patrick.net

antifeminist says

marcus, here is my problem with your logic: You want life to be easy for everybody at everybody else’s expense

I never said that. I am fine with things being basically a meritocracy. Even with small amounts of affirmative action, it's not like we don't still have a meritocracy. All I was getting at, is that you would do better on this forum to use terms like middle class, in place of "white," because that is what our culture and values are about, whether you are capable of getting it or not.

And if your disagreement over what our most fundamental values are is that strong, then so be it. You will just end up ignored by many, including me. My guess is you are already ignored by many (via the ignore link/button).

marcus,

1) nice scare tactic about people ignoring me.

2) when would I have done better to use the term 'middle class' as opposed to white?

3) why is that a good thing to use 'middle class' as a synonym for 'white', assuming it is?

4) why is 'special needs' better than 'physically challenged' which is better than 'handicapped'? Did handicapped get stale with unpleasant truth? Goes back to your precious feelings, I think.

5) I appreciate you. I don't want to support you through government, but I appreciate you. We are having a conversation not about Lady Gaga. :-)

antifeminist says

2) when would I have done better to use the term ‘middle class’ as opposed to white?

Provocative things you said such as references to "white exceptionalism." And an otherwise tone of white supremacy, especially in your first couple posts.

I'm not saying middle class is a synonym for white. Just that I think you confuse the two. I'm concerned about the middle class not going away. Ethnicity is irrelevant. I believe that in the not so distant future even the middle class will be extremely diverse, and that values you attribute to white middle class will be embraced by a middle class that is majority nonwhite. It's something that I think is worth fighting for.

Who's the realist ?

The ignore button comment was not a scare tactic. It's a feature that I and others can use if we so choose.

RayAmerica says

Kevin …. you’ve sparked another thought. Albert Einstein died back in the 1950’s. He didn’t know anything about the internet (Al Gore didn’t invent it yet), didn’t live to see a man on the moon (yes, it really did happen), never used a cell phone, etc. Do you think that would make YOU more “knowledgeable” than Einstein?
Please answer. The fun is just beginning.

I know more about a lot of things than Einstein did, but I'm sure that he still knew more about physics in 1950 than I currently know. Most of the developments in Physics since Einstein's time have been in highly speculative areas that I admittedly don't follow that much, except for quantum mechanics. I'm pretty sure that people like Neil Tyson and Stephen hawking know more than Einstein did at the time of his death though.

I definitely know more than he did about other topics. Einstein was a brilliant physicist, but I don't think I'd have listened to him about investment advice, engineering, or city planning.

However, my great grandchildren will definitely know more about physics than Einstein did, much like I know *way* more than Newton did.

marcus says

You will just end up ignored by many, including me. My guess is you are already ignored by many (via the ignore link/button).

It's actually only the second poster that I've ever ignored. Mostly to save me time scrolling past the multi-thousand word posts that don't even produce a single thought.

I believe that the civilizations made according to white values over the past 500 years have been the best. You seem to think that realization is somehow bad. If the Saints won the Superbowl, would it be a slight to the other teams to say the Saints were the best that year?

Whites don't have a patent on superior social design. Whites are losing their superior values. Will non-whites adopt what whites are giving up? For all practical purposes, no. Only confident intellectuals give up the values of their native culture when they can do better. The exceptions will not stop the consequences of the rule. I think that currently no societal population on earth has common sense, which means common wisdom baked into culture.

Who's the realist? Time will tell. I agree that things are changing. I disagree with how uplifting those changes will be. You see unprecedented harmony; I see a return to senseless barbarism. We will just have to disagree in the meantime. I wish for you to consider the rightness of State secession. It would allow for peaceful change, and judgment by life.

I've developed my social view on a study of statistics and history. I wonder what the basis for your convictions are. Marcus, have you independently developed your opinion by looking at facts, or have you adopted someone else's ready-made opinion? How do you get to multicultural bliss?

antifeminist says

Marcus, have you independently developed your opinion by looking at facts, or have you adopted someone else’s ready-made opinion? How do you get to multicultural bliss?

It's self evident.

