Deleted
Joined: May 1, 2024 14:36:34 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2011 20:02:03 GMT -5
Don't know what you are trying to say, Dezi, but to me those questions were mainly aimed at saying people are idiots that need to be controlled, that gov't knows best, that the masses on earth need to be herded up and hand fed by central law that for some unspecified reason are supposed to be BETTER than others.. That sort of thing. I don't believe ANY of that. Nor do I think all people are equal and the ones with more should be penalized for having more, or that a one world gov't for all with the wealth evenly distributed is the best thing. The only one that slowed me down is the abortion, gay, drug question, for various reasons, but in a T or F question I had to answer F. I did not have one TRUE on that list.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on May 27, 2011 20:06:34 GMT -5
Don't know what you are trying to say, Dezi, but to me those questions were mainly aimed at saying people are idiots that need to be controlled, that gov't knows best, that the masses on earth need to be herded up and hand fed by central law that for some unspecified reason are supposed to be BETTER than others.. That sort of thing. I don't believe ANY of that. Nor do I think all people are equal and the ones with more should be penalized for having more, or that a one world gov't for all with the wealth evenly distributed is the best thing. The only one that slowed me down is the abortion, gay, drug question, for various reasons, but in a T or F question I had to answer F. I did not have one TRUE on that list. "2. [ T / F ] - "I have a sense of justice that is defensibly superior to the justice advocated by 60% of more of the regular contributors to P&M."" "4. [ T / F ] - "I believe the establishment of a world government under men (humanity) with a unified set of laws, rights, ethics, and standards would likely benefit humanity." ??
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,711
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on May 27, 2011 20:24:09 GMT -5
lol @ optimist I do find it difficult (albeit not "impossible") to reason with (here in Canada) large-L Liberals. I believe that the events in 1830's France very much have an impact on today, although your test doesn't allow me to get past step 2. The reason I had my test fail out at step 2 is because of the OP's premise: If you can wrap your head around the idea of waking up every day and knowing in your heart of hearts that you are intellectually, even spiritually superior than everyone else then you have the beginnings of the liberal mindset. Now imagine that in spite of the fact that you have a superior sense of justice, a finer appreciation of art and music, a better sense of humor, and a superior idea for a world order, but to your continued sense of disbelief and dismay a vulgar band of savages is running the world.
The world, through what must be some cosmic mistake by an obviously flawed God, has put in the drivers seat, of all people businessmen-- traders, merchants, the dreaded speculators, grocers, shop owners, all the people that seem in your eyes to be less than you Which starts with the belief that a liberal cannot be a business person and posits the supposition that a liberal must find business people as less than. The appreciation of music, art, etc. is really a red herring based on what he writes about 1830s France. I personally know of no liberal who wants to control others the way the OP suggests. I probably know a lot of liberals and quite a few conservative Republicans. I was trying to answer some of your questions when my computer seized up and I had to kill the browser window. Not sure what question it was, but I've been hoping some day in the near future technology will allow citizens to vote on laws instead of being limited by what their representatives want to do. I think we'd have a more active informed populace that way plus the laws would reflect better what the country wants.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on May 27, 2011 20:27:59 GMT -5
1. [ T / F ] - "I am intellectually superior to 60% or more of the regular contributors to P&M." Don't know. While my IQ would place me above the majority, statistically, I don't know what the average would be on this particular forum. It could attract more people of superior intelligence, which would impact an individual's stance differently than measurement against the norm for all people. If that equivocates to a "No" answer, then my answer is False.
2. [ T / F ] - "I have a sense of justice that is defensibly superior to the justice advocated by 60% of more of the regular contributors to P&M." Don't know. I don't know enough about the stance of others with regard to justice to make a claim one way, or the other. It often seems peoples' sense of justice is mitigated by the issues involved, but that could be a mistaken impression on my part. False, for the same reason as question #1.
