Govenor Sarah Palin, Mormonism, Post-Mormonism, Politics

[_krose]

The thing I think is strange about Palin and her "Thanks but no thanks" line is that it was completely unnecessary. Who would blame her, as a governor, for taking every bit of money that was offered to her state? That's her job, to put her state's citizens first. I know I wouldn't criticize it, even though I strongly oppose her and her running mate.

And the crazy thing is, she actually did exercise a measure of fiscal responsibility by cancelling the bridge project after it was clear the feds wouldn't fund it.

All she had to do was to point out that she would not be serving her state by refusing money that was offered, on some higher principle. That's the way the system has been set up, and each local politician needs to work within that system. But no, she had to overreach and try to cast herself as someone whose principles were so amazing that she would refuse federal money to the detriment of her state. Yeah, right.





-------

[_dartagnan]

Well, I voted for 'W' in 2000, although I had hoped that McCain would win the nomination, and I have never been much of a peacenik, but I felt the Iraq war was a bad idea from the beginning. At the very least, I thought the stated reasons for attacking it at the time were absurd.

Well, the Clinton Administration created this. Busgh was merely operating on intelligence the Clinton Administration left him. Bill and Hillary and John Kerry, Al Gore, all made public statements to the effect that Iraq had WMDs and action needed to be taken. But this came to a head when Clinton left office.

I also believed that there would be a lot of backlash on the ground. I am not a genius in foreign policy, and I am not a peace at all costs kinda guy. I simply thought it was a bad idea for practical reasons.

Yea the ground plan was poorly orchestrated. I really think if McCain had led the war from the beginning, the Iraq war would have become an amazing accomplishment instead of a tragedy. If you think about it, the main thing that makes the difference one way or the other is the way the insurgents responded after the Iraq military surrendered. What pisses people off about the war is the fact that our men are being killed all the time by road side bombs, snipers firing from mosques, etc. I think that if none of this had happened, the democrats would still be on our side in support of the war and the rest of the world would still hate us for invading in the first place.

And you know that this was the basis for his opposition, or are you connecting the dots as you see things?

I know this from his speech he gave in opposition to the war. He made it perfectly clear he believes the war was a republican conspiracy used to detract our attention away from social issues that he wanted to focus on:

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.
That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Of course he gave other reasons offered by most anti-war protestors, but the reason above reflects his Black Liberation Theology which argues frequently that we cannot trust a white government and that the black race is chosen by God.

Well, my father spent his entire career in the federal government. He too loved to complain about minority hires.

I'm sure his beef had less to do with their race and more to do with the obvious fact that they were hired because of their race.

I don't recall, however, his complaining about a swollen secretarial pool as a result of these policies.

Well, the unfortunate fact about minorities is that they tend to be the least educated, the least skilled, and hence, the least qualified for higher-paid positions. Their unemployment rate is twice that of caucassians. But affirmative action dictates they have to reach a certain percentage of the workforce, whether they are qualified or not!

So when we look at the demographics of federal jobs, nearly 45% of all clerical positions are held by minorities, whereas minorities hold less than 20% of the professional positions. When liberal politicians create these useless bureaucracies and obtain outrageous earmarks for funding them, who do you think benefits? Minorities who are hired to run them.

I know mostly people who want good jobs. I am not so familiar with the millions of people who prefer to sit watching soaps and get paid for it. It may surprise you that even uneducated people work, and many of them take pride in the work they do. They didn't happen to like school, but they are far from lazy and useless because of it.

I am talking about the people who don't work at all. The people who don't pay income tax. They will vote for Obama too. Why? Because he has promised to give them a tax refund even though they don't pay taxes. He has convinced them that it is OK to blame others for their plight. He's just going to give them tax payer funds because they have been oppressed. He is essentially bribing them to vote for him and it will work as it always has before. You don't really think the lower class and minorities generally voted democrat because they're educated on the issues now do you?

Obama and his ilk also rely on the most educated people in the country.

Have you seen many white spokespersons for the Obama campaign? I think I've seen three.

It is a redistribution of wealth, and the nations that happen to have what we call a well developed "civil society" all do it.

You mean like China, the former USSR and Venezuela?

