Going to Extreme

FUCK THE POLICE

911 EVERY DAY
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/opinion/26krugman.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss


Going to Extreme

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: March 25, 2010
I admit it: I had fun watching right-wingers go wild as health reform finally became law. But a few days later, it doesn’t seem quite as entertaining — and not just because of the wave of vandalism and threats aimed at Democratic lawmakers. For if you care about America’s future, you can’t be happy as extremists take full control of one of our two great political parties.


To be sure, it was enjoyable watching Representative Devin Nunes, a Republican of California, warn that by passing health reform, Democrats “will finally lay the cornerstone of their socialist utopia on the backs of the American people.” Gosh, that sounds uncomfortable. And it’s been a hoot watching Mitt Romney squirm as he tries to distance himself from a plan that, as he knows full well, is nearly identical to the reform he himself pushed through as governor of Massachusetts. His best shot was declaring that enacting reform was an “unconscionable abuse of power,” a “historic usurpation of the legislative process” — presumably because the legislative process isn’t supposed to include things like “votes” in which the majority prevails.



A side observation: one Republican talking point has been that Democrats had no right to pass a bill facing overwhelming public disapproval. As it happens, the Constitution says nothing about opinion polls trumping the right and duty of elected officials to make decisions based on what they perceive as the merits. But in any case, the message from the polls is much more ambiguous than opponents of reform claim: While many Americans disapprove of Obamacare, a significant number do so because they feel that it doesn’t go far enough. And a Gallup poll taken after health reform’s enactment showed the public, by a modest but significant margin, seeming pleased that it passed.


But back to the main theme. What has been really striking has been the eliminationist rhetoric of the G.O.P., coming not from some radical fringe but from the party’s leaders. John Boehner, the House minority leader, declared that the passage of health reform was “Armageddon.” The Republican National Committee put out a fund-raising appeal that included a picture of Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, surrounded by flames, while the committee’s chairman declared that it was time to put Ms. Pelosi on “the firing line.” And Sarah Palin put out a map literally putting Democratic lawmakers in the cross hairs of a rifle sight.


All of this goes far beyond politics as usual. Democrats had a lot of harsh things to say about former President George W. Bush — but you’ll search in vain for anything comparably menacing, anything that even hinted at an appeal to violence, from members of Congress, let alone senior party officials.



No, to find anything like what we’re seeing now you have to go back to the last time a Democrat was president. Like President Obama, Bill Clinton faced a G.O.P. that denied his legitimacy — Dick Armey, the second-ranking House Republican (and now a Tea Party leader) referred to him as “your president.” Threats were common: President Clinton, declared Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina, “better watch out if he comes down here. He’d better have a bodyguard.” (Helms later expressed regrets over the remark — but only after a media firestorm.) And once they controlled Congress, Republicans tried to govern as if they held the White House, too, eventually shutting down the federal government in an attempt to bully Mr. Clinton into submission.


Mr. Obama seems to have sincerely believed that he would face a different reception. And he made a real try at bipartisanship, nearly losing his chance at health reform by frittering away months in a vain attempt to get a few Republicans on board. At this point, however, it’s clear that any Democratic president will face total opposition from a Republican Party that is completely dominated by right-wing extremists.


For today’s G.O.P. is, fully and finally, the party of Ronald Reagan — not Reagan the pragmatic politician, who could and did strike deals with Democrats, but Reagan the antigovernment fanatic, who warned that Medicare would destroy American freedom. It’s a party that sees modest efforts to improve Americans’ economic and health security not merely as unwise, but as monstrous. It’s a party in which paranoid fantasies about the other side — Obama is a socialist, Democrats have totalitarian ambitions — are mainstream. And, as a result, it’s a party that fundamentally doesn’t accept anyone else’s right to govern.



In the short run, Republican extremism may be good for Democrats, to the extent that it prompts a voter backlash. But in the long run, it’s a very bad thing for America. We need to have two reasonable, rational parties in this country. And right now we don’t.
 
