# ITT: People who can't take a joke



## Church2224 (Jul 19, 2011)

The music industry in general is a very left of center group of individuals, which is fine as everyone has their own perspective , but at times I feel I am one of few people whose political views are much more to the right than anything else, which puts me in difficult position at times. I just pondered the idea if there are any other more right wing members like myself. 

Note this thread was NOT started to troll on everyone else nor do I want to see any bashing for anyone's political ideologies no matter what they are. Such things I will report to the mods as disrespect of any kind because of political/religious/any reason towards any one is not tolerated by me. I have been in that position before and let me tell you it is not fun to be called a dumb ass for believing in what you do.


----------



## Guitarman700 (Jul 19, 2011)

It's because you're wrong.




 
Nah, You can believe whatever you want, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, I'm fine with it.


----------



## Animus (Jul 19, 2011)

I am libertarian more or less. Very fiscally conservative but more liberal on social issues such as gay marriage, abortion etc., and an atheist at that.

I paraphrase Winston Churchill "If you are 20 and not a liberal you have no heart. If you are 40 and not conservative you are a dumbass."


----------



## Guitarman700 (Jul 19, 2011)

I am incredibly liberal on social issues like sexuality, relationships and personal freedoms, more so than most people I know. Still working out what my views are on the financial situation.


----------



## AySay (Jul 19, 2011)

there are 3


----------



## Xaios (Jul 19, 2011)

I'm also among the few right wing members of this site. Not much to really be said about, to be honest. While the site does skew to the left, the grand majority of the members on both sides of the aisle know how to keep their threats veiled in enough ambiguity that no one can really say for certain if they're serious or not.


----------



## Church2224 (Jul 19, 2011)

Guitarman I lol'd hard to the point my dog came running and jumped on top of me. 

I will be 20 2 weeks form today, so I guess I have no heart haha. But as far as my political beliefs go anything regarding financial issues to gun control, death penalty, abortion, military, government regulations, economic regulations, capitalism vs socialism vs communism, taxes, ect. ect. ect, I might make Rush Limbaugh look like a liberal lol. 

Some social aspects I am more liberal about. I have no problems with gay marriage, but then again I think no one should get married as, in my opinion of course, the legality of marriage in the USA needs to be reworked for different reasons. I would hate the fact that if I married some woman, she cheated on me, broke my heart, left me and took half of my stuff and even my kids, she could do that. But I digress.

I am also very much for the legalization of marijuana in the U.S., but then again, most people I know no matter their political beliefs are. 

As far as religion goes I used to be a very die hard Christian but as my life goes on I am finding myself more of a deist. I believe in a God, but I think that he does not do much in our lives or control any of it. 

This is just my take on a few things is all, just me.


----------



## Animus (Jul 19, 2011)

Church2224 said:


> Guitarman I lol'd hard to the point my dog came running and jumped on top of me.
> 
> I will be 20 2 weeks form today, so I guess I have no heart haha. But as far as my political beliefs go anything regarding financial issues to gun control, death penalty, abortion, military, government regulations, economic regulations, capitalism vs socialism vs communism, taxes, ect. ect. ect, I might make Rush Limbaugh look like a liberal lol.
> 
> ...



Actually, I believe if your wife cheated on you that would be grounds against alimony. Though child support would still be on the table, but you could probably even get custody on those grounds.


----------



## Thep (Jul 19, 2011)

Animus said:


> I am libertarian more or less. Very fiscally conservative but more liberal on social issues such as gay marriage, abortion etc., and an atheist at that.
> 
> I paraphrase Winston Churchill "If you are 20 and not a liberal you have no heart. If you are 40 and not conservative you are a dumbass."



Spot on, bro. Describes my thoughts perfectly.

I'll take this moment to say that I fucking cannot stand Mark Levin and Laura Ingraham. I initially thought it was not possible to find a more annoying person than somebody like Bill O'Rielly, but those two are idiots.


----------



## renzoip (Jul 19, 2011)

I find it interesting that you are having a hard time finding conservative musicians. I have found a lot of them. Specially in the metal scene, specially in the US, specially here in south FL. But then again, I'm super leftist. 

Back to the point, I recommend talking to Orb and Customisbetter, they are very solid right wingers.


----------



## Church2224 (Jul 19, 2011)

Animus said:


> Actually, I believe if your wife cheated on you that would be grounds against alimony. Though child support would still be on the table, but you could probably even get custody on those grounds.




I think it depends on the state, I know there are cases in Virginia where even if your wife cheats on you and files for divorce, she can still get half of everything the two of you own, the children and alimony. DO not quote me on that though, but I have friends who never got a divorce, at least yet, because of reasons like that and/ or similar situations.


----------



## Customisbetter (Jul 19, 2011)

I've been repeatedly classified as a right leaning moderate. I'll round it off to conservative though. 

Another popular member that i usually agree with is Orb.


----------



## Mordacain (Jul 19, 2011)

Anytime I try and chart where I am at I usually a pretty solid moderate with "liberal" leaning on moral / social issues. 

Apparently, believing that people should be able to do what they want as long as they don't hurt anyone makes one a liberal; I suppose there's the rub, as in how to define "hurting anyone else."

However, I can't stand the most vocal proponents of either side. The whole point to Democracy as I see it is to be moderate, to come to common ground somewhere in the middle. Its the only way I see that we can actually hold to the tenants of the Declaration of Independence and the Consitution.


----------



## chronocide (Jul 19, 2011)

It can't be hard to find musicians who're rightist (in real terms) in America, you're nation's "leftist" politicians are right wing!

On most of the UK centric music forums I use there's a pretty even spread, politically - though people sitting even so right as the Conservatives (left of your Democrats) quite often get a good dose of ridicule.

I guess overall metal (and any "subversive" genre) tends to have a leaning to social libertarianism and fiscal authoritarianism. Or so it seems to me. Which is obviously the _correct_ way  Let people do what the like as long as they're not hurting people and look after the poor, downtrodden and disadvantaged.


----------



## Animus (Jul 19, 2011)

Everyone should go take this test..... The Political Compass

It's awesome and you can compare yourself to historical figures and current politicians. You might be surprised of what you think you are and what you really are. 

It was a big hit over GearFreq.com a forum I mod at---which specializes in musicians/music professionals who talk politics etc. Come join us. A wide spectrum of peeps there from uber left to right and it get's heated at times.


----------



## Animus (Jul 19, 2011)

Church2224 said:


> I think it depends on the state, I know there are cases in Virginia where even if your wife cheats on you and files for divorce, she can still get half of everything the two of you own, the children and alimony. DO not quote me on that though, but I have friends who never got a divorce, at least yet, because of reasons like that and/ or similar situations.




I think you are right about the state by state basis. Bullshit nonetheless. IF someone cheats on you they should get nothing.


----------



## orb451 (Jul 19, 2011)

My personal politics tend to lean to the Right but especially when compared with many of the people on this forum. OP, hit me up with a PM if you want to talk shop any time. Same goes for you Liberals too, though I've only debated with one other member privately and that was JBroll, no one else from the other view points has had the balls (or the time) to have a PM debate with me about anything. 

And yeah, me Xaios and Customisbetter are usually in semi if not outright agreement on a lot of things. There's a couple more as well, like Aslsmm and some others too that lean more conservative/right than other folks on here.

It's all relative though. On here, I might as well be Newt Gingrich, on Calguns and other forums, I might as well be Jon Stewart. Just depends on the company with which to contrast my ideologies with others'.


----------



## orb451 (Jul 19, 2011)

Animus said:


> Everyone should go take this test..... The Political Compass



Already been done on here, didn't get that heated though, was more like a bunch of folks posting their scores and that's that. 

And surprise! Most of the people who posted it, were from the Left of center if not extreme Left.

EDIT: Left of the *scale* or graph, not my opinion or the world's definition of Left, etc...


----------



## chronocide (Jul 19, 2011)

Animus said:


> Everyone should go take this test..... The Political Compass
> 
> It's awesome and you can compare yourself to historical figures and current politicians. You might be surprised of what you think you are and what you really are.




Yeah I've done it before so can copy and past the results, which put me firmly in the bottom left corner.

Economic Left/Right: -9.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.44




Animus said:


> I think you are right about the state by state basis. Bullshit nonetheless. IF someone cheats on you they should get nothing.



As black as white as that? I couldn't disagree more. Relationships are complicated.


----------



## Church2224 (Jul 19, 2011)

Political Compass Printable Graph

This is what I got.

*Economic Left/Right: 7.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 3.03*

Sorry for big letters I copied and paste it lol.


----------



## orb451 (Jul 19, 2011)

Church2224 said:


> Political Compass Printable Graph
> 
> This is what I got.



LOL keep in mind that on here, that makes you a "fucking Nazi" LOL... Not that I think you are or that your graph scares me, but some people will see that on here and think you're the anti-christ


----------



## Church2224 (Jul 19, 2011)

orb451 said:


> LOL keep in mind that on here, that makes you a "fucking Nazi" LOL... Not that I think you are or that your graph scares me, but some people will see that on here and think you're the anti-christ




lol I have been expecting neg rep since I started this thread. I guess this will be it, plus maybe trolling. But if they do so that is there problem, not mine. I have my beliefs and respect others, if they choose not to do the same, so be it.


----------



## Animus (Jul 19, 2011)

chronocide said:


> Yeah I've done it before so can copy and past the results, which put me firmly in the bottom left corner.
> 
> Economic Left/Right: -9.50
> Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.44




I am in the bottom left quadrant as well, middle on the right side.


----------



## chronocide (Jul 19, 2011)

I'm always surprised that I don't hit -10 on the social libertarian one. Maybe it's cause I laugh at astrology.


----------



## Animus (Jul 19, 2011)

chronocide said:


> As black as white as that? I couldn't disagree more. Relationships are complicated.




Well, of course there would be gray areas but that's for the courts to decide, but I think "cheating" should definitely be a big mitigating factor.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Jul 19, 2011)

Economic Left/Right: 1.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.54


----------



## Animus (Jul 19, 2011)

orb451 said:


> Already been done on here, didn't get that heated though, was more like a bunch of folks posting their scores and that's that.
> 
> And surprise! Most of the people who posted it, were from the Left of center if not extreme Left.
> 
> EDIT: Left of the *scale* or graph, not my opinion or the world's definition of Left, etc...




I didn't mean heated in terms of the political compass but just the forum in general.


----------



## chronocide (Jul 19, 2011)

Animus said:


> Well, of course there would be gray areas but that's for the courts to decide, but I think "cheating" should definitely be a big mitigating factor.



Yeah that's what I was getting at, it can't be universally black and white there's far too many variables. Plus monogamy is unnatural 





orb451 said:


> EDIT: Left of the *scale* or graph, not my opinion or the world's definition of Left, etc...



What do you mean by "the world's definition"? That scale is pretty bang on in terms of academic definitions of the left/right spectrum. It doesn't fit with many nation's definitions because mostly populations like to view themselves as in the centre. But on a worldwide spectrum, it's accurate.


----------



## -42- (Jul 19, 2011)

I've been known to possess a few conservative proclivities. That being said, I'm more of the social libertarian bent than anything else.


----------



## Church2224 (Jul 19, 2011)

Animus said:


> Well, of course there would be gray areas but that's for the courts to decide, but I think "cheating" should definitely be a big mitigating factor.



My father and two of my best friends were cheated on , let me just say they were never really the same after that.

My Father's first marriage ended because his first wife cheated on him. I was raised with the belief that cheating on someone is one of the worst things you can do to emotionally hurt another human being, and that ideal is still ingrained in my stubborn ass mind lol, so I feel a little more biased against cheating...


----------



## orb451 (Jul 19, 2011)

chronocide said:


> What do you mean by "the world's definition"? That scale is pretty bang on in terms of academic definitions of the left/right spectrum. It doesn't fit with many nation's definitions because mostly populations like to view themselves as in the centre. But on a worldwide spectrum, it's accurate.



One thing I've noticed is that when people from the US talk about Left/Right, someone from somewhere else in the world inevitably pops up and says "Ha! What you call Left, we call blah blah blah" and vice versa with the Right as well. 

That's all, if the graph's accurate, awesome


----------



## AxeHappy (Jul 19, 2011)

I'm crazy left wing financially (just this side of socialism) and pretty extreme but not quite as far left socially. 

I've taken the test a bunch of times so I don't feel like doing it again.


----------



## chronocide (Jul 19, 2011)

orb451 said:


> One thing I've noticed is that when people from the US talk about Left/Right, someone from somewhere else in the world inevitably pops up and says "Ha! What you call Left, we call blah blah blah" and vice versa with the Right as well.
> 
> That's all, if the graph's accurate, awesome



Yeah everyone sorta thinks of their nation's status quo as "centre" but all developed nations are economically right wing, for example.

But yeah, the graph is good for the whole breadth of ideologies


----------



## Animus (Jul 19, 2011)

chronocide said:


> Yeah everyone sorta thinks of their nation's status quo as "centre" but all developed nations are economically right wing, for example.
> 
> But yeah, the graph is good for the whole breadth of ideologies




One thing that is always interesting to me is "liberals" in the USA always saying Europeans have it so much more right than we do, and a model to look up to. That's funny to me. For example, everyone knows how "evil" or racist the left portrays the right for wanting to secure our southern borders and kick the illegals out. Over in a lot of European countries they tolerate it even less! I was reading up on German immigration policies and it is much more strict than the US. Hell, one of my good friends married a German girl, moved over there, and almost 10 years later still has problems getting a legal job., despite being married to a German and learning the language.


----------



## SirMyghin (Jul 19, 2011)

I have many libertarian views, but when it comes to political issues I lean right, as left always wants to take something from someone else, and give it to someone who doesn't deserve it, or didn't work for it, and for that I will not stand. I believe in the reward production brings, and the value of work. If you have done more work, you have earned more and have every right to it. I don't care about moral issues such as sexuality and others choices, I am far too self absorbed for that. 

But yes, here you are, another 'right' winger. I see libertarian tossed around a lot, but I also see a lot of 'social libertarians' around here, and to me that defies the what it means to be libertarian, carrying others is not quite the deal, it is being left alone to carry on, 'social libertarians' seem much more like utilitarians than anything. Think Nozick if you want to get close to my thoughts.


----------



## chronocide (Jul 19, 2011)

Animus said:


> One thing that is always interesting to me is "liberals" in the USA always saying Europeans have it so much more right than we do, and a model to look up to. That's funny to me. For example, everyone knows how "evil" or racist the left portrays the right for wanting to secure our southern borders and kick the illegals out. Over in a lot of European countries they tolerate it even less! I was reading up on German immigration policies and it is much more strict than the US. Hell, one of my good friends married a German girl, moved over there, and almost 10 years later still has problems getting a legal job., despite being married to a German and learning the language.




In some cases yes. Germany, Italy and France are pretty right-wing at the minute with regards to imigration. But bear in mind there is total freedom of migration within the EU. Anyone from any of the below nations (with a couple limits in certain members regarding mass Eastern European limits per year) can go and live and work in any of the others at a moments notice freely.


Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Netherlands
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
United Kingdom


----------



## Animus (Jul 19, 2011)

chronocide said:


> In some cases yes. Germany, Italy and France are pretty right-wing at the minute with regards to imigration. But bear in mind there is total freedom of migration within the EU. Anyone from any of the below nations (with a couple limits in certain members regarding mass Eastern European limits per year) can go and live and work in any of the others at a moments notice freely.
> 
> 
> Austria
> ...



Yeah I totally realize that. But that's "legal immigration" so to speak, The member countries have an alliance/agreement. I was talking the "illegal" kind, true foreigners, sneaking across the border to live and work.


----------



## jymellis (Jul 19, 2011)

im more of a massive consumer / broken wing


----------



## chronocide (Jul 19, 2011)

Animus said:


> Yeah I totally realize that. But that's "legal immigration" so to speak, The member countries have an alliance/agreement. I was talking the "illegal" kind, true foreigners.



Ah, right. Just your example of your friend was obviously legal immigration. Regards illegal immigration it varies a great deal nation to nation, I'm not that up on all the EU states. There has been some horrific treatment of native residents of certain ethnicities in France and Italy recently which is terrifying, though.

I think when US liberals talk up European nations is it not often with regards to healthcare systems, welfare states, civil liberties and so on?


----------



## Animus (Jul 19, 2011)

chronocide said:


> I think when US liberals talk up European nations is it not often with regards to healthcare systems, welfare states, civil liberties and so on?



yeah, we see how well that is working out with Greece, Spain and Portugal. ;-)


----------



## chronocide (Jul 19, 2011)

Animus said:


> yeah, we see how well that is working out with Greece, Spain and Portugal. ;-)



Their economies are falling to pieces, as is Ireland's (a lot of which is to do with the worldwide economic disaster the US foots lots of the blame for  ) but that isn't the fault (at all) of their welfare states, healthcare nor civil liberties, so I'm not sure what you mean?


----------



## Animus (Jul 19, 2011)

chronocide said:


> There has been some horrific treatment of native residents of certain ethnicities in France and Italy recently which is terrifying, though.




Yeah, that was sort of my point. Europeans are perhaps way more "ethnocentric" than we are generally speaking yet Americans are always made out to be racists etc because we want to secure the border and expel illegal aliens.

There was a study I was reading about California and illegal aliens. If I remember right, something like 20 percent of the California fiscal budget is spent due to illegals in the state, from education/healthcare to prisons.


----------



## chronocide (Jul 19, 2011)

That IS a very specific treatment of one very specific people by two or three specific nations out of however many there are in Europe.

The UK is does more in support of illegal aliens while they're here than the rest of Europe though, for sure. Which I think is great, many people think it's terrible, obviously. I'd be astounded if 20% of California's budget is spent one way or another of illegal immigrants, though. That can't be right, surely?


----------



## Animus (Jul 19, 2011)

chronocide said:


> Their economies are falling to pieces, as is Ireland's (a lot of which is to do with the worldwide economic disaster the US foots lots of the blame for  ) but that isn't the fault (at all) of their welfare states, healthcare nor civil liberties, so I'm not sure what you mean?




Surely, the worldwide recession is partly to blame but imo I think such social programs and central planning is unsustainable. On another forum a guy from Greece was explaining that tax cheating is a big problem, and said something like 80% of Greek citizens vastly unreported there income where they basically pay no tax. That is not sustainable. Socialism is a good idea until you run out of other people's money. Other member states will eventually get sick of bailing out the weaker countries.


----------



## Animus (Jul 19, 2011)

chronocide said:


> That IS a very specific treatment of one very specific people by two or three specific nations out of however many there are in Europe.
> 
> The UK is does more in support of illegal aliens while they're here than the rest of Europe though, for sure. Which I think is great, many people think it's terrible, obviously. I'd be astounded if 20% of California's budget is spent one way or another of illegal immigrants, though. That can't be right, surely?




Don't quote me on that. It was something really high that surprised me though. I will try and see if I can find the link.


----------



## synrgy (Jul 19, 2011)

I'm pretty liberal, but my favorite person on the forum to discuss social/political topics with is Rich (Orb), so there you go.

As mentioned by someone else, it's not always as simple as 'black/white' 'left/right', etc. I believe in multitudinous shades of grey. While we all lean whichever way we do, I think _most_ of us on the forum can see reason, and appreciate debate which doesn't spiral downward into personal attacks and/or insults.

It's easy enough to disagree with someone without completely disregarding the potential merit of their ideas. One shouldn't bother discussing social/political issues unless one has a mind open to new ideas.

In summation: I'm not a conservative, but plenty of the people I love are.


----------



## chronocide (Jul 19, 2011)

Animus said:


> Surely, the worldwide recession is partly to blame but imo I think such social programs and central planning is unsustainable. On another forum a guy from Greece was explaining that tax cheating is a big problem, and said something like 80% of Greek citizens vastly unreported there income where they basically pay no tax. That is not sustainable. Socialism is a good idea until you run out of other people's money. Other member states will eventually get sick of bailing out the weaker countries.




None of those nations have socialist economic policies. The problems are entirely capitalism-born. And the nations (worldwide) who've come out of the recession strongest are the ones with the highest public spending, Scandinavia and so on.

Greece has huge corruption problems, certainly, dunno if it's as prevalent in the populous as it is in their establishment, I just don't know enough about the nation. 

The struggling nations will pull out the Euro sooner or later and then will be able to control inflation on a local level and it'll make a huge difference.


----------



## Blind Theory (Jul 19, 2011)

I consider myself conservative...so I guess that makes like...what? 5?


----------



## Animus (Jul 19, 2011)

chronocide said:


> The struggling nations will pull out the Euro sooner or later and then will be able to control inflation on a local level and it'll make a huge difference.




So you are agreeing the EU is a bad idea and locally controlled governments make more sense?


----------



## Church2224 (Jul 19, 2011)

Getting a little of topic guys... sorry but I do not want another of my threads shut down.


----------



## Animus (Jul 19, 2011)

chronocide said:


> None of those nations have socialist economic policies. The problems are entirely capitalism-born. And the nations (worldwide) who've come out of the recession strongest are the ones with the highest public spending, Scandinavia and so on.




So you are saying that they should adapt a total socialist economy? Didn't you say you were fiscal libertarian awhile back? 


Norway is doing well. Because they are not in the EU smartly and have oil of course.


