patrick.net

Bap33 says

if you make $400k .. and a gallon of milk costs $40K, and a gallon of gas costs $60K, and everyone on your block is on welfare and gets free milk and gas and so many benefits that welfare pays as well as a $800K job …. in that case I’m pretty sure that $400K (at any taxed rate) of which you speak is not all that good a spot to be, it is?

But if the moon was made of cheese and corvettes grew on trees, then I might be OK with $400K. Right?

It's ironic that your claim that the "neocons" would like to revise history and say he was not the ultra conservative of the day when it's actually Republicans such as RR who revered him and regarded him as such. In any case, the term "neocon" is another keyword coming from you that leads me to believe you aren't what you claim to be. It's like someone saying they're some trucker who goes to biker bars who then uses terms from showgirls and watches Glee and Bravo.

That said, Eisenhower seems to have fumed when Goldwater said something nasty about him but a similar thing happened with GBI and RR via "Voodoo economics."

Could you please elaborate, if you're a supposed straight voting republican 1980 to 2008 on what made him "extremist" and caused fellow republicans to back away from him? Was it his advocacy of limited government? How extreme (almost as bad as quoting the constitution! :-) Or was it his "extremism" in his agreeing with a nuclear policy that JFK and pretty much every other president including LBJ signed off on?

PolishKnight says

Vicente, I wasn’t casting doubt whimsically. I really have encountered people who claimed to be “conservatives” and “republicans until recently” and then when I delved deeper into discussions with them, they revealed opinions that belonged in the green party.

According to YOU they belonged in the Green Party. If you take them at their word, which I see no reason not to, they voted Republican. In Ronald "Big Tent" Reagan's day, there was room in the party for variances, unlike now. You could be gay or non-Christian or recycle your bottles and cans, yet still legitimately identify as Republican. Now if you are not 100% toeing every line, you are at best a RINO. A "useful idiot" to be tolerated, but denigrated. Ultimately this sort of thing is what drove me out. I'd suggest instead of letting just any old Schmoe register as Republican, there be a PURITY TEST and perhaps an oath, so you can keep people with "environmentalist leanings" and other such deviants out.

BAP33, I'm reminded of when I was visiting a friend in Switzerland and chatting with a student who was from Amsterdam. He spoke very good English and at the end of the conversation, he tried to bum money from me.

I also went around to different stations and was regularly approached or asked for money by reasonably well dressed beggars. It was weird. I mean, when I go to a train station and get people bothering me for change (Change! Vote for Change! :-) , I usually expect them to be a bit harder down on their luck.

In any case, based upon what I see on European TV and Russia Today, it appears that this lifestyle is on it's way down there. If you go through DeGalle, be prepared to experience some random strike and don't even think about going to Greece. It took a while with their racist anti-immigration policies to see the collapse, but it's coming in about 20 years and the cracks are showing. Good thing I qualify for Polish citizenship!

PolishKnight says

Could you please elaborate, if you’re a supposed straight voting republican 1980 to 2008 on what made him “extremist” and caused fellow republicans to back away from him?

Generally speaking he was straight John Birch material. I think it was William F. Buckley who convinced him to keep the John Birch Society at arms' length, but it was pretty obvious from things he said like "Let's lob one into the men's room at the Kremlin." that containment wasn't enough. Much like when Reagan made a similar comment on a live mike, it made a lot of moderate people shit-scared that he'd push The Button. That he might be enough of a loose cannon to consider nuclear war a desirable first action in office. There were other factors at play, but that's one that comes to mind. Yes, that Goldwater, what a flaming pansy liberal!

I searched for the exact source of the "let's lob one into the kremlin" and couldn't find it so I suspect it's probably something he said in a backroom somewhere. Did this REALLY convince people he was a gun-toting "extremist" or was this mere Democrat rhetoric in their election campaign? As I pointed out, his policy on MADD was no different than that of "extremist" JFK...

