Wouldn’t It Be Funny If Christopher Buckley’s

sloppy knob job of Obama was inspired by a lie? Perhaps he should consider writing in Bill Ayers for President.

Live by the credential, die by the credential.*

(*To the elitist mind, a published memoir is a credential that automatically establishes Presidential bona fides.)

In other news, the MSM is not a useful idiot, they’re a useful accomplice, and should be regulated as such. During election cycles, the NY Times et al. are no different than 527s.





Comments


  1. Not to mention NPR…

    Like


  2. LOL. You really live in bizarro-land, don’t you? You honestly believe Ayers wrote Obama’s book?? LOL.

    Lemme guess, the Clintons murdered Vince Foster too, right?

    Like


  3. I bet commenter #2 didn’t even click the links and seriously consider the evidence before writing his comment. Liberalism really is a mental disorder.

    Like


  4. on October 20, 2008 at 9:45 am ladymarmalade

    Liberalism really is a mental disorder.

    Actually, it is a fact that people are rarely ever rational when considering the opposing team. Brain scans show that democrats as well as republicans try actively to subdue rational thought in consideration of the positions of the opposing team. You have to admit, the evidence posted at the links are tenuous at best.

    Also, with regards to who is smarter – it isn’t clear, but there is some evidence that Republicans and Democrats generally have somewhat differing mental skills. A study at the link below found that “students who identified themselves as liberal scored higher for accuracy and were almost five times as likely to show activity in brain circuits associated with conflict, suggesting a strong capacity for dealing with change and novelty. Meanwhile, conservative students were better at blocking out distracting new information which may lead them to favor structure and tradition.”

    So really, if most Americans have agreed that the direction of the country must “change”, then it seems the liberals are most capable of doing it, from a scientific point of view.

    Summary: Both strong liberals and strong conservatives are limited in mental capacity when considering opposing arguments due to their partisan blind spots.
    Independents should be more capable of making a rational decision – they should vote democratic when they need a change in direction and vote republican when they believe the direction is fine, but need focused expansion of an already proven political strategy

    http://www.findcounseling.com/help/news/2007/09/republican_vs_democrat_a_matter_of_brain_chemistry.html

    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9805E7D9113FF931A1575BC0A9629C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080923125138.htm

    Like


  5. Whether Obama wrote the book or not (or just got some help from Ayers), it is a little late now to start bringing this up. Obama is probably going to become the President and liberals will control the White House, the Senate and the House for quite some time.

    If it later comes out that Ayers did actually write Obama’s book, the story will just be “swept under the rug” by the mainstream media much like they downplayed the Rev. Wright connection.

    Like


  6. on October 20, 2008 at 10:25 am AmericanPsycho

    Who cares if Ayers helped write his book? Who cares if Obama is close friends with Ayers? Did Obama help blow anything up? Does he want to blow anything up?
    Associates with Ayers –> Terrorist Fist Jabbing America Hater is a causal narrative that is simply not going to work, gentlemen.

    One can be close friends with unsavory characters and still be a good person. We all know this.

    Just think of all of Roissy’s friends….

    P.S. Most of Buckley’s (and the rest of the Right Wing’s) views in the past have been based on dishonesty and myopia too, so is anyone surprised? Though, we should be in amazement that such bad reasoning nevertheless led him to the right conclusion.

    Like


  7. During election cycles, the NY Times et al. are no different than 527s.

    I’m more and more convinced that the real power in this country is not held by the three branches of the Government but by the press, universitites, schools, NGOs and corporations, and on a local level, by developers.

    Elected officials are to a greater or lesser extent figureheads (teleprompt-readers, as blogger Mencius calls them).

    I’ve been impressed by the power of the press back in 1998, when media swarmed, Jena-style, on Moinca Lewnisky. Of course, frolicking with a married President is playing with fire, and I no way endorsed anything she had done, but I was nevertheless horrified with the media’s ability to destroy a common citizen.

    During the few months when ML spoofs were everywhere, I felt somewhat like the Roman spectators at a colliseum, who were watching lions kill Christians: there was a scene in some TV movie during the ’80s that showed a bunch of children thrown into the arena, and wolves were set upon them. The cruelty of the spectacle was such, that the frenzied Roman mob’s mood turned from glee to horror.

    Today, we see this same media frenzy turned on the “Joe the Plumber” guy, whose mistake was to ask Obama a question on taxes. In today’s paper, I read him talking about how he can’t go to work, with the media camped out in front of his house, and his reaction at the way he’s depicted in the media.

    “I felt real small,” he said, commenting on the smears and invasions of his privacy. He added that when you can’t ask your leaders a question, “It gets real scary.”

    Like


  8. on October 20, 2008 at 12:25 pm monohechomierda

    Roissy…jumping…..shark…..

    can’t believe this is gaining traction. That Ayers secretly wrote Obama’s first book is just laughable.

    Like


  9. on October 20, 2008 at 12:39 pm ironrailsironweights

    From what I’ve gathered, at Steve Sailer’s and elsewhere, the main reason to doubt that Ayers ghosted Dreams from My Father is the simple fact that while Ayers is a clever and skilled writer, Dreams is a ponderous, almost unreadable book. Ayers almost certainly would have done a much better job.

    Peter

    Like


  10. Mr. Raw,
    Jewish Atheist isn’t known for his reading comprehension or research and can’t be bothered to click links either. He seems to have gone off his meds yet again. You should read some of his comments over at Half Sigma a few months ago about Barack Obama, they border on the homosexual. So I’m not surprised any criticism of his “man crush” results in angry denunciations and little clear thinking(he isn’t known for that either). He also lives in fear of Christians mobs routing him from his pillow fort he built in his living room.

    And American Psycho, maybe “Roissy” hangs out with disreputable people. I don’t know him. But then again, he isn’t running for President now is he? And I’m pretty sure he doesn’t feel he “didn’t do enough” when it comes to killing innocent people either. Your reasoning basically sucks. Work on it.

    Like


  11. Liberalism really is a mental disorder.

    no doubt… Liberals always remind me of 13 year-olds. Most of whom need really good spankings. Especially the hot ones…

    Like


  12. on October 20, 2008 at 1:06 pm Pope Goaz D'Weezil

    Please do not insult their god. It will anger the followers.

    Like


  13. Liberalism is a neo-aristocratic political movement wherein the upper classes (along with plenty of wanna-bes and useful idiots) are engaged in a full-scale, all-fronts, quasi-religious campaign against their own people’s middle and working classes.

    Liberalism is not a mental disorder. Liberalism is war.

    Like


  14. That Ayers secretly wrote Obama’s first book is just laughable.

    Why, exactly?

    I’m not saying Ayers definitely wrote Obama’s book, but why exactly is the evidence presented so implausible as to be “laughable.” My problem with libs who love Obama is that they automatically act like ANY criticism of Obama is laughable or ridiculous simply because it’s a criticism of Obama. No rebuttal evidence is even necessary, just the fact that a statement dares to criticize Obama is evidence enough of its ridiculous nature, no furthe proof needed.

    Like


  15. @13 PA –

    We’re both right. It’s a war fueled by a mental disorder.

