ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Thursday, November 01, 2012

Smells like game over

Despite not being at all a Muslim in any way, shape, or form, so help him, um, Moses, Obama actually managed to lose the Israelis:
Mitt Romney was running for president against Barack Obama in Israel, the former Mass. governor would win in a landslide. A new poll released by The Times of Israel on Thursday showed that 45 percent of Israelis would vote for Romney, compared to 29 percent for the president. 
As we saw from the commenter at McRapey's, when you've lost the Israelis, you've lost the American Jewish vote.  I'm a little saddened by this tragi-comic ending, as I just don't think a Romney administration is going to provide even one-fifth the comedic appeal of its predecessor.

Labels: ,

82 Comments:

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 November 01, 2012 11:31 AM  

Does losing 2% of the voter base, who have yet to get their power back online in NYC, really constitute a loss for Obama?

Or are you counting all the dumb Christians who think the secular nation of Israel is Holy and that we should be slaves to them?

Anonymous Sam Scott November 01, 2012 11:34 AM  

Just for the record as an American Israeli, Israelis are generally as ill-informed as Americans generally are. (And as most people in most countries are.)

The tabloids here, for example, ran a picture of Obama in some foreign garb he put on years ago, and many Israelis were like, "Oh, my God! He IS a Muslim!" This was in early 2008, I think.

Anonymous re allow anonymous comments November 01, 2012 11:35 AM  

The comedy will come in the medias excuses for Nate Silver and their sudden realization that the economy is completely fucked.

Anonymous re allow anonymous comments November 01, 2012 11:35 AM  

" many Israelis were like, "Oh, my God! He IS a Muslim!" "

Hahahahaha

That's gold, jerry, gold.

Anonymous Sam Scott November 01, 2012 11:38 AM  

Also, based on the last elections here, Israel is now a solid, center-right country, so they'd naturally tend to support Republicans.

And Israelis are just as susceptible to propaganda and BS. Just another tabloid example here:

When Obama said a few years ago that he supports a peace plan based on the 1967 cease-fire lines with some land swaps, Fox News and the tabloids here went crazy that he was "abandoning Israel" even though that was been the policy of every U.S. president for decades.

Anonymous Cryan Ryan November 01, 2012 11:47 AM  

"That's gold, jerry, gold."

Even more golden was the interview with the retired rich Jews in Florida who had invested 100% of their nest eggs with Madoff, who had given em paper saying they had earned 12% return year in and year out - then poof it was gone, and they couldn't even pay the paper boy.

ha ha Now that was gold.

Who trusts 100% of their nest eggs to one person?

There's got to be a moral there somewhere...

Anonymous DonReynolds November 01, 2012 11:49 AM  

Is there anyone in this country who believes it does not matter what the Jews think or believe or how they vote. (No matter what that might be.) Yes, they are less than 2 percent of the total population, but their influence (I will not say control) in the media and money circles is apparently far exceeds their actual numbers. No other US president since 1948 has distanced himself from the State of Israel (like Obama) to the same extent nor has any other president pandered and favored the Muslims, domestic and foreign. If Obama is not Muslim, and I do not care either way, he certainly behaves as a cheap imitation. (One does not actually have to be a Nazi to worry the Jews. Same goes for being a Muslim.)

Anonymous Sam Scott November 01, 2012 11:52 AM  

"Who trusts 100% of their nest eggs to one person?"

Yeah, the whole story was sad. I don't know what is the situation in America anymore, but my legally-mandated pension in Israel (my company contributes, and I contribute a part of each month's salary) is run by a company that is overseen and regulated by the government with strict controls on what they can and cannot do. Seems smarter.

Even though salaries are lower here, I doubt I'd want to go back to a country where company-contributing pensions and 401(k)s are optional and increasingly rare.

Anonymous Josh November 01, 2012 11:55 AM  

No other US president since 1948 has distanced himself from the State of Israel (like Obama) to the same extent

That's a blatant lie, where is your proof?

And "Bibi threw a tantrum because Obama didn't drop everything to meet with him in person" isn't proof.

Anonymous 11B November 01, 2012 11:59 AM  

I will have to wait for the actual results until I conclude he has lost the Jewish vote. By lost, I mean he will have received under 50%. Jews usually vote at least 70% for the democrat ticket. I will be surprised if this year it is not the same.