Spend a few decades in New York, Chicago, LA, Miami, or any one of many other diverse cities. And live. Experience. I now teach in a school that is over 80 percent nonwhite. It's a middle class area. Guess what, the kids are indistinguishable from "white" kids (except to the extent you can discern their ethnicity).

Experience is the only way you can get it. Many cities already look like the future. I feel sorry for you for what you haven't experienced. Maybe it's a silver spoon ? Maybe you are in backwater Texas, or maybe some hillbilly culture that you think is America.

antifeminist says

I disagree with how uplifting those changes will be. You see unprecedented harmony; I see a return to senseless barbarism.

I don't see unprecedented harmony without a vibrant economy. And I don't see it without continued striving toward that. You're proof that hate/fear and intolerance are learned. Fortunately learning tolerance is much easier and happens relatively naturally in some environments.

antifeminist says

I see a return to senseless barbarism

You're friend Abe likes books about how we create our reality. I agree, at least in a way. Maybe he can help you, although I doubt it.

Good luck.

Vicente says

RayAmerica says

…. UNDER PENALTY OF LAW, this legislation FORCES citizens to purchase from a PRIVATE entity a product. Please inform us when the federal government has ever done such a thing?

Do you live in the USA? I wonder….. after all you cannot drive on a public road AFAICR without proof of PRIVATE insurance.

Not True, your free to use paved roads if you riding your bike without insurance. It's always assumed that roads are only for cars, with the exception of limited access highways, roads for more than just cars.

Kevin says

By definition. Do you have any idea how much more the average person knows today than even the best educated people did 200 years ago?
Thomas Jefferson didn’t even believe that Africans and Europeans were the same species.

Kevin says

I can assure you that I am both smarter and more knowledgeable than you are, and am definitely more knowledgeable than Thomas Jefferson was.

Kevin says

I still can’t believe that anyone is dumb enough to use quotes from people who have been dead for 200 years as a way to argue for or against something.

Kevin says

What Thomas Jefferson thought of government, taxes, or anything else is irrelevant to 2010. Dead people don’t get a vote.

Our little "Kevin" vs JFK:

John F. Kennedy - Remarks at a Dinner Honoring Nobel Prize Winners of the Western Hemisphere, April 29th, 1962

"I want to tell you how welcome you are to the White House. I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered together at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone."

RayAmerica, that was an awesome comment! And using JFK no less! I don't think people like Kevin will get it.

marcus says

antifeminist says

Marcus, have you independently developed your opinion by looking at facts, or have you adopted someone else’s ready-made opinion? How do you get to multicultural bliss?

It’s self evident.
Spend a few decades in New York, Chicago, LA, Miami, or any one of many other diverse cities. And live. Experience. I now teach in a school that is over 80 percent nonwhite. It’s a middle class area. Guess what, the kids are indistinguishable from “white” kids (except to the extent you can discern their ethnicity).
Experience is the only way you can get it. Many cities already look like the future. I feel sorry for you for what you haven’t experienced. Maybe it’s a silver spoon ? Maybe you are in backwater Texas, or maybe some hillbilly culture that you think is America.
antifeminist says

I disagree with how uplifting those changes will be. You see unprecedented harmony; I see a return to senseless barbarism.

I don’t see unprecedented harmony without a vibrant economy. And I don’t see it without continued striving toward that. You’re proof that hate/fear and intolerance are learned. Fortunately learning tolerance is much easier and happens relatively naturally in some environments.
antifeminist says

I see a return to senseless barbarism

You’re friend Abe likes books about how we create our reality. I agree, at least in a way. Maybe he can help you, although I doubt it.
Good luck.

So, Marcus, you are a card carrying member of the National Education Association, the education arm of the new world order? If you take away the ability of white people, you get Mexico or the Congo. That is effectively what you are doing. Where is the evidence of unsubsidized greatness in New York, Chicago, LA, or Miami? You use the weapon of white man's burden. When Mexico or sub-Saharan Africa westernize like Japan, let me know.

Patrick's words are apropos here:

If you understand that, then you probably understand the rest of this site as well. If your job depends on not understanding that, then you won’t understand it.

