Comments on: Nothing’s ever certain except race and taxes.

By: Roque Nuevo

Roque Nuevo — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 01:28:57 +0000

I hope your remark about diverging “narratives” is tongue-in-cheek. If not, then poor you. History does not consist of “narratives,” even if they are pretty much the only way to write it. Are we confusing means and ends here? An instance of fetichization, even?

In that vein, I take your bet. People who parrot poststructuralist drivel about “narratives” are rarely correct. And I’ll give you even money. Hell, I’ll take 2:1 against me for the chance to take your money. My only proviso: I’m not betting on any of your “nobility.” “Unfairly maligned” is a sure thing.

PS: I would have voted for Clinton myself. Reluctantly. It’s just a damn shame that she not running foreign policy for the country right now. I can’t see how she would have put us in the embarassing situations we find ourselves in today–to close with a point against your “squandered sympathy” narrative.

By: Kyle

Kyle — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 19:32:37 +0000

I’m pretty sure President Obama is considered socially liberal, unless I pulled a Rip Van Winkle and now a 100% pro-choice voting record and a desire to repeal DADT and DOMA is socially conservative? I know support for gay marriage is a new goalpost but really?

By: North

North — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 19:26:57 +0000

Economics say that a corporate share price is a combination of the value of the corporation’s assets now and the present value of its predictable revenue stream into the foreseeable future. In as much as taxes diminish that revenue stream then there is a double taxation on capital gains on corporate stock at least. But I’ll be the first to admit that there’s plenty of speculation getting churned into those final numbers too so I’m not going to argue too forcefully on this point.

By: North

North — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 19:22:49 +0000

Heh, well you have your narrative and I have mine. I’m no Obama booster, mind you, I wanted another Clinton term.

I’m glad that you feel that the right and Bush did well during their eight year stint. Maybe history will prove that they were noble and unfairly maligned all along. I wouldn’t give good odds though.

By: Jaybird

Jaybird — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 19:07:26 +0000

What difference does it make?

Anything I say will be twisted into meaning something else entirely despite any protestations or clarifications on my part.

I have no reason to believe that you will respond to what I wrote but believe that you will, instead, respond to what you wish I wrote.

I’ve gotta say, you don’t act like someone who believes that people respond to incentives.

By: Roque Nuevo

Roque Nuevo — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 19:01:38 +0000

“I feel like I’m on a train to crazy town.” LOL. Wadda sense of humor!

OK. I realize he didn’t mean that progressivism means more government assistance, although I say it does. Why is this so crazy? What do you say it means?

By: Reason60

Reason60 — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:20:04 +0000

E.D.- you are correct, except you left out the fact that the deficit hawks were defeated by the defense hawks in 1981. It doesn’t appear that this will change anytime soon, unfortunately. Buchanan and Ron Paul are exiles from the GOP and conservative movement.

By: Jaybird

Jaybird — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:53:03 +0000

Dude. He didn’t say that. He went on to point out that he didn’t say that.

Now I am pointing out that he didn’t say that.

I feel like I’ve taken a train to Crazytown.

By: Roque Nuevo

Roque Nuevo — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:42:24 +0000

Yes I would. And I think he’s got a point even more worth exploring that progressivism means more government assistance. It has very little to do with “progress.”

By: Jaybird

Jaybird — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:36:34 +0000

Sure.

If he had said that a lot of Republican voters were not true Conservatives, would you see that he could well have a point worth exploring in there?