MA election

[UnknownPilot 33]

We're in the tank because of W.(come on)the dems lost these seats and clinton tried his best to keep it together.

 

Straight from the Communist News Network. lol

 

The powers of the Office of the President of The(se) United States do not include the ability to directly control the economy. That boils down to the Federal Reserve, Congress, news media, and you (and outside inlfuences).

 

So yes, yes, of COUSE it's W's fault. It couldn't POSSIBLY be the increased spending under Clinton followed by the dot com crash in 2000, followed by 9/11 (2001, btw), followed by Katrina, followed by the demoncrat run house finance committe and federal mortgage organizations changing how homes and mortgages are valued at a perfect time to shif things in their favor (despite the righteous indignation they put up when the Reps tried to put more oversight on those very organizations in the years and months just prior). No, how silly.

Edited January 21, 2010 by UnknownPilot

[eraser_tr 29]

I seriously doubt that.

 

First of all, don't so closely asociate "left" with "democrat". I've had it with the spineless pandering democrats. But that doesn't mean I'll ever shift rightwards or support the republicans, who are as despicable as they come. Us progressive reformers are just stuck with the spineless creatures, any movement for a third party would just guarantee the republicans even more power.

 

People are angry with wall street and unemployment. What will republicans possibly do? It's like a tape recording one size fits all solution "lower taxes" and more deregulation. We did that for the past ten years, there's been no economic growth, no increase in standard of living or wages.

 

Big government? Seriously, start to think about it. The USA has 300 million people, it's thousands of miles across in any direction. Government has to be a sufficient size to even begin to manage it, let alone even begin to be a major player on the world stage. Security, that takes alot of people and money. That means taxes. How else will any government raise revenue to function?

 

They want to rape Medicare (and those are the people who need insurance the most)

So would you be in favor of giving acess to medicare to people who need access to insurance and can't buy it?

[UnknownPilot 33]

People are angry with wall street and unemployment. What will republicans possibly do? It's like a tape recording one size fits all solution "lower taxes" and more deregulation. We did that for the past ten years, there's been no economic growth, no increase in standard of living or wages.

 

Yes, enough generations have been put through the liberal indoctrination centers (public schools), lied to, and constantly told that they should "ask not what you can do for your country; ask what your country should be giving you for free", that the masses are all about notions of entitlement now.

 

So naturally they are "angry with wall street".

 

But once again I'm left to ask just how it is that you've managed to credit Bubba with the dot com boom (or perhaps forgot totally that it happened), and how you DON'T likewise credit him then with the inevitable crash that happened under his reign. And how it is that you don't look at what 9/11 and Katrina back to back did in the wake of that massive (and I repeat, inevitable crash).

 

It's just too convenient to ignore those facts, and the fact that despite it all, we GREW economically and kept unemployment low until October 08 when that change forced the real estate market to collapse, I guess.

 

 

Big government? Seriously, start to think about it. The USA has 300 million people, it's thousands of miles across in any direction. Government has to be a sufficient size to even begin to manage it, let alone even begin to be a major player on the world stage. Security, that takes alot of people and money. That means taxes. How else will any government raise revenue to function?

 

Take a look through the Constitution some time. I think you will find that the very idea is to keep the singular central gov't small, and manage the necessary tasks across distance with increasingly local gov'ts - much like a military rank heirarchy (to a degree anyway).

 

The trouble is that you clearly think that the gov't should be watching us 24/7 and providing everything, including to those who are leeches. And the idea that it's not the gov't problem if someone can't hack it is just anathema to you.

 

 

EDIT - re-reading this I have to say that last sentence is an assumption and possibly an over-assumption, so if so, I apologize and it would be better to ask first just what you view on that actually is.

 

It's a natural reflex from dealing with people who hate republicans (as you basically stated you do) that they also beleive what I added at the end there as well. And that is a major anthithesis to me (and original American values of freedom, and independence of the individual, not just the nation as a whole), and so I find it to be a bit dangerous to me, which in turn triggers me to be a bit more aggressive than maybe I should be.

Edited January 21, 2010 by UnknownPilot

[Fubar512 1,350]

I seriously doubt that.

