Really? I can't deny it anymore.

[overtone]

 

 

It's much more likely that those freedom-loving, arms-bearing patriots will quickly become "armed domestic terrorists" if they ever cross the 1% who control the real weapons.

The most likely apocalyptic denouement of all is that they will be the muscle of that 1% themselves - not the elite Blackwater praetorian guard, but the guys who keep order in the general community, the auxiliaries an arms length from the sherrif's office.

 

That's a pattern we've seen before, in the Americas especially and the US in particular.

[waitforufo]

It took quite a while for the 1% to redistribute the wealth in their favor. It's been happening all my life. You're never going to suddenly reverse that. You're never going to take it from those who have it unless you do it the way they did it, slowly but surely over time.

 

We're in dire straits because of wage disparity. When the US was really strong, our economy was driven by all the folks earning great money for hard work. They made good money and spent it while paying taxes on it all. The government had plenty of revenue. It was common back then that the top people at any corporation were making ten times what the average worker beneath them made, and that was fine and folks were happy and we were prosperous.

 

Now, those middle class wages have been trimmed down, benefits cut to the bone, so the top people can make two-hundred seventy-three times what the average worker makes. Those people at the top got Reagan and the Bush's to drop their tax liabilities, so now that money that used to sustain our economy and procure revenue for the government sits with the 1% where it's now being spent overseas to make them more tax-sheltered money they can keep out of the US economy.

 

Talking about redistributing the wealth plays right into their hands. Even I don't like the thought of giving Popcorn Sutton $50K a year just because he thinks that would be "fair". The 1% can easily make that seem like theft while what they did was simply "tightening the belt" or "downsizing to stay competitive" or "sharpening their pencils" or "cost-cutting", or any of the phrases that hide what they really did, which was robbing from the middle class to give to the 1%. The US will NOT come back as a prosperous country while so much of its wealth is concentrated in the hands of those who really aren't invested in seeing us all prosper.

I know I won't be able to convince you of this, but the rich don't matter. It's the middle class that matters. Ignoring the rich will only make you happy.

Go back and read Popcorn again. It's tough to reap what liberalism has sown.

 

 

Last time you made a similar comment you passed it off as levity. Twice, though, and I don't think it is.

 

For a start, it's just mudslinging, which makes it a crappy argument for anything. Seeking to paint anyone by their association is dubious even before one gets into the details, but this goes even further. The implication that anyone alive today is responsible for the actions of their ancestors defies the laws of physics (causality and time travel and all that). Beyond this is the disingenuous notion that democrats today, rather than modern republicans, would somehow identify with the democrats of the civil war era. That's something that would earn a failing grade in even a high-school essay.

 

Maybe this sort of comment gets a good response when you're preaching to the choir, but if you go down that road, do you really want to answer for all the awful things done by people with whatever lineage you possess?

 

Yes.

 

Any dialog along the lines of "they earned it, they deserve to keep it" ignores the fact that they have skewed the rules in their favor, and are quite the bunch of socialists when it suits them — they love corporate welfare and other programs to funnel government money to their pals

I said it was partially a joke. Let's for example compare Nixon's Watergate scandal to Jim Crow and segregation. One was an offense of a single republican. The other was an offense by may Democrats in several states against the poorest of poor.. Yet all republicans are painted with the brush of Watergate. Why shouldn't all Democrats be painted with the brush of Jim Crow and segregation. Both occurred during my lifetime. The Civil War resulted in the death of 2% of the US population. This little political faux pas was perpetrated again by many Democrats in several states. It's a very high bar of badness to beat. I think we should never forget who was responsible for the death of 2% of the American population. Why do you want to forget who was responsible. You know I can understand why people, particularly in black neighborhoods, don't want there schools named after former slave owners like Washington and Jefferson. The Civil war was 150 years ago. I don't think it is too soon to speak the truth.

