FA+
Shop
1324
Views
Views
54
Favorites
Favorites
Category
All / All
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 720 x 1094
File Size 184.5 kB
Report this content
More from Karno
That's another thing that bothers me: Different punishments for murder, according to what the killer can convince the jury was going thru his mind when he killed. It matters not a whit to me what a wannabe murderer of me is thinking when he aims his car or his gun at me. I DON'T WANT TO DIE. There IS no valid excuse for killing me.
Category All / All
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 720 x 1094px
File Size 184.5 kB
There IS no valid excuse for killing me.
Ie; Insanity pleese become a 'Get out of jail card'
I agree, if someone can convince a Doctor that they are mad at the time of the killing, and not getting better.. they get coddled and taken care of.. while a less intelligent criminal just goes to jail.
I know a Doctor can be fooled, I did it myself when I was younger...the less said, the better.
Our legal system is becoming [Over the last 200+ years] a sham, it gets more abused and broken with each generation and the Corprate Animals are part of the biggest problem.
People are even now, protesting at nearby Wal-Marts for better wages, the right to form a Union, and to have better and more managble hours.
I worked at Wal-Mart when you could say what days you would like off and got them.
[Wednesday and Thursdays] But now, a Computer makes the schedule and if you can't work certain days.. they reduce your hours.
Ie; Insanity pleese become a 'Get out of jail card'
I agree, if someone can convince a Doctor that they are mad at the time of the killing, and not getting better.. they get coddled and taken care of.. while a less intelligent criminal just goes to jail.
I know a Doctor can be fooled, I did it myself when I was younger...the less said, the better.
Our legal system is becoming [Over the last 200+ years] a sham, it gets more abused and broken with each generation and the Corprate Animals are part of the biggest problem.
People are even now, protesting at nearby Wal-Marts for better wages, the right to form a Union, and to have better and more managble hours.
I worked at Wal-Mart when you could say what days you would like off and got them.
[Wednesday and Thursdays] But now, a Computer makes the schedule and if you can't work certain days.. they reduce your hours.
Please. America imprisons a higher percentage of it's population than any nation in the world. Our courts aren't somewhere you just shrug and get out of, they're just a formality before sentencing. There are states where insanity pleas aren't even permitted, and they almost never work where they are. Remember Governor George W. Bush laughing about the mentaly retarted woman he put to death?
no, please show me the article..
And I didn't say millions get free... I said its become a get out of prison free card...
Also, Blue Collar Criminals are sent to 'Better' Prisons more often than not, while the common yoke get sent to over crowded hell holes.
This isn't about how many are in jail.. its the abuse of the system..
And I didn't say millions get free... I said its become a get out of prison free card...
Also, Blue Collar Criminals are sent to 'Better' Prisons more often than not, while the common yoke get sent to over crowded hell holes.
This isn't about how many are in jail.. its the abuse of the system..
Do you mean Terry Washington?
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17670
The writer condems Bush in one sentence and thne says Bush never knew that Washington was mentally impaired in the next..
Lack of knowledge can't be held against that moron Bush... I dislike that Texas asshole more than a vast majority.. but he cannot be held accountable of Washingtons own council forgets to include all the details...
fucking shame.. but its my take on this..
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17670
The writer condems Bush in one sentence and thne says Bush never knew that Washington was mentally impaired in the next..
Lack of knowledge can't be held against that moron Bush... I dislike that Texas asshole more than a vast majority.. but he cannot be held accountable of Washingtons own council forgets to include all the details...
fucking shame.. but its my take on this..
As governor of Texas, Bush opposed a bill prohibiting execution of mentally retarded, despite executing at least five.
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LOCAL/.....sh.executions/
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LOCAL/.....sh.executions/
Granted, the difference between corporate owners and government leaders is slim to none, closer to the latter. Whether a democracy, a republic, a monarchy, a dictatorship, et cetera, the goal of those that have will be to keep it as long as possible away from those that have not. Altruistic tendencies has an inverse relationship compared to how much influence one has (whether through office, money, firepower, et cetera.)
Granted, that sounds Marxist, but, then again, even Karl Marx would be the first to admit that communism doesn't work, it's just an idea.
Granted, that sounds Marxist, but, then again, even Karl Marx would be the first to admit that communism doesn't work, it's just an idea.
I find it ironic that as a country, the US decided that some disconnected, uncaring King couldn't properly dictate the fate of its people... and then evolved a culture where everybody wants to be singly successful by stepping on the backs of others, and this is the ideal.
This isn't a political problem, it's a cultural one.
This isn't a political problem, it's a cultural one.
Now you're touching on the basis of Truth.
Reality does not give one flying flip about what Humans believe. If 100% of humans, hell, if 100% of all living things believed in God.... reality would still not give a flying fuck. It doesn't matter what people think or feel. It only matters what people do.
Reality does not give one flying flip about what Humans believe. If 100% of humans, hell, if 100% of all living things believed in God.... reality would still not give a flying fuck. It doesn't matter what people think or feel. It only matters what people do.
...And what, you think Governments actually care?
At worst, Corporations kill a few hundred people here and there because they're careless.
At worst, Governments slaughter millions of people just because they're the "wrong" kind of people.
And Communist Governments are the worst of the worst. Don't believe me? Okay. Name me just one Corporation that has killed as many people as the Khmer Rouge.
At worst, Corporations kill a few hundred people here and there because they're careless.
At worst, Governments slaughter millions of people just because they're the "wrong" kind of people.
And Communist Governments are the worst of the worst. Don't believe me? Okay. Name me just one Corporation that has killed as many people as the Khmer Rouge.
no reliable stats as yet, but I suspect the British East India comes close, if you count in what they have caused governments to do to promote them. Another that would come close is the one that had the patent on Asbestos. One company, if they are allowed to get away with their plans, will top Stalin, namely, Mansanto.
Philip Morris International. The maker of Marlboro cigarettes, the most popular brand world wide. I'm not hugely anti big-business (and I'm not saying I agree with all of karno's points), but it is helpful to remember that those who rise to the very top in the business world do so because they are willing to maximize profits absolutely irregardless of any other considerations. Tobacco is an pertinent example because it was known to the tobacco companies that smoking was very harmful for a long while before they could be made to admit it. However, in my opinion, there is no sense in getting all wrapped up about this mindset, once you understand how easy it is to control. Big business policy runs towards profit the same way that water runs downhill, that is to say always. So, if you want corporations to stop killing people? Tax them for each person that they kill. A gross oversimplification, but the point is if you want them not to do something all you have to do is make it unprofitable to do so. Large corporations, I feel, are not so much evil as really really blinkered, all they see is the profit margin. So if you need to direct them all you need is to use taxes as the carrot and the stick.
This is certainly the case, and is a major flaw in the system. Voters are supposed to weed out politicians who act in favor of those who contribute to them but the voters tend to be lazy, uninterested, uninformed, and much more concerned with so called "hot button issues" which they feel strongly about but are, from a big picture standpoint, relatively unimportant.
I wouldn't go as far as you do in this, but the phenomenon is troublesome because it's the complex outgrowth of three simple-enough-to-understand factors. One: People respond to their incentives and just about nothing else. Two: Most people are not capable of caring about more than ~150 other people. Three: The flocking behavior of lots of independent, intelligent agents all trying to reach similar goals is difficult to distinguish from a conspiracy.
Corps do not pay taxes now,
They pay an average rate of 28.7% - what world do you live in?
at the time of 'shrugged' they were paying at a rate of around 53% and we had a booming economy and a growing middle class.
Oh come now, you know full well that this was despite government and not because of government - companies were growing and expanding as new privately researched technologies and processes were paving the way to the future.
Government creates nothing - it only consumes - if government was better then private industry and ownership then all those communist countries would have grown and thrived over the past half century while all the capitalist countries would be third world mudholes by now - instead, its the other way around.
Nuff said.
They pay an average rate of 28.7% - what world do you live in?
at the time of 'shrugged' they were paying at a rate of around 53% and we had a booming economy and a growing middle class.