 

First of all, don't so closely asociate "left" with "democrat". I've had it with the spineless pandering democrats. But that doesn't mean I'll ever shift rightwards or support the republicans, who are as despicable as they come.

 

Dispicable? You mean like "Bawney Fwank", Nancy Pelosi, Jon "Corslime", Maxine Waters, and the late and un-lameted Teddy "I beat 007 to a submersible car by 8 years" Kennedy?

[eraser_tr 29]

Indoctrination isn't something we do, especially not in public schools. Unless of course you're arguing against the teaching of maintstream science and history. If anything, public school history and civics have been so sterilized from controversiality to the point of people being unable to critically think and analyze on their own. And quite frankly, that's complete and utter fantasy. I've never met anyone who wants everything handed to them. The only ones who seem to expect they deserve everything are the wall street giants who think their ass is only deserving of solid gold toilets. Nobody wants "handouts" people want to work and earn it. But as our economic system stands, it doesn't matter how hard you work, how well educated or smart you are, it's how well connected you are. Right now I'm sitting across from someone who is suffering from Paterson's budget cuts to childcare services and may not be able to keep working because someone has to take care of her kids. But she wants to keep working, her husband wants to work, but nobody wants to hire him.

 

I am no more happy with obama or clinton right now than dubya or reagan.

 

But there wasn't economic growth, only the appearance of it, it was all fake. Built on fantasy worth that wasn't really there. And the only benefits of that time have gone to a select few. There really hasn't been any recovery from the dot come boom-bust. People, myself and family included have been living the same since then. The financial crisis really hadn't changed anything unless you were along for the ride of their housing bubble.

 

And no, it's not everyone deserves everything and even if they're incompetant they deserve success, it's a whole other fallacy conservatives hold of liberal principles. It's that people should have a chance to get back up and sustain themselves, not to be kicked when they're down and kept there. It's not laziness or some desire to be a freeloader. There are a few, but more likely than not they've become that way not because they were unwilling to work, but that nobody upon nobody even gave them the chance and they've simply given up.

 

And then there's any sense of any measurable equity. Is John Thune or Lloyd Blankfein that much more intelligent or hardworking to deserve making more in an hour than I do in an entire year? They clearly aren't that much more competant at their jobs because if they were, we wouldn't be in this mess. Or even look at NBC (yeah I know everyone despises them already) and the connan, leno drama. It didn't take a psychic to tell that they'd both flop in ratings after giving the tonight show to connan and moving leno earlier. I could have told them that when they were writing the contracts.

 

Local governments, state and local are more responsible for high taxes than the federal government. And simply put, there has to be something bigger to take care of problems that are too big for any one locality to handle. You are talking about the constitution and not the articles of confederation right? The whole arguement for the constitution was to make the federal government more functional.

 

And yes, it tends to be very easy to get hateful when you're constantly demonized as everything from a fascist, to communist at the same time, when a group organizes their whole existance around destroying your every effort when you want to help people.

[Fubar512 1,350]

Man, you have a serious problem with history. Jimy Carter was handed a rebounding economy, and wrecked it in record time. Reagan's policies turned it around. G.H.W Bush in turn compromised with the Dems, which put us into a recession. The economy was starting to rebound a year and a half after the first Gulf War, but it was too late to save Bush... Clinton then came along, tried to push Goverment-run healthcare on us, and angered the electorate, resulting in a Republican takeover of Congress.

 

Whenever the clueless gather and pine for the enconomic climate of the Clinton years, they're deluding themselves....it was Reagan's economy.....remember that the Clinton Administration spent more time and effort trying to prosecute Bill Gates (who played a major role during the economy of the 90s), than they did attempting to capture Obama Bin Laden....whom btw, was being handed over to them, but they refused.

Edited January 21, 2010 by Fubar512

[UnknownPilot 33]

@ Eraser (site made me strip out quote blocks to make the post):

 

History is not taught in school. The acceptable version of it is. It just so happens that it's a very leftist leaning version. I lost count long ago of the stuff I learned on my own about history that was not taught, OR that was simply different from what was crammed down my throat.

 

Further, ANY indication of individuality is being rooted out with a certain ruthlesnees. As is any shred of competition, or the aggressive behavior that leads to it.