3. [ T / F ] - "I have a defensibly finer appreciation of art and music than 60% of the regular contributors to P&M." Don't know. I have no idea how others here appreciate art and music. It's not something we discuss often. False, for the same reason as question #1.
4. [ T / F ] - "I believe the establishment of a world government under men (humanity) with a unified set of laws, rights, ethics, and standards would likely benefit humanity." True.
5. [ T / F ] - "I believe that elected representatives who are educated in politics, diplomacy, and statesmanship, and who consider the 'big picture', are better qualified to set the direction of government and public policy than the democratic majority of the people they represent." (That is, if the democratic majority says A, and a representative says B, B is more likely to be the better course of action in your opinion.)
False.
6. [ T / F ] - "I firmly believe the world was created by random happenstance and/or by (a) flawed being(s)." True.
7. [ T / F ] - "I believe that a 'broad swath' (60% or more) of humanity is not currently fit for self-government." False.
8. [ T / F ] - "I believe that a national government can meaningfully promote/enforce equality of its citizens without curtailing their individual freedoms." (This one is a thinkin' question.) I believe this is POSSIBLE. Probable? That's doubtful. The keyword, to me, is CAN; however, considering human nature, I have to go with False.
9. [ T / F ] - "I believe that people should be able to use recreational drugs, 'marry' homosexually, and obtain abortions without government interference." This one needs to be broken down for me to answer it. I believe people should be able to use recreational drugs as long as their use of these drugs doesn't harm another. I believe homosexuals should be able to be married. I do not believe abortions should be allowed in any and all cases. There must be boundaries, and those boundaries must be clearly drawn and subject to change as technology grows.
10. [ T / F ] - "I believe that people should not be able to educate their children as they see fit, or purchase any automobile they desire without environmental penalties/tariffs, or purchase any lightbulb they desire without environmental penalties/tariffs." True.
11. [ T / F ] - "I consider it the responsibility of the federal government to determine which material should go into public school textbooks." False.
12. [ T / F ] - "My ideas on how to collect and disseminate taxes are superior to (or at least equivalent to) the ideas of 90% of regular P&M contributors." True. My ideas are equivalent to those of others here, as their ideas are equivalent to mine. We might both be right, or both be wrong.
13. [ T / F ] - "I have done any/all of the following: i) reported Paul to a moderator for the OP, ii) advocated that Paul be banned, made to apologize, or otherwise censured for his comments in the OP, or iii) explicitly supported another poster's advocacy that Paul be censured." False.
I don't have a problem with stating my views openly, and clearly. I don't have a problem with others holding different views. It's from our differences, often, that we learn.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,711
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on May 27, 2011 20:33:01 GMT -5
Krickitt's reply in #188 prompted me to seek out the declaration of independence and a phrase I agree with:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
So I believe all human beings are created equal by God. Because of that I believe we as a society should supply/encourage at least a base of support for our citizens. I think welfare especially EITC as it currently exists needs major reform and abuse checking to make it a safety net not a lifestyle.