Oh come now, you know full well that this was despite government and not because of government - companies were growing and expanding as new privately researched technologies and processes were paving the way to the future.
Government creates nothing - it only consumes - if government was better then private industry and ownership then all those communist countries would have grown and thrived over the past half century while all the capitalist countries would be third world mudholes by now - instead, its the other way around.
Nuff said.
I know full well that it was because of 'gov. laws' in place at the time that we were doing so well. We are in the shit we're in now because those very laws were either ignored or out-right removed by the corparate lackies that were allowed to be put into un-elected gov. positions of power.
There was and is 'gov.' funded research and thats it. This would have to go a lot longer and deeper as to just what these companies 'privately' research. Most all of what you are enjoying in and around your abode right now was brought to you by American tax dollor paid research.
And You are confusing multi-national corparations with being an individual human being, thus making your 'Ann Randian' argument nothing more then a load of BUNK. (Oh and I have read some of her books and a few 'editorial' pieces that she wrote. She could preach it but she did not live it.)
Oh and 28.7% on nothing is how much? All their profits are taken outside the country so that they (the multi-nationals) don't have any taxes owed. Just look over at the Goldman-Saxx piece of fraud, tax payor finaced record profits but almost nil on the taxes they'll pay.
There was and is 'gov.' funded research and thats it. This would have to go a lot longer and deeper as to just what these companies 'privately' research. Most all of what you are enjoying in and around your abode right now was brought to you by American tax dollor paid research.
And You are confusing multi-national corparations with being an individual human being, thus making your 'Ann Randian' argument nothing more then a load of BUNK. (Oh and I have read some of her books and a few 'editorial' pieces that she wrote. She could preach it but she did not live it.)
Oh and 28.7% on nothing is how much? All their profits are taken outside the country so that they (the multi-nationals) don't have any taxes owed. Just look over at the Goldman-Saxx piece of fraud, tax payor finaced record profits but almost nil on the taxes they'll pay.
Irony is using the Internet to make the claim that government has never created anything.
Irony is typing that statement on a computer created by private industry, using a OS created by private industry on a web browser created by private industry at a web site created by private industry.
Sorry friend, but the gov did lay the foundation for the internet, but it was private individuals that showed the vision to make it useful - in yuor socialist state it would have remained in the closet gathering cobwebs to this day.
Irony is typing that statement on a computer created by private industry, using a OS created by private industry on a web browser created by private industry at a web site created by private industry.
Sorry friend, but the gov did lay the foundation for the internet, but it was private individuals that showed the vision to make it useful - in yuor socialist state it would have remained in the closet gathering cobwebs to this day.
Oh, I see. So as long as you QUALIFY it enough, then you can stick to your claim that government never created anything but only consumes (since you probably never heard of NCSA Mosaic, and you understand even less the connection between pure research and government grants).
I'll remember that while I drive home on the interstate. You can take the toll road, since you prefer private industry. And since I live in the country, I'm glad I have a phone to use thanks to Universal Access -- another of those unfair government intrusions into private industry, cruelly forcing them to run service to clearly unprofitable areas, when no reasonable business model would bother with people like me and my neighbors. In your ideal world, we wouldn't have running water or paved roads out here, either, because there's no profit in them.
And your beloved "private industry" has done its best to kill the OS that I depend on, because it was created by a community of people who got sick and tired of kowtowing to capitalist hegemony. It exists in SPITE of capitalism, not because of it. At some point of growth, monopolies become indistinguishable from governments, and find ways to levy their own taxes by force of market pressures and leverages that have nothing to do with production. Without regulation and control to reign in their excesses, they do not serve anybody but their own greed.
"My socialist state..." I was raised a Nixon Republican, and I voted party-line until Reagan committed treason against the USA. Friend? Not likely. Go fuck yourself with barbed wire and lemon juice. And for God's sake, proofread your sniveling paranoid rantings. No fear you'll ever be rich.
I'll remember that while I drive home on the interstate. You can take the toll road, since you prefer private industry. And since I live in the country, I'm glad I have a phone to use thanks to Universal Access -- another of those unfair government intrusions into private industry, cruelly forcing them to run service to clearly unprofitable areas, when no reasonable business model would bother with people like me and my neighbors. In your ideal world, we wouldn't have running water or paved roads out here, either, because there's no profit in them.
And your beloved "private industry" has done its best to kill the OS that I depend on, because it was created by a community of people who got sick and tired of kowtowing to capitalist hegemony. It exists in SPITE of capitalism, not because of it. At some point of growth, monopolies become indistinguishable from governments, and find ways to levy their own taxes by force of market pressures and leverages that have nothing to do with production. Without regulation and control to reign in their excesses, they do not serve anybody but their own greed.
"My socialist state..." I was raised a Nixon Republican, and I voted party-line until Reagan committed treason against the USA. Friend? Not likely. Go fuck yourself with barbed wire and lemon juice. And for God's sake, proofread your sniveling paranoid rantings. No fear you'll ever be rich.
Oh, I see. So as long as you QUALIFY it enough, then you can stick to your claim that government never created anything
Well, if you'd like, I can simply point out that the internet was invented by private industry in the form of Project RAND back in the 50s which DARPA was based off of, thus still giving the internet to private invention.
I just thought it'd be more ironic pointing out the numerous private inventions you were using while falsely praising the inventiveness of government, but since you wanted to press the point, nothing wrong with taking even that claim of invention from you.
Well, if you'd like, I can simply point out that the internet was invented by private industry in the form of Project RAND back in the 50s which DARPA was based off of, thus still giving the internet to private invention.
I just thought it'd be more ironic pointing out the numerous private inventions you were using while falsely praising the inventiveness of government, but since you wanted to press the point, nothing wrong with taking even that claim of invention from you.
I know full well that it was because of 'gov. laws' in place at the time that we were doing so well.
Try again - it was government laws that turned a recession into the Great Depression in the 30s and are about to do the same thing again today.
We are in the shit we're in now because those very laws were either ignored or out-right removed by the corparate lackies that were allowed to be put into un-elected gov. positions of power.
Yes, it was the corporations that demanded that unions force them to pay obscenely high wages and drive them out of business, wait, no - that was government.
Yes, it was the banks that demanded the right to make loans to people who had no ability to pay them so that the loans would default and they'd go under, wait, no - that was government.
You were saying?
There was and is 'gov.' funded research and thats it.
Yes, there is government funded research, but there's hundreds of billions more in private research - Edison was working for himself, Ford was working for himself, the Wright brothers did all of their initial research for themselves - it's private industry that finds a need, invents a way to fill it and moves society forward.
Most all of what you are enjoying in and around your abode right now was brought to you by American tax dollor paid research.
You joking or delusional? Everything around me is private inventions created for one reason - profit. Look at your house - 95% of the items in it are luxuries - the goverment doesn't fund research for those things.
And You are confusing multi-national corparations with being an individual human being, thus making your 'Ann Randian' argument nothing more then a load of BUNK.
No, I think you and Karno are doing that - every corporation started as the brain child of a private individual, not a government - governments are incapable of creating wealth, only consuming it.
Oh and 28.7% on nothing is how much? All their profits are taken outside the country so that they (the multi-nationals) don't have any taxes owed.
I think you're confusing companies with Kennedy or Nadar or Soros and other prominent Democrats.
Try again - it was government laws that turned a recession into the Great Depression in the 30s and are about to do the same thing again today.
We are in the shit we're in now because those very laws were either ignored or out-right removed by the corparate lackies that were allowed to be put into un-elected gov. positions of power.
Yes, it was the corporations that demanded that unions force them to pay obscenely high wages and drive them out of business, wait, no - that was government.
Yes, it was the banks that demanded the right to make loans to people who had no ability to pay them so that the loans would default and they'd go under, wait, no - that was government.
You were saying?
There was and is 'gov.' funded research and thats it.
Yes, there is government funded research, but there's hundreds of billions more in private research - Edison was working for himself, Ford was working for himself, the Wright brothers did all of their initial research for themselves - it's private industry that finds a need, invents a way to fill it and moves society forward.