 

 

BTW - human nature is such that ALL societies indoctrinate everyone. It's just how humans work. Much of it is unintentional though, and most of it is unwittingly as well.

 

 

 

If anything, public school history and civics have been so sterilized from controversiality to the point of people being unable to critically think and analyze on their own.

 

This is a large part of what I'm saying.

 

 

And quite frankly, that's complete and utter fantasy. I've never met anyone who wants everything handed to them. The only ones who seem to expect they deserve everything are the wall street giants who think their ass is only deserving of solid gold toilets. Nobody wants "handouts" people want to work and earn it.

 

You speak of fantasy, but THIS is it. There are 2 main groups doing all the shouting and trying to uproot everything right now. Those that want things handed to them, and those that want things handed to other people (namely the lazy leeches of the former group). Both share a common enemy, those who actually DO work hard (or smart) and manage to do well.

 

Let me pull in another aspect here - there is no personal responsibility anymore. Since there is no right and wrong in the mind of liberal, only differing views, then clearly someone who failed or ran afoul of society is not to blame for this. They can not be, because they can not be wrong, because there is no "wrong" - so the only answer is victimization. It's not the crim's fault that he mugged you at knife-point, it's society that drove him to it, parents that touched him, classmates that teased him, employers that fired him (nevermind that he was lazy and didn't do his job), the list goes on, whatever it takes.

 

What this means is that failure is a virtue, it means a certain level of "innocence" in this mind-set. Conversely, success means a swindle simply by it's mere existance.

 

This is the crux of all socialism and communism. And it leads to "spreading the wealth around" - by taking it from those evil bastards who did well and earned it (or were just lucky in the genetic lottery) and giving it to every one who was incapable or unwilling to earn it for themselves.

 

However, let's remember, Stalin didn't see himselve as evil either. The monster doesn't see the monster in the mirror, so it does not surprise me that you claim to never have met anyone like this.

 

 

 

But as our economic system stands, it doesn't matter how hard you work, how well educated or smart you are, it's how well connected you are.

 

Is that a fact? Hmm. Well then I must be sure to tell my dad, who did his minimum in the Army as an MP, had me, then joined the USPS and is now earning a combined 6 figures with his wife who herself came from lower middle class parents and went to nursing school and is now a professional nurse.

 

For that matter, my lack of college degree must not allow me to be a knowledge worker earning a respectable salary and own 2 vehicles and a house.

 

Or my Grandfather who worked in a saw-mill, was an Air Force cook, and a mechanic, never graduated HS, but was a very hard worker and very personable, ran a very successful Sunoco buisness for a time, and along with his wife who worked for Chrysler managed to own a vacation home, provide for his mother with a nice house with a pool, and buy a new car every 2 years nearly like clockwork.

 

None of us know the "right people", nor were we born into money, but we found our skills and applied them and managed to do alright.

 

Then again, there is always a bit of luck too - how about Bill Gates? Right place at the right time with the knowledge to use it. It was not born into a buisness empire which he just took over and did nothing for. That is one hard working, smart bastard.

 

 

 

Right now I'm sitting across from someone who is suffering from Paterson's budget cuts to childcare services and may not be able to keep working because someone has to take care of her kids. But she wants to keep working, her husband wants to work, but nobody wants to hire him.

 

And your point is? Not everyone CAN make it. That's how it works. That's life. That's reality. And I see I was right in my assumption afterall. Sounds like if they didn't have kids they'd be better off. Sometimes a decision backfires. However you wish to rob from me to provide for them. That is wrong in every concievable manner. And it puts you squarely in the second group above. You may not want hand outs for yourself, but you do want them for other people - even if it's as simple as forcing someone to hire them or giving them "free" healthcare.

 

 

 

But there wasn't economic growth, only the appearance of it, it was all fake. Built on fantasy worth that wasn't really there. And the only benefits of that time have gone to a select few. There really hasn't been any recovery from the dot come boom-bust. People, myself and family included have been living the same since then. The financial crisis really hadn't changed anything unless you were along for the ride of their housing bubble.

