Sam Harris on Sarah Palin

[_asbestosman]

Capitalism has died under the Republican watch.

Or at least under a GoP president. Democrats currently outnumber R's in the House by about 30 seats although the balance was reversed in 2004. Besides, I've heard that most economic things take longer than a presidency to really be felt which means we end up blaming the wrong guy. Still, I have not seen great evidence that the economy prospers or falters more under one party than another.

I think it would be great to have socialized medicine. The current free market for medical care is as least as dysfunctional as our financial system.

To be honest, I'm not sure how much our medicine is really free market. That said, I agree that the current state has significant problems. As to whether socialized medicine would be better, well, I'm not so sure either way. I guess it depends on whether you can currently get decent care or not. Some of my close family and friends can and some cannot. Some have come close to financial ruin from it. Some cannot buy insurance because of pre-existing conditions (they would have to work for a big company and be on that plan). Mandated employer-provided ensurance can make it difficult for some small buisness owners I know to stay in buisness. But for those I know who don't have those difficulties, the current system only sucks in getting insurance to actually pay the bills--otherwise healthcare is quick and powerful to the dividing asunder of both joints and marrow.

[_Sethbag]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/160080/page/1
Consider the source.

That's all you have to do.

This is pretty much why I don't even bother to read almost anything you write anymore.

By the way, when I first read this Newsweek article a couple of days ago, I didn't notice who had written it until I checked afterward. While reading it I thought to myself wow, this guy is saying pretty much exactly what I was thinking, but he was saying it much more cogently, and much more succinctly. I found myself agreeing with pretty much everything he said. Then I looked back at the first page and saw that Sam Harris had written it, and thought ok, well that explains it.

Sam Harris has an incredible way of explaining things. He makes it all look so obvious. I've listened to a lot of what he's had to say that's available on the internet, and really admire him. He's spot on, like a laser beam cutting through all the crap and telling you what's what.

Speaking of Obama, while I'm down on Sarah Palin for being too credulous in her view that God is shaping things in the world, and that George Bush is doing God's Will in the world and all that, I too have been somewhat disquieted by the fact that Obama too has claimed to be a very religious person. To some extent, what I don't like about Palin can apply to Obama too, in that there's something fundamentally unsound about looking to some Sky Daddy to tell you what to do. Or worse, looking to a particular religion's interpretations of the writings of some Bronze Age middle eastern goatherders as somehow explaining to us all the will of Sky Daddy in all things going on today.

But I have to 100% agree with Sam Harris's criticism of Sarah Palin. Sure she has "executive experience" hiring her friends and firing her enemies in a town of 7000 people in BFA, and a couple of years governing Alaska, but the fact that she's never even owned a passport until last year scares me. America has a pretty rough relationship with the rest of the world right now, and we need someone who has some kind of concept of what that means. And I personally don't want another "America kicks ASS, and you will all do what we say, or ELSE" people in charge. We've got to be able to relate to, and work with, other people in the world, not as their dominator, but as their partner.

[_Sethbag]

I'm not a huge fan of Palin, but some of these complaints seem a little off-base. Heck, she isn't even running for President.

With a Presidential candidate who's already in his 70s, who's already had cancer more than once, Sarah Palin is running for President a lot more than, say, Joe Biden is. Joe Biden would be President if something truly unexpected happened to Obama. Sarah Palin actually stands a non-trivial chance of being thrust into the Presidency during McCain's first four years, and it's not as if whatever happened would be all that unexpected.

I really don't like the choices we've got. I've always admired McCain, and I voted for McCain in the New Hampshire primary in 2000. But something about the last eight years does have me nervous, and his choice of Sarah Palin actually diminishes his benefits in my view. I see it as a political gamble, taken not in the country's best interest, but in the interest of getting him elected. That worries me.

In the future, if someone wonders what worries me about Sarah Palin, I'll just point them to Sam Harris's article. It's nearly perfect.

[_moksha]

Obama's entire history is top loaded with associations, and very important ones (mentors and teachers) who fall well into the realm of some of the most unsavory human beings one could wish to be associated with.

One only needs to watch the movie, The Manchurian Candidate to realize the truth of what you are saying. Imagine the faces of the uninitiated, when at the board meetings of Bechtel and Haliburton, they don their masks and goat-leggings and prance around the room praising the coming of McBush.

[_collegeterrace]

Consider the source.

That's all you have to do.

