|
|
On August 01 2012 12:43 ThreeAcross wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 12:33 Leporello wrote:
Well if McCain said it, it must be true. I mean, this is the same political campaign that vetted Sarah "I can see Russia from my backyard" Palin and decided she'd be fit to run the country.
Yeah, they do their homework.
Seriously, it blows my mind that you think McCain's VP vetting process should be some sort of authority in setting the record straight. Because she really said that. Reid better have something more than just a source on this.
I think it's obvious McCain's campaign staff neglected to ask their final nominee, Sarah Palin, some very basic questions prior to nominating her. Or else her flubs and their disagreements would not have happened.
But I'm supposed to believe they closely examined years of tax returns for someone they didn't pick?
Not saying Reid's accusations have any more merit. It's all speculation. I'm just saying McCain's vetting of his VP picks doesn't mean much. McCain's word on Romney's tax returns isn't anymore trustworthy than Harry Reid's baseless assertions.
And I refuse to believe Sarah Palin didn't cost McCain's campaign significant votes -- to the point that it might have cost him the election. She was not a good candidate. She was the very definition of abrasive, talking about "real" Americans, so what was her upside? Intellectualism? Entrepreneurial spirit? She was only just a Governor, the only thing differentiating trait being her personality. And yet her personality sucked. There were obviously much more qualified candidates, to such a degree that McCain picking her became an issue in itself. It was the opposite of what people expected of McCain. It was political pandering, where McCain was always the guy who was above political pandering. He compromised his greatest asset, the one thing independents loved him for, and trivialized the position of the VP in the process. Just my opinion on that.
|
Well if McCain said it, it must be true. I mean, this is the same political campaign that vetted Sarah "I can see Russia from my backyard" Palin and decided she'd be fit to run the country.
Someone's getting Saturday Night Live comedian Tina Fey confused with Sarah Palin.
And I refuse to believe Sarah Palin didn't cost McCain's campaign significant votes -- to the point that it might have cost him the election. She was not a good candidate. She was the very definition of abrasive, talking about "real" Americans, so what was her upside? Intellectualism? Entrepreneurial spirit? She was only just a Governor, the only thing differentiating trait being her personality. And yet her personality sucked. There were obviously much more qualified candidates, to such a degree that McCain picking her became an issue in itself. It was the opposite of what people expected of McCain. It was political pandering, where McCain was always the guy who was above political pandering. He compromised his greatest asset, the one thing independents loved him for, and trivialized the position of the VP in the process. Just my opinion on that.
Sarah Palin garnered way more conservative votes than you give her credit for. That's been the formula for quite a while now. Run a moderate, alienate the conservative side of the Republican base with his views, pick a conservative VP, have a shot at the election. My enthusiasm at casting a vote against Obama in 2000 rose a level above 0.00 when he chose Palin as a running mate. I voted for his VP and sighed that it was McCain that made it to the top of the Republican ticket.
And lest we forget, the Russia/Alaska originating remarks were on her national security experience as governor, being briefed more regularly than other governors since her state's national guard (Governor sits as Commander in Chief) is the first line of defense against threats from Russia and the far east. Way off topic, but as we get to VP picks, Romney could do worse. Sarah Palin's flop when McCain fed her to Katie Couric and bombed the interview pretty much puts her out of the running in my opinion.
As far as what I see as possible VP picks, I could get behind Christie, Ryan, Rubio, Gingrich and Rice. The others from the tweet are much less attractive to me.
P.S.
Nah, despite all of her baggage, Palin is what gave McCain a fighting chance in unusually adverse election conditions. He blew it by fumbling the ball when the economic crisis hit.
Exactly. I'd say McCain blew it with that and Palin blew it with the interview performance.
|
On August 01 2012 12:47 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 12:33 Leporello wrote:On August 01 2012 12:19 xDaunt wrote:On August 01 2012 12:15 Defacer wrote:On August 01 2012 11:50 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:If Harry reid is talking out of his ass.... WASHINGTON -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has what he says is an informed explanation for why Mitt Romney refuses to release additional tax returns. According a Bain investor, Reid charged, Romney didn't pay any taxes for 10 years.
In a wide-ranging interview with The Huffington Post from his office on Capitol Hill, Reid saved some of his toughest words for the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. Romney couldn't make it through a Senate confirmation process as a mere Cabinet nominee, the majority leader insisted, owing to the opaqueness of his personal finances.
"His poor father must be so embarrassed about his son," Reid said, in reference to George Romney's standard-setting decision to turn over 12 years of tax returns when he ran for president in the late 1960s.
Saying he had "no problem with somebody being really, really wealthy," Reid sat up in his chair a bit before stirring the pot further. A month or so ago, he said, a person who had invested with Bain Capital called his office.
"Harry, he didn't pay any taxes for 10 years," Reid recounted the person as saying.
"He didn't pay taxes for 10 years! Now, do I know that that's true? Well, I'm not certain," said Reid. "But obviously he can't release those tax returns. How would it look?
"You guys have said his wealth is $250 million," Reid went on. "Not a chance in the world. It's a lot more than that. I mean, you do pretty well if you don't pay taxes for 10 years when you're making millions and millions of dollars." Source It's a bold accusation, that's for sure. Reid better know what the hell he's talking about. Don't forget that McCain said that he reviewed all of Romney's tax returns as part of the VP selection process in 2008 and saw nothing underhanded or concerning. Well if McCain said it, it must be true. I mean, this is the same political campaign that vetted Sarah "I can see Russia from my backyard" Palin and decided she'd be fit to run the country. Yeah, they do their homework. Seriously, it blows my mind that you think McCain's VP vetting process should be some sort of authority in setting the record straight, when in reality, it's probably the biggest reason he isn't President right now. Nah, despite all of her baggage, Palin is what gave McCain a fighting chance in unusually adverse election conditions. He blew it by fumbling the ball when the economic crisis hit.