    Like


  16. Actually, Peter @ 9 makes a good point. I never read Ayers, but if he can write in a clear, concise and straightforward manner, that’s major evidence against his writing the book. I actually read much of Obama’s book last week and it was some of the most convoluted, self-serving, flowery, ponderous prose I’ve ever read.

    Like


  17. PA:

    If liberalism is a war, then it is a war they are winning, and winning in a devastating fashion.

    The Republican Party is imploding and will probably no longer be relevant in a couple of decades (if not much sooner).

    Get ready for the USA to turn into a French-style nanny state.

    Like


  18. Cashill makes a pretty convincing case. The most telling fact is the two separate references to tidal rivers.

    Dreams of My Father may be a lousy memoir, but I suspect that if Ayers did ghostwrite it, he did the best he could with what he had to work with, which wasn’t much- Obama would have been in his late 20s to early 30s at this time.

    Like


  19. If liberalism is a war, then it is a war they are winning, and winning in a devastating fashion.

    The Republican Party is imploding and will probably no longer be relevant in a couple of decades (if not much sooner).

    Get ready for the USA to turn into a French-style nanny state.

    The good news is that if Obama wins, we will have a Dem president with a Dem congress. That means no excuses, it will be a Dem full court press. Which means more than ever we are going to see the return of Jimmy Carter. Mark my words, Obama IS the black Jimmy Carter, the parallels are staggering….relative unknown catapuled to stardom overnight, woefully inexperienced, speeches full of empty feel-glood platitudes but no clear-cut agenda or solid platform. And the great thing about a new Jimmy Carter will be that people will be as disgusted in 2012 with liberalism as they were in 1980 when they elected Reagan. I’m hoping the backlash an Obama presidency produces will give the Republicans the balls to nominate a real conservative in 2012 and not a watered down one like McCain.

    Like


  20. The republicans had their chance in this election, with Ron Paul. But the problem with Republicans is they succumb to group-think very quickly; line-up right behind the front-runner. It can be useful at times, but not in the past decade. Definitely not.

    Like


  21. Jewish atheist is right; Roissy is in bizarro land on this one (just like he was in thinking that one of the VP’s would be dropped from the ticket). Steve Sailer, who’s no Obama groupie, has flatly denied the possibility that Ayers .

    Let’s go through the supposed evidence:

    The discovery of new matching nautical metaphors from both Ayers and Obama that almost assuredly came from the same source: Ayers, a former merchant seaman.

    Wrong, one of obama’s favorite books is moby dick. The article has lost its credibility only into the second paragraph.

    The discovery of a Bill Ayers’ essay on memoir writing, whose postmodern themes and phrases are echoed throughout Dreams.

    Ut oh, common themes in two books! They must have been wrriten by the same person!

    A newly discovered book chapter from 1990 that shows clearly and painfully the limits of Obama’s prose style the year he received a contract to write Dreams.

    The examples provided are shitty poetry and somewhat weak prose. This proves nothing.

    The revelation by radical Islamicist Rashid Khalidi that Ayers made his “dining room table” available for neighborhood writers who needed help.

    A refined timeline that shows Ayers had the means, the motive and the time to help Obama when he needed it most.

    These points make it within the realm of possibility, not probable, as any other serious supporting evidence is pretty much lacking.

    Roissy, you honestly suck at interpreting politics, please stick to what you’re good at (giving advice at picking up at chicks).

    Like


  22. wow. And here I was thinking that Obama was such an honest, decent guy 😉

    Like


  23. Ricky 15, I agree with you in spirit, and probably in substance too.

    But I think that to call Liberalism a mental illness is to make a tragic misdiagnosis.

    The mentally ill are solitary, unhappy individuals, with severely compromised ability to connect with reality, and virtually no ability to sustain complex, productive, and coordinated efforts that develop over several generations.

    Liberals, certainly, can seem like they are mentally ill. I’ll grant, many people who support Liberalism, including the legions on O-bots, exhibit signs of delusion and psychosis.

    But Liberalism as a political movement is deadly rational, deadly effective.

    Like


  24. Mark my words, Obama IS the black Jimmy Carter, the parallels are staggering…

    But everyone can see that, including O himself, and I bet he feels that whatever legacy he leaves for the first black president is more important than his liberal principles. He has to prove that a minority president doesn’t beg Paris for permission before bombing people or he’ll carterize minorities for a long time. I say he’s more likely to compensate with some toughness (not wars but symbolic pretend-toughness like cruise missiles).

    I also predict that the loving European student lefties will turn on him pretty quickly for being too American ie. fascist and the folks at Daily Kos will be delightfully confused to discover that the Europeans they love will be just as happy to riot when a black president comes over.

    Like


  25. On a slightly different topic, Obama finally admitted that he intends to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor through taxes on the former. Specifically, Obama wants to give a tax cut to 95% of working families. Yet 40% of working families don’t pay any taxes at all. Since you can’t cut taxes for people who don’t pay them, Obama has admitted that he wants to give checks to the 40% who don’t pay taxes. When asked where he planned on getting the money for those checks, one of his senior staff informed CNN that it would come from the 5% who Obama considers “wealthy”. This term means those families who make $250k+ a year.

    Someone please tell me why those who pay no taxes should get free money from those who pay the most in taxes? Is this just a redistribution of wealth?

    Like


  26. But Liberalism as a political movement is deadly rational, deadly effective.

    So are many serial killers. Still insane though 🙂

    Like


  27. @26

    agree. This is a return to welfare.

    Like


  28. @26

    agree. This is a return to welfare.

    Wait until the renewed push for “reperations.”

    Like


  29. The funny thing about this post is that it makes it sound like Obama is actually a bad choice for President.

    LOL

    -D

    Like


  30. “Someone please tell me why those who pay no taxes should get free money from those who pay the most in taxes?

    Because with like together in a society.

    “Is this just a redistribution of wealth?”

    Sure. Its going to happen one way or another.

    – MPM

    Like


  31. The reason the (semi)democratic socialist movement that calls itself “liberalism” in the US may often seem like a pathology is, I suspect, its high degree of sado-mascochism. The sadistic part is the lust for power, either directly but more often by proxy or even vicariously. A example of this would be some nerdy leftist loser who feels resentment at those jocks who went on to big corporate careers, and now is looking forward to electing someone who will pound them with the Mailed Fist of the State. The masochistic part is the desire to be dominated. A good example of this is what we used to call in New York “West Side Liberals:” upper-middle or upper-class people, guilty over their affluence: “Tax me, Obama, tax me hard!” In all “liberals” I have encountered there is a mixture of the two but usually one element dominates. The masochist liberal was always sort of comical, and often ridiculed by their own kind (Woody Allen, who should know, has joked about this type); but what’s scary is how in recent years, the sadistic element seems to be increasingly dominant.

    Like


  32. @31 – Shouldn’t your ‘G’ persona be recycling his dollars through the hood instead of blowing it on conspicuous consumption? Or is redistribution only good when people get their money legally?

    Also, even after this redistribution, things will still be really unequal. If we all “like together in a society” shouldn’t we all have equal wealth? The problem is communism doesn’t distribute wealth, it destroys wealth. How are you gonna get your thug on when there’s no one to rob?