 

 

Whether or not Americans choose to have guns doesn't interest me a great deal, because I know I'm not a national. Though I think it has little to do with the fact I'm a Brit that when I see a news report on another mass school shooting every other month in America I feel a certain way about that. I just find the notion that guns are defending you from any form of oppressive government ludicrous.

I just think it is funny when Brits comment about gun issues in the US. Why don't you tell us we need tea taxes too.

 

We've been trying. We've been trying really hard, we libertarian lefties and actual liberals. But we can't get the white men between 35 and 65 to wake up and smell the coffee.

 

At some point, we look at you guys voting for Palin, voting for W, voting for Dole, voting for Reagan, voting to get themselves and everything they care about boned hard by sociopaths and robbed blind by professionals and perverted by religious fanatics and covered with poo by incompetent children, and we throw up our hands.

 

 

So you would join me in returning to the pre-Reagan setup? That was the system that produced what middle class we have left. You don't seem to favor it, though

 

On the one hand, you guys say perfectly reasonable things about protecting successful arrangements that have worked for decades. On the other, you vote for - in sequence, repeatedly, over many years, after seeing the destruction right in front of your eyes: Reagan/Bush, Reagan/Bush, Bush/ Quayle, Bush/Quayle, Dole/Kemp, W/Cheney, W/Cheney, McCain/Palin, and Romney/ Ryan. So: WTF?

 

Sounds like common ground, if all there was to go on was the talk: - the first step would be revocation of all the tax breaks and financial corruptions Reagan and his subsequent followers handed out to the wealthy, and a return to the systematic regulation of the financial system that Roosevelt imposed (for very good reasons) in the wake of the previous Republican crashing of the US economy. I would look forward to your support, in these restorations of sane government, if I didn't have the record of behavior in front of me.

 

You don't give a dead rat for the social, political, and financial "ecosystem" that provided you opportunities unique in human history. You just vote for the most plausible jackass who promises to lower your taxes.

 

I went to Engineering school in the early 80's. Do you really think you can convince me that Ronald Reagan was a bad president?

 

I don't vote except in city, county or congressional district elections. Why bother other than that. Here in Washington State, Pierce and King county call the shots. When they lose, the state just keep counting the ballots until they find enough new votes for Pierce and King to win. My city mayor however will do anything to keep my vote. He takes my calls personally.

 

One more comment for Overtone about Nixon. Are you familiar with the Philadelphia Order? Look it up. Nixon got a little fed up with the racism of labor unions and put a stop to it in Philadelphia. I wonder what political party those labor union members belonged to?

The most likely apocalyptic denouement of all is that they will be the muscle of that 1% themselves - not the elite Blackwater praetorian guard, but the guys who keep order in the general community, the auxiliaries an arms length from the sherrif's office.

 

That's a pattern we've seen before, in the Americas especially and the US in particular.

 

Again, this is just fantasy. I have been hearing this BS since the 70's. It any moment the totalitarians are going to take over! Oh No! This week the fascists, next week the communists. Keep your eyes on the monkeys. They are right behind us on the evolutionary ladder.

Edited October 23, 2013 by waitforufo

[Iota]

I just think it is funny when Brits comment about gun issues in the US. Why don't you tell us we need tea taxes too.

 

Then I'd refer you back to what Phi said; it's 2013, not the 1700s.

[waitforufo]

 

Then I'd refer you back to what Phi said; it's 2013, not the 1700s.

Well please keep it up. Not only is if funny but it just causes Americans to hold their guns tighter. We take this input from the French and Germans better than from the British. Someone should tell Piers Morgan that.

