The Evolution of ‘Extremism’ in the Era of Obama

teaOne doesn’t have to look all that far to find proof of the gross hypocrisy that has come out of Washington over the past five years. As conservatives like to point out, the words spoken by U.S. Senator Barack Obama and other top Democrats during the Bush era are often diametrically opposed to the things these same people say today.

Some of the inconsistencies truly are audacious, especially in the case of President Obama. It’s tough to imagine that any other president wouldn’t be haunted with such blaring deviations in rhetoric and policy throughout his or her time in office. But as we all know, no other president has enjoyed the kind of fawning adoration from the media that our current one does. And that’s really the reason he can get away with it.

What I find particularly interesting, beyond just the hypocrisy, is the political culture we’ve found ourselves in when it comes to the rhetoric we now hear used by our Democratic politicians (and the media alike) when attacking the opposition party.

“Extreme” is the winning term that liberals have used to describe and successfully marginalize those defiant conservatives who have been a consistent thorn in the side of President Obama’s vision for the country.

The Democrats’ dedication to using the term at every given opportunity, along with the media’s constant drumbeat of the narrative, has indeed taken its toll on the Republican party and conservatives alike because the label has engrained itself into the minds of mainstream America.

Now, I’m sure there are many people who would argue that conservative groups like the Tea Party have earned their “extreme” mantra, and they’re sure to give me examples of why. But I would ask those people to question why it is that viewpoints and actions that weren’t at all considered to be extreme five years are considered to be completely over the top today.

I’ll give you a few examples:

Ringing the panic bell on our national debt

We’ve all seen the videos of Barack Obama during the presidential campaign in 2008 speaking to audiences about what he portrayed to be a very serious problem for our country at the time: The size of our national debt.

Here’s a partial transcript from one of those speeches:

“The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion dollars for the first 42 presidents — number 43 added $4 trillion dollars by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion dollars of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.”

Sounds pretty similar to the things we often hear Sarah Palin and Ted Cruz say about our current president, doesn’t it?

As I mentioned earlier, we all understand the hypocrisy of Obama’s statement in the context of where our national debt now stands. We now owe $17 trillion. $7 trillion was added under Obama and another $3 trillion will be added by the end of his presidency. Every man, woman, and child now owes close to $55,000.

Now, let’s talk about public perception…

Did anyone categorize Senator Obama’s rhetoric or position in 2008 as being “extreme?” Did anyone label his viewpoint as being “dangerous” to our country? Of course not. Yet, what he was saying was precisely what the Tea Party has been labeled as “extremists” for saying for the past three years.

When you think about it, Obama was spreading the Tea Party message before the Tea Party was. He was sounding the alarm on our national debt long before CNBC’s Rick Santelli made his famous rallying cry that brought economic conservatives to the streets with protest signs. Yet, between those two people, which one did the media brand as an extreme ideologue at the time?

Yes, that’s a rhetorical question.

Voting against raising the debt ceiling

Here’s are some excerpts from a speech Barack Obama made in 2006 on the senate floor:

“This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on. Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America’s priorities. Instead, interest payments are a significant tax on all Americans — a debt tax that Washington doesn’t want to talk about. If Washington were serious about honest tax relief in this country, we would see an effort to reduce our national debt by returning to responsible fiscal policies.”

“Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.

And that’s exactly what Barack Obama did in 2006. He voted against raising the debt limit.

Again, this stance stands in firm opposition to the things he’s been saying and doing since he became our president. But again, let’s disregard the blatant hypocrisy and look at how his vote was interpreted.

Were he and the others that voted the same way portrayed as “extremists” by the media? Did anyone suggest that he was taking the country hostage or putting a gun to the head of the American people? Was Barack Obama’s lack of concern for America not being able to pay its bills described by anyone as un-American, or in any way compared to the actions of a terrorist?

Of course not, and our debt problem was merely a fraction of what it is today!

Trying to de-fund a major presidential initiative

The most recent budget battle, which ultimately led to the government shutdown, happened because of the attempt by many Republicans in congress to de-fund Obamacare. This resulted in high-profile Democrats, including President Obama, using every nasty metaphor imaginable to describe their opponents: “hostage-takers”, “terrorists”, “abusive spouses”, and of course, “extremists.” And those names just came from the politicians. The media was even harsher in their condemnation.

Yet, back in 2007 when many Democrats in congress (including Barack Obama) were voting to de-fund our military operations in Iraq while our troops were in harms-way, I don’t recall any such terminology being used, neither by the Republicans nor the media. The worst I remember were some pundits from the right saying that the move would help the enemy (which I don’t think anyone could deny), but never were those Democrats referred to as “terrorists.” The condemnation certainly didn’t rise to anywhere near the level it did over a two-week shutdown of %17 of the U.S. government.

To me, de-funding our troops while they’re in the middle of combat operations against actual terrorists seems like a far more extreme action than de-funding a social program that the government clearly isn’t even prepared to employ. Yet, where were the cries of “extremism” at the time? Where were the people in the media who asked Democratic politicians questions like, “Do you hate the Iraq War more than you love your country?”

It’s perfectly legitimate to debate each and every one of the policies and actions I’ve described above, but can anyone honestly debate how completely inconsistent and totally biased the political and media narratives of “Republican extremism” have been? From a Dead Sleep - by John A. Daly

In my book, things like a $17 trillion national debt are extreme. In my book, a government take-over of 1/5 of the U.S. economy  under a law that most Americans oppose is extreme. In my book, the slowest economic recovery in U.S. history is extreme. In my book, today’s gas prices are extreme. In my book, high unemployment and a staggeringly low workforce participation rate for five straight years is extreme. In my book, foreign policy fiascoes that resemble the plot of an episode of Inspector Gadget are extreme.

Lastly, the national redefinition of the term “extreme” in the era of Obama is just about as “extreme” as anything I can think of – at least in the realm of rhetoric and double-standards.

Author Bio:

John Daly couldn't have cared less about world events and politics until the horrific 9/11 terrorist attacks changed his perspective. Since then, he's been deeply engaged in the news of the day with a particular interest in how that news is presented. Realizing the importance of the media in a free, democratic society, John has long felt compelled to identify media injustices when he sees them. With a B.S. in Business Administration, and a 16 year background in software and web development, John has found that his real passion is for writing. His first novel, entitled "From a Dead Sleep", is now on sale! He lives in Northern Colorado with his wife and two children. Like John on Facebook. Follow John on Twitter.
Author website: http://www.johndalybooks.com/
  • Mike Stokes

    Mr. Daly you sure nailed it, thank you for pointing out this one area of hypocrisy.

    • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

      Thanks Mike!

  • Wil

    Still writing fiction, I see. Get a real job!

    • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

      lol. Is that the best you’ve got, Wil?

  • George Steele

    You nailed it John! Brilliantly deconstructing these various events, trivializing them and reducing them to a lowest common denominator of Obama hypocrisy. And then tying in the obligatory media bias thread. Media bias being the lifeblood of this website. And as phony as a WWF championship belt. Yeah Obama may be a hypocrite. But there are worse things than being a hypocrite. The media (and most everyone else) hate you because you are a miserable, hateful, and sick bunch

    • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

      lol. I’m glad that you freely concede that Obama is a shameless hypocrite, but that wasn’t the point of the column. I’m not sure that’s even in contention by anyone.

      My column was about the insane double-standards that exist in our media culture. And if clicking your red ruby heels together and repeating the phrase, “There’s no media bias” over and over again lets you ignore reality, I’d hate to think about how many email scams you’ve most certainly fallen for over the years.

