Krauthammer-The last refuge of a liberal

Roger Baltrey

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 13, 2005
2,895
24
38
One for the archives :0074

This is so relevant to this forum--you can go in any thread and see same people resorting to same tactics to cop out on everything they don't have answer to or can not comprehend.

The last refuge of a liberal


By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, August 27, 2010

Liberalism under siege is an ugly sight indeed. Just yesterday it was all hope and change and returning power to the people. But the people have proved so disappointing. Their recalcitrance has, in only 19 months, turned the predicted 40-year liberal ascendancy (James Carville) into a full retreat.

Ah, the people, the little people, the small-town people, the "bitter" people, as Barack Obama in an unguarded moment once memorably called them, clinging "to guns or religion or" -- this part is less remembered -- "antipathy toward people who aren't like them."
That's a polite way of saying: clinging to bigotry. And promiscuous charges of bigotry are precisely how our current rulers and their vast media auxiliary react to an obstreperous citizenry that insists on incorrect thinking.
-- Resistance to the vast expansion of government power, intrusiveness and debt, as represented by the Tea Party movement? Why, racist resentment toward a black president.
-- Disgust and alarm with the federal government's unwillingness to curb illegal immigration, as crystallized in the Arizona law? Nativism.
-- Opposition to the most radical redefinition of marriage in human history, as expressed in Proposition 8 in California? Homophobia.
-- Opposition to a 15-story Islamic center and mosque near Ground Zero? Islamophobia.
Now we know why the country has become "ungovernable," last year's excuse for the Democrats' failure of governance:

Who can possibly govern a nation of racist, nativist, homophobic Islamophobes?

Note what connects these issues. In every one, liberals have lost the argument in the court of public opinion. Majorities -- often lopsided majorities -- oppose President Obama's social-democratic agenda (e.g., the stimulus, Obamacare), support the Arizona law, oppose gay marriage and reject a mosque near Ground Zero.
What's a liberal to do? Pull out the bigotry charge, the trump that preempts debate and gives no credit to the seriousness and substance of the contrary argument. The most venerable of these trumps is, of course, the race card. When the Tea Party arose, a spontaneous, leaderless and perfectly natural (and traditionally American) reaction to the vast expansion of government intrinsic to the president's proudly proclaimed transformational agenda, the liberal commentariat cast it as a mob of angry white yahoos disguising their antipathy to a black president by cleverly speaking in economic terms.
Then came Arizona and S.B. 1070. It seems impossible for the left to believe that people of good will could hold that: (a) illegal immigration should be illegal, (b) the federal government should not hold border enforcement hostage to comprehensive reform, i.e., amnesty, (c) every country has the right to determine the composition of its immigrant population.

As for Proposition 8, is it so hard to see why people might believe that a single judge overturning the will of 7 million voters is an affront to democracy?

And that seeing merit in retaining the structure of the most ancient and fundamental of all social institutions is something other than an alleged hatred of gays -- particularly since the opposite-gender requirement has characterized virtually every society in all the millennia until just a few years ago?
And now the mosque near Ground Zero. The intelligentsia is near unanimous that the only possible grounds for opposition is bigotry toward Muslims. This smug attribution of bigotry to two-thirds of the population hinges on the insistence on a complete lack of connection between Islam and radical Islam, a proposition that dovetails perfectly with the Obama administration's pretense that we are at war with nothing more than "violent extremists" of inscrutable motive and indiscernible belief. Those who reject this as both ridiculous and politically correct (an admitted redundancy) are declared Islamophobes, the ad hominem du jour.
It is a measure of the corruption of liberal thought and the collapse of its self-confidence that, finding itself so widely repudiated, it resorts reflexively to the cheapest race-baiting (in a colorful variety of forms). Indeed, how can one reason with a nation of pitchfork-wielding mobs brimming with "antipathy toward people who aren't like them" -- blacks, Hispanics, gays and Muslims -- a nation that is, as Michelle Obama once put it succinctly, "just downright mean"?

The Democrats are going to get beaten badly in November. Not just because the economy is ailing. And not just because Obama over-read his mandate in governing too far left. But because a comeuppance is due the arrogant elites whose undisguised contempt for the great unwashed prevents them from conceding a modicum of serious thought to those who dare oppose them.


Dogs,


Krauthammer has some points here. The liberals can sling mud with the best of them. My suspicions on the tea party are that they were quiet as a mouse as Bush drove the deficit up and you never hear them even mention defense as something that needs to be trimmed if you want to lower taxes and balance budgets. My take is that this is a clever gimmick by some marketing geniuses to win back angry blue collar voters by drumming up shit. I have not heard one good idea out of them yet. And "Sarah Palin"?, what a windbag.
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,499
263
83
Victory Lane
Charles says:

August 27, 2010 at 8:06 pmSir:

I am a former Marine. I have been waiting for someone in your position to stop the Communism in Washington D.C.

