PDA

View Full Version : Naked corporate greed and stupidity.



starbase1
03-31-2008, 04:20 PM
Looks like the competition for most arrogant company is hotting up fast...

Seems those nice people at Sony BMG, the ones who brought you free rootkits on music CD's, and also encouraging the RIAA to sue the bottom off of anyone who breaks copyright on their songs have been caught using large amounts of pirate software on their corporate servers:

http://blog.wired.com/music/2008/03/sonybmg-under-i.html
http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&tab=wn&ned=&q=sony+bmg+software&btnG=Search+News

Meanwhile those nice people at Adobe, the ones who charge UK customers such an eye watering mark up over US ones, have had someone actually read their T's and C's, and it turns out that you give them the right to do anything they want with your photos forever...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/28/adobe_photo_pimping/

Not that they would actually do that of course!

And meanwhile over at the dumb-as-a-bag-of-rocks end of the corporates, T-Mobile have demanded that the Engadget people stop using the colour Magenta!

http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/31/deutsche-telekom-t-mobile-demands-engadget-mobile-discontinue/

And the date is wrong for an April Fool...

Welcome to the marvelous world of corporate IP in the 21st century.

jin choung
03-31-2008, 06:17 PM
hahahahaha....

ohhh, it's stuff like that sony story that keeps me warm at night.

talk about not having a leg to stand on.

jin

Matt
03-31-2008, 07:40 PM
And meanwhile over at the dumb-as-a-bag-of-rocks end of the corporates, T-Mobile have demanded that the Engadget people stop using the colour Magenta!

http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/31/deutsche-telekom-t-mobile-demands-engadget-mobile-discontinue/

I don't see what all the fuss is about!

:D

jasond
04-01-2008, 08:52 AM
and misunderstandings.

So, ya'll are infringing on my properties and I herewith demand you cease and desist.

Lightwolf
04-01-2008, 08:55 AM
I don't see what all the fuss is about!
:D
That's no problem, there's no T-Mobile magenta in that image ;)

Cheers,
Mike

Hopper
04-02-2008, 05:28 PM
I have an even better one that happened here in Austin recently. How's this strike you...

I have a guitar.
You have a bar or restaurant.
You ask me to play in your restaurant even if it's just for fun because we know each other.

Guess what .. YOU, as the restaurant or bar owner, must now pay the RIAA $100 or be fined $1,000 or more.

Uh .... I call B.S. on that load of worthless f*ck heads.

That's like me having a painter come to my house to paint, then suddenly I have to pay Bob across the street for no apparent reason... Just cuz... It makes my blood boil everytime I hear about it.

I need to start a buisiness like that, so I can just go around and collect money from people just because I think I should have some of it.

jin choung
04-02-2008, 08:08 PM
yeah that is COMPLETE bs.

that organization can't die fast enough for me.

jin

ted
04-02-2008, 10:31 PM
Typical Government "protection".
The same way the Government wants us to hate the oil companies while the government makes more per gallon of gas then the "evil" oil companies who do the actual work.
Just like they did to the Tobacco companies, make the populace hate the industry so the government can tax the heck out of it and distract you from seeing who's making bank. The old "look over there" while they pick your pockets.
This is just more overhead that you gotta pay for because somebody said you should.

Now these same people want to run the health care system to "protect you". :thumbsdow I pray to God that the people don't fall for this. Sorry to say, I bet people do because it "sounds nice".

prospector
04-02-2008, 11:21 PM
because it "sounds nice".

Nah..it sounds 'FREE'

And dregs of the populas will always vote 'FREE'

jin choung
04-03-2008, 12:09 AM
dam straight.

and yes, the world would be a much better place if we used tons more oil and tobacco.

...

wow. there's not even enough common ground to for an ant to find purchase.

here's hoping there are not more of your kind of "enlightened" voter this november.

jin

starbase1
04-03-2008, 01:00 AM
Typical Government "protection".
The same way the Government wants us to hate the oil companies while the government makes more per gallon of gas then the "evil" oil companies who do the actual work.
Just like they did to the Tobacco companies, make the populace hate the industry so the government can tax the heck out of it and distract you from seeing who's making bank.

Yeah!
More deaths through cancer and heart disease!
Texaco right or wrong!
Warm up that world - we need more rednecks!
Support George Bush!

ted
04-03-2008, 09:54 AM
Obviously by the above posts the populace has taken the bait and ignored the point that the Government is ripping them off.

Smoke and mirrors, smoke and mirrors, the public is so gullible. Throw distractions at the people, and they don?t see their pockets being picked. But the worst part is that they are happy about being ripped off. :thumbsdow

starbase1
04-03-2008, 10:40 AM
Obviously by the above posts the populace has taken the bait and ignored the point that the Government is ripping them off.

Smoke and mirrors, smoke and mirrors, the public is so gullible. Throw distractions at the people, and they don?t see their pockets being picked. But the worst part is that they are happy about being ripped off. :thumbsdow


Hey, it's your government, not mine! You elected them!

"A democracy gets the government it deserves", Winston Churchill

rakker16mm
04-03-2008, 11:57 AM
Adobe's EULA is potentially problematic for any artists who displays their copyrighted material online. All it takes is for some one to upload your work to play around with Adobe's new software, and then Adobe is under the impression they have rights to use your work as they please. Are they going to be checking for copyright infringement on all of the millions images people will be editing online with their software? I'd hate to be in the position of sending Adobe a C&D.

ted
04-03-2008, 09:16 PM
Starbase, unfortunately, I agree with you. :)

Rakker, Adobe won't mess with you, until it shows up on something of value. :) Then they will pull out that clause.

jin choung
04-03-2008, 09:27 PM
Smoke and mirrors, smoke and mirrors, the public is so gullible. Throw distractions at the people, and they don?t see their pockets being picked. But the worst part is that they are happy about being ripped off. :thumbsdow

yeeeesh... let's hope your particular brand "enlightenment" is not contagious....

jin

Hopper
04-03-2008, 09:42 PM
Adobe's EULA is potentially problematic for any artists who displays their copyrighted material online. All it takes is for some one to upload your work to play around with Adobe's new software, and then Adobe is under the impression they have rights to use your work as they please. Are they going to be checking for copyright infringement on all of the millions images people will be editing online with their software? I'd hate to be in the position of sending Adobe a C&D.
Remember... just because someone writes something on paper, doesn't make it legal OR enforceable. Adobe's EULA has been fought several times before and they have yet to win a single case regarding images produced by the use of their products.

I forgot .. wasn't it 3DSMax product that had the EULA on the "inside" of the packaging, thus rendering it totally useless in one of their court cases. I think it was some guy selling them on eBay.

Hopper
04-03-2008, 09:46 PM
Hah ... nevermind .. it was Adobe. Go figure.

AbnRanger
04-05-2008, 12:14 PM
I have an even better one that happened here in Austin recently. How's this strike you...

I have a guitar.
You have a bar or restaurant.
You ask me to play in your restaurant even if it's just for fun because we know each other.

Guess what .. YOU, as the restaurant or bar owner, must now pay the RIAA $100 or be fined $1,000 or more.

Uh .... I call B.S. on that load of worthless f*ck heads.

That's like me having a painter come to my house to paint, then suddenly I have to pay Bob across the street for no apparent reason... Just cuz... It makes my blood boil everytime I hear about it.

I need to start a buisiness like that, so I can just go around and collect money from people just because I think I should have some of it.I was talking with my brother yesterday about him being told by a building contractor that if they wanted to rebuild a section of a house they once owned that they would have to get a permit (in Oceanside CA)....ok....what's the big deal, right? Only about $80,000 for the PERMIT ALONE...WHAT THE FUNK?! $800 would be way too much. Just how can a local municipality justify that sort of expense from a home owner? We're not talking about the city having to relay plumbing or power lines or anything...just being greedy by essentially saying "We hold you by the jimmies...now what'cha going to do about it?" Kinda like Adobe and Autodesk's European pricing policy.
That sort of greed is enough to make you boil over.
Too many people in this world trying to get their hands on your wallet...for nothing in return! :devil:

Jim_C
04-05-2008, 12:38 PM
Hey c'mon....
Adobe has a heart
http://www.news.com/8301-13580_3-9911780-39.html?tag=nefd.only

Just don't smoke in your apartment in NYC
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/Story?id=4589592&page=1

Bog
04-05-2008, 03:48 PM
Well that gives honest capitalists like me a bad name.

But if I ever have a daughter, I'm still calling her "Eula".

Or "Felony". Lovely name for a girl, that.

jin choung
04-05-2008, 04:13 PM
felonia sounds more feminine.

jin

Bog
04-05-2008, 04:15 PM
Nah, if it was an -ia name, I'd call her "Chlamydia". Sounds like a princess, that.

starbase1
04-05-2008, 04:47 PM
Nah, if it was an -ia name, I'd call her "Chlamydia". Sounds like a princess, that.

Actually I think that Twinings do a herbal tea with Chlamydia petals in it...

Anyway, I heartily recommend Sharia as a girls name.

Jim_C
04-05-2008, 04:55 PM
I didn't see it, but I bet you guys covered this one anyway...

Sony was going to CHARGE for NOT putting bloatware on your new PC.

http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/03/sony-pay-an-ext.html

See they DO have a heart too.

(and imo you could actually get away with a girl named Eula..especially if of the 'earthy' types. come to think of it, I think I bought a veggie burrito and a Becks from a 'Eula' in the lot at an 89 Dead show)

pumeco
04-08-2008, 02:40 PM
I'm sick of Sony :cursin:
That is all.

Qexit
04-08-2008, 03:37 PM
I'm sick of Sony :cursin:
That is all.Not too keen on them myself. They're the ones who wanted $20,000 upfront for a license if I wanted to do a limited edition run of 10 bronze Hydras :thumbsdow

starbase1
04-08-2008, 03:52 PM
Ah yes, the people who gave you a free rootkit with audio CD's...
And let's not forget their activities with the RIAA.

I'm still refusing to put a Sony disk in my PC, not even a blank one.

Marvin Miller
04-09-2008, 03:19 PM
Maybe LightWave could be bundled in with a Sony computer...oh, wait:

http://www.newtek.com/news/releases/02-03-19-a.html

:lwicon:

Hopper
04-09-2008, 03:36 PM
....what's the big deal, right? Only about $80,000 for the PERMIT ALONE
wow... holy shlt.

"Yes sir .. and why would you like this $80,000 loan?"

-- "For a permit to have $25,000 worth of work done to my home."

"And what would you be using for collateral?"

-- "$50,000 worth of blank Sony CD's"


And for those of you that will be receiving money from the "stimulus package" tax rebate, guess what... It's considered income and you will be taxed on it again for next years tax filing. Enjoy.

starbase1
04-09-2008, 04:47 PM
Maybe LightWave could be bundled in with a Sony computer...oh, wait:

http://www.newtek.com/news/releases/02-03-19-a.html

:lwicon:

Now that's spoiled my day... I hope that Newtek have a VERY long spoon for that corporate dinner...

Unless... I've got it! Sony will charge hundreds of dollars to 3d studio fanboys to uninstall Lightwave, and split the money with Newtek! (No Joke!) (http://www.techconsumer.com/2008/03/21/sony-charges-50-extra-to-sell-you-laptop-with-no-crapware/)

pumeco
04-10-2008, 02:32 AM
Well, I've got a really good reason for being sick of Sony.
First of all dead pixels, and now this : http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?t=82773

Marvin Miller
04-10-2008, 08:55 AM
And for those of you that will be receiving money from the "stimulus package" tax rebate, guess what... It's considered income and you will be taxed on it again for next years tax filing. Enjoy.

Not to take this discussion too much off topic, but that is not true. From the IRS website:

Q. Is my Stimulus Payment taxable?

A. No. You will not owe tax on your payment when you file your 2008 federal income tax return. But you should keep a copy of the IRS letter you receive later this year listing the amount of your payment. In the event you do not qualify for the full amount this year but you do next year, you will need to have the letter as a record of the amount you previously received.

(Disclaimer: I am not a tax professional, always check with one before taking any advice from anywhere on the Internet.)

toby
04-10-2008, 02:57 PM
Obviously by the above posts the populace has taken the bait and ignored the point that the Government is ripping them off.

Smoke and mirrors, smoke and mirrors, the public is so gullible. Throw distractions at the people, and they don?t see their pockets being picked. But the worst part is that they are happy about being ripped off. :thumbsdow
I'm surprised that the constitutionality of taxes hasn't come up here. Apparently it isn't, several former IRS employees attest to that, one of them just won a court case, and another is offering $50,000 to anyone who can show her a law that says we have to pay taxes. Specifically, *federal* taxation of individuals' *wages* is not constitutional, but it is constitutional to tax corporations. So it seems to me that we're paying it so that they can pay less. The total of our tax payments is similar to the interest payment on our national debt, which is paid to a *privately owned* institution, the Federal Reserve.

Andyjaggy
04-10-2008, 03:11 PM
I've heard that argument before. While it may be the case no one who has failed to pay taxes because of this reason has ever won a court case. Period. Still I can't imagine the chaos and anarchy that would ensue if everyone stopped paying their taxes. It would not be pretty.

Wrap your head around this as well. I've wondered how much I actually pay in taxes. You might first think that you could figure it out by looking at your tax returns but that is only part of your taxes. Take your income tax, and SS and medicare tax and then add on top of that all the tax you pay on food, purchases, phone plans, property, gas, etc... the list goes on and on. So even after you have had all your taxes taken out of your paycheck you are still continuing to pay more and more taxes for everything you do and buy. That's added on top of your allready taxes money. In the end I would be very curious to see what percentage of your income actually goes to taxes. I'm thinking it will be around 40-50%.

Jim_C
04-10-2008, 04:03 PM
Fair Tax!!!

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

toby
04-10-2008, 04:04 PM
I've heard that argument before. While it may be the case no one who has failed to pay taxes because of this reason has ever won a court case. Period. Still I can't imagine the chaos and anarchy that would ensue if everyone stopped paying their taxes. It would not be pretty.

Wrap your head around this as well. I've wondered how much I actually pay in taxes. You might first think that you could figure it out by looking at your tax returns but that is only part of your taxes. Take your income tax, and SS and medicare tax and then add on top of that all the tax you pay on food, purchases, phone plans, property, gas, etc... the list goes on and on. So even after you have had all your taxes taken out of your paycheck you are still continuing to pay more and more taxes for everything you do and buy. That's added on top of your allready taxes money. In the end I would be very curious to see what percentage of your income actually goes to taxes. I'm thinking it will be around 40-50%.
Agreed on both counts, except that you'd have to factor in the service lost, if you include *all* taxes. You'd have to hire your own private police force, and hope to have money left over for retirement, or starve. Don't assume that "tax" equals "black hole", even if it doesn't benefit you directly, it stays in the economy, and we all benefit from the economy.

