Saving America one idiot at a time

Originally posted by specialasianX
Capitalism is good in theory... [but] it's just when the rich dont want to help the poor and want to let them live lives in squalor thats when i hate it... Is that fair?

Hey, I know you're a good guy, and your heart is in the right place. But you're letting your emotions get the best of you; think about it logically for a minute.

People get rich because the companies they own that sell products people want make big profits. However, these people are far from invincible. What happens when no one can afford to buy their product? They go out of business, and end up in poverty themselves. So, rich people who run legit businesses do not want their customers to be broke and in poverty (or else they'll be broke and in poverty too, soon enough). As for those who do? It's called fraud, and is the economic version of murder in a capitalist system. One of the main purposes for government in a capitalist sytsem is to stop fraud.

Originally posted by smokenmirrors
hahaha, typical democrat, out to save the world, change everybody else's view that does not conform with theirs....

Better than just labeling them "communist" and shooting the pople who don't share your views. See US foreign policy.

Its not just American idiots that need help. Sadly the brain rot seems to be spreading though pop culture and the media.


Oh about Capitalism: There will always be poor poeple! Its a Casino where the house always wins. There can NEVER be a fair distribution of wealth under this system. Sure you need to make sure the poor have just enough chips for one spin, but the HOUSE ALWAYS WINS!

Ever wonder why gamblinng is always in dubious hands (Mob etc)? Just like prostitution it is a win/win scenario, you just cant loose.

[edit on 10/9/2004 by Corinthas]

Keholmes,

I have never gotten angry form anyones post before, emotional maybe, passionate maybe, but never angry. At least i dont refer to tiny little errors in spelling to put one down... (yes i still remember that one, forgiven but not forgotten buddy)

As for the 'facts' i dont agree thats the case... the problem with capitalism, like every other ideaology, the theory works, as soon as you throw in the human factor, the ideal gets corrupted and then it fails. Humans are greedy, you give someone millions and millions of dollars they wont think of anyone else, they'll just think of how it will help them.

Life isnt fair, life will never be fair, but i feel we can, and should all do the most we can to help make it fair for everyone. I think the government and society has an obligation to help those who need help because their circumstances have made their lives less privilidged. Those who are lazy and dont want to work can starve to death for all i care, but they are just an example of using the system but on the other end of the scale to the corporate #s.

And as for everyone having a fair chance no matter what school they go to etc etc... thats not true, its something you are told but its not true. You can do nothing all your life and as long as Mummy and Daddy are paying your way you can live comfortably and get a cushy, high paying job in one of daddys companies... or you can work your ass off but not get anywhere because you havent gone to college coz you have had to work in some #ty little diner just to feed yourself and afford to live... America (and most of the western world) are still very feudalistic in the sense where if you come from a rich and upper class family the odds are you will live you life rich and upper class and vice versa. The elite dont want to make it easier for anyone else, they just want to keep themselves elite... the sad thing is, they have convinced many non-elitists that their ideaologies are the ones.

Look in the end my views are far more left than that of even the Dems, and i cant convince the right to change, and the right cant convince me. I'm happy to come on here poke some fun and have my say untill someone bans me for going too far one day (and it'll happen sooner or later i'm sure so if i dissapear you know why). Even anarchy can be corrupted, and basically i see anarchy as the fairest theoretical political system around, but i know out of the lot, in practice, it could never work so therefore i am not techniaclly an anarchist

Originally posted by specialasianX
Life isnt fair, life will never be fair, but i feel we can, and should all do the most we can to help make it fair for everyone. I think the government and society has an obligation to help those who need help... Those who are lazy and dont want to work can starve to death for all i care, but they are just an example of using the system but on the other end of the scale to the corporate #s.

We don't see eye-to-eye very often, but here, as a classical conservative, I agree with you 100%. ...Well, with this paragraph, anyway.


[edit on 9/10/2004 by ThunderCloud]

Originally posted by ThunderCloud

Originally posted by specialasianX
Life isnt fair, life will never be fair, but i feel we can, and should all do the most we can to help make it fair for everyone. I think the government and society has an obligation to help those who need help... Those who are lazy and dont want to work can starve to death for all i care, but they are just an example of using the system but on the other end of the scale to the corporate #s.