----------



## chronocide (Jul 19, 2011)

Animus said:


> So you are agreeing the EU is a bad idea and locally controlled governments make more sense?



I think the EU specifically is a bad thing but because of it's free market focus. I think co-operatives on any scale are brilliant in essence, however. Big government over small government, always.



Animus said:


> So you are saying that they should adapt a total socialist economy? Didn't you say you were fiscal libertarian awhile back?
> 
> 
> Norway is doing well. Because they are not in the EU smartly and have oil of course.



I don't think I said specifically, but I'm a strict fiscal-authoritarian. I'm a member of a socialist party.

Though they contribute more to the EU than anyone else I think, off hand. If not the most, close to it.



Church2224 said:


> Getting a little of topic guys... sorry but I do not want another of my threads shut down.



It's a discussion about the merits of the right vs left, no?


----------



## Animus (Jul 19, 2011)

chronocide said:


> I think the EU specifically is a bad thing but because of it's free market focus. I think co-operatives on any scale are brilliant in essence, however. Big government over small government, always.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, in that case. You are definitely not a libetarian. Damn commie. 


IAO!


----------



## Church2224 (Jul 19, 2011)

chronocide said:


> It's a discussion about the merits of the right vs left, no?



As quoting myself in the first post- 

"The music industry in general is a very left of center group of individuals, which is fine as everyone has their own perspective , but at times I feel I am one of few people whose political views are much more to the right than anything else, which puts me in difficult position at times. I just pondered the idea if there are any other more right wing members like myself."


----------



## chronocide (Jul 19, 2011)

...and then there was a bit of a discussion as to what actually constitutes left and right to different people. Which would help folks answer your question, I'd imagine.

But fair enough


----------



## Church2224 (Jul 19, 2011)

chronocide said:


> ...and then there was a bit of a discussion as to what actually constitutes left and right to different people. Which would help folks answer your question, I'd imagine.
> 
> But fair enough



Yeah I can see that though no mistake there. I was talking about the discussion you and animus were having lol. No worries it is just after a thread I started last week got closed I am doing the best I can to make sure nothing like that happens again. Sort of being my own mod for myself lol. 

Nothing against you two at all, You both had good arguments on both sides.


----------



## Dvaienat (Jul 19, 2011)

I don't think there's going to be many Conservatives or right-wing followers here. I read through the political ideologies thread, and IIRC there were only 2 or 3 people who fell into the top or bottom right corner of the political compass graph. Pretty much 99% of members who did the quiz fell into the bottom left corner, myself included.

I support a society which is fairer towards and helps those who are disadvantaged through no fault of their own. I do _not_ support giving unemployment benefit to those who refuse work suited to their qualifications. Quite frankly, if you are refusing work suited to you, you are probably mentally unstable in some sort of way. I support a society which values people's worth based upon the life they lead instead of worth being based upon strength, wealth and place in society like the right wing. I support acceptance of all races, disabilities and religious beliefs, and a society where nothing is frowned upon unless it harms others or infringes upon their rights and liberties.

I agree, people should be free to gain wealth to whatever extent, but _not_ at the disadvantage of others. This is my biggest criticism of capitalism.

I also feel that if religion were completely abolished and left behind, society would be able to advance much more. Religion was a tool to control the masses, give hope to people, and answer man's questions as to where we came from. In our modern society, with our knowledge of science, religion does more harm than good with its prejudices towards homosexuals and women, indoctrination of infants, threats of hellfire to unbelievers and followers of other faiths, and oppression of human nature.


----------



## bostjan (Jul 19, 2011)

I took the quiz - -3.88 economic, -2.92 social. I guess that makes me much more liberal than almost all americans...weird, because I don't consider myself that liberal. Actually, I didn't feel very strongly about any but a couple of the questions they asked.


----------



## McKay (Jul 19, 2011)

Church2224 said:


> My father and two of my best friends were cheated on , let me just say they were never really the same after that.
> 
> My Father's first marriage ended because his first wife cheated on him. I was raised with the belief that cheating on someone is one of the worst things you can do to emotionally hurt another human being, and that ideal is still ingrained in my stubborn ass mind lol, so I feel a little more biased against cheating...



That's because it is. It's a betrayal of the most intense trust and tightest bond in the human experience.

As for the thread, I wouldn't call myself conservative at all because I believe in a radical reworking of our system. I am extremely libertarian in some ways and extreme authoritarian in others and try be an observant realist rather than a lofty ideologue.


----------



## chronocide (Jul 19, 2011)

McKay said:


> That's because it is. It's a betrayal of the most intense trust and tightest bond in the human experience.



Just as a swift aside, as I don't want to derail a thread into something that's overtly off topic (though is certainly relevant to conservatism)...

The "tightest bond in the human experience" I believe is a socially conditioned thing. There's no basis in evolution for it. We've evolved to be polyamorous creatures - and were, without exception insofar as science can ascertain, for 90% of our history and still are in all hunter-gatherer populations. As such, I think it's entirely understandable when people cheat and far too big a fuss is made about it.

Maybe something to start a thread on at some point. But it often descents into "you just want to fuck loads of birds" when I've discussed it on other boards 


Anyway, sorry for interruption, carry on!


----------



## McKay (Jul 19, 2011)

chronocide said:


> Just as a swift aside, as I don't want to derail a thread into something that's overtly off topic (though is certainly relevant to conservatism)...
> 
> The "tightest bond in the human experience" I believe is a socially conditioned thing. There's no basis in evolution for it. We've evolved to be polyamorous creatures - and were, without exception insofar as science can ascertain, for 90% of our history and still are in all hunter-gatherer populations. As such, I think it's entirely understandable when people cheat and far too big a fuss is made about it.
> 
> ...



I'm not entirely sure what you can call evolutionary and natural vs man made and artificial. If humankind creates monogomous marriage based systems in near ubiquity then it could feasibly be called a naturally occuring facet of the human species.

I could dig up libraries of research into the damaging effects of not having a stable nuclear family until maturity. A polygamous society cannot have this. Hell, you could speculate that it had some role to play in the elevation of civilised societies from barbarism.

Ultimately though, can you think of a closer bond than marriage? A relationship that is agreed to be monogamous, a shared financial burden, a shared home, shared biological offspring? You can only do a fraction of this with your friends or family.


----------



## Origin (Jul 19, 2011)

*Economic Left/Right: -3.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.03 *


Go figure.  I'm on both sides about a lot of issues, but there are enough things I'm semi-passionate about to skew it one direction I guess. 
Obviously an internet quiz is mostly dross in terms of trying to homogenize a personality/world views, but ehn, fun to take.


----------



## chronocide (Jul 19, 2011)

McKay said:


> I'm not entirely sure what you can call evolutionary and natural vs man made and artificial. If humankind creates monogomous marriage based systems in near ubiquity then it could feasibly be called a naturally occuring facet of the human species.
> 
> I could dig up libraries of research into the damaging effects of not having a stable nuclear family until maturity. A polygamous society cannot have this. Hell, you could speculate that it had some role to play in the elevation of civilised societies from barbarism.
> 
> Ultimately though, can you think of a closer bond than marriage? A relationship that is agreed to be monogamous, a shared financial burden, a shared home, shared biological offspring? You can only do a fraction of this with your friends or family.



The last post on it cause it is pretty brazen derailment.

I can dig up endless amounts of prominent current psychological and anthropological writing on how monogamous relationships are psychologically and socially damaging for all involved and how polygamous family units provide vastly more stable and supportive environments for raising children. None of which are coloured by the confirmation bias so constant in research that supports monogamy.

Barbarism is a dangerous term to use. Our societies were vastly more altruistic prior to monogamy, which didn't exist until the agrarian revolution. Once we had farms people had property to pass on and it was important to know who your children were. Prior to that children were raised by entire tribes. Still the case in many hunter gatherer societies where there are no distinct words to separate "father" from "adult man". 

I think the above is a closer bond. Whole societies who raise children as a single unit. Everyone is everyone's child and everyone loves everyone.

Maybe I will start a thread and encourage some folks to read some interesting books.


----------



## Guitarman700 (Jul 19, 2011)

synrgy said:


> I'm pretty liberal, but my favorite person on the forum to discuss social/political topics with is Rich (Orb), so there you go.



I'm actually a socialist, and I echo that sentiment. Nothing wrong with intelligent debate!


----------



## troyguitar (Jul 19, 2011)

I think that most of us are not terribly conservative because musicians tend to be broke and there's no reason to be conservative if you aren't rich. As far as I can tell that's all it really boils down to in this country - the "left" wants to take money from the "right" and vice versa, one via taxes and one via capitalism.


----------



## ddtonfire (Jul 19, 2011)

I generally agree with Orb, so I suppose that makes me right.


----------



## Animus (Jul 19, 2011)

troyguitar said:


> and one via capitalism.




That's arguable. Do the poor create jobs? Who creates jobs in an economy? How exactly does the rich take money from the poorer?


----------



## McKay (Jul 19, 2011)

chronocide said:


> I can dig up endless amounts of prominent current psychological and anthropological writing on how monogamous relationships are psychologically and socially damaging for all involved and how polygamous family units provide vastly more stable and supportive environments for raising children. None of which are coloured by the confirmation bias so constant in research that supports monogamy.



Polygamous relationships don't take into account sexual jealousy, which certainly is a natural impulse.



> Barbarism is a dangerous term to use. Our societies were vastly more altruistic prior to monogamy, which didn't exist until the agrarian revolution. Once we had farms people had property to pass on and it was important to know who your children were. Prior to that children were raised by entire tribes. Still the case in many hunter gatherer societies where there are no distinct words to separate "father" from "adult man".



They're barbaric. It's what barbaric means. It doesn't take on a negative connotation by neccessity. My question to you is that if you consider the polygamous culture of communally raised children to be natural, why not the monoagmous culture of the civilised world? You're creating a distinction where one does not exist.



> I think the above is a closer bond. Whole societies who raise children as a single unit. Everyone is everyone's child and everyone loves everyone.



How can something possibly be closer if it is disseminated across a larger group? That's a shared bond versus the deeply personal and private bond of a marriage. The societies you mention function as a wider biological family, so while different the sense of betrayal is broadly similar.


----------



## McKay (Jul 19, 2011)

Animus said:


> That's arguable. Do the poor create jobs? Who creates jobs in an economy? How exactly does the rich take money from the poorer?



That should be self evident.


----------



## Animus (Jul 19, 2011)

McKay said:


> That should be self evident.




"Should" you would think.


----------



## orb451 (Jul 19, 2011)

Animus said:


> That's arguable. Do the poor create jobs? Who creates jobs in an economy? How exactly does the rich take money from the poorer?



That's easy, by creating products that the poor people buy. Haven't you seen the truckloads of capitalists rolling through the streets in seething droves armed to the teeth in poor, disenfranchised neighborhoods holding the people at gun point until they empty their wallets for stereos, Xbox's, TV's and cheap jewelry???


Yeah me neither. 

Around here, anyone that buys or sells products for profits is "evil". Except the guitar luthiers that charge 2, 3 or 4K for a guitar (and up from that price point). They're OK because they're artists... everyone else though? Don't even *think* of turning a profit, otherwise, someone, somewhere, at some point in time, might end up on the shit end of the stick. And we can't have that.


----------



## Animus (Jul 19, 2011)

orb451 said:


> That's easy, by creating products that the poor people buy. Haven't you seen the truckloads of capitalists rolling through the streets in seething droves armed to the teeth in poor, disenfranchised neighborhoods holding the people at gun point until they empty their wallets for stereos, Xbox's, TV's and cheap jewelry???
> 
> 
> Yeah me neither.
> ...




And to think people were just amazed and thrilled at the landfall profits Apple just reported last quarter selling vastly overpriced consumer gadgets. Cheerio! But when those evil oil companies make a decent profit.....BAD!


----------



## chronocide (Jul 19, 2011)

I'm getting drawn in! Definite last off-topic post. Apologies to OP. By all means PM me if the discussion is of interest, I can talk about it all day, it's an area of study for me.

EDIT: Actually, to save skewing this thread, here's a thread I started on another forum in which any question you're likely to ask I've answered - whether you agree or not is obviously up in the air 

http://forums.downloadfestival.co.uk/tm.aspx?m=5007628


----------



## Mordacain (Jul 19, 2011)

orb451 said:


> That's easy, by creating products that the poor people buy. Haven't you seen the truckloads of capitalists rolling through the streets in seething droves armed to the teeth in poor, disenfranchised neighborhoods holding the people at gun point until they empty their wallets for stereos, Xbox's, TV's and cheap jewelry???
> 
> 
> Yeah me neither.
> ...



Trifle bit of an oversimplification there, but your point is still valid. 

I have no problem with capitalism per se, only with the unbridled avarice that is common to all man that makes unregulated capitalism unsustainable. 

Resources are finite, it stands to reason that when one accumulates more of any resource, others have to do without. Keeping that in check is going to become more and more important as population growth continues and resources dwindle.


----------



## Church2224 (Jul 19, 2011)

troyguitar said:


> I think that most of us are not terribly conservative because musicians tend to be broke and there's no reason to be conservative if you aren't rich. As far as I can tell that's all it really boils down to in this country - the "left" wants to take money from the "right" and vice versa, one via taxes and one via capitalism.



The thing is most people I know who are conservative are actually the more poor/ middle class while the more richer people I know are as far left as anyone else. I have an Aunt and Uncle who make, well let us just say an unholy amount, of money and they are the most left people I know while my two best friends both make less than $45,000 a year and they are the most right wing people I know...


----------



## Church2224 (Jul 19, 2011)

orb451 said:


> That's easy, by creating products that the poor people buy. Haven't you seen the truckloads of capitalists rolling through the streets in seething droves armed to the teeth in poor, disenfranchised neighborhoods holding the people at gun point until they empty their wallets for stereos, Xbox's, TV's and cheap jewelry???
> 
> 
> Yeah me neither.
> ...




Orb, you and me need to sit down and talk over a few beers sometime, you and me would get a long just fine. haha.


----------



## Animus (Jul 19, 2011)

Mordacain said:


> Trifle bit of an oversimplification there, but your point is still valid.
> 
> I have no problem with capitalism per se, only with the unbridled avarice that is common to all man that makes unregulated capitalism unsustainable.
> 
> Resources are finite, it stands to reason that when one accumulates more of any resource, others have to do without. Keeping that in check is going to become more and more important as population growth continues and resources dwindle.




I don't think anyone is advocating no regulation for capitalism. I know I don't. You need a set of rules to keep the cheating wolves at bay. The problem is what we have been seeing in the US is not really capitalism, more crony capitalism or corporatism.

Anyway, do you know what President signed in the repeal of Glass-Steagal?


----------



## Guitarman700 (Jul 19, 2011)

Church2224 said:


> Orb, you and me need to sit down and talk over a few beers sometime, you and me would get a long just fine. haha.



I would shoot the shit and drink with you guys anytime. Honestly, even if we disagree politically, we're intelligent enough to be able to discuss and debate maturely, right?


----------



## Church2224 (Jul 19, 2011)

Guitarman700 said:


> I would shoot the shit and drink with you guys anytime. Honestly, even if we disagree politically, we're intelligent enough to be able to discuss and debate maturely, right?



Of Course, I have no problem talking with mature, intelligent people. I just just excited to find someone else that has the same political views as I do.

I big reason why I am though is because this year I was pretty much persecuted because I was conservative. My so called friends called me an idiot and a stupid redneck hillbilly because of what I believed in. They would find every opportunity to question my political viewpoints and even when I calmly said I did not want to discuss such matters as it would create tension between us two people I know would say, and I quote, "No, you do not want to argue because you know I am smarter than you and we are right while you know you are wrong." Needless to say, they are no longer my friends....

But I would gladly sit and shoot the shit with plenty of you guys over a few drinks... I just need to turn 21, should be a year lol.


----------



## orb451 (Jul 19, 2011)

Count me in as well, I'd love to have a few brews (OK root beers since I don't drink ) with you guys anytime, healthy debate/sparring is all good to me 

Same invite goes to Randy (aka Randingo) Synrgy (Carl), Guitarman700 and anyone else that wants to join in that has opposing view points. We've had some pretty heated but in many times *good* debates on here 

As for derailing this thread with rants on what I hate about the Left/Liberals, I'll leave my .02 above as about it for me. You guys can have at it!  And yes, it's always refreshing to meet another Conservative, especially on here!


----------



## Ascension (Jul 19, 2011)

Founder and Vice Chairman Constitution Party of Alabama.
Wrote this
FUNDAMENTAL DECLARATION OF constitutionalist Principals 
For over two hundred years, the United States of America has been the model of freedom for the world. Many sacrificed everything they possessed to come to this land of the free. Our system of freedom, God-given rights, and limited government has been the envy of freedom-loving people worldwide.

But, America has changed. Government, at all levels, now does for us what we should rightfully do for ourselves. Our political leaders compete to provide the most socialistic services to constituents. As government has provided us with more, our political leaders and judiciary have usurped more power, and we have forfeited many of our precious freedoms; as a result, our Precious Republic has deteriorated as we rapidly move towards becoming a Socialist State. 

America is being surrendered to a new world order. Our leaders, both elected and unelected, view themselves as international reformers rather than statesmen or patriots. They have a history of repeated injuries and usurpation's, seeking the establishment of an absolute tyranny over the states and the citizens thereof. To prove this, let the facts be submitted to a sober nation:

Our current leaders not only do not honor God in the public forum they openly and arrogantly despise those that do. They have lost their moral compass.

They have ignored God's Law as the basis of the Common Law. They have substituted a capricious and arbitrary judiciary for our historic system of common justice. They have created excessive volumes of laws without endorsing moral restraint. They have established policies, which grant favor to the law-breaker over the rights of the law-abiding.

They have abandoned respect for the sanctity of human life. They are destroying the family as the foundation of a free society by establishing punitive economic policies. They have taxed our children's children without representation. They have created class envy through a redistribution of wealth by unjust, inequitable taxes.

They do not respect the natural, beautiful differences between men and women. They have dishonored motherhood by forcing many mothers from their homes and children into the workplace. The nurturing love of families for children has been stolen by strangers in day care. 

They have perverted our ballot processes with no accountability or traceable records. Their so called "campaign reforms" have established a protected class of 2 equally corrupt Parties consisting of career politicians who lock all other groups out of our electoral process and cannot be fairly challenged. 
They have enacted innumerable, burdensome regulations.

They have undermined the sovereignty of our separate States and forced them into collective submission to an unconstitutional federal bureaucracy through economic blackmail. 
They have corrupted public education by establishing and protecting corrupt monopolies that teach socialist adaptation and collectivism over fundamental principles and eternal truth. The rich history of our God-fearing citizenry has been supplanted by humanist revisionism. They have mandated instruction in a new set of values, which will destroy our great constitutional Republic in the future.

They have established policies of confiscation without due process. They have violated our fundamental rights of private property and security in our persons, houses, papers, and effects. 
They have enacted laws that infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms - a right that serves as a protection against the tyranny of an oppressive government.

As members of the Constitution Party, we firmly establish a standard for the constitutionalist movement - an anchor upon which we rest our common beliefs. 

Any form of Government without a moral anchor is baseless and void. We assert that God's Law, as recorded in the Holy Scriptures, is supreme in our land. Our laws and our system of justice must demonstrate a reverence for Divine Law in the Public Forum, without prejudice to any single denomination.

Liberty demands the greatest of self-restraint and individual responsibility. Our freedom is the greatest gift we as citizens can give to future generations.

Government is to be a servant of the People and not a fearful master. Our Founding Fathers were precise in their beliefs regarding the responsibilities of the citizen versus the obligations of government. We must interpret our Constitution in light of the founders' intent. Our Constitution is an instrument of delegated powers; thus, our federal government only has powers granted to it and rigidly constrained by the Constitution.

The delegated role of our federal government is to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

We hold true to our constitutionalist Principles and place these virtues over blind loyalty to a Party "brand" and protecting the status quo of politics as usual. We vow to find ways to break the status quo of electing the same type of corrupt unprincipled carrier politicians; by beginning to recruit, and elect those who are true statesmen to political office throughout the entire political spectrum.
Face us in politics and you will know you have been in a fight. On May 10th the GOP sure did! Sessions 'thankful that we survived' House District 105 election | al.com . Lost the battle and are now arming for the WAR in 2012!

I have thick skin came from a really rough background with a number of my former friends serving life without terms for murder. God changed my life and turned me almost 35 years ago and I won't be intimidated by the liberal hate mongers.


----------



## AySay (Jul 20, 2011)

Ascension said:


> liberal hate mongers.






tl;dr BTW


----------



## Guitarman700 (Jul 20, 2011)

Ascension said:


> I have thick skin came from a really rough background with a number of my former friends serving life without terms for murder. God changed my life and turned me almost 35 years ago and I won't be intimidated by the liberal hate mongers.


I reserve my ire for a select few people, and buddy, boy have you earned it.
You and yours are the only hate mongers. You want to impose your god's laws on me, and I have no say in the matter? Then you are my enemy. Your seething hypocrisy, inane conspiracy theories and bigoted, holier-than-thou attitude are everything that's wrong with this country.
I don't need your God to have morals, nor do I need your outdated judeo-christian moral codes. Take them and get gone, unless you want to have a real, intelligent discussion, open to others views, but I honestly don't see that happening.