RayAmerica says

Our little “Kevin” vs JFK:

John F. Kennedy - Remarks at a Dinner Honoring Nobel Prize Winners of the Western Hemisphere, April 29th, 1962

“I want to tell you how welcome you are to the White House. I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered together at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.”

Oh, shit, JFK said something once. I didn't realize you were such an admirer.

Kevin says

Oh, shit, JFK said something once. I didn’t realize you were such an admirer.

What? Didn't you know Ray SHOOK HIS HAND? I found a picture:

I was an admirer of JFK. Why? JFK represented the Democratic Party when it wasn't a whacko group made up of nutty, left wing, radical socialists that wanted to hug trees, save whales, marry their buddies and kill babies. If JFK were alive today, he'd be a conservative member of the GOP. In defining terms of these leftoids, JFK would be a "Reagan Conservative Radical."

Kevin .... who should we accept as a definition of Thomas Jefferson; you or JFK? LOL

RAY...I was reading your post of 12:49 above - Interesting because I was also on the "dark side" in the past. At least until I educated myself. I chose personal responsibility over dependency. I chose liberty over tyranny. I chose freedom over force. I chose independence over collectivism.

Liberals live with a seedy mindset of: pity, neediness, misfortune, poverty, exploitation, discrimination, victimization, injustice. The victims are the: workers, minorities, the little guy, women and the unemployed.

Liberals accuse: Big business, the man, big corporations, greedy capitalists, the rich, the successful, the wealthy, the powerful, and the selfish of being the bad guy, the predators, or the oppressors.

The liberal motto is "In Government We Trust". Ah, dependency at its finest. MOMMY !!!

Oh come now JFK was a lefty, we know this because he cheated with hot movie starlets:

Where Republicans prefer some doughboy in a men's room:

Honest Abe says

I chose personal responsibility over dependency. I chose liberty over tyranny. I chose freedom over force. I chose independence over collectivism.
Liberals live with a seedy mindset of: pity, neediness, misfortune, poverty, exploitation, discrimination, victimization, injustice. The victims are the: workers, minorities, the little guy, women and the unemployed.
Liberals accuse: Big business, the man, big corporations, greedy capitalists, the rich, the successful, the wealthy, the powerful, and the selfish of being the bad guy, the predators, or the oppressors.
The liberal motto is “In Government We Trust”. Ah, dependency at its finest. MOMMY !!!

A very good illustration of what a real American is and isn't. Nice job Abe. You sir are a great American!

Vincente .... actually I did shake hands with JFK when I was a little boy. My mother took me to hear a speech given by him and we were shut out due to the large crowd. We stayed outside and when he was finished, for security reasons they kept the crowd inside and his small entourage of secret service, etc. came right out to where just the two of us were standing. He came right up to us and, in hind sight, amazingly spent about a minute with us. That small incident sparked an interest in me regarding politics, current events, history, and (as an adult) in separating the myth of JFK from the real person. I am totally convinced he would in fact be a Reagan Republican if he were alive today.

RayAmerica says

I am totally convinced he would in fact be a Reagan Republican if he were alive today.

But then we have learned that everything you are convinced of is off the charts stupid.

RayAmerica says

actually I did shake hands with JFK when I was a little boy.

Is that a euphemism for masturbation? 'cause a lot of little boys do That.

RayAmerica says

I was an admirer of JFK. Why? JFK represented the Democratic Party when it wasn’t a whacko group made up of nutty, left wing, radical socialists that wanted to hug trees, save whales, marry their buddies and kill babies. If JFK were alive today, he’d be a conservative member of the GOP. In defining terms of these leftoids, JFK would be a “Reagan Conservative Radical.”

Things JFK had in common with Reagan:

- Wanted to lower tax rates (the top marginal rate was 90% when he took office)
- Wanted to start a war with communists
- Didn't mind causing civil wars and military coups in third world countries
- Amazing speaker
- Support for space exploration (at least late in his career)

Things JFK did that Reagan would never support:

- Heavy-handed intervention in the steel industry
- More government spending on public education
- Government-provided health care for the elderly
- Welfare for poor (at the time, rural) communities
- Government intervention during the recession (generally through monetary policy easing)

If you want to know what Kennedy's politics would have looked like today, just look at the politics of his family members. You're crazy if you think Kennedy would be anything close to what we call a "conservative" today. Shit, Richard Nixon would be called a liberal today by your standards.