I am not aware of any serious person who would seek to eliminate it

You're not familiar with the "fair tax" proposals supported by people like Mike Huckabee? Or the complete removal of the IRS and income taxes altogether, and making interneral revenue flow from sales tax alone. So you get taxed on what you buy, not what you earn. The rich will naturally pay more taxes in this system as well, because they will be buying more. Poor people who don't own much, will hardly pay any taxes at all.

But the difference is that government is not arbitrarily dictating who has to pay and at what percentage. It remains at the discretion of the consumer.

The trick is finding the proper balance.

I think the trick is getting the government out of our finances. Government is implementing its own sense of morality when it says some people have to pay 40% of their income and another group will receive money. It is discouraging accomplishment. A 10k raise at a job could actually bump some people into another tax bracket, causing their promotion to constitute a financial demotion.

From where I sit, it seems that you are buying into literalness of what is simply the moralizing rhetoric of both sides, which is aimed at persuading "the ignorant." You speak of the lazy suckling at the unwilling tit of the wealthy, and the Democrats talk about the greedy wealthy. Both are true to a degree, but they are also unsophisticated misdirection that is used to sway those who don't understand anything other than the moral argument.

I don't think it is strictly a moral argument.

And who isn't?

A racist originally meant a person who believes one race is somehow inherently superior to another. Racist has taken on new definitions nowadays to the point that virtually anyone is a racist. "You people" is understood as racist now. Why? I have no idea whatsoever. The black community uses it as a crutch. What would they do without blaming racism? They'd be left with no other excuses for their failure to accomplish as a race. So racism will live in America as long as the NAACP keeps trying to justify their existence. They won't let it die. They can't afford to.

Now are there true racists? Of course there are. But they are not to blame for the failures of black society. Maybe 30 years ago, but not today.

I can't imagine a sophisticated person who does not understand that racial rhetoric is used as a wedge for the purposes of acquiring more power.

Example? The only example I can think of recently is Obama's use of the race card to gain more sympathy from potential voters. The white man's guilt. Use it if you have to.

black Americans continue to disproportionately suffer from poverty, crime, inferior healthcare, etc.

Yes, they do. And why is that? When blacks represent less than 20% of the population, and are by far less educated than non-minorities, then why should we expect them to share an equal representation in the workforce?

By that logic, it must be racism that the NFL is overwhelmingly black. Do white people complain? Hell no. We understand that black people are better atheletes. They can run faster, jump higher and their muscles are more dense. These are biological facts. But you don't see a white organization comparable to the NAACP, complaining about racism in professional sports. Instead you see Jessie Jackson trying to shakedown another industry with NASCAR. (http://wakeupblackamerica.blogspot.com/ ... wn-bp.html)

America has more opportunity for blacks than any other country. Thanks to affirmative action, they actually have the upperhand. When and if a black person does obtain a PhD, corporations will be tripping over themselves to land him on their payroll. This is why Obama was such a highly attractive candidate, even though he had virtually zero accomplishments as the HLR editor. He said it himself. He was the only black person at his law firm, aside from his soon to be wife.

He achieved, and so can all black Americans. All they have to do is coast through a free public educational system and if they try hard and do well, they can pretty much get a free ride through college and then milk the AA system to get a high paying job. But most of them don't do this. Why not? They don't care about education. Many become products of their environment and end up caring more about being cool, getting "street credit" as a thug or what not. As Bill Cosby pointed out, most black American children are raised without a father figure.

I don't pretend to have the answers, but at the same time I do not deny the problems.

Oh I never denied the problems. I actually think the problems are more extensive than most. I think the problems facing the black community are made worse by the likes of the NAACP and people like Obama and Jessie Jackson, who are always bearthing over their shoulders reminding them they are an inferior race. You look at some of the more successful black figures in America and you'll find people who are educated. People who said no to the divisive mechanisms in todays black culture. People who didn't let race get in their way. All black Americans have equal opportunity. But they don't all take advantage of it. When people like Obama see this, they insist it has to be because the government is keeping them down. This encourages them to stay down, and play the victim. Whoopi Goldberg asked John McCain the other day if she should worry about the return of slavery!

I am not convinced that Obama is one of these people simply because his pastor was.

But Obama did use race during his campaign. He has done this twice already.

I would no more hold pastor Wright against Obama than I would hold Palin's somewhat fringy Christian associations against her. Frankly, I am uncomfortable with both.

