Liberals think too much

Analysis of the cogitation of the two parties:

Republicans: Mainstream Republicans tend to utilize minimal analysis and sythesis, and choose to state facts but not utilize them through comprehensive analysis. Tea Party Republicans are a mixed bag when it comes to cognition. They are either factual and analytical minimalists, which allows them to state policy that is so simple and vague that its almost impossible for an average American to see the flaws in it, or they are abstract thinkers, who utilize analysis as facts and ludicrous opinions. Libertarians also have qualities of both mainstream and Tea Party Republicans, but actually tend to be more intelligent than the Tea Party.

Democrats: Mainstream democrats tend to follow the mainstream Republicans with their thought process. Full Blown liberals and socialists tend to have the same problems as Tea Party Republicans, but have more problems analyzing facts in a conventional manner, which create ignorant opinions.

I can go into more detail, but this is a basic opinionated analysis of the two parties. Notice how I admit that this is opinionated, and not based on facts, because this is a subject that can't be examined through facts, not even if one runs an experiment examining the cogitation of Democrats and Republicans that provides statistics.

 

Not when you are able to distinguish the accomplished from the wannabes.

If either Palin or Bachmann had half the smarts that Hillary does, I could understand the drooling - but come on, we've seen them spout off really scary stuff. And, unlike Palin, who spells out everything she is doing on Twitter, I doubt Hillary has time for such minutia.

 

I gave you a link, which apparently you didn't bother to read. It explained the ramifications if the debt ceiling was not raised. It stated that it was unknown exactly what recourse would have been taken by Treasury had the debt ceiling not been raised, but laid out different scenarios that could have played out. None of them put the country in a better position, so for Bachmann to disregard the warnings of Treasury, Congress as well as the Congressional Research Service composed of Analysts in Public Finance, Analysts in Government Organization and Mgt, Legislative Atty, Specialist in Income Security and Analyst in Income Security is nothing short of idiotic.

Here is another article that spells out the possibilities.

Nearly half of all government checks won't be paid: The Treasury Department would be unable to pay between 40% and 45% of the 80 million payments it needs to make every month, according to an analysis by the Bipartisan Policy Center.
Why? It's basic math: The United States doesn't bring in enough revenue to pay all its bills -- with monthly deficits averaging $125
billion.

And if the debt ceiling isn't raised, Treasury won't be allowed to borrow new money to make up for the gap between revenue and spending.
Bottom line: Roughly $125 billion of bills on average may have to be put off.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/13/news/economy/debt_ceiling_fallout/index.htm

And another one:

If the U.S. starts defaulting on its debt, everybody who owns U.S. stocks and bonds will take a big hit. This will affect the big banks, corporations and even countries -- pushing some toward bankruptcy. That's the kind of slide that can spark a panic. On a more personal note, your 401(k) and/or pension will suffer big losses. It could take a long time to rebuild those funds, delaying retirement -- or making it impossible.

For those that are ignorant as to what Treasury is able to do, they have simple solutions - unfortunately, that is not possible. If you had read the link I gave you, you would be better informed.

From my previous link:

Possible Options for Treasury: Could Prioritization Be Used?
Some have argued that prioritization of payments can be used by Treasury to avoid a default on federal obligations by paying interest on outstanding debt before other obligations.26 Treasury officials have maintained that the department lacks formal legal authority to establish priorities to payobligations, asserting, in effect, that each law obligating funds and authorizing expenditures stands on an equal footing.27 In other words, Treasury would have to make payments on obligations as they come due. With regard to this view, Treasury recently noted that an attempt to prioritize payments was “unworkable” because adopting a policy that would require certain types of payments taking precedence over other U.S. legal obligations would merely be “a failure by the U.S. to stand behind its commitments.”28

Ha,ha, nice try! I'm going by what the Congressional Research Service (a bipartisan source) maintains, as well as other reputable sources. You are basing your argument on a right-wing tabloid (Washington Examiner) that is no better than Faux News in spreading lies. When you can back what they say with a credible bi-partisan source you may have something, but so far, guess who is the one with egg on their face?