I am sick of have illegals crammed down my throat. ?Press 2 for English.?
Homosexuality crammed down my throat. Sick of whinning, crying blacks playing the race card on everything. The government and Corporate
American trying to mix the races, every T.V. commercial, a black guy and a white girl. We can?t say the ?N? word, which is exactly what some of them are, but they can say it, or Moth** Fu**** is publc in front of our wives and daughters.

I am sick of the ?homo? Barney Frank, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi doing just whatever they please. Yomama an air head that is not even a citizen, never served in the Armed Forces but is ?Commander in Chief?. What a Bozo. He has never had a job in his life. I fed up with Chris Dodd, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Sen.? Rangel. Tim Geithiner, Bernecke.

I sincerely believe we stand on the edge of a Revolution. All it would take is for some true leaders to step forward, Generals, Admirals, etc. and some armed vets like myself would be right by your side to put an end once and for all to all this tatooed, body pierced B.S.

Enough is enough!!!! And this is just too damn much!
.................................................................


DTBlackgumby

is that you ?

wow just wow

sure sounds like yu

no offense :)
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,499
263
83
Victory Lane
Well, the "Hammer" did win the Irving Kristol award and Irving Kristol's widely recognized as the Godfather of Neoconservatism... so there it is.
..................................................................

Yeh that pretty much sums up his line of thinking

I pity the fool DTBlackgumby if he trys to follow this guys thoughts and ideas about the world

so sad

no offense DTBlackgumby:)
 

Trench

Turn it up
Forum Member
Mar 8, 2008
3,974
18
0
Mad City, WI
Dogs,

My suspicions on the tea party are that they were quiet as a mouse as Bush drove the deficit up and you never hear them even mention defense as something that needs to be trimmed if you want to lower taxes and balance budgets.
You're wasting your time. I've tried to get "Dogs" to comment on our obscene military spending dozens of times. He's ignored me or switched the topic to domestic spending every single time. Military spending is the sacred cow of the neoconservative. Cut, slash and burn all domestic programs, but grease the war machine at all costs.
 

Trampled Underfoot

Registered
Forum Member
Feb 26, 2001
13,593
164
63
Who does this remind you of?

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/54jRfgtOLeM?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/54jRfgtOLeM?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
 

Trampled Underfoot

Registered
Forum Member
Feb 26, 2001
13,593
164
63
Dogs,


Krauthammer has some points here. The liberals can sling mud with the best of them. My suspicions on the tea party are that they were quiet as a mouse as Bush drove the deficit up and you never hear them even mention defense as something that needs to be trimmed if you want to lower taxes and balance budgets. My take is that this is a clever gimmick by some marketing geniuses to win back angry blue collar voters by drumming up shit. I have not heard one good idea out of them yet. And "Sarah Palin"?, what a windbag.

This is my problem with these neo-cons. They ignore all this military spending but are up in arms over money going to help the poor. Its sickening. This question has been asked a million times. Good luck with doggie. He just keeps running from these questions.
 

Trampled Underfoot

Registered
Forum Member
Feb 26, 2001
13,593
164
63
You're wasting your time. I've tried to get "Dogs" to comment on our obscene military spending dozens of times. He's ignored me or switched the topic to domestic spending every single time. Military spending is the sacred cow of the neoconservative. Cut, slash and burn all domestic programs, but grease the war machine at all costs.

You beat me to it. The funny thing is that the money that is spent on the war doesn't find its way into doggies pockets. Voting against his interest. He's a clever one.
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,499
263
83
Victory Lane
.................................................................

Here is a German Jew you should listen to
DTBlackgumby

no offense :)
 
Last edited:

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,496
172
63
Bowling Green Ky
Dogs,


Krauthammer has some points here. The liberals can sling mud with the best of them. My suspicions on the tea party are that they were quiet as a mouse as Bush drove the deficit up and you never hear them even mention defense as something that needs to be trimmed if you want to lower taxes and balance budgets. My take is that this is a clever gimmick by some marketing geniuses to win back angry blue collar voters by drumming up shit. I have not heard one good idea out of them yet. And "Sarah Palin"?, what a windbag.

Roger
We are beginning to see common ground. If Dems 1st moved when they got in power would have been to repeal GW's Medicare RX expansion--I'd have been applauding as exactly same BS we didn't need especially at that time.