      • George Steele

        Your column is full of (among other things) Obama quotes. So if it was not about Obama then it was not about anything. You trivialize the national debt, debt ceiling, and Iraq war issues by reducing them to the aforementioned quotes. Your article was certainly not about double standards in media culture. Your only backup here are vague unattributed nonexistent quotes. “Taking the country hostage”? “Putting a gun to the head of the American people”? “Do you hate Obamacare more than you love your country”? What mainstream news report included these? Name names. Were Cruz and other architects of the shutdown denied the opportunity to defend their position on any mainstream media outlet? I don’t think so. Did your very own Proprietor Goldberg join the left wing bias when he characterized them on this very website as the “Suicide Wing”?

        • Jeff Webb

          >>Your column is full of (among other things) Obama quotes. So if it was not about Obama then it was not about anything. <> Your only backup here are vague unattributed nonexistent quotes.<<

          Apparently it wouldn't have.

          Want to know who has characterized Republicans as hostage takers?

          http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/10/08/gop-hostage-taking-obama-press-conference/

          Or who has used the gun-to-the-head line?

          http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/04/20820333-obama-no-negotiations-with-a-gun-held-to-the-head-of-the-american-people

          Hope that helps.

        • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

          >>Your column is full of (among other things) Obama quotes. So if it was not about Obama then it was not about anything.

          Huh? I used Obama quotes to contrast how the media reacted to them as opposed to how they currently react to the same positions now held by the Tea Party. If you can’t figure out that my column is about a media-driven, public narratives and not merely our president’s hypocrisy, you should perhaps have someone else read it to you… slowly.

          >>You trivialize the national debt, debt ceiling, and Iraq war issues by reducing them to the aforementioned quotes.

          I’m reducing them to quotes? The way your mind works is quite unusual. I’m clearly talking about people’s public positions on those issues, and how they were received by the Democrats and the media. You’re having a really hard time with this, aren’t you?

          >>Your article was certainly not about double standards in media culture.

          It absolutely was. Or was that sentence just you trying to use a Jedi mind trick to fool me into believing something that isn’t true?

          >>Your only backup here are vague unattributed nonexistent quotes.

          See Jeff’s post below. And excuse me for thinking that the readers of my column were savvy enough to recognize the references, since they received a lot of attention. And since you knew precisely the MSNBC quote I was referring to, I think I was right in my assumption. But next time, I’ll include hyperlinks, okay?

          >>Were Cruz and other architects of the shutdown denied the opportunity to defend their position on any mainstream media outlet?

          Nope. Did I say they were?

          >>Did your very own Proprietor Goldberg join the left wing bias when he characterized them on this very website as the “Suicide Wing”?

          Oh brother. Accusing someone of committing political suicide is a far cry from calling them terrorists (aka murderers) and saying that they’re holding guns to people’s heads. But again, the column was about double-standards, not just the language that was used.

          • George Steele

            Well duh. If your article is intended to be about media bias then you should back that up don’t you think? That is if you are trying to make an argument at all. On the other hand if it is just your Daly Maniacs you are trying to convince then no backup is necessary but then again you don’t even need to write an article at all in that case. Webb’s post is just more Obama quotes. If you think that backs up your claim of media bias then you are both wasted.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Interesting. So when the media treats two types of people extraordinary different in the context of them having the exact same viewpoint, you don’t see bias?

            What I’ve described in my column is merely an example of media bias and the double standards routinely used in our media culture. It’s not by any means the nail in the coffin. They are very good books, including some written by the owner of this website, that offer comprehensive, undeniable proof of the overwhelming problem of liberal bias in the mainstream media.

            By the way, don’t think that I don’t know who you are.

          • Jeff Webb

            When I read the claims that you don’t back up your argument, that this isn’t about media bias, and that the quotes were non-existent, it reminded me of Monty Python (the dismembered black knight denying defeat; bookseller denying he had any books; professional arguer arguing he didn’t argue).
            It was obvious to me Steele’s comments weren’t posted by a member of ‘Python, though–those guys were clever.

          • George Steele

            You must be high on Skittles or something Pops because you are not making any sense at all. Maybe read my response again after you sober up a bit you might comprehend it

          • Jeff Webb

            >>You must be high on Skittles or something Pops because you are not making any sense at all.<<

            If I had intended for you to understand it, I would've worded it at a far easier level than John & I normally use.

          • George Steele

            What you have described in your column is what you want to believe. You have not backed it up and cannot back it up. Very good books? Well then leave it to the professionals then because you are just a raw rookie. You finally figured out who I am Einstein? Sure took you long enough. (Webb still hasn’t figured it out). Just wanted you to know that you will never shut me up. AND YOU WILL NEVER TAKE THIS COUNTRY BACK!!!!!

          • Jeff Webb

            >> (Webb still hasn’t figured it out).<>Just wanted you to know that you will never shut me up. AND YOU WILL NEVER TAKE THIS COUNTRY BACK!!!!!<<

            Oh, we're fully aware you wanted this to be known, but judging by the number of times you've spewed it, it appears you're not even remotely aware.

          • George Steele

            No one more vitriolic than you Pops (well maybe Perlutsky but you are a close second). Specific liberals? How many liberals post here? 5? Fully aware? That’s the first step. So can you change your ways or are you content to remain proudly united with a fringe cult hate group forever wallowing in misery, hatred and stupidity?

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            lol. Very true. When they’re all parroting the same MSNBC talking points, it’s kind of silly for them to expect to be recognized for their individuality.

            It’s kind of cute to watch though.

          • George Steele

            You never get talking points from me. Quite the opposite. I challenged you to back up your talking points. And you failed.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Oh silly… It really is cute that you probably actually believe that.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Hey kid… Just curious why you never post using your real name? Surely you have to feel proud enough of your stellar, thought provoking posts to want to take credit for them, right? Worried that your bosses at the bank might find out?

          • George Steele

            Not worried about anything punk. Is that a threat?

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            A threat? lol. Please. I’m just curious why you choose to hide behind anonymity. Seems kind of cowardly for someone who’s always so desperate to try and sound like a tough guy. The people who write for this site all put our names behind our words. Why won’t you? Are you ashamed of what you write?

          • George Steele

            You are calling me cowardly? You who blocks my posts (and deletes all my prior posts) because you cannot handle the truth? Listen up Handsome Johnny. You will never shut me up. Ashamed? You should be ashamed because (once again) you wrote a horseshit article and (once again) I was up your ass like a gerbil. And that is the way it is going to be.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            God, you’re adorable.

            Of course you’re a coward, bro. We both know excessive profanity is what got you blocked. We don’t block people for their opinions, as both Legal Eagle (who puts forth way smarter arguments than you, BTW) and Phil Silverman can attest to.

            Only someone of monumental cowardliness would impersonate writers on this website in order to post racist rhetoric in their names. That’s what you did, and that’s the mark of a 12 year-old child hiding behind their parents’ keyboard. That’s also why your IPs got blocked.

            So quite frankly, it makes perfect sense to me why you would hide behind anonymity. You’re a disgrace and you don’t want people to know who you are. You don’t want to own up to your words, and I totally understand why.

          • George Steele

            http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/if-president-obama-had-a-son-he-might-look-like/

            Webb: “…Second, your one warning: don’t call me racist again unless you want more of your comments to disappear. You know the rules, but feel free to whine anyway. …”

            Webb: “You inferred that “exploit-mongers” meant the parents. I was actually referring to liberal pols, pundits, and the like.

            Now that I’ve clarified that, and with the understanding that how you generally feel about my take on gun control will be no more or less valid, now is your time to take back the accusation. I’m not telling you again.