On February 1, a free daily tabloid arrived on newsstands and in mailboxes in the Washington, DC area: the Washington Examiner. The new paper is owned by Denver billionaire Philip F. Anschutz, an Evangelical Presbyterian who has bankrolled numerous ultra-conservative causes and has donated at least half a million dollars to Republican committees and political candidates. The Examiner's first three editorials all took hardline conservative positions.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200502030002

Ha,ha, providing a link to a right-wing tabloid is not providing proof. I guess for some Bachmann droolers, Geithner, the Congressional Research Service and other economists and analysts who have weighed in on the situation are all lying!

Oh, by the way - the Washington Examiner did have this to say in another article - I guess they don't know which way to go?

University of Baltimore economist Richard Clinch said if the debt ceiling is not raised, everyone is hurt.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/local...ade-if-us-debt-limit-not-raised#ixzz1VVT7CxJe

Sly, do me a favor and provide some reputable sources, not the usual right-wing lying machine! You are entitled to your own set of opinions, you are not entitled to your own set of facts.

 

You completely ignored the link I provided which did the basic math and showed that Social Security and Medicare (49 million each) would still be covered if the debt ceiling wasn't raised, along with our interest payments and still money left over to spend on other things like our military wages.

That is a true statement from your money link. But nothing says that the 125 billion will include social security, medicare, and/or the military pay wages like you claimed it does.

And I'm not interested in any of the positions taken my mediamatters a George Soros paid for organization that backs left wing idealogy and whose primary goal is to bankrupt Fox News. You need to find better sources for your information then allowing yourself to be brainwashed by mediamatters. Before you go demanding others get more reputable resources you better look closer at your left wing sources that you use yourself.

 

I didn't ignore your right-wing biased link - I just don't give it much credibility, being that it comes from a right-wing source where people like Bachmann and others make claims that are not true. One of the options suggested by Treasury Assistant Secretary for Financial Markets Mary Miller (if debt ceiling was not raised) was to delay $50B due to SS recipients. But, even if payments were made, as you claim, the devastation that would have occurred due to not raising it would have been injurious to the country, and for Bachmann to make such a statement is idiotic.

BY LARRY D. SPEARS, Contributing Writer, Money Morning
Failure to reach a compromise on a U.S. debt ceiling increase could result in an unmitigated economic disaster - one so unprecedented government and private analysts can't even accurately pinpoint all the potential consequences.

http://moneymorning.com/2011/07/18/the-painful-consequences-of-debt-ceiling-increase/

It didn't have to, the CSR indicated that Treasury doesn't have the authority to prioritize, so it is not known if they would get paid before other payments were made. One of their options would be to delay SS payments.

So, you are claiming that the Washington Examiner is not a right-wing biased source? That Media Matters is lying on this claim?

You aren't interested in what Media Matters claims, (which has nothing to do with the debt ceiling issue) but want me to accept what the Washington Examiner says as fact? Whatever Media Matters' agenda may be does not change the fact that Washington Examiner is owned by an extreme right-winger, who like Bachmann will say whatever they think will benefit the conservative ideology, even when the majority of experts claim the opposite.

Washington Examiner -
The newspaper was formerly distributed only in the suburbs of Washington, under the titles of Montgomery Journal, Prince George's Journal, and Northern Virginia Journal. Their parent company, Journal Newspapers Inc., was purchased by Philip F. Anschutz's Clarity Media Group in October 2004. On February 1, 2005, the paper's name changed to the Washington Examiner, and it adopted a logo and format similar to that of another newspaper owned by Anschutz, the San Francisco Examiner.