Most all of what you are enjoying in and around your abode right now was brought to you by American tax dollor paid research.
You joking or delusional? Everything around me is private inventions created for one reason - profit. Look at your house - 95% of the items in it are luxuries - the goverment doesn't fund research for those things.
And You are confusing multi-national corparations with being an individual human being, thus making your 'Ann Randian' argument nothing more then a load of BUNK.
No, I think you and Karno are doing that - every corporation started as the brain child of a private individual, not a government - governments are incapable of creating wealth, only consuming it.
Oh and 28.7% on nothing is how much? All their profits are taken outside the country so that they (the multi-nationals) don't have any taxes owed.
I think you're confusing companies with Kennedy or Nadar or Soros and other prominent Democrats.
My last statement to you since you can't get your facts straight even once.
Early Edison, early Ford, back before they incorparated. after that they became slave owners in the effect they had on the working man. Ford could never square his fantasy of how man the individual should live his life with how man the individual should inslave themselves to his (Ford's) industrial machine.
And what was one of the first things the Wright's tried to get after their success? Gov. Military contracts... go fig.
I could go on but you arn't paying for my tutorial services in correcting your amazing amount of ignorance.
Early Edison, early Ford, back before they incorparated. after that they became slave owners in the effect they had on the working man. Ford could never square his fantasy of how man the individual should live his life with how man the individual should inslave themselves to his (Ford's) industrial machine.
And what was one of the first things the Wright's tried to get after their success? Gov. Military contracts... go fig.
I could go on but you arn't paying for my tutorial services in correcting your amazing amount of ignorance.
A book with much to teach us. Most of which is wrong. As long as you can get away with it, shoot somebody and take their wallet. You are acting in self interest, as Rand extols us to, unfettered by the petty precepts of altruism you take what you want and so should you. The book is a philosophical security blanket for upper class jerks (I deserve everything I have no matter what I had to to get it) in the same was that the communist manifesto is a philosophical security blanked for lower class jerks (I deserve everything I want no matter what I have to do to get it). More of a before and after than a difference in opinion.
I'm afraid you really didn't understand the book (or didn't even read it at that) as that's not even remotely close to the moral of that or any or her works.
If you'd even read the book, you'd know that Ryan consistently condemns those who would take from others that which they haven't earned by force or deception - those types are the looters and she thinks that they are the lowest of the low.
She also condemns those who receive wealth unearned - if you had read the book you might have noted how the characters that inherited wealth but then proceeded to do nothing but enjoy it were viewed with disdain and considered worthless.
Again, had you read the book, you'd recall how she spit upon those companies that pumped out shoddy products for a fast buck instead of the best.
The only heros in that book and the rest of her books are those who actually earn their wealth, be it by starting from scratch or by taking what you were blessed with and improving upon it.
Sorry friend, but anyone who doesn't deserve the money in their pocket right now, whether they got it through theft, fraud or a government handout, will not appreciate nor find any comfort in her books.
If you'd even read the book, you'd know that Ryan consistently condemns those who would take from others that which they haven't earned by force or deception - those types are the looters and she thinks that they are the lowest of the low.
She also condemns those who receive wealth unearned - if you had read the book you might have noted how the characters that inherited wealth but then proceeded to do nothing but enjoy it were viewed with disdain and considered worthless.
Again, had you read the book, you'd recall how she spit upon those companies that pumped out shoddy products for a fast buck instead of the best.
The only heros in that book and the rest of her books are those who actually earn their wealth, be it by starting from scratch or by taking what you were blessed with and improving upon it.
Sorry friend, but anyone who doesn't deserve the money in their pocket right now, whether they got it through theft, fraud or a government handout, will not appreciate nor find any comfort in her books.
I read the book, it was flawed.
Rand does indeed include all sorts of characters meant to stave off the argument I'm making, but its all a question of degree. Rand gives us a case that is clearly objectionable and the representative character is punished, but in the same breath urges us to act in a similar manner to that character. In Rand's world paying a man a starvation wage is fine, but stealing the exact same amount of money from him at gun point is not. At the end of the day a work like atlas shrugged proves nothing. Anyone can write a book where a characters go through the motions and the outcome proves the point of the writer. What it does do is allow those who are represented by the good character to say "See that's how it is, everything here represents the real world and if we let things go that way it'll turn out just like in the book. I'm in the right".
It all starts to fall down when the philosophy of the book fails to lead to the results predicted. For instance, lets take deregulation. Greenspan believed that regulating derivatives such as credit default swaps was unnecessary because he believed that the market was self correcting. He never considered that if a systemic problem existed the credit default swaps could act in a domino effect to bring down the financial system and therefore have serious consequences for the rest of the economy. In this case he failed to recognize the the willingness of lenders to lend to risky borrowers to gain profit (particularly that the individual lending agents would be offered such large incentives by their employers based on the sheer number of loans untempered by any sort of risk evaluation). The worst part is that lenders no doubt felt more secure taking such risks because they had leveraged the risk with the credit default swaps. Everybody in the system was acting just as Rand prescribed (in their own self interest) and all without the cumbersome weight of regulation on the market which Rand so disdains. And yet we find the system has failed us. Clearly regulation of lending practices and the derivatives market was necessary a fact which cannot be made to fit into Rand's world view.
Rand does indeed include all sorts of characters meant to stave off the argument I'm making, but its all a question of degree. Rand gives us a case that is clearly objectionable and the representative character is punished, but in the same breath urges us to act in a similar manner to that character. In Rand's world paying a man a starvation wage is fine, but stealing the exact same amount of money from him at gun point is not. At the end of the day a work like atlas shrugged proves nothing. Anyone can write a book where a characters go through the motions and the outcome proves the point of the writer. What it does do is allow those who are represented by the good character to say "See that's how it is, everything here represents the real world and if we let things go that way it'll turn out just like in the book. I'm in the right".
It all starts to fall down when the philosophy of the book fails to lead to the results predicted. For instance, lets take deregulation. Greenspan believed that regulating derivatives such as credit default swaps was unnecessary because he believed that the market was self correcting. He never considered that if a systemic problem existed the credit default swaps could act in a domino effect to bring down the financial system and therefore have serious consequences for the rest of the economy. In this case he failed to recognize the the willingness of lenders to lend to risky borrowers to gain profit (particularly that the individual lending agents would be offered such large incentives by their employers based on the sheer number of loans untempered by any sort of risk evaluation). The worst part is that lenders no doubt felt more secure taking such risks because they had leveraged the risk with the credit default swaps. Everybody in the system was acting just as Rand prescribed (in their own self interest) and all without the cumbersome weight of regulation on the market which Rand so disdains. And yet we find the system has failed us. Clearly regulation of lending practices and the derivatives market was necessary a fact which cannot be made to fit into Rand's world view.
I read the book, it was flawed.
Not liking the book and claiming that the book supports something that it doesn't is two entirely different animals.
I really have to disagree with the flawed assessment though since we're now seeing the book play out in RL -
1) Government forces banks to make loans to those who can't afford them
2) Government offers banks bailouts
3) Government confiscates banks for good of the people
Where's the flaw in her prediction?
Rand gives us a case that is clearly objectionable and the representative character is punished, but in the same breath urges us to act in a similar manner to that character.
Pure, total and utter BS - you know full well that she condemns the looters consistently throughout all of her works - there's not a single instant of her condoning or encouraging their behavior.
In Rand's world paying a man a starvation wage is fine,
You know full well that's a lie - her heros always advocate paying people what they are worth - liberals only feel that equates to a starving wage because they know that they themselves are worthless.
At the end of the day a work like atlas shrugged proves nothing.
You're kidding, right? Are you so far gone that you feel that words and analogies are worthless? Let me guess, you hate her books because you subscribe to the philosophies of her villains that advocate that people shouldn't think, that books should be empty and pointless - that people should stop thinking and simply obey.