            I’m not a bigot, I don’t rub salt in the wounds of the grieving, and your drawing these conclusions is reprehensible!!!”

            Me: “OOOOOOOOHHHHHH!!! A threat!!!!. But regardless, “exploit mongers” does in fact include the parents. Recall that the parents went to DC to lobby for gun control. Also recall this quote from one of your responses to me in that same article: “Re: Newtown parents: as terrible as their suffering is, neither they nor the opportunist pols using them as props are justified in challenging my or anyone else’s Constitutional rights”.
            So in spite of how intimidated I am by you, you do rub salt in the wounds, you do add insult to injury, and I am not taking anything back. What are you going to do about it Pops? Shoot me?”

            Webb: “I’m one of this site’s moderators. You’ll find out soon enough. Hint: you’ll probably throw around your whiny “Fascist Fatwa” tripe again”

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            What does this have to do with anything? Jeff didn’t block you. I did.

            And I just explained to you exactly why. Now explain to me how using our names to make racist comments was not an act of total cowardliness. Also, explain to me why you’re too scared to own your own words.

            I’d ask you to also explain how an anti-corporation guy like yourself could work for who he does, but that’s just hypocrisy… not so much cowardliness. Don’t care so much about that.

          • George Steele

            I don’t know who blocked me, but as you can see Webb is very proud of his status as “one of the site’s moderators” and more than willing to take credit for it.
            I never said I was anti-corporation. But again you are just trying to change the subject. You and your horseshit article are the subject. Not me

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            You DO know who blocked you, because I just told you. And you’ve been whining about corporations since you first started posting here, regularly throwing them in with your little rants about fascism.

            Kid, you made yourself the subject of ANY future input by you on this website, with your cowardly little stunt. Why should anyone tray and engage in productive dialogue with you after that? You’re a child.

          • George Steele

            Productive dialogue? That’s a good one. You never engage in productive dialogue with anyone. That is not your job. Your job is to write provocative propaganda and to shower those who disagree with abuse in the hopes that they will back away. But I don’t play that I take you on directly and you are the one that always backs down. And that is why you have no choice but to block me The fact remains. Once again you were called out to back up your argument and once again you could not do so. And therein lies the disgrace.

          • George Steele

            Well tell Webb because he thinks he should get credit for it.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Credit? lol. You’re an Internet troll, son. Claiming credit for getting you banned would be like claiming credit for flushing a toilet.

            If I wasn’t the only one who recommended your suspension, I guess that just proves that great minds think a like.

          • Jeff Webb

            >>Claiming credit for getting you banned would be like claiming credit for flushing a toilet.<<

            Another quip I can't top–dude, you're really starting to tick me off. lol

            Ever get the impression that our multi-named lad would get pulled over, fail the breathalyzer, and as he's being cuffed, loudly claim the cop is only railroading him out of disapproval of his paint color?

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Ain’t that the truth. And of course, he’d also claim that he only drove drunk as “payback” for the last time he was pulled over for drunk driving.

          • George Steele

            Flattery will get you nowhere pinprick

          • George Steele

            So do puny ones. Have a nice life wallowing in your misery and hatred.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Try to spend some of time over there enjoying the sites, bro… and not working yourself up needlessly over columns you can’t understand.

          • George Steele

            No need to worry about me Handsome Johnny. Try to find something better to do with your empty life than cyberstalking me. And try writing about something you can understand like doing obscene things to sheep

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            lol. Says the guy who’s spending his time overseas trolling an American website because his fragile ego was hurt, and he hasn’t been able to whine about it for a few months. Go outside and have some fun, man! There’s gotta be stuff to do over there.

          • Jeff Webb

            >>I don’t know who blocked me, but as you can see Webb is very proud of his status as “one of the site’s moderators<<

            An intellectually honest, veteran journalist & industry whistle-blower, of whom I am a fan, employs my services on his website. I'm more than 'very' proud, kid.

            Whether you like it or not, visitors to this site who disrespect the mods run a risk. At my discretion, two specific things directed at me get dealt with harshly: calling me a bigot and falsely claiming I said or did something reprehensible to an innocent victim (the latter actually being one of Bernie's biggest no-no's for any representative of this site).

            It's actually kind of amusing that you still think there's even a modicum of debate, let alone that you drew the right conclusion, on my comment you referenced.

            You were not deleted summarily; you were given a choice to either retract or be deleted, and you chose to be deleted. It's that simple.

          • George Steele

            So who deleted me? You or Daly? What is amusing is that you 2 clowns can’t even get your stories straight. Bernie’s biggest no-nos? Where do actually making bigoted / reprehensible statements rank on Bernie’s list of biggest no-nos? Choice to retract or be deleted? I took the third choice, to back up my statement with facts. Read it again Pops, after you are done hallucinating.

          • Jeff Webb

            >>So who deleted me? You or Daly? What is amusing is that you 2 clowns can’t even get your stories straight.<<

            lol You of all people suggesting John & I are being dishonest.

            Think you have all the info, do you? I really don't have to tell you a damned thing, but I will anyway: when a clear violation happens, my job is to report it with citation to upper management (whose only superior is Bernie himself). I don't have any delete & ban controls in this section of the site, which is my preference.

            I reported for deletion your claim that I called several grief-stricken people a bunch of pedophiles. Your outright ban, and any deletions of comments not related to this specific claim, might've happened around this time, but didn't have my participation.

            If you're still convinced you have the facts on your side, please find an attorney and tell him/her you're convinced this site libeled the Newtown families.

            What you'll hear will be pretty much the same thing my own attorney said: nothing I've posted links or equates said families with NAMBLA in any way.

            What, you think we don't do our homework around here?

          • George Steele

            As shown below, “We” do in fact block people for their opinions.
            I have the utmost respect for Legal Eagle (who doesn’t use his real name either) and Phil, I learn a lot from both these gentlemen, whose knowledge on a wide range of issues easily surpasses my own. But IMHO they respond to too many posts from dumb cult followers, and so lose effectiveness and focus. Also IMHO they tend to forget that this “forum” is to intellectual discourse what professional wrestling is to sport, and that your job is not to debate them but to humiliate them. As such they can be distracted from their arguments by your insults. And IMHO that is why they are not blocked.
            Yeah I posted racist comments in you and Webb’s names. Payback is a bitch eh?

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            It really is like talking to a child sometimes. Calling someone a vile name is not an opinion, and that’s not why you were banned.

            You got suspended for your potty mouth, and banned because you pretended to be two people in order to slander them as racists.

            That’s why you’re an anonymous coward – a charge you can’t even bring yourself to deny. A real man owns up to the things he says. Sniveling posers hide in the shadows.

          • George Steele

            Now you want to show respect for Legal Eagle’s intellect? Below you have a cult follower who is cast doubt on his legal credentials and you agreed with that assessment.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Do you really think that pointing out that someone is smarter than you is a glowing endorsement of their intellect? lol. You still got it!