How many people here support the abolishment of wealth distribution which is fostered by child tax credits?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 1, 2024 14:36:34 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2011 20:47:42 GMT -5
mmhmm-- are you sure about #10? You believe people should NOT be able to do those things?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,474
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on May 27, 2011 20:51:23 GMT -5
Based on Paul's OP, it might be interesting to see how people self-evaluate on the individual points: 1. [ T / F ] - "I am intellectually superior to 60% or more of the regular contributors to P&M." 2. [ T / F ] - "I have a sense of justice that is defensibly superior to the justice advocated by 60% of more of the regular contributors to P&M." 3. [ T / F ] - "I have a defensibly finer appreciation of art and music than 60% of the regular contributors to P&M." 4. [ T / F ] - "I believe the establishment of a world government under men (humanity) with a unified set of laws, rights, ethics, and standards would likely benefit humanity." 5. [ T / F ] - "I believe that elected representatives who are educated in politics, diplomacy, and statesmanship, and who consider the 'big picture', are better qualified to set the direction of government and public policy than the democratic majority of the people they represent." (That is, if the democratic majority says A, and a representative says B, B is more likely to be the better course of action in your opinion.) 6. [ T / F ] - "I firmly believe the world was created by random happenstance and/or by (a) flawed being(s)." 7. [ T / F ] - "I believe that a 'broad swath' (60% or more) of humanity is not currently fit for self-government." 8. [ T / F ] - "I believe that a national government can meaningfully promote/enforce equality of its citizens without curtailing their individual freedoms." (This one is a thinkin' question.) 9. [ T / F ] - "I believe that people should be able to use recreational drugs, 'marry' homosexually, and obtain abortions without government interference." 10. [ T / F ] - "I believe that people should not be able to educate their children as they see fit, or purchase any automobile they desire without environmental penalties/tariffs, or purchase any lightbulb they desire without environmental penalties/tariffs." 11. [ T / F ] - "I consider it the responsibility of the federal government to determine which material should go into public school textbooks." 12. [ T / F ] - "My ideas on how to collect and disseminate taxes are superior to (or at least equivalent to) the ideas of 90% of regular P&M contributors." 13. [ T / F ] - "I have done any/all of the following: i) reported Paul to a moderator for the OP, ii) advocated that Paul be banned, made to apologize, or otherwise censured for his comments in the OP, or iii) explicitly supported another poster's advocacy that Paul be censured." Scoring:Add one point for each 'true'. 7 or more points means that Paul's OP (and followup on page 5) is "more accurate than not" in characterizing your views. I'd be interested to hear the results, as well as whether you think of yourself as a 'liberal'. Liberal 1. Only 56.82%. Almost but not quite so F. 2. 37% not 60% so F. 3. 2% (dezi told me I had more appreciation than he did) so F. 4. A loose confederation might help but not a single world government so F. 5. This one is really tricky. An elected respresentative is only as good as those that elect him/her so not superior - F. 6. Totally random - T. 7. Another tricky one. Does functional illiteracy make one unfit for self-government? I think it makes it difficult for anything above a very small village level government. But they can at that level so I would say they are fit. Another F. 8. "Promote" sure but not "enforce" so F. 9. T 10. Parents should be allowed to opt out of public schools, standards for cars is a , and I am agnostic on lightbulbs. Therefore I am giving myself 1/2 of a T here. 11. Although it would be better than the power that Texas has over textbooks, federal control isn't realistic - F. 12. Not a policy wonk, don't have clearly defined ideas in this area so they can't be superior to anyone - F 13. Nope. 2 1/2
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 1, 2024 14:36:34 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2011 21:04:45 GMT -5
No, I don't believe all people are equal. Some people ARE smarter than others, or more athletic, or gifted musicians, whatever. And for the sake of political discussion on this board, I do not think those that used their gifts to their advantage in this life should be forced to give more than a fair share of their wealth to others. For one thing, I believe that wealthier people give FAR more than others to charities, etc, on their own. For another, redistribution of wealth encourages sloth and discourages people from continuing to go that one step further, and further, knowing it will be taken from them, and they will be looked down on by certain others.
I don't believe in a one world humanitarian gov't, because I do not believe it is possible, certainly not now, and possibly not ever. Do you guys really think the Muslim extremists are going to accept any law except their own? Not likely. It is an idealistic fantasy.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 1, 2024 14:36:34 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2011 21:09:07 GMT -5
Bill-- you believe there should be no regulations at all on drugs or abortion?
