It's all Bush's fault! Barry said so. And Barry NEVER lies! Unless his lips are moving. Besides, Nancy says the Democrats will come out on top in November.

This is one of the things that's always been rather ridiculous about the left. They're constantly accusing their 'enemies' of hate, of being hateful, of hating, and about all I've ever seen is, as Morgan points out, is anger over the mistakes the left have enshrined as untouchable and unquestionable holy writ.

Doc Sanity analyzed it as psychological projection. They hate, and hate so much, that they can't imagine disagreement as being anything BUT hate.

So they can gladly accuse everyone else of hate while deflecting (as it's pointed out) the rather apparent failures of what they insist would work perfectly.

Of course, that I'm mentioning it makes me obviously a hating hater who hates, so how can I be at all impartial?

Points well taken - I have fewer political takes around work these days, and other places, because there is no reasoning with the Left. As soon as I make a point - out come those boney, pointy fingers "YOU HATER, YOU RACIST" and all is done - I just walk away.

The greatest debate club of the world - the US Senate (and the House) is the same way. There are no real debates going on any longer. And because of that we have a government that is stuck on stupid. We however, seem to be the butt of their jokes. Yes I do have my Brown Bess ready for the next Revolution

November will be the "vote" heard around the world. I don't care who falls - they all must go to make way for rational men and women who will actually represent the people of this country.

Scary? Damn straight. They are in political ascendancy now, witness the recent legislation, enacted by so many devious means.

Despite the overwhelming disgust shown by the public, to sit back and wait for the backlash while doing nothing may result in horrific disappointment.

Do you hear that, RNC?

That is TALKS not TAKES - anger got the best of me! Grrrr!

Aside from the Dr Sanity post Jlawson mentioned, I found an excellent post by patheos on the subject of whether the Tea Party is racist. It applies nicely to this topic.

http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Is-the-Tea-Party-Racist?offset=0&max=1

Some excerpts:

Liberals are trained to believe that many of the traditional American ideals and values that conservatives inherit in their families and churches are cruel and intolerant, imperialistic, and implicitly racist, sexist, and classist.

Liberals consistently misinterpret what motivates conservatives because they really cannot see the world from the conservative perspective.

Unable to see a rational and noble motive at the center of the Tea Party movement, liberals supply a darker and more convenient motive instead.

The Tea Party [or conservatives] cannot be rationally and nobly motivated, the liberal believes, because the Tea Partiers [conservatives] are not rational and noble.

Answer: Everything?

LOL...

Leftists have to run on emotion because there are no rational and logical arguments for their policies, all of which have been tried before, many multiple times in different places but always with the same results: failure.

Demonizing the opposition has always been a favored tactic of the Marxists, and however they may try to hide it, even to the point of fooling themselves, this is what the Democratic Party has degenerated into.

Wanting to control your own life and keep your own property and earnings seems selfish to the liberal mind, yet they don't willingly obey the laws they want for others. The end result of liberalism is communism, yet ironically the cure for liberalism is a strong dose of communism.

"Their plans have been given a more than fair shot, the plans have failed, they're feeling sensitive about it and they're looking for an outlet for their rage"

Yep Mr. Ear's. Youv'e been reminded time and time again that socialism does not work ( look at your own life story and the world's ) and yet you persist at trying to make a square peg fit a round hole?

Apparently you need a supersized hearing aid after your impeachment you narcissistic putz.

"you know what's scary about liberals nowadays?"

IMNAAHO, the fact that they have no doubts whatsoever about the rightness of their course.

I'll admit it: I despise the statists. Not for their race, nationality or sexual proclivities, but for their determination to take away my freedom. It's something I take personally.

Guys, this is really funny.

You cite a long article about how liberals just hate hate hate without facts or reason...and when the article turns to conservatives, it posts notions that are lacking in both fact and reason.

Fact-impaired notions bolded below:

We've got our taxes being ratcheted up at the end of the year,

Not true.

a) taxes will not increase on those making less than $250,000 a year in income

b) this is not raising taxes - as you know, this is allowing the Bush-era tax cuts expire ***as planned when originally passed**

as a panacea for an economic malaise that didn't start until the democrats took over Congress back in '07.

You know as well as liberals that this was due to the economic collapse that occurred during the Bush administration, as a direct result of conservative deregulation policies. As explained before, multiple times (but as I'm doing again now because someone will try again) - it **was not** Fannie Mae, because if the worst said about Fannie Mae is true, it still couldn't have:

- created a housing boom AND THEN a bust
- forced banks to invent and sell credit-default swaps
- forced banks like Goldman Sachs to swindle against their clients AND THEN bet they'd lose

So, really. Come on.