    So the first part would make you hypocritical and the second part would make you incompetently hypocritical.

    Like


  33. No liberals are gonna say this ain’t true?

    “In other news, the MSM is not a useful idiot, they’re a useful accomplice, and should be regulated as such. During election cycles, the NY Times et al. are no different than 527s.”

    You guys are all slime. Liberals should take 3 in the spleen like that clown hipster who got popped by Roissy’s place a few months ago. He deserved it and so do you. But you’d blame yourselves anyway.

    Like


  34. So I think what most of you are missing is… liberals enjoy guzzling copious amounts of gizz.

    I mean seriously, how else can you explain their idiocy?

    Like


  35. I think we should all reserve judgement on Bush’s implementation of Socialism until the outcome of its effects. Then maybe we’ll agree that any socialist tendencies by Obama are either not so bad after all, or otherwise.

    Give the current administration’s policy of nationalizing a chance.

    -D

    Like


  36. @ 36 –

    Bush is a sorry excuse for a conservative fiscally, but by the time Obama is done he’s gonna look like Ayn Rand in comparison.

    Like


  37. Bush is a sorry excuse for a conservative fiscally

    I’ve used my inherited billions of dollars to create a think tank, and also hired several major universities to form elite, multidisciplinary, and bipartisan crack teams of researchers in my obsessive pursuit of a holy grail.

    That holy frail, dear friends and colleagues, is the answer to a puzzle that has obsessed man throughout all recorded history: what exactly is the “conservative” about George W. Bush.

    And I am now happy to reveal to all of you the answer to this eternal question, which has haunted us all.

    The answer, unveiled: Bush once said that Jesus Christ is his favorie philosopher.

    That’s it friends. That’s it. We may all go home now.

    Like


  38. on October 20, 2008 at 4:16 pm Large Hadron Collider

    I know of a place in Virginia that gets calls for the California Voter Registrations over the years as a result of a misprint that California never bothers to fix. .

    This years number of calls is well past the total of all of the previous years combined.

    There are roughly 20x more calls this year than ever before and close to ALL are for Obama.

    Using this California wrong number process as a barometer – It will be a landslide for Obama this year.

    This is my prediction – I’ll let you know if it somehow reverses.

    Like


  39. Redistribution of wealth to people who haven’t earned it is no way to make America better. It is merely “enabling” those who lack ambition, and punishing those who do.

    There may be a variety of reasons people are poor (and not paying taxes), but simply giving them free money is not the answer. If you want to take money from the rich and give it to the poor, then you must give it with strings attached. Here are a few ways this can be achieved:

    1. Pay the poor to get occupational training.
    2. Buy health insurance for the poor.
    3. Create educational funds for poor children.
    4. Require the poor “volunteer” for various causes (e.g., AmeriCorps, Peace Corps, soup kitchens, homeless shelters, Habitat for Humanity, etc…)

    Unfortunately, none of these possibilities (or anything resembling them) are on the Democratic party radar. They would far prefer to promise free money to the poor and middle class in exchange for votes.

    Like


  40. 5. Sterilization for those who take welfare.

    Like


  41. the article from the “american thinker” certainly did its research. unfortunately the research was searching for a relevant thesis to no avail.

    obama wasnt a fantastic writer (in 1990, 18 years ago), but hardly ‘bad’ as the writer suggests. so he possibly went to a very skilled writer for help, who may or may not have given him some tips, suggestions, etc. this could be one of several ways obama became the writer he is in his memoir. great, so?

    regardless of who wrote the book (politicians usually have ghost writers), you have seen his ability to speak profoundly and thoughtfully, on many topics, in many scenarios. you may not agree with his policies, but most of this whining about all these minor and tangential issues is just laughable flailing as you all see the joke that the GOP has constructed come crumbling down.

    this is not even to mention the fact that only losers who are clinging to mccain/palin and who see america as never ever no matter what worthy of criticism, consider any association with ayers as problematic. maybe if obama was a radical who supported terrorist acts, you’d have a point, but he clearly doesnt and this is obvious. the public, in its reaction to all the ayers gayness, has made this judgment clear. good work though on supporting yet another non-issue in this race.

    Like


  42. One of the main reasons I think Obama will really have problems with foreign policy is his pure betaness in comparison to his wife:
    http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/05/25/michelle-obama-puppetmaster/

    Let’s face it, even if you’re politically correct, the reality is that many countries in our world are still led by old-school men’s men and alphas. Alpha men do NOT respect henpecked beta males, and someone like Putin will walk all over Obama, chew him up and spit him out. World leaders do research on each other and have people who brief them on their opponents strengths and weaknesses. People like Putin, other Eastern European male leaders, Alpha leaders in the West, and even Alpha female leaders out there will totally view Obama as a bitch for how he lets his wife publicly henpeck him. And forget about commanding respect from Islamic leaders.

    Like


  43. maybe if obama was a radical who supported terrorist acts, you’d have a point, but he clearly doesnt and this is obvious.

    Have you ever read Obama’s book? I have, and if you read between the lines of it, it really isn’t clear that he is not a radical. Quite the opposite actually.

    Like


  44. on October 20, 2008 at 4:46 pm ironrailsironweights

    Cashill makes a pretty convincing case. The most telling fact is the two separate references to tidal rivers.

    If anything, that supposed connection established that Obama’s knowledge of geography is lacking. He suggested to an inquisitive boy that the reversing current flow in New York’s East River might be due to tidal effects. What he did not know is that the East River is not a river in the first place, it’s actually an arm of the Atlantic Ocean.

    Peter

    Like


  45. I bet commenter #2 didn’t even click the links and seriously consider the evidence before writing his comment. Liberalism really is a mental disorder.

    Have you investigated and seriously considered the evidence that McCain was brainwashed by international communism during his 5 year captivity, and is in fact a deep cover agent sent to undermine this country? No? Wow, conservatism really is a mental disorder.

    FYI, I’ve read both Ayers and Obama’s books and they are nothing alike. Obama’s book is really good, brilliantly written in places, but quite convoluted and very self-revealing. It’s nothing like something that someone would write for political gain. At that point in his life he hadn’t settled on a political career yet.

    Like


  46. 40: actually, every single policy you mentioned is not just on the Democratic party radar but in the platform and proposed (if you take “requiring” the poor to volunteer=national service). The proposal of tax cuts for middle class families funded by tax increases back to late 1990s levels of taxation for the wealthy is not a cash redistribution to the poor.

    None of you guys seem to know a thing about actual liberalism — you’re just fueled by resentment of feminism.

    “In other news, the MSM is not a useful idiot, they’re a useful accomplice, and should be regulated as such. During election cycles, the NY Times et al. are no different than 527s.”

    you believe in the first amendment or you don’t. It is true that our current regulation of 527s comes dangerously close to violating it and needs to be revisited.

    Like


  47. “you believe in the first amendment or you don’t. It is true that our current regulation of 527s comes dangerously close to violating it and needs to be revisited.”

    A liberal suddenly concerned about the Constitution? It is just a piece of paper, a living document. That’s all. It can be changed at will.
    And McCain a commie agent? Don’t watch the Manchurian Candidate anymore.

