Most Popular Right Wing Pundits Among GOP Activists: Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck

PoliticsDecember 2010 • Views: 29,109

Among Republican activists, the most popular right wing pundit is a race-baiting creationist who mocks H1N1 victims, falls for obvious hoaxes, wants environmentalists to kill themselves, and panders to the Birther movement.

And the second most popular is a raving freakazoid nut sandwich.

Here’s the list, dominated by Fox News extremists: The top ten pundits among Republican activists.

It’s another tangible piece of evidence that the right wing has gone bugeyed loony, completely unmoored from reality and addicted to blind rage. And just to make this even clearer:

Worryingly, columnists often regarded as among the most thoughtful conservatives did not fare well. David Brooks of the New York Times only mustered a mention from 1.3% of the panel (14 people). Ross Douthat, also at the NYT, won just four votes and Mike Gerson, Washington Post writer and former speechwriter to President Bush, gets just three mentions. Another former Bush speechwriter and Rush Limbaugh’s leading critic, David Frum, only gets three mentions.

Jump to bottom

333 comments

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Sat, Dec 4, 2010 10:09:27am

Not a single sane individual in the top 10.

And why is VDARE-contributing Malkin still afloat? Silly question, I know.

jamesfirecat Sat, Dec 4, 2010 10:09:42am

Wow, a nice bit of Arson, Murder, and Jaywalking you had going there Charles, when you put it that way you managed to make me think the first one was Glenn Beck!

lawhawk Sat, Dec 4, 2010 10:10:32am

Part of this is a popularity contest and part of this is that people don’t want to hear from folks who challenge their preconceived notions. Rush and Beck pander to and/or lead from the crazy while folks like Frum have been trying to challenge the Rush-style right wing drive off the precipice for a while - to deaf ears.

Killgore Trout Sat, Dec 4, 2010 10:11:27am

That’s a pretty sad list of idiots. Malkin who writes of VDARE and Coulter who thinks the CCoC is just spiffy and wants to “perfect” all the Jews. Ugh.

Killgore Trout Sat, Dec 4, 2010 10:13:19am

re: #3 lawhawk

Part of this is a popularity contest and part of this is that people don’t want to hear from folks who challenge their preconceived notions. Rush and Beck pander to and/or lead from the crazy while folks like Frum have been trying to challenge the Rush-style right wing drive off the precipice for a while - to deaf ears.

I still can’t imagine Beck lasting in the long term. He’s getting increasingly shrill with the doomsday/end of the world stuff. Eventually his audience is going to notice that none of his predictions come true.

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Sat, Dec 4, 2010 10:13:19am

re: #3 lawhawk

Beck is more problematic than Rush because he is more creative. He doesn’t simply pander - he creates new rhetorical structures and memes. (Except they aren’t new but very old ones, but that’s another problem about him.)

Walter L. Newton Sat, Dec 4, 2010 10:15:34am

re: #5 Killgore Trout

I still can’t imagine Beck lasting in the long term. He’s getting increasingly shrill with the doomsday/end of the world stuff. Eventually his audience is going to notice that none of his predictions come true.

That hasn’t stopped Christianity.

lawhawk Sat, Dec 4, 2010 10:17:06am

re: #5 Killgore Trout

How is that any different than stock touters - folks who try and make predictions about the stock market. All they have to do is be right every once in a while and ignore the mistakes. Beck is sly enough to know how to do that, and Rush has been at this for what 15-20 years now? Beck’s now been doing his bit since 2000 as a talk radio format and has been doing radio for about 30?

You would think that if you fool enough people enough times, people would catch on, but demagogues and charlatans do seem to know how to fool enough people enough of the time to stick around well past their expiration dates.

researchok Sat, Dec 4, 2010 10:18:51am

re: #5 Killgore Trout

I still can’t imagine Beck lasting in the long term. He’s getting increasingly shrill with the doomsday/end of the world stuff. Eventually his audience is going to notice that none of his predictions come true.

Here’s hoping.

I do like Frum and Krauthammer, notwithstanding his occasional foray into the nut zone.

I know he’s become a favorite target lately, but that can’t erase most of his work.

Krauthammer is one smart dude.

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Sat, Dec 4, 2010 10:22:26am

re: #9 researchok

Edison was really smart too, but DC current still sucked.

What, me worry? Sat, Dec 4, 2010 10:23:32am

re: #3 lawhawk

Part of this is a popularity contest and part of this is that people don’t want to hear from folks who challenge their preconceived notions. Rush and Beck pander to and/or lead from the crazy while folks like Frum have been trying to challenge the Rush-style right wing drive off the precipice for a while - to deaf ears.

What’s George Will doing in there? Though I don’t agree with him on many issues, I’ve given him a thumbs up from time to time. I think he’d actually be insulted to be in this group.

What confuses me is how Rush is at the top, considering the whole religious right aspect of the GOP. He says the most gawd awful things about the poor and indigent and that doesn’t square with me with the idea of being a good and caring Christian.

researchok Sat, Dec 4, 2010 10:24:10am

re: #10 Obdicut

Edison was really smart too, but DC current still sucked.

Good one.

What, me worry? Sat, Dec 4, 2010 10:24:15am

re: #9 researchok

Here’s hoping.

I do like Frum and Krauthammer, notwithstanding his occasional foray into the nut zone.

I know he’s become a favorite target lately, but that can’t erase most of his work.

Krauthammer is one smart dude.

Frum ain’t on the list. Krauthammer can go suck an egg.

Spocomptonite Sat, Dec 4, 2010 10:24:46am

History textbooks a hundred years from now will look back on this era and hopefully teach students the mistakes of governing through media-promoted populism so it won’t happen again.

If there are students and/or accurate history books a hundred years from now.

I just wish everyone had learned the populism history lesson already available to us with Prohibition and Yellow Journalism.

researchok Sat, Dec 4, 2010 10:26:33am

re: #13 marjoriemoon

Frum ain’t on the list. Krauthammer can go suck an egg.

I like Frum, as I said.

Krauthammer isn’t batting the way he used to but he does present some pretty cogent arguments at times.

Fozzie Bear Sat, Dec 4, 2010 10:26:39am

I don’t see how Krauthammer is any less crazy than the rest of them, frankly.

Stephen T. Sat, Dec 4, 2010 10:27:49am

Some of my conservative friends have told me that the reason David Brooks and Ross Douthat are discounted as conservatives is because they both write for the New York Times. A true conservative, they say, would never associate themselves with such a liberally biased institution. The same goes for those on television such as George Will (on ABC), Joe Scarborough (on MSNBC), and others.

researchok Sat, Dec 4, 2010 10:28:26am

re: #16 Fozzie Bear

I don’t see how Krauthammer is any less crazy than the rest of them, frankly.

He’s shifted somewhat (and not in a way I approve of), but don’t discount him.

He’s a brilliant guy.

sagehen Sat, Dec 4, 2010 10:29:00am

I don’t read Frum very often; Peggy Noonan and Kathleen Parker are hit-and-miss. The conservative writers I like are Bruce Bartlett on economics, Radley Balko on civil liberties, and Conor Friedersdorf and Daniel Larison for across-the-board range of topics.

Mostly sane, most of the time. Sat, Dec 4, 2010 10:29:05am

re: #17 Scarecrow237

Some of my conservative friends have told me that the reason David Brooks and Ross Douthat are discounted as conservatives is because they both write for the New York Times. A true conservative, they say, would never associate themselves with such a liberally biased institution. The same goes for those on television such as George Will (on ABC), Joe Scarborough (on MSNBC), and others.

Not for this conservative. If you have an A game, you should be able to take it anywhere. Well, anywhere that will let you get an entire sentence out, which discounts some of the scream-a-thons masquerading as talk television.

Walter L. Newton Sat, Dec 4, 2010 10:29:34am

re: #14 Spocomptonite

History textbooks a hundred years from now will look back on this era and hopefully teach students the mistakes of governing through media-promoted populism so it won’t happen again.

If there are students and/or accurate history books a hundred years from now.

I just wish everyone had learned the populism history lesson already available to us with Prohibition and Yellow Journalism.

As long as we have a free press, we are going to have to put up with these occasional annoyances.

What, me worry? Sat, Dec 4, 2010 10:29:44am

re: #17 Scarecrow237

Some of my conservative friends have told me that the reason David Brooks and Ross Douthat are discounted as conservatives is because they both write for the New York Times. A true conservative, they say, would never associate themselves with such a liberally biased institution. The same goes for those on television such as George Will (on ABC), Joe Scarborough (on MSNBC), and others.

That’s ridiculous - the idea of completing shunning opposite opinion. It means nothing other than a bit of diversity.

TedStriker Sat, Dec 4, 2010 10:30:12am

re: #18 researchok

He’s shifted somewhat (and not in a way I approve of), but don’t discount him.

He’s a brilliant guy.

Which makes it all the more exasperating that Krauthammer has been going down the road he has as of late….he knows better, but is pandering to the wingnuts.

sagehen Sat, Dec 4, 2010 10:31:40am

re: #11 marjoriemoon

What confuses me is how Rush is at the top, considering the whole religious right aspect of the GOP. He says the most gawd awful things about the poor and indigent and that doesn’t square with me with the idea of being a good and caring Christian.

Didn’t you get the memo?

Good and caring Christians now worship Supply Side Jesus; their scripture contains Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and then skips straight to Corinthians. No gospels, no beatitudes, no sermon on the mount, no feeding the hungry or housing the homeless or healing the sick. The Good Samaritan was a socialist who wants to destroy America.

What, me worry? Sat, Dec 4, 2010 10:32:12am

re: #19 sagehen

I don’t read Frum very often; Peggy Noonan and Kathleen Parker are hit-and-miss. The conservative writers I like are Bruce Bartlett on economics, Radley Balko on civil liberties, and Conor Friedersdorf and Daniel Larison for across-the-board range of topics.

Noonan… she’s nails on a chalkboard for me. I don’t know what it is about that woman. I’ll watch Coulter before Noonan.

Parker and Frum don’t give into sensationalism. Maybe that’s the difference.

jamesfirecat Sat, Dec 4, 2010 10:32:38am

re: #10 Obdicut

Edison was really smart too, but DC current still sucked.

//Hey, who are you gonna trust, me or crazy man Tesla with his death ray?

researchok Sat, Dec 4, 2010 10:32:50am

Brooks takes a lot of heat because he backed a lot of Obama’s economic policies.

The argument against him (reduced) is that we went from a 3 trillion deficit to at least a 12 trillion deficit- and we don’t have a whole lot to show for it.

Also, we still have not addressed the third rail issues- social security, retirement ages,etc.

Spocomptonite Sat, Dec 4, 2010 10:33:16am

re: #21 Walter L. Newton

As long as we have a free press, we are going to have to put up with these occasional annoyances.

I’d put the blame on simple, malleable minds rather than the free press. Whatever the initial cause, having it happen once in history should be enough to teach a lesson; having it happen twice is just ignorant and the fault of ignorance.

What, me worry? Sat, Dec 4, 2010 10:33:19am

re: #20 EmmmieG

Not for this conservative. If you have an A game, you should be able to take it anywhere. Well, anywhere that will let you get an entire sentence out, which discounts some of the scream-a-thons masquerading as talk television.

Oooo excellent post!

Fozzie Bear Sat, Dec 4, 2010 10:33:54am

re: #23 talon_262

Which makes it all the more exasperating that Krauthammer has been going down the road he has as of late…he knows better, but is pandering to the wingnuts.

He was cultivated by Robert Bartley, and is every bit as intellectually dishonest as his mentor. If you shill for the supply-siders, you aren’t an honest broker of information, tbh. He knows better, which makes it doubly sad.

Political Atheist Sat, Dec 4, 2010 10:34:14am

Michael Savage is not on the list?! That is a surprise.

researchok Sat, Dec 4, 2010 10:34:40am

re: #23 talon_262

Which makes it all the more exasperating that Krauthammer has been going down the road he has as of late…he knows better, but is pandering to the wingnuts.

I would have to agree- the pandering is deliberate. He’s too smart to buy into all that drivel.

That said, he’s not always off the mark. When he connects, he’s good.

jamesfirecat Sat, Dec 4, 2010 10:35:46am

re: #27 researchok

Brooks takes a lot of heat because he backed a lot of Obama’s economic policies.

The argument against him (reduced) is that we went from a 3 trillion deficit to at least a 12 trillion deficit- and we don’t have a whole lot to show for it.

Also, we still have not addressed the third rail issues- social security, retirement ages,etc.

Umm… you do know that 3 trillion to 12 trillion thing is malarky last time I checked right?

I distinctly remember reading that one you put the little issue of TWO WARS on the books, Bush had a bigger deficit in 2008 than Obama did in 2009….

researchok Sat, Dec 4, 2010 10:35:46am

re: #31 Rightwingconspirator

Michael Savage is not on the list?! That is a surprise.

He ought to be near the top of the list.

Political Atheist Sat, Dec 4, 2010 10:36:04am

re: #20 EmmmieG
Agreed.
*High Five.*

Hmmm. There should be an emoticon for that. Windupbird in the house?

Kragar (Antichrist ) Sat, Dec 4, 2010 10:36:26am

re: #34 researchok

He ought to be near the top of the list.

He’s in San Fransisco. Too liberal.

Walter L. Newton Sat, Dec 4, 2010 10:38:06am

re: #28 Spocomptonite

I’d put the blame on simple, malleable minds rather than the free press. Whatever the initial cause, having it happen once in history should be enough to teach a lesson; having it happen twice is just ignorant and the fault of ignorance.

No silly, it’s called making money… you make it sound like the press is to stupid to be aware of what they are doing, and you make it sound like the public doesn’t understand that what they are being fed. Both sides, all sides, are well aware of the game that is being played, and it works out well for everyone. The media (and that includes mass entertainment) pulls in the receipts and the people get to here and see what they want.

It’s nothing new, it goes much further back than the contemporary version named “Yellow Journalism.” It’s a fact of history as far back as the Greeks and Romans.

What, me worry? Sat, Dec 4, 2010 10:38:27am

re: #24 sagehen

Didn’t you get the memo?

Good and caring Christians now worship Supply Side Jesus; their scripture contains Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and then skips straight to Corinthians. No gospels, no beatitudes, no sermon on the mount, no feeding the hungry or housing the homeless or healing the sick. The Good Samaritan was a socialist who wants to destroy America.

It’s funny. When I weigh up all my religious Christian friends, and most are church going and try to emulate human compassion, they’re Democrats. And we’ve even discussed the abortion issue. They’re pro-life Dems.

Jimmah The Unacceptable Sat, Dec 4, 2010 10:38:42am

re: #5 Killgore Trout

I still can’t imagine Beck lasting in the long term. He’s getting increasingly shrill with the doomsday/end of the world stuff. Eventually his audience is going to notice that none of his predictions come true.

Unfortunately, doomsday types have a habit of finding ways to explain their ‘great disappointments’.

researchok Sat, Dec 4, 2010 10:39:11am

re: #33 jamesfirecat

Umm… you do know that 3 trillion to 12 trillion thing is malarky last time I checked right?

I distinctly remember reading that one you put the little issue of TWO WARS on the books, Bush had a bigger deficit in 2008 than Obama did in 2009…

It’s an accounting trick.

When you figure interest into the equation, the deficit will be higher.

There is a reason the Saudis and other gulf states want to remove the dollar as the reserve currency and there is a reason the Chinese want to rid themselves of dollars, albeit slowly.

I believe the word ‘austerity’ will be used in the near future.

What, me worry? Sat, Dec 4, 2010 10:39:36am

re: #25 marjoriemoon

Noonan… she’s nails on a chalkboard for me. I don’t know what it is about that woman. I’ll watch Coulter before Noonan.

Parker and Frum don’t give into sensationalism. Maybe that’s the difference.

Ok, that’s not quite right.

I’d watch 5 minutes of Coulter before 3 minutes of Noonan lol

Political Atheist Sat, Dec 4, 2010 10:39:43am

re: #33 jamesfirecat

Why would you posit the GWOT as a Bush spending issue? Blame him for Iraq, fine but not Afghanistan and the rest. That came to us.

sagehen Sat, Dec 4, 2010 10:40:56am

re: #42 Rightwingconspirator

Why would you posit the GWOT as a Bush spending issue? Blame him for Iraq, fine but not Afghanistan and the rest. That came to us.

But putting it off the books, financing it through a series of “special appropriations” and not counting it in the budget or including it in the deficit, was *entirely* on Bush.

jamesfirecat Sat, Dec 4, 2010 10:41:09am

re: #40 researchok

It’s an accounting trick.

When you figure interest into the equation, the deficit will be higher.

There is a reason the Saudis and other gulf states want to remove the dollar as the reserve currency and there is a reason the Chinese want to rid themselves of dollars, albeit slowly.

I believe the word ‘austerity’ will be used in the near future.

But is it really 9 trillion dollars higher?

What, me worry? Sat, Dec 4, 2010 10:42:52am

re: #28 Spocomptonite

I’d put the blame on simple, malleable minds rather than the free press. Whatever the initial cause, having it happen once in history should be enough to teach a lesson; having it happen twice is just ignorant and the fault of ignorance.

I imagine every 100 years or so, people have laughed, screamed and pointed their fingers at the idiots who lived in the previous 100 years. Maybe by year 3000 it’ll be a done deal.

jamesfirecat Sat, Dec 4, 2010 10:43:00am

re: #42 Rightwingconspirator

Why would you posit the GWOT as a Bush spending issue? Blame him for Iraq, fine but not Afghanistan and the rest. That came to us.

I’m not saying it’s Bush’s fault, I’m just saying that the way Bush paid for the wars was off the books, if memory serves so that they didn’t get counted as part of that year’s deficit which made the deficit leap mightily once Obama took office because he actually bothered to admit how deep the hole we were in was.

I’m not arguing with what Bush spent the money on, I’m not arguing with where the money came from… I’m arguing with how the money spending was recorded….

Mongo only pawn... in game of life. Sat, Dec 4, 2010 10:44:19am

It looks like the Fox weekly lineup. This will only make Fox grind harder against reality, as it appears to be paying off. Quite rare air for charlatans and snake oil salesmen. As far as Krauthammer goes, pandering is reason enough to suspect he is losing his reason and going along with the party line.

What, me worry? Sat, Dec 4, 2010 10:44:22am

re: #33 jamesfirecat

Umm… you do know that 3 trillion to 12 trillion thing is malarky last time I checked right?

I distinctly remember reading that one you put the little issue of TWO WARS on the books, Bush had a bigger deficit in 2008 than Obama did in 2009…

Your mission, if you chose to accept it, is to go find that.

And I do agree with you.

Killgore Trout Sat, Dec 4, 2010 10:45:40am

OT: This can’t possibly be real…..