"You know what's scary about liberals nowadays?"

Yes, denial like #14

"b) this is not raising taxes - as you know, this is allowing the Bush-era tax cuts expire ***as planned when originally passed**"
If nothing change's then why let them expire?? Hmmmm?

"a) taxes will not increase on those making less than $250,000 a year in income"

Can we get that in writing? Like a budget maybe.

Jim X is a tremendous representative of the mindset of liberals. Taxes going up in 2011 is not that. The liberals simply are not extending them. Parsing words is for incompetents. Also, thousands of small businesses will be hit with the tax hike.

Since 2007 the majority party in congress has been democrats. A huge majority. That means appropriations, oversight and regulating. The bust happened under their oversight. I guess we should explain to Jim X. that the president has no authority when it comes to money, etc. Liberals just are living in such denial. ww

I was going to say "The Smell?"

Then Jim XJ showed up (and made me check my soles for dog grenades) to make it real.

As explained before, multiple times (but as I'm doing again now because someone will try again) - it **was not** Fannie Mae, because if the worst said about Fannie Mae is true, it still couldn't have:

You can explain it as many times as you want but that doesn't make it true. The fuel for the financial collapse was subprime mortgages. Mortgage backed securities, derivatives and credit swaps would be sound investments if the mortgages they were based on were also sound. Giving mortgages to people who could not afford them is the root cause of the financial collapse and wirting such mortgages was and still is the business Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are in. The policy of government backed subprime mortgages can be traced back to the Carter administration and expanded under Clinton. It was Bush who in his 2001 budget asked congress to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Even with the new financial regulations just passed into law Obama and the Democrats have yet to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and thus, the seeds of the next financial collapse are taking root.

Mac Lorry, here's a list of the many things which are wrong with your statement.

The fuel for the financial collapse was subprime mortgages.

No it was not. I know you want to believe that, but it simply isn't true.

I'm not just saying that to say it. If you are interested in facts, read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%932010

Between 1997 and 2006, the price of the typical American house increased by 124%.[20] During the two decades ending in 2001, the national median home price ranged from 2.9 to 3.1 times median household income. This ratio rose to 4.0 in 2004, and 4.6 in 2006.[21] This housing bubble resulted in quite a few homeowners refinancing their homes at lower interest rates, or financing consumer spending by taking out second mortgages secured by the price appreciation.

All of which occurred before the Democrats regained the Congress in 2006. Sorry.

Then there was also:

Lower interest rates encourage borrowing. From 2000 to 2003, the Federal Reserve lowered the federal funds rate target from 6.5% to 1.0%.[31] This was done to soften the effects of the collapse of the dot-com bubble and of the September 2001 terrorist attacks, and to combat the perceived risk of deflation...

...The Fed then raised the Fed funds rate significantly between July 2004 and July 2006.[35] This contributed to an increase in 1-year and 5-year adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM) rates, making ARM interest rate resets more expensive for homeowners.[36] This may have also contributed to the deflating of the housing bubble, as asset prices generally move inversely to interest rates and it became riskier to speculate in housing.[37][38] USA housing and financial assets dramatically declined in value after the housing bubble burst.

And then there's this fact:

...Nevertheless, only 25% of all sub-prime lending occurred at CRA-covered institutions, and a full 50% of sub-prime loans originated at institutions exempt from CRA.[54] While the number of CRA sub-prime loans originated were less than non-CRA sub-prime loans originated, it is important to note that the CRA sub-prime loans were the more "vulnerable during the downturn, to the detriment of both borrowers and lenders. For example, lending done under Community Reinvestment Act criteria, according to a quarterly report in October of 2008, constituted only 7 percent of the total mortgage lending by the Bank of America, but constituted 29 percent of its losses on mortgages.

Mortgage backed securities, derivatives and credit swaps would be sound investments if the mortgages they were based on were also sound.

That's light saying hamburgers would be good eating if the meat weren't spoiled. And? If the restaurant knew the meat was bad - like the banks knew their mortgages were risky - and they then sold them to clients under false pretenses, wrapping them up into further hypothetical investments **and then bet against their clients** - then that is far more than Fannie Mae, in the worst case scenario.

I don't know if reciting these facts to you all, again, will make any difference. But I do encourage you all to read the Wiki article. I hope that at least will shake you out of this irrational notion that Fannie Mae somehow broke the world economy all by itself, when it was at most a bit player.

Leftism is akin to a heroin addiction.

Like heroin addicts a liberal reflexively will engage in self-destructive behaviour, even though he knows he's doing himself harm. Like heroin addicts liberals not only destroy their own lives they tend also to destroy the lives of all those close to them. Alas, unfortunately, there is no equivalent of Methadone for leftism.