    Like


  48. on October 20, 2008 at 5:20 pm Levi Johnston

    I never thought much (or cared) about who wrote Dreams until I read the piece Cashill linked to on another site -“Why Organize?” which is probably the most damning evidence of Obama’s mediocrity out there.

    http://www.edwoj.com/Alinsky/AlinskyObamaChapter1990.htm

    Depressing stuff.

    Like


  49. @ Levi 49 –

    I don’t know, that link is pretty mediocre and pompous writing, but unfortunately Dreams from my Father is written in a very similar mediocre and pompous prose, so i think there’s a good chance her really did write it.

    Like


  50. I only hope that if the right wing really does wind up in the backseat again for awhile, they don’t resort to blowing up any more federal courthouses. That was horrible the first time, and I should think it would be again.

    I haven’t heard anything even remotely suggesting that coming from Sean Hannity, Rush, or Glenn Beck, yet…but sometimes that sort of thing can be subtle with lone wolves “taking the hint”.

    -D

    Like


  51. 47 (MQ) — link to authorities please. Also, please include any evidence that such conditions are actually going to be linked to the proposed Obama tax cut/credit for the poor and middle class.

    Like


  52. Reasons regarding NYT as 527s, etc is bad:
    It will manifest as the resurrection of the Fairness Doctrine. Anyone who supports that rubbish is traitorous for spitting on the Bill of Rights, and thusly deserves to be hung by the neck till dead.

    Like


  53. “I haven’t heard anything even remotely suggesting that coming from Sean Hannity, Rush, or Glenn Beck, yet…but sometimes that sort of thing can be subtle with lone wolves “taking the hint”.”

    Yeah, if you play the record backwards, it says “Blow up the Federal Courthouse.” And “fertilizer and fuel oil…”

    You idiot.

    Like


  54. Yeah, if you play the record backwards, it says “Blow up the Federal Courthouse.” And “fertilizer and fuel oil…”

    You idiot.

    I love how in the eyes of a liberal, no many Muslims blow things up, liberals say we are not supposed to stereotype them in any way as having a higher likelihood of being terrorists at all for fear of being politically incorrect. And we can’t at all link their terrorist acts all over the world to their religion in any shape or form. Fair enough.

    Yet ONE WHITE AMERICAN in decades does a major terrorist bombing and they won’t stop using him to stereotype Republicans and try to that one terrorist act to conservative talk radio?

    More proof: Liberalism = Mental Disorder

    Like


  55. Actually AKA, it wasn’t “one white American”, it was “one zealot”. You classify McVeigh as a fringe element of the right wing. Fair enough. But he’s still, also, classified as a violent ideologue which puts him in the same context as all those terrorist militants you keep volunteering left-wing sympathies to. And those “zealots” number in the thousands internationally and domestically.

    I’d feel a whole lot safer with Obama supporters taking flight lessons right now, than an angry liberal-hating conservative. The persecution complex conservatives hold that liberals are “non-Americans” that are “tricking” America into socialism doesn’t exactly put me at ease, either.

    -D

    Like


  56. Peter,

    True enough, but everyone calls it a river.

    Like


  57. I’d feel a whole lot safer with Obama supporters taking flight lessons right now, than an angry liberal-hating conservative.

    Oh yes, you’re right, Obama’s left wing supporters like Bill Ayers are MUCH more trustworthy when it comes to restraining their terrorist urges than right-wingers are. Everyone knows the left=wing, especially ex-hippies, ex-Weathermen, Yippies, Black Panthers, radical environmentalists, black radicals, and animal rights people are renowned for their aversion to terrorists acts. You’re much smarter to focus on Timothy McVeigh, the only arguably right-wing example you can come up with for the past few decades.

    Like


  58. Obama will have, at best, two years to do his damage. When the honeymoon is over and regular Americans suddenly see what they have done, you can bet the conservatives will come roaring back into favor. The disenchanted independents and Republicans who will vote for Obama are actually voting their feelings – which are currently very much against George Bush. But Americans are fickle people, and their feelings usually change on a dime. Once Obama screws up, it will set the stage for one, and possibly even both houses of Congress going “R” in 2010. Obama isn’t a stupid man, and I’m sure he knows his window of opportunity is narrow. My prediction: Look for furious efforts by the upcoming Congress to get various radical liberal pieces of legislation through as quickly as possible with as little debate as possible.

    One final observation: As the old saying goes, a black man has to work twice as hard to get half as far. All contradicting evidence aside for a moment, a corollary of this is that a black man only has to screw up half as much to draw twice the ire. The black man in the street, particularly the poor variety, is well aware of this from personal experience to be sure. An Obama presidency could be everything they dream it will be. Or it could set racial relations in the country back. When confronted with that potential for change, not knowing which direction it will be, I think people will be surprised how many older blacks end up not voting in this election. Obama is a creature of white liberals, not black people. And some of us know that white liberals are motivated out of a desire to alleviate their own guilt – NOT out of a desire to actually act in the interests of black people.

    Like


  59. One final observation: As the old saying goes, a black man has to work twice as hard to get half as far.

    Given how far Obama has gotten with so little experience, a resume that would get a white candidate laughed out the door, I really don’t think this is true.

    Affirmative action also proves this statement wrong.

    All contradicting evidence aside for a moment, a corollary of this is that a black man only has to screw up half as much to draw twice the ire.

    Given how the media has been covering up all his verbal gaffes, and downplaying and ignoring all his questionable associations like Rev. Wright, Pfleger and Ayers, I disagree with this too.

    This isn’t the superracist 60s anymore.

    Like


  60. To my previous post I’ll add another prediction: Look for Justice Ginsberg and Justice Breyer to both announce their retirements in the next year. It won’t sway the court, but the libs will want to get younger liberal replacements in those spots while they have the opportunity.

    I’m not at all a religious conservative, but I’ve actually started praying that Justice Scalia can hold on for four more years.

    Like


  61. For such a bunch of self-described alpha males, you conservatives sure are wailing like huge, blubbering vaginas.

    Like


  62. @60 RickyRaw:

    I completely agree that the America of 2008 is not the America of 1968 on many levels, but that was beside my main point so I skipped it. There are many more opportunities today for blacks than there were back then. Others have argued that today’s struggles center more around issues of class than race, and I’d agree with them wholeheartedly. But I think the perception among a lot of poorer blacks is that it’s still their race, rather than their class, that’s holding them back. Perception is reality. Many of them still think this is America, circa 1968, and will react accordingly. That’s all I’m saying.

    Like


  63. Oh yes, you’re right, Obama’s left wing supporters like Bill Ayers are MUCH more trustworthy when it comes to restraining their terrorist urges than right-wingers are.

    Do you even read the papers? Over the past two decades all the domestic terrorism we’ve seen has come from the right wing — Oklahoma city was by far the most severe domestic terrorist incident in US history, and led to ten times the casualties caused by all the Weathermen combined over all of the 1960s and 1970s.

