Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - vercingetorix

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 80
51
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: September 22, 2008, 08:46:24 AM »
since Obama is a first in terms of either party, it is erroneous to assume that latinos and asians are not registered democrats, they simply haven't been faced with this reality before. the very term swing voter implies that they will have an influence on the outcome of the election.  these biased latinos and asians may well swing the election McCain's way.

I must have been unclear.

I didn't say Asians and Latinos were not Democrats.  I said those Asians and Latinos who have very strong prejudices against African Americans are not Democrats because the Democratic party has been identified for at least the last 25 years (however erroneously) as a party that gives handouts to African Americans or apologizes for the so-called cultural problems in black communities.  White racists have also left the Democratic party for the same reason.  However, some have stayed behind because of their union membership or other long-term historical connections to the party (which most racist Asians and Latinos do not have). For some of these racist white Democrats, Obama's race will be enough to push them to vote Republican or third-party in this election.  They are the swing voters: once Democratic, now possibly Republican.

With respect to institutional racism, you seemed earlier to be referring to the racism of individual decisionmakers who have some kind of power in an institution.  If you weren't, I apologize.  I can't comprehend how you could understand what institutional racism is and not believe it exists.  I am not, however, interested in discussing it with you because I find your views on race and racism, generally, to be misinformed or offensive.

how can you say "i am not in the slightest bit uncomfortable talking about racial bias in any form" and then say something like "I find your views on race and racism...offensive" and "i am not...interested in discussing [racism] with you".  seems incongruous.  what you should say is that like most white liberals you feel great slamming white men but when the specter of black, latino or asian racism raises its head you want no part of the discussion. i'll repeat my point again.  latinos and asians have never had to make a choice about a black candidate before.  most of them are registered democrats.  given the choice i think many of them will either stay home or vote for McCain.  by many, i mean enough to make a difference in a close election. period.  end of point. 

 incidentally MissP, i've watched with some interest how you routinely attempt to correct people on matters of opinion (ridiculous, how can you correct an opinion after all?) and rather condescendingly attempt to correct people about word usage (see institutional racism) when that person is actually using the word correctly.  your cite to an unchecked wiki article which happens to mirror my definition of institutional racism makes your attempted correction all the sillier.  i think i speak for most when i say that i am not wowed by your forms of argumentation.  your favorite technique seems to be opening with something like: "perhaps i wasn't clear" or "maybe i'm not picking up what your dropping" before rambling off in ways that confirm the prefatory statement. also i think you waste way too much of your precious puff on these boards.  get a life. 

52
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: September 21, 2008, 09:00:14 PM »
::sighs::

You're completely missing the boat.  The hardened Asian and Latino voters who will not vote for Obama because of his race are extremely unlikely to vote for Democrats (or to register as Democrats) anyway because (a) the Democratic party is known among people who are racist against African-Americans as a party of liberal guilt and entitlement programs for African Americans and has been for at least a quarter of a century (see, generally, welfare mothers, Willie Horton) and (b) these voters, unlike white working-class voters, do not have entrenched historical ties to the party.  The reason white racism will have a greater impact on this election than Asian and Latino racism ever could is not merely that the numbers of white racist voters are larger but also because the white racist voters are swing voters. 

Also here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism.  I don't think you understand the term.

you cite a source that conforms to my impression of institutionalized racism.  sadly for me it is a wiki source that is flagged for lack of citation and bias.  since Obama is a first in terms of either party, it is erroneous to assume that latinos and asians are not registered democrats, they simply haven't been faced with this reality before. the very term swing voter implies that they will have an influence on the outcome of the election.  these biased latinos and asians may well swing the election McCain's way.

53
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: September 21, 2008, 08:08:00 PM »
i have included links to recent articles outlining a pervasive latino and asian racism against blacks specifically. you can choose to ignore those, although i think you do that at your peril (both in terms of its impact on the election and just in general as a perceptive, all around good person).  i have admitted that white racism continues to be a problem, though not on a scale purported by the left. 

