>> ^Gallowflak:

>> ^bobknight33:
Its a Joke, just a joke. That was funny.

I guess the left can't take a laugh unless they make the joke.

If it was a joke, why wasn't it fucking funny? If you're going to trivialize the barbarism to which journalists are commonly exposed in their pursuit of information, you can at least make the joke a good one. That's not the biggest issue for me, though. It's that I know she was only half-joking.
I'm starting to think "the right" are mentally deficient by default, and I'm not even on the same fucking continent as you people.
Here's a thought; you won't be able to find a right-wing, mainstream party anywhere in western Europe that's more conservative than the Democrats. Your political system is a trainwreck of sodomy. You are doing something wrong. And on the right, little concepts like reality don't seem to factor into it.


Only in a few red-states (like mine, Utah) think that classical conservatism via the Republican party with Abraham Lincoln being the first elected, still think it's the same and alive and beating. They also believe that Nixon and especially Reagan fit into it's precepts. These people get A's in academia for thinking this. I won't even begin to explain as to why academia in th U.S. is full of shit as well as "Republican" followers or fellow "revolutionaries" or "jackoffs" like The Tea Party (the unfortunate rock band with that name needs to change it, or be tied with it and them--unfairly). The idiots calling it "The Tea Party" or "Neo-Con:The Second Shot Party" for us, couldn't even begin to tell you what the Boston Tea Party was for or about; they're clueless to history and if you tell them so, they believe they're only--more correct...

The party called "Republicans", died with Teddy Roosevelt.

/Every politician since the U.S. started in 1776 are turning in their graves... Except for some since prohibition--the Others™, that failed, and lead us to a near coup (Mafia wise). The U.S. state picked, history books don't bother to tell you how close it was. All it tells you is how AWESOME your state and country are--fuck everyone else except Britain when we get to the chapter called "People and Countries that make great lapdogs.".

I hope our secondary drug war doesn't turn out the same; but, ironically, it's starting to have a great potential for it. Brought to you by the people that don't read about history. Neo-Conolgy...

//dev/null

Those are all interesting "common goods" that I would love the Right Wing to actually embody.

It is only individual freedom and responsibility, I've noticed, when it is your freedom and somebody else's responsibility. (I can provide anecdotal evidence in proof of that statement, from the lives of my super conservative relatives.)

Being fiscally responsible is a great thing -- so why the continuing huge tax cuts to the wealthy, where it has been proved over and over that those cuts will not help the economy and only drive us deeper in debt? And all that crap about death panels, when it has been proven that when folks plan for end of life issues, huge amounts of unnecessary, expensive and ultimately painful prolonging of life treatment are avoided?

Following the Constitution. You support the ACLU, right? They fight for the Constitution all the time. The Right Wing doesn't own the Constitution, it belongs to all of us. Including the checks and balances inherernt in the document.

Free markets. Huh. Well, Teddy Roosevelt was conservative, but he recognized that truly "free" markets are not in the best interests of the country. Unless you like lead paint in children's toys?

Life is lived on a curve -- with the far right and the far left holding positions that try to drag the middle around.

We're on the same curve, though.

Liberals don't disagree with your list of common goods. They just want to implement them in differing ways. For example -- individual freedom. Libs get behind that in a big way for personal choices in the bedroom. Gay marriage and the reproductive rights are individual freedoms, right? But Libs get a little torqued when someone else's individual freedom may cost innocent lives -- hence their concern over gun control.

All this is off topic, though. Tucker Carlson is a raving red baboon butt of a human being who cares nothing for a reasoned conversation when he can make a living out of his Monkey Island antics. (Primate Island, I know, that just isn't as funny.)

The fact that Jon Stewart hates him makes me very happy.



>> ^lantern53:

Which part of the 'right wing drivel' is BS?
The part about individual freedom and responsibility?
The part about fiscal responsibility?
The part about following the Constitution, which is the founding document of this country?
The part about free markets?

http://www.lyrics007.com/Scott%20Miller%20Lyrics/Red%20Ball%20Express%20Lyrics.html

I jumped at it when I had the chance,
I joined the army and I went to France
At Roosevelt's request.
Two weeks of sitting in the mud
Made me lie to the man that I could drive a truck
For the Red Ball Express.