Anonymous Roundtine November 01, 2012 12:06 PM  

I'm a little saddened by this tragi-comic ending, as I just don't think a Romney administration is going to provide even one-fifth the comedic appeal of its predecessor.

Turn that frown upside down. There's magic in that underwear.

Anonymous Daniel November 01, 2012 12:08 PM  

Do you also have to wait until the bomb hits the ground to know it will explode? Because, yes, I suppose it could be a dud, but Obama won 78% of the Jews in '08. He's now polling around 55% with them!

I don't see how its possible to think he hasn't lost them.

When the formerly hip semi-black guy in a yarmulke can't poll north of 60% he's gone of the Liberal script like a Lohan in search of family time.

Anonymous Daniel November 01, 2012 12:09 PM  

"off," not "of."

Blogger James Dixon November 01, 2012 12:10 PM  

> Who trusts 100% of their nest eggs to one person?

I doubt statistics on that are easy to come by, but I'm afraid a lot of people.

> ...is run by a company that is overseen and regulated by the government with strict controls on what they can and cannot do. Seems smarter.

Depends on how smart your government is. Ours is the one that bailed out the big banks and GM. I'm not sure entrusting the controls to them is any smarter.

Anonymous Roundtine November 01, 2012 12:10 PM  

Anyone bet at Intrade? Romney contracts are still only 32% ($3.20 to pay $10). They also have state contracts here, Pennsylvania and Michigan are about $1.50. Wisconsin is already hopping, but these two look solid. I'd bet on Pennsylvania......but alas, the US government forbids me from using a credit card to fund an account at Intrade.

Anonymous Sam Scott November 01, 2012 12:24 PM  

"Depends on how smart your government is. Ours is the one that bailed out the big banks and GM. I'm not sure entrusting the controls to them is any smarter."

I'm not a libertarian like many people here, so I suppose that government oversight is better than no oversight at all. Unless there is some other option that someone can think of. I would not trust a bank alone with my pension (unless, perhaps, it is a credit union).

Anonymous JartStar November 01, 2012 12:29 PM  

Looking at the electoral college map it's possible that Romney could win the popular vote by a wide margin but lose the election.

Anonymous Noah B. November 01, 2012 12:30 PM  

If Obama ever loses the support of the dead, we'll know he's REALLY in trouble.

Anonymous Rex Little November 01, 2012 12:32 PM  

Obama may have lost the religious Jews, but those who are Jewish by ancestry only (like my family) aren't going to care. My leftist relatives still think he farts rainbows.

As a side note: if Jews are only 2% of the population, does that just count those who practice the religion, or the rest of us as well?

Anonymous Sam Scott November 01, 2012 12:38 PM  

"As a side note: if Jews are only 2% of the population, does that just count those who practice the religion, or the rest of us as well?"

I don't remember, but I think all those surveys are based on self-identification. If you say you are a Jew, then that's what is marked.

Anonymous 11B November 01, 2012 12:40 PM  

I suppose it could be a dud, but Obama won 78% of the Jews in '08. He's now polling around 55% with them!

We will certainly see come election day. Of course it does make a difference where Jews vote. If Jews in New York State want to send Obama a message, they can vote Romney, but Obama he still wins New York. But would they be willing to reduce their support for him in a battleground state where every vote is critical to an Obama victory?

From the American Jewish Committee:

September 20, 2012 -- New York -- More than two-thirds -- 69 percent -- of Jewish voters in Florida say they will choose President Obama over Governor Romney, who will win 25 percent of the state's Jewish vote, according to a new American Jewish Committee (AJC) survey.
Obama won 76 percent of the Florida Jewish vote in 2008. Jews comprise about four percent of the voters in Florida, which is widely considered to be a key battleground state in the 2012 election.


PS. I hope you are right and they abandon Obama and Romney wins. If anything, I want to see a repeat of the 1992 LA Riots.

Blogger Joshua_D November 01, 2012 12:50 PM  

Sam Scott November 01, 2012 12:24 PM

I'm not a libertarian like many people here, so I suppose that government oversight is better than no oversight at all. Unless there is some other option that someone can think of. I would not trust a bank alone with my pension (unless, perhaps, it is a credit union).


Would your trust yourself with your pension?

Blogger Dan Hewitt November 01, 2012 1:03 PM  

What evidence do you have that a poll of Israeli nationals serves as a proxy for how American Jews will vote?