THE BEAVER

Youtube Video

I can see Mel Gibson doing this but Jodie Foster usually picks her movies pretty carefully.

researchok Sat, Dec 4, 2010 10:47:32am

re: #44 jamesfirecat

But is it really 9 trillion dollars higher?

That’s a good question- really good.

It all depends on how you read the books and forecast interest rates (which absolutely impact those final numbers- and to a large degree, determine how long we’ll be underwater).

If we are no longer the world’s reserve currency, we’re going to take a huge hit by way of an announced devaluation (recall Britain the pound sterling when that happened in the 70’s)- maybe 15%. If we let the market peg the value by itself, we can take up to a 30% hit.

If oil is settled in another curency, our gas prices will at leat double, meaning goods, services and food costs will rise.

What the final number looks like is in many ways unknown, but it is sure as hell going to be huge.

Like I said, I see austerity in our near future.

Spocomptonite Sat, Dec 4, 2010 10:48:28am

re: #37 Walter L. Newton

No silly, it’s called making money… you make it sound like the press is to stupid to be aware of what they are doing, and you make it sound like the public doesn’t understand that what they are being fed. Both sides, all sides, are well aware of the game that is being played, and it works out well for everyone. The media (and that includes mass entertainment) pulls in the receipts and the people get to here and see what they want.

It’s nothing new, it goes much further back than the contemporary version named “Yellow Journalism.” It’s a fact of history as far back as the Greeks and Romans.

Yes and no. The “press” (I use that term very lossely) knows exactly what it is doing, because they are making Ark-loads of money doing it. The public that follows them, however, does think it’s about money, doesn’t think they are wrong, and in general, doesn’t think. What do they know of the past failings of populism that we are bound to repeat? Nothing. And those profiting off it don’t care about the future further ahead than their forecasted earnings.

Limbaugh et al are at fault for what they say, but it’s the people that listen to them that are at fault for their popularity, and thus the comeback of populism. Populism 2: Because we didn’t go far enough last time.

jamesfirecat Sat, Dec 4, 2010 10:48:53am

re: #48 marjoriemoon

Your mission, if you chose to accept it, is to go find that.

And I do agree with you.

[Link: www.capitalgainsandgames.com…]

It’s only 1.75 in 2009 so I don’t get how someone can say it jumped from 3 to 12….

jamesfirecat Sat, Dec 4, 2010 10:50:16am

re: #50 researchok

That’s a good question- really good.

It all depends on how you read the books and forecast interest rates (which absolutely impact those final numbers- and to a large degree, determine how long we’ll be underwater).

If we are no longer the world’s reserve currency, we’re going to take a huge hit by way of an announced devaluation (recall Britain the pound sterling when that happened in the 70’s)- maybe 15%. If we let the market peg the value by itself, we can take up to a 30% hit.

If oil is settled in another curency, our gas prices will at leat double, meaning goods, services and food costs will rise.

What the final number looks like is in many ways unknown, but it is sure as hell going to be huge.

Like I said, I see austerity in our near future.

This leads me to my next question… who is responsible for putting us in the position where nations are thinking about dropping the dollar as their reserve currency?

Political Atheist Sat, Dec 4, 2010 10:51:11am

re: #46 jamesfirecat
Okay I can agree, but consider this.. which answers both of ya.
re: #43 sagehen

Yes that was. Why was that? To dodge or avoid the consequences of a huge deficit. Now we play the game differently. We devalue the dollars and put it all on the books. Then we stage up Geithner to deny we are printing to devalue? WTF?

It’s just a different smelling BS. Now I’m not hanging that on Obama directly, but we have really just substituted and traded problems and players around with a modicum of transparency.
Now just like before it is in fact on the populace to pull this economy up.

Same circus… different clowns, and it’s more than Obama could possibly fix in one term. With either congress BTW neither was or is any help at all.

Political Atheist Sat, Dec 4, 2010 10:52:11am

re: #53 jamesfirecat

In no small part each and every President from Nixon forward. Each and every Congress. Each and every Senate.

Killgore Trout Sat, Dec 4, 2010 10:52:17am

Crazy Pam thinks Wikileaks is an inside job….

And how convenient that is for Obama! His only competition in the Democrat party for 2012 is Hillary.
Holder will go after the fall guy Assange, but the real culprits are in the government.

There is no way that one guy leaked all this without the help of very senior people and the infiltration of our government. There is no way that Julian Assange got his hooves on hundreds of thousands of documents from the State Department and other sources without people at the senior levels of the White House and the Justice Department turning a blind eye and a deaf ear. Particularly when the documents were so unflattering to Clinton.

What a perfect way to bring down Hillary. I am no fan of Clinton, but that is hardly the point. Obama means to destroy Hillary. His man? Assange.
….
Who is paying for the WikiLeaks state-of-the-art servers, housed in nuclear bomb shelters? Has anyone checked to see if it was Obama’s puppetmaster, George Soros?

Kragar (Antichrist ) Sat, Dec 4, 2010 10:53:21am

re: #49 Killgore Trout

OT: This can’t possibly be real…

THE BEAVER

[Video]

I can see Mel Gibson doing this but Jodie Foster usually picks her movies pretty carefully.

It is.

The Beaver

Mongo only pawn... in game of life. Sat, Dec 4, 2010 10:53:32am

re: #49 Killgore Trout

OT: This can’t possibly be real…

THE BEAVER

I can see Mel Gibson doing this but Jodie Foster usually picks her movies pretty carefully.

In a very short time someone will voice over his telephone rants as he talks to THE BEAVER. That will be a riot.

jamesfirecat Sat, Dec 4, 2010 10:53:42am

re: #55 Rightwingconspirator

In no small part each and every President from Nixon forward. Each and every Congress. Each and every Senate.

Umm… didn’t the deficit go down under Clinton?

Walter L. Newton Sat, Dec 4, 2010 10:53:43am

re: #51 Spocomptonite

Yes and no. The “press” (I use that term very lossely) knows exactly what it is doing, because they are making Ark-loads of money doing it. The public that follows them, however, does think it’s about money, doesn’t think they are wrong, and in general, doesn’t think. What do they know of the past failings of populism that we are bound to repeat? Nothing. And those profiting off it don’t care about the future further ahead than their forecasted earnings.

Limbaugh et al are at fault for what they say, but it’s the people that listen to them that are at fault for their popularity, and thus the comeback of populism. Populism 2: Because we didn’t go far enough last time.

Only anecdotal on my side, but people I know, who I have questioned about their preferences for information and/or entertainment, do understand what they are watching and listening to. Their general answer to my inquires and explanations of some of the problems with popular media is simply… “I like it.”

They know better, but they like it. Most people I know are not stupid at all, simply more concerned with being entertained, agreed with and having the feeling that they belong to one side or the other, one ideology or the other.

Some of the smarted people I know have been duped by religious concepts, paranormal topics, bad-science and so on.

You’re assumption that all these people are just stupid is too simplistic.

What, me worry? Sat, Dec 4, 2010 10:54:49am

re: #49 Killgore Trout

Ahhh… a feel good, Mel movie. Just what we’ve been waiting for this glorious time of year!

*forget*

**forget**

***forget***

122 Year Old Obama Sat, Dec 4, 2010 10:55:11am

re: #56 Killgore Trout

Image: thestupiditburns.jpg

What, me worry? Sat, Dec 4, 2010 10:55:35am

re: #52 jamesfirecat

[Link: www.capitalgainsandgames.com…]

It’s only 1.75 in 2009 so I don’t get how someone can say it jumped from 3 to 12…

Good show, dude.

Fozzie Bear Sat, Dec 4, 2010 10:55:39am

re: #53 jamesfirecat

This leads me to my next question… who is responsible for putting us in the position where nations are thinking about dropping the dollar as their reserve currency?

The people who sold us the idea that you can decrease both unemployment and inflation simultaneously without raising the deficit/debt. I.e., Reagan and the supply-siders started the slide, Bush Sr. tried to push back, and succeeded to some extent, But then Clinton and Bush Jr. picked up an ran again with that ball.

The anti-intellectualism of the GOP started with economics, and that’s still where it is most entrenched.

Jimmah The Unacceptable Sat, Dec 4, 2010 10:56:23am

re: #49 Killgore Trout

OT: This can’t possibly be real…

THE BEAVER

[Video]I can see Mel Gibson doing this but Jodie Foster usually picks her movies pretty carefully.

This movie looks to be worse than Inception and Howard the Duck combined.

Cannadian Club Akbar Sat, Dec 4, 2010 10:56:40am

OT- need tech help.
screen says BOOTMGR is missing.
Windows 7 on an HP. And afternoon honcos. Been a while.

researchok Sat, Dec 4, 2010 10:56:52am

re: #53 jamesfirecat

This leads me to my next question… who is responsible for putting us in the position where nations are thinking about dropping the dollar as their reserve currency?

We are.

Our fiscal policies do not occur in vaccum.

That’s why so many nations were upset when Obama announced yet another round of borrowed (read: printed) money into the economy.

Why is this important? Because there are more US dollars in circulation outside the US than there is within the US. Added dollars means their supplies are less valuable (think China and the Gulf states who huge stakes in the dollar- and that is beside Europe and other far east states who export here.

What, me worry? Sat, Dec 4, 2010 10:57:03am

re: #58 nines09

In a very short time someone will voice over his telephone rants as he talks to THE BEAVER. That will be a riot.

Your mission, if you chose to accept it… lol

Walter L. Newton Sat, Dec 4, 2010 10:57:33am

Ot - More GOP obstructionism…

Senate blocks Obama’s tax plan

“The Senate blocked President Obama’s and Democratic leaders’ tax cut plans Saturday in a foreordained symbolic vote that now sends both sides back to the negotiating table to work out a viable deal.”

[Link: www.washingtontimes.com…]

Killgore Trout Sat, Dec 4, 2010 10:58:55am

re: #66 Cannadian Club Akbar

OT- need tech help.
screen says BOOTMGR is missing.
Windows 7 on an HP. And afternoon honcos. Been a while.

Fixing “BOOTMGR is missing” Error While Trying to Boot Windows 7 or Vista

Spocomptonite Sat, Dec 4, 2010 10:59:33am

re: #53 jamesfirecat

This leads me to my next question… who is responsible for putting us in the position where nations are thinking about dropping the dollar as their reserve currency?

My opinion is that it really isn’t a ‘who’. Our economy, back when other countries first set value to our dollar, was much more powerful than any other country on earth. Kind of like making the decision to invest in a Dow industrial or a penny stock.

Now, while it is true our economy has faltered as of late, what’s more responsible for the relative decline between us and other countries is more that they’ve caught up to us rather than us falling down to their level. Now they have a choice of investing in many Dow industrials instead of one good stock and a bunch of unreliable ones, and we are no longer the obvious choice we once were.

Fozzie Bear Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:00:54am

re: #66 Cannadian Club Akbar

OT- need tech help.
screen says BOOTMGR is missing.
Windows 7 on an HP. And afternoon honcos. Been a while.

Install grub, and along with it linux.

Ok KT’s answer is more likely what you want.

jamesfirecat Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:02:15am

Okay here is what I have to say, If Obama had used Bush’s tricks in 2009

[Link: www.capitalgainsandgames.com…]

Then the deficit for 2009 would have 1.3 trillion.

The Stimulus cost $814 billion or $820 adjusted for inflation.

[Link: politifact.com…]

1.3 trill -820 bill= 480 bill

Bush’s deficit for 2008 seems to $454.8 bill

[Link: politifact.com…]

So 454.8-480= 25.2 bill increase in deficit.

That’s also if I do my math correctly, a 5.5 (some other longer numbers follow) increase.

Now that is a noticeable increase, but it’s not like Obama was really breaking the bank here.

So yeah, discuss…

What, me worry? Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:02:43am

re: #57 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

It is.

The Beaver

My goodness.

“Please ignore the fact that I’m a racist, drunken, women-abusing asshole, when actually, it’s my beaver doing all the talking.”

I try very hard not to hook actors to their bizarre beliefs, but really, I can’t look at Mel anymore.

Fozzie Bear Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:03:05am

For a long time we understood that you could fight inflation at the expense of unemployment, or unemployment at the expense of inflation, but you can’t do both without ballooning the deficit.

When we were sold the idea that you could do both, AND cut taxes, the decline of our economy, and the expansion of our debt, was absolutely inevitable.

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:06:04am

re: #49 Killgore Trout

OT: This can’t possibly be real…

THE BEAVER

[Video]I can see Mel Gibson doing this but Jodie Foster usually picks her movies pretty carefully.

The atrocity here is not the movie but the fact that Gibson can still find a job.

Fozzie Bear Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:06:56am

The GOP will never and can never recover from it’s rampant anti-intellectualism until it throws Reagan under the bus. I know he’s beloved on the right, but his presidency marks the beginning of the abandonment of fiscal sanity.

Fozzie Bear Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:08:29am

re: #77 Fozzie Bear

… and once you decide that one academic pursuit is invalid (economics), it’s easy to start discarding others.

sagehen Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:08:35am

re: #71 Spocomptonite

My opinion is that it really isn’t a ‘who’. Our economy, back when other countries first set value to our dollar, was much more powerful than any other country on earth. Kind of like making the decision to invest in a Dow industrial or a penny stock.

Now, while it is true our economy has faltered as of late, what’s more responsible for the relative decline between us and other countries is more that they’ve caught up to us rather than us falling down to their level. Now they have a choice of investing in many Dow industrials instead of one good stock and a bunch of unreliable ones, and we are no longer the obvious choice we once were.

The Euro’s recent problems (Greece, Ireland, Italy) is our salvation.

Lidane Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:09:34am

re: #74 marjoriemoon

I try very hard not to hook actors to their bizarre beliefs, but really, I can’t look at Mel anymore.

Yep. That’s why I won’t go see this movie at all.

It sucks, because I like Jodie Foster, and Anton Yelchin (the kid playing Mel & Jodie’s son) was really good in Charlie Bartlett and I liked him as Chekov in the new Star Trek film. It’s unfortunate he’s in this. I hope it doesn’t hurt his career too badly.

sagehen Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:10:27am

re: #75 Fozzie Bear

For a long time we understood that you could fight inflation at the expense of unemployment, or unemployment at the expense of inflation, but you can’t do both without ballooning the deficit.

When we were sold the idea that you could do both, AND cut taxes, the decline of our economy, and the expansion of our debt, was absolutely inevitable.

Poppy was right when he called it “voodoo economics.”

Dubya must be such a disappointment to his father.

researchok Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:11:26am

re: #73 jamesfirecat

Okay here is what I have to say, If Obama had used Bush’s tricks in 2009

[Link: www.capitalgainsandgames.com…]

Then the deficit for 2009 would have 1.3 trillion.

The Stimulus cost $814 billion or $820 adjusted for inflation.

[Link: politifact.com…]

1.3 trill -820 bill= 480 bill

Bush’s deficit for 2008 seems to $454.8 bill

[Link: politifact.com…]

So 454.8-480= 25.2 bill increase in deficit.

That’s also if I do my math correctly, a 5.5 (some other longer numbers follow) increase.

Now that is a noticeable increase, but it’s not like Obama was really breaking the bank here.

So yeah, discuss…

Yes, no mavbe- that goes back to what I said earlier. It all depends on how you read teh books.

The long term cost of money is unknown because there are too many variables.

It’s easy to present a snapshot but when all is said and done, we’ll be paying for both the Bush and Obama deficits for a long time.

Which will cost more? Are we supposed to co mingle the numbers? Depends who you ask.

‘These kinds of ‘snapshot economics’ are really no more than political tools. Think of it this way- if someone asks, how much does it cost to raise a child and they give you an answer, you know they are BSing you. Way too many variable and long term implications.

If this kind of stuff interests you, learn up on behavioral economics. It present the subject in a whole new way and can help explain why politicians spend the way they do.

Fozzie Bear Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:12:01am

re: #81 sagehen

Poppy was right when he called it “voodoo economics.”

Dubya must be such a disappointment to his father.

Reagan loved supply-side economics because it told him what he wanted to hear: you can make everyone happy, and never have to pay for it.

Political Atheist Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:12:25am

re: #59 jamesfirecat
Yes, but only briefly. That oversimplifies.
Was Federal spending significantly cut at that time? Not really, the economy grew faster than the Federal spending that also grew. The peace dividend (including a 1/3rd cut in Army divisions) was re-invested.

Clinton had a big part of loosening certain restrictions to get us out of the recession that dogged Bush41. Clinton had a big part of dropping tariff barriers to offshore goods to come here, and tolerated continued big tariffs on American goods offshore. I recall (participated) in the failed effort by the small manufacturers association to get “reciprocity” as a tariff policy with China. Failed, killed by the Clinton admin. So our country and it’s currency got weaker. Right at it’s foundation. Remember “fast track” trade powers?

And I’m connecting the multi Presidential efforts at “free” trade, offshoring and similar practices that led to huge profits here and jobs going abroad. Which leads to the base real value under the dollar diminishing so badly it may no longer be the clarion strongest currency at all.

American economic growth is what backed the dollar. Even in the gold standard days. Add that all up and of course the new rising strong renmimbi looks good. Gold looks good. The Euro? Not so much.

What, me worry? Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:13:02am

re: #76 Sergey Romanov

The atrocity here is not the movie but the fact that Gibson can still find a job.

hehe As to Jodie, I find this mildly amusing. She directed it! I think that answers the question.

jamesfirecat Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:13:36am

re: #77 Fozzie Bear

The GOP will never and can never recover from it’s rampant anti-intellectualism until it throws Reagan under the bus. I know he’s beloved on the right, but his presidency marks the beginning of the abandonment of fiscal sanity.

The problem is that Ronald Reagan is the only piece of driftwood the GOP has to cling to prove they can do things right.

Lets recap all the recent GOP presidents.

George W Bush: Do I have to say more?

George HW Bush: Was a one term president who oversaw the America economy taking a major nose dive.

Ronald Reagen: Like I said one small spark of hope.

Ford: A monumental accident, the one president the public never even voted for in the slightest to put in the White House….

Nixon: Need I say more?

Ike: A guy who decided to run Republican because he was afraid otherwise the nation would become just one democrat after another. Also he was responsible for sending federal troops into states to enforce integration. Big government muscling in on honest hard working Americans and so on and so forth. Also tried to warn us against Military Industrial Complex.

Herbert Hoover: Need I say more?

Calvin Coolidge: “Teapot dome” and “You loose” that’s all the average American can remember about him.

We’re now almost century back and the only Republican President who the Republicans can stand behind without getting mocked is Ronald Reagen, amazing isn’t it?

Killgore Trout Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:14:38am

re: #85 marjoriemoon

hehe As to Jodie, I find this mildly amusing. She directed it! I think that answers the question.

Ah, that explains it. Nobody had the guts to tell her how bad the movie is.