The Republican Party is the most widespread extremist fascist movement in American history. They are a direct threat to America's existence - the greatest threat this nation has ever faced.
 
In the short run, Republican extremism may be good for Democrats, to the extent that it prompts a voter backlash. But in the long run, it’s a very bad thing for America. We need to have two reasonable, rational parties in this country. And right now we don’t.

no shit krugman, moron. you've got two parties who feel that their majority can deny the rights of all americans. real americans are ready to fight back. you haven't even seen violence and extremism yet.
 
I am in no condition to read anything past the first word Paul. The beauty of being drunk on your computer and living on the same street in San Francisco as Nancy Pelosi means absolutely nothing.

In the morning I will pass her crib and if she has two large black SUV's in front of her crib it will mean she is at home. Of course the only reason Nancy has the brothers there is because Superfreaks gay ass might jump threw her window.
 
I agree with Krugman about Romney. But I think what he misses is that there is a tipping point or a line for a lot of people. Republicans had not much trouble with Obama for his first few months in office
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/opinion/26krugman.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss


Going to Extreme

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: March 25, 2010
I admit it: I had fun watching right-wingers go wild as health reform finally became law. But a few days later, it doesn’t seem quite as entertaining — and not just because of the wave of vandalism and threats aimed at Democratic lawmakers. For if you care about America’s future, you can’t be happy as extremists take full control of one of our two great political parties.


To be sure, it was enjoyable watching Representative Devin Nunes, a Republican of California, warn that by passing health reform, Democrats “will finally lay the cornerstone of their socialist utopia on the backs of the American people.” Gosh, that sounds uncomfortable. And it’s been a hoot watching Mitt Romney squirm as he tries to distance himself from a plan that, as he knows full well, is nearly identical to the reform he himself pushed through as governor of Massachusetts. His best shot was declaring that enacting reform was an “unconscionable abuse of power,” a “historic usurpation of the legislative process” — presumably because the legislative process isn’t supposed to include things like “votes” in which the majority prevails.



A side observation: one Republican talking point has been that Democrats had no right to pass a bill facing overwhelming public disapproval. As it happens, the Constitution says nothing about opinion polls trumping the right and duty of elected officials to make decisions based on what they perceive as the merits. But in any case, the message from the polls is much more ambiguous than opponents of reform claim: While many Americans disapprove of Obamacare, a significant number do so because they feel that it doesn’t go far enough. And a Gallup poll taken after health reform’s enactment showed the public, by a modest but significant margin, seeming pleased that it passed.


But back to the main theme. What has been really striking has been the eliminationist rhetoric of the G.O.P., coming not from some radical fringe but from the party’s leaders. John Boehner, the House minority leader, declared that the passage of health reform was “Armageddon.” The Republican National Committee put out a fund-raising appeal that included a picture of Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, surrounded by flames, while the committee’s chairman declared that it was time to put Ms. Pelosi on “the firing line.” And Sarah Palin put out a map literally putting Democratic lawmakers in the cross hairs of a rifle sight.


All of this goes far beyond politics as usual. Democrats had a lot of harsh things to say about former President George W. Bush — but you’ll search in vain for anything comparably menacing, anything that even hinted at an appeal to violence, from members of Congress, let alone senior party officials.



No, to find anything like what we’re seeing now you have to go back to the last time a Democrat was president. Like President Obama, Bill Clinton faced a G.O.P. that denied his legitimacy — Dick Armey, the second-ranking House Republican (and now a Tea Party leader) referred to him as “your president.” Threats were common: President Clinton, declared Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina, “better watch out if he comes down here. He’d better have a bodyguard.” (Helms later expressed regrets over the remark — but only after a media firestorm.) And once they controlled Congress, Republicans tried to govern as if they held the White House, too, eventually shutting down the federal government in an attempt to bully Mr. Clinton into submission.