We don't see eye-to-eye very often, but here, as a classical conservative, I agree with you 100%.

...Well, with this paragraph, anyway.

[edit on 9/10/2004 by ThunderCloud]

Its an improvement, when i get back from holiday in a week or so and i can get to my computer at work, i'll keep brainwashing you and maybe we can review y last lesson nothing a good knock on the head wont fix

Originally posted by TACHYON
.....or being a pu$$y and not wanting to go to war for 9/11.

[edit on 9-9-2004 by TACHYON]

, you are SO FUNNY, . I know your not talking about our John Kerry, there's no way you could be, that would be like the saying "calling the kettle black", .

So let's see, John Kerry did go to war and fought in a war, earned four or five medals for serving his country with honor. Whereas, George w (wuzzie) Bush, RAN from his duties, disobeyed orders, received a dishonorable discharge,.... I mean,.... a honorable discharge,... even though he did not deserve one, to go work in a office to help campaign for one of daddy's friends, to only show up for work "inbetween" his boozing and drugging, to do what, .... nothing that was helpful to the man that agreed to help pu$$y-George as a favor to George Sr.

One other thing,...... 9/11 and the war in Iraq are two different things that had nothing to do with each other, but the Bush Administration did their damnest to trick our citizens into thinking it did, just so Bush could have his vindetta satisfied against Saddam and his buddies from the oil companies can get their hands on the Iraqi's oil, without any REAL concern or care as to who gets hurt or killed in the process, but Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 .

Rant is right though in who to talk to about voting to get Bush OUT, it's the "un-decided" voters that we need to work on, don't worry about the Republican voters let them stay in their "own little world of make-beleive", I will say though, that there are some Republicans that have seen the "light" and will be voting for Kerry/Edwards this election because they hate what Bush has been doing

Specialasianx - I regret to inform you, that you sir, have been brainwashed. The fact is that a man armed with nothing more than average intelligence and determination can and will rise to a position of power (financial or otherwise) in America regardless of schooling and parents income level. I know, because I am that man. I am 27 years old and without either a college degree nor even a traditional high school diploma, and without the benefits of a wealthly or even middle class family I have risen by no more than my own efforts to a position of financial wealth. I currently make an income greater than (statisitcly speaking) 90% of the worlds population.
I was raised in a lowerclass family by economic standards, by a single mother who suppoerted us on a salary of, at the best, 25k per year and 400 per month in child support. I was educated in public schools, dropped out in my junor year, and got a GED. I am now the director of a major international investment bank. I had no "family connections" I had no "special advantages" I have never " used the common man" nor have I attained my status by "preying upon"or "takeing advntage of" anyone or in short done anything illegal or immoral. I have done nothing more, than work hard at my various professions and improved myself at every opportunity.
My success has not been in spite of, but rather, because of my American heritage. I was taught, by society, by my parents, and by experience, that any man or woman can rise to any height in America, and I have made these teachings true. I am of no more than, at best, slghtly above average intelligence, nor am I partiularly gifted with any unique attributes, OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT I WAS RISED IN THE AMERICAN WAY.
You speak of poverty specialasianx but do you know it? I do not ask if you know of it through others, but if you personally know it first hand. I do. I have been homeless, I slept on a park slide, washed in a bathroom, and pulled myself out on my own. I did not recieve, nor ask for, nor would I have accepted, help from either government or charity, though they were there for the asking. I began my slow crawl up the ladder by taking anyj ob I could find untill I could afford the most modest one room efficiency in a very rough area of town. I kept moving up and I have never looked back. I have scrounged for food, anf though I never went "dumpster diving" many were the nights when I ate a pigeon or squirrel over a camp stove.
My situation is not unique, many men and women have made the same journey, nor do I feel particularly proud of what I accomplshed as my fall was the fault of none but myself. However I do know that the journey can be, and is made.