    • legal eagle

      Hypocrisy in politics? Shocking…LOL

    • Brian Fr Langley

      “miserable, hateful and sick? Try a mirror? I’m for sexual restraint, so I’m stupid and hateful (even though nearly 50% of all children are now being born to single parent mothers) I’m against abortion so I hate women? (rather than care about societies most vulnerable)? I’m against profligate wasteful spending, so I hate the poor? I oppose gay marriage, so I must hate these folks? (even though hyper liberal Obama was against it, only 2 years ago). I’m for the individual right to private property. So I’m greedy and venal? I’m for legal immigration, (as opposed to illegal immigration) so I’m a racist? I agree with folks getting ahead on their merit (not affirmative action) so I’m really a racist. (even though Martin Luther King Jr. himself said, we should judge folks by the content of their character, not the color of their skin) I guess he was a racist to? And when I speak out in favor of the U.S. constitution I’m an uncompromising hyper partisan. It’d all be so hilarious, if you weren’t destroying the nation in the process. (you hate mongering ideologue)

      • George Steele

        No Brian I don’t think you are a hater but the party you support is in fact guided by hatred, misery, and ignorance. We have had this discussion many times before so I’m not going to regurgitate it. You are a good man but very misguided. You need look no further than the miserable faces on your leaders, Cruz, Gohmert, Inhofe, Broun, King, Lee, Paul, to know what their values are

        • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

          I love it when someone types “in fact” then follows it with opinionated vitriol. lol.

        • Brian Fr Langley

          Nice choice of names. I know of a commie from Georgia (the Russian one) who called him self steel? George Steel??
          Limerick?
          .
          From Georgia he calls himself steel,
          attacks he his foes, with some zeal,
          hyper ideologuery,
          now demogoguery,
          maybe it’s time to get real?

          • George Steele

            There once was a girl from Nantucket … well never mind

        • Brian Fr Langley

          Well my hateful comrade, you need to take a deep breath, and ask yourself a few questions. Which traditionalist ideal (conservative) has led to 50% of american children being abandoned by their fathers? Easy welfare? opposition to condoms and birth control in schools? Support for traditional marriage? Opposition to promiscuity?
          Which traditionalist (conservative) ideal has led to nearly 1 million children being aborted by their mothers this year? Pro life marches? Opposition to late term abortion? Support for early pregnancy ultra sounds? Opposition to inutero gender selection? (cause some folks don’t want girls) Opposition to 38% of abortions are done on 1 specific identifiable community who makes up only 15% of the population? You do know why they called “Planned Parenthood” don’t you? The plan was to abort ethnics and the poor. (a marxist plan hatched by Margaret Sanger to, you know, make a better world).
          Which traditionalist (conservative ideal) believes in running up stageering debts and deficits, that our children and grandchildren will have to pay back?
          Which traditionalist (conservative) ideal believes in violating the U.S. constitution to manufacture paper money with NO intrinsic value?
          Aside from the damage done by liberals, check out that done by the collectivist’s when they finally gain power. Stalin (your name sake) 60 million dead?? (although total numbers of his murderous collectivist ideals unknown) Hitler. Yes he was a socialist. BUT unlike Stalin who believed in a world wide collective Hitler was a Nationalist. Pol Pot? Mao Tse Tung? Three generations of Kim’s? Ho Chi Min? One could go on and on. The death toll in the hundreds of millions. But instead you spew hate at regulara every day Americans who simply trying to preserve the highest human civiliztion ever achieved by the few simple principles int eh U.S. declaration of Independance and the constitution in under pinned????

          • George Steele

            I think there should be a new government agency, the Department Of Opprobrium. I think you should be in charge of it. And then your right wing friends can defund it.

          • Brian Fr Langley

            People think, Nero fiddled while Rome burned, was because he was crazy insane. The truth was, he wanted to rebuild for his own pleasure. The same reason you and your Marxist comrades continue too fiddle.

          • George Steele

            What does Fr stand for?

  • cmacrider

    John: I suggest you ignore “legal eagle” he claims he was a wall street lawyer but the word on the street is that he spends all day pleading guilty to speeding tickets in traffic court … and then comes home to cut and paste Debbie Wasserman Schultz prepared responses on website for intellectual stimulus. After all, what real lawyer would call himself “legal eagle”???????

    • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

      lol. I think you’ve nailed it. Sounds like good advice.

      • legal eagle

        Always ignore those you disagree with….especially if they call you on your supposed “facts”….very annoying…

  • Brian Fr Langley

    It’s exasperating trying to deal with the left’s magical thinking about money?
    Limerick?
    .
    With magic we’ll make us some cash,
    with paper we keep from the trash,
    with piles of money to spend,
    and then of course lend,
    there’s no reason this dollar would crash?

  • therealguyfaux

    My dad had an expression he used to use, which was that someone was an “Ultra-ultra.”
    I asked him about that, and what he meant by it.

    He told me: “A lot of Conservatives believe there are two kinds of people– themselves, and ultra-Liberals. A lot of Liberals think, it’s themselves and ultra-Conservatives. Each side think the other side are extreme.”
    “Well, aren’t there the extremes of both sides?” I asked him.
    “Of course there are. But a lot of those people are extreme simply for the purpose of being extreme, and part of being extreme is to call ALL of the other side extreme, and trying to make them believe ALL of your side is as extreme as you are. Those who do that are the ‘ultra-ultras’.”
    “So the extremes are pretty much alike personality-wise, and the more moderate are pretty much alike themselves?”
    “Conservatives believe certain things, and Liberals believe other certain things, but ‘Ultra-ultra’s’ only believe in ONE thing— beating up the other guy. You get rid of the ‘Ultra-ultra’s', and each side would see that the other guys are probably NOT looking to beat them up, by and large— and we wouldn’t have such bitterness.

    “It’s all the ‘Ultra-ultra’s’ causing all the problems.”

    That lesson has stayed with me for many years.

    • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

      That’s one heck of a long lesson. ;)

      • therealguyfaux

        But worth his time and effort and my attention– I still recall it, don’t I?

        • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

          Oh, it was a good one for sure.

  • Wheels55

    The only thing that I can give Obama credit for is that he never underestimated the stupidity and short attention span of American voters. Obama knows that people lose interest or simply lose track of the issues and then just go with the cool guy. McCain – not cool. Romney – not cool. Even Hillary – not cool.

  • G. Daylan

    Whichever party controls the executive demands a raise in the debt ceiling and whichever party that is not in power rails against it. This demonstrates that both parties are corrupt. Treatment of these arguments by the media, the intelligentsia and certain legal eagles is, as is pointed out, certainly inconsistent.

    • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

      True. It’s just interesting that only NOW does opposition to the debt ceiling make one an extremist, terrorist, hostage-taker, and racist. ;)

  • legal eagle

    John,
    How quickly Conservatives forget past history..The quote is from Paul O’Neill’s book…
    “Paul O’Neill said he tried to warn Vice President Dick Cheney that growing budget deficits-expected to top $500 billion this fiscal year alone-posed a threat to the economy. Cheney cut him off. “You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don’t matter,” he said, according to excerpts. Cheney continued: “We won the midterms (congressional elections). This is our due.” A month later, Cheney told the Treasury secretary he was fired.”

    So, back in 2002, deficits didn’t mater. REAGAN PROVED IT. Why is the deficit the cause of such a consevative hysterricane NOW?

    I tend to laugh at the bogus concern conservatives are raising over the deficit. They had a balanced budget in 2001 and promptly, and deliberately, screwed it up. Treasury Secretary O’Neill was FIRED for trying to stop them from screwing it up.

    The grotesque mendacity of the GOP is what’s unprecedented. Not the deficits that Obama inherited from Bush.

    • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

      lol. What are you talking about? Did you even read my column? I wrote nothing about deficits.

      • legal eagle

        “In my book, things like a $17 trillion national debt are extreme.”
        Is this not a quote from your column? Am I hallucinating? LOL

        • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

          $17 trillion in national debt IS extreme.

          What I didn’t see the relevance of was your little story about Cheney and his lack of concern, during a time of economic prosperity, over an annual deficit that was, in comparison to Obama’s, quite small.

          You seemed to think that the story somehow disproved something that I wrote, which it absolutely did not.