BongCrodny Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:14:43am

re: #56 Killgore Trout

Crazy Pam thinks Wikileaks is an inside job…

She seems to be playing “Six Degrees of Obamanation”: how many steps it takes to link the scandal du jour with the Evil Machinations of Obama.

Assange ~ Wikileaks ~ Clinton ~ Retirement ~ IT’S OBAMA’S FAULT!!!

Pam Wins!!

HappyWarrior Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:16:17am

re: #86 jamesfirecat

The problem is that Ronald Reagan is the only piece of driftwood the GOP has to cling to prove they can do things right.

Lets recap all the recent GOP presidents.

George W Bush: Do I have to say more?

George HW Bush: Was a one term president who oversaw the America economy taking a major nose dive.

Ronald Reagen: Like I said one small spark of hope.

Ford: A monumental accident, the one president the public never even voted for in the slightest to put in the White House…

Nixon: Need I say more?

Ike: A guy who decided to run Republican because he was afraid otherwise the nation would become just one democrat after another. Also he was responsible for sending federal troops into states to enforce integration. Big government muscling in on honest hard working Americans and so on and so forth. Also tried to warn us against Military Industrial Complex.

Herbert Hoover: Need I say more?

Calvin Coolidge: “Teapot dome” and “You loose” that’s all the average American can remember about him.

We’re now almost century back and the only Republican President who the Republicans can stand behind without getting mocked is Ronald Reagen, amazing isn’t it?

James not to nitpick you here on the history, I am a history major after all but the Teapot Dome was in Harding’s administration not Coolidge’s. I don’t like Coolidge either but it was Harding’s administration and Interior Secretary Albert Fall that happened in. Anyhow, it’s sad that windbags like Limbaugh and Beck are so popular among GOP activists. There’s nothing remotely intellectual about those guys. I can enjoy former Bush speechwriters Frum/Gerson since their whole schitick isn’t demonize liberals and democrats at all costs.

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:16:32am

re: #17 Scarecrow237

Some of my conservative friends have told me that the reason David Brooks and Ross Douthat are discounted as conservatives is because they both write for the New York Times. A true conservative, they say, would never associate themselves with such a liberally biased institution. The same goes for those on television such as George Will (on ABC), Joe Scarborough (on MSNBC), and others.

I’m not sure why you’re getting downdinged for this, since it doesn’t appear to be your opinion. Is it your opinion, too?

bratwurst Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:16:39am

re: #56 Killgore Trout

Crazy Pam thinks Wikileaks is an inside job…

So does Brookly…hmmm.

jamesfirecat Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:17:15am

re: #89 HappyWarrior

James not to nitpick you here on the history, I am a history major after all but the Teapot Dome was in Harding’s administration not Coolidge’s. I don’t like Coolidge either but it was Harding’s administration and Interior Secretary Albert Fall that happened in. Anyhow, it’s sad that windbags like Limbaugh and Beck are so popular among GOP activists. There’s nothing remotely intellectual about those guys. I can enjoy former Bush speechwriters Frum/Gerson since their whole schitick isn’t demonize liberals and democrats at all costs.

Fair enough, but either way, if the last decent president you had was in the early 1920’s… its sort of a given that your party is past its glory days…

What, me worry? Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:17:29am

re: #80 Lidane

Yep. That’s why I won’t go see this movie at all.

It sucks, because I like Jodie Foster, and Anton Yelchin (the kid playing Mel & Jodie’s son) was really good in Charlie Bartlett and I liked him as Chekov in the new Star Trek film. It’s unfortunate he’s in this. I hope it doesn’t hurt his career too badly.

It would seem Jodie may have decided to do this for Mel to help repair his image. From the above link.

Foster describes Gibson as the “easiest, nicest person I’ve ever worked with… The second I met him, I said, ‘I will love this man for the rest of my life.’”

She and Gibson collaborated most recently on ‘The Beaver,’ a movie about a suburban husband (Gibson) who talks through a beaver puppet on his hand. Foster directed the film and costars as his wife. A release date has not been announced.

It’ll be interesting to see the reviews after it plays. It seems to be an obvious dose of amnesia sprinkled on the masses, but maybe they’ll embrace it, who knows.

Fozzie Bear Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:17:47am

re: #86 jamesfirecat

George HW Bush: Was a one term president who oversaw the America economy taking a major nose dive.

George HW Bush gets the blame for trying to steer us back to fiscal sanity at the expense of growth, but he was the last GOP president to follow sound economic principles. He is in large part responsible for the growth under Clinton. He’s also the last president we have had that actually understood economics, not coincidentally.

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:18:34am

I’m sure it must’ve been here before given the focus of LGF, but this clip is kinda symbolic:

Youtube Video

jamesfirecat Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:19:17am

re: #94 Fozzie Bear

George HW Bush gets the blame for trying to steer us back to fiscal sanity at the expense of growth, but he was the last GOP president to follow sound economic principles. He is in large part responsible for the growth under Clinton. He’s also the last president we have had that actually understood economics, not coincidentally.

Yeah, but if you haven’t noticed the current GOP base doesn’t seemed all that inflamed over the concept of delayed gratification, unless you’re talking about sex of course…

Political Atheist Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:19:31am

re: #86 jamesfirecat
Not so fast. :-)
Bush41
Scandals? Not really. Highly experienced and savvy on foreign relations.
The liberator of Kuwait, the man with the sense to not remove Saddam and the baath party. The President that signed off on solid spending limits. The cause of the end of his own popular Presidency to compromise on taxes to get paygo. Limits that helped reduce the deficit as soon as the economy grew.

researchok Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:19:35am

re: #94 Fozzie Bear

George HW Bush gets the blame for trying to steer us back to fiscal sanity at the expense of growth, but he was the last GOP president to follow sound economic principles. He is in large part responsible for the growth under Clinton. He’s also the last president we have had that actually understood economics, not coincidentally.

I would add you also have to factor in the Congress. In the end, they are the ones who authorize the checks, for better or worse.

jamesfirecat Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:20:35am

re: #97 Rightwingconspirator

Not so fast. :-)
Bush41
Scandals? Not really. Highly experienced and savvy on foreign relations.
The liberator of Kuwait, the man with the sense to not remove Saddam and the baath party. The President that signed off on solid spending limits. The cause of the end of his own popular Presidency to compromise on taxes to get paygo. Limits that helped reduce the deficit as soon as the economy grew.

Yeah, but Bush41 couldn’t do what the GOP base wants most out of its candidates, win elections.

Also he’s inevitably going to be tarred with the brush of Bush43… it’s not fair, but he isn’t someone the party will be rallying around any time soon if you ask me…

100

recusancy Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:21:51am

re: #15 researchok

I like Frum, as I said.

Krauthammer isn’t batting the way he used to but he does present some pretty cogent arguments at times.

What’s the last cogent argument he made?

101

Lidane Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:22:33am

re: #86 jamesfirecat

Nixon: Need I say more?

Funny thing is, Nixon wouldn’t even get out of the GOP primaries now. Meeting with those commies in China, taking the US off the gold standard, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, OSHA, the EPA, Title IX… the Republican party would hate him today.

102

HappyWarrior Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:22:43am

re: #92 jamesfirecat

Fair enough, but either way, if the last decent president you had was in the early 1920’s… its sort of a given that your party is past its glory days…

No arguments here man. I’d happily voted for James Cox over HArding in 1920.

103

researchok Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:24:49am

re: #100 recusancy

What’s the last cogent argument he made?

His latest column raises some excellent points.

You may not agree but his arguments are sound.

104

Spocomptonite Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:25:38am

re: #60 Walter L. Newton

Only anecdotal on my side, but people I know, who I have questioned about their preferences for information and/or entertainment, do understand what they are watching and listening to. Their general answer to my inquires and explanations of some of the problems with popular media is simply… “I like it.”

They know better, but they like it. Most people I know are not stupid at all, simply more concerned with being entertained, agreed with and having the feeling that they belong to one side or the other, one ideology or the other.

Some of the smarted people I know have been duped by religious concepts, paranormal topics, bad-science and so on.

You’re assumption that all these people are just stupid is too simplistic.

In my mind, at least, there is a great difference between stupid and ignorant. Stupid is a characteristic of lacking intelligence; ignorance is the action of ignoring some fact or evidence, or simply the inaction of trying any fact-checking. Anyone is capable of being ignorant. Your smart friends that actually believe this stuff: ignorant, but certainly not stupid.

105

Fozzie Bear Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:25:49am

re: #98 researchok

I would add you also have to factor in the Congress. In the end, they are the ones who authorize the checks, for better or worse.

True enough. But the ideology behind supply-side economics is and always has been totally intellectually bankrupt. It’s also impossible to deny Reagan’s outsize role in promoting it. That, and the WSJ editorials under Robert Bartley. They were, and are, cranks. I.e., people rejected from the academic community because their ideas lacked merit, who decided to attack the academic practice of economics in response.

Krauthammer is one of their earliest disciples. His earliest years were steeped in anti0intellectualism, and there, he remains. Krauthammer is and always was a fraud.

106

Political Atheist Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:26:27am

re: #93 marjoriemoon

Just to defend art films and film making choices-Not Mel Gibson.
Looks like an odd emotional art film to me, that rightly sets aside the personal foibles of the star and goes straight for the acting talent and style instead. I can see not wanting to go see a Mel Gibson film over his personal offenses. But that is also a powerful actor that need not get shelved for life. I will not pay to see Sean Penn, but those directors that want him, well more power to them.

107

HappyWarrior Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:26:34am

re: #101 Lidane

Funny thing is, Nixon wouldn’t even get out of the GOP primaries now. Meeting with those commies in China, taking the US off the gold standard, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, OSHA, the EPA, Title IX… the Republican party would hate him today.

I wrote a research paper on the domestic policies of the Nixon adminstration a couple years back. Found a lot that shocked me such as him being very progressive on Native American sisues. One Native American leader even said he was their Lincoln. I actually in a weird way feel bad for Nixon sometimes as a student of history. It goes agaisnt everything I stand for and when I told my Dad who hated Nixon of that, he looked at me like I was nuts, “Wha, you have sympathy for that asshole!” It was a fun paper to write though because I got read some of Nixon’s memoirs.

108

jamesfirecat Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:27:10am

re: #102 HappyWarrior

No arguments here man. I’d happily voted for James Cox over HArding in 1920.

I’m still upset that the vote counters decided to give the white house to Hayes rather than Tilden… there was no way Hayes would have won Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina if they’d pressed for a recount!

109

HappyWarrior Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:29:13am

re: #108 jamesfirecat

I’m still upset that the vote counters decided to give the white house to Hayes rather than Tilden… there was no way Hayes would have won Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina if they’d pressed for a recount!

If Tilden would have won, if what I’ve read is true he would have been the only presidential virgin :). Silly fact I know. The story I’ve always heard though is that the Dems agreed not to contest the election if Hayes agreed to withdraw federal troops from the South and in effect end Reconstruction. Another fun fact about Hayes to me is that he resembles the old man with the shovel from the first Home Alone film.

110

jamesfirecat Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:29:22am

re: #107 HappyWarrior

I wrote a research paper on the domestic policies of the Nixon adminstration a couple years back. Found a lot that shocked me such as him being very progressive on Native American sisues. One Native American leader even said he was their Lincoln. I actually in a weird way feel bad for Nixon sometimes as a student of history. It goes agaisnt everything I stand for and when I told my Dad who hated Nixon of that, he looked at me like I was nuts, “Wha, you have sympathy for that asshole!” It was a fun paper to write though because I got read some of Nixon’s memoirs.

Nixon was complex… I hear if he hadn’t decided to get those phones tapped he was planning to work on Universal Healthcare on his second term… the only thing that could possibly have made him more hated by the Modern day GOP than he already is….

111

Fozzie Bear Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:30:37am

Nixon was a brilliant man with WAY too many personal psychological issues to be in the position he was without losing his mind.

112

Walter L. Newton Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:30:53am

re: #106 Rightwingconspirator

Just to defend art films and film making choices-Not Mel Gibson.
Looks like an odd emotional art film to me, that rightly sets aside the personal foibles of the star and goes straight for the acting talent and style instead. I can see not wanting to go see a Mel Gibson film over his personal offenses. But that is also a powerful actor that need not get shelved for life. I will not pay to see Sean Penn, but those directors that want him, well more power to them.

I missed the part where Mel Gibson has any acting talent? He is not acting. He’s one of the many Hollywood “type” actors who are simply playing themselves and are rarely cast in anything out of their personality type.

113

Walter L. Newton Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:31:28am

re: #111 Fozzie Bear

Nixon was a brilliant man with WAY too many personal psychological issues to be in the position he was without losing his mind.

That’s theory is crazy.

114

recusancy Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:33:20am

re: #103 researchok

His latest column raises some excellent points.

You may not agree but his arguments are sound.

What’s intelligent or brilliant about that? He’s just writing the same conservative lines they all write.

115

researchok Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:33:36am

re: #105 Fozzie Bear

True enough. But the ideology behind supply-side economics is and always has been totally intellectually bankrupt. It’s also impossible to deny Reagan’s outsize role in promoting it. That, and the WSJ editorials under Robert Bartley. They were, and are, cranks. I.e., people rejected from the academic community because their ideas lacked merit, who decided to attack the academic practice of economics in response.

Krauthammer is one of their earliest disciples. His earliest years were steeped in anti0intellectualism, and there, he remains. Krauthammer is and always was a fraud.

I believe Krauthammer cannot be so easily pegged.

He supports abortion, anti death penalty and is anti creationism and ID.

See the ideology section on his wiki page.

As is noted, he really is hard to peg.

116

SanFranciscoZionist Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:33:55am

re: #11 marjoriemoon

What’s George Will doing in there? Though I don’t agree with him on many issues, I’ve given him a thumbs up from time to time. I think he’d actually be insulted to be in this group.

What confuses me is how Rush is at the top, considering the whole religious right aspect of the GOP. He says the most gawd awful things about the poor and indigent and that doesn’t square with me with the idea of being a good and caring Christian.

There are an unfortunate lot of people who see Christianity as a way to bludgeon others. In their twisted version, Christianity commands that they pass legislation to hassle gay folks, but more or less forbids them to pass legislation that helps poor folks.

117

SanFranciscoZionist Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:34:46am

re: #17 Scarecrow237

Some of my conservative friends have told me that the reason David Brooks and Ross Douthat are discounted as conservatives is because they both write for the New York Times. A true conservative, they say, would never associate themselves with such a liberally biased institution. The same goes for those on television such as George Will (on ABC), Joe Scarborough (on MSNBC), and others.

But…but…but I thought that those liberal media outlets NEVER allowed conservative voices on the air or in their pages!

118

SanFranciscoZionist Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:35:48am

re: #19 sagehen

I don’t read Frum very often; Peggy Noonan and Kathleen Parker are hit-and-miss. The conservative writers I like are Bruce Bartlett on economics, Radley Balko on civil liberties, and Conor Friedersdorf and Daniel Larison for across-the-board range of topics.

Kathleen Parker wrote a hideous piece about gay teachers many years ago, and that has tainted my whole view of her ever since. She got some points back for being willing to get out ahead of the whole Palin thing and call shenanigans.

Noonan is smart, I just don’t find her interesting or insightful.

119

recusancy Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:35:49am

re: #115 researchok

I believe Krauthammer cannot be so easily pegged.

He supports abortion, anti death penalty and is anti creationism and ID.

See the ideology section on his wiki page.

As is noted, he really is hard to peg.

So because he’s not fully insane that makes him brilliant? I guess the bar is really low on the right at the moment.

120

sagehen Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:36:28am

re: #86 jamesfirecat

The problem is that Ronald Reagan is the only piece of driftwood the GOP has to cling to prove they can do things right.

Lets recap all the recent GOP presidents.

George W Bush: Do I have to say more?

George HW Bush: Was a one term president who oversaw the America economy taking a major nose dive.

Ronald Reagen: Like I said one small spark of hope.

Ford: A monumental accident, the one president the public never even voted for in the slightest to put in the White House…

Nixon: Need I say more?

Ike: A guy who decided to run Republican because he was afraid otherwise the nation would become just one democrat after another. Also he was responsible for sending federal troops into states to enforce integration. Big government muscling in on honest hard working Americans and so on and so forth. Also tried to warn us against Military Industrial Complex.

Herbert Hoover: Need I say more?

Calvin Coolidge: “Teapot dome” and “You loose” that’s all the average American can remember about him.

We’re now almost century back and the only Republican President who the Republicans can stand behind without getting mocked is Ronald Reagen, amazing isn’t it?

I must dispute.

Eisenhower — Ran as a Republican because moderate Republicans existed at the time. And as much as the “states rights states rights OMG” crowd wants to deny it, enforcing a Supreme Court Order (a 9-0 decision, btw, a rare thing indeed) falls squarely within the federal government’s enumerated powers. The Interstate Highways were an Eisenhower idea, the best domestic investment in generations. The Marshall Plan didn’t originate with his administration, but he did beautiful follow-through. And huge investments in public education.

George HW Bush — mediocre on domestic matters, but a *great* foreign policy president. He didn’t lose reelection because he mishandled the economy, he lost reelection because the party was already well on its way to insanity and couldn’t appreciate the soundness of his fiscal policy. He raised taxes and they never forgave him; but it was the right thing to do at the time.

Nixon — a criminal, and probably mentally ill, but his administration also made great domestic policy. EPA. OSHA. Affirmative Action. These are good things. He proposed a health care plan that I still wish would have passed, and he normalized relations with China.

I mark all three of those as better Presidents than Reagan. The Great Communicator gets cut a lot of slack on personality grounds, but his policies *sucked*. Supply-side economics set us on the path to bankruptcy (and huge increases in inequalty); his deregulatory frenzy created the S&L mess and set the stage for this more recent meltdown; his union-busting stalled middle-class wages; and he’s the one who brought the Religious Right into the electoral process.

121

researchok Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:36:42am

re: #114 recusancy

What’s intelligent or brilliant about that? He’s just writing the same conservative lines they all write.

He presents the argument more cogently than anyone else. IMO.

Krauthammer is not Sean Hannity.

122

Fozzie Bear Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:36:50am

re: #17 Scarecrow237

Some of my conservative friends have told me that the reason David Brooks and Ross Douthat are discounted as conservatives is because they both write for the New York Times. A true conservative, they say, would never associate themselves with such a liberally biased institution. The same goes for those on television such as George Will (on ABC), Joe Scarborough (on MSNBC), and others.

Can anybody explain why this was relentlessly downdinged? I updinged it, because it is a decent representation of arguments I have heard.

123

SanFranciscoZionist Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:37:21am

re: #27 researchok

Brooks takes a lot of heat because he backed a lot of Obama’s economic policies.

The argument against him (reduced) is that we went from a 3 trillion deficit to at least a 12 trillion deficit- and we don’t have a whole lot to show for it.