One of my first jobs in my climb out of the gutter was as an employee of McDonalds, it s an experienxe which sums up why I believe in the capatalist system. In my first week I worked hard, and requested as much overtime as I could get, more than just workng long hours I worked hard while I was at work. A collegue of mine worked the same number of hours but actually did very little work. We were paid the same hourly rate. When I considered this fact I had two chices, one to work the same number of hours but with less effort, or two to find a job in whch my effort and not my "time showed up" determined my income. I chose the latter. I then quit after securing a job as a salesman, Mcdonalds is the last job I have ever held which pays a fixed salary.
You see communsm pays people based on time showed up (metaphorically speaking) and as such both communism and socalism, not only frustrate those who in a capatalist society would thrive, it rewards those who do the least they can get away with. Whereas capitalism, much like a commision based job, pays based on what you produce. As such it rewards those who go farther, work harder, and improve constantly. Socialism on the other hand frustrates those I have just described and rewards those who put in the bare minimum.
Humanity is by nature lazy, we will always try to get as much as we can for as little as we can, socialsm encourages this weakness, making it more common, and a more productive strategy. Capatilism on the other hand allows those who do the minimum to survive, but only those who produce, can thrive.
Though I have little tradftional schooling I am often the one assigned to help our college recruits educate themselves as to how the real world works, as it relates to our business. Not because I am smarter than they, but because I have educated myself through both theroretical learnng (studying, reading etc.) and practical learning. Many are the times a fresh faced MBA has remarked that my understanding of international financial theroy is as great as his professor's, usually amazed at my lack of degrees. I simply tell them that while unschooled I am not uneducated.
The point I make is that I know the American sytem works becuse in no other country in the world would a man of my lack of official qualifications be entrusted with the responsibillities I have been or rewarded as well for my efforts. If I can do it anyone can do it.

As for the whole republcan versus democrat debate there are closeminded, intolerant, people on both sides of the spectrum. What poisons depates like these is when one side beleves that they are "RIGHT" and that the other is wrong, all of our beliefs,and opinions are based on a multitude of factors and when dscussing something as complex as America no one is "RIGHT" if any of you beleve that you KNOW the awnser to questions and that all those who disagree with you are "WRONG" then you must be a far far better man than I.

Yeah, Specialasian, I disagree with you that "the rich get richer and the poor stay poor". My family is living proof. I've told you this before, I think. About how my father and his brother came from a bottom-of-the-line extremely poor family. His brother now has $20 million to spend as he pleases, and my father is doing well also. My mom came from a family where they were millionairs. My grandfather is/was famous for alot of amazing things. My mom now lives with my dad (dug) and we're middle or upper-middle class. The poor got rich and the rich got poor...er. I believe in Capitalism. Yes, humans are easily corruptable, my uncle is also living proof of that, but I don't think it's the governments job or right to regulate how we spend money, or how much we can earn for that matter.

Originally posted by specialasianX
As for the 'facts' i dont agree thats the case... the problem with capitalism, like every other ideaology, the theory works, as soon as you throw in the human factor, the ideal gets corrupted and then it fails. Humans are greedy, you give someone millions and millions of dollars they wont think of anyone else, they'll just think of how it will help them.

Life isnt fair, life will never be fair, but i feel we can, and should all do the most we can to help make it fair for everyone. I think the government and society has an obligation to help those who need help because their circumstances have made their lives less privilidged. Those who are lazy and dont want to work can starve to death for all i care, but they are just an example of using the system but on the other end of the scale to the corporate #s.

And so to redress this unfair system you would tear down the successful�regardless of how they got there and throw in some more human factor to redistribute the wealth�.and think that would be successful?

As for you anarchy, take a trip to some communist country and ask them how they like your anarchy. Yea yea theoretically blah blah blah

Just wanted to update on how this went, my daughter sent her friend emails of news reports on Bush, she did this thinking her friend was voting basically due to her husband (who was a diehard republican supporter) was influencing this woman's vote too much and needed a chance to see a different view. Well the friend's husband was reading the emails too. The friend voted for Bush but the hubby who was the die hard republican voted for Kerry due to reading these emails. What a funny twist, my daughter was so shocked.

Originally posted by goose
Anyway she said you should alert your republican friend that they are being adopted and let them know they will be receiving info on why George W. Bush is bad for America.

