If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Kos)   Bruce Bartlett, Reagan adviser and Bush I official recounts how he was excommunicated from the conservative movement for the unpardonable sin or acknowledging reality   (dailykos.com) divider line 176
    More: Obvious, Bruce Bartlett, Young Republicans, DailyKos, Jack Kemp, Gary Bauer, American conservatives, Roosevelt Institute, Health Care, International  
•       •       •

5740 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Nov 2012 at 2:16 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



176 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-28 10:50:05 AM
I see little change from the GOP elites in the wake of Romney's crushing defeat by Obama. they appear to be going right back to ignoring reality.
 
2012-11-28 10:50:44 AM
It's better to read the entire Barlett article instead of Kos' brief summary.
 
2012-11-28 11:01:53 AM

tnpir: It's better to read the entire Barlett article instead of Kos' brief summary.


Or read Andrew Sullivan's summary since he was in the trenches as well and he picked better quotes:

I had written an op-ed for the New York Times in 2007 suggesting that it was time to retire "supply-side economics" as a school of thought. Having been deeply involved in its development, I felt that everything important the supply-siders had to say had now been fully incorporated into mainstream economics. All that was left was nutty stuff like the Laffer Curve that alienated academic economists who were otherwise sympathetic to the supply-side view. I said the supply-siders should declare victory and go home.
...
Annoyingly, I found myself joined at the hip to Paul Krugman, whose analysis was identical to my own. I had previously viewed Krugman as an intellectual enemy and attacked him rather colorfully in an old column that he still remembers. For the record, no one has been more correct in his analysis and prescriptions for the economy's problems than Paul Krugman. The blind hatred for him on the right simply pushed me further away from my old allies and comrades... The economy continues to conform to textbook Keynesianism. We still need more aggregate demand, and the Republican idea that tax cuts for the rich will save us becomes more ridiculous by the day.


Whether you're facing supply-side economics or lowering taxes, the answer to Republicans is: Enough! You've had your say in government. Some of your plans worked in past decades but you need to either get some new ideas or move aside and let Democrats repair the government.
 
2012-11-28 11:06:29 AM

Lumpmoose: Whether you're facing supply-side economics or lowering taxes, the answer to Republicans is: Enough! You've had your say in government. Some of your plans worked in past decades but you need to either get some new ideas or move aside and let Democrats repair the government.


And I would urge caution in paying too much attention to these people. They're crusading against the current party, but I think their motivation has less to do with wanting real change than simply retaliation against the people who excommunicated them. To listen to any ex-Bush and ex-Reagan people is inherently dangerous; these people still are as unhinged as they were while in office. They're just crafting the message to get attention from the left now.
 
2012-11-28 11:29:01 AM

GAT_00: To listen to any ex-Bush and ex-Reagan people is inherently dangerous; these people still are as unhinged as they were while in office.


Did you read Bartlett's post at The American Conservative? Guy is about as humble as you can be about all of it. He's written more than one very sane piece for the NYT on the over-regulation myth. Realizing you were wrong, admitting it, and calling for change within your own party does not fall under "unhinged" by any definition. That's what adults do.
 
2012-11-28 11:29:27 AM

tnpir: It's better to read the entire Barlett article instead of Kos' brief summary.


That's a good read. Thanks for the link.
 
2012-11-28 11:31:44 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: GAT_00: To listen to any ex-Bush and ex-Reagan people is inherently dangerous; these people still are as unhinged as they were while in office.

Did you read Bartlett's post at The American Conservative? Guy is about as humble as you can be about all of it. He's written more than one very sane piece for the NYT on the over-regulation myth. Realizing you were wrong, admitting it, and calling for change within your own party does not fall under "unhinged" by any definition. That's what adults do.


I don't trust these people. I feel like they're writing to their audience, not honestly writing.
 
2012-11-28 11:34:52 AM

GAT_00: I don't trust these people. I feel like they're writing to their audience, not honestly writing.


OK then. Whatever.
 
2012-11-28 11:35:01 AM

GAT_00: Lumpmoose: Whether you're facing supply-side economics or lowering taxes, the answer to Republicans is: Enough! You've had your say in government. Some of your plans worked in past decades but you need to either get some new ideas or move aside and let Democrats repair the government.

And I would urge caution in paying too much attention to these people. They're crusading against the current party, but I think their motivation has less to do with wanting real change than simply retaliation against the people who excommunicated them. To listen to any ex-Bush and ex-Reagan people is inherently dangerous; these people still are as unhinged as they were while in office. They're just crafting the message to get attention from the left now.