I'm amused, BTW, that the campaign the left hated when Eisenhower used the "It's time for a change" as simplistic was picked up recently by Obama and hailed as genius. All that's old is new again...

You can dispute my opinion as to whether these self-proclaimed republicans belonged in the green party, but that's just based upon the various positions they held including racial preferences, anti-constitutional gun rights, socialism, and feminism to name a few. Was there room in the republican party of the reagan era for those views? I guess so. Certainly in the liberal Northeast which hated Goldwater. But... it doesn't make much sense for someone to hold those views and vote for Reagan or even GBI/II when they are much more closely matched to the Democrat or Green party. Is the republican party MORE anti-gay than during the 80's? I highly doubt it since, as you know, BOTH parties today had presidential candidates who were publically opposed to gay marriage. I don't know if Reagan's big tent "welcomed republicans" but I welcome you showing me so!

Regarding the "purity test". I notice that most pictures or cartoons from the left bashing the rich tend to feature white males and bashing white males is popular with the left even as they claim that racism and sexism are the worst things in the world. It's a funny stance for a party that wants to make the USA more like France or Sweden but this is because non-whites and women were most useful as constituencies for the welfare state. At one time, working class white males were the lead marxist constituency group but times change. I'm sure they'll change again, say, in France when the courts say that it's a human rights violation to stop women from wearing burkas...

PolishKnight says

In any case, the term “neocon” is another keyword coming from you that leads me to believe you aren’t what you claim to be. It’s like someone saying they’re some trucker who goes to biker bars who then uses terms from showgirls and watches Glee and Bravo.

AFAICR the NeoConservative label label came in with Karl "The Architect" Rove, describing his generation taking over and reforming. I suppose back in the old days I'd describe myself more as a William F. Buckley sort of Republican, not the Sarah Palin sort at all. That was another of my breaking points, when I realized the party had degenerated so far that it had become a requirement to worship morons and you had to hide any education or intelligence you might have or be suspect. Again your response is precisely what I mean, you keep fishing around trying to show i "wasn't conservative enough" to deserve checking off Republican as my affiliation. I must have been sort of closet Lib-mole or something, you'll find it if you inspect my writings close enough....

marcus says

theoakman says

A “good investor” would have missed out on all those gigantic gains I made in mining stocks.

The typical investor isn’t nearly as brilliant as you. Hey, we can’t all have the kind of insight that you do.
theoakman says

A lot of the financial communities definition of low risk is USTbills earning 2%. If you asked me, they are the riskiest assets that exist today outside of Japanese Bonds earning 0%.

Cruisin for a …
Or as my Aunt used to say, “you just have to live a while.” For any of you old time traders out there, what would be better for this guy in the long run ? To be right ? Or to be wrong ?

There wasn't any incredible brilliance behind my investments. In 2008 and 2009, everyone ran for the doors and literally piled into worthless US T-bills paying 2%. Meanwhile, there were companies out there producing essential commodities and goods that had dividend yields of 10-15% after those dividends were slashed 50%! I guess people really did believe we wouldn't be buying oil from these companies ever again. Why on earth would someone buy a US Tbill that earns 2% when they can buy a stock/trust that earns 10-15%? Because they thought the world was going to end. Gold was a no brainer. People cannot get it through their heads that it was undervalued on a historical basis because they sit in front of their computer and stare at the 1980 high of $890 which lasted all of 12 minutes. Furthermore, gold and silver stocks took over an 80% hit on the downswing in 2008. People on this board were screaming for $300 gold when it dipped near $700. My thesis was simple. Gold was going to $2000, Silver was going to $50. Mining stocks were down 80% from the peak when gold hit 1000 in March of 2008. If you believed that gold was even going to hit $900 again, how could you not buy into that? This wasn't complicated. Buy the big the dip and hold. That's all investors had to do. Yet for some reason, people were screaming "cash is king" while the S&P rose 60%.