(DANG!! Sorry, 2nd time I have said Paul when I meant Bill. )
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,474
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on May 27, 2011 21:46:38 GMT -5
Bill-- you believe there should be no regulations at all on drugs or abortion?... As evidenced by my marking "T" on that question. The actual question was ""I believe that people should be able to use recreational drugs," I support making such drugs legally available. I would support government regulation on manufacturing standards for them. Abortion is murder or it isn't. Women should be allowed to make the decision or they shouldn't be trusted to do so. 3360 hours - 3360 hours and 1 second is an absurd game to play IM(not so)HO of course.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on May 27, 2011 22:09:43 GMT -5
mmhmm-- are you sure about #10? You believe people should NOT be able to do those things? Yes, krickitt, I'm absolutely sure of my answer to that question. People should not be allowed to do just as they damned well please. There are those who would choose to educate their children as thieves rather than as engineers. There are those who would choose not to educate them, at all (girls aren't educated in several countries). As far as automobiles go, we have to consider more than just ourselves. We don't live in a vacuum, and what we do does impact others. Lightbulbs simply don't find a place on my list of importances, so I sorta threw that one out with the bathwater. ;D
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on May 27, 2011 22:42:18 GMT -5
On the light bulb question, I did replace a lot of the bulbs with the new funny twisted ones, more $ but affordable but I read some where there is a new standard one coming and todays price is something like $50 so being of that generation that did such terrible things to the envionment I am going to go with that premise and say to the kids in the future, the great, great grand kids...sorry, burn twigs, I can't afford those new, new ones,. sorry, but am sure I would love you very much if I was there. I know , me bad.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,474
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on May 27, 2011 22:52:32 GMT -5
... I read some where there is a new standard one coming and todays price is something like $50 ... ed1066 ... Gov mandated lightbulbs cost $50 EACH « Thread Started on May 17, 2011, 11:39am » (emphasis added) It was ed.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on May 27, 2011 23:06:09 GMT -5
... I read some where there is a new standard one coming and todays price is something like $50 ... ed1066 ... Gov mandated lightbulbs cost $50 EACH « Thread Started on May 17, 2011, 11:39am » (emphasis added) It was ed. And if ed says it, I know it's gospel, and my post stands, Great , great, grandpa deziloooooo says burn twigs, $50 per bulb, you got to be kidding. Thanks billis...and your knowledge of music, still first rate and I'm jealouse.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on May 28, 2011 1:59:38 GMT -5
Based on Paul's OP, it might be interesting to see how people self-evaluate on the individual points: 1. [ T / F ] - "I am intellectually superior to 60% or more of the regular contributors to P&M." 2. [ T / F ] - "I have a sense of justice that is defensibly superior to the justice advocated by 60% of more of the regular contributors to P&M." 3. [ T / F ] - "I have a defensibly finer appreciation of art and music than 60% of the regular contributors to P&M." 4. [ T / F ] - "I believe the establishment of a world government under men (humanity) with a unified set of laws, rights, ethics, and standards would likely benefit humanity." 5. [ T / F ] - "I believe that elected representatives who are educated in politics, diplomacy, and statesmanship, and who consider the 'big picture', are better qualified to set the direction of government and public policy than the democratic majority of the people they represent." (That is, if the democratic majority says A, and a representative says B, B is more likely to be the better course of action in your opinion.) 6. [ T / F ] - "I firmly believe the world was created by random happenstance and/or by (a) flawed being(s)." 7. [ T / F ] - "I believe that a 'broad swath' (60% or more) of humanity is not currently fit for self-government." 8. [ T / F ] - "I believe that a national government can meaningfully promote/enforce equality of its citizens without curtailing their individual freedoms." (This one is a thinkin' question.) 9. [ T / F ] - "I believe that people should be able to use recreational drugs, 'marry' homosexually, and obtain abortions without government interference." 10. [ T / F ] - "I believe that people should not be able to educate their children as they see fit, or purchase any automobile they desire without environmental penalties/tariffs, or purchase any lightbulb they desire without environmental penalties/tariffs." 