I also wonder what difference it would make for us all to get, essentially, a 'raise'. I don't know anyone who looks back at their last raise and says "aah, now that was the key to happiness, I am complete".

Andyjaggy
04-10-2008, 04:07 PM
I support paying taxes for the most part. But then again sometimes it really gets to you! I don't want to be filthy rich, just have enough to support my family and live a reasonably comfortable life.

Hopper
04-10-2008, 04:43 PM
A. No. You will not owe tax on your payment when you file your 2008 federal income tax return.
I stand corrected.

They'll get it somehow anyway.. :D

jin choung
04-10-2008, 05:31 PM
Not to take this discussion too much off topic, but that is not true. From the IRS website:

Q. Is my Stimulus Payment taxable?

A. No. You will not owe tax on your payment when you file your 2008 federal income tax return. But you should keep a copy of the IRS letter you receive later this year listing the amount of your payment. In the event you do not qualify for the full amount this year but you do next year, you will need to have the letter as a record of the amount you previously received.

(Disclaimer: I am not a tax professional, always check with one before taking any advice from anywhere on the Internet.)

yup,

confirm. just heard it on the news. and neither is it an advance of next years returns... it is a tax free gift. with no strings attached and no possible negative effect on next years taxes.

(you WILL be asked about how much you received but in this case, it is ONLY to evaluate if your situation has changed enough to merit MORE money. even if the situation merits less, they will not take away)

jin

Jim_C
04-10-2008, 05:55 PM
one caveat........
if you owe the irs back taxes, they keep the check and put it towards your bill.

ted
04-10-2008, 09:58 PM
yup, ... it is a tax free gift.
jin

With all due respect my friend, it's only paying you back, A SMALL FRACTION, of what they took in the first place. :thumbsdow

I wish people would have to write a check every month for every tax. Within 2 months people would realize how much of their money is being taken and start demanding REAL tax breaks. :thumbsup:

jin choung
04-10-2008, 10:12 PM
With all due respect my friend, it's only paying you back, A SMALL FRACTION, of what they took in the first place. :thumbsdow

pfffft... i just knew someone was going to say that.

so you don't believe in taxes huh? that's... interesting.

ok, so how would government function without taxes. how would we fight the "war on terror". we can't pay for the maimed vets we're getting back NOW... where would we be with no taxes?

B1Bombers don't build themselves. iraqis can't bomb themselves. collateral damage can't kill themselves. iran can't preemptively attack itself! we're america dammit!

and what about gas? a1abrams tanks, apache helicopters and ford mustangs don't run on the power of good intentions! and gas is expensive.

what about gitmo? gitmo ain't free. i don't see gitmo running telethons to get their money. do you have any idea how much water waterboarding... ooops, i mean "freedom boarding"... takes? gitmos water bills alone are more than the gdp of jamaica!

what about police? firefighters? roads? infrastructure? illegal wiretapping? how can we spy on our own people unless those people pay us to?

and how does american industry compete with labor markets around the world whose health care costs are subsidized by their governments?

jin

toby
04-10-2008, 10:26 PM
do you have any idea how much water waterboarding... ooops, i mean "freedom boarding"... takes?
:jester:
too funny


-

Jim_C
04-11-2008, 12:14 PM
ok, so how would government function without taxes.

point of sale tax
FairTax

no IRS needed

ted
04-11-2008, 12:19 PM
Not to extend this further, but to clarify. I never said NO TAXES.
Schools, Fire, police, military and infrastructure i.e. roads, water systems, etc.
Any money to support any social program should be supported by the community. If the money isn't there from the populace, it probably isn't REALLY needed.

I give and support local charities. But some jackarse in Washington should not be telling me to what and how much I should donate. Nor shoudl they inflict a higher tax percentage on me then the next guy.
If you went to dinner with 10 friends, would you decide how much each person pays by asking to see their tax return. JMHO. :hey:

Have a great week and hope to see many of you at NAB. :thumbsup:

Jim_C
04-11-2008, 12:57 PM
Then again... I don't know. Which... is why I'm asking.

The tax would vary...

I am just starting to wrap my head around it, so I am afraid to try to explain, but whenever a knowledgeable supporter explains it to me, it makes nothing but sense.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060875410

Qexit
04-11-2008, 01:02 PM
point of sale tax
FairTax

no IRS neededHehe, the last time that was tried in North America back in the 1700s, the colonists it was inflicted on didn't like the idea very much so they held a small 'War of Independence' to make their feelings known :D

Jim_C
04-11-2008, 02:57 PM
Hehe, the last time that was tried in North America back in the 1700s, the colonists it was inflicted on didn't like the idea very much so they held a small 'War of Independence' to make their feelings known :D

yes. exactly the same thing... :stumped::screwy:

jin choung
04-11-2008, 07:26 PM
I give and support local charities. But some jackarse in Washington should not be telling me to what and how much I should donate. Nor shoudl they inflict a higher tax percentage on me then the next guy.
If you went to dinner with 10 friends, would you decide how much each person pays by asking to see their tax return. JMHO. :hey:



yawn.

given that most of the country's wealth is isolated to a single digit percentage at the top, i hardly think that the tax laws are hurting the wealthy or upper middle class much.

compensatory TAX rationale: LIFE IS NOT FAIR.

we live in an unfair world. that's not just lipservice. it's true. and if luck has smiled on you so that you have the well-formed limbs, non-pathological or retarded mind or lack of options that bullet dodging inner city kids inherit such that you can acquire a fairly nice life, you should be penalized for the privelege. that we as human beings can MAKE AN ATTEMPT AT FAIRNESS.

you people (you know the group) think about the poor as lazy and moochers and blah blah. but it's always less than you people make it out to be and you don't really understand what really causes that.

and "pull up by the bootstraps blah blah blah"... fact is, a LUDICROUS percentage of people end up in the same station of life that their parents occupied.

and if fairness doesn't appeal to you as an altruistic sentiment, think of it in terms of it benefiting your own interests.

poverty and desperation will eventually fester until it touches your life. because those two factors combined with a lack of opportunity leads to, say it with me now, crime.

so

the wealthy should be taxed to within an inch of their lives.

they should be taxed to pay for universal health care.

they should be taxed to pay for public campaign financing (and eliminate private donations).

they should be taxed to save the whales.

they should be taxed to save the trees.

they should be taxed to save monkeys for some reason.

in short, i think the wealthy should be taxed until they can't see straight.

jin

toby
04-11-2008, 09:47 PM
I agree with Megalodon, the uber-rich should be taxed fairly ( which to me means a greater percentage of their income ). That alone would be a windfall more than the gov't receives now. Even if they paid the same percentage it would be more. Getting more than that would take a bloody revolution anyway.

Bush's Trillion-dollar tax cuts need to be repealed, and paid back by the people who benefitted the most, the people who already had a hundreds times more money than anyone could spend a in lifetime.

One of the best reasons for taxing the rich a greater percentage is to keep this country from becoming a complete oligarchy.

ted
04-11-2008, 10:19 PM
you people (you know the group) think about the poor as lazy and moochers and blah blah. but it's always less than you people make it out to be and you don't really understand what really causes that.

and "pull up by the bootstraps blah blah blah"... fact is, a LUDICROUS percentage of people end up in the same station of life that their parents occupied.

...in short, i think the wealthy should be taxed until they can't see straight.
jin

Jin, you are either intentionally trying to antagonize people or you have serious selfish, envy issues. :confused:

My grandparents immigrated from Spain to America. They moved to follow the crops, living in tents for 9 months per year.
My Father dropped out of 8th grade to help support the family. He worked 2-3 jobs while we grew up to buy a house and improve his generation.
I never went to college, but now own my own successful business. I sometimes put in 20 hour days but I make my own way and my parents, wife and children are proud. Not to mention the example I set for my children.
All 3 of my children worked their way through college and are setting themselves up for a nice living.

In 4 generations we have each moved up the social ladder. Not one of us had anything given to us. The only thing we have done is wake up every morning and worked hard to improve our life, one day at a time.

I'm sick and tired of people giving in to the belief that it should be easy and they deserve help. If that's what someone is waiting for, let life pass them by. I shouldn't be obligated to "help them" with the money I EARN. I donate time and money for what I do believe in.
I'm not talking about the retarded or handicapped, so don't give me that crap.

There is no excuse to tax the wealthy at a higher rate than anyone else. They already pay more by nature of their income.
I'm all for eliminating a bunch of the loopholes though as well.

But this class envy you so strongly state is a sign of envy and selfishness. I wouldn't brag about such a caricature flaw. :confused:

jin choung
04-12-2008, 01:57 AM
actually,

i'm just as fortunate as you. but evidently i can see interests that extend beyond my own nose.

seems like the flaw that you wouldn't want to advertise is yours.

jin

Glendalough
04-12-2008, 11:19 AM
...
In 4 generations we have each moved up the social ladder. Not one of us had anything given to us. The only thing we have done is wake up every morning and worked hard to improve our life, one day at a time....

Can't be done anymore, the world has changed

You, like all of us (our ancestors), had a tremendous amount given to you. America was empty and there were vast amounts of room. Property and houses etc. cost nothing. After WW2 some working people could earn enough in a few years to completely buy a house. Everyone in America with few exceptions went through rags to riches in a few generations, but that was then.

Even as late as the 70's the minimum wage, the lowest paid job, was enough to live on AND support a spouse in many states.

But now American households have both partners working and a second part time job as well. They don't have time for their children or life. All these people didn't suddenly get stupid or make 'bad choices'.

Basically it's a case of divide and conquer. The political triumph of the 80's was turning the middle classes and employed working classes, those better off, on those beneath them and less fortunate (the lazy bums etc.).

This has had the double effect of both not having to pay out welfare and at the same time,(much bigger effect) create a large pool of cheap labour to depress middle class wages (and those beneath them).

What people don't realize is that if welfare payments and entitlements are high, the wages of all employed go up. This frightens employers and small firms who can't see the false economy of cheap labour. But if people are paid more, there is more money around and you can charge more. Anyway this is how it has worked the past.

ted
04-12-2008, 11:39 AM
Can't be done anymore, the world has changed

You've got to be kidding me. :stumped:
The only reason it can't be done, by some, is because they have given up. They bought this liberal crap and decided to wait to be helped rather then wake up every day and do something.

I pitty those who think it can't be done. I do agree with you on one point, more and more people seem to feel the way you do. Could it be because we keep making it easier to give up? :thumbsup:

Just like the signs and Rangers at Yosemite so clearly state, "Don't feed the animals because they will forget how to survive on their own". :agree:
And I give more credit to humans to take the easiest road society offers.
Nuff said.

Glendalough
04-12-2008, 12:00 PM
...They bought this liberal crap

Yeah if it weren't for "liberal crap", people like you wouldn't have even got into the country!

ted
04-12-2008, 03:56 PM
Yeah if it weren't for "liberal crap", people like you wouldn't have even got into the country!

What???
Glendalough, yet another emotional response/insult with no merit. (At least that I see in your statement). Maybe I missed your point though.

I don't know of one conservative that begrudges any immigrants to come here legally the way my Grandparents did. (Not talking about the radical KKK types you'll likely connect my type with).
Why would you suggest I wouldnít be here? I donít get that?

So funny how upset some people get when someone suggests people should be responsible for themselves. What a mean dastardly concept.
And it's so sad when people think they can't do it on their own. Definitely a sign of a decaying society.

jin choung
04-12-2008, 04:59 PM
The only reason it can't be done, by some, is because they have given up. They bought this liberal crap and decided to wait to be helped rather then wake up every day and do something.

ted,

it seems like the problem here is that you truly, deeply cannot put yourself in the shoes of another man (or woman).

you think that because it's possible for you, it MUST be possible for everybody.

let's put that another way then:

it's like multi-billionaires saying that because it's possible for them, it's possible for everybody.

according to your logic, isn't that a perfectly valid thing to say? that everyone else who can only achieve middleclass or uppermiddleclass or even garden variety millionaires are just lazy?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

you keep saying things like "people want the easy way" or "lazy"....

let's recalibrate these thoughts:

- it wasn't very hard for me to get to where i am. sure, there are little challenges here and there and of course i had to work some 48hour days but it wasn't THAT HARD.

- this assumes ALL KINDS OF THINGS THAT I HAD NO CONTROL OVER. that i had enough food in my belly so i could concentrate and study as a kid. that i didn't have parents who were abusive, alcoholic, drug-addled, completely absent, terminally ill, etc. that i didn't have to FEAR FOR MY LIFE living in my neighborhood or walking to school.

- you people (conservatives) like to point at the EXCEPTIONS. and CERTAINLY there are. but fact remains, MOST PEOPLE INHERIT THE STATION IN LIFE THEIR PARENTS OCCUPIED.

the american dream turns out to be by and large a myth.

- look at our PRISON POPULATION FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE. that's certainly not a sign of "you can be anything you want to be". it is symptomatic of a societal illness that a lot of people refuse to see.

and all the people who say "well i did it"... well guess what, either they're the exception or they didn't have it so bad to begin with.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

in more specific terms:

- you're white. can you guess all the little ways in which things would have been different for you if you were black?

- turns out i'm probably going to have some stuff left over after i'm dead to pass on to the next generation. chances are, you and your parents were beneficiaries as well.

this is call ACCUMULATED WEALTH. wealth that you didn't earn but nonetheless contributes to your financial security.

most people in the u.s. have no such safety net. that affects the chances you can take, the opportunities that are available to you.

- you and i thankfully are not mentally ill or retarded or just extremely stupid. you brushed that off earlier but can you imagine how many people in the world suffer from such cognitive disabilities? NOT negligible.

would you deny even a welfare state for them?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

and finally, do you know how easy it is to get WIPED OUT in america?

all it takes is one big accident or illness. lots of people end up on welfare and desperate and destitute because of medical bills.

and this will likely happen to people when they are not young and vigorous and able to pick up the pieces and start over.

sigh....

anyhoo, i think that's the problem. you genuinely think that the world is for everybody as it is to you. i wonder if it's possible for you to step out of your skin....

jin

ted
04-12-2008, 10:10 PM
ted,
- you're white. can you guess all the little ways in which things would have been different for you if you were black?

and finally, do you know how easy it is to get WIPED OUT in america?

anyhoo, i think that's the problem. you genuinely think that the world is for everybody as it is to you. i wonder if it's possible for you to step out of your skin....jin

Don't assume life's been easy for me my friend. We lived on beans a lot. We didn't always have a breakfast or dinner to eat either.