Fast forward to today. Several mining stocks are significantly higher than they were prior to the crash in 2008. All losses were erased. They are leveraged to the price of gold and we haven't even come close to my original price target. Every single aspect of the market that drove gold to today's price is still in effect. Not only that, but those fundamentals are only increasing in magnitude.

Debt? Up
Monetary Expansion? Check
Unemployment? Here to stay
Quantitative Easing? Doesn't work but they'll keep trying
Interest Rates? Not much more downside there

Anyone that simply claims that gold/silver have been driven purely by speculation has not backed up those claims and the results have contradicted these claims for about 5 straight years. If gold was a speculative bubble, it would have been completely unwound during the deleveraging of 2008.

PolishKnight says

Let’s reverse that: If the money isn’t that much for the $250K bracket as we keep hearing…

This is pretty simple math even for a moron like you.

Let's look at the $250,000 taxable income example.

Todays 33% bracket starts $209,250 so that's $40,750 into the bracket that's going to be subject to Clintonian confiscation by us leftists.

The 300 basis point tax rise on this marginal income will exact an additional $1,222.50 in taxes. Since you're obviously too stupid to do the math from here let me divide that out for you: $1222.50 / 12 = $101.88.

If you still have any problems with this math I'll try to explain it in smaller words for you.

then why doesn’t the left just raise the bracket to $500K or so? (Or cancel the plan to let blue state “rich” off the hook

We could add more brackets and stuff but Obama here is being conservative by reducing the change to the system since people certainly don't like change or any confusion these days.

PolishKnight says

Sorry if I don’t take my “bullshit” somewhere else. I know how wrong it is for people to have opinions outside the leftist orthodoxy…

Being utterly wrong about everything is not heroic. it makes you a moron.

Next time you want to keep your tax cuts try not to start trillion-dollar wars for no good reason.

If gold hits 2k and silver hits 50 - I'm cashing out and buying that damn boat.

I bought PM's a couple years ago assuming this may happen someday, but wow, we're about to blow through $1300 here real soon.

I bought 100 of these right here at about $14 a piece a ways back : http://www.apmex.com/Product/44447/1_oz_999_Fine_Silver_Rounds___Buffalo.aspx

Right after the purchase, I thought, why did I buy rounds... (I always got either SAE's, maples or philharmonics)... they were just so cheap at the time - couldn't pass em up. But man - over $22 for a silver round? Hard to believe.

Nomo: where the hell have you been? Kate & Jon were divorced after she was a psycho-bitch for however many years they were married, but not before they had a buttload of kids and moved from a normal neighborhood house to an estate in BFE.

Their show used to be filled with videos of cute little kids destroying a house with the nanny & kate present, until Jon quit his job so he could sit on a couch with his wife and let her criticize him while he counted the dollars that poured in. The kids whined alot and cried even more while their parents ignored the shit outta them. They appeared to enjoy the camera men/sound crew/producers, tho and probably called them "mama" & "dada."

Then, Jon was in the tabloids because he had an affair & his girlfriend's family was paid thou$ands of dollars to narc on him. They got divorced, Kate got the show and is now famous for being famous (ala Paris Hilton, except kate isn't as classy hahahaha). Kate went on to such career highs as "Dancing with the Stars" which should be called "wasting an hour watching pathetic attention-seeking people." I'm not sure who's watching the kids, probably the camera men/sound crew/producers...

It's the American Dream.
(elliemae wipes a tear from her eyes...)

Sadly, the popularity of reality television precedes the writer's strike. Look no further than American Idol, which has been around since 2002, and Survivor, which has been around since 2000. American Idol isn't that different from Star Search and lots of old shows, but the change in American reality television seems to stem from the popularity of The Real World, first broadcast in 1992. Once The Real World established that no talent or ability was needed for ratings, that people just wanted to watch people behave in bizarre manner and talk about each other behind each others' backs, modern reality television was born.

