Some people idolize mass murderers. There's no rhyme or reason.

Fascist almost certainly would be ok. Nazi is tougher because it could compromise the profs ability to teach or supervise Jewish students which probably goes against their mission statements. A better example might be a jihadist that thinks terrorism is a valid tool to combat American foreign policy, but doesn't think Americans inherently should be killed. Depending on how good he is and how vocal, it probably could go either way.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/...rclimatechange


lol Hansen

Weeping for our childrens' future is only appropriate when it comes to the national debt. For natural resources they can go **** themselves.

That's awesome.

LOL:

Both environmental concerns and public debt concerns can fit under the "government is a terrible custodian of anything" libertarian blame umbrella.

Valen - I thought you'd enjoy these comments from your bff Chavez on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

http://www.zawya.com/story.cfm/sidAN...6T041925ZIVG88



I don't need to add anything else really, do I.

What a true social democratic leftist hero!

Basically I do agree with you. You have to consider however that they lived in different times with different social acceptance of violence. Just look at how gung-ho Europeans were to start WWI.

That's obviously no excuse for the communist party going for mass extermination of it's enemies, but Russia was even farther backwards socially at that time. Look at how the French revolution turned out for a part. Obviously most people today will dislike Robbespierre, but we are still able to judge the French revolution as a "good" thing in general.

Besides even with Lenin going for mass extermination of the landed aristocracy and such Stalin took things much further IIRC, using violence against people in his own movement criticizing him.

Cliff notes: Lenin bad, Stalin worse.

Was reading this earlier and thought of valen also.

I was taking more of a shot at Boehner. It's hard to nail libertarians down on hypocritical practices, because they have no track record (other than draconian budget proposals that everyone knows will never see the light of day), and so many of their ideas are purely hypothetical.

Chavez relationship with the middle East leaders is obviously very dubious. He uses an enemy of my enemy is my friend logic which I dont agree with.

I love how you criticize Chavez just for saying something, thats irrelevant to the welfare of the venezuelan people and the welfare of the syrian people, USA actions on the other hand have direct impact on their own people and the citizens of the countries that are bombed.

also lol @ your horrible ad-hominem in regards with Ahmenajad.

Spending equal to revenue receipts is draconian? Might want to rethink that stance suzzer

It is when it would cause the worst depression in our history. Paul's porposal cuts both drastically - it doesn't just balance them out.

You have absolutely zero basis to say it would cause a depression, you realize that right?

I'm pretty sure people know who Stalin is, but NIMN, Noam Chomsky is notable for defending Pol Pot.

Being a Stalinist in the intellectual-seeming apologist "I think Stalin had some good ideas but probably shouldn't have starved half of Ukraine to death" sense isn't nearly as bad as carrying water for the Khmer Rouge.

Though as mosdef says, you can totally get into a reasonable-person debate about the merits of ideas held by Mao, Stalin, Mussolini, Pinochet, Che, even probably like Idi Amin or whatever. Hitler's in a special class to himself, and being an outspoken neo-Nazi would probably get you in trouble at nearly any university.

Of course it would cause a depression, because government spending is counted in the Gross Domestic Product, instead of in a separate Gross Domestic Destruct like it should be.

Quit being a naysayer Boro; we've killed thousands of brown people this year, our economy is booming!

Chomsky's disgraceful carrying water for Pol Pot extended to saying "his rule might have been necessary, and anyway it was a product of the American bombing in Cambodia and Vietnam, and also, he didn't kill millions, probably only a few thousands" (or something along those lines. Stalinists in the West do all that (denying or massively downplaying the extent or killing in the gulag or in the collectivization famines, apologising for him, and calling him necessary) and more (as well as some of them being part of an organization which organized for a forthcoming glorious proletarian revolution - at least Chomsky isn't agitating for an American Year Zero).

Yeah, I can recognize that. Sometimes I just read things by these leaders that some people ideolize and seek to emulate and think "how is this persons followers not completely shunned from civil society?"

For example: I went to see a lecture by renowned nutter Norman Finkelstein on the Israel-Palestine conflict a while back. I got to ask him a question about Nasrallah, and he gave a waffling answer about how Nasrallah was a man of peace comprable to Ghandi or Mao (!). No one but my friend and I so much as raised an eyebrow as far as I could tell.

I guess its just the lack of moral outrage about things like this which gets me sometimes. Cold Warriors got a hell of a lot wrong, but in their sense of moral outrage, they were far more on the money than much of the left (even a lot of the liberal or labour left, at least in the UK, if we're being honest).

Show me a non-mises.org economist who thinks suddenly cutting govt spending by 80%+ would *not* result in a gigantic tanking of the economy.

Well 1 out of the 3 is plausible.

Pssst, Brainiac. The "mises.org economists" all agree with this. I think that makes you racist.

I lol every single time you guys demonstrate you haven't the foggiest clue what you're talking about.

I think cutting government spending by 80% literally overnight would be a huge disaster.