          I’ve always believed the Bush administration spent too much, but in comparison to the Obama administration, they were penny-pinchers.

          Having a national debt isn’t extreme. Having a debt this size, which is more than double the percentage of what is considered manageable, during a very slow economy with no interest from our president to actually address the problem, IS absolutely extreme.

          I do find it interesting, that you’re not contesting what was the actual point of the column: The massive double-standard between what is considered “extreme” now and what was considered extreme five years ago.

          • legal eagle

            My point about Cheney is that the national debt is more of a political argument than a economic one…I consider “extreme” when a POTUS, like GWB, advocates going to war over a false premise.

          • Jeff Webb

            >>I consider “extreme” when a POTUS, like GWB, advocates going to war over a false premise.<<

            And I consider it extremely pitiful that you're still repeating that lie.

          • legal eagle

            Amazing…you are one gigantic Republican talking point….That’s a lie? Why, because Fox News told you it’s a lie? Because Paul O’Neill said it’s a lie? Because Colin Powell said it’s a lie?
            I also considered it extreme when Bush and Cheney committed war crimes by sanctioning the use of torture…I know Fox News says it’s a lie so you must agree it is one…
            Is it problematical for you to disagree with your cult leaders?

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            legal eagle calling someone a “talking point?” That’s rich.

          • Jeff Webb

            >>I also considered it extreme when Bush and Cheney committed war crimes
            by sanctioning the use of torture…I know Fox News says it’s a lie so
            you must agree it is one…
            Is it problematical for you to disagree with your cult leaders?<<

            Talking point, heal thyself.

          • legal eagle

            In the 1960′s anti-war activists were called extremists by LBJ and Tricky Dick…so what?

    • Brian Fr Langley

      Just a word to the wise, conservative and Republican party ARE NOT necessarily the same thing. True Republicans tend to be more conservative, so attract more conservative votes than Democrats, BUT many conservatives eschew the big spending (and big Government) ways of many Republicans. AND you are WRONG about the threat the deficits and debt poses. The unhappy truth is, (despite what Obama say’s) the full faith and credit of the U.S. CAN NOT support the weight of today’s deficit’s and debts. In a very short time (less than decade and maybe in less than half a decade) U.S. creditors will start heading for the exits. When that happens (and it will if things aren’t reversed immediately) folks will only wish things were as good as they were in the great depression. I know this, with the same certainty, I know a ball, when tossed in the air, is doomed to fall back to the earth.

      • legal eagle

        I fully agree that deficits are a long term problem and do have to be managed….However, they are always used as a political issue by the party that is not in the White House…
        The issue , as I see it, is how to control the problem not to eliminate the debt… I constantly read that the debt has to be repaid…that is factually untrue..
        Republicans look first and mainly to entitlements to lower deficits while I look to defense spending, farm subsidies, corporate welfare and entitlement reform particularly in the area of Social Security Disability…

        • Brian Fr Langley

          Actually the debt does have to be repaid. What you’re missing, is that you believe, (based on modern history), that creditor’s will always prefer interest to re-payment. The higher the risk, the higher the interest, so the creditor is perpetually happy. BUT what happens when your creditor (for his own selfish reasons) refuses to lend further, or worse, wants his money back. All of it. Let me point out to you (my naïve friend). China and many other U.S. creditors are not just competitors. They would more accurately be described as enemies. While there are multitudinous economic reasons they may want their money back, (all of it), there may also be military reasons. (And don’t count on anybody else buying debt based on trillions of dollars of debased currency). Either way, one can NOT conclude that debt never requires repayment. That’s a lot like saying house prices will never go down. They can and they did. True these weren’t issues when U.S. debt was owned primarily by U.S. citizens, (a reality until very recently) but today that is not the case. As for where to eliminate deficits? If you take from the productive too give to the unproductive, in short order (as you’re actually witnessing in real time) the unproductive, will out number the productive in an ever increasing downward spiral. (it’s just the way humans operate, it ain’t pretty but it’s the truth)

          • legal eagle

            What you are saying is factually incorrect regarding debt having to repaid….The Fed can buy up all the debt it deems necessary….You’re talking theory I’m taking reality…
            Economic theory is fine, economic reality is far more relevant….
            Anything is possible. It’s hard to make policy based upon the “worst case scenario”…

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            The problem, legal, is that you don’t understand that we’re already FAR beyond a level of debt that is manageable, let alone in a position where we could consider the possibility of ever paying it back. We CAN’T pay it back, and we can only hope to manage it if make SERIOUS changes that your boys on the left won’t even consider.

            You’re assertion is every bit as theoretical – more so – than Brian’s.

            Brian is essentially saying that if you shoot yourself in the foot, it’s going to hurt.

            You’re saying that if you shoot yourself in the foot, it’s NOT going hurt, and that since you haven’t yet actually shot yourself in the foot, the notion that it would hurt is pure fantasy.

          • legal eagle

            You are stating an opinion as fact…The FACT is it doesn’t have to be repaid and should be lowered….It is my belief that the economy can comfortable support a 60-65% debt to GDP ratio…
            As I have no idea what you believe is a SERIOUS proposal or what “my boys” on the left would consider….
            Maybe you can explain to me why we are at an unmanageable level of debt..

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Read the quotes from Senator Obama that I cited in my column, and that should explain it to you.

          • legal eagle

            Senator Obama was making political statements…but you already know that….what’s your point?

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Legal, those were some of the most honest statements Barack Obama has made throughout his entire political career. But Brian laid out some more specific points that I’d love to see you address.

          • legal eagle

            Most honest v. least honest? What are you talking about? Obama has made thousands of public statements…some of them are B.S…..don’t you think politicians know that many of their statements are nonsensical?

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Senator Obama’s comments about our debt were not nonsensical. They were accurate.

          • Brian Fr Langley

            Legal, you can’t really be that obtuse???? The Fed can NOT buy all the debt indefinately??? If it could, why borrow from China??? (or anybody for that matter) Why not just keep loaning itself money at cheap interest forever and we’d all be rich??? This is NOT theoretical. You can NOT simply keeping writing yourself checks, to pay back money you borrow from yourself. If that was possible, there would have been NO great depression, no recession in the 80′s, 90,s and no great recession in 2007-2009. The fallacy (shared by other loonies on the left) is that demand is all the drives an economy. It is NOT demand that’s the driver. It’s production. Even Marx knew that!!! All the Fed does when it borrows from itself (are you ready for this) is PRINT MORE MONEY! BUT, IT’S ONLY PAPER! It cost nothing to produce. So unlike gold or silver, which takes real labor to produce, it has NO intrinsic value. The more that’s printed the less it’s worth. Thus every dollar that’s printed, and sold, requires the earlier purchaser of the dollar to subsidize the later purchaser. There is a point (it’s called inflation) where your dollars drop in value so fast, that your entire economy collapses. That my obtuse friend is REALITY. Read some of Alan Greenspan’s more recent interviews, if you don’t believe me. PS your going to see inflation probably on a shocking scale, in the very near future. Remember you heard it here first.

          • legal eagle

            Did I say that the Fed could do anything “indefinitely”? When Alan Greenspan is your source of information I can’t take you too seriously…a disaster as Fed Chairman and an Ayn Rand cultist….
            Doom and gloom predictions are all fine and well.. I am an attorney by training and I worked on Wall Street. I deal in facts and market realities not doom and gloom theories…Sorry, economic theories like yours are fine for ivory tower economists not policy makers..