Also, we still have not addressed the third rail issues- social security, retirement ages,etc.

Seriously, someone who thinks Limbaugh and Beck are worth listening to are not going to thoughtfully consider whether Brooks lost credibility with them by supporting the administration’s economic policy.

124

recusancy Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:37:37am

re: #121 researchok

He presents the argument more cogently than anyone else. IMO.

Krauthammer is not Sean Hannity.

But that’s all he’s got. He isn’t Sean Hannity. That’s not saying much.

125

HappyWarrior Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:37:47am

re: #110 jamesfirecat

Nixon was complex… I hear if he hadn’t decided to get those phones tapped he was planning to work on Universal Healthcare on his second term… the only thing that could possibly have made him more hated by the Modern day GOP than he already is…

I just looked at the paragraph I wrote on Nixon’s health care plans. It fascinates me really. I don’t know how to feel about Nixon one way or the other to be hoenst with you. As the product of a quite liberal household, Nixon was like the ultimate boogeyman. It wasn’t until one of my friends started calling him the last liberal president that I got real curious about his actual policies. I really enjoyed learning about him since he really is a fascinating figure and one who I hope is more critically studied in the years to come.

126

Walter L. Newton Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:38:22am

re: #121 researchok

He presents the argument more cogently than anyone else. IMO.

Krauthammer is not Sean Hannity.

Oh come on… he’s a conservative, he’s a conservative commentator, he’s on Fox… he must be just like all the others. Anyone on LGF could debate Krauthammer and he would be reduced to a pile of jelly in three minutes. Get real.

127

SanFranciscoZionist Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:38:25am

re: #38 marjoriemoon

It’s funny. When I weigh up all my religious Christian friends, and most are church going and try to emulate human compassion, they’re Democrats. And we’ve even discussed the abortion issue. They’re pro-life Dems.

Don’t be silly, Marjorie. Democrats don’t go to church.

////

128

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:39:18am

Not sure why Scarecrow237 is getting the downdings. Perhaps there is some comment history I don’t know about, but otherwise (s)he is simply describing how the far right sees some moderate conservatives, no?

129

jamesfirecat Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:39:27am

re: #120 sagehen

I must dispute.

Eisenhower — Ran as a Republican because moderate Republicans existed at the time. And as much as the “states rights states rights OMG” crowd wants to deny it, enforcing a Supreme Court Order (a 9-0 decision, btw, a rare thing indeed) falls squarely within the federal government’s enumerated powers. The Interstate Highways were an Eisenhower idea, the best domestic investment in generations. The Marshall Plan didn’t originate with his administration, but he did beautiful follow-through. And huge investments in public education.

George HW Bush — mediocre on domestic matters, but a *great* foreign policy president. He didn’t lose reelection because he mishandled the economy, he lost reelection because the party was already well on its way to insanity and couldn’t appreciate the soundness of his fiscal policy. He raised taxes and they never forgave him; but it was the right thing to do at the time.

Nixon — a criminal, and probably mentally ill, but his administration also made great domestic policy. EPA. OSHA. Affirmative Action. These are good things. He proposed a health care plan that I still wish would have passed, and he normalized relations with China.

I mark all three of those as better Presidents than Reagan. The Great Communicator gets cut a lot of slack on personality grounds, but his policies *sucked*. Supply-side economics set us on the path to bankruptcy (and huge increases in inequalty); his deregulatory frenzy created the S&L mess and set the stage for this more recent meltdown; his union-busting stalled middle-class wages; and he’s the one who brought the Religious Right into the electoral process.

It’s not so much about who was a good president, as who an the modern day GOP hold up as a shining light to follow and have people take them seriously when they do it.

Since evidently getting a blow job from a woman who isn’t your wife does more to ruin your reputation as president than selling missiles to Iran to use the money to fund Latin American death squads under the table, Reagen it is….

130

researchok Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:39:54am

re: #123 SanFranciscoZionist

Seriously, someone who thinks Limbaugh and Beck are worth listening to are not going to thoughtfully consider whether Brooks lost credibility with them by supporting the administration’s economic policy.

I seriously hope you don’t put me in that category!

Brooks, like every other economist has his share of hits and misses. He is not infallible.

131

What, me worry? Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:40:09am

re: #106 Rightwingconspirator

Just to defend art films and film making choices-Not Mel Gibson.
Looks like an odd emotional art film to me, that rightly sets aside the personal foibles of the star and goes straight for the acting talent and style instead. I can see not wanting to go see a Mel Gibson film over his personal offenses. But that is also a powerful actor that need not get shelved for life. I will not pay to see Sean Penn, but those directors that want him, well more power to them.

If Mel can grow past this, more power to him. Maybe I can forgive him one day, but not today. I’m sure he doesn’t give a shit either way lol

Sean Penn’s redemption seems more that he’s trying to give back to the community. He had an audience with Chavez? And Sadaam Hussein, too. Now he’s been working over in Haiti which considering the health issues alone, is pretty a big selfless thing. Ways in which people redeem themselves maybe.

Of course, he may still love Chavez, so I have no idea, but even if he did, he’d deserves praise for this philanthropy.

132

Fozzie Bear Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:40:23am

re: #126 Walter L. Newton

Oh come on… he’s a conservative, he’s a conservative commentator, he’s on Fox… he must be just like all the others. Anyone on LGF could debate Krauthammer and he would be reduced to a pile of jelly in three minutes. Get real.

Based on his (mis)understanding of economics alone, the first issue about which Krauthammer wrote at any length, he is a crank. He is a die-hard supply-sider.

That he says other crazy things at all pales in comparison to the damage he has done in that area.

133

That's Glenn Beck to you Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:40:36am

Dear Editor -

I am not a “raving freakazoid nut sandwich”. Nuts don’t do well in sandwiches. I’d be better described as a “Nut sprinkled banana split flambé” - boat load of calories, no nutritional value, chock full-o-nuts, and on fire.

134

Walter L. Newton Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:41:09am

re: #132 Fozzie Bear

Based on his (mis)understanding of economics alone, the first issue about which Krauthammer wrote at any length, he is a crank. He is a die-hard supply-sider.

That he says other crazy things at all pales in comparison to the damage he has done in that area.

I agree… see my re: #126 Walter L. Newton

135

recusancy Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:41:10am

re: #130 researchok

I seriously hope you don’t put me in that category!

Brooks, like every other economist has his share of hits and misses. He is not infallible.

Brooks is an economist?

136

SanFranciscoZionist Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:41:20am

re: #56 Killgore Trout

Crazy Pam thinks Wikileaks is an inside job…

One of the anti-Israel crazies on Facebook is linking to a guy who thinks it’s the Israelis.

137

HappyWarrior Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:41:58am

My understanding is Eisenhower also ran as a Republican because there were many Republicans in the rising internatonalist wing of the party, people like Thomas Dewey who were sincerely worried about Robert Taft getting the nomination. Most people forget that the GOP had a lot of isolationists even after WWII and in the early years of the Cold War. It was Eisenhower who would no doubt be called a RINO today that transformed that Republican party from isolationist to internationalist. Eisenhower was a good guy in my book which is why I guess it disgusts me to see conservatives and republicans embracing the John Birch Society. The same people who said Ike and his secretary of state, John Foster Dulles were communist agents or dupes.

138

jamesfirecat Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:41:59am

re: #122 Fozzie Bear

Can anybody explain why this was relentlessly downdinged? I updinged it, because it is a decent representation of arguments I have heard.

The fact that he just dropped it and left without staying around to defend himself probably earns him some black marks in some people’s books, I un-downdinged but until he bothers to come back and point out how wrong headed those conservative friends of his are, I won’t upding…

139

Fozzie Bear Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:43:09am

re: #138 jamesfirecat

Ok, but nowhere in that post do I detect a whiff of endorsement for those ideas. I think that was more of a summation of the arguments coming from that corner.

140

researchok Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:43:18am

re: #126 Walter L. Newton

Oh come on… he’s a conservative, he’s a conservative commentator, he’s on Fox… he must be just like all the others. Anyone on LGF could debate Krauthammer and he would be reduced to a pile of jelly in three minutes. Get real.

Well, he has some pretty non conservative beliefs as well.

He is for abortion rights, he is against the death penalty and takes an anto creationism/ID stance. He supports dtem cell research and higher taxes on energy to encourage conservation.

So much for easy labels.

141

researchok Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:44:00am

re: #135 recusancy

Brooks is an economist?

Yes.

142

Fozzie Bear Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:44:50am

re: #140 researchok

I think it’s great he’s not completely crazy. But he is very much an intellectual of the “those damn ivory tower liberals” category.

That’s what earned him my ire in the 80’s, and my ire remains.

143

Walter L. Newton Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:45:07am

re: #140 researchok

Well, he has some pretty non conservative beliefs as well.

He is for abortion rights, he is against the death penalty and takes an anto creationism/ID stance. He supports dtem cell research and higher taxes on energy to encourage conservation.

So much for easy labels.

So much for your sarcasm meter… it’s broken.

144

Fozzie Bear Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:45:10am

re: #142 Fozzie Bear

an *anti-intellectual. pimf

145

recusancy Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:45:49am

re: #141 researchok

Yes.

David Brooks? He’s a journalist.

146

What, me worry? Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:46:21am

re: #131 marjoriemoon

If Mel can grow past this, more power to him. Maybe I can forgive him one day, but not today. I’m sure he doesn’t give a shit either way lol

Sean Penn’s redemption seems more that he’s trying to give back to the community. He had an audience with Chavez? And Sadaam Hussein, too. Now he’s been working over in Haiti which considering the health issues alone, is pretty a big selfless thing. Ways in which people redeem themselves maybe.

Of course, he may still love Chavez, so I have no idea, but even if he did, he’d deserves praise for this philanthropy.

In short, when Mel goes to Israel to protest with the Jews living in Jerusalem, I’ll change my mind about him!

147

HappyWarrior Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:46:24am

re: #140 researchok

Well, he has some pretty non conservative beliefs as well.

He is for abortion rights, he is against the death penalty and takes an anto creationism/ID stance. He supports dtem cell research and higher taxes on energy to encourage conservation.

So much for easy labels.

Interesting, those are domestic issues and most of the times I’ve read Krauthammer’s columns he’s usually talking about foreign policy.

148

What, me worry? Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:46:50am

re: #136 SanFranciscoZionist

One of the anti-Israel crazies on Facebook is linking to a guy who thinks it’s the Israelis.

You’re a strong lady. I can’t read that mess.

149

SanFranciscoZionist Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:47:08am

re: #120 sagehen

I must dispute.

Eisenhower — Ran as a Republican because moderate Republicans existed at the time. And as much as the “states rights states rights OMG” crowd wants to deny it, enforcing a Supreme Court Order (a 9-0 decision, btw, a rare thing indeed) falls squarely within the federal government’s enumerated powers. The Interstate Highways were an Eisenhower idea, the best domestic investment in generations. The Marshall Plan didn’t originate with his administration, but he did beautiful follow-through. And huge investments in public education.

George HW Bush — mediocre on domestic matters, but a *great* foreign policy president. He didn’t lose reelection because he mishandled the economy, he lost reelection because the party was already well on its way to insanity and couldn’t appreciate the soundness of his fiscal policy. He raised taxes and they never forgave him; but it was the right thing to do at the time.

Nixon — a criminal, and probably mentally ill, but his administration also made great domestic policy. EPA. OSHA. Affirmative Action. These are good things. He proposed a health care plan that I still wish would have passed, and he normalized relations with China.

I mark all three of those as better Presidents than Reagan. The Great Communicator gets cut a lot of slack on personality grounds, but his policies *sucked*. Supply-side economics set us on the path to bankruptcy (and huge increases in inequalty); his deregulatory frenzy created the S&L mess and set the stage for this more recent meltdown; his union-busting stalled middle-class wages; and he’s the one who brought the Religious Right into the electoral process.

I would agree with much of your assessment, but the point James is trying to make, I think, is that most of those accomplishments would be denounced viciously by modern GOP activists as RINO or worse.

150

Walter L. Newton Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:47:19am

re: #141 researchok

Yes.

No…

Brooks was born in Toronto and grew up in New York City in Stuyvesant Town. He graduated from Radnor High School (located in a Main Line suburb of Philadelphia) in 1979. He graduated from the University of Chicago in 1983 with a degree in history.[1]

[Link: en.wikipedia.org…]

151

sagehen Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:47:47am

re: #131 marjoriemoon

If Mel can grow past this, more power to him. Maybe I can forgive him one day, but not today. I’m sure he doesn’t give a shit either way lol

If he makes good movies, I can get past it.

Ezra Pound was unremitting slime, but that doesn’t make his poems any less brilliant.

152

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:47:50am

re: #138 jamesfirecat

The fact that he just dropped it and left without staying around to defend himself probably earns him some black marks in some people’s books, I un-downdinged but until he bothers to come back and point out how wrong headed those conservative friends of his are, I won’t upding…

OK, I took a look at his or her 13 comments and that seems to be a thoughtful individual. As to the above comment, cf. [Link: littlegreenfootballs.com…]

I’m updinging.

153

researchok Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:48:02am

re: #143 Walter L. Newton

So much for your sarcasm meter… it’s broken.

My apologies, WLN.

I’ve been conditioned to not having much support in here.

That ought not come as a surprise….

154

researchok Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:49:02am

re: #147 HappyWarrior

Interesting, those are domestic issues and most of the times I’ve read Krauthammer’s columns he’s usually talking about foreign policy.

Oh yeah, FP is is his happy place.

That, and the reality that not a lot of conservatives would be thrilled with some of his views.

155

SanFranciscoZionist Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:49:23am

re: #130 researchok

I seriously hope you don’t put me in that category!

Brooks, like every other economist has his share of hits and misses. He is not infallible.

I most certainly do not put you in that category.

I have no beef with Brooks, just saying, I think the people who actually compiled this list are, by and large, not…economically thoughful.

156

HappyWarrior Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:49:56am

re: #149 SanFranciscoZionist

I would agree with much of your assessment, but the point James is trying to make, I think, is that most of those accomplishments would be denounced viciously by modern GOP activists as RINO or worse.

Yeah I see James’ pov now and it does make sense given that I heard that Beck doesn’t consider Reagan to be a “real conservative.” I am not sure though what’s more annoying though. Being a purist and delusional about conservatism as a whole or the re-making of Reagan as the gteat conservative knight who could do no wrong.

157

researchok Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:50:50am

re: #150 Walter L. Newton

No…

Brooks was born in Toronto and grew up in New York City in Stuyvesant Town. He graduated from Radnor High School (located in a Main Line suburb of Philadelphia) in 1979. He graduated from the University of Chicago in 1983 with a degree in history.[1]

[Link: en.wikipedia.org…]

Thank you.

I stand corrected.

158

Fozzie Bear Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:51:03am

re: #156 HappyWarrior

Yeah I see James’ pov now and it does make sense given that I heard that Beck doesn’t consider Reagan to be a “real conservative.” I am not sure though what’s more annoying though. Being a purist and delusional about conservatism as a whole or the re-making of Reagan as the gteat conservative knight who could do no wrong.

Well, here’s the thing: Beck is right. Reagan wasn’t even remotely conservative, apart from “social” issues.

That was almost physically painful for me to type.

159

Spocomptonite Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:51:11am

re: #137 HappyWarrior

Eisenhower, along with FDR, are my two favorite presidents of the 1900’s. Domestic investment, good foreign policy, and not only embracing but relying on the best minds in their field (John Kenneth Galbraith comes to mind) to make policy decisions related to their fields. That’s how it should be done.

Truman gets up there, too, for the sole fact that he didn’t allow the military to turn Manchuria into a melted glaze of radioactive glass (aka, use lots of nuclear weapons) during the Korean war.

160

researchok Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:51:26am

re: #157 researchok

I was thinking of Krugman.

161

SanFranciscoZionist Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:53:10am

re: #148 marjoriemoon

You’re a strong lady. I can’t read that mess.

I have a friend who spends a lot of time on it, so I come along every few days and poke the anti-Semites.

They think we are all the same person—all the Zionists on the page are one crazed individual getting paid big by AIPAC to do this. We, in turn, think that’s there’s only one of them, getting paid big bucks by ISM to do this. It’s all very amusing. Except for the insane degree of hate, anti-Semitism, and weird, outdated shit—they’re obsessed with the old ‘Ashkenazim are not Semites’ business.

162

researchok Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:53:52am

re: #155 SanFranciscoZionist

I most certainly do not put you in that category.

I have no beef with Brooks, just saying, I think the people who actually compiled this list are, by and large, not…economically thoughful.

That is an understatement.

Seriously.

To be fair though, most people are woefully unequipped when it comes to talking about economics. That said, neither Rush, Beck or Hannity can in any way make up for that deficiency.

163

HappyWarrior Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:54:10am

re: #158 Fozzie Bear

Well, here’s the thing: Beck is right. Reagan wasn’t even remotely conservative, apart from “social” issues.

That was almost physically painful for me to type.

Oh I know Beck is right but what bothers me is the fantasy of conservatism he tries to purvey.

164

Fozzie Bear Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:54:16am

Before Reagan, and setting aside social issues for a minute:
- conservative meant favoring lower inflation over low unemployment.
- liberal meant favoring low unemployment over low inflation.

Reagan was neither. He was honestly just rather stupid as regards economics. He wanted the benefits of both approaches, and the inevitable result was massive debt.

165

What, me worry? Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:56:55am

re: #120 sagehen

I mark all three of those as better Presidents than Reagan. The Great Communicator gets cut a lot of slack on personality grounds, but his policies *sucked*. Supply-side economics set us on the path to bankruptcy (and huge increases in inequalty); his deregulatory frenzy created the S&L mess and set the stage for this more recent meltdown; his union-busting stalled middle-class wages; and he’s the one who brought the Religious Right into the electoral process.

He increased federal government by about 90%. He was governor of California during the state’s largest tax increase in history. It took Governor Moonbeam to make California fiscal. He bombed Libya. He put the *war* into War on Drugs. Not to mention the Iran/Contra scandal and arming the mujhadeen in Afghanistan.

Reagan? Feh!

166

Walter L. Newton Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:57:04am

re: #161 SanFranciscoZionist

I have a friend who spends a lot of time on it, so I come along every few days and poke the anti-Semites.

They think we are all the same person—all the Zionists on the page are one crazed individual getting paid big by AIPAC to do this. We, in turn, think that’s there’s only one of them, getting paid big bucks by ISM to do this. It’s all very amusing. Except for the insane degree of hate, anti-Semitism, and weird, outdated shit—they’re obsessed with the old ‘Ashkenazim are not Semites’ business.

Helen Thomas has been enlightening us on this subject again…

(Thursday, Dec. 02, 2010)

“I can call a president of the United States anything in the book, but I can’t touch Israel, which has Jewish-only roads in the West Bank,” Thomas said. “No American would tolerate that - white-only roads.”