----------



## Church2224 (Jul 20, 2011)

So it begins, I hoped it would never come to this...


----------



## Guitarman700 (Jul 20, 2011)

Church2224 said:


> So it begins, I hoped it would never come to this...



It was intelligent and friendly till this guy came along. I don't have a beef with anyone else in here, but I'm sick of these long winded, rambling posts this guy makes.


----------



## Church2224 (Jul 20, 2011)

Guitarman700 said:


> It was intelligent and friendly till this guy came along. I don't have a beef with anyone else in here, but I'm sick of these long winded, rambling posts this guy makes.



Yeah I know I have seen some of his posts, he makes the rest of us right wingers look bad...

Any more and I am getting Eaeolian, Djpharaoh, or Maxofmetal, this is just trolling and like them I do not tolerate such things in my threads. Call me a "Mod of my own threads", but I am not going to allow such threads spin off into a bash fest that disrespects some of the better members of this forum...


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jul 20, 2011)

orb451 said:


> no one else from the other view points has had the balls (or the time) to have a PM debate with me about anything.



 Get out of here with that... I don't have the heart to do such a thing.


----------



## orb451 (Jul 20, 2011)

Adam Of Angels said:


> Get out of here with that... I don't have the heart to do such a thing.



When you do, I'll be waiting


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jul 20, 2011)

I just want to point out that I made that statement from a place of pure arrogance. I'm sure it was obvious, and that you did indeed interpret it correctly, but that's why I'm pointing it out.






 (I can't remember how to make that heart thingy)


----------



## Daemoniac (Jul 20, 2011)

Economic Left/Right: -5.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.46

Go me 

Definitely among the majority on here I suppose, but hey, everyone has their own beliefs for whatever reason.


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr- (Jul 20, 2011)

Thread so far;

Orb asks to chat about politics

Various compare results on personality test

Ascension posts Constitution Party of Alabama QUOTE

Random flame war...

Just wanted to point out that Ascension has posted the first quote from a politician in the thread, to begin the discussion of politics...

Let the discussion COMMENCE !!! 

*Note: liked the thread title, just thought I'd see what was happening in here. From content so far, exempting Ascension's post on politics (quotes, not comment), not much doing...

Debate some stuff, I want to read it!!!


----------



## chronocide (Jul 20, 2011)

Not like Ascension to post a barrage of quotation that doesn't make any point other than "I'm not thinking". What a long-winded way of saying "I long for ultra-capitalist theocracy".


----------



## daemon barbeque (Jul 20, 2011)

I am having a hard time discussing politics with the guys from the U.S., because of the distorted meanings of political words.
Public school is right but public hospital is left?
How is obama lefty? He is capitalist to the teeth, he is in war and whatnot for the capitalist world. 
How someone who keeps guantanamo be liberal? How someone who abils out banks can be a leftist? 
That's a small example how everything is distorted by the mass media.

For instance, Orb is an Atheist, so he shouldn't be a Righty!?
Or Ron Paul is against military action abroad, is he a Lefty?


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr- (Jul 20, 2011)

Well put, daemon barbeque. The language of political rhetoric has gone beyond common understanding.

Bearing in mind that the constitution prevents religion and state from combining and supposedly protects from usurpation of government by private banks... Oh...

Anyway, my point was that the religious beliefs of a politician, in theory, are irrelevant as their is protection against religion being involved with politics.... Oh...

Things are a bit mixed up right now, aren't they?



I enjoyed reading the Constitution Party of Alabama quote and have seen many similar views from constitutionalists, who I feel will be the redemption of America. Without the constitution, America is just another oligarchy, like the rest of the planet.

England has NO constitution, we are SUBJECTS of the monarchy. The only way to benefit from Civil Law is to write a letter the the Queen declaring your intent to be a Free Man. After that, maritime law can't touch you, unless you become a member of a law society such as the police, courts etc. unless you nominate yourself.

The protections of the constitution are commonly signed away, such as paying taxes.

#anyway, you conservatives knew that already. 



After watching the televised council on News Corps phone hacking, the whole of politics looks rather ridiculous right now.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jul 20, 2011)

Also, we have to keep in mind that all of the left-right talk is from a nearly primitive way of thinking in which we feel the need to divide and categorize. Children parading around as adults.


----------



## chronocide (Jul 20, 2011)

Ryan-ZenGtr- said:


> Bearing in mind that the constitution prevents religion and state from combining



Sort of, it prevents a state church, not simply any kind of connection between faith and the state.



> Anyway, my point was that the religious beliefs of a politician, in theory, are irrelevant as their is protection against religion being involved with politics



No there isn't.



> England has NO constitution



Yes it does. It's simply based on precedent and convention rather than being a written document.


----------



## Church2224 (Jul 20, 2011)

I will now rename my political views to Churcharchy/Churchism/Churchacratic/Churchican/Churchservative since the whole right/left ideology seems to be so ambiguous these days. 

With a new Church constitution of 2,224 points, I shall rebuild anew our world!


----------



## synrgy (Jul 20, 2011)

This came out longer than I intended, so I'm making the font size smaller to compensate.

In terms of people's political associations, what bothers me more than anything is one's willingness to _blindly_ associate with those who _claim_ to share their views, accepting rhetoric at face value despite all evidence pointing to the politician in question acting in a contrary manner to the rhetoric they're spewing.

An example at my own expense: I voted for Obama. I even did volunteer work for his campaign in my local area. I believed a lot -- though not all -- of his rhetoric, most of which has since proven to be hot air. In my defense, all the research of his record which I had done at the time supported most of his rhetoric. The fact remains however that his game has changed pretty drastically since he took office; I have egg on my face. (Though, I still maintain that what we have is better than what the alternative would have been.)

An example from the Right: Feminists who support Sarah Palin, who in actuality spent what little legislative experience she has stomping on women's rights (whilst publicly stating that her daughter ought to have rights that she's campaigned against for all other women). The same more or less applies to Bachman; The presence of one's vagina doesn't make them a feminist.

An example from the Left: Hilary Clinton supporters who bought into the 'more experienced' propaganda during the 2008 elections, despite her public legislative record showing that in 8 years she didn't get her name on as much legislation as Obama had in 2 years. My guess is that her hands must be very warm, for all the time she spends sitting on them.

An example from the middle: People who are still supporting one party in favor of the other, despite BOTH parties being blatantly and equally guilty of our current state of legislative gridlock. It's fucking embarrassing, watching our political theater present itself as little more than a couple of kids at the playground with their fingers in their ears shouting 'I can't hear you!'. I personally don't see how any reasonable person could point the blame for gridlock on one party or the other. They're ALL acting like spoiled children. If I had my way, I'd fire the WHOLE LOT and hold new elections for EVERY seat; not allowing any previous representatives to run again.

Adults know when/how to compromise in order to get things done. These people aren't adults. IMHO, they're the modern equivalent to old aristocracy, a perspective I think many people seem to ignore.

My own personal political leanings are what they are, but for the last several years I have been _equally_ offended by the actions (or lack thereof) of _both_ major parties. I may be a liberal, but most of the self-described liberals on the Hill make me sick to my stomach, as much and in some cases more than their conservative counterparts.

Another interesting point which I see far too few people seem to take notice of, is that -- in practice -- both parties are far from what they are supposed to be/claim to be. In other words, a Republican from the 1930s would have to be a Democrat today (if adhering to the same manifesto), but the Republican manifesto hasn't really changed at all; only the practices have. I'm actually quite fond of the Republican manifesto, but it's only on paper. I feel my votes must be based on practice; not pieces of paper or rhetoric.

To put it simply, blind association is incredibly dangerous, regardless of where it's directed. Honest politician is an oxymoron.

Semi related, there was a great riff on the Daily Show this past Monday about how we're about to hit our National Bullshit Ceiling. National Bullshit Ceiling « My mental dumping ground

The best part is the representative who, when called on his bullshit, responds by getting angry at people for expecting him to spew anything other than bullshit.


----------



## orb451 (Jul 20, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> For instance, Orb is an Atheist, so he shouldn't be a Righty!?
> Or Ron Paul is against military action abroad, is he a Lefty?



Maybe in your narrow scope of understanding I *should* be. As far as I'm concerned you don't have to be affiliated with, or a believer in organized religion or "God" to be on the Right of a bunch of Left-leaning/Liberal/Socalist/Communist/Anarchists. And that's meant as a statement from my perspective, not an indictment of those peoples' beliefs or political leanings.

It's all relative to the company you keep.


----------



## orb451 (Jul 20, 2011)

I'd also say that being on the Right, to me at least, is more about being fiscally and to a certain extent socially "conservative". It also means (to me) that I believe strongly in meritocracy, capitalism (with certain limits) and personal freedoms. It means earning your way through life, not being given handouts or hand ups. It's about self reliance.

But that's just me....YMMV.


----------



## Xaios (Jul 20, 2011)

Let me just say this. I'm a conservative. I'm also a devout Christian.

I'm going to risk coming off like a fringe lunatic for just a second, but screw it. If you can't be open and honest in a place like this, might as well not talk at all. This post also doesn't have much do with the "politicalness" of this thread, but I think it explains why I sit where I am. Here goes...

I actually agree with a lot of what Ascension says, or at least the spirit of it. The dream of a nation where people are genuinely guided by a right moral code and don't have to be led around on the leash of the law is pretty much a utopian ideal, as far as I'm concerned.

The problem lies in the fact that many people of that particular movement give lip service to the idea of allowing a person's moral code guide his conduct, but then try to enforce their moral code on others. They don't realize that the essence of the code places higher emphasis on respecting the codes that other people live by rather than trying to force everyone to live up to your standards.

The issue then becomes that people who try and force "God's Law" (which, I have to say, I'm a firm believer in) become tyrannical when people who live by another code don't measure up in their eyes. They don't realize that God's Law is already an absolutely impossible ideal to live day by day, for one simple reason: all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

Too many Christians fail to realize that righteousness doesn't come from living up to God's standard. It's impossible to do. Righteousness comes from the grace of God, and the great failure of many modern Christians is that they fail to recognize that, as God has imparted his Grace upon us, so too must we impart Grace on those with whom we disagree with.

I guess my point is this. I personally strive for a Godly ideal. I also know that it's impossible for me to attain. As such, I have no right to judge a person who does not live up to the same ideal, because I am, quite literally, no better. I recognize that we're all God's children, and that my God would rather I love and respect the people around me than fight with them. Does that mean I don't strive to tell people about God? Not at all. Does it mean I won't a person that I believe their wrong about something if I feel convicted to? Again, no. But frankly, you don't get anywhere by forcing faith on a person. I would rather lead by example, and have people around me say "that guy loves the people around him unconditionally."

That's the code I live by.

Mark 12: 28-32 - One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?"

"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."


----------



## Guitarman700 (Jul 20, 2011)

Xaios said:


> Let me just say this. I'm a conservative. I'm also a devout Christian.
> 
> I'm going to risk coming off like a fringe lunatic for just a second, but screw it. If you can't be open and honest in a place like this, might as well not talk at all. This post also doesn't have much do with the "politicalness" of this thread, but I think it explains why I sit where I am. Here goes...
> 
> ...



Oh look, a Christian who isn't conceited and preachy, you don't see that everyday. 
Edit: To whoever negged me for COMPLIMENTING him, grow a pair and sign your rep, jackass.


----------



## Church2224 (Jul 20, 2011)

Guitarman700 said:


> Oh look, a Christian who isn't conceited and preachy, you don't see that everyday.



I am somewhat Christian really and I never preach my religion at all. I believe that there are multiple ways to God and you are entitled to your beliefs. 

I might go back to being more Christian once my life gets back together. Let me just say God and I have not been getting along for the past three years...


----------



## renzoip (Jul 20, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> I am having a hard time discussing politics with the guys from the U.S., because of the distorted meanings of political words.
> Public school is right but public hospital is left?
> How is obama lefty? He is capitalist to the teeth, he is in war and whatnot for the capitalist world.
> How someone who keeps guantanamo be liberal? How someone who abils out banks can be a leftist?
> ...




Dude, we can discuss politics anytime. I find myself agreeing with you almost every time.


----------



## chronocide (Jul 20, 2011)

Xaios said:


> The issue then becomes that people who try and force "God's Law" (which, I have to say, I'm a firm believer in) become tyrannical when people who live by another code don't measure up in their eyes. They don't realize that God's Law is already an absolutely impossible ideal to live day by day, for one simple reason: all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.



The real issue, I feel, is that no virtually no Christian sect can agree on what God's Law is. Is it the 10 commandments? Is it all 613 commandments? Is it certain ones? If so how do you choose which? Is it the general thrust of the New Testament, which is essentially, tolerate people's failings, forgive them their misdemeanors and don't be a prick?

I'd hope it's the last one. Because virtually all modern secular nations (or ostensibly secular nations, even) DO follow that as a guideline. As do the vast majority of people the world over. They just don't all think of it as god's law, because, with the odd brief exception, it's been the basis of all societies for all of humankind's time on earth.

You find the overwhelming majority of atheists and Abrahamic theists (or indeed theists of all persuasions) have broadly the same moral guidelines (with the exception of certain rules which were mostly developed to ensure the continuation of a small desert tribe, opposing homosexuality, certain dietary rules etc) so the reason there can be some difficulty aligning their moralities is purely down to the insistence of some members of one side to tag God's name on what is simply evolved, natural social behaviour.


EDIT: tl; dr - If certain Christians would stop scoffing at people ignoring "God's Law" they'd realise that the moral codes those people are following are broadly the same. If not identical, depending on their chosen version of "God's Law".


----------



## Xaios (Jul 20, 2011)

chronocide said:


> The real issue, I feel, is that no virtually no Christian sect can agree on what God's Law is. Is it the 10 commandments? Is it all 613 commandments? Is it certain ones? If so how do you choose which? Is it the general thrust of the New Testament, which is essentially, tolerate people's failings, forgive them their misdemeanors and don't be a prick?
> 
> I'd hope it's the last one. Because virtually all modern secular nations (or ostensibly secular nations, even) DO follow that as a guideline. As do the vast majority of people the world over. They just don't all think of it as god's law, because, with the odd brief exception, it's been the basis of all societies for all of humankind's time on earth.



For my part, I do believe it's the last one. Don't want to get too caught up in trying to explain it, because this thread isn't really the place for it, but basically I believe the New Testament is the final authority because of the New Covenant we have in Christ's sacrifice, as opposed to the Old Covenant found in the old Testament, and we are thus bound to it. That doesn't mean that Old Testament isn't invalid or not the word of God, but it's not God's *final* word. I'm simplifying it pretty hard, but I reckon you get my gist.



chronocide said:


> You find the overwhelming majority of atheists and Abrahamic theists (or indeed theists of all persuasions) have broadly the same moral guidelines (with the exception of certain rules which were mostly developed to ensure the continuation of a small desert tribe, opposing homosexuality, certain dietary rules etc) so the reason there can be some difficulty aligning their moralities is purely down to the insistence of some members of one side to tag God's name on what is simply evolved, natural social behaviour.



From what I've seen, it really is more the fact that, despite 95% of what a lot of people believe is the same, a lot of people, Christians and non-Christians alike, can get *really* hung up on that last 5%. Many Christians especially can get pretty apoplectic about it, what with bulging veins and quivering eyelids and stuff like that.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Jul 20, 2011)

orb451 said:


> Maybe in your narrow scope of understanding I *should* be. As far as I'm concerned you don't have to be affiliated with, or a believer in organized religion or "God" to be on the Right of a bunch of Left-leaning/Liberal/Socalist/Communist/Anarchists. And that's meant as a statement from my perspective, not an indictment of those peoples' beliefs or political leanings.
> 
> It's all relative to the company you keep.



?
My SCOPE is not narrow, It might even BIGGER than yours 
I actually claimed that the religion shouldn't be mixed into political views, and showed you as an example! Why angry about it?

Anyway, you can call others whatever you want to, but you are one of the Jugglers who turn the words and meanings as it suits you. Fair enough, but not good enough to get away from my SCOPE!


----------



## daemon barbeque (Jul 20, 2011)

Xaios said:


> Let me just say this. I'm a conservative. I'm also a devout Christian.
> 
> I'm going to risk coming off like a fringe lunatic for just a second, but screw it. If you can't be open and honest in a place like this, might as well not talk at all. This post also doesn't have much do with the "politicalness" of this thread, but I think it explains why I sit where I am. Here goes...
> 
> ...



You are a cool christian man! . Now if "leading" Christians had the same perspective.. That would make life much easier for all of us!


----------



## daemon barbeque (Jul 20, 2011)

renzoip said:


> Dude, we can discuss politics anytime. I find myself agreeing with you almost every time.



Why discuss? We agree most of the time anyways 

Yes ofcourse man! Fire me a PM and I am game!


----------



## orb451 (Jul 20, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> ?
> My SCOPE is not narrow, It might even BIGGER than yours
> I actually claimed that the religion shouldn't be mixed into political views, and showed you as an example! Why angry about it?
> 
> Anyway, you can call others whatever you want to, but you are one of the Jugglers who turn the words and meanings as it suits you. Fair enough, but not good enough to get away from my SCOPE!



If it makes your "e-penis" bigger to have a bigger "scope" then all the power to ya man, whatever. Just don't wave it at me 

Sure seems to me though, that you have a narrow view of conservatives and/or folks on the American "Right" if you think that because I'm an Atheist that I must somehow be on the Left or Center and couldn't be on the Right (again, by US standards).

Maybe I'm losing something in the translation though... and for the record, I'm not angry about it but thanks for telling me I was


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jul 20, 2011)

You're indeed losing his point in translation. He said that the problem with this sort of discussion is how poorly defined "right" and "left" are in America. He's saying that, by popular belief, you should be considered Left wing, as an atheist. He's not saying that he believes you to be a leftist... Sit down, son.


----------



## orb451 (Jul 20, 2011)

Adam Of Angels said:


> You're indeed losing his point in translation. He said that the problem with this sort of discussion is how poorly defined "right" and "left" are in America. He's saying that, by popular belief, you should be considered Left wing, as an atheist. He's not saying that he believes you to be a leftist... Sit down, son.



Sit down 

I didn't realize I was standing. And yeah, I guess things are lost in translation.... oh well, thanks for speaking for him Adam, if that's indeed what he meant then I'd still rather hear it from him. 

And if that is what you meant Daemon, I'm still a bit confused. I'm an American and I see things with my own "American-centric" view. You see things through your own perspective, and that's fine. I just don't see why, in the grand scheme of things, anyone "conservative" should be looked at oddly just because they're an Atheist.

Just seems kind of odd (regardless of where you come from or what definition you're using).


----------



## daemon barbeque (Jul 20, 2011)

orb451 said:


> Sit down
> 
> I didn't realize I was standing. And yeah, I guess things are lost in translation.... oh well, thanks for speaking for him Adam, if that's indeed what he meant then I'd still rather hear it from him.
> 
> ...



Thank you Adam!
Yes Orb, I was trying to explain how many people in the U.S. use Left, Right, Conservative etc. in a totally twisted way. I do not use my own "descriptions" of words which are well described in many Scientific books.
You can be religious and Left (Which actually is more naturally, given that Jesus was a Hippie himself LOL), or totally Atheist and conservative right.

For Instance, Liberlism is used totally wrong. Liberal economy is a "republican" policy in the U.S. Funny isn't it, but if you analyze is, it is really like that. Cut the tax from the rich, let the market as free as possible, keep big companies expanding as they want etc. OTOH "more controlled economy" looks like Democratic parties policies, which is not Liberal at all!. This is actually a funny side-effect of having a 2 Party system. Politicians and their best friends media confuse people. The school education is not good enough to keep people understanding politics. The standart Joe do not understand politics, but donates and votes for whoever lies good enough to convince him. And we call it a democracy LOL.


----------



## orb451 (Jul 20, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> Thank you Adam!
> Yes Orb, I was trying to explain how many people in the U.S. use Lef, Right, Conservative etc. in a totally twisted way. I do not use my own "descriptions" of words which are well described in many Scientific books.
> You can be religious and Left (Which actually more naturally, given that Jesus was a Hippie himself LOL), or totally Atheist and conservative right.
> 
> For Instance, Liberlism is used totally wrong. Liberal economy is a "republican" policy in the U.S. Funny isn't it, but if you analyze is, it is really like that. Cut the tax from the rich, let the market as free as possible, keep big companies expanding as they want etc. OTOH "more controlled economy" looks like Democratic parties policies, which is not Liberal at all!. This is actually a funny side-effect of having a 2 Party system. Politicians and their best friends media confuse people. The school education is not good enough to keep people understanding politics. The standart Joe do not understand politics, but donates and votes for whoever lies good enough to convince him. And we call it a democracy LOL.



OK, I get what you're saying now, thanks for the clarification, and for speaking for yourself.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jul 20, 2011)

I'm fluent in broken english, so speaking for him should have been minimally offensive.

Oh... and about telling you to sit down: I have no idea what that means. It was just goofy nonsense, haha


----------



## The Somberlain (Jul 20, 2011)

What I find most interesting about the whole ss.org political debate is that I, and the prototypical rightist here, Orb, have the same broad goal for humanity, for everyone to fulfill their potential, but we have opposite views on the enemies of that goal: I believe that humans cannot fulfill their potential without the full support of society an a fair hand given to all, while he believes that handouts and laziness are the enemies of this goal. 