          • Brian Fr Langley

            Printing money to monetize debt is not theoretical. They’re doing it. Running up debt is not theoretical either. They’re doing it. The only theories being promulgated is your theory borrowed money does not have to be repaid. That is a theory. The fact is, all debtors expect to get their principle back eventually. As for Green span, I agree he’s a disaster. But until recently he thought like you. When the money printers themselves are heading for the exits, it’s time to reconsider magic as an economic policy.

          • legal eagle

            “eventually” is a rather vague term….You want the government economic policy to based on what may happen eventually?

          • Brian Fr Langley

            So is this your line with global warming??? Or is that different?

          • legal eagle

            What is my line about global warning? That the government should be taking steps in dealing with a long term problem? I think that’s a reasonable position….don’t you?

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            lol. Says the guy who is always complaining about theoretical arguments. #Irony

          • legal eagle

            Unless you can cite a statute that says that government debt MUST be repaid I believe my statement is accurate…

          • Brian Fr Langley

            You’re hilarious, I thought you were a lawyer??? What statute forces you to pay back money you borrowed? Like all contracts in all modern western democracies, his Honor can enforce your own word given in contract. Notwithstanding U.S. law, there are literally dozens of mechanisms for International law to be brought to bear on recalcitrant Nations wanting to default on debts. Now true the U.S. has the biggest military, so enforcement may be difficult, but just because you can’t be forced to pay, doesn’t mean you haven’t defaulted. In the case of the U.S. a default would ensure the U.S. dollar would NOT remain the world’s reserve currency. The day that happens (and it might) U.S. purchasing power will drop by 50 to 75% overnight. As for it being theoretical?? It’s no more theoretical than driving down a hill in a car with no brakes, it might cause injury,
            It also might not, but who the hell wants to find out?

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            I’d suggest that legal eagle borrow a large sum of money from a loan shark, and then instead of paying him back, explain to him all of his theories of why he doesn’t need to.

          • legal eagle

            Dumb analogy….perhaps you should read this article….

            The Joy of Economics: Making Sense out of Life
            Robert J. Stonebraker, Winthrop University

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            I’d suggest you read any Macroeconomics 101 book, legal. I’m sure it would absolutely blow your mind.

          • legal eagle

            I am truly disappointed that you won’t read the article I’ve cited…I would think that you might want to learn something..

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            lol. Legal, you don’t even read half of the columns you comment on, on this very website.

            You’ll get over your disappointment, I assure you.

          • legal eagle

            I understand ….I give you a fact based article and you don’t want top read it because I don’t read all of your opinion columns?
            I’m puzzled why you have no interest in facts…

          • legal eagle

            I asked you to cite a statute which calls for mandatory repayment of all government debt? You give me a non-answer and then cite some vague non-specific International law?
            This answer would get a D on a law school test…Want to try again? LOL

          • legal eagle

            Perhaps you should read this article before you continue this argument…

            The Joy of Economics: Making Sense out of Life
            Robert J. Stonebraker, Winthrop University
            You should be able to Google it….

          • Brian Fr Langley

            I’ll read yours if you read mine. “How an economy grows (and why it crashes) By Peter Schiff. And I’m not making arguments I’m relating historical facts. Unlike global warming arguments which are mere speculation.

          • legal eagle

            I’m familiar with Peter Schiff…Ran for Repub nomination for Senate in CT..Well known gold bull and doom and gloomer….Is it a book or an article….
            Schiff is what’s known as a “broken clock” ie A broken clock is right twice a day.
            Nevertheless, I’m glad to read an article by Schiff…What’s the name of the article?

          • Brian Fr Langley

            It’s basically a pamphlet called “How an economy grows and why it crashes. And let me correct you on agreeing with speculations because they fit my belief system. The pamphlet is (in my opinion) a very accurate (and easy to read) summary of the “Austrian school of economics”. The short version, is economists have painted a very compelling picture that we need their expertise to understand economies. That Nations run very differently from households and businesses, and they are oh so complex. “Horse feathers” and you being a lawyer should get (and quicker than most), what a crock that is. There is, was, and never will be a free lunch. Printing paper, and suppressing interest rates, is immoral. You’re cheating your money purchasers and your cheating virtuous savers. Who now (many in their old age), are earning negative returns on their savings. (after inflation caused by excess and immoral money printing). Then you are rewarding yourself (paying back your debt with less valuable money) (inflation) and you’re rewarding profligate spenders. (with cheap easy money) A society that once rewarded virtue, and penalized the venal, now rewards the venal, and penalizes the virtuous. Yeah, that’ll work out in the end? NOT.

          • legal eagle

            Economics is part art, part science…Government policies generally are put into place to deal with current economic issues…That’s what democratically elected government have to do….
            As far as low interest rates, in the present environment they do a lot more good than harm…..Housing is a major part of the U.S. economy and low interest rates have been necessary and successful in reviving the housing market…
            One can always criticize economic policy….The rise in the stock market since 2009 has created more wealth than than interest income will create in 20 years….
            Criticism is easy…making good policy is very hard…

          • Brian Fr Langley

            Now you’re banging on the right doors. Economics IS part art. Men like Krugman believe it is a science they can control. They can’t. You say, “Low interest rates do more good than harm”???? Yes it’s true, cheating on your final exams may do you a lot more good. Better job, better house, better car etc. Stealing a car instead of earning it, may work out better for you as well. Thieves and cheats often try to rationalize their venality. This policy you’re defending is stealing from Creditors, and I can assure they don’t like it one bit. But what does one do when a (very large) school bully takes one’s lunch. (and then calls it noble because he shares some crumbs with ideological cheerleading squad). You can rationalize cheating and theft till the cows come home. It’s still cheating and theft. Like all venality, short term gain will lead (inevitably) to long term pain.

          • legal eagle

            I’m referring to Fed policy not individual needs…..Stealing from creditors? Are their involuntary creditors? I want to pay creditors as little as possible….Your telling me that higher interest rates help economic growth?
            The Austrian economic theory is an economic theory championed by Irwin Schiff, Peter’s father…Is that where you got the notion that corporate tax is confiscation?
            I think Irwin Schiff is still in prison for refusing to pay taxes…LOL

          • Brian Fr Langley

            Now that’s funny. LOL The Austrian school has many proponents. I mean you liberals have some crazy guy running around suggesting traditionalists are KKK. LOL When in fact the KKK voted 100% Democrat for over a century. LOL As for interest rates they could remain static for decades if the U.S. constitution was followed and money was based on a measured weight of a product with a known labor input. The real value of the U.S. dollar remained static for some 15-18 decades. (no inflation, no rising or falling interest rates) As for U.S. creditors, they borrow much the same way a small child gives his lunch money to a big bully. (the bully always say’s it was a gift, not a theft)

          • legal eagle

            “you liberals have someone running around….” I care about what Alan Grayson says because?
            When you use the Constitution as the basis for economic policy you’ve gone too far into fantasyland for me to follow….

          • Brian Fr Langley

            Well if you can use Irwin Schiff to discredit the Austrian school of economic thinking, I can use Grayson to discredit the economic policies of liberals??? Your distain though for the constitutional requirement for money is what I find disturbing about modern liberals. In fact I think this is where the corruption begins. If not a Nation of laws (and you a lawyer) then corruption reigns supreme.

          • legal eagle

            Irwin Schiff is a proponent of Austrian eco theory so I assume Peter is..I’m not discrediting anything..It’s a theory..
            Are Republicans advocating for government policy based upon Austrian eco theory?