[Popcorn Sutton]

I'm going to refer you guys to a previous thread of mine. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/75871-on-replacing-the-voting-system-for-a-quiz/

 

I really do think that we need to ignore this whole right vs. left scheme we have going. A counselor of mine once told me that the current presidential lineage all have British royalty in their blood, I don't have a source for that bit of information, and I do partially believe that (if it's not just BS) it's completely irrelevant. I've proposed a system of taking essays instead of votes so our elected candidates can literally relate to most of what our citizens believe. They will be the most significant candidates ever elected and I know that our GDP will only rise from this type of electorial system. My friend told me that these ideas of mine are just too impractical, that they will never happen within our lifetime. I would urge you guys to really consider this type of election system because I really do not see any way out of this predicament other than that. What type of person would I be if I just threw out the every day pity me argument. I propose solutions because that is the type of person that I am. I really would urge you guys to consider this, even if it is contradictory to your current employment. We say that we live in a democracy, but the only type of democracy that I see is a system of benefits that we could potentially receive for our hindrances. That is what the democracy has truly given us. Other than that, we get a nice tax refund at the end of the year, but after I was trained in finances, I found out that the goal is to receive nothing from tax returns and pay nothing either. We are overpaying, and when we get the refund, we finally get the chance to indulge. We don't have the training to get by in todays society. The intellectual few really don't have the opportunity to prove themselves. I'm afraid to release my name because of my previous experience with forums when i did release my name. I can't even feel comfortable with reaping the benefits of having an occasional reference for fear that I will get paranoid. I already know that my phone is tapped, I practically know that my local military has saved my life. I know things that other countries would kill to silence or acquire, but what options do I have? All I can do is apply for the very few jobs that are in my field (my interest is mainly Linguistics and Epistemology) and hope that they don't look at my experience and say no. I've been rejected by countless employers and a few of my friends who I cherished with all of my heart. Why though? I'm poor, I'm broke, I have a few unhealthy habits. It's just not productive to be around these types of people, right? Well, after the years of separation, I see these people who I used to cherish and where are they now? They are broke, unemployed, and now they have the anxiety of losing half of their old friends when they decided that they just didn't need me anymore. What was I really good for anyways? I think that I have some pretty valuable ideas, and when I do my research, I see just how much significance my ideas have. They've penetrated society, they are talked about amongst the worlds most respected intellectuals, I am reminded every day when Nuance comes on tv with their speech technology just how important and valuable my ideas have been. All these years, I talk and share my ideas generously because I know that they are significant for science, for society, for survival, and for the evolution of the human race. It just pisses me off knowing what I've done for people and I get nothing in return, not even a single reference. The thing is, I don't really mind about not getting the reference anymore, after my experience of making myself known on these topics, I actually prefer that people keep my name to themselves for the sake of safety. Truth is, I am dying, I do have some things wrong with me that need attention, but what can I do? I was supposed to get a measly check of $190 from unemployment today, but the money just didn't get into my account. I'm broke, what can I do? I spend my time writing these things with the hope that people will listen and use it as evidence. I hope that people discuss my ideas and that they can be significant and be the backbone of the change that we were promised. Really though, I've given an answer on these topics. It's called Scientocracy. If we implement it, then we will know exactly what our priorities are and we can act on them and solve those problems very quickly. What else can we do? We waste our time talking about Republicans and Democrats and what they have done in the past to support the argument of why we shouldn't support them. We delude our children into thinking that these things are reason enough to vote for what we believe. In reality though, I don't know many people that vote. In reality, voting is a hassle. You don't get paid for it and you can literally wait for hours. Why do people do it though? They do it for the same reason that I share my ideas, they think that it will help. One x in a box is literally going to help in their minds. They don't even know the beliefs of the candidates they are voting for!

 

Our candidates and elected officials NEED to know our priorities. How can we even call our nation a republic if all we do is vote for friendly faces? People who don't even take a stance on the things that we consider significant. Take abortion for example, we were taught that that was a very significant thing to debate. Really!? Abortion!? How about wealth distribution? How about lowering the cost of health care? How about making it so we don't need to pay that copay when we go see our doctor? We make it illegal to not have car insurance, I've spent thousands of dollars on my car insurance and have some stuff wrong with my car. Why can't I get it fixed though? I've spent so much money on my insurance when I could've been insuring myself and easily fixed my car and even bought a nice new car several times by now. I can't afford a $200 deductible. How about healthcare, I need my medication but I can't get it unless I, or someone who cares for me, spends $80 to get the prescription. Seriously!? Give us some slack! Insurance is one of the biggest scams of all time!