Anonymous Anonymous November 01, 2012 1:04 PM  

"If anything, I want to see a repeat of the 1992 LA Riots."

I'm hoping so myself. If a few DWLs get pulled from their cars, so much the better. If a few lose their kids to nannies, that's good too. And if Koreans pop a few 'boos, well even better.

Anonymous E. PERLINE November 01, 2012 1:15 PM  

Only a small percentage of Jews are smart. The rest are like everyone else. Maybe, due to centuries of intermarriage, they are everyone else.

The British prime minister Disraeli loved his wife, even when she told him she never remembered who came first, the Greeks or the Romans.

Anonymous Cheddarman November 01, 2012 1:25 PM  



i think the Grim Reaper will be laughing with delight if there is a Romney victory.

We will be bombing plenty of orphanages and wedding parties in 3rd world countries.

We will also be sowing more seeds of our own destruction, as Romney will be pushing through some kind of "immigration reform" to try and make the Hispanic vote reliably republican.

Anonymous Gen. Kong November 01, 2012 1:42 PM  

While I'm not surprised that Israelis prefer Mittens to D'Won, Israelis have a different perspective than American Jews, who will reliably vote at least 2/3 in Zero's favor (Probably less lopsided than the 78% last time, but only slightly so). It's a little surprising because what's not to like about Mittens from the typical American Jew's standpoint really? The Repuke is a Neo-Marxist totalitarian gun-grabbing open-borders war-mongering utopian globalist banksta just like everyone else they have ever supported. Are Mittens' policies and record different in any significant way from those of the odious Michael Bloomberg? They probably hate Mittens because just he's a Mormon. Poor Mittens... kitten abuse is such a terrible thing.

Anonymous Sam Scott November 01, 2012 1:55 PM  

Joshua_D,

Would your trust yourself with your pension?

I wish I could answer "yes," but the honest answer is, "no." Say I hear of a solid investment opportunity, and I cash out my pension. It fails, I lose the money, and I'm screwed. (In Israel, if you cash out your pension before retirement, you take a 45% penalty as well.) I like that I am forced to be conservative. If I want to invest in my side ventures, I get the money from elsewhere.

And many people are even less conservative than I am. Take the line from "Men in Black": "A person can be smart; people are stupid." In macroeconomic policy, one needs to save the people from themselves sometimes. And that means forcing them to save for pensions by law and making it hard to withdraw the money before they retire (as Israel does). If you let people do whatever they want with their retirement accounts, a large percentage will screw it up, and then they will cost society money when they are penniless and need help when they are old.

Anonymous Noah B. November 01, 2012 2:03 PM  

"If you let people do whatever they want with their retirement accounts, a large percentage will screw it up, and then they will cost society money when they are penniless and need help when they are old."

Hate to sound insensitive, but... not my problem. Someone else's inability to manage their money shouldn't deprive me of my right to manage mine.

Blogger Bob November 01, 2012 2:05 PM  

"The Repuke is a Neo-Marxist totalitarian gun-grabbing open-borders war-mongering utopian globalist banksta just like everyone else they have ever supported"

That's pretty damned close to a very accurate description.

Anonymous LES November 01, 2012 2:08 PM  

"It was a group of wealthy Chicago Jews back in the ’90s — some with strong Socialist views — with a plan to make Obama, America’s “first black President.”

Employing the help of Jewish Ad Man, David Axelrod, Obama’s Jewish handlers: Betty Lu Saltzman, Abner Mikva, Penny Pritzker, Lester Crown, and Valerie Jarret, finally got their man into the White House." Brother Kapner, October 29, 2012

However, I've read that this time Wall Street is putting their money behind Romney instead of Obama. It's the Jewish money, not the votes that make the difference.

Anonymous Porky? November 01, 2012 2:10 PM  

If you let people do whatever they want with their retirement accounts, a large percentage will screw it up, and then they will cost society money when they are penniless and need help when they are old.

Yeah. How did society ever survive for thousands of years without a government bureaucrat forcing them to save their money?

Anonymous Sam Scott November 01, 2012 2:17 PM  

"Hate to sound insensitive, but... not my problem. Someone else's inability to manage their money shouldn't deprive me of my right to manage mine."

It is your problem when penniless senior citizens use your tax dollars to get welfare and medical care because they squandered their retirement savings on their own.