I don't know if you never read the book and are simply working off of a summery that some crazed leftwing wrote about it of if you honestly did read it and are so unhinged from reality that you would make statements and assertions about it that anyone who's read it knows are patently false.
But until you're willing to have an honest discussion about Rand's works, there's no point in wasting further bandwidth on you.
Not liking the book and claiming that the book supports something that it doesn't is two entirely different animals.
I really have to disagree with the flawed assessment though since we're now seeing the book play out in RL -
1) Government forces banks to make loans to those who can't afford them
2) Government offers banks bailouts
3) Government confiscates banks for good of the people
Where's the flaw in her prediction?
Rand gives us a case that is clearly objectionable and the representative character is punished, but in the same breath urges us to act in a similar manner to that character.
Pure, total and utter BS - you know full well that she condemns the looters consistently throughout all of her works - there's not a single instant of her condoning or encouraging their behavior.
In Rand's world paying a man a starvation wage is fine,
You know full well that's a lie - her heros always advocate paying people what they are worth - liberals only feel that equates to a starving wage because they know that they themselves are worthless.
At the end of the day a work like atlas shrugged proves nothing.
You're kidding, right? Are you so far gone that you feel that words and analogies are worthless? Let me guess, you hate her books because you subscribe to the philosophies of her villains that advocate that people shouldn't think, that books should be empty and pointless - that people should stop thinking and simply obey.
I don't know if you never read the book and are simply working off of a summery that some crazed leftwing wrote about it of if you honestly did read it and are so unhinged from reality that you would make statements and assertions about it that anyone who's read it knows are patently false.
But until you're willing to have an honest discussion about Rand's works, there's no point in wasting further bandwidth on you.
Oh yeah? Well you are a stupid jerk too. See, I said it with less words.
I also notice you totally ignored the financial example I provided. You know your 1,2, and 3 are bull shit right?
Yes she condems the "looters" you fail to under stand my point. My point is you can make a representative character as the most obvious case against something (ie here is a greedy asshole and see he gets punished) and then advocate doing the same thing (being an Asshole) but to a lesser degree or with more subtlety and then hide behind the fact that you had the first character the "looters" in this case.
Nobody who disagrees with you is capable of having an honest discussion hey? How often do you find yourself having to resort to such arguments (eg everyone who disagrees with me is a leftist/liar/idiot)? Its a clear sign that it is in fact you who are out of touch with reality. Your posts read like logic 101 textbook examples of the logical fallacies.
I also notice you totally ignored the financial example I provided. You know your 1,2, and 3 are bull shit right?
Yes she condems the "looters" you fail to under stand my point. My point is you can make a representative character as the most obvious case against something (ie here is a greedy asshole and see he gets punished) and then advocate doing the same thing (being an Asshole) but to a lesser degree or with more subtlety and then hide behind the fact that you had the first character the "looters" in this case.
Nobody who disagrees with you is capable of having an honest discussion hey? How often do you find yourself having to resort to such arguments (eg everyone who disagrees with me is a leftist/liar/idiot)? Its a clear sign that it is in fact you who are out of touch with reality. Your posts read like logic 101 textbook examples of the logical fallacies.
Oh yeah? Well you are a stupid jerk too. See, I said it with less words.
Difference is that I wasn't insulting for the sake of insulting you - your analysis of Atlas really is so completely removed from the reality of the book as to warrant my response - progressing further in your disconnected rant was pointless.
If you didn't like the book because it depicted everything you believe in and stand for as evil and amoral then that's fine - just be honest and say so instead of trying to lie about what the book really was about.
On the other hand, if you really did read the book and that's the impression you really did walk away with then you've got some serious mental problems as its impossible to translate Atlas as you have.
So whether you're simply lying because you hated the book or are so messed up in the head that you perverted the story into your translation of it, you've made it impossible for everyone else who's read it to have an honest discussion with you - throwing a hissy fit and name calling doesn't help your argument.
Difference is that I wasn't insulting for the sake of insulting you - your analysis of Atlas really is so completely removed from the reality of the book as to warrant my response - progressing further in your disconnected rant was pointless.
If you didn't like the book because it depicted everything you believe in and stand for as evil and amoral then that's fine - just be honest and say so instead of trying to lie about what the book really was about.
On the other hand, if you really did read the book and that's the impression you really did walk away with then you've got some serious mental problems as its impossible to translate Atlas as you have.
So whether you're simply lying because you hated the book or are so messed up in the head that you perverted the story into your translation of it, you've made it impossible for everyone else who's read it to have an honest discussion with you - throwing a hissy fit and name calling doesn't help your argument.
You sir, need to learn to relax. Your going to give yourself an ulcer.
Difference is that I wasn't insulting for the sake of insulting you
No you were insulting me in place of coming up with an argument. All you have said so far is that I am stupid and disconnected from reality. Saying "you didn't understand this book, you are lying about it, it's impossible to have your opinion of this book and not be mentally retarded" is so much sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming. Come back when you want to discuss something outside of the framework of "If you disagree with me you are stupid and a liar.
Difference is that I wasn't insulting for the sake of insulting you
No you were insulting me in place of coming up with an argument. All you have said so far is that I am stupid and disconnected from reality. Saying "you didn't understand this book, you are lying about it, it's impossible to have your opinion of this book and not be mentally retarded" is so much sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming. Come back when you want to discuss something outside of the framework of "If you disagree with me you are stupid and a liar.
You sir, need to learn to relax. Your going to give yourself an ulcer.
I'm the most relaxed and chilled out person you'll ever meet my friend.
No you were insulting me in place of coming up with an argument.
I'm sorry that you're offended at my pointing out that your analysis of Atlas Shrugged is so far out in leftfield that it makes anyone who's actually read the book doubt that you've done so yourself.
You don't even have the excuse to claim that you're confusing the book with the movie as the movie hasn't been made yet (although I have no doubt that it will correspond rather closely with your interpretation of the book).
There is nothing in Atlas to suggest anything but a celebration of an honest day's work for an honest day's pay.
Those businessmen who would rob and cheat their employees or customers are badguys - its impossible to misconstrue Atlas as doing anything but condemning them for the liars, cheats and looters that they are.
Yet through some impossible flight of fancy, you've somehow come to the determination that Rand celebrates them and that their RL counterparts could read her book and get comfort and justification from it.
So yes, my assessment of you is very accurate and fair - you're either lying about having read the book or if you have, you're unquestionably insane for having come to the conclusions about it that you've shared with us.
I'm the most relaxed and chilled out person you'll ever meet my friend.
No you were insulting me in place of coming up with an argument.
I'm sorry that you're offended at my pointing out that your analysis of Atlas Shrugged is so far out in leftfield that it makes anyone who's actually read the book doubt that you've done so yourself.
You don't even have the excuse to claim that you're confusing the book with the movie as the movie hasn't been made yet (although I have no doubt that it will correspond rather closely with your interpretation of the book).
There is nothing in Atlas to suggest anything but a celebration of an honest day's work for an honest day's pay.
Those businessmen who would rob and cheat their employees or customers are badguys - its impossible to misconstrue Atlas as doing anything but condemning them for the liars, cheats and looters that they are.
Yet through some impossible flight of fancy, you've somehow come to the determination that Rand celebrates them and that their RL counterparts could read her book and get comfort and justification from it.
So yes, my assessment of you is very accurate and fair - you're either lying about having read the book or if you have, you're unquestionably insane for having come to the conclusions about it that you've shared with us.
I'm the most relaxed and chilled out person you'll ever meet my friend.
Sure doesn't sound like it. It sounds like you're foaming at the mouth.
So yes, my assessment of you is very accurate and fair - you're either lying about having read the book or if you have, you're unquestionably insane for having come to the conclusions about it that you've shared with us.
Once again we have, "If you disagree with my view on this subject you are stupid". This is not a legitimate argument.
