QM: Does not agree with me? Marxist.

>> ^quantumushroom:

taxocrats are hoping Paul will get the nomination (he won't) so the marxist could run easy, deceptive ads about what a kook Paul is.
I'd vote for Kook Paul over the marxist.


Have your read Marx? I just want to know if you understand what that means, or if you're just talking out of your ass.

I hope you choke on a chicken bone or something this christmas..

But refuse the help of the marxist EMTs who were spent by NObama the socialist kenyan and the rest of the taxocrats in order to increase spending on hard working Corporate Persons like Goldman Sachs.

>> ^quantumushroom:

taxocrats are hoping Paul will get the nomination (he won't) so the marxist could run easy, deceptive ads about what a kook Paul is.
I'd vote for Kook Paul over the marxist.

taxocrats are hoping Paul will get the nomination (he won't) so the marxist could run easy, deceptive ads about what a kook Paul is.

I'd vote for Kook Paul over the marxist.

Who is the "Kenyawaiian" you mentioned? I'm not sure I follow you.

OH did you mean Obama?? Haha. Hm.. I'm not sure his pro-wall street actions can really qualify him to be a marxists--unless you mean the socialization of private debt...

Then again, I'm not sure that Wall Street really represents a market that is "free and open" to me anymore. It seems like a casino that is controlled or manipulate by a handful of uber-wealthy..

Anyway..

Do you think that the capitalism that is practised now is true capitalism?

I don't think either of us would be happy with pure socialism, but do you think that there are any services should be socialized or government run?

>> ^quantumushroom:

Like most kollijes, princeton has been occupied for decades by lefty goons.
It never gets through to these clowns that risky lending practices were encouraged and then "guaranteed" by the socialists in government (most peeps won't take nearly as many stupid risks when their own money is at stake).
The occupoopers should be protesting in front of the marxist Kenyawaiian's VERY temporary home. He not only siphons enormous amounts of money from Wall Street but then supports these mobs, or claims to. As Trinity said, "That's a nice trick."

Like most kollijes, princeton has been occupied for decades by lefty goons.

It never gets through to these clowns that risky lending practices were encouraged and then "guaranteed" by the socialists in government (most peeps won't take nearly as many stupid risks when their own money is at stake).

The occupoopers should be protesting in front of the marxist Kenyawaiian's VERY temporary home. He not only siphons enormous amounts of money from Wall Street but then supports these mobs, or claims to. As Trinity said, "That's a nice trick."

Remember when George W. Bush used to say the names "Osama bin Laden" and "Saddam Hussein" in close proximity to one another in order to transfer the fear many had of Osama to Saddam? That's a type of psychological manipulation called 'fear conditioning'. The point is to teach you to be afraid of something by associating it with something else that you are already afraid of. I sense the cold war has shaped your politics to a large degree - which is common among conservatives and conservative libertarians - so the word Marxism is likely something that causes you great fear. Through conditioning, your fear of Marxism has been projected onto the Democratic party by FOX news, Glenn Beck and the entire corporate media echo chamber. In reality, the Democratic party is in no way Marxist. It's actually quite conservative, economically speaking.

In order to illustrate my point, I'd like you to explain to me what you believe Marxism to be, and then to detail how, in your own words, you see the Democratic party as Marxist. If indeed this is a case of fear conditioning, you won't be able to do it.

Good luck.

Please do not confuse classical liberalism (now known as libertarianism) with the marxist and communist twaddle known as "modern liberalism", a preventable mental disorder that will be the ruin of Western Civ.

Political correctness is your training program to be a good slave.

YOUR training, not mine, Numbnuts.




>> ^Fade:

Liberalism is western democracy/civilization moron.
Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis)[1] is the belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights.[2] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally, liberals support ideas such as constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, and freedom of religion.[3][4][5][6][7] These ideas are widely accepted, even by political groups that do not openly profess a liberal ideological orientation. Liberalism encompasses several intellectual trends and traditions, but the dominant variants are classical liberalism, which became popular in the eighteenth century, and social liberalism, which became popular in the twentieth century.
Liberalism first became a powerful force in the Age of Enlightenment, rejecting several foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as nobility, established religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. The early liberal thinker John Locke, who is often credited for the creation of liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition, employed the concept of natural rights and the social contract to argue that the rule of law should replace absolutism in government, that rulers were subject to the consent of the governed, and that private individuals had a fundamental right to life, liberty, and property.
The revolutionaries in the American Revolution and the French Revolution used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of tyrannical rule. The nineteenth century saw liberal governments established in nations across Europe, Latin America, and North America. Liberal ideas spread even further in the twentieth century, when liberal democracies triumphed in two world wars and survived major ideological challenges from fascism and communism.
Today, liberalism in its many forms remains as a political force to varying degrees of power and influence on all major continents.>> ^quantumushroom:
The real illness in that Orwellian police state is found in the mental weaklings (proles) who called the cops over hateful, offensive speech. If the roles had been reversed and it was a Black person spouting racist rubbish, there would be no arrest or "bobbies" looking for her. It won't be much longer.