"Yeah. How did society ever survive for thousands of years without a government bureaucrat forcing them to save their money?"

For thousands of years, most senior citizens were destitute while they waited to die. Do you want that? It is in general society's interest to help general society to be healthy and prosperous. No man is an island.

There is a spectrum between extreme individualism/libertarianism and extreme authoritarianism. When you live in a society, you agree to be in the middle. You sacrifice some freedom in exchange for society in general being able to function for the good of all. Don't like it? Live off the grid without any connection to general society and without any aid from general society when you will need it.

Anonymous Anonymous November 01, 2012 2:23 PM  

"For thousands of years, most senior citizens were destitute while they waited to die."


Proof, please. And go help the jigs in Detroit. They be burning the place. Again. Hurry, we need to help general society be healthy and prosperous! No man be an island and sheet...

Anonymous Noah B. November 01, 2012 2:25 PM  

"It is your problem when penniless senior citizens use your tax dollars to get welfare and medical care because they squandered their retirement savings on their own."

Again, not my problem. Government shouldn't be giving out welfare of any kind.

"For thousands of years, most senior citizens were destitute while they waited to die."

False dichotomy. Have you paid attention to what's happening in Greece?

"When you live in a society, you agree to be in the middle."

I agreed to nothing of the kind. Don't like it? Go start your own country, asshole. This one's taken.

Anonymous SouthTX November 01, 2012 2:25 PM  

I'll keep it short. Romney won't bring the humor the current one does. Vox nailed it. That may be a worse option.

Anonymous Porky? November 01, 2012 2:37 PM  

For thousands of years, most senior citizens were destitute while they waited to die.

Cite?

Anonymous Cryan Ryan November 01, 2012 2:42 PM  

"Only a small percentage of Jews are smart. The rest are like everyone else. Maybe, due to centuries of intermarriage, they are everyone else."

That would explain why those retired Jews in Florida gave Madoff their entire portfolio to manage.

Not sad. Funny.

Anonymous Sam Scott November 01, 2012 2:46 PM  

Just one set of data: Poverty rates among senior citizens before and after Social Security:
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1863

"False dichotomy. Have you paid attention to what's happening in Greece?"

Bad example. Greece is not an example of the evils of social welfare. It is an example of social welfare not being implemented in a good way because people cheat on their taxes, willfully not pay taxes, and a host of other things. Look at the Scandinavian countries that are not falling apart economically because they have a social net as well as a people who do not cheat in this manner.

I agreed to nothing of the kind. Don't like it? Go start your own country, asshole. This one's taken.

Don't call me "asshole." I and most everyone else on this blog is civil. And I live in Israel, not the United States. And anyone in every country agrees to what I stated about the spectrum. It's called the "social contract."

Anonymous JW November 01, 2012 2:48 PM  

"Who trusts 100% of their nest eggs to one person? "

Those who gave Corzine their money.

Anonymous Noah B. November 01, 2012 2:55 PM  

I am civil with people provided that they're honest. What I won't tolerate is dishonesty, such as your blatantly false claim that I somehow agreed to live according to what you think the rules should be, with the result that individual rights can be arbitrarily brushed aside by those who consider love liberty to be "extreme." When you do that, I will call you out as the lying sack of shit you've shown yourself to be.

Anonymous Porky? November 01, 2012 2:55 PM  

Sam Scott, I asked you to back up your assertion that most elderly were destitute for thousands of years.

The report about the number of elderly below the so-called "poverty line" in 1997 does not address that assertion.

I think you just made it up. What do YOU think?

Anonymous JW November 01, 2012 3:00 PM  

"Just for the record as an American Israeli, Israelis are generally as ill-informed as Americans generally are. (And as most people in most countries are.)"

"as ill-informed as Americans generally are." Is this another way of saying "Christians"?

(And as most people in most countries are.) Oh. Nice 'save'...sort of dilutes what you were saying above doesen't it?

"And I live in Israel, not the United States." Yea. Ain't dual citizenship grand?



Anonymous Noah B. November 01, 2012 3:06 PM  

"Look at the Scandinavian countries that are not falling apart economically because they have a social net as well as a people who do not cheat in this manner."

Every Ponzi scheme works wonderfully in the beginning. You think Greece is a bad example because they're farther along in the process.

Anonymous Sam Scott November 01, 2012 3:12 PM  

Sigh. I would not comment on this blog if it were not Vox and Spacebunny's abilities to moderate and free it from insults.

