Free Markets, Free People

Krugman Goes Off The Deep End

Two nuts apparently equal vindication of the Department of Homeland Security report on “right-wing extremists”. And Paul Krugman, like many of his ilk, ignores the dearth of statistical support his premise has to make this claim:

But with the murder of Dr. George Tiller by an anti-abortion fanatic, closely followed by a shooting by a white supremacist at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, the analysis looks prescient.

There is, however, one important thing that the D.H.S. report didn’t say: Today, as in the early years of the Clinton administration but to an even greater extent, right-wing extremism is being systematically fed by the conservative media and political establishment.

I noticed that one of our more asinine and logic-challenged commenters has picked up these talking points now that they’ve been published. Big surprise.

Noticably missing from the Krugman litany of right-wing extremists is the converted muslim and black man who shot and killed a soldier outside a recruiting station in Little Rock, Arkansas. Using the Krugman statistical model I assume I can interpolate that into a rise in “muslim extremist violence” in the US. In fact, one could certainly credibly argue that it is a 100% increase in such violence.

But of course, people would laugh and point at me and say how utterly stupid it is to use one whacked out nut-job to try and brand a whole religion through implication.

Well, friends, that’s precisely what Mr. Krugman and the rest of the moonbats on the left are attempting with their nonsense. Michael warned you about it and here it is. Nevermind that the right-wing Weekly Standard was apparently on the “right-wing” whack job’s hit list. Facts only get in the way of an unsubstantiated rant.

~McQ

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

64 Responses to Krugman Goes Off The Deep End

  • Apparently the Holocaust  Museum shooter was a democrat (by way of commenter at JOM). But lets not let that get in the way of the narrative.

  • Walsh is even worse than Krugman

  • “Nevermind that the right-wing Weekly Standard was apparently on the ‘right wing’ whack job’s hit list”.

    This meme is a little weak.  Muslims are on the “hit list” of Muslim extremists, too.  Doesn’t negate the fact that they are Muslim extremists.

    Nobody is claiming that von Brunn and those like him are in the right-wing mainstream.  In fact, “extremism” definitionally means on the fringe (or outside it). 

    But if you start from the center, you do have to walk through (and then beyond) mainstream right views in order to come to the wacky views of von Brunn…. just as you have to walk through (and then beyond) mainstream left views to come to where Bill Ayers (circa late sixties) falls on the spectrum.  This isn’t even arguable.

    What I don’t understand is why the mainstream right takes this personally, as if mainstream conservative views are being condemned.

    • Because Krugman and the left are trying with might and main to connect mainstream rightwing views with von Brunn.  You know… sort of the entire point of McQ‘s and Michael‘s posts?

      I must say, though, that I’m really starting to understand what it must be like to be a moderate Muslim in this day and age.  Some lunatic whose beliefs bears some teensy resemblence to your own commits a horror, and then YOU have to spend your time trying to convince meatheads that he has nothing to do with you, that you abhor and want to see him punished for what he did, that his beliefs are at best a twisted, sick version of the things you believe in, etc.

      • “…that his beliefs are at best a twisted, sick version of things you believe in, etc.”

        But they ARE a version — albeit twisted and sick — of things you believe in.  And many on the right (not you, apparently) are simply denying that.

        And I repeat, even those who on the left (who disagree with what you believe) can and do make the distinction between your beliefs and the twisted, sick version of your beliefs.  I just don’t understand what many on the right can’t… and/or are in denial over it.

        • Really?  Which of von Brunn’s views are twisted versions of center right views?  Name them, please.  Make the argument.  Right now, all you’re doing is asserting.  Not the same thing at all.

        • KmanBut they ARE a version — albeit twisted and sick — of things you believe in. 

          Really?  Examples, please?  I think I can speak for the bloggers and regular commenters here and say that we don’t believe in 9/11 Trutherism, or that there is some sort of international Zionist conspiracy, or that whites are inherently superior to other races, or that TAO is a creature of and controlled by Teh Joooooos, or that the Holocaust is a fiction created by Teh Joooooos.

