“Paul to Clinton: "I think ultimately with your leaving that you accept the culpability for the worst tragedy since 9/11. And I really mean that. [...] Had I been president ... I would have relieved you of your post."
Translation: "An inflammatory conjecture expressing implied guilt. A profound demonstration of ignorance. And just in case you're asking yourself right now: 'Randy, are you really that stupid?' Let me be clear: I am that stupid. [...] My hypothetical presidency. Hyperbole! As a real man, I know how to put women in their place."”
“* Even if this had a shred of truth to it, you bet the U.S. would regulate hammers and nails. But, hypothetically speaking, something tells me we would still probably regulate hammers more than we regulate guns.”
“"In an effort to touch on all four of those elements, the president recommended requiring criminal background checks for all gun sales; reinstating the assault weapons ban; restoring a 10-round limit on ammunition magazines; eliminating armor-piercing bullets; providing mental health services in schools; allocating funds to hire more police officers; and instituting a federal gun trafficking statute, among other policies."
Wait a minute! So are you telling me these aren't laws yet? God help us.”
“Funny how conservatives hate Krugman for being right on just about everything. What have they been correct about? Nothing. In fact, they created the greatest income inequality in U.S. history, they didn't see a giant housing bubble, they also created the worst financial disaster in U.S. history with global economic fallout, fiscally sabotaged or privatized public services, and through wars and tax cuts for the rich created a massive public debt. And this is just the top of the list.
Then, conservatives, who have been wrong about EVERYTHING, want to tell the public how to "tighten their belts," and fight for austerity policy.
You conservatives, always "so credible."”
NashGuy on Jan 16, 2013 at 15:39:53
“Yep, his advise to Enron as a paid advisor was classic!”
ncal on Jan 16, 2013 at 15:31:32
“Krugman better soon realize how much he's assisting with the Republican playbook. Obama is the main opponent, of course. If Obama and Krugman said nothing, agreed with nothing, proposed nothing, the Republicans would not know what to be against. And since the Republicans have pretty clearly demonstrated that they will oppose any effort whatever to support the recovering economy, we pretty much have their number completely. Anyone outside of the 1% still voting for them need their heads examined.”
Just-a-Guy on Jan 16, 2013 at 15:19:06
“"....conservatives hate Krugman for being right on just about everything..."
“My friends, just let the gun advocates cry. It's the beginning of the end for them. We know and they know it. They can't be reasoned with mainly because they won't appeal to it. Hardened facts will only be met with wild fantasies and pseudo-scientific claims. Why? Because they don't want reason as much as they want power. Said differently, they care more about being perceived as right, to trick others into thinking they are right, and in turn to trick themselves into being right, than actually being right. Nietzsche called it bad consciousness, slave mentality, resentment; I call gun it advocation.
The day is ours. Let them cry.”
ses190e on Jan 15, 2013 at 18:22:18
“Yeah, but it's so much fun to argue with these pea-brains.”
“Precisely. If the right had any sense, they could easily dismiss Stewart and the like as purely satirical, unserious criticism. In theory, this would prevent Stewart from any critical position. It's a different story in practice. Mostly because his fans don't care. Maybe they don't have to care? Maybe comedy can be both serious and unserious? Maybe comedy doesn't have to be fair? And I don't have the answers, nor do I think I'm in a position to decide. Regardless, the right fights him on the level of comedy, which they are exempt. This is a losing battle from the start. Instead, they should fight him on a journalistic level, not for his lack of seriousness, as O'Reilly as sought, but as unable to be serious. Then again, I support Stewart and most of his views, so I'm not sure why I'm putting all this out there. Although, it is philosophically interesting.”
“There is a greater problem at issue here. First and foremost, this discussion requires us to conclude on The Daily Show's intentions, which is really a greater question of what, if at all, is the role of comedy?
Is Stewart obligated to present issues seriously with journalistic integrity, as Krugman thinks, or through satire is he free from such obligations altogether, as Stewart as claimed? I also have to wonder how much Stewart unfairly plays both cards. Obviously there are times when he upholds the integrity of his show. But when pushed on journalistic obligations, he restricts himself to comedy. This allows Stewart to be both serious and unserious, which is unfair to his critics and those he criticizes.
Above all, Krugman is an economist - i.e. polemical. He will attack those who disagree, and this occasionally requires him to attack a liberal, like Stewart. But is Krugman taking Stewart too seriously? Maybe. It's not all about ruining Stewart's fan-base, as much as it's about his influence. From him, this coin idea is serious issue, and Stewart--playing the comedy card--is not taking it seriously. Krugman's fear is that Stewart's audience, who he thinks should be sympathetic to the idea, might not take it seriously either. At the same time, playing the journalistic card, Stewart upholds his coin idea as stupid. And Is this unfair to Krugman? Absolutely.
In short, if Stewart is doing comedy, then he can't be criticized, but only because he can't be critical.”
Miki365 on Jan 15, 2013 at 14:45:53
“Very nice summery. Stewart should collect his experts and/or his fan base provided ideas and present them to the experts. I think the experts will be able to make an excellent comedy out of that. And that is what might will happen, if Rape-publicans left some brain to play chess, they should encouraging the experts to demand alternatives from Stewart's circle.”