    Just in the past few months, we’ve seen two terrorist incidents where nutty right-wingers killed liberals for their political views. (The Knoxville Unitarian church shooting and the murder of the Arkansas Democratic party chair). More liberals have been killed by right-wing terrorists in the past few months than Bill Ayers ever killed in his life (actually, that last number is zero, so it’s not hard to beat).

    Like


  64. You’re much smarter to focus on Timothy McVeigh, the only arguably right-wing example you can come up with for the past few decades.

    I see you at least acknowledge McVeigh. But you really, truly don’t know what you’re talking about. In comment 64, I pointed you to two right-wing terrorist murders just in the last few *months*. There are also numerous examples of anti-abortion terrorism over the last 20 years, most notably Eric Rudolph (who also did anti-gay bombings).

    Like


  65. Bill Ayers ever killed in his life (actually, that last number is zero, so it’s not hard to beat).

    He sure wishes he did. After all, he “didn’t do enough.” Pussy that he is.

    Like


  66. Obama will be a disaster, because he will make Americans long for the stability and prosperity … of Jimmy Carter.

    First, politics is hard. Most people can’t do it, and governing well and campaigning well are two different things. Ask Nixon’s pals — great campaigner, horrible governing President.

    Biden is already saying Obama will be tested because he’s weak. Having rejected use of force, Obama will have nothing to offer, when Iran closes the Gulf to spike oil up (it’s obvious play) and perhaps nukes Israel via Hezbollah. Heck half or more of Obama’s electoral coalition and advisors would welcome that.

    Meanwhile everyone in America figures “we are next.”

    Then there is his insane idea to have the EPA regulate CO2 down to personal “carbon footprints” and essentially regulate out of existence the US auto industry, domestic and foreign, coal-fired plants, motorcycles, and snowmachines. Add his Affirmative Action and Slavery Reparations and it’s a total disaster.

    The art of successful Presidencies require getting along with powerful institutions like the Press (Nixon and Bush failed), the political opposition (Clinton failed), major industrial corporations that employ millions and control gobs of money, powerful unions, and lobbies. This constrains any President more than they like to think or admit.

    In a recession, Affirmative Action means firing Whites FIRST to keep jobs for Mexicans and Blacks. A recipe for social chaos with a 75% White majority. Reparations for Slavery in a recession? Money from Joe the Plumber to Affirmative Action benefiting Blacks? Again a recipe for social chaos.

    Hard Times require go-along-get-along governing from the Center, with everyone getting something, not shoving people out, and the biggest demographic slices getting the most.

    Ayers, Wright, Rashid Khalidi (another PLO terrorist), Pelosi, Reid, Axelrod (astroturfing shill), resentful, privileged, angry Michelle Obama, Frank Marshall Davis (Black American Communist), Trinity United Church, Louis Farrakhan, are all good for running a shakedown organization aimed at Springfield and Washington DC, but they leave no personal or organizational competence for the average American who is White and Middle Class.

    Obama is likely to print money (stagflation worse than Carter), endorse every lunatic scheme guaranteed to start racial fights (a Black President telling Whites they have to be fired first, to save jobs for Whites, and pay reparations for Slavery — guaranteed as Obama seeks to prove yet again “he’s Black enough” ala Trinity).

    He’s likely to get impeached and convicted in two years, as Dems seek sheer survival. He’s the Democrats Nixon — taking a sure thing and turning it into a wipeout long term.

    Like


  67. regarding 67 “whiskey”

    Whites should start arming themselves right now. Get ready for our Weimar!

    Like


  68. “is redistribution only good when people get their money legally?”

    No. Illegal too. These lines are pretty blurred these days anyhow.

    “shouldn’t we all have equal wealth? ”

    No. But you can’t push the poor too far. Otherwise, you might find your self with a gun in your face when your walking home from a nightclub.

    Unless of course your live in a gated community. Then its ok to be as greedy as you want. Although you can still get heisted.

    (Thanks for catching my typo by the way. Great work.)

    – MPM

    Like


  69. all of you sound exactly like the girls roissy rips on who substitute politics for religion….

    just sayin!

    Like


  70. He sure wishes he did. After all, he “didn’t do enough.” Pussy that he is.

    The weathermen were dickheads. I’d be fine if McVeigh had spent his time killing Dohrn and Ayers.

    Like


  71. @ 70 peezy

    instead of going for the intellectually lazy knee-jerk moral equivalency argument, can you please specify how we are just like the girls roissy describes?

    no one here is talking about pressing a girl on a date to tell us who she’s voting for. or judging compatibility and screening solely on whether she’s voting for a specific candidate. or grilling dates to see which party affiliation they have or checking their views on abortion. we are not talking about how we assume everyone we meet will think like us and share our politics.

    sorry, but people whose automatic response to every political debate is a moral equivalency argument, whether it actually fits or not, are a pet peeve of mine.

    Like


  72. @ G – ” Then its ok to be as greedy as you want.”

    What’s greedy? I think it’s greedy to demand the government give you money that isn’t yours. At least a mugger does it himself like a man.

    How is it greedy for an entrepreneur who started his business from scratch to want to keep his money? You certainly don’t talk about giving away your own money. I mean you’re a fictitious character, so it’s moot, but still…

    Like


  73. while all you whiny pussies can gripe all you want about your shitty party that cant karl rove itself into a fake win again, obama is a serious candidate that has the ideas, and more importantly, the mindset and ability to alter his ideas to find the best solution to problems. you can fantasize all you want about how disastrous things will be, but it wont make it happen. you cry and gush out your pussies about how terrible liberal policies are, but what evidence do we have that supposedly conservative ones are helping anything or have done anything positive? other than clinton’s balanced budget? im speaking in a strictly democrat/republican context for the simplicity sake.

    you can say jimmy carter as many times as you want but he was a different man in a different time, facing a whole set of difference situations. obama has tons of potential to make this country great again, why not be a supporter instead of a straight up hater.

    bitch and moan about obama all you want, but you are a fucking clown if you really think voting for mccain/palin is a better idea.

    Like


  74. on October 20, 2008 at 8:35 pm lemmy caution

    This seems to be an example of the availability bias.

    http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/09/availability.html

    Even if Obama used a ghostwriter (which I doubt), the reason people think it would be Ayers is that because it comes to mind easily compared to the other possibilities: a boatload of unknown Obama friends and professional ghostwriters.

    Like


  75. on October 20, 2008 at 8:36 pm boyinthebubble

    wow! What a wonderful collection of predictions from the right and left perspectives.

    Roissy, does your link to the American Thinker piece indicate that you support and endorse the thesis? The evidence is not terribly compelling or complete to show that “someone made a major contribution to the rewriting of [Obama’s] book.” And a bigger leap to conclude “that that contributor had to be Bill Ayers.” But I concede that it is difficult to prove or disprove a negative. So what arguments do you find the most persuasive?

    Like


  76. Rick,
    That was perhaps the most faggy post written here in some time. That includes shit written by Jewish Atheist. No small feat. Read it back to yourself and think carefully if that is the kind of thing you want to write. Now get back to Daily Kos or craigslist…

    Like


  77. I’d be curious if Rick can offer contrasting domestic and foreign policy prescriptions that both candidates offer, and support or denounce them with argument grounded in sound economic or international political theory.