“Congress, the White House and Hollywood, Wall Street are owned by the Zionists. No question, in my opinion,” she said. “They put their money where their mouth is. We’re being pushed into a wrong direction in every way.”

[Link: www.kentucky.com…]

167

Political Atheist Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:58:29am

re: #112 Walter L. Newton
You do not see any range of acting between say his Braveheart character and the guy with a Beaver on his hand?
Or Mad Max and his character on The Bounty?

You are a tough crowd. Heh.

168

What, me worry? Sat, Dec 4, 2010 11:59:27am

re: #161 SanFranciscoZionist

I have a friend who spends a lot of time on it, so I come along every few days and poke the anti-Semites.

They think we are all the same person—all the Zionists on the page are one crazed individual getting paid big by AIPAC to do this. We, in turn, think that’s there’s only one of them, getting paid big bucks by ISM to do this. It’s all very amusing. Except for the insane degree of hate, anti-Semitism, and weird, outdated shit—they’re obsessed with the old ‘Ashkenazim are not Semites’ business.

I’ve been following it from your FB. It’s dreadful. I’m a little confused about the “players” although I think I may miss some sarcasm (you don’t have to explain it here heh). I don’t read it regular.

169

Political Atheist Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:00:01pm

re: #164 Fozzie Bear

Take away the military overspending and keep the revenue increases that did occur at the time and you get to a near zero deficit. Who holds the purse strings? Congress right?

170

SanFranciscoZionist Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:00:08pm

re: #166 Walter L. Newton

Helen Thomas has been enlightening us on this subject again…

(Thursday, Dec. 02, 2010)

“I can call a president of the United States anything in the book, but I can’t touch Israel, which has Jewish-only roads in the West Bank,” Thomas said. “No American would tolerate that - white-only roads.”

“Congress, the White House and Hollywood, Wall Street are owned by the Zionists. No question, in my opinion,” she said. “They put their money where their mouth is. We’re being pushed into a wrong direction in every way.”

[Link: www.kentucky.com…]

She’d fit right in with the Facebook crowd. Ghah.

Hilariously, the ‘Jewish-only’ roads thing is BS, but Saudi Arabia, our very own partners in peace, actually do have ‘Muslim-only’ roads on the approach to Mecca.

171

KingKenrod Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:00:12pm

re: #164 Fozzie Bear

Before Reagan, and setting aside social issues for a minute:
- conservative meant favoring lower inflation over low unemployment.
- liberal meant favoring low unemployment over low inflation.

Reagan was neither. He was honestly just rather stupid as regards economics. He wanted the benefits of both approaches, and the inevitable result was massive debt.

Debt is preferable over inflation or unemployment, right? You are essentially trading two short term problems for a long term one. How is this different from our current dilemma - running up debt to fight unemployment while keeping inflation down?

172

Killgore Trout Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:00:17pm

re: #167 Rightwingconspirator

Although Mel is a creep I think he’s a really good actor and director. I was surprised how good Apocalypto was.

173

allegro Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:00:41pm

re: #167 Rightwingconspirator

You do not see any range of acting between say his Braveheart character and the guy with a Beaver on his hand?
Or Mad Max and his character on The Bounty?

You are a tough crowd. Heh.

There was also his Hamlet which was the best and most believable Hamlet I’ve seen. That was released about the same time as the first Lethal Weapon - both characters pretty much insane but both portrayals brilliant.

174

HappyWarrior Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:02:15pm

re: #159 Spocomptonite

Eisenhower, along with FDR, are my two favorite presidents of the 1900’s. Domestic investment, good foreign policy, and not only embracing but relying on the best minds in their field (John Kenneth Galbraith comes to mind) to make policy decisions related to their fields. That’s how it should be done.

Truman gets up there, too, for the sole fact that he didn’t allow the military to turn Manchuria into a melted glaze of radioactive glass (aka, use lots of nuclear weapons) during the Korean war.

Ya know I am glad you mentioned Truman. We were talking about the Korean war some in the context of my modern Chinese history class and the decision Truman made. After lecture was over, I told my professor about my late grandfather who had served in Korea who in his later years told me that he was always grateful that Truman fired MacARthur. He was a real shocked to hear that. Given that history tells us that Truman became extremely unpopular after that but that was what I remember being told as a kid by my grandpa. Truman also had major courage in de-segerating the military.

175

sagehen Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:02:15pm

re: #171 KingKenrod

Debt is preferable over inflation or unemployment, right? You are essentially trading two short term problems for a long term one. How is this different from our current dilemma - running up debt to fight unemployment while keeping inflation down?

Inflation is not currently a problem; deflation is. That’s why the Fed printed up an extra trillion, to keep commodity prices (and home values) from cratering.

176

Spocomptonite Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:02:40pm

re: #166 Walter L. Newton

Helen Thomas has been enlightening us on this subject again…

(Thursday, Dec. 02, 2010)

“I can call a president of the United States anything in the book, but I can’t touch Israel, which has Jewish-only roads in the West Bank,” Thomas said. “No American would tolerate that - white-only roads.”

“Congress, the White House and Hollywood, Wall Street are owned by the Zionists. No question, in my opinion,” she said. “They put their money where their mouth is. We’re being pushed into a wrong direction in every way.”

[Link: www.kentucky.com…]

Nobody’s going to defend Helen Thomas… but they will defend the people/things from others that accuse them of condoning/promoting/being represented by Helen Thomas and her crazy statements. This will happen in this thread just as surely as it happened in the other one that was actually about Helen Thomas.

177

Walter L. Newton Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:02:43pm

re: #167 Rightwingconspirator

You do not see any range of acting between say his Braveheart character and the guy with a Beaver on his hand?
Or Mad Max and his character on The Bounty?

You are a tough crowd. Heh.

No… it’s either a soft, insane character, or a loud, testosterone infused insane character. That’s not a stretch for a man who is evidently mentally unstable to start with.

178

Political Atheist Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:03:10pm

re: #161 SanFranciscoZionist

Califo9rnia has a really sharp GOP academic that nobody will listen to. Not charismatic, no scandals, no documentaries. Just lots of education and experience. Argue with his conservative stance all you want but we do have Tom Campbell.

179

SanFranciscoZionist Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:03:20pm

re: #168 marjoriemoon

I’ve been following it from your FB. It’s dreadful. I’m a little confused about the “players” although I think I may miss some sarcasm (you don’t have to explain it here heh). I don’t read it regular.

I really feel it’s pointless—we’re just running our mouths at each other. But DAMN these people are messed up.

180

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:03:23pm

re: #161 SanFranciscoZionist

How on earth would the Ashkenazim not be Semites, and why do such trivial racial differences actually matter?

I’ve never heard this before.

181

Walter L. Newton Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:03:51pm

re: #176 Spocomptonite

Nobody’s going to defend Helen Thomas… but they will defend the people/things from others that accuse them of condoning/promoting/being represented by Helen Thomas and her crazy statements. This will happen in this thread just as surely as it happened in the other one that was actually about Helen Thomas.

Where did anyone ask anyone to defend Thomas? Do you agree with Thomas’ remarks?

182

Spocomptonite Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:04:33pm

re: #174 HappyWarrior

Truman also had major courage in de-segerating the military.

Something I wish Obama would have in de-heterosexualizing the military.

183

Fozzie Bear Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:04:47pm

re: #169 Rightwingconspirator

Take away the military overspending and keep the revenue increases that did occur at the time and you get to a near zero deficit. Who holds the purse strings? Congress right?

Um… you can’t take away the overspending and keep the revenue increases. That’s like saying “assuming reality were totally different, i’m right!” Congress does indeed share the blame, but Reagan pushed for, and signed, those budgets. He got exactly the budgets he asked congress for. We got exactly the problems that the economists which Krauthammer (and Reagan) spent so much time mocking, predicted.

184

Killgore Trout Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:05:04pm

I see the stalkers are outraged by my page from last night about Fox news promoting anti-Israel propaganda. Of course they aren’t pissed at Fox or Napolitano. They’re outraged at me and claiming that I’m smearing Fox. Heh.

185

SanFranciscoZionist Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:05:18pm

re: #178 Rightwingconspirator

Califo9rnia has a really sharp GOP academic that nobody will listen to. Not charismatic, no scandals, no documentaries. Just lots of education and experience. Argue with his conservative stance all you want but we do have Tom Campbell.

He once won ‘Best State Senator’ from California Journal.

186

researchok Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:05:49pm

re: #180 Obdicut

How on earth would the Ashkenazim not be Semites, and why do such trivial racial differences actually matter?

I’ve never heard this before.

The morons believe Ashkenazim were Khazar converts- not real Jews.

187

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:05:57pm

re: #180 Obdicut

How on earth would the Ashkenazim not be Semites, and why do such trivial racial differences actually matter?

I’ve never heard this before.

This is the classic “they’re really Khazars” hypothesis/nonsense.

188

HappyWarrior Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:06:10pm

What I tire of regarding Thomas and those who think like her is they try to make “Zionist” in to a bad word. So whenever I see someone say “Oh, I’m not anti-semitic, I’m just anti-zionism.” I still get a negative impression of them. People need to remember the conditions that led to the formation of the state of Israel in the first place. It wasn’t just the Holocaust committed by the Nazis but the pogroms committed by the czarists in Russia or the Dreyfus Affair in France. Rabid anti-semitism was a huge problem in Europe for centuries.

189

HappyWarrior Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:06:39pm

re: #182 Spocomptonite

Something I wish Obama would have in de-heterosexualizing the military.

I agree.

190

Red Pencil Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:06:47pm

re: #160 researchok

I was thinking of Krugman.

Why? On what Rorschach test does David Brooks make you think of Paul Krugman?

191

Fozzie Bear Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:06:53pm

re: #171 KingKenrod

Debt is preferable over inflation or unemployment, right? You are essentially trading two short term problems for a long term one. How is this different from our current dilemma - running up debt to fight unemployment while keeping inflation down?

It isn’t any different. Obama is as retarded on the issue of economics as every other president after Bush Sr. If he had any balls or brains, he would be pushing for a significant tax increase, and significant spending cuts.

I am what used to be called a lberal before Reagan. I.e., I understand that there are economic tradeoffs, and I favor erring on the side of low unemployment.

192

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:07:33pm

re: #187 Sergey Romanov

(And I write “hypothesis” because it was such by Koestler. Of course it was quickly exploited by the usual suspects.)

193

researchok Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:07:36pm

re: #190 Red Pencil

Why? On what Rorschach test does David Brooks make you think of Paul Krugman?

Both are Times columnists.

194

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:08:33pm

re: #187 Sergey Romanov

Oh, that. I didn’t realize that they seriously thought all Ashkenazim were of Khazar ancestry. That’s nutty.

195

researchok Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:09:16pm

Holy crap- snowing here in Raleigh!

196

SanFranciscoZionist Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:09:32pm

re: #180 Obdicut

How on earth would the Ashkenazim not be Semites, and why do such trivial racial differences actually matter?

I’ve never heard this before.

It’s something that goes back years. The concept is that Ashkenazim are actually descendents of Khazar Turks who converted some time in the early Middle Ages. See a guy named Koestler, and a book called The Thirteenth Tribe.

The fact that this is historically and genetically not, in fact, true, doesn’t stop it from being wildly exciting to people who want to insist that the Ashkenazim have no Semitic blood, and thus, Ashkenazi Zionists aren’t returning to a Middle Eastern homeland, they’re just white colonialist occupiers.

It makes sense if you’re a certain kind of demented hater.

197

Fozzie Bear Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:10:46pm

re: #196 SanFranciscoZionist

As far as I am concerned, if you base any of your opinions regarding living people on things that happened more than a couple of generations ago, you’re nuts.

198

Red Pencil Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:11:11pm

re: #193 researchok

Both are Times columnists.

Oh. The Rorschach test must be next to the Times crossword puzzle. Or the op eds where Krugman & Brooks duke it out.

199

Political Atheist Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:12:12pm

re: #183 Fozzie Bear

My point is revenues were great, spending killed the success. Federal Revenues increased 80% under Reagan policies. Even after inflation and population growth- Federal revenues were up 19% per capita. This is an estimation by Paul Krugman, not a man to overstate Reagans highlights at all.

200

Fozzie Bear Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:12:16pm

re: #198 Red Pencil

Oh. The Rorschach test must be next to the Times crossword puzzle. Or the op eds where Krugman & Brooks duke it out.

Note that Krugman is actually qualified to debate economics, Brooks isn’t. One’s a journalist, the other, one of the world’s pre-eminent economists.

201

researchok Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:13:38pm

re: #200 Fozzie Bear

Note that Krugman is actually qualified to debate economics, Brooks isn’t. One’s a journalist, the other, one of the world’s pre-eminent economists.

Does that mean Krugman is not capable of debating Brooks- or the subjects on which Brooks has expertise?

202

Political Atheist Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:13:59pm

re: #185 SanFranciscoZionist

Love to see more like him but not happening anytime soon. Actually went after Clinton for violating the war powers act. Ballsy for an academic guy. But the letter of the law was on his side so he and others went for it.

203

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:14:15pm

re: #196 SanFranciscoZionist

I don’t get people. I mean, by that logic, all of the Turkic tribes should get the hell out of Turkey, too. And everyone other than American Indians should leave the US. Pretty much everyone in Britain ought to leave other than those of strong Celtic background. Etc. etc.

Even as deranged hating, it doesn’t make much sense. Even if we granted that Ashkenazic Jews didn’t have an origin in the Middle East— something that is obviously and stupidly wrong— their argument is “Hey, you guys don’t have an unbroken genetic connection to this land, therefore you can’t have it— even though there’s almost no other nation on earth that, by that criteria, would be a legitimate nation.”

So nuts.

204

Fozzie Bear Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:14:48pm

re: #201 researchok

Does that mean Krugman is not capable of debating Brooks- or the subjects on which Brooks has expertise?

On what subject does Brooks have expertise?

205

SanFranciscoZionist Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:14:54pm

re: #196 SanFranciscoZionist

It’s something that goes back years. The concept is that Ashkenazim are actually descendents of Khazar Turks who converted some time in the early Middle Ages. See a guy named Koestler, and a book called The Thirteenth Tribe.

The fact that this is historically and genetically not, in fact, true, doesn’t stop it from being wildly exciting to people who want to insist that the Ashkenazim have no Semitic blood, and thus, Ashkenazi Zionists aren’t returning to a Middle Eastern homeland, they’re just white colonialist occupiers.

It makes sense if you’re a certain kind of demented hater.

I once had rather an interesting conversation with an Iraqi Jewish acquaintance who simply didn’t understand why I would think the whole Khazar theory offensive. The fact that it was a discredited idea, still used to suggest that Ashkenazim weren’t ‘real’ Jews simply hadn’t registered with her.

206

researchok Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:16:54pm

re: #204 Fozzie Bear

On what subject does Brooks have expertise?

History, politics, etc.

207

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:17:36pm

re: #205 SanFranciscoZionist

I’d only heard the “Khazar” thing before used to attack individual Jews, as ‘fake’ Jews, and to intimate a lot of Israel’s leadership was Khazar and ‘therefore’ warlike and brutal. It’s like racists weren’t happy enough with just being antisemitic and had to add a whole other racist angle on top of the antisemitism.

208

SanFranciscoZionist Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:17:39pm

re: #203 Obdicut

I don’t get people. I mean, by that logic, all of the Turkic tribes should get the hell out of Turkey, too. And everyone other than American Indians should leave the US. Pretty much everyone in Britain ought to leave other than those of strong Celtic background. Etc. etc.

Even as deranged hating, it doesn’t make much sense. Even if we granted that Ashkenazic Jews didn’t have an origin in the Middle East— something that is obviously and stupidly wrong— their argument is “Hey, you guys don’t have an unbroken genetic connection to this land, therefore you can’t have it— even though there’s almost no other nation on earth that, by that criteria, would be a legitimate nation.”

So nuts.

Also, lots and lots of Palestinians are descended from people who came into the area when it was Ottoman-owned and settled. A whole bunch of Bosnians, even, Arabs from a lot of different places. The place is a crossroads, and always has been.

209

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:17:45pm

re: #203 Obdicut

I don’t get the genetic/”ancestors” argument at all. Who cares what happened centuries ago? Peoples move around. There needs not be a further justification of Israel’s existence than “it does exists, and it is a functional democratic state”. This argument is not dependent on whether or not someone is someone else’s ancestor.

210

researchok Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:19:15pm

re: #207 Obdicut

I’d only heard the “Khazar” thing before used to attack individual Jews, as ‘fake’ Jews, and to intimate a lot of Israel’s leadership was Khazar and ‘therefore’ warlike and brutal. It’s like racists weren’t happy enough with just being antisemitic and had to add a whole other racist angle on top of the antisemitism.

Plus ca change…

211

Fozzie Bear Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:19:33pm

re: #199 Rightwingconspirator

My point is revenues were great, spending killed the success. Federal Revenues increased 80% under Reagan policies. Even after inflation and population growth- Federal revenues were up 19% per capita. This is an estimation by Paul Krugman, not a man to overstate Reagans highlights at all.

No, lack of revenue growth combined with spending killed his success. From the article you quoted:

annual rate of growth of real revenue per capita over some cycles:
1973-1979: 2.7%
1979-1990: 1.8%
1990-2000: 3.2%
2000-2007 (probable peak): approximately zero

17% sounds great until you compare it to what came before, and what came after. Reagan presided over a period of relatively stagnant growth, in real terms.

Read the whole column. It’s hardly likely to lead you to the conclusion that Reagan grew the economy significantly.

212

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:21:02pm

re: #211 Fozzie Bear

Is it really possible that all the triumphant declarations that the Reagan tax cuts led to a revenue boom — declarations that you see in highly respectable places — are based on nothing but a failure to make the most elementary corrections for inflation and population growth? Yes, it is. I know we’re supposed to pretend that we’re having a serious discussion in this country; but the truth is that we aren’t.

Damn! Harsh, but true.

213

Shiplord Kirel Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:21:11pm

President Eisenhower’s famous “military-industrial complex” speech has a rather interesting background. For at least five years, it had been a staple of the opposition that Eisenhower had allowed the US to fall behind the Soviet Union in the Cold War, first with the “bomber gap” of 1956, and later with the Sputnik panic and the “missile gap.” The latter featured prominently in JFK’s 1960 campaign. These various gaps were accompanied by massive lobbying from the Air Force Association and the defense industry in general. This was infuriating to Eisenhower, since he had positive knowledge that the bomber and missile gaps were complete fabrications but could not reveal his sources (primarily U-2 flights).