I'll gladly take them over the current Republican party. I want real conservatives with real ideas competing against Democrats fairly in the public eye and in Congress. I don't think that desire will go away when they get back into power. It's better to lay the groundwork now for intellectually-consistent conservatism that adapts with the times, is willing to compromise and, if necessary, works to make Democratic ideas better.
 
2012-11-28 11:44:11 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Realizing you were wrong, admitting it, and calling for change within your own party does not fall under "unhinged" by any definition. That's what adults do.


Sign of weakness. Purge!
 
2012-11-28 11:45:51 AM
Publicist confirms it: Fox News blacklisted book critical of George W. Bush

"It was surprising to me that no one would book him [Bartlett]," Dewey told me. "He had been a regularly on Fox News prior to that. He had been interviewed on any number of Fox News shows before that."

Welcome to the bubble.
 
2012-11-28 11:47:01 AM
"Finally, I started asking people about it. Not one person had read it or cared in the slightest what the New York Times had to say about anything. They all viewed it as having as much credibility as Pravda and a similar political philosophy as well. Some were indignant that I would even suspect them of reading a left-wing rag such as the New York Times.

I was flabbergasted. Until that moment I had not realized how closed the right-wing mind had become. Even assuming that my friends' view of the Times' philosophy was correct, which it most certainly was not, why would they not want to know what their enemy was thinking? "


Reminds me of a right-wing heavy forum I used to post in. When they said Obama couldn't do anything without a teleprompter, I posted video of him at that Republican retreat where he single-handedly took on the entire Republican congress. The right-wingers wouldn't watch the video because it was linked by either Daily Kos or Huffington. How would the website change the content of a video? Luckily I found a C-Span link.

Another time, a right-winger posted a video of Beck. I commented on the content of it, and he responded that he was surprised I would watch it. Why wouldn't I "want to know what their enemy was thinking."

Today's right-wing is a cult. "Epistemic closure" indeed.
 
2012-11-28 11:48:58 AM

GAT_00: Dusk-You-n-Me: GAT_00: To listen to any ex-Bush and ex-Reagan people is inherently dangerous; these people still are as unhinged as they were while in office.

Did you read Bartlett's post at The American Conservative? Guy is about as humble as you can be about all of it. He's written more than one very sane piece for the NYT on the over-regulation myth. Realizing you were wrong, admitting it, and calling for change within your own party does not fall under "unhinged" by any definition. That's what adults do.

I don't trust these people. I feel like they're writing to their audience, not honestly writing.


Whether or not that's the case, it's a damn sight more refreshing to see someone not parroting the usual nonsense. It might be sour grapes, it might be a subtle way to bring back the rise of conservatism, but at least it's factual, critical, and sane.
 
2012-11-28 11:50:05 AM
GAT_00 stop embarrassing your fellow liberals by your behavior.
 
2012-11-28 11:51:19 AM

GAT_00:

I don't trust these people. I feel like they're writing to their audience, not honestly writing.


And that is why you fail.
 
2012-11-28 11:56:55 AM
Awhile back, a reporter who left the Journal confirmed to me that the paper had given her orders not to mention me.

Can anyone find any evidence where the "liberal media" has the same orders to black-list people?
 
2012-11-28 11:57:51 AM

Elandriel: Whether or not that's the case, it's a damn sight more refreshing to see someone not parroting the usual nonsense. It might be sour grapes, it might be a subtle way to bring back the rise of conservatism, but at least it's factual, critical, and sane.


But there's a couple of problems there. One, is isn't pitching to conservatives at all. Conservatives aren't going to listen to him. He's just selling a book. Two, I'm more than a little hesitant to listen to anyone who is creating policy based on a vendetta. Three, he thinks the supply-side stuff we've already integrated and has cost us millions of jobs for no gain is good and shouldn't be touched.

All of these question his credibility.

Kazan: GAT_00 stop embarrassing your fellow liberals by your behavior.


No, I'm pretty sure you're someone pretending to be a liberal and posting the dumbest shiat you can think of that qualifies as liberal.
 
2012-11-28 12:02:37 PM

impaler: Awhile back, a reporter who left the Journal confirmed to me that the paper had given her orders not to mention me.

Can anyone find any evidence where the "liberal media" has the same orders to black-list people?


I don't think there's anything like the entire News (mega)Corp pretending like someone doesn't exist but has Buchanan been on MSNBC since he was booted? Buchanan used the term "blacklist" during the spat, but he's generally crazy.
 
