Comments on: Discerning between apocalypse and Obama Derangement Syndrome

By: Leopard1996

Leopard1996 — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 23:02:28 +0000

Taught the theory of Keynes, and made us take the test on it, then when that test was over the next day, they said that it was full of s*&t.

By: kyle8

kyle8 — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 22:48:57 +0000

it was an excuse. An excuse that few people really believed would work. If you read anything about the New Deal, you will see that there were many different opinions and nobody, especially FDR, knew what the hell they were doing. But they did know that they wanted high taxes and government control of the economy, because they were marxists. So Keynes gave them an intellectual cover for their anti constitutional actions.

By: From ME to You

From ME to You — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 19:47:24 +0000

why am I not laughing????

By: David123

David123 — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 01:54:04 +0000

That is a bad sign, by itself.

By: cwilson

cwilson — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 21:10:58 +0000

Nope, they told Bush they weren’t going to do his dirty work for him wikipedia and upheld it in 2003. This new case is a different approach to try and get it scrapped.

By: aesthete

aesthete — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 17:36:25 +0000

probably a suppressed memory

And now I’m mad all over again! Thanks for noting that one; an example that clearly didn’t further America’s interests (unless by America, you mean John McCain’s gigantic ego).

By: Scope

Scope — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 17:31:24 +0000

which Bush signed into law, knowing it was unconstitutional (as to free speech), but still signed it thinking it would never pass muster with the Supreme Court. I believe, if I am not mistaken, it is only before the Supreme Court now.

By: Mike gamecock DeVine

Mike gamecock DeVine — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 17:02:04 +0000

By: Mike gamecock DeVine

Mike gamecock DeVine — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 17:01:28 +0000

spend much time on the Oath Keepers and certainly don’t want us to fall into the trap many did on immigration, who used the fringe racists a sa reason to attack anyone that was for a fence, but I do agree that the Oath Keepers’ talking points go too far, but too too far, if you know what I mean.

I bemoaned the loss of liberty before Obama and even before Bush 43, and this Obama sucker is 1000 times worse than anything we have ever seen.

I think we are on the same page.

By: kyle8

kyle8 — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:55:24 +0000

undermining of federalism.

By: civil_truth

civil_truth — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:49:21 +0000

This is true diversity, not that poison that the left has brewed.

By: JadedByPolitics

JadedByPolitics — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:45:01 +0000

…

By: dpayton

dpayton — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:44:52 +0000

Don’t let these guys who’ve never read anything else I wrote affect your perception of me. I think that Beck and Limbaugh (and those kids who video’ed ACORN) are doing quite a service in unmasking these folks for who they really are. They’re also demonstrating who Obama really is and his poll numbers are tanking to prove it.

You have no need to wonder about my position, good sir. I’m not a RedState diarist to be a spoiler.

By: nessa

nessa — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:28:26 +0000

...experienced and knowledgeable, at least about exiting an aircraft while in flight. The Army invested a great deal of time, money and effort teaching me to memorize things. Sustained Airborne Training (Pre Jump) is one of them, its been over a year but once I started the words were still there.

By: aesthete

aesthete — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:19:19 +0000

By: aesthete

aesthete — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:17:35 +0000

I would say that, given the emotions running after 9-11, the administration was remarkably restrained, from a historical perspective. After all, Lincoln suppressed dissent to an almost tyrannical extent (not that the CSA was much better; just more undermanned), and the FDR administration’s “internment camps” program unjustly imprisoned an entire class of Americans on the basis of race, as well as confiscating their assets. In that sense, I would like to rate Bush highly on civil liberties, and really, he does deserve props for that restraint. That said, as you yourself noted, he never really pushed for increasing civil liberties, and yes, the Patriot Act could easily be considered both unconstitutional and a curtailing of our civil liberties. Also, the handling of the José Padilla case completely undermined the rule of law and citizens’ rights. I suppose that I would say that, while Bush was pretty good at keeping civil liberties mostly intact, he wasn’t so much a defender of civil liberties as much as he was asleep behind the wheel. Also, it should be noted that his administration’s occasional undermining of the rule of law (again, Padilla) has greatly aided Obama in his endeavors by providing both precedent and cover for his actions.

