Former Wall Street Journal editor thinks JFK assassination was a conspiracy
TC
bigdog
> http://www.opednews.com/a/133450?show=votes#allcomments
It's not hard to understand why he is a former WSJ editor. The guy is
a wacko.
Anthony Marsh
It's not hard to figure out why he is a former WSJ editor. Because the
rightwing nut Rupert Murdoch bought out the paper and turned into a
vehicle for his Fascist propaganda.
Anthony Marsh
> http://www.opednews.com/a/133450?show=votes#allcomments
>
>
The operative word being "former." Wouldn't happen now that Murdoch
bought the Wall Street Journal to push his Fascist agenda.
Ace Kefford
Well, if he was the editor of the WSJ EDITORIAL page (not the news pages),
then being a wacko would be a perfect job qualification given the
nuttiness and incredible distortions that appear on those pages. You'd
have to go back to the Village Voice in the early 1970s to find opinions
and analysis that are so out of touch with reality and reasoned argument.
And at least those 60s radicals had the Vietnam War to drive them over the
edge, all the current nuts have is a health care plan that is in line with
the Republican proposals of the previous fifteen years.
Oh, well.
Ace
TC
Firstly he is 70 years so lets forgive him his retirement. Plus I dare say
he has achieved more than everyone on this discussion page put together.
If only the second coming would come down from heaven and start pointing
at the real wackos.
WIKI:
Roberts is a graduate of the Georgia Institute of Technology and holds a
Ph.D. from the University of Virginia. He was a post-graduate at the
University of California, Berkeley and at Merton College, Oxford
University.[3] His first scholarly article (Classica et Mediaevalia) was a
reformulation of "The Pirenne Thesis."
In Alienation and the Soviet Economy (1971), Roberts explained the Soviet
economy as the outcome of a struggle between inordinate aspirations and a
refractory reality. He argued that the Soviet economy was not centrally
planned, but that its institutions, such as material supply, reflected the
original Marxist aspirations to establish a non-market mode of production.
In Marx's Theory of Exchange (1973), Roberts argued that Marx was an
organizational theorist whose materialist conception of history ruled out
good will as an effective force for change.
From 1975 to 1978, Roberts served on the congressional staff. As economic
counsel to Congressman Jack Kemp[4] he drafted the Kemp-Roth bill (which
became the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981) and played a leading role in
developing bipartisan support for a supply-side economic policy.[3] His
influential 1978 article for Harper's,[5] while economic counsel to
Senator Orrin Hatch,[6] had Wall Street Journal editor Robert L. Bartley
give him an editorial slot, which he had until 1980.[7] He was a senior
fellow in political economy at the Center for Strategic and International
Studies, then part of Georgetown University.[4]
From early 1981 to January 1982 he served as Assistant Secretary of the
Treasury for Economic Policy. President Ronald Reagan and Treasury
Secretary Donald Regan credited him with a major role in the Economic
Recovery Tax Act of 1981, and he was awarded the Treasury Department's
Meritorious Service Award for "outstanding contributions to the
formulation of United States economic policy."[3] Roberts resigned in
January 1982 to become the first occupant of the William E. Simon Chair
for Economic Policy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies,
then part of Georgetown University.[8] He held this position until 1993.
He went on to write The Supply-Side Revolution (1984), in which he
explained the reformulation of macroeconomic theory and policy that he had
helped to create.
He was a Distinguished Fellow at the Cato Institute from 1993 to 1996. He
was a Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution.[3]
Anthony Marsh
> On Jun 21, 10:41 pm, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 21, 9:47 pm, TC<ciakilledkenn...@y7mail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.opednews.com/a/133450?show=votes#allcomments
>>
>> It's not hard to understand why he is a former WSJ editor. The guy is
>> a wacko.
>
> Well, if he was the editor of the WSJ EDITORIAL page (not the news pages),
> then being a wacko would be a perfect job qualification given the
> nuttiness and incredible distortions that appear on those pages. You'd
I think you slipped up and used the wrong tense. You used the present
tense which means you think the current writing of the WSJ editorial page
under rightwinger Murdoch is full of nuttiness and incredible distortions.
I would agree with that assessment of the current WSJ, but I think you
mean to denigrate the old WSJ when it was owned by Liberals.
Ace Kefford
> was a Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution.[3]
This caught my eye: "He went on to write The Supply-Side Revolution
(1984), in which he explained the reformulation of macroeconomic
theory and policy that he had helped to create."
