What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
See the new YouTube feature trailer for Dragon Age: Origins view!
youtube.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
295 Comments
- LeftieLucy, on 01/09/2009, -10/+135Oh, Paul Krugman, I love you - you had me at: "As the new Democratic majority prepares to take power, Republicans have become, as Phil Gramm might put it, a party of whiners. Some of the whining almost defies belief. Did Alberto Gonzales, the former attorney general, really say, “I consider myself a casualty, one of the many casualties of the war on terror”?"
- booksnmore4you, on 01/02/2009, -8/+84FTA
That’s why the soon-to-be-gone administration’s failure is bigger than Mr. Bush himself: it represents the end of the line for a political strategy that dominated the scene for more than a generation.
/FTA
I sincerely hope Krugman is right. - JenniferInMO, on 01/02/2009, -12/+83Krugman is an unusually interesting guy. He is a brilliant (and Nobel Prize winning) economist and has a touch of the shy, somewhat socially uncomfortable personality to go with it. But he is also as good of a political pundit as it gets. He takes the ability to crunch and analyze the numbers along with the ability to look at the numbers as people and to consider the "soft' considerations and consequences of his economic analysis. This article isn't even an economic op-ed, rather it is an insightful, informed opinion about the guts and reality of contemporary politics. What a gem he is.
- normlsparky, on 01/02/2009, -9/+59I hope I live long enough to see the day that Republicans embrace radical concepts such as tolerance and diversity. That would truly be something to behold.
I'm not going to hold my breath. - booksnmore4you, on 01/02/2009, -3/+46Boogie Man: The Lee Atwater Story
http://www.boogiemanfilm.com/ - MsLaurel, on 01/04/2009, -10/+39FTA:
"Mr. Obama therefore has room to be bold. If Republicans try a 1993-style strategy of attacking him for promoting big government, they’ll learn two things: not only has the financial crisis discredited their economic theories, the racial subtext of anti-government rhetoric doesn’t play the way it used to."
(Amen.) - BlueAyez, on 01/02/2009, -7/+33We have been having this same argument on a political forum. In the beginning the Democrats were the party of racism. They originally backed slavery in the south. Seems the twin stars have shifted in their intertwined orbit and the Republicans now own the racist title. Thanks for your essay Dan Krugman. But honestly this is one quality I'd like to see put away for good.
- THETEH, on 01/04/2009, -8/+33A very interesting article. I agree that the republican party doomed itself the instant it started pandering to segregationists and bigots.
- jake1337, on 01/04/2009, -4/+27The title sounds like a title of a bad porn movie.
- morningmatters, on 01/04/2009, -5/+27I like how under the Editors Selections section Krugman chose to highlight many comments which criticized him and his views. There are very few people on the right who would even consider to display criticisms. People like Michelle Malkin would delete negative comments on their websites or remove the comments section period.
- muffcakes, on 01/04/2009, -1/+21Polarization is the enemy of objectiveness. However I think there is a tenancy for republicans to suck most of the time while democrats simply suck sometimes. The Republican party is not a party of progressive thinkers and their ties to the religious right encourages them to embrace anti-intellectualism. People who are against smartness tend to be dumb.
- LemurDaddy, on 01/04/2009, -1/+19I'm not clear what you people mean when you use the word "conservative" these days. Is there any coherent governing philosophy left in that abused term? And if economists are "conservative" by a 5 to 1 margin, why did they overwhelmingly back Obama?
- rkymtnwoman, on 01/04/2009, -2/+20As he signed the Civil Rights Act 1964, President L B Johnson, Democrat, predicted the south would go Republican, and that's exactly what it did. That is the backlash. If you look at the same "red states" today, they are the "southern" slave states. Things don't change that much, with conservatives, anyway, do they? But then, that is the very thing that defines a conservative.
- enki25, on 01/04/2009, -1/+19Agreed. I don't think anybody wants Democrats to have unlimited power. We all need there to be multiple political parties with the ability to win over voters. The problem is, as long as the Democrat's primary opposition is a party based on racism and the support of the wealthiest .01%, those of us in the other 99.99% with brains are stuck with no real choice.
Of course the 25% of America who are racist, dumb and poor can continue voting for Republicans. It's not going to get them anywhere. Conservatives with brains need to take their party back. Leave the GOP to Palin and her goons and provide a viable alternative to the Democratic party. - chaosium, on 01/04/2009, -1/+19"Yet the Nobel Committee decided to give the prize to the most outspoken liberal in the field. Curious.."
