AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Sowell knows the difference between deficit and debt, no doubt about that, this is simply a case of libs can't find anything substantive to criticize so they stoop to that.

"... explain to us all why his idol, Barack Obama needs ..."

okie, Big difference between a) national defense, and b) domestic security. I know you don't know the difference between the two.

Your use of

Quote:

"... explain to us all why his idol, Barack Obama needs ..."

is something he dreamed up in his tiny brain; he hasn't read any of my criticisms about Obama, and nobody is my "idol." His imagination runs wild as usual.

Sowell is a conservative black man, thus libs hate him, as do other liberal socialist black politicians. Any conservative black politician or figure deserves double credit these days, as fellow blacks and the entire liberal establishment will try to destroy them.

Sorry, it doesn't work with some of us, cyclops.

Clearly one of those well educated Republicans.

I'm glad to see you act like a MAC Fox and attack me personally instead of dealing with what I said.

If you feel I rewrote then kindly point it out. Simply accusing me of missing the point or rewriting without pointing out seems to be your only response Fox. You can't argue the points I make it seems so just turn to attacking me personally.

Deepening crazihood at the National Review
(BERNIE LATHAM, Brittle Hymn of the Republic Blog, June 23, 2009)

Anyone who has been attending over the years to this Chris Buckley-founded conservative enterprise is bound to be a tad disconcerted at how bizarre, indeed how loony it has become.

Last Saturday, Victor David Hanson wrote a column packed with the usual warped and exaggerated (and false) claims regarding “postmodernism” in universities and how it informs liberal notions. I heartily recommend that you read it as it’s a classic example of the genre. And then, there’s the final graph…
"In that vein, Obama is almost more at ease with virulent anti-Westerners, whose grievances Obama has long studied (and perhaps in large part entertained), and whose estrangement alone offers opportunity for Obama’s sophisticated multicultural insight and singular narcissistic magnanimity."

Yesterday, we find Andy McCarthy explaining the reality he perceives…
"The fact is that, as a man of the hard Left, Obama is more comfortable with a totalitarian Islamic regime than he would be with a free Iranian society. In this he is no different from his allies like the Congressional Black Caucus and Bill Ayers, who have shown themselves perfectly comfortable with Castro and Chàvez…
It would have been political suicide to issue a statement supportive of the mullahs, so Obama’s instinct was to do the next best thing: to say nothing supportive of the freedom fighters…"

Do these people actually believe what they write? It’s a tad boggling to think they might but these passages above aren’t unsual for those writers except in the degree of extremism and detachment from reality. I suppose we ought to temper, somewhat, our dismay acknowledging that the NR is now most fundamentally a propagandist endeavor which has the goals of furthering Republican electoral opportunities and diminishing Democratic power. Lies and exaggerations and quarter-truths aren’t problematic for a propagandist, they are the tools of the trade.

But the problem these folks have is that the last eight years have pretty much decapitated their credibility with anyone except for a small coterie of diehard ideologues and the excited-by-paranoid-fantasies constituency that they have helped to create and foster. As their power and influence decreases, they are doing that thing that not-so-smart travelers in a foreign land often do when their language is not understood " repeat the same words but way louder and with more extreme gestures. Of course, the further you head in this direction, the more likely it is you are going to look like (and become) that wide-eyed lunatic in the park screaming about commies or parasitic aliens in your brain.

Which brings us to Thomas Sowell. Here’s what he is eager to alert us to this morning…
"Just two nuclear bombs were enough to get Japan to surrender in World War II. It is hard to believe that it would take much more than that for the United States of America to surrender " especially with people in control of both the White House and the Congress who were for turning tail and running in Iraq just a couple of years ago.
Perhaps people who are busy gushing over the Obama cult today might do well to stop and think about what it would mean for their granddaughters to live under sharia law."

In what sort of mental universe, one wonders, does this man reside?

Perhaps the most frightening prospect for the truly paranoid individual is that others will perceive that he or she is a truly paranoid individual. Sowell, McCarthy, Hanson and a few others over at the National Review are clearly in a state of fright these days.

. . . . Things are upside down. In the U.S., capitalism and markets are criticized and government is perceived as the solution. In Europe, as Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum was surprised to find,

"We've been waiting and waiting, but the widely predicted European backlash - against capitalism, against free markets, against the right - has not come. There are no demands for Marxist revolution, no calls for nationalization of industry, not even a European campaign for what the Obama administration calls "stimulus" -- a policy more colloquially known as "massive government spending."

Of course, in the U.S. the more conservative party has a problem that those in Europe did not. It was the Republican Congress that began the massive multi-trillion dollar give-away called the stimulus and then presided over the unprecedented expansion of the money base. President Bush not only overrode Congress to begin the auto bailout but he appeared recently in Erie Pennsylvania to congratulate himself for being the inspiration for the Obama stimulus and monetary policies, which he surely was. Moreover, he became the largest domestic spending president of recent times " Democrat or Republican " well before the financial crisis, which did begin on his watch, of course.

As long as the Democrats can arrange speaking engagements for Mr. Bush, it will be exceedingly difficult for the GOP to repeat the success of their compatriots in Europe. On the other hand, the media adore President Obama so much that they keep giving the current president rather than his much disliked predecessor all the “credit” for the great-sounding economic and social programs. Perhaps on Election Day 2010 Americans will give President Obama the “credit,” surprising his legislators with the same reception the European voters gave their politicians this year.
http://acuf.org/issues/issue134/090620news.asp

But I can forcus on the point of the content and forgive an inadvertent error. I wonder if ideological liberals and numbnuts can do that?. Or do most completely miss the point of the content or rewrite it as Parados just did?

Oh and my definition of 'numbnut':

1) Thinks personal insults, ad hominem, or clever 'put downs' is valid debate and makes them look smart, intelligent, credible, and/or funny.

2) Frequently disrupts the flow of conversation with non sequiturs, straw men, and irrelevant information.

3) Spams the thread with multiple copy and pastes from highly biased sources that are as often as not unsourced and unlinked.

4) Refuses to articulate their rationale for their point of view but take every opportunity to discredit or dispute whatever anybody says that they don't agree with.

And yes, we have numbnuts from both the left and right.