MAybe the 4-5 times increase of your rule is correct but it took a little longer this time 9 years. Gold was 260 or so in 2000 - 2001. In California the real estate low was 1995 or 1996, the next high was what ? 2006 ?

I remember when Florida real estate was such a no brainer because we all knew the baby boomers were going to be retiring. Probably a lot of speculators thought, I'll be smart and "sell the fact," I'll even get out right before they start retiring.

But alas, Mr. Market outsmarted so many. My point ? It's not that hard to be right about something being undervalued or over valued. What's hard is knowing how much more undervalued or overvalued it can become. That is, the timing is the hard part.

The people who bought gold at 830 for a semi long term play in 1980 were right. But they might not have expected it to be 30 years before they were right.

I'm not saying that I think gold is at it's high. I have no opinion now. Seems like a coin flip to me at this point. But I was very bullish on gold in 2001 - 2004 and told others to buy it (I almost never give such advice), but I didn't have the funds to buy much then.

To change the focus somewhat, do most of you buy physical gold bars and/or coins? If so from where? And how actively do you trade them given they are physical assets.

I have been buying GLD but found out recently that it is just paper backed and it isn't clear to me what the correlation or maybe specifically the ratio in price between the security and the physical asset is. With all this talk about trading options that seems to be a fairly intrinsic risk. Thoughts?

globe33 says

To change the focus somewhat, do most of you buy physical gold bars and/or coins? If so from where? And how actively do you trade them given they are physical assets.
I have been buying GLD but found out recently that it is just paper backed and it isn’t clear to me what the correlation or maybe specifically the ratio in price between the security and the physical asset is. With all this talk about trading options that seems to be a fairly intrinsic risk. Thoughts?

Well it is not supposed to be paper backed but there are some who suspect the amount of GLD in the ETF is nil. Anyhow, I havent bought GLD but watch it. It seems to track close to goldprice/10. Of course there is risk , gold can go down for long periods. I own some coins purchased at various coin shops and the US Mint. To me it is an assett worth owning not selling.

What is the strategy to handle the capital gains tax on gold? 28% is a nasty hit, especially if one considers the markdown most dealers want to take when you sell them your coins or bars.

Vicente proclaims from the mountaintop: "That was another of my breaking points, when I realized the party had degenerated so far that it had become a requirement to worship morons and you had to hide any education or intelligence you might have or be suspect."

Hahaha! Vicente, you really gave me a good laugh. This is the kind of thing a classical leftist would say. Oh, where to begin?

You claim that smart republicans are "suspect" yet you claim to have modeled yourself after Buckley who is very respected in the conservative community. Then you argue they require "worship" of morons. This is probably not a long shot, but I suspect that you didn't fully agree with these "morons" hence they were worshipped for being "morons" rather than simply holding positions that differed from yours.

Do you know what projection is? I don't recall any conservative ever saying or indicating that they regard smart people as suspect and worship morons. But... leftists seem to like to brag about how smart they are and superior to those who disagree with them so if anyone seems to want worship, it's them. In fact, I'd say that all the dogma of leftism (gay marriage, global warming apocalypse, socialism, etc.) really are just like going for bread and wine to church for a more "personal" agenda. They're just a framework to feel good about yourself. I bet you think of yourself as smart, don't you. Is that a shot in the dark?

Tell you what: I believe what I believe simply I think it's best. I would rather be "stupid" and think the "best" thing than be "smart" and believe in something that sounds smart, but is not "best." I also put practicality ahead of ideology. I'm old enough to understand that what I think is best and what is "right" is sometimes not possible. If I was smarter or I could believe in stuff that I think is "right" and have that work for me, I wouldn't be talking to you. I'd be at Bildeberg hanging out with the elite and finding ways to get people like you to do my bidding.

"you keep fishing around trying to show i “wasn’t conservative enough” to deserve checking off Republican as my affiliation"

If this is "fishing" then all I need to catch fish is go out in a boat and set up a bucket and have the fish jump in. For starters, when I see "i" spelled in lowercase that's usually an indication the person is having an identity crisis. I see it a lot when debating women online.