Ahh the American educational system at its best. I see they are starting their liberal brainwashing at a younger and younger age now in our leftucational system. One used to not have to put up with this sort of stuff until he was studying at a University. I can't think of how many times I've had to stand up in class and tell the teacher, "I paid for this class to learn about (insert class here) not your personal viewpoints on liberal ideology." Alas, my papers and projects seemed to be graded a bit more harshly then the students who kept their thoughts on mute.

It always seemed to me that the liberals were the ones who didn't think for themselves. One really has to look into Conservative issues to understand what they are really about because their ideology isn't thrust on them on a constant basis by the leftucational system in America.

The "I'm not voting for bush because he is an idiot" theme is just one classic example of this. When you hear this statement given by college students, and then point out that Bush actually has more schooling then Kerry. Their reply is, "well I still think the guy is an idiot." These are the great "open-minded" thoughts of the majority of liberals in our leftucational system.

IMHO

Originally posted by mwm1331

You see communsm pays people based on time showed up (metaphorically speaking) and as such both communism and socalism, not only frustrate those who in a capatalist society would thrive, it rewards those who do the least they can get away with. Whereas capitalism, much like a commision based job, pays based on what you produce. As such it rewards those who go farther, work harder, and improve constantly. Socialism on the other hand frustrates those I have just described and rewards those who put in the bare minimum.
Humanity is by nature lazy, we will always try to get as much as we can for as little as we can, socialsm encourages this weakness, making it more common, and a more productive strategy. Capatilism on the other hand allows those who do the minimum to survive, but only those who produce, can thrive.

I couldn't have said it any better. Cheers man.

[edit on 9-12-2004 by LostSailor]

Liberals do think for themselves and amount of education does not neccesarily mean smarter, Bush certainly has proven that one. Take the gay marriage issue, so much for republicans not wanting to get into our lives more, its much more than just religious issues here at stake, the gay population in achieving rights similar to those of married couples would also affect medical coverage, taxes, insurance life and health, health care would have to be provided by the employer of each for the other, property rights, it could cost corporations millions if not billions so of course Bush is against it, he has always been for big business and less workers rights. So it is not just moral issues or religious issues it money issues and with Bush the needs of the corporation will be served over the needs of the public and the common working man or woman. As for liberal college professers I have run into plenty of conservative ones as well. And I agree with you that their political views should be talked about outside the classroom setting unless it is a class concerning politics and as little as possible then. I once had an instructor think that by talking 98% of the time about her children and what wonderful little people they were she was teaching child psychology. As for my daughter she is a very strong individual and formed her own opinions about political matters and I probably influenced her as much as any parent can. Not very much after all as young people they generally believe their parents don't know very much about anything anyway.

Goose talks about bashing bush for his support of corporations over the average worker, citing the gay marriage issue as example,

its much more than just religious issues here at stake, the gay population in achieving rights similar to those of married couples would also affect medical coverage, taxes, insurance life and health, health care would have to be provided by the employer of each for the other, property rights, it could cost corporations millions if not billions so of course Bush is against it, he has always been for big business and less workers rights. So it is not just moral issues or religious issues it money issues and with Bush the needs of the corporation will be served over the needs of the public and the common working man or woman.

You have touched upon several things i see liberals wanting to pass the buck on and believe hype over substance.
The first thing you hit on is that MANY Americans are against gay marriage NOT because they are homophobes, but because they too see the many many things (that usually arent even discussed, especially by pro gays) that making a change like this entails. I for one see society trying to rush job this issue on feel good mentalities, with out discussing the rammifications and "costs" of doing so. Leaping before looking isnt usually smart.

The seccond thing which Goose tries to slap President Bush with is siding only with the corporations. Why is this a problem? While Ill be the first to join with you in saying NEVER trust big corporations as they are only motivated by profit....I also understand this capitalistic society we live in and realize that these big corporations are what provides jobs for the average citizen. (Dont bother to try and support the lie that Bush is causing jobs to be shipped overseas...it was happening LONG before Bush ever got here.)
Avegare citizens as well as Bush know that the increased costs that companies would take on IF gay marriage was legalized WOULD BE passed directly to the consumer....meaning higher costs for EVERYONE. Yet still the pro-gay folks REFUSE to acknowledge these issues and costs...and dare to say there would be no effects/harm to non gays. Why should everyone else, married or not, have to take on additional costs to support a special interest minority groups feel good desires? Like Bush wants to put additional financial stress on a weakened but slowly growing economy by creating/allowing such an issue to further burden both companies providing jobs OR the average citizen who will pay those costs?
Weather you thing gay marriage is right or wrong makes NO difference to the reality (thast noone talks about because it hurts the pro gay agenda) that there ARE HUGE COSTS that adopting gay marriage would entail.
BUT
Blame Bush for looking out for the avg citizen by not wanting to see them burdened with these costs as companies are forced to adopt a questionable social ideology, and pass the buck to us...taking money they could be using for growth, and instead slowing it.

