The Moderate Voice - Latest Comments in The Regular Folk Need Not Apply

Re: The Regular Folk Need Not Apply

AsherJ — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 21:28:40 -0000

"Social Darwinist" policies would mainly be directed against the bottom 15 percent, which is the absolute best thing that could happen for the middle 70 percent. Who do you think is hurt by the underclass gradually being moved into the middleclass suburbs, the middleclass, or the upper classes in their gated communities?

The bottom line is that the interests of the middleclass and of the underclass are diametrically opposed, anything good for the middleclass is bad for the underclass and anything good for the underclass is bad for the middleclass. If you wanted to bolster the fortunes of the middle class the best way to do this would be to design policies that hurt the underclass as much as possible.

Forced sterilization for the underclass would be a great starter.

Re: The Regular Folk Need Not Apply

AsherJ — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 16:28:40 -0000

The bottom line is that the interests of the middleclass and of the underclass are diametrically opposed, anything good for the middleclass is bad for the underclass and anything good for the underclass is bad for the middleclass. If you wanted to bolster the fortunes of the middle class the best way to do this would be to design policies that hurt the underclass as much as possible.

Forced sterilization for the underclass would be a great starter.

Re: The Regular Folk Need Not Apply

kritt11 — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 06:36:46 -0000

Palin made her "regularness" an issue by touting it during the campaign. That makes it fair game for the opposition. She also reinforced the impression by giving substandard performances in interviews and unscripted remarks.

Honestly, I prefer elites who know more than I do for our highest public offices!

Re: The Regular Folk Need Not Apply

keelaay — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 06:18:03 -0000

"Regular-ness"?? Good Lord that is a dangerous view. Maybe my wife, I guess, is by Mr Steels definition a "regular" too. She is a deacon at church, a Sunday school teacher, a girls softball coach, and a full time 36 hour a day mother of three. (Sorry... no hockey.) She spends every flippin&#39 minute of her day dedicated to either supporting the schooling or activities of our children or volunteering for others. On top of that making meals and keeping house, or volunteering for others less fortunate than ourselves. But, surprise to those who like Tyrone Steels above believe that "regular folk" are only working class conservatives. My wife is a liberal Democrat, and thus excluded from Mr Steels populist and naive definition of "regular". Like millions of like-minded conservative and liberal thinking women, she thinks Sarah Palin is a phony and her aspirations to national office are ludicrous. So I guess my deacon/sunday school teacher/soft ball coach/breast cancer drive/surburban loving mother and the millions of those like her are "irregulars" to Mr Steele. And that&#39s the Moderate Voice?

Re: The Regular Folk Need Not Apply

kritt11 — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 05:39:03 -0000

"Sarah Palin didn&#39t talk about "ordinary Americans". She talked about "real Americans". There is a big difference. Her appeal wasn&#39t to ordinariness, but to exclusion of those that don&#39t qualify."

Good point-- I remember that well. Of course, the "real Americans" were mostly Republicans--- mainly conservative, traditional, heterosexual white Christians who supported the war. Its a code that excludes many minorities and political groups. The main problem was that there weren&#39t enough "real Americans" to sweep her into office. Those who didn&#39t make the grade voted for the guy who "palled around with terrorists". LOL

That should have been a wake-up call for the GOP-- that exclusionary elitism is passe.

Re: The Regular Folk Need Not Apply

T_Steel — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 05:26:58 -0000

The fact is that many "regular folk" exclude. When I heard the "real Americans" angle that Sarah Palin pushed, I chuckled to myself thinking "I&#39ve heard that before". Heard that from folks I worked with and hung out with. Yes it is silly to even try to distinguish "real Americans" from other Americans. But I knew exactly what she was saying. But I didn&#39t get outraged. I just understood.

See Sarah Palin was doomed even if she didn&#39t open her mouth. People would have judge her in a negative light as a small-time hillbilly. She made it easier for folks to trash her by saying some dumb things. But Sarah Palin the hunter, Moose stew eater, snowmobile-drivin&#39 governor would have cut down even if she has the chops of Hillary Clinton. It seems we want stars on the major level of politics. People that are better than us it seems. But "us" maintain the many things we enjoy in life. Everyday "us" do our jobs to make things run smoothly. But the perception of "us" from those "on-high" (or think they are on-high) is that we can&#39t handle the big stage. I call nonsense. Not saying Palin would be doing a better job than Obama. But Palin never stood a chance.

Re: The Regular Folk Need Not Apply

Pug — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 03:43:10 -0000

Sarah Palin didn&#39t talk about "ordinary Americams". She talked about "real Americans". There is a big difference. Her appeal wasn&#39t to ordinariness, but to exclusion of those that doen&#39t qualify.

Re: The Regular Folk Need Not Apply

kritt11 — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 01:36:46 -0000

Honestly, I prefer elites who know more than I do for our highest public offices!

Re: The Regular Folk Need Not Apply

keelaay — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 01:18:03 -0000

"Regular-ness"?? Good Lord that is a dangerous proposition. Maybe my wife, I guess, is by Mr Steels definition a "regular" too. She is a church deacon, a Sunday school teacher, a girls softball coach, and a full time 36 hour a day mother of three. (Sorry... no hockey.) She spends every flippin' minute of her day dedicated to either supporting the schooling or activities of our children or volunteering for others. On top of that making meals and keeping house, or volunteering for others less fortunate than ourselves. She is no elitist or intellectual (not that there is any thing "irregular" about those Americans, right?) But, surprise to those who like Tyrone Steels above believe that "regular folk" are only working class conservatives. My wife is a liberal Democrat, and thus excluded from Mr Steels right wing populist and naive definition of "regular". Like millions upon millions of like-minded conservatives and liberal thinking women, my wife considers that Sarah Palin is hollow and selfish and her aspirations to national office are ludicrous. So my deacon / sunday school teacher / soft ball coach / breast cancer drive / surburban mother and the millions of those like her are "irregulars" to Mr Steels. I hope Mr Steels comes to understand that his hypothesis of "regulars" against "irregulars" is not only wrong, but very dangerous and I suggest that he consider the consequences of similar views in history.

Re: The Regular Folk Need Not Apply

kathykattenburg — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 01:09:02 -0000

DaGoat,

The point is that that "commonness" to which you refer was always a lie. Sarah Palin is not a "commoner" or "regular folk." She is every bit and every inch the elitist that she has set herself up as somehow different from.

To the extent that there even is any such thing as an "ordinary" or "regular" American, Sarah Palin has no point of identification with that person at all. And even less understanding.

Re: The Regular Folk Need Not Apply

kritt11 — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 00:39:03 -0000

"Sarah Palin didn't talk about "ordinary Americans". She talked about "real Americans". There is a big difference. Her appeal wasn't to ordinariness, but to exclusion of those that don't qualify."

Good point-- I remember that well. Of course, the "real Americans" were mostly Republicans--- mainly conservative, traditional, heterosexual white Christians who supported the war. Its a code that excludes many minorities and political groups. The main problem was that there weren't enough "real Americans" to sweep her into office. Those who didn't make the grade voted for the guy who "palled around with terrorists". LOL

That should have been a wake-up call for the GOP-- that exclusionary elitism is passe.

Re: The Regular Folk Need Not Apply

TheMagicalSkyFather — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 23:14:05 -0000

Willy,

Very witty of you but thank you for making such a subtle educational point. See posting on an online forum I expect to possibly be insulted as opposed to debated. Its part of the game, why should we re-make the rules for me so that I am no longer offended? So in the same spirit why should we re-make politics(and the history of politics as she thinks this all began with her) to suit her and her feelings? If I want to play football I understand I will get hit. If I use my kids as props I know from history they become targets. If I use my military record as a prop I turn that into fair game(see John Kerry/Max Cleland) no matter how little truth my side or theirs truly holds. Knowing these obvious things is what an intelligent and studious person does before choosing a career or a hobby. Whining that the world us unfair and everyone should now play by your rules because you cry and stomp your feet louder than others is childish.

Re: The Regular Folk Need Not Apply

DaGoat — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 23:06:52 -0000

Actually both sides are right here - Palin was a poor politician AND the left took an elitist attitude towards her and her commonness.

Re: The Regular Folk Need Not Apply

Pug — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 22:43:10 -0000

Sarah Palin didn't talk about "ordinary Americans". She talked about "real Americans". There is a big difference. Her appeal wasn't to ordinariness, but to exclusion of those that don't qualify.

Re: The Regular Folk Need Not Apply

Father_Time — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 21:26:50 -0000

Your , "Naïve Regular Folk", apologetics don&#39t wash.

Without displaying a mind of her own, she simply repeated the hate filed conservative talking points and attacks against the people of this country that are being oppressed by it’s Social Darwinist policies. She states the same empty and baseless rhetoric that protects those that want no healthcare reform, no ecology protections, no energy policy reforms, no foreign policy changes, no social reforms, NOTHING! Only to continue the asinine republican policies that have nearly destroyed our country if it hasn’t already.

Upon any intelligent scrutiny, Sara Palin is dedicated to the, “I got mine screw you, now send your kids to some misguided war for me and don‘t you dare complain about anything, don’t ask us for anything, and don’t Expect anything ever because you are the lower gene pool we are weeding out for the glory of America and John Wayne”.

Sara Palin is a comical ass and there is NO WAY we are going to lighten up on her until she stops being a threat to the people of the United States.

Re: The Regular Folk Need Not Apply

kathykattenburg — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 20:09:02 -0000

DaGoat,

The point is that that "commonness" to which you refer was always a lie. Sarah Palin is not a "commoner" or "regular folk." She is every bit and every inch the elitist that she has set herself up as somehow different from.

To the extent that there even is any such thing as an "ordinary" or "regular" American, Sarah Palin has no point of identification with that person at all. And even less understanding.

Re: The Regular Folk Need Not Apply

willyv — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 19:52:42 -0000

MagicalSkyFather:

I would suggest counseling for you.

Willy

Re: The Regular Folk Need Not Apply

willyv — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 19:51:56 -0000

MagicalSkyFather:

I would suggest counseling . . . for you.

Re: The Regular Folk Need Not Apply

kathykattenburg — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 19:42:27 -0000

What is "regular-ness"? What makes Sarah Palin and her family "regular folk"? Specifically. I consider myself the polar opposite of Sarah Palin in every way I can think of. Does that make me "irregular"?

Please help me here.

Re: The Regular Folk Need Not Apply

Jim_Satterfield — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 18:35:27 -0000

Sarah Palin was not necessarily disliked by all those who felt she didn&#39t belong in the vice-presidency. I suggest you look more closely at her lack of qualifications for the office. Frankly, as more time as gone by she&#39s succeeded in showing that she&#39s not really even that good as governor of a state with a small population and financial advantages because of their oil revenue. How about looking at those factors when it comes to those of us who simply think that she doesn&#39t belong in the upper echelons of political power because she would misuse and abuse the power it gives her.

Re: The Regular Folk Need Not Apply

TheMagicalSkyFather — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 18:34:03 -0000

On your update I agree but this is why i felt she was put on the ticket in the VP slot to begin with. She was a danger to the corrupt AK machine which is largely Republican but has no real political affiliation but green. I would love to feel bad for her but I dislike her personal style so much I just don&#39t care what happens to her if she stopped whining about everyone ganging up on her long enough to realize she is far from the first and will not be the last I may have a shred of respect for her. Currently she looks like a Beauty Queen version of Al Sharpton though and I despise both.

Re: The Regular Folk Need Not Apply

facebook-724435026 — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 18:25:43 -0000

good point Mr. Steels.

Re: The Regular Folk Need Not Apply

TheMagicalSkyFather — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 18:19:25 -0000

The reason she was disliked is because her "flaws" that would have ended a Dem&#39s run were embraced because she was a Repub. Then the person that said Clinton needed to buck up and not be whiny just because she was a woman became the poster child for identity politics backed by the party that claims identity politics is tantamount to communism. Every attack was sexist yet every nod to her prettiness and attractiveness and just down right prom queenness was embraced as grand virtues(this by the way is real sexisim, judging her by her looks only but since it worked for her its supposed to be ok??). She became the walking embodiment of what happens when the jocks and the cheerleaders run the school, no matter if they did or did not read the books or study they still win because they look shiny but if we say that we are missing what makes them winners(just in case you were wondering keeping the rich rich is what makes people like this winners, its not a real mystery) we are accused of just being hateful as she is highly qualified its that black fella thats not.
I have a special reason to dislike Sarah though its that when she speaks I feel her inner hatred of people like me. Weird people, geeky people, those that dare to think of their neighbors before a tax cut and actually just anyone that disagree&#39s with her positions(even if they change). I like leaders that can agree to disagree not that talk like in a different time and age they would like to burn me at the stake "but...um...well...I guess everyone kinda has a right to their opinion"(said in a highly mocking and neutering tone). I think after 8 years of a chickenhawk calling everyone that did not want to give up their rights for "safety" and did not run off to fight a war for oil "cowards" we would be bored with that. Sarah scares the hell out of me because I fear she would try to purge the country of those she does not like, I have never felt that way about any politician since Nixon and he new not to say it in public(see the Nixon tapes) she on the other hand likes saying this to crowds of people that would already prefer to see people like me dead. Sorry that I take offense but when people say they want to kill me or embrace the same rhetoric as those that want to I tend to want to believe them.

Re: The Regular Folk Need Not Apply

TheMagicalSkyFather — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 18:14:05 -0000

Willy,

Very witty of you but thank you for making such a subtle educational point. See posting on an online forum I expect to possibly be insulted as opposed to debated. Its part of the game, why should we re-make the rules for me so that I am no longer offended? So in the same spirit why should we re-make politics(and the history of politics as she thinks this all began with her) to suit her and her feelings? If I want to play football I understand I will get hit. If I use my kids as props I know from history they become targets. If I use my military record as a prop I turn that into fair game(see John Kerry/Max Cleland) no matter how little truth my side or theirs truly holds. Knowing these obvious things is what an intelligent and studious person does before choosing a career or a hobby. Whining that the world us unfair and everyone should now play by your rules because you cry and stomp your feet louder than others is childish.

Re: The Regular Folk Need Not Apply

$199537 — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 18:06:52 -0000

Actually both sides are right here - Palin was a poor politician AND the left took an elitist attitude towards her and her commonness.