Krugman rips von Mises up one side & down the other

[dblack]

Honestly, I see today's conservatives being no different from communists in Russia.

actually they are exact opposites. Conservatives are for limited govt while lib commies are for huge govt.

Right. That's why conservatives are leading the charge to end the drug war and repeal the Patriot Act.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Page 2: More ad hominems and still no rational response to the OP.

Page 10 Wrycumcatcher making ignorant blanket statements unsupported by facts.

No one must wonder why I consider you, Rabbi, as one of the most vulgar, dumb and partisan hacks on this forum. The statements are not ignorant and are supported by facts. All one needs to do is read the first two pages of comments by members of the New Right.

dear, if you feel conservatism is mistaken please present you most substantive example or simply admit you lack the IQ for it as a typical liberal. Thanks.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Honestly, I see today's conservatives being no different from communists in Russia.

actually they are exact opposites. Conservatives are for limited govt while lib commies are for huge govt.

Right. That's why conservatives are leading the charge to end the drug war and repeal the Patriot Act.

conservatives are not anarchists so have some use for govt. Make sense?

 

[Listening]

Honestly, I see today's conservatives being no different from communists in Russia.

actually they are exact opposites. Conservatives are for limited govt while lib commies are for huge govt.

Right. That's why conservatives are leading the charge to end the drug war and repeal the Patriot Act.

What is the basis for this statement ?

War and protection are a few of the things that DO fall within the purview of the U.S. Government.

Now, have we actually declared war on drugs ? Don't know. Just sayin'.

I would like to see the Patriot Act go away. However, I don't know if that is true of many on the right.

Now, I would have identified with statements as they related to the GOP's support of things like:

Illegal Immigration

Ethanol Subsidies.

GWB's Medicare Prescription Sillyness

GWB's/Ted Kennedy's No Child Left Behind garbage.

The first should be attacked and the next should all be shut down. I think you'll find most conservatives are for that. No ?

 

[dblack]

actually they are exact opposites. Conservatives are for limited govt while lib commies are for huge govt.

Right. That's why conservatives are leading the charge to end the drug war and repeal the Patriot Act.

What is the basis for this statement ?

A weary disgust for the left/right fraud that dominates US politics.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Right. That's why conservatives are leading the charge to end the drug war and repeal the Patriot Act.

What is the basis for this statement ?

A weary disgust for the left/right fraud that dominates US politics.

why is it fraud. If you knew you would not be so afraid to say.

 

[Bfgrn]

Honestly, I see today's conservatives being no different from communists in Russia.

actually they are exact opposites. Conservatives are for limited govt while lib commies are for huge govt. Did you even know that our lib commies spied for Stalin and gave him the bomb because he was a Russian llib commie? see why we have to be positive liberalism is based in pure ignorance? Is any other conclusion possible?

Herein lies your problem...conservatives have NEVER given us less government. They have given us MORE government like Fatherland security and the patriot act.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

..conservatives have NEVER given us less government.

only becuase they have never completely controlled the 3 branches of govt, the press, and the electorate. See how easy that was?

 

[The Rabbi]

..conservatives have NEVER given us less government.

only becuase they have never completely controlled the 3 branches of govt, the press, and the electorate. See how easy that was?

Conservatives have never controlled any branch of government.

 

[Bfgrn]

..conservatives have NEVER given us less government.

only becuase they have never completely controlled the 3 branches of govt, the press, and the electorate. See how easy that was?

You are lying. They controlled all 3 branches of government for almost a decade. They gave us MORE government, MORE debt and MORE pollution.

Conservatives would LOVE to control everything. America would be a fascist state.

 

[The Rabbi]

..conservatives have NEVER given us less government.

only becuase they have never completely controlled the 3 branches of govt, the press, and the electorate. See how easy that was?

You are lying. They controlled all 3 branches of government for almost a decade. They gave us MORE government, MORE debt and MORE pollution.

Conservatives would LOVE to control everything. America would be a fascist state.

What decade was that?

 

[Bfgrn]

only becuase they have never completely controlled the 3 branches of govt, the press, and the electorate. See how easy that was?

You are lying. They controlled all 3 branches of government for almost a decade. They gave us MORE government, MORE debt and MORE pollution.

Conservatives would LOVE to control everything. America would be a fascist state.

What decade was that?

The 2000's

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

..conservatives have NEVER given us less government.

only becuase they have never completely controlled the 3 branches of govt, the press, and the electorate. See how easy that was?

You are lying. They controlled all 3 branches of government for almost a decade. They gave us MORE government, MORE debt and MORE pollution.

Conservatives would LOVE to control everything. America would be a fascist state.

lying? I'll bet you $10,000 there was no lie. Bet or runaway with your liberal tail between your legs once again.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

.

Conservatives would LOVE to control everything. America would be a fascist state.

dear, fascism is when govt and business are combined as in Obamacare. Conservatives want capitalism where they are separate. See why we say slow?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You are lying. They controlled all 3 branches of government for almost a decade. They gave us MORE government, MORE debt and MORE pollution.