 

These things need to be dealt with. The past is past, lets focus on recovery.

[overtone]

I went to Engineering school in the early 80's. Do you really think you can convince me that Ronald Reagan was a bad president?

Of course not. As I pointed out - you guys talk a good game, but you're idiots. You can't even recognize what Reagan did to the place in hindsight, with the numbers right there. Instead, we get this:

 

It's tough to reap what liberalism has sown.

From a guy who spends paragraphs describing how he personally has reaped what liberalism in the US obviously sowed for him, and is proud of that reaping.

 

So we who want to get a sound economy anchored in a prosperous middle class back, apparently have to wait for you gullible fools to die.

 

 

 

Let's for example compare Nixon's Watergate scandal to Jim Crow and segregation. One was an offense of a single republican. The other was an offense by may Democrats in several states against the poorest of poor.. Yet all republicans are painted with the brush of Watergate. Why shouldn't all Democrats be painted with the brush of Jim Crow and segregation.

1) Watergate was an offense committed by an entire Republican administration, not "one guy" 2) It was the tip of an iceberg, not an isolated event 3) even so, all Republican politicians are not painted with the brush of Watergate. In fact, they can adopt the policies and campaign strategies and rhetorical style and executive management techniques and so forth of the main Watergate perps without the general media even noticing a parallel. And Republican voters are of course exempt from all association - even the ones who voted for Nixon twice, actually re-elected the crook.

 

 

 

Why shouldn't all Democrats be painted with the brush of Jim Crow and segregation.

for starters, unlike modern and recent Republicans faced with such behavior in their Party, Democrats loudly and publicly and expensively and overtly fought against Jim Crow and segregation - to the point that George Wallace felt he had to leave the Party to get a voice for his views, to the point that the segregation supporters and Jim Crow advocates threw over a century of hostility from the Civil War and started voting for Republicans in national elections, which brings us to

 

Why shouldn't all Democrats be painted with the brush of Jim Crow and segregation. Both occurred during my lifetime. The Civil War resulted in the death of 2% of the US population. This little political faux pas was perpetrated again by may Democrats in several states. It's a very high bar of badness to beat. I think we should never forget who was responsible for the death of 2% of the American population.

1) The Confederacy, not the Democrats, seceded from the Union and fought the Civil War. The Confederacy had no political Parties. The Union included most northern Democrats, to the point that Lincoln chose a Democrat to run with him as VP.

 

2) What also occurred during your lifetime was the migration of those racist southern white Democratic voters and even many southern racist Democratic politicians to the Republican Party, strictly because of the Democratic Party's stand on race. They were welcomed into the Republican Party, and have found a happy home for their beliefs there ever since - some people have even noticed that they seem to have taken over. So you see there is a reason the current Democratic Party is not blamed for the behavior of those people long ago or identified with that faction of American politics - those people and that faction are mostly Republican now, and in fact the Republican Party seems to be mostly them.

 

And that electoral advantage was arranged for the Republican Party by Nixon, originally - so you see that when people identify the Republican Party with Nixon (and Reagan, W&Cheney, all those attendant scandals and fuckups and crijmes and economic disasters) , that is not a mystery or a bias, but a recognition of physical reality:

 

Nixon's legacy is currently running the Republican show, Reagan's dumbass supply side voodoo economics is current Republican economic policy, W&Cheney's monumental screwups and disasters are currently the most serious American political and economic problems we face. Meawhile, the racist southern heirs of the Confederacy are no longer major aspects of the Democratic Party at the national level - haven't been for many years now.