2012-11-28 12:03:45 PM

GAT_00: I don't trust these people. I feel like they're writing to their audience, not honestly writing.


An interesting point, is it possible that the side he defected from was writing to their audience as well, or were they spot on with the communist muslim who will destroy the economy and put us all into rags in the next few months if we don't lower taxes even more?
 
2012-11-28 12:05:44 PM

GAT_00: One, is isn't pitching to conservatives at all.


He isn't pitching to conservatives at all by writing an article for The American Conservative?
 
2012-11-28 12:06:11 PM
At least a few conservatives now recognize that Republicans suffer for epistemic closure. They were genuinely shocked at Romney's loss because they ignored every poll not produced by a right-wing pollster such as Rasmussen or approved by right-wing pundits such as the perpetually wrong Dick Morris. Living in the Fox News cocoon, most Republicans had no clue that they were losing or that their ideas were both stupid and politically unpopular.

Chicken soup for the soul.
 
2012-11-28 12:10:13 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: GAT_00: One, is isn't pitching to conservatives at all.

He isn't pitching to conservatives at all by writing an article for The American Conservative?


The line between writing to people and writing to people, if you know what I mean. You can talk to a cloud all you want, but just because it can't listen doesn't mean you aren't talking to it.
 
2012-11-28 12:22:18 PM

tnpir: It's better to read the entire Barlett article instead of Kos' brief summary.


I'd rather read a Jed Bartlett article.
 
2012-11-28 12:22:42 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: GAT_00: One, is isn't pitching to conservatives at all.

He isn't pitching to conservatives at all by writing an article for The American Conservative?


I don't care about Gat's thing, just thought I'd add that I'm a liberal democrat who subscribes to the American Conservative magazine. They are consistent and did not get on the crazy train with Bush 2 and the tea party. The frequently criticize what the 'conservative movement' has become, so I'm not surprised they ran Bartlett's article. Their motto is "Policy over Ideology."
 
2012-11-28 12:25:18 PM

GAT_00: Three, he thinks the supply-side stuff we've already integrated and has cost us millions of jobs for no gain is good and shouldn't be touched.


I'll give you this one, GAT. I balked a little bit when I saw him say "This is great, it's been enshrined and it's here to stay, let's move on to the next thing." It doesn't work and it never worked.

The rest of it, I think you've gotten a little extra paranoid. I see your position, but I think you're jumping at shadows. He's not writing to tea party conservatives, so in that much you're right, but I believe he actually is writing ot otherwise rational and/or sane republicans or conservatives who were aware enough to step outside of the cocoon when they got soundly defeated at the polls.

Those types don't control the media outlets, the punditry or anything of the sort, so it makes his gestures almost seem kind of futile, but I don't think he's just selling a book or cozying up to liberals. His conclusions are valid.
 
2012-11-28 12:25:36 PM

GAT_00: The line between writing to people and writing to people, if you know what I mean.


I don't. I'm not sure anybody in here does. You've got your mind made up about this guy and there's no changing it.

This guy is the kind of sane conservative the left should be embracing, or at the very least grabbing and turning the chin of every wing nut conservative toward and saying "SEE. LIKE THIS". That's opportunity. You're too stubborn to realize it.

From one liberal to another, you are not helping.

Otherwise Just Fine: I don't care about Gat's thing, just thought I'd add that I'm a liberal democrat who subscribes to the American Conservative magazine. They are consistent and did not get on the crazy train with Bush 2 and the tea party. The frequently criticize what the 'conservative movement' has become, so I'm not surprised they ran Bartlett's article. Their motto is "Policy over Ideology."


I know they represent what conservatism used to be, before the crazy took over. All the more reason to believe Bartlett is genuine in what he writes, and not dismiss him outright for past transgressions.
 
2012-11-28 12:27:59 PM

Kazan: GAT_00 stop embarrassing your fellow liberals by your behavior.

 
2012-11-28 12:33:05 PM

Lumpmoose: impaler: Awhile back, a reporter who left the Journal confirmed to me that the paper had given her orders not to mention me.

Can anyone find any evidence where the "liberal media" has the same orders to black-list people?

I don't think there's anything like the entire News (mega)Corp pretending like someone doesn't exist but has Buchanan been on MSNBC since he was booted? Buchanan used the term "blacklist" during the spat, but he's generally crazy.


Buchanan is an avowed white supremacist. He doesn't belong on the public airwaves.
 
2012-11-28 12:36:41 PM

GAT_00: Kazan: GAT_00 stop embarrassing your fellow liberals by your behavior.