For those not in the know, that's the great "reformulation" that lets
Republican presidents cut taxes for the wealthy and run huge deficits
by not paying for their expensive governmental actions and then leave
the mess for Demorcatic presidents (first Clinton and now Obama) to
clean it up by exercising fiscal responsibility. It's a nice sleight
of hand as long as you can pull it off. But how long can the people
be fooled by the "spend and don't tax" approach.
Ace
bigdog
Obama is fiscally responsible? Are you serious? GWBush was bad. Obama is
worse. The quality of our presidents has been going down since Reagan left
office. Each president has been worse than his predecessor. Our problem
isn't low taxation. It is ridiculously high spending. Both parties spend
money like drunken sailors except that the drunken sailor is spending his
own money. The best thing that happened to Clinton was a Republican
Congress. That created gridlock which put the brakes on spending and
allowed us to balance the budget. The only things they could spend money
on were things both sides could agree upon. I'd like to see the same thing
happen again but when it comes to cutting spending, the Republicans talk a
good game but most of the cuts have been symbolic and insignificant. If we
are ever going to have fiscal responsibility in Washington, we are going
to need to elect people who are willing to rollback spending to the 1950s
as a percentage of GDP. That won't happen as long as we keep voting for
people with Rs or Ds next to their names.
Chuck Schuyler
>
> - Show quoted text -
Where is Obama fiscally responsible? I guess if you believe thousands
and thousands of people indrustriously worked to frame poor Lee Harvey
Oswald for the death of JFK, you'll believe anything.
Ace Kefford
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bigdog,
I think at least you would agree that Obama is MORE fiscally
responsible than any Republican president from Reagan forward.
One of the reasons why the health care reform act took so long to get
passed was Obama's insistence that it had to not raise the long-term
deficit (at least on paper(!) as determined by independent estimates,
although surely there was some fudging). If instead it had been
something a Republican president wanted, he would just have spent the
money, while as you say talking a good game about cuts.
Currently one party lives in reality, the other lives in ideology and
utopia and wild dreams about theory. When I was growing up in the
1970s it was the other way around. That definitely affects how I tend
to vote.
Ace
Anthony Marsh
Bush drove this country into a deep recession. Obama is pulling us out
of that recession.
> worse. The quality of our presidents has been going down since Reagan left
> office. Each president has been worse than his predecessor. Our problem
> isn't low taxation. It is ridiculously high spending. Both parties spend
You seem to conviently forget that under Reagan the rich paid a higher
percent in taxes than under Bush.
Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981
phased-in 23% cut in individual tax rates; top rate dropped from
70% to 50%
accelerated depreciation deductions; replaced depreciation system
with ACRS
indexed individual income tax parameters (beginning in 1985)
created 10% exclusion on income for two-earner married couples
($3,000 cap)
phased-in increase in estate tax exemption from $175,625 to
$600,000 in 1987
reduced Windfall Profit taxes
allowed all working taxpayers to establish IRAs
expanded provisions for employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs)
replaced $200 interest exclusion with 15% net interest exclusion
($900 cap) (begin in 1985)
As can be seen, all of the provisions are effectively tax cuts. On the
other hand, following are the provisions listed by the document for the
1986 tax bill:
Tax Reform Act of 1986
reduced individual income tax rates (top rate 28%) and repealed
capital gains exclusion
repealed investment tax credit
lowered corporation income tax rates; top rate lowered to 34 percent
increased personal exemption amount from $1,080 to $2,000
set uniform capitalization rules for manufacturing or construction
increased standard deduction from $3,670 to $5,000 (joints)
limited deduction for nonbusiness interest
repealed second earner deduction
limited passive losses
established income limits on use of IRAs for taxpayers covered by
pensions
revised corporate minimum tax
repealed sales tax deduction for individuals
set 2-percent floor on miscellaneous itemized deductions
> money like drunken sailors except that the drunken sailor is spending his
> own money. The best thing that happened to Clinton was a Republican
> Congress. That created gridlock which put the brakes on spending and
> allowed us to balance the budget. The only things they could spend money
> on were things both sides could agree upon. I'd like to see the same thing
Clinton also didn't go around starting wars and wasting trillions of
dollars bombing babies.
> happen again but when it comes to cutting spending, the Republicans talk a
> good game but most of the cuts have been symbolic and insignificant. If we
> are ever going to have fiscal responsibility in Washington, we are going
> to need to elect people who are willing to rollback spending to the 1950s
> as a percentage of GDP. That won't happen as long as we keep voting for
> people with Rs or Ds next to their names.
>
Is this a paid advertisement for The Tea Party?