Just my 2 cents, I'll throw my self entirely in this debate soon.


----------



## orb451 (Jul 21, 2011)

The Somberlain said:


> What I find most interesting about the whole ss.org political debate is that I, and the prototypical rightist here, Orb, have the same broad goal for humanity, for everyone to fulfill their potential, but we have opposite views on the enemies of that goal: I believe that humans cannot fulfill their potential without the full support of society an a fair hand given to all, while he believes that handouts and laziness are the enemies of this goal.
> 
> Just my 2 cents, I'll throw my self entirely in this debate soon.



I'd say that's pretty accurate.  Like I said, I believe vehemently in meritocracy. I don't believe the playing field should be *made* to be level by a government or third party because at its base, it inherently isn't and hasn't been. I want people to succeed based on their efforts. I don't believe anyone, because of race, color or creed should *automatically* fall back on that as an excuse for mediocrity or failure.

That's one of the reasons I'm so strongly opposed to that racist institution Affirmative Action. Why would a minority member want to be treated differently because of where they were born, where they came from or the color of their skin? And how could a minority member want to be treated the same as everyone else, and yet at the same time feel entitled to, or obliged to accept, special treatment? That's something that I just find absolutely abhorrent. But that's me, I'm in the minority


----------



## The Somberlain (Jul 21, 2011)

I largely agree with you on affirmative action We it's like bandaging up a lesion without treating the infection, and is ultimately ineffective. Instead of edging out competent people for mediocrity due to environmental adversity in the community of the mediocre applicant, why not seek to improve the environment, like, I dunno, airdropping some John Stuart Mill into the ghettos or something


----------



## daemon barbeque (Jul 21, 2011)

orb451 said:


> I'd say that's pretty accurate.  Like I said, I believe vehemently in meritocracy. I don't believe the playing field should be *made* to be level by a government or third party because at its base, it inherently isn't and hasn't been. I want people to succeed based on their efforts. I don't believe anyone, because of race, color or creed should *automatically* fall back on that as an excuse for mediocrity or failure.



I would agree if 
1) All offices, all employers, all government establishment and laws would "act" and "handle" everone in the same manner. But it isn't like that. Same in Germany, same in France, and all well developed countries. 
2) Some people where born handicapped. Their families might not have the funds to support this person's real potential, which might come out as an important one for the society.
3) I am also against the "foreign" countries like the U.S., U.K., and now Germany with thier "tank business frenzy", intervene and destroy other peoples potentials by killing, destroying the infrastructure, blocking supplys and putting a corrupt Dictator on their heads.

So, if those points would be not be present these days, I would wholeheartetly agree with you , but this is not the case


----------



## chronocide (Jul 21, 2011)

orb451 said:


> Like I said, I believe vehemently in meritocracy.



I think most people do. But lots of them also understand that it is impossible to achieve as long as there are massive discrepancies in where people start off from, a situation which the small government and free market model holds in place.


----------



## McKay (Jul 21, 2011)

chronocide said:


> I think most people do. But lots of them also understand that it is impossible to achieve as long as there are massive discrepancies in where people start off from, a situation which the small government and free market model holds in place.



Do you believe that were all humans given an identical starting point and upbringing, they would all achieve the same things and make the same decisions?


----------



## synrgy (Jul 21, 2011)

McKay said:


> Do you believe that were all humans given an identical starting point and upbringing, they would all achieve the same things and make the same decisions?



What I got from the post is that people do not have the same opportunities to be successful. IE, a kid who's born into a 200K+ household and who's parents both hold high level college degrees will have _infinitely_ greater opportunity for success than a kid who's born into poverty. I think the implied question is "why should any child be penalized (given less opportunity) for their family's shortcomings?"..

Obviously, countless impoverished kids have made something great from their lives, but they had to work much, much harder for that success than their silver-spooned counterparts.

Of course, that's exactly the kind of issue for which my stance paints me a 'liberal', so... There you go.


----------



## chronocide (Jul 21, 2011)

McKay said:


> Do you believe that were all humans given an identical starting point and upbringing, they would all achieve the same things and make the same decisions?



Synergy got me.

Of course I don't. But if all had an identical starting point then meritocracy could exist - and that's the ONLY way it ever could.


----------



## ArkaneDemon (Jul 21, 2011)

My deepest ideology is that everyone should have an equal opportunity to live the life that they want to live, and have the ultimate freedom to do so, without infringing on anybody else's freedom to do the same. Freedom is a double edged sword though.

You may say I'm a dreamer


----------



## thenine (Jul 21, 2011)

How anyone could be on the same side as Nancy Pelosi baffles me.


----------



## orb451 (Jul 21, 2011)

chronocide said:


> I think most people do. But lots of them also understand that it is impossible to achieve as long as there are massive discrepancies in where people start off from, a situation which the small government and free market model holds in place.



Well not some of the people I've encountered on here. And in America anyway, we have neither a small government nor a free market...


----------



## chronocide (Jul 21, 2011)

Really? Even the folks who're quite happy to exist on benefits for their lives (which are far less numerous than even lefty news media suggest) tend to accept that those who work hard do deserve to do well, I find.

Comparatively with the whole rest of the world, yes you do.


----------



## orb451 (Jul 21, 2011)

And we have as close to a meritocracy as we're likely to get already in the US.

Just because someone is born with a silver spoon in their mouth does not automatically translate into success, wealth or prosperity for the individual. What that argument always sounds like to me is class envy. "It's not *fair* that my mommy and daddy weren't wealthy when they had me, Joe Blow up the street has *way* more opportunities than me because his parents are Rich, or he's White, or they live in a *good* neighborhood or he went to Premsyn PMS Preparatory Academy for the White, Rich and Affluent..."

It's ridiculous. It's victim mentality. I'm a victim of my environment, powerless to change my future. And because I have to work *harder* than some other guy, it's not fair. I should be given the same opportunities he has. If he gets to go to some snobby private school, I *should* be given the opportunity to go that snobby private school... Regardless of whether I have to earn my way in there. Regardless of how much it costs to go there, I should be given tuition free or at a significantly reduced cost. I should get. I should want. I should get. I should have. Fuck. That. Shit.

Until that private snobby school gets over run by boneheads and morons and becomes just like any other run of the mill public school. And no one can get a good education in a public school with boneheads and morons. Right? 

And yet some people do. 

I think the younger generation coming up has absolutely no clue how to put forth effort. Either they forgot, or they never knew it. And if they *do* have to put forth effort, all they can do is look around and compare their strife with others and whine and bitch and moan about how unfair it is that they have to work harder than someone else, to achieve the same things.

Entitlement. Victim Mentality. Laziness. Stupidity. Those will continue to bite us all in the ass until they are controlled and curtailed. And you don't do that by dropping buckets of money into poor neighborhoods to bring them *up* to someone else's standards.


----------



## orb451 (Jul 21, 2011)

chronocide said:


> Really? Even the folks who're quite happy to exist on benefits for their lives (which are far less numerous than even lefty news media suggest) tend to accept that those who work hard do deserve to do well, I find.
> 
> Comparatively with the whole rest of the world, yes you do.



Well I'm concerned about America and really don't feel the need to get in a dick measuring contest with the rest of the world and how they operate. That's their business. 

And I agree, there are a lot of people that understand hard work and its rewards. I'm talking about on here. This forum specifically. I've gotten the gist from a few posters on here that no, meritocracy is bad, evil, unfair, etc. That's who I was referring to. My fault for not explaining/clarifying things.


----------



## Guitarman700 (Jul 21, 2011)

orb451 said:


> And we have as close to a meritocracy as we're likely to get already in the US.
> 
> Just because someone is born with a silver spoon in their mouth does not automatically translate into success, wealth or prosperity for the individual. What that argument always sounds like to me is class envy. "It's not *fair* that my mommy and daddy weren't wealthy when they had me, Joe Blow up the street has *way* more opportunities than me because his parents are Rich, or he's White, or they live in a *good* neighborhood or he went to Premsyn PMS Preparatory Academy for the White, Rich and Affluent..."
> 
> ...


 
There really is no replacement for education and hard work.


----------



## synrgy (Jul 21, 2011)

thenine said:


> How anyone could be on the same side as Nancy Pelosi baffles me.



I've never voted for her, so I couldn't say. Individual voters only get to choose their local reps, and have no say in what reps are chosen in other constituencies. In other words, my voting for a Virginia representative has no bearing on whether or not Harry Reid gets reelected in Nevada.

To be fair, Boehner isn't exactly a poster-boy for getting things done, either.


----------



## orb451 (Jul 21, 2011)

Guitarman700 said:


> There really is no replacement for education and hard work.



Exactly.

And the same applies the other way too, just because someone is born poor, impoverished or to shit head parents, does not preclude them from achieving success. It is up to the individual how far they want to go.

Which goes back to victim mentality. It's all too easy for people to fall into that cycle of thinking "I'm poor, that's how my life is, this is all I'll ever be, I have no opportunities" etc. Sure, stay focused on that bullshit, see how far you go in life.

Or, make a choice, and I think people do, they do not *want* to be stuck in that cycle of ignorance and poverty, yet when it starts to require serious effort, they give up. Or they try once or twice and fail, and then give up completely. Then it's too easy to fall back on things and say "oh I tried but the *man* or whomever is keeping me in my place... I'll never succeed... plus it's not fair that I have to bust my ass while so and so doesn't".

And the cycle continues. The only thing that precludes an individual from success in America is their attitude. Not where they're from, not the color of their skin, not what sexual orientation or religion they subscribe to or the neighborhood they grew up in or the school they went to.

Attitude and drive are the two basic ingredients.


----------



## chronocide (Jul 21, 2011)

orb451 said:


> Well I'm concerned about America and really don't feel the need to get in a dick measuring contest with the rest of the world and how they operate. That's their business.



Fine. But how can you claim you don't have small government in isolation? It has to be compared to something. 



orb451 said:


> And we have as close to a meritocracy as we're likely to get already in the US.



Honestly, with the unbelievable cost of education?



> Just because someone is born with a silver spoon in their mouth does not automatically translate into success, wealth or prosperity for the individual.



True. But they DO have far more opportunities to be successful. There's no debating that. That doesn't mean it's impossible for poor people nor does it mean they shouldn't try because it's futile nor use it as an excuse. But it's flatly wrong to deny it. As such, meritocracy will never exist in a capitalist society.


----------



## synrgy (Jul 21, 2011)

This is likely an unfair summary, but: You call it entitlement, I call it aristocracy. 

George W Bush -- for instance, only using him as the example because he's famous and everyone already knows his story so I don't have to explain it -- got a free pass through the ivy leagues, failed businesses, the military, and ultimately the Presidency. Tell me how he got where he is through *hard work*?

That's what I'm getting at. You keep referencing hard work, IE the whole 'pick yourself up by the boot straps' mentality, but a considerable portion of those we might as well call 'The Haves' never worked for anything -- they just inherited it all.

In other words, we're both talking about entitlement, but we're seeing the entitled on opposite sides of the coin. I see many of 'The Haves' as achieving success via birthright as opposed to any effort on their own part(s).

Mind you, I have no solution to such a situation nor do I even propose a solution is needed; I'm just making an observation.


----------



## orb451 (Jul 21, 2011)

chronocide said:


> Fine. But how can you claim you don't have small government in isolation? It has to be compared to something.



I'm comparing it to the size of our government since the country's inception. Are you really going to argue that all the departments, divisions, etc are the same size as they were in the 1800's??? Skipping the first 24 years or so...




chronocide said:


> True. But they DO have far more opportunities to be successful. There's no debating that. That doesn't mean it's impossible for poor people nor does it mean they shouldn't try because it's futile nor use it as an excuse. But it's flatly wrong to deny it. As such, meritocracy will never exist in a capitalist society.



How are you arriving that conclusion? It sounds to me like you're making assumptions and then asserting those as cold, hard facts. What opportunities exactly are they given? And how do you *know* with certainty what wealthy individuals are given? Again, this sounds a lot like class envy. Parents are rich, therefore the kids *must* be going to private schools (that's education), must be given huge allowances (that's income), must be given the right connections (that's networking) and must be given an inheritance (that's continued wealth/income).

How could you possibly know that? 

Conversely, look at some notable wealthy individuals, I know for a fact that the Hiltons and I believe Warren Buffett's kids and Bill Gates' kids are not entitled to their parents entire kingdom upon their deaths. I'm sure if I'm mistaken on some of these examples someone will happily spend time correcting me. But the point remains, just because someone is born to a wealthy family does not mean that they're given anything. They might be, they might not be. 

I just get fuzzy on the certainty that you're talking about, as though it's all automatic. The education, the income, the continued wealth, etc. Because no, I don't think they're guaranteed.


----------



## orb451 (Jul 21, 2011)

synrgy said:


> This is likely an unfair summary, but: You call it entitlement, I call it aristocracy.
> 
> George W Bush -- for instance, only using him as the example because he's famous and everyone already knows his story so I don't have to explain it -- got a free pass through the ivy leagues, failed businesses, the military, and ultimately the Presidency. Tell me how he got where he is through *hard work*?
> 
> ...



Come on Carl, are you really going to try to use George W. as your poster child for the haves and have-nots? Gimme a break man, yes, that guy was given breaks, no it does not seem from an outsiders perspective that he had to work for much of anything. 

Cherry picking. That's what that sounds like to me.

And you say considerable portion of haves, how do you know that? Or are you just basing that on what you assume they had? Even George W. we both *think* that he got by on his family wealth and connections, so did JFK, what's the difference? One is reviled as the worst president EVAR!! and the other is revered as the greatest president (or one of them) EVAR!!!

EDIT: And comparing JFK to George W. is to me at least, comparing two totally opposite ends of the political spectrum. Yet both got there because of connections, inheritance, family, etc. By birthright as you put it. *Not* hard work.


----------



## Guitarman700 (Jul 21, 2011)

The point I gather from Orb's post, and one I agree with, is that every situation is different.
You simply can't paint everyone with such broad strokes. Some people get an easy pass through life, yeah, but just as many don't.


----------



## orb451 (Jul 21, 2011)

Guitarman700 said:


> The point I gather from Orb's post, and one I agree with, is that every situation is different.
> You simply can't paint everyone with such broad strokes. Some people get an easy pass through life, yeah, but just as many don't.



Fucking exactly right. Rep sir, coming your way. Not for agreeing with me, because it seems like we don't on most issues, but for succinctly conveying what I was trying to in so many words. 

Only thing I'd add to the statement of yours above, is that I mean it in reference to the Rich. That not every wealthy family/kid out there has the world at their fingertips just by the virtue of being wealthy. Some parents will still, you know, be *good* parents, and want their kids to *earn* their way through life.


----------



## chronocide (Jul 21, 2011)

orb451 said:


> I'm comparing it to the size of our government since the country's inception. Are you really going to argue that all the departments, divisions, etc are the same size as they were in the 1800's??? Skipping the first 24 years or so...



Well of course not. But that's not really a sensible comparison. The country simply wouldn't function (well, it could potentially, but in a very, very different way) with that level of government. You need to relate it to other modern nations, I feel.



> How are you arriving that conclusion? It sounds to me like you're making assumptions and then asserting those as cold, hard facts. What opportunities exactly are they given? And how do you *know* with certainty what wealthy individuals are given? Again, this sounds a lot like class envy. Parents are rich, therefore the kids *must* be going to private schools (that's education), must be given huge allowances (that's income), must be given the right connections (that's networking) and must be given an inheritance (that's continued wealth/income).



It's not making assumptions on what they're given, it's stating facts regarding what it is possible for their parents to give if they so choose. If you do great at school and get a place at Harvard some families can afford to send you, some can't. That's that.

The system where I am is obviously significantly more meritocratic. I do well at school and get a place at Oxford, I go for free.




Guitarman700 said:


> The point I gather from Orb's post, and one I agree with, is that every situation is different.
> You simply can't paint everyone with such broad strokes. Some people get an easy pass through life, yeah, but just as many don't.



Of course every situation is different. That's why meritocracy can't exist. That's exactly the point I'm making. Different chances are available to different people.


----------



## orb451 (Jul 21, 2011)

chronocide said:


> You need to relate it to other modern nations, I feel.



Right, and that's your opinion. I don't agree.



chronocide said:


> It's not making assumptions on what they're given, it's stating facts regarding what it is possible for their parents to give if they so choose.



That last part is the key, "if they so choose". Focus on that, because that's my point. If the parents choose to give their kids a "free" ride, then yes, they can. That doesn't mean it happens automatically or that it's a "given". The latter is what I gathered from your responses. Like Guitarman700 said, and I agree with it, that it is a CASE BY CASE BASIS.




chronocide said:


> If you do great at school and get a place at Harvard some families can afford to send you, some can't. That's that.



Sure, and what's wrong with that as opposed to someone that has to work extremely hard to get a scholarship to Harvard? The hard work part? 



chronocide said:


> Of course every situation is different. That's why meritocracy can't exist. That's exactly the point I'm making. Different chances are available to different people.



Guess we just disagree. Every situation is different and that's *why* (to me at least) meritocracy in America *does* exist. Because each individual *can* achieve success with the right drive and attitude. Regardless of wealth. So what if some people are rich and some aren't? That doesn't prevent them from succeeding or failing on their merits.


----------



## The Somberlain (Jul 21, 2011)

Before people accuse me of "class envy," I would like to state that my grandfather was a farmer in western Kansas who spoke only German until elementary school, and he worked his way up through the Dust Bowl, the Great Depression, and the 2nd World War to a successful insurance sales operation that sent all 9 of his kids to college. Now my father took advantage of that and became a doctor, and I now get to enjoy 12 years of private pre-college education and I don't have to pay for my own college. Yet, the deal is that if I want to go to graduate school (which I most definitely want to do), because my family believes that my hard work is important for me to go where I need to. 

Now I would have all the personal reasons to support laissez faire capitalism as I would be successful in the system (yet I want to go into international service or the academic field, but that's beside the point), but here I am a social libertarian. Why? 

A. I don't believe that people could do what my grandfather did if they tried; our "system" or "national structure" has found more and more ways to become more exclusive.
B. If hard-working, well-meaning kids have parents who don't support them like me or my parents had, where will they turn?
C. A good education is a right and not a privilege. Just like food, heating, and other basic needs.


----------



## Customisbetter (Jul 21, 2011)

The Somberlain said:


> C. A good education is a right and not a privilege. Just like food, heating, and other basic needs.



This is one aspect of the world that i have a hard time dealing with. On one hand, children definitely deserve to be well taken care of and educated. On the other hand, once a child becomes an adult (whatever age that may be) they need to be able to EARN anything they receive.

My only example of this is adults who sit at home telling themselves they "can't do anything" and collect welfare while eating Cheetos. I have met many of these people and in my opinion they don't deserve to breathe the same air as I do. 

If you "can't do anything", then give up, kill yourself, and stop consuming the rest of the workers resources. Either that, or get up and do SOMETHING. There are plenty of food kitchens and homeless shelters that need volenteers. There are animal shelters that need help and neighbors that physically cannot leave their home do to disease. There are ways to HELP the world rather than consume and complain. In doing so you will also create an incredible amount of opportunities to help yourself as well as others in ways you would never imagine. Employers don't knock on doors.

Also note I'm a rich white kid, so take that into consideration. That is just my two cents, hopefully not too off topic.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Jul 21, 2011)

Can anyone who was not born into Royal Family in the U.K have the same possibilities as the Royal kids? No!
W. was not a bad example at all. He is typically a Loser with a powerful family on his back. And he was your President. A very good example indeed!
Same goes to Obama. If he didn't have his Education and possibilities,if he would grow up in Harlem instead of Hawaii, he will not be your president right now!

Another good example would be the population characteristics of American Jails. Guess who are dominating. The wealthy and whites, or the poor "others"? If the life would be equal to all, the chances would be same to all, the education would be good enough to all, why so much crime? And why not the wealthy whites?
IMHO, a good social security and healthcare system is the only way to avoid class priviliges.


----------



## orb451 (Jul 21, 2011)

The Somberlain said:


> A. I don't believe that people could do what my grandfather did if they tried; our "system" or "national structure" has found more and more ways to become more exclusive.
> B. If hard-working, well-meaning kids have parents who don't support them like me or my parents had, where will they turn?
> C. A good education is a right and not a privilege. Just like food, heating, and other basic needs.



First, props to your grandfather for the hard work and the rewards it brought him and his family. 

On your first point, I would say that it is still possible, however hard it might be, for people to succeed in our "system". I think the only thing that has changed is people's attitudes. No one wants to work for it anymore. They want the brass ring given to them on a silver platter.

On your second point, if hard working, well-meaning kids don't have a proper support system then they likely will not be hard working and even seldom be "well meaning". They'll most likely be knuckleheads and idiots. Spawned from the same ilk. The good kids with bad parents just need the right attitude to succeed. They don't need someone coddling them or handing them opportunities left and right. It all starts with attitude. If you have a defeatist attitude, expect to be defeated. In life and in general.

