It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


60 Hard Truths About Liberals

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 8 2004 @ 09:26 AM

Originally posted by mwm1331
Like it or not the reason for the U.S.'s dominance in the world tody is due to the darwinian nature of our political/economic structure.

If you don't mind me asking...............what is that suppose to mean? Can you more fully 'flesh out' your meaning/idea?

posted on Jun, 8 2004 @ 10:01 AM
Darwinian in the sense it is a thrival of the fittest country. (only the fittest thrive)
In order to be successful in america you must either
1 excell at some form of intelectual endevor I.E. science, law
2 excell at some physical endeavor I.E. athletics, beauty
3 excell at some social endeavor I.E. politics, networking
4 have an familial advantage I.E. a rich or powerful family

If the 1 of the first three criteria is met you then have the abillity to give the 4th to your offspring if none are met you will not survive nd even if you do you will not thrive

While in a sense all nations are to some extent darwinian America does a few things differently which increase the social selection (as opposed to natural selection)

1 we spend less on feeding/clothing/caring for the homeless thereby increasing the desire of all not to fall to the bottom of the societal structure

2 we allow the top of the societal structure to enjoy greater success therefore increasing peoples desire to rise in society. This ensures that the competion for the top societal spots is as grueling as possible therfore increasing the likelyhood that those who attain societal power are the best of the best. In contrast many european societies take more of the earnings of the top earners than they are allowed to keep and distribute that wealth to the lowest earners (I.E. sweden the top tax bracket is 75%) this not only reduces the fear of poverty (and fear is one of the primary motivators of life) but also reduces the urge to succeed

While the abillity to pass on the advantages of your own labors to your children does allow some who are unfit to rise, by simutaeneoulsy ensuring that those born without position or familial advantages have the ability to use thier natural (I.E. physical, mental, social) skills or advantages to rise as well. This insures that even if a person is very sucessful it does not gurantee that thier children will be. This "top spot" competition increases the liklehood that those at the top (those in power) have the best chance of being competitive with or superior to those in power of other countries.

In short by mking sure that the penalty for societal failure is as undesirable as possible and the rewards for societal success are as desireable as possible we insure the gretest level of competition which insures our leadership is as fit as possible, which in turn assures our dominance

posted on Jun, 8 2004 @ 11:02 AM
I'm not too sure it's all quit that simple.............

I would suggest your view is a tad too narrow and sounds a bit more like "sour grapes" to me.

I am not too sure you meant to convey that meaning but, for me, that's how it sounds.

Plus if I might add..............your premise is based upon a very subjective view, definition of exactly what "making it" (I believe it was what you called it or a concept that's similar) is!

The "success" you allude to is rather subjective and therefore not one shared by all................I think if you took a survey you would find many folks have values and attitudes which would lead to a multiplicity of other views and measure of what they see as 'making it.'

In reality there is no one measure of “making it” that makes one better then another. Since they are all based on different value systems there is no one way to compare them on a relative strength scale.

But I would suggest you might wish to re-evaluate you world view because it in fact may be more of a defensive way of protecting one’s self from an over-scrupulous conscience.

It is a truism that we are what we think. And therefore so often, we become a self fulfilling prophecy of our underlying worldview. The several caveats you offer, sound to me at least, as one of someone who see his glass as half empty.

This world view is so often the product of fear. Fear to face the challenges life confronts us all with………Many, in an effort, to protect themselves, go as far as to deny that this fear even exists; and dismisses and suggestion or mention of it summarily, out of hand.

And in doing so deals one’s self a telling and debilitating disservice. If you are familiar with the writings of C.K. Chesterton, it is a theme which is permeates most all his works as the perpetual battle between good and evil – as how ‘evil’ works to diminish the God given gifts of our uniqueness and the contributions we have to offer others in its development.

I offer this as a constructive observation for your consideration and in no way as a criticism of you or your current viewpoint. I hope you receive it in the spirit intended.

posted on Jun, 8 2004 @ 04:39 PM
Scofe I love it. You posted what ive wanted to for a while. I fully agree, and im guessing that you are a constitutional republican like me.

posted on Jun, 8 2004 @ 07:10 PM

Originally posted by omega1
I fully agree, and im guessing that you are a constitutional republican like me.

How quaint!

Birds of a feather.............

But may I ask, given the current operational definition of republican isn't then 'constitutional republican' ……….an oxymoron...............a contradiction in terms, so to speak?

posted on Jun, 8 2004 @ 08:52 PM
Thanks both of you guys for er, thanking me for posting that. If either of you guys dont often go here you should :

Great website and my source for one of the biggest/most viewed/replied threads on to date :

Hey McNulty dont get me wrong. There is plenty that Rush says that is biased only towards his own opinion/conservatives.

I think thats part of the problem. Nobody (except me) is willing to give the "other side" any ground. When something is TRUE, it is above reproach. Problem is, both sides are loathe to admit that the other guys are saying something that is factual, for fear it will somehow validate the remainder of their arguement or whatever their end goal is.

This makes it hard for almost everyone to even make minor points. Major issues with many subtleties are exponentially harder to resolve because of this consistant lack of willingness to cooperate in any way.