The difference of course, is that Palin attended that Church because she had been attending it since she was a kid. She also came to her sense and left it. Obama joined his church as an adult and he never left it.

And while you write of this "immoral they," I know of plenty of African Americans who do not fit this "negative" portrait you are drawing here in all particulars.

Of course. But I am speaking in general terms. The fact is most blacks do not succeed because most prefer to engage in the above.

There is a small minority of black conservatives. There are black opponents of affirmative action.

Yes, very true.

There are some of these same folks who are conservative, and yet delight in celebrating their heritage. It does not seem to me that you have a coherent vision of what African Americans should be, and yet you have a pretty stereotypical view of what they ought not to be and yet somehow all are. I prefer not to go there

I do have a coherent vision of what they should be: Americans. If they want to be included, then they need to drop all the mechanisms of exclusion. Do we refer to ourselves as Irish American. Italian American, Scottish American, etc? Do we broadcast a channel called White Entertainment Television? Do we attend white only Churches/Universities? What if white people shared an interested in celebrating our heritage? It would be racist, right?

What makes him special is the same thing that nearly cost him his candidacy--he is a black man who is not "black" in the sense of most of these people to whom you refer, and by their own reckoning. He has had to make overtures in order to be accepted, wouldn't you think?

No, I see no evidence of this. It doesn't seem to me that there has been any indication his "whiteness" has worked againt him in any significant way. The black community overwhelmingly accepts him as one of their own. The same is true for many black Americans who appear much whiter than he. Mariah Carey, Derrick Jeter, Beyonce Knowels, and even Michael Jackson. Nobody criticizes them for being quasi-black.

If McCain is against politics as usual, then why is he surrounded by lobbyists?

Are you talking about the former lobbyists who work for his campaign?

[_dartagnan]

The thing I think is strange about Palin and her "Thanks but no thanks" line is that it was completely unnecessary. Who would blame her, as a governor, for taking every bit of money that was offered to her state? That's her job, to put her state's citizens first. I know I wouldn't criticize it, even though I strongly oppose her and her running mate.

And the crazy thing is, she actually did exercise a measure of fiscal responsibility by cancelling the bridge project after it was clear the feds wouldn't fund it.

All she had to do was to point out that she would not be serving her state by refusing money that was offered, on some higher principle. That's the way the system has been set up, and each local politician needs to work within that system.

Well her speech was prepared by McCain's speechwriter and as I understand it, even the democrats gave her credit for killing the bridge to nowhere. They probably didn't anticipate this level of sugery by the liberal smear merchants.

But no, she had to overreach and try to cast herself as someone whose principles were so amazing that she would refuse federal money to the detriment of her state. Yeah, right.

Huh?

Where did she "cast herself as someone whose principles were so amazing that she would refuse federal money to the detriment of her state"?

It wasn't to the detriment of her state. The bridge was superfluous, and that is what she figured out as governor. That is why she killed the project.

[_Trevor]

Well, the Clinton Administration created this. Busgh was merely operating on intelligence the Clinton Administration left him. Bill and Hillary and John Kerry, Al Gore, all made public statements to the effect that Iraq had WMDs and action needed to be taken. But this came to a head when Clinton left office.

I don't see how this changes the fact that the war was a bad idea. I also don't think that Clinton formulated engaging in an Iraq war with an ongoing Afghanistan war in progress. The truth of the matter is that the way the war was sold to the American people and the way it was carried out in the first years have little to do with Bill Clinton, and I can't see any other reason than a partisan one for bringing this into the discussion.

What pisses people off about the war is the fact that our men are being killed all the time by road side bombs, snipers firing from mosques, etc. I think that if none of this had happened, the Democrats would still be on our side in support of the war and the rest of the world would still hate us for invading in the first place.

That very well could be the case, although I imagine Democrats simply would have had to forage a little further to find other bones of contention. People would have excused the lies and bad thinking behind the beginning of the war, if it had been executed well and ended quickly. Unfortunately, it seems that bad thinking was endemic and persistent.

I know this from his speech he gave in opposition to the war. He made it perfectly clear he believes the war was a republican conspiracy used to detract our attention away from social issues that he wanted to focus on:

OK, but it seems we are getting a little off track. Maybe you can persuade me that we are not, but I want to back up to the statement that sparked my comment. You wrote:

After all, he was highly influenced by Reverend "God damn America" Wright, who sees no good from American government. It is no surprise, therefore, that Obama would oppose the war.