    More likely he’s one of the guys whose primary reason for voting for Obama is that he will “change” things.

    Like


  78. Michael,
    I doubt he can. He’s probably just some homo who stumbled onto this website.

    Like


  79. on October 20, 2008 at 9:04 pm Tired of Smoke Rings

    “obama has tons of potential to make this country great again, why not be a supporter instead of a straight up hater.”

    Potential. Yes, somewhere a man sits in a prison cell serving 3-5 for armed robbery and he could have run for POTUS if his potential could have been recognized. Or perhaps my Cocker Spaniel could have been elected to the state governorship if those bigots hadn’t disallowed his candidacy and crushed his dream. Potential is humbug.

    Like


  80. @74 Rick-

    “…why not be a supporter instead of a straight up hater.”

    This is liberal tribalism at its best! Anyone who disagrees with Obama is automatically a HATER. How unbelievably convenient for you! Tar and feather all your opposition without even considering their arguments!

    I sincerely hope Obama is the greatest president since Lincoln. I really do. But all signs and indications are that he will not be. His walk is far different from his talk. And there will be no Grand Change because human nature doesn’t change. But they’re not allowed to teach the philosophy and values of the enlightenment in public schools anymore, so liberals don’t know much about that.

    I don’t think Obama can deftly thread the needle between the desires of the radicals in his own party and the moderate but naive middle that helped get him there.

    Like


  81. Limp, nobody cares about your opinion, but way to avoid responding in any substantial manner other than, “that was gay”. I’ll refer to my previous comment for you to re-read for what you need to hear.

    Michael, I’m always up for a lively and specifics-driven debate. Your challenge at the moment, however, is a little too time-intensive, so I’ll just refer to Obama’s trouncing of McCain in the 3 debates for all the specifics.

    Also, regarding the whole “Obama wants to take all the money from rich people and give it to the poor” concept, I think that completely oversimplifies things and basically misses the point.

    Like


  82. @81

    You not automatically a hater, but everyone who has been hating on here is. Its all been straight up hating – flailing at obscure, dubious reasons to hate on obama. im not saying there is nothing about him that is worthy of criticism, but most of the shit ive been reading on here is just garbage.

    Like


  83. @ Rick – Glad to hear you’re up for it. We’ll start with your ”
    “‘Obama wants to take all the money from rich people and give it to the poor’ concept.”

    It’s a little oversimplifying in that he doesn’t want to take all the money. However, he does want to give “tax credits” to people who currently don’t pay any taxes. He’s paying for this program by increasing taxes on anyone making over $250k. Wouldn’t that constitute taking money from the haves and giving it to the have nots?

    And we’ve gotta stop calling $250k “rich”. You’re doing well for yourself, but you’re not “rich”.

    Like


  84. @ t ricky-

    im on your “team” in the first place. our ideologies line up on the dot, i wasnt shilling. i don’t understand how you viewed my comment as a “moral equivalancy”

    i related an analogy. i compared captain roissy’s thoughts on girls & politics to the way people in here are acting like a huffpost knitting circle.

    it seems to me like the commenters here have done the same…..substitute religion for politics…

    how many enlightened, non-denominational “progressives” in here? basically all, and that’s my point!

    (you guys are acting like girls [you care more about politics than god])

    Like


  85. “You certainly don’t talk about giving away your own money.”

    I do. And I do.

    “I mean you’re a fictitious character”

    ?

    – MPM

    Like


  86. @86 – More importantly, what’s “greedy” and what’s “earned”? How rich are you allowed to get before you’re “greedy”?

    Like


  87. Rick,
    Your following comments had even less substance than your first. And yes, nobody cares about my opinion, except you it seems. You did respond after all. No substance though. Keep hatin’!

    Like


  88. Michael, first off, we already have a progressive tax code, so if you want to use your argument, you could use it as things currently stand as well.

    That said, $250 in TAXABLE INCOME is doing pretty well. And something tells me that those who are freaking out about this would feel the same about $300 or $350, etc. Im amazed how much people who arent making 250 are fighting for those people’s rights — and if it hurts businesses/jobs so much, what have bushs tax cuts done to help/grow that?

    I’d also point to Obama’s point to “Joe the Plumber”, talking about how more people will be able to afford his services if they get a tax cut. That’s simplistic too, but I think it expands into the greater economic/tax approach as well.

    Personally, I would advocate a flat tax system, with higher sales taxes on things like tobacco, liquor, fast food, NASCAR, etc. But I do think your tax approach needs to adapt to its circumstances. We have a lot to pay for, a financial industry built on imaginary transactions that could be irreparable, a money-drain military operation, and a neglected country. Where will the money come from?

    Like


  89. Fabian, you might be on to something. To at least half Americans at the outset of Bush’s first term all signs and indications were he wouldn’t be a good president.

    — But at least he got to be.

    So, look, embrace Democracy such as we have it and give the man a chance. Your vote counts as much as the next person’s.

    -D

    Like


  90. @ Rick – I’m not even sure where to begin.

    There’s a difference between a progressive tax code (who pays for what) and a directly re-distributive tax code (some people pay, some receive).

    I agree with a flat tax. Obama would say that’s unfair. It doesn’t spread the wealth around. A higher sales tax is actually, regressive since consumption is a higher % of income for poor folks than the rich. So you disagree with him on tax policy? Good, me too. Glad we cleared that up. (On a side note, your NASCAR comment was ignorant, but possibly in jest, so let’s ignore it). (Other side note, your ‘imaginary transactions’ don’t exist. Don’t bother discussing finance. You likely know nothing.)

    So we’re agreed that Obama sucks on taxes. Should we go with domestic policy next? Why is a federal law on abortion constitutional?

    Like


  91. The Bill Ayers writing Obama’s book thing is actually retarded. It is idiot talk and doing any work yourself or thinking critically about what’s going on should clear it up for you. This is not to say that Obama is perfect or even best but just to say that this particular conspiracy is a right wing moron circle jerk. On politics it seems some people still belong at the kids table.

    Like


  92. Michael, is it just more convenient to post the questions and not answer any? I wouldnt agree that Obama sucks on taxes.

    And sorry, by “imaginary transactions”, what I meant was “default credit swaps”.

    Regarding abortion, I believe right to privacy was what made the law constitutional. But more importantly, why outlaw it?

    Like


  93. I am an amoral pragmatist, which means I would be considered a conservative by many people. Others might call be libertarian, but, I am too pragmatic for that persuasion.

    I would tell any of these girls in D.C., if they asked, I was looking forward to Obama in the White House and the Democrats in full control of the Congress. The possibilities would be intriguing. For 8 years their main meme has been “We hate Bush.” Let’s find out what the Democrats have to offer the country.

    Yes, that made me smile, too.

    Like


  94. Christopher Buckley should worry about the damage he is doing to his OOW son.

    Like


  95. on October 20, 2008 at 10:53 pm Comment_I_Have_A_Copy

    I have a copy in front of me of the Time magazine for October 2009. This copy has one sentence on the cover in bright red. This sentence’s words are larger than any other on the page except the title, Time.

    This sentence sums up the tolerance of the SWPL class.