          • Brian Fr Langley

            Since you agree to run the economy on Krugman’s theories, why not the Austrian model? Historically speaking ,it was a version of the Austrian model that America used for 15 decades or more. Prices were stable, the economy grew faster (and for longer sustained periods) than anytime in history, and there was virtually no such thing as unemployment or inflation. Krugman’s theories devalue purchasing power, (inflation) cause unemployment, and under employment, and sow corruption. The only real difference between the two theories, is that one posits a free lunch and advocates theft. While the other posits a valuation, based on a free market determination of a stable quantity of a labor input. (the labor for example to produce an ounce of gold). (or what have you)

          • legal eagle

            I don’t agree to run the economy on any model other than my own and my model says take care of your family first….The gold model is as outdated as straw hats…Economics is like football…There are rules changes with some regularity, the way the game is played changes with some regularity and when something is not working you adapt the rules to deal with the problem….
            And then the cycle repeats itself…

          • Brian Fr Langley

            Your only right, that the rules change in a demand economy (like the ones you and Marxists ascribe to). In a free market system where a freeman exchanges his own labor, for his own maximum return, the rules stay stable for generations. (thus weeding out corruption and duplicity). And the only reason gold and silver are outdated, is so Krugman’s and their political allies can 1. create a demand economy, and 2. cheat taxpayers through inflation and interest rate fixing.

          • legal eagle

            Theory is not my strong point…I deal in reality….I deal in the economy as it is not how it could be….I especially have no desire to argue whether the good old days were better than todays….The government and business deal in the current, not what worked or didn’t work 40 or 50 years ago…

          • Brian Fr Langley

            You kill me, (LOL) QE1,2, and 3 are theories, but global warming is a reality??? So we’ll spend trillions on (theoretical) warming, but do nothing (because it’s theoretical) about falling purchasing power, (reality) stock market bubble, (reality) rising debt, (reality) staggering deficits, (reality) high unemployment (reality) manufacturing moving over seas, (reality) and the incredibly shrinking middle class? (reality) You only support collectivist ideals and you always bash free market ones. You are a classic, entrenched, ideologue who apparently doesn’t seem think for himself.

          • legal eagle

            In December 2011, economist Paul Krugman quoted Peter Schiff’s statement from December 2009: “I know inflation is going to get worse in 2010. Whether it’s going to run out of control or it’s going to take until 2011 or 2012, but I know we’re going to have a major currency crisis coming soon. It’s going to dwarf the financial crisis and it’s going to send consumer prices absolutely ballistic, as well as interest rates and unemployment.” Krugman noted that inflation had instead remained low, and he concluded that Schiff’s type of economic “model is all wrong” since it predicts that a tripling of the monetary base, such as had just occurred, must lead to “dire effects on the price level”.[46] In January 2012, Schiff stated that a US debt crisis and high inflation had merely been delayed by government policy.[47] In November 2012, Krugman again criticized Schiff’s predictions of high inflation and rising interest rates in America.[48]

          • Brian Fr Langley

            I’m not touting Schiff, I’m noting he has an easy read pamphlet on the Austrian school of economics. As for Krugman, I think he’s an ideologue and an idiot, not an economist. Even die hard Maynard Keynes fans know the money printing must stop. You know, “take away the punch bowl, just as the party gets started”. Men like Krugman are perfectly prepared to loot other societies, to fund a more prosperous America.( Kind of like the Roman economy, which flourished until they ran out of places to loot). QE1, QE2, and QE3 are looting other societies. Period. Yes, but it is good for America’s economy. Reward American’s venal desires for instant gratification, by beggaring your neighbors??

          • Brian Fr Langley

            PS Krugman is either lying or wrong about inflation! The numbers are being Gerrymandered. That is, as products rise to fast they are taken out of the basket. Remember the inflation of the late 70′s? 10%, 12%, and even higher percentages? Well if we used those same baskets today, we’d be back to those numbers. BUT now they don’t count things like oil, gasoline or food???? They say they’re too volatile? Purchasing power is dropping like a stone, yet we’re told the CPI is running at less than 2%??? Worse the other reason it hasn’t spikes (as Schiff predicted) is a floundering economy that still has no demand. They call this stagflation, and it scares the hell out of Keynesians. BUT this is apparently what is actually happening? Closing your eyes and saying La, la,la,la, doesn’t really make it go away. While inflation hammers the middle class, business owners get a fabulous break. Sorry son, CPI indicates 2% so the company can’t see clear to give you a higher raise this year. Gotta love socialist’s pandering to business?

          • legal eagle

            I understand that everything you don’t agree with is gerrymandered and everyone in the government is lying to you……It’s called being a cult member of the right wingers..

          • Brian Fr Langley

            That was not my opinion or some conspiracy theory. Anybody can check this out. The basket for the CPI is regularly changed so as to weed out all products considered to volatile. (anything that inflates to fast) A grade 5 kid with an I phone could confirm this in about 3 minutes???

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Paul Krugman? You’re joking right?

          • legal eagle

            A Nobel Prize winning economist….Ever read any of his work or are you, as usual, making a political comment…

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            I’ve not only read his work, but have also written columns about him. He’s a fool.

            And are you seriously touting the legitimization of the Noble prize committee? All you have to do to win one is tout global warming, or oppose George W. Bush’s foreign policies before adopting them as your own.

          • legal eagle

            I understand he’s the enemy….I understand the Nobel prize in economics means nothing…I understand having a PHD. in economics means nothing….I understand that everyone you disagree with is a fool….So you think the Nobel Prize in economics or medicine or science is political? True right wing cultism…

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            The enemy? No. He’s an idiot.

            His answer to revive the economy was for the government to fake an alien invasion against the Earth in order to force more government spending.

            His answer to our debt problem was for the government to create trillion dollar coins and hand them over to the Federal Reserve to pay off our debt.

            You claim that you’re a guy who likes “facts” and not “theories” (I have yet to see any evidence of that by the way), yet that is all Krugman deals in – theory. He’s never even been involved in an actual business. He has no practical standing when it comes to economic matters.

            He writes about his theories and offers commentary (which his peers routinely laugh at), none of which are rooted in first-hand knowledge of business, but rather from his time spent in academia.

            He’s a joke.

            As evidenced by President Obama and Al Gore, all one has to do to win a Nobel prize is to get a lot of attention with their advancement of liberal theory, and sound half-way intelligent to naive people in the process. Actual achievement isn’t even factored into who the Swedes recognize.

            Even the crew over at MSNBC laughed hysterically when Krugman won the Nobel prize, and that’s saying something: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2008/10/13/krugman-nobel-cause-morning-joe-mirth

          • legal eagle

            Economists right about theories…They publish peer review papers to support their theories…
            Sorry, you don’t understand there is a difference between the political Nobel Prizes and the scientific ones which are voted upon by peer groups….
            It’s amazing how predictable your thought process is….everything is not political…Are you going to tell me that the Nobel Prize for science is granted because of the Doctor’s political beliefs?

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            >>Economists right about theories…They publish peer review papers to support their theories…

            Yeah, and most actually have experience in the economy in which they’re theorizing about. Krugman doesn’t. He’s a theorist who puts forth absurd theories. Yippidy-doo-dah!

            Explain to me again why a “fact based” guy like yourself, who keeps complaining that the arguments that oppose his are “just theory,” puts so much stock in a professional theorist who has no first-hand experience in his area of supposed expertise.

            Tell me, do YOU believe the answer to restoring or economy is to fake an alien invasion? Do you think the answer to paying off our debt is creating a few trillion-dollar coins? Honestly, how can you take such a person even remotely serious?

            >>Sorry, you don’t understand there is a difference between the political Nobel Prizes and the scientific ones which are voted upon by peer groups….

            The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences is a peer group? lol. Good one, legal. And yes, politics plays an enormous part in who gets Nobel awards. Why? Because the libs in Sweden who run the committees want to reward the like-minded.