>> ^Skeeve:
While her tirade makes me sick, the fact that she was arrested for this makes me even more sick.
Freedom of speech means nothing if you don't have the freedom to offend people. The aim should be to draw the line where it causes harm - whether by inciting violence or by denying someone a job, etc.

>> ^quantumushroom:

There's one form of capitalism, where everybody becomes wealthier (the rising water lifting all boats, etc.), and then there's the other kind of capitalism where any increased profit rewards only the owners, not the workers, so workers don't benefit from the increased wealth.
That's why smarter workers say, "Screw this, there's a better way" and start their own businesses. What do the Occupoopers want? To make government point a bigger gun at the owners, take more of their wealth and redistribute it, with the heaviest showers going to do-nothings and professional gamers of the system. And no liberal has ever believed in the "rising tide", that would imply forces other than government are creating wealth.
Some people will always make more money than others, in large part because they have more vision, drive and ambition, are willing to work harder and longer, are more intelligent and talented, and for many other reasons that just about everyone would agree deserve reward. That's normal and right: a meritocracy. That's completely different from a system where the ueber-rich game the system and block the chances of anyone else becoming rich, and ensuring they themselves become even wealthier in the process. This wealth is made off the backs of people we agree have the qualities we would like to reward and do all the right things, but can't get a leg up without dumb luck.
But what enables the fraudsters to practice this crony capitalism? Government. And what do the Occupoopers want? MOAR government! They wrongly believe that government, if only big enough, can regulate corruption out of human nature.
Creating wealth, overall, is a good thing, but when the system that creates it doesn't benefit society as a whole, but actually begins to make the middle class poor, the system has got to change. If that system's main problem is that the rich are controlling the lawmakers, then that has got to be stopped so that everyone who participates in the system benefits according to their contribution. Merely being wealthy is not a contribution.
If you removed Jugears from the White House tomorrow and replaced him with a mannequin, indicating government would do nothing the next 2 years, the economy would bounce back literally overnight. The rabble may like this welfare pimp daddy, but the American people have had it with this marxist knucklehead. They admit they were fooled and are patiently waiting for him to leave before getting back to business.

any system, no matter what its founding principles, must be to the benefit of as many people as possible. American corporatocracy is not doing that.
The Occupoopers have been a drain on the middle class. Their stupid, ineffectual protests have costs cities millions in cleanup and police overtime. Who pays for that?
Socialists think THEIR way benefits as many people as possible. It doesn't, and it's unsustainable (e.g. Europe).
Yes, things need to change, but these dummies are not the change we've been waiting for.





>> ^messenger:
There's one form of capitalism, where everybody becomes wealthier (the rising water lifting all boats, etc.), and then there's the other kind of capitalism where any increased profit rewards only the owners, not the workers, so workers don't benefit from the increased wealth.
Some people will always make more money than others, in large part because they have more vision, drive and ambition, are willing to work harder and longer, are more intelligent and talented, and for many other reasons that just about everyone would agree deserve reward. That's normal and right: a meritocracy. That's completely different from a system where the ueber-rich game the system and block the chances of anyone else becoming rich, and ensuring they themselves become even wealthier in the process. This wealth is made off the backs of people we agree have the qualities we would like to reward and do all the right things, but can't get a leg up without dumb luck.
Creating wealth, overall, is a good thing, but when the system that creates it doesn't benefit society as a whole, but actually begins to make the middle class poor, the system has got to change. If that system's main problem is that the rich are controlling the lawmakers, then that has got to be stopped so that everyone who participates in the system benefits according to their contribution. Merely being wealthy is not a contribution.>> ^quantumushroom:
These occupoopers have no idea how wealth is created or basic economics, but that's the genius of Progressivism, creating ignorant, reactionary sheep.
BTW, how is 4 more years of the kenyawaiian a "win"? Hurry up and ask him before he goes on vacation again.