Alcoholism ruined many of my young and adolescent years.
Beatings were a daily thing till I was old enough to stop them.
I’ve got a ton of excuses, but never mention them to others or my children.
I didn't get anything passed to me.
I had a truckload of obstacles to overcome. But I did it one day at a time, and I am still doing it daily. What doesn't kill you makes yo ustronger, unless you give up and give in to self pitty.

Yeh, everything can get wiped out overnight. I've dealt with near financial ruin a couple times in my business life. Not my fault, just bad luck. I'm just getting over the last one, but I'm adjusting and things are looking up. I never asked others to bail me out and I had no family money to help either.

I have no business education other than hard knocks, and I'm about as dumb as it gets. :D Just common sense, determination and a good work ethic.
Every morning I wake up and work at what problems the day/week/month and year bring me. I do this so my tomorrow and my family's tomorrows are better.

Look, you have every right to feel as you do and so do I.
These threads often get personal so I've revealed more of my background than I needed to so nobody implies I've had it better than anyone or harder than anyone. Most of us have crosses to bear. That’s life.
You assume a lot and state how good I've had it. Hardly my situation.

I consider most of you my friends in the industry and hope to share a drink with you some time.
So as I get packed for NAB, I wish you all the best.
Have fun with this debate! Just keep it non-personal or at least try. And don't ever tell me how good I've had it. You have no idea.

IMI
04-12-2008, 10:39 PM
I missed most of this thread. I meant to reply earlier this week, to something about how taxes are so necessary and government is the answer, but I chose not to. Because the fact is, taxes (and their subsequent social programs) are a means of control, and government is always the problem, never the solution. :D

I'm just replying now to echo what Ted said. I don't buy it for a minute that anyone with half a brain is stuck in his situation. Might have to work harder for some things than other people do, but how many of the poor and downtrodden really try to get somewhere? I suspect those who do, actually make it somewhere. Maybe not to the top, but... somewhere better.
Of course it doesn't help when there are so many who subscribe to the democratic notion that they're somehow compromised to begin with and require someone else to even the playing field to make it more fair for them.

I wouldn't say people necessarily want the "easy way" or the "lazy way". I wouldn't say that, that is. But here in America we have this hugely successful and popular political party based almost entirely on entitlement and class envy concepts.... kinda makes me wonder what people generally do want.

EDIT:
Oh, damn, I forgot to add the part about how my own early life was FUBAR. Ain't the case no more though. :)

IMI
04-13-2008, 12:27 AM
So why don't we just go on now and start putting down this political party and that political party and get into a really nasty debate. Huh?

Why would it necessitate a "really nasty debate"? Huh?

My reply wasn't so much of a putting down as it was a stating of fact - the Democratic party in the US by and large attempts to appeal to those in society who otherwise feel screwed by The Man.

That is, unless I've somehow missed something all these years, but it seems to me that it's almost always the democrats who are saying Society owes you this! Or This and that aren't fair and Government can make it all right for everybody...

Of course, that's just the concept. And we, if we choose, can debate it as nasty as we wish, even with the blessing of the Democratic party itself; particularly if you're a Democrat, it's ideal that you engage a Republican in a knock-down, drag-out debate regarding what's fair and who's entitled to what....

Of course, the big joke, the ironic reality behind it all is all the Big Political Players in the Democratic Party are nowhere closer to their base than the rich, thoughtless republicans are; they're trial lawyers with $400.00 haircuts, proxy ketchup fortune heirs who haven't spent a day in their lives poor, and party animals who leave women for dead late at night at the bottom of some northern riverbed and get away with it just because of who they are.

Not to mention ex-President spouses who think the public is too stupid to remember past "universal health care" failures and the subsequent giving up on the idea, since that wasn't the point to begin with - (getting elected was), while being confident this time they can pull it off, somehow... (while we all know Getting Elected is still the more important part)

Or, CHANGE! candidates running on the basis of... well, on the basis of CHANGE! and little else defining what that is (except that it sounds good coming from someone in a nice suit).

The point is, at least the republican party doesn't try to be "one of us", generally, just tells us there ain't no free lunch. :D

Hmmm... I seem to have strayed off topic a little. Oh well :)

jin choung
04-13-2008, 12:31 AM
Look, you have every right to feel as you do and so do I.
These threads often get personal so I've revealed more of my background than I needed to so nobody implies I've had it better than anyone or harder than anyone.

hey ted,

right. you certainly have a right to your opinions as, as you've said, do i. absolutely.

thanks for sharing and yes, i did assume from your previous story about your family's background that it was the archetypal immigrant story with, as you said in the post, "4 generations moving up the social ladder"...

if i assumed you had it better than you did, it was an honest mistake and i certainly do apologize.

haha, actually, it's harder to have these kinda talks with the "exceptions" as i have labeled them. easier if they were born with a silver spoon in their mouths.

BUT, i still contend the point is valid.

fact of the matter is - most people inherit the station in life their parents held.

and no matter how hard you had it, as "dumb" as you say you are, you were born with the capacity (genetic, environmental) to overcome. you didn't have it all bad either and there were seeds in your life that grew and edified and enabled you to weather the storms.

i don't say that to diminish your accomplishments, OF COURSE. just to point out that those seeds may not be there for others. or an opportune, saving stroke of luck may not have shown up for someone else.

and as bad as you've had it, it certainly does get WORSE (i'm assuming here but i'll venture it unless you correct me).

and in light of the tribulations you came through - maybe especially because of them - i think that you DO indeed judge others by yourself as the measuring stick - that if you can do it, anyone can.

that's the point i think that we will agree to disagree.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

anyhoo, i hope you believe that i bear you no ill will and i'm very very glad for your success, your accomplishments, your family. and i wish you and yours nothing but good things.

and yeah, i was being prickly about the subject of tax and as can be (perhaps) inferred by the "saving monkeys and whales and such", that second part was largely me being flippant.

i do think the wealthy should be taxed more than the middle class and poor. we'll disagree there.

but i approach it as an issue - academically/philosophically and have no desire to see you taxed into oblivion. : )

so sincerely, may you hold on to all that you've fought so hard to attain and more be multiplied unto you.

jin

toby
04-13-2008, 12:34 AM
I'm just replying now to echo what Ted said. I don't buy it for a minute that anyone with half a brain is stuck in his situation. Might have to work harder for some things than other people do, but how many of the poor and downtrodden really try to get somewhere? I suspect those who do, actually make it somewhere. Maybe not to the top, but... somewhere better.
Of course it doesn't help when there are so many who subscribe to the democratic notion that they're somehow compromised to begin with and require someone else to even the playing field to make it more fair for them.

WRONG, the notion is : "f*** idealism, let fix these problems, and keep people in the workforce". Obviously there are tens of millions of people with less than half a brain, you think this country would be better with all of them in the gutter? If voluntary contributions were enough, there wouldn't have been any bums to make social programs for.

The notion I can't fathom is you guys that think you can just *idealize* this country into being the only country in human history to have no bums, that letting them die ( which would happen loooong after they've all turned to crime anyway ) will somehow prevent it from happening again.

Ted, you have a lot of impressive achievements to be proud of, and I'm flattered that you would share so much with us. My only example to you is that if your business had failed during one of your troubled times, that would be bad for the economy as well as yourself. So aid from the gov't would not be just a hand-out, it's to all of society's benefit. Money given to the poor does not just vaporize, it gets spent, and stays in the economy.

IMI
04-13-2008, 12:43 AM
Because that's what it always comes down to and I'm sure you know that as well. Especially with Jin here and his arrogant "I know better than anyone else" attitude.



As I said.... both sides can start saying THIS and THAT showing stats on both sides that support their point of views. But rather than discussing it you make those backhanded comments which ONLY serves to fuel flames. i.e. [B]democratic notion.

I preferred the other discussion, but shooting back and forth about the good and evils about the political parties would be best in another thread. But please.... go ahead and enjoy.


I dunno, Megalodon, seems to me it's more your attitude which fosters a nasty debate. Seems to me you're often just as guilty as jin where it comes to the "I know better than anyone else" attitude." Probably moreso, actually.

As for the good and evils of the parties, honestly, I'm opposed entirely to the the whole idea of America limited to a two party system. It's only slightly better than a dictatorship. Just so happens I disagree with the democrats a little more. :)

IMI
04-13-2008, 12:53 AM
The notion I can't fathom is you guys that think you can just *idealize* this country into being the only country in human history to have no bums, that letting them die ( which would happen loooong after they've all turned to crime anyway ) will somehow prevent it from happening again.


Who said anything about that? Maybe someone earlier, but I didn't.
Why take it to that extreme? You think people who are opposed to rampant social programs equate to people opposed to necessary social programs?
There is a difference, you know, between promising to legislate "fairness" and keeping people from dying in the streets.

IMI
04-13-2008, 01:43 AM
Yes of course... I asked honest, legitimate questions without any antogonistic BS in this thread and yet it is MY attitude that "fosters a nasty debate."


You're saying I was antagonistic? It was, after all, my comments which led you to say that.



Which is of course your opinion since you have no complete statistical facts from the various threads I or Jin have paticipated in. Thanks for your opinion.


No statistical facts, no, just observation. You're like the Newtek Forum Unofficial Hall Monitor at times. Really, man, we're all adults and we know when when we're being a$$es. ;)




I agree a "more than two party system" would be better. But for now that's all we pretty much have. Discussing the system rationally would be fine; taking pot shots with opinions is not conducive to a calm discussion. Wouldn't you agree?

Yeah, I would agree, but have you ever actually seen a political debate without potshots? I can't even envision that. Politics are essential beliefs, and people tend to get passionate about such things.
Nevertheless... the System currently is divided between those trying to keep what is theirs and those trying to take it away from them.
"Moderate" or "Independent" certainly aren't the answers. More like, Revolution or Anarchy.

230 years ago Ben Franklin already knew we'd end up with this situation. He advised being wary of it when it eventually happened. Nowadays though, now that we're here, what do we do, but perpetuate the problem, while getting further and further from our roots as a free society.

jin choung
04-13-2008, 03:33 AM
howdy imi,

This[/i] and that aren't fair and Government can make it all right for everybody...


but we can agree that world is NOT fair right?

Of course, that's just the concept. And we, if we choose, can debate it as nasty as we wish, even with the blessing of the Democratic party itself; particularly if you're a Democrat, it's ideal that you engage a Republican in a knock-down, drag-out debate regarding what's fair and who's entitled to what....

well, if we define "partisanship" as chucking what is good and right out the window and merely arguing for "MY SIDE" no matter what and argue against "THEIR SIDE" no matter what.... well, karl rove pretty much perfected that kind of nihilistic politics to a science. not that democrats don't do that... they're just not as good at it for some reason... : )

but i'm the cynic when it comes to this kinda stuff. and i think, so were the founding fathers. that's why the u.s.a. is formed into a hierarchical mexican stand-off. that's why we have the two parties. and the different branches of government. checks and balances basically means we're all fockheads and we rightly don't trust each other as far as we can throw each other.

all just dialectic - thesis vs. antithesis = synthesis=different from either components. perhaps, in other words, "compromise"?

same thing with the legal system. adversarial. it's not about truth or justice. just two sides duking it out and hoping that something resembling t & j works out.

Or, CHANGE! candidates running on the basis of... well, on the basis of CHANGE! and little else defining what that is (except that it sounds good coming from someone in a nice suit).

lol... yes. absolutely. after "dubya"... i think most americans are saying "anything... ANYTHING but more of that...."

but i'm reminded of the stupidity of human beings when the "most" of the people who are now sicko dubya were precisely the ones burnin' dixie chicks albums.

sigh...

The point is, at least the republican party doesn't try to be "one of us", generally, just tells us there ain't no free lunch. :D

unless you're a big corporation. cough - bearstearns - cough. conservatism doesn't want regulation but then won't businesses fail? and will pump tax payer dollars to bail them out? something dysfunctional about that.

(btw, while it is hardly inarguable, i DO understand that allowing BS to fail would have jeopardized the economy at a fragile moment.... but it is nonetheless a federal handout to a biggie but the repubs want the lil guy to take a hike... even though, as toby said, that money doesn't evaporate and contributes to the economy)

i'm definitely of the opinion that the laws of the land are not asymptomatic. policies end up creating effect. the tree bears fruit according to kind.

the fact that so much of the population of the u.s. is in prison says something.

the fact that the middle class is eroding and that the wealth of a single digit of the population is greater than all the rest of the population COMBINED - and by several multiples! - means something.

heck, even the good book says "he who has will be given more. to him who does not have, even what he has will be taken from him."

life is not fair. but i'm of a mind that if the dice are gonna get loaded, i'd rather it get loaded on the side of the lil' guy.

jin

toby
04-13-2008, 04:55 AM
Who said anything about that? Maybe someone earlier, but I didn't.
Why take it to that extreme? You think people who are opposed to rampant social programs equate to people opposed to necessary social programs?
There is a difference, you know, between promising to legislate "fairness" and keeping people from dying in the streets.
Oh that's right, *you* are the one who decides what's "rampant" and what's "necessary". I forgot. Too bad every single person in the country has a different idea as to what that amount is, and few of those are educated opinions.

It's not an "extreme" to say that some people are opposed to all social programs, and the very idea that *you* can decide what amount is OK is naive at best.

IMI
04-13-2008, 10:28 AM
It's not an "extreme" to say that some people are opposed to all social programs, and the very idea that *you* can decide what amount is OK is naive at best.

Whatever. I was just responding to what YOU said:


The notion I can't fathom is you guys that think you can just *idealize* this country into being the only country in human history to have no bums, that letting them die ( which would happen loooong after they've all turned to crime anyway ) will somehow prevent it from happening again.


You implied that we all are just willing to let everyone die off, thinking that will solve the problem. Not what I said at all.
I'm not opposed to *all* social programs, but at the same time you have to recognize the abuse of some of those. Gonna tell me there isn't just one person you know who's on welfare who could be working but isn't? Maybe you don't, maybe you're not in a situation where you are able to see it. I know three people in that situation, one of whom is in fact working, just not telling the gov about it. He used to work where I work, but got fired. Recently I offered to hire him back, but why should he be interested in working when he can have welfare and not pay taxes on the "under-the-table" work he *is* doing now?
And I'm sure there are quite a few others out there. Who decides who *can* work and who can't? I don't know, but I'd say if they're healthy and there are jobs out there in their region, yes, they should be working.
But the government is currently too wrapped up trying to decide what to regulate into dysfunction next, to work on such trivial problems.
*I* don't decide these things and *I* have no interest in deciding these things... which is probably a good thing for alot of people out there...
I was thinking mostly about health care when I wrote what I did, though. Through *rampant* regulation and taxation (not to mention the billions of dollars awarded in frivolous lawsuits that is allowed), the gov is in fact what screwed it all up to begin with, now they're conspiring to make us think *they* are the ones who can fix it. How? More taxes. Throw more money at the problem, that always works well.
Speaking of lawsuits, whatever happened to tort reform? Oh, wait, 95% of our law-writing politicians are lawyers...

