Your putdowns just don’t have enough zing when you overuse certain adjectives. For example, you have worn out “extremist”. That has to stop being your main adjective to marginalize others. You need to at least distinguish varying degrees of extremism. You could use the term “ultraXtreme” for those you really want to discredit. I think you may have also worn out the word “radical”.

Hell, the radical acts of the federal government over the last decade make the most “radical” anarchists seem almost quaintly moderate. Even the most mild mannered conservative traditionalists are calling for radical departures from the status quo these days. The word “radical” is no longer a guaranteed knee-jerker.

Like the word “libertarian”, the word “extremist” becomes meaningless when it is used to describe nearly everything.

Tedious is a good pejorative. I would use that word to describe someone who is always the first to belittle others and the first to whine when others respond negatively.

Having a 100-year plan is extremist in my book, because 100-year plans are grandiose. What his plan will be — you’re right — I dunno. I’ll probably like some of its sentiments.

I actually would put Beck in the L quadrant as well, just as I would put Rockwell and Rothbard in the quadrant. I might even put Bob Wallace in the quadrant, too. They each call themselves L; they each take what I consider to be extreme positions; if a opinion poll were conducted on some of their opinions, I suspect majorities would agree with me.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that. Some of my epistemological-we’re-in-the-Matrix philosophical perspectives are as radical as it gets.

It’s all good.

“Columbia’s cavaliering candidate consciously contemplates convening campaign controversy; contends credible contest currently crippling.”

We would have to put off any dreams of small government and increased freedom for 200 years, but we would leave a utopian world where rich white guys could finally relax, enjoying their cocktails and a fear-free game of golf.

I believe you when you say that you think a 100-year plan is extremist. Of course, you don’t even know what this 100-year plan really is because Beck hasn’t told us yet. But, I am aware that reality never gets in the way of your bizarre beliefs.

Then again, it is pretty obvious you don’t read a lot.

Here’s a graph from the Fed’s St. Louis branch that shows the growth in the money supply over a number of years http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/AMBNS.

There is a lot more to this than meets the eye to say the least.

People need to ask themselves “what if?” regarding this. There is a potential for big problems imho.

I’d imagine he’s dreamed it in lights on the Vegas strip . . . “Columbia University classmates square off for presidential bid”.

What do you expect from a neo-con . . . rational positions based upon unalienable rights and liberty?

Though Capozzi has been very careful NOT to say that Beck’s “extremism” is akin to “moving in the “paleo” direction, IMHO, he wants to paint a broad stroke about “extremism” and how all “extremism” kind of fits together. Nice try, but even though you’re smart, the rest of us aren’t dumb.

Government distorted the housing market BIG TIME. Wall St and the mortgage industry — enabled by Freddie and Fannie — distorted it further.

The prime mover was government.

The “too big to fail” line is a Republican talking point…

Somebody forgot to tell the Obama administration.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091029/bs_nm/us_financial_regulation

Or do a search on “too big to fail” obama

AIG, Goldman Sachs and the others had no idea they would be bailed out when they engaged is such reckless behavior.

Oh, I think they did. After all, this past year’s auto industry bailout was not the first one.