This is the classic situation of if it quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck... I am honestly puzzled at how you can claim to have been a republican for years and then switch to Obama and declare your former ideologues to be morons. I guess stranger things have happened. Hmmm, I had a friend who was Catholic because of her family, found she didn't like it, and switched to Judaism (getting married to a Jew didn't hurt either.) So perhaps you just found you switched to leftism because it suited you.

For the record, I started out not as a leftist but more as a marxist and found that being a white male heterosexual who was out for his best interests rather than belong to a self-proclaimed smart-people club. I'm not ashamed to say that. I can see why many members of democrat special interest groups vote democrat and love to see the different "big tent" groups starting to conflict with each other. Feminists and fundamentalist Islam, for example. That'll be a fun battle to watch in the coming decades!

PolishKnight says

You claim that smart republicans are “suspect” yet you claim to have modeled yourself after Buckley who is very respected in the conservative community. Then you argue they require “worship” of morons

I think you misunderstood me. It USED to be the case that men like Buckley were respected in the GOP. Not any more. Now if you don't worship Sarah Palin and follow her every tweet and facebook post, you must be some kind of RINO traitor. It's one factor among several that opened my eyes to what the party had degenerated into.

"Being utterly wrong about everything is not heroic. it makes you a moron.
Next time you want to keep your tax cuts try not to start trillion-dollar wars for no good reason."

I'm going to try a classical Star Trek maneuver:

You're absolutely right, Troy.

But... since I'm wrong about everything, how can you be right? Please let me know how that goes! :-)

Indeed, rather than disprove me you instead confirmed exactly what I just said: You regard those who disagree with yourself as morons in order to puff up your ego and then called me a moron for saying so. Amazing. This is like when the latest Democrat demographic is portrayed in cartoons as violent crazies and they then go around ranting about how they want to kill the cartoonists for saying so. That'll show 'em!

Knee jerking is just so neat!

Regarding starting stupid wars. I don't feel a need to agree with dogma, leftist or right wing. Quite frankly, I don't think we should have started either as a "war" BUT... both wars were agreed upon by the right AND left including Hillary Clinton and later votes by Obama to fund it. So take it up with them. Regarding blowing a trillion dollars and keeping tax cuts. Obama spends that much on rich white male bankers every few months or so... Don't you just LOVE that? Tee hee!

I don't know about you, but a trillion dollars is a lot of money to me. We shouldn't need tax increases. Oh, wait, most of the money we now spend goes to overbloated public workers' unions, welfare recipients breeding children into poverty, and overall waste and you still don't get a Swedish paradise. You never will! And if that means that money is wasted rather than YOU getting your way while pushing ME in front of a bus you know something? I am perfectly OK with that. Didja hear that? You'll NEVER get your utopia. EVER! And the closest thing to it won't be around in a few decades either.

So. There.!

Tee hee.

PolishKnight says

I don’t know about you, but a trillion dollars is a lot of money to me. We shouldn’t need tax increases. Oh, wait, most of the money we now spend goes to overbloated public workers’ unions, welfare recipients breeding children into poverty, and overall waste and you still don’t get a Swedish paradise.

You don't like dogma? Could have fooled me. And it's completely wrong to boot. The VAST majority of spending goes to the Military, Medicare/Medicaid, and Social Security.

Tee hee

"I think you misunderstood me. It USED to be the case that men like Buckley were respected in the GOP. Not any more. Now if you don’t worship Sarah Palin and follow her every tweet and facebook post, you must be some kind of RINO traitor."

This is a huge strawman. I don't follow Sarah Palin's every tweet and facebook post and yet I am not considered a RINO traitor and I know several who don't even know what a tweet is. No problem.

There are many prominent, intelligent republicans out there who are not RINO's. One is R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. Another off the top of my head is Ann Coulter who writes several best selling books. There are many others who are not RINOs and I'm sure I could produce quite a reading list for you.