On your last point, an "education" is a right. Not a "good education" because good implies some form of quantifiable measurement. It implies a comparison too, with other educations. And lastly it implies that given that good education, that the student will in turn be good. In bad schools, in poor neighborhoods, some students will still succeed, despite the idiots, bad teachers, low funding, etc or whatever else you want to lump in. 

Likewise, in ivy league or private prep schools, there will still be kids that are able to coast through and still wind up as dumb or dumber as they were going in. 

I have a real problem with people that think that every kid in America is entitled to some insanely expensive, all expense paid, golden ticket education with the best and brightest teachers and the best and brightest students, free as in beer to them and their families. That kind of dreaming has no basis in reality. And I don't want it to. The student is a product of themselves and their merits, not the bogeyman or their crackhead momma.


----------



## orb451 (Jul 21, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> Can anyone who was not born into Royal Family in the U.K have the same possibilities as the Royal kids? No!



So what?!? All kids should be royals or given royal privileges? And what exactly is the reasoning for that???



chronocide said:


> JFK was not a bad example at all. He is typically a Loser with a powerful family on his back. And he was your President. A very good example indeed!
> Same goes to Obama. If he didn't have his Education and possibilities,if he would grow up in Harlem instead of Hawaii, he will not be your president right now!



I went ahead and substituted W. for JFK. Same situation, same title. So what? Winners and losers come from all walks of life.



chronocide said:


> Another good example would be the population characteristics of American Jails. Guess who are dominating. The wealthy and whites, or the poor "others"? If the life would be equal to all, the chances would be same to all, the education would be good enough to all, why so much crime? And why not the wealthy whites?
> IMHO, a good social security and healthcare system is the only way to avoid class priviliges.



Ummmm, I think you're conflating two issues. One is the chance to succeed, which everyone has, and the elimination of responsibility for people who choose to break the law.

Nice try though!


----------



## daemon barbeque (Jul 21, 2011)

orb451 said:


> So what?!? All kids should be royals or given royal privileges? And what exactly is the reasoning for that???
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So you accept that W. is a loser, but was still able to be President. Thank you for supporting my point. Without the family, he wouldn't be even "suggested" to be a CEO, not even President.

What I tried to point with the Jail system was the fact that somehow wealthy families do not need crime, whereas poeple with poor families try to get around through crime? Why? Why do they just ruin their lives by stealing etc?

If all would be "equal" in American society, there would be more or less a blance between the demographics of the prisoners. But there isn't.
This leads to 2 questions

1) Is it because of blacks and lations are "born" like that,
2) Or is it because they have it harder from the very beginning?


----------



## renzoip (Jul 21, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> So you accept that W. is a loser, but was still able to be President. Thank you for supporting my point. Without the family, he wouldn't be even "suggested" to be a CEO, not even President.
> 
> What I tried to point with the Jail system was the fact that somehow wealthy families do not need crime, whereas poeple with poor families try to get around through crime? Why? Why do they just ruin their lives by stealing etc?
> 
> ...




From what I understand after reading previous Right wing posts, I take that the imbalance that affects minorities is due neither to them being born like that, nor to them having a harder time from the beginning. I gather that *supposedly* the reason for the imbalance are the individual choices they make, such as not working hard enough, having a victim mentality (blaming others for their misfortunes), and breaking the laws. In theory, anyone regardless of income level/class/race is susceptible to being on the losing end of the system's imbalance. Therefore, the fact that minorities end up in these situations more often than majorities becomes a coincidence since this has more to do with personal matters than with structural matters.

It's still a bunch of BS oppressive reactionary bourgeoisie mentality, though.


----------



## synrgy (Jul 21, 2011)

orb451 said:


> cherry picking





Wait, which one of us is cherry picking? I flatly and clearly stated that I only used Bush as an example because of his fame and recognition in the current social landscape. Nowhere did I say that _all_ well-to-do people have the same story he has. Don't you know me well enough yet to know I don't deal in absolutes like that? 

You'll note that I didn't mention JFK, nor did I include any comment on Bush's effectiveness as a President. Granted, you know my feelings on that topic from previous conversations, but those ideas are -- imho -- irrelevant to the observation I was speaking to. So long as you've mentioned JFK, though, I completely agree that he (and most of the Kennedy family, for that matter) are exactly the type to whom I refer, and you'd be hard pressed indeed to find any previous statement I've ever made to the contrary. On that point, no argument from me.

I'm making a pretty basic observation, and I'm wondering if you're just giving me a dose of my own frequent Devil's Advocate style here, because to deny that there are those in this country who get a free pass from birth through to retirement is obtuse, at best. (Regardless of how many of them there are, which is irrelevant to the observation I'm making) There's a reason we have cliches in the lexicon like "Trust Fund Kid". 

By making that implication, am I somehow implying that there aren't also people in this country who live off welfare? I'd like to think people on this forum hold me in a higher regard than to think I'm stupid enough to argue against that.. 

More than half of Americans earn a median average of just under 50K per year. Especially in these times of national economic woe -- let alone the rest of the time -- how can one make any argument that someone with an income of less than 50k has the same opportunity to send their kid to a school which costs nearly that much _per year_ in tuition and related fees, as a person who's yearly income is 200k or more? Granted, there are loan programs and scholarships, etc. I'm not arguing against that either, though.

And again, please note that at the end of my last post I flatly and clearly stated that I'm not proposing this is a problem which needs a solution. It was, as I said, merely an observation. I'm surprised to see you take umbrage --however light -- in this case.


----------



## orb451 (Jul 21, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> So you accept that W. is a loser, but was still able to be President. Thank you for supporting my point. Without the family, he wouldn't be even "suggested" to be a CEO, not even President.



Whats the matter, you thought I was a fan of his or something? 



daemon barbeque said:


> What I tried to point with the Jail system was the fact that somehow wealthy families do not need crime, whereas poeple with poor families try to get around through crime? Why? Why do they just ruin their lives by stealing etc?



What the hell does that mean? Wealthy families don't need crime? How about Bernie Madoff? Not a criminal? Or the judge's son from Las Vegas that knocked over the Bellagio? Not a criminal? Gimme a break dude. 



daemon barbeque said:


> If all would be "equal" in American society, there would be more or less a blance between the demographics of the prisoners. But there isn't.
> This leads to 2 questions



According to *you* there should be a balance in demographics. That has nothing to do with whether the system is fair. Life is unfair. Get it? It's not supposed to be the same for every person. That's *why* I'm such a fan of being able to succeed based on an individual's hard work. Prisoners break the law and get sent to prison, I'm sorry but the concept that they're doing that because of their race seems borderline racist to me... 



daemon barbeque said:


> 1) Is it because of blacks and lations are "born" like that,
> 2) Or is it because they have it harder from the very beginning?



Again, sounds a lot like racism. You're connecting dots that aren't there. So in countries with lower numbers of blacks and latinos there should be no one in prison right? Because it's just potentially them and their lot in life that causes them to break the law. Whites wouldn't do that! 

Seriously, keep digging that hole.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jul 21, 2011)

orb451 said:


> What the hell does that mean? Wealthy families don't need crime? How about Bernie Madoff? Not a criminal? Or the judge's son from Las Vegas that knocked over the Bellagio? Not a criminal? Gimme a break dude.



I'm not reading this thread or this particular debate, but I will comment on this one: Come on, man... you're giving a few huge examples. He clearly did not say or even come close to implying that there are NO wealthy criminals. There are far far fewer law breakers from wealthy families than there are among the poor. I feel that every human being is equally capable of being a criminal, its just a matter of circumstance and "necessity."


----------



## orb451 (Jul 21, 2011)

Carl, I guess I'm misunderstanding you then. And possibly others on here, because it sure seemed like wealth=automatic free ride in life. I was just trying to point out that it's up to the individuals/families what they do with (or without) their income. That some families do spoil their kids and leave them wanting for nothing and others make them work for it. That's all.

Your argument about the 50K family versus the 200K or whatever family is silly. If you want to argue that the 50K family deserves 200K a year because someone else has got it, I'm sorry, I strongly disagree.

I do acknowledge that if the 50K family wants to send their kid to the same school as the 200K family that it will require a fuck ton of work, but that's the real gist of things. That regardless of income level, its about cost to the families at the end of the day. A 200K family can *possibly* absorb the cost of a private school easier than a family making 50K, on that I think we're in agreement. I just don't *assume* as some do, that the 200K family *is* sending their kid to the best school they can find. Every time. 

And more over, I'm arguing that the 50K family, if they want to send their kids to some illustrious school, will have to bust their asses to make it happen. And I for one, have no problems with hard work. It's a shame others don't feel the same.

I'm not denying the disparity, I'm just saying if you want it, it's not going to be given to you. It's not going to get handed to you like candy. And I for one, am not looking around at wealthy individuals with contempt or ire because they seemingly don't *have* to work as hard as I do. I see it as a challenge, one that will be *that* much more rewarding when I succeed.


----------



## orb451 (Jul 21, 2011)

Adam Of Angels said:


> I'm not reading this thread or this particular debate, but I will comment on this one: Come on, man... you're giving a few huge examples. He clearly did not say or even come close to implying that there are NO wealthy criminals. There are far far fewer law breakers from wealthy families than there are among the poor. I feel that every human being is equally capable of being a criminal, its just a matter of circumstance and "necessity."



But Adam that necessity bit doesn't make any sense. My point is, it's not as though because you're wealthy, you're exempt from crime because you shouldn't *need* more money. It doesn't stop people from bilking the system. Look at the Wall street debacle and banks taking advantage of morons happy to sign over their first born for the chance at owning a home. A home they couldn't afford in the first place.


----------



## SirMyghin (Jul 21, 2011)

orb451 said:


> And more over, I'm arguing that the 50K family, if they want to send their kids to some illustrious school, will have to bust their asses to make it happen. And I for one, have no problems with hard work. It's a shame others don't feel the same.



This is it, generally people making more money, have shockingly, worked a lot harder to make that money. A strange correlation granted, but amazing how it works out.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jul 21, 2011)

orb451 said:


> But Adam that necessity bit doesn't make any sense. My point is, it's not as though because you're wealthy, you're exempt from crime because you shouldn't *need* more money. It doesn't stop people from bilking the system. Look at the Wall street debacle and banks taking advantage of morons happy to sign over their first born for the chance at owning a home. A home they couldn't afford in the first place.



I put "necessity" in quotations because the poor are more inclined to break the law to make ends meet. They would see it as a necessity when their job just isn't feeding their family, or making rent, etc. The wealthy don't run into this issue anywhere near as often as the poor. You and I can both agree that those people are fully capable of making ends meet in an honest way, but that doesn't change the facts: the poor break the law more often than the wealthy, because the "necessity" is more prevalent among them.


----------



## orb451 (Jul 21, 2011)

Adam Of Angels said:


> I put "necessity" in quotations because the poor are more inclined to break the law to make ends meet. They would see it as a necessity when their job just isn't feeding their family, or making rent, etc. The wealthy don't run into this issue anywhere near as often as the poor. You and I can both agree that those people are fully capable of making ends meet in an honest way, but that doesn't change the facts: the poor break the law more often than the wealthy, because the "necessity" is more prevalent among them.



I'm sorry I just can't agree with that idea. And I'm not disagreeing to be a douche. I don't see *most* of the poor law breakers on some noble quest to "make ends meet". You know, like stealing a loaf of bread out of the market to feed their poor starving kids. 

I see poor people breaking the law (mostly) as folks that are too lazy to get a job and be productive members of society. They want rims, and car stereos and tinted windows and big screen TVs and *gasp* those things cost money. So since they've been weened on a culture of stupidity, they feel they are entitled to the "good life" and the only way to the good life is to lie, cheat and steal their way to it. 

It's mixed up priorities. If they took that motivation and balls and applied it to bettering themselves and distancing themselves from morons, they might actually get somewhere in life. But that requires energy and effort and they don't seem to have that kind of drive. They want what they want when they want it, regardless of whom they hurt in the process. 

Have you ever been robbed Adam? Had your personal effects strewn about? Had the things you *worked* for stolen from you residence? I have. On different occasions. I had a sweet JS1000 BP bought brand new, pristine condition from GC for a cool $1450ish (though it's been a while). I saved up and I bought it. I had a nice S&M sabbath bike too, put over $1000 in parts into it and built it up 100% custom. 

Both of which, and several other low-dollar items were stolen by (3) kids that saw me walk in the door carrying computer monitors and assumed they were for me and would be there the next day (I brought them in because I didn't want to leave them in the car overnight as they weren't for me, but for my work). 

So no, don't sell me a load of horseshit about noble thieves just doing it to make ends meet. I bought some thieving piece of shit a new JS1000 and a fucking mint BMX bike because that was *available* instead of the monitors they wanted... and that douche likely sold my gear to finance their drug habit, drink or have a good time.

And if by chance, they *did* sell my gear to buy their screaming babies or themselves a warm meal, FUCK THEM. You don't steal or break the law and then complain when the system hands you your ass. If you want a warm meal or something for yourself, you earn it. With work. Not excuses.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jul 21, 2011)

You're literally reading what you want to read and not what I'm saying. I clearly stated that you and I both agree that what they're doing is not necessary and that they are fully capable of making ends meet honestly. My point was that they (the poor) commit more crimes than the wealthy because they see it as a necessity. Not that it is. So, "ok" to your last post.


----------



## orb451 (Jul 21, 2011)

Adam Of Angels said:


> You're literally reading what you want to read and not what I'm saying. I clearly stated that you and I both agree that what they're doing is not necessary and that they are fully capable of making ends meet honestly. My point was that they (the poor) commit more crimes than the wealthy because they see it as a necessity. Not that it is. So, "ok" to your last post.



Fair enough, let me just say that their *view* of stealing or breaking the law as being a necessity is wrong. It's not justifiable. It's not "OK". And I think it has a lot to do with a misguided sense of entitlement, poor work ethic (if any) and a subculture that celebrates moronic behavior as though it were virtue.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jul 21, 2011)

This will be the third time where I'm saying that I don't think they're right for feeling its a necessity. However, I spent a lot of time around poor folk in South Western PA, and the majority of the people I'm talking about aren't bad people, and wouldn't hurt anybody. Their crimes usually consist of selling weed or whatever else they can get their hands on. I don't respect their decision, but I'm saying that most of these criminals aren't taking anything from anybody.. that's entirely beside the point, I just wanted to mention it.


----------



## orb451 (Jul 21, 2011)

Adam Of Angels said:


> This will be the third time where I'm saying that I don't think they're right for feeling its a necessity. However, I spent a lot of time around poor folk in South Western PA, and the majority of the people I'm talking about aren't bad people, and wouldn't hurt anybody. Their crimes usually consist of selling weed or whatever else they can get their hands on. I don't respect their decision, but I'm saying that most of these criminals aren't taking anything from anybody.. that's entirely beside the point, I just wanted to mention it.



Alright and this will be the last time I address what you've brought up. You brought up the poor and necessity thing. I'm glad we're in agreement that they aren't justified and are clearly wrong in breaking the law (as far as stealing goes).

As far as breaking the law to sell/buy/smoke weed, we'd probably agree that the marijuana laws are a bit ridiculous and might even be in agreement that weed should be legal and for crimes like that, there's no need to pack prisons with lizards and hippies.

However, even if you or I agree on that (or those) points, the law is still the law. And if you break it, and get caught, expect to pay the consequences for your choices, however much you (not you personally Adam) may feel as though they're OK because it's a "victimless" crime, etc.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jul 21, 2011)

I agree with what you've said there.


----------



## Mexi (Jul 21, 2011)

orb451 said:


> It's ridiculous. It's victim mentality. I'm a victim of my environment, powerless to change my future. And because I have to work *harder* than some other guy, it's not fair. I should be given the same opportunities he has. If he gets to go to some snobby private school, I *should* be given the opportunity to go that snobby private school... Regardless of whether I have to earn my way in there. Regardless of how much it costs to go there, I should be given tuition free or at a significantly reduced cost. I should get. I should want. I should get. I should have. Fuck. That. Shit.
> 
> Until that private snobby school gets over run by boneheads and morons and becomes just like any other run of the mill public school. And no one can get a good education in a public school with boneheads and morons. Right?
> 
> ...



I wholeheartedly disagree with this statement. in my job, I work with at-risk families who are in the lower-income demographic and often struggle with alot of psychological problems that are associated with poverty. when money was invested to this small neighbourhood, (as in cleaning up the areas, more police presence, viable community center w/ access to programs) there was a noticable shift in lower drug/gang related crimes. more kids were graduating highschool and when bursaries were offered for these low-income kids, they stepped up (academically) and were able to get a post secondary education.

It's not about propping up the poor to "someone elses" standard, they're OUR standards. standards that should be achievable by most people who are given a fair opportunity that doesn't get squandered. 

We live in a society, and despite any left/right bickering that might go on, we should really look at the kind of society we want to live in, and whether we want to deal with the same issues with poverty we've been dealing with forever. now I'm not saying GIVE THE POOR HANDOUTS, but provide them with the means to help themselves, and more often than not, they will work their asses off to have something better.

also, to label all poor as having victim mentality or are just lazy/stupid is ignorant and just perpetuates the same stereotypical notion that people have of right-wingers. I'm sure you're speaking of the minority of the poor who may have those qualities, but it's not helpful when wanting to address these core issues that affect so many people. suggesting people are poor only because of their bad decisions is as much a cop out as the poor saying they're a product of their environment.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jul 21, 2011)

The idea that the income of a person's parents affects their ability to get an education has always felt a little odd to me. I know it _can_, certainly. Honestly, if my parents were multimillionaires, i'd probably have expected them to help me out with college. In reality, they're pretty firmly on the sub-$50k side of things, so I didn't ask them for a penny. In fact, neither did any of my siblings, and so far every one of my parents' children have a degree of some sort (one has an MA, three have BAs, and one an AA), all without costing my parents a dime. 

Whether it was through loans, grants, scholarships or in my case military service, we all found a way to pay for college. It never once struck me as unfair that we had to, whether or not others had an easier time of it. If anything I think I appreciated the opportunity more _because_ I had to work for it.


----------



## synrgy (Jul 21, 2011)

orb451 said:


> Your argument about the 50K family versus the 200K or whatever family is silly....
> 
> I'm not denying the disparity....



I never stated that the 50k family _deserves_ anything.

Regardless, we are agreed that there is a disparity, which is all I was really trying to get at, so I think to go any deeper into this particular rabbit hole would be counter productive.

As always, I appreciate your candor.


----------



## Lrrrr (Jul 21, 2011)

orb451 said:


> Fair enough, let me just say that their *view* of stealing or breaking the law as being a necessity is wrong. It's not justifiable. It's not "OK". And I think it has a lot to do with a misguided sense of entitlement, poor work ethic (if any) and a subculture that celebrates moronic behavior as though it were virtue.



I actually did a paper on this a few years back for school. The absolute poorest area of the country is the western part of the plains states (Kansas up through the Dakotas). Ironically these areas have some of the lowest crime rates in the country. 

My personal reasoning for this is an increased sense of community, Christian ideals (or common decency to the non-Christians ) and the fact there isn't the same sense of entitlement that you find in the more liberal areas of the country (maybe because there is a general absence of wealth in those regions, maybe it's due to something else).


----------



## orb451 (Jul 21, 2011)

Mexi said:


> I wholeheartedly disagree with this statement. in my job, I work with at-risk families who are in the lower-income demographic and often struggle with alot of psychological problems that are associated with poverty.



Tell me, what psychological problems are associated with poverty? The inability to pay their bills? The inability to find a decent job? The inability to increase their skill set? The inability to use birth control (or in extreme cases abortion) to curtail their growing families? The inability to focus their time and effort on productive outlets?

You'll have to forgive me, I grew up around poor, low-income housing families. I grew up in a blue-collar, working class town outside of Boston. I moved to LA and have seen through my experiences over the years the good and bad in poor people, not all poor people, just the ones I've encountered, known or been friends with. I wouldn't say I have *more* experience with them than you. Only that my experience differs. 

What I struggle with is things like our state (California for me) paying 61 million dollars in EBT benefits for families to spend it in Vegas casinos and vacations in Hawaii. Give me a bit, I'm at work but I'll dig up the article as a reference as soon as I can. But when I see things like that, spread across what is undoubtedly more than a *few* low income or "poor" people, I get frustrated. I also find it dismaying that our state is willing to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not millions) on market research just to come up with a new "branding" campaign for EBT because of the "stigma" attached with food stamps.




Mexi said:


> when money was invested to this small neighbourhood, (as in cleaning up the areas, more police presence, viable community center w/ access to programs) there was a noticable shift in lower drug/gang related crimes. more kids were graduating highschool and when bursaries were offered for these low-income kids, they stepped up (academically) and were able to get a post secondary education.



More cops = less crime (in many instances, but not all). When you remove the criminal elements, I agree, people are better off. No argument there. Nor any argument on spending money for that outcome. 



Mexi said:


> It's not about propping up the poor to "someone elses" standard, they're OUR standards. standards that should be achievable by most people who are given a fair opportunity that doesn't get squandered.



I guess that's my issue, I think the standards *are* achievable but they require more effort than you are probably willing to admit, or more effort than they themselves are willing to put forth. I have no empathy for people that want things handed to them easily. If it were impossible for people to "break free" of the cycle, no one would. There would be *no* rags to riches success stories. And yet there are, many, from every type of person and every area of the country, where people succeed despite what you call the lack of "fair" opportunities.