All we do is keep it rolling on
Trading bodies for petroleum
Heating rations on the manifold
And never sleep enough to dream about home

Benzedrined and looking through cat eyes
Of a deuce and a half and a days supply
Of jerry cans in back
Ain't no secret how the generals felt.
"Fuck the men they can eat their belts
but the tanks they must have gas"

All we do is keep it rolling on
Trading bodies for petroleum
Heating rations on the manifold
And never sleep enough to dream about home

The gears are sticking and the pressure's low
I felt the bump that means its time to go
Another twenty miles.
Thirty-six hours and I still ain't slept
I'm hearing voices talk inside my head
In Burma Shaving rhyme

All we do is keep it rolling on
Trading bodies for petroleum
Heating rations on the manifold
Even now I've never felt that old

Because fifty years later and you don't forget
Being eighteen and scared to death
In a world that's changing fast
Now my own son sends his own son off
To fight the next fight to be fought
And the Red Ball brings me back

"Guess Who?"

by

Thomas Sowell

Guess who said the following: "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work." Was it Sarah Palin? Rush Limbaugh? Karl Rove?

Not even close. It was Henry Morgenthau, Secretary of the Treasury under Franklin D. Roosevelt and one of FDR's closest advisers. He added, "after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. . . And an enormous debt to boot!"

This is just one of the remarkable and eye-opening facts in a must-read book titled "New Deal or Raw Deal?" by Professor Burton W. Folsom, Jr., of Hillsdale College.

Ordinarily, what happened in the 1930s might be something to be left for historians to be concerned about. But the very same kinds of policies that were tried-- and failed-- during the 1930s are being carried out in Washington today, with the advocates of such policies often invoking FDR's New Deal as a model.

Franklin D. Roosevelt blamed the country's woes on the problems he inherited from his predecessor, much as Barack Obama does today. But unemployment was 20 percent in the spring of 1939, six long years after Herbert Hoover had left the White House.

Whole generations have been "educated" to believe that the Roosevelt administration is what got this country out of the Great Depression. History text books by famous scholars like Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., of Harvard and Henry Steele Commager of Columbia have enshrined FDR as a historic savior of this country, and lesser lights in the media and elsewhere have perpetuated the legend.

Although Professor Schlesinger admitted that he had little interest in economics, that did not stop him from making sweeping statements about what a great economic achievement the New Deal was.

Professors Commager and Morris of Columbia likewise declared: "The character of the Republican ascendancy of the twenties had been pervasively negative; the character of the New Deal was overwhelmingly positive." Anyone unfamiliar with the history of that era might never suspect from such statements that the 1920s were a decade of unprecedented prosperity and the 1930s were a decade of the deepest and longest-lasting depression in American history. But facts have taken a back seat to rhetoric.

In more recent years, there have been both academic studies and popular books debunking some of the myths about the New Deal. Nevertheless, Professor Folsom's book "New Deal or Raw Deal?" breaks new ground. Although written by an academic scholar and based on years of documented research, it is as readable as a newspaper-- and a lot more informative than most.

There are few historic events whose legends are more grossly different from the reality than the New Deal administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt. And there are few men whose image has been more radically different from the man himself.

Some of the most devastating things that were said about FDR were not said by his political enemies but by people who worked closely with him for years-- Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau being just one. Morgenthau saw not only the utter failure of Roosevelt's policies, but also the failure of Roosevelt himself, who didn't even know enough economics to realize how little he knew.

Far from pulling the country out of the Great Depression by following Keynesian policies, FDR created policies that prolonged the depression until it was more than twice as long as any other depression in American history. Moreover, Roosevelt's ad hoc improvisations followed nothing as coherent as Keynesian economics. To the extent that FDR followed the ideas of any economist, it was an obscure economist at the University of Wisconsin, who was disdained by other economists and who was regarded with contempt by John Maynard Keynes.

President Roosevelt's strong suit was politics, not economics. He played the political game both cleverly and ruthlessly, including using both the FBI and the Internal Revenue Service to harass and intimidate his critics and opponents.

It is not a pretty story. But we need to understand it if we want to avoid the ugly consequences of very similar policies today.

quantumushroom do you really believe Obama would have made a move at trying to buy the banks if they were not about to go bankrupt and potentially put the nation into a great depression. He is not a socialist, he is a realist, and Republicans love to victimize him for it, and convince people like you he is 'Socialist' 'Muslim'. It's silly and I feel bad for Obama he probably thought our country was better than that.

Forget for a moment that Obama grew up around and among angry leftist radicals and his past is well-hidden by compliant MSM.

Why would anyone think nationalization is going to save anything? The soviet union--with natural resources far greater than the US--was 100% nationalized and failed. Yes we were told that only by thugverment spending money would we all be saved from another Great Depression (which was actually prolonged by thugverment spending).

"Franklin Delano Roosevelt. FDR's treasury secretary, Henry Morgenthau, wrote in his diary: 'We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. ... We have never made good on our promises. ... I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started ... and an enormous debt to boot!'"


Yes, Bush the half-servative was responsible for the first round of failouts. Obama just greatly expanded on his predecessors' failure.

Henry Morgenthau, Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Treasury Secretary:

"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong . . . somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. . . . I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. . . . And an enormous debt to boot."