 

I can't imagine just how red your teeth must be from drinking all that Kool-Aid. You totally ignored everything put forth (ie, that happened) just so you can cling to your twisted fantasy (to borrow your term)

 

 

 

And no, it's not everyone deserves everything and even if they're incompetant they deserve success, it's a whole other fallacy conservatives hold of liberal principles. It's that people should have a chance to get back up and sustain themselves, not to be kicked when they're down and kept there.

 

They do. They just don't want to do what must be done. You see, once again, clinging to your own fantasy you can't accept that there is always a way - and if you're smart enough, and determined enough, and willing, you can recover and accomplish just about anything. That may mean coming up with some great new invention, or buisness idea, or it might mean taking several "degrading" jobs for little pay. They CHOOSE not to. YOU claim they shoudn't have to. Instead you are flat out stating here that nobody should ever be fired, and everyone should be freely given a well paying job and never have to go backwards in their lifestyle. And for that matter that everyone should be able to have as many kids as they wish.

 

Basically the underpinning of all liberal philosphy - there should be no personal accountability, and no repercussions for ones actions, and people should be arbitrarily promoted or demoted (socially speaking) depending on if they were just unlucky or lucky when it comes to their birth. That is socialism and by definition, anti-American.

 

 

 

It's not laziness or some desire to be a freeloader. There are a few, but more likely than not they've become that way not because they were unwilling to work, but that nobody upon nobody even gave them the chance and they've simply given up.

 

Power corrupts. So does hand outs. Provide FOR people and there is no incentive for them to provide for themselves.

 

The difference here? I'm willing to watch some fail for being unable, unwilling, or just unlucky. Even willing to take my chances on being among them. You are not. And by definition that means you are seeking a handout for them. And nothing comes from nothing, so you MUST take from those who are successful, ultimately punishing success. But you are desperately trying to sugar coat it to make it seem irresistable.

 

 

 

And then there's any sense of any measurable equity. Is John Thune or Lloyd Blankfein that much more intelligent or hardworking to deserve making more in an hour than I do in an entire year? They clearly aren't that much more competant at their jobs because if they were, we wouldn't be in this mess.

 

They were luckier than you, or more sociable than you, or do indeed know more than you but looking from the outside you don't see all that they are dealing with.

 

Again, facts of nature, reality and life. The attractive people will earn more and do better. "Attractive" comes in many forms - personality, and physical. Tall men earn more on average. Pretty women earn more on average. Sociable people network well and rise through the ranks more quickly on average. Suck it up and deal with it. Learn the skills (be they social networking, or technical in nature), or accept your lot.

 

 

 

Or even look at NBC (yeah I know everyone despises them already) and the connan, leno drama. It didn't take a psychic to tell that they'd both flop in ratings after giving the tonight show to connan and moving leno earlier. I could have told them that when they were writing the contracts.

 

Yes, and I could have saved GM too, but nobody will listen to us because we don't have the resume. And we don't have that because we haven't worked our way into C level managment of big companies. Again, it's just the way it is. Holding down the top, the way you espouse, stymies everything.

 

Here's some food for thought - Holodmor. 4 hour lines for bread. You know that the Chinese invented most of the modern world right? (meaning things that made it possible - paper, the rudder, the compass, gunpowder, rocketry, etc) Haven't you ever stopped to wonder why they never went anywhere with it while Europe did? Europe "cheated" somehow, right? lol No, the Chinese system was such that you could NOT move up in rank. If you were a merchant and found a way to get a leg up on your competitors, you promptly did nothing with it, because you were not allowed to profit from it and advance (I'm talking about Imperial China - though it's the same in communist China). So the free-market west took it all and ran while they stagnated and got nowhere. When China freed up some market rules in recent years, the economy boomed - something not possible under strict communism because it stifles competition and removes any incentive by it's very nature. You preach and propose hell for everyone - but I get the impression you just don't realize that and can NOT accept it.

 

 

 

Local governments, state and local are more responsible for high taxes than the federal government. And simply put, there has to be something bigger to take care of problems that are too big for any one locality to handle. You are talking about the constitution and not the articles of confederation right? The whole arguement for the constitution was to make the federal government more functional.