Political slant
The Examiner's editorial page is heavily conservative; it is headed by Mark Tapscott, with American Spectator senior editor Quin Hillyer serving as its associate editor. The paper's national political coverage, which also appears in Examiner papers in Baltimore and San Francisco, was previously headed by Bill Sammon, a former Washington Times reporter who has written several books praising George W. Bush.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Washington_Examiner

The only information that I have provided from Media Matters is that the Washington Examiner is owned by a right-wing multi-millionaire and their claims are right-leaning.

The information I have given you regarding the debt ceiling have been from bi-partisan sources that are close to the situation, so, quit trying to use that as an excuse to admit the fact that your claims that not raising the debt-ceiling is not a "big deal" is without merit.

Nice try, Sly! I guess you can provide proof that the Washington Examiner is not owned by a right-winger, which would then verify your claim that Media Matters is lying!

The information that I provided on the debt ceiling came from bi-partisan sources, yours was not, so your claim is nothing but a RED HERRING!

 

Why the (*)(*)(*)(*) should anyone take your left wing biased links with any credibility.

Prove they are lying instead of making unsubstantiated allegations.

And what difference does it make who owns my source if they are telling the truth. You didn't disprove any of the content.

 

Using your logic you have no credibility because your a liberal pushing the liberal agenda and will lie and twist facts to mean what you want them to mean to push your liberal agenda.

See how that works.

Just because it's from a conservative news source doesn't make it a lie. Prove it a lie first or shut up.

 

I know Reps/cons don't because they can't handle the truth. Why would a bi-partisan group designated to layout the ensuing consequences, lie? Let's face it, unless it comes from Rush, Faux News or the Washington Examiner, most conservatives will not believe it - and those 3 are the ones that lie! LOL!

I already did, that you don't believe the Congressional Research Service just proves that God himself could come down and tell you and you would say He was lying. The WE is mouthing the same beliefs that the Tea Party was pushing. The Tea Party erroneously believed that raising the debt ceiling amounted to "approving full funding to Obama's agenda". They totally ignored all the warnings from expert economists and analysts that claimed it would be a disaster. Only the ignorant extreme right-wing such as Bachmann, Cantor, Ryan, Palin and other Tea Partiers were believing that. Even the Republicans in Congress knew better and the only reason they were holding off was to get their coveted tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations. But, they knew it would be a catastrophic decision that would be blamed on them, why they decided at the last minute, before the deadline, to sign off on it. It it hadn't been a big deal they could have held off indefinitely.

It makes a lot of difference. You have not been able to provide me with another link that is not right-wing partisan that substantiates the WE position.

 

Problem for righties is that they think too little.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DI9ImScQGAo"]Carl Sagan-Cosmos edited for rednecks - YouTube[/ame]

 

Ha,ha, I suppose you believe everything that is written in the "Enquirer" - just because some of their stories have been accurate? Yeah, the BI-PARTISAN group (CSR) that was designated to point out different scenarios if the debt ceiling was not raised is definitely a left-wing liberal group pushing liberal agenda! Ha,ha, the sky is falling, everyone is conspiring against conservative/Republicans! Only the Washington Examiner, Rush Limbaugh, Faux News and Bachmann tell the truth!

I see how it works in the twisted mind of Reps/cons. Everyone lies except them! There is no such thing as bi-partisan in their world!

There's some conservative news sources that don't lie, but the Washington Examiner is not one of them. And, I would say, prove that what they have said is true with a bi-partisan article or SHUT UP about it!

 

lol this was very amusing, even though it was off topic.

 

Figured I would throw something out there that was opposite of the OP. lol

 

Media Matters, ROFLOLOLOLOLOLOLO, if Glen Beck likes it, it has to be wrong. HEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEH

 

Why isn't this thread closed yet? Clearly a troll here.

 

Conservative news sources are ALWAYS just as wrong as Liberal ones. In fact they are NOT news sources at all, anymore than the WWE wrestling is "sports". Conservative and liberal news sources are actually"NEWS ENTERTAINMENT" and have no legitimate value for anything but, entertainment.