Let me deconstruct my premises and conclusions and put them as simply as possible without them becoming meaningless. Please Let me know at which point you find fault in my argument (instead of saying I am stupid), so perhaps in this way we can come to some sort of conclusion. My main issues with Rand involve her theories on the market and on the need for welfare so I will confine myself to them in the main (These are strong themes in Atlas Shrugged). I should note that I do agree with Rand on a variety of subjects particularly in the primacy of reason and the rejection of faith, religion and anything else which claims authority over your own mind as she puts it (her ideas about sex and the rule by the consent of the people are I also find appealing)
1. Rand, in her book, puts forth the philosophy of objectivism, the idea that if each individual acts in enlightened self interest (enlightened because it is tempered somewhat by a personal rational moral code) a sort of gestalt situation will occur leading to the betterment of every person. This is the generally held basic understanding of her position, correct me if I am wrong.
2. Based on this premise, or perhaps more accurately, as part of it she holds that neither regulation of the market by the government, nor any sort of welfare or any similar social safety net is necessary. In fact she holds the existence of these are the reasons for poverty and most every other social ill because regulation and taxes stifle creativity and innovation and welfare or charity encourages people to mooch as it is put rather than put in a good days work.
3. Rand from all this concludes that any form of altruism (that is to behave in a selfless manner rather than in ones own self interest) at any time is a determent to society.
3a. Basically on the question of welfare she says if you throw everyone in the water and shout "Sink or swim" everyone will swim because they know nobody is coming to rescue them and in that way nobody has to waste time and effort trying to save people who are only really claiming to be drowning because they know they will get rescued and swimming is hard.
3b. On the question of regulation she holds that regulation is not in the public interest (as it is supposed to be) and only servers to stifle creativity. The forces of the market should weed out bad products or harmful practices. Neither is it in the interest of the market for stability or anything like that. In her view the market is totally self correcting and regulation only stifles competition and creativity.
Which parts of my outline above do you disagree with? If there are any points let me know and after I get your response I will tell you why I don't believe objectivism can work.
Sure doesn't sound like it. It sounds like you're foaming at the mouth.
So yes, my assessment of you is very accurate and fair - you're either lying about having read the book or if you have, you're unquestionably insane for having come to the conclusions about it that you've shared with us.
Once again we have, "If you disagree with my view on this subject you are stupid". This is not a legitimate argument.
Let me deconstruct my premises and conclusions and put them as simply as possible without them becoming meaningless. Please Let me know at which point you find fault in my argument (instead of saying I am stupid), so perhaps in this way we can come to some sort of conclusion. My main issues with Rand involve her theories on the market and on the need for welfare so I will confine myself to them in the main (These are strong themes in Atlas Shrugged). I should note that I do agree with Rand on a variety of subjects particularly in the primacy of reason and the rejection of faith, religion and anything else which claims authority over your own mind as she puts it (her ideas about sex and the rule by the consent of the people are I also find appealing)
1. Rand, in her book, puts forth the philosophy of objectivism, the idea that if each individual acts in enlightened self interest (enlightened because it is tempered somewhat by a personal rational moral code) a sort of gestalt situation will occur leading to the betterment of every person. This is the generally held basic understanding of her position, correct me if I am wrong.
2. Based on this premise, or perhaps more accurately, as part of it she holds that neither regulation of the market by the government, nor any sort of welfare or any similar social safety net is necessary. In fact she holds the existence of these are the reasons for poverty and most every other social ill because regulation and taxes stifle creativity and innovation and welfare or charity encourages people to mooch as it is put rather than put in a good days work.
3. Rand from all this concludes that any form of altruism (that is to behave in a selfless manner rather than in ones own self interest) at any time is a determent to society.
3a. Basically on the question of welfare she says if you throw everyone in the water and shout "Sink or swim" everyone will swim because they know nobody is coming to rescue them and in that way nobody has to waste time and effort trying to save people who are only really claiming to be drowning because they know they will get rescued and swimming is hard.
3b. On the question of regulation she holds that regulation is not in the public interest (as it is supposed to be) and only servers to stifle creativity. The forces of the market should weed out bad products or harmful practices. Neither is it in the interest of the market for stability or anything like that. In her view the market is totally self correcting and regulation only stifles competition and creativity.
Which parts of my outline above do you disagree with? If there are any points let me know and after I get your response I will tell you why I don't believe objectivism can work.
You dont understand what he is saying, at all. Its not "get rid of the coperations" its "Better control and regulate them". What is the main gaol of the company? Making money, thats normal, thats okay. What isnt okay is to outsource the production to low wages countries to get 3 % more profits, or simply pay the workes less then normal or having them work under conditions that are not save etc.
There is a line wehn a company goes from simply doing what it always does, to a greedy man eating machine. How many low wages, temporary workers do exist in the USA? How many of them where quickyl laid off by Gm due to the managment faliure to assest the market right? I bet a lot and many of them now live either under the bridge or hostel for the homeless, without insurance or anything. What tell you those people who have not a real good education without a degree and that never did more then simply jobs? What do you tell them?
Do you think that its fair and that they still have a future on this job market that is full of people like them?
Thats the reality and you cant deny that this is the fault of the coperations. GM made so many mistakes that its no wonder the company is bankrupt now. If people dont want to buy your cars anymore, your huge ass cars that take lots of fule and the costumers actually beg you to finally build a smaller more fule efficnet car and you do not listen to them then you have no right complain really. You fucked up then and no one else. The Goverment had nothing to do with this.
The real kicker is that those managers, if coperation or Bank, still get money in form of gratuities/indemnities after the leave the company/bank they helped to ruin and that often are several million dollars. With what right did those people earn all this cash? I can understand that they get 3 Million Dollars each year wehn working in the company (wihch is more then the US President gets per year) but after they fucked up that bad they have no right to get a price in form of indemnities, while thier wokers get jack.
Thats Capitalism for you: the big ones get all and you as the avarged worker gets nothing wehn he loses his job. This and this alone is the problem, the problem of fairness and that isnt currently the case. If those managers would simply get nothing wehn they quit, no one would complain, but they get all that cash for quitting and that makes people very angry.
Its not so much about companies and thier taxes, but how they treat thier emploeeys and managers, where its clear that there is no equality here. Greed has poisend mens souls and has bought us nothing then misery. In that atmosphere its no wonder people turn to the Goverment because its thier turf to keep the coperations and Banks in check, but there was no regulation in the recent years. Everything went out of hand and became a gigantic monopoly game with real money, real companies, real banks and real people with real lifes behind it and the big players dont care about you, the avarged joe. Many, many peopel lost all thier savings due to the bank brakedown and non of them is getting thier cash back, all of them where robbed of thier future to have at least some money wehn they are old or what ever dream they wanted to fulfill with that money.
What do you tell them? "Sorry that it happend, but Capitalism is still cool, invest your cash again and you will be rich soon!" or what? And then you wonder why people want socalism and start hating the rich, wealthy manager types that made money with cash of others like monopoly money.
Id you cant understand all that, then I am sorry, then you are even futher beyond then I ever thought.
There is a line wehn a company goes from simply doing what it always does, to a greedy man eating machine. How many low wages, temporary workers do exist in the USA? How many of them where quickyl laid off by Gm due to the managment faliure to assest the market right? I bet a lot and many of them now live either under the bridge or hostel for the homeless, without insurance or anything. What tell you those people who have not a real good education without a degree and that never did more then simply jobs? What do you tell them?
Do you think that its fair and that they still have a future on this job market that is full of people like them?
Thats the reality and you cant deny that this is the fault of the coperations. GM made so many mistakes that its no wonder the company is bankrupt now. If people dont want to buy your cars anymore, your huge ass cars that take lots of fule and the costumers actually beg you to finally build a smaller more fule efficnet car and you do not listen to them then you have no right complain really. You fucked up then and no one else. The Goverment had nothing to do with this.
The real kicker is that those managers, if coperation or Bank, still get money in form of gratuities/indemnities after the leave the company/bank they helped to ruin and that often are several million dollars. With what right did those people earn all this cash? I can understand that they get 3 Million Dollars each year wehn working in the company (wihch is more then the US President gets per year) but after they fucked up that bad they have no right to get a price in form of indemnities, while thier wokers get jack.