At least one Federal Judge understands the Constitution. Mandating American citizens to purchase, under penalty of law, private health insurance is clearly unconstitutional. This ruling is a step in the right direction in getting Obamacare overturned.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-13/u-s-health-care-law-requirement-thrown-out-by-judge.html

Congrats, ray, you guys' judge-shopping finally found one on the take.

Mandating American citizens to purchase, under penalty of law, private health insurance is clearly unconstitutional.

And yet it was part of the Chaffee plan of 1993, with such anti-Constitutional co-sponsors like Bob Dole and Orrin Hatch.

I suppose you know more about the US Constitution than Bob Dole did in 1993, right?

But I do in fact hope ObamaCare is scrapped. The past 20 years have been a bad dream and we're going to need to reboot this place from first principles, and we're going to have to fight each other in the streets to establish these principles, since obviously democracy itself can no longer function in this country.

2nd Amendment FTW.

I was wondering when you'd get around to posting about this. In response, though I don't personally agree with the 'mandate', I'll reply by quoting a bit from a news story I read a couple of days ago:

So the "big" story is that a district court judge has ruled that health care reform's individual mandate is unconstitutional, dealing reform a Massively Major Blow. That must mean the "little" story is that in fourteen previous cases, judges have either dismissed cases against the law's constitutionality or ruled against those cases. From the White House comes this roster of some of the rejected cases:

Sollars v. Reid -dismissed 4/2/10
Taitz v. Obama - dismissed 4/14/10
Archer v. U.S. Senate - dismissed 4/12/10
Heghmann v. Sebelius - dismissed 5/14/10
Mackenzie v. Shaheen - dismissed 5/26/10
Fountain Hills Tea Party Patriots v. Sebelius - dismissed 6/2/10
Coalition for Parity Inc. v. Sebelius - dismissed on 6/21/10
U.S. Citizens Association v. OMB - dismissed 8/2/10
Baldwin v. Sebelius – dismissed 8/27/10
Burlsworth v. Holder - dismissed 9/8/10
Schreeve v. Obama - dismissed 11/4/10

And if those cases represent the little story, then the puny story must be that in two previous cases a federal judge has ruled that the individual mandate is perfectly constitutional.

But because of today's ruling, in which a conservative judge appointed by George W. Bush became the first magistrate to rule against the individual mandate, conservatives are rejoicing about the demise (caveat: in the Eastern District of Virginia until the case is overturned on appeal) of a provision they once supported. Orrin Hatch, today:

Today is a great day for liberty.

So why hasn't it been struck down in Massachusetts too? I understand they have something up there called RomneyCare which has a mandate.

Vicente says

So why hasn’t it been struck down in Massachusetts too? I understand they have something up there called RomneyCare which has a mandate.

Massachusetts is very similar to the Soviet Socialist State of California. The only surprise to me is why CA hasn't attempted the same thing.

It's only constitutional if Americans believe it is. I personally do not believe government has a right to force me to buy a product from a private entity. Because if they start on that path, they won't stop there.

Social Security and Medicare are different, because these are full government programs. If Medicare was ran by United or BlueCross or Bank of America I'd be against it too.

I personally think it is completely unconstitutional because there is NO public option. Besides in this country insurance only makes healthcare more expensive.

ChrisV says

I personally do not believe government has a right to force me to buy a product from a private entity

Actually they don't. Just pay the extra "I'm Stupid!" tax instead and you can remain outside the medical insurance system. Good luck with that.

This is like not wearing your seatbelt. You're free to do so, but it will cost you, perhaps via a trip out the side window.

I personally think it is completely unconstitutional because there is NO public option

The point of the mandate is to break the adverse selection / moral hazard logjam of the current system.

The public option would be nice but there's it's no magic program that's going to lower costs. BCBS has much more negotiating power than a public option.

Besides in this country insurance only makes healthcare more expensive.

