"A WSJ article based on a longer peer-reviewed article for an economics journal written by two award-winning economists ... or a snide hatchet job written by a hack journalist on a left-wing web site." - Which to go with?

1) If I'm a Right-wing hack economist and my selected group of "peers" are also Right-wing zealots, what is my peers' review actually worth?

2) The WSJ is a Right-wing rag of little value outside of its role in promoting Republican propagnda.

3) In this case, I'm going with the reasoned analysis on the Leftie website.

a Bush Republican taking stepping down like this after making some colossal "error"?

To echo what another poster suggested, an automatic audit should accompany any appointment to any position in government.

"...I sometimes wonder if the hard right will launch covert terrorist attacks against this country as a way of discrediting the Democrats and proving that they're weak on terrorism. To try to destabilize non-Republican regimes as "proof" that they were right all along."

What do you think 9/11 was? I have to admit, it was a brilliant ploy to have back-door Arab connections set up a sort of proxy terrorist attack in America. While Clinton was still President, the PNAC discussed at length the "value" that a Pearl Harbor style event would have in galvanizing American public support for an invasion into Iraq. They weren't joking.

"unemployment is purely voluntary"

I dare you to take this argument down to your local unemployment office and explain to everybody looking for work why their problems are all their own faults.

What an utterly stupid thing to say. That construct exists in theory in Rith-wing economics classrooms and think-tanks, but it isn't how the real world operates. You sound like somebody who's never worked for a goddamned thing in your life.

"Why do so many Democrats scream about tax cuts having got us into this mess? Regardless of whether tax cuts alone would get us out of it, they didn't get us into it, so that's not a valid reason to damn them to hell. Give a real reason, don't make one up."

- What happens when tax cut after tax cut for the wealthy results in such a skewed redistribution (that's right) of wealth that the circulation of money begins to shut down? Bear in mind that tax cuts don't necessarily translate into new investments (at least as far as investing in America in the age of "free trade" agreements goes...).

"This all reminds me of that other great Democrat monster under the bed, guns, as if guns leap up and pull their own trigger to kill without any hand involved, or as if guns cause so many deaths that they must be outlawed regaerdless of the constitution (but when the Bushies rape the fourth amendment, Democrats whine about how precious that amendment is), when guns are involved in far fewer deaths than cars."

- 1) Find the word "gun" in the Constitution. Using your logic, I have the right to a suitcase nuke, assuming I can build or purchase one, such being classified as "arms" and all.

- 2) In your argument, swap out every instance of the word "gun" and replace it with "crack cocaine." Crack doesn't smoke itself, therefore it is harmless, right?

There's a point at which guys like Limbaugh and Hannity and Coulter actually know that they are peddling bullshit to the Republican moron-base, but Beck is more than a few pegs below that. He isn't even funny on any level. He isn't paid to say stupid shit, he's paid to simply be stupid.

"Why is the government excluded from that reality?"

Possibly because governments are the only entities that can decide to make money (via taxes). Ford can't make you buy their cars. McDonald's can't make you eat a Big Mac. No retailer can make you buy their product. People can't decide if and or what they will earn without somebody else deciding first that they will pay them.

Perhaps, but that just underscores how intellectually bankrupt the Republicans have become. Steele is a Grade-A Moron.

If this is, indeed, a thought-out policy position - man what a disappointment. But, as another poster suggested, perhaps this is an accident of timing as the new Administration is now coming together. Or, perhaps there is some secret shit we really don't know, but that seems like a stretch. We may not have seen the last of it.

This is why Bush should never have done it. He has set a precedent.

From a darkly objective standpoint, here's what I don't get: Clearly, many governments around the world have the ability to kidnap, torture, render, or execute virtually anybody they want to. One might make valid arguments that such is necessary in extreme cases. Why not simply do it and shut the hell up about it? It is such a PR nightmare, why establish a policy at all? Just do and deny. Why create an obvious spectacle like Gitmo? Don't tell me they can't do this in total secrecy.

You're gonna have conspiracy theorists anyway...

The big problem is: How do you know that the accused is a terrorist without due process? You're putting a whole lot of trust in government...

And what do you mean "if" an American city gets nuked? Anybody who knows anything about terrorism knows that it's only a matter of time - it's a numbers game and we lose.

"We happen to relish the idea of EARNING something with our hands and our hard work."

That's fantastic. Now, what happens when somebody else in the capitalist system - an invstor, an executive, etc., makes a decision on your behlaf that you will no longer be working? In the real world this is known as a layoff. How many unemployed people do you think really want to be unemployed? How do you do things like feed yourself (and any dependents) while the "free market" (cough, cough) corrects itself?