          The only specific thing you mention is something about FEMA concentration camps.  I presume that you’re referring to the canard that Glenn Beck claimed that these things existed.  Actually, Beck, that noted spewer of right-wing hate, DEBUNKED the goofy rumors to this effect.

          But really, keep trying.  Do try to tell us how a psycho killer that I (and, I suspect, the rest of us) want dangling from a gallows is really just a sick, twisted version of ourselves.

          Oh, and if you bump into the commenter pedro the illegal alien, you might want to be careful, ‘cuz he swore up and down that NOBODY he knew on the left made ANY connection between von Brunn and “the right wing”.  You’re sort of spoiling his narrative.  I don’t think he’ll appreciate that very much.

        • I am sure he also believes in looking both ways before you cross the street, and brushing after every meal and flossing once a day. He is, therefore, a right/center/left wing extremist.

  • Nobody is claiming that von Brunn and those like him are in the right-wing mainstream.

    No, that’s precisely what Krugman is suggesting:  Today, as in the early years of the Clinton administration but to an even greater extent, right-wing extremism is being systematically fed by the conservative media and political establishment.

    Krugman flatly states that there is a direct cause/effect between the mainstream conservative media and political establishment and right wing extremism.

    • There’s a qualitative difference between being IN the right-wing mainstream (which Krugman is NOT saying von Brunn was), and having one’s whacked out extremist beliefs being FED BY the over-the-top rhetoric by some of the popular voices (Beck, Limbaugh) within the mainstream (which Krugman IS saying).  That’s not too nuanced, is it?

      I mean, really.  Some of the things that the big media players on the right espose ARE a bit over-the-top (FEMA building concentration camps?  Come on!).  Again, I don’t know how this can reasonably be disputed.

      The problem, if any, with Krugman’s article is that — at least in von Brunn’s case — it is conjecture.  We don’t know if he was a Beck/Limbaugh listener (although we do know the Unitarian Church shooter a few months ago was).

      And of course, the Krugman article is short on solutions.  Nobody, not even anyone on the left, wants content censorship.  Perhaps it is just a call for “lowering the temperature”.

      • I think you’re splitting hairs here.  Clearly Krugman (and others) are suggesting that Limbaugh et. Al. are responsible (“systematically fed”?  come on) for the behaviors of nutjobs like von Brunn.
        I’m not sure what right-wing media claimed FEMA was building concentration camps.  Frankly, that sounds like something that would have come out of DailyKos.

        • KMan,

          If I remember correctly, didn’t Glenn Beck discuss them at length and debunk the conspiracy theories pertaining to them?

          What Right Wing media has been fanning those flames?

          Alex Jones doesn’t coun,t by the way, not that he’s right wing anyway.

          • Kman thinks that because the leftist talking point after Beck did his debunking of the FEMA craziness is that Beck was claiming exactly what he just debunked.

            The left never lets the facts get in the way of an important (to them) argument.

      • Nice job – you too, are Krugman –
        Here’s the “didn’t have to read between the lines” synopsis of what you believe -

        the right-wing mainstream (which Krugman is NOT saying von Brunn was), and having one’s whacked out extremist beliefs being FED BY the over-the-top rhetoric by some of the popular voices (Beck, Limbaugh) within the mainstream

        You’ve just said that what constitutes ‘mainstream’  right-wing media is over the top.  Over the top is a common enough phrase that we all understand to mean excessive, one might say, extreme, no?
        Do you have examples of main stream right wing media that’s not over the top?
        And what the heck isconsistently over the top about Glen Beck (aside from the tears…sigh….)?  Limbaugh I can understand, but Beck?

        • You going to pretend that the word “some” isn’t there?

          • Tell us, is James Von Brunn a registered Democrat in the State of Maryland, or not?

          • I haven’t seen any reporting on that, have you? 

            I’ve seen it being asserted (repeatedly) in comments threads here and there, but without links (except to other comments threads). 