No, I'm pretty sure you're someone pretending to be a liberal and posting the dumbest shiat you can think of that qualifies as liberal.


So I mean, there's a lot to say about Kazan's post, specifically about how he made a judgement without providing his reasoning. But your reply just hits the wrong chord with me.

First, I may not always agree with Kazan but based on the wide variety of posts I've seen, he's a liberal.

Second, and more importantly, it's okay for liberals to disagree. That doesn't suddenly make one (or both) of them not liberal. I'm tired of this cookie cutter either you agree with everything we say or you're not one of us bullshiat.
 
2012-11-28 12:38:05 PM

GAT_00: Dusk-You-n-Me: GAT_00: One, is isn't pitching to conservatives at all.

He isn't pitching to conservatives at all by writing an article for The American Conservative?

The line between writing to people and writing to people, if you know what I mean. You can talk to a cloud all you want, but just because it can't listen doesn't mean you aren't talking to it.


Yes- he's writing to a conservative audience.

But you have to look at what he's saying: guys- we may be wrong about a few things.

If you wanted Obama care to pass, you've accepted a big chunk of conservative thinking.

And you probably are in agreement with me that Obama is barely liberal.
 
2012-11-28 12:53:19 PM
List of People Conspiring Against the GOP, and therefore, America (LOPCATGOPATA for short):

Liberals
Democrats
Socialists
Community Organizers
Geologists
Biologists
Meteorologists
Climatologists
Atheists
Muslims
Jews
Satan
ABC
NBC
CNN
CBS
PBS
All of cable news except FNC
The New York Times
The LA Times
The Washington Post
The Associated Press
Reuters
BBC
The Guardian
Black People
Mexicans
Human Rights Activists
SCOTUS
Europe
Movie Industry
Television Industry
Environmentalists
ACLU
The United Nations
Labor Unions
Colleges
Teachers (including kindergarten teachers)
Professors
ACORN
Planned Parenthood
National Endowment for the Arts
Fashion Industry
Gays
Judges
NPR
Paleontologists
Astrophysicists
Museums (*except Creationism Museum)
WHO
WTO
Inflated tires
The Honolulu Advertiser
The Star Bulletin
Teletubbies
Sponge Bob and Patrick
Nobel Prize Committee
US Census Bureau
NOAA
Sesame Street
Comic Books
Little Green Footballs
Video Games
The Bible
CBO
Bruce Springsteen
Pennies
The Theory of Relativity
Comedy Central
Young People
whatever the hell a Justin Beiber is
Small Business Owners
Math
CPAC
Navy SEALs
The Economist
The Muppets
Iowa Republicans
Low-Flow Toilets
Breast Cancer Screenings
Chrysler
Clint Eastwood.
Robert Deniro
Tom Hanks
Glenn Frey
Norman Rockwell
James Cameron
Dr. Seus
Nuns
Supreme Court Justice John Roberts
Jonathan Krohn at age 17
Fact Checkers
Australia
Mitt Romney
Rasmussen
Fox News
Lockheed Martin
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Paul Ryan
Debate moderators
Ben Stein
Soup kitchens
Chris Christie
Nate Silver (FiveThirtyEight.com)
Fox Polling
US Postal Service
Associated Press
Hurricanes
Susan Collins
Lisa Murkowski
Dean Heller
Mark Kirk
Lindsey Graham
Governor Bobby Jindal
General Petreaus
Saxby Chambliss
God
Girl Scouts
Boston Tea Party
Bruce Bartlett
 
2012-11-28 01:00:50 PM

mrshowrules:
List of People Conspiring Against the GOP, and therefore, America (LOPCATGOPATA for short):
...
All of cable news except FNC
...
Fox News


Kind of funny how that list evolves with increasing paranoia.
 
2012-11-28 01:04:06 PM

impaler: mrshowrules:
List of People Conspiring Against the GOP, and therefore, America (LOPCATGOPATA for short):
...
All of cable news except FNC
...
Fox News

Kind of funny how that list evolves with increasing paranoia.


Check my profile. I have links for many of them thanks to a few Farkers.
 
2012-11-28 01:04:33 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: GAT_00: One, is isn't pitching to conservatives at all.

He isn't pitching to conservatives at all by writing an article for The American Conservative?


The key word is writing. You can't write to conservatives because they don't understand that form of communication.
 