 

Except for Fox there is no such thing as a neutral news source.

 

Fact is there is always a need to be more intellegent, and there is no need to be dumb. Some people have the capacity for higher thinking (and i'm not talking BS religion), and using what neuropsychologists call executive functions. This requires ongoing development where the neuropathways develope due to challanges put upon the brain via thinking and problemsolving. Often used to formulize and organize thought and organize structure and plans and most of all problemsolve. This type of cognition requires a developed brain. One that is challanged and goes through many trial and error of success and failure.

On the other hand. some people do not have this cognitive ability, their executive functions were not developed at an early age. And most through their everyday lives do not develop or challange their thinking. Why, because most who don't have this ability often were told not to question, think, or oppose. They were directed to obey, and not investigate or think in abstract ways. They would be instructed to give up thinking and to rely on hope. They also are told that complex problems and questions could be explained simply by saying god said so. Some argue that it is human nature to take the easy way out. An in the case of simple people it is evident that their lack of higher cognitive functioning is a result of their lazyness and early childhood brainwashig of religion.

As you can see, most if not all people who fall in the category of cognitively impaired tend to be conservative in nature. Simple people with simple ideas and simple answers to complex questions. Some even lack the ability to understand what they read. If a legal document is difficult for a college grad to understand, just think of how much more difficult it is for a person who lacks higher cognitive ability. Hence, what you see in conservatives is that lack of understanding and the lack of abstract reasoning, which results in a lack of solution and a lack of action.

 

Being able to utilize executive functions also requires the ability to utilize facts to analyze, synthesize, theorize, compare and contrast, etc. These qualities are what leads to abstract thinking, and the ability to create new, innovative, pragmatic, and realistic policy.


Conservatives tend to gear their cognition to reading what they see, and believing that it is fact, regardless of whether the information is fact or opinion.

Nassir Ghaemi's A First Rate Madness: Uncovering The Links between Leadership and Illness is an excellent book analyzing political leaders, and how their mental characteristics effect their ablity to create policy, which requires abstract thinking.

 

OMG!

Well Wilber...guess we best be puttin' down these here books and get DUMB.

LOL...silly SILLY Americans...LOL

 

The trouble with any statist is that they don't think at all, they're reactionary.

 

Well aren't we off topic? That's OK though because this is an interesting discussion. I noticed this looking back on my former self and I see it in others. I go to a university and listen to the discussions that go on there, and then I turn on Rush Limbaugh and I feel like the intellectual quality has been dialed down about 20 notches. There have also been some psychological studies done on conservatives and I think they are interesting, though not UNIVERSALLY applicable.

With regards to religion, it can be good or bad. Religion is good in the sense that it really is asking DEEP, meaningful questions about life and the universe. Why are we here? Do morals exist? What kind of knowledge is the most important? However, their answers to those questions usually leave one with the sense that God is being used as a filler for EVERYTHING that is difficult. I don't mind people being religious or believing in God (I'm still wrestling with the God question actually). What I don't like is when Christians try to push hateful legislation that discriminates against homosexuals or when creationism is said to be true and evolution false, and the only justification offered is that my religion says creationism is the way it happened. I think it's partially why I react more negatively to conservatives than I do libertarians, because generally they are not wrapped up in all the religious dogma that most conservatives try to push.

 

You know you think backwards when you say someone thinks too much. Are you a Bush man? Wanna think with your gut? You know there's poop in there right?

 

Ha,ha,ha, if Media Matters had been caught lying as many times as Faux News or Glenn Beck Reps/cons would have something to really laugh about - right now they're just mad because MM catches Faux in their lies, every time....Bwahahahahahahaha!

 

Ha,ha,ha, now I know what I'm dealing with! Faux News neutral????

What color is the sky in your fantasyland?

 

I would guess it's really dark red . And blue does not exist as a color!