Mexi said:


> We live in a society, and despite any left/right bickering that might go on, we should really look at the kind of society we want to live in, and whether we want to deal with the same issues with poverty we've been dealing with forever. now I'm not saying GIVE THE POOR HANDOUTS, but provide them with the means to help themselves, and more often than not, they will work their asses off to have something better.



I can almost agree with the whole teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime thing, my only concern is the willingness of those being given a hand "up" to act accordingly and not waste the opportunity.



Mexi said:


> also, to label all poor as having victim mentality or are just lazy/stupid is ignorant and just perpetuates the same stereotypical notion that people have of right-wingers. I'm sure you're speaking of the minority of the poor who may have those qualities, but it's not helpful when wanting to address these core issues that affect so many people. suggesting people are poor only because of their bad decisions is as much a cop out as the poor saying they're a product of their environment.



So you're complaining about a sweeping generalization whilst using one yourself? Priceless. I'm not saying *all* poor people are this, that or the other thing. It's not helpful to have any kind of Left/Right conversation on here without the terms Liberal/Lefty and Conservative/Right-Winger being thrown around and abused. And yet it still happens. My take on it is, oh fucking well. Life goes on.


----------



## orb451 (Jul 21, 2011)

Lrrrr said:


> I actually did a paper on this a few years back for school. The absolute poorest area of the country is the western part of the plains states (Kansas up through the Dakotas). Ironically these areas have some of the lowest crime rates in the country.
> 
> My personal reasoning for this is an increased sense of community, Christian ideals (or common decency to the non-Christians ) and the fact there isn't the same sense of entitlement that you find in the more liberal areas of the country (maybe because there is a general absence of wealth in those regions, maybe it's due to something else).



Exactly. Look at post quake Japan. How much looting and vandalism occurred? And now compare that to post Hurricane Katrina. See the difference? And it's *easy* to say that it's Blacks vs. Asians but it's not about race, it's about cultures and more specifically sub-cultures. My hat is forever off to the people of Japan going through that, rebuilding and doing so with as much dignity as possible.

My middle finger is forever extended to the thieving pieces of shit in N.O. (regardless of what color they are/were) that felt that the natural disaster was a good time to steal from their own and others' neighborhoods, businesses, etc. I have ZERO sympathy for them. For the hardworking people that got robbed, or just had the disaster happen, and had the god damned common sense and decency not to use it as an excuse to line their pockets with electronics and loot, my hat and my wallet were open and willing to help.


----------



## Lrrrr (Jul 21, 2011)

orb451 said:


> Exactly. Look at post quake Japan. How much looting and vandalism occurred? And now compare that to post Hurricane Katrina. See the difference? And it's *easy* to say that it's Blacks vs. Asians but it's not about race, it's about cultures and more specifically sub-cultures. My hat is forever off to the people of Japan going through that, rebuilding and doing so with as much dignity as possible.
> 
> My middle finger is forever extended to the thieving pieces of shit in N.O. (regardless of what color they are/were) that felt that the natural disaster was a good time to steal from their own and others' neighborhoods, businesses, etc. I have ZERO sympathy for them. For the hardworking people that got robbed, or just had the disaster happen, and had the god damned common sense and decency not to use it as an excuse to line their pockets with electronics and loot, my hat and my wallet were open and willing to help.



I feel the same way man. I'm all for bettering my community, sharing what little I have with others and giving my brothers and sisters a shoulder to stand on. In a utopian world, socialism would be awesome. We would all work hard for each other, use our better judgement and avoid taking advantage of circumstance. Too bad that we don't. I lean conservative not because I'm a reclusive asshole looking out for myself and myself only. I lean conservative because I believe that I and the people that immediately surround me have a better idea of what is good for myself and my community. I refuse to support the forced and unchecked "charity" mandated by some nameless face in Washington. It's impossible to do what is best for somebody when you generalize and pigeon hole millions at a time.

It's for these reasons that I'll vote for smaller government and for more local/state rights. There is a place for national government, our founding fathers knew as much, but I'm with you in that they would be appalled at our political climate today.


----------



## chronocide (Jul 21, 2011)

orb451 said:


> That last part is the key, "if they so choose". Focus on that, because that's my point. If the parents choose to give their kids a "free" ride, then yes, they can. That doesn't mean it happens automatically or that it's a "given". The latter is what I gathered from your responses. Like Guitarman700 said, and I agree with it, that it is a CASE BY CASE BASIS.



No it doesn't mean it happens automatically, I've never suggested it does. I don't think anyone else has either but you seem to be reading it in everyone's posts. 



> Sure, and what's wrong with that as opposed to someone that has to work extremely hard to get a scholarship to Harvard? The hard work part?



Nothing. But that person obviously has to work much, much harder to manage to get that place, whereas some others simply don't have to bother. That's the point, it's more easily available to some than others. Which flies in the face of your meritocratic claims, the same efforts and ability should garner the same results, but they don't, not nearly.

And that's just education, I used it as an easy example. The biggest problem preventing meritocracy in any society is nepotism, obviously. You've far more chance of success in business, for example, if your dad is mates with loads of CEOs.



Grand Moff Tim said:


> The idea that the income of a person's parents affects their ability to get an education has always felt a little odd to me. I know it _can_, certainly.



Yes, it can. That's the only point being made.


----------



## orb451 (Jul 21, 2011)

chronocide said:


> No it doesn't mean it happens automatically, I've never suggested it does. I don't think anyone else has either but you seem to be reading it in everyone's posts.



Point taken, it sounded to me like you and others were definitely saying that wealth = free ride in the majority of instances. All I was countering with was that for some it is, and others it isn't. 



chronocide said:


> Nothing. But that person obviously has to work much, much harder to manage to get that place, whereas some others simply don't have to bother. That's the point, it's more easily available to some than others. Which flies in the face of your meritocratic claims, the same efforts and ability should garner the same results, but they don't, not nearly.



How does that fly in the face, in a meritocracy people have the ability to succeed based on their merits, just because some are able to succeed with less effort than others doesn't mean the system is broken. I think that's where I'm confused, are you saying that because some people have to work harder than others, that they're still not succeeding based on their own work? 



chronocide said:


> And that's just education, I used it as an easy example. The biggest problem preventing meritocracy in any society is nepotism, obviously. You've far more chance of success in business, for example, if your dad is mates with loads of CEOs.



Well yeah, if you want to throw in almost any other issues in business or life in general you're going to run into issues. I don't think any are exclusive to or limited to succeeding based on the merits of your work, or meritocracy. How about unions, look at them for examples of the pure antithesis of meritocracy. No thanks.


----------



## chronocide (Jul 21, 2011)

orb451 said:


> How does that fly in the face, in a meritocracy people have the ability to succeed based on their merits, just because some are able to succeed with less effort than others doesn't mean the system is broken. I think that's where I'm confused, are you saying that because some people have to work harder than others, that they're still not succeeding based on their own work?



That is what I'm saying, yes. A meritocracy is a system in which success matches ability, the best at any particular thing being the most rewarded, not simply a system in which hard work and ability garners results. 



> How about unions, look at them for examples of the pure antithesis of meritocracy. No thanks.



Unions are a brilliant, brilliant thing. If they get too powerful they become problematic, like in the 70's in the UK, but generally a group of peers pooling resources and efforts to try and make work fairer for them, fight unfair or unsafe practices and to push for their rights and wages together is great. Obviously, as someone on the right, you'll disagree and see them as pesky proles getting above themselves and limiting the profits of their employers.


----------



## orb451 (Jul 21, 2011)

chronocide said:


> That is what I'm saying, yes. A meritocracy is a system in which success matches ability, the best at any particular thing being the most rewarded, not simply a system in which hard work and ability garners results.



Success never matches ability one to one in every case. Even I know that. And freely admit it. I did so in previous posts when I said that some people *don't* have to work as hard (Rich or otherwise) to succeed. But those that do work hard, are usually rewarded for their efforts. Generally speaking.

Surely you must know that too? I guess my definition of meritocracy "a system in which such persons are rewarded and advanced" per the 2nd definition on dictionary.com gels with what I'm thinking about.




chronocide said:


> Unions are a brilliant, brilliant thing. If they get too powerful they become problematic, like in the 70's in the UK, but generally a group of peers pooling resources to try and make work fairer for them and to push for their rights and wages together is great. Obviously, as someone on the right, you'll disagree and see them as pesky proles getting above themselves and limiting the profits of their employers.



Unions are relics from a day and age when corporations were treating their workers extremely poorly. That's my opinion of them. Not that they're "pesky proles" in the way of profits, but that's cute of you to think that.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jul 21, 2011)

chronocide said:


> Yes, it can. That's the only point being made.


 
I suppose the point I was dancing around is that it can, but it needn't.


----------



## chronocide (Jul 21, 2011)

orb451 said:


> Success never matches ability one to one in every case. Even I know that. And freely admit it. I did so in previous posts when I said that some people *don't* have to work as hard (Rich or otherwise) to succeed. But those that do work hard, are usually rewarded for their efforts. Generally speaking.
> 
> Surely you must know that too? I guess my definition of meritocracy "a system in which such persons are rewarded and advanced" per the 2nd definition on dictionary.com gels with what I'm thinking about.



Certainly I do. But anything wanting to call itself a meritocracy should be leaning towards the greatest rewards for those of most ability. Which absolutely isn't the case in any nation I'm aware of. Hard work pays, no doubt, but the hard work of a poor-born genius is far less likely to bring great success than the lax effort of a millionaire. 

And anything wanting to call itself a meritocracy really, really should have free education. It was UK's worst post-colonial day when they started charging for university in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.


----------



## Mexi (Jul 21, 2011)

orb451 said:


> Tell me, what psychological problems are associated with poverty? The inability to pay their bills? The inability to find a decent job? The inability to increase their skill set? The inability to use birth control (or in extreme cases abortion) to curtail their growing families? The inability to focus their time and effort on productive outlets?



I mean moreso for the children who grow up in poverty, who consistently score poorer academically, and often suffer from more anxiety/stress-related issues than kids middle/higher income brackets, as my experience lends itself moreso in looking at the impact on kids by poverty. not sure why you had to throw in the bit about birth control, which (to me) suggests that because they poor, they lack the sense than to keep having kids they can't afford to have.


> You'll have to forgive me, I grew up around poor, low-income housing families. I grew up in a blue-collar, working class town outside of Boston. I moved to LA and have seen through my experiences over the years the good and bad in poor people, not all poor people, just the ones I've encountered, known or been friends with. I wouldn't say I have *more* experience with them than you. Only that my experience differs.


I will give you that, which is why I'm speaking only from my experience in the situation in a smaller-sized (300k) city in southwestern Ontario. It's entirely likely that my experience differs so greatly than yours that it would seem that the issue of solving poverty is not so cut and dry, especially given the breadth of experiences. I just haven't met as many families that spend their cheques on Xboxes and trips to vegas as they do on baby formula and bus tickets.



> What I struggle with is things like our state (California for me) paying 61 million dollars in EBT benefits for families to spend it in Vegas casinos and vacations in Hawaii. Give me a bit, I'm at work but I'll dig up the article as a reference as soon as I can. But when I see things like that, spread across what is undoubtedly more than a *few* low income or "poor" people, I get frustrated. I also find it dismaying that our state is willing to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not millions) on market research just to come up with a new "branding" campaign for EBT because of the "stigma" attached with food stamps.


This is my gripe as well, you can't just hand these people money and *hope* they'll spend it on whatever you're saying they should. which is why I'd be more inclined for low-income families to receive these services with considerable strings attached. while I don't care what someone does with their own money, when it comes to taxpayer dollars, I want to know where its going and hope that its being spent properly.




> I guess that's my issue, I think the standards *are* achievable but they require more effort than you are probably willing to admit, or more effort than they themselves are willing to put forth. I have no empathy for people that want things handed to them easily. If it were impossible for people to "break free" of the cycle, no one would. There would be *no* rags to riches success stories. And yet there are, many, from every type of person and every area of the country, where people succeed despite what you call the lack of "fair" opportunities.


I'm not saying I want things to be easy, because if anything, my experience with having worked with low-income families shows me just how difficult they're used to their lives being. and yes there are "rags to riches" stories, so it is entirely possible for those that put in the work to succeed in life.
However, for most living in poverty, despite all the hard work they put in, lack of access to social programs to stabilize their finances or even more basic access to affordable transportation, will continue to hinder any sort of meaningful progress for that strata of our society. I wonder if there are certain factors that contribute to poverty that is endemic to specific areas of certain cities, whether cultural or otherwise that could play a role in all that





> I can almost agree with the whole teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime thing, my only concern is the willingness of those being given a hand "up" to act accordingly and not waste the opportunity.


that is my main concern as well, which is why I'm always disappointed to see people squander opportunities they've been presented in life because making that jump was either too "hard" or otherwise. So if my money is being put into giving them opportunities, they need to fulfill their responsibilities to that end.




> So you're complaining about a sweeping generalization whilst using one yourself? Priceless. I'm not saying *all* poor people are this, that or the other thing. It's not helpful to have any kind of Left/Right conversation on here without the terms Liberal/Lefty and Conservative/Right-Winger being thrown around and abused. And yet it still happens. My take on it is, oh fucking well. Life goes on.


yeah I read that back and realized that I came off a tad hypocritical, my bad. but while you don't implicitly say *all* poor people are like that, your comments suggest that it's almost entirely their fault. But again, I think because of our largely differing experiences, we probably won't agree on a single point other than the desperate need to cut the waste that is going into these programs and to hold people accountable for their mistakes. fortunately, we have the civility and maturity to agree to disagree on most of these points.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Jul 21, 2011)

A hard-working poor guy climebed to the top is mostly a touching, inspiring and exiting story, just because it is rare! The system do not allow to reach what you want withoput the payment. Either you have money and you can reach it easily, or you are poor and have to go though Hell to reach it.
One can have parties, best toys, best teachers, best food, best water and can climb to the top slowly with a normal to very good life.
The other one has to works his ass of half of his life to reach the point the other was born with already.
IMHO, this has to compensated. I want everyone to have the opportunity to get the best education and job chances independently from family income and social network. This is not the case in the U.S. The scholarships are limited, and not everyone can even finsih the school because of bad neighborhood.


----------



## orb451 (Jul 21, 2011)

chronocide said:


> Certainly I do. But anything wanting to call itself a meritocracy should be leaning towards the greatest rewards for those of most ability. Which absolutely isn't the case in any nation I'm aware of. Hard work pays, no doubt, but the hard work of a poor-born genius is far less likely to bring great success than the lax effort of a millionaire.



And how long will the lax millionaire going to sustain his wealth if he's lazy and stupid? And how do you explain the success stories for the poor born geniuses that *have* made it? Or rather, achieved some level of success?


----------



## SirMyghin (Jul 21, 2011)

chronocide said:


> Unions are a brilliant, brilliant thing. If they get too powerful they become problematic, like in the 70's in the UK, but generally a group of peers pooling resources and efforts to try and make work fairer for them, fight unfair or unsafe practices and to push for their rights and wages together is great. Obviously, as someone on the right, you'll disagree and see them as pesky proles getting above themselves and limiting the profits of their employers.



Unions, this day and age are absolutely absurd. I'll use a very recent example from Canada, the postal strike. A crown organization with indefinite job security and a slew of benefits. Their retirement packages were getting slightly pruned, and starting wages were getting dropped 2$ an hour, due to declining business in the postal world (couriers and such are taking a bigger portion, and lettermail is virtually non existant. 

Now these postal workers start at 19$ an hour, and most make 24$ an hour. Seriously, a non-skill job, and they are making that. It is absurd really, they certainly don't earn it. Yet dropping starting wage to 17 (I think) was a huge issue. There were comments going around like 'we just want to make enough to support our families' and such. If you can't support a family on that, you are obviously trying to live outside your means. My wife, with a university education in psychology, in a councilling job a fair deal makes less than that, and we get by comfortably on her income alone. The difference in pay could easily make up for a child. The thing is, regardless of business profit, unions exercise entitlement in place of logic to attempt to bully employers to do what they will. That is all it is nowadays, most often there are all kinds of ludicrous dictations on how the business must work put in place by unions, and frankly, they have no business in that portion.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Jul 21, 2011)

orb451 said:


> And how long will the lax millionaire going to sustain his wealth if he's lazy and stupid? And how do you explain the success stories for the poor born geniuses that *have* made it? Or rather, achieved some level of success?



Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian. Having 2 things in common.(Except being women)
What are they?


----------



## orb451 (Jul 21, 2011)

Mexi said:


> I mean moreso for the children who grow up in poverty, who consistently score poorer academically, and often suffer from more anxiety/stress-related issues than kids middle/higher income brackets, as my experience lends itself moreso in looking at the impact on kids by poverty. not sure why you had to throw in the bit about birth control, which (to me) suggests that because they poor, they lack the sense than to keep having kids they can't afford to have.



Well again, from my experiences, that last bit is exactly what I've seen. My wife is a social worker and from her experiences and mine, the poor Latino families she deals with in LA are having kids like jack rabbits. And yes, they clearly lack the sense to refrain from fucking or wearing a rubber or terminating the pregnancy for a number of reasons, none of them right, which leaves them, and the kids, assed out in the cold. And it goes back to common sense and choices absolutely. If you don't have enough money to support yourself, let alone one or two mouths to feed, why the christ would you think it's OK to have *more* kids? 

And the answer is lack of common sense and the other is gaming the system. Many will do it because the system is geared in such a way as to make it easier for larger families to score larger benefits. That needs to change.

Purposely leaving out the other bits from your post because I more or less agree with them or get what you're saying.


----------



## orb451 (Jul 21, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> The system do not allow to reach what you want withoput the payment. Either you have money and you can reach it easily, or you are poor and have to go though Hell to reach it.



That's the same black/white logic that I and others get accused of on here. It's not so cut and dry. Yes it requires effort, no doubt about it. One man's hell is nothing in comparison to another's plight. So what? The playing field should be leveled in order to accommodate the lives of all? Sorry I don't agree with that.



daemon barbeque said:


> One can have parties, best toys, best teachers, best food, best water and can climb to the top slowly with a normal to very good life.
> The other one has to works his ass of half of his life to reach the point the other was born with already.



Precisely. Where is outlined that life has to be *fair* for everyone? I never said that it's fair. Not sure where you're getting that idea from, whether its me or just your own opinion.



daemon barbeque said:


> IMHO, this has to compensated. I want everyone to have the opportunity to get the best education and job chances independently from family income and social network. This is not the case in the U.S. The scholarships are limited, and not everyone can even finsih the school because of bad neighborhood.



Guess we just disagree, I want the most talented people to rise to the top and succeed on their own hard work, in their own way. Is it great that some get to that top so easily? No, not to me, but I'm not going to bitch and complain about it.


----------



## chronocide (Jul 21, 2011)

orb451 said:


> And how long will the lax millionaire going to sustain his wealth if he's lazy and stupid? And how do you explain the success stories for the poor born geniuses that *have* made it? Or rather, achieved some level of success?



How's George W. Bush getting on? Boris Johnson? There are plenty people born into inordinate wealth who are blithering idiots who get sat in top flight jobs on huge wages without any ability because dad's pal is the boss.

I said less likely. I didn't say they didn't happen. Though if they were commonplace, they wouldn't be such news-fodder...



SirMyghin said:


> Unions, this day and age are absolutely absurd. I'll use a very recent example from Canada, the postal strike. A crown organization with indefinite job security and a slew of benefits. Their retirement packages were getting slightly pruned, and starting wages were getting dropped 2$ an hour, due to declining business in the postal world (couriers and such are taking a bigger portion, and lettermail is virtually non existant.
> 
> Now these postal workers start at 19$ an hour, and most make 24$ an hour. Seriously, a non-skill job, and they are making that. It is absurd really, they certainly don't earn it. Yet dropping starting wage to 17 (I think) was a huge issue. There were comments going around like 'we just want to make enough to support our families' and such. If you can't support a family on that, you are obviously trying to live outside your means. My wife, with a university education in psychology, in a councilling job a fair deal makes less than that, and we get by comfortably on her income alone. The difference in pay could easily make up for a child. The thing is, regardless of business profit, unions exercise entitlement in place of logic to attempt to bully employers to do what they will. That is all it is nowadays, most often there are all kinds of ludicrous dictations on how the business must work put in place by unions, and frankly, they have no business in that portion.



And one anecdote proves what? I can provide plenty stories of unions doing great work for their members currently. Particularly many British ones in the midst of the massive public spending cuts we're undergoing, with swathes of people being forced to take significant pay cuts or simply losing their jobs. 

Like I said, some unions get too powerful and become a problem, but they are a great aid to workers treated unfairly and illegally.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Jul 21, 2011)

Kim Kardashian has an awesome ass, I feel its great that she's famous so we can all enjoy it


----------



## orb451 (Jul 21, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian. Having 2 things in common.(Except being women)
> What are they?



They both released sex tapes.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Jul 21, 2011)

KIM KARDASHIAN HAS A SEX TAPE...


brb.


----------



## orb451 (Jul 21, 2011)

Stealthtastic said:


> KIM KARDASHIAN HAS A SEX TAPE...
> 
> 
> brb.