Anyway, Im starving....must eat.

posted on Jun, 8 2004 @ 09:49 PM
Unlike you, I think both side stink (the extremes that is)............It may only seem I am one sided here but that's far from the truth of it.............

the real problem causing such a distortion of dis-balance some perceive in my post is the fact the airhead liberals no longer exist..............As the fabled dodo bird that once inhabited the island of Mauritius in the Indian Ocean, is now extinct..............So to went the way of the Airhead Liberal who could hold to opposite opinions on a subject at the same time and argue both convincingly…….last one being seen some time after the Johnson Administration in Washington D.C. looking for an office to serve the homeless of Georgetown and a grants writer to get the program funding.

Enjoy your din-din..............that's opposed to this

posted on Jun, 8 2004 @ 10:13 PM
this is shere brilliance. the liberal socailist is summed up for wha they reall are. props to ScoFe

posted on Jun, 8 2004 @ 10:24 PM
What's he babblin' about?


posted on Jun, 9 2004 @ 02:40 AM
I just reread my post and can quite understand what your saying.
I never once used the term "making it" I simply refered to thriving and gaining social power.
Are you disagreeing that the poor have less social power (I.E. the power to affect/change society) are you disagreeing that the rich/famous have more? whether or not someone wants to be rich/famous is irrelevant. I know many people who are middle class and are happy but noone can dispute that the middle class have more societal power than the poor and less than the rich (as an individual not as a group) Are you disagreeing that people in America dont want to be poor? The point I was making is that the way American society is structured makes people fear/dislike poverty and seek wealth/fame/status do you disagree.
As far as no one way to define "making it" yes all people have different goals But thats beside the point. you asked me to clarify why Americas social darwinism is responsible for our prominence on the world stage. As I showed it ensures our leaders (whether corporate/political) are competitive or superior in faculties to others.
As to "sour grapes" I have nothing to be sour about. I make more than 80% of the american populace in terms of net income (I'm not bragging just stating a fact based on the most recent economic data) I am happily married and I love my job. as for honoring our "uniqeness" I believe my whole point was that because of the U.S. social structure a man could parley that uniqness into social power.
As for my example of sweden the point I was making is that if there is no penalty to having low social/economic standing then people (as a whole there are always exceptions) are less likly to cultivate the ambition needed to seek a high standing. After all if every time you are out of work the government provides for you well being what is the motivation to provide for your own?
I thnk god every day that America allows, nay forces, its peoples to fend for them selves financially. I like many people am lazy by nature If I had been under the impression that the government would have provided for me when I couldn't I would not be as successful as I am today. It was a fear of poverty which motivted me to become successful. If that fear is not present many people would not put out the effort needed to become successful. A higher percentage of people in america own thier own homes than anywhere else in the world,If the government gave everyone a free place to live would this be the case? A higher percentage of americans own thier own business than anywhere else in the world, If americans were not motivated to succeed financially would this be the case? It is IMHO the confluence of the "american dream" (owning your own home, business , financial freedom) and the american nightmare (homlessness poverty) that is responsible for the extrordinarily high worker productivity in america. The nuber of people who work all thier lives to achieve Financial success is the reason for americas success. Many of the technological advncements we take for granted today would not have happened if thier inventors had not been out to "make thier fortunes" The fact that Americas gives everyone the right, and the responsibillity to make thier own fortunes is responsible for americas prominence. Does it lead to people cutting corners, stealing, In some cases yes, But the Myth of the Criminal mstermind is just that a myth. The fact is people become criminals BECAUSE they cant succeed by legal means. A socialist state does not engender an atmosphere of innovation or advancement because by removing the responsibillity for success or lack of it from the indivdual and placing it in the hands of the government It removes the individuals desire to succeed. nd when the indivisuls due not have the desire to succeed the society as a whole suffers.

posted on Jun, 9 2004 @ 05:16 AM

Krazy Jethro

[edit on 9-6-2004 by KrazyJethro]

posted on Jun, 9 2004 @ 09:15 AM

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
[ The human thrives on adversity. Look at 9-11, there was no better time nationally than that, in terms of generosity, effort, caring, unity. These are the conditions in which the best we have as humans, comes out.

A very poor and inappropriate selection of an example to support the proposition you hope to prove..............

Tell the families of the 9/11 victims that and see what response you might get..................I would suggest you edit your 'example' to one much less controversial……….

If one of those who suffered a loss that terrible day were to say that… be it. But for you to………………is most inappropriate and insensitive.

NB. I want you to understand I say this not as a personal criticism ….but as an observation of taste. We all make miscues in life and there is no shame in that necessarily……….because it provides an opportunity to learn. And in this case, one has the ability to correct it………….this insensitivity. I hope you can hear and take these words in the spirit intended………….Thanks for your consideration.

posted on Jun, 9 2004 @ 10:42 AM

Krazy Jethro

[edit on 9-6-2004 by KrazyJethro]

posted on Jun, 9 2004 @ 02:45 PM

Krazy Jethro

[edit on 9-6-2004 by KrazyJethro]

<< 1  2   >>

log in