Those who refuse to learn from history...

Also, I have something for Blacksphere's Uncle T. Junior here:
http://www.blackpast.org/files/blackpast_images/caliver_ambrose.jpg

Of course I could have pulled a picture of FDR in a crowd with some black people in it, but I thought something like this would be more interesting:

President Franklin D. Roosevelt appointed an unprecedented number of African Americans to high positions. By mid-1935, forty-five had positions in cabinet offices and New Deal agencies. In 1936, this group began calling itself the Federal Council on Negro Affairs. Although these leaders were not officially cabinet members, their role in advising the President on black employment, education, and civil rights issues led the press to refer to them as FDR's "Black Cabinet" or the "Black Brain Trust."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Cabinet

>> ^mongoosemonk:
I'll write the sequel - Lies Judge Napolitano Has Told You. Free speech was saved when the DC Circuit struck down net neutrality? Seriously? Does he think Roosevelt should have kept his no foreign wars promise after Pearl Harbor? What a moron.


Did we not put sanctions Japan before that attack? Not justifying the attack, just pointing out that blockades, sanctions, carpet bombings, etcetera are acts of war...

I'll write the sequel - Lies Judge Napolitano Has Told You. Free speech was saved when the DC Circuit struck down net neutrality? Seriously? Does he think Roosevelt should have kept his no foreign wars promise after Pearl Harbor? What a moron.

If you discount blaming Bush, liberals only have two solutions for everything: crying racism and raising taxes.

Neither works.

Henry Morgenthau was the Treasury Secretary under Franklin Delano Roosevelt. In 1939, Secretary Morgenthau was testifying before the House Ways and Means Committee and said the following:

''We have tried spending money. We have spent more money than we have ever spent before. Now, after 8 years of this (the Roosevelt administration) ''we have an unemployment rate that is just as high today as it was when we started, and we have an enormous debt to boot!''

But don't worry, Odumbo Hussein will do the exact same thing as tyrant FDR and everything will be all right!

Face the mirror, Obamafans. You were lied to by the media responsible for vetting this guy, then you elected a dud who has actually brought us closer to the brink of tyranny than any Bush fantasy. Greece is the logical outcome of rampant, unchecked liberalism.

If you're going to shit on the individual and take away his rights and property in the name of some mythical "common good" that rewards sloth, why would you even act surprised by the productive fighting back?

November 2010 we'll see if the people deserve to remain free.

The only fail here is a failure in BansheeX's sarcasm detector. It's really sad that you cannot tell I was being facetious. You're wasting your time.

Oh and even in jest I didn't say TPers and Libertarians were the same thing. Get your eyes checked (maybe your brain as well while you're at it).

>> ^BansheeX:

>> ^Drachen_Jager:
If they're going to deregulate then they should just scrub all the fraud laws. Hell why stop at economic relationships, why not de-regulate interpersonal relations too? Murder, rape, et al. Get big government out of my mass grave! Nosy bureaucrats, poking their noses into every little murder.
C'mon Libertarians, isn't that what you want? Don't Tea Partiers want the freedom to shoot illegal immigrants, suspected illegal immigrants (ie brown people) and (on a slow day) a few legal immigrants too?

There is so much fail in this post, I don't even know where to begin. First of all, the tea parties were started by libertarians but have since been hijacked by typical party-line neocons. Only a fraction of people there are libertarians.
Second, fraud is illegal and has been for a long time. Misrepresenting a product is fraud, which is exactly what Goldman did. You seem to think libertarians are anarchists who don't want contract laws to penalize fraud and other laws to penalize coercive behavior like murder. You are incorrect, sir.
Concerning regulations, the problem is quite simple:
If the government insures commercial bank deposits, the risk of losing one's deposit is offloaded onto holder's of dollars (mainly foreign central banks now) not involved in the transaction. With depositors having no skin in the game, banks wanting to make risky investments are more easily able to obtain deposits with which to speculate. To prevent that from happening, the banks have to be restricted on what they can do with deposits when they take FDIC.
Glass-Steagall was a 1933 Roosevelt bill that provided FDIC with restrictions. Clinton and most politicians from both parties were heavily lobbied by banks to keep the FDIC but remove the restrictions, and that's exactly what they did with the "Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999". No longer restricted from doing investment banking and unfearful of losing customers on deposit safety concerns, the inevitable happened.
Libertarians want FDIC eliminated because offloading risk onto other parties changes human behavior. Greed is normally offset by the fear of loss. When you eliminate the fear, all that's left is the greed and shit happens. We only support Glass-Steagall on the condition that we can't get rid of FDIC. Understanding now? Good, only 97% of the population left to go.