I think Palin was a shot in the arm but quickly became a liability. McCain fumbled the economy but the state of the economy was in utter shambles.
And frankly, Obama ran a brilliant campaign.
|
On August 01 2012 12:48 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 12:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 01 2012 11:23 kwizach wrote:On August 01 2012 08:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 01 2012 08:03 Adila wrote:Republican presidential challenger Mitt Romney hailed Poland's economy Tuesday as something akin to a Republican dream: a place of small government, individual empowerment and free enterprise.
While it's true that Poland is one of Europe's fastest-growing economies and boasts dynamic entrepreneurs, Romney's depiction of Poland as a place of small government is debatable. Even 23 years after throwing off a communist command economy, the Polish government continues to have a strong presence in people's lives: it gives women $300 for each baby they have, doubling that sum for poor families; it fully funds state university educations; and it guarantees health care to all its 38 million citizens.
And while Poland's economic growth has certainly been impressive in recent years, this is partly the result of economic redistribution in the form of subsidies that have been flowing in from the European Union since it joined the bloc in 2004... SourceOh Mitt... just shut up, smile, and wave. That article wasn't very good. Just because Poland has a slightly larger government than the US doesn't mean you can't praise them for their success. They used to be communists, now they are capitalists - other communist countries have had a much tougher time with the transition. That is worthy of praise, is it not? Sounds like reporters are playing the game of "give us more news or we'll make up our own". In his praise of Poland, Romney conveniently forgets to mention the important role of the government in the economic success the country is enjoying. Why would it be bias or distortion to notice this? Imagine a candidate X is advocating policy A and criticizing policy B. Policy A & B together bring success to another country. Candidate X visits the country and says the success of the country is owed to policy A, which he happens to also advocate at home, and does not mention the role of policy B. It would be bias to mention that he conveniently left out the role of policy B? I also like how this is in direct succession to his praise of the Israeli healthcare system, which happens to work thanks to heavy government intervention. Romney is not advocating that government offers zero benefits to society. So he doesn't need to mention that government offers benefits to society. Romney was using Poland as an example of an economy that grew during a period of declining government involvement. Romney also used Poland as an example of an economy that is growing without ballooning government debt. These two points are in line with Romney's platform (smaller government, smaller deficits). The size of Poland's government is irrelevant to either point. No, the size of Poland's government is certainly not irrelevant. When you say Romney advocates "smaller government", he advocates "smaller government" than what is currently found in the United States. Since in some ways the Polish government is actually bigger (proportionately) than its US counterpart (see the article) and has played a considerable role in the current economic situation of the country, it would be disingenuous to defend the idea (as Romney is implicitly doing in his speech, as was pointed out in the article) that Poland's story indicates that "smaller government" is the way to go for the US. In fact, it would indicate the opposite, namely that bigger government would be the way to go for the US. You can't simply say "hey look, this economy grew during a period of declining government involvement, this is in line with my platform", when the points of departure in terms of government involvement are completely different. In fact, if we look at total government expenditure as a percentage of GDP, the point of arrival for Poland (44 percent of GDP) is higher than the point of departure for the US (41 percent). Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 12:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
As for Israel's health care - Romney's point was to praise Israel's lower health care costs.
Lower health care costs is not what Obamacare provides. Obamacare is about increasing coverage but will do little to lower costs. The fact that government is involved in lowering healthcare costs is irrelevant because Romney is not advocating zero government involvement in healthcare. Lower health costs are in Israel notably the result of the role the country's national government plays in healthcare. Romney has advocated going in the opposite direction (less national government in healthcare). Can't you see the contradiction in him praising the Israeli healthcare system?
His only point was that Poland grew while the government shrunk and debt was kept in check. He was NOT using Poland as an example of a small government.
If you want to argue that points of departure matter than you are making a counter argument - and a debatable one at that. Just because you don't agree with his point doesn't mean that he can't make it. Nor is he required to list all possible criticisms to his point in the middle of the speech.
As for healthcare, just because Romney is advocating against a specific form of government involvement (Obamacare) doesn't mean that he has to advocate against all government forms of government involvement.
Similarly Obama can advocate getting rid of some Bush tax cuts while advocating to keep others. There's no contradiction there either because they are different things.
|
On August 01 2012 13:03 DoubleReed wrote:
Eh, the fact is that race is a biological myth. There's no real basis for race in biology or genetics. The genetic distance between 'races' is smaller than the genetic variability within a 'race.' So the delineation is basically meaningless. It would be like organizing people by eye color, facial structure, height, or skin pigmentation. A white person has something like a 10% chance to be closer to the average African than the average European. That's pretty high, when you think about it. I found a source that was really good at explaining the race myth, but I can't seem to find it at the moment.
But yea, the belief that race is genetically insignificant actually has a huge basis in science. It is much more surprising than you would initially suspect.
How are you defining "race," if not by skin pigmentation?
|
On August 01 2012 13:18 Leporello wrote:
And I refuse to believe Sarah Palin didn't cost McCain's campaign significant votes -- to the point that it might have cost him the election. She was not a good candidate. She was the very definition of abrasive, talking about "real" Americans, so what was her upside? Intellectualism? Entrepreneurial spirit? She was only just a Governor, the only thing differentiating trait being her personality. And yet her personality sucked. There were obviously much more qualified candidates, to such a degree that McCain picking her became an issue in itself. It was the opposite of what people expected of McCain. It was political pandering, where McCain was always the guy who was above political pandering. He compromised his greatest asset, the one thing independents loved him for, and trivialized the position of the VP in the process. Just my opinion on that.