          • I just thought maybe you had debunked the assertions based on your statements here. I guess I can surmise then that your reference to “right wing” could be equally applicable to the Democrat Party as well as the Republican Party? Depending, of course, on what we find Von Brunn’s political leanings to be. 

          • No, I didn’t ignore “some”, I gave you an opportunity to list right wingers you think are mainstream but not over the top.

            Please don’t list that maniac Savage as one of them.

  • “Nevermind that the right-wing Weekly Standard was apparently on the ‘right wing’ whack job’s hit list”.

    You guys haven’t picked up on the whole Jewish-hate thing Von Brunn had going, have you?  

    From the article: The focus on the Standard, though, appears to be of a piece with his central motivation: Anti-Semitism

    • Um, yeah, actually I think we all DID kind of get a glimmer of a hazy idea that von Brunn might have a teensy-weensy problem with Jews.  Not sure what anti-Semitism has to do with the “right wing”, though.  Perhaps you could send an e-mail to Jeremiah Wright and discuss it with him.

      • von Brunn had a problem with Jews, blacks, Mexicans….

        I don’t think anti-Semitism is  “right wing” either, but it exists there, too.  Call that a wash…..

        • Nah, you guys own the anti-Semite franchise these days.  All anti-Semites are lefties.

          See how easy and fun this argument by assertion is? 

      • <i>Um, yeah, actually I think we all DID kind of get a glimmer of a hazy idea that von Brunn might have a teensy-weensy problem with Jews. </i>

        Hence, the puzzlement over calling the Weekly Standard “right wing” as as though Von Brunn were attacking an ally, while failing to observe that such an attack by a neo-nazi might be more driven by his blistering anti-Semitism and NWO paranoia.

        <i> Not sure what anti-Semitism has to do with the “right wing”</i>

        Really?  When did right wing extremism become so baffling and undefinable to you folks?

        Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

        • andersonHence, the puzzlement over calling the Weekly Standard “right wing” as as though Von Brunn were attacking an ally, while failing to observe that such an attack by a neo-nazi might be more driven by his blistering anti-Semitism and NWO paranoia.

          I’m sorry, I must have missed something.  What “puzzlement”?  Was anybody here “puzzled” that von Brunn – who, as we have learned, HATED neocons – wanted to go attack that bastion of neocons, The Weekly Standard?

          andersonRightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

          Thank you, Sec. Napolitano.  When you whip this out in the future, save yourself some keystrokes and just type, “Rightwing extremism is anybody who doesn’t agree with the democrat party.” Oh, and since you appear to be cutting and pasting directly from that cowpat of a report that DHS put out about us nasty ol’ wingnuts, you really should provide a link (sort of like citing a source in a college research paper).

  • Uh, no, I don’t think so.  There’s a right wing of the Democratic party, but it’s still left of center.  When I say that von Brunn is on the right wing, I mean right of center (very very EXTREMEly right, and further right than the mainstream right)

    • Correction, both Democrats and Republicans are left of center. Regardless, based on your world view then von Brunn is definitely not a Democrat then? Am I understanding you correctly?

      • Assuming the “center” is the average political position of all the people in the country (who mostly consist of Dems and Repubs), I find it hard to swallow that Democrats AND Republicans are left of center.

        As for von Brunn, I seriously doubt he is a Democrat, not in the modern sense.  Maybe he is still embracing the Democratic Party as it existed in the 1950′s south (when it was chock full of segregationists).  I don’t know why he would, but then again, he IS whacked.

        • I understand, why you would find that hard to swallow. Nevertheless, I don’t understand why you doubt that von Brunn could be a modern day Democrat, his behavioral tendencies are very much in line with many democrats, some of the “Green’s” for instance. Of course if it does turn out that von Brunn, is a Democrat then those actions that are termed to be “Right Wing” will have to be relabeled to “Left Wing”, to make sense of your distinction between right and left. No question, you’re right, he is whacked.

          • I assume that when you refer to “the Greens”, you are talking about violent eco-terrorists.  And yes, they exist.