TC
> and thousands of people indrustriously worked to frame poor Lee Harvey
>
No, only a few framed him. Most likely less than five people; his
handler would have done most it, getting Oswald to frame himself and
then maybe one ot=r two other to set up the crime scenes.
bigdog
You think wrong. GHWBush meant well. He just didn't stick to his guns with
his "no new taxes" pledge and it cost him a second term. Wheres he went
off the rails, his son and Obama went over the cliff. I voted for 41 both
times without regret. I never voted for his son and have no regrets about
that either. I voted for Obama because his name wasn't McCain. No other
reason. Again, no regrets. I won't be voting for Obama again. Whether I
vote Republican or Libertarian in 2012 will depend on who the GOP
nominates. At least when I vote Libertarian, I don't have to hold my nose.
Ron Paul is the only one running that I could get excited about but he
won't get nominated. Ron Paul is the sharpest knife in the Republican
drawer but has given no indication he wants to run. Too bad.
> One of the reasons why the health care reform act took so long to get
> passed was Obama's insistence that it had to not raise the long-term
> deficit (at least on paper(!) as determined by independent estimates,
> although surely there was some fudging). If instead it had been
> something a Republican president wanted, he would just have spent the
> money, while as you say talking a good game about cuts.
>
I wish the health care "reform" act had taken another 10 years. Make
that 100 years. At least I'd be dead by then.
> Currently one party lives in reality, the other lives in ideology and
> utopia and wild dreams about theory. When I was growing up in the
> 1970s it was the other way around. That definitely affects how I tend
> to vote.
>
I don't know which party you think lives in reality, but it sure isn''t
one of the major parties. Most of them are cowards who won't risk their
jobs to do what is best for the country. When you get right down to it,
they all stand for the same thing. Reelection. Everybody knows that Social
Security and Medicare are unsustainable in their current form but few have
the guts to do anything about it. Ron Paul is one of the few exceptions.
Even Bill Clinton knows he is right that something needs to be done and he
told him so behind the scenes but good luck getting the gutless wonders in
Congress to man up and get on board. The problem with any fix is that the
benefits are long term while the fixes are immediate. Sitting congressmen
know that they don't get any political capital for averting future crises
but will pay the price for enacting any sure term pain, so they run and
hide rather than do what needs to be done. Cowardice favors neither party.
There is plenty of it on both sides of the aisle.
We need elected officials who are going to make us eat our vegetables. We
don't want to eat our vegetables, but it is in our own best interest to do
so. Politicians prefer to let us pig out on cake and ice cream because
that is what gets them reelected.
Anthony Marsh
Social Security and Medicare are separately funded, not funded by
federal taxes. They have plenty of money. So much so that the Federal
government keeps borrowing their money to fund wars of conquest.
Ron Paul is a wacko who cares nothing about poor people or the middle
class. He enjoys a well funded healthcare system. Billionaire don't need
Medicare. But they want to steal the money from the poor and middle class.
Libertarians and Tea Party kooks are useful idiots happy to be used by
the Billionaires to steal money from the poor and middle class.
> Even Bill Clinton knows he is right that something needs to be done and he
> told him so behind the scenes but good luck getting the gutless wonders in
> Congress to man up and get on board. The problem with any fix is that the
So, you were a supporter of Clinton's health plan? How did that go?
> benefits are long term while the fixes are immediate. Sitting congressmen
> know that they don't get any political capital for averting future crises
> but will pay the price for enacting any sure term pain, so they run and
> hide rather than do what needs to be done. Cowardice favors neither party.
> There is plenty of it on both sides of the aisle.
>
The Republicans are paralyzed with fear by the Tea Party kooks.
> We need elected officials who are going to make us eat our vegetables. We
> don't want to eat our vegetables, but it is in our own best interest to do
> so. Politicians prefer to let us pig out on cake and ice cream because
> that is what gets them reelected.
>
I thought Libertarians always say that the government shouldn't tell
people what to do.
TC
>
> - Show quoted text -
OH MY GOD. Big Dog has written something I actually agree with! A
miracle.
Caeruleo
<450ee225-3cf2-439e...@z7g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
TC <ciakille...@y7mail.com> wrote:
> http://www.opednews.com/a/133450?show=votes#allcomments
I find this claim of his to be interesting:
**********
When piles of carefully researched books, released government documents,
and testimony of eye witnesses made it clear that Lee Harvey Oswald was
not President John F. Kennedy's assassin, the voluminous research,
government documents, and verified testimony was dismissed as "conspiracy
theory."
**********
I'm curious as to what these "released government documents" and
"testimony of eye witnesses" are. "Piles" of them? The vast majority of
such documents and testimonies do not make any such thing "clear." This
man appears not to have read most of the documents and testimonies of the
case.