Even the “space race,” in which the US was universally perceived to be losing in those days, was something of a non-issue. The US was actually ahead in any meaningful sense at the time but this is hard to understand for those not familiar with the history and technology. The Soviets got to space first and maintained a lengthy list of “firsts,” but these were mainly expensive stunts aimed at grabbing headlines.
Before Sputnik, most of the US space effort was geared toward really practical applications, like communications, weather, and reconnaissance satellites. These took longer because the challenges were enormously greater than simply hurling a radio transmitter or a dog into orbit. The panic, and the sudden political pressure to “do something,” threw these efforts into disarray. The result was a long series of hastily prepared operations designed to match or at least mitigate the Soviets’ propaganda advantage. These, in turn, resulted in a series of high-profile failures, making the problem even worse, until the mid-60s when the US technological base really began to assert itself and the west surged ahead to the Moon.

214

SanFranciscoZionist Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:21:40pm

re: #207 Obdicut

I’d only heard the “Khazar” thing before used to attack individual Jews, as ‘fake’ Jews, and to intimate a lot of Israel’s leadership was Khazar and ‘therefore’ warlike and brutal. It’s like racists weren’t happy enough with just being antisemitic and had to add a whole other racist angle on top of the antisemitism.

The thing I do find funny about its application by anti-Israel nuts is that the logic goes, “You’re Ashkenazi. You’re not a real Jew, you’re a Turk. Therefore, you’re a white European.”

If I was actually a Turk, these same people would define me as a ‘woman of color’.

Jews are the point where a lot of really dumb thinking about race starts to come apart at the seams.

215

researchok Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:22:41pm

re: #214 SanFranciscoZionist

The thing I do find funny about its application by anti-Israel nuts is that the logic goes, “You’re Ashkenazi. You’re not a real Jew, you’re a Turk. Therefore, you’re a white European.”

If I was actually a Turk, these same people would define me as a ‘woman of color’.

Jews are the point where a lot of really dumb thinking about race starts to come apart at the seams.

There is a whole industry that engages in that mindless drivel.

216

Fozzie Bear Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:23:26pm

re: #212 Obdicut

Damn! Harsh, but true.

Yep. The right is absolutely intellectually bankrupt on the issue of economics. Sadly, however, the left has apparently bought into the whole “deficits don’t matter” bullshit too lately. I hope Obama can manage to raise taxes significantly, because that really is the only sane thing to do in our current situation. It’s also totally politically impossible.

We’re fucked.

217

Fozzie Bear Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:25:08pm

re: #213 Shiplord Kirel

An excellent post. Had I more dings to give, I would.

218

SanFranciscoZionist Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:25:55pm

re: #209 Sergey Romanov

I don’t get the genetic/”ancestors” argument at all. Who cares what happened centuries ago? Peoples move around. There needs not be a further justification of Israel’s existence than “it does exists, and it is a functional democratic state”. This argument is not dependent on whether or not someone is someone else’s ancestor.

There are a number of layers to it, but much of it is deeply rooted in the fact that anti-Israel activists in the United States and Europe find the concept of ‘white people taking land and stuff from brown people’ an easy way to frame the conflict in their favor.

219

What, me worry? Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:27:09pm

re: #208 SanFranciscoZionist

Also, lots and lots of Palestinians are descended from people who came into the area when it was Ottoman-owned and settled. A whole bunch of Bosnians, even, Arabs from a lot of different places. The place is a crossroads, and always has been.

Some (many?), in fact, are converted Jews.

220

Political Atheist Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:27:29pm

re: #211 Fozzie Bear
I’m not arguing the spending, I am pointing out revenues went up under those policies. From a decline to an increase.

221

Fozzie Bear Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:28:19pm

re: #209 Sergey Romanov

I don’t get the genetic/”ancestors” argument at all. Who cares what happened centuries ago? Peoples move around. There needs not be a further justification of Israel’s existence than “it does exists, and it is a functional democratic state”. This argument is not dependent on whether or not someone is someone else’s ancestor.

Yep. Arguments appealing to ancestry only undermine the really cogent point: Israel is already here, and how it got here is no more relevant than how America got here. We’re here now, and we’re not going anywhere.

222

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:28:56pm

re: #218 SanFranciscoZionist

I’m really baffled by how Khazars can be considered ‘white’. Oh well. As you said, race breaks down pretty easily if you look at it hard.

223

Fozzie Bear Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:29:49pm

re: #220 Rightwingconspirator

I’m not arguing the spending, I am pointing out revenues went up under those policies. From a decline to an increase.

And i’m pointing out that they grew less than in the time period before, and the time period after Reagan’s policies, and both periods, not coincidentally, were dominated by economic philosophies which rejected supply-side economics.

224

Mongo only pawn... in game of life. Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:30:05pm

re: #68 marjoriemoon

Your mission, if you chose to accept it… lol

Big OT…
Here it is……..Not safe for work nor children….with sound…I am not good at this…..MEL GIBSON AND THE BEAVER OUT TAKE

225

Political Atheist Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:30:19pm

re: #216 Fozzie Bear

The left has a glaring blindspot on public safety nets and the economics that make them possible. As in these benefits only adjusting one way-up. Never set up in such a way as to fluctuate with revenue decreases, only increases.

226

SanFranciscoZionist Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:30:23pm

re: #219 marjoriemoon

Some (many?), in fact, are converted Jews.

There was a funny episode some years back when it turned out that the Arab businessman who’d been the official chametz ‘buyer’ at Pesach for years was actually halachically Jewish.

He lost the gig, alas, since he was no longer qualified.

227

Fozzie Bear Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:32:19pm

re: #225 Rightwingconspirator

The left has a glaring blindspot on public safety nets and the economics that make them possible. As in these benefits only adjusting one way-up. Never set up in such a way as to fluctuate with revenue decreases, only increases.

The economics that make them possible are taxation well in excess of what we now bear. That’s just a fact.

We either go back to a higher rate of taxation, or we toss the safety net. We can’t keep the safety net and keep the low rates of taxation relative to when those programs were created, without ballooning the debt.

228

Political Atheist Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:32:42pm

re: #223 Fozzie Bear

And suffered a very severe recession (almost as bad as now) despite the alleged wisdom of the policies of the day. So where does that leave us? Still arguing as to the revenue consequences of Reagan’s policies and in agreement that the over spending ruined the successes.

229

What, me worry? Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:34:10pm

re: #203 Obdicut

I don’t get people. I mean, by that logic, all of the Turkic tribes should get the hell out of Turkey, too. And everyone other than American Indians should leave the US. Pretty much everyone in Britain ought to leave other than those of strong Celtic background. Etc. etc.

Even as deranged hating, it doesn’t make much sense. Even if we granted that Ashkenazic Jews didn’t have an origin in the Middle East— something that is obviously and stupidly wrong— their argument is “Hey, you guys don’t have an unbroken genetic connection to this land, therefore you can’t have it— even though there’s almost no other nation on earth that, by that criteria, would be a legitimate nation.”

So nuts.

It’s denial of science, is what it is. Much like the creationists and their ilk. Of course, Jews already knew it.

Check this out:

[Link: www.khazaria.com…]

Sharon Begley. “The DNA of Abraham’s Children.” Newsweek Web Exclusive (June 3, 2010). Excerpts:

“The latest DNA volume weighs in on the controversial, centuries-old (and now revived in a 2008 book) claim that European Jews are all the descendants of Khazars, a Turkic group of the north Caucasus who converted to Judaism in the late eighth and early ninth century. The DNA has spoken: no. … To sort it out, researchers collected DNA from Iranian, Iraqi, Syrian, and Ashkenazi Jews around New York City; Turkish Sephardic Jews in Seattle; Greek Sephardic Jews in Thessaloniki and Athens; and Italian Jews in Rome as part of the Jewish HapMap Project. (All four grandparents of each participant had to have come from the same community.) … Jewish populations, that is, have retained their genetic coherence just as they have retained their cultural and religious traditions, despite migrations from the Middle East into Europe, North Africa, and beyond over the centuries, says geneticist Harry Ostrer of NYU Langone Medical Center, who led the study. Each Diaspora group has distinctive genetic features ‘representative of each group’s genetic history,’ he says, but each also ‘shares a set of common genetic threads’ dating back to their common origin in the Middle East. ‘Each of the Jewish populations formed its own distinctive cluster, indicating the shared ancestry and relative genetic isolation of the members of each of those groups.’ The various Jewish groups were more related to each other than to non-Jews, as well. Within every Jewish group, individuals shared as much of their genome as two fourth or fifth cousins, with Italian, Syrian, Iranian, and Iraqi Jews the most inbred, in the sense that they married within the small, close-knit community. In general, the genetic similarity of any two groups was larger the closer they lived to one another, but there was an exception: Turkish and Italian Jews were most closely related genetically, but are quite separated geographically. Historical records suggest that Iranian and Iraqi Jews date from communities that formed in Persia and Babylon, respectively, in the fourth to sixth centuries B.C.E., and the DNA confirms that. The genetic signatures of these groups show that they remained relatively isolated—inbred—for some 3,000 years. The DNA also reveals that these Middle Eastern Jews diverged from the ancestors of today’s European Jews about 100 to 150 generations ago, or sometime during the first millennium B.C.E.”

In fact, I read a few years back, I was trying to find the article, that they’ve linked all Ashkanazi women to 4 Jewish women from about 3500 years ago.

230

Fozzie Bear Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:35:02pm

re: #228 Rightwingconspirator

And suffered a very severe recession (almost as bad as now) despite the alleged wisdom of the policies of the day. So where does that leave us? Still arguing as to the revenue consequences of Reagan’s policies and in agreement that the over spending ruined the successes.

The revenue consequences were dramatically reduced revenue. All the data bears that out.

I’m sorry, I just don’t get what your point is. Yes, Reagan spent too much. But he also not only collected less revenue than both before and after his presidency, he also presided over slower growth than both periods, in real terms.

231

Shiplord Kirel Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:37:09pm

Yikes!

Randal Terry for president?
(e-mail from Terry, sourced from Free Republic)

Dear Friend,

I am praying about running for President in 2012. Please read the following news stories that discuss this:

Last month, Washington-area residents watched dozens of TV commercials that featured gruesome images of aborted fetuses. In two years, many more Americans might be faced with similar ads if a prominent anti-abortion activist makes good on his plans.
Randall Terry — the fiery activist who recruited D.C. resident Missy Reilly Smith to run for congressional delegate, thus clearing access to the airwaves — announced this week that he plans to recruit candidates to run for Congress in the nation’s 25 largest media markets, expressly to air graphic TV commercials.

And Terry, whose group Operation Rescue pioneered in-your-face abortion clinic protests in the late ’80s, is also considering a run for president in 2012 — which would give him the ability, he said, to run a commercial in the most coveted airtime in American television: during the Super Bowl. —Mike DeBonis

Yep, that’s it, Terry will throw his blood-stained hat into the ring purely to provide an excuse for running his gruesome commercials on national TV.

232

Fozzie Bear Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:38:22pm

I mean, arguing that Reagan grew revenues in real terms is basically arguing that he was responsible for increased population during his presidency.

233

What, me worry? Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:39:10pm

re: #224 nines09

Big OT…
Here it is…Not safe for work nor children…with sound…I am not good at this…MEL GIBSON AND THE BEAVER OUT TAKE

Bravo, Nine!99!!

234

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:39:42pm

The “Khazar” meme is also popular among Slavic antisemites for yet another reason: prince Svyatoslav of Kiev destroyed the Khazarian Kahanate, so in neo-Nazi thought this was the great “victory of Slavs over Jews” or something like that. Here’s a recent billboard that they tried installed in some places in time for July 3:

Image: 4cb6deb9caa0.jpg

It has an image of a statue made by late nationalist sculptor Klykov:

Image: Svyatoslav_Klykov_1.jpg

235

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:40:34pm

re: #234 Sergey Romanov

he “Khazar” meme is also popular among Slavic antisemites for yet another reason: prince Svyatoslav of Kiev destroyed the Khazarian Kahanate

So did I, every time I played Medieval: Total War. T’aint hard.

236

jamesfirecat Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:42:48pm

re: #225 Rightwingconspirator

The left has a glaring blindspot on public safety nets and the economics that make them possible. As in these benefits only adjusting one way-up. Never set up in such a way as to fluctuate with revenue decreases, only increases.

Then maybe the right should have done something about it while they were in power for the last 8/6 years….

237

jamesfirecat Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:43:12pm

re: #232 Fozzie Bear

I mean, arguing that Reagan grew revenues in real terms is basically arguing that he was responsible for increased population during his presidency.

///Impregnate one for the Gipper!

238

HappyWarrior Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:46:10pm

re: #231 Shiplord Kirel

Yikes!

Randal Terry for president?
(e-mail from Terry, sourced from Free Republic)

Yep, that’s it, Terry will throw his blood-stained hat into the ring purely to provide an excuse for running his gruesome commercials on national TV.

Agh Randall Terry now there’s a big asshole if there ever was one. The thought of a guy like him getting elected anywhere scares the crap outta me.

239

Political Atheist Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:49:46pm

re: #232 Fozzie Bear

No, even after and inflation that you have 19% per capita. Why are those numbers hard to accept?

240

zuckerlilly Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:52:41pm

Sorry for going OT

Charles,

you’ve a previous thread about “A new warrant for the arrest of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has been filed with British authorities.”

The media is misleading the public because no arrest warrant via Interpol has been filed. This is only a “red notice” which informs the member states of Interpol why an arrest warrant was filed against Assange in Sweden and some basic informations about him. Every country is free to let him go or to arrest him.

Btw.: I’ve never seen so much hate against the USA since 9/11 and the beginning of the Iraq war in Europe. The president of the USA is called names in the comment sections of the newspapers you’ve never heard before. The USA are compared with North Korea and China in behalf of human rights and every conspiracy theory about 9/11, JFK and so on are out there again.

To give only one example what kind of name calling I’m writing about, see this one from this thread:

Lauras Liebling Waldo antworten permalink 04.12.2010 17:56 melden bewerten.
[27].

Obama, Du SAU!

(Translation: “Obama, you sod!”)

241

economicsprofessor Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:53:42pm

The big question: What names would progressives give? Let me guess: Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow. Both Olbermann and Maddow use editing to lie (as does Hannity), they believe in conspiracies (all the terror alerts under Bush were fake) and Maddow is the best friend the Council on American-Islamic Relations has. Also, when Dr. George Tiller was murdered she repeatedly referred to it as an act of terrorism, which is just fine. Yet when Major Hassan murdered far more people she REFUSED to label him a terrorist and instead said, “This program will not engage in fear-mongering.”

Let’s face it. This country is in BIG trouble. When the right loves to listen to idiots who blame all of our problems on liberalism and progressives do likewise via Maddow and Olbermann it leaves honest people only one course of action: Do not watch any of these people.

242

wrenchwench Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:55:03pm

re: #240 zuckerlilly

Hi zuckerlilly. Long time no see.

243

jamesfirecat Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:56:17pm

re: #241 economicsprofessor

The big question: What names would progressives give? Let me guess: Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow. Both Olbermann and Maddow use editing to lie (as does Hannity), they believe in conspiracies (all the terror alerts under Bush were fake) and Maddow is the best friend the Council on American-Islamic Relations has. Also, when Dr. George Tiller was murdered she repeatedly referred to it as an act of terrorism, which is just fine. Yet when Major Hassan murdered far more people she REFUSED to label him a terrorist and instead said, “This program will not engage in fear-mongering.”

Let’s face it. This country is in BIG trouble. When the right loves to listen to idiots who blame all of our problems on liberalism and progressives do likewise via Maddow and Olbermann it leaves honest people only one course of action: Do not watch any of these people.

The fact that you say Maddow and Olberman are as a bad as Beck and Limbaugh trips my MBF alert something firece…

244

wrenchwench Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:56:47pm

re: #241 economicsprofessor

Greetings, hatchling.

Both Olbermann and Maddow use editing to lie (as does Hannity), they believe in conspiracies (all the terror alerts under Bush were fake) and Maddow is the best friend the Council on American-Islamic Relations has.

Do you have any links to specific instances?

245

jamesfirecat Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:56:54pm

re: #241 economicsprofessor

The big question: What names would progressives give? Let me guess: Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow. Both Olbermann and Maddow use editing to lie (as does Hannity), they believe in conspiracies (all the terror alerts under Bush were fake) and Maddow is the best friend the Council on American-Islamic Relations has. Also, when Dr. George Tiller was murdered she repeatedly referred to it as an act of terrorism, which is just fine. Yet when Major Hassan murdered far more people she REFUSED to label him a terrorist and instead said, “This program will not engage in fear-mongering.”

Let’s face it. This country is in BIG trouble. When the right loves to listen to idiots who blame all of our problems on liberalism and progressives do likewise via Maddow and Olbermann it leaves honest people only one course of action: Do not watch any of these people.

By the way, what if the answers were “Jon Stewart” and “Stephen Colbert”?

246

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:57:11pm

re: #241 economicsprofessor

The big question: What names would progressives give? Let me guess: Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow.

Guessing is probably the wrong way to go about this. I highly doubt you’re right about Olbermann. I’d say they’d say John Stewart and Colbert long before Olbermann— even though they’re not pundits.

Both Olbermann and Maddow use editing to lie (as does Hannity), they believe in conspiracies (all the terror alerts under Bush were fake) and Maddow is the best friend the Council on American-Islamic Relations has.

Can you back that shit up at all? In reference to Maddow, that is?

Also, when Dr. George Tiller was murdered she repeatedly referred to it as an act of terrorism, which is just fine. Yet when Major Hassan murdered far more people she REFUSED to label him a terrorist and instead said, “This program will not engage in fear-mongering.”

Maybe because the person who shot Tiller was attempting to cast fear into the hearts of those seeking abortions or performing abortions, and Hassan appears to have been a crazy dude who shot a lot of people because of being a crazy extremist?

Let’s face it. This country is in BIG trouble. When the right loves to listen to idiots who blame all of our problems on liberalism and progressives do likewise via Maddow and Olbermann it leaves honest people only one course of action: Do not watch any of these people.

Magical balance fairy worshipper sighted.

247

Charles Johnson Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:57:18pm

re: #240 zuckerlilly

My post doesn’t say anything about an arrest warrant with Interpol. It stated, accurately, that an arrest warrant had been filed with British authorities, by Swedish prosecutors.

248

Romantic Heretic Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:58:51pm

re: #182 Spocomptonite

Something I wish Obama would have in de-heterosexualizing the military.

I’m afraid I’ve pretty much given up on Obama showing any spine at all. He’s so hung up on ‘compromise’ he walks halfway to the other side before even starting to deal.

Compromising with the uncompromising is a sure way to lose the game.

249

jamesfirecat Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:59:24pm

re: #246 Obdicut

Guessing is probably the wrong way to go about this. I highly doubt you’re right about Olbermann. I’d say they’d say John Stewart and Colbert long before Olbermann— even though they’re not pundits.

Can you back that shit up at all? In reference to Maddow, that is?

