IAP Political Forum

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118978549183327730.html?mod=googlenews_wsj (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118978549183327730.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)

Greenspan blasts Bush and the republicans and praises Clinton! This is going to be great to watch in the coming week. I wonder if the republicans will try to smear their hero?   I guess their plans for a Greenspan statue will have to go on hold.  ;D

it sounds like to me he has said something bad about everyone D9...although he did say something positive about everyone....except GWB

Remember his hero is Ayn Rand. >:(

OswaldTheOsprey

why the mad face oswald

 No evil emoticon it just ain't Oswald without it!

 I love the server speed . I hope it lasts.

One of the reasons for the move.

Indeed, which is why he considers himself a libertarian, and like all libertarians he criticizes virtually all fiscal spending conducted by any party.

Ron Paul is an appropriate candidate for him.

I believe his candidate is Clinton.

OswaldTheOsprey

Bizarre. If Republican spending is too high for his preferences, why would he support a Democratic candidate who intends to increase funding for public services? It makes you wonder if he is deranged.

Well, you're under the impression Ron Paul is a Republican because he is actually a Republican. Can you tell me where an anti-choice, pro second ammendment, pro small government, anti tax increase Democrat is supposed to fit in?

He's a "Conservative"... and sice the Republicans are (or atleast they preach to be) the party of Conservative values, he joined up with them.

Regardless, this is going off topic.

Does anyone plan on buying the book? I'm totally stupid when it comes to economics, but I might get it anyway. It sounds enlightening.

Indeed. Deranged yet with such power! >:(

OswaldTheOsprey

Bush just can't catch a break from being blasted, can he? Oh well it's most likely well-deserved.

Greenspan isn't partisan like Moore or Culter.

If Greenspan has something to say it's usually whorth listening to, I think. Whether you agree or not is irrelevent.

Greenspan is a fiscal conservative, and will break with Neo-Cons on fiscal matters. This is nothing new, and in keeping with idealogy.

Fiscal conservatives have always criticized the Bush Administration over that issue, even in 2003. Their problem was not having the backbone to stand up to Bush on principle, and today they have to lick their wounds.

I broke with the whole Bush sentiments back in 2004, mainly due to the blindness of conservatives who spitted on every old conservative ideal (the party being taken over by bonafide "ex" socialists and outright communists). I could never imagine the keepers of the Republic becoming New Era Stalinists (to support random wars for idealogy and oppress their own country to KGB standards), yet these folks are so dumb and blind to actually see they became the socialists/communists they claim to despise.

Now it's time for them to reflect.

Greenspan, like Carter's provoking criticism of Israeli policies, I hope will open a healthy debate to fix this runaway trainwreck of radicals operating governments, before it destabilizes the entire world.

Greenspan is not for fiscal conservatism...he is (was) for mass lending which helps his int'l banking networks.  The mass lenders are Greenspan and his network.  The mass lenders make money when the US gov't borrows.  Ron Paul is NOT the candidate for an int'l lender.  In fact Bush is the candidate for an int'l lender.

Mass "lending" to stabilize the economy. Unlike politics, his job was to ensure not only the US from tanking, the entire world. He did a good job, considering the tech bust and after 9/11 (two events that would've sunk international economies wholesale).

Also be reminded that "lending" has an interest for a return, it wasn't welfare.

thank you captain obvious.

I don't think you understood the purpose of my post did u?

I think Greenspan is a craven opportunist who didn't have the guts to stand up for his convictions when it got difficult to do so. He gave Bush II very important political coverage for a series of irresponsible tax cuts. Now he wants to re-write his place in history.

Fine with me. I support whatever makes Bush look bad.  I hate that SOB.

Let's put it this way: I'm getting too old to take such hogwash from forum staff as a conductive debate.

I came back to debate topics not personalities, but if this is the face of the new forum, there's other more conductive political sites to discuss issues (especially WP blogs, where even though the debates can be heated, the pose and content sure beats a reply from a cellphone keypad).

You attract what you want, but look around why you attract very little.

I guess you lost some of your humor in your old age

 What is more fiscally responsible : Tax and spend or Borrow and spend?? Dems never spent like the neocons and the deficiets weren't even close. He is deranged as a fox.

I have a nice sense of humor, but I don't have time to waste on "hold your jockstrap retorts". Nevermind being reminded that every post will be judged by Group A or B., which in itself will form a forum of "yes men". Not that I don't mind the badge of courage to not be a lemming, but it won't be conductive to a good debate, when the majority would rather fit in than be viewed as a pariah. Why such trinkets are usually kept private to ENCOURAGE different POVs.

As this was an answer to your question, my guess would be "no"

Governments must spend. The question is on what. Both major parties reward their fat cat donors with spending. Spending should be for the American people.

OswaldTheOsprey