Sick of that 4/5 being wrong all the time. - darladoon, on 01/04/2009, -2/+20(totally missed author's central thesis)
- rkymtnwoman, on 01/04/2009, -6/+23According to social scientists, conservatives all have these in common and a "liberal" is anyone else:
1. a great deal of fear and anxiety about the future
2. want to return to an idealized past
3. condone inequality
this fits to a tee all the conservatives I know
they constantly want to go back to the "good old days" when blacks, hispanics and women were in their place- the Ward and June Cleaver make believe days (when domestic violence, child abuse, incest and rape, racial hatred, pedophile priests?) were all the norm but no one talked about them. They view the white as supreme and the white male as the most supreme. It's a goner. It's unAmerican to believe that. But many still live in some other world. Listen to their talk and you will notice these things, also. - niradg, on 01/04/2009, -3/+20"Someone will have to clean up Obama's reeking mess"
You know the country is a mess before Obama has taken power, and already you're blaming him for it. You have no credibility and you're a pathetic partisan hack that is more interested in creating problems than solving them. - enki25, on 01/04/2009, -1/+17One way of curing ignorance is reading articles. Did you read this one?
- busket, on 01/04/2009, -2/+18The funny thing is that you misunderstood what the author said. He said that the republican party owes a great deal to its ability to pander to racists. In fact, if you recall the push polling performed at the behest of the Bush 2000 campaign that insinuated that John McCain had a bastard mixed-race child, you would know exactly what Krugman is talking about. That doesn't make the all republicans racist (though a lot of them are), it makes them panderers.
What Krugman is actually saying is that you can't rely on your ability to pander to racists to achieve electoral success anymore.
That, and he's also saying that overly-simplistic deregulation-based economic philosophies are bankrupt and thus not reliable as a means of electoral success either.
In other words JENGA, BITCH!!! - lendrick, on 01/04/2009, -0/+16Waterboarding was considered to be torture by the US in World War II, and people have been convicted of war crimes for it:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ...
Here's the thing with habeas corpus: First off, there is no rebellion and we're not being invaded. Secondly, by its very nature, habeas corpus is a right that, if you deny it to one person, you deny it to everyone. If the government declares one person a terrorist and locks them up without a trial, they can do it to anyone.
Let me put it another way. Let's assume for the sake of argument that 2001 was a typical year for domestic terrorism (it wasn't). I would point out that compared to the number of people who die every year due to other preventable causes absolutely dwarfs the number who were killed by terrorists. And before you call me out for ostensibly trivializing 9/11 (I'm not), consider the fact that if you do, you'll be trivializing the deaths of 440,000 people every year due to cigarette smoking. Deaths are never a trivial thing, but there comes a time when you need to start looking at how you can spend your limited resources more effectively. If we can reduce the number of people who smoke by an additional tenth of a percent every year, we'll save 4,400 of those lives.
Of course, you'll no doubt want to bring up the fact that terrorists may be able to smuggle a nuclear bomb into the country. That's true, but at that point we need to shift some of that expense toward guarding our ports and away from spying illegally on the populace (and besides, a low-tech nuclear warhead typically kills a hundred thousand people or so (see Hiroshima and Nagasaki) -- which means it would take 4 nuclear bombs a year to kill the number of people who die every year due to cigarettes). Again, this isn't to trivialize nuclear bombs, but rather to point out the tragedy that's going on in our midst and being completely ignored.
While I'm on the subject of cigarettes, let's consider something else. The same people who are willing to violate our constitutionally guaranteed right against warrant-less searches by spying on us would never be willing to take away the "right" of cigarette companies (not constitutionally guaranteed, I might add) to sell their dangerous product. It's one thing to step on the rights of individuals, but above all else, come hell or high water, capitalism must remain intact!
It's brave of you to attempt an interpretation of the constitution that allows for what Gonzalez did, but your interpretation doesn't agree with the courts and is frankly a stretch. - darladoon, on 01/04/2009, -6/+21funny, you jumping from apples to oranges like that....
- Octopus33Prime, on 01/04/2009, -3/+18I don't think you can honestly call republicans and democrats "tolerance equals".
By the very definition of Social Conservatism the Republican party is intolerant. Yes, some liberals are intolerant towards differences of opinion, but it pales in comparison to the religious right who is intolerant of people for who they are. - pdxmark, on 01/04/2009, -0/+14http://www.heritage.org/Research/GovernmentReform/ ...
Third Paragraph under "Lesson #4"
"This in turn means that the Office of Presidential Personnel (OPP) must make appointment decisions based on loyalty first and expertise second, and that the whole governmental apparatus must be managed from this perspective. "
Maybe you need to brush up on your googling? :) - chaosium, on 01/04/2009, -0/+14"We have been having this same argument on a political forum. In the beginning the Democrats were the party of racism. They originally backed slavery in the south. Seems the twin stars have shifted in their intertwined orbit and the Republicans now own the racist title."
