Sarah Palin

[sr71plt]

Sour grapes? Oh, well. Not my fault that I can and do drive motorcades through the holes in your arguments.

Choose to believe whatever helps you sleep at night.

I'll leave you alone for a while, so as not to subject others to your absurd homilies.

As I posted, your mind is bent.

I guess that motorcade is a logical extension of your sudden claim that you were just joking, huh?

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

As I posted, your mind is bent.

The feeling is mutual.

 

[sr71plt]

The feeling is mutual.

Whew. Glad we got that settled. I've been soooo worried.

 

[ishtat]

The only important thing about Sarah Palin is that McCain chose her, thereby showing that he was a capricious, careless and rash decision maker. That decision proved his unfitness for the presidency.

Discussion of her (lack of) capacity and talent was always secondary to McCains massive and personal error.

 

[Guest]

The only important thing about Sarah Palin is that McCain chose her, thereby showing that he was a capricious, careless and rash decision maker. That decision proved his unfitness for the presidency.

Discussion of her (lack of) capacity and talent was always secondary to McCains massive and personal error.

Indeed.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Whether her gaffes are true are not, have we as yet seen anything that recommended her as a serious vice presidential candidate? Did we ever see any evidence of what McCain supposedly saw in her? Did she ever prove herself a master of foreign relations or domestic policy? Did she inspire confidence as a potential leader? A visionary?

What is it about republicans that makes them so enamored of mediocrity? You can't give them a candidate who's too stupid or too inane but they'll rally to his or her side. Is it their desire for less government that makes them want to elect incompetents? Or is it a basic misunderstanding of the concept of equality that makes them think that no one has a right to be better (i.e. smarter) than they are?

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Whether her gaffes are true are not, have we as yet seen anything that recommended her as a serious vice presidential candidate? Did we ever see any evidence of what McCain supposedly saw in her?

The same thing Paglia did, apparently...

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Was your uncle Joe McCarthy?

No. I'm just making a dig at your self-appointed role as apologist for Marxist regimes. No doubt you'll one day make an excuse for Hugo Chavez.

But Svenskaflicka really is a Communist. It's in her Lit profile at the Directory, under party affiliation.

My uncle is a former hippie, anti-war Baby Boomer. He turned conservative on guns and a few other issues over time, but he's still pretty liberal by my family's standards. My relatives are usually either Blue Dog Democrats, Old Left trade-union Democrats, or theocratic/neo-con Republicans. I'm willing to bet that I'm one of a very small minority in my family, just for not voting for McCain.

I know of plenty of people, including a minister friend of mine named Harry, who would put Joe McCarthy to shame. But then this forum has been reverse McCarthyist of late, so can't really claim the moral high ground. In fact, I have lately been almost disposed to leave it altogether, I've felt so maligned.

 

[DeeZire]

No. I'm just making a dig at your self-appointed role as apologist for Marxist regimes. No doubt you'll one day make an excuse for Hugo Chavez.

....I've felt so maligned.

Excuse me, but when did I ever apologize for a marxist regime? Talk about being maligned - you, my friend, are maligning me for no apparent reason other than the fact that I don't agree with your libertarian fairy tale ideals.

Apparently, you think anyone who believes in progressive taxation is a communist. You really need to get off that and find something original to malign me with. You are a writer, aren't you? Be creative, fer chrissakes! Falling back on the old communist routine only makes you look old school and intellectually lazy.

 

[starrkers]

Did McCain announce Palin as his running mate before or after the economy began smelling like last week's fish?

 

[cloudy]

Did McCain announce Palin as his running mate before or after the economy began smelling like last week's fish?

Before.

 

[starrkers]

Before.

That blows that possible rationale.

 

[sr71plt]

Did McCain announce Palin as his running mate before or after the economy began smelling like last week's fish?

After. I meant to respond to something posted somewhere saying the U.S. economic went down the tubes two months before the election and then lost where that was stated. The economy began smelling like last week's fish before Clinton left office. I distinctly remember pundits at the time wondering aloud why anyone would want to follow Clinton as president because the economy had been so robust during his tenure (probably having very little to do with him) and was obviously headed into the rocks--that the next president would look like a dope in comparison just by the natural direction the economy was going in (and, yes, people were warning about all of that overborrowing and grab for bigger houses than people could afford even then and warning it would lead to a recession).

Guess what. That all happened. Of course the Bush administration did everything it could to make it all worse (not least get into a war that syphoned off $10 billion in exploded resources every month), but the economic meltdown didn't just suddenly happen two months ago--the U.S. was drifting into it for more than a decade--and with signals that it didn't take an economic genius to read.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Excuse me, but when did I ever apologize for a marxist regime? Talk about being maligned - you, my friend, are maligning me for no apparent reason other than the fact that I don't agree with your libertarian fairy tale ideals.