30 seconds or less buddy 

It's actually just kind of "meh" but now we're derailing this bitch something fierce


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jul 21, 2011)

orb451 said:


> They both released sex tapes.


 
And their surnames both end in "N."


----------



## Church2224 (Jul 21, 2011)

orb451 said:


> 30 seconds or less buddy
> 
> It's actually just kind of "meh" but now we're derailing this bitch something fierce



lol you are saying that like it;s a bad thing 

I will also brb to check out this... documentary of Celebrity life....


----------



## SirMyghin (Jul 21, 2011)

chronocide said:


> And one anecdote proves what? I can provide plenty stories of unions doing great work for their members currently. Particularly many British ones in the midst of the massive public spending cuts we're undergoing, with swathes of people being forced to take significant pay cuts or simply losing their jobs.
> 
> Like I said, some unions get too powerful and become a problem, but they are a great aid to workers treated unfairly and illegally.



Pay cuts or lost jobs in times of no profit is how business works, jobs are commodities not guarantees. Unions preventing job loss or wage decreases only serve to drive a company further into down and do nothing for economic recover. The entire point was unions go through extreme means to ensure their employees get their job regardless of circumstance, which is nonsense. They also have a bad habit of trying to combat sectoral shift.

You can't have your cake and eat it too, unions seem to magically believe otherwise.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jul 21, 2011)

chronocide said:


> How's George W. Bush getting on? Boris Johnson?
> 
> ...
> 
> And one anecdote proves what?


 
About as much as two anecdotes do, I reckon.


----------



## chronocide (Jul 21, 2011)

SirMyghin said:


> Pay cuts or lost jobs in times of no profit is how business works, jobs are commodities not guarantees. Unions preventing job loss or wage decreases only serve to drive a company further into down and do nothing for economic recover. The entire point was unions go through extreme means to ensure their employees get their job regardless of circumstance, which is nonsense. They also have a bad habit of trying to combat sectoral shift.
> 
> You can't have your cake and eat it too, unions seem to magically believe otherwise.



Public sector cuts I said, not private. And not cuts that are required. And not all unions can be accused of the same stances and approaches, that's a ridiculous notion. 



Grand Moff Tim said:


> About as much as two anecdotes do, I reckon.



Guffaw. 

The two people I mentioned were a response to a direct question as to how any wealthy person sustains their wealth whilst being poor at their jobs, as you know, and quite a different thing to a single tale about a particular union being bad as an attempt to demonstrate all unions are bad.


----------



## Lrrrr (Jul 21, 2011)

I have a deal for you guys. I'll personally support exactly equal opportunity in education and career path if I can have an equal shot with super attractive women, sports, guitar, sociability. I want smaller calves so I can run better and I want a faster metabolism.

Edit* I want to be a singer too.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jul 21, 2011)

chronocide said:


> Guffaw.
> 
> The two people I mentioned were a response to a direct question as to how any wealthy person sustains their wealth whilst being poor at their jobs, as you know, and quite a different thing to a single tale about a particular union being bad as an attempt to demonstrate all unions are bad.


 
Right, his one example doesn't prove that all unions are bad, and your two examples don't prove all millionaires who are poor at their job sustain their wealth. I'm not saying either of you are right or wrong, just that you can't really call out the use of only one example when refuting another point with only two of your own.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jul 21, 2011)

If anything, I agree with folks like Orb/Rich about half the time and folks like Chronocide the other half, as my post from the Political Ideologies thread would suggest:




Grand Moff Tim said:


>


----------



## chronocide (Jul 21, 2011)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Right, his one example doesn't prove that all unions are bad, and your two examples don't prove all millionaires who are poor at their job sustain their wealth. I'm not saying either of you are right or wrong, just that you can't really call out the use of only one example when refuting another point with only two of your own.



But the point was I suggested a couple of examples because Orb asked in a fashion that implied all daft millionaires lose their wealth, that only the hard working, able ones retain it. I didn't claim that all daft millionaires remain super-rich and only support it with a couple examples. SirMyghin however said ALL unions are bad and supported it with a solitary example.


----------



## synrgy (Jul 21, 2011)

orb451 said:


> I want the most talented people to rise to the top and succeed on their own hard work, in their own way.



This is a principle I wholeheartedly agree with. I really didn't mean to drag myself back into this; just wanted to highlight that. 

Still, I had a spark and I thought I'd try one more time to explain what I was attempting to say before.

If I understand your overall points here correctly, which I very well may not -- you believe our system encourages the principle I quoted from you above, whereas I think our system does virtually everything it can to hamper it. 

An important thing I'm going to point out here -- because this is where I think you're misunderstanding me -- is that when I say 'hamper', I don't mean it in some arbitrary boogey-man sense; I don't think (most) people want kids of any stripe to have to attend bad schools, or that (most) people want their fellow Americans to live in tent cities or urban areas below the poverty line. I don't think there's some proverbial dastardly villain with a mustache laughing jovially at poor people struggling.

I think (most) Americans have their own version of the American dream, whether it's picket fences, rock stardom, politics, etc, and I don't believe (most) of us wish to directly or indirectly inhibit anyone else's progress. All that said, without money nothing happens, and it's that simple. If the people have little-to-no income, they're not generating any revenue for their locally (or federally) funded services. 

Without the money, public transportation suffers -> less buses for those who can't afford cars to get to work -> less opportunity

Without the money, public schools suffer -> fewer teachers, less 'non-essential' (elective/extracurricular/music!!!) curriculum, less gifted/talented programs (if any), more kids per class room, etc -> less opportunity

Without the money, public safety suffers -> fewer police, fire fighters, road upkeep, increased crime -> less opportunity

Without the money, dietary options suffer -> fewer grocery stores, less fresh product in grocery stores, less restaurants serving decent food, more cheap fast food chains, and with the rising costs of food being what they have been, these people can't afford good fresh food, anyway -> less opportunity

And that's all I'm getting at. I'm not speaking to politics or public policy; just making the observation that money makes the World go round, and the closest thing to an 'easy' button that exists in our system is the possession of wealth. I'm not crying injustice; just calling an orange an orange.


----------



## AxeHappy (Jul 21, 2011)

I agree with a lot of what orb has said. 

I don't however understand why any of it means we can't help people?


----------



## orb451 (Jul 21, 2011)

synrgy said:


> Carl's input...



Just consolidating to save space.

I think I get the gist of what you're saying and I think you are on the right track with respect to my points.

In response to yours, I agree, money makes the world go 'round. But my question is, where does the money to pay for all these things come from - in your opinion? Is it taxes? Is it the wealthy? Is it successful individuals? 

That's what I've never understood about some Liberal/Lefty mindsets (not necessarily yours personally) that is, you want all these wonderful services to pay for all these programs and benefits, ya know, improve everyone's quality of life, I get that. But yet at the same time you revile those that are successful and become wealthy because they're never paying *enough* unless they're knocked down a few levels. I mean it's like this great equalizer, too wealthy? Pay more for services for people that can't afford them! Bring them up and level the playing field!

But then, where's the incentive to succeed and really excel at anything? I mean, if you know you're going to run a company and make money, why would you bother if someone is reaching into your pocket and squeezing your tit till it's purple and emptying your wallet?

I look at it with a guitar analogy, say you scrounged and saved to buy a Blackmachine 7, whatever the fucking model is, let's say it's expensive for arguments' sake. So you have this super nice guitar, you worked hard for it, why the fuck would you just *give* it to some fucking numbnut, for free? Because he doesn't have one? 

So you say, well that other guy can't get one. He's tried saving and all he can afford is an SX strat. My advice to him is, work your ass off! Save. Even if it takes YEARS, you'll earn that bitch and enjoy the living fuck out of it. And if you don't get to save up to that B7 or whatever, you'll *at least* be able to buy a Bernie Rico Jr. or some other sweet axe.

The money you talk about to fund public services and make everyone's lives better just has to come from somewhere, so I just don't understand the mentality of people that think like "hey, that guy over there has a bigger slice of pie, I *want* it!!!! Gimme it!!!"


----------



## orb451 (Jul 21, 2011)

AxeHappy said:


> I agree with a lot of what orb has said.
> 
> I don't however understand why any of it means we can't help people?



Nothing wrong with helping people at face value, but unfortunately *some* people will take the help and never help themselves. They *don't* want a hand-up, they want a hand-out. Gimme gimme gimme. And then there's some that even with the best of intentions, accept a hand-up, and then screw it up, and blow it, and then end up hating the system and getting discouraged too easily.

Help is a good thing, so is charity, but people should never, EVER rely on them to succeed or exist as the basis of their lives. And *some* do. That's my only issue.


----------



## chronocide (Jul 21, 2011)

orb451 said:


> Nothing wrong with helping people at face value, but unfortunately *some* people will take the help and never help themselves. They *don't* want a hand-up, they want a hand-out. Gimme gimme gimme. And then there's some that even with the best of intentions, accept a hand-up, and then screw it up, and blow it, and then end up hating the system and getting discouraged too easily.
> 
> Help is a good thing, so is charity, but people should never, EVER rely on them to succeed or exist as the basis of their lives. And *some* do. That's my only issue.



This is entirely true. The problem is that it's generally cheaper to pay out and let the system be abused to a degree, than to means test it on such a level that it's only the deserving and needy who receive help.

I'm a big supporter of high taxation so as to provide the needy with help and to have things like the NHS and free education. And I mean much higher than we in the UK have already (which is already much higher than you have in the states, which compared with most nations is very low). The Scandinavian nations have amongst the strongest economies and highest living standards in the world, with brilliant education and healthcare services because of their high taxation and huge public spending. They're a model I think the rest of the world should pay more attention to.


----------



## orb451 (Jul 21, 2011)

chronocide said:


> This is entirely true. The problem is that it's generally cheaper to pay out and let the system be abused to a degree, than to means test it on such a level that it's only the deserving and needy who receive help.



Well that's the thing, no one agrees to what *degree* the abuse should be tolerated unfortunately. I'm sure my standards and yours on that bit would probably differ greatly 

As to the taxation point, I understand the need for taxes, I just don't understand the need to tax the living shit out of people because to me, it too quickly removes the incentive to be successful in the first place. If European countries are at one end of the scale with respect to taxation, and the US is on the other, I would say the best solution is probably to meet somewhere in the middle. I don't think we should swing full force though in the other direction (towards Euro countries).


----------



## orb451 (Jul 21, 2011)

Look at the high taxes with the guitar analogy again. Say you have a whole collection of guitars (10 or more for arguments sake) that you worked your ass off for, why should you feel compelled or *be* compelled by government or law, to give up 4 or 5 of them because someone else wants them? Or, say they don't even want them, what if they just want to sell them and use that money for other crap. Think about it. You LOVE those guitars. They're your tools, they bring you happiness and joy, why would you willingly give them up?

Now lets say you *inherited* a collection of guitars from a dead uncle. Same scenario, you've got a bunch on your hands and each one is like a color on an artists palette. They still bring you joy and you *have* an attachment to them, even if you didn't put your blood sweat and tears scrounging to save for them. They still mean something so why would you give 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 of them away?

Lastly, what if you studied, went to school or took a class and *learned* how to build your own guitars? You poured your heart and soul into making these guitars and crafting them precisely till the end product was a beastly machine, why again, would you want to give up the fruits of your hard work? You bought the tools to make them, you educated yourself on how to build them correctly, and the end result is stunning. Why give that up??? Why should the small luthiers feel compelled to give away their products for free, simply because someone is going without?

Now I know some will say, well guitars aren't a necessity, people can and do exist without them, they're just guitars. That's fine. Hopefully no one's going there, but if you were tempted to, *obviously* just substitute guitars for MONEY.


----------



## chronocide (Jul 21, 2011)

orb451 said:


> Well that's the thing, no one agrees to what *degree* the abuse should be tolerated unfortunately. I'm sure my standards and yours on that bit would probably differ greatly



Well the point is where it becomes cheaper to pay out than to police, surely?



> As to the taxation point, I understand the need for taxes, I just don't understand the need to tax the living shit out of people because to me, it too quickly removes the incentive to be successful in the first place.



That's a case often made in Europe when people argue against increasing taxation or closing tax loopholes for the wealthy and for businesses. "If we tighten things the businesses will move abroad and the people will emigrate". They simply don't. On the contrary, it seems to make people strive even harder and make yet more money.


----------



## orb451 (Jul 21, 2011)

chronocide said:


> Well the point is where it becomes cheaper to pay out than to police, surely?



Don't call me surely 

Joke aside, in trying to find that article with the 61 or 81 million or whatever it was that was spent on EBT (food stamp) fraud in Cali I found some PDF that had $300 million spent annually on general welfare abuse. I don't know how accurate it is, so I'm not going to cite it. Point being though, if *any* money is being wasted it's worth pursuing/policing.




chronocide said:


> That's a case often made in Europe when people argue against increasing taxation or closing tax loopholes for the wealthy and for businesses. "If we tighten things the businesses will move abroad and the people will emigrate". They simply don't. On the contrary, it seems to make people strive even harder and make yet more money.



Well in the states it has happened where businesses have been driven out of state or country by higher taxes or higher costs of doing business. Perhaps it's not as prevalent in Europe. Or maybe they're just better at hiding their income in tax shelters and flying under the radar. 

I think the truth is, it does affect some businesses and wealthy individuals (increasing taxes or the cost of doing business) adversely and others adapt and others go out of business entirely and everything in between.

In other words, I don't think it's all one way or the other.

In other news, my penis is incredibly small.


----------



## chronocide (Jul 21, 2011)

orb451 said:


> Don't call me surely
> 
> Joke aside, in trying to find that article with the 61 or 81 million or whatever it was that was spent on EBT (food stamp) fraud in Cali I found some PDF that had $300 million spent annually on general welfare abuse. I don't know how accurate it is, so I'm not going to cite it. Point being though, if *any* money is being wasted it's worth pursuing/policing.



Even if the cost of policing is more than the wastage?




> Well in the states it has happened where businesses have been driven out of state or country by higher taxes or higher costs of doing business. Perhaps it's not as prevalent in Europe. Or maybe they're just better at hiding their income in tax shelters and flying under the radar.
> 
> I think the truth is, it does affect some businesses and wealthy individuals (increasing taxes or the cost of doing business) adversely and others adapt and others go out of business entirely and everything in between.
> 
> In other words, I don't think it's all one way or the other.



There's certainly a great deal of tax avoidance on the go. We've had recent extensive protests about a couple of companies in particular, but plenty are at it.

All in though, I find it hard to care if some people go away, if they don't want to contribute at the same level as others that's entirely their right, but those who do want to live in an area should contribute to the society, and I think every society has a right to the very best in health, education, emergency services, public transport and so on. If that means the contribution is significant, that's fine by me.

Should be noted, that even with very high income tax on the rich, the wealthy will still pay less tax as an overall percentage of income than the poor because of the taxes which are paid at the same level for everyone: Fuel duty, VAT or it's equivalent depending on the nation and so on.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Jul 21, 2011)

I really like the new title


----------



## orb451 (Jul 21, 2011)

chronocide said:


> Even if the cost of policing is more than the wastage?



Absolutely not, if you can't control spending on the *policing* side of things, how can you be expected to control spending on services and benefits?




chronocide said:


> All in though, I find it hard to care if some people go away, if they don't want to contribute at the same level as others that's entirely their right, but those who do want to live in an area should contribute to the society, and I think every society has a right **and* a duty, to make their lives and environments the best that they can be.* If that means the _*work required*_ is significant, that's fine by me.



See what I've done? That's how *I* feel about people and their ability to succeed. If you want all these services to be paid for like the things you listed as basic "rights" then the money to pay for them has to come from someone, somewhere, I just don't see why the burden should be on the backs of those that can "supposedly" afford to pay for them. 

Why say "supposedly"? Because again, this kind of conversation almost always turns into a shit slinging fest about how the Rich are evil and *have* to pay for everyone and everything else, simply because it seems like they should be able to do it without batting an eyelash. 

And rarely if ever goes into eliminating the root causes, which all boil down to attitude and drive. A lack of one or a bad iteration of the other can sink anyone. Instead it's all bandaids for bullet wounds.


----------



## orb451 (Jul 21, 2011)

Seems like someone can't handle all the *love*


----------



## highlordmugfug (Jul 21, 2011)

@ thread title and orb's pink lettering.


----------



## orb451 (Jul 21, 2011)




----------



## Chickenhawk (Jul 21, 2011)

orb451 said:


> Seems like someone can't handle all the *love*



Randy.



Rich, shoot me a message tomorrow so I remember to come in here and share my pseudo-conservative views.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Jul 21, 2011)

orb451 said:


> Absolutely not, if you can't control spending on the *policing* side of things, how can you be expected to control spending on services and benefits?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't see any issue with the rich being made to pay much higher income tax than those less well off.


----------



## orb451 (Jul 21, 2011)

Chickenhawk said:


> Randy.
> 
> 
> 
> Rich, shoot me a message tomorrow so I remember to come in here and share my pseudo-conservative views.




Don't bother man, this shit'll be closed up tighter than a virgin's honeypot tomorrow 
_
"that's ok.... some people have to play their little games..."_


----------



## orb451 (Jul 21, 2011)

Stealthtastic said:


> I don't see any issue with the rich being made to pay much higher income tax than those less well off.



Me neither, and thankfully, I can afford to do it too!


----------



## orb451 (Jul 21, 2011)

_"... our true enemy, has not yet revealed himself..."_



Whenever you're ready to join the discussion oh mod of mods, show yourself and join the discussion!


----------



## chronocide (Jul 21, 2011)

orb451 said:


> If you want all these services to be paid for like the things you listed as basic "rights" then the money to pay for them has to come from someone, somewhere, I just don't see why the burden should be on the backs of those that can "supposedly" afford to pay for them.



The burden should fall on everyone. From each by his means, to each for his need. 



> Why say "supposedly"? Because again, this kind of conversation almost always turns into a shit slinging fest about how the Rich are evil and *have* to pay for everyone and everything else, simply because it seems like they should be able to do it without batting an eyelash.



Is anyone saying the rich should be paying for everything? Only that those with the ability to pay most should pay most. 20% of the income of a man earning 14K a year has a bigger impact on living standards than 50% of a man earning 300K.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Jul 21, 2011)

Can someone make all my posts have sharks in them?


----------



## The Somberlain (Jul 21, 2011)

Your text is pink; your argument is invalid


----------



## orb451 (Jul 21, 2011)

The Somberlain said:


> Your text is pink; your argument is invalid



Your text is greyish/white, your post is worthless. 

EDIT: And so is mine until it turns PINK!!!!


----------



## synrgy (Jul 21, 2011)

orb451 said:


> Well in the states it has happened where businesses have been driven out of state or country by higher taxes or higher costs of doing business.



I thought it was more a matter of cutting payroll costs by paying lower wages to employees overseas. 

Working where I do, I have insight I'd rather not have into the mind(s) of corporate structure. Most of these big business owners -- and I can't blame them, really -- will do anything and everything they can to maximize quarterly profits, in order to keep the shareholders/B.O.D happy. Long term outlooks be damned. Honestly, if a 3% shift (in either direction) in taxes so completely destroys one's profit model, I submit one has a shitty business plan to begin with.


----------



## orb451 (Jul 22, 2011)

synrgy said:


> I thought it was more a matter of cutting payroll costs by paying lower wages to employees overseas.
> 
> Working where I do, I have insight I'd rather not have into the mind(s) of corporate structure. Most of these big business owners -- and I can't blame them, really -- will do anything and everything they can to maximize quarterly profits, in order to keep the shareholders/B.O.D happy. Long term outlooks be damned. Honestly, if a 3% shift (in either direction) in taxes so completely destroys one's profit model, I submit one has a shitty business plan to begin with.



That's definitely one component to it, driving profits higher and cutting overhead. But overhead isn't *just* employee wages, that's a huge part of it, but not the whole story.


----------



## bostjan (Jul 22, 2011)

orb451 said:


> In other news, my penis is incredibly small.





You can thank whichever mod for the e-rep I'm going to give you for that one.

On topic, Vermont has tons of food stamp/EBT assistance for people. Often I see people here selling their EBT cards for pennies on the dollar so that they can buy a carton of cigs or a case of beer. 

It's sad, but some people suffer because of the system, and others suffer because of themselves. By and large the people expect the government to deal with this kind of stuff fairly, prudently, and without prejudice, but it's impossible to totally please anyone or partially please everyone for that matter.


----------



## Church2224 (Jul 22, 2011)

lol who renamed the thread?


----------



## orb451 (Jul 22, 2011)

Church2224 said:


> lol who renamed the thread?



The first rule of Mod Club is, you don't *talk* about the Mod's Club


----------



## Church2224 (Jul 22, 2011)

orb451 said:


> The first rule of Mod Club is, you don't *talk* about the Mod's Club



Understood....

Someone has a great sense of humor lol.


----------



## The Somberlain (Jul 22, 2011)

orb451 said:


> Your text is greyish/white, your post is worthless.
> 
> EDIT: And so is mine until it turns PINK!!!!



Who's the pinko now?