In any case, I find it amusing that the tea party and republicans in general are all portrayed as a bunch of trailer park hicks when the left's demographic and even new leadership is, well, not that terribly intellectual. Actor Danny Glover thinks that global warming caused the Haiti earthquake. And George Clooney thinks that if it wasn't for him, blacks would be forced to sit in the back of the movie theater (hint: Those are the among the BEST seats!) Most of the demographic that votes leftist now have little in common with western european values and thinking and don't read newspapers or if they do, they aren't in English.

Sorry, you totally missed the boat. Outside of NYC and the Bay Area and a few other havens, leftist elites are on the web in the Burbs driving hypocrite mobiles (cars) and are on the same social level as dungeons and dragon players.

"You don’t like dogma? Could have fooled me. And it’s completely wrong to boot. The VAST majority of spending goes to the Military, Medicare/Medicaid, and Social Security.
Tee hee"

Tell you what, I agree with you strictly speaking about the spending percentage wise. You forgot the national debt payments though.

And before you laugh at me, my main point is still there: You aren't going to get the Swedish paradise you dream about because all the money has already been spent by old socialist geezers that died long before you. The stuff I brought up is the "discretionary" spending that also is a total wash.

For each dollar you tax, it's spent twice and not on stuff YOU will want.

Enjoy living in downtown Detroit or as I like to refer to it: Sweden and France, 2030 ACE.

"I don’t think it’s any secret that white males hold the huge majority of wealth in the world. I think it would be kind of silly to use a Black or Hispanic in a cartoon about excessive wealth. Don’t you?"

I'm reminded of a cute line from Frasier where his brother Niles rages: "It's impossible for a wealthy white woman to get a fair shake in the legal system!"

Yeah, we all know how impovershed white women are. Those shopping malls where the majority of stores sell overpriced shoes and bags are there for these poor women to spend money to show how poor they are...

In answer to your question: Should cartoons about, say, genius scientists only feature white males since they also comprise the majority of them? No need for blacks or women to be portrayed, right? Or is racism and sexism only ok when the PC groups that it's ok to bash are featured?

At least with the old KKK racism, they weren't hypocrites. And more black men have been shoved into jails since the so-called civil rights movement and feminism and unwed motherhood than the Jim Crow days.

I think I answered your question and you didn't like the answer. I said it doesn't make sense to only portray whites as wealthy especially in a negative way when leftists think that positive views such as science should be inclusive of whites and minorities...

In answer to your question: "Why does the median white family have almost 9000% more wealth than the median black or Hispanic family?"

I presume you're referring to "non-home" wealth, yes? That's one of several reasons. Of course, this graph you show is unsourced and makes a rather stunning claim that the median/average black family only has something like $500 in the bank account at any time. That is amazing if true. Of course, one of the obvious answers (and not PC and therefore unthinkable as heresy) is that whites tend to be married and raise children in two parent famileis and wait until they go to school and get good jobs before having lots of children. Amazingly enough, many of these are probably religious whites who don't believe in abortion or birth control or even sex before marriage and did not receive extensive "sex education" in school. (Of course, Sarah Palin's daughter is hardly an example of this.)

I find it amusing how leftists like to catagorize whites as privileged and educated and, at the same time, look down upon non-leftist whites as a bunch of uneducated, trailer park hicks homeschooled to the 3rd grade level.

In addition, as I observed above, it logically doesn't make much sense that leftists like to think they are more educated, on average, than the evil, 'stupid' republicans and at the same time brag that they're more "diverse" in their electorate and made up of mostly non-whites. Hmmm... if whites are more educated on average and republicans tend to be more made up of whites wouldn't that mean that republicans would be... smarter?

PolishKnight says

I find it amusing how leftists like to catagorize whites as privileged and educated and, at the same time, look down upon non-leftist whites as a bunch of uneducated, trailer park hicks homeschooled to the 3rd grade level.