You are aware that deregulation of the market is what cussed the current economic climet ?

There's one form of capitalism, where everybody becomes wealthier (the rising water lifting all boats, etc.), and then there's the other kind of capitalism where any increased profit rewards only the owners, not the workers, so workers don't benefit from the increased wealth.

That's why smarter workers say, "Screw this, there's a better way" and start their own businesses. What do the Occupoopers want? To make government point a bigger gun at the owners, take more of their wealth and redistribute it, with the heaviest showers going to do-nothings and professional gamers of the system. And no liberal has ever believed in the "rising tide", that would imply forces other than government are creating wealth.

Some people will always make more money than others, in large part because they have more vision, drive and ambition, are willing to work harder and longer, are more intelligent and talented, and for many other reasons that just about everyone would agree deserve reward. That's normal and right: a meritocracy. That's completely different from a system where the ueber-rich game the system and block the chances of anyone else becoming rich, and ensuring they themselves become even wealthier in the process. This wealth is made off the backs of people we agree have the qualities we would like to reward and do all the right things, but can't get a leg up without dumb luck.

But what enables the fraudsters to practice this crony capitalism? Government. And what do the Occupoopers want? MOAR government! They wrongly believe that government, if only big enough, can regulate corruption out of human nature.

Creating wealth, overall, is a good thing, but when the system that creates it doesn't benefit society as a whole, but actually begins to make the middle class poor, the system has got to change. If that system's main problem is that the rich are controlling the lawmakers, then that has got to be stopped so that everyone who participates in the system benefits according to their contribution. Merely being wealthy is not a contribution.

If you removed Jugears from the White House tomorrow and replaced him with a mannequin, indicating government would do nothing the next 2 years, the economy would bounce back literally overnight. The rabble may like this welfare pimp daddy, but the American people have had it with this marxist knucklehead. They admit they were fooled and are patiently waiting for him to leave before getting back to business.

any system, no matter what its founding principles, must be to the benefit of as many people as possible. American corporatocracy is not doing that.

The Occupoopers have been a drain on the middle class. Their stupid, ineffectual protests have cost cities millions in cleanup and police overtime. Who pays for that?

Socialists think THEIR way benefits as many people as possible. It doesn't, and it's unsustainable (e.g. Europe).

Yes, things need to change, but these dummies are not the change we've been waiting for.











>> ^messenger:

There's one form of capitalism, where everybody becomes wealthier (the rising water lifting all boats, etc.), and then there's the other kind of capitalism where any increased profit rewards only the owners, not the workers, so workers don't benefit from the increased wealth.
Some people will always make more money than others, in large part because they have more vision, drive and ambition, are willing to work harder and longer, are more intelligent and talented, and for many other reasons that just about everyone would agree deserve reward. That's normal and right: a meritocracy. That's completely different from a system where the ueber-rich game the system and block the chances of anyone else becoming rich, and ensuring they themselves become even wealthier in the process. This wealth is made off the backs of people we agree have the qualities we would like to reward and do all the right things, but can't get a leg up without dumb luck.
Creating wealth, overall, is a good thing, but when the system that creates it doesn't benefit society as a whole, but actually begins to make the middle class poor, the system has got to change. If that system's main problem is that the rich are controlling the lawmakers, then that has got to be stopped so that everyone who participates in the system benefits according to their contribution. Merely being wealthy is not a contribution.>> ^quantumushroom:
These occupoopers have no idea how wealth is created or basic economics, but that's the genius of Progressivism, creating ignorant, reactionary sheep.
BTW, how is 4 more years of the kenyawaiian a "win"? Hurry up and ask him before he goes on vacation again.

i am loathe to respond in bullet form,maybe because i find it the weakest and laziest form of debate in a text format,but let me address a glaring misconception you seem to have concerning the occupy movement.you seem to be under the impression that its driving force is against rich folk.

now lets put that aside for a second and i shall not deal with just how utterly inaccurate that statement is because what REALLY intrigues me is this: how did you formulate that opinion when so much information is already out there revealing a totally different animal?how did you derive this conclusion and by what information did you base it on?
now THAT is a far more interesting conversation.