 

 

And yes, it tends to be very easy to get hateful when you're constantly demonized as everything from a fascist, to communist at the same time, when a group organizes their whole existance around destroying your every effort when you want to help people.

 

Wrong again. The argument for the Constitution was to redefine the nation as a whole into something that would last a bit more, by presenting a real frame-work for the union itself (ie, a common face to foreign powers, a common currecny, a common defence, and to settle disputes between states). The Bill of Rights was invoked because too many got over enthusastic and fell back on the only thing they ever knew (overly strong gov't). Read the words carefully, it spells out what can be done by whom, and flat out states that ANYthing not specifically spelled out as a power granted to any branch is held by the states and the people respectively. But the gov't has been overstepping it's bounds ever since the last of The Founders left office, so it's what you are used to. Why stop now, right?

 

 

 

Not a whole lot of difference between the 2 (fascism and communism) when you get down to brass tacks. Both are about central gov't control and utterly against freedom and individual independence.

 

You sugar coat it to try to make it it palettable, but the fact is, your ideas if put into action would not help anybody. They would HURT everybody. They are inherently "evil" in every way. You are just misguided thanks to the indoctrination of the school system, the news media, and the politicians. I can appreciate that your 'heart' is in the right place, but the trouble is that your head is nowehre near (the right place).

Edited January 21, 2010 by UnknownPilot

[eraser_tr 29]

Andrew Ryan, is that you?

 

No seriously, you really sounded exactly like the broadcasts you hear all through BioShock. Do you not care what happens to others around you?

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

I think eraser has a point about fake economic growth which can thought of as a fast growing weed as opposed to a slowly growing tree that lives for hundreds of years.

 

Reagan's economic "boom" came about with increased borrowing -- debt, the dismantling of U.S. manufacturing and shipping it to Mexico, China, etc.... which was part of the process in their financing our debt paper, our economic and military "boom" and helped keep dollar hyperinflation from showing up in domestic consumer prices.

 

That debt has to be paid eventually, in one way or the other, none good. Real economic growth does not setup a debt for future generations. I did like Reagan, alot, but Bush Sr. and his "new world order" baloney seemed somehow closer to the men behind the curtain. I've heard Reagan never wanted anything to do with Bush. Not sure.

Edited January 22, 2010 by USAFMTL
It's U.S. not Ussia :lol:

[Fubar512 1,350]

Actually, Lex, US companies had been outsourcing production overseas long before Reagan. GM, Ford, and Chyrsler had manufacturing plants in Mexico during the 60s and 70s, and both Ford and GM experimented with Japanese made transmissions during the late 70s and early 80s.

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Yes and the borrowing into debt also started out slowly before Reagan.

 

No mere U.S. President is to blame here.

[Fubar512 1,350]

Well, remember the "Nixon Shock" of 1971? I recall having to write a "current events" report on it in eighth grade, back in '71 or '72.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_Shock

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

The 1971 gold default?

 

The key point is false growth -- what we had since 1971 is a debt bubble. Economic growth should not leave future generations in debt.

 

 

More important, I just used bpao's method to vanish the outboard engines on TK's An-12 and got an An-8, well close. This is a Good Day.

 

... its sweet..

 

 

[AircraftData]

:

:

Component[010]=OuterEngineLeft

Component[011]=OuterEngineRight

 

[OuterEngineLeft]

ParentComponentName=Fuselage

ModelNodeName=Outer_Engine_L_ok

DestroyedNodeName=Outer_Engine_L

DetachWhenDestroyed=TRUE

HasAeroCoefficients=FALSE

[OuterEngineRight]

ParentComponentName=Fuselage

ModelNodeName=Outer_Engine_R_ok

DestroyedNodeName=Outer_Engine_R

DetachWhenDestroyed=TRUE

HasAeroCoefficients=FALSE

:

:

Edited January 21, 2010 by Lexx_Luthor

[+Dave 2,322]

Yes and the borrowing into debt also started out slowly before Reagan.

 

No mere U.S. President is to blame here.

 

Truer words have never been spoken.

[eraser_tr 29]

You speak of personal responsibility and moral relativism. I beg to differ on both. What kind of community do you live in? How do you not see the people suffering? It's easy to just discount people who need help as lazy parasites if you're not paying attention to them.

