Contribution Corsair: Wait, isn't this what every Republican wants?

That was exactly the first thought that came to my mind

/well, duh

Paul Krugman believes only John Maynard Keynes was right about anything and all of his views should be accepted as gospel.

That's basically the way it is in most third world countries. Why shouldn't we fit in?

Well, that's what Republicans *say* they want. When they get into power they usually stick with corporate statism and try to nibble around the edges of "entitlement" benefits and distract voters with some social issues.

Snarfangel: Did America have feudalism to return to?

We had our share of robber barons. Some seem to want to return to those days.

clancifer: Snarfangel: Did America have feudalism to return to?

We had our share of robber barons. Some seem to want to return to those days.

To be fair, that is sort of what the stripping of regulations is going to get us: a return to the Boom-Bust cycle that periodically wrecked the American economy.

Romney is not a Libertarian--and THOSE mofos want to see a return to Neofeudalism--he is a kleptocrat. He doesn't steal for himself, as allow himself to be rewarded for making conditions ripe for handing over other people's money...

GAT_00: He says that like it's some kind of revelation. That's exactly what the GOP's been doing for years.

Actually, if you read the article, what he says is that anyone who would make that assertion should be "universally condemned, by liberals as well as conservatives." But hey, don't let the reading the article stop you from making an ass out of yourself.

mikemoto: Paul Krugman believes only John Maynard Keynes was right about anything and all of his views should be accepted as gospel.

This is true. It is so true. I think this should be Gospel. In fact, I think we should amend the 10 commandments to reflect the truth of this statement. Then we should call them the 11 commandments and retroactively edit the bible so nobody born after 2006 will ever know the difference.

Talondel: GAT_00: He says that like it's some kind of revelation. That's exactly what the GOP's been doing for years.

Actually, if you read the article, what he says is that anyone who would make that assertion should be "universally condemned, by liberals as well as conservatives." But hey, don't let the reading the article stop you from making an ass out of yourself.

The Republican party is no longer "conservative". The Republican party is now "batshiat insane"

DammitIForgotMyLogin: The Republican party is no longer "conservative". The Republican party is now "batshiat insane"

No, "conservative" by definition is wanting to keep the status quo. The candidates who want to repeal DADT, Roe v Wade, gay marriage rights for those states that have them and make America an officially Christian nation would be filed under "reactionary" and they wouldn't take that as an insult.

...but yes, "batshiat insane" is valid as well.

DammitIForgotMyLogin: Talondel: GAT_00: He says that like it's some kind of revelation. That's exactly what the GOP's been doing for years.

Actually, if you read the article, what he says is that anyone who would make that assertion should be "universally condemned, by liberals as well as conservatives." But hey, don't let the reading the article stop you from making an ass out of yourself.

The Republican party is no longer "conservative". The Republican party is now "batshiat insane"

What does that have to do with anything? The whole point of the linked article, which everyone who has posted so far has either failed to read or comprehend, is that the statement in the headline is NOT TRUE. It's roughly as true as as saying "Obama wants to redistribute wealth from those who earned it to those who didn't" or "Obama wants to put the free enterprise system on trial." Anyone who asserts that the headline (or my examples of similar thoughts from Republicans) is true should be publicly condemned. So naturally Fark's 'moderate' wing immediately embraces it as being a completely true characterization of both Romney and the Republican party generally. I've no idea who subby is, but he or she played this one beautifully.

/I really wish I hadn't posted the truth of the article in the thread before it went green.
//I'm sure it will still catch plenty of people who don't bother to read the article *or* the comments before spouting off

GAT_00: Talondel: GAT_00: He says that like it's some kind of revelation. That's exactly what the GOP's been doing for years.

Actually, if you read the article, what he says is that anyone who would make that assertion should be "universally condemned, by liberals as well as conservatives." But hey, don't let the reading the article stop you from making an ass out of yourself.

There is no logical conclusion to the GOP's goals for America except some kind of modern feudalism. If we do what they want, we will take away any kind of worker's rights, we will take away any rules on corporations, and we will let the rich dominate. That is corporate feudalism.

I like that. Instead of admitting that you didn't read the article, and the your making exactly the kind of sweeping over generalization that the article condemns, you double down. If you're going to be wrong, be boldly wrong! Although I will say, there's nothing wrong with occasionally admitting that you messed up. It makes people who engage you in these discussions think you might actually be a reasonable person instead of a rabid partisan.

Back to the substance of your post. What you're saying is every bit as accurate as Republicans who claim that Democrats want to turn the US into a European style socialist state. They're exaggerations of the truth that are so bold that they deserve to be condemned.

And for once Paul Krugman and I agree on something.

WhyteRaven74: mikemoto: Paul Krugman believes only John Maynard Keynes was right about anything

Well given all economists these days are Keynsians to at least some degree...