Now, I think there is a big distinction to be drawn between someone who sees "no good from American government" and one who thinks that the potential good that could come from the government is frustrated by focus on the wrong things. Of course, I remain uncertain of what good you think comes from the American government. And, by the way, whereas you say these are all merely "social" issues (i.e. "Socialist" agenda?), they seem to me to reach into areas of economic concern that the wealthy too are probably worried about. That is, unless they are planning to emigrate from the country. The collapse of the middle class would probably impact their own lives negatively.

Of course he gave other reasons offered by most anti-war protestors, but the reason above reflects his Black Liberation Theology which argues frequently that we cannot trust a white government and that the black race is chosen by God.

Really? I'm not seeing it, but maybe you are extremely well versed in the subtleties of "Black Liberation Theology." Does "Black Liberation Theology" look askance at going massively into debt to conduct wars, some of them not so pressing, on multiple fronts? An amazing thing this theology. I imagine many wealthy people, whom you say are paying for all of this nincompoopery anyway, should make common cause with these theologians against a massively expensive war we did not need. Now that's something I would like to be liberated from.

I'm sure his beef had less to do with their race and more to do with the obvious fact that they were hired because of their race.

Indeed.

So when we look at the demographics of federal jobs, nearly 45% of all clerical positions are held by minorities, whereas minorities hold less than 20% of the professional positions. When liberal politicians create these useless bureaucracies and obtain outrageous earmarks for funding them, who do you think benefits? Minorities who are hired to run them.

First of all, "useless" is your judgment. Second, I doubt they were created as mere shells to hire minorities, and that there was no intention to accomplish anything, whether you agree with the goals or not. Finally, 45% minority clerical workers still means 55% white clerical workers, and I am sure they are glad to have those jobs too. And, these are jobs that require work, not sitting on one's ass in front of soaps to collect unemployment or welfare.

I am talking about the people who don't work at all. The people who don't pay income tax. They will vote for Obama too. Why? Because he has promised to give them a tax refund even though they don't pay taxes. He has convinced them that it is OK to blame others for their plight. He's just going to give them tax payer funds because they have been oppressed. He is essentially bribing them to vote for him and it will work as it always has before. You don't really think the lower class and minorities generally voted democrat because they're educated on the issues now do you?

Maybe they vote for people who at least put on a decent show of caring about them. Maybe they are a lot smarter than many of you give them credit for. Still, many of these folks who may vote for Obama are from the lower middle-class, that is, unless they choose McCain for other reasons, and my guess is that they are rather afraid of joining the impoverished and not at all trusting of the Republicans to help them stay in jobs and stay off of the welfare rolls.

Have you seen many white spokespersons for the Obama campaign? I think I've seen three.

I was thinking of the academic community, with which I have some familiarity.

You mean like China, the former USSR and Venezuela?

LOL. I think you know the answer to that question. No. North America and Western Europe were on my mind.

You're not familiar with the "fair tax" proposals supported by people like Mike Huckabee? Or the complete removal of the IRS and income taxes altogether, and making interneral revenue flow from sales tax alone. So you get taxed on what you buy, not what you earn. The rich will naturally pay more taxes in this system as well, because they will be buying more. Poor people who don't own much, will hardly pay any taxes at all.

From my acquaintance with the world of tax law academics, it is my understanding that most of these proposals are not serious, they are rhetorical. Why? Because they stand a snowball's chance in a volcano of actually being enacted. Tax reform is one of the most vexed issues out there. Just because a populist bozo with no chance of gaining the nomination of a major party proposes a quack scheme does not mean that "serious people" actually give them credence.

I think the trick is getting the government out of our finances.

Good luck.

Racist has taken on new definitions nowadays to the point that virtually anyone is a racist.

In reply to your discussion of racism in general, I have this opinion to offer: the rhetorical path I see here is one that is doomed to perpetual, mutual recriminations. That is why I am not interested in bitching about all the things certain black people do to abuse the system and keep racism alive. There is rhetoric that has a certain truth and yet remains unhelpful and unproductive.