IMI
04-13-2008, 10:54 AM
howdy imi,


Howdy jin, how goes?

This[/i] and that aren't fair and Government can make it all right for everybody...




but we can agree that world is NOT fair right?


Oh, most definitely. Of course, it would depend on how you define "fair". Lots of people have different beliefs what "fair" is. Many of those people think FAIR is having all the same stuff their neighbors have, even if they've done nothing to deserve those things.
Is it fair that IMO I work harder than my boss, but make about 25% less? Yes, it is, far as I'm concerned.
Is it fair that I can afford to go to the doctor if I need to and that I have great medical insurance as it is, but someone else can't? No, probably not fair. Is it fair to me that the government wants to take more of my money to screw *my* opportunity to get *great* health care at the priced I pay now? I wouldn't think so.
But the question of FAIR is rather complicated, and any opinion I'd have of it is entirely subjective and probably a little selfish as well.





but i'm the cynic when it comes to this kinda stuff. and i think, so were the founding fathers. that's why the u.s.a. is formed into a hierarchical mexican stand-off. that's why we have the two parties. and the different branches of government. checks and balances basically means we're all fockheads and we rightly don't trust each other as far as we can throw each other.

all just dialectic - thesis vs. antithesis = synthesis=different from either components. perhaps, in other words, "compromise"?

same thing with the legal system. adversarial. it's not about truth or justice. just two sides duking it out and hoping that something resembling t & j works out.


(quoted for agreement only.)



Or, CHANGE! candidates running on the basis of... well, on the basis of CHANGE! and little else defining what that is (except that it sounds good coming from someone in a nice suit).

lol... yes. absolutely. after "dubya"... i think most americans are saying "anything... ANYTHING but more of that...."

but i'm reminded of the stupidity of human beings when the "most" of the people who are now sicko dubya were precisely the ones burnin' dixie chicks albums.


Yeah, I'd say most people are sick of dubya, except for those who just go with the party at all costs and either just don't think or are blinded to the fact he's just an idiot. ;)
However it's equally scary that so many people can be swayed to believe all some politician has to do is yell CHANGE! over and over again, and somehow it becomes real. What kind of change? I'm really not sure just yet exactly what the guy's proposing, but mostly I see someone who gives great speeches while saying very little.
Well, it's in their best political interest to do that, and nobody gets that high in politics without that ability. Unfortunately, the really great thinkers and doers simply don't want the job...



sigh...


Yup. :D



The point is, at least the republican party doesn't try to be "one of us", generally, just tells us there ain't no free lunch. :D

unless you're a big corporation. cough - bearstearns - cough. conservatism doesn't want regulation but then won't businesses fail? and will pump tax payer dollars to bail them out? something dysfunctional about that.

(btw, while it is hardly inarguable, i DO understand that allowing BS to fail would have jeopardized the economy at a fragile moment.... but it is nonetheless a federal handout to a biggie but the repubs want the lil guy to take a hike... even though, as toby said, that money doesn't evaporate and contributes to the economy)



I couldn't argue with that, because I tend to believe you're right. I'm not an economist and I don't pretend to know exactly what would happen if it weren't for some of the bailouts. I do feel safe in saying though they probably get TOO much. You recently wrote something here about them having to be accountable later on - can't remember the details, but I did agree with that.



life is not fair. but i'm of a mind that if the dice are gonna get loaded, i'd rather it get loaded on the side of the lil' guy.


The dice shouldn't be "loaded" at all, IMO. Have things always been this complicated? How did this expanse between the classes begin? Seems to me the more the Fed sticks their hand into the problems of this country, the worse it all gets.

toby
04-13-2008, 05:34 PM
Whatever. I was just responding to what YOU said:

You implied that we all are just willing to let everyone die off, thinking that will solve the problem. Not what I said at all.
Ah, great, the "I never said that" game! Well, *I* never said that *you* were one of those people that thinks they should starve to death. Wheeeee. Read it again, I said "you people that think they should starve".


I'm not opposed to *all* social programs, but at the same time you have to recognize the abuse of some of those. Gonna tell me there isn't just one person you know who's on welfare who could be working but isn't? Maybe you don't, maybe you're not in a situation where you are able to see it. I know three people in that situation, one of whom is in fact working, just not telling the gov about it. He used to work where I work, but got fired. Recently I offered to hire him back, but why should he be interested in working when he can have welfare and not pay taxes on the "under-the-table" work he *is* doing now?
And I'm sure there are quite a few others out there. Who decides who *can* work and who can't? I don't know, but I'd say if they're healthy and there are jobs out there in their region, yes, they should be working.
But the government is currently too wrapped up trying to decide what to regulate into dysfunction next, to work on such trivial problems....

OMG, a system that's being abused?? Wow, that's a new one, kinda sounds... *exactly* like what Microsoft and other businesses do as a matter of policy. You don't hear Republicans bitching about that. In fact you hear excuses for them; they're already rich, so I guess it's ok.



the gov is in fact what screwed it all up to begin with,
Yea, yea, explain this BS to me again, how the govt *created* the poor by trying to feed... the poor? You'd rather that the richest country in the world, ( which tries to tell other countries how to behave or be invaded ), have millions of starving people and lawless cities?


now they're conspiring to make us think *they* are the ones who can fix it. How? More taxes. Throw more money at the problem, that always works well.
So *who* are the ones that can fix it, if it's not the govt? Who are these people who can do that with no money? The Idealism Gang?

Is it the govt's job to ensure that the wealthy get richer and richer at the fastest rate possible, by keeping the lazy masses away from their moneys? ( they get richer regardless of our social programs, just not as fast. ) Or is it the govt's job to keep society balanced, so that it doesn't become an oligarchy, like the Philippines under Bush - er, I mean Marcos -

jin choung
04-13-2008, 05:43 PM
hey imi,

well yeah... absolutely none of us here are economists... so yeah, we're just bullsh!tt1n' as laymen, shootin' the shlt... : )

right, everybody has a difference sense of what's fair and what's not. but we all tend to believe in our hearts it's NOT fair now.

again, the fact that so much of the black male population is in prison is a sign that something really horrible is wrong in this country. talk about loaded dice!

and absolutely, i would want the dice not be loaded at all either.... but it seems that's not possible in this world! either you load the dice for the aristocracy or you load it for the mob with guillotines!

and personally, i think class has never gone away - from the inception of civilization to now. america has done a lot to counter class issues, creating a mass, popular culture. but it turns out its just a mask... and yet another opiate for the masses. class is as prominent in present day u.s. as it's ever been.

oh well, as i say, just shoot1n the sh!t... i just hope i get some health care before i need it. one of the downsides to being a contractor....

jin

IMI
04-13-2008, 06:10 PM
OMG, a system that's being abused?? Wow, that's a new one, kinda sounds... *exactly* like what Microsoft and other businesses do as a matter of policy. You don't hear Republicans bitching about that. In fact you hear excuses for them; they're already rich, so I guess it's ok.


?
What does that have to do with anything? I'm sure you think that if I claim to be slightly more opposed to democrats and slightly more in favor of republicans, I must therefore be all for corporations, "The Rich" and Microsquish, but...well, it just doesn't follow.
Of course there are abuses. There are abuses everywhere you look. Wherever there's the potential for abuse, there's someone there to abuse it. A form of capitalism in its own right.
The big difference is, the Fed is more inteterested in tossing more money at the problems than trying to solve the problems and eliminate the abuses. My money, your money.
But getting back to the point, where is it in The US Constitution that the Federal Government owes anybody anything beyond the basic rights? Seems to me that should be the state's responsibilities, but even there I'm not sure. Surely the states have the right to make laws and policies and programs and enforce them.

This is way OT, but JFK was possibly one of our best Presidents ever. Certainly at least among the ballsiest. Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country
That, from a democrat. Certainly a far cry from what we have today, where the campaign promises focus almost entirely around what the candidates are promising the country is going to do for them. And I don't mean in terms of safety and protection and the enforcing of people's inalienable rights, either - politics has become a contest between who can offer the best bribe.




So *who* are the ones that can fix it, if it's not the govt? Who are these people who can do that with no money? The Idealism Gang?

Is it the govt's job to ensure that the wealthy get richer and richer at the fastest rate possible, by keeping the lazy masses away from their moneys?


Obviously you missed my point. It's *nobody's* job to "fix" anything, certainly not the Federal US Government. You are obviously of the mindframe that the Fed is responsible for our success and making sure everything is fair. But it's not, and this country wasn't founded on the principle that everyone should do well. We are guaranteed life, liberty and the *pursuit* of happiness in that the Fed shall do nothing illegal to deny us those things (although they're slowly ignoring that more and more too).
Says nothing about people getting their fair share.
But it hardly matters what I say, as you seem to be one of those who somehow have come to believe it is, in fact, the government's job to take care of us and make sure we're happy and comfortable.
Obviously I have no way of proving it, but I think people in general would be better off with less intrusive, less "helpful" governments. People *do* tend to help each other out.

IMI
04-13-2008, 06:51 PM
...again, the fact that so much of the black male population is in prison is a sign that something really horrible is wrong in this country. talk about loaded dice!


I'm not so sure that's a symptom of the system wronging them. They are free to make choices, after all. Just because alot of them make the choice to break the law in some capacity or other doesn't necessarily indicate it's the system's fault. if it were a case where none of them escape, and they trruly had no opportunities, it would be one thing, but there are thousands of high-profile examples of people rising above all that and NOT ending up in prison. People make choices to do with their lives as they will. Poverty and desperation shouldn't be allowed as excuses for making bad choices when there is an alternative and there are examples of people taking the alternative route and succeeding.
Sure you might say, "but you have to walk in their shoes"... which is what got me into this, after what Ted wrote, because I have, in fact, walked in their shoes. Sort of. I'm not black, and I didn't grow up in the ghetto, but I got somewhere I wouldn't have otherwise, with alot of effort and I did it all on my own.



and absolutely, i would want the dice not be loaded at all either.... but it seems that's not possible in this world! either you load the dice for the aristocracy or you load it for the mob with guillotines!


I'm all for the guillotines, actually. Tall poles and lots of rope, too, if need be. Just because we're all civilized now, in the 21st century, doesn't mean that the idea of Revolution should be abandoned. ;)




oh well, as i say, just shoot1n the sh!t... i just hope i get some health care before i need it. one of the downsides to being a contractor....

jin

I'm sure you will get your health care soon enough. It's become so much of an upfront issue, it can't last much longer that people simply go without.
Funny though, health care is a service not unlike many others - there are those who dish it out and those who receive. Not unlike any other business, really, but it's the only one I'm aware of where the vast majority of customers are priced out.
Why is that? How can the industry thrive when nobody can afford it?
Better yet, why do they charge so much where nobody can afford it? is it because hospitals and doctors are simply too stupid to understand the business?
Jeez, you could fly first class to Paris and stay in a five star hotel for a week for less than a one night's stay in a sub-average hospital in the US.
Now, how exactly did that happen? How did the health care industry become so imbalanced?
Lawyers, insurance companies and, underneath it all, government doing either too much or too little.
Too much regulation and taxation, too little regulation of the abuses, too much leeway given to every Tom Dick and Harry lawyer who wants millions for the slightest infraction against his client.

You'll get your health care, though, I'm sure. Something's got to change, and I'm sure it will, soon enough. Hopefully though they find the solution which corrects the real problems, and doesn't just take more money from all of us for a temporary fix. Because the only real solution is the solution which fixes the causes, not the effects.

toby
04-13-2008, 08:26 PM
?
What does that have to do with anything? I'm sure you think that if I claim to be slightly more opposed to democrats and slightly more in favor of republicans, I must therefore be all for corporations, "The Rich" and Microsquish, but...well, it just doesn't follow.

You talk crap about democrats but not retardicans, so pardon me if I call BS on this "slightly" stuff...


Of course there are abuses. There are abuses everywhere you look. Wherever there's the potential for abuse, there's someone there to abuse it. A form of capitalism in its own right.
The big difference is, the Fed is more inteterested in tossing more money at the problems than trying to solve the problems and eliminate the abuses. My money, your money.
Right, how do they do that without spending more money? How do you know it's even cost-effective to try? Just because it bothers you?


But getting back to the point, where is it in The US Constitution that the Federal Government owes anybody anything beyond the basic rights?

Oh I've always loved this game too. Make assumptions, then base further assumptions or criticism on top of them. Accuse democrats of saying the govt "owes" poor people something, then point out how silly we are because of it.


Seems to me that should be the state's responsibilities, but even there I'm not sure. Surely the states have the right to make laws and policies and programs and enforce them.
Not sure why you guys always want 50 separate countries instead of this great country we have here. That's what it would be if all these laws were entirely at the state level.


This is way OT, but JFK was possibly one of our best Presidents ever. Certainly at least among the ballsiest. Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country
That, from a democrat.You think a republican is going to ask you to give back to society? That's a laugh. Republicans are the ones that constantly say "it's MY money! it's MY money! it's MY money!", not democrats.


Obviously you missed my point. It's *nobody's* job to "fix" anything, certainly not the Federal US Government. You are obviously of the mindframe that the Fed is responsible for our success and making sure everything is fair. But it's not, and this country wasn't founded on the principle that everyone should do well. We are guaranteed life, liberty and the *pursuit* of happiness in that the Fed shall do nothing illegal to deny us those things (although they're slowly ignoring that more and more too).
Says nothing about people getting their fair share.
But it hardly matters what I say, as you seem to be one of those who somehow have come to believe it is, in fact, the government's job to take care of us and make sure we're happy and comfortable.
*groan* Well I guess it's my own fault for saying "balanced" society instead of "stable" society, knowing how hard it can be to get people to give up the opinions that they're hell-bent to believe. I'm sure you thought I was saying "financially" balanced, 'cuz you guys think in terms of money more often than not.

Where do you get the ridiculous idea that a government is supposed t sit back and do nothing at all? If the 99% the wealth in this country were gathered up a dozen people, and the rest of us were paupers, "oh well"? Did the government do it's job??


Obviously I have no way of proving it, but I think people in general would be better off with less intrusive, less "helpful" governments. People *do* tend to help each other out.
Not only can't you prove it, you can't even give us an example of such an ideal society. There are many countries with a much lower percentage of it's population on the dole, that also have national health care and other benefits. So why didn't that create massive poverty in those countries, if your oh-so-convenient theory holds any water?