>> ^Drachen_Jager:

If they're going to deregulate then they should just scrub all the fraud laws. Hell why stop at economic relationships, why not de-regulate interpersonal relations too? Murder, rape, et al. Get big government out of my mass grave! Nosy bureaucrats, poking their noses into every little murder.
C'mon Libertarians, isn't that what you want? Don't Tea Partiers want the freedom to shoot illegal immigrants, suspected illegal immigrants (ie brown people) and (on a slow day) a few legal immigrants too?


There is so much fail in this post, I don't even know where to begin. First of all, the tea parties were started by libertarians but have since been hijacked by typical party-line neocons. Only a fraction of people there are libertarians.

Second, fraud is illegal and has been for a long time. Misrepresenting a product is fraud, which is exactly what Goldman did. You seem to think libertarians are anarchists who don't want contract laws to penalize fraud and other laws to penalize coercive behavior like murder. You are incorrect, sir.

Concerning regulations, the problem is quite simple:

If the government insures commercial bank deposits, the risk of losing one's deposit is offloaded onto holder's of dollars (mainly foreign central banks now) not involved in the transaction. With depositors having no skin in the game, banks wanting to make risky investments are more easily able to obtain deposits with which to speculate. To prevent that from happening, the banks have to be restricted on what they can do with deposits when they take FDIC.

Glass-Steagall was a 1933 Roosevelt bill that provided FDIC with restrictions. Clinton and most politicians from both parties were heavily lobbied by banks to keep the FDIC but remove the restrictions, and that's exactly what they did with the "Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999". No longer restricted from doing investment banking and unfearful of losing customers on deposit safety concerns, rampant speculation ensued.

Libertarians want FDIC eliminated because offloading risk onto other parties changes human behavior. Greed is normally offset by the fear of loss. When you eliminate the fear, all that's left is the greed and shit happens. We only support Glass-Steagall on the condition that we can't get rid of both FDIC and interest rate price fixing. Understanding now? Good, only 97% of the population left to go.

I'm guessing that after Bill Taft and Teddy Roosevelt that corporate Babylon made sure antics like theirs would never happen again. Apologies for not being able to send comments back private-one of the inane stipulations upon my reinstatement.

In reply to this comment by fissionchips:
http://videosift.com/video/Monsanto-s-On-going-Quest-For-Food-Domination

Thanks for posting, all these Monsanto docus show how shockingly absent anti-trust regulation is today.

@NetRunner :

I think there's a lot of potential to improve progressivism and its ability to influence history, and that it's in humankind's best interest to do so. I'd like to first say I can, myself, improve my application of the below 2 principles enormously.

1. I give the general advice that progressivism become highly interested in how it can improve, and thereby increase its influence on history. You can't change your opponent, but you can adapt your own strategies. If the only reason Justices Roberts and Alito will be on the supreme court for the remainder of the current era is because of the far-left's strategy in 2000, which was a historical repeat of Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose mistake and Perot's more recent undermining of Bush Sr., admit it openly so we can learn and improve.

2. I give the specific advice that progressivism be seen as being high-minded, principled, and honorable. If you call for party x to release its data, also call for party y to release its data. If you call for the end of the unmooring of politics from fact, apply that prominently to your own allies, like Ms. Huffington, and above all, avoid political hypocrisy while criticizing others for political hypocrisy.

This will be one of my final debates on this site, as I think I've learned most of my lessons, so you'll no longer have to tire, Netrunner. Best of luck on your path, everyone

No in the dark ages I think they just went straight to killing people. And Liberal meant something other than what Liberal means today.

But then again, arguing with both sides on this is ridiculous. The criminals will out, and I hope they are caught before they make stupid mistakes.

Education would go a long way with these types, they fall right into the rabid fox news watching stereotypes that are created for them.

Here's the roll call.
http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/111/house/2/165

Here is how Wikipedia describes Classical Liberalism, and Modern Liberalism.

Classical Liberalism:

Classical liberalism is a political ideology that developed in the 19th century in England, Western Europe, and the Americas. It is committed to the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.[1] Notable individuals who have contributed to classical liberalism include Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo. There was a revival of interest in classical liberalism in the 20th century led by Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman and other economists.[2] [3][4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

Modern Liberalism:

Modern American liberalism is a form of social liberalism developed from progressive ideals such as Thomas Paine's asset-based egalitarianism, Theodore Roosevelt's New Nationalism, Woodrow Wilson's New Freedom, and Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal.[1] It combines social liberalism and social progressivism with support for a welfare state and a mixed economy. American liberal causes include voting rights for Black Southerners, freedom of choice for women, and government entitlements such as education and health care. Keynesian economic theory plays an influential role in the economic philosophy of American liberals.[2] These policy stances adhere to the central premise that individual freedom can only exist when it is protected by a strong, democratically elected government that has an active role in society and the economy.[3][4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States