Apparently, you think anyone who believes in progressive taxation is a communist. You really need to get off that and find something original to malign me with. You are a writer, aren't you? Be creative, fer chrissakes! Falling back on the old communist routine only makes you look old school and intellectually lazy.

No, I'm referring to your whitewashing of Mao and his successors. Pretending that he didn't butcher millions of his fellow countrymen, and comparing Tianamen Square, a deliberately brutal act of repression by the most barbarous regime on Earth, to an isolated incident of panic by adolescent weekend warriors at Kent State. As if there is any remote comparison or moral equivalence.

And for the record, the graduated income tax is a plank in the Communist Manifesto. But that just makes it Marxist, not Leninist. I never claimed that it was Leninist, which is how I define Bolshevism as distinct from the other wing of Marxism: Social Democracy. Don't put words in my mouth.

And there is nothing as fairy-talish as the notion of a classless society, where incomes are equal and no one is poor. Even if such a thing could happen, it would result in equal misery, slavery, and poverty, not equal liberty, prosperity, and happiness.

 

[sr71plt]

Well, you see, DeeZire, Severusmax has this thing of making up a position for you that's convenient for him to argue against and then pretends it's what you'd believe if you were being "logical."

He has this favorite ploy of deciding anyone he wants to classify as a peasant supports Maoist China domestic (and Tibetan--which is only sort of domestic) oppression even when they haven't posted anything about Communist China at all. Just a game he plays.

 

[sr71plt]

And there is nothing as fairy-talish as the notion of a classless society, where incomes are equal and no one is poor. Even if such a thing could happen, it would result in equal misery, slavery, and poverty, not equal liberty, prosperity, and happiness.

They do that pretty well in Scandanavia. Of course they don't slough resources left and right by putty their noses into every other country's business.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

They do that pretty well in Scandanavia. Of course they don't slough resources left and right by putty their noses into every other country's business.

And I doubt that they are classless. For me, the ideal is not a classless utopia, but a meritocracy, where you can go as far as your financial acumen will take you. No one owes you a living. You need thrift and a solid work ethic to thrive. That's the American way. Work hard and reap the fruits of your labor.

 

[sr71plt]

And I doubt that they are classless. For me, the ideal is not a classless utopia, but a meritocracy, where you can go as far as your financial acumen will take you. No one owes you a living. You need thrift and a solid work ethic to thrive. That's the American way. Work hard and reap the fruits of your labor.

Have you actually spent any time in the Scandanavian countries? I have.
Or are you just talking through your hat?

No, they aren't totally classless--but the description you gave wasn't really of a classless society. It was closer to a description of countries like you can find in Scandanavia.

 

[DeeZire]

No, I'm referring to your whitewashing of Mao and his successors. Pretending that he didn't butcher millions of his fellow countrymen, and comparing Tianamen Square, a deliberately brutal act of repression by the most barbarous regime on Earth, to an isolated incident of panic by adolescent weekend warriors at Kent State. As if there is any remote comparison or moral equivalence.

Dude - are you sure you're not confusing me with someone else? I don't even know how to spell Tianamen Square, so I doubt that I would have referred to it in a post.

But I will grant you a new status - apologist for the killers of the Kent State protesters. Is this part of your libertarian philosophy, or related to gun ownership, or were you actually there, gunning down innocents because you were scared of a bunch of long haired pacifists?

Killing innocent people is morally wrong, regardless of whether it's being done by a communist or a 'adolescent weekend warrior'. (I didn't realize the National Guard recruited adolescents.) I wonder if the difference between you and I is the fact that upon hearing an order to fire on the Kent State protesters, I would have put down my gun and walked away, while, perhaps your sense of duty to your country would have compelled you to pull the trigger? Just curious. The situation does present an interesting moral dilemma.

 

[sr71plt]

For me, the ideal is not a classless utopia, but a meritocracy, where you can go as far as your financial acumen will take you. No one owes you a living. You need thrift and a solid work ethic to thrive. That's the American way. Work hard and reap the fruits of your labor . . .

. . . And where, if you are clever enough (or can stay a step ahead of the authorities), you can get a free ride on the backs of others. (The great Libertarian tradition.)

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Dude - are you sure you're not confusing me with someone else? I don't even know how to spell Tianamen Square, so I doubt that I would have referred to it in a post.

But I will grant you a new status - apologist for the killers of the Kent State protesters. Is this part of your libertarian philosophy, or related to gun ownership, or were you actually there, gunning down innocents because you were scared of a bunch of long haired pacifists?