Mr. Obama seems to have sincerely believed that he would face a different reception. And he made a real try at bipartisanship, nearly losing his chance at health reform by frittering away months in a vain attempt to get a few Republicans on board. At this point, however, it’s clear that any Democratic president will face total opposition from a Republican Party that is completely dominated by right-wing extremists.


For today’s G.O.P. is, fully and finally, the party of Ronald Reagan — not Reagan the pragmatic politician, who could and did strike deals with Democrats, but Reagan the antigovernment fanatic, who warned that Medicare would destroy American freedom. It’s a party that sees modest efforts to improve Americans’ economic and health security not merely as unwise, but as monstrous. It’s a party in which paranoid fantasies about the other side — Obama is a socialist, Democrats have totalitarian ambitions — are mainstream. And, as a result, it’s a party that fundamentally doesn’t accept anyone else’s right to govern.



In the short run, Republican extremism may be good for Democrats, to the extent that it prompts a voter backlash. But in the long run, it’s a very bad thing for America. We need to have two reasonable, rational parties in this country. And right now we don’t.

Watching Boehner give his speech [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gFC3kVZTCk&feature=related"]YouTube- House Minority leader John Boehner's closing argument against the health care reform bill[/ame] reminded me of a child having a tantrum. The voice, the contorted face, the body language....imagine a crackpot like that as President!! Imagine him dealing with foreign leaders!!

This may all be a good thing. We get to see their "true colors", as the old saying goes. Let more of the Repubs carry on and let the people see if they have the composure and decorum to lead anything but a street gang.
 
Hmmm, Krugman always has the talking point memos:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/03/025934.php

SUN RISES IN EAST; KRUGMAN MAKES FOOL OF HIMSELF

March 26, 2010 Posted by John at 6:41 PM
One thing about Paul Krugman, he always gets the memo. You can count on his column in the New York Times to echo the Democratic Party's talking points of the moment, whatever they are. Thus, his current column accuses Republicans of threatening violence against those poor little Democrats. It's a dumb claim, so it suits Krugman perfectly. His "evidence" is lame beyond belief. After referring to "the wave of vandalism and threats aimed at Democratic lawmakers"--no mention of Eric Cantor's office being shot at, death threats against Sarah Palin, etc.--he continues:

What has been really striking has been the eliminationist rhetoric of the G.O.P., coming not from some radical fringe but from the party's leaders. John Boehner, the House minority leader, declared that the passage of health reform was "Armageddon."

Is that scary, or what? An "Armageddon" is "any great and crucial conflict." I think the debate over health care qualifies, and, judging by their own statements, so do the Democrats. Krugman continues:

The Republican National Committee put out a fund-raising appeal that included a picture of Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, surrounded by flames, while the committee's chairman declared that it was time to put Ms. Pelosi on "the firing line."

This is downright funny. Krugman, in his usual dishonest-but-ineffective way, forgets to mention the whole point of the RNC fund-raising appeal, i.e., "Fire Pelosi." Here it is; click to enlarge:

...

...You might think I'm kidding, but take a look at the linked column--that is literally all of the evidence that Krugman cites for the proposition that Republican leaders are systematically inciting violence. He continues:

All of this goes far beyond politics as usual. Democrats had a lot of harsh things to say about former President George W. Bush -- but you'll search in vain for anything comparably menacing, anything that even hinted at an appeal to violence, from members of Congress, let alone senior party officials.

Well, let's see. How about the cover of this book, which depicts President Bush as Frankenstein's monster and Dick Cheney as Hitler? Disgusting! Whose book is it? Oh, yeah...Krugman's:



And, as many have noted, Krugman also wrote--just last December!--"A message to progressives: By all means, hang Senator Joe Lieberman in effigy." I think that Krugman "hinted at an appeal to violence" far more clearly, to put it mildly, than any of the Republicans whose innocuous words he quoted.

Many people believe that Krugman doesn't actually write the columns that appear under his name in the Times, because they are so stupid. I don't know. For that to be a credible theory, he must have once written something intelligent. If he ever has, I missed it.
 