Its driving force is against the powers that be. "They". They say money runs the government, and they are right. Money is at the root of all evil. Who controls all the money? The "1 percent", although it's really more the ".001" percent. So it is essentially against the rich and powerful, the income divide they have engineered, and the entrenched power structure they orchaestrate.

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

Occupy Wall Street (OWS) is an ongoing series of demonstrations initiated by the Canadian activist group Adbusters which began September 17, 2011 in Zuccotti Park, located in New York City's Wall Street financial district. The protests are against social and economic inequality, high unemployment, greed, as well as corruption, and the undue influence of corporations—particularly that of the financial services sector—on government. The protesters' slogan We are the 99% refers to the growing difference in wealth in the U.S. between the wealthiest 1% and the rest of the population.

you also put forth that your main premise was that the students were warned that they would be removed,by force if need be.
maybe i am misunderstanding your thinking but it appears that if there is an announcement then any use of force is justified.
yet in your previous paragraph you stated you understood the necessity to disobey then turn around and become an apologetic for police force.
these two premises are in conflict.

I was merely countering the assertion that they were sprayed without warning, which was a lie. I do believe police have the right to use force, however, I think they could have handled that situation a little better. I do believe we should disobey authority when it runs contrary to what God has commanded, but then and only then.

then in the next paragraph you continue with a verbal denigration of the people of occupy using tried and true tactics of any powerful institution.you literally have just regurgitated state propaganda and i dont think for a second you even realized that fact.do you even know what a marxist,anarchist or socialist actually is? i ask that sincerely not as a slight towards you,because it doesnt appear that you do.

I am not on the side of the state, I am on the side of God. Governments tend towards corruption and unless they adhere to biblical principles they will fall into decay and injustice will be the normative state of the land. So I do not prefer the state at all, but neither do I favor removing it, at least until Jesus returns. It is, as the founders believed, a necessary evil.

Yes, I know what they represent, and their positions are often interchangable. They were out in force waving their communist flags, talking about income redistribution and private property rights, distributing their anti-capitalist propaganda. Here is a quick portrait:

http://www.lookingattheleft.com/2011/11/zuccotti-utopia-portraits-of-revolutionaries/comment-page-1/#comment-22376

They even had maoists:



again i find your premise in conflict.
on the one hand you agree and are aware of the corruption gnawing at our democracy and then turn around and dismiss those who are protesting that VERY corruption you just acknowledged as somehow being unworthy.
i even posted the playbook that powerful institutions use and you fell into lock step with that message.

then lastly you again use a perjorative to describe the occupy movement with obvious disdain and then chastise me for comparing occupy with the civil rights movement.
either you dont understand my point or didnt think it through.
i was not comparing them as being similar in intentions.i was comparing them to how the power of the people are the ONLY way to enact change.
and if you truly agree that this government is corrupt and has been purchased by corporations who use their immense wealth to further their own profit margin at the expense of the average american citizen then i do not understand why your premise is so diametrically opposed in thought and in reason.

your argument is a contradiction.

The fundemental disagreement is this. What I recognize is the corruption gnawing at all of mankind. Everyone is looking at this catastrophe called civilization and thinking "how can we rearrange this so a utopia emerges?" Some people think the inequitable distribution of resources is the source of eivl, and believe that if we just set up a system to share the resources equitably then all goodness will follow from that. Other people think that just having a system is the source of corruption and want to eliminate it altogether and live without any central authority. The issue is that these schemes are all predicated upon the assumption that human beings are generally good. The reality is, human beings are generally sinful and tend towards corruption and not goodness. It isn't the system, or lack thereof that is the problem, it is the human heart:

Jeremiah 17:9

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?

If you wiped out everything and started with a blank slate, putting the population of the world into an instant utopia, it would only be a matter of time before the whole thing was rotten to the core. The problem isn't the system, it is us. The only solution to this problem is Jesus Christ. Humans are incapable of governing themselves equitably. The founders recognized this, which is why they instituted checks and balances into the constitution, to try to offset mans sinful nature. They knew no man could be trusted with power. In the same way, to switch systems we would simply just be trading one polished turd for another. When Jesus returns and sets up His kingdom, only then will there be peace upon this Earth.

one last thing and while i hope you know .i shall state openly here.
what i am about to ask i ask in all sincerity and humility.
where do you think jesus would be sitting on this issue?
would he be on capitol hill with the plutocrats and corporate lobbyists?
think about it.

