The Goat Pen

sardis wrote:George Will:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html

Loved this part

George Will wrote:“Philosophy,” said the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, “is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language.” In unphilosophic Washington, bewitchment is cultivated. Notice how quickly and thoroughly a phrase used intermittently for more than 50 years — “fiscal cliff” — was made ubiquitous by one of Washington’s least flamboyant speakers (Ben Bernanke). This melodramatic language encourages the supposition that plunging off the (metaphorical) cliff is unthinkable. But as this column has hitherto noted, the cliff’s consequences — huge tax increases and defense cuts — are progressivism’s agenda. And Obama needs to restock the pantry where he stores his excuses for his economic policy failures. The tax increases would augment his policy of enlarging government’s control of the nation’s economic output, and he could henceforth blame continuing economic anemia on Republicans who supposedly should have averted what progressives desire.

http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson120512B.html

VDH wrote:If we add all the contradictory declarations and try to sort out a common theme, then, it would, to be honest, go something like the following: “I am leaving my home in Latin America and crossing the border illegally into the United States, because I have that right since my cheap labor is going to be exploited. But if I do not work or cease working or go on public assistance or get arrested, I still have that right to ignore the law to enter illegally because the American Southwest was once the land of my forefathers. True, I am leaving one land of my forefathers for another land of my forefathers that interlopers have changed. I don’t particularly like what they have done, but by all means I must go there and not return to the more pristine and unsullied land of my forefathers.”

.....

As I understand the Obama message, it goes something like the logic of illegal immigration: The free market quite illogically and wrongly sets salary levels. Education levels, specialized skills, experience, hard work, character, luck, accidents, good health — and all the other criteria that arbitrarily factor into one man making $250,000 and another $50,000 — are just too random and unfair.

Therefore, a well-educated Ivy League technocracy, with lofty moral intentions, can fix what the market broke. Simply tax those who make too much at a level where they live about like those who unfortunately make too little and pay no federal income taxes. That way everyone but the technocracy can live about the same, and the economy will not be dragged down by all those unnecessary things that too much disposable income buys — from private swimming pools and assault rifles to jet skis, crew cab pickups, and Hummers. Why, though, do we not stop tax breaks for Hollywood[7], or have a 70% surtax on incomes over $5 million (per picture), or tax incomes of those in government who go into the private sector at 80% for the first two years of the revolving door?

Hmmmmmmm.... well, yeah.

"In short, Obama was a 98 lb. weakling in 2012"

I don't think Obama is a 98 lb. weakling. Far from it. Granted, I realize you are speaking from the perspective of opposition to his policies (which may or may not be warranted, but you are entitled to your opinion, which as far as I'm concerned is usually well-reasoned and, esp. in comparison to most in here, even-keeled and certainly non-hysterical). But there's obviously much more to politics and running for political office than policies. And in that department, Obama is practically a rock star. One may bemoan that such personality based considerations have any weight in politics, but such is the case, as it always has been. Obama is a tall, handsome guy, articulate, good looking fambly, all that. You could say the same for Romney, although he certainly comes across as more robotic than Obama, but he's not a complete pod person (some may disagree). And you can't discount the black factor, I'm sure that that carries at least some weight with a good number of voters ("See! We're not a racist country! We elected a black guy as president!" - and I will admit that I feel something of that myself, although I would never vote for anybody with that as a primary or even very important consideration). In short, Obama has alot of the Clinton factor going for him. So did Reagan. So did W., really. Even though he wasn't the most articulate guy, he was personable and, at least to me, likable on a strictly personal level. So even if one doesn't like Obama's politics and policies, I still think it's wrong to regard him as a weak candidate...

“Philosophy,” said the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, “is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language.”

Wittgenstein also said, most famously: Whereof one cannot speak, thereon one must remain silent. Obviously IB didn't get that memo...

IB reminds me of John McAffee.

As idiotic as IB's posts generally are, he and I are in general agreement about:

The decline in quality of life and it's ties to the decline in marriage rates in the USA - marriage can be a tremendous wealth building tool and pretty much every married person does better than single people in measurables like life expectancy, happiness index, etc.

Of course, IB and myself are handicapped in our analysis by our gender. There is little reliable data on the attitudes of married women before the 1960s and it may well be that women are happier these days of relationship ambiguity (even as they enrich Match.com, eHarmony, etc., in pursuit of a husband) while men are less happy.