 

So the Reps are not getting tarred by Nixon when they should be, more. See how it is, out here in reality land?

Edited October 23, 2013 by overtone

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

waitforufo,

 

It actually doesn't matter if you were joking or not. We have rules that prohibit making slurs or other such comments about groups of people and so the off-handed stereotyping is to stop.

 

Also, the nonsense about civil war Democrats is not at all on topic. Please re-read the OP if you need to.

[Phi for All]

I know I won't be able to convince you of this, but the rich don't matter. It's the middle class that matters. Ignoring the rich will only make you happy.

Ignorance is poverty, in this case. We're lucky, you and I, to have made some money in the last few decades. I sure don't envy those who never have had access to decent wages and aren't likely to in any foreseeable future where "the rich" get to make the laws. The middle class does matter, it's always been the driver of both economy and revenue; ignoring the rich will only make the rich happy. We've been ignoring what they've been doing for far too long.

 

And you ignored my burning question. What don't you like about Dwight Eisenhower?

 

Go back and read Popcorn again. It's tough to reap what liberalism has sown.

 

Popcorn's wants the government to repeal freedom of speech and he wants everyone to earn the same amount of money. That's not liberalism, that's communism.

[waitforufo]

!

Moderator Note

waitforufo,

 

It actually doesn't matter if you were joking or not. We have rules that prohibit making slurs or other such comments about groups of people and so the off-handed stereotyping is to stop.

 

Also, the nonsense about civil war Democrats is not at all on topic. Please re-read the OP if you need to.

 

Of course not. As I pointed out - you guys talk a good game, but you're idiots.

We have rules that prohibit making slurs?

[Popcorn Sutton]

That's not entirely true Phi. I believe that the distribution of wealth should reflect our desire for productivity. With this in mind, productivity is at an ultimate low. We have to face this problem. I said, in the thread link that I posted, that if we were to redistribute the wealth equally, productivity would be at an ultimate high. Every average joe would have the chance to succeed. I do believe that we should give the particularly insightful few a chance to make some money and distinguish themself from the rest. But seriously, we need to have a cutoff point in earnings. We cannot let one person soak up all of the assets when we have 300,000,000 others left in their ungenerous and unthankful wake. We are the ones to give them the money, why can't we at least have some incentive to spend our money? Why can't we have a system where we feel like we are important? Reality is that we, all of us except for the entrepenuers, are expendable. There is nothing that prevents our authoritarian bosses from terminating our employment. We can be the best at what we do, but if we make one measly mistake, whatever it may be, that gives our boss the incentive to terminate our employment, and "good luck in your future! We don't care what happens, you can die for all I care." Meanwhile, you get an interview and it just so happens that you weren't the president in the past, you don't have the experience they need, you don't know how to do the fifty things that their company requires, in fact, you can't even get a retail job! Why? Because people are "equal opportunity employers" or whatever else the reason may be. I think that because I'm an ethical person, I don't steal, I'm not a drug user, I'm not a narcissistic asshole, aren't these good qualities? I'm nice, I'm humble, I scored extremely high on an IQ test (right up there with the most intelligent people in the world), why do I "deserve" to live this way? Broke, unemployed, rejected, on the verge of fighting for DISABILITY. I'm perfectly capable of doing these jobs! I think that I'm a desirable person! I'm left here wondering "whats wrong with me?"

 

What gives me happiness is the occasional youtube video or news clip that gives me the comfort of knowing that I'm not the only one... I'm not the only one by far. My counselor told me that it only takes 3% of the population to make that immediate change that is necessary, we don't have that. We are scared. We are beaten into submission with words, and they do hurt.

 

As for the freedom of speech, some things are better left unsaid. It's tough to live a decent life when the people around you are hellbent on doing unlawful things. No, I don't want us to have freedom of speech. I know that freedom is a false premise, and a lot of others know that as well. I actually think that I am responsible for this whole rejection of the freedom of will, which is actually a rejection of freedom in general, it's not physically possible. We are being spyed on, why not take action to the extent that we can.