Conservatives would LOVE to control everything. America would be a fascist state.

What decade was that?

The 2000's

dear, a slight advantage in seats in Congress does not give you control of the Congress let alone the court, press, and electorate. See why we say slow?

 

[The Rabbi]

You are lying. They controlled all 3 branches of government for almost a decade. They gave us MORE government, MORE debt and MORE pollution.

Conservatives would LOVE to control everything. America would be a fascist state.

What decade was that?

The 2000's

Hmm. Let's see. Obama was elected in 2008 ans sworn in 2009. SO that's one year off.
Bush was not a conservative. He didnt run as a conservative. He didnt govern as a conservatve.
Congress was controlled by the GOP until 2006 but for some time had a 50-50 Senate. Many of the Republicans, like Lincoln Chafee or Olympia Snowe were not conservatives.
So I guess that was just a big old ignorant fail.
But even so, would you like to trade the higher growth, low unemployment low inflation low debt environment of that time for the crap we have now? Recall that income inequality was much less then.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

What decade was that?

The 2000's

Hmm. Let's see. Obama was elected in 2008 ans sworn in 2009. SO that's one year off.
Bush was not a conservative. He didnt run as a conservative. He didnt govern as a conservatve.
Congress was controlled by the GOP until 2006 but for some time had a 50-50 Senate. Many of the Republicans, like Lincoln Chafee or Olympia Snowe were not conservatives.
So I guess that was just a big old ignorant fail.
But even so, would you like to trade the higher growth, low unemployment low inflation low debt environment of that time for the crap we have now? Recall that income inequality was much less then.

liberals are chopped liver around here it seems.

 

[Bfgrn]

What decade was that?

The 2000's

Hmm. Let's see. Obama was elected in 2008 ans sworn in 2009. SO that's one year off.
Bush was not a conservative. He didnt run as a conservative. He didnt govern as a conservatve.
Congress was controlled by the GOP until 2006 but for some time had a 50-50 Senate. Many of the Republicans, like Lincoln Chafee or Olympia Snowe were not conservatives.
So I guess that was just a big old ignorant fail.
But even so, would you like to trade the higher growth, low unemployment low inflation low debt environment of that time for the crap we have now? Recall that income inequality was much less then.

Pure unadulterated BULLSHIT...

Bush is the most conservative president we've had since probably Warren G. Harding—and perhaps ever. He has governed, wherever possible, fully in step with the basic conservative principles that defined Ronald Reagan's presidency and have shaped the political right for the last two generations: opposition to New Deal-style social programs; a view of civil liberties as obstacles to dispensing justice; the pursuit of low taxes, especially on businesses and the wealthy; a pro-business stance on regulation; a hawkish, militaristic, nationalistic foreign policy; and a commitment to bringing religion, and specifically Christianity, back into public policy. "Mr. Bush has a philosophy. It is conservative," wrote Peggy Noonan in 2002. Ah, but times change. Last June she complained, "What conservatives and Republicans must recognize is that the White House has broken with them."

It's certainly true that Bush hasn't delivered on every last item on the conservative wish list. But what president has—or ever could? What Bush's new critics on the right don't see, or won't see, is that to credibly accuse Bush of betraying "conservatism" requires constructing an ideal of conservatism that exists only in the world of theory, not the world of practical politics and democratic governance. It's an ideal that any president would fail to meet. In a democracy, governing means taking into account public opinion and making compromises. That means deviating at times from doctrinal purity.

Indeed, Bush's presidency, far from being a subversion of modern American conservatism, represents its fulfillment. For most of the president's tenure, many of the same folks who now brand him as an incompetent or an impostor happily backed his agenda. Republicans controlled the Senate and the House with iron discipline. They populated the federal court system, built a powerful media apparatus, and, for years after 9/11, benefited from a public climate of reflexive deference to the powers that be. From 2001 to 2007, the conservative movement had as free a hand as it could have hoped for in setting the agenda. The fruits of its efforts are Bush's policies.

So while conservatives may be disillusioned with Bush, they can't seriously claim it's over his policies. Another explanation seems more likely: When the Iraq War really turned sour in 2005 and the domestic catastrophes piled up, the appeal of being linked with Bush's legacy dimmed. Like mobsters turning state's evidence before they're sent up the river, former Bushies began to testify, throwing themselves on the mercy of the court of public opinion. The reason isn't that Bush is an imperfect conservative. It's that he's an unsuccessful one.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Bush is the most conservative president we've had since probably Warren G. Harding.

dear, few would claim he was a conservative and none would claim he controlled the 3 branches of govt the press and electorate. If you're not intelligent enough to be here why are you here?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Indeed, Bush's presidency, far from being a subversion of modern American conservatism, represents its fulfillment.

OMG!! Dear, conservatives are for very very limited govt. Under Bush govt grew! Thats fulfillment?? If you're not intelligent enough to be here why are you here?