By: Mike gamecock DeVine

Mike gamecock DeVine — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:13:28 +0000

So you got two high-ranking White House officials citing their appreciation for and respect for the philosophies of Mao Tse-tung. It is happening! And I’ll tell you what really amuses me at times is people, when they hear about this. “Does Obama know who these people are?” (snorts) Obama is Anita Dunn! Obama is Ron Bloom! Obama is Van Jones! Obama is Mark Lloyd! Obama is ACORN! You think these people just accidentally got chosen to serve in this administration. Obama is these people! He gets to go out there and portray himself as Mr. Perfect. He always smiles. He never ever does anything wrong. He never commits one faux pas. He never loses his cool. He never says radical things. He’s the public face of centrism and moderation, and yet the people doing his dirty work are the same radicals that he is.

He is a radical. It’s there for everyone to discover. Some people just don’t want to believe it.

By: aesthete

aesthete — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:04:15 +0000

1) Congressional oversight, while nice in the theoretical plane where we have effective and competent government (with Fred Thompson as King-for-life, of course), will not be as effective at corralling the Fed’s fiscal policy blunders in practice: there will be a dog-and-pony show of “what people knew and when they knew it”, regurgitated partisan sniping, and a general ignorance of the process. The Fed has an enormously complex job, which could be regulated and/or investigated properly with the right approach, but which probably would be pigeonholed into a talking point for some demagogue or other. Essentially, it is the same principle as investigation of the armed forces: though it can be beneficial in small doses and in measured steps, it’s not at all good at a time when emotions are running high and government officials are looking for a scapegoat. Auditing the Fed is the last thing I would do right now: it would repel anyone who is being professional, for fear that any false moves would end their careers, and would provide Democrats with an easy target on which to foist the blame. In short, there is little to recommend the policy even when the political environment isn’t charged (would you trust the members of congress with looking over your shoulder at your expenditures?), and there is absolutely nothing to recommend it in a Democrat-dominated Congress desperate to both find a whipping boy for their policies, and to “punish” the Fed, as their mythology posits that the current crisis is completely due to the Fed’s policies and lack of regulation. (Heck, I wouldn’t even trust the GOP in its current state to do a good job with such a complex issue.) That is DeMint’s position.

Ron Paul, OTOH, wants us to go back to the feudalistic practice of backing our cash with gold; a concept that is silly to the extreme, and that made the governments which backed their money this was do some really absurd things to keep up with price changes in gold (and devaluation of currency).

With that in mind, perhaps pointing the sharp sticks towards our real enemies (Al-Quaeda, Obama’s agenda, the Black-Eyed Peas) would be a better course of action than applauding Ron Paul’s quixotic quest to “restore” the gold standard.

By: civil_truth

civil_truth — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:59:35 +0000

…which should appear just below here. Your comment is quite on-point.

By: civil_truth

civil_truth — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:56:49 +0000

I’m afraid what was my intent didn’t quite come out right, and I thus overstated my case by apparently stating that Bush was a great defender of the neoclassical free market. That wasn’t what I was trying to drive at here.

I agree with you and mbecker that Bush did not fight against ongoing government encroachments into our economic affairs and was responsible for significant government expansions. NCLB and his Medicare drug benefit law comes to mind immediately. Not to mention enabling the congressional porkfest and government spendings during the Republican majority rule that led to their loss of their majority and the ushering on of Obama.

The issue that I was trying to deal with was not economic policy but rather civil liberties. I was trying to draw a distinction between Bush’s actions around the Patriot Act and 9/11, which subsequent actions to me indicate that his instinct were not Orwellian but rather aberrations in the time of unprecedented hostile actions against the U.S. mainland.

On the other hand, I do perceive a pattern of Obama administration actions that does indicate their sympathies (and probably intent) to suppress dissent and use government powers to monitor and intimidate dissenters along the Chavez model.

I would be willing to hear your arguments if you (or mbecker) think that the Bush and Obama are “peas in a pod” regarding this level of government intrusion and attempts to control and suppress dissent, as I see a substantial difference.

But when I expanded that contrast on civil liberties to “a general pattern of increasing individual and private power” – I agree that was a bridge too far.

And finally, thank you for your high compliments on my contributions to RedState. It was very gratifying to read them.