The difference of course, is that Palin attended that Church because she had been attending it since she was a kid. She also came to her sense and left it. Obama joined his church as an adult and he never left it.

Some might claim that they wackiness was inculcated in her. You can take the girl out of fundy faith, but you can't take the fundy faith out of the girl.

Are you talking about the former lobbyists who work for his campaign?

Would I be talking about someone else?

[_krose]

Huh?

Where did she "cast herself as someone whose principles were so amazing that she would refuse federal money to the detriment of her state"?

I'm not about to start arguing with you, because you are too strident and long-winded for my taste. I'll just say that it's quite clear to most of us who hear her repeated statement of "I told Congress 'thanks but no thanks' for that bridge to nowhere," that she's bragging about exactly that... higher principles over money and local pork. It's couched as if Congress tried to give them all the money for the airport bridge and she refused it.

And I repeat that it was not necessary to try to be seen as a selfless hero. She was doing her job appropriately, both by first supporting local investments and by eventually cancelling the project.

[_dartagnan]

I don't see how this changes the fact that the war was a bad idea.

It doesn't. I was just pointing out that Obama was wrong to insist the war was a conspiracy hatched by the Republicans. The rationale for going to war had already been marinating during the Clinton Administration. Obama's ignorance of this little fact is telling in and of itself.

I also don't think that Clinton formulated engaging in an Iraq war with an ongoing Afghanistan war in progress.

Bush had planned the Iraq war before he was in office. He wasn't going to let 9-11 detract from that objective.

The truth of the matter is that the way the war was sold to the American people and the way it was carried out in the first years have little to do with Bill Clinton, and I can't see any other reason than a partisan one for bringing this into the discussion.

You're right, it is a bit off track from the discussion, but I was pointing out Obama's ignorance on the matter by accusing the Republicans of creating a war as a means to detract Americans from socio-economic problems. The war was sold to the American people on the basis that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to national security because he was engaged in building an arsenal of WMDs. This is precisely what the Clinton Administration had argued just a couple of years prior to the election. So the famous "lie" about WMDs was propagated first by the Clinton Administration:

Bill Clinton, Januay 27 1998:

Together, we must confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons and the outlaw states, terrorists, and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. The United Nations weapons inspectors have done a truly remarkable job finding and destroying more of Iraq's arsenal than was destroyed during the entire Gulf war. Now Saddam Hussein wants to stop them from completing their mission.

I know I speak for everyone in this chamber, Republicans and Democrats, when I say to Saddam Hussein, "You cannot defy the will of the world," and when I say to him, "You have used weapons of mass destruction before. We are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again."

And of course the usual suspects in the liberal camp were more than happy to take Clinton's words for granted and echo them:

Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process. -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people. -- Tom Daschle in 1998

We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed. -- Madeline Albright, 1998

The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

I hate to bombard you with so many citations, but I really need to establish the point that Obama was out of his gourd and completely out of touch with the current political climate of his own party, if he really thought Bush's rationale for attacking Iraq was of his own making.

That very well could be the case, although I imagine Democrats simply would have had to forage a little further to find other bones of contention. People would have excused the lies and bad thinking behind the beginning of the war, if it had been executed well and ended quickly. Unfortunately, it seems that bad thinking was endemic and persistent.

Actually, I am of the opinion that Bush was simply doing what he believed to be his duty. If you're the commander in chief and you have intelligence from a prior administration indicating a known thug is engaging in production of WMDs, and you have intelligence agencies from Europe and Russia concurring with that assessment, then you're really screwed no matter what you decide to do about it. I mean let's face it, virtually everyone in congress was convinced it was teh right thing to do, and this is because they were given the same evidence presented to Bush. Obama disagreed, but it is clear he was entirely ignorant of the evidence. He was simply toeing the line of black liberation theology, and used his protest as a way to launch himself into the limelight.

Now, I think there is a big distinction to be drawn between someone who sees "no good from American government" and one who thinks that the potential good that could come from the government is frustrated by focus on the wrong things.

Black Liberation Theology echoes themes that whitey is the anti-Christ and that the black race is God's chosen people. Obama listened to this nonsense for 20 years. Obama created the "Obama African American Religious Leadership Committee" which is a group of over 170 black religious figures who are campaigning in their churches on his behalf. Why only African American?