All the Dixiecrats moved Rep. many years back when they saw the tides changing. - enki25, on 01/04/2009, -1/+14So I guess your point is "Bush sent money to a country full of blacks, therefore he can't be racist".
Nobody denies the AIDS efforts were productive and a singular act of graciousness in a long history of cronyism and incompetence. It's also irrelevant to the core philosophies of the GOP, the racism of which Krugman goes into in this article. - enki25, on 01/04/2009, -0/+13@thcobbs
I don't pretend to know everything, but you hardly gave me any more information in your comment. It's mostly a collection of generic frustrations about how black people are abusing the system while you and your people valiantly soldier on. I'm willing to admit there may be situations in the real world that resemble what you describe, but whining about them is hardly a solution. Moreover, there's clearly more important things to worry about in this country now than what your neighbors feed their dog.
Nobody is claiming the Democrats are perfect. But in terms of racism, it's clear the Republican party is tainted. You just don't have a problem with them because it's not your race they oppose. - cersad, on 01/04/2009, -4/+16I just can't help but disagree that they're "all the same." The democrats are pushing a concept of social welfare, where the government offers health care and promotes stricter environmental safeguards with more economic intervention. The Republicans will never let you pay a penny to the US government for health care (free market all the way, unless you're a large firm going under) and have been pretty effective at stripping away environmental protections.
- LemurDaddy, on 01/04/2009, -2/+14Repeat after me: "Southern strategy." That wasn't so hard, was it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy - hinchb, on 01/04/2009, -1/+1285% of subprime loans were by private institutions
pretending that the graham act that repealed the GS act was clintons doing is hilarious revisionary
but then again republicans live in a world of their own. - T8erT0T, on 01/04/2009, -13/+24Republicans, racial backlash? I never heard of such of a connection. Anyway, you guys hear of this new band from Seattle called Nirvana?
- protodon, on 01/04/2009, -3/+14All the republicans I know are very racist but I never knew it when I first met them. None of them know each other and all of them have quite a bit of hatred for anyone that has recently arrived in the states to live here like they own the country. Sometimes I just want to say, when did your family get here because I'm pretty sure it didn't grow out of the ground. It's really frustrating and even more frustrating when I see them raise their children with the same beliefs.
- alleged, on 01/04/2009, -4/+15There it is, a bald truth.
The GOP has not and does not value African American voters as a group, and has played to the fears of white Southerners for many years. That needs to change if the GOP is to reemerge as anything other than a regional party. - seraphim72, on 01/04/2009, -1/+12"Republicans embrace tolerance and diversity. They believe that anybody from any background can amount to great things. They are the party of equal opportunity."
Yes, they support both brown haired AND black haired white males. Truth be told sure, they will begrudgingly let you win if you are a minority if you actually win, white people don't have that problem. You just have to beat the Old Boys White Club to get there. Your statement "embrace tolerance and diversity" is more truthfully stated as 'Tolerate embracing tolerance and diversity' Whites only business clubs still flourish in the South in fact, and in the North by action.
"Democrats are the party of equal results, so that no matter how hard you work, you will be permitted to succeed only marginally more than the guy next to you."
Yet, the number of Democrat self made Multi-Billionaires is much larger than the Republican ones ... funny how that shoots that statement into the garbage statement that it is.
"It seems to me that THAT is not what one would call 'embracing diversity."
It would seem that your diversity wants to have a dollar sign. Yet you fail at every point.
All I saw at McCain/Palin rallies was white people. If you are so diverse where was everyone else? - 16x9, on 01/04/2009, -1/+12I honestly wish I could see Alberto Gonzales (and possible others in the Bush administration) in the same light you do, WhiteRaven. And I suppose that in your view this makes me ignorant (we're ALL biased). However, A.G. Gonzales was willing to abolish one of the founding pillars of our country (the Constitution) in pursuit of the enemy. I am unable to forgive him for this.
Our founding fathers battled for the rights we enjoy. But it's important to understand that this fight still goes on. If we, as a nation, really think we'll be better off changing part of the constitution then there are legal procedures in place to do so. It's not an easy document to change (nor should it be) but it can be done. What I don't want to see is a misguided presidential administration of either party (or any other branch of government for that matter) to make Constitutional changes by simply claiming they have the power to do so.
By the way, I see your primary point that he can see himself as a casualty of the terror war. - lexpattison, on 01/04/2009, -7/+18The Bubba class in America are starting to wake up to a new reality.