2012-11-28 01:06:20 PM

GAT_00: No, I'm pretty sure you're someone pretending to be a liberal and posting the dumbest shiat you can think of that qualifies as liberal.


that's rich, coming from the guy who routinely embarrasses the other liberals on fark with your childish behavior. Many of us other liberals on fark disagree on individual points, but we don't go around claiming that the other person isn't a liberal because of that disagreement. We also correct ourselves when reality shows we're wrong, and we actually listen to what people on the other side say. Take this very thread as an example - Bruce Bartlett made statements that repudiated his former positions as having been inaccurate and that he has learned why they were inaccurate. You attack him for his past positions, and say he hasn't changed - when he has quite explicitly changed.

Bartlett: (10 years ago) I believe X
Us: You suck, you're wrong because Y, Z
Bartlett: (now) I see that I was wrong to believe X, because Y, Z,R and Q
Me: cool
You: You're just trying to trojan horse us! You still believe X!

GAT_00 You are the liberal version of a Teabagger, knock that shiat off. And for the love of farking sanity man, if you're going to argue for liberal positions on the internet know what the fark you're talking about.
 
2012-11-28 01:07:57 PM

lennavan: Second, and more importantly, it's okay for liberals to disagree. That doesn't suddenly make one (or both) of them not liberal.


exactly.. i have you favorited as "usually liberal, but utter derptard when it comes to abortion". I don't go around claiming you're not a liberal becuase you have what i consider to be a theofascistic position on abortion.
 
2012-11-28 01:25:30 PM

tnpir: It's better to read the entire Barlett article instead of Kos' brief summary.


Agreed.
 
2012-11-28 01:26:57 PM

lennavan: GAT_00: Kazan: GAT_00 stop embarrassing your fellow liberals by your behavior.

No, I'm pretty sure you're someone pretending to be a liberal and posting the dumbest shiat you can think of that qualifies as liberal.

So I mean, there's a lot to say about Kazan's post, specifically about how he made a judgement without providing his reasoning. But your reply just hits the wrong chord with me.

First, I may not always agree with Kazan but based on the wide variety of posts I've seen, he's a liberal.

Second, and more importantly, it's okay for liberals to disagree. That doesn't suddenly make one (or both) of them not liberal. I'm tired of this cookie cutter either you agree with everything we say or you're not one of us bullshiat.


I don't care that people disagree. But I have him marked as 'ignorant tool' for a reason.

Dusk-You-n-Me: This guy is the kind of sane conservative the left should be embracing, or at the very least grabbing and turning the chin of every wing nut conservative toward and saying "SEE. LIKE THIS". That's opportunity. You're too stubborn to realize it.


Are we really sitting here and arguing about whether we should listen to a guy who says the existing supply side bullshiat we've implemented is good? Take away everything else about the GOP, just consider that statement. If he wasn't bashing the GOP, you would laugh him out of the room if that's all you heard, and you should. Just because he bashes the GOP and says that doesn't mean he's right. It just means he was kicked out and he's mad, but hasn't fundamentally changed his mind about anything that has caused a significant amount of the problems we have today.
 
2012-11-28 01:30:24 PM

lennavan: tnpir: It's better to read the entire Barlett article instead of Kos' brief summary.

I'd rather read a Jed Bartlett article.


I'd rather read a Jed Clampett article.

I usually get bored with reading anything that doesn't throw in a "wee doggies!" every few sentences for emphasis.
 
2012-11-28 01:41:29 PM

GAT_00: Are we really sitting here and arguing about whether we should listen to a guy who says the existing supply side bullshiat we've implemented is good?


HE DIDN'T SAY IT WAS GOOD, he said it was incorporated into the mainstream.

Having been deeply involved in its development, I felt that everything important the supply-siders had to say had now been fully incorporated into mainstream economics. All that was left was nutty stuff like the Laffer Curve that alienated academic economists who were otherwise sympathetic to the supply-side view. I said the supply-siders should declare victory and go home.

In the next paragraph he says "the idea that tax cuts for the rich will save us become more ridiculous by the day", "the economy continues to conform to textbook Keynesianism", and that no one has been more correct than Krugman - KRUGMAN.

He's saying the stuff experiment has been tried. Not that it was correct, or good, or we should try it again. You've chosen to focus on one sentence of this piece, misinterpret it, and ignore everything else.

You misunderstood his message. It happens. But if you refuse to admit that and you're going dismiss him completely because of it that's on you, not him.
 
2012-11-28 01:42:16 PM

GAT_00: The line between writing to people and writing to people, if you know what I mean. You can talk to a cloud all you want, but just because it can't listen doesn't mean you aren't talking to it.


imageshack.us
 
2012-11-28 01:43:50 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: GAT_00: The line between writing to people and writing to people, if you know what I mean.