Why do I feel gay marriage is right despite the cost? Denying the gay population the rights of marriage or a legal tie of some sort is oppressing a group of people for profit margin, the last time this was done on this scale compares to slavery. As for the rights of the working man versus the big corporations, Bush is not looking out for the working man's best interest at all, only the corporations. I understand one has to support big business to a certain degree to have jobs but one has to recognize that to buy those products that big business makes and sell the working man has to make a decent wage, not only that but a large amount of our taxes goes right back into supporting big business by the use of corporate welfare and tax cuts for them.

Goose says,

Why do I feel gay marriage is right despite the cost? Denying the gay population the rights of marriage or a legal tie of some sort is oppressing a group of people for profit margin

I cant see this. That would only apply to those making profits (corporations). The voting citizens that in 13 states just recently voted to define marriage by law certantly arent making the profit you speak of, and corporations have no REAL DIRECT vote.

I dont see this would be an issue of profits, more so an affordabillity issue.
Can these costs even be taken on without negative effects for EVERYONE?
Again, noone ever wants to talk about these costs, and the interlaced laws and effects that would result from adopting gay marriage....i feel strongly the reason why is because for gays to do so would only burden their case more, not less. Yet that is the step that could also help build bridges to the non gay community by showing more than a feel good wish list. It shows responsibillity for what your asking, not just selfish (and seemingly costly) demands, coupled with reverse bigotry being applied to those that disagree.

You still sidestep the issue of "how workable" is this idea of a "right" vs this being a special interest group designation?
Why is it wrong for "marriage" to be defined as a special interest group on its own?


Get the idea of trying to equate gay suffering with that of slavery. the 2 are worlds apart in the magnitude....gays have never been property, denied property, denied votes, segregated by law, etc....
YES, there are extreme bigots that bash, and yes some aspects of being gay clash with the general cultural "norm" but thats common for ANY minority group to both see and experiance the differances between their group and the cultural majority. This is not intentional or unusual, it it mearly a fact of groups being different...as well as an example of freedom of assembly under the 1rst amendment. Groups can differ, they have the right to be. Why must every one be made the same as long as negative acts are not taken against each other.l

In one sense they do compare, slavery was denying the slaves their rights for economic reasons the same as you are saying it is ok to deny the gay population their rights for economic reasons. I am not saying that slavery and denying the population their right to a legal union is the same but the reason for denying their rights is the same, money. No one is saying change the marriage laws just recognize the union of two people of the same sex legally. And yes it would have an impact on our economy but then a lot of other things do as well. As for the gay population not saying that the law recognizing their union legally would have an economic impact and promoting their agenda to have a legal union, what about the Bush administration saying that they are totally against it for religious reasons and the sanctity of marriage, what about that? The oppression of anyone's rights or a minority group for the economic growth of the masses is wrong, I don't care whether it is a democrat or a republican administration doing it, its wrong.

Goose,
indeed, ONE reason that gay marriage is not being legitimised MIGHT be economic impact, but this would not be the sole reason, nor has it been stated by any groups i know other than as an EXAMPLE that disproves the lie that "there are no effects to non gays". Please dont confuse the debunking of that lie with a reason that gay marriage isnt being legalized.
While it COULD be used that way, my intent was to show that indeed, there ARE effects to society, that can be directly shown, and that shoot a big arse hole in the "no harm" idea.