I have heard the occasional octogenarian woman comment enviously about the freedom and opportunity that women have today that they didn't have in the 1940s and 50s. Once America went to "divorce on demand" in the 50s, women sprinted to the courthouse. The fact is, women initiate divorce proceedings twice as often as men and, as income for women increases, they are less inclined to marry and, if they marry, do it at a much older age.

I understand (intellectually) women who laud their freedom and self-determination and I realize that since the dawn of time, for many women marriage has been little more than slavery with survivor benefits. Wash his clothes, scrub his floors, suck his dick, bear his children, accept his violence, follow his rules without question and don't demand any reciprocation. I wouldn't put up with that crap myself.

Yet . . .

Yet . . .

In my interactions with women from every demographic, I sense a desire for marriage - in fact, for traditional "Father-Knows-Best" type marriage - with a TON of tweaks. Even to the point where some type-A high profile women admit to wanting a marriage where the hubby makes all the decisions (of course, the women immediately backtrack on that one and want him to run his decisions by her first). Then of course, they want to have their careers AND want him to make enough money so they have the option of not working, AND they want the freedom to go where they want, do what they want and (most importantly) spend what they want without hubby's input. Oddly enough, however, they still want him to care about what/when/where/how much, they just don't want to feel obligated to tell him.

Bottom line: men are simple, women are complicated.

The fact that you "wrote in" Ron Paul means you are a big part of the problem. Writing in that guys was (basically) a half-vote to re-elect the President. You could hav just stayed home in early November.

The problem I am a part of is I'm one of those millions of voters that used to vote R, but didn't the last two presidential elections. That's because the last two elections, I didn't like the R product. I didn't like the D product either, so I bought another different product.

Republicans blaming voters like me for their own failures, like Newt Gingrich said, is like a big business that had a couple of bad sales years, and all the VP's get together and moan how stupid the buyers out there are. Instead of blaming the customer, it is much more useful for those VP's to ask themselves, "What are we doing wrong? There are millions of people like Professor Tiger who used to buy our product, but now stopped. What can we do to our product that will make people want to buy it again?" I don't think these questions have dawned on the GOP yet. Coulter's "Don't Blame Romney" article and "You are a big part of the problem" indicate this.

I don't think Obama is a 98 lb. weakling. Far from it.

By 98 lb. weakling, I was referring to his vulnerability as an incumbent with terrible economic numbers. No president since Roosevelt has been reelected with unemployment so high. I was not talking about Obama's charisma and blackness. He obviously still had enough of those to win. But it was vital to Obama's success that he was opposed by a 95 lbs of zero charisma and mayonnaise weakness.

Professor Tiger wrote:

The fact that you "wrote in" Ron Paul means you are a big part of the problem. Writing in that guys was (basically) a half-vote to re-elect the President. You could hav just stayed home in early November.

The problem I am a part of is I'm one of those millions of voters that used to vote R, but didn't the last two presidential elections.

Uh no. You are an anachronism. You are not evidence of anything other than the fact that you live in your own little world.

Romney lost because of demographics, period. There was no other reason. If Reagan had HAD Romney's 2012 percentage of the white/married vote in 1980, he would have won every state not named Georgia. Sadly, demographics have taken their toll on the Republican Party and it's ideals/agenda. Republicans are losing elections because the people that share the Republican agenda are declining percentage of the voting public.

Tiger, you need to stop deluding yourself. Mitt Romney might have been the best GOP candidate for President the Republicans have had in decades, might being the operative word. But now we'll never know because of demographics. It wasn't Romney, just basic math. I know my first wife is not your favorite person in the world but this article says it best....

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-11-14.html

Ann wrote:More white people voted for Mitt Romney this year than voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980. Barack Obama lost white voters by 20 points -- the widest margin since 1984.

But in 1980, whites were 88 percent of the electorate. In 2012, they were 72 percent of the electorate. Not only that, but the non-white electorate is far more Democratic than it was in 1980.

If the same country that voted in 1980 had voted in 2012, Romney would have won a bigger landslide than Reagan did.

Most Americans don't realize that, decades ago, the Democrats instituted a long-term plan to gradually turn the United States into a Third World nation. The country would become poorer and less free, but Democrats would have an unbeatable majority!

Under Teddy Kennedy's 1965 immigration act, our immigration policy changed from one that replicated the existing ethnic population to one that strictly favored unskilled immigrants from the Third World. Since 1968, 85 percent of legal immigrants have come from what is euphemistically called "developing countries."