----------



## SirMyghin (Jul 22, 2011)

This is gone all weird now.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jul 22, 2011)

Orb has been blessed with the ability to read/hear things that people aren't saying and then go off about it. That's what I've gathered from this thread. Sadly, nothing else of interest has taken place here.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Jul 22, 2011)

orb451 said:


> Nothing wrong with helping people at face value, but unfortunately *some* people will take the help and never help themselves. They *don't* want a hand-up, they want a hand-out. Gimme gimme gimme. And then there's some that even with the best of intentions, accept a hand-up, and then screw it up, and blow it, and then end up hating the system and getting discouraged too easily.
> 
> Help is a good thing, so is charity, but people should never, EVER rely on them to succeed or exist as the basis of their lives. And *some* do. That's my only issue.



I actaully support two of your opinions presented in this thread.
1) The most talented should be getting on top
2) There are people who get more and not give back.

Where we disagree is, how a "talented" person can know if he/she is talented without proper education, equal possibilities of presentation. 
The people who get more and not give back are the strongest and biggest corporations.
in year 2006, Mercedes Benz payed less tax than the cleaning personal work for them!!!
In year 2007, BMW made it's highest income ever, and told the Government tax officers to fuck off, or they would leave Germany and 15 000 workers.

The Tax payed for the social equality and public healthcare is mostly payed by the Hard Working people, who don't have the chance to climb higher, even not have enough power to search for a better job.
The Wealthy does not pay enough tax to support the system. They may created jobs, but they earn more than the person who got the job. Taxcuts, subventions etc are bonus. Oh and when they fuck up, we pay the bailout!


----------



## Guitarman700 (Jul 22, 2011)

What the hell happened in here?! 
This has taken a turn for the bizarre.


----------



## McKay (Jul 22, 2011)

chronocide said:


> Synergy got me.
> 
> Of course I don't. But if all had an identical starting point then meritocracy could exist - and that's the ONLY way it ever could.



But that's inherently unfair because a true, equal meritocracy rewards natural ability over all else.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jul 22, 2011)

Whichever Mod did this, I love you.


----------



## chronocide (Jul 22, 2011)

McKay said:


> Chronocide said:
> 
> 
> > Synergy got me.
> ...



I'm not sure what point you're making here? Or how my statement is unfair? It is the only way in which it could be fair.


----------



## orb451 (Jul 22, 2011)

And no one can address why, as in my guitar collection example, a person with a lot, should be compelled to give to those with a little, arbitrarily.

I thought we were having a discussion, but apparently some people can't handle it...


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr- (Jul 22, 2011)

I think I've worked it out;

Liberals complain about corporate fat cats predating on the poor an using "charitable foundations", off shore banking tax havens and assorted to syphon their money away from the tax system.

Conservatives complain about lazy people... In general... with a focus on the poor.

Wrong? Just my observations from a few threads here.

@orb: Let the guitar analogy go, dude  

There's enough reality to discuss without inventing things.

Go read Ayn Rand's "on the shoulders of giants"... Pro de regulation fiction / agenda.



Love the new thread name! <3

Zeig Zeig 1776!!!


----------



## orb451 (Jul 22, 2011)

Can one of the mods please close my account?

Randy - Fuck off buddy, if you want to hide behind your mod status like a little bitch, you go right ahead. If you want to make your e-penis bigger by playing childish pranks, go right ahead. I thought better of you and I guess I was wrong, we had some good debates, it's a shame what power does to an individual. Oh and if I'm mistaken and it was the guy below, my apologies! 

Eaeolian - You can go fuck yourself too shit dick. I don't think I've ever gotten along with you. Your debates always consisted of "there's a white elephant in the room" that no one but you was talking about . Hope you grow up some day.

Max - You're one of the best, most helpful guys on here. Keep it up bro. 

Technomancer - Never had any issues with you man, stay frosty 

The rest of you folks and you know exactly who you are that I enjoyed debating/discussing, thank you. It's been real.

Some of you pinko/commie/liberal/so and so's have been a real challenge and a real pleasure to chat/debate with. Some of you still sound like misguided, angst ridden 20 somethings.

A few of you in particular I'll never understand and really don't need to. 

Be sure to grab a screen cap of this before it's changed to "mod edit" TL;DR or some other bullshit. Get over yourselves and your ADD gents, I think there's meds for that I suggest you stay on them  Make a meme out of this! 

Conservatives on here, keep fighting the good fight. Don't let these limp dick hippies have the last word. Those whom I especially enjoyed chatting with should know how to reach me. If not, hit me up off-site on one of the other forums.

"...say goodnight to the bad guy"


----------



## renzoip (Jul 22, 2011)

orb451 said:


> Look at the high taxes with the guitar analogy again. Say you have a whole collection of guitars (10 or more for arguments sake) that you worked your ass off for, why should you feel compelled or *be* compelled by government or law, to give up 4 or 5 of them because someone else wants them? Or, say they don't even want them, what if they just want to sell them and use that money for other crap. Think about it. You LOVE those guitars. They're your tools, they bring you happiness and joy, why would you willingly give them up?
> 
> Now lets say you *inherited* a collection of guitars from a dead uncle. Same scenario, you've got a bunch on your hands and each one is like a color on an artists palette. They still bring you joy and you *have* an attachment to them, even if you didn't put your blood sweat and tears scrounging to save for them. They still mean something so why would you give 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 of them away?
> 
> ...



Actually, any analogy that involves personal property is a pretty bad formulated analogy and hardly representative of how taxes work. Again, the taxing system is meant to make the *means of production* more available to the public and help provide a basic safety net for the public; the public includes you. That means, it's not your just your personal property or money that's being given up, and it is being invested in public institutions that are there to serve everyone, not just having the government hand your money to some lazy bum, as the right wing folk tries to make you believe.

Believe it or not, some people love nice roads, good public schools, nice public healthcare, social security, etc. So they fund them through taxes. Also, I love how the rightwing folk always uses the example of the small guy working hard to improve his life. That's nice and all but it's not the reality of the majority of big corporations and the rich people that are behind them. Many of them make their profits make their money by taking advantage of poor people's necessity to feed their families, usually overseas, usually displaced from their land and original means of production, usually plundering other people's non-renewable resources, usually working with oppressive right wing government run by elites who work for US interests rather than for the well being of their people.... not exactly what I call "honest hard work" or even "business"


----------



## chronocide (Jul 22, 2011)

I don't really understand what's gone on here. A mod has gone through editing Orbs posts in a effort to be witty?


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jul 22, 2011)

orb451 said:


> Be sure to grab a screen cap of this before it's changed to "mod edit" TL;DR or some other bullshit. Get over yourselves and your ADD gents, I think there's meds for that I suggest you stay on them  Make a meme out of this!



"Get over yourselves" - you're saying this, yet you think somebody might care about this enough to screen capture it, and save it in their archives. Woah. Hypocrite, much?

Anyway, I've had enough agreeable arguments with you that I don't hate you or anything, I just think your ability to see the other side of the argument is poor at times. Not my place to judge, just sharing my opinion.


----------



## ArkaneDemon (Jul 22, 2011)

orb451 said:


> Can one of the mods please close my account?
> 
> Randy - Fuck off buddy, if you want to hide behind your mod status like a little bitch, you go right ahead. If you want to make your e-penis bigger by playing childish pranks, go right ahead. I thought better of you and I guess I was wrong, we had some good debates, it's a shame what power does to an individual. Oh and if I'm mistaken and it was the guy below, my apologies!
> 
> ...



I open up PCE and I see this thread title that I haven't seen before, yet it has 10 pages of replies and...I don't remember replying in here...and then I open it up and I realized what happened, and now orb is leaving?

Who saw this coming? Cause I didn't


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr- (Jul 22, 2011)

...And on that bombshell....




Come back Orb!!!


----------



## SirMyghin (Jul 22, 2011)

ArkaneDemon said:


> I open up PCE and I see this thread title that I haven't seen before, yet it has 10 pages of replies and...I don't remember replying in here...and then I open it up and I realized what happened, and now orb is leaving?
> 
> Who saw this coming? Cause I didn't



I wish I could look on it with the same mirth you possess. The whole deal sits a bit sour.


----------



## Customisbetter (Jul 22, 2011)

I bet Randy won't ban Orb out of spite. 

C'mon guys chill out. We are friends here.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jul 22, 2011)

orb451 said:


> Can one of the mods please close my account?
> 
> Randy - Fuck off buddy, if you want to hide behind your mod status like a little bitch, you go right ahead. If you want to make your e-penis bigger by playing childish pranks, go right ahead. I thought better of you and I guess I was wrong, we had some good debates, it's a shame what power does to an individual. Oh and if I'm mistaken and it was the guy below, my apologies!
> 
> ...



Hurt much? Christ orb you've just utterly destroyed everything you've ever said on this forum in one post. The whole time you've been demanding to be taken seriously and insisting that you are mature and therefore your argument holds more water. I'd expect this from a 15 year old but from someone who is 35? Come the fuck on man. 

...or have I just been trolled hard and your entire post was a mod edit?


----------



## ArkaneDemon (Jul 22, 2011)

SirMyghin said:


> The whole deal sits a bit sour.





Scar Symmetry said:


> ...or have I just been trolled hard and your entire post was a mod edit?



Only time will tell if we just got extremely trolled.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jul 22, 2011)

chronocide said:


> I think most people do. But lots of them also understand that it is impossible to achieve as long as there are massive discrepancies in where people start off from, a situation which the small government and free market model holds in place.


 
Hmm... Perhaps it'd be called something different, but I agree with both you and Orb on this one. I think we can have meritocracy despite our differences in origin. The outcome will never be the same for everyone and I see that as being the beauty of the situation.

In my eyes, meritocracy would be removing biases/prejudices/ego/what-have-you from decisions made with regards to dealing out opportunities. 

For example:

Person A started off wealthy.

Person B started off less fortunate.

Naturally the two will have different experiences and in general the types of opportunities extended to either person will--for the most part--be different. However, should the two of them stumble upon the same opportunity they should be granted the opportunity on merit. Person A shouldn't just get it automatically because of his prestigious background and Person B shouldn't get it because you feel bad for them. The opportunity should be granted based solely on which of the two is more deserving.

I can neither confirm nor deny whether or not this is the case nor do I know the frequency with which it is or isn't, but this is what I see as meritocracy. 

Frankly, this whole thread seems like a big perspective argument. Thus, I submit this... The word "success" can mean a lot of things depending on your perspective and having different opportunities than the next man doesn't necessarily make you any less "successful" unless you perceive it to be so.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Jul 22, 2011)

That was a real post, he PM'd me his email address, if anybody wants to keep in touch with him or anything shoot me a PM and I'll forward it to you. 

That's really too bad though, I didn't see that coming...at all :\


----------



## synrgy (Jul 22, 2011)

Stealthtastic said:


> That was a real post, he PM'd me his email address, if anybody wants to keep in touch with him or anything shoot me a PM and I'll forward it to you.
> 
> That's really too bad though, I didn't see that coming...at all :\



Yeah. He sent me a brief goodbye via PM and we've exchanged emails for future interaction. Is what it is.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jul 22, 2011)

I PM'd him and he no write back... 

Forever alone...


----------



## chronocide (Jul 22, 2011)

Konfyouzd said:


> Naturally the two will have different experiences and in general the types of opportunities extended to either person will--for the most part--be different. However, should the two of them stumble upon the same opportunity they should be granted the opportunity on merit. Person A shouldn't just get it automatically because of his prestigious background and Person B shouldn't get it because you feel bad for them. The opportunity should be granted based solely on which of the two is more deserving.



Yep that should be the case. And is, in many instances. But in many others it isn't at all. 

But the problem is the differences in the opportunities that are presented, rather than whether they're treated in the few that are presented to people of disparate backgrounds, obviously.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jul 22, 2011)

I don't think I completely understood what you said in that last sentence. Rephrase please?


----------



## AySay (Jul 22, 2011)

orb451 said:


> Can one of the mods please close my account?
> 
> Randy - Fuck off buddy, if you want to hide behind your mod status like a little bitch, you go right ahead. If you want to make your e-penis bigger by playing childish pranks, go right ahead. I thought better of you and I guess I was wrong, we had some good debates, it's a shame what power does to an individual. Oh and if I'm mistaken and it was the guy below, my apologies!
> 
> ...





The hypocrisy...

I've always felt you were holding back some kind of idiotic rant expressing your true feelings about the people you disagree with. I guess the "I disagree with you, but I'm civil and mature enough to be the bigger man." line was wearing thin. 

All you ever did was go on about typical conservative viewpoints in every thread that could be broken down into left and right...


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Jul 22, 2011)

Yeah but he's a really cool guy to play Halo with


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jul 22, 2011)

New thread title change: The Tell All the Other Members How You Feel About Them Super Mega Thread!!!


----------



## AySay (Jul 22, 2011)

I think it speaks volumes about his true personality, when he he goes on about "being mature and tolerant of other peoples opinions" and then say "fuck all you limp dick hippies" except the ones that agreed with me.


----------



## AySay (Jul 22, 2011)

Konfyouzd said:


> New thread title change: The Tell All the Other Members How You Feel About Them Super Mega Thread!!!



You have cool hair.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Jul 22, 2011)

Aysay needs to give me his guitars


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jul 22, 2011)

AySay said:


> I think it speaks volumes about his true personality, when he he goes on about "being mature and tolerant of other peoples opinions" and then say "fuck all you limp dick hippies" except the ones that agreed with me.



I have to say, I'm completely on board with this. My sentiments exactly.


----------



## AySay (Jul 22, 2011)

Stealthtastic said:


> Aysay needs to give me his guitars



Stealthtastic needs to give me his beard...


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jul 22, 2011)

I always took the term "limp dick hippies" as a term of endearment... As it stands my penis IS limp and I prefer to keep it that way at work lest I be reprimanded.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jul 22, 2011)

Konfyouzd said:


> I always took the term "limp dick hippies" as a term of endearment... As it stands my penis IS limp and I prefer to keep it that way at work lest I be reprimanded.



I almost choked on my dinner you fuck! 

Goddamn I love this board.


----------



## Customisbetter (Jul 22, 2011)

Getting laid at work is on my bucket list. I guess we are on opposite sides of the fence.


----------



## synrgy (Jul 22, 2011)

Customisbetter said:


> Getting laid at work is on my bucket list. I guess we are on opposite sides of the fence.



Give 'er the cock on the clock? Nice.


----------



## highlordmugfug (Jul 22, 2011)




----------



## Rev2010 (Jul 22, 2011)

AySay said:


> I think it speaks volumes about his true personality, when he he goes on about "being mature and tolerant of other peoples opinions" and then say "fuck all you limp dick hippies" except the ones that agreed with me.



Meh, he got pissed to the point of venting it publicy. Haven't we all gotten to that point at certain times of our lives? I'd hardly say it speaks volumes about who he is as a person. He made a mistake of letting shit get to him and acted in a way that sure it comes off as immature, but he's human and we all loose control from time to time.

I don't know Orb personally but have interacted with him pleasantly on here in the past. I don't know him well enough to defend him personally and I am not doing that right here. What I am doing is pointing out that this sometimes happens to people and IMO it doesn't automatically strip a person of having any good personal qualities. Just my 


Rev.


----------



## Church2224 (Jul 22, 2011)

Customisbetter said:


> Getting laid at work is on my bucket list. I guess we are on opposite sides of the fence.



I work at Hooters so I hope this can happen soon


----------



## AySay (Jul 22, 2011)

Rev2010 said:


> Meh, he got pissed to the point of venting it publicy. Haven't we all gotten to that point at certain times of our lives? I'd hardly say it speaks volumes about who he is as a person. He made a mistake of letting shit get to him and acted in a way that sure it comes off as immature, but he's human and we all loose control from time to time.
> 
> I don't know Orb personally but have interacted with him pleasantly on here in the past. I don't know him well enough to defend him personally and I am not doing that right here. What I am doing is pointing out that this sometimes happens to people and IMO it doesn't automatically strip a person of having any good personal qualities. Just my
> 
> ...



I kinda agree with you, but I feel like with him, this has been long overdue, and something that he just hadn't put into words so explicitly until now...


----------



## bostjan (Jul 22, 2011)

Nude man.


----------



## pink freud (Jul 22, 2011)

Animus said:


> Everyone should go take this test..... The Political Compass
> 
> It's awesome and you can compare yourself to historical figures and current politicians. You might be surprised of what you think you are and what you really are.



The political compass test is only good for trying to claim that everybody and their mother is a libertarian.


----------



## Church2224 (Jul 22, 2011)

lol why does this thread keep changing names?!?!

It's funny honestly.


----------



## AySay (Jul 22, 2011)

Church2224 said:


> lol why does this thread keep changing names?!?!
> 
> It's funny honestly.



Wasn't in made clear earlier? Moderators here can change the thread title when and how they see fit...


----------



## Church2224 (Jul 22, 2011)

AySay said:


> Wasn't in made clear earlier? Moderators here can change the thread title when and how they see fit...




Yeah I know, it's just funny...


----------



## Xaios (Jul 22, 2011)

Holy smokes. Don't read a thread for a couple days and look what happens.


----------



## Explorer (Jul 22, 2011)

Customisbetter said:


> Getting laid at work is on my bucket list.



It can be surprisingly cramped and uncomfortable, but sometimes surprisingly good.

For those who are already jealous of my current workplace, don't worry, it hasn't happened there. 

----

Since this thread has now become a different discussion, it's appropriate to observe that I was always amused at how Orb would get bent out of shape whenever someone expressed certain non-conservative points of view. In contrast, I thought it was equally amusing when he became an apologist in the Miss America/Creationism thread, where he defended the rights of those poor women to express their opinions. 

Why on the various forums I've been, when conservatives can't stand it any more, they have to self destruct and pull out all the standard insults one can level at those who aren't as far to the right? There was a guy about a year ago who suddenly exploded because of how much respect was given to the female members of a website, and how he was glad to no longer have to deal with those women who didn't know their place. 

Given how little I believe hippy lifestyles intersect with the metal community, it sounds like another of those "not right enough = hippies" brush, painting everyone the same color. Hilarious!

----

Well, at least his banning was at his own request. The rules are pretty clear about those requests being honored, so I hope he finds a forum where he isn't surrounded by limp-dick hippies....


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jul 22, 2011)

I, for one, embrace the metal hippies. Hippie metal is trve.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Jul 22, 2011)

What the fuck? Why did Orb go mental? Why did this thread go up shit creek without a paddle? Who has a limp dick?


----------



## highlordmugfug (Jul 23, 2011)

@ newest thread title.
Thread of the year material right here, guys.


----------



## The Somberlain (Jul 23, 2011)

"Either you can like our metal-hippie-leftist forums or you can get out."

This must me sticky-d


----------



## highlordmugfug (Jul 23, 2011)

The Somberlain said:


> "Either you can like our *limp-dick*-metal-hippie-leftist forums or you can get out."
> 
> This must be sticky-d


Fix'd.


----------



## The Somberlain (Jul 23, 2011)

Well, a constant hardon would be uncomfortable and embarrassing, wouldn't it?


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jul 23, 2011)

DOUBLE POST HUR DUR.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jul 23, 2011)

While the "Screw you guys, I'm going home!" approach to a "discussion" can be a pretty childish one, I must concede that I wouldn't really feel welcome in a forum anymore if even that forums _mods_ disagreed with me to the point that they used their powers to manipulate my posts. I'm sad to see Rich go, because I don't really fall squarely on either side of the political spectrum, so it was nice to see people arguing both sides of each argument. Conservatives were already in short supply around here (the original point of this thread, n'est-ce pas?), so the loss of one of the most - if not _the_ most - vocal conservatives on here is disappointing.


----------



## Church2224 (Jul 23, 2011)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> While the "Screw you guys, I'm going home!" approach to a "discussion" can be a pretty childish one, I must concede that I wouldn't really feel welcome in a forum anymore if even that forums _mods_ disagreed with me to the point that they used their powers to manipulate my posts. I'm sad to see Rich go, because I don't really fall squarely on either side of the political spectrum, so it was nice to see people arguing both sides of each argument. Conservatives were already in short supply around here (the original point of this thread, n'est-ce pas?), so the loss of one of the most - if not _the_ most - vocal conservatives on here is disappointing.




Rich did not even start the thread, I did. They just changed his font.

I really do not care honestly. Its kinda funny. But then again this thread has gone WAY off of what I wanted it to be, which is fine. Some good discussion on here.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jul 23, 2011)

Church2224 said:


> Rich did not even start the thread, I did. They just changed his font.


 
They also added text, unless he actually told us all that he has a small penis.


----------



## Church2224 (Jul 23, 2011)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> They also added text, unless he actually told us all that he has a small penis.



Oh wow yeah I just noticed that...


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jul 23, 2011)

vampiregenocide said:


> What the fuck? Why did Orb go mental? Why did this thread go up shit creek without a paddle? Who has a limp dick?



Everyone's looking at you, Ross.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Jul 23, 2011)

Scar Symmetry said:


> Everyone's looking at you, Ross.


 
I can guess which one of my questions you're referring to.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Jul 23, 2011)

Can I just bomb this thread into a kim kardashian apreesh?


----------



## eaeolian (Jul 25, 2011)

orb451 said:


> Eaeolian - You can go fuck yourself too shit dick. I don't think I've ever gotten along with you. Your debates always consisted of "there's a white elephant in the room" that no one but you was talking about . Hope you grow up some day.



You'd probably be pissed over how incredibly amusing I find this.


----------

