorial content; that’s just a cover story for the real agenda.
Saskatchaweenies?
I like this. I think I’ll start using it. Maybe do up a tshirt with Tommy Douglas’s face pasted into the famous Che Guevara picture.
Well, I know I’m generally in the minority when I speak ill of NPR for it’s conservative bias. I haven’t listened regularly since 2004, so I don’t have a lot to back up the charge of misinformation. I’ve called them out for doing things like calling John Kerry’s war record controversial, for doing a lot of he said/she said reporting, and that kind of thing. I guess my problem is more that they have a lot of conservatives who tend to shade things a particular way.
Here’s an analysis done in 2004 regarding NPR and their ratios of conservatives to liberals: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1180
Well, I’m not sure what I can add to this thread. I’ll make a few general points:
Canada is economically locked to the United States. If you sneeze, we catch cold. So what you do affects us, sometimes more than what our own government does.
I couldn’t care less about Republicans. Don’t like most of them. I’m closer to libertarianism than I am to Republicanism. I can’t stand the social conservatives most of all, and there’s also the eastern Ivy-League Republicans of the Thad and Muffy stripe that give me heartburn. Nonetheless, I wind up having to defend them on this board because like it or not, they are pretty much the only people of any real political clout taking even remotely free market positions these days.
This is a global board, and not an American board, which is a point people on the left make every time there’s a comment about the leftward tilt around here. So for some, it’s apparently okay to speak out on American political issues - so long as you’re on the left. I must say that I’m gratified by the nice comments and defense of my posts by others in this thread. Especially those who don’t agree with me but still posted to defend my right to speak here. Much appreciated.
The only thing that makes me talk about Sarah Palin is the unbelievable hostility and outright distortion of her views that is routinely spouted around here. I have no illusions about Palin - my impression is that she’s a great speaker wrapped around an average intellect with a below average education, and a typical conservative Christian/Republican world view. But she certainly didn’t deserve the smears and hatred flung at her, and so I defend her out of sympathy and an attempt to restore a sense of proportion.
As far as being a free-market supporter from Canada… I’m an Albertan. Alberta is as of this moment the most libertarian place to live in North America. We are now at the top of the Fraser Institute’s index of economic freedom. And I rather like it here. I have no desire to be an American or anything like that. And I should point out that Canadians influencing American politics is a time-honored tradition. Hell, a Canadian was one of the George Bush’s speechwriters, and the ranks of political pundits in the U.S has its share of Canadians embedded in it. One of your network news anchors was even Canadian. We’re subversive that way.
I already did that. On the first page of the thread:
I can tell you what happened - I picked up the link to the original site from Drudge or something like that, and the claim was made on that page that Palin had picked the most liberal of two picks. I googled “Palin Supreme Court Pick Planned Parenthood”, and the first bunch of links were fundy sites hopping made about her 'betrayal". I thought that was interesting, and posted a thread about it. I put it in the pit, because I knew it would explode into a Palin hatefest immediately.
As it turns out, she didn’t pick the most liberal of the two, so it’s a complete non-event as a window into her beliefs. Had I known that, I wouldn’t have posted the OP in the first place - I’m quite tired of having to defend Palin, and since people’s opinions of her are polarized and cemented in place, posting a new thread about anything Palin-related really just qualifies as ‘poking the bear’. I should have known better.
There are a lot of posters who are ‘often wrong’ on this board, who don’t get called on it either because their mistaken beliefs are liberal orthodoxy and therefore sacrosanct, or simply because their wrong statements are lost in the chatter of their fellow travelers.
Try posting from the conservative-libertarian side. You’d better have your ducks in a row, because you’re going to come under machine-gun fire. I’ve been wrong on this board on many occasions over the years, but given the level of scrutiny my posts and those of other conservatives are subject to, we can’t get away with anything. And in fact, that’s why I post here. It forces me to be careful and think through what I’m saying (except in the Palin thread…), and it forces me to make sure I have real data and facts backing up my opinions. As a way to educate yourself and validate your thoughts, it beats the hell out of posting at some libertarian/conservative echo chamber like Free Republic or Hit and Run.
You guys on the left should try it. If you think you’re so smart, start posting your ideas on some hostile site where every little scrap of fact or opinion is challenged.
For the record, I agree with you but think you ought to keep your stupid mouth shut, infidel.
Just kidding.
And I totally missed that post in the brouhaha. Mea culpa.
Really? Go read the renewable energy thread I posted in yesterday. I think there’s some information there for you.
No, I came here to tell you that your perception of it as being a horrible economy was off the mark. You want to see a horrible economy? NOW you’re in one. Hopefully after this one passes, you too will be able to look at 4.8% unemployment and GDP growth of 3.5% and no inflation and interest rates of 5% as perhaps not being the worst ever.
Now, you can make the claim that Bush policies led up to the current crisis, and you’d be partly right. But that’s not the point. The point was that at the time, you and others were claiming that Bush’s economy sucked. I was simply pointing out that historically, it was actually pretty good. And that’s completely true.