Thats Capitalism for you: the big ones get all and you as the avarged worker gets nothing wehn he loses his job. This and this alone is the problem, the problem of fairness and that isnt currently the case. If those managers would simply get nothing wehn they quit, no one would complain, but they get all that cash for quitting and that makes people very angry.
Its not so much about companies and thier taxes, but how they treat thier emploeeys and managers, where its clear that there is no equality here. Greed has poisend mens souls and has bought us nothing then misery. In that atmosphere its no wonder people turn to the Goverment because its thier turf to keep the coperations and Banks in check, but there was no regulation in the recent years. Everything went out of hand and became a gigantic monopoly game with real money, real companies, real banks and real people with real lifes behind it and the big players dont care about you, the avarged joe. Many, many peopel lost all thier savings due to the bank brakedown and non of them is getting thier cash back, all of them where robbed of thier future to have at least some money wehn they are old or what ever dream they wanted to fulfill with that money.
What do you tell them? "Sorry that it happend, but Capitalism is still cool, invest your cash again and you will be rich soon!" or what? And then you wonder why people want socalism and start hating the rich, wealthy manager types that made money with cash of others like monopoly money.
Id you cant understand all that, then I am sorry, then you are even futher beyond then I ever thought.
What isnt okay is to outsource the production to low wages countries to get 3 % more profits, or simply pay the workes less then normal or having them work under conditions that are not save etc.
You really have no clue what the profit margins of the average company are, do you?
http://biz.yahoo.com/p/sum_qpmd.html
Take a look at all those evil industries that are supposedly making a fortune off of killing their workers - the profit margins are single digits.
There's already regulations in place to protect workers against unsafe conditions - Karno's assertion that these companies are deliberately killing their workers is insane! When a worker dies on company time due to an accident that costs the company a fortune in legal fees, investigations, etc and god forbid the company has unsafe practices as that increases the costs tenfold - there's no profit in having workers hurt/killed just to save a few bucks.
Karno wants to know the difference between the person killed by the random psycho and the person killed on the job - here it is - the family of the murder victim hopes and prays they get justice and if they're lucky, they get it and that's it. The family of the industrial victim gets a multi-million dollar settlement. If I'm gonna die randomly before my time, I hope to hell its in a work related accident and not by a random nutjob as the work related accident insures that my family is set for life.
How many low wages, temporary workers do exist in the USA? How many of them where quickyl laid off by Gm due to the managment faliure to assest the market right?
None in GM - they were all overpaid union workers - the product of government regulations that drove GM broke because it had to pay people $30/hour to do work that didn't even require a highschool education thanks to unions.
The real kicker is that those managers, if coperation or Bank, still get money in form of gratuities/indemnities after the leave the company/bank they helped to ruin
The greedy unions were the ones that ruined GM, not the managers my friend.
Thats Capitalism for you:
Nope, that's government interference in capitalism with a good dose of socialism to boot - the Japanese companies are union free and they're doing fine because workers are actually paid what they're worth and not starting at $14/hour to put wheels on a car on an assembly line.
Id you cant understand all that, then I am sorry, then you are even futher beyond then I ever thought.
You're the one who obviously doesn't understand the dangers of unions - here's your homework - read "Rivethead: Tales from the Assembly Line" to get a good idea of what the unions did to the US auto-industry and then tell me again how it was the evil, greedy managers who drove GM broke.
You really have no clue what the profit margins of the average company are, do you?
http://biz.yahoo.com/p/sum_qpmd.html
Take a look at all those evil industries that are supposedly making a fortune off of killing their workers - the profit margins are single digits.
There's already regulations in place to protect workers against unsafe conditions - Karno's assertion that these companies are deliberately killing their workers is insane! When a worker dies on company time due to an accident that costs the company a fortune in legal fees, investigations, etc and god forbid the company has unsafe practices as that increases the costs tenfold - there's no profit in having workers hurt/killed just to save a few bucks.
Karno wants to know the difference between the person killed by the random psycho and the person killed on the job - here it is - the family of the murder victim hopes and prays they get justice and if they're lucky, they get it and that's it. The family of the industrial victim gets a multi-million dollar settlement. If I'm gonna die randomly before my time, I hope to hell its in a work related accident and not by a random nutjob as the work related accident insures that my family is set for life.
How many low wages, temporary workers do exist in the USA? How many of them where quickyl laid off by Gm due to the managment faliure to assest the market right?
None in GM - they were all overpaid union workers - the product of government regulations that drove GM broke because it had to pay people $30/hour to do work that didn't even require a highschool education thanks to unions.
The real kicker is that those managers, if coperation or Bank, still get money in form of gratuities/indemnities after the leave the company/bank they helped to ruin
The greedy unions were the ones that ruined GM, not the managers my friend.
Thats Capitalism for you:
Nope, that's government interference in capitalism with a good dose of socialism to boot - the Japanese companies are union free and they're doing fine because workers are actually paid what they're worth and not starting at $14/hour to put wheels on a car on an assembly line.
Id you cant understand all that, then I am sorry, then you are even futher beyond then I ever thought.
You're the one who obviously doesn't understand the dangers of unions - here's your homework - read "Rivethead: Tales from the Assembly Line" to get a good idea of what the unions did to the US auto-industry and then tell me again how it was the evil, greedy managers who drove GM broke.
Ah yes, as I thought. You cant stand the thought that your belived capitalist system has failed misrable and put the blame on others. Oh yes there where no temp low wages workers working at GM, despite the fact that the news report from a few moths back said something completly diffrent and it was done by a German TV station. That was the same TV station that interviewed a GM salesman who said that no one currently buys the current GM carline because they are too expensive, fule wasting and simply too big and asked wehn GM is going to produce a smaller car and he only could answer "I dont know, I told them already."
If you dont listen your customers and give them what they want, then you are fucked, but you let that part simply out because you belive that people should buy over expensive, fule intersive Hummer style cars regadless of what they want, right?
Its also interesting that you complain to the unions that made sure people are paid properly, then from all I know, wages dumping is something that would occur without these "evil unions". I dont know what kind of job do you have, but the cash you get right now is thanks to the union behind it or do you feel you are overpaid? I mean, would you work for less then 10 Dollars an hour? Temp workers get less then that, they are between 6,50 and 8,50 the hour, thats less then a regular worker gets. Test it, try to live from 600 Dollars a month, plus privat insurance and whatnot and try to uphold your current living style. Would love to see if that works.
Its interesting that you mention this book, just like you mentoined Atlas Shrugged and handle both as the non-plus-ultra in telling us evil liberals how the wrold works. Your book mentioned above, dosent even deal with the Unions at all, its not even mentioned.
Ben Hamper says little about the UAW; it isn't exactly a daily felt presence on the shop floor. In the old plants, the union made it hard to fire a worker and made it possible for workers to resist and sometimes to defeat the worst management abuses. But at least since the radicals were expelled long ago, it has not stood for anything except higher pay and some job security, and today it cannot deliver these. In the newer plants, it is firmly in bed with the companies, pushing the labor-management cooperation schemes which Parker and Slaughter in their book, Choosing Sides, more accurately call "management by stress." There are hopeful rumblings among the rank-and-file in the UAW and in many other unions, but it is a sorry state of affairs when a book like Ben Hamper's has so little to say about what most people consider to be one of the nation' s greatest unions.
So, sorry to say, but that book isnt a good source to claim what unions do to companies like GM.
If you dont listen your customers and give them what they want, then you are fucked, but you let that part simply out because you belive that people should buy over expensive, fule intersive Hummer style cars regadless of what they want, right?
Its also interesting that you complain to the unions that made sure people are paid properly, then from all I know, wages dumping is something that would occur without these "evil unions". I dont know what kind of job do you have, but the cash you get right now is thanks to the union behind it or do you feel you are overpaid? I mean, would you work for less then 10 Dollars an hour? Temp workers get less then that, they are between 6,50 and 8,50 the hour, thats less then a regular worker gets. Test it, try to live from 600 Dollars a month, plus privat insurance and whatnot and try to uphold your current living style. Would love to see if that works.