On August 01 2012 13:49 Danglars wrote:
Sarah Palin garnered way more conservative votes than you give her credit for. That's been the formula for quite a while now. Run a moderate, alienate the conservative side of the Republican base with his views, pick a conservative VP, have a shot at the election. My enthusiasm at casting a vote against Obama in 2000 rose a level above 0.00 when he chose Palin as a running mate. I voted for his VP and sighed that it was McCain that made it to the top of the Republican ticket.
So the question is which was the bigger factor - the number of conservatives who would have otherwise stayed home but ended up voting for McCain because of Palin on the ticket, or the number of moderates who would have otherwise voted for McCain but ended up voting for Obama because Palin being VP scared the bejeezus out of them?
Probably the latter. Keep in mind that one person switching from McCain to Obama requires *two* people switching from nonvoter to McCain voter in order for it to be a wash.
|
As many people as Palin earned she lost in votes for Obama probably. I wouldn't have voted for Obama (or in general probably) if it wasn't for Palin joining the race. What an insult to our national intelligence.
|
Romney just gets more and more clownish...what the actual fuck
"Kiss my ass, this is a holy site for the Polish people. Show some respect!"
what a retard + retarded campaign staff
|
On Sunday, Mitt Romney boldly declared that Israel’s economic superiority over the Palestinians was due to its culture. On Tuesday morning, he dismissed any notion that he had even discussed Palestinian culture. On Tuesday night, Romney reversed himself yet again, in an op-ed entitled “Culture Does Matter.”
“During my recent trip to Israel, I had suggested that the choices a society makes about its culture play a role in creating prosperity, and that the significant disparity between Israeli and Palestinian living standards was powerfully influenced by it,” Romney wrote in the National Review. “In some quarters, that comment became the subject of controversy. But what exactly accounts for prosperity if not culture?”
In an interview earlier the very same day with FOX News, Romney told interviewer Carl Cameron that he “did not speak about the Palestinian culture or the decisions made in their economy” and that he “certainly [doesn’t] intend to address that during my campaign.”
That interview appeared to be directly at odds with Romney’s original speech, in which he directly compared the per capita GDP of Israel and the Palestinian territories and attributed Israel’s comparative strength to “culture” and the “hand of providence.” It also directly contradicts the first paragraph of his National Review op-ed, in which he explicitly says he was comparing the two economies and cultures.
Source
|
On August 01 2012 11:52 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 11:08 xDaunt wrote:On August 01 2012 11:02 kwizach wrote:On August 01 2012 05:26 xDaunt wrote:
And just because I'm in the mood to start a shitstorm, let me expound upon this a little bit by providing a textbook example of why culture matters with regards to economic success. Let's compare the Asian and African-American communities in the US. Both populations had pretty shitty situations when they came to the US. Blacks were slaves or otherwise indentured servants (or barely better). Asians, though not technically slaves, were treated just as badly and sometimes worse. Hell, the Asians had to deal with laws that prohibited their ownership of real property. Now let's fast forward from the 19th century to now. I don't think anyone would dispute that Asians have been tremendously successful in this country whereas African-Americans, to put it charitably, are still a work in progress. Why is there still such a disparity after many generations?
I posit to you that this disparity is strictly the result of cultural differences between the two populations, and I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation to the contrary. However, I'm all ears. Erm, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. You haven't even defined "culture". What's the Palestinian "culture" and how exactly has it impacted the economic growth of Palestine as opposed to the living conditions of the people and the political status of the entity? I already said that a comparison of Isarelis and Palestinians doesn't make for a good test case because of numerous complicating factors. I'm more than happy to talk about blacks and Asians though. I've been pitching that question for over ten years and have never gotten a good response from a liberal. Maybe you can do better. Not a liberal, but I'd argue that the issue here isn't the culture of "blacks" or "Asians" as a group. Rather, one must consider that there are multiple cultures within those groups. For example, if you look deeper into the socioeconomic status of "Asians", you'd find significant differences between Chinese/Indians/Koreans and Vietnamese/Cambodians/Laotians. Similarly, you can find differences between African-Americans descended from slaves and those who immigrated more recently. This suggests that the "cultural differences" that you point to actually arise from selection effects. Asian immigrants (with the exception of refugee groups) tend to be the best and brightest from their home countries, so Asian-Americans tend to have a culture disposed towards socioeconomic success. By contrast, the Africans who managed to get captured or sold into slavery probably weren't the best and brightest, and several centuries of slaveowners attempting to breed physically fit yet intellectually diminished/obedient slaves probably didn't help. TL;DR: people who come to America voluntarily tend to be above-average; people who come to America involuntarily tend to be below-average.As a side note, it's also actually rather interesting that you frame your argument as a conservative one. The fact that you attribute the disparity to strictly cultural differences, rather than as a combination of genetic and cultural differences, strikes me as a rather politically correct liberal explanation already (while the suggestion that genetic factors are at work here is probably controversial, I don't think it's a huge stretch to consider the genetic selection effects of several centuries of slavery).