Maybe because the person who shot Tiller was attempting to cast fear into the hearts of those seeking abortions or performing abortions, and Hassan appears to have been a crazy dude who shot a lot of people because of being a crazy extremist?

Magical balance fairy worshipper sighted.

Don’t forget Tiller’s killer also had an organization backing him up while Hassan seems to be just a random nut job… making Tiller’s murder all the more premediated…

250

researchok Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:59:34pm

re: #244 wrenchwench

Greetings, hatchling.

Do you have any links to specific instances?

Oh yeah, I’m just going to watch….

251

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Sat, Dec 4, 2010 12:59:38pm

re: #241 economicsprofessor

they believe in conspiracies (all the terror alerts under Bush were fake)

Do they say “all”? And if some were, that doesn’t qualify as a conspiracy? If there weren’t any, it was certainly not for the lack of pressure.

[Link: politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com…]

252

zuckerlilly Sat, Dec 4, 2010 1:00:20pm

re: #242 wrenchwench

Hi, I’m pinched for time.

253

bratwurst Sat, Dec 4, 2010 1:00:28pm

re: #241 economicsprofessor

The big question: What names would progressives give? .

That was a big question only in your mind.

254

zuckerlilly Sat, Dec 4, 2010 1:02:24pm

re: #247 Charles

My post doesn’t say anything about an arrest warrant with Interpol. It stated, accurately, that an arrest warrant had been filed with British authorities, by Swedish prosecutors.

No, sorry, Charles, this is NOT an arrest warrant which had been filed with the British authorities but a red notice.

255

Ojoe Sat, Dec 4, 2010 1:03:05pm

re: #241 economicsprofessor

Both the far left and the far right have many idiots; for one on the left try Amy Goodman of Pacifica Radio.

256

jamesfirecat Sat, Dec 4, 2010 1:03:51pm

re: #255 Ojoe

Both the far left and the far right have many idiots; for one on the left try Amy Goodman of Pacifica Radio.

Well yeah, but who has heard of her the way people have heard of Rush or Beck?

257

researchok Sat, Dec 4, 2010 1:04:00pm

re: #249 jamesfirecat

Don’t forget Tiller’s killer also had an organization backing him up while Hassan seems to be just a random nut job… making Tiller’s murder all the more premediated…

That really is the distinction.

I do believe Hassan acted out his own ‘personal Jihad.’ That said, he was an was clearly nut job first and foremost, not unlike the Times Square Jesus brigades.

The real issues re Hassan that need to be dealt with are straightforward. There is clear evidence he descent into whack job status was quite visible.

Why wasn’t there a mechanism in place to report him or stop him?

258

Fozzie Bear Sat, Dec 4, 2010 1:05:53pm

re: #255 Ojoe

Both the far left and the far right have many idiots; for one on the left try Amy Goodman of Pacifica Radio.

There’s million of obscure idiots everywhere. The influential ones are the dangerous ones.

259

Ojoe Sat, Dec 4, 2010 1:06:11pm

re: #256 jamesfirecat

That is true, I suppose it is fortunate also, and decreases the spread of stupidity, though not its balance.

260

bratwurst Sat, Dec 4, 2010 1:06:41pm

re: #256 jamesfirecat

Well yeah, but who has heard of her the way people have heard of Rush or Beck?

Come on, get with the meme: Air America/MSNBC/Pacifica/etc have virtually no audience…but at the same time, their hosts are equivalent to Rush and Beck who have huge audiences.

261

Spocomptonite Sat, Dec 4, 2010 1:07:01pm

re: #248 Romantic Heretic

I’m afraid I’ve pretty much given up on Obama showing any spine at all. He’s so hung up on ‘compromise’ he walks halfway to the other side before even starting to deal.

Compromising with the uncompromising is a sure way to lose the game.

I know! I mean, I like that he tried to compromise in the face of such fierce obstructionism; that’s not bad but is an admirable sentiment.

But seriously after two years of that he should just say, “F*** you, b****es” start on executive orders like Truman did. Maybe that doesn’t pay off in the present to him politically, but it certainly would pay off in the future as actual, beneficial results to everyone else.

262

jamesfirecat Sat, Dec 4, 2010 1:07:05pm

re: #257 researchok

That really is the distinction.

I do believe Hassan acted out his own ‘personal Jihad.’ That said, he was an was clearly nut job first and foremost, not unlike the Times Square Jesus brigades.

The real issues re Hassan that need to be dealt with are straightforward. There is clear evidence he descent into whack job status was quite visible.

Why wasn’t there a mechanism in place to report him or stop him?

I’m worried that at the moment the army is so over stretched for troops that they’re willing to overlook warning signs that they normally find grounds for engaging the mechanism.

I mean we’ve already seen literal proof that they’re letting people in that they normally woudln’t haven’t we?

263

jamesfirecat Sat, Dec 4, 2010 1:07:39pm

re: #259 Ojoe

That is true, I suppose it is fortunate also, and decreases the spread of stupidity, though not its balance.

How does it not decrease “its balance” if her stupidity has less “weight” behind it with the party she claims to be a member of?

264

sagehen Sat, Dec 4, 2010 1:08:58pm

re: #220 Rightwingconspirator

I’m not arguing the spending, I am pointing out revenues went up under those policies. From a decline to an increase.

So revenue went up 17% in 8 years, at a time when inflation was 12% per year at the start of the period, and still around 5% per year at the end of it?

If you want to call that an increase, you’re misunderstanding how economics works.

265

SanFranciscoZionist Sat, Dec 4, 2010 1:09:18pm

re: #256 jamesfirecat

Well yeah, but who has heard of her the way people have heard of Rush or Beck?

Amy Goodman is a nut, and I am aware of her because she’s in my neck of the woods. Maybe she’s even as big a nut as Rush and Glenn. I don’t know. What’s the worst thing she’s ever said.

266

bratwurst Sat, Dec 4, 2010 1:10:19pm

re: #263 jamesfirecat

How does it not decrease “its balance” if her stupidity has less “weight” behind it with the party she claims to be a member of?

Here’s how:

Image: magicalbalancefairy.jpg

267

HappyWarrior Sat, Dec 4, 2010 1:10:36pm

The big difference to me is the influence guys like at least Limbaugh have. When was the last time you ever heard Tim Kaine apologize to Olbermann, Maddow, or Goodman? Limbaugh’s problem to me is that he’s got power and influence over the actual leadership of the Republican Party for petes sake.

268

Ojoe Sat, Dec 4, 2010 1:10:58pm

re: #258 Fozzie Bear

Goodman is on several hundred radio stations though.

Listener wise, perhaps not so much, certainly not so much as Limbaugh etc.

But still, a lot of people listen to such leftist stuff too, and where I live in California many people let such stuff form their worldview.

269

Fozzie Bear Sat, Dec 4, 2010 1:11:04pm

re: #239 Rightwingconspirator

No, even after and inflation that you have 19% per capita. Why are those numbers hard to accept?

Because you can’t just compare the 19% to nothing at all, you have to place it in it’s proper context in comparison to competing economic policies, if you going to attempt to attribute the difference to policy.

… real revenues per capita grew only 19 percent over the same period — better than the likely Bush performance, but still nothing exciting. In fact, it’s less than revenue growth in the period 1972-1980 (24 percent) and much less than the amazing 41 percent gain from 1992 to 2000.

Just saying “it grew 19%” is meaningless. The population also grew. You have to compare it to something in order to then be able to make a claim regarding it’s efficacy in comparison to other policies.

270

jamesfirecat Sat, Dec 4, 2010 1:11:59pm

re: #268 Ojoe

Goodman is on several hundred radio stations though.

Listener wise, perhaps not so much, certainly not so much as Limbaugh etc.

But still, a lot of people listen to such leftist stuff too, and where I live in California many people let such stuff form their worldview.

Has a democrat ever insulted her, and then felt the need to take back his/her words?

271

SanFranciscoZionist Sat, Dec 4, 2010 1:13:38pm

re: #268 Ojoe

Goodman is on several hundred radio stations though.

Listener wise, perhaps not so much, certainly not so much as Limbaugh etc.

But still, a lot of people listen to such leftist stuff too, and where I live in California many people let such stuff form their worldview.

What makes Goodman the equivalent of Rush or Beck? What has she said that’s on a part with what they say?

272

Ojoe Sat, Dec 4, 2010 1:13:57pm

re: #263 jamesfirecat

Goodman’s stupidity, with more force behind it, would eat up some of Limbaugh’s, leaving a clear space.

LOL

Electron — positron interaction …

273

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Sat, Dec 4, 2010 1:14:43pm

re: #255 Ojoe

Both the far left and the far right have many idiots; for one on the left try Amy Goodman of Pacifica Radio.

Listen, I get the “idiot” part. Moonbats v. wingnuts and all that. It’s not so much stupidity as the hate that matters. What major figure on the liberal side preaches hate? I know of an obscure liberal talk show host Malloy who engages in hate speech against Republicans. But that’s about the extent of it.

274

jamesfirecat Sat, Dec 4, 2010 1:14:55pm

re: #272 Ojoe

Goodman’s stupidity, with more force behind it, would eat up some of Limbaugh’s, leaving a clear space.

LOL

Electron — positron interaction …

Does Goodman have any leverage with the democratic party?

275

Ojoe Sat, Dec 4, 2010 1:15:18pm

re: #271 SanFranciscoZionist

Oh man, you want me to go listen to her archives?

Ouch ouch ouch ouch

276

jamesfirecat Sat, Dec 4, 2010 1:15:22pm

re: #273 Sergey Romanov

Listen, I get the “idiot” part. Moonbats v. wingnuts and all that. It’s not so much stupidity as the hate that matters. What major figure on the liberal side preaches hate? I know of an obscure liberal talk show host Malloy who engages in hate speech against Republicans. But that’s about the extent of it.

////Please you haven’t seen how much Olberman hates Republicans?

277

SanFranciscoZionist Sat, Dec 4, 2010 1:15:47pm

re: #272 Ojoe

Goodman’s stupidity, with more force behind it, would eat up some of Limbaugh’s, leaving a clear space.

LOL

Electron — positron interaction …

But it doesn’t have that force, which makes this a somewhat irrelevent point.

278

SanFranciscoZionist Sat, Dec 4, 2010 1:17:03pm

re: #275 Ojoe

Oh man, you want me to go listen to her archives?

Ouch ouch ouch ouch

Sure. Of course, even if she’s all that in the crazy department, she will still be very, very obscure compared to the big right-wing hitters, but make your point. If Goodman is the best balance to these guys, what does she say?

279

Stanley Sea Sat, Dec 4, 2010 1:17:42pm

I have no idea who Amy Goodman is.

I read about Rush’s racist blather every single day.

280

bratwurst Sat, Dec 4, 2010 1:17:42pm

re: #278 SanFranciscoZionist

If Goodman is the best balance to these guys, what does she say?

She just IS, ok?

281

economicsprofessor Sat, Dec 4, 2010 1:17:45pm

Thanks for the link. From the link you cite:

Frances Townsend, a former Homeland Security advisor to President Bush and now a CNN contributor, denied politics played any role in the request to raise the threat level.

“There was a debate,” Townsend said on CNN’s The Situation Room Thursday. “Tom Ridge wasn’t the only person in that meeting who suggested that the terror alert shouldn’t be raised. At no time was there any discussion of politics at that meeting. And the president was made a recommendation, a consensus recommendation from the council that he accepted, not to raise the terror alert.”

(End of quote from link)

Oh how disappointed poor Rachel was when she interviewed Tom Ridge on the air. Go look at the transcript. She had a lot to be disappointed about. In response to the release of Ridge’s book, she ran a “lower third” which read, “Conspiracy Theory Proves True.” She then played the Olbermann segment where he went through terror alert after terror alert linking them to things as ridiculous as Joe Liebermann’s political troubles.

Ridge denied to Maddow he was ever “pressured” to raise the alert level and at that White House meeting before the 2004 election it was, in the end, decided by the powers that be, NOT to raise it.

282

jamesfirecat Sat, Dec 4, 2010 1:19:13pm

re: #281 economicsprofessor

Thanks for the link. From the link you cite:

Frances Townsend, a former Homeland Security advisor to President Bush and now a CNN contributor, denied politics played any role in the request to raise the threat level.

“There was a debate,” Townsend said on CNN’s The Situation Room Thursday. “Tom Ridge wasn’t the only person in that meeting who suggested that the terror alert shouldn’t be raised. At no time was there any discussion of politics at that meeting. And the president was made a recommendation, a consensus recommendation from the council that he accepted, not to raise the terror alert.”

(End of quote from link)

Oh how disappointed poor Rachel was when she interviewed Tom Ridge on the air. Go look at the transcript. She had a lot to be disappointed about. In response to the release of Ridge’s book, she ran a “lower third” which read, “Conspiracy Theory Proves True.” She then played the Olbermann segment where he went through terror alert after terror alert linking them to things as ridiculous as Joe Liebermann’s political troubles.

Ridge denied to Maddow he was ever “pressured” to raise the alert level and at that White House meeting before the 2004 election it was, in the end, decided by the powers that be, NOT to raise it.

Doesn’t the fact that they were having the discussion at all mean that they viewed the terror alert as a possible political alert proving the theory true anyway?

283

Political Atheist Sat, Dec 4, 2010 1:20:54pm

re: #269 Fozzie Bear

Okay so 19% per capita and after accounting for inflation is not revenue growth. Gotcha.

284

Fozzie Bear Sat, Dec 4, 2010 1:25:06pm

re: #279 Stanley Sea

I have no idea who Amy Goodman is.

I read about Rush’s racist blather every single day.

It’s kind of like claiming one of the evil mice from Nihm would be just as destructive as Godzilla if both were loosed on a city.re: #283 Rightwingconspirator

Okay so 19% per capita and after accounting for inflation is not revenue growth. Gotcha.

You are doggedly resisting understanding the point of Krugman’s article. Spending growth outstripped revenue growth during Reagan’s terms by a wide margin. What revenue growth there was, when adjusted for inflation AND POPULATION GROWTH, was significantly lower than the periods both before and after the Reagan years.

Reagan doesn’t get to take credit for people breeding faster in the 80’s. He just doesn’t.

285

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Sat, Dec 4, 2010 1:26:05pm

re: #281 economicsprofessor

Dig deeper.

[Link: mediamatters.org…]

[Link: www.usatoday.com…]

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration periodically put the USA on high alert for terrorist attacks even though then-Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge argued there was only flimsy evidence to justify raising the threat level, Ridge now says.

Ridge, who resigned Feb. 1, said Tuesday that he often disagreed with administration officials who wanted to elevate the threat level to orange, or “high” risk of terrorist attack, but was overruled.

[…]

Ridge said he wanted to “debunk the myth” that his agency was responsible for repeatedly raising the alert under a color-coded system he unveiled in 2002.

“More often than not we were the least inclined to raise it,” Ridge told reporters. “Sometimes we disagreed with the intelligence assessment. Sometimes we thought even if the intelligence was good, you don’t necessarily put the country on (alert). … There were times when some people were really aggressive about raising it, and we said, ‘For that?’”

Given this it’s only fair to speculate as to the motives of those who overruled DHS

286

Stanley Sea Sat, Dec 4, 2010 1:26:41pm

Go Cocks!

287

jamesfirecat Sat, Dec 4, 2010 1:26:58pm

re: #284 Fozzie Bear

It’s kind of like claiming one of the evil mice from Nihm would be just as destructive as Godzilla if both were loosed on a city.re: #283 Rightwingconspirator

You are doggedly resisting understanding the point of Krugman’s article. Spending growth outstripped revenue growth during Reagan’s terms by a wide margin. What revenue growth there was, when adjusted for inflation AND POPULATION GROWTH, was significantly lower than the periods both before and after the Reagan years.

Reagan doesn’t get to take credit for people breeding faster in the 80’s. He just doesn’t.

////Well he was a very hansom man, and he was on TV a lot…

288

Mostly sane, most of the time. Sat, Dec 4, 2010 1:30:04pm

re: #287 jamesfirecat

///Well he was a very hansom man, and he was on TV a lot…

He had a horse-drawn taxi?

289

Political Atheist Sat, Dec 4, 2010 1:30:08pm

re: #284 Fozzie Bear

I disagree with his point but found his most skeptical view of Reagans numbers as supportive of my simple point. A nuance you missed.

The easiest place to get a chart of the revenues over time is the CATO site, so I went with a skeptical view for the most conservative view of Reagan’s federal revenue success. And I did not give Reagan credit for population growth. I just used the number that accounted for that and inflation. Feel free to post back again on this, its been fun but I have work to do. I can’t give your next reply my full attention. See ya next time.

290

economicsprofessor Sat, Dec 4, 2010 1:31:38pm

It is only true if they did it.

Again, Ridge said that NONE of the actual alerts were in response to political pressure. Furthermore, no one came out and said, “Hey, let’s jack up the terror alert so we can win.” Ridge merely got the VIBE in that ONE meeting that some of the people present MIGHT have been thinking that. In the end—-at the time when they would have benefited most (right before an election)——the decision was made NOT to raise it.

Regarding Olbermann:
Go and read some of the transcripts of Olbermann’s shows where he is interviewing terror experts after the airliner plot from Europe (remember the liquids plot—-the reason we can’t carry toothpaste). He tried to get the terror expert to agree that it wasn’t really a threat (part of the conspiracy to instill fear) but the terror expert made clear the plot was real and, thank God, it was stopped. They LOVED Olbermann at the Loose Change website until he finally made a comment putting down the truthers.

291

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Sat, Dec 4, 2010 1:33:28pm

re: #290 economicsprofessor

What explanation do you have for the alert being raised when Ridge thought it was inappropriate to raise it?

Is this your only example of Maddow’s supposed malfeasance?

292

sagehen Sat, Dec 4, 2010 1:33:43pm

re: #278 SanFranciscoZionist

Sure. Of course, even if she’s all that in the crazy department, she will still be very, very obscure compared to the big right-wing hitters, but make your point. If Goodman is the best balance to these guys, what does she say?

I also hear a lot of conservatives offer up Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon and Barbra Streisand as their “equivalent left hatred” — of course, none of those are consulted/respected by the D’s, they don’t have a seat at the policy table, they don’t appear at the conventions… and they’re so far left they’re criticizing the D party leadership pretty strenuously too. And there was some college professor at a third-tier school in Colorado, whose website had dozens, maybe even hundreds of hits a day.

293

Gus Sat, Dec 4, 2010 1:34:28pm

Ping

294

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Sat, Dec 4, 2010 1:34:47pm

re: #290 economicsprofessor

True, positive 99.99% statement should be made if there is according evidence. But what Ridge told in 2005 - and not only about one single meeting - does raise questions and permits legitimate speculation. As to Olbermann, I would be very obliged if you gave me a link. I not so much doubt what you say as I don’t think it’s me who should be searching for it.