Not a fan of Palin either--no shot at pres nomination--I hope.

I could not agree more with Krauthammers article. Do not agree with everything of his -like higher tax on gas but for most part agree with most his views.

He is probably one of most followed writers by both parties--rarily does one of his articles come out that it is not in most read area of Real Clear Politics. I see it made list today.

Most Read
Last 24 Hours
The Last Refuge of a Liberal
- Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post
Most Fiscally Irresponsible Govt in US History
- Mort Zuckerman, US News
Dorsal Fins Surround White House
- Jonah Goldberg, National Review
GOP's Christie is a Rising National Star
- Peter Coy, BusinessWeek
 

Trench

Turn it up
Forum Member
Mar 8, 2008
3,974
18
0
Mad City, WI
Roger
We are beginning to see common ground. If Dems 1st moved when they got in power would have been to repeal GW's Medicare RX expansion--I'd have been applauding as exactly same BS we didn't need especially at that time.
See what I mean? Dogs won't even go near the subject of military spending. It's kryptonite to the super-neocon... kurby
 

Trench

Turn it up
Forum Member
Mar 8, 2008
3,974
18
0
Mad City, WI
Opinion vs. Facts

Opinion vs. Facts

Krauthammer gives us opinon and Newsweek/Romano give us facts.

Estimates Say Fewer Jobs, Larger Deficits if Republicans Were in Charge

by Andrew Romano
August 27, 2010

Nothing is more important to Republican politicians these days than jobs and the deficit?at least according to Republican politicians. As House Minority Leader John Boehner put it in a "major economic address" on Tuesday, President Obama is "doing everything possible to prevent jobs from being created" while refusing to do anything at all "about bringing down the deficits that threaten our economy." Elect Republicans in November, Boehner assured his audience, and we will put an end to this insanity.

There's only one problem with Boehner's message: so far, the things that Republicans have said they want to do won't actually boost employment or reduce deficits. In fact, much the opposite. By combing through a variety of studies and projections from nonpartisan economic sources, we here at Gaggle headquarters have found that if Republicans were in charge from January 2009 onward?and if they were now given carte blanche to enact the proposals they want to?the projected 2010?2020 deficits would be larger than they are under Obama, and fewer people would probably be employed.

The math is pretty straightforward. Let's start with the deficit. According to the Congressional Budget Office, Obama's stimulus plan is projected to increase budget deficits over the next decade by $814 billion. That's a big number. But Republicans opposed the legislation refused to provide an alternative, and now insist that it's been a total failure. So let's be generous and subtract it from their side of the equation. The Obama deficit: $814 billion. The GOP deficit: $0.

Next up is health-care reform. Obama passed it; Republicans want to repeal it "lock, stock, and barrel." The reason, as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell explained in July, is that "we all know that it's going to increase the deficit." Unfortunately for the GOP, though, nonpartisan experts tend to disagree. Just this Tuesday, for example, the CBO released a letter saying that Obama's health-care-reform legislation would "reduce the projected budget deficit by $30 billion over the next 10 years,? while repealing the law would generate "an increase in deficits ... of $455 billion ... over that [same] period." Factor those figures into the equation and the Obama deficit falls to $784 billion. The GOP deficit, meanwhile, rises to $455 billion. Getting warmer.

The final piece of the puzzle is the Bush tax cuts. Obama wants to extend them for the 95 percent of taxpayers making less than $250,000 a year; Republicans want to extend them for everybody. How will these extensions affect the deficit? Glad you asked. According to data compiled by The Washington Post, "the Democratic proposal would add about $3 trillion to the deficit during the next decade, while the GOP plan would cost $3.7 trillion."

That brings the total Obama deficit to $3.784 trillion over 10 years, and its GOP counterpart to?drumroll, please?$4.155 trillion.

That's right. Even if we assume that the Republicans would've spent $0 to stimulate the economy in the wake of the largest economic collapse since the Great Depression?an unlikely scenario, given the very real risks of inaction?their proposed policies would still produce a deficit $371 billion larger than President Obama's.

(Or $335 billion; Boehner also says he'd like to freeze nondefense discretionary spending at 2008 levels, which would save a grand total of $36 billion.)

On jobs, it's a similar story. So far, Republicans have only said they'd do?or that they would've done?two large-scale things the Democrats haven't: (1) scrap the stimulus, and (2) extend the Bush tax cuts for Americans earning more than $250,000 so as not to (in Boehner's words) "impose job-killing tax hikes on families and small businesses."