“let's take this reasoning to its logical conclusion. if the united state's government can no longer protect its citizens, if its armed law enforcement can't protect citizens, and if it must consequently begin to arm some citizens to protect other citizens, then the U.S. government should just provide every adult citizen a gun to protect themselves without discrimination to race, sex, gender, or criminal record. it is the least they could do.
why should some of us not have access to security or protection because we can't afford a gun? doesn't our government have a right to provide us security, even if it means arming its own citizens? i shouldn't have to buy a gun to be safe. but if i need a gun to be safe, then one should be provided for me.
let's put forth socialized gun-policy to arm everyone who isn't already white or male.”
“Congress signs law ensuring students-loan debt must be paid, can never be written off, and should have a higher interest rate.
Congress signed The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act in 2005 making it harder for debt-ridden Americans to wipe out their obligations. George W. Bush added while signing the bill: "In recent years too many people have abused the bankruptcy laws. They walked away from debts even when they had the ability to repay them ... If someone does not pay his or her debts the rest of society ends up paying them."
Congress signed The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 to bail out debt-ridden companies who created the worst global economic disaster in nearly a century.
Ergo, Congress runs up trillions of dollars in debt to wage war and provide tax breaks for the wealthy, then decides not to pay its bills.
Jan 9, 2013 at 00:45:44
“Taco Bell systematically cuts part-time hours and thus weekly take-home pay to avoid paying health insurance to employees it already pays a minimum wage to make chemical burritos, and it does this in order in to ensure its executives and investors won't lose one penny from billions of dollars of profit being generated mostly from labor exploitation and purchasing power.
Ergo, conservatives demonize Obama? Facepalm.”
SteveDenver on Jan 9, 2013 at 01:03:45
“Somehow conservatives have become the party of incredible selfishness: they don't want to pay for someone else's health care. Little do they realize that they pay for it when someone goes to the emergency room because they had no preventive (read: cheaper) alternatives.”
AgeofEntitlement on Jan 9, 2013 at 00:54:59
“Valid points, but is any of this a surprise? Seriously.”
“Obama could be waiving the valid-debt option not because it is unconstitutional, but because it is strategically wise do deny it. Just imagine the consequences. If the President came out today and said he would exercise this option, then Congress would halt all discussion on the debt ceiling, and try to undermine the President.
This would (1) be a big waste of time for Congress [per usual], (2) increase speculation over U.S. treasury bonds [i.e. investor confidence], and  would likely be drawn into federal courts for years to come.
Acting like valid-debt option is unthinkable, but secretly keeping it an emergency option would be much more productive, and would keep faith in the markets. God knows a default, or even a global market embracing for such a default, would trigger global economic collapse on an unprecedented scale, even in comparison to the housing-bubble collapse.”
opposablethumbs on Jan 6, 2013 at 13:20:55
“Interesting. I like your thinking. I disagree with Pelosi that the 14th should be applied in this way (& I think the constitutional law professor Obama thinks so too). But if its an emergency because Congress refuses to act responsibly . . . .”
Dominic Veit on Jan 6, 2013 at 12:46:51
“No. He is ruling it out because it would be illegal.”
“What's worse than a democrat or a republican? A libertarian who thinks he is smarter than everyone else, because he merely points out the faults of both. "How insightful!" If libertarianism wasn't refuted for its lack of historical credibility, for the corporate fascism its calls economic policy, for its "socially liberal" policies that blame civil rights progress, for its dog-whistle racists who enjoy reducing African-Americans and other minorities as economic demographics, for its absurd hatred of government and democracy in favor of corporate tyranny - if it wasn't refuted on all these points, it would be refuted for its slave mentality and lowly egoism.
More than anything, libertarians feed their ego by claiming to be smarter than republicans or democrats, but whose actual policies are far worse than the policies they criticize. But don't be fooled, libertarians want the very power they criticize, they want the status of republicans and democrats share, they want people to appreciate their "insight," because they are entirely motivated by resentment and bad conscious. It's why they can't help but constantly point out how enlightened they are in opposition to other parties, and why they always desire recognition.
In short, libertarians should be understood as nothing more than the philosophical laziness of fractured, pathetic, fevered egos.”
Markrsm on Jan 4, 2013 at 18:28:37
Yes, it is our fault hte government is all messed up, we have never been in power, and we do not get paid by lobbyist.
I do not claim I am smarter or dumber than anybody, but I am not a fool that can be convinced by 2B dollars that our government is doing a good job.
Why do you insult us Libertarians so much, we simply believe that power creates corruption, more power more corruption.
We also believe that government is very ineffiiicent at doing most things, so why would want 40 percent of your GNP controlled by a group that is bad at doing things.
We also believe that we do not need military bases in 100s of countries, or provide billiions of dollars in aid in countries that would put you to death for changing religion.
We did not desire anything except freedom, why does freedom scare you?”
“permanent tax cuts for the wealthy, a year-long extension for unemployment.
politics as usual.
patters85 on Jan 1, 2013 at 06:31:47
“Your barf doesn't matter.”
petuniafish on Jan 1, 2013 at 05:04:27
“How do you call a tax rate INCREASE from 35% to 39.6% for anyone making $400K a permanent tax cut for the wealthy? Are you tuned into Fox News or something?
Has anyone read any of this besides the usual sensationalist headlines that HP always runs?”