Oh of course, it isn't racist if you say that black or white or Asian people aren't inferior or superior, it's just that European-Americans and Asian-Americans are superior to African-Americans! Jesus Christ, what the fuck is wrong with you?
|
and people complain that Obama lies. Geez. The guy managed to completely change his story twice in less than a week.
|
On August 01 2012 15:48 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 11:52 sunprince wrote:On August 01 2012 11:08 xDaunt wrote:On August 01 2012 11:02 kwizach wrote:On August 01 2012 05:26 xDaunt wrote:
And just because I'm in the mood to start a shitstorm, let me expound upon this a little bit by providing a textbook example of why culture matters with regards to economic success. Let's compare the Asian and African-American communities in the US. Both populations had pretty shitty situations when they came to the US. Blacks were slaves or otherwise indentured servants (or barely better). Asians, though not technically slaves, were treated just as badly and sometimes worse. Hell, the Asians had to deal with laws that prohibited their ownership of real property. Now let's fast forward from the 19th century to now. I don't think anyone would dispute that Asians have been tremendously successful in this country whereas African-Americans, to put it charitably, are still a work in progress. Why is there still such a disparity after many generations?
I posit to you that this disparity is strictly the result of cultural differences between the two populations, and I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation to the contrary. However, I'm all ears. Erm, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. You haven't even defined "culture". What's the Palestinian "culture" and how exactly has it impacted the economic growth of Palestine as opposed to the living conditions of the people and the political status of the entity? I already said that a comparison of Isarelis and Palestinians doesn't make for a good test case because of numerous complicating factors. I'm more than happy to talk about blacks and Asians though. I've been pitching that question for over ten years and have never gotten a good response from a liberal. Maybe you can do better. Not a liberal, but I'd argue that the issue here isn't the culture of "blacks" or "Asians" as a group. Rather, one must consider that there are multiple cultures within those groups. For example, if you look deeper into the socioeconomic status of "Asians", you'd find significant differences between Chinese/Indians/Koreans and Vietnamese/Cambodians/Laotians. Similarly, you can find differences between African-Americans descended from slaves and those who immigrated more recently. This suggests that the "cultural differences" that you point to actually arise from selection effects. Asian immigrants (with the exception of refugee groups) tend to be the best and brightest from their home countries, so Asian-Americans tend to have a culture disposed towards socioeconomic success. By contrast, the Africans who managed to get captured or sold into slavery probably weren't the best and brightest, and several centuries of slaveowners attempting to breed physically fit yet intellectually diminished/obedient slaves probably didn't help. TL;DR: people who come to America voluntarily tend to be above-average; people who come to America involuntarily tend to be below-average.As a side note, it's also actually rather interesting that you frame your argument as a conservative one. The fact that you attribute the disparity to strictly cultural differences, rather than as a combination of genetic and cultural differences, strikes me as a rather politically correct liberal explanation already (while the suggestion that genetic factors are at work here is probably controversial, I don't think it's a huge stretch to consider the genetic selection effects of several centuries of slavery). Oh of course, it isn't racist if you say that black or white or Asian people aren't inferior or superior, it's just that European-Americans and Asian-Americans are superior to African-Americans! Jesus Christ, what the fuck is wrong with you?
Did you read the post you quoted? That was not the intention at all. If anything you should direct your comment at xDaunt.
|
On August 01 2012 16:42 RavenLoud wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 15:48 HunterX11 wrote:On August 01 2012 11:52 sunprince wrote:On August 01 2012 11:08 xDaunt wrote:On August 01 2012 11:02 kwizach wrote:On August 01 2012 05:26 xDaunt wrote:
And just because I'm in the mood to start a shitstorm, let me expound upon this a little bit by providing a textbook example of why culture matters with regards to economic success. Let's compare the Asian and African-American communities in the US. Both populations had pretty shitty situations when they came to the US. Blacks were slaves or otherwise indentured servants (or barely better). Asians, though not technically slaves, were treated just as badly and sometimes worse. Hell, the Asians had to deal with laws that prohibited their ownership of real property. Now let's fast forward from the 19th century to now. I don't think anyone would dispute that Asians have been tremendously successful in this country whereas African-Americans, to put it charitably, are still a work in progress. Why is there still such a disparity after many generations?
I posit to you that this disparity is strictly the result of cultural differences between the two populations, and I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation to the contrary. However, I'm all ears. Erm, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. You haven't even defined "culture". What's the Palestinian "culture" and how exactly has it impacted the economic growth of Palestine as opposed to the living conditions of the people and the political status of the entity? I already said that a comparison of Isarelis and Palestinians doesn't make for a good test case because of numerous complicating factors. I'm more than happy to talk about blacks and Asians though. I've been pitching that question for over ten years and have never gotten a good response from a liberal. Maybe you can do better. Not a liberal, but I'd argue that the issue here isn't the culture of "blacks" or "Asians" as a group. Rather, one must consider that there are multiple cultures within those groups. For example, if you look deeper into the socioeconomic status of "Asians", you'd find significant differences between Chinese/Indians/Koreans and Vietnamese/Cambodians/Laotians. Similarly, you can find differences between African-Americans descended from slaves and those who immigrated more recently. This suggests that the "cultural differences" that you point to actually arise from selection effects. Asian immigrants (with the exception of refugee groups) tend to be the best and brightest from their home countries, so Asian-Americans tend to have a culture disposed towards socioeconomic success. By contrast, the Africans who managed to get captured or sold into slavery probably weren't the best and brightest, and several centuries of slaveowners attempting to breed physically fit yet intellectually diminished/obedient slaves probably didn't help. TL;DR: people who come to America voluntarily tend to be above-average; people who come to America involuntarily tend to be below-average.As a side note, it's also actually rather interesting that you frame your argument as a conservative one. The fact that you attribute the disparity to strictly cultural differences, rather than as a combination of genetic and cultural differences, strikes me as a rather politically correct liberal explanation already (while the suggestion that genetic factors are at work here is probably controversial, I don't think it's a huge stretch to consider the genetic selection effects of several centuries of slavery). Oh of course, it isn't racist if you say that black or white or Asian people aren't inferior or superior, it's just that European-Americans and Asian-Americans are superior to African-Americans! Jesus Christ, what the fuck is wrong with you? Did you read the post you quoted? That was not the intention at all. If anything you should direct your comment at xDaunt.