Thanks for the tip. I'll save tons of time by ignoring the rest of your posts in this thread. :)

Excellent idea.

Droopy, welcome to my ignore list. Jersey Girl and Jason there to keep you company!

I'd add Liz, but she is hiding behind her mod status. Unfortunately, you cannot add mods to your foe/ignore list.

[_asbestosman]

Droopy, welcome to my ignore list. Jersey Girl and Jason there to keep you company!

I'd add Liz, but she is hiding behind her mod status. Unfortunately, you cannot add mods to your foe/ignore list.

Don't forget about the sock puppets (yours and his) ;)

[_dartagnan]

Capitalism has died under the Republican watch.

Evidence? I hope you're not going to use the latest Fanny/Freddy tragedy as evidence, because this was brought on by the democrats. Bush and McCain both tried to reform this mess several years ago, but the democrats shot it down while saying they were just exagerrating the situation, even saying "there is no crisis with Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac." Funny how CNN and NBC and ABC and CBS don't ever mention this.

I've always admired McCain, and I voted for McCain in the New Hampshire primary in 2000. But something about the last eight years does have me nervous, and his choice of Sarah Palin actually diminishes his benefits in my view.

You should stick to your initial excuse. You don't like her because she's religious. You atheists are a trip. No matter how clearly it is established that Palin has no intentions of using religion to influence her politics, you guys don't seem to care. You invent these crazy tales about her wanting to burn books, deny evolution in school, introduce creationism, believes dinosaurs are 4,000 years old, etc. All of this has been shown to be horse crap fabricated by the anti-religious left. It's like you're just scared shitless of anyone who believes in God. That says more about your own insecurities, than any politician's lack of experience.

And you guys keep ignoring the fact that she is far more experienced than Obama, who is running for President. Obama spent his life riding on his skin color. The person who hired him as a community Organizer made it clear they needed a black man. He lies now by saying he runs his campaign, which is larger than Wasilla, therefore he has more executive experience. But he doesn't run a damn thing. That's what campaign managers do. And he has his speeched scripted for him by his hired hands, just like everyone else. He zipped through academia, didn't write a single piece of scholarship, got famous because he was the first black this and that, worked as a "community organizer" where he spent his time training disgruntled poor folks how to protest and sue corporations on grounds of discrimination.

He was instrumental in suing banks for "red lining." For Obama, the fact that few minorities were getting loans wasn't evidence that they had lower credit scores, for him it was just evidence of "racism." This is precisely why we are in the current financial mess; banks were giving out loans to the unqualified, because of pressures from democrats in congress. This is why Obama averages more lobbyist-based income from Freddy and Fanny than any other politician in congress. Why do you think that is? What is Obama doing for them for him to get so much more money than the rest? Obama is just another Jesse Jackson, nothing more.

He is also partly responsible for the successes of ACORN, which tried to make it easier for poor people to vote, even by sending in a postcard. This had the natural, predicted consequences of voter fraud, and this is all tied to Obama's efforts. ACORN has a history riddled with voter fraud during elections. They "organize" themselves to make sure some people who are dead, get to vote. And you can't provide oversight on their collecting the votes, or else you're a racist. This is about all he did in his "organizer" days. Whooopty doo. And you guys want to wail and moan about how badly the country would be with palin at the helm? She has a history of cleaning things up in a real state, not taking kick back money from lobbyists and doing political favors for campaign contributors. This is Obama and it is hilarious that so many people have bought into his nonsense about "change." Obama represents teh worst of Washington. McCain is the only politician who has never taken an earmark for a reason; he is serious about reform. Palin has a history of reform. It is a perfect match.

Expecting informed commentary from idiots like CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, Harris or Jon Stewart is a mistake. These guys are agenda driven.

Can anyone argue that McCain would be less likely to maintain the status quo and repeat Bush's mistakes than would Obama? Obama is the safe bet in these terms.

Hogwash. There is nothing guaranteed with Obama except that he will continue pork barrel spennding. Even now the democratic congress is trying to add more pork to the 700 billion package to bailout FM/FM. They love doing this crap. Pelosi won't let it pass unless they get to have all their little goodies added to it, including millions to help fund left wing interests.

McCain absolutely hates this situation, and he tried to stop it back in 2005. He was about the only politician who saw it coming. He tried to pass a bill that would have prevented this from happening, but the democrats said it would make affordable housing less available to the poor. And all this horeshit about him favoring deregulation -about the only thing the liberal media will say about it - misses the point that they were regulated, and the regulation did nothing to stop the train wreck from happening.