            The difference between me and some here is that I acknowledge (and denounce) violence extremism on “my side” when it occurs.  I’m perfectly comfortable denouncing them, even as I agree with (some) of their viewpoints in principle.

            Unfortunately, many on the right seem to be in denial (or are outright dishonest) when it comes to von Brunn being a violent extremist on their side (the right side) of the political spectrum.

        • “Unfortunately, many on the right seem to be in denial (or are outright dishonest) when it comes to von Brunn being a violent extremist on their side (the right side) of the political spectrum.”


          What you have acknowledged is your blind, ideologically driven bias. 

          Appreciate it.  
           

          • If I had an ideologically blind bias, I would try to explain away or excuse eco-terrorism on the left as something else (calling it “rightwing” or whatever).  I don’t do that; I own up to it.

            Can you say the same thing?  Or do you only see leftwing extremism?

            von Brunn posted on Free Republic, not Kos.  He was anti-immigration.  He believed in a small federal government (so small that he thought that Bush was out of control).  He supported gun rights, states’ rights, Sarah Palin, Dan Rather going down.  If you can’t see what those facts suggest about his political leanings on a left vs right spectrum, then query who here is ideologicallty blind.

        • I’m not in the sandbox that you don’t know you’re in.

          Thanks, for the discourse, I think we covered the topic fully.

        • KmanAs for von Brunn, I seriously doubt he is a Democrat, not in the modern sense.

          That sounds sooo familiar… sort of like… like… EXACTLY WHAT WE’VE BEEN SAYING, only substitute “rightwinger” for “democrat”. I wonder if you recognize your own dishonesty: you spend quite a lot of time trying to “prove” that von Brunn is some species of rightwinger and just can’t comprehend how the rest of us just can’t see that, but when it’s pointed out to you that von Brunn might actually be (gasp!) one of you people… Well!  That gets waved away with an airy, “Oh, he’s not a democrat in the ‘modern sense’ (whatever that means).  Nothing to see here.  Move along.  Move along.”

          We can continue this for some time, but let me offer terms of a sort of truce.  The point made in an earlier post about this nut is that he rather defies easy categorization: his loony beliefs could be termed left (hated Bush) or right (liked guns).  Can we not simply agree that he’s simply crazy, the sort of subhuman filth that NOBODY really wants running loose in our society, and that the sooner he’s behind bars (or swinging from a gallows), the better off we ALL are?  Or shall we remind you – again – of how his anti-Semitism is creepily similar to that of noted lefties like Wright, “Hymietown” Jackson, and Sharpton?  And present more evidence of how this “rightwinger” would have been right at home with lefties on certain issues, such as media bias, 9/11, and others such as those listed by Phil Smith?  Or how your list of “rightwing” indicators is either laughable or else so vague as to include large fractions of the population?  Or are you so narrow-minded and intolerant that, like Krugman, you simply MUST associate everybody who disagrees with you with a psychotic bigot and killer, and hence we’re going to have to drag this out to its sorry conclusion?

          • Well sure.  All anti-semitism is by its nature “similar” (having the common thread of Jew-hating). But I respectfully suggest that the kind of anti-semitism you get from Jesse “Hymietown” Jackson/Sharpton/etc is categorically different from the kind you get from a white supremicist, just as the anti-semitism espoused by islamic extremists comes from a different place than Hitler’s.

            If you can’t tell which camp von Brunn falls into, there’s not much I can do for you.

          • Wow … I’ve been watching this discussion develop and I’ve got to tell you Kman, that’s about as poor an attempt to end an argument that I’ve seen in a long time.

            The left’s anti-semitism is somehow “categorically different” than the right’s anti-semitism? You’re kidding, right? Because if you’re not, I’m not sure how I can take you seriously anymore. “Categorically” different?

            Tell me, how is the anti-semitism of the Nation of Islam “categorically different” than Hitler’s or Brunn’s?

            Brunn is in the very same camp as Louis Farrakhan – they’d just each end up killing one another once they got rid of the Jews.