Did you? He literally suggested that African-Americans are genetically predisposed to inferior economic outcomes due to artificial selection.
|
On August 01 2012 17:13 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 16:42 RavenLoud wrote:On August 01 2012 15:48 HunterX11 wrote:On August 01 2012 11:52 sunprince wrote:On August 01 2012 11:08 xDaunt wrote:On August 01 2012 11:02 kwizach wrote:On August 01 2012 05:26 xDaunt wrote:
And just because I'm in the mood to start a shitstorm, let me expound upon this a little bit by providing a textbook example of why culture matters with regards to economic success. Let's compare the Asian and African-American communities in the US. Both populations had pretty shitty situations when they came to the US. Blacks were slaves or otherwise indentured servants (or barely better). Asians, though not technically slaves, were treated just as badly and sometimes worse. Hell, the Asians had to deal with laws that prohibited their ownership of real property. Now let's fast forward from the 19th century to now. I don't think anyone would dispute that Asians have been tremendously successful in this country whereas African-Americans, to put it charitably, are still a work in progress. Why is there still such a disparity after many generations?
I posit to you that this disparity is strictly the result of cultural differences between the two populations, and I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation to the contrary. However, I'm all ears. Erm, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. You haven't even defined "culture". What's the Palestinian "culture" and how exactly has it impacted the economic growth of Palestine as opposed to the living conditions of the people and the political status of the entity? I already said that a comparison of Isarelis and Palestinians doesn't make for a good test case because of numerous complicating factors. I'm more than happy to talk about blacks and Asians though. I've been pitching that question for over ten years and have never gotten a good response from a liberal. Maybe you can do better. Not a liberal, but I'd argue that the issue here isn't the culture of "blacks" or "Asians" as a group. Rather, one must consider that there are multiple cultures within those groups. For example, if you look deeper into the socioeconomic status of "Asians", you'd find significant differences between Chinese/Indians/Koreans and Vietnamese/Cambodians/Laotians. Similarly, you can find differences between African-Americans descended from slaves and those who immigrated more recently. This suggests that the "cultural differences" that you point to actually arise from selection effects. Asian immigrants (with the exception of refugee groups) tend to be the best and brightest from their home countries, so Asian-Americans tend to have a culture disposed towards socioeconomic success. By contrast, the Africans who managed to get captured or sold into slavery probably weren't the best and brightest, and several centuries of slaveowners attempting to breed physically fit yet intellectually diminished/obedient slaves probably didn't help. TL;DR: people who come to America voluntarily tend to be above-average; people who come to America involuntarily tend to be below-average.As a side note, it's also actually rather interesting that you frame your argument as a conservative one. The fact that you attribute the disparity to strictly cultural differences, rather than as a combination of genetic and cultural differences, strikes me as a rather politically correct liberal explanation already (while the suggestion that genetic factors are at work here is probably controversial, I don't think it's a huge stretch to consider the genetic selection effects of several centuries of slavery). Oh of course, it isn't racist if you say that black or white or Asian people aren't inferior or superior, it's just that European-Americans and Asian-Americans are superior to African-Americans! Jesus Christ, what the fuck is wrong with you? Did you read the post you quoted? That was not the intention at all. If anything you should direct your comment at xDaunt. Did you? He literally suggested that African-Americans are genetically predisposed to inferior economic outcomes due to artificial selection.
I'm with you. I considered reporting it but I didn't think TL would moderate posts for moderately disguised racism that is stated calmly and without slurs.
It's not hard to guess why so many in this thread with seemingly no expertise in evolutionary biology or knowledge of the various cultures discussed find it easy to craft just-so stories that make inequalities seem either inevitable or the fault of the victims.
|
On August 01 2012 12:18 M4nkind wrote:
could someone answer my noob question? Why in US there are only democrats and republicans? In Europe we have many parties that participate in all elections, and even independent persons can do that. US citizens want to state that they are free, but what is freedom when you always pick from 2 candidates of 2 different parties that never changes?
Winner takes all system. It's stupid, but it's never gonna change b/c the two parties in power won't vote to give themselves less power.
|
On August 01 2012 17:13 HunterX11 wrote:
Did you? He literally suggested that African-Americans are genetically predisposed to inferior economic outcomes due to artificial selection.
Facepalm. Artificial selection meaning that the Asians that came to America voluntarily tended to be those that were highly educated in the first place, putting their descendants at an advantage. Africans brought to America *involuntarily* by slavery certainly weren't self-selected, and as such their descendants on average were not likely to be as successful as the self-chosen Asian ones.
I'm taking a wild guess, but I think the ones that were forced to come here are at a disadvantage, given that, you know, the people that brought them here were able to do so.
|
On August 01 2012 13:03 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 12:18 sunprince wrote:On August 01 2012 12:14 DoubleReed wrote:On August 01 2012 11:52 sunprince wrote:On August 01 2012 11:08 xDaunt wrote:On August 01 2012 11:02 kwizach wrote:On August 01 2012 05:26 xDaunt wrote:
And just because I'm in the mood to start a shitstorm, let me expound upon this a little bit by providing a textbook example of why culture matters with regards to economic success. Let's compare the Asian and African-American communities in the US. Both populations had pretty shitty situations when they came to the US. Blacks were slaves or otherwise indentured servants (or barely better). Asians, though not technically slaves, were treated just as badly and sometimes worse. Hell, the Asians had to deal with laws that prohibited their ownership of real property. Now let's fast forward from the 19th century to now. I don't think anyone would dispute that Asians have been tremendously successful in this country whereas African-Americans, to put it charitably, are still a work in progress. Why is there still such a disparity after many generations?
I posit to you that this disparity is strictly the result of cultural differences between the two populations, and I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation to the contrary. However, I'm all ears. Erm, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. You haven't even defined "culture". What's the Palestinian "culture" and how exactly has it impacted the economic growth of Palestine as opposed to the living conditions of the people and the political status of the entity? I already said that a comparison of Isarelis and Palestinians doesn't make for a good test case because of numerous complicating factors. I'm more than happy to talk about blacks and Asians though. I've been pitching that question for over ten years and have never gotten a good response from a liberal. Maybe you can do better. Not a liberal, but I'd argue that the issue here isn't the culture of "blacks" or "Asians" as a group. Rather, one must consider that there are multiple cultures within those groups. For example, if you look deeper into the socioeconomic status of "Asians", you'd find significant differences between Chinese/Indians/Koreans and Vietnamese/Cambodians/Laotians. Similarly, you can find differences between African-Americans descended from slaves and those who immigrated more recently. This suggests that the "cultural differences" that you point to actually arise from selection effects. Asian immigrants (with the exception of refugee groups) tend to be the best and brightest from their home countries, so Asian-Americans tend to have a culture disposed towards socioeconomic success. By contrast, the Africans who managed to get captured or sold into slavery probably weren't the best and brightest, and several centuries of slaveowners attempting to breed physically fit yet intellectually diminished/obedient slaves probably didn't help. TL;DR: people who come to America voluntarily tend to be above-average; people who come to America involuntarily tend to be below-average.As a side note, it's also actually rather interesting that you frame your argument as a conservative one. The fact that you attribute the disparity to strictly cultural differences, rather than as a combination of genetic and cultural differences, strikes me as a rather politically correct liberal explanation already (while the suggestion that genetic factors are at work here is probably controversial, I don't think it's a huge stretch to consider the genetic selection effects of several centuries of slavery). Uh... did you just say that conservative = racist? I mean I would just say that's just scientific racism. I wouldn't characterize it as conservative. I'm not exactly sure why xDaunt characterizes it as liberal arguments, but I guess he's just trying to use it as a pejorative because he's actively trying to be a douchebag. No, my argument is that liberal = politically correct, to the point of ignoring science. Liberals typically believe in cultural determinism (genetics are irrelevant, and that people are the same biologically regardless of ethnicity or gender). This belief has absolutely no basis in science, however, as biologists can tell you that there are obvious genetic differences between various racial groups as well as genders. That said, I don't think it would be unfair to claim that there is a certain segment of American conservatives who do trend towards racist. Eh, the fact is that race is a biological myth. There's no real basis for race in biology or genetics. The genetic distance between 'races' is smaller than the genetic variability within a 'race. So the delineation is basically meaningless. It would be like organizing people by eye color, facial structure, height, or skin pigmentation. A white person has something like a 10% chance to be closer to the average African than the average European. That's pretty high, when you think about it. I found a source that was really good at explaining the race myth, but I can't seem to find it at the moment. '
This is actually one of those politically correct myths that is used to propogate the false idea that genetic differences do not exist. Biology tells us that "races" as in "blacks", "whites", or "Asians" don't exist, but ethnic groups certainly do. The field of medicine blatantly demonstrates that different ethnic groups have different genetic dispositions with implications for risks and treatment.
Cultural determinists would have you believe that only superficial differences (e.g. height, skin pigmentation, etc.) exist across ethnicities, but the fact is that our increasing understanding of the human genome confirms it's far more than that. For example, we now know that non-Africans have ~1-4% Neanderthal DNA, Melanesians have ~4-6% Denisovan DNA, and sub-Saharan Africans have ~2% DNA from another unconfirmed archaic population, possibly Homo Erectus.
On August 01 2012 13:03 DoubleReed wrote:
But yea, the belief that race is genetically insignificant actually has a huge basis in science. It is much more surprising than you would initially suspect.
I agree that "race" might not be a valid scientific grouping, but ethnic groups certainly are. Scientists have simply been forced to use terms such as "populations", "ethnic groups" and "peoples" in place of politically charged ones such as "race" in order to describe the concept we're talking about.
|
On August 01 2012 15:48 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 11:52 sunprince wrote:On August 01 2012 11:08 xDaunt wrote:On August 01 2012 11:02 kwizach wrote:On August 01 2012 05:26 xDaunt wrote:
And just because I'm in the mood to start a shitstorm, let me expound upon this a little bit by providing a textbook example of why culture matters with regards to economic success. Let's compare the Asian and African-American communities in the US. Both populations had pretty shitty situations when they came to the US. Blacks were slaves or otherwise indentured servants (or barely better). Asians, though not technically slaves, were treated just as badly and sometimes worse. Hell, the Asians had to deal with laws that prohibited their ownership of real property. Now let's fast forward from the 19th century to now. I don't think anyone would dispute that Asians have been tremendously successful in this country whereas African-Americans, to put it charitably, are still a work in progress. Why is there still such a disparity after many generations?
I posit to you that this disparity is strictly the result of cultural differences between the two populations, and I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation to the contrary. However, I'm all ears. Erm, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. You haven't even defined "culture". What's the Palestinian "culture" and how exactly has it impacted the economic growth of Palestine as opposed to the living conditions of the people and the political status of the entity? I already said that a comparison of Isarelis and Palestinians doesn't make for a good test case because of numerous complicating factors. I'm more than happy to talk about blacks and Asians though. I've been pitching that question for over ten years and have never gotten a good response from a liberal. Maybe you can do better. Not a liberal, but I'd argue that the issue here isn't the culture of "blacks" or "Asians" as a group. Rather, one must consider that there are multiple cultures within those groups. For example, if you look deeper into the socioeconomic status of "Asians", you'd find significant differences between Chinese/Indians/Koreans and Vietnamese/Cambodians/Laotians. Similarly, you can find differences between African-Americans descended from slaves and those who immigrated more recently. This suggests that the "cultural differences" that you point to actually arise from selection effects. Asian immigrants (with the exception of refugee groups) tend to be the best and brightest from their home countries, so Asian-Americans tend to have a culture disposed towards socioeconomic success. By contrast, the Africans who managed to get captured or sold into slavery probably weren't the best and brightest, and several centuries of slaveowners attempting to breed physically fit yet intellectually diminished/obedient slaves probably didn't help. TL;DR: people who come to America voluntarily tend to be above-average; people who come to America involuntarily tend to be below-average.As a side note, it's also actually rather interesting that you frame your argument as a conservative one. The fact that you attribute the disparity to strictly cultural differences, rather than as a combination of genetic and cultural differences, strikes me as a rather politically correct liberal explanation already (while the suggestion that genetic factors are at work here is probably controversial, I don't think it's a huge stretch to consider the genetic selection effects of several centuries of slavery). Oh of course, it isn't racist if you say that black or white or Asian people aren't inferior or superior, it's just that European-Americans and Asian-Americans are superior to African-Americans! Jesus Christ, what the fuck is wrong with you?
Do you have a logical argument to make, or are you simply telling me that the truth of my statements offends you?
On August 01 2012 17:13 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 16:42 RavenLoud wrote:On August 01 2012 15:48 HunterX11 wrote:On August 01 2012 11:52 sunprince wrote:On August 01 2012 11:08 xDaunt wrote:On August 01 2012 11:02 kwizach wrote:On August 01 2012 05:26 xDaunt wrote:
And just because I'm in the mood to start a shitstorm, let me expound upon this a little bit by providing a textbook example of why culture matters with regards to economic success. Let's compare the Asian and African-American communities in the US. Both populations had pretty shitty situations when they came to the US. Blacks were slaves or otherwise indentured servants (or barely better). Asians, though not technically slaves, were treated just as badly and sometimes worse. Hell, the Asians had to deal with laws that prohibited their ownership of real property. Now let's fast forward from the 19th century to now. I don't think anyone would dispute that Asians have been tremendously successful in this country whereas African-Americans, to put it charitably, are still a work in progress. Why is there still such a disparity after many generations?
I posit to you that this disparity is strictly the result of cultural differences between the two populations, and I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation to the contrary. However, I'm all ears. Erm, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. You haven't even defined "culture". What's the Palestinian "culture" and how exactly has it impacted the economic growth of Palestine as opposed to the living conditions of the people and the political status of the entity? I already said that a comparison of Isarelis and Palestinians doesn't make for a good test case because of numerous complicating factors. I'm more than happy to talk about blacks and Asians though. I've been pitching that question for over ten years and have never gotten a good response from a liberal. Maybe you can do better. Not a liberal, but I'd argue that the issue here isn't the culture of "blacks" or "Asians" as a group. Rather, one must consider that there are multiple cultures within those groups. For example, if you look deeper into the socioeconomic status of "Asians", you'd find significant differences between Chinese/Indians/Koreans and Vietnamese/Cambodians/Laotians. Similarly, you can find differences between African-Americans descended from slaves and those who immigrated more recently. This suggests that the "cultural differences" that you point to actually arise from selection effects. Asian immigrants (with the exception of refugee groups) tend to be the best and brightest from their home countries, so Asian-Americans tend to have a culture disposed towards socioeconomic success. By contrast, the Africans who managed to get captured or sold into slavery probably weren't the best and brightest, and several centuries of slaveowners attempting to breed physically fit yet intellectually diminished/obedient slaves probably didn't help. TL;DR: people who come to America voluntarily tend to be above-average; people who come to America involuntarily tend to be below-average.As a side note, it's also actually rather interesting that you frame your argument as a conservative one. The fact that you attribute the disparity to strictly cultural differences, rather than as a combination of genetic and cultural differences, strikes me as a rather politically correct liberal explanation already (while the suggestion that genetic factors are at work here is probably controversial, I don't think it's a huge stretch to consider the genetic selection effects of several centuries of slavery). Oh of course, it isn't racist if you say that black or white or Asian people aren't inferior or superior, it's just that European-Americans and Asian-Americans are superior to African-Americans! Jesus Christ, what the fuck is wrong with you? Did you read the post you quoted? That was not the intention at all. If anything you should direct your comment at xDaunt. Did you? He literally suggested that African-Americans are genetically predisposed to inferior economic outcomes due to artificial selection.
And your problem with that is, what, it's offensive? You haven't challenged the logic of my post in any way.
On August 01 2012 17:43 frogrubdown wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 17:13 HunterX11 wrote:On August 01 2012 16:42 RavenLoud wrote:On August 01 2012 15:48 HunterX11 wrote:On August 01 2012 11:52 sunprince wrote:On August 01 2012 11:08 xDaunt wrote:On August 01 2012 11:02 kwizach wrote:On August 01 2012 05:26 xDaunt wrote:
And just because I'm in the mood to start a shitstorm, let me expound upon this a little bit by providing a textbook example of why culture matters with regards to economic success. Let's compare the Asian and African-American communities in the US. Both populations had pretty shitty situations when they came to the US. Blacks were slaves or otherwise indentured servants (or barely better). Asians, though not technically slaves, were treated just as badly and sometimes worse. Hell, the Asians had to deal with laws that prohibited their ownership of real property. Now let's fast forward from the 19th century to now. I don't think anyone would dispute that Asians have been tremendously successful in this country whereas African-Americans, to put it charitably, are still a work in progress. Why is there still such a disparity after many generations?