I don't. I'm not sure anybody in here does. You've got your mind made up about this guy and there's no changing it.

This guy is the kind of sane conservative the left should be embracing, or at the very least grabbing and turning the chin of every wing nut conservative toward and saying "SEE. LIKE THIS". That's opportunity. You're too stubborn to realize it.

From one liberal to another, you are not helping.

Otherwise Just Fine: I don't care about Gat's thing, just thought I'd add that I'm a liberal democrat who subscribes to the American Conservative magazine. They are consistent and did not get on the crazy train with Bush 2 and the tea party. The frequently criticize what the 'conservative movement' has become, so I'm not surprised they ran Bartlett's article. Their motto is "Policy over Ideology."

I know they represent what conservatism used to be, before the crazy took over. All the more reason to believe Bartlett is genuine in what he writes, and not dismiss him outright for past transgressions.


I have read other articles by Bartlett and I believe he is sincere. It's not like he's an elected official pandering for votes or anything like that. I've also read some articles from TAC recently and though I do not agree with most things they believe in, and I don't care at all for some of their contributors, they seem to be a hell of lot more reasonable that anything else the Right has been spewing for the last decade or so. You'd never hear that kind of admission in NRO, 'Merkin Stinker or the Weakly Standard.
 
2012-11-28 01:44:53 PM

A reader turns up transcript of Bruce Bartlett being interviewed about his book on Fox in 2006: foxnews.com/story/0,2933,1...

- Greg Sargent (@ThePlumLineGS) November 28, 2012
 
2012-11-28 01:51:18 PM
That article and its author lost all credibility with me when he started quoting Bob Dylan. What a hippie has-been hack.
 
2012-11-28 01:56:45 PM

SphericalTime: Dusk-You-n-Me: GAT_00: One, is isn't pitching to conservatives at all.

He isn't pitching to conservatives at all by writing an article for The American Conservative?

The key word is writing. You can't write to conservatives because they don't understand that form of communication.


*cough*
 
2012-11-28 01:56:51 PM

xanadian: That article and its author lost all credibility with me when he started quoting Bob Dylan. What a hippie has-been hack.


Oooh! How edgy and iconoclastic!
 
2012-11-28 01:59:28 PM

tnpir: It's better to read the entire Barlett article instead of Kos' brief summary.


*reads link*

Ok, so it was during Bush II that the GOP *financially* went off the rails. Although one could argue the same thing under Regan and the massive arms build-up...
 
2012-11-28 02:01:33 PM

GAT_00: But I have him marked as 'ignorant tool' for a reason.


the reason was i had the audacity to call you out for being full of shiat when you were full of shiat.
 
2012-11-28 02:06:18 PM
FTFA: The final line for me to cross in complete alienation from the right was my recognition that Obama is not a leftist. In fact, he's barely a liberal-and only because the political spectrum has moved so far to the right that moderate Republicans from the past are now considered hardcore leftists by right-wing standards today. Viewed in historical context, I see Obama as actually being on the center-right.

I had heard this from some of my Democrat friends--that they thought Obama was too far to the right and betrayed the leftist cause--and it was one reason why SOME of them didn't even bother voting at all. Not sure how true this trend was nationally, though...
 
2012-11-28 02:19:06 PM

Kazan: GAT_00: But I have him marked as 'ignorant tool' for a reason.

the reason was i had the audacity to call you out for being full of shiat when you were full of shiat.


I don't even remember you doing that, so no.

Dusk-You-n-Me: HE DIDN'T SAY IT WAS GOOD, he said it was incorporated into the mainstream.


What part of 'declaring victory' doesn't mean the good has been added? That's how I interpret that, that we have added the good of the theory and it's time to move on. How else do you read that? So he didn't say verbatim supply-side was good. It's pretty damn heavily implied.

Dusk-You-n-Me: and that no one has been more correct than Krugman - KRUGMAN.


While it's nice that he is able to acknowledge that he is right, but so what? The argument he is trying to make is post-Bush, and so it really shouldn't be surprising he endorses the best economist around today for "new" ideas.

Dusk-You-n-Me: You've chosen to focus on one sentence of this piece, misinterpret it, and ignore everything else.


I don't need to read articles about how the GOP is bad and how they've gone off the rails, I know that. So I focused on the policy he was offering and I saw a gigantic red flag and I called it out.
 
Displayed 50 of 176 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report