          • Well sure. All anti-semitism is by its nature “similar” (having the common thread of Jew-hating). But I respectfully suggest that the kind of anti-semitism you get from Jesse “Hymietown” Jackson/Sharpton/etc is categorically different from the kind you get from a white supremicist, just as the anti-semitism espoused by islamic extremists comes from a different place than Hitler’s.

            Hatier hate, like I pointed out below.

            Someone clever needs to draw up a hate-o-graph so we can demonstrate visually how right wing hate is hatier than left wing hate.

            Afterwards the council on Hatier Hate will convene to discuss how many right wing angels can dance on the head of a pin, and how they’ll hog it all, keeping the left wing angels from dancing.

          • Kman,

            So, let me see if I’ve got this right.

            Antisemitism, i.e. hatred of Jews, is somehow different if one hates Jews because one is a nazi, islamofascist, white supremicist, or a… whatever Wright, Jackson and Sharpton are (besides liberals, that is).  Therefore, SOME kinds of antisemitism are worse than others, and “rightwing” antisemitism is the worst of them all.

            Riiiiight.

            But the long and short of it is that you are determined on your course of intolerance and hatred that leads you to keep trying – unsuccessfully – to prove that von Brunn was a rightwinger.  I think Watcher has pretty much completed demolishing whatever puny bit of rationality you had when you started, with Keith_Indy putting the cherry on top of the rubble.  Not that it matters, of course: the voices in your head and at Kos TOLD you that von Brunn was a rightwinger, and (as they say) that’s your story and you’re sticking to it.

            Pathetic.

            The irony is that another idiot lefty at HuffPo was lamenting the death of civil discourse in the context of von Brunn.  Natch, it was all rightie’s fault because (gasp!) rightwingers listen to Rush Limbaugh and (sob) hate black people, so it’s impossible to talk to them.  I suggest that it’s impossible to talk to lefties, and I’m reaching the point where I say, “Don’t bother.”

          • Someone clever needs to…

            EP, Ep, eppp…  Say no more, looker.  You’re thinly disguised calling for me to come up with a hatier hate chart has been read loud and clear.

            I’ll get to work on it right away.

            Cheers.

  • Well, you might not believe it Kman, but this guy was def. left of center.

    Trying to disprove it by make broad generalizations about traits extremists have (on either side of the aisle) is nonsensical.  He was an individual, and he left volumes of his own words from which to judge him.

    In the end, he was a wack job, and I for one would have preferred someone shot him before he did any harm to other people.  Some preemptive justice at the scene would have been preferable.  But, he was in perhaps the biggest “gun free” zone in the country.

    • Nothing about your link suggests that von Brunn was “def. left of center”.

      Why?  Because he hated Bush?  LOTS of people on the right hated Bush.  Bush was a neo-con.  You know who else disliked neo-cons… besides those on the left?  Many conservatives, that’s who.  They thought Bush was betrayal of the conservative position of small federal government.

      In fact, your link only reinforces my point that von Brunn  didn’t hold mainstream rightwing views.  But that’s hardly surprising.  As an extremist, he naturally disagreed on many issues with the mainstream right wing.  I mean, Ralph Nadar disagrees (and often attacks) Democrats.  That doesn’t make Nadar rightwing though; it just makes him far left.  Get my point?

    • Here is what von Brunn said himself in his book Kill The Best Gentiles:
      “Yockey, in his suppressed book Imperium, notes that MARXISM is seriously flawed because MARX, being a JEW, could not understand the real differences between CAPITALISM and SOCIALISM, which emanated from the WESTERN CULTURE-ORGANISM. Capitalism and Socialism are how a Nation (Family, People, Race) feels, thinks, and lives, and secondarily are ECONOMIC CONCEPTS. One [capitalism] is past history; the other, WESTERN SOCIALISM, represents the future of the West, and the end of JEWRY on Western soil.”