I posit to you that this disparity is strictly the result of cultural differences between the two populations, and I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation to the contrary. However, I'm all ears. Erm, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. You haven't even defined "culture". What's the Palestinian "culture" and how exactly has it impacted the economic growth of Palestine as opposed to the living conditions of the people and the political status of the entity? I already said that a comparison of Isarelis and Palestinians doesn't make for a good test case because of numerous complicating factors. I'm more than happy to talk about blacks and Asians though. I've been pitching that question for over ten years and have never gotten a good response from a liberal. Maybe you can do better. Not a liberal, but I'd argue that the issue here isn't the culture of "blacks" or "Asians" as a group. Rather, one must consider that there are multiple cultures within those groups. For example, if you look deeper into the socioeconomic status of "Asians", you'd find significant differences between Chinese/Indians/Koreans and Vietnamese/Cambodians/Laotians. Similarly, you can find differences between African-Americans descended from slaves and those who immigrated more recently. This suggests that the "cultural differences" that you point to actually arise from selection effects. Asian immigrants (with the exception of refugee groups) tend to be the best and brightest from their home countries, so Asian-Americans tend to have a culture disposed towards socioeconomic success. By contrast, the Africans who managed to get captured or sold into slavery probably weren't the best and brightest, and several centuries of slaveowners attempting to breed physically fit yet intellectually diminished/obedient slaves probably didn't help. TL;DR: people who come to America voluntarily tend to be above-average; people who come to America involuntarily tend to be below-average.As a side note, it's also actually rather interesting that you frame your argument as a conservative one. The fact that you attribute the disparity to strictly cultural differences, rather than as a combination of genetic and cultural differences, strikes me as a rather politically correct liberal explanation already (while the suggestion that genetic factors are at work here is probably controversial, I don't think it's a huge stretch to consider the genetic selection effects of several centuries of slavery). Oh of course, it isn't racist if you say that black or white or Asian people aren't inferior or superior, it's just that European-Americans and Asian-Americans are superior to African-Americans! Jesus Christ, what the fuck is wrong with you? Did you read the post you quoted? That was not the intention at all. If anything you should direct your comment at xDaunt. Did you? He literally suggested that African-Americans are genetically predisposed to inferior economic outcomes due to artificial selection. I'm with you. I considered reporting it but I didn't think TL would moderate posts for moderately disguised racism that is stated calmly and without slurs. It's not hard to guess why so many in this thread with seemingly no expertise in evolutionary biology or knowledge of the various cultures discussed find it easy to craft just-so stories that make inequalities seem either inevitable or the fault of the victims.
Oh, look, yet another person who doesn't actually dispute my premise, but merely finds it offensive.
User was warned for this post
Edit: Image macro removed as per mod warning.
|
On August 01 2012 13:49 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +Well if McCain said it, it must be true. I mean, this is the same political campaign that vetted Sarah "I can see Russia from my backyard" Palin and decided she'd be fit to run the country. Someone's getting Saturday Night Live comedian Tina Fey confused with Sarah Palin. Show nested quote +And I refuse to believe Sarah Palin didn't cost McCain's campaign significant votes -- to the point that it might have cost him the election. She was not a good candidate. She was the very definition of abrasive, talking about "real" Americans, so what was her upside? Intellectualism? Entrepreneurial spirit? She was only just a Governor, the only thing differentiating trait being her personality. And yet her personality sucked. There were obviously much more qualified candidates, to such a degree that McCain picking her became an issue in itself. It was the opposite of what people expected of McCain. It was political pandering, where McCain was always the guy who was above political pandering. He compromised his greatest asset, the one thing independents loved him for, and trivialized the position of the VP in the process. Just my opinion on that. Sarah Palin garnered way more conservative votes than you give her credit for. That's been the formula for quite a while now. Run a moderate, alienate the conservative side of the Republican base with his views, pick a conservative VP, have a shot at the election. My enthusiasm at casting a vote against Obama in 2000 rose a level above 0.00 when he chose Palin as a running mate. I voted for his VP and sighed that it was McCain that made it to the top of the Republican ticket. And lest we forget, the Russia/Alaska originating remarks were on her national security experience as governor, being briefed more regularly than other governors since her state's national guard (Governor sits as Commander in Chief) is the first line of defense against threats from Russia and the far east. Way off topic, but as we get to VP picks, Romney could do worse. Sarah Palin's flop when McCain fed her to Katie Couric and bombed the interview pretty much puts her out of the running in my opinion. As far as what I see as possible VP picks, I could get behind Christie, Ryan, Rubio, Gingrich and Rice. The others from the tweet are much less attractive to me. P.S. Show nested quote +Nah, despite all of her baggage, Palin is what gave McCain a fighting chance in unusually adverse election conditions. He blew it by fumbling the ball when the economic crisis hit. Exactly. I'd say McCain blew it with that and Palin blew it with the interview performance.
The far right nub jobs are voting Republican no matter what. The Republicans don't need to rally their base they need to win over independents, right wing Democrats, left wing Republicans and minorities.
|
In the last years Obama has done so much better than most others would have done. Of course he is no magician.
Mitt Romney is a catastrophe and I think a lot of people will agree that if he wins, the "rest of the world" will be very disappointed of the US , again.
I really think Obama will win, but on the other hand I wouldnt have thought it's possible for Bush to be elected a second time after his first years.
I like the discussion in this thread, for the most part. Thanks to those who constantly post news articles, I have read a lot of them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