Very true, so we will need further government intervention in the market eventually.

But with the hyper-political arrangements we have today, we'll be lucky to get ObamaCare. Gonna depend on which side of the bed Justice Kennedy gets up on, alas.

Vicente says

So why hasn’t it been struck down in Massachusetts too? I understand they have something up there called RomneyCare which has a mandate.

States are bound by their own Constitutions, as is the Fed with its.

RayAmerica says

At least one Federal Judge understands the Constitution. Mandating American citizens to purchase, under penalty of law, private health insurance is clearly unconstitutional. This ruling is a step in the right direction in getting Obamacare overturned.

Yes. And next we need to overrule mandatory auto liability insurance.

It's the same thing basically. People without health insurance are making others liable should they require some sort of catastrophic care.

Seriously though, if we don't have mandated insurance, then the only other sensible option is to have Medicare for all. Wth, Medicare pays for the most expensive stuff already anyway.

When people cite our poor care compared to other countries, you should know the cause: It's one more instance of stupid easy to manipulate Americans getting pushed around by corporations.

marcus says

Yes. And next we need to overrule mandatory auto liability insurance.
It’s the same thing basically.

This is the same leftist dribble that I hear over and over again. The two are not even remotely close to being the same. Obtaining a driver's license is a PRIVALAGE granted by the state that you live in ... it is NOT a RIGHT. If you doubt this, ask any law enforcement officer or judge. If you want to opt out of buying auto insurance you can. It's your decision whether or not to drive, it is not being forced on you. Furthermore, the fines for being caught without auto insurance are relatively small. Nice try Marcus, but you'll need to come up with a better illustration.

Troy says

ChrisV says

I personally do not believe government has a right to force me to buy a product from a private entity

Actually they don’t. Just pay the extra “I’m Stupid!” tax instead and you can remain outside the medical insurance system. Good luck with that.
This is like not wearing your seatbelt. You’re free to do so, but it will cost you, perhaps via a trip out the side window.
I personally think it is completely unconstitutional because there is NO public option
The point of the mandate is to break the adverse selection / moral hazard logjam of the current system.
The public option would be nice but there’s it’s no magic program that’s going to lower costs. BCBS has much more negotiating power than a public option.
Besides in this country insurance only makes healthcare more expensive.
Very true, so we will need further government intervention in the market eventually.
But with the hyper-political arrangements we have today, we’ll be lucky to get ObamaCare. Gonna depend on which side of the bed Justice Kennedy gets up on, alas.

The whole reform the way it is now it's just going to drive up costs. My wife works for a health insurance company so I'm telling you the unfiltered unbiased reality which you will never see on television or spoken by a politician. Costs will be going up, and going up a LOT.

Key terms:
Provider Network (PN) - a chain of hospitals and doctors that negotiate in a group. Think of it as a union. For example in San Diego there is only one PN which is "Scripps" and their prices are much higher than Los Angles because there is no competition.
Insurance Company - self explanatory.

This is how every single insurance negotiation goes between an insurance company and a PN:
PN: We are increasing our prices by 40% next year.
Insurance: we cant pass on that much of a cost.
.... after all the haggling they settle anywhere from 15% to 20% increases which gets spread out to all insured. Just so you know, minimum increase is 12% which is considered the "trend".

This happens every year, and reform did nothing to change this. Prices will be only going up with no single payer system to force hospitals to take less. And now insurance prices will also have to include million dollar (yes no exaggeration, million dollar claims [per patient] for hemophilia, cancer, diabetes, etc..) for preexisting conditions.

Reform did a few good things, they stopped some practices that were terrible and it did limit insurance profits. But that is only half of the problem, literally just half. As the reform did nothing about costs, because it has no single payer system and nothing to cap how much PN's can increase their prices.

A brief but good synopsis of Judge Hudson's ruling as provided by the Cato Institute:

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/obamacare-comes-up-against-the-constitution/

RayAmerica says

A brief but good synopsis of Judge Hudson’s ruling as provided by the Cato Institute:
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/obamacare-comes-up-against-the-constitution/

Yes, because Cato institute is so highly regarded as an unbiased reporter of events....

tatupu70 says

Yes, because Cato institute is so highly regarded as an unbiased reporter of events….