 

Look at my father, hes as adamant about personal responsibility as you are. He put himself through school and did just fine as an IT manager, we saved for a rainy day (more like decade) and did everything right, people who worked for him loved him, they were productive and things went well. Then someone gets the idea that it's a good idea to close everything down and gets a bunch of Indians in mumbai to do the work at a quarter of the cost, and quality. Then you have an entire department looking for work. My father, with a master's degree and 20 years of experience, can't find a single professional position. An HR department would see he's in his 50's and don't even look at the resume or bother calling for an interview, now he's in his 60s and prospects for finding anything are worse by the day. The best he's been able to do is sporadic web design or work doing things a high school diploma isn't even required for, and this is a person who worked on the hubble telescope!

 

Now for moral relativism, what on earth is more relative than the hyper individualism of pure unchecked markets you're advocating? How can there be any solid right or wrong when there's only self interest and benefit? Any wrong can be justified then. Yes, people are responsible for what they do, but to think that everyone who doesn't have a job is because it's entirely their own damn fault is naieve and cold hearted to the extreme. People don't exist in a vacuum where our actions and decisions only affect us, and others only affect themselves. You must have heard the saying "No man is an island"? And what about the discussion we had on Haiti? Shall we just leave them to die and not bother helping because everything we're doing for them is a hand out? who can possibly argue that? So how is it any different for people in our own country?

 

 

Lexx has it nailed, ever since we got off the gold standard, it's been bubble after bubble and the economy has become more volatile and manipulatable. It's become an unbelievably corrupt casino, where you can make bets depending on other people's money and pocket the winnings. And if you make a bad bet and you lose that money, you still get to take home the jackpot. If you love personal responsibility, well where is it here? Because risk, responsibility and reward, action and consequence have been completely disconnected.

[UnknownPilot 33]

You know, I had thought about taking you to task for your previous reply as it clearly showed you were out of ideas, but then I thought it would be better to just let this drop.

 

But as it turns out, you were just doing some digging for some more talking points and sippin' on some Kool-aid.

 

What you've done here is prove several points.

 

Let's start with the first - You simply can not accept the fact of reality that not everyone can succeed. And that some people WILL, and MUST fail. Or to put it more succinctly, "s**t happens", and sometimes bad s**t happens to good people. It's just the way it is.

 

Secondly, you view failure as a virtue. You may not realize it (or you may, doesn't change anything either way). But you make excuses for failure that always, ultimately, rest upon those who failed (or fell - either way you look at it, ended up unsuccessful in some way for some reason) being screwed by those who succeeded. Which, anyway you spin it, villainizes success and sees it as being inherently underhanded - that the mere fact of having succeeded where others have failed, is to have cheated in some way. And the only outcome of not cheating is failure. Failure is always a victim of the villainous successful.

 

Look at how you wrote it - you state that your father "did everything right". Yet he is also painted as having been victimized AND struggling. Logic shows that had he indeed done "everything right", he would quite probably NOT have ended up "victimized" in any way, but certainly not struggling. How? Any number of ways - not having children and saving all that money he spent on you; better investments; rising through the ranks to become the decision makers, or at least have their ear, to prevent the outsourcing; getting involved with a better company that was smart enough not to do that; being in a different industry; starting his own company; whatever.

 

Of course luck does play a part, as always. And sometimes nothing you do can ward off failure or struggle. That's exceedingly rare as careful planning can route around most any luck, but again, "s**t happens", some people are GOING to lose.

 

But you can't accept that. None of you (liberals) can. That is precisely why competition is being removed from the school system - why we have "participation trophies" now, and musical chairs always has enough chairs for everybody, and why the old grade system is going away as well (because it's too cut and dried about success or failure and competitive comparisons to other classmates).

 

 

Third point, you don't understand that the only way for there to be success is for there to be competition, freedom, and incentive. Incentive to improve, to do better, and to NOT end up penniless and homeless. Competition to improve over the other guy to become more marketable or find a better idea that will make more. Freedom to reap the rewards of your labors and not be held down or punished for it.