[Phi for All]

 

We have rules that prohibit making slurs?

 

I'd prefer it if all the personal attacks stopped, aimed at individuals or groups. It doesn't help the discussion at all to be so imprecise in characterization.

[Tridimity]

I own mine and you own yours. If you want a slice of pie, bake your own.

 

 

Sorry waitforufo, but I just can't help thinking that you must be one of those people who has sex with their socks on.

 

"These are my feet. Those are your feet. Don't confuse them."

 

Shame you will never be able to buy the things that actually matter.

[waitforufo]

...you ignored my burning question. What don't you like about Dwight Eisenhower?

 

I know Ike loved the bomb. He saw it as a way to keep the military industrial complex in check. To make that work however he though we would need to use the bomb now and then and he didn't have a big problem with that. Also, people like to forget about the second warning of his farewell speech. He warned "…that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite." Makes me wonder what he would think about global warming or whatever they are calling it these days. Other than that I know that when people suggested he run for president they had to ask him what party he belonged to. Back then there wasn't much difference. For example Kennedy and Nixon were carbon copies of each other. Kennedy just had the mob connections he needed to win Illinois. The parties would likely be much the same today if the Vietnam peace nics hadn't take over the Democratic party.

 

Better stop this post now before I get scolded again.

 

Sorry waitforufo, but I just can't help thinking that you must be one of those people who has sex with their socks on.

 

"These are my feet. Those are your feet. Don't confuse them."

 

Shame you will never be able to buy the things that actually matter.

You think about me having sex? I'm sure you can find better web sites for thinking about sex.

Edited October 24, 2013 by waitforufo

[Popcorn Sutton]

I don't know you guys personally, but we are letting them let us die. I'm almost wanting to call it genocide. Economic genocide.

[waitforufo]

Of course not. As I pointed out - you guys talk a good game, but you're idiots. You can't even recognize what Reagan did to the place in hindsight, with the numbers right there. Instead, we get this:

 

From a guy who spends paragraphs describing how he personally has reaped what liberalism in the US obviously sowed for him, and is proud of that reaping.

 

So we who want to get a sound economy anchored in a prosperous middle class back, apparently have to wait for you gullible fools to die.

 

 

 

1) Watergate was an offense committed by an entire Republican administration, not "one guy" 2) It was the tip of an iceberg, not an isolated event 3) even so, all Republican politicians are not painted with the brush of Watergate. In fact, they can adopt the policies and campaign strategies and rhetorical style and executive management techniques and so forth of the main Watergate perps without the general media even noticing a parallel. And Republican voters are of course exempt from all association - even the ones who voted for Nixon twice, actually re-elected the crook.

 

 

 

for starters, unlike modern and recent Republicans faced with such behavior in their Party, Democrats loudly and publicly and expensively and overtly fought against Jim Crow and segregation - to the point that George Wallace felt he had to leave the Party to get a voice for his views, to the point that the segregation supporters and Jim Crow advocates threw over a century of hostility from the Civil War and started voting for Republicans in national elections, which brings us to

 

1) The Confederacy, not the Democrats, seceded from the Union and fought the Civil War. The Confederacy had no political Parties. The Union included most northern Democrats, to the point that Lincoln chose a Democrat to run with him as VP.

 

2) What also occurred during your lifetime was the migration of those racist southern white Democratic voters and even many southern racist Democratic politicians to the Republican Party, strictly because of the Democratic Party's stand on race. They were welcomed into the Republican Party, and have found a happy home for their beliefs there ever since - some people have even noticed that they seem to have taken over. So you see there is a reason the current Democratic Party is not blamed for the behavior of those people long ago or identified with that faction of American politics - those people and that faction are mostly Republican now, and in fact the Republican Party seems to be mostly them.