I get it. You have a prejudice against Cato, so EVERYTHING they say must be false? Right? Thank you for the excellent illustration of the closed mind of the left. I'll bet you were one of the several dozen listeners to "Air America" before it went bankrupt.

Ray, you're a laugh riot. If Cato (libertarian think tank) is beyond reproach, then so must be the the DailyKos take on the ruling, referencing Keith Olbermann:

OLBERMANN: Finally, the right finds someone willing to take its side on health care reform. After two judges ruled to uphold it, and 14 dismissed challenges to it, a district judge out of Virginia rules part of the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional. In our third story, he just happens to own part of a Republican strategy firm that advocated against health care reform. The company, which took 9,000 dollars this year from one of its clients, the attorney general who filed the case on which this judge just ruled.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/12/14/928990/-Dean:-Hudson-ruling-doesnt-threaten-health-reform

shrekgrinch says

If SCOTUS rules for the mandate…then the entire concept of the federal government having enumerated powers iwill be shot to hell. That is the illogical conclusion of Wickard vs. Fillburn and similar case law that the Supremes will have to deal with.

Precisely what I believe is behind the insane, unpopular push for this program. This is a back door move for power and control over the American people. The radical left has always held the original intent of the Constitution in disdain (as fully illustrated by FDR). If this were to go through, literally, you can say goodbye to this nation as far as a constitutional republic goes. There will never be any further serious arguments in the future using the Constitution as far as original intent is concerned. History has proven that once freedom is relinquished to centralized power, it is never fully restored without an awful lot of human suffering. And even then, it is never the same as it once was.

RayAmerica says

This is a back door move for power and control over the American people.

Because clearly you know, it couldn't be about HEALTH CARE, because God knows that's not an issue anyone in this country actually is concerned about. It's good that we have you here to see through these veils. How does this tie together with flouridation of our water supply General Turgeson?

Vicente says

How does this tie together with flouridation of our water supply General Turgeson?

Laugh all you want. When the government gains more centralized power, the cost is always individual freedom. Healthcare represents 1/6 of our entire economy, and yet, you are willing to give this power to the same government that orchestrated the Gulf of Tonkin, maneuvered Japan into attacking us (predictably via FDR's embargo of the island nation), WMDs in Iraq, "fighting" the Taliban in Afghanistan, etc. etc. Just keep putting all your faith and trust in the government Vincente, they have proven they are so worthy.

shrekgrinch says

They just are following the path of least resistance. As far as constitutions go, ours has one of the most difficult amendment procedures in place. Basically, in order for an amendment to pass and ratify, a super-majority of geographical support (the states) have to go along with that.
It’s much easier to just dream up BS like ‘living document’ and stack the courts with judges who will play along, like that other Clinton-appointee who ruled it constitutional basically because the judge thinks the feds can do whatever the hell they like. That Affirmative Action Retard Justice Sonja is of the same caliber.
It is quite a rational strategy for the Left and you can’t argue that it hasn’t worked, because it has. What is surprising is that one can find a means of binding the word ‘rational’ with ‘Left’ in any context. I know, its hard to accept– but facts are facts.

Very well stated ... I agree 100%. What the left refuses to recognize is that Hitler did similar things in Germany. He gained "temporary" dictatorial powers (Chavez is attempting the exact same thing right now) via the "Enabling Act of 1933," legally passed through the Reichstag. Hitler correctly understood the German people in that, the Germans notoriously believed in legal authority. It was only after it was too late to do anything about it that they realized their freedoms had vanished. FDR (another totalitarian) attempted to stack the court in order to achieve what he knew was unconstitutional. A case in point is Schechter v. United States which challenged FDR's National Industrial Recovery Act on Constitutional grounds. Amazingly, this small Kosher slaughterhouse took FDR and the New Deal all the way to the Supreme Court .... and won. We need more of these types of patriots to come to the aid of our country before it is too late, and we find, like the Germans did, that freedom is not easily won back once it is lost.

http://flattopshistorywarpolitics.yuku.com/topic/1323