How would these measures affect employment? Regarding the stimulus, the answer is pretty clear. In a report out this week, the CBO estimates that between 1.4 million and 3.3 million fewer people would be employed right now if the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act had never made it through Congress. Split the difference, and the pro-stimulus Obama moves ahead of the anti-stimulus GOP by about 2.35 million jobs. (A more dramatic estimate by the economists Alan Blinder and Mark Zandi [a McCain 2008 adviser] puts the number at 2.7 million, but we'll stick with the CBO stats for now.)

The effect of tax cuts on job creation is a little trickier to tally. Extending all of them, according to the CBO, would lower unemployment by 0.3 to 0.8 percent over the next year or so; extending them solely for people making less than $250,000 would produce a somewhat smaller effect, for a difference of roughly 200,000 to 500,000 people. The problem, as economist William G. Gale of the Brookings Institution has noted, is that "of 11 potential stimulus policies the CBO recently examined, an extension of all of the Bush tax cuts ties for lowest bang for the buck." In fact, he continues, "letting the high-income tax cuts expire and using the money for aid to the states, extensions of unemployment insurance benefits, [or] tax credits favoring job creation ... would have about three times the impact ... as continuing the Bush tax cuts."

In addition, it's unlikely that extending the cuts for the richest Americans would have much of an effect on small-business hiring, which is a claim that Republicans make with some regularity. Why? Because of the taxpayers that report running small businesses on their taxes, only 2 percent fall into the top two income brackets.* The other 98 percent of small-business owners make less than $250,000 a year and wouldn't pay higher taxes under Obama's plan.

History isn't on the GOP's side, either. If keeping the top marginal tax rate at 35 percent?the rate under Bush, and the rate that Republicans are fighting to preserve?spurs so much hiring, why didn't America experience any job growth at all during Bush's time in office? And if a top marginal tax rate of 39.6 percent?the rate under Bill Clinton, and the rate that Democrats are fighting to restore?is such a job killer, why did payrolls grow by 20 percent during the 1990s?

The implication here isn't that higher tax rates equal more jobs. Far from it. But there's simply no evidence, either in the history books or the latest projections, to suggest that extending all of the Bush tax cuts would provide an employment boost large enough to offset the number of jobs that would've been lost if the GOP had succeeded in blocking the stimulus?let alone lasting enough to justify adding another $700 billion to the deficit.

The bottom line, then, is that recent GOP proposals would produce fewer jobs and far larger deficits than the plans Obama has already passed or currently wants to pass. This isn't to say that the Republicans couldn't create jobs or cut the deficit if restored to power?just that right now, they've chosen to support policies that would prove less effective in both respects than the Democratic programs they so vehemently criticize.

On the trail, it's easy to talk about cutting pork, slashing taxes, and reducing "uncertainty." But if the party wants to provide voters with real alternatives on jobs and deficits, they should start talking about the sort of deep spending cuts and targeted tax incentives that might actually make a difference someday: reforming Medicare and Social Security, cutting defense spending, reducing payroll taxes, and creating tax credits for job creation. Otherwise, they're worse than what we have now.

http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-g...eficits-republicans-are-worse-than-obama.html

A penny for DTB's thoughts and a dollar for "Hammy's" thoughts... :0corn
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,499
263
83
Victory Lane
...........................................................

We are talking billions of wasted money.

But DTBlackgumby harps on welfare woman.

face reality

fight this fight of waste from the defense dept

get riled up over this.

Thats what gets me about neocons. This kind of shit does not bother them in the least.

Its pathetic

No offense :)
 
Last edited:

Lumi

LOKI
Forum Member
Aug 30, 2002
21,104
58
0
58
In the shadows
If we didn't have such a GI-Normous Defense Spending defecit, we would have a pile of scratch to spend on MUCH NEEDED AND DESEVERVEDLY SO SOCIAL PROGRAMS

I don't have the time, patience or the room to list them all here.

Just a few: Schools, Medical, Roads, Guns for Nuns :shrug: What? It's my favorite charity :facepalm:
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,499
263
83
Victory Lane
...................................................................

Here is the big difference between George W and Barrack.

George W would have pulled out a wad of 100 s
big enough to choke a horse.

Oh wait , George W would not even had made the trip to the Gulf .

He avoided Katrina Gulf like the plague.

Change we can believe in
 
Last edited:

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
One for the archives :0074

This is so relevant to this forum--you can go in any thread and see same people resorting to same tactics to cop out on everything they don't have answer to or can not comprehend.

The last refuge of a liberal


.

DTB posting this? I must be in Bizaro World.
 

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
DTB posting this? I must be in Bizaro World.

When u see him posting something like that ya just sit back and realize how truly backwards and unreachable this guy is. It is a hypocrite at its highest level. :facepalm:
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top