And what was Obama doing to make sure none of this happened?

NOTHING. He was too busy taking money from them.

[_asbestosman]

Capitalism has died under the Republican watch.

Evidence? I hope you're not going to use the latest Fanny/Freddy tragedy as evidence, because this was brought on by the democrats. Bush and McCain both tried to reform this mess several years ago, but the democrats shot it down while saying they were just exagerrating the situation, even saying "there is no crisis with Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac." Funny how CNN and NBC and ABC and CBS don't ever mention this.

As usual, both sides are blaming each other. See Angus McAwesome's _post_ on the matter.

Honestly, I don't know who's fault it is. I'm not sure I can know or even care as long as we just don't repeat it.

[_CaliforniaKid]

I think it would be great to have socialized medicine. The current free market for medical care is as least as dysfunctional as our financial system.

Socialized medicine would certainly have its advantages, and might go a long way toward resolving some of the problems with the current system. Then again, it will effectively put an end to pharmaceutical innovation in our country. Some of the pharmaceutical companies are already closing the doors of their R&D departments due to the economic slowdown. This will be a permanent development in the event of socialized medicine. (A friend of mine does R&D at Merck, so I have a bit of a window into what's going on behind the scenes.)

I think that reform of the current medical system is clearly needed, but that less drastic measures are called for than what Obama is proposing. A good place to start would be to end discounts for insurance companies. (They are already technically illegal, but the companies get away with it by means of a loophole.) Other possibilities include subsidized insurance and/or subsidized medication for the lowest income brackets. I don't think we can afford the consequences of total socialization. This has been my one great reservation in voting for Obama. He clearly is smarter and has more integrity than McCain, and his positions on most social and foreign policy issues are far superior. McCain as commander-in-chief is a frightening prospect, and Sarah Palin as commander-in-chief is still more frightening. But Obama's proposed economic policies, in my opinion, could do further damage to an already unstable economy.

That said, I have to vote for the lesser of two evils. That is why I will be voting for Obama in November.

[Guest]

As usual, both sides are blaming each other. See Angus McAwesome's _post_ on the matter.

Angus doesn't deserve to be taken seriously. This is the same guy who thinks McCain is faking his disability with his right arm/hands. He won't believe it had anything to do with his captivity as a POW until someone provides him with a doctor's note saying this is the case.

So far no liberal has been able to answer the facts in a responsible manner.

Why is it that back in 2005 a bill was proposed by republicans, and McCain spoke on the senate floor urging congress to act without delay, regarding the inevitable crisis at FM/FM?

The democrats blocked its progress. Now they want to blame the republicans by giving these vague excuses of it being "under republican watch." They want to lie and say McCain never tried to stop it. Hell, he and three other republicans were virtually the only ones who really saw it coming. Proving Obama doesn't know crap about the economy like so many people ignorantly assume. He cannot even give off the cuff answers to problems without consulting his dozens of economic advisors on any given matter. That's why he withheld comment on the crisis whereas McCain immediately spoke on the subject without worrying about saying something stupid. McCain knows the situation well.

It was a democratic congress - beginning with the Carter administration- that created the factors that led to the collapse of FM/FM.

Just because the President is a republican doesn't mean he has power to create laws by himself. Do you guys really not understand how things get accomplished in US government?

FM/FM was up to its eyeballs in democrat managment, being run by Clinton appointees and it was just another way for democrats to make money. The regulatory system was being lobbied which is why McCain sought reform. It was easily corrupted and the democrats were the ones taking most of that pay-off money. That's why they didn't want any regulation reform, and instead wanted to create more bureaucratic entities in the guise of "regulation" when it is just another outlet for them to receive lobbyist funds, which is what McCain was trying to reform.

So those are the facts. If you ignore them and continue with this ignorant "but Bush was president" nonsense, then you don't deserve the right to vote.

Voting in ignorance is exactly what the liberals want too. This is why they round up homeless people and poor communities in mass, and drag them to the polls. They know how easy it is to get ignorant people to vote democrat. This, and teh atheists who vote according to their distate for religion. It is ironic to say the least. Atheists always insist religious candidates will make policy according to their religious belief, but they are the only ones making their atheism the reason why they vote along political lines. They never make an intelligent argument against a religious candidate, based on the political issues. It always has to be about some religious element that gnaws at them. This is the same as voting for or against someone, just because he is black.