    Why The Economy Is Trumping Race

    I think it is sad that a radical republican who thinks Bush was a great president would only reject Obama because of his race.

    I think it is sad that a radical feminist PUMA who is enraged over Hillary having the Democrat nomination stolen from her would only reject Obama because of his race.

    I think it is great that the only flaw in Obama is that he is half-black.

    Other than that, The One would be the choice of 104% of voting Americans.

    Like


  96. Nathan saidIf it later comes out that Ayers did actually write Obama’s book, the story will just be “swept under the rug” by the mainstream media much like they downplayed the Rev. Wright connection

    Are you for real??? They played that crap on a loop for a month nonstop. Sound bite nation.

    People need to forget the body language, facial expression blah blah blah that the experts comment on, and focus on the issues instead. Which of the two candidates have “plans” that will benefit the country most or you& yours most. If you are voting for the hope of lower taxes, honey it’s a wrap. Both candidates will have to raise taxes, the real question is, which group will do most of the paying.

    If you are voting on abortion, well don’t waste your vote here either. Women have always had, and will continue to have abortions. THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO TO STOP WOMEN FROM ABORTING BABIES/FETUS THEY DON’T WANT!!!! Don’t be a fool by allowing politicians to pull you along with their hogwash. Abortion became a problem when women allowed men in on the secret.

    Like


  97. @PA
    Look at what happened to the alleged Olympic park bomber. Sam sh*t different day.

    Like


  98. @97 chicnoir –

    “Which of the two candidates have ‘plans’ that will benefit the country most or you & yours most.”

    I reject the premise of your socialist nonsense. If the extent of your evaluation of the candidates rests on who’s gonna give you more goodies, then you’re very much a part of the problem. Some of us have principles we’d like to see upheld. See the Constitution for examples.

    As for abortion, we may not be able to stop it completely, but if the issue goes back to the states where it belonged in the first place, then people in more conservative parts of the country will finally be able to make the values judgment as they see fit.

    Like


  99. T said:You’re much smarter to focus on Timothy McVeigh, the only arguably right-wing example you can come up with for the past few decades.

    Try to IRA back in the 90’s.

    Like


  100. Fabian said:If the extent of your evaluation of the candidates rests on who’s gonna give you more goodies

    Fabian it’s not about who is going to give me more goodies.
    One of the most important issues for me is getting Bin Laden. We are spending 10 billion a month in Iraq for nothing. That money could be better spent on universal health care. Don’t talk about being prolife and be unwilling to help a sick 30 year old.

    then people in more conservative parts of the country will finally be able to make the values judgment as they see fit

    Fabian you can’t stop a woman who is 6months pregnant from taking a fall down a flight of steps or drinking a special brew of herbal tea. The money it would take to overturn roe vs wade could be better spent elsewhere. How about encouraging more people to adopt unwanted children who are not aborted.

    T all of your talk of liberals this and conservatives that is starting to sound betaish. I can imagine you are at home typing this up in your spider man underwear while foaming at the mouth. Go attack some Williamsburg hipsters or something. Geez

    Like


  101. Why do working class and middle class people overly concern themselves about the money of the wealthy??? How many commenters here make 250K per year??? Why get yourself so hot and heavy about it???

    Like


  102. 101 Chic:

    T all of your talk of liberals this and conservatives that is starting to sound betaish. I can imagine you are at home typing this up in your spider man underwear while foaming at the mouth. Go attack some Williamsburg hipsters or something. Geez

    ZING

    Wow! The Force is strong in this one. 🙂

    Like


  103. You have to be retarded to buy that argument. It basically boils down to, “Obama couldn’t have written this, because he never showed much writerly talent prior to writing it.” (Actually, his one little law review note is very good, given the constraints of the genre. But anyway.) So by the same logic, Ayers couldn’t have written his own memoir, because he never wrote anything particularly great before he wrote that. In fact, no great writer could’ve written their own stuff, because there has to be a first good thing that they wrote, and how do we explain how they suddenly went from bad to good? So Henry James is a fraud, because his early stories suck, and then all of a sudden he writes Daisy Miller. Maybe Ayers ghostwrote his shit too.

    Like


  104. How many commenters here make 250K per year???

    Americans think they’ll be rich one day for some strange reason…

    Like


  105. I know DA and it’s so sad. Even those who manage to become rich only remain so for a short time.

    Like


  106. The reason why people get so hot and bothered about these Democrat programs of taxing the “rich” or some mystical cutoff like taxes for those who make $250k is because these tax policies never really materialize.

    Think about it.

    The Democrats have been preaching this wealth-redistribution stuff since FDR. It sounds nice in theory, but in practice, the wealthy keep getting wealthier and income inequality goes up. Furthermore, the “middle classes” that Democrats keep insisting they benefit actually see their taxes increase, not the taxes of the mythical “rich.”

    In other words, Obama’s claims are an outright lie, in line with all of the other lies that Democrats have told about wealth redistribution.

    What you libs fail to realize is that this complete failure to redistribute wealth is due to the fact that the wealthy have captured the Democratic Party. The guys making 250K a year or more are already voting for Obama. And they are not voting to have Obama tax their money.

    Think I’m lying. go to http://www.opensecrets.org and see how the money flows.

    Like


  107. 17 Nathan “The Republican Party is imploding and will probably no longer be relevant in a couple of decades (if not much sooner). Get ready for the USA to turn into a French-style nanny state.”
    ==== Get ready for the end of the dominance of the two-party system, and possibly a re-drawing of US borders over the next decade or so. At least, that’s what history shows often happens when an economy implodes.

    20 Ricky Raw “The good news is that if Obama wins, we will have a Dem president with a Dem congress.”
    ==== Whoever is in the office when something happens is blamed for it, so I will be amused to see Obama win. He’ll go down in flames, because there’s nothing he can do to save the dollar (indeed, most everything he and McCain are proposing will hasten its downfall).

    “Obama IS the black Jimmy Carter, the parallels are staggering”
    ==== Ain’t it the truth? Only thing is Obama is more attractive and a better orator. Not that that’ll save him. No way will he get a second term during Great Depression 2.0

    24 PA “O-bots”
    ==== Hadn’t heard that one yet. Funny!

    102 Chic Noir “How many commenters here make 250K per year?”
    ==== The way the gov is cranking out funny money, we all will soon…those of us that still have jobs, anyway.

    Like


  108. chic, the IRA is left-wing.

    I don’t know why Americans have such trouble getting that – probably because they’ve been conditioned to think that violence is “right-wing”. It seems to work for right-wingers, too: a lot of “Irish” Americans over the net seem to be totally devastated to learn that they’ve been cheering for *left-wing* terrorists!

    Almost all European nationalist terrorist organizations are either fully Marxist or close. The various incarnations of IRA vary from Marxist to just left-wing.

    Like


  109. I’ve been above $250K in Adjusted Gross Income several years. Probably not even close to it this year.

    A lot of people forget about year-to-year income variability when talking about tax policy. As soon as you start earning income in forms other than salary, income variability is a fact of life. One year you might make (from the tax code’s point of view) $10M, another year you might make $100K.

