Facts vs. Feelings. The Left / Right debate has me confussed.

1. 60

   StripedCrunchyposted 12 years ago

   I understand that "Politics and Social Issues" can be VERY emotional topics. I also understand a desire to only see the world from one's own, personal perspective. I'm as guilty as anyone, on that front. Discounting or flat-out Ignoring that which might tend to put MY side in a bad light.
   
   So, as a rule, and knowing how apt to be Human I am, I resolved many years ago to simply examine the facts. Go to the source as best I could, so other people's bias wouldn't cloud my own judgement. No one is perfect, me least of all, so I allow for mistakes in others, and exercise discernment.
   
   Any first-year Debate student knows that a position can be put forth as passionately as you like, but if it lacks for facts, it will still fail.
   
   Which leads to my actual question: Why, when presented with irrefutable proof that they have been lied to or otherwise mislead, do my colleagues on the Left remain steadfast in their positions?

   replyreport
   1. 61

      John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Irrefutable proof is far too often opinion and nothing more.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         StripedCrunchyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         You of course reiterate the point I was making, John. Which is why like to view the source.
         
         If the Left is correct that Bush and the Right caused the housing meltdown, then all the people in this CSPAN you tube video have their D and R on backwards:
         
         http://youtu.be/_MGT_cSi7Rs
         
         Democrats supported the man ultimately responsible for cooking the books at Fanny, Franklin Rains. The same Franklin who Obama chose as his Financial Adviser. Republicans wanted TIGHTER controls, not the other way around. This is CSPAN. Politicians speaking in their own words.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Moderndayslaveposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            We can thank The Gramm- Leach-Bliley Act that was a republican brainchild and voted in by Repubs in 1999 . Those crazy Deregulating Republicans
            
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%8 … Bliley_Act
            
            http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s1999-105
            
            The only problem was that Clinton signed it into law and we all know what head Bubba thinks with.This effectively gutted the Glass Steagall act and opened the casino doors and gave birth to the ,Too Big To Fails.

            replyreport
         2. 0

            Texasbetaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            That youtube video was from 2004. Do you really not know what caused this still? I was unaware that...well, wait...people still think Iraq was justified, so I obviously need to rethink my stance on that. Regardless, look more into the creation of derivatives, why they were unregulated, how the merger between Citi and Travelers allowed the passing down of risk from mortgage lenders to investment banks, who then bundled them with all other risky devices like student loans and corporate writeoffs, into CDO's, then bribed the rating agencies to mark them as triple A, being that state's and unions can only invest in triple A rated commodities...created fake and unregulated insurance in the form of credit default swaps with no capital backing it up, and then passed that risk down to the investors, which were international banks and state pensions...which is why states are bankrupt right now. The passing down of the risk led to opening the floodgates to subprimes, which was only the icing on the cake, not the actual cake. Fannie and Freddie are only a little part of this my man. You obviously like to go learn and research things...I'll leave the conclusion to you sir.

            replyreport
   2. 0

      Texasbetaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Strange, I feel the same about the right. If you are getting your irrefutable proof from the Heritage Foundation, I can refute it, thus making it not proof, but speculation. How about you give me an example.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         hottopicsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I think thats Stipeds point. Why do people cite opinions instead of facts. When I post a fact, I always get hit with opinions or links to newspaper articles or interviews of people giving their opinion. I do my best to research credible information before writing a hub or replying to a post. Despite showing actual information from .gov sites, someone will always come back and state they dont care what is posted, they refuse to read it or do not believe it. You can lead a horse to water, well you know the rest.

         replyreport
      2. 60

         StripedCrunchyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Tex, I am not entirely familiar with the Heritage Foundation, although I've heard it mentioned. Are you of the opinion that they're a group of big doody-heads? Or, more importantly, can you show proof that they falsify datum to ensure they get Million Dollar Bonuses, like Franklin Raines did?
         
         http://www.seattlepi.com/business/artic … 162709.php
         
         Or that they give their largest campaign contributions to the heads of the Government Departments which oversee them? 
         
         http://www.faithandfacts.com/911/fannie … he-system/
         
         I've followed all the links. Excellent lite reading.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Texasbetaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I think that they are doody heads, though I don't want to put the effort into that research honestly. It shouldn't be hard, I just don't want to do it again.
            
            With regards to your links...great reads, however again...check the post I previously put up. If you really think the brunt of the cause was Fannie and Freddie, which you appear to believe...you really need to get a little deeper. Look up the securitization food chain. That will be a good start for you. I look forward to your conclusion after you have completed your brief journey. It will get you pretty angry when you are done, I promise you.

            replyreport
   3. 62

      Shahid Bukhariposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Follow the Middle Course ... that should get you out of Confusion.

      replyreport
   4. 62

      GNelsonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Because politics is like religion in that it is taken on faith and the facts have little to do with it.

      replyreport
      1. 62

         secularist10posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Absolutely. Well said.

         replyreport
   5. 62

      secularist10posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      It is difficult to answer your question, Striped crunchy, without knowing specifically what you are talking about.
      
      In a general sense, if you are truly interested in the facts, then you will know that the exact same question could be asked vis-a-vis the right. The "facts vs. feelings" phenomenon definitely applies there.

      replyreport
2. 78

   Mighty Momposted 12 years ago

   Funny. When your so-called colleagues of the left quote government websites as sources of our facts, they are disputed as lying with statistics of flat-out falsehoods.
   When it comes to politics, ALL truth is relative.
   For every "fact" you cite there is an equal and opposite reactionary "fact."

   replyreport