I find it amusing that you continue to use strawman arguments..

PolishKnight says

And before you laugh at me, my main point is still there: You aren’t going to get the Swedish paradise you dream about because all the money has already been spent by old socialist geezers that died long before you. The stuff I brought up is the “discretionary” spending that also is a total wash.

The military isn't discretionary spending?

PolishKnight says

intelligent Republicans.....Another off the top of my head is Ann Coulter who writes several best selling books.

I think you lost credibility right about here.

"Complaining about how the media portrays the richest race in the world is absurd in my opinion. It’s almost as stupid as complaining about the plight of the white male."

On the walk home I thought of something interesting... why didn't your graph include a comparison to... Asians? As we both know, they were subject to severe discrimination as well and also came in as poor immigrants. Surely, they're as bad off as blacks and Hispanics, right?

Regarding the stupidity of complaining about the plight of the white male. I don't understand that if white males are so overprivileged compared to everyone else that it's mostly white women spending all the time spending money and comprise something like 80% of all consumer spending. Surely, the poor women would all be at work for longer hours than men if they were so bad off, no? I noticed how you dodged that.

Ironically, as I also pointed out, Marxism used to be a philosophy held and beloved by working class white males. Did you know that most of the men in western Europe are white males? Oh, wait, not for long in France. :-) Yep, when whites males were no longer considered useful by the marxists in the states, they were cut loose by the left. It just took some time for Western Europe to catch up to the idea and are now looking the other way while women are shoved into burkas. Welcome to equality, ladies!

"I believe neocons are desperate to make it an issue because it’s one of the few areas they think they can score points with."

Yeah, and Obama's race (especially his half black portion) had NOTHING to do with his popularity among African American voters and white guilt exploiting leftist voters. Sure! But you do have a point that it's rather hard for leftists to sell the "we'll tax the rich and help you!" card to working, married, whites when the rest of the time they're bragging about how they're going to shaft whites in favor of their new demographic core.

It's rather amusing that a tactic used by the left to tear down the USA and with it, the major leader of capitalism in the world is now helping to undermine Western Europe.

You know, it's interesting that Lafayette, CA has this demographic makeup according to wiki: "The racial makeup of the city was 86.81% White, 0.55% Black or African American, 0.22% Native American, 8.23% Asian, 0.09% Pacific Islander, 0.81% from other races, and 3.30% from two or more races. 3.95% of the population were Hispanic or Latino of any race."

Gee, that isn't very diverse don't you think? Why don't you move here? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oakland,_ca

I love how the left bashed Sarah Palin for having a daughter that, gasp, got pregnant out of wedlock! On the other hand, the typical lefty lives in as white a neighborhood as they can (including in the city) and will try to price blacks and hispanics out. Then they drive a car and run their A/C's and preach about the evils of global warming.

Finally regarding putting kids back in coal mines. I had a grandfather who was an FDR voter who worked in a coal mine as a child. Guess what, he was "rich" and must have been doing it for fun I suppose according to you. Oh, and all the Eastern Europeans (250 million or so living in poverty). Do they count as rich? How about letting THEM immigrate illegally as much as they like (and most of them would NOT vote Democrat.)

Yeah, good luck with that goal of making the world look like Sweden and your lily white neighborhood...

Vicente writes: "I think you lost credibility right about here. [Ann Coulter]"

From wikipedia:

"While attending Cornell University, Coulter helped found The Cornell Review,[4] and was a member of the Delta Gamma national women's fraternity.[5] She graduated cum laude from Cornell in 1984 with a B.A. in history, and received her J.D. from the University of Michigan Law School in 1988, where she achieved membership in the Order of the Coif and was an editor of the Michigan Law Review.[6] At Michigan, Coulter founded a local chapter of the Federalist Society and was trained at the National Journalism Center.[7]
After law school, Coulter served as a law clerk, in Kansas City, for Pasco Bowman II of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.[8] After a short time working in New York City in private practice, where she specialized in corporate law, Coulter left to work for the United States Senate Judiciary Committee after the Republican Party took control of Congress in 1994. She handled crime and immigration issues for Senator Spencer Abraham of Michigan and helped craft legislation designed to expedite the deportation of aliens convicted of felonies.[9] She later became a litigator with the Center for Individual Rights.[10]"

Hmmm, not bad for an oppressed white woman whom you all say had no chance since only white males are rich and successful due to sexism and racism, right?