    At the risk of trying to bring the discussion back closer to the topic of this blog, my life is a perfect example of the fact that money by itself will not attract women. I’ve had far less success with women than the average man my age, even though I have far more money than the average man my age. Now, one of the reasons I have more money is not just that I’ve earned more, it’s that I’ve spent less. But even so, I don’t think my money has *ever* gotten me anywhere with *any* woman.

    Like


  110. The G Manifesto replied to someone:

    “shouldn’t we all have equal wealth? ”

    No.

    I fully agree. All having equal wealth is a truly perverse, impractical, and immoral idea given human diversity in virtue and ability.

    But you can’t push the poor too far. Otherwise, you might find your self with a gun in your face when your walking home from a nightclub.

    There is another reason why some level of redistribution is moral in my opinion: some inherit worse genes and come from worse social backrounds than others. This becomes a lot easier to understand when you consider that how your children turn out is to a large degree a result of sheer genetic lottery (with the odds skewed depeding on the genetic makeups of you and the other parent).

    Like


  111. How many commenters here make 250K per year???

    America’s traditional middle and working classes have never trusted tax-the-rich promises based on their perceptions that such things basically amount to politicians taking money that’s circulating in the the market, and channeling it toward the idle-poor.

    This is basically the argument of “What’s the Matter with Kansas” — that America’s working classes in the Heartland vote against their won interests by rejecting redistributionist Democrat policies. That thesis is flawed.

    One, because as I noted above, working class Americans sense that they aren’t the ones whose votes socialist politicians are trying to buy via redistribution of wealth.

    Two, working class Americans sense that left wing parties are culturally hostile to them (see Obama’s “god & guns” comment) and in the worst case scenario, will launch Kulturkampf campaigns against their culture of Christianity and self-reliance.

    Three, and that’s a meta-point — “What’s the Matter with Kansas” assumes a ‘false consciousness’ on the part of these proverbial Kansans. But the reality is, that with rare exception, there is no such thing as false consciousness. Most people, no matter what their level of political sophistication, have a reliable instinct about who is their friend and who isn’t.

    Finally, to get back to the question about why working class people oppose taxes on those who make more than $250K a year.

    And there are two answers:

    1) “If I work hard and smart enough, and the government leaves me alone, I too will make $250K one day. Or my kids will.

    2) I don’t make $250K a year, but my customers do.

    Like


  112. […] Things over at Roissy in D.C. get political. Dropping “Bill Ayers” in da club: Not getting anyone laid since […]

    Like


  113. on October 21, 2008 at 3:11 pm Velvetgunther

    Damn, you wrote some lame ass post and managed to get 114 comments in return…I wish I was you

    Like


  114. America’s traditional middle and working classes have never trusted tax-the-rich promises based on their perceptions that such things basically amount to politicians taking money that’s circulating in the the market, and channeling it toward the idle-poor.

    The people who generally advocate for such policies look at the government supports provided by various European governments (and Canadian government to a lesser extent), and realize that increased taxation is the only way to achieve such policies in the United States sans increasing deficits at unsustainable rates.

    Mind you, I’ve been generally for slightly higher tax rates* on the rich to primarily pay for infrastructure likes roads, bridges, railways, and airports, and I’m not adverse to government spending, but that’s because I’m the child of immigrants from a country where the government taxed very little and in turn, spent very little improving the state with most funds going into the pockets to corrupt officials who had no real loyalty to the State and its citizenry.

    *Due to the vagaries of state (and local income tax), I’d argue for a top tax rate of 40% with an additional bracket at the high end to separate the $250K to $2M successful small business owners from actual rich people.

    will launch Kulturkampf campaigns against their culture of Christianity and self-reliance

    Are values and culture more important than money?

    “If I work hard and smart enough, and the government leaves me alone, I too will make $250K one day. Or my kids will.

    Americans have this bizarre optimistic sense that they’ll be able to make $250K at some point in their lives. In contrast, I’ve never been under such delusions, and to be honest, it’s highly unlikely that my children will either unless I can get them into the elite. I would imagine if one believes that they’ll never become rich, they’re more likely to desire taxing the rich which may explain why the only real support black support for the Republican Party is from it’s small entrepreneurial class and not the older, black social conservative class.

    Like


  115. DA:

    I’ve been generally for slightly higher tax rates* on the rich to primarily pay for infrastructure likes roads, bridges, railways, and airports

    We don’t need new taxes to pay for that infrastructure. User fees can do the job. Here in Austin we recently built a new network of major freeways in record time with no new taxes thanks to toll money. No stopping or even slowing down at toll booths; it’s all electronic and you can drive through at regular freeway speeds.

    Infrastructure spending is one of the few legitimate classes of government spending, but technology has now reached the point where we really could have privatized roads financed entirely by toll revenue.

    It would also help if we didn’t have Davis-Bacon and other regulations that increase the cost of these projects, and if fewer federal tax dollars were involved. The federal government should not be involved in local projects that don’t have a clear bearing on interstate commerce; the interstate highway system, yes, a local bike path, no.

    I’d argue for a top tax rate of 40%

    When you count the Medicare payroll tax and the itemized deduction phaseout (another a stealth tax hike), we were already *above* 40% under Clinton, even though the official income tax rate was 39.6%.

    Since Obama is proposing restoring the Clinton tax levels plus an additional tax hike in the Social Security payroll tax, it’ll get even higher.

    When you throw in state income taxes in high-tax states like CA and NY, you’ll be at European-level tax rates.

    An Obama presidency combined with a Democratic Congress, combined with an economic crisis that they will use an excuse to pass all sorts of new laws that have no truthful bearing on the economic crisis, will basically end up eliminating any remaining differences between the US and European economic systems.

    The US is moving socialist even as Europe is creeping back somewhat in a capitalist direction. Not a good thing for us.

    Like


  116. LOL at James O. but* due to inflation, it will cost half of that for a loaf of bread and a can of beans.

    truth, I like you for some reason.

    In other words, Obama’s claims are an outright lie,
    You mean like George Bush sr. saying he would not raise taxes and read his lips blah blah blah back in 88.

    What you libs fail to realize

    the liberal/conservative name calling is betaish.

    You vote for the candidate who you* think/believe* will address your issues not according to party lines.

    @T- as far as those one issue voters are concerned, don’t forget about the people who are afraid of gay marriage. A real riot those are.

    jaakkeli
    chic, the IRA is left-wing

    I don’t care if they are left or right wing. They blew up a lot of buildings* back in the day. Now maybe they weren’t as bad as bin Laden in that they often placed a telephone call* a few minutes before so people could try to get the hell out of dodge but they were a very distructive group.

    Like


  117. zorgon
    I’ve been above $250K in Adjusted Gross Income several years

    *Goes looking for gold digging shovel and recruits to girlfriends to help*

    Shit we are in a recession!

    Like


  118. Velvetgunther
    Damn, you wrote some lame ass post and managed to get 114 comments in return…I wish I was you

    post your blog address and we will visit you.

    Like


  119. Roissy, I occasionally read your blog every once in a while to remind myself of every value that I do not and never will hold!

    I didn’t expect this to apply to politics as well, but thank you – your ignorance is appreciated.

    Like