IMI
04-13-2008, 09:19 PM
Toby...
I listen to rock radio during the day at work. A local station has a more or less local guy with an afternoon show. Very funny show, actually, called "The BS", which stands for The Buckethead Show. "Buckethead" is the main dude.
Occasionally other people on his show or in the news in general say things that are either so stupid or so annoying he refers to them as an "assjack", which is, obviously, a different way of saying jackass.

Reading what you write, I'm reminded of this. Take that as you wish and go fornicate with yourself. :)

toby
04-13-2008, 10:43 PM
Toby...
I listen to rock radio during the day at work. A local station has a more or less local guy with an afternoon show. Very funny show, actually, called "The BS", which stands for The Buckethead Show. "Buckethead" is the main dude.
Occasionally other people on his show or in the news in general say things that are either so stupid or so annoying he refers to them as an "assjack", which is, obviously, a different way of saying jackass.

Reading what you write, I'm reminded of this. Take that as you wish and go fornicate with yourself. :)

All out of excuses I take it?

prospector
04-14-2008, 01:04 AM
Hmmmm, should I or shouldn't I ???

IMI
04-19-2008, 03:57 PM
Hmmmm, should I or shouldn't I ???

I think you should. ;)

IMI
04-19-2008, 04:06 PM
All out of excuses I take it?

No, not "excuses" - ideological differences.
YOU see anything alien to your way of thinking as some sort of excuse...
Hmm, thinking about it, I'm not sure I see how the word "excuses" could even be applied here. Argument, yes, but excuse?

**********************



That was helpful. So instead of ignoring Toby you feel you must say this sort of thing?


Yes. Yes, I did feel that way. You were right - it was coming down to that, one way or the other. Shoulda backed away, but, do I listen? Nope. Sorry about that. ;)

IMI
04-19-2008, 04:36 PM
Oh, one other thing while I'm thinking about it...



You think a republican is going to ask you to give back to society? That's a laugh. Republicans are the ones that constantly say "it's MY money! it's MY money! it's MY money!", not democrats.


(In response to my quoting Jack Kennedy saying "ask not what your country can do for you...")

You see though, it's not The Republicans saying "It's MY money...!"

It's The Republicans saying "ENOUGH! federal laws taking my tax money to help create your welfare state where you wield the power over people, through government handout programs."

Yes, the democrats are in fact saying "It's MY money!" Although, to them, *my* money is their money - there shall be no distinction between what is government owned and regulated and what is private.

The big difference is, when the republicans say it, it IS in fact "my money"... The government has no claim on it beyond the ways they've already warped the Law into seeming to imply income tax is "constitutional".

When the democrats say it, it's everybody else's money that's at stake...
... and we're coaxed into believing it's OK, just because it's 'for the people'....

Yeah, right. For the people. Long as they're politicians, lawyers or various government program employees, I suppose it IS for the people; long as they suckle off the federal teat, that is, nourished by the public.

Everyone else is just a contributor.
I'm gonna placidly sit back and watch my country go all Marxist? Nope, :)

prospector
04-19-2008, 05:00 PM
I think you should.

OK majority rules
100% of THINKING people voted :D:thumbsup:


Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country
That, from a democrat.
He would be excommunicated today, just like Lieberman.
Oh and didn't MLK say about the same thing? Don't depend on government?
Yea, he would be tossed out today too.


Where do you get the ridiculous idea that a government is supposed t sit back and do nothing at all?
From the US Constitution..Article 1, section 8;
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States
And that's ALL they are allowed to do with taxes for 1...DEFENSE and **GENERAL WELFARE** not social welfare.

They are NOT suppose to ;
No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;
Not Congress, they need to keep thier noses OUT of the military and all operations, they have no power to do ANYTHING.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Congress has NO buisness saying ANYTHING about religion..anytime or anyplace...NEVER, EVER

And The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
They can do NOTHING that we don't give them permission to do..ANYTIME..ANYWHERE

NOWHERE does it say ANYTHING about seperation of Church and State.
NOWHERE does it say ANYTHING about giving out handouts.
NOWHERE does it say ANYTHING about all people will be equal in finances.
NOWHERE does it say ANYTHING about Joe Sixpack giving some money he works for to John Slob who doesn't want to work, just to make it fair And John Slob has NO RIGHT to EXPECT it..


Right, how do they do that without spending more money?
By CUTTING waste.......


You think a republican is going to ask you to give back to society?
Yep..we do...to churches and donations to causes WE think are good...NOT what Government thinks is good.


"it's MY money! it's MY money! it's MY money!",
ABSOLUTLY..and we should be able to help who we want and donate to who WE want.


you can't even give us an example of such an ideal society.
Sure we can. Pre NewDeal (the beginning of handouts).
Less than 200 years and WITHOUT gov't handouts and *cough* help *cough cough* we became the mightiest and most industrious nation in the history of man. Surpassing countries that have been around for thousands of years...including ones that *help* the people.
Amazing, no gov't intrusion and all was fine.

dennab
04-19-2008, 05:33 PM
Before new deal we were in a depression! "all was fine"?

IMI
04-19-2008, 06:06 PM
To Prospector: :bowdown:

I'd say it would be about high time to get back to what this country's constitution allows.
(And yes, that includes curbing the offenses against the constitution this administration has perpetrated)

Yes, The Constitution even allowed for itself to be amended, but only through due process. Where the majority of people are concerned, through their elected officials. The idea of government charity is something poor people an bleeding hearts invented. Not necessarily a bad thing, but best left to private charities. Left to government it's not only unconstitutional, but is de facto mismanaged.

And lets not forget, the democrat politician's are no more interested in your welfare than anyone else. They want the power over you, and if you're poor and looking for a solution, all the easier it is to get it through promises of "fairness".

Stick it to The Man. This in spite of the fact it is The Man who is a duality - one of greed, one of charity. When does he change roles? Why, when he's on your side, of course. ;)

IMI
04-19-2008, 06:18 PM
And lets not forget, the democrat politician's are no more interested in your welfare than anyone else. They want the power over you, and if you're poor and looking for a solution, all the easier it is to get it through promises of "fairness".
)

(Stupid edit time limit)

I just wanted to add that in general, survival and success tend to revolve around people going out of their way to survive and succeed. Far as I know, that concept hasn't changed any in all our history.
We create a government devoted to achieving these simple goals for us, we create a government completely in control of our next step, a government we rely on for our basic needs.

What we have coming down the tubes at the moment is not a government interested in our well- being, but a government looking for ways to enslave us.
Good Deeds are only valid in the presence of good intentions.

jin choung
04-19-2008, 06:54 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state

wow... so ya don't believe in that huh?

can't wait to have a hindu congress to see how you like not being able to eat meet anymore.

jin

prospector
04-19-2008, 08:14 PM
wow... so ya don't believe in that huh?
Just judges opinions, not in constitution.

Judges are not allowed to make law. Just follow laws.
Only Congress can make law (after signed by Prez or veto overide by congress).
Which is why all these 9th circuit court (most overturned court ever) supposed laws can be just as easily overturned by a much better court.

But yes I DO believe in seperation..That all governments (fed, State, local) can say NOTHING about religion.
They are seperate right???

Chilton
04-19-2008, 09:35 PM
Hi,

I am enjoying this discussion entirely too much.

That said, I am also a fan of the late Mr. Jefferson, and any mention of the separation of church and state compels me to post this, so that his thoughts are not taken out of context.



Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.


And the Library of Congress has an excellent section on him, as well as the results of the FBI's investigation into what he originally wrote:
http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danbury.html

Okay, back to the discussion...

-Chilton

ted
04-19-2008, 09:46 PM
Prospecter, those are great quotes. But more importantly, there are countless writings by the founding fathers that clarify the intent of those Quotes.

But the liberals twist the quotes to give them spin and serve various agendas. Then judges use that spin to subvert the constitution and fnck us all.
What are never used to support their arguments are the writings that explain the beliefs of the founding fathers and what led them to pen those "Quotes". If people would read more than the quotes, they would see how we are letting ourselves incrementally get more and more screwed.

Just like the above statement from Megladon. Our founding fathers opened every meeting with a prayer and prayer was common in public events. But now the liberals spin the writen word to imply something totally different.
Read up before trying to sound like you know what they meant from one sentance. You liberals have it all wrong and it's time we educate you on history.

prospector
04-19-2008, 09:55 PM
but is de facto mismanaged.

There is no govt program that is managed right with the exception of the military.

prospector
04-19-2008, 10:01 PM
Perhaps you can explain it?
Because there IS a seperation, no laws can be passed for or against religion by constitutional authority, and therefore the government has no say in what is taught in school conserning religion.
Schools are free to teach religion in school and is guarenteed in constitution except some judge says it's not, which can be overturned by a better judge.

prospector
04-19-2008, 10:03 PM
At first you said that the Constitution was an unchanging document and then in the very same post you said it can be changed.
Never heard ME say that.:D

prospector
04-19-2008, 10:15 PM
And your kids would have to be taught Islam yet you were Christian?

There are other schools, there are private schools, which by the way are better than govt run schools.

I guarentee I never said the Constitution is changable. It is chiseled in stone.
It CAN be amended, but amendments can be overturned (like the drunks one was), but the Constitution can never be changed.
You could search till HE double hockysticks freezes over and you won't find that.

prospector
04-19-2008, 11:27 PM
And yet you did not answer the question about the teaching of Islam to your Christian kids.
Yes I did
There are other schools and there are private schools.
But maby that wasn't clear, so..
If the schools taught something I did not agree with, either the citizens of that school would get together and change the cirriculem OR there are OTHER SCHOOLS to go to, either another public school that teashes something else OR private schools where they teach other stuff, OR there is even home schooling. So if they tought islam and I didn't agree then I don't have to go there.

So I DID answer the question.


to change or modify for the better : improve <amend the situation>
And your point is?
an amendment does not necessarily mean better or they would never be able to be recinded.
And an amendment can not go in and say for example strip the 1st bill of rights out of the Constitution. Ya just can't make it go away. It's chiseled in stone. Amendments come and go depending on the will of the people at the time, the Constitution remains the same.

jin choung
04-20-2008, 12:33 AM
Our founding fathers opened every meeting with a prayer and prayer was common in public events.

and then they went home and beat their slaves.

wonderful legacy eh? truly wonderful fruits of their faith? pffft.... because "the founding father did it" doesn't mean JACK CRAP about whether it is good or right. it just means they did it.

read the wikipedia link. and wonder why thomas jefferson wrote what he did to the BAPTISTS. why would BAPTISTS be interested in the separation of church and state eh?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

anyway, i really really do hope that one day, the majority religion in the u.s. government becomes judaism or hinduism or buddhism or something like that.

so that you people come to understand why separation of church and state is important.

it's all fun and games until all of a sudden it becomes obnoxious because it's not YOUR RELIGION.

jin

jin choung
04-20-2008, 12:41 AM
There is no govt program that is managed right with the exception of the military.

wow!

lol!

what in the world....

do you have a poster of dubya on your bedroom wall? cuz he might have one of you on his....

where have you been?

abu ghraib is an example of proper management? gitmo?

where is your outrage about separation of powers in regards to dubya's executive powers?

talk about a faction that does not respect the constitution.....

i'll take the ninth circuit and ted kennedy over "king" george any fing day.

jin

jin choung
04-20-2008, 12:45 AM
Yes I did
There are other schools and there are private schools.
But maby that wasn't clear, so..
If the schools taught something I did not agree with, either the citizens of that school would get together and change the cirriculem OR there are OTHER SCHOOLS to go to, either another public school that teashes something else OR private schools where they teach other stuff, OR there is even home schooling. So if they tought islam and I didn't agree then I don't have to go there.

So I DID answer the question.
.

you did but it sounds disingenuous as heck.... it's actually funny.

YOU would have no problem if every class started out with a muslim prayer and your kids were taught to face mecca and pray every so often throughout the day?

you would have no problem with that?

even in principle?

lol....

hilarious.

and changing schools ain't that easy for every parent. school districts often don't allow you to go to any one you choose. and not everyone can afford private or have the luxury of home schooling.

so for those christian parents who are stuck, you'd say suck it up... it's the constitution.

you're making me laugh.

jin

IMI
04-20-2008, 07:35 AM
I honestly don't believe the founding fathers intended the "separation of church and state" to be applied to whether or not there are prayers in school or if Christianity is taught.. For that matter, for the most part, religion, particularly Christianity, played a large role in their lives, both public and private.

The separation clause was made to prevent the endorsement of an official state religion AND to prevent the government from outlawing or condemning any particular religion.

I'm not so sure they intended schools to be run that way though. I'm absolutely certain they never intended that clause to be used by the ACLU to prevent a high school senior somewhere 200 years down the road from saying a prayer at his graduation ceremony.

Nevertheless, I do believe the teaching of religion of any sort should not be in our public schools. I'm not opposed to it being an elective however, and I'd bet this country's founders would agree with that.

The separation of church and state clause was not intended to be used to eradicate the belief in God from all aspects of public life. It was not meant to be used to remove plaques of the ten commandments from courthouses...and so on and so on.

We managed 200 years of peaceful coexistence with religion in this country, without anyone griping.
All of a sudden kids are shooting each other in school, conspiring to torture their teachers, and the ACLU is running around using every means possible to eliminate God from society. Crime is up, and morality is down, Go figure.

prospector
04-20-2008, 08:04 AM
you did but it sounds disingenuous as heck
WOOHOO !!
Even tho you don't like answer..at least YOU seen I answered it. :thumbsup:


The only way your statement could be considered true is that the original words will always be there.

And they are.. can you show me an amendment that countermands the original?


abu ghraib is an example of proper management? gitmo?

Where was the problem? I saw none. Pictures of bras on peoples heads? They do that in Hollywood movies for laughs. That's not torture.
Holding people who are shooting at you? What is wrong with that? There have always been prisoner camps from dawn of war.

Oh wait, the complaint was they have rights under constitution...WHERE? Only people covered in constitution and US citizens...nothing they about foreign people. Where does it say we have to afford them lawyers? Nowhere.
Where does it say we have to give them more than bread and water? Nowhere. Where does it say we have to make them comfortable and give them TV and let them practice their religion? NOWHERE.

International law? Obeying France, Rwanda, Venezuela?
The US Constitution is highest law of the land, not some judge in Europe, Africa, or South America.


where is your outrage about separation of powers in regards to dubya's executive powers?

talk about a faction that does not respect the constitution.....
And where has he gone past Constitution?
Going to war? He has that right in Constitution. Just can't DECLARE war. Congress does that. Does not mean he can't send armies around.
Consent of Congress? He doesn't need it. Only place he needs consent is Article 2 Section 2;

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties,
So he is pretty much free to do as he wants..except declare war.