Really? I'm not seeing it, but maybe you are extremely well versed in the subtleties of "Black Liberation Theology."

Well enough to see through Obama and his agenda.

Does "Black Liberation Theology" look askance at going massively into debt to conduct wars

Well, that depends. If it is a war in Africa to save millions of negros (God's "chosen people") from genocide, then I suspect it would have no problem with it. But their concern wasn't about national debt. Their concern is that the US government is operated by whitey. Therefore, it cannot be trusted.

I imagine many wealthy people, whom you say are paying for all of this nincompoopery anyway, should make common cause with these theologians against a massively expensive war we did not need.

At the time of Obama's irrelevant speech against the war, they didn't make common cause at all. They were not worried about spending, only about national security. Americans were prepared to pay that bill.

Finally, 45% minority clerical workers still means 55% white clerical workers, and I am sure they are glad to have those jobs too.

But you're missing the point. Their 45% representation in the workforce is disproportionate from their representation in the country. What so many black liberation thinkers cannot seem to understand is that equal opportunity doesn't guarantee equal results. One must take advantage of the oppportunity in order for it to bear fruit. There are objective statistics showing that the black Americans are pissing away their opportunities because they lead the nation in crime, alcoholism, unemployment, etc.

So if 24% of the nation is represented by a minority, and all things being equal, then we can reasonably conclude that 24% of the workforce would also be minority. That's not racism. It can't be.

But things aren't equal, because you have to factor in the fact that minorities are generally less educated and less qualified than non-minorities. So non-minorities are expected to have a more visible presence in the workplace because of their representation, but also because they are generally the more educated/qualified.

So one could reasonable expect that 24% figure to be much lower. But with low-level paying federal jobs, the picture changes dramatically in favor of minorities. Minorities clearly receive preference over non-minorities.

And, these are jobs that require work, not sitting on one's ass in front of soaps to collect unemployment or welfare.

Yes of course they require work. But my point is these are jobs that the lesser educated non-minorities are denied because the government is tied down by affirmative action. Obama is just dying to get started with his list of useless bureaucracies that will be operated by his army of disgruntled minority supporters walking the streets of Chicago with their placards. This is what he did with ACORN. He encouraged disgruntled minorities to sue companies for being racist and he got them money. His wife fought for the same "cause," insisting the lack of minority professionals must be a result of racism. For every black American with a Phd. there are probably 9 caucassians fighting for the same position. But 10% isn't good enough for these guys. They have to have "equal representation" in the workforce even though they only represent a quarter of the population.

Maybe they vote for people who at least put on a decent show of caring about them

Maybe, but not likely. First of all, just because you want to give someone money to the poor by stealing from those who earned it, doesn't mean you care much about anything at all except your own ambition to become elected. It is a sure thing. Just run democrat and you automatically have the lower classes of the nation rooting for you, including the Hollywood elite. I've been watching Obama and his rise to fame. I see where he comes from and people he rubs elbows with. He has played the race system to get where he is today.

Maybe they are a lot smarter than many of you give them credit for.

Why would I think that when the evidence says otherwise? I've yet to speak with a minority Obama supporter who could tell me one thing about Obama other than the fact that he would "stick by the black people" which can only mean one thing. A government operated redistribution of wealth.

Still, many of these folks who may vote for Obama are from the lower middle-class, that is, unless they choose McCain for other reasons, and my guess is that they are rather afraid of joining the impoverished and not at all trusting of the Republicans to help them stay in jobs and stay off of the welfare rolls.

Yes, absolutely, these are not his only supporters. Many people will vote for Obama because they think it is the closest thing they can do to going back in the past and voting against Bush. This is why it is such a strong talking point among the Obama supporters to say McCain is with Bush 90% of the time (which is inaccurate).
What a stupid reason to elect someone who isn't qualified. Because he isn't a member of Bush's party!

The fact is, most Americans are not very educated on the issues. This is why the politicians use smear tactics, because they know it works. This is why teh media knowingly lies about Sarah Palin every day and night, because they know it works. I spoke earlier about the old man who said he wouldn't vote for McCain because Mr. Palin was under investigation (he is?). Another person today said Palin lied about going to Iraq. Of course she never said she had been to Iraq, but that is what CNN said she said, so it must be true. Just look at how teh polls shift every time the media conjures up another "scandal" about one of the candidates. Does this strike you as an intelligent, critical response to the data?