I don't know what good you think it is going to do to continue to call people racist, but you should go on by all means.

WRT the scale of white racism, I am sure you've read this new study: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/09/20/could-obamas-race-cost-him-the-election/.

this is central to my point MissP.  you don't think it is any good pointing out that other groups are racist and yet the left continually hyperbolizes white male racism.  your link only underlines how obsessed white, and liberal white males in particular, are at pointing out how pervasive white racism is (and i think it bear repeating once again, since people distort just about everything on these boards, that i do think white racism still exits, just not to the extent people think it does and it is certainly not an institutional racism, thankfully that is a thing of the past).  they (and you) are quite uncomfortable talking about how much more overt racism is in other ethnic groups.  it is, as i pointed out, the pink elephant in the room. 

For goodness' sake, learn to quote, man. 

I think you're wrong on many counts.  (1) You overestimate Latino and Asian racism; (2) you underestimate white racism; (3) it's less worthwhile to talk about the racial biases of a small group of voters than it is to talk about the racial biases of a large group of voters; and (4) institutional, not personal, racism is the primary form of racism that exists today (you may be confusing it with de jure racism).

I am not in the slightest bit uncomfortable talking about racial bias in any form.  I just don't think that racism of Asian and Latino voters is going to be decisive in this election.  I also doubt that overt white racism will be decisive, though certainly there is some indication that a significant number of married white women and some white working-class Democrats have refused to vote for Obama because of his race.  You will not find similar statistics connecting Asian and Latino racism to this election outside of the Puerto Rican primary.  (You may argue that this is because of a bias among researchers, but, to believe you, liberal whites are obsessed with racial guilt so I don't see why they wouldn't feel redeemed by such studies if they came to the conclusions you presume.)


dear god we disagree on so much MissP.  it is not institutional racism that exists any more my dear.  there are strata of our society which are racist but to say, for example, that the IRS discriminates against people on the basis of race is nonsense (despite what Wesley Snipes might add to the discussion) or to add that the DOD engages in active racism is bunk.  you have some white people who are still stuck on stupid who routinely conflate things like their hatred of laziness, with a dislike of say, latinos, whom they wrongly perceive as lazy as a group.  much of what was once racism has now become classism, to invent a word. white, latino and black members of the middle class interact without a hint of discord all across the country.  the divide is increasingly one of finances.  i have provided recent articles outlining a pervasive racism among latinos and asians against blacks.  i have included anecdotes of traveling in asia and latino social circles where anti-black racism is particularly virulent.  i have also provided proof of "mainstream" black churches spewing some pretty radical, racist garbage.  you could never argue that any legitimate, mainstream, traditionally white church, could spew such vitriol without being marginalized in a hurry.  apologists for the likes of reverend Wright et al abound.  i don't know too many conservatives who think the reverend Hagee is a righteous dude.  to close.  the reason i think latino and asian racism will play a role, despite the small demographics (too repeat myself again), is that the election will be that close. their racism, completely disregarded by the media, will make the difference (the white racists never would have voted for Obama anyway, that's the point, this is old news).

54
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: September 21, 2008, 05:29:07 PM »
i have included links to recent articles outlining a pervasive latino and asian racism against blacks specifically. you can choose to ignore those, although i think you do that at your peril (both in terms of its impact on the election and just in general as a perceptive, all around good person).  i have admitted that white racism continues to be a problem, though not on a scale purported by the left. 

I don't know what good you think it is going to do to continue to call people racist, but you should go on by all means.

WRT the scale of white racism, I am sure you've read this new study: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/09/20/could-obamas-race-cost-him-the-election/.

as for your fannie/mac argument, i think it is flawed.
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will092108.php3
i cannot pretend to put it more eloquently than one of my heroes George F. Will.