          • legal eagle

            Interest rates are set by the market and manipulated by the Fed. No different than oil prices….

          • Brian Fr Langley

            Actually it’s extra-ordinarily difficult to manipulate oil prices? (ask OPEC) While I agree the DEM’s would love too. (because they’re corrupt). It’s virtually impossible.

          • legal eagle

            I could explain to you how oil prices are manipulated but I don’t think you really care…..Dems are corrupt compared to whom?

          • Brian Fr Langley

            No, I’d love to hear how you think oil manipulation corresponds to money manipulation?

          • legal eagle

            You said its extraordinarily difficult to manipulate oil prices…I say it’s easily done and happens with some regularity…..I’m not sure what the term “money manipulation” means?

          • Brian Fr Langley

            No you said you’d explain how it’s done. I’m all ears (metaphorically speaking_

          • legal eagle

            By the way, Peter Schiff’s book contains his opinions…He has no background as an economist and is a long time stock broker…You take his opinions seriously why? because you agree with him?
            Peter D. Schiff is a seasoned Wall Street prognosticator best known for his accurate predictions of the performance of the stock market, commodities, gold, and the dollar. He is one of the few unbiased investment advisors to have predicted the current bear market and positioned his clients accordingly. Schiff began his career at Shearson Lehman and joined Euro Pacific Capital in 1996, becoming President of the firm in 2000. He appears frequently on Fox Business News, CNN, CNBC, and Bloomberg TV, and has been quoted in such publications as the Wall Street Journal, Barron’s, the Financial Times, and the New York Times. Schiff is also the author of the original edition of Crash Proof as well as The Little Book of Bull Moves in Bear Markets, both published by Wiley.

  • legal eagle

    You say that Obama tried to “defund” the Iraq war…Is that hyperbole or your version of reality? Maybe you can let us in on when that happened?
    Obama as a political extremist? You’ve got to be kidding…

    • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

      Obama and other Democrats absolutely voted to defund military operations in Iraq on May 24th, 2007. Here’s the appropriations bill they voted against: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00181

      Obama’s side lost, 80-14.

      And I realize that hardcore liberals liberals like yourself would never view Obama as an extremist, no matter what he does.

      • legal eagle

        Obama’s side? You can’t be so naïve about politics as to not understand what a political vote means…

        • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

          LOL! Is that really your defense? That it was a “political vote,” and therefore wasn’t “extreme?”

          Obama voted to defund our troops during a time of war, Repubicans in congress voted to defund Obamacare. Neither worked. Yet, only one of those actions prompted the media to ring the “extremist” whistle and throw out accusations of terrorism, hostage-taking, etc?

          Why?

          • legal eagle

            So let me understand this….you object to the media using the term “extremist” to describe the John Birch/Tea Party wing of the Republican Party and therefore, you have a need to call Obama an extremist? OK…if it makes you happy I will stipulate that Obama is an extremist…Does this make you feel better?

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            John Birch again? I thought that was the other guy’s schtick.

            I have no “need” to call Obama an extremist. I want consistency in how the media frames stories. If a Democrat and a Republican say or do the same thing, but only the Republican is branded an “extremist” or a “terrorist” or a “hostage taker” or a “racist” for saying or doing that thing, isn’t that a problem?

          • legal eagle

            How unfair is that? Media members and Dem politicians calling some Republicans nasty names?
            Seems like you’re playing the victimization card again?
            Why’s everybody picking on those nasty Republicans?

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Not me. The victims of a totally biased media are the American public who counts on it to be fair and accurate.

            Some of us actually believe that hypocrisy is a bad thing and consistency is a good thing when it comes to a role as important to our society as the national media.

            You clearly don’t care. Noted.

          • legal eagle

            A totally biased media….All media is biased? Aren’t you part of the media?

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            I’m talking about the news media, legal. I comment on stories. I don’t report them. And though I’m a conservative, I don’t use a double-standard in how I interpret stories.

          • legal eagle

            OK..so it’s not the media, it’s “reporters” that are biased…All reporters? Is Wolf Blitzer biased? How about Diane Sawyer?
            You know that your statement about reporters is untrue…but the facts don’t fit your narrative…

          • Jeff Webb

            >>You know that your statement about reporters is untrue…but the facts don’t fit your narrative…<<

            A strikingly similar thing to say to race-carders like you.

          • legal eagle

            “A victim of this a victim of that, your mamas too thin and your daddy’s too fat….Get Over It”
            Don Henley

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            “You don’t really need to find out what’s going on. You don’t really want to know just how far it’s gone. Just leave well enough alone. Eat your dirty laundry.”
            Don Henley

          • legal eagle

            Touche….LOL You know Dirty Laundry song is about Rupert Murdoch?

          • Jeff Webb

            Do YOU know “Get Over It” is a swipe at the liberal mentality? You know, feeling entitled to shut up others and/or take their money, acting as if never feeling offended is a civil right?

          • legal eagle

            The Tea Party is the modern day version of the John Birch Society…They were called extremists…Didn’t bother them much nor did it bother Barry Goldwater in 1964…

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Were they called terrorists and hostage takers?

          • legal eagle

            I don’t know and I don’t care what pejoratives political groups are called, unless they are racial, sexual or relating to someone’s religion….

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Like tea-baggers?

          • legal eagle

            Tea baggers doesn’t refer to someone’s sexual orientation..

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            lol. Now we’ve narrowed it down to ‘sexual orientation’. Got it!

          • legal eagle

            Narrowed it down? What does that mean? Everyone I know knows what tea bagging refers to…

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            It means you narrowed your criteria from “sexual” to “sexual orientation.”

            Let’s face it… Calling someone a tea-bagger is essentially the same thing as calling someone a cock-sucker, right?

            Excuse the vulgarity, but I’m bringing it up to make a valid point. If people on the right began using that term to describe people on the left, you would be absolutely freaking out. Wouldn’t you?

            Yet, a number of people employed the mainstream news-media outlets have cavalierly used “tea bagger” to describe the Tea Party.

            How do you respond to that?

          • legal eagle

            I respond to that by saying I have called and been called that term by many people….so what? I grew up in New York City…I learned that in kindergarten….LOL

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            I find none of that hard to believe. ;)

          • legal eagle

            A term still used often in legal circles….LOL

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            >>The Tea Party is the modern day version of the John Birch Society

            Let me guess. That’s a “fact” and not an “opinion”, right?

          • legal eagle

            True genius on your part…

          • legal eagle

            Extreme? An anti-war vote is never extreme..it’s patriotic…it’s why Obama is now President and Hillary isn’t…

          • Jeff Webb

            >>Extreme? An anti-war vote is never extreme..it’s patriotic.<>it’s why Obama is now President and Hillary isn’t…<<

            Damn right! Same reason President Bush lost and Kerry won. Oh, wait…

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            An anti-war vote… Is that all it was? I suppose that turning off a fire-hose that firefighters are using to put out a flaming building would be considered a noble act of “water-conservation” in your book.

    • Stimpy

      Wow. What planet do you live on? A Reverend Wright, Saul Alinsky disciple not being extreme? Someone who vowed to really change America, through wealth redistribuition not being an extremist? Someone who absolutely refuses to negotiate not an extremist? He is the most extreme and divisive ‘President’ (I use the term loosely) that I’ve ever encountered.

  • Brian Fr Langley

    Limerick?
    .
    Conservatives they label far right,
    a perjorative meant really to bite,
    they accuse us of hate,
    (less hard than debate)
    by calling us Nazi’s (though lite)

    • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

      Brilliant!