You've never met Walter Block. Perhaps you meant to say all *sane* economists are Keynsians to at least some degree?

This is somehow surprising? The guy was a venture capitalist.

But now consider what Mr. Romney actually said on Tuesday: "President Obama believes that government should create equal outcomes. In an entitlement society, everyone receives the same or similar rewards, regardless of education, effort, and willingness to take risk. That which is earned by some is redistributed to the others."

And in an interview the same day, Mr. Romney declared that the president "is going to put free enterprise on trial."

This is every bit as bad as my imaginary Obama statement. Mr. Obama has never said anything suggesting that he holds such views, and, in fact, he goes out of his way to praise free enterprise and say that there's nothing wrong with getting rich. His actual policy proposals do involve a rise in taxes on high-income Americans, but only back to their levels of the 1990s. And no matter how much the former Massachusetts governor may deny it, the Affordable Care Act established a national health system essentially identical to the one he himself established at a state level in 2006.

Romney Romney Romney. How did you ever get your temple recommend? You keep breaking commandments.

Snarfangel: Did America have feudalism to return to?

They're Loyalists at heart, too.

Snarfangel: Romney's stance is feudal.

[www.startrek.com image 320x240]

Oooooof.

mikemoto: Paul Krugman believes only John Maynard Keynes was right about anything and all of his views should be accepted as gospel.

I don't know about that. Keyes had some great ideas-ideas that had worked, but I don't know if it is the end all be all thing. Just Like Smith, Marx or any other economic model.

Wish I could go back and re-read the article. NYT want me to log in...

But I think, in essence, the author had said "Obama is the using the policies moderate republicans have long since abandoned." That the key.

The Democratic party has gotten more conservative itself-leaving a true left without any voice.

GAT_00: Talondel: Although I will say, there's nothing wrong with occasionally admitting that you messed up.

I will freely back down when I am proved wrong. If we do what the GOP wants, the end result will be a removal of rights from the people and given only to corporations and the rich.

Let's look at this logically. In order to prove an "if then" statement like the one you made false, it must be shown that the "if" premise is true and that the "then" conclusion is false. Unfortunately, you're "if" statement cannot be proven either true or false at this time for two reasons. First, I have no way of knowing what you think "what the GOP wants" means. Second, it's a statement that is based on a future condition that cannot be shown to be either true or false in the present. So you are literally asking me to disprove a statement that cannot logically be proved or disproved as you have stated it.

Regarding your conclusion, again you haven't made an assertion that is specific enough to be proven either true or false. Most people would probably agree that at least some rights are likely to get more protection under a Republican regime (e.g. liberty of contract). I suppose it's possible that you believe that *all* possible rights will actually be given to the rich and corporations, but that seems unlikely. Plus that would be easy to prove false. Rather I suspect that what you really mean is that you think the rights you think you are important will diminish under a Republican regime. This is almost certainly true, since (from what I can tell) there intersection of rights Republicans think are important and rights you think are important is a null set. But again, you'd need to give me a more precise statement before I could prove it right or wrong.

On top of that. It's Krugman who is saying your statements about Republicans are wrong. I'm simply agreeing with him and pointing out your apparent failure to read or understand the linked article at the time of your initial post. Or perhaps you're initial post was just an attempt at irony or schadenfreude.

Finally, if Paul Krugman is calling out your particular brand of rhetoric as unnecessarily divisive and worthy of condemnation, you might want to at least reconsider your position.

Not that you will. :) Like I said, I like that about you. You're consistent.

Darth_Lukecash: Wish I could go back and re-read the article. NYT want me to log in...

But I think, in essence, the author had said "Obama is the using the policies moderate republicans have long since abandoned." That the key.

The Democratic party has gotten more conservative itself-leaving a true left without any voice.

Yes, the republicans have been using the "big lie" so long (since Reagan) that it has warped our perception of reality to the point where we are now.

Republican candidates make stuff up and have absolutely no regard for facts? Color me shocked.

That's ALL they have these days. I can't even watch their debates as all I want someone to do the entire time is scream "that's just not true!". Why the hell does the media let them get away with this shiat? Just ask them real freaking questions, and when they give a bullshiat answer call them out on it. You know exactly what their talking points are. How lazy of a journalist do you have to be not to research how factual they are and have the actual facts ready for your interview?

oldebayer: This is a bad thing? What was so awful about feudalism? Um, as long as you weren't a serf.

or a woman.

WorldCitizen: Why the hell does the media let them get away with this shiat?

Because the media want's these people to appear smart to dumb people.

quickdraw: Because the media want's these people to appear smart to dumb people.

Cletus C.: Why should we give the poor rights when all they'll do is blow them on smokes and lottery tickets?

Only landowners should be allowed to vote.

Contribution Corsair: Wait, isn't this what every Republican wants?

/lets out plenty of line with this hook

Why? That's not even bait.