I am not sure what you think my "argument" is.  I was answering your question with facts, and I haven't really made any arguments.  I do agree (perhaps I didn't state so explicitly) that government backing of private investment is both bad for the economy and a moral hazard.  I am not sure what else you want from me.  Of course, the implicit government guarantees did nothing to prevent Fannie and Freddie from being so reckless.  I think you'll find, however, that other organizations that did not have these guarantees (AIG, Lehman, Bear, Merrill, et al.) were also reckless.  You can't, therefore, attribute Fannie and Freddie's fall to government action (except inasmuch as you are referring to their formal privatization in the 1960s and the dismantling of the regulatory regime throughout the last several decades).   

look.  this is central to my point.  you say on the one hand that calling people racist doesn't amount to guacamole and then you cite a poll that states white people are racist.  this is my problem with liberals, and white male liberals in particular.  as i have said ad nauseum on these boards, i concede that white racism still exists. however it is hyperbolized by the media (speaking of fear mongering) and used as a wedge issue.  institutionalized racism simply doesn't exist anymore (thank God).  what is never discussed/dismissed out of hand by liberals is the existence of a very health racism in other ethnic groups.  this is the pink elephant in the room to which i was referring. it is also a hilarious double-standard.  arguments that you somehow have to be in a position of influence to be racist are ridiculous and fail on their face.  espousing such positions, may actually cost Obama the election (i.e. ignoring the significance of these deeply held cultural convictions). i could include the black racism embraced by the likes of reverend Wright, but that is for another board entirely. 

55
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: September 21, 2008, 05:21:55 PM »
i have included links to recent articles outlining a pervasive latino and asian racism against blacks specifically. you can choose to ignore those, although i think you do that at your peril (both in terms of its impact on the election and just in general as a perceptive, all around good person).  i have admitted that white racism continues to be a problem, though not on a scale purported by the left. 

I don't know what good you think it is going to do to continue to call people racist, but you should go on by all means.

WRT the scale of white racism, I am sure you've read this new study: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/09/20/could-obamas-race-cost-him-the-election/.


this is central to my point MissP.  you don't think it is any good pointing out that other groups are racist and yet the left continually hyperbolizes white male racism.  your link only underlines how obsessed white, and liberal white males in particular, are at pointing out how pervasive white racism is (and i think it bear repeating once again, since people distort just about everything on these boards, that i do think white racism still exits, just not to the extent people think it does and it is certainly not an institutional racism, thankfully that is a thing of the past).  they (and you) are quite uncomfortable talking about how much more overt racism is in other ethnic groups.  it is, as i pointed out, the pink elephant in the room. 



56
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: September 21, 2008, 04:27:06 PM »
Yes, those private investment dollars have obviously been a real boon to the economy over these last several years.  I can see why you'd want to keep more of them in individual hands.
without googling, can you tell me if fannie/mac are privately owned?

Well, yes, they have just been taken into what I believe they are calling a "temporary public conservatorship" or something at a cost of $85 billion and considerable moral hazard.  Prior to that they were privately controlled but backed by government guarantees (since the late 1960s).  I am not sure what you're getting at, but if you are trying to suggest that the secondary mortgage market failed because of public malinvestment, I'd like you to try to articulate the argument. 

I still haven't heard anyone give a strong case for why Obama will lose in the fall.  I've seen plenty of people talk about why they think he should lose, but that's something quite different.
that was my opening argument.  despite all of the positive polling with white/hispanic/asian voters, Obama will lose due to racism, specifically hispanic and asian racism.  most posters made light of this pointing out the small groups of latinos in key states.  i would argue that those small minorities are enough to win/lose an election. besides, in a year like this, the democratic nominee should be eons ahead of the republican.  instead we have a dead heat.  as much as you try to minimize this, democrats should be, and are, alarmed. this is particularly true when you consider the weaknesses inherent in a McCain/Palin ticket.  i mean come on.