YOU would have no problem if every class started out with a Muslim prayer and your kids were taught to face mecca and pray every so often throughout the day?

you would have no problem with that?

even in principle?
Nope, as long as no government has anything to do with it in any way shape or form.
But I have the option to gather parents to change it OR not go there.


school districts often don't allow you to go to any one you choose.
Because the less kids they have, the less govt funds they get. You think they will give that money up easily?


he lives in a far right-wing radical dreamworld.
Whoever said I was right-wing? Are you just guessing? I never said that. I AM tho a strict Constitutionalist. Hardly right-wing radical...big difference.

prospector
04-20-2008, 08:08 AM
and the ACLU is running around using every means possible to eliminate God from society
They are more of an enemy to U.S. than Al qaeda. They subvert Constitution, Al qaeda just kills people.

prospector
04-20-2008, 08:13 AM
The separation clause was made to prevent the endorsement of an official state religion AND to prevent the government from outlawing or condemning any particular religion.
Exactly !!!!
And religious symbols on govt (in reality OUR) property does NOT endorse.
which answers jins question;

why would BAPTISTS be interested in the separation of church and state eh?

To keep an officially sanctioned religion out of government..

theo
04-20-2008, 03:07 PM
I find it difficult to believe that Public schools can be all things to all kids.

This idea that the all-knowing Fed, in all its mysterious glory, can establish singular neutrality across the wide spectrum of thought and belief inherent in public schooling is serendipitous and may even lean tyrannical in the opposite direction from the oft-ubiquitous religious tyranny.

Being a free-thinking agnostic pluralist affords me the blessing of realizing that society cannot and should not relish a singular neutrality. This would only serve to create a society lacking in depth and social richness.

We need the religions and traditions of the many cultures to infuse our society, not be ripped from its fabric. And this fusion starts with education.

prospector
04-20-2008, 03:19 PM
teach ONLY Christianity, it IS endorsing that religion.
Did someone say 'only'??
I didn't see the word 'only' in any previous post...musta missed it.


Now, as IMI suggested, if schools were to have en elective and teach about ALL religions that would be fine. Actually better than fine - it would be great.
I see nothing wrong with that, as long as it IS elective, the government keeps it mouth shut and nose out.
And keeping mouth shut and nose out does NOT mean the govt is sanctioning it...it means they are following Constitution.


This idea that the all-knowing Fed, in all its mysterious glory, can establish singular neutrality across the wide spectrum of thought and belief inherent in public schooling is serendipitous and may even lean tyrannical in the opposite direction from the oft-ubiquitous religious tyranny.

They can't even get the govt funded trains to run on time..:D:D

jin choung
04-20-2008, 04:07 PM
oh my.... we are rather off the deep end aren't we?

if you don't see the problem with humiliating prisoners, beating them, threatening them and attacking them with dogs, and basically holding prisoners and stripping them any possible rights.... not to mention that the military lawyers themselves are against such executive directives themselves.... well, you do yourself and your position more harm with your own words than any debate.

if you don't see a problem with torture and waterboarding - an act that earned japanese soldiers death sentences when the performed it on americans - well you do yourself and your position more harm with your own words than any debate.

if you don't see warrantless wiretaps and renditions as patently unamerican.... well....

finally, if you don't see a problem with selectively ignoring intelligence, lying about weapons of mass destruction, lying about links to al-quaeda to prey on the prejudicial fears of the american people to go to war with a country which would have presented less threat to us if we left it alone.... well....

man. your picture of america discredits your ideas more than any argument against ya could....

good luck with that.

jin

IMI
04-20-2008, 06:34 PM
But when you imply that the ills of society are due to "eliminating God from society," I have issue. If that's really the case, then this religion really isn't that strong to begin with, is it? We have how many Christian churches in this country? They can't get their word out well enough so that they NEED to use our public schools to teach THEIR beliefs? So you NEED a god to tell you right from wrong? How about putting the blame on where it belongs? The parents of those who break the law.



I can see how it might have read that way, but I didn't really mean it that way.
IMVHO, these things happening with kids in schools, i.e., the violence, the planning of violence, the mayhem, the death and so on are really the problems and shortcomings of the parents, to a large extent.
I'd say the media isn't exactly blameless though, but censoring them would be a big no-no, in my book. However, kids with violent fantasies and serious mental issues, already planning on having a short life see these guys on TV going out in such glorious fashion... well, some of them are going to want to get in on the action. Their 15 minutes of posthumous fame.

But it does seem kind of odd that in the midst of the complete collapse of reason in society is a very militant effort to remove religion from sight and cram it back into the churches completely. Coincidence? I don't know.

It does seem though that the rise of radical liberalism has been very much accompanied by a general downward spiral of society's morality and priorities.

Whatever it is, clearly something has changed.

Glendalough
04-20-2008, 06:54 PM
As I said... Prospector is a far far right wing RADICAL.
He just doesn't SEE himself that way. He probably sees himself as a moderate right wing conservative. Oh well...

Some people dropped in looking for prospector (and Ted as well)

"However, Wood received a backlash when the image finally appeared in the Cedar Rapids Gazette. Iowans were furious at their depiction as "pinched, grim-faced, puritanical Bible-thumpers". One farmwife threatened to bite Wood's ear off."

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

prospector
04-20-2008, 07:05 PM
humiliating prisoners
humiliation...nothing big..happens everyday to all kinds of kids in schools around the world...nothing there


threatening them
threatened...nothing big..not even small..people get threatened everyday around the world and they aren't even prisioners, kids get it in school...nothing there


attacking them with dogs
no-one ever was bit so nothing there...happens daily with mailmen being scared by dogs, happens to kids around the world walking to or from school when a dog barks and scares them...nothing there


basically holding prisoners
Perfectly legal and right.


stripping them any possible rights
They only have the right to not be murdered in jail and some kind of sustanence. People around the world have less rights than we gave them...nothing there


waterboarding
Not tourture...we train our own military to withstand it. Can't be tourture if we do it voulentarily to our own, an no one has ever drowned...nothing there

And lastly


beating them
Beating is eye of beholder..no fingers were cut off...no fingernails pulled out, no medical experiments to see how body works, if they are directed to do something and they didn't then a kind of persuasion could be used, and as long as no bodyparts are gone then......nothing there



if you don't see a problem with selectively ignoring intelligence,
No, companies, people do it all the time, they never show o5thers the bad points of company or people don't try to show the bad side of themselves.
selectivity is a daily round the world occurence. And previous administration said same thing so nothing was different.



It does seem though that the rise of radical liberalism has been very much accompanied by a general downward spiral of society's morality and priorities.
And that is 95% of the problem.

prospector
04-20-2008, 07:10 PM
Some people dropped in looking for prospector (and Ted as well)


How come ??
Are we famous or something??:hey:

toby
04-20-2008, 07:39 PM
I can see how it might have read that way, but I didn't really mean it that way.
IMVHO, these things happening with kids in schools, i.e., the violence, the planning of violence, the mayhem, the death and so on are really the problems and shortcomings of the parents, to a large extent.
I'd say the media isn't exactly blameless though, but censoring them would be a big no-no, in my book. However, kids with violent fantasies and serious mental issues, already planning on having a short life see these guys on TV going out in such glorious fashion... well, some of them are going to want to get in on the action. Their 15 minutes of posthumous fame.

But it does seem kind of odd that in the midst of the complete collapse of reason in society is a very militant effort to remove religion from sight and cram it back into the churches completely. Coincidence? I don't know.

It does seem though that the rise of radical liberalism has been very much accompanied by a general downward spiral of society's morality and priorities.

Whatever it is, clearly something has changed.
You know what else has been changing? The concentration of wealth. I could easily blame society's ills on that. How do you know that our social programs haven't actually been stemming the tide, keeping it from getting worse than it is? Or how about the communication explosion? Compare today's level to the time before we had tv sets. Could be that the more concentrated marketing we're exposed to, the more anxious we get trying to achieve the image of life we're shown.

Just because certain things change over time doesn't mean you can pick and choose what caused them from the other things that changed. You don't like paying taxes, so you blame some current problem as being the result of paying taxes. You don't like it when a Christian symbol is forcibly removed, so you blame current social ills on a lack of Christianity. Did the Spanish Inquisition improve life in Europe? Are societies that are ruled their church that much better than the US?

Many things have improved over time too, and you credit them to things that you do like. It's all very convenient.

Christianity *by it's very nature*, as well as many other religions, teaches it's followers to spread the word. No one in his right mind can deny that. It's part of the reason that it's the world's biggest religion. But now it seems that anyone who wants it to stop it from pushing forward, into other peoples' lives, gets accused of being pure evil, worse than Hitler or Al Qaeda. It's complete BS.

What kind of person used this exact same scare tactic to mobilize their people to murder millions of people? And justify torture to boot?

ted
04-20-2008, 07:51 PM
finally, if you don't see a problem with selectively ignoring intelligence, lying about weapons of mass destruction, lying about links to al-quaeda to prey on the prejudicial fears of the american people to go to war with a country which would have presented less threat to us if we left it alone.... well....jin

There is too little time to cover all the entertaining stuff here, but I'll proudly say God Bless the USA! :thumbsup:

The United States took action to put a dent in the freely growing terrorist networks running havoc on the world. We did something. :thumbsup:

Right friggin on!
We strategically made a move to bring them to us. Something no other country was smart or brave enough to do.
Ever since the United States gave its money, blood and much sacrifice, the number of Terrorist leaders has shrunk.
The number of attacks like the Cole has all but disappeared.
The number of attacks like 9-11 has STOPPED.
The number of top organizing leaders has shrunk.
The terrorists are left with scattered road side bombs and scattered body bombs that take little or no organization to accomplish.
The organized networks of Terrorists has been broken and scattered into nothing more than splinter groups.

Think how much more destruction to the Terrorist networks we could have made if 2, 3, 4 or more countries had the balls to help with funding and troops. Think if the UN took the initiative and took real action as a LEADER.

Yeh, thank God the USA did something. God bless the USA. I'll be convinced that doing nothing is better when the terrorists stop killing people. Leaving them alone let them get stronger. They still hated us and killed us before we went after them. Screw them and I'll kick their arse every time.

Did you know?

I didn't know!
How could we know?!?

Did you know that 47 countries' have re-established their embassies
in Iraq?

Did you know that the Iraqi government currently employs 1.2
million Iraqi people?

Did you know that 3,100 schools have been renovated, 364 schools
are under rehabilitation, 263 new schools are now under
construction; and 38 new schools have been completed in Iraq?

Did you know that Iraqís higher educational structure consists of
20 Universities, 46 Institutes or colleges and 4
research centers, all currently operating?

Did you know that 25 Iraq students departed for the United States
in January, 2005 for the re-established Fulbright program?

Did you know that the Iraqi Navy is operational?
It has 5 - 100-foot patrol craft, 34 smaller v vessels and a naval
infantry regiment.

Did you know that Iraq's Air Force consists of three operational
squadrons, Which includes 9 reconnaissance and 3 US C-130 transport
aircraft (under Iraqi operational control) which operates day and
night, and will soon add 16 UH-1 helicopters and 4 Bell Jet Rangers?

Did you know that the Iraq Army has a counter-terrorist unit and a
commando battalion?

Did you know that the Iraqi Police Service has nearly 55,000 fully
trained and equipped police officers?

Did you know that there are 5 Police Academies in Iraq that produce
3,500 new officers every 8 weeks?

Did you know there are more than 1,100 building projects going on
in Iraq?
They include 364 schools, 67 public medical clinics, 15 hospitals,
83 railroad stations, 22 oil facilities, 93 water-production
facilities, and d 69 electrical-distribution facilities.

Did you know that 96% of Iraqi children under the age of 5 have
received the first 2 series of polio vaccinations?

Did you know that 4.3 million Iraqi children were enrolled in
primary school by mid-October, 2007?

Did you know that there are 1,192,000 cell phone subscribers in Iraq?
(Land-lines are basically non-existent.)

Did you know that Iraq has an independent media that consists of 75
radio stations, 180 newspapers, and 10 television
stations?

Did you know that the Baghdad Stock Exchange opened in June of 2004?

Did you know that 2 candidates in the Iraqi presidential election
had a televised debate recently?

OF COURSE WE DIDN'T KNOW!
WHY DIDN'T WE KNOW?
BECAUSE OUR MEDIA WON'T TELL US!

Instead of reflecting our love for our country, we get photo of of
flag burning incidents at Abu Grab and people throwing snowballs
at the presidential motorcades.

Tragically, the lack of accentuating the positive in Iraq serves
two purposes:
It is intended to undermine the world's perception of the United
States thus minimizing consequent support;
and it is intended to discourage American citizens.
----
Above facts are verifiable on the Department of Defense's website.

http://www.defenselink.mil/

Did you know?

I didn't know
But I know now.....
.......Pass it on! Give it a wide dissemination!

theo
04-20-2008, 08:12 PM
I can see how it might have read that way, but I didn't really mean it that way.
IMVHO, these things happening with kids in schools, i.e., the violence, the planning of violence, the mayhem, the death and so on are really the problems and shortcomings of the parents, to a large extent.
I'd say the media isn't exactly blameless though, but censoring them would be a big no-no, in my book. However, kids with violent fantasies and serious mental issues, already planning on having a short life see these guys on TV going out in such glorious fashion... well, some of them are going to want to get in on the action. Their 15 minutes of posthumous fame.

But it does seem kind of odd that in the midst of the complete collapse of reason in society is a very militant effort to remove religion from sight and cram it back into the churches completely. Coincidence? I don't know.

It does seem though that the rise of radical liberalism has been very much accompanied by a general downward spiral of society's morality and priorities.

Whatever it is, clearly something has changed.

I am avidly pro-religion in spite of the fact that I am not particularly 'religious'. I do deeply appreciate and find resonance in philosophy relating to spirituality and the intuitive state.

Present society is bound by a plethora of very serious issues, there is little doubt of this. But, I would have to find disagreement with your assessment of present social ills.

I have no way of knowing if this applies to you but a common theological cornerstone for many religious groups is the strong espousal of social corruption as a result of godlessness. This has been a recurring theme throughout the centuries.

World history is replete with violence and horror. This is not, at all, a new phenomenon wrought by radical leftists. Radical liberals are just as robotic and conditioned as any other cult member but I would wager that their effectiveness in creating a world hemorrhaging morality is fairly limited since many radical liberals are 'moral' atheists (not all, of course).

I apply this process to the same conditioned absurdity of blaming religion for all the ails of the world.

The religious and radical liberal commit terrible crime but there are far many more of these types that will vehemently and diametrically oppose violence.

Fact is, society has and always will have, even in the midst of 'religious revival' or enlightened rationality, a solid vein of statistical horror running through it.