 

And that electoral advantage was arranged for the Republican Party by Nixon, originally - so you see that when people identify the Republican Party with Nixon (and Reagan, W&Cheney, all those attendant scandals and fuckups and crijmes and economic disasters) , that is not a mystery or a bias, but a recognition of physical reality:

 

Nixon's legacy is currently running the Republican show, Reagan's dumbass supply side voodoo economics is current Republican economic policy, W&Cheney's monumental screwups and disasters are currently the most serious American political and economic problems we face. Meawhile, the racist southern heirs of the Confederacy are no longer major aspects of the Democratic Party at the national level - haven't been for many years now.

 

So the Reps are not getting tarred by Nixon when they should be, more. See how it is, out here in reality land?

It would be great fun to comment on all of this, but I have been scolded. Another time perhaps.

I don't know you guys personally, but we are letting them let us die. I'm almost wanting to call it genocide. Economic genocide.

Life is a great adventure. Don't let yourself die. You are the only one that can stop it.

Edited October 24, 2013 by waitforufo

[Popcorn Sutton]

Moderators have to moderate waitforufo, if they didn't, things could get out of hand and cause something that we really don't need. I respect them at the utmost. You were being very specific with your attacks. They were misrepresentations and they could be dangerous.

I used to laugh at the thought of switching around Obama's catch phrase, "change we need". I used to say "change we need? Lol, we need change!" And then I would scrounge up all the pennies from under the couch and in the washer in hopes that I could put a dollar in my gas tank or use it to wash my clothes.

[overtone]

 

 

It would be great fun to comment on all of this, but I have been scolded.

You've been scolded for not commenting on the actual posts, issue of the thread. etc.

 

Commenting on any, let alone all, of that quoted stuff would be fine - would, in particular, partly justify or motivate pasting a copy of the whole thing en masse.

 

If you can. So far, you seem incapable - amnesiac and information deprived to the point of hallucination, about a topic that requires at least a little bit of context, history. Surprise me - - try a simple issue relevant to the OP that doesn't reach too far back:

 

Nixon's legacy is currently running the Republican show, Reagan's dumbass supply side voodoo economics is current Republican economic policy, W&Cheney's monumental screwups and disasters are currently the most serious American political and economic problems we face

[Tridimity]

You think about me having sex? I'm sure you can find better web sites for thinking about sex.

 

 

No - you just reminded me of something my Politics teacher said about conservatives. I was thinking about your utter lack of human compassion.

 

I own mine and you own yours. If you want a slice of pie, bake your own.

 

Remind me again, is this Jesus' message or is it the humanist message?

Edited October 24, 2013 by Tridimity

[waitforufo]

 

No - you just reminded me of something my Politics teacher said about conservatives. I was thinking about your utter lack of human compassion.

 

Remind me again, is this Jesus' message or is it the humanist message?

Of course you don't think about me having sex, but you walked right into my feedback comment.

 

All you know about my human compassion is that I don't think the government should be the vehicle for human compassion. I give 10% of my gross to charity, and very few of those charities are religious. The ones that are religious directly serve the homeless. You did not know this so no worries.

 

Neither Jesus or Humanist. Adam Smith is closer to the mark.

 

I don't have a lot of time this morning because I'm off to kill bambi so let me give you my political philosophy in a few sentences.

 

You often hear about classes in society. Things like the middle class. I even use that term myself because it is convenient and well understood. The primary classes I see are the political class and the non political class. I'm in the latter. Like I said in a previous post I barely even vote and then only in local elections. The political class is simply providing us with bread and circuses. The bread of course is governmental entitlement. Even the term entitlement pisses me off. How dare someone say they are entitled to my money when they are not providing me a good or service. The circuses are things like the recent government shutdown. What BS. Now they are going to have to postpone the individual mandate of ACA because the we need even more entertainment. We could have avoided the shutdown with this postponement but the shutdown was in circus circle number 1 and ACA is in circus circle number 2. The big circle has all the 24 hour news shows doing acrobatics. All just a distraction so the political class can push us around like pawns while spending our money.