I am scared, but not because of purported Latino and Asian racism.  I am scared because of the effectiveness of Republican scare tactics and white racism.  We had considerable back and forth about this already, and I am not interested in discussing it further.  Your evidence is weak.  I believe you know it.

i have included links to recent articles outlining a pervasive latino and asian racism against blacks specifically. you can choose to ignore those, although i think you do that at your peril (both in terms of its impact on the election and just in general as a perceptive, all around good person).  i have admitted that white racism continues to be a problem, though not on a scale purported by the left.  as for your fannie/mac argument, i think it is flawed.
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will092108.php3
i cannot pretend to put it more eloquently than one of my heroes George F. Will.

57
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: September 21, 2008, 03:55:25 PM »
I still haven't heard anyone give a strong case for why Obama will lose in the fall.  I've seen plenty of people talk about why they think he should lose, but that's something quite different.
that was my opening argument.  despite all of the positive polling with white/hispanic/asian voters, Obama will lose due to racism, specifically hispanic and asian racism.  most posters made light of this pointing out the small groups of latinos in key states.  i would argue that those small minorities are enough to win/lose an election. besides, in a year like this, the democratic nominee should be eons ahead of the republican.  instead we have a dead heat.  as much as you try to minimize this, democrats should be, and are, alarmed. this is particularly true when you consider the weaknesses inherent in a McCain/Palin ticket.  i mean come on.

58
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: September 21, 2008, 03:51:14 PM »
Yes, those private investment dollars have obviously been a real boon to the economy over these last several years.  I can see why you'd want to keep more of them in individual hands.
without googling, can you tell me if fannie/mac are privately owned?


59
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: September 21, 2008, 03:28:11 PM »
The lifting of the debt ceiling and Obama's tax raises on the top brackets make most of his spending proposals within reach -- or at least more within reach than either of you allow.  I'm also not sure what massive increases in discretionary spending to which you're referring. 
Obama would increase spending by close to 800 billion tomatoes over the course of 4 years.
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/08/nation/na-obamaplans8
this will be very hard to do starting off almost one trillion dollars behind.

Your number assumes that the middle-class tax cuts Obama proposes would not be offset by tax increases elsewhere (which, interestingly, is at odds with your complaint about being in the top tax bracket above) and that the government won't see any early returns on its investment in all of these mortgage-backed securities.  I agree that there may not be a whole lot of political will for new spending programs in the next several years, but if I were you I would be more concerned about the McCain tax cuts and his empty pork-cutting promises (see http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411750_updated_candidates_summary.pdf) than I would be about increased social spending under Obama.  For one, I think investment in infrastructure and government safety nets will be much more appealing to lawmakers in the wake of the crisis than lowering taxes on the wealthy will be.
it is not at odds with my complaint.  i think taxation rates are about where they should be.  further raising the capital gains taxation rates, for example, is a bad idea in my opinion.  so is raising the corporate tax which is already the second highest in the world. this is a philosophical difference we have MissP.  i think the federal government is given more than enough resources to have a robust social safety net.  like most large bureaucracies however, they do a piss poor job of keeping an eye on where money goes and they do an abysmal job of reevaluating if programs that get funding are meeting even the most basic benchmarks of success. throwing more cash at that nightmare isn't the solution.  by freezing spending in this area, you force the government to actually investigate which programs are worthy of government largesse and which programs are a colossal waste of time and money. fleecing the wealthy, who already bear the brunt of the tax burden (the top 1% of income earners, who represent 18% of all personal income, pay almost 30% of federal income tax) is not the answer. as an aside, these people paid fewer taxes under clinton than under bush (this is due to "bracket creep" but it is still factually correct).  it only discourages investment and encourages people with means to hire expensive accountants and lawyers to find loopholes instead of reinvesting in the economy.   

60
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: September 21, 2008, 02:31:18 PM »
The lifting of the debt ceiling and Obama's tax raises on the top brackets make most of his spending proposals within reach -- or at least more within reach than either of you allow.  I'm also not sure what massive increases in discretionary spending to which you're referring. 
Obama would increase spending by close to 800 billion tomatoes over the course of 4 years.
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/08/nation/na-obamaplans8
this will be very hard to do starting off almost one trillion dollars behind.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 80