We can't admit computer scientists from Spain fleeing their failing socialist nation because we have to make room for a recent Senegalese immigrant's brother-in-law with no skills but great needs.

She's right. No other GOP candidate had any real chance at winning. The numbers are the numbers. Just Demographics. That's it.

Uh no. You are an anachronism. You are not evidence of anything other than the fact that you live in your own little world.

I have been saying for the past six months that Romney was a terrible candidate and would lose in November. You and Ann said he was the greatest thing since sliced bread and would win handily. Now who is in the dream world again?

And if demographics doom conservatism, then why did conservatives run away with the 2010 midterms? Did millions of blacks, latinos and single women turn 18 in the past 2 years?

And I don't accept the premise that conservatism can't appeal to minorities. (Except for blacks. The D chip has been implanted. They are gone forever. ) The problem with conservatism as it is espoused by modern Establishmentarians is their form of conservatism offers nothing to average people.

Take the current fiscal cliff debate. The Establishment R's will fight to the death to save tax breaks for the wealthy. That is why they exist. In hopes of saving the wealthy from a tax increase, they will gladly risk letting taxes go up for everybody else. To them, tax increases on average people is mere collateral damage.

Spokesmen for conservatism had better start all their speeches by saying, "Conservative principle are good for average people because ________." If conservatism doesn't help average people, then it's not worth believing in.

Professor Tiger wrote:

Uh no. You are an anachronism. You are not evidence of anything other than the fact that you live in your own little world.

I have been saying for the past six months that Romney was a terrible candidate and would lose in November. You and Ann said he was the greatest thing since sliced bread and would win handily. Now who is in the dream world again?

Romney lost. I was in a dream world, now we are ALL in a fucking nightmare.

Professor Tiger wrote:And if demographics doom conservatism, then why did conservatives run away with the 2010 midterms?

Because congressional votes are entirely localized. All the votes for a state are not thrown into a giant "state pot" and then tallied for the whole state. They are (instead) district by district.

There were entire polling places in Philly where over 10,000 ballots were cast to re-elect President Obama, and not one ballot for Mitt Romney. NOT ONE. That is a district that (localized) the Democratic candidate (regardless of who he or she is) will win that seat every year no matter what they do or don't do. There only threat is a primary challenger. And what will happen (during a Presidential election) is in Pennsylvania, a Republican could win a Congressional seat in another district, but the overwhleming majorities for Obama in individual districts make it impossible for the Republican candidate (whoever he is) to win the state and all its electoral votes.

The 2010 midterms, the GOP crushed the Democrats in over 50 districts that are in play. The majority of the 435 Congressional districts are in play every two years, but there are a few that (due to Demographics) will not be in play (like that one in Philly.) And their Democrat majorities are so unbelievably overwhelming that the entire STATE is put in the blue column for President every 4 years.

Professor Tiger wrote:Did millions of blacks, latinos and single women turn 18 in the past 2 years?

No. But the mid-terms don't turn out nearly as many minority votes as the Presidential election years. In that sense, 2010 was very much like 1994.

Professor Tiger wrote:And I don't accept the premise that conservatism can't appeal to minorities.

Then you are a fool.

You have entire minority populations that are so entitlement driven that their parents and grand parents do all that they can do to teach their children and grandchildren how to game the system. Its almost cultural now, this gaming the system.

Professor Tiger wrote:[(Except for blacks. The D chip has been implanted. They are gone forever. ) The problem with conservatism as it is espoused by modern Establishmentarians is their form of conservatism offers nothing to average people.

Okay now this finally explains why you voted for Ron Paul and why you are a fool. You don't get it because you don't get Conservatism.

The whole point of conservatism is that conservatives want to offer little to the most needy, NOTHING to everyone else. Nothing. No student loans, no aid, no housing, nothing. Certainly NOTHING to your "average" people, because "average" people are expected to take care of themselves. And the more conservative you are, the smaller that "most needy" percentage of people are. AND, a true conservative would be sure to MAKE SURE that the "most needy" got what they needed regardless of how those needy felt about conservatives. That is where conservatism and Christianity cross paths (much to the anger of Judaism because conservative Jews are led to believe that the GOP is run entirely by Christians.)