What Jesus is interested in is our salvation. Neither the plutocrats or the protesters are doing anything to reach or to further His Kingdom. They both outside of His will and are following man-centered doctrines and philosophies which glorify themselves and give God no acknowledgement what-so-ever. Jesus wouldn't be happy with any of them.

Luke 11:28

But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”

Luke 18:8

I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?

>> ^enoch:
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Making a foray into politics?

so it appears and not a very impressive one.
@shinyblurry
i.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Making a foray into politics?


so it appears and not a very impressive one.
@shinyblurry
i know many see you as a troll who only wished to instigate and provoke for the sake of provoking.
i do not hold that opinion and i may be totally off the mark but i tend to give people the benefit of the doubt.

but what i find in your response is an ignorance pertaining to politics and history.this not necessarily a bad thing,we are all ignorant to some degree or other on certain topics.ignorance is curable.

i am loathe to respond in bullet form,maybe because i find it the weakest and laziest form of debate in a text format,but let me address a glaring misconception you seem to have concerning the occupy movement.
you seem to be under the impression that its driving force is against rich folk.

now lets put that aside for a second and i shall not deal with just how utterly inaccurate that statement is because what REALLY intrigues me is this: how did you formulate that opinion when so much information is already out there revealing a totally different animal?how did you derive this conclusion and by what information did you base it on?
now THAT is a far more interesting conversation.

you also put forth that your main premise was that the students were warned that they would be removed,by force if need be.
maybe i am misunderstanding your thinking but it appears that if there is an announcement then any use of force is justified.
yet in your previous paragraph you stated you understood the necessity to disobey then turn around and become an apologetic for police force.
these two premises are in conflict.

then in the next paragraph you continue with a verbal denigration of the people of occupy using tried and true tactics of any powerful institution.you literally have just regurgitated state propaganda and i dont think for a second you even realized that fact.do you even know what a marxist,anarchist or socialist actually is? i ask that sincerely not as a slight towards you,because it doesnt appear that you do.
again i find your premise in conflict.
on the one hand you agree and are aware of the corruption gnawing at our democracy and then turn around and dismiss those who are protesting that VERY corruption you just acknowledged as somehow being unworthy.
i even posted the playbook that powerful institutions use and you fell into lock step with that message.

then lastly you again use a perjorative to describe the occupy movement with obvious disdain and then chastise me for comparing occupy with the civil rights movement.
either you dont understand my point or didnt think it through.
i was not comparing them as being similar in intentions.i was comparing them to how the power of the people are the ONLY way to enact change.
and if you truly agree that this government is corrupt and has been purchased by corporations who use their immense wealth to further their own profit margin at the expense of the average american citizen then i do not understand why your premise is so diametrically opposed in thought and in reason.

your argument is a contradiction.

one last thing and while i hope you know .i shall state openly here.
what i am about to ask i ask in all sincerity and humility.
where do you think jesus would be sitting on this issue?
would he be on capitol hill with the plutocrats and corporate lobbyists?
think about it.

the problems of understanding arise when people give their power over to the powerful.they acquiesce to the very powers seeking to disempower them.
so we get things like "free speech zones" which are far away from the very thing being protested and most certainly no where near any business or government functions.

This is a government of the people, by the people and for the people. Meaning, that government gets its power from the people. Further, this power comes down from the Most High God:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

Has the government strayed far from the intentions of the founders? The answer is a resounding yes. It is most certainly becoming a police state. This is the broader trend in the world, that will eventually coalesce into a totalitarian one world government.

this is not a lib/repub issue but an american issue.for decades the government has slowly chipped away at our civil liberties and given more power to itself.this is what governments do,this is what ANY powerful institution does=keep itself relevant and IN power and the ONLY thing power fears is?
the people.
again,not my opinion but historically accurate.

I agree that our government is corrupt and acts contrary to our interests. However, I am not an anarchist. If a government is infringing upon our inherent rights or direct commands given to us by God, then yes I think we have the right under God to disobey them. Protesting rich people doesn't appear to fall under that category.

this is about challenging authority.
you say that when a policemen gives a "lawful" order to disperse that should be the end of it.
i say:i question your "lawful order" as it hinders my right to assemble and give my government a redress of my grievances.

No, I say that if you receive an order from authority you can expect to be forced into compliance if you disobey that authority. My comment is about the way this incident was portrayed, as if the protesters were just arbitrarily sprayed without any warning.