Dems had GED's that were mad at bush too. Cons need to raise money. They know it's impossible to reverse but the GED's don't. Let's just have fun laughing at the white trash foot stomping living room riots.
 
Links? Give us something here.

Obama snubs natanyahu at white house

President Obama snubbed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in several ways during his visit to Washington this week.

The White House is upset with Netanyahu’s recent decision to approve Jewish construction in east Jerusalem.

The approval was announced during Vice President Biden’s recent visit to Israel to spark peace negotiations with Palestinians. The Obama administration is miffed by what it sees as Israeli intransigence on this issue.

The White House denied Netanyahu the red carpet treatment generally afforded to visiting heads of state.

The Israeli prime minister and Obama didn’t pose for photos together, and Netanyahu was excluded from dinner with the president Tuesday night.

When Netanyahu wouldn’t agree to concessions, Obama left a meeting with him, though he invited Netanyahu to stay at the White House, talk to Obama advisers and “let me know if there is anything new,” a U.S. congressman who spoke to Netanyahu, told The Times of London.

is that how you treat a head of state?
 
I am in no condition to read anything past the first word Paul. The beauty of being drunk on your computer and living on the same street in San Francisco as Nancy Pelosi means absolutely nothing.

In the morning I will pass her crib and if she has two large black SUV's in front of her crib it will mean she is at home. Of course the only reason Nancy has the brothers there is because Superfreaks gay ass might jump threw her window.
Don't mind Wacko. He's not under the alcafluence of incahol though some thinkle peep he is.
 
Don't mind Wacko. He's not under the alcafluence of incahol though some thinkle peep he is.

Dammit! I just woke up and was like please lord tell me I didn't drunk post due to my anger over the tOSU-Tennessee game and the hot blond rejecting me. Well, i lost again!!!
 
Watching Boehner give his speech YouTube- House Minority leader John Boehner's closing argument against the health care reform bill reminded me of a child having a tantrum. The voice, the contorted face, the body language....imagine a crackpot like that as President!! Imagine him dealing with foreign leaders!!

This may all be a good thing. We get to see their "true colors", as the old saying goes. Let more of the Repubs carry on and let the people see if they have the composure and decorum to lead anything but a street gang.
You ever been to West Central Ohio? I'm originally from that area. Graduated high school from Coldwater which is part of the Ohio 8th district which is Boehner's district. The scary part is that Boehner is a border line communist by the standards of that region. Culturally the region is rural, white, Catholics of German descent (not coincidently Boehner is a white Catholic of German descent). Having been raised in the region where in the 60's German was still commonly spoken by community elders, I have no problems under standing how the Nazi's came to power in Germany.

What's odd to me is that when Boehner was first cutting his teeth in politics the region was dominated by union democrats. I can remember how I was one of the few Reagan supporters the first time he ran for office and Reagan lost to Carter in the 8th district by nearly 75%. They voted for W and McCain by 75% margins too. I use that information as a validation of my political sense. They were wrong in 1980 about Reagan in they were wrong in 2000 and 2008 about Bush and McCain.

Now I go back to the area which in 1978 was prosperous with many high paying manufacturing jobs providing the people of these rural small towns with a middle class standard of living and I see them become rural ghettos where all the factories have closed, the republicans whom they voted for having sent the jobs to Mexico and China, and how the only ones prospering are the local landed farmers who have created a provincially dominated political systems that's unsustainable as the young people they produce are leaving in droves. It's sad to see.
 
Last edited:
Watching Boehner give his speech YouTube- House Minority leader John Boehner's closing argument against the health care reform bill reminded me of a child having a tantrum. The voice, the contorted face, the body language....imagine a crackpot like that as President!! Imagine him dealing with foreign leaders!!

This may all be a good thing. We get to see their "true colors", as the old saying goes. Let more of the Repubs carry on and let the people see if they have the composure and decorum to lead anything but a street gang.

Actually, I feel the same about Obama when he goes through one of his childish temper tantrums. His last one just recently was a hoot.
 
Back
Top