11. [ T / F ] - "I consider it the responsibility of the federal government to determine which material should go into public school textbooks." 12. [ T / F ] - "My ideas on how to collect and disseminate taxes are superior to (or at least equivalent to) the ideas of 90% of regular P&M contributors." 13. [ T / F ] - "I have done any/all of the following: i) reported Paul to a moderator for the OP, ii) advocated that Paul be banned, made to apologize, or otherwise censured for his comments in the OP, or iii) explicitly supported another poster's advocacy that Paul be censured." Scoring:Add one point for each 'true'. 7 or more points means that Paul's OP (and followup on page 5) is "more accurate than not" in characterizing your views. I'd be interested to hear the results, as well as whether you think of yourself as a 'liberal'. Lovin' the test.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on May 28, 2011 7:08:08 GMT -5
Props to everyone who put pen to paper and presented/defended their answers. I understand that 1, 2, and 3 are fungible. It's difficult to make inferences about the baseline P&M intelligence, which is obviously better than average. A few interesting notes: - krickitt's zero score isn't unheard of. I do consider it unusual. I'd argue that most P&Mers (myself included) have a strong belief that our personal views on justice are superior, and can/will vigorously defend our position(s). Christians, for example, turn to doctrine for the very definitions of good, evil, and justice. We believe this doctrine is perfect. Hence, unless 60% or more of P&Mers agree with us (which is quite evidently not true) and/or we feel we cannot vigorously defend our advocacy of Christian doctrine, the answer to 2 would be an implicit 'true'.
For everyone, a 'false' answer on 2 means either that i) we feel we don't know enough about P&M ideologies to make up the 60% quorum (a la mmhmm ), i) 60% or more of P&Mers opinions are similar enough to our own that we don't consider ours to be "superior", or iii) we look at concepts such as morality and justice in more relativist terms, where two competing ideologies can't be ranked.
- Dezi's reply to 4 in #189 means he obviously isn't up-to-date on his NWO handbook.
- +1K to mmhmm for indulging me with detailed answers
- mmhmm and bill, re 8: This one is a sticky issue for me. All of the ways that government can 'promote' equality without outrightly enforcing it are necessarily all-talk-no-action as I see it. As soon as you bring legislation, affirmative action, transfer payments, no child left behind, etc. into the picture, you move from advocacy to enforcement.
The 'talk only' angle is suspect too. For example, if the White House press office included language in a press release that endorsed a particular equality-seeking organization, most would consider this to be an abuse of power. It would be throwing the weight of the almighty US government behind a private enterprise, thereby penalizing all competing enterprises (equivalently, curtailing the right of the competitors to a fair playing field). Government officials can include stirring language in their public addresses (a call to 'respect people of all races while hiring' in a SOTU speech, for instance), but then we're trifling with the "meaningful" qualifier. Do hiring practices meaningfully change as a result of a moving oration?
Finally, does it not seem that the more meaningful a talk-only approach is, the more taxpayer dollars are needed for setting up venues and paying speechwriters to implement it? These dollars come mostly from people who would be net "losers" from equalization. Hence, they're being forced to pay (rightly or wrongly) for speeches, etc. that are contrary to their interests. Is this not a curtailing of their freedoms too?
- question 10 is (admittedly) a mixed bag. I took Paul's statement in the OP to mean that 'liberal' meant 'no' to all three.
I consider lightbulb standards to be ultra-liberal, while the right to teach a child anything (madrases, anyone?) would be a mostly libertarian view.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on May 28, 2011 8:19:45 GMT -5
The Reactor Core: What Really Fuels Liberal Rage
Not only the so called "Reactor Core" but just wait until Rep Michelle Bachman R Minn announces her plans next month in Iowa and watch the Liberal "rage" take off like a rocket...
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on May 28, 2011 13:36:31 GMT -5
The Reactor Core: What Really Fuels Liberal RageNot only the so called "Reactor Core" but just wait until Rep Michelle Bachman R Minn announces her plans next month in Iowa and watch the Liberal "rage" take off like a rocket... Oh, if you think Bachmann is going to spin them up- just wait until Palin announces