Take as an example, when I first enetered the political discussion here. beastie started attacking Palin because of her religious views. I corrected her on the matter, and showed Palin did not want to go to war, that she never burned books, that she never said God was on our side, that she never said creationsim shoudl be taught as an equal to evolution, etc. Hell I'm still trying to correct the lies the media coughs up, but I can't keep up with them all.

I'm afraid most votes will be based on ignorance.

I was thinking of the academic community, with which I have some familiarity.

Oh of course, academia is notoriously liberal.

From my acquaintance with the world of tax law academics, it is my understanding that most of these proposals are not serious, they are rhetorical. Why? Because they stand a snowball's chance in a volcano of actually being enacted. Tax reform is one of the most vexed issues out there.

And if enough Americans get fed up with the tax system, any change is possible.

Just because a populist bozo with no chance of gaining the nomination of a major party proposes a quack scheme does not mean that "serious people" actually give them credence.

You haven't made an argument against the fair tax, aside from saying it wouldn't pass. You're probably right that it won't pass anytime soon, but that doesn't mean it isn't the best system and we should try it. As far as your insinuation that it receives no amount of attention in Congress, I guess you're not really up to par on current events:

The FairTax legislation has been introduced by Georgia Republican John Linder in the House and by Georgia Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss in the Senate. Linder first introduced the Fair Tax Act on July 14, 1999 to the 106th United States Congress and has reintroduced substantially the same bill in each subsequent session of Congress. The bill attracted a total of 56 House and Senate cosponsors in the 108th Congress 61 in the 109th Congress and 76 in the 110th United States Congress Former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (Republican) has cosponsored the bill but it has not received support from the Democratic leadership, which now controls Congress.

Democratic Representative Collin Peterson of Minnesota and Democratic Senator Zell Miller of Georgia cosponsored and introduced the bill in the 108th Congress, but Peterson is no longer cosponsoring the bill and Miller has left the Senate. In the 109th and 110th Congress, Representative Dan Boren has been the only Democrat to cosponsor the bill. A number of congressional committees have heard testimony on the FairTax, but it has not moved from committee since its introduction in 1999. The legislation has also been discussed with President George W. Bush and Secretary of the Treasury Henry M. Paulson.

To become law, the bill will need to be included in a final version of tax legislation from the U.S. House Committee on Ways and Means, pass both the House and the Senate, and finally be signed by the President. In 2005, President Bush established an advisory panel on tax reform, chaired by former senators Connie Mack III and John Breaux. As part of its task, the panel examined several national sales tax variants including aspects of the FairTax and noted several concerns. These included uncertainties as to the revenue that would be generated, and difficulties of enforcement and administration, which made this type of tax undesirable to recommend in their final report. The 2008 presidential nominees of the two major parties, Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama, do not support the bill, but McCain has stated that if passed by Congress, he would sign it. Libertarian nominee Bob Barr has endorsed the plan.

So as you can see, there has been a history of strong support in Congress. But the Democrats always shut it down because that is their prized piggy bank. They want to be able to manipulate the government's purse at will. The fair tax would remove that power from the politicians, so it is no surprise the democrats don't want it.

There is rhetoric that has a certain truth and yet remains unhelpful and unproductive.

Because I'm white, I know. But when Bill Cosby says the same thing, hell even he is accused of being an Uncle Tom.

Would I be talking about someone else?

Well you said lobbyists, not former lobbyists. I just want to be clear.

[_aussieguy55]

This is Your Nation on White Privilege

By Tim Wise

For those who still can’t grasp the concept of white privilege, or who are constantly looking for some easy-to-understand examples of it, perhaps this list will help.

White privilege is when you can get pregnant at seventeen like Bristol Palin and everyone is quick to insist that your life and that of your family is a personal matter, and that no one has a right to judge you or your parents, because “every family has challenges,” even as black and Latino families with similar “challenges” are regularly typified as irresponsible, pathological and arbiters of social decay.

White privilege is when you can call yourself a “fuckin’ redneck,” like Bristol Palin’s boyfriend does, and talk about how if anyone messes with you, you'll “kick their fuckin' ass,” and talk about how you like to “shoot crap” for fun, and still be viewed as a responsible, all-American boy (and a great son-in-law to be) rather than a thug.