The kid that attempts or commits murderous horror in a public school is a complex social beast that cannot be conveniently explained away with video games or lack of morality or godlessness. A myriad of other factors must be considered that may border on equatable reasoning that determines causality (which could, indeed, include 'lack of morality' but this is nothing 'new'. Lack of morality goes back eons).

I do not believe that God makes a person more moral. Morality is a subjective state, mostly learned and partly instinctual. The Law of Reciprocity is a very equitable and able partner in social interaction that does not require religious indoctrination to apply.

Though, the dissemination of positive human values in whatever avenue of presentation (including the vehicle of religion) is something I fully support. Which, by extension, is why I do not see the value in constantly portraying religion, in general, as useless and ineffective.

IMI
04-20-2008, 08:22 PM
You know what else has been changing? The concentration of wealth. I could easily blame society's ills on that.


Blame. Yes, blame.
This is what liberals do best, is assign blame. Each and every individual is not an individual with self-accountability, but rather, each person's antisocial actions are the result of circumstances beyond his control - usually perpetrated by The Man.
The Collective simply responds in the most rational way - not though self control and simply dealing with Life on its own terms, but with anger and rage and violence.
And, there's no shortage of rage out there, happily fed to The Collective by their superiors in lethal doses. No shortage of Blame, either, when you remove personal accountability from the mix.

toby
04-20-2008, 08:23 PM
humiliation...nothing big..happens everyday to all kinds of kids in schools around the world...nothing there

threatened...nothing big..not even small..people get threatened everyday around the world and they aren't even prisioners, kids get it in school...nothing there

no-one ever was bit so nothing there...happens daily with mailmen being scared by dogs, happens to kids around the world walking to or from school when a dog barks and scares them...nothing there

Perfectly legal and right.

They only have the right to not be murdered in jail and some kind of sustanence. People around the world have less rights than we gave them...nothing there

Not tourture...we train our own military to withstand it. Can't be tourture if we do it voulentarily to our own, an no one has ever drowned...nothing there

And lastly

Beating is eye of beholder..no fingers were cut off...no fingernails pulled out, no medical experiments to see how body works, if they are directed to do something and they didn't then a kind of persuasion could be used, and as long as no bodyparts are gone then......nothing there
I guess being sodomized by a broomstick is fair game then, happens every day, even to schoolkids right? Should be legal for cops to do this at traffic stops.



No, companies, people do it all the time, they never show others the bad points of company or people don't try to show the bad side of themselves.
selectivity is a daily round the world occurence. And previous administration said same thing so nothing was different.

And it's AOK for our govt to lie to and deceive the people, for the sake of glorious war and profit.

I think we have a Baath party member here on the forums folks.

IMI
04-20-2008, 08:30 PM
I agree with everything you said there Theo. I did, in fact question whether it was coincidence or not.
The truth is, I believe, the movement for the removal of God is a symptom of society, not a cause; the less that morality "matters", the more likely it is symbols of morality will be forcibly removed.

Not to say all occurrences of this are the direct result of some sort of evil or corrosion, though - just as there are many many people intolerant of people's religious views, there are equally many who would see that they have no religious option, period, out of fear, loathing, defensiveness...whatever. Not every person claiming the Separation clause is some kind of strict Constitutionalist - some people just need a cause to latch onto.

prospector
04-20-2008, 08:42 PM
Ted
I guess that's called selective reporting of the facts
or as jin puts it selectively ignoring the truth.

toby
04-20-2008, 08:44 PM
Blame. Yes, blame.
This is what liberals do best, is assign blame. Each and every individual is not an individual with self-accountability, but rather, each person's antisocial actions are the result of circumstances beyond his control - usually perpetrated by The Man.
The Collective simply responds in the most rational way - not though self control and simply dealing with Life on its own terms, but with anger and rage and violence.
And, there's no shortage of rage out there, happily fed to The Collective by their superiors in lethal doses. No shortage of Blame, either, when you remove personal accountability from the mix.

Oh GIVE ME A BREAK.

YOU are blaming left-wing ideology for society's problems, you're NO DIFFERENT.

Your response here is a perfect example of what someone does after their argument has been exhausted. Is that the case? Or is it that you don't have the slightest interest in discussing the issues at all, you're just here to ***** and moan, about how everyone should be more like YOU.

IMI
04-20-2008, 08:52 PM
Tragically, the lack of accentuating the positive in Iraq serves
two purposes:
It is intended to undermine the world's perception of the United
States thus minimizing consequent support;
and it is intended to discourage American citizens.


This is true. Very true. You have to search deep to find the success stories in Iraq.
Nevertheless, it is, in fact, a war which shouldn't have happened, possibly the worst blunder in all world military history.
I don't align with the "Bush lied!" crowd though, nor do believe it was all just "faulty" intelligence. I believe the truth is somewhere in the middle, and I wouldn't discount the possibility some of that "bad" intelligence was delivered intentionally by Israel...
It is a good thing Saddam Hussein is gone, but I can't say with a clear conscience the end justifies the means. Personally, I'd have whacked him with a bunch of Special Forces. The result would have been the same.

True, there are good things coming out of Iraq, but we spent a half a trillion dollars to create instability where there was none before.

Bush's second biggest mistake is not admitting it was a mistake. Had he done that, he'd have saved some face, I think, but he's too stubborn. Stupidly stubborn.

But back to the media - yes, they want us to lose. Not sure how it ever happened, but somewhere along the way the media decided they owe us not the news, but their version of how life should be. They don't tell us simply what's happening, but also how we should perceive it, how we should feel about it.

Don't journalists have their own version of the Hippocratic Oath? They ought to.

IMI
04-20-2008, 09:04 PM
Oh GIVE ME A BREAK.

YOU are blaming left-wing ideology for society's problems, you're NO DIFFERENT.

Your response here is a perfect example of what someone does after their argument has been exhausted. Is that the case? Or is it that you don't have the slightest interest in discussing the issues at all, you're just here to ***** and moan, about how everyone should be more like YOU.

Toby, my argument has not been "exhausted".
WTF are you talking about anyway?
Do you know, or are you so angry you've lost touch?

I didn't "blame" anything on anyone. Maybe subtle implications, but you are the one who outright stated that people are mad because they're poor, and this is why they react that way. I read it as the typical class envy thing.

However, even if I DID blame "left-wing ideology for society's problems", that's actually a little more accurate.
One of society's problems is health care. Gonna tell me the Left's penchant for regulating and taxing everything to death hasn't had a whole lot to do with the problem of health care being unfordable?
I wont blame the Left for the decline of morality, and I DIDN'T.
But I will and I do blame the Left for thinking everything should be solved by government and repeatedly getting into things they should not and in the process screwing everything up.

I would so much like to repeat my sentiment to you from last week, but I am in fact trying to be civil. How about you do the same?

IMI
04-20-2008, 09:22 PM
Well... that's YOUR point of view. I don't agree and think you're wrong. :)

You can think I'm wrong as much as you want. There is no *correct* answer to these kinds of political debates, discussions, arguments, whatever.

I'm not any kind of far right conservative - the truth is, I don't think there's much worthwhile coming out of government, period, left or right - both sides have become corrupted beyond functionality.

I agree with Ben Franklin - now that it's all gone to sh1t, it's time to start over. To a lesser extent, I agree with Jesse Ventura. ;)

But aside from that, you only quoted part of what I said - it had followed with what I see as a verifiable example - the disaster which is the American health care industry, which you left out. :)

jin choung
04-20-2008, 09:58 PM
wow... as i keep saying, the amount of conservative disconnect with reality is unbelievable.

i'm sure there are positive things happening in iraq. but that's like saying a lot positive things were happening in vietnam.... or there are lots of positive things that came out of that traffic accident that killed your family or hurricane or some other great spectacular tragedy.

a pointless observation in light of the fact that it's a spectacular clusterfk that will MAR AMERICA'S REPUTATION for decades to come. thanks for being a part of that.

i wonder how you'd feel about it if you lived there? as much as people disliked saddam, most are saying he was better than this....

and sigh. pathetic. there were no terrorists in iraq.

i can't believe you guys are gullible enough to listen to dick cheney... of all people. whatever problem saddam was, it had nothin' to do with al quaeda, 9/11 or bin laden. stop being a stereotype for americans that don't/can't pay attention to details.

but guess what, there are terrorists there now.

the dixie chicks were right and if you look at dubya's poll numbers the american people have done a radical 180. but i guess you guys are gonna stick it out eh?
---------------------------------------------------------

mindless, jingoistic, propaganda consuming nationalism. my country can do no wrong against the world eh?

pffffft.

oh well... just prepare yourselves. as the country turned its back on nixon, we're gettin' set to do it to dubya. and if the last time was any indication, you guys ain't gonna be happy for a long time.

and imo, america and the world will be much better off for it.

jin

jin choung
04-20-2008, 10:14 PM
Tragically, the lack of accentuating the positive in Iraq serves
two purposes:
It is intended to undermine the world's perception of the United
States thus minimizing consequent support;
and it is intended to discourage American citizens.


SOOOOOOOOOOO WHAT?!

are you saying that america is ALWAYS RIGHT?! are you saying we can DO NO WRONG?! are you saying we should NOT be DINGED in the world's eyes when we flip them off and do whatever we please and turns it out it was the wrong thing to do?

you don't ENCOURAGE A SOCIOPATH!!!

you don't give a MISFIT praise and PAT IT ON THE BACK!!!

you say, "YOU ARE A COLOSSAL FING FK UP AND YOU DID BAD! BAD FING DOG! go into the corner and think about what you did and repent you piece of crap."

you don't heap PRAISE ON A DELINQUENT FOR FEAR THAT YOU'LL "DISCOURAGE" him!!!

the americans who enabled this to happen DESERVE TO BE DISCOURAGED AND ASHAMED FOR THEIR IGNORANCE, FEARFULNESS AND LACK OF FAITH. for enabling idiot boy and his cronies to run roughshod over OUR OWN REPUTATION.

people talk a big God game but the behavior of america over the last 8 years is not one of a people of FAITH. it's one of a people of FEAR. scared sh1tless and just striking out blindly because it's so fing panicked. and that's nothing to be proud of.

it seems that with the conservatives, faith is all about trying to tell other people how to live their lives, NOTHING about how to be reigned in and submissive in one's own.... hypocrisy as ever. pffft....

if you sow shame worthy actions, you RIGHTFULLY REAP SHAME.

and hopefully, we will REPENT come november. the national nightmare will end.

jin

toby
04-20-2008, 10:22 PM
Toby, my argument has not been "exhausted".
WTF are you talking about anyway?
Do you know, or are you so angry you've lost touch?
I'm mad at YOU, because *once again*, you've ignored the logical points I made in favor of launching an insult, based solely on your biased opinion of the left. And people do things like that *when their argument's been exhausted*, LIKE I SAID. THAT is WTF I'm talking about. Shall I say it a third time?


I didn't "blame" anything on anyone. Maybe subtle implications, but you are the one who outright stated that people are mad because they're poor

"We managed 200 years of peaceful coexistence with religion in this country, without anyone griping. All of a sudden kids are shooting each other in school, conspiring to torture their teachers, and the ACLU is running around using every means possible to eliminate God from society. Crime is up, and morality is down, Go figure."

It's blatantly obvious that you blame the left for the creation of the welfare state. You wouldn't even consider the other two possibilities I mentioned.

Now where in hell did I "outright state that people are mad because they're poor"? Do you not understand that poverty creates unrest and crime? Do I have to spell it out to you, even though it was just an example, and not the crux of my statement?



, and this is why they react that way. I read it as the typical class envy thing.
However, even if I DID blame "left-wing ideology for society's problems", that's actually a little more accurate.
One of society's problems is health care. Gonna tell me the Left's penchant for regulating and taxing everything to death hasn't had a whole lot to do with the problem of health care being unfordable?
I wont blame the Left for the decline of morality, and I DIDN'T.
But I will and I do blame the Left for thinking everything should be solved by government and repeatedly getting into things they should not and in the process screwing everything up.
Health care is unaffordable because Lawyers, Doctors, Hospitals and Insurance Companies are all trying to get Rich, in the American tradition. Wtf does the ACLU have to do with that?

Every society since the dawn of time has had a poor underclass. But you think that it was invented in California, in the 60's? Or by Roosevelt?



I would so much like to repeat my sentiment to you from last week, but I am in fact trying to be civil. How about you do the same?
You think ignoring logical debate and waxing lyrical about how stupid lefties are is civil??

prospector
04-20-2008, 10:29 PM
jin...your getting upset...slow down..take a deep breath

inhale

exhale

oooommmmmmmmmmm

relax


I know the left wants us to bend over and kiss the feet of anyone who bombs us.
That's no big secret..

ted
04-20-2008, 10:35 PM
it seems that with the conservatives, faith is all about trying to tell other people how to live their lives
jin

Along with saying I said things I didn't say, you make me laugh with the above comment.
It is the liberals who are telling everyone else how to live thier lives, what is politically corect thinking, and what are politically correct actions.
Personally I would LOVE for you intelects to stop telling me what to think and do.

As for the contempt for my comments from some, I never said you should feel as I do. I just said I was proud of what we did and am not afraid to say so.
Sorry for not thinking like you want me to. :D
I agree with IMI, I don't think much of anything coming from the Government is beneficial. So stay the heck out of my life and my wallet! :D

prospector
04-20-2008, 10:40 PM
The only way (as I see it) that the world will take us seriously as wanting to repair our image is if we DO elect a Democrat.
Not if operation CHAOS continues.
muahahahahaha

prospector
04-20-2008, 10:41 PM
So stay the heck out of my life and my wallet!

HEAR HEAR !!!

IMI
04-20-2008, 11:09 PM
But that will really piss off the conservatives on THIS list. ;)

Wouldn't pis me off to elect a democrat. Unfortunately, there are no sane democrats running. Obama is as radical far left as it gets, and Hillary just wants the job and the prestige and power, hoping to dupe everyone into believing she can pull off what she proposes in order to get the job. Which she can't and she won't.
(Well, she might get the job, but what she can't and won't do is achieve her promises)

But, most people don't "get it" anyway. It's not a fight between republicans and democrats, it's a fight between Marxism and... I dunno, Falwellism.
Neither are right for us, and our founding fathers would roll over in their graves if they could see what a mockery has been made of their brilliant creation.

McCain isn't the answer either - far from it. He's a professional fence-sitter... even worse than someone with a bad opinion is someone with a safe opinion, and McCain is nowhere near the conservative he claims to be. I question whether he's actually even republican, aside from what it says on his voter card.