I love it when dogmas collide.

"Because I don’t care. You do. That’s the point."

Translation: "lalalalala! I can't hear you. lalala!"

"The race issue in 2010 is 90% right wing fanatics complaining about the race issue."

Interesting you don't have a graph to support that statistic. :-)

Hmmm, could you please show me where in the, say, immigration debate for example, that it's 90% of the right pointing out that it's because of hispanics when they oppose illegal immigration versus the groups and advocates for amnesty pointing out that their hispanic special interest group wants the law to look the other way because they share a common race or that it's "racism" to oppose illegal immigration because that's automatically racism against hispanics.

Yeah, it's "right wing fanatics" that are the ones playing the race card all the time demanding preferential treatment.

Oh, wait, 90% is awful close to the percentage of people in your neighborhood who are white. :-)

PolishKnight says

[Ann Coulter bio] Hmmm, not bad for an oppressed white woman whom you all say had no chance since only white males are rich and successful due to sexism and racism, right?

Ummm, what? Did I say anything about oppression, sexism, or racism?

Sober up before posting.

"Also I did not generalize that white males are the richest group on earth. I stated a statistical fact that white families in America are richer by a factor of 43 than other minorities."

You said, and I quote: "I don’t think it’s any secret that white males hold the huge majority of wealth in the world."

I didn't even need a fancy graph. Any reader can see you were generalizing about whites, period, on a worldwide scale and you're now lying about it. But do go blue in the face with a bombastic denial. Tons of fun!

In addition, you also lumped in Asians with "other minorities" and when called on it, you said you "didn't care." That's ok, when a religious fundie is confronted with such a hole they will say "It doesn't matter. Only You care! You're wrong, I'm right." At least they're honest they believe in a RELIGION.

Tell you what, every time you see a white face in your neighborhood, think to yourself how much you love being around them rather than minorities. Now that I put that thought into your head, I know you'll be thinking of this observation several times a day. Cognitive dissonance, get ready, set, go!

Ok Vicente, are you admitting then that white women are not oppressed and in any way deserve special privileges considering the benefits they have enjoyed via inheritance, special protections, and sexism that they continue to embrace?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Tatupu asks: "The military isn’t discretionary spending?"

Try closing down bases and research in Boston and other blue state districts. (Or putting up windmills off of Martha's vineyard... :-)

Dogma vs reality.

PolishKnight says

A simple yes or no will suffice.

http://lateralaction.com/articles/black-and-white-thinking/

"Race? Who cares."

You're absolutely right. So the explanation then for the lesser earnings/savings of blacks and hispanics (but not Asians since that would ruin your theory) can't be due to race then. Got it. Oh, and we can discuss immigration law without the left bringing up the minor fact that most illegals are hispanic. Sure...

And your living in an almost mostly white area is a "personal attack" after you claimed "I’m all about reality." So you're all about reality except when it comes to... LIVING in reality!

Silly me. I'm not afraid of a personal attack based upon the fact that I earn a living, support a spouse and ultimately family, won't have children running around committing crimes or expecting the state to pick up the tab for daycare because I'm a "single parent by choice" or don't want to be the "sole financial breadwinner", and generally will be a neighbor that YOU want to move next to if you can't find a job in lala 86% white liberal land.

Oh, and FYI, I walk to work and take public transportation. Not just fancy metro but a bus. I WALK THE WALK.