I am civil with people provided that they're honest. What I won't tolerate is dishonesty, such as your blatantly false claim that I somehow agreed to live according to what you think the rules should be, with the result that individual rights can be arbitrarily brushed aside by those who consider love liberty to be "extreme." When you do that, I will call you out as the lying sack of shit you've shown yourself to be.

No, you did not sign on the dotted line right when you fell from your mother's vagina. But are you not familiar with basic societal philosophy at all? You sacrifice some liberty to pay for a fire department in exchange for the fact that there will be a fire department whenever you or anyone else need it.

Everyone sacrifices some liberty in exchange for the benefits of living in a society. The reasonable debate is over HOW MUCH liberty to exchange for said benefits.

Anonymous Anonymous November 01, 2012 3:17 PM  

"I think you just made it up. What do YOU think?"

He makes lots of shit up. And Scott, stop the sigh shit. That's for faggots.

Anonymous Enoch Powell November 01, 2012 3:19 PM  

Obonzo is most likely an overgrown adolescent, homosexual atheist. He's one of those people who might declare he's a moslem or a Christian if it helps his career in some way, but like most leftist imbeciles Obonzo is essentially his own God competing with all the other sanctimonious twits who are also their own Gods. The only exception to this dynamic is when a really powerful pathological personality manages to put together a cult of leftist hysterics. Obonzo almost managed to pull this off, but he's really too much of a low level parasite. Bill Clinton could do it, but it would have to be on the down low. A public Clinton cult would be too sleazy even for that disgusting criminal.

Anonymous Sam Scott November 01, 2012 3:22 PM  

Another citation:

"We provide such a direct assessment by using the variation in the generosity of the Social Security program across birth cohorts over the 1885-1930 period. Our analysis suggests that the growth in Social Security can indeed explain all of the decline in poverty among the elderly over this period."

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:D9nngvqi0IsJ:urbanpolicy.berkeley.edu/pdf/Ch6SocialEG0404.pdf+&hl=en&gl=il&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgAoVGiMWuj-ez19RJmopkn7fsSwb-IGEMffFAEJ3LJfo9bCkoClLNcwwKBmESc4jr2itBwjhDkfNNo7fPEEddC0ZA4DmgDbWwgULtNWBElHZK-E72JplXNknURckqTzs3xmpl_&sig=AHIEtbRezX9fmyAI0DooTQcxe4AwRx1L9A

Seriously, do you really think that old people were retiring comfortably and sipping wine for 30 years before Social Security?

For 99% of human history, life was "nasty, brutal and short," to quote Hobbes. You were lucky even to survive to old age. Do you think that ancient Sumeria, Greece, and Rome were full of old people enjoying a life of luxury? The very idea of retirement and an old age in relative comfort is only a creation of the twentieth century.

Until the creation of a middle-class (merchant class) during the Renaissance, every country had a few rich people and many, many poor people. The creation of a safety net like Social Security, among numerous other government initiatives, spurred the creation of a middle class from whose members could enjoy a comfortable retirement.

Anonymous Sam Scott November 01, 2012 3:25 PM  

JW,

"as ill-informed as Americans generally are." Is this another way of saying "Christians"?

Don't be an obtuse troll. You know what I meant: That the majority of people in every country are ignorant of what affects current events and public policy.

And before people jump on my back: "Ignorant" means to be unaware of the facts; it does not mean "stupid." I am ignorant of calculus and biology; I am not stupid in general.

Anonymous Sam Scott November 01, 2012 3:28 PM  

Every Ponzi scheme works wonderfully in the beginning. You think Greece is a bad example because they're farther along in the process.

It's not a Ponzi scheme. It's a simple matter of revenue versus expenses: Money going out versus money going in.

If Greeks do not pay their taxes and the government has much less revenue, then that leads to an imbalance and bankruptcy. Scandanavians pay their taxes, so the same issue does not occur. Apples and oranges.

Fox News and their ilk define "Europe" as southern Europe because those countries get the headlines. But that is being intellectually dishonest.

Anonymous Sam Scott November 01, 2012 3:34 PM  

Anonymous,

Pick a user name as per the blog's rules.

He makes lots of shit up. And Scott, stop the sigh shit. That's for faggots.

And curses and insults are for people who cannot argue logically, rationally, and politely.