Conservatism is not about trying to buy votes from any voting block (be is "average" people or anyone else) by giving things to it. That is what drove me bat fuck crazy about Dubya's "Compassionate Conservatism" and his Prescription Drug Benefit to the elderly. People over 70 years old have over 35 times the amount of wealth and assets of your average 30 year old. I'm sorry grandpa that you are cash poor, you are still asset rich. Sell your mortgage free million dollar home, put the money in the bank, move into the guest bedroom of my house and live there free, watch my kids when I go to work, and buy your own damn pharmecuticals. You should be with us anyway (and not in Florida) because families should stay together cross multiple generations and DIE together. The strong family bonds (even at the end of life) is also paramount to conservatism.

Professor Tiger wrote:Take the current fiscal cliff debate. The Establishment R's will fight to the death to save tax breaks for the wealthy.

Stop, just stop it. This is partly why I am saying you are not (nor have you ever been) Republican. You didn't leave the Republicans. You were never with us. If you were ever a Republican, you wouldn't say this shit. You are repeating an upsurd DEMOCRATIC talking point. 47% of the people that live in this country pay 0 Federal income taxes.

ZERO. Zilch. Nada. Nothing, not one cert. The Earned Income Tax Credit pays them back all their federal income taxes that they might have paid, every penny.

So OF COURSE any tax break is going to favor only one half of the country since the other half PAYS NOTHING. Nothing from nothing, leaves nothing. You don't get a tax break when you've paid no taxes. This basic math must be repeated (ad nauseum, in public forums) to the Congressional c-nts like Debbie Wackogirl Shultz who sit there and blankly repeat non-thinking Democratic talking points. They are destroying this country with their inane values. They must be discredited at ALL costs.

Professor Tiger wrote:That is why they exist. In hopes of saving the wealthy from a tax increase, they will gladly risk letting taxes go up for everybody else. To them, tax increases on average people is mere collateral damage.

If you make $26,000/year ($500/week driving a forklift in a warehouse) and you are married with two kids you pay no taxes. You get it ALL back in EITC because you are considered to be living in poverty. I don't care that you are living in "poverty" I want $260 for the Fed ($5 a week from you.)

Yes, our poor (who pay nothing) MUST PAY AT LEAST ONE PENNY ON THE DOLLAR TO THE FED. MUST. This should be entirely undeductable and no tax credit given. Ever. You pay your penny on every dollar you make (I don't care if you are 15 years old fliping burgers for minimum wage claiming student exempt, PAY) and anything more than that, that you've paid, we can talk about EITC. Until you pay something, you aren't kicking in so there is NO DESIRE on your part to shrink government since you aren't paying for any of it.

Professor Tiger wrote:Spokesmen for conservatism had better start all their speeches by saying, "Conservative principle are good for average people because ________." If conservatism doesn't help average people, then it's not worth believing in.

Rubbish.

If you are focused on a principle of helping average people, vote Democrat. You did already by NOT voting for Mitt. In my world, average people (like myself) don't need help from government. They can take care of themselves. Those that are the "most needy" are far-FAR below average (crippled, blind, mentally retarded, etc.) These are the people conservatives must help (and help them ALL THIER LIVES.)

Romney lost because of demographics, period. There was no other reason

Simply not true. With the sorriest 4 year record of ineptitude, and money wasted on pretty much anything but creating jobs, Obozo needed a massive enabling from the MSM and pseudo intellectuals like Prof to pull it off. Voting for the Libertarian/third party is a spineless lie. Romney is/was a worthy candidate to change the direction Obozo has set the country in...Voting 3rd party says you are ok w/the status quo...massive unemployment, massive debt(and demanding more), ultra high energy costs, massive quantitative easing (LMAO), and dead americans abroad with cover-ups/who cares attitudes....and record numbers of folks choosing disability over looking for a job.

Voting 3rd party says you are ok w/the status quo...massive unemployment, massive debt(and demanding more), ultra high energy costs, massive quantitative easing (LMAO), and dead americans abroad with cover-ups/who cares attitudes....

Massive unemployment, massive debt and demanding more, ultra high energy costs and dead Americans abroad with coverups... sounds like the last four years of the Bush administration and an R congress.

The 3rd partiers perceive that, if the Dem's run the country, all wealth and power will flow to people on public assistance and preferred minorities. Nothing will flow to middle income straight white males except the bills. And if the GOP runs the country, all the wealth and power will flow to the previously wealthy. Nothing will flow to middle income people at all.