Its interesting that you mention this book, just like you mentoined Atlas Shrugged and handle both as the non-plus-ultra in telling us evil liberals how the wrold works. Your book mentioned above, dosent even deal with the Unions at all, its not even mentioned.
Ben Hamper says little about the UAW; it isn't exactly a daily felt presence on the shop floor. In the old plants, the union made it hard to fire a worker and made it possible for workers to resist and sometimes to defeat the worst management abuses. But at least since the radicals were expelled long ago, it has not stood for anything except higher pay and some job security, and today it cannot deliver these. In the newer plants, it is firmly in bed with the companies, pushing the labor-management cooperation schemes which Parker and Slaughter in their book, Choosing Sides, more accurately call "management by stress." There are hopeful rumblings among the rank-and-file in the UAW and in many other unions, but it is a sorry state of affairs when a book like Ben Hamper's has so little to say about what most people consider to be one of the nation' s greatest unions.
So, sorry to say, but that book isnt a good source to claim what unions do to companies like GM.
Well, I know, I think Cigarskunk is the prime example of the "Ugly American" he is exact what is wrong with America in a person. I talked with many other like him and I regularly use him as an example in other forums, using his arguments and whatnot and so far everyone who read it had to facepalm really hard, some could not believe that someone like him exists.
He lives in his own Republican/Conservative fantasy land, totally removed from the reality, he says he is a patriot and true American but denies other Americans equality and chances, he says he is against big government but is perfectly fine with the expansion of the security apparatus and the armed forces under Bush, he is against spending money on healthcare but supports The War on Terror that costs twice as much, he says Obama is a fascist, ignoring the ties his Republican party has to the third Reich and that many ex-nazis served in the CIA and that it where people from the Republican party who wanted to overthrow FDR and install a Hitler style regime in the 30s.
He also supports torture and disregards human life, because they are "Americas enemies" and has the balls to say Obama equals Hitler, when Cigarskunk and his party support Nazi style torture.
He is against a government run halthcare system, besides the fact that the US spends more on healthcare, private heralthcare then any other nation in the world. He claims they ae number one in health care when they are only rank 40th and when a average US citizen only lives 5 mins longer then that of a Cuban.
He blindly supports the Capitalist system, denying that it can harm people, ignoring the utter failure it created and ignoring that regulation would be the key to overcome those problems, but he still believes in his fantasy capitalism that ran the economy into the ground.
I am not even an American I am a German and I feel ashamed that people like he exist and he isnt the only one, sadly.
I recently had a discussion over at DA regarding the "Evil that is Obama", where the guy claimed that Obama was mentally ill and that he was a control freak and would be the net Hitler, after telling him back and forth how wrong he is, I simply gave up saying that I no longer will waste my time and energy at him and that he should believe what ever he wants but should not wonder if people laugh about him.
I also had similar conversation at several forums as well.
I think I need to post some political journals very soon.
He lives in his own Republican/Conservative fantasy land, totally removed from the reality, he says he is a patriot and true American but denies other Americans equality and chances, he says he is against big government but is perfectly fine with the expansion of the security apparatus and the armed forces under Bush, he is against spending money on healthcare but supports The War on Terror that costs twice as much, he says Obama is a fascist, ignoring the ties his Republican party has to the third Reich and that many ex-nazis served in the CIA and that it where people from the Republican party who wanted to overthrow FDR and install a Hitler style regime in the 30s.
He also supports torture and disregards human life, because they are "Americas enemies" and has the balls to say Obama equals Hitler, when Cigarskunk and his party support Nazi style torture.
He is against a government run halthcare system, besides the fact that the US spends more on healthcare, private heralthcare then any other nation in the world. He claims they ae number one in health care when they are only rank 40th and when a average US citizen only lives 5 mins longer then that of a Cuban.
He blindly supports the Capitalist system, denying that it can harm people, ignoring the utter failure it created and ignoring that regulation would be the key to overcome those problems, but he still believes in his fantasy capitalism that ran the economy into the ground.
I am not even an American I am a German and I feel ashamed that people like he exist and he isnt the only one, sadly.
I recently had a discussion over at DA regarding the "Evil that is Obama", where the guy claimed that Obama was mentally ill and that he was a control freak and would be the net Hitler, after telling him back and forth how wrong he is, I simply gave up saying that I no longer will waste my time and energy at him and that he should believe what ever he wants but should not wonder if people laugh about him.
I also had similar conversation at several forums as well.
I think I need to post some political journals very soon.
I agree with everything you said.Its a very sad place American politics are. I am in favor of debate on facts. But the Republican party is too often lazy and dishonest and resorts to outright bald faced lies and nonsense. Like the congressman Joe Wilson who shouted out to the president "you lie" during a joint session of congress about health care reform. Not only ,its the first time in modern history something so disrespectful has happened to the president (strange coincidence its happens to the first president who is black by a white congressman from the deep south who has tried to premoted the confederate flag when he was in state government ), but it was in the bill titled in a paragraph how illegal aliens wouldnt get free health care. But Fox News,Rush Limbaugh, and the other right wing water carriers facts are things to be created to fit the situation,not things based in reality.Its very sad.
Exactly, the Republican party and the Conservatives, specifically the Neo-Cons are running this fear mongering propaganda campaign since Obama is in office, lying to the public and using FOX News as a tool to spread thier fear, hate and misinformation. Facts are fabricated and half truth or even lies are told, important info is nor told, when its not in favor of their view. cigarskunsk opinion, like many similar person, is based on lies, ignorance, misinformation, racism, false pride and propaganda. Instead of having a civil discussion, the whole thing turned into a shouting match of who can "Cry wolf" the loudest and who can make up the most horrifying stories about Obama and what he is going to do.
And then there are people like glenn Beck who fabricate conspiracies and tell people that the revolution is coming or Bill O´riley who shout out violent slogans, deformation people (Tiller the Baby Killer for example) and guys like Rush Limbaugh who tells a Republican War Vet that he is one of the reasons that Obama came to power, because he disagreed with Limbaugh and said that: "America should not torture and you sound like a brainwashed Nazi promoting that!" as well as plying songs like "Obama the Magic Negro"
And people fall for it, they follow those crooks and loons and believe what they say. It truned into a Circus with the motto "Let in the Clowns" or something like that.
This isnt normal anymore, really, you guys have to do something about that or it will end bad.
And then there are people like glenn Beck who fabricate conspiracies and tell people that the revolution is coming or Bill O´riley who shout out violent slogans, deformation people (Tiller the Baby Killer for example) and guys like Rush Limbaugh who tells a Republican War Vet that he is one of the reasons that Obama came to power, because he disagreed with Limbaugh and said that: "America should not torture and you sound like a brainwashed Nazi promoting that!" as well as plying songs like "Obama the Magic Negro"
And people fall for it, they follow those crooks and loons and believe what they say. It truned into a Circus with the motto "Let in the Clowns" or something like that.
This isnt normal anymore, really, you guys have to do something about that or it will end bad.
No amount of protests, petitions, political parties or problem-solvers will change anything in this country or in this world. People, for the most part, live like livestock, and many complain and call for action, when most don't even take action for themselves. People will come along and complain about them, too.
But there is no action to take. Even if one were to, oh, bomb the country back into the stone age, this would continue. Even after a global nuclear war, this would continue. After the fallout dissolved and the dark clouds parted, all the capitalists and corporate scumbags, or rather, their descendants, would crawl out of their bunkers and pick up where they left off, probably with greater ease seeing as the population would be decimated.
I don't have any solutions that don't require the cooperation of people, which is highly unlikely. It would take something outstanding to get people to overcome their race-divided, gender-divided, sexual orientation-divided, religion-divided little worlds and work together for a better, bigger one.
I want to see how things play out on the path they're on. Maybe this'll all collapse on itself. Maybe people will realize they've been pushed too far. Maybe not.
Sitting here arguing sure as hell won't change anything, either. I'm sure we can all agree there are problems, though.