Anonymous VD November 01, 2012 3:36 PM  

Look at the Scandinavian countries that are not falling apart economically because they have a social net as well as a people who do not cheat in this manner.

That used to be true, but is not so much the case anymore. Sweden can't afford their social net anymore. Norway can, but not due to a lack of cheating, but rather because of their massive oil revenues. Also, the importing of third-world minorities hasn't helped their budgets either. But they're still a long way off from being as bad as Greece.

As for Italy, half the economy is black. To use the word "cheat" in conjunction with Italy doesn't even make sense. It's like calling the ocean wet, or saying Wall Street is corrupt.

Anonymous VD November 01, 2012 3:38 PM  

I agreed to nothing of the kind. Don't like it? Go start your own country, asshole. This one's taken.

Settle down. If I recall correctly am doesn't live in the USA any more than I do. It is possible to vehemently disagree with people without resorting to an eighth-grade vocabulary.

That being said, I don't agree with the assertion either. Very few people "choose" to live in a society, so the mere fact of doing so does not amount to consent even if one is genuinely free to leave.

Anonymous Noah B. November 01, 2012 3:44 PM  

"No, you did not sign on the dotted line right when you fell from your mother's vagina. But are you not familiar with basic societal philosophy at all? You sacrifice some liberty to pay for a fire department in exchange for the fact that there will be a fire department whenever you or anyone else need it.

Everyone sacrifices some liberty in exchange for the benefits of living in a society. The reasonable debate is over HOW MUCH liberty to exchange for said benefits."

So in other words, you claimed I made an agreement that you know I didn't make, which means you are admitting that you lied. Familiarity with a philosophy is not at all the same thing as agreement and acceptance of it, and in trying to pass the two off as the same, you are carrying your deception even further instead of backtracking and apologizing.

Are you even aware of what a snaky liar you are, or is it so ingrained that you don't even realize it?

"Do you think that ancient Sumeria, Greece, and Rome were full of old people enjoying a life of luxury?"

Are you really such an idiot that you think the main reason for the difference in quality of life during old age from the Roman world to today is -- Social Security? Or do you want to admit that you're intentionally giving us a red herring so that we don't all think you're stupid in addition to being a liar?

Anonymous Sam Scott November 01, 2012 3:55 PM  

So in other words, you claimed I made an agreement that you know I didn't make, which means you are admitting that you lied. Familiarity with a philosophy is not at all the same thing as agreement and acceptance of it, and in trying to pass the two off as the same, you are carrying your deception even further instead of backtracking and apologizing.

No, we are basing our arguments on different premises, so there can be no agreement.

You say that you are not bound by any contract unless you specifically and explicitly agree to it. I say that one is bound by a societal compact when one is born into and lives within a society.

As long as we disagree on these premises, there can be no further discussion because it is useless. Not to mention my lack of interest in conversation as a result of your personal insults.

Anonymous Sam Scott November 01, 2012 3:57 PM  

Are you really such an idiot that you think the main reason for the difference in quality of life during old age from the Roman world to today is -- Social Security?

Yes, it was. For the first time in human history, at least to my knowledge, Social Security was the first time that a person was guaranteed a base level of income (for good or bad in societal terms). The significance of this cannot be overstated.

Blogger Wagnerian November 01, 2012 3:58 PM  

"Look at the Scandinavian countries that are not falling apart economically because they have a social net as well as a people who do not cheat in this manner."

I do look at them with some envy--they don't have any Cabarini Greens, Watts, Detroits, or 9th wards. The dissimilarities are so great that any comparison of economics and "social nets" is meaningless.

Anonymous Noah B. November 01, 2012 3:59 PM  

"You say that you are not bound by any contract unless you specifically and explicitly agree to it. I say that one is bound by a societal compact when one is born into and lives within a society."

In other words, we're all property of the state at birth?

Anonymous Sam Scott November 01, 2012 4:04 PM  

In other words, we're all property of the state at birth?

The state, at least in a liberal-democratic society, is the representation of the people. So, yes. But that means the people (should) have the ability to shape the state as they wish.

The problem with U.S. libertarians is that they view government as some evil, foreign entity when, in fact, it is just an extension of the people themselves. Of course, this view is reasonable in light of corruption, super PACs, and other elements that separate the government from the people.

But my point, however idealistic, still stands.