IMI
04-20-2008, 11:14 PM
Oh, but to answer the statement, But that will really piss off conservatives on THIS list, you're right. And the republican option will piss me off too, if he wins.
Either way, this time around, we all got royally screwed with the options.

jin choung
04-20-2008, 11:26 PM
I know the left wants us to bend over and kiss the feet of anyone who bombs us.
That's no big secret..

wow. talk about a straw man.

forgive us if we are not of the "shoot em all and let God sort it out" variety.

anyway, nevermind. as i say, your own words discredit you more than i can. go back to watching fox news.

jin

jin choung
04-20-2008, 11:44 PM
Personally I would LOVE for you intelects to stop telling me what to think and do.

you get that a lot do ya?

I agree with IMI, I don't think much of anything coming from the Government is beneficial.

so what in the world are you proud about? does that make ANY sense to you even?

and do you have any idea how ludicrous this makes your position? you want the government to stay out of your wallet and yet you want them to go invading countries willy nilly? SOMEONE'S gotta pay for the bombs ted. do you have any idea how long your children will be paying for this stupid, distraction of a war?

HAH! maybe we would be on the same side of this if we made a policy that everyone who voted for the war is the only people who have to pay for it! now THAT'S something i think that would be fair!

you want the government to stay out of your life but you'll gladly vote to send someone else's children to go get killed?

just in every way - untenable.

you rail against "intellects" for some reason but the whole "thinking stuff through"... i dunno... not a bad thing.

----------------------------------------------------

anyway, as i said a long time ago in this thread, not enough common ground for a flea to find purchase on....

two americas.

just glad i don't live in yours.

jin

prospector
04-21-2008, 04:15 AM
I assume you mean the CHAOS which is the war GWB started?

Nope :tsktsk:

theo
04-21-2008, 07:00 AM
SOMEONE'S gotta pay for the bombs ted. do you have any idea how long your children will be paying for this stupid, distraction of a war?


Iraq is a massive blunder of epic proportions, mainly financially.

I do not buy the convenient rhetoric that the Iraq invasion has or will create(d) additional terrorist armies. The angst boiling within hordes of mentally-unstable Jihadists needs little kindling as history plainly illustrates, (as does a little cartoon created by a Danish artist [who is still in hiding, I believe]).

It is the financial burden of Iraq that is the 'sin' here, I would wholeheartedly concur within anyone on this.

I appreciate Ted's desire for optimism but it is misplaced and inadequate when one considers that American society, itself, is suffering through singular forms of social difficulty that requires addressing by an inward-looking national policy.

Anyone with a sense of deep compassion can empathize with the horror that Iraqi citizens were subjected to through the brutality of the Saddam regime. This is a non-negotiable for me.

But to choose Iraq for 'salvation' at the expense of American 'need' is a decision made in utter madness. One can only consider the accuracy of this statement if mental flexibility, and not party lineage, is a trait you consider important in decision-processing.

Question: Jin, what is your position on war?

prospector
04-21-2008, 08:32 AM
American 'need' is a decision made in utter madness
Is there?
Or is there just a WANT ???

theo
04-21-2008, 08:41 AM
Is there?
Or is there just a WANT ???

Oh, there is definite want, prospector... I am not addressing the wants as the national needs are crystal clear, to me- Soaring deficits, trade imbalances, possible social security insolvency, growing wealth and technology gaps, energy issues, unstable economic factors which may well be far worse than we can imagine, the list goes on...

Managing America itself might be considered isolationist but, in my view, home does matter.

And before one seeks to fix the neighborhood they better damn well make sure their home is on a proper footing.

American ideals have not been translating that well into reality. This is NOT to say European ideals are superior, by any means. They have their own eye scabs one can pick at.

prospector
04-21-2008, 09:15 AM
Soaring deficits,
As a percentage of total US wealth, still mighty low, so not a big factor to me.


trade imbalances,
What can we do? People like stuff made elsewhere. And we can't dictate how much they charge or impose stiff tariffs in imports.
Can't FORCE oil producers to lower price, we can only lessen need from them by drilling our own.


possible social security insolvency
That's a given, until they only let people receive the exact amount they put in thru SSI taxes and no more. It was suppose to be a SUPPLEMENT to retirement, NOT a retirement fund.


growing wealth and technology gaps,

Wealth gap is only up to the people to close...work harder or longer or smarter and gap is closed
Tech....that's up to lawyers...keep them from suing companies out of existence and stuff could be made here instead of overseas where billion dollar lawsuits are non-existent, same with medical costs, keep lawyers out and costs come down.


energy issues
Again, because of laws here, we can do nothing .
And as we see, bio diesel is a joke, it's no cheaper at the pump, costs more in oil to make it than you get gal for gal. The costs of all foods that depended on that corn are now higher (enviros never told people that would happen tho there were those of us who did.....did anyone listen? nope and now they are paying thru the nose for food, besides paying more for that good earth saving bio diesel).


unstable economic factors
Keep taxes low to none and PERMINENT so companies can plan on a base of operations instead of wondering where overseas they can get the best deal.


Another cure I would add is to make everyone who gets fed aid of any kind to work for it. Or even pay employers who employ the unemployed 40% of the wages they give to those workers.
That would save companies money and cut fed payouts 60%.
A company could pay it's workers 4 an hour, govt kicks in 1.80, worker gets 5.80.
We could cut taxes by hundreds of billions, thereby making working families incomes go up, give them more spending money, let them buy more things and companies have to hire more to keep up.

Peoples money makes the economy grow, govt money just makes votes total grow.

Speedmonk42
04-21-2008, 10:37 AM
Kill the sociopaths, then it doesn't matter what system you use.

theo
04-21-2008, 10:51 AM
Kill the sociopaths, then it doesn't matter what system you use.

Um, how would you go about extracting the micro from the macro? Plus, the effort required to hunt down over a million people for certain destruction would negate any positive effect the project (otherwise known as Project Kill Sociopath or PKS) is designed to promote.

I don't see the wanton and mass removal of sociopaths from the general population as a method most optimal for the utilization of random social systems application (otherwise known as RSSA, the feed with an 'a').

Clearly, I am being just as tongue-in-cheek as thee.:D

jin choung
04-21-2008, 03:39 PM
Question: Jin, what is your position on war?

my position on war is my position on an unreliable bomb (times a million i suppose).

it is a tool. a VERY POWERFUL and not totally controllable TOOL. and like with any unreliable tool, in the right hands with the wisdom and foresight to make allowances for the unreliability, it can effect good.

but human beings are stupiddumbassiniquitousvenalidioticmofos aren't we?

in the wrong or incompetent hands, it can be a force for incalculable evil - as it usually is.

and it is a tool with a LOT of moving parts - a mechanical pandora's box. you open that box at your peril because you're more likely than not gonna unleash a sh1tstorm that you won't be able to reign in.

you gotta expect atrocities and collateral damage and rape and ear collecting and all kinds of the most depraved sh1t known to mankind.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
WORSE: the second blood is spilt, rationality is sacrificed at the altar of INVESTMENT.

this war is just because my son died. my cause is right because i lost my leg. how dare you question it?

certainly not a phenomena exclusive to the endeavor of war (religion is another big area where investment leads to unquestionable acceptance) but in war, you've got a LOT to lose (or kill).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

but then again, you simply can't diminish the contribution war has played on the progression of civilization and technology. it's almost impossible to imagine a world that has NOT been shaped by war.

truly, as a species it seems, what doesn't annihilate us makes us stronger.

jin

ted
04-21-2008, 03:59 PM
Not one person has admitted the world has benefitted by the Terrorist networks being broken apart and broken into splinter groups.

I wish people would speak as loudly and often about the Terrorists killing innocent people and how much that costs all of us. And how that isnít fair to the poor people who live in fear from Terrorists bombings daily. :stumped:
Instead people would rather talk down the US for doing something that has worked. Just think how much more we could have done if the UN had some balls! :cursin: Why not jump on them for doing NOTHING?

No, I don't like war, the money spent on war, nor the people who die in war. But for God sakes, you can't ignore these jackarses and the destruction they cause.
I guess many of you would rather we didn't do anything about Hitler either. :question:

Oh wait, now some of you are asking us to jump in to other countries messes as well. :help:
Why, to get more of this whining about the US didnít' do it the way we wanted it done? HA! Now that's funny! :D

Lightwolf
04-21-2008, 04:29 PM
Not one person has admitted the world has benefitted by the Terrorist networks being broken apart and broken into splinter groups.

I don't think that needs arguing... and it's not like there is no coalition in Afghanistan... where the _real_ action is happening as far as fighting terrorism is concerned.


I wish people would speak as loudly and often about the Terrorists killing innocent people and how much that costs all of us.
You mean because a war was brought into a country that ws not suffering from terrorism at all and now is, thanks to being freed?
That was talked about before, during and after the invasion of Iraq.

And how that isn’t fair to the poor people who live in fear from Terrorists bombings daily. :stumped:
According to your previous logic, I'm quite sure that the citizens of Iraq do understand that their suffering bombings is for the for the greater good of having a battlefield moved into their front yard.


But for God sakes, you can't ignore these jackarses and the destruction they cause.
Oh, we are talking about Afghanistan now?

I guess many of you would rather we didn't do anything about Hitler either. :question:
At least back then you attacked the cause (after a lot of opposition in the US, especially fom war profiteering businesses btw.).
Marching into Iraq is a bit like invading Kongo to stop the Third Reich.

Oh wait, now some of you are asking us to jump in to other countries messes as well. :help:
No, the question is: Why the concentration on a side show when there are more pressing matters to attend to. And that's all Iraq ever was.

Cheers,
Mike

ted
04-21-2008, 06:15 PM
Um, I've always said Terrorism is "world wide". Starting in Iraq brought the cockroaches out of their hiding places. They came from all over for us to kick their arse... and it worked! :thumbsup:
It also finished a job we should have completed 10 years earlier. Sadam needed to be taken out and most every politician agreed. Double bonus. :thumbsup:

I'm not trying to tell you it was the ONLY option, but after decades of ignoring the issue, and nobody did anything as effective as this action, I say right on. And if the world does nothing again, we'll do it again.

As soon as the UN steps it up, I'll listen to other options. Until then, I'm glad we took action. You can wish we didn't, but I like our results better then yours. Your method allowed 9-11.
That's all. No reason to get so upset.

Glendalough
04-21-2008, 06:17 PM
Not one person has admitted the world has benefitted by the Terrorist networks being broken apart and broken into splinter groups.
...

The Terrorists?

911 happened years ago in some cheapskate architects office. The building was basically a steel and glass tent. Also many convenient assumptions such as only 2 staircases for an acre of floor because it was decided that the building was so big that a fire would only take place in a portion of this vastness.

Then the emergency response terribly flawed, (everyone stay seated) and the fire department is sent in as the building collapses. I know for a fact that people who worked there (and left) were assured that if an airplane hit the building it wouldn't collapse.

But then, to totally finish off the disaster, the media continually played the clip over and over again, burning it into the American psyche. Then We get told how wise and sophisticated BL and his band were, as if they of all people could have predicted this would happen. (BTW, the plot probably come out of a Tom Wolf book circa 1990 where the hero drives a similar jetliner into a skyscraper to get the baddies (the building didn't collapse and the explosion was local, a few floors.)

This whole idea that EL-Q could ever do anything in the US totally mad. Their history (the Cole etc and other attempt on World Trade Building) is a short list of botched attempts and very third rate compared to similar underground factions in the US and Europe. Particularly the latter where groups have managed to blow up large buildings and monuments in cities with no injury or loss of life to anyone.

At the height of this terrorist craze ( even the Macarthy Commie scare thing was never as mad as this) Time or Newsweek magazine comes out with this cover story about the Arab guy who is plotting to cut the (12-18 inch) steel cables on the Brooklyn Bridge, all 8 (or whatever the number) of them, by hand, 20 or 30 feet above the traffic.

Really for the Land of the Free and Brave, this is just so embarrassing. Having come through the very real atomic threats of the Cold War, you can only come to the conclusion that this "Terrorist" threat is totally manufactured. Take about waste money and tax, and there is no enemy in sight.

I'd be far more worried getting on a plane, and say the chances are much higher, that some corporative cost cutting mistake would bring it down than any terrorists.

jin choung
04-21-2008, 07:53 PM
Um, I've always said Terrorism is "world wide". Starting in Iraq brought the cockroaches out of their hiding places.

iraq had no terrorists till we GAVE IT TO THEM. do you NOT UNDERSTAND THAT?

there's a difference between "bringing them out of hiding" and

"giving them an OPPORTUNITY THEY WOULD NOT OTHERWISE HAVE TO KILL AMERICANS". do you NOT UNDERSTAND THAT?

you're "yeah, we're kicking their as_S" rhetoric does not reflect reality.

in fact, it is just a few steps away from unbridled cartoon caricature peach and bananas ignorance and/or insanity.

do you think we're WINNING? do you think WE KNOW WHAT WE'RE DOING? do you think THERE IS A PLAN IN PLACE IN WHICH WINNING IS AN OPTION? do you think ANYONE KNOWS WHAT A VICTORY WOULD EVEN LOOK LIKE?

did you not listen to petraeus? at all? he would be waving flags and saying, we're gonna win it all if it was AT ALL POSSIBLE. what does he say? we've made limited progress and it can go south any minute.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
your analogy is the equivalent of saying,

"we put on our finest clothes and jewelry and marched into the crime ridden neighborhood at midnight to bring the criminals 'out of hiding'. we then proceeded to let them rob us, beat us, rape us and leave us for dead...

we've got them right where we want them."

seriously man. think about it. if there was another country that did what we're doing and there was a guy in that country that thought the way you did, YOU would think that guy was a nut.

but "america does it + i'm an american = america can do no wrong."

and again, do you have NO IDEA how long YOUR CHILDREN are going to pay for this? do you have NO IDEA how exponentially more vast this is going to be over the entitlements you hate so much? can you even CONCEIVE of the cost it will extract to pay JUST FOR THE MAIMED AND MUTILATED VETERANS?

and guess what? we're not even gonna be number 1 anymore. the future belongs to china. to india.

so we're just gonna be another citizen of the world.

do you really want us to be the delusional a$hole who can't see how fvcd up we are?

really?

jin

Hopper
04-21-2008, 09:22 PM
I was going to stay out of this one, but since Jin just pretty much summed up what I was thinking, I'll just leave it at "ditto".

ted
04-21-2008, 10:35 PM
The Terrorists?
This whole idea that EL-Q could ever do anything in the US totally mad.
...you can only come to the conclusion that this "Terrorist" threat is totally manufactured. Take about waste money and tax, and there is no enemy in sight.

You've got to be kidding me??? That kind of thinking is what allowed the world to get caught off guard.
It's real my friend.

We can all agree that we don't agree.
Good night! :D