But there is no action to take. Even if one were to, oh, bomb the country back into the stone age, this would continue. Even after a global nuclear war, this would continue. After the fallout dissolved and the dark clouds parted, all the capitalists and corporate scumbags, or rather, their descendants, would crawl out of their bunkers and pick up where they left off, probably with greater ease seeing as the population would be decimated.
I don't have any solutions that don't require the cooperation of people, which is highly unlikely. It would take something outstanding to get people to overcome their race-divided, gender-divided, sexual orientation-divided, religion-divided little worlds and work together for a better, bigger one.
I want to see how things play out on the path they're on. Maybe this'll all collapse on itself. Maybe people will realize they've been pushed too far. Maybe not.
Sitting here arguing sure as hell won't change anything, either. I'm sure we can all agree there are problems, though.
I would argue that your position vis big business is not a practical attitude to have because it doesn't do anything to help you solve the problem. I look at the market more as a raging river, it can certainly drown you, but it can also be made to power your home, and you need it's water to drink or you will die. It has no attitude, but it always runs down hill (toward the profit). Taxes are a shovel, you can dig a new path for the river by taxing its direction if you don't like it. The only problem in the analogy is that river's don't lobby so hard against people with shovels. I'm still working on that part. Possibly lobbyists are a particularly vicious kind of fish. Maybe communists can be beavers. It's a work in progress.
Oh yeah - http://www.globalrichlist.com/ - if you're only earning $35k a year US, then guess what - you're part of the top richest 4.62% of people in the world.
It's kind of a nonsensical comparison, even within a country. If you lived in Amarillo and made $35k, you could buy a nice house, but in San Francisco, you couldn't even afford a parking space. I used to work with a guy who sent $300 a month to Vietnam, which kept all his and his wife's relatives well fed and housed. That's why corporations like to make their money HERE and spend on a workforce THERE, to take advantage of that differential. Trouble is, when there's no workforce left HERE, there's nobody to buy their products at HERE prices. That's where economic collapse comes in.
It's kind of a nonsensical comparison, even within a country. If you lived in Amarillo and made $35k, you could buy a nice house,
But then you'd be considered the greedy rich in that country - you're saying we should confiscate everything the guy in Amarillo has because he's rich at $35k but leave alone the guy in San Fran because he's poor at $35k?
I used to work with a guy who sent $300 a month to Vietnam, which kept all his and his wife's relatives well fed and housed.
OK, so his relatives are obviously rich thanks to him.
See, the problem is that while $35k a year is middle class in the US, the rest of the world looks at you with the same jealousy and hatred as you look at Ted Kennedy or Nancy Pelosi and other multi-millionaires.
That's the reason why the rest of the world doesn't take you seriously - Obama's brother is living on a dollar a month in Kenya in a one room shack with a straw roof - to him, you're the greedy rich bastard who's hording all the wealth and if only he could vote for someone to force you to give him some of your wealth (cause you don't need to earn $30k a year if an entire family in Vietnam can live off of $3600) so you should be taxed at 95% so that he can have a real home and a couple of TVs and a computer and a fridge full of food and internet and a PS3, etc.
To him, you're the rich greedy bastard to be hated and taxed - get it?
But then you'd be considered the greedy rich in that country - you're saying we should confiscate everything the guy in Amarillo has because he's rich at $35k but leave alone the guy in San Fran because he's poor at $35k?
I used to work with a guy who sent $300 a month to Vietnam, which kept all his and his wife's relatives well fed and housed.
OK, so his relatives are obviously rich thanks to him.
See, the problem is that while $35k a year is middle class in the US, the rest of the world looks at you with the same jealousy and hatred as you look at Ted Kennedy or Nancy Pelosi and other multi-millionaires.
That's the reason why the rest of the world doesn't take you seriously - Obama's brother is living on a dollar a month in Kenya in a one room shack with a straw roof - to him, you're the greedy rich bastard who's hording all the wealth and if only he could vote for someone to force you to give him some of your wealth (cause you don't need to earn $30k a year if an entire family in Vietnam can live off of $3600) so you should be taxed at 95% so that he can have a real home and a couple of TVs and a computer and a fridge full of food and internet and a PS3, etc.
To him, you're the rich greedy bastard to be hated and taxed - get it?
Karno: different punishments for murder: There may be many reasons for that legal pattern, but some of it has to do with being lenient to those who kill without premeditation. My prejudice is that it goes back to the time of the aristocracy: Weapons-trained and weapon-equipped lords with hair-trigger tempers have an easier time in court for their honor-killings, compared to the peasant planning revenge with a "pre-meditated" murder.
Well keep in mind that sometimes we have only ourselves to blame for some mass focus on profit. Take corporations with lots of shareholders. Lets assume that at least half of the company is held by the 'wealthy' class of shareholders, the top 5% everyone loves to cite. Well the other 50 would be the general public. If you have a job or a 401k, you are a shareholder so while the poor may not be shareholders, many of the middle class are. Now if you have stocks, you want returns, so you want the company to do well. CEO's know that unless they get constant profits for the shareholders, the shareholders will throw them out on their ear, so they do whatever it takes to keep their asses in place because shareholders are a very impaitent, hard to please bunch.
Also not all corporations run on the old 'robber baron' method. Some know that its unrealistic to get the profits they need from just 5%. Modern buisness models realize there is a need to grow the middle class because they spend a lot more money then the lower class. The more the middle class grows, the more disposable income they have, the more product they can sell, the more they can grow. You try and remove the middle class and all you have is a small number of people with disposable income, but there is not nearly enough of them to promote enough spending to grow a company, and a lower class that cannot afford anything but the absolute basics.
Also not all corporations run on the old 'robber baron' method. Some know that its unrealistic to get the profits they need from just 5%. Modern buisness models realize there is a need to grow the middle class because they spend a lot more money then the lower class. The more the middle class grows, the more disposable income they have, the more product they can sell, the more they can grow. You try and remove the middle class and all you have is a small number of people with disposable income, but there is not nearly enough of them to promote enough spending to grow a company, and a lower class that cannot afford anything but the absolute basics.
Now see, this right here is the issue I have with companies, particularly publically traded companies.
The way I put it to my friends, "When a corporation goes public, they have a legal obligation to be evil." - not because anyone in their company wants them to be, but because they are required to make decisions based on the demands of their stockholders, and those demands are always for profit, because their stockholders usually include a lot of investment companies whose sole purpose is to increase their account holders' wealth. It might not even be some guy with a tax shelter in a tropical island nation, it could just be the collective result of 401ks and IRAs D:
The entire system can be horribly evil without a single person in it being greedy.
Like when people ask why large businesses file all these terrible lawsuits against other companies, and individuals-
Because it's someone's job to compile a list of everything that's going on that might have something to do with the company, and another person's to decide what's actionable, and another to pick the ones from that list that actually stand a chance of benefiting the company, and then another person who actually decides to file the suit, based more than likely on a quota his manager has given him to "show that they're doing something for the company".
As long as people just think "Eh, I'm just doing my job", then the emergent behaviors of the policies rather than the group intent are what come up. :P
The way I put it to my friends, "When a corporation goes public, they have a legal obligation to be evil." - not because anyone in their company wants them to be, but because they are required to make decisions based on the demands of their stockholders, and those demands are always for profit, because their stockholders usually include a lot of investment companies whose sole purpose is to increase their account holders' wealth. It might not even be some guy with a tax shelter in a tropical island nation, it could just be the collective result of 401ks and IRAs D:
The entire system can be horribly evil without a single person in it being greedy.
Like when people ask why large businesses file all these terrible lawsuits against other companies, and individuals-
Because it's someone's job to compile a list of everything that's going on that might have something to do with the company, and another person's to decide what's actionable, and another to pick the ones from that list that actually stand a chance of benefiting the company, and then another person who actually decides to file the suit, based more than likely on a quota his manager has given him to "show that they're doing something for the company".
As long as people just think "Eh, I'm just doing my job", then the emergent behaviors of the policies rather than the group intent are what come up. :P
Comments