White privilege is when you can attend four different colleges in six years like Sarah Palin did (one of which you basically failed out of, then returned to after making up some coursework at a community college), and no one questions your intelligence or commitment to achievement, whereas a person of color who did this would be viewed as unfit for college, and probably someone who only got in in the first place because of affirmative action.

White privilege is when you can claim that being mayor of a town smaller than most medium-sized colleges, and then Governor of a state with about the same number of people as the lower fifth of the island of Manhattan, makes you ready to potentially be president, and people don’t all piss on themselves with laughter, while being a black U.S. Senator, two-term state Senator, and constitutional law scholar, means you’re “untested.”


White privilege is being able to say that you support the words “under God” in the pledge of allegiance because “if it was good enough for the founding fathers, it’s good enough for me,” and not be immediately disqualified from holding office--since, after all, the pledge was written in the late 1800s and the “under God” part wasn’t added until the 1950s--while believing that reading accused criminals and terrorists their rights (because, ya know, the Constitution, which you used to teach at a prestigious law school requires it), is a dangerous and silly idea only supported by mushy liberals.


White privilege is being able to be a gun enthusiast and not make people immediately scared of you.


White privilege is being able to have a husband who was a member of an extremist political party that wants your state to secede from the Union, and whose motto was “Alaska first,” and no one questions your patriotism or that of your family, while if you're black and your spouse merely fails to come to a 9/11 memorial so she can be home with her kids on the first day of school, people immediately think she’s being disrespectful.


White privilege is being able to make fun of community organizers and the work they do--like, among other things, fight for the right of women to vote, or for civil rights, or the 8-hour workday, or an end to child labor--and people think you’re being pithy and tough, but if you merely question the experience of a small town mayor and 18-month governor with no foreign policy expertise beyond a class she took in college--you’re somehow being mean, or even sexist.


White privilege is being able to convince white women who don’t even agree with you on any substantive issue to vote for you and your running mate anyway, because all of a sudden your presence on the ticket has inspired confidence in these same white women, and made them give your party a “second look.”


White privilege is being able to fire people who didn’t support your political campaigns and not be accused of abusing your power or being a typical politician who engages in favoritism, while being black and merely knowing some folks from the old-line political machines in Chicago means you must be corrupt.


White privilege is being able to attend churches over the years whose pastors say that people who voted for John Kerry or merely criticize George W. Bush are going to hell, and that the U.S. is an explicitly Christian nation and the job of Christians is to bring Christian theological principles into government, and who bring in speakers who say the conflict in the Middle East is God’s punishment on Jews for rejecting Jesus, and everyone can still think you’re just a good church-going Christian, but if you’re black and friends with a black pastor who has noted (as have Colin Powell and the U.S. Department of Defense) that terrorist attacks are often the result of U.S. foreign policy and who talks about the history of racism and its effect on black people, you’re an extremist who probably hates America.


White privilege is not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is when asked by a reporter, and then people get angry at the reporter for asking you such a “trick question,” while being black and merely refusing to give one-word answers to the queries of Bill O’Reilly means you’re dodging the question, or trying to seem overly intellectual and nuanced.


White privilege is being able to claim your experience as a POW has anything at all to do with your fitness for president, while being black and experiencing racism is, as Sarah Palin has referred to it a “light” burden.


And finally, white privilege is the only thing that could possibly allow someone to become president when he has voted with George W. Bush 90 percent of the time, even as unemployment is skyrocketing, people are losing their homes, inflation is rising, and the U.S. is increasingly isolated from world opinion, just because white voters aren’t sure about that whole “change” thing. Ya know, it’s just too vague and ill-defined, unlike, say, four more years of the same, which is very concrete and certain…


White privilege is, in short, the problem.

http://www.redroom.com/blog/tim-wise/th ... -privilege

[_dartagnan]

What a stupid article.

Does anyone in their right mind even buy into this sack of horsesh**?

Keep relying on whacko bloggers and Jon Stewart to tell you how to think aussie.

[_Trevor]

How about a detailed rebuttal, Kevin? I know you have addressed some of this before, but I am eager for some commentary from you on this.

[_dartagnan]

A rebuttal to what, that Tim Wise piece?