      That doesn’t sound very right wing to me. Sure, he hates Marxism, but only because Marx was a Jew… he rails against “Jew Capitalists” even more, and advocates a race-based form of socialism. Doesn’t sound like a very small government guy to me… he seems just fine with big government, so long as it is a government hell-bent on the end of JEWRY. Oh, but some idiot Freeper cut and pasted one of his more generic attacks on the media so that must mean he’s a right wing extremist, right?

      • We may have cross-talk here. 

        He’s for limited government where the government is as it is now (whether it is headed by neo cons or liberals) – i.e., government don’t touch my guns, properties, states’ rights, etc.

        ….but in an ideal romanticized “perfect” world, he prefers a brand of big-government “western socialism”, akin to Nazi Germany (and not leftist Marxism/Communism).

        I can’t speak to his grandiose vision of government because he’s writing about an idealized political system that doesn’t exist yet here.

        But in the political system as it exists today, he’s on the right (“limited government”).

      • He’s only for limiting non-Aryan government… he’s worried that the Jews will take his guns and property.  His “Western Socialism” is as much a part of the left as is Communism… the Communists might call the Nazis right wing, but they are both two sides of the same coin.

        His main criticism of Marxism seems to be that the Jews screwed it up through their own ineptitude and/or hypocrisy.  He’s not in favor of capitalism… he doesn’t want free markets, only markets that are free of Jews.

  • Capt Joe:

    Beck debunked the FEMA camps in April after using them as a scare tactic for over a month (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuPttI8uRyM – about two minutes in)

    • kman you are a dolt.  Left and Right are meaningless when talking about whacko’s. In fact the two extremes seem to come full circle and meet each other, the views of anti-globalist, jew-hating, white supremacists are eerily similar to the views of anti-capitalist, jew-hating, Black seperatists.

      Calling popular radio hosts extremists and blamming them for violence is not any different than red baiting on the right. No one on the left was responsible for the Unabomber or the soldier hating muslem, except the actual terrorists, and no one on the right is responsible for McVeigh or this guy except themselves.  To suggest otherwise is to demonize and try to silence your political opponants.

      • No no, we’re too big a group of dumbasses to see that vile hatred spewed by people on the extreme left is less vile than vile hatred spewed by people on the extreme right.

        Don’t you get it?
        Just like left wing truth is truthier (even when it isn’t true), right wing hate is hatier.
        Right wing hate is more hate filled than left wing hate.
        It’s not just aa universal truth, it’s a universal truthy truth.

        Get with the program, we must embrace our hatier hate and, more importantly, repudiate it.
        There’s probably a repudiation schedule to tell us how often we must repudiate it, probably a set of phrases we have to repeat with a certain frequency.

        Now, we must embrace Von Bruun as ‘right wing’ and acknowledge his hatey hate is right wing hatey hate (really really hatey hate we’re talking about here!) and repudiate him according the to the repudiation schedule.

        Only then may we be cleansed ( but we’ll still be right wing extremists according to the DHS).

        • We can only repudiate our hatier hate by the following:

          1.  Never, ever voting for a Republican again

          2.  Never, ever criticizing a democrat, and ESPECIALLY The Annointed One, again

          3.  Never, ever opposing democrat policies

          4.  Never, ever supporting ANY policy or group that democrats don’t like

          In short, in order to prove how we’re NOT like von Brunn, we have to shut up and let our liberal masters do whatever they want.  This is the only path to true salvation.

  • Here is what von Brunn said himself in his book Kill The Best Gentiles:
    “Yockey, in his suppressed book Imperium, notes that MARXISM is seriously flawed because MARX, being a JEW, could not understand the real differences between CAPITALISM and SOCIALISM, which emanated from the WESTERN CULTURE-ORGANISM. Capitalism and Socialism are how a Nation (Family, People, Race) feels, thinks, and lives, and secondarily are ECONOMIC CONCEPTS. One [capitalism] is past history; the other, WESTERN SOCIALISM, represents the future of the West, and the end of JEWRY on Western soil.”