Anonymous Gen. Kong November 01, 2012 4:04 PM  

Wagnerian:
"Look at the Scandinavian countries that are not falling apart economically because they have a social net as well as a people who do not cheat in this manner."

I do look at them with some envy--they don't have any Cabarini Greens, Watts, Detroits, or 9th wards. The dissimilarities are so great that any comparison of economics and "social nets" is meaningless.

Actually, they are well on their way to those fine examples of socialism. Malmö is now basically part of the Ummah where even the poh-leece dare not venture unless heavily armed and in great number.

Anonymous Porky? November 01, 2012 4:15 PM  

Another citation:

Umm, the study says that Social Security helped old people from 1968 to 2001. It does not say that old people were destitute for thousands of years.

Seriously, do you really think that old people were retiring comfortably and sipping wine for 30 years before Social Security?

I don't know because I'm waiting for you to demonstrate that most elderly were destitute for thousands of years.

For 99% of human history, life was "nasty, brutal and short," to quote Hobbes. You were lucky even to survive to old age.

Hmm. Did Hobbes ever say most elderly were destitute for thousands of years?

Do you think that ancient Sumeria, Greece, and Rome were full of old people enjoying a life of luxury?

Luxury? Perhaps for some. But your assertion was that most elderly were destitute. Patriarchal societies like the ones you mention tended to have structured families that took care of their own.

Until the creation of a middle-class (merchant class) during the Renaissance, every country had a few rich people and many, many poor people. The creation of a safety net like Social Security, among numerous other government initiatives, spurred the creation of a middle class from whose members could enjoy a comfortable retirement.

I wish you could simply answer the question. Please show me how you know that most elderly for the past thousands of years were destitute. It flies in the face of what we know about, say, ancient Rome - where the pater familias was the head of the household and actually legally owned all of the property and possessions of his children until he died. That would make most fathers in ancient Rome not destitute but kind of wealthy. Who knows - they may have actually sipped wine and lived comfortably.

Anonymous Dan in Texas November 01, 2012 4:21 PM  

Sam Scott wrote:
"Until the creation of a middle-class (merchant class) during the Renaissance, every country had a few rich people and many, many poor people. The creation of a safety net like Social Security, among numerous other government initiatives, spurred the creation of a middle class from whose members could enjoy a comfortable retirement."

First: My observation is that we are quickly returning to a state of a few rich people and many many poor people. At least here in the U.S., I can't speak first hand of other countries.
Second: I think you have the latter part backwards. Social Security and people enjoying a comfortable retirement are a result FROM having a prospering middle class, not the other way around.

Anonymous VD November 01, 2012 4:22 PM  

You say that you are not bound by any contract unless you specifically and explicitly agree to it. I say that one is bound by a societal compact when one is born into and lives within a society.

Hint of the Day from the Helpful Intellectual: Any time your argument can be readily confused with one put forth by Jean Jacques Rousseau, you are wise to reconsider your assumptions.

There is right, there is wrong, and then there is Rousseau.

Anonymous Noah B. November 01, 2012 4:32 PM  

"The problem with U.S. libertarians is that they view government as some evil, foreign entity when, in fact, it is just an extension of the people themselves."

I could go on and on about the problem with Jews, but it would be a counterproductive over-generalization, much like yours. Most libertarians I know are not anarchists. They understand that legitimate government exists to protect individual liberty and is essential to that purpose.

But with rights come responsibilities, including the duty to utilize one's individual freedom to provide for oneself. A government that steals from some to give to others, or refuses to recognize the rights of minority dissenters, is operating contrary to its primary duty to protect liberty. It has become an abomination.

Anonymous Dave November 01, 2012 4:35 PM  

Vox-
This is definitely off topic here, but I just wanted to let you know I purchased A Magic Broken for my Kindle and really enjoyed it. I am looking forward to reading A Throne of Bones next.

Anonymous Loki, Footstool to Bibi November 01, 2012 4:36 PM  

"How is losing 2% catastrophic?".

Come now even I know those jews run everything.

Anonymous Sam Scott November 01, 2012 4:36 PM  

Hey Vox and everyone, it's pretty late in Israel. So I'll respond to the latest comments tomorrow. I don't want to disrespect by leaving anyone "hanging." :) Thanks to those who have kept it civil and interesting.