 

As I already explained to you, and you promptly ignored, in every society where people are not allowed to achieve wild success over their comrades, that society stagnates and remains in a primitive state - Imperial China, Communist Russia, Communist Vietnam, Communist China are just a few examples. When Vietnam and China recently introduced more elements of free markets their economies improved. This is NOT a coincidence. Yet another example of this is Monarchic France under laissez faire.

 

The only way to prevent any sort of failure, is to put an upper limit on success, and take that and route it back down to the bottom. What you end up with is communism, and stagnation, just like any of the real world examples that have tried. But some people are just unable to learn this.

 

 

Fourth point (related, possibly considered a sub-third point) - earlier you claimed that our society is currently set up to prevent success. Part of your grand plan to "help the poor, poor, victimized people! " (wish there was a leaking heart smilie here) is to tax and steal money from the evil greedy rich bastard capitalist pig-dogs and spread the wealth around. You either do not understand what that means, OR, you do, but intentionally twist your words in order to manipulate others and put your insidous plan into effect. I will spell it out - attacking the rich IS preventing success. You are trying to implement the very sort of system you claim to hate and claim that we currently have.

 

Fith point (again related to #3) - you don't understand just what success means, and what effects it has.

Edited January 22, 2010 by UnknownPilot

[+Dave 2,322]

I have to agree with Unknown Pilot. Bottom line some people have to win and some have to lose. Its life. Its not meant to be fair. But anymore today people do not want their feelings hurt so "everything" has to be equal or some poor sap with frail sensibilites will cry foul. Example of when the gay marriage in California for shot down. The people spoke and yet the pro gay marriage crowd tried to get that vote thrown out. IIRC the people said no, period, its over, you lost they won.

 

Help thy fellow man as much as you can. I do, but I have family and they come first. Which believe it or not some has said that is even selfish. My wife and I are both military, we have 4 kids, our lives are busy. I do not always have time to ponder the plight of those less fortunate than me. Its not that I don't care but I have my life with my family. I give when I can but once again its the winners and losers to keep from using watered down words. It sucks, but there is nothing we can do but press on with our own lives and help those we can if we are able. One thing I did learn from my father was you do not have to step on anyone to get to the top.

[JediMaster 451]

Naturally those who lose don't see themselves as losers, but I think luck plays a far larger part than anyone really wants to admit. People want to believe that hard work and big ideas will get you ahead, but it doesn't work that way an alarmingly large percentage of the time.

 

Also, how often do you read about "successful" people that kill themselves either deliberately or accidentally by not being careful? On paper, they made the "correct" choices and yet they obviously still felt like a failure or they wouldn't be dead! How many so-called "unsuccessful" people are actually living in a happy home with a good family but simply lack financial stability and security?

 

Money doesn't bring happiness, nor will happiness bring money.

 

The problem with the extremist philosophies is they both ignore the fundamental rules of human behavior. People don't WANT to be the same as all their neighbors and those even further away. They WANT to be at least slightly ahead, if not in finances then in some other way. Just look at the American South 150-50 years ago, where lower-class whites decided that if their lives were miserable, well, at least they're not black! Only by making a "them" inferior to their "us" could they feel like they weren't losers, so they did it with a great zeal.

However, people also feel for their fellows and therefore those who are utterly ruthless and cutthroat in getting ahead, even if they need not step on others but merely leave them without assisting them, are demonized for being ahead. The whole "the strong deserve to be on top and the weak to be on the bottom" idea is seen as a mark of a less-civilized era.

 

So once again, the majority sit in the middle. This is why both pure socialism and pure capitalism never last and get replaced by some mix of the two. Of course, if one country is 2/3 one and another country is only 1/3, well, to some it might as well be 100% and 0%.

[UnknownPilot 33]

You know, I've heard that water is wet..... lol

 

Of course people demonize those who get ahead, yet still want to be ahead themselves. It's BECAUSE they want to be ahead themselves that they demonize those who do it - sour grapes. It's like the story that if you put 1 lobster in a boiling pot you need to use a lid, but if you put 2 in, you don't, because they will pull each other back in any time one makes a break for it. (whether that actually happens or not isn't important, the point is, it's basically how people act)

 

However, there's a great need to feel good about oneself too, so you need to convince yourself and all those around you that you are looking out for the "unfortunate". And hey, if you're gonna punish those evil bastards who get ahead, why not give the friuts of their labor to those same unfortunate? Now you can "help the poor" and attack those who succeeded all in one fell swoop.