295

jamesfirecat Sat, Dec 4, 2010 1:38:19pm

re: #290 economicsprofessor

It is only true if they did it.

Again, Ridge said that NONE of the actual alerts were in response to political pressure. Furthermore, no one came out and said, “Hey, let’s jack up the terror alert so we can win.” Ridge merely got the VIBE in that ONE meeting that some of the people present MIGHT have been thinking that. In the end—-at the time when they would have benefited most (right before an election)—-the decision was made NOT to raise it.

Regarding Olbermann:
Go and read some of the transcripts of Olbermann’s shows where he is interviewing terror experts after the airliner plot from Europe (remember the liquids plot—-the reason we can’t carry toothpaste). He tried to get the terror expert to agree that it wasn’t really a threat (part of the conspiracy to instill fear) but the terror expert made clear the plot was real and, thank God, it was stopped. They LOVED Olbermann at the Loose Change website until he finally made a comment putting down the truthers.

Oblerman is the left’s version of Rush, except without the massive political power over his party.

I’m willing to go this far.

If you try and tell me that Rachel Madow is the left’s answer to Shawn Hanity or Glenn Beck then (sarcasm) I’m afraid I’ll have to insist that we draw a line down the middle of the internet and you stay on your side of it….

296

Fozzie Bear Sat, Dec 4, 2010 1:39:05pm

re: #290 economicsprofessor

It is only true if they did it.

Again, Ridge said that NONE of the actual alerts were in response to political pressure. Furthermore, no one came out and said, “Hey, let’s jack up the terror alert so we can win.” Ridge merely got the VIBE in that ONE meeting that some of the people present MIGHT have been thinking that. In the end—-at the time when they would have benefited most (right before an election)—-the decision was made NOT to raise it.

What in Maddow’s treatment of the issue, exactly, is inaccurate? That’s the point of this whole argument, and one you have yet to substantiate.

As for Olbermann, he has zero influence with actual DNC party politics, though he does have some pull with the Democratic base. Given that he is indisputably one of the most influential pundits on the left, how many can we find on the right that dwarf his market share of the audience, and are far crazier than he? I can think of several.

297

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Sat, Dec 4, 2010 1:39:33pm

re: #295 jamesfirecat

Sorry, not going that far. Olbermann is a blowhard, but he has a heart.

298

prairiefire Sat, Dec 4, 2010 1:40:43pm

re: #293 Gus 802

Ping

Bless him. He looks ravaged.

299

SanFranciscoZionist Sat, Dec 4, 2010 1:41:07pm

re: #292 sagehen

I also hear a lot of conservatives offer up Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon and Barbra Streisand as their “equivalent left hatred” — of course, none of those are consulted/respected by the D’s, they don’t have a seat at the policy table, they don’t appear at the conventions… and they’re so far left they’re criticizing the D party leadership pretty strenuously too. And there was some college professor at a third-tier school in Colorado, whose website had dozens, maybe even hundreds of hits a day.

The thing I see a lot of people assuming, and I believe it’s a seriously mistaken understanding, is that the far left is a ‘base’ to the Democrats in the same way that the so-con right forms a base for the Republicans. The so-con right is genuinely powerful in elections, they vote for Republicans or withhold their votes from Republicans, and since the 1980s at least, they have been catered to and considered in Republican decision-making.

The far left is much more irrelevant to the Democrats. Much of the group won’t vote for Democrats anyway, and are siphoned off by small parties. Others do vote Democratic, but have almost no influence within the party. And they are far too splintered and factional to provide any sort of political support, particularly since the Democrats will never adopt the sort of policy the far left wants.

This isn’t a statement about morality, or who’s right, or who’s more powerful, or whatever. It’s just that there is no symmetry between the two major parties in this area, and acting as though there is just confuses everyone.

300

jamesfirecat Sat, Dec 4, 2010 1:41:43pm

re: #297 Sergey Romanov

Sorry, not going that far. Olbermann is a blowhard, but he has a heart.

Well yeah he’s a lot like Rush Limbaugh in many ways, he can be loud and obnoxious for example and I think he used to be in sports casting before he got into being a pundit not unlike Rush.

However, watch this…

Youtube Video

And you try and you tell me when you can find a time when Rush Limbaugh has ever dropped his defenses and talked straight from the heart like that….

301

Gus Sat, Dec 4, 2010 1:43:06pm

re: #298 prairiefire

Bless him. He looks ravaged.

He does but he still has a sharp mind and voice his is holding well. If one were to listen to him alone, his cancer (and treatment) wouldn’t be noticeable.

302

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Sat, Dec 4, 2010 1:49:07pm

re: #300 jamesfirecat

[Video]And you try and you tell me when you can find a time when Rush Limbaugh has ever dropped his defenses and talked straight from the heart like that…

Special comments like this is why I’ll never compare Olbermann to that sack of turds.

303

sagehen Sat, Dec 4, 2010 1:50:18pm

re: #288 EmmmieG

He had a horse-drawn taxi?

During his college years, yes.

304

Sol Berdinowitz Sat, Dec 4, 2010 1:52:15pm

We need to remember that the Republican Party now represents the left wing of the modern American conservative movement.

305

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Sat, Dec 4, 2010 1:52:52pm

re: #302 Sergey Romanov

For me, it’s that he’s not a gigantic racist.

I do think Olbermann is a big phony, though.

Anyway, I’m out. I’m helping to referee at a roller derby tonight.

For serious.

306

Fozzie Bear Sat, Dec 4, 2010 1:54:22pm

re: #304 ralphieboy

We need to remember that the Republican Party now represents the left wing of the modern American conservative movement.

For now. They are rapidly moving toward their base in ideology, however.

307

jamesfirecat Sat, Dec 4, 2010 1:55:22pm

re: #304 ralphieboy

We need to remember that the Republican Party now represents the left wing of the modern American conservative movement.

If the GOP is the left wing of the modern American Conservative movement, what does the right wing of it look like?

308

Sol Berdinowitz Sat, Dec 4, 2010 1:56:57pm

re: #307 jamesfirecat

That is the point, the old establishment GOP is far to the left of the Tea Party and the new faces springing up. They will be fighting for control of the party soon enough.

309

Fozzie Bear Sat, Dec 4, 2010 1:59:21pm

re: #308 ralphieboy

That is the point, the old establishment GOP is far to the left of the Tea Party and the new faces springing up. They will be fighting for control of the party soon enough.

That fight has already been joined, and the establishment GOP doesn’t appear to be winning. Perhaps the next election will reverse the trend, but I don’t see that happening. The Right is just going to double down on the culture wars even harder in 2012, I predict.

I hope i’m wrong.

310

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Sat, Dec 4, 2010 1:59:29pm

re: #305 Obdicut

For me, it’s that he’s not a gigantic racist.

I do think Olbermann is a big phony, though.

Anyway, I’m out. I’m helping to referee at a roller derby tonight.

For serious.

He gets carried away, like when he insulted Scott Brown. Totally not cool. And his way of delivery is so overwrought at times that no wonder many people consider him a phony. It’s not that Olbermann is good, it’s that he is from a parallel universe when the likes of Rush and Glenn are considered.

311

jamesfirecat Sat, Dec 4, 2010 2:00:50pm

re: #308 ralphieboy

That is the point, the old establishment GOP is far to the left of the Tea Party and the new faces springing up. They will be fighting for control of the party soon enough.

I think they already lost that fight before it started. The rabble have numbers on their side, and the media (or at least the unquestionably right wing parts of the media) seem more interested in throwing fuel on the fire than keeping them calmly in line.

That may change once we have another R in the white house and obedience to the American President becomes a virtue again though…

312

Sol Berdinowitz Sat, Dec 4, 2010 2:01:27pm

re: #309 Fozzie Bear

The right wing will blithely ignore the lessons of Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnel and double down on the fundamental ideology. And in the current political climate they will prevail.

313

sagehen Sat, Dec 4, 2010 2:02:22pm

re: #296 Fozzie Bear

As for Olbermann, he has zero influence with actual DNC party politics, though he does have some pull with the Democratic base. Given that he is indisputably one of the most influential pundits on the left, how many can we find on the right that dwarf his market share of the audience, and are far crazier than he? I can think of several.

Let’s also include Michael Moore when weighting leftish pundits — he’s got a reasonably large audience, has no trouble getting on all the cable shows when he’s got a new book or movie to hawk, and his website pulls good traffic.

314

jamesfirecat Sat, Dec 4, 2010 2:02:26pm

re: #309 Fozzie Bear

That fight has already been joined, and the establishment GOP doesn’t appear to be winning. Perhaps the next election will reverse the trend, but I don’t see that happening. The Right is just going to double down on the culture wars even harder in 2012, I predict.

I hope i’m wrong.

I hope you’re not.

The GOP won’t get better till it hits rock bottom, and it won’t hit rock bottom till its policies become so extreme they lose the presidential election months before it starts…

315

jamesfirecat Sat, Dec 4, 2010 2:03:15pm

re: #313 sagehen

Let’s also include Michael Moore when weighting leftish pundits — he’s got a reasonably large audience, has no trouble getting on all the cable shows when he’s got a new book or movie to hawk, and his website pulls good traffic.

Yeah, once again he’s sort of the left’s answer to Rush Limbaugh, except then you need to ask yourself, does he have any political power?

316

sagehen Sat, Dec 4, 2010 2:04:07pm

re: #307 jamesfirecat

If the GOP is the left wing of the modern American Conservative movement, what does the right wing of it look like?

Tom Tancredo?

317

sagehen Sat, Dec 4, 2010 2:06:43pm

re: #315 jamesfirecat

Yeah, once again he’s sort of the left’s answer to Rush Limbaugh, except then you need to ask yourself, does he have any political power?

I think of Moore as an equivalent/opposite to Anne Coulter. (which is of course much less powerful than Rush).

318

Amory Blaine Sat, Dec 4, 2010 2:07:53pm

And people wonder why I hate conservatives. Lemmings who lap up the propaganda.

319

Fozzie Bear Sat, Dec 4, 2010 2:08:44pm

re: #311 jamesfirecat

I think they already lost that fight before it started. The rabble have numbers on their side, and the media (or at least the unquestionably right wing parts of the media) seem more interested in throwing fuel on the fire than keeping them calmly in line.

That may change once we have another R in the white house and obedience to the American President becomes a virtue again though…

The right wing media drives the GOP’s base now, and their goal isn’t to win elections, it’s to get ratings, and make money. The GOP leadership has precisely zero influence over that dynamic.

However. right wing media will continue to drive the message until something disrupts that feedback loop, and they have enough influence with a large enough audience to make sure that they continue winning elections.

This isn’t going to stop, because it can’t stop. The message is self-reinforcing. If the meme is that government can’t do anything right, then the party establishment has to reinforce that idea in order to reinforce the voting behavior of their electorate. They don’t have any other options, or they risk losing the support of their base, a base that believes government is the problem.

It’s a feedback loop that can’t end without a major paradigm shift.

320

Amory Blaine Sat, Dec 4, 2010 2:09:11pm

re: #315 jamesfirecat

Yeah, once again he’s sort of the left’s answer to Rush Limbaugh, except then you need to ask yourself, does he have any political power?

Except Moore isn’t on the radio day after day after day calling consevatives cockroaches. Wasn’t his last movie about helping people get health care?

321

jamesfirecat Sat, Dec 4, 2010 2:11:05pm

Okay folks I just ate dinner I’m here to settle this once and for all.

I know for 100% certainty which Pundit on the left wields the most political power.

Brace yourselves.

(Drum roll)

Al Franken.

Ta-Dah!

322

Fozzie Bear Sat, Dec 4, 2010 2:12:16pm

re: #314 jamesfirecat

I hope you’re not.

The GOP won’t get better till it hits rock bottom, and it won’t hit rock bottom till its policies become so extreme they lose the presidential election months before it starts…

The GOP isn’t going to expire due to electoral defeat. They have a massive propaganda apparatus driving them, that they don’t control, but provides them victories as long as they follow the ideology.

They will win in 2012, and 2014, and 2016. This isn’t going to end until the country craters, or there is a major paradigm shift in media. I don’t see any massive paradigm shifts coming.

323

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Sat, Dec 4, 2010 2:12:49pm

re: #321 jamesfirecat

Limbaugh should be in Senate, instead of Inhofe. Maybe that will shut him up too.
//

324

jamesfirecat Sat, Dec 4, 2010 2:13:54pm

re: #322 Fozzie Bear

The GOP isn’t going to expire due to electoral defeat. They have a massive propaganda apparatus driving them, that they don’t control, but provides them victories as long as they follow the ideology.

They will win in 2012, and 2014, and 2016. This isn’t going to end until the country craters, or there is a major paradigm shift in media. I don’t see any massive paradigm shifts coming.

They also could loose due to population drift if the GOP continues to tank among Latino’s….

325

Fozzie Bear Sat, Dec 4, 2010 2:15:45pm

re: #324 jamesfirecat

They also could loose due to population drift if the GOP continues to tank among Latino’s…

All they have to do is buy more media. It’s not rocket science. Propaganda always works, in the long run. It just takes money and time.

326

jamesfirecat Sat, Dec 4, 2010 2:17:20pm

re: #322 Fozzie Bear

The GOP isn’t going to expire due to electoral defeat. They have a massive propaganda apparatus driving them, that they don’t control, but provides them victories as long as they follow the ideology.

They will win in 2012, and 2014, and 2016. This isn’t going to end until the country craters, or there is a major paradigm shift in media. I don’t see any massive paradigm shifts coming.

Also there’s going to be a fairly big media shake up once… oh come on James you know this…. Prince of Darkess… was suppose to be that bad guy in Tomorrow Never Dies…. who was that? He was played by the same guy who played Evil Himself in Time Bandits… Eliot Carver… oh yeah, once Rupert Murdoch dies SOMETHING is going to happen to the conservative media empire her built.

I’m not sure what but I confidently predict SOMETHING will happen…

327

Fozzie Bear Sat, Dec 4, 2010 2:19:33pm

Think about it: the GOP has a foolproof strategy.

Just promise that the government will do less. You can ALWAYS deliver on that promise if you have ONE senator under your control.

then compare that to any opposing strategy that promises results. ANY strategy.

Over time, people get frustrated with the lack of results, and they have a constant stream of saturation propaganda helpfully reminding them that all these problems would go away if the governement just got out of the way. As things get worse, the right’s argument appears more compelling, not less..

328

Charles Johnson Sat, Dec 4, 2010 2:26:57pm

re: #254 zuckerlilly

No, sorry, Charles, this is NOT an arrest warrant which had been filed with the British authorities but a red notice.

Then you should take it up with the UK Independent, because they say it is.

329

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Sat, Dec 4, 2010 2:50:28pm

Returning to Ridge. Here’s the excerpt:

[Link: abcnews.go.com…]
[Link: abcnews.go.com…]

Even so, the politics of terrorism and the lessons learned there intersected one more time before the end of the year.
[…]
A vigorous, some might say dramatic, discussion ensued. Ashcroft strongly urged an increase in the threat level, and was supported by Rumsfeld. There was absolutely no support for that position within our department. None. I wondered, “Is this about security or politics?” Post-election analysis demonstrated a significant increase in the president’s approval rating in the days after the raising of the threat level.
[…]
And as the minutes passed at our videoconference we concluded that others in the administration were operating with the same threat information and didn’t know any more than we did, and that the idea was still a bad one. It also seemed possible to me and to others around the table that something could be afoot other than simple concern about the country’s safety.
[…]
I believe our strong interventions had pulled the “go up” advocates back from the brink. But I consider that episode to be not only a dramatic moment in Washington’s recent history, but another illustration of the intersection of politics, fear, credibility, and security…

If Ridge himself had a reason to wonder whether this was not about politics, why shouldn’t we?

330

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Sat, Dec 4, 2010 2:52:12pm

re: #254 zuckerlilly

No, sorry, Charles, this is NOT an arrest warrant which had been filed with the British authorities but a red notice.

Why don’t you cite a source? Isn’t it obvious that you’re making a naked claim as of now?

331

economicsprofessor Sat, Dec 4, 2010 3:21:14pm

Maddow and Olbermann didn’t wonder….they CONCLUDED. Yes I am also aware that there were times when others in the administration disagreed with Ridge. That happens when you get a group of people together trying to decide about how to protect the country. There were fierce debates in the Kennedy Administration regarding what to do about missiles in Cuba. Some said nuke em, some said play nice, and some said, “Why don’t we try a blockade?” I am not ready to conclude that any of them were acting in some sort of bad faith although it is possible (“Hey, let’s let the Soviets win because communism is wonderful” or “Let’s kill a bunch of Cubans for the pure rush of doing so.”)

Personally, of the cable TV hosts, I generally prefer Anderson Cooper. I never get the impression that is using editing to trick the viewer or that he believes those who disagree with him are by definition, the bad guys.

Gotta go to a party at the college now. Thanks to Charles for pointing out what a wacko Pamela Geller is at this site (Obama is planning a nuclear attack on the United States! Hannity has her on a lot.).

One more thing: Isn’t it interesting how little name calling and how little hate there is at this site compared to others?

332

jamesfirecat Sat, Dec 4, 2010 3:27:18pm

re: #331 economicsprofessor

Maddow and Olbermann didn’t wonder…they CONCLUDED. Yes I am also aware that there were times when others in the administration disagreed with Ridge. That happens when you get a group of people together trying to decide about how to protect the country. There were fierce debates in the Kennedy Administration regarding what to do about missiles in Cuba. Some said nuke em, some said play nice, and some said, “Why don’t we try a blockade?” I am not ready to conclude that any of them were acting in some sort of bad faith although it is possible (“Hey, let’s let the Soviets win because communism is wonderful” or “Let’s kill a bunch of Cubans for the pure rush of doing so.”)

Personally, of the cable TV hosts, I generally prefer Anderson Cooper. I never get the impression that is using editing to trick the viewer or that he believes those who disagree with him are by definition, the bad guys.

Gotta go to a party at the college now. Thanks to Charles for pointing out what a wacko Pamela Geller is at this site (Obama is planning a nuclear attack on the United States! Hannity has her on a lot.).

One more thing: Isn’t it interesting how little name calling and how little hate there is at this site compared to others?

Its called natural selection by ban hammer, don’t continue to necro this thread, stop trying to argue that the left and right are equally bad when it clearly isn’t the case, and you’ll be able to enjoy it a lot longer, who knows your Karma may even go green….

333

keefe Sun, Dec 5, 2010 9:25:33am

Considering the zillions of hours of TV and acres of newsprint that needs to be filled each day, there’s plenty of blame to go around.

Spy Mode Auto

This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Most Popular Right Wing Pundits Among GOP Activists: Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud