Going off topic again... I wish this election was over.

Read at your own risk.

Moderator: Mike Simanyi

Bob Beamesderfer
Posts: 3376
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am
Club: PSCC
Location: Orange
Contact:

Re: Going off topic again... I wish this election was over.

Post by Bob Beamesderfer »

George Schilling wrote:
Bob Beamesderfer wrote:The other thing Moose Lady would do is ensure the current executive branch's anti-science and pro-big oil policies.


Wonderful left wing talking points, unfortunately no basis in fact.
Her religious beliefs are the basis of that statement, along with her record in Alaska; she didn't really stand up to big oil.
Sure, drilling off shore and in the ANWR can be approved, but does that mean the oil companies will actually do it? Probably not until prices go back up. If they're not going to drill on the 60 million acres of leases they hold now, why would they spend a huge amount of money on off-shore platforms?


Certainly you're smarter than this Bob. The ONLY place an oil company will and should drill is where there is a chance of making a decent profit. Of course that never enters the mind of lefties.
Of course they won't drill for $75 a barrel oil when it costs $75.50 to get out of the ground or ocean bed, which is why the off shore drilling won't happen ASAP, it will happen when oil reaches a natural, non-speculation driven oil price.
The current administration forced the CDC to delete all language having to do with condoms as a means of preventing HIV disease. It was part of the abstinence-only policy. That kind of moralistic, anti-science stance is exactly what can be expected from President Palin, and very likely if she's only Veep.


More lefty talking points. Unfortunately, neither McCain or Palin are Bush.
No, George, it is a fact that Bush did this. I know a specialist in communicable diseases who works on CDC projects, and the Bush Admin did this. A pentacostal, anti-abortion Palin, whether VP or POTUS, along with the neo cons who will be there because they run GOP, will continue this kind of anti-science policy. 100 Nancy Reagans won't be able to convince them that stem cell research needs to be expanded for the good mankind.
There are reports that she is doing her own maverick thing by resisting the control her McCain-chosen handlers are trying to impose. She's unhappy that the campaign went out and spent big dollars on high-end retail clothing without telling her, and now it becomes public through campaign spending documents and it looks bad. Some might say elitist. Even when I made a good salary, I couldn't afford to shop at Saks or Neiman-Marcus. And obviously because I believe in decent wages, a BASIC health care system that moves un- and under-insured out of emergency rooms for non-emergency care and into some kind of public or private family practice setting, I'm an elitist. Then there's my public school education, the student loans I got to go to a state university. If I'd known about those legacy admissions to Ivy League schools like W got, I might have tried going to Yale, but my dad, who graduated from the Divinity school, laughed when I brought it up.

Of course, before I went to that state university I worked such elite jobs as shipping clerk and warehouseman. After graduation, my status as an elitist led me to a job at two weekly newspapers make less than I made before college. Then I worked at a startup weekly that folded faster than the ink dried. That led to my prestigious temp position working as a construction site day laborer, sweeping floors when I wasn't pressed into doing what should have been done by higher-paid skilled workers, albeit those at the apprentice level. :evil: I also got to work for free for my ex-father-in-law's roofing company. Great gig to have in Phoenix in the summer. }:)

Just as soon as I get a job, that will mostly like pay 20-25% less than I made three years ago, I'll be sure to lord that over all the gee-shucks conservatives. :roll:
You've just summed up the difference between conservatives and lefties. The average lefty is angry. They feel they have been victimized and left out. I felt that way when affirmative action was implemented and my dream of being a union laborer after graduating high school was squashed. But I regrouped, and after paying my dues, I established a small but successful company. Your an intelligent guy. If you want to make more money, change your occupation. Start your own business. The only system in the world that allows someone like myself to emerge from poor beginnings to a relatively comfortable lifestyle is capitalism. Obama wants to destroy that. The result is everyone will be poor. It can happen faster than you than you think if we allow democrats to dominate government. I don't defend the Bush years, but I don't let that cloud the obvious fact that a democratic congress and a democratic president would be far more destructive.
George, I wrote that to point out that I'm not some elitist. Nor am I particularly angry, although it would be nice to see mid- and upper management actually pay the price for screwing up instead of just laying off those who do real income-producing work. These people are PAID to know better than to do what they did. When boards of directors kick them out, they leave with large bonuses that reward their failure. Capitalism is supposed to reward success and weed out failure, but corporate America only wants the parts of capitalism that favor them and directors and officers look only at earnings, which is good but needs to be more than quarterly view, and how they can line their pockets. They have no loyalty to their employees, and worse no loyalty to this country's economic well being.

I did change my occupation. Inept managers failed to take VERY basic and WELL KNOWN steps when launching a new Web site. A year later, they can't sell ads because the site isn't even in the top 100 visited in its segment.

I plan on launching my own site, and you can be damn sure I won't make the mistakes they made.

The last portion is just more righty talking points. The same crap that was dredged up in 1992. The neo cons owe a debt of gratitude to Bill Clinton. Without him, Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin wouldn't have their careers.
User avatar
Eric Clements
Solo Safety Steward
Posts: 895
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:25 am
Club: No$
Car#: 30
Location: Pasadena

Re: Going off topic again... I wish this election was over.

Post by Eric Clements »

Bob Beamesderfer wrote: If I'd known about those legacy admissions to Ivy League schools like W got, I might have tried going to Yale, but my dad, who graduated from the Divinity school, laughed when I brought it up. :
Matt turned Yale down @ $7000 a year. He better get a good deal at an engineering school that he wants to go to.
Bill Schenker
Former CSCC Overall Champion
Posts: 1681
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am
Club: SCNAX
Car#: 14
Location: Corona del Mar
Contact:

Re: Going off topic again... I wish this election was over.

Post by Bill Schenker »

Eric Clements wrote:
Bob Beamesderfer wrote: If I'd known about those legacy admissions to Ivy League schools like W got, I might have tried going to Yale, but my dad, who graduated from the Divinity school, laughed when I brought it up. :
Matt turned Yale down @ $7000 a year. He better get a good deal at an engineering school that he wants to go to.
Wow! Congrats to Matt!!!
MiataRoadster/OS Giken/ChaseCam/
2001 Mazda Miata
#14 DP
User avatar
Steve Ekstrand
Solo Safety Steward
Posts: 7482
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am
Club: CASOC
Car#: 15
Location: This space left intentionally blank
Contact:

Re: Going off topic again... I wish this election was over.

Post by Steve Ekstrand »

Ack!!! 17yo's allowed to make decisions???? :O

Congrats to future superstar Matt... Does he understand about Yale??? KIDS!!!! ARGH!!!
Dr. Conemangler
aka The Malefic One
2015 Wildcat Honda F600
User avatar
Eric Clements
Solo Safety Steward
Posts: 895
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:25 am
Club: No$
Car#: 30
Location: Pasadena

Re: Going off topic again... I wish this election was over.

Post by Eric Clements »

Steve Ekstrand wrote:Ack!!! 17yo's allowed to make decisions???? :O

Congrats to future superstar Matt... Does he understand about Yale??? KIDS!!!! ARGH!!!
Me "Yale $7000 a year! Cool.
Mari "whateVeerrrrr''
Matt "Yale's not really an engineering school"
Me "Yeah, but.."

Matt just got back some SAT subject test scores 800,800,770. I think that mean he may have some good options?
User avatar
Steve Ekstrand
Solo Safety Steward
Posts: 7482
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am
Club: CASOC
Car#: 15
Location: This space left intentionally blank
Contact:

Re: Going off topic again... I wish this election was over.

Post by Steve Ekstrand »

Hmmm.... Maybe the kidlet knows best....
Dr. Conemangler
aka The Malefic One
2015 Wildcat Honda F600
User avatar
George Schilling
Club Representative
Posts: 5136
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am
Club: CASOC
Car#: 66
Location: Lakewood, CA

Re: Going off topic again... I wish this election was over.

Post by George Schilling »

Bob, you said "Her religious beliefs are the basis of that statement, along with her record in Alaska; she didn't really stand up to big oil."

People in politics rarely wear their religion on their sleeve. Palin's parents are science teachers. Harry Reid is a Mormon for gosh sakes. You'd never know it from his politics. As far a big oil, I like big oil. They have supplied me with a reliable and cheap source of gas for my entire life with the exception of the bonehead Carter years. I'm very happy with Big Oil thank you.

Bob says "No, George, it is a fact that Bush did this. I know a specialist in communicable diseases who works on CDC projects, and the Bush Admin did this. A pentacostal, anti-abortion Palin, whether VP or POTUS, along with the neo cons who will be there because they run GOP, will continue this kind of anti-science policy. 100 Nancy Reagans won't be able to convince them that stem cell research needs to be expanded for the good mankind."

I don't deny this, but lumping Palin in with Bush is unfair. She seems to be a true fiscal conservative and a social moderate. Bush is the opposite.

Bob says "George, I wrote that to point out that I'm not some elitist. Nor am I particularly angry, although it would be nice to see mid- and upper management actually pay the price for screwing up instead of just laying off those who do real income-producing work. These people are PAID to know better than to do what they did. When boards of directors kick them out, they leave with large bonuses that reward their failure. Capitalism is supposed to reward success and weed out failure, but corporate America only wants the parts of capitalism that favor them and directors and officers look only at earnings, which is good but needs to be more than quarterly view, and how they can line their pockets. They have no loyalty to their employees, and worse no loyalty to this country's economic well being."

Bob, here we are in agreement. But can you tell me a system that works better than the one we have. Whether it be private industry or government, there will always be people exploiting the system. At least in private industry, those companies eventually eat it. You know how I feel about government corruption and waste. Although no panacea, capitalism is the best system so far.

Bob says "I plan on launching my own site, and you can be damn sure I won't make the mistakes they made."

And I will be rooting for your success. :D

Sorry about the formatting Bob. All those quotes were getting too confusing.
CASOC Autocross Club, 1984 Van Diemen RF-84, 1600cc Kent, Hewland Mk9, Centerline 2 pc. wheels, Hoosier R25B, SuperTrapp, Zimmer Alloclassic titanium left hip w/Metasul LDH chromium-cobalt lg dia head
User avatar
Glenn Duensing
Posts: 384
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:24 am
Car#: 28
Location: Relaxin' and chillin' on the third rock from the Sun.

Re: Going off topic again... I wish this election was over.

Post by Glenn Duensing »

Image
User avatar
Steve Ekstrand
Solo Safety Steward
Posts: 7482
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am
Club: CASOC
Car#: 15
Location: This space left intentionally blank
Contact:

Re: Going off topic again... I wish this election was over.

Post by Steve Ekstrand »

Bob-

How come I can find questions and issues of interest to conservatives only on the vile Fox news and ridiculous Drudge Report?

The Orlando reporter that is now blackballed and being slammed and slimed and investigated by MSBNC and the Obama campaign asked a perfectly legitimate question. Mr. Obama's words ring familiar to the writings of Karl Marx. Do they differ? Is it the same? Is Obama a Marxist? Explain the difference.

That is a absolutely fair question. The words some the same. Explain the difference. The Soviet Union used to have a constitution that sounded very much like ours. But it was different. The difference is something that should be explained. If Biden and Obama are outraged, fine. Explain to me the difference. Me thinks they do protest too much.... Why? Because they are MARXISTS.

How can the LATimes bury Obama's salute to terrorists and applaud non-stop attacks on Israel and get a free pass???? How is that possible with a non-partisan press??? Fox is running the story. But they are part of the McCain campaign we can all agree on that. Hey Bob, tell me with a straight face that if McCain had some equivalent appearance and Fox embargoed the video and killed the story, that the mainstream media wouldn't go thermonuclear???? Come on... Tell me with a straight face. I need a good laugh.

That Fox reporter is being investigated just like that Joe the plumber guy. Yeah, that's cool. Attack the little guy Mr. Obama.
Dr. Conemangler
aka The Malefic One
2015 Wildcat Honda F600
Bob Beamesderfer
Posts: 3376
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am
Club: PSCC
Location: Orange
Contact:

Re: Going off topic again... I wish this election was over.

Post by Bob Beamesderfer »

Steve Ekstrand wrote:Bob-

How can the LATimes bury Obama's salute to terrorists and applaud non-stop attacks on Israel and get a free pass???? How is that possible with a non-partisan press??? Fox is running the story. But they are part of the McCain campaign we can all agree on that. Hey Bob, tell me with a straight face that if McCain had some equivalent appearance and Fox embargoed the video and killed the story, that the mainstream media wouldn't go thermonuclear???? Come on... Tell me with a straight face. I need a good laugh.
You lost me on the first part.

So, the Times writes a story, but refuses to release the tape. So what? The story clearly says that Obama was there and praised Khalid. From the National Review story:
Perhaps even more inconveniently, the Times also let slip that it had obtained a videotape of the party.

Wallsten’s story is worth excerpting at length:
It was a celebration of Palestinian culture — a night of music, dancing and a dash of politics. Local Arab Americans were bidding farewell to Rashid Khalidi, an internationally known scholar, critic of Israel and advocate for Palestinian rights, who was leaving town for a job in New York.

A special tribute came from Khalidi's friend and frequent dinner companion, the young state Sen. Barack Obama. Speaking to the crowd, Obama reminisced about meals prepared by Khalidi's wife, Mona, and conversations that had challenged his thinking.

His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had been "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. . . . It's for that reason that I'm hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation — a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid's dinner table," but around "this entire world."...

[T]he warm embrace Obama gave to Khalidi, and words like those at the professor's going-away party, have left some Palestinian American leaders believing that Obama is more receptive to their viewpoint than he is willing to say.

Their belief is not drawn from Obama's speeches or campaign literature, but from comments that some say Obama made in private and from his association with the Palestinian American community in his hometown of Chicago, including his presence at events where anger at Israeli and U.S. Middle East policy was freely expressed.

At Khalidi's 2003 farewell party, for example, a young Palestinian American recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians and sharply criticizing U.S. support of Israel. If Palestinians cannot secure their own land, she said, "then you will never see a day of peace."

One speaker likened "Zionist settlers on the West Bank" to Osama bin Laden, saying both had been "blinded by ideology."

Obama adopted a different tone in his comments and called for finding common ground. But his presence at such events, as he worked to build a political base in Chicago, has led some Palestinian leaders to believe that he might deal differently with the Middle East than … his opponents for the White House....

At Khalidi's going-away party in 2003, the scholar lavished praise on Obama, telling the mostly Palestinian American crowd that the state senator deserved their help in winning a U.S. Senate seat. "You will not have a better senator under any circumstances," Khalidi said.

The event was videotaped, and a copy of the tape was obtained by The Times.

Though Khalidi has seen little of Sen. Obama in recent years, Michelle Obama attended a party several months ago celebrating the marriage of the Khalidis' daughter.
In interviews with The Times, Khalidi declined to discuss specifics of private talks over the years with Obama. He did not begrudge his friend for being out of touch, or for focusing more these days on his support for Israel — a stance that Khalidi calls a requirement to win a national election in the U.S., just as wooing Chicago's large Arab American community was important for winning local elections.
Big Zionist spin on this story from Mr. McCarthy.
Bob Beamesderfer
Posts: 3376
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am
Club: PSCC
Location: Orange
Contact:

Re: Going off topic again... I wish this election was over.

Post by Bob Beamesderfer »

George Schilling wrote: As far a big oil, I like big oil. They have supplied me with a reliable and cheap source of gas for my entire life with the exception of the bonehead Carter years. I'm very happy with Big Oil thank you.

I don't deny this, but lumping Palin in with Bush is unfair. She seems to be a true fiscal conservative and a social moderate. Bush is the opposite.

Bob, here we are in agreement. But can you tell me a system that works better than the one we have. Whether it be private industry or government, there will always be people exploiting the system. At least in private industry, those companies eventually eat it. You know how I feel about government corruption and waste. Although no panacea, capitalism is the best system so far.

And I will be rooting for your success. :D
What happened during Carter's term? Another gasoline "shortage." I don't recall the president having control of the supply in any significant way

Ms. Palin's record in Alaska isn't bearing out her claim as a fiscal conservative. I don't find her social views to be all that moderate.

Capitalism is certainly better than any other system we've known. And as witnessed in Britain, even a country that has socialized health and welfare programs along with a large private sector isn't immune from economic issues. They have the same problems with mortgages as the U.S.

Thanks, George. Still need to find a decent domain name I won't have to pay someone for.
User avatar
John Coffey
Posts: 635
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:24 am
Club: PSCC
Car#: 250
Location: La Habra, CA
Contact:

Re: Going off topic again... I wish this election was over.

Post by John Coffey »

Bernstein on Obama's "Redistribution of Wealth" comment in 2001:

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008 ... 1225104785" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Obama on Redistribution of Wealth:

As Orin points out below, Drudge is highlighting excerpts of a 2001 interview Barack Obama did with Chicago public radio, in which he advocated "redistributive change." The context was a discussion of the Supreme Court and constitutional law.

Before getting to the controversy, the whole interview is worth listening to for another reason: Obama gives a very impressive performance as a constitutional scholar. Even though he was holding down other jobs while teaching at Chicago, he clearly had thought a lot about constitutional history, and how social change is or is not brought about through the courts. Among other things, I was impressed that rather than accept the rather cartoonish view that often prevails about the practical significance of Brown v. Board of Education, he knew that very few black students in the South were attending integrated schools as late as the early 1960s (almost a decade after Brown), and that it was only the threat of a cutoff of federal funds that really got desegregation moving. Being realistic about the practical effect of Brown is heresy in some circles, but Obama is correct. Relatedly, Obama was clearly influenced by Rosenberg/Klarman thesis that the Supreme Court rarely diverges much from social consensus, and can't be expected to.

On the issue of whether Obama endorses redistribution of wealth through the courts, it certainly sounds to me like he thinks the Rodriguez case (holding 5-4 that unequal funding of public schools does not violate the Equal Protection Clause) was wrongly decided, and that state courts that have mandated equal funding for public schools are correct. But he also seems to think that it was a huge error for activists to try to achieve more general redistribution through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (In the waning days of the Warren Court, there was a movement to try to constitutionalize a right to a minimum income.) Co-interviewee Dennis Hutchison even suggests that in pre-interview conversation, Obama agreed with him that Goldberg v. Kelley, establishing procedural protections for welfare recipients, was wrongly decided, or at least promised much more than it could possibly achieve.

Based on this interview, it seems unlikely that Obama opposes constitutionalizing the redistributive agenda because he's an originalist, or otherwise endorses the Constitution as a "charter of negative liberties," though he explicitly recognizes that this is how the Constitution has been interpreted since the Founding. Rather, he seems to think that focusing on litigation distracts liberal activists from necessary political organizing, and that any radical victories they might manage to win from the courts would be unstable because those decisions wouldn't have public backing. The way to change judicial decisions, according to Obama, is to change the underlying political and social dynamics; changes in the law primarily follow changes in society, not vice versa. Again, he's channeling Rosenberg and Klarman. And this attitude on Obama's part shouldn't be surprising, given that he decided to go into politics rather than become a full-time University of Chicago constitutional law professor, as he was offered. Had he been committed to the idea that courts are at the forefront of social change, he would have been inclined to take a potentially very influential position at Chicago. (And judging from this interview, he would likely have been a great con law professor, both as a teacher and scholar, and, had he been so inclined, legal activist.)

All that said, there is no doubt from the interview that he supports "redistributive change," a phrase he uses at approximately the 41.20 mark in a context that makes it clear that he is endorsing the redistribution of wealth by the government through the political process.

What I don't understand is why this is surprising, or interesting enough to be headlining Drudge [UPDATE: Beyond the fact that Drudge's headline suggests, wrongly, that Obama states that the Supreme Court should have ordered the redistribution of income; as Orin says, his views on the subject, beyond that it was an error to promote this agenda in historical context, are unclear.]. At least since the passage of the first peacetime federal income tax law about 120 years ago, redistribution of wealth has been a (maybe the) primary item on the left populist/progressive/liberal agenda, and has been implicitly accepted to some extent by all but the most libertarian Republicans as well. Barack Obama is undoubtedly liberal, and his background is in political community organizing in poor communities. Is it supposed to be a great revelation that Obama would like to see wealth more "fairly" distributed than it is currently?

It's true that most Americans, when asked by pollsters, think that it's emphatically not the government's job to redistribute wealth. But are people so stupid as to not recognize that when politicians talk about a "right to health care," or "equalizing educational opportunities," or "making the rich pay a fair share of taxes," or "ensuring that all Americans have the means to go to college," and so forth and so on, that they are advocating the redistribution of wealth? Is it okay for a politician to talk about the redistribution of wealth only so long as you don't actually use phrases such as "redistribution" or "spreading the wealth," in which case he suddenly becomes "socialist"? If so, then American political discourse, which I never thought to be especially elevated, is in even a worse state than I thought.

UPDATE: At Overlaywered, Walter Olson and Ted Frank (in the comments) talk about how all this might impact Obama judicial nominations. There are two basic possibilities. One is that Obama might believe that appointing far left Justices to the Court would be unlikely to accomplish much in the long-term, and could ultimately harm the progressive agenda, and his own presidency, by reviving "unelected judges imposing their will on the American people" as a Republican campaign theme. The other possibility is that Obama, intoxicated by victory, and having the very healthy ego that all successful politicians have, will decide that the election of a very liberal African-American president, along with large Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, signals that the social and political winds have shifted sufficiently that the Supreme Court could successfully launch an activist liberal agenda, and he will nominate justices accordingly. But there is nothing in either Obama's radio remarks, his voting record in the Senate, or his public statements on judges to suggest that he objects in principle to the equalitarian "living Constitution" of Brennan, Warren, et al., and there is much to the contrary.

FURTHER UPDATE: Obama advisor Cass Sunstein tells Politico's Ben Smith that Obama wasn't referring to redistribution of wealth in general,but "to the narrower forms of redistribution -- education, legal filing fees, legal representation, and other issues --that had been discussed in the case Obama cited and in discussions around it.

That's very hard to swallow, if one looks at the transcript.

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I'd be okay.

But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can't do to you, it says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn't shifted. One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change and in some ways we still suffer from that.

Later, a caller asks, "is it too late for that kind of reparative work, economically, and is that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to change place?"

Obama responds, "You know, I'm not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts."
Post Reply