And they will be the first whining and moaning for the Guvment to save them when they finally realize they are as poor as the underclass they somehow thought they were not a part of because of their skin color. - blakbot, on 01/04/2009, -7/+18Well, it's time the GOP-those that are true to the Parties promoted ideals and values, take inventory on it's memberships. The Rallies for McCain/Palin were damn near KKK rallies at times! McCain, in his defense, heroically rejected the hate rhetoric, and he also gave an excellent concession speech. Palin, on the other hand, pandered to this crowd, whipping them into a frenzy! Now this idiot that wants to be GOP chairman sends out this dumb CD to GOOP leadership. NEWSFLASH: America is a different place-very ethnically diverse, increasingly educated, becoming younger and more sophisticated by the minute. PURGE THE GOP FROM THE RACISTS and IDIOTS (including the Larry Elder's that hate their Black skin!)- I don't care who they are, or how important they think they are,get rid of them. They are archaic relics that should be put out to pasture. FORGE an innovative, progressive GOP!
- busket, on 01/04/2009, -1/+12Ron Paul isn't running for president right now.
- Renoroc, on 01/04/2009, -2/+12Racism is played out; the only card the right-wingers have left is homophobia and there are so many gay conservatives that even that is getting tricky!
- lexpattison, on 01/04/2009, -2/+12Red Neck. Appalachian. Trailer Trash. Nascar. Ayuk-Ayuk. Cousin-lovin.
Clear enough? - DangerCollie, on 01/04/2009, -4/+14I don't think the truth is going to come easy to the Republican party. They've invested so much of themselves in being right all the time that it's hard to admit they were corrupt, incompetent and mismanaged the country terribly. Look how many are still trying to blame Clinton. I think their ancestors could come back from the dead to explain it to them and they still wouldn't listen.
- playuhh, on 01/04/2009, -1/+10Why the ***** does that matter? That hatred is temporary, emotion-driven sensationalism over a single matter which affects those people very much! The hatred being mentioned here is deep rooted and very pure in substance. Don't cloud the facts with useless information such as what you just said.
- enki25, on 01/04/2009, -0/+9Oversimplification will make you stupid. Most things in life, even those things you find boring, are very complicated. Diggers are generally young and educated. This group of people tends to have priorities more in line with the Democratic party. This doesn't mean they'll support Dems at any cost, it's just that the Republicans have provided such a poor alternative.
- seraphim72, on 01/04/2009, -1/+10Yet you conflate Republican and Conservative. The two no longer have anything to do with one another. Conservatives don't give a fig about where you are from, what race you are or your religious beliefs. Republicans care about all three.
- alleged, on 01/04/2009, -0/+8Say about it what you will...after the Civil Rights Act, the vast majority of racist southern "Dixiecrats" migrated to the Republican Party. Sorry.
- CaLaVa, on 01/04/2009, -0/+8@thcobbs
When I read your post this paragraph from Krugman's article came to mind.
"Where did this hostility to government come from? In 1981 Lee Atwater, the famed Republican political consultant, explained the evolution of the G.O.P.’s “Southern strategy,” which originally focused on opposition to the Voting Rights Act but eventually took a more coded form: “You’re getting so abstract now you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is blacks get hurt worse than whites.” In other words, government is the problem because it takes your money and gives it to Those People."
Your comments sound bitter and racist and don't resemble anything I've seen in my life. I'm not Black by the way. - inactive, on 01/04/2009, -1/+9Intolerance is the only thing I learned from my right-wing parents. Now I'm a full grown atheist and I just want to wipe religions off the planet.
Funny how that worked out huh?
Hahaha.
..HahahahaHAHAHAHAH MOAHAHAHAHAOAOAAHAHAHAHAAAA
/evil grin - solmakou, on 01/04/2009, -0/+7Those ***** Nobel Peace Prize committee members, first a liberal like gore, now this? Where is the peace prize for someone who really deserves it, like Limbaugh, Coulter, or Hannity!
- ScottMitchell, on 01/04/2009, -0/+7@ShrimpCrackers: Abe Lincoln was a Republican. One of the largest factions of the Democrats in the first half of the 20th century was the Southern Democrats, which were a good ol' boys network. In fact, the South used to be a staunch Democratic hold.
When LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act he reported to aids that his signing would doom the Democratic party in the south. And it did. States like Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, and so on have been staunchly Republican since then. - normlsparky, on 01/04/2009, -0/+7The social conservatives have all but hijacked the Republican Party. They are the reason most conservatives are viewed this way. They want to impose their pro-life views, hatred of gays and Christianity upon everyone else in the country, and are very vocal about their goals.
I think the Republican Party made a huge mistake when Reagan invited the religious right into his big tent. The republicans have allowed them to define their party.
Republicans went from a party platform of small govt., low taxes and fiscal responsibility, to a party of religious values that embrace low taxes despite a borrow and spend policy that was fiscally irresponsible.
I think Ron Paul mostly represented the things republicans used to stand for and they ran him right out of the primaries. I hope the traditional conservatives can get their party back some day. They are much more reasonable. -
Show 51 - 100 of 304 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is