As far as the occupy movement offering a redress of grievances, I hardly see how a bunch of marxists, and socialists waving communists flags, defecating in the streets, and shooting up in their tents addresses any relevant issue this country is facing. It started out with a point, and was quickly taken over by hippies, anarchists, and every other far left wingnut with a pet cause and a bucket for handouts.

Comparing this sad menagerie to the civil rights movement? Come on..

because "the people" are not multinational corporations with deep pockets who can influence legislators by way of lobbyists.we cant purchase the kind of time that a corporation can to make our case to a senator or congressmen.we cannot influence public opinion by way of tv commercials or entire networks.
but we CAN sit and stop traffic,or slow the flow of business and THAT is when they take notice.
and the response is always the same:
ignore.
and if that doesnt work?
ridicule.
if that fails?
co-opt in any way possible (see:tea party)
cant co-opt?
oppress,bully and intimidate by authoritarian means.
(guess which stage we are in now?)
and if that fails?
success.

This is just a shadow of what is to come. The future rule of the antichrist is going to make Nazi Germany look like candyland.



>> ^enoch:

the only way and i mean the ONLY way a peacef.
(guess which stage we are in now?)
and if that fails?
success.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sngWRpzhcVU

Running the gov't is NOT the same as running a business. Why do you think that being a successful CEO means jack crap? Businesses are for profit; gov't is not. George W. Bush ran the Houston Texans, but was he an effective president? HELL NO!

I don't give a crap about the sexual harassment stuff with Cain. I care about the video above. He clearly does not understand the issues. This has nothing to do with my disagreement with his ideas.

That's the difference between you and I. You define your opponents as teleprompt reading, constitution rewriting, deficit spending, fascist, communist, socialist, marxist scumbags because you disagree with their ideas. You of course conveniently forget about a lot of those tendencies when it's a Republican. Where's your name calling with Reagan running all those deficits under his watch? I disagree with Ron Paul vehemently, but I don't call him any names. I just say he's too rigid in his ideology in my opinion to be an effective President. Cain however would be a bad president, regardless of his ideology because he clearly doesn't understand the issues.

You can call every Democratic president ever elected all the names you want, but FDR was an effective president. Ditto Truman, JFK...


>> ^quantumushroom:

I agree Perry's done, for reasons other than this.
You say, I want to hear more ideas from people who have brains, and can actually solve real world problems.
Thanks for not mentioning the Telepromptesident. Since Cain's ideas are "no threat", how about letting him get a word in edgewise before the leftmedia trots out another lying asshole who's made a litigious career out of being "sexually-harassed"?

>> ^heropsycho:
Dude, seriously?! One guy got tripped up explaining his point. The other guy forgot a crucial key element of his entire policy. When you're talking about completely eliminating an entire federal agency, which is a big deal, you should at least know which one you're talking about. That's just ridiculous.
Perry's done. Let's end the idiot parade and hear from Republicans who can actually remember what their ideas are in more depth, or who aren't completely off their rockers. Perry, Bachmann, Santorum shouldn't even be invited to debates at this point if they're not gonna withdraw from the race. I want to hear more ideas from people who have brains, and can actually solve real world problems.

>> ^quantumushroom:
And this is the guy that got elected. Ah ha ha ha ha ha!
2012.

>> ^bookface:

>> ^Mikus_Aurelius:
Failed compared to what?
There are plenty of people who know enough about economics to intelligently dispute Krugman's (or Keynes') theories. Based on the comments above, I'd guess none of them are posting here.
To be fair, I doubt there are are many economists camping out and beating bongos either. Most of the economic theories held by individual protestors are as unsupported as the ones on the sift. That does not invalidate their general unhappiness with the political system or their desire to see certain measurable inequalities in our economy addressed.

A good question. People in the US need to remember one glaringly obvious fact: socialism, communism, and the like didn't bring the world economy to its knees. The corporatist and capitalist criminals on Wall St. and the beltway did that. I don't know that any one of these economic theories is the solution to our situation but let's be clear: criminals brought us where we are today and not marxists, keynesians, or any of the other usual suspects.


P.S. no one needs a degree in economics to know they're getting ripped off by the 1% and friends, but playing a bongo does take some practice. Have you ever successfully played a hand drum? It's tough. Wait until you try tabla, buddy :-)