 

Ignore the political class. Leave the circus. Make our own. Be charitable outside of government.

 

Now off to kill bambi.

[Endy0816]

I just don't hear any concrete action being taken(budget, requesting debt reduction, payment plans, etc).

 

Best I've seen in terms of free resources offered:

 

http://creditboards.com/

 

It is perfectly normal to end up in a hole, nothing in the world that says you must stay in one.

 

 

There's plenty of wealth concentration shenanigans going on, but at the same time there's people merely putting their money/credit to work for them. Still work and has its own set of rewards.

Edited October 24, 2013 by Endy0816

[overtone]

 

 

Neither Jesus or Humanist. Adam Smith is closer to the mark.

I've actually read a little Adam Smith (he's a Humanist, btw, and most of my posting here essentially plagiarizes him ). So let's see:

 

 

 

The primary classes I see are the political class and the non political class. I'm in the latter.

As an American adult, presumably a citizen, you are not. "We the people" are the political class here - however irresponsibly we may carry out our duties. Furthermore, any such claim by you as an employed person puts considerable distance between yourself and Adam Smith, who of course famously elucidated the coupling of the economic and political realms, putting the tight and indissoluble connection right in the title of his most recognized work usually shorthanded "The Wealth of Nations".

 

 

 

How dare someone say they are entitled to my money when they are not providing me a good or service.

As Adam Smith noticed, one issue with wage labor is that the overall cost of providing it - raising the children, caring for the old people, keeping the entire community that produces and maintains the wage laborer prosperous and healthy and so forth; also, establishing a monetary system and all the rest of the societal infrastructure necessary to maintain something as fragile and unstable as an actual "market" for labor in an industrial society - is not assessed against either the employer or the employee at the point of exchange, but externalized. As he noted and so remarkably clarified, market distortions like that can destroy all the benefits of trade for the "Nation" overall while enriching a lucky few (He made several recommendations for handling that problem, among them what we now term "progressive" taxation, in which the wealthy are taxed in significantly greater proportion to their incomes and resources than the rest, and the money used to support and make prosperous the larger community in which their enterprise rests - what the wingnut brigade terms "redistribution" )

 

Marx famously expanded on Smith's observations, noting that the very worldview of the participants in such a limited and blinkered exchange is affected by this lack of information and distortion of the market involved, suffering a form of sensory deprivation often leading even the very wealthy to harbor hallucinations of having "earned" or in some way having become personally entitled to all of whatever wealth has come into their possession.

 

So once again - considerable distance from Adam Smith, obliviousness to the issues he raised or their treatment in public discourse.

 

 

 

We could have avoided the shutdown with this postponement but the shutdown was in circus circle number 1 and ACA is in circus circle number 2. The big circle has all the 24 hour news shows doing acrobatics. All just a distraction so the political class can push us around like pawns while spending our money.

Ignore the political class.

As the silly misconceptions of what has been happening show (delay of the individual mandate, needless anyway, would not have come close to avoiding the shutdown, which had entirely other motives and drivers) the poster has been taking his own advice and ignoring politics.

 

The odd thing is that the poster has firm opinions about these political issues, despite recommending and demonstrating almost complete ignorance of every aspect of them (24 hour news shows?). Once again, the model of Adam Smith is honored in the breach only.

 

Why would such a poster claim affilliation with Adam Smith?

[Iota]

Well please keep it up. Not only is if funny but it just causes Americans to hold their guns tighter. We take this input from the French and Germans better than from the British. Someone should tell Piers Morgan that.

 

[Popcorn Sutton]

I'm sorry I don't have access to 24 hour news channels most of the time. If you guys can post videos I'd appreciate it.

[iNow]

Videos regarding what, exactly?

[Popcorn Sutton]

I don't know until you post them.