    That doesn’t sound very right wing to me.  Sure, he hates Marxism, but only because Marx was a Jew… he rails against “Jew Capitalists” even more, and advocates a race-based form of socialism.  Doesn’t sound like a very small government guy to me… he seems just fine with big government, so long as it is a government hell-bent on the end of JEWRY.  Oh, but some idiot Freeper cut and pasted one of his more generic attacks on the media so that must mean he’s a right wing extremist, right?

  • white supremacist – hates the media because it’s run by Jews
    white supremacist – hates immigration because it let’s in Jews and non-whites
    white supremacist – hates gun control because it doesn’t let them buy machine guns to mow down Jews.

    conservative – hates the media because it’s biased towards the left
    conservative – hates illegal immigration because, well, it’s illegal.
    conservative – hates gun control because it’s not Constitutional, and prevents people from being able to defend themselves

    Yeah, you can really compare white supremacists and conservatives, and come up with how similar our positions are.

  • While I appreciate the compliments (I’ve noticed you go on the attack more when it’s pretty clear you’re wrong, so I take insults from you as compliments), I actually preceded Krugman.   So I claim authorship of the “talking points.”  :-)

    Racism, hyper nationalism, and all that is considered far right.  You guys act like putting “right” in front of something makes it good by definition, while “left” means bad.  The reality is the extremes on each fringe are nut cases and it is undeniable fact — as Shepard Smith notes at Fox with the scary e-mails — that the election of Obama, the economic crisis, and the change in power that there are many voices on the far right that talk of revolution, Obama as an usurper (the “Birthers”) and other racist drivel.  You can condemn the right wing extremists without insulting the reasonable right, just as people on the left can condemn communism and left wing extremism without insulting the reasonable left.  The only unreasonable claim is the “two legs bad, four legs good” comment of some who say that “their” side (be it right or left) is inherently good while the other side is inherently bad.   That is irrational.

    • “Racism, hyper nationalism, and all that is considered far right.”

      Actually, no… they aren’t.  Racism is racism, and nationalism is nationalism… your projection notwithstanding.  You accuse the right of insisting that everything bad is on the left, and here you are declaring that everything bad is on the right.  Is Jeremiah Wright a right wing extremist?  What about Louis Farrakhan?

  • Best not to stand downwind here.  For all of this p!ssing in the wind, one is likely to get wet.

    “He’s a Lefty!”
    “No, he’s a Righty.”
    “He’s a Lefty!”
    “No, he’s a Righty!!”

    He’s a… nutbag.

    Racist, murdering neanderthal X likes butternut ice cream, you also like butternut ice cream, therefore, I can draw a line from you to him.  Me?  I like rocky-road.  And I am perfectly willing to say that there are neanderthals out there that also like rock-road.
    Which flavor is worse for you?

    Ah HAH!!!

    Top that.

    Rubbish.

    Remember when OBL made one of his tapes and he made a lot of the same noises that some Democrats were making at the time?
    Remember???

    And there were some people here I remember, one in particular comes to mind, that found that “interesting.”

    Murdering, psychopathic nutbags.  The lot of them.  Pay no attention to the psychotic ramblings of murderous thugs.

    Cheers.

    • That’s weird.
      How did my comment at 15:30 get before McQ’s at 13:45?

      (see, Michael.  odd things occur here while posting a comment from time to time.  Maybe it’s just me though.)

      • How did my comment at 15:30 get before McQ’s at 13:45?

        Most likely because you hit the “reply” link at the top of McQ’s post instead of the one under it.

  • Fools.

    *I* am the center of the universe. All of you are either right or left wing extremists, sometimes both. It is my call. Only I have the necessary knowledge and genius to make these distinctions. I tire or your endless, mindless, and ignorant bickering. Stop it immediately.

    I have spoken.

    Good day, gentlemen.

  • “Racism, hyper nationalism, and all that is considered far right.”
    Scott, really, get a clue.  Racism?  I’ve encountered many a racist fool who votes Democrat consistantly.  Hung around any unions ever?  The ‘left’ and you can get off your high horse.