The nice thing about libertarianism is, the government gets entirely out of the business of rigging the game for their friends. The difference between Establishment Republicanism and Libertarians is, when they talk about smaller, cheaper, less intrusive, decentralized, Constitutionally based government, the Libertarians actually believe in that stuff while Establishment Republicans do not.

You don't get it because you don't get Conservatism.

The whole point of conservatism is that conservatives want to offer little to the most needy, NOTHING to everyone else.

In my world, average people (like myself) don't need help from government. They can take care of themselves.

If you are focused on a principle of helping average people, vote Democrat.

And you wonder why the GOP has been losing elections recently. You just defined conservatism, in typical Establishment fashion, as all the ways you plan to hose over average people. Try explaining to average people how conservatism works for them. Instead of saying, like you just did, "If you lose your job, we Republicans say, screw you. We're not going to pay your lazy ass with unemployment checks or food stamps. If you get sick and don't have money to pay for a million dollar medical bill, we Republicans say to you, go home and die. We're not going to waste valuable money on you with medicaid."

Try telling average people how getting the government out of their lives helps them. Try something like, "Your adult kids are already living with you because they can't get a place on their own with the money from their three minimum wage part time jobs. And they are going to have to pay about a third of their income for the rest of their lives just to pay for the deficit that the Dem's are running up right now. They won't be able to afford to get married in their 20's like you did. They won't be able to buy a house like you could when you were their age. Good luck getting grandchildren. What's the difference between their life and yours at their age? Liberal economic policies of debt and deficit." Try that instead of "We Republicans will NEVAH, NEVAH allow taxes to be raised on millionaires!" That message doesn't excite anybody but millionaires and wannabes.

Professor Tiger wrote:

Voting 3rd party says you are ok w/the status quo...massive unemployment, massive debt(and demanding more), ultra high energy costs, massive quantitative easing (LMAO), and dead americans abroad with cover-ups/who cares attitudes....

Massive unemployment, massive debt and demanding more, ultra high energy costs and dead Americans abroad with coverups... sounds like the last four years of the Bush administration and an R congress.

The 3rd partiers perceive that, if the Dem's run the country, all wealth and power will flow to people on public assistance and preferred minorities. Nothing will flow to middle income straight white males except the bills. And if the GOP runs the country, all the wealth and power will flow to the previously wealthy. Nothing will flow to middle income people at all.

The nice thing about libertarianism is, the government gets entirely out of the business of rigging the game for their friends. The difference between Establishment Republicanism and Libertarians is, when they talk about smaller, cheaper, less intrusive, decentralized, Constitutionally based government, the Libertarians actually believe in that stuff while Establishment Republicans do not.

And the chances of getting this libertarianism in office? Between slim and Solyndra....sacrifice the good for perfect, hardly sustainable.

I agree with this:

SEN. RAND PAUL: I have yet another thought on how we can fix this. Why don't we let the Democrats pass whatever they want? If they are the party of higher taxes, all the Republicans vote present and let the Democrats raise taxes as high as they want to raise them, let Democrats in the Senate raise taxes, let the president sign it and then make them own the tax increase. And when the economy stalls, when the economy sputters, when people lose their jobs, they know which party to blame, the party of high taxes. Let's don't be the party of just almost as high taxes.

LARRY KUDLOW, CNBC: Some people have called that the doomsday scenario. Others have said, 'Look, it's a strategic retreat on the Republicans' behalf.' Would you vote present for that in the Senate if that came up?

RAND PAUL: Yes, I don't think we have to in the Senate. In the House, they have to because the Democrats don't have the majority. In the Senate, I'm happy not to filibuster it, and I will announce tonight on your show that I will work with Harry Reid to let him pass his big old tax hike with a simple majority if that's what Harry Reid wants, because then they will become the party of high taxes and they can own it.

Tis the Christmas season at PNN, where it is tradition to bash the lay-abouts and dregs of society who parlay government assistance into the latest and greatest tech gadgets and posh sneakers.

According to those numbers, we're spending about $36 billion a year to feed people. As far as I know (I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong), food stamps can't be redeemed for cash and you can't buy beer and cigarettes with them. So basically all of that money is going directly back into the economy in the form of food purchases. Granted, this is not the most efficient way to churn money back into the economy, but compared to some other government expenditures that don't realize any economic return, I guess it's about par for the course...

Wait, I multiplied the household number by the individual benefit number, which is wrong. It's closer to $75 bil a year. That seems pretty steep, but of course the DoD spends that much every month...