Wiki is to facts like unions are to diligence.

Soooo according to Jim X if my taxes go up because my tax cut goes away my taxes don't go up. That makes perfect sense, if you have no sense. Jezz are you kidding. Since you liberals think raising taxes is such a great idea why don't you just say that and stop with the taxes going up doesn't mean your taxes will be higher that's just dumb.

The other thing I wish you'd stop doing is acting like taking less of my money adds to the deficit the deficit is caused by spending more than you make, that's why it's call deficit SPENDING.

Sooo John is your income less than $250,000 a year?

Then your taxes aren't going up.

Facts are fun things.

Complaining about Wiki links when providing no other links, is like complaining about someone else's work while not working at all.

Then your taxes aren't going up.

Facts are fun things.

Yeah. Plugging our combined pay into the calculator at MyTaxBurden.Org gets: "If Congress fails to act to extend the Bush tax cuts, your income tax burden will be $4,013 higher in 2011."

That's going to hurt. Of course, our taxes would actually be LOWER if "Congress passes the tax laws suggested in President Obama's budget, letting some tax cuts expire, extending some, and enacting some new tax laws."

I'd rather see them simplify things, myself. There's so many exemptions, cuts, credits and loopholes it's just plain insane. And I don't mean 'simplify' in the old "How much did you make? Send it all in" joke, either.

So the government will collect more money from me - waste 20%+ in administrative friction and collection costs - then pass the rest out either to administration syncophants and suckups or as interest paid on the $3 tril in deficit spending that Obama's racked up since he took office.

Well, gee - I can't think of any better use for it, like maybe BUYING a replacement for the 30 year old air conditioning system, or a new roof for the house - something to actually get the money circulating in the private sector...

Jim that is not true, if the Bush tax cuts expire everyone who pays taxes will have higher taxes, no matter what you say. The lowest income level will go from 10% to 15%. Last time I checked the lowest income level was well below 250K. Just because Obama said taxes wouldn't go up if you made less than 250K doesn't mean it's true.

How about we do this, let's fix the tax code so that we don't have nearly 1/2 the country paying no income tax at all. I would be willing to have an across the board increase (small increase) if at the same time we got more Americans participating.

Jim X -- sorry, but you and the amateurs who wrote the Wikipedia article missed the fact that the toxic assets that caused the financial crises were ALL based on bad mortgages and the seed for such mortgages was, and is, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Community Reinvestment Act. These triggers are the work of democrats wanting to make housing available to people who could not qualify for traditional mortgages.

Blaming the financial crash on mortgage writers who sold their junk to Wall Street is like blaming a pilot for the crash after a wing falls off. If the wing did fall off there would be no crash, and if Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Community Reinvestment Act didn't exist there would never have been a large subprime mortgage market in the first place. And without subprime mortgages there would have been no financial crises.

It was Bush in his 2001 budge who asked congress to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That fact is a matter of public record and had congress acted it could have averted the financial crash.

Yeah. Plugging our combined pay into the calculator at MyTaxBurden.Org gets: "If Congress fails to act to extend the Bush tax cuts, your income tax burden will be $4,013 higher in 2011."

Well, guess what? That site is misleading you. Obama is talking about preserving things right where they are if you're making $250,000/yr or less.

What I expect that site is doing, is applying the misleading rule of not extending ALL the tax cuts.

But I don't know exactly where I get their figures; I just know it's untrue according to all nonpartisan reports.

So I suggest you look into it, via a less partisan site. Factcheck.org and politifact.org are great places to start. Cheney himself referenced factcheck.org as a nonpartisan site.

John, that is true. Even if you don't want to think it's true, it still is.

But if it really is as untrue as you say, you should be able to find a nonpartisan independent source to prove me wrong. Such as the CBO. I'll even accept the Washington Post.

It is especially ironic to have this discussion in the comments thread of an article that declares liberals are factless hate-filled zealots who reason only from their hateful hatey hateyness.

Mac Lorry - sorry, but if the Wikipedia is that wrong and made by "amateurs" then you should be able to find some nonpartisan sources that prove it wrong.

Please, go ahead and find some.

Blaming the financial crash on mortgage writers who sold their junk to Wall Street is like blaming a pilot for the crash after a wing falls off.

Sure - if all the pilots got together, knew that their fleet's wings were falling off, and kept flying anyway because they made commissions selling tickets and knew they had golden parachutes.

Except that wouldn't even cover it.

It would be like the pilots got together and bought several fleets with wings that were falling off, merged them into new companies where the "average" of wings falling off was barely legally acceptable, and then sold these fleets to investors who then **and then bet that the investors would be killed when the wings fell off**.