 

The reason capitalism is being attacked is NOT because it's failing in any way - it isn't. It's because it's been too successful. We have too damned many people here, and have shifted far too much toward industry and service, and now everyone ends up with time on their hands and living the good life. They have it too good. So good that they aren't content to just deal with their own issues, like USAFMTL is (I mean he's an example of how people SHOULD be), instead they have to meddle, worry about causes and start plying the system to generate more and more handouts because they themselves have nothing better to do, and nothing more to worry about.

 

In the middle is not a better position. And it's not a perspective of wisdom. Wisdom will look at both aspects only when, and as often as necessary (generally once), and then take a stand. When it comes to rights, freedoms, and economics, there is no tenable position in the middle at all. Things will either be free, or shift inexorably toward the opposite unless opposed. It is the nature of things. The wise will see the virtues of freedom and the pitfalls of any level of socialism.

 

 

 

I know it's considered bad form to use pictured in a debate, but it just says it so nicely.

Edited January 22, 2010 by UnknownPilot

[+Dave 2,322]

I will defend eraser on this though. Its is a noble cause to help others though and more people should be like that. Just remember you can't help all of them. Help the ones close to you and it is just as good as everyone someone you don't know.

 

"The strong deserve to be on top and the weak to be on the bottom" idea is seen as a mark of a less-civilized era.

 

I do not buy into that at all either. You are 100% right JM. Worry about yourself and not how high you can get on the social ladder. As far as social standing goes, I am not competing with anyone about anything. I don't have the time or the inclination. I am also not that self centered where I worry if I have a higher status than my neighbor. I don't care. I got my toys, I paid for them and they make me happy. I do not care if someone's got better toys. I just don't. I want to make sure my kids are taken care of, my wife is taken care of, BBQ during the summer, tip a few back and enjoy what I have and not what others have.

 

I guess in all my ramblings I am trying to say I am going to take care of mine and not worry about everyone else, on what they do, what they have, etc. Unless it directly affects my family, then I carry on. Please do not misinterpret this as being selfish though, I do community work and I give where I can. In fact I have a couple favorite charities, one of then is Habit for Humanity and the others is Meals on Wheels. Been a part of those programs helping out for the better part of 10 years now. Great programs and if you can give your time to one of them, go for it. It's great.

 

I like that picture UP, give me liberty or give me death.

[eraser_tr 29]

You're making very quick assumptions and broad generalizations that are unshakable. I can't even begin to describe how flat out wrong you are.

 

Apparently to you, the slightest bit of help to anyone for anything sounds as if its as evil as mass murder. As alien as it may sound, there is a whole world in between "f*** everyone but myself" and mindless clones being exactly the same. The world is not inside a computer where boiled down to the most fundamental level, its either a 1 or a 0.

 

No, failure isn't a virtue and not everybody can be successful, to think otherwise is utterly wrong, I've never said anything to that affect. But people deserve some kind of stability or protection from being completely and utterly f***ed and their life entirely left to chance and chance alone. Otherwise, why have any laws, a judicial system or anything?

 

Are you as harsh in real life, or is this just rhetoric for the sake of rhetoric. Do you have a family? Do you charge your kids for their dinner or make them hunt/gather every meal? If you don't, that's either a communist handout for freeloading parasites, or a middle ground is actually a reasonable position.

 

Contrary to your assumptions, I'm not against competition or markets in the slightest, but there has to be some semblance of rules, constraint and greater good than oneself. The most predatory lion still has a concern for their pride, even plants and single celled organisms communicate with others of its kind, conveying chemical signals as warnings of threats or where food is. To not do so is not natural for anything living.

 

Sorry if I sound a bit harsh, its nigh impossible to counter-point an extreme without being extreme.

Edited January 23, 2010 by eraser_tr

[MAKO69 186]

I voted for Lt. Col Brown Mass Army National Guard. A true leader.