Anonymous 11B November 01, 2012 4:43 PM  

If the Jewish vote defects from Obama, and I still await to see if that is the case, then what would that say about those voters? That Obama could run up trillion dollar deficits, push Obamacare, put those two women on the Supreme Court, and amnesty millions of illegals apparently is not enough to persuade American Jews to not support him. No, it is his treatment of Israel that appears to be the showstopper.

That's a fine attitude for Israelis to have, but not Americans.

Anonymous Loki of Asgard November 01, 2012 4:47 PM  

For thousands of years, most senior citizens were destitute while they waited to die.

And now, instead of suffering that destitution surrounded by the consolation of their loved ones, they spend their last days in sterile rooms, dependent upon the uncertain attentions of strangers whose loyalty only lasts as long as the money flows.

Yes, how infinitely superior.

Anonymous Josh November 01, 2012 5:02 PM  

Hint of the Day from the Helpful Intellectual: Any time your argument can be readily confused with one put forth by Jean Jacques Rousseau, you are wise to reconsider your assumptions. 

How dare you reject the noble savage!

Anonymous Josh November 01, 2012 5:05 PM  

No, it is his treatment of Israel that appears to be the showstopper. That's a fine attitude for Israelis to have, but not Americans.

If we can call members of La Raza treasonous for not supporting America first, can we not call Jewish Americans and their Christian zionists supporters treasonous?

If your political stance is "Israel first", move there. Get three hell out of this country.

Anonymous duckman November 01, 2012 6:23 PM  

I thought he's a black supremacist, and islam treats all races equally. Like shit.

Blogger Wagnerian November 01, 2012 7:03 PM  

Gen. Kong:

You're correct about their being on the way to...dhimmitude? I was in Malmo a few years back and was glad to get out.

Anonymous Anonymous November 01, 2012 8:43 PM  

"As long as we disagree on these premises, there can be no further discussion because it is useless."

One and done. Now take that cock out of your mouth if you show up again.

Anonymous Wild Bill November 01, 2012 9:06 PM  

I wrote in Ron Paul. My conscience is clean. Sick of voting for politicians. Sick of having two "choices."

Blogger Desert Cat November 02, 2012 1:02 AM  

VD November 01, 2012 4:22 PM
Hint of the Day from the Helpful Intellectual: Any time your argument can be readily confused with one put forth by Jean Jacques Rousseau, you are wise to reconsider your assumptions.

There is right, there is wrong, and then there is Rousseau.


Thank you! I was reading along wondering if anyone was going to point out that the "science" is not exactly settled when it comes to Rousseauian notions.

Blogger Desert Cat November 02, 2012 1:03 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Eric I. Gatera. November 02, 2012 1:55 AM  

OT: A religious-politics debate (october 2012) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HdPkM7wVrU&feature=youtu.be

Anonymous B November 02, 2012 4:07 AM  

Since the American presidency is a front for a handful of Jewish banking families I'm not sure the Jewish vote matters.

Blogger James Dixon November 02, 2012 10:00 AM  

And that means forcing them to save for pensions by law and making it hard to withdraw the money before they retire (as Israel does).

Yep. We call that Social Security. The problem is we let the government run it. It should have been privatized from the start and the government program only a single generation bridge until people could begin collecting from their own plans. Instead it's run as a Ponzi scheme.

> If you let people do whatever they want with their retirement accounts, a large percentage will screw it up, and then they will cost society money when they are penniless and need help when they are old.

Society doesn't have money. Only individuals do.
And how is that different from what we're doing now? Isn't Social Security also society spending money?

> It is your problem when penniless senior citizens use your tax dollars to get welfare and medical care because they squandered their retirement savings on their own.

Only because the government allows them to do so. Something that was never in it's charter, and can not be justified under that charter.

> I say that one is bound by a societal compact when one is born into and lives within a society.

Then that's not a compact, as that word implies a voluntary agreement. As long as you're willing to admit that it's not a voluntary arrangement, I'd be willing to agree.

Blogger Claudio November 02, 2012 1:51 PM  

Vox,

I find your optimism regarding a Romney victory a little strange. At this point, all predictions point to a repeat of the Bush-Gore outcome favoring Obama... Am I missing something?

Anonymous David November 02, 2012 3:39 PM  

Obama is holding steady at a 66% chance of winning on intrade. I think he has this election won. I expect it to be close but unless I see that percentage drop significantly I don't think Romney will win.

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts