AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

To TKO, when you get out of your troll mode, please join in the discussion.

You less than most, understand the rules of intelligent discourse. Your victim posturing is predictable and boring. But that is just the cycle with you. Nobody understands you and everyone is picking on you. Meanwhile MACs claim that liberals have a victim mentality.

Rolling Eyes

T
K
O

1 Reply

@JamesMorrison,

JamesMorrison wrote:

Thanks for that Camille Paglia piece. I've been looking for an authority with a liberal bent that can present thoughtful arguments for their side. I can remember when Dems like Kennedy and Truman were more down to earth and practical in their thinking. Of course they seemed to be more interested in their country's well being then do Obama's crowd. It is now obvious to everyone with some objectivity that Rahm and company are making the President out to be some kind of naive 'babe in the woods" character.

"Barack the Magic Negro"? I haven't listened to Rush in about 7 years, but that is very funny. It is also very sad. Sad not because Rush is denigrating our President but because that very denigration is of all the voters who seemed to think Obama's mysticism was what this country needed. My wife kept asking: “What is he going to change and, more importantly, how is he going to accomplish it?” Apparently the method has a lot of similarities with Chicago politics.

JM

P.S. Where can I find her column?

She can usually be found on Salon.com--you might have to sign up for the website but its free. She's also always linked on the Drudge Report. I think she's terrific. Again she and I are at odds on several issue, but she is somebody I would really REALLY like to have a long leisurely chat with.

I was too young to vote when Truman was President but I was a Democrat and avid bright-eyed enthusiastic young supporter of John Kennedy. I hung on with the Democrats until they completely left me in the Carter administration and Reagan converted me to the right side once and for all.

In defense of Rush's "Barack, the Magic Nego", he didn't coin the phrase. It first
came up as a LA Times piece http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ehrenstein19mar19,0,3391015.story
Then when Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and some others of their ilk were suggesting that Barack Obama wasn't 'black enough', the door had been opened for Paul Shanklin to build the concept into a parody sung to the tune of “Puff the Magic Dragon” by a character meant to be the Rev. Al Sharpton. The character laments that white liberals vote for Mr. Obama while shunning his (Sharpton's) brand of more confrontational racial politics. “Barack the Magic Negro,” the character says, “made guilty whites feel good/They’ll vote for him and not for me/Cause he’s not from the ’hood.”

There was a Wikipedia article explaining the mythical 'Magic Negro" in folklore.

I'm sort of like Camille though. I don't like the parody and kind of cringe when Rush plays it now and then, but for those who know the background, it is clever.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

MM wrote

Quote:

:"Barack the Magic Negro" was originally published in the LA Times.
Rush simply took it and ran with it.

It was originally an op-ed piece written in 2007 by David Ehrenstein...
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ehrenstein19mar19,0,5335087.story?coll=la-opinion-center

This article points out what seems to be the reason for the vacuous popularity of a frosh senator with little experience and even less media exposed backround.

Thanks,

JM

0 Replies

@okie,

Okie wrote:

Quote:

One other point, Rush has invited Obama to come on and answer all questions, and debate points of policy, without a teleprompter or notes, equal footing. After all, Obama wishes to make Rush an issue, this is his chance to finish Rush off, once and for all, and to show Rush to be the ignorant boob that he wants everyone to believe. I will not hold my breath waiting on Obama to take him up on it. Somehow, I don't think Obama has it what it takes, and he knows it. Not without Axelrod to tell him what to say.

If both Rush and President Obama were limited to rhetorical flourishes the President would win hands down. But Rush's stock in trade is firmly rooted in cold hard facts (his rhetorical flourishes are just that more entertaining). Are 95% of Americans going to receive a tax cut? Perhaps, but at the end of the day will they pay less taxes? Any answer from the President here that is not "Yes" will be pursued by Rush demanding particulars. What about the carbon tax (Call it cap and trade if you must, but yes, it is a tax, ) that will be passed on to consumers when they pay their gas/oil/electric bills?

One thing is for sure Rush never sat in a religious setting for 20 yrs, some of those with his two young children, presided over by clergy that "God Damn(ed) America”. Uh, Axelrod would fair no better.

JM

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

about my post...527 I inadvertantly stuck my reply in with your quote. The reply was :

This article points out what seems to be the reason for the vacuous popularity of a frosh senator with little experience and even less media exposed backround.

Sorry my bad.

JM

0 Replies

@JamesMorrison,

A realistic discussion of energy policy would admit that the consumer already pays the carbon tax; in the form of deteriorating environment and their personal health.

Coal and other heavily polluting energy sources only look cheap if you ignore half the equation.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

A realistic discussion of energy policy would admit that the consumer already pays the carbon tax; in the form of deteriorating environment and their personal health.

Coal and other heavily polluting energy sources only look cheap if you ignore half the equation.

Cycloptichorn

The problem with that view is that there is no way to accurately measure or assign economic value to "the other half of the equation". When direct and hidden subsidies to favored forms of energy production are in place and everyone's cost of energy has doubled (and it will double) there won't be any way to explain to people the "value' they are getting for all the extra cost. Democrats will do their best to hide the extra cost in the form of subsidies or punitive environmental regulation, however, given the ubiquity of energy in all the products of our economy, there will be no hiding the gross economic result. At that point the politics could change swiftly.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

When direct and hidden subsidies to favored forms of energy production are in place and everyone's cost of energy has doubled (and it will double) there won't be any way to explain to people the "value' they are getting for all the extra cost.

What, we won't have words anymore after we pass a cap and trade tax? We won't have a president who seems good at explaining things to people?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Quote:

I was too young to vote when Truman was President but I was a Democrat and avid bright-eyed enthusiastic young supporter of John Kennedy. I hung on with the Democrats until they completely left me in the Carter administration and Reagan converted me to the right side once and for all.

I too was a born and raised a Democrat suckled at the mythical FDR teat forever hearing the Genesis story of the New Deal and how FDR pulled America out of the depression. My parents, God bless them, were raised during that period. It’s very strange because they actually raised me according to their own hard earned (school of hard knocks, as it were) principles. Self reliance, don't worry we will take care of it ourselves, please let me keep (and save) more of our own money, etc.

When I became an adult with my own income and savings I visited a bank to see about an annuity. Turns out this instrument, while not burning up the world with its APR, was almost three points above Money Markets and would guarantee that for the term. I figured the bank was not in business just to make my life easier so I asked the question: "What were they doing with my money that allowed them to offer such a deal to me while making money in the bargain?" The second question immediately followed: "What do I need the bank for if I could find the source of such a return and keep all of it for myself?" Then I got educated, one question led to another and the pieces of capitalism came together. Although I am not an investment professional, I feel I know just enough to ask the right questions.

This is Jefferson's 'Pursuit of happiness' of economic and personal freedom. Life and liberty are basic, but it is this 'Pursuit' that has created the America that all other nations hope to be. I had faintly hoped that Obama was going to be moving to the center but I am a realist, again.

JM

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeb1 wrote:

Quote:

The problem with that view is that there is no way to accurately measure or assign economic value to "the other half of the equation". When direct and hidden subsidies to favored forms of energy production are in place and everyone's cost of energy has doubled (and it will double) there won't be any way to explain to people the "value' they are getting for all the extra cost. Democrats will do their best to hide the extra cost in the form of subsidies or punitive environmental regulation, however, given the ubiquity of energy in all the products of our economy, there will be no hiding the gross economic result. At that point the politics could change swiftly.

The bigger question is: ”What is the government going to do with the proceeds?
Will they prevent catastrophe? Will they make the environment better? How will we know? Would it be too much to ask of government for an accurate accounting of where the money goes, or will it just be another slush fund like Social Security gathering ever more recipients?

JM

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
When direct and hidden subsidies to favored forms of energy production are in place and everyone's cost of energy has doubled (and it will double) there won't be any way to explain to people the "value' they are getting for all the extra cost.

What, we won't have words anymore after we pass a cap and trade tax? We won't have a president who seems good at explaining things to people?

Cycloptichorn

Explanations have a limited value: the more offered and the more frequently they are required, the less their effect - however well they are delivered. President Obama's are very good, but already showing signs of wear.

I don't think you have fully thought through the effects on our economy (and competitiveness) of the wind and solar powered future that is promised. (Did you notice that we don't hear references to nuclear power any more. Has something changed? Could he have been misleading us?)

1 Reply

@JamesMorrison,

JamesMorrison wrote:

The bigger question is: ”What is the government going to do with the proceeds?
Will they prevent catastrophe? Will they make the environment better? How will we know? Would it be too much to ask of government for an accurate accounting of where the money goes, or will it just be another slush fund like Social Security gathering ever more recipients?

JM

All good questions. Al Gore piously asserts that he has remediated the sins of his very self-indulgent life style through the purchase of carbon credits and offsets. Nancy Pelosi has done the same - but in her case with government funds. Too bad these options aren't available to ordinary mortals. These are also the folks who decry the economic "inequities" of our society. It turns out that virtue, like life, can be purchased with money. The problem here is that they want to buy their virtue with our money and use it to reward their political supporters.

More to the point no one asks or knows just what these "carbon offsets" buy, or whether there is any benefit to anyone but the recipient (usually a political supporter), or what it may be worth to the public. In fact the carbon credits are a tax on everything that is paid to the favored supporters of those in power.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
When direct and hidden subsidies to favored forms of energy production are in place and everyone's cost of energy has doubled (and it will double) there won't be any way to explain to people the "value' they are getting for all the extra cost.

What, we won't have words anymore after we pass a cap and trade tax? We won't have a president who seems good at explaining things to people?

Cycloptichorn

Explanations have a limited value: the more offered and the more frequently they are required, the less their effect - however well they are delivered. President Obama's are very good, but already showing signs of wear.

Sez you. His approval ratings remain high, even in the face of inaction on his part re: the banking crisis. And the Dems in Congress are enjoying their highest approval ratings in some time.

Quote:

I don't think you have fully thought through the effects on our economy (and competitiveness) of the wind and solar powered future that is promised. (Did you notice that we don't hear references to nuclear power any more. Has something changed? Could he have been misleading us?)

I think I have thought about it more than you seem to think that I have thought about it. Which is to say, I have put a great deal of thought into this. Now, you claim our inability to accurately measure the ills of pollution and pumping carbon into the atmosphere is grounds for our ignoring it in terms of the economic equation. I do not think this, but instead, think that:

In a situation where we reasonably believe substances are having an effect, we ought to err on the side of caution.

While initially prices will go up, in the long run, competition - remember that thing ya'll love? - will drive them back down, along with technological advancements. I see this as a shot in the arm to our aging energy generation system.

I would remind you that Obama was quite up front about cap and trade during the election, as was McCain for that matter. As for nukes, how long do they take to build?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

JamesMorrison wrote:

The bigger question is: ”What is the government going to do with the proceeds?
Will they prevent catastrophe? Will they make the environment better? How will we know? Would it be too much to ask of government for an accurate accounting of where the money goes, or will it just be another slush fund like Social Security gathering ever more recipients?

JM

All good questions. Al Gore piously asserts that he has remediated the sins of his very self-indulgent life style through the purchase of carbon credits and offsets. Nancy Pelosi has done the same - but in her case with government funds. Too bad these options aren't available to ordinary mortals. These are also the folks who decry the economic "inequities" of our society. It turns out that virtue, like life, can be purchased with money. The problem here is that they want to buy their virtue with our money and use it to reward their political supporters.

More to the point no one asks or knows just what these "carbon offsets" buy, or whether there is any benefit to anyone but the recipient (usually a political supporter), or what it may be worth to the public. In fact the carbon credits are a tax on everything that is paid to the favored supporters of those in power.

George, most Environmentalists realize that you can't buy your way into heaven through indulgence. I do not personally support carbon offsets as a way of living a carbon neutral life, as they most resemble a twisted sort of paying for plenary indulgence to me.

But let us not pretend that it is a secret where the funds go to. From wikipedia:

Quote:

Offsets are typically generated from emissions-reducing projects. The most common project type is renewable energy, such as wind farms, biomass energy, or hydroelectric dams. Other common project types include energy efficiency projects, the destruction of industrial pollutants or agricultural byproducts, destruction of landfill methane, and forestry projects.

So, when you say 'no one asks or knows what the offsets go to,' you really meant to say 'I don't ask or know.'

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:

If Obama is not successful in instituting his policies, we may well return to more sound fiscal and economic policy, and we may return to more sane policies in regard to all kinds of issues, if conservatives can enjoy a resurgence.

So, you think that if Obama's policies to stabilize the economy and the financial system fail to do that, then everything is going to get better?

How?

Cycloptichorn

In the long run, yes, because hopefully voters will wake up and return the country to more conservative leadership. The "how" is just as I described. I do not want to see the future sound policy sacrificed for some kind of short term results that might be interpreted as a successful Obama policy. For example, if a slight blip in the economy gives the impression that Obama's policies are working, when in reality they are not, it was coincidence, I think it would be bad for the country. In other words, I want Obama's policies to fail short term so that the long term action can be corrected.

Liken the situation to a sick person going to a quack. If the sick person feels better for a time, for some unrelated reason, that person may be likely to keep going back to the quack, prescribing the wrong medicine. But if the medicine obviously fails and makes the patient feeling worse, he is more likely to quit trying the wrong remedy and possibly go to a competent physician.

I do not believe socialism works, when practiced to the extreme, and it has been proven over and over, thus I do not want the country to go down that road. Obama's policies will fail long term, so I want them to also fail short term, so that the people see the light, before more serious long term legislation and bureaucracies are created. Once created, they are almost impossible to roll back. The welfare reform by Gingrich was almost a miracle, but now we see even that being rolled back by Obama and the Democrat controlled congress.

1 Reply

@okie,

There is no guarantee that a future conservative administration (or Congress) will be any wiser or less venal than the present one. Errors and corruption exist on both sides of the doctrinal divide. On average, I believe that a conservative government will do less harm than an activist liberal one. However, the phrase "on average" covers a lot of ground -- no guarantees either way..

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

A realistic discussion of energy policy would admit that the consumer already pays the carbon tax; in the form of deteriorating environment and their personal health.

Coal and other heavily polluting energy sources only look cheap if you ignore half the equation.

Cycloptichorn

Tell me it aint so, cyclops, your guys want to place carbon taxes on cows and other livestock? I thought this had to be a joke, but is this serious? I didn't realize the "cap and trade" idea might possibly included "capping" the rear ends of cows? Drunk

I have to begin considering the possibility that liberals are more than wacky, they are quite possibly totally insane.

http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/warren-county/index.ssf?/base/news-1/123044076267040.xml&coll=3

"The rear end of a cow could become the next source of financial hardship for farmers.

Facing lower milk prices and higher operational costs, dairy farmers in New Jersey and Pennsylvania say they couldn't afford the so-called cow tax, a suggestion made by federal officials to charge permit fees for livestock as a way of regulating greenhouse gas emissions.

"It's just another expense a farmer doesn't need," said Layne Klein, whose family has been running a dairy farm for 73 years in Forks Township. "I guess you'd call it one more nail in the coffin."

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency raised the concept in a recent report on possible greenhouse gas regulations under the Clean Air Act. Those regulations also could be extended to small businesses, schools, hospitals and churches.

In its comments on the EPA proposal, the U.S. Department of Agriculture said the regulations might force permitting requirements on dairy farms with more than 25 cows, beef cattle operations with more than 50 cattle, swine facilities with more than 200 hogs and farms with 500 or more acres of corn.

The permit costs would mean $175 per dairy cow, $87.50 a head for beef cattle and $20 per hog, according to Liz Thompson, a research associate with the New Jersey Farm Bureau. A herd of 75 dairy cows would carry a price tag of about $13,000.

"It's almost incredulity," said Thompson, describing the reaction of some farmers. "'What, are you kidding me?'"

1 Reply

@okie,

Did you note the date on this article?

Sunday, December 28, 2008

I would remind you that this was the Bush EPA which put this report or idea forward. Technically, it was 'your guys' that came up with the idea.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Liberals inhabit the bureaucracies, cyclops, and most probably especially the EPA. Its called job security. Bureaucrats are always looking for something to justify their worthless jobs.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Liberals inhabit the bureaucracies, cyclops, and most probably especially the EPA. Its called job security. Bureaucrats are always looking for something to justify their worthless jobs.

Ah, right, right. What you really mean is 'I was wrong, but won't admit it.'

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know