Goose says, seemingly blind to the point he is making,

No one is saying change the marriage laws just recognize the union of two people of the same sex legally

reccognizing gay marriage DOES entail the changes to many laws as well as non law policies, like bennifits, insurance, information confidentiallity etc etc etc ad-nauseum, and your RIGHT, no one is talking about these rammifications, instead focusing only on the "feel goodness" of the issue. Do you not see this?

goose,

As for the gay population not saying that the law recognizing their union legally would have an economic impact and promoting their agenda to have a legal union, what about the Bush administration saying that they are totally against it for religious reasons and the sanctity of marriage, what about that?

Hmm, well id say that avoidance of issues that could negativly impact your position (is ommission a lie?) is NOT the same thing as expousing your views,for whatever reason, for or against a policy.

CERTANTLY, i see no problem with someone defending the traditional definition of marriage, for whatever reason, mine happens to be less religious and more cultural heritage, legal, and quite frankly im tired of the lies being used to prob up this argument as well as the patently devicive, mean, and reverse biggotry used to assault others, the general cultural heritage and specific individules and institutions including christians, the boy scouts, and anyone that disagrees.

Saying that marriage cannot be defined as a S.I.G. betwen oneman/one woman, denies people their 1rst amendment right to assempble into S.I.G.''s without being trod upon by others that do not expouse the same beliefs. This is actual denmial of rights, not just seperation of S.I.G.'s entitlements based on criteria.

Now while we are disagreeing in our talks here, notice that noone is yelling "homophobe", or "deviant"....were trying to strip away the rhetoric and get to the core issue. this will involve both sides setting aside some views (even if legit) to reach a consensus and THEN build twords some compromise.

Actually the laws being changed would be very few, there is already a privacy act that means unless I put my husband's name down the medical or insurance or financial institutions can't discuss those matters with him and vice versa. By the gay population having the right to a legal binding relationship with their significant other (S.O.) these same laws would apply. The same rules that insurance companies use to cover a wife or husband on insurance policies would still apply to the significant other in the gay relationship. Now please read your last reply to me and notice that you completely excused the Bush Administration for not being up front about their reasons for campaigning to deny the gay population legal rights to a legally binding union and then in the same breath denounced the gay population for doing the same thing. While I recognize that there might be many reasons besides the economic impact the Bush administration has for denying the gay population a legal union with their S.O., I am sure that the economic impact is one of them; you say its ok that their not up front with it to the public but then you blast the gay population for not being totally honest about the impact this would have on society. Actually by the laws recognizing a legal union between two people of the same sex I really can't see the impact it would have on our culture one way or the other. They are already a big part of our culture, they always have been its just that they have come out of the closet and are no longer hiding.

Goose says,

you completely excused the Bush Administration for not being up front about their reasons for campaigning to deny the gay population legal rights to a legally binding union......

So what reasons are you ASSUMING on behalf of the Bush administration for this? This would be pure SPECULATION on your part unless you can cite some credible sources where the administration has said what you allege.

goose again,

Actually by the laws recognizing a legal union between two people of the same sex I really can't see the impact it would have on our culture one way or the other.

Then take off the blinders and be willing to actually look around and consider that there ARE effects, known and unknown. Im not saying changing what you believe but be willing to say "mabey there is something i dont know yet".

You assume that the gay population are aware of the many differences on our economy and culture by their rights to a legal union being made legal would have and said nothing and presented it as a feel good issue but yet you are saying I should not assume the Bush Administration is aware of the economical impact it would have. You know you may be right I've always thought that bunch was about as bright as a burned out light bulb, so perhaps you are right I am giving them way too much credit on intelligence. You know the republicans are forever spouting off on how they are for less government in our lives, but this administration has continually poked its nose into moral and religious issues trying to use government to dictate what really only the courts and ones own conscience can decide. They have also used terror and the fear of terrorism to pass the patriot act to take away our rights. The truth is it does not matter whether we are democrat or republican our rights are being lost no matter which way we are registered to vote. When an administration looks at ways to torture POW's legally showing a total lack of regard for our POW's and perhaps future Pow's in doing so. I mean when a country adheres to the Geneva convention rules on POW's it is to protect their own. One can stand by and watch a group be oppressed if they do not agree with that group but who is to say who the next group will be on the list for being oppressed, perhaps it will be a group you belong too, will it be ok then?

[edit on 21-12-2004 by goose]