Killing innocent people is morally wrong, regardless of whether it's being done by a communist or a 'adolescent weekend warrior'. (I didn't realize the National Guard recruited adolescents.) I wonder if the difference between you and I is the fact that upon hearing an order to fire on the Kent State protesters, I would have put down my gun and walked away, while, perhaps your sense of duty to your country would have compelled you to pull the trigger? Just curious. The situation does present an interesting moral dilemma.

No, I'm not an apologist for them. I'm simply pointing out that scared kids killing other scared kids in a panic is not the same thing as deliberate slaughter.

So you didn't compare Kent State to Tianamen Square? Cause I could have sworn that you once did. If not, then I do apologize for misjudging. For now, I'll leave alone your stupid digs at Libertarians (still operating under the delusion that I am still one myself) and pro-gun folks (which I very much am and which are generally very law-abiding citizens).

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

. . . And where, if you are clever enough (or can stay a step ahead of the authorities), you can get a free ride on the backs of others. (The great Libertarian tradition.)

Keeping the fruits of your own labor isn't a free ride, since it requires you to work to earn it. Those able-bodied, employable folk who don't work are getting the free ride, at the expense of those who do. That's the great Marxist tradition, starting with lazy old Karl Marx himself, who never did a day's work in his life.

 

[DeeZire]

That's the American way. Work hard and reap the fruits of your labor.

No Sev, that's the American fairy tale. What about all the blue collar workers, busting their asses working jobs that pay so low they can't even afford health care? (These would be the folks who aren't paying any taxes because they're so poor.) They work hard, but they don't get to reap the fruits of their labor.

If you believed in a meritocracy, anyone who worked hard would merit a reward, right? Wrong. Only people who figure out how to screw everyone else out of their money merit the reward. That, to me, is not a meritocracy, it's an aristocracy.

So, I guess you've done pretty well for yourself, eh?

 

[DeeZire]

No, I'm not an apologist for them. I'm simply pointing out that scared kids killing other scared kids in a panic is not the same thing as deliberate slaughter.

Pulling the trigger turns it into deliberate slaughter.

I'm getting the impression that you deliberately slaughter logic to make your points.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

No Sev, that's the American fairy tale. What about all the blue collar workers, busting their asses working jobs that pay so low they can't even afford health care? (These would be the folks who aren't paying any taxes because they're so poor.) They work hard, but they don't get to reap the fruits of their labor.

If you believed in a meritocracy, anyone who worked hard would merit a reward, right? Wrong. Only people who figure out how to screw everyone else out of their money merit the reward. That, to me, is not a meritocracy, it's an aristocracy.

So, I guess you've done pretty well for yourself, eh?

What utter nonsense. But clearly, you like to "slaughter logic", as you accused me of doing.

Plenty of Americans earn their keep and make a decent living. If they can avoid having the taxman steal it, that is. They could do so better without that damned income tax. You know, the middle class. Perhaps you've heard of them.

Are some gains ill-gotten? Certainly, but that happens in every society. Corruption and greed are inherent to all social strata. The poor are as greedy as the rich. They just don't apply it as effectively. Or as ruthlessly at times.

I'm not advocating that the rich pay nothing or get a free ride. There are some taxes, for instance, that primarily the rich would pay under my revised revenue system. A champagne tariff, for instance. And probably a wine excise, as well.

Are some folks suffering from lack of health care? Yes, and that will have to be remedied. That's a rare case where the private sector has opted itself out, through pre-existing conditions (which happened to me, recently, so you can see that I'm not Mr. Rockefeller here) and large deductibles. I have reluctantly admitted the need for some socialized medicine, simply to fill the gaps. Between user fees, tariffs, and excises, it should be affordable. Provided that we get rid of dead weight by privatizing state monopolies that could function better in the private sector. AMTRAK, for instance.

Confiscating and selling stock options of disgraced executives would be another step forward. But only after trial, of course. Due process of law must be observed. I'm opposed to civil forfeiture because it violates due process.

Is that socialism? Perhaps a dose. But not enough to destroy the meritocracy, especially if we give worthy contractors the chance to also build up our infrastructure while we're at it. Maybe that would help boost the construction industry and allow new entrepeneurs to make something of themselves.

Another way to help would be to negotiate contracts, where breach is punishable by fines, where private companies would provide health insurance to all of the presently uninsured, with the stipulation that they don't forgo rules like pre-existing conditions and the like. That would provide universal coverage while reducing bureaucracy and not driving private companies out of business. Bidding should be competitive, new companies should be allowed to compete, too, and the main conditions that the government should demand are more altruistic in nature.

Why am I being more specific about my ideas? Because I don't want to be accused of being "pie in the sky by and by" or the like. I will accept a policy change on its merits, provided that has such merits.

But a classless society is simply impractical. Even in your vaunted social democracies, people still get rich. It's the nature of the beast.