Hey, Hentor! You say I’ve never posted anything informative on the board. Pay attention, because I’m about to do so:
Voyager, the highest unemployment rate during Bush’s two terms was 6%. The average unemployment rate for Bush’s 8 years was 5.3%. As compared to 6.3% for Clinton. This despite the fact that Clinton inherited the tech bubble and the ‘peace dividend’, while Bush inherited a recession, 9/11, and fought two wars.
The Clinton years are still looked upon by lefties as an economic golden age. And they WERE pretty good years. But so were Bush’s. Somehow, I don’t think it’s me who has managed to distort history.
This is what I’m talking about - I’m no fan of Bush’s, but I wind up being the guy who has to defend him because of the constant distortions and historical revisionism that goes on around here.
Oh, before I forget: Cite.
I’d like to say you’re being dishonest here, since you’re not describing my argument very well, but I think it’s more likely that you simply didn’t understand the debate.
I’m willing to bet that I’m one of the top ten posters on this board when it comes to citing facts. And most of the time, the ‘research’ people do to ‘disprove’ my facts consists of doing a quick googling of lefty cites and posting the first thing they can find which comes close to addressing the subject, then declaring the matter closed.
Bank regulation is a factor, but our real-estate bubble did’t grow like yours did because we don’t incentivize home ownership like you do. No mortage interest deduction, no Fannie and Freddie, no Community Reinvestment Act, no sub-prime mortgages. Republicans and Democrats are both to blame for the mess the U.S. is in, so I’m not sure why you think this would be some point against me.
Holy non-sequitur, Batman. That sentence has nothing to do with anything, other than perhaps a lame attempt to take a general shot at ‘uncaring’ Republicans or something.
Sam, you probably won’t like this, but I just want to say that you are my favorite poster on this board. You are the poster I wish I could be. Keep fighting the good fight.
Since this is a Pit thread, let’s all stop being so nice.
First of all, Clinton came into office on a downturn, not a bubble.
Second, your summary of U.S. labor statistics is rather partisan. In 1992, unemployment was 7.5% and in 1993 (first Clinton year), it was 6.9 % and then went down every single year to 4.0% in 2000. http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat1.pdf
Early 2000s recession - Wikipedia
Bush “fought” two wars? No, Bush is far too much of a coward to actually fight. He sent far few troops to fight the war that Al Queda started in Afghanistan enabled by the Taliban. Bush started a war in Iraq that was unnecessary and bankrupted the nation and put the world economy into a world of hurt, based on a bunch of lies. He put the entire war off-budget, cut-taxes and then left the troops overseas in massive numbers after five years. When all the benefits are paid out for the little unnecessary adventure (read clusterfuck) in Iraq, it will make the TARP and the various stimuluses look modest by comparison. To date measured costs reach over $600 billion. Cost of National Security: Counting How Much the U.S. Spends Per Hour The McClatchy papers estimate that the long term costs will be between 5 and 7 trillion.
Recessions, downturns, depressions, whatever you want to call them usually follow a major war. Good job Republicants, picking a war you couldn’t win and destroying the economy at the same time. Too bad none of you read even the slightest bit of history because this was entirely predictable, only idiots would have thought there would be no impact. Oh, right. Forgot, W is the King of the Idiots. Or is it Rush now?
No, the $5 to $7 trillion dollar costs, off budget on the Iraq war clusterfuck, were put in during the Bush era. Clinton engaged in no overseas adventures of anywhere near this stupid scope.
I would agree that this is not the personal fault of Sam Stone, Canadian. But it is the fault of deregulating the finance industry since Reagan “got the government off the backs of people” by removing regulations put in place in the aftermath of the Great Crash and Great Depression to prevent exactly this sort of thing, culminating in the more recent deregulations recommended by that awful libertarian Alan Greenspan who, like all libertarians, seemed to think that financial institutions would regulate themselves or suffer the consequences, not understanding that they might all do the same stupid thing at the same time, bonus themselves billions and then file bankruptcy. And that’s exactly what happens when non-owner managers have no personal liability for their actions.
The current Great Recession is caused the following factors, giving us a multiple whammy:
The business cycle has not yet been shown to be amenable to avoiding. The other two causes, the war, was avoidable, but the stupid, fucking neo-cons threw out every lesson of history in pushing for war and “deficit doesn’t matter” Reagan Republicans were all for cutting taxes and not paying for it. Deregulation can also be laid at the feet of Republicans for the most part, and the remainder at the feet of the deregulators, who did it because conservatives always love to do whacky things with the economy, provided that it helps them out financially.
At least our current Great Recession doesn’t have hundreds of Wall Streeters losing their fortunes like the Great Depression did. But it does have millions of people losing their homes and jobs, and it is here for a long time. Look for the people who caused it try to blame it on Obama.
Wow. That really hit the nail on the head. Can a SDMB wedding be far off?
Dude, you’re the one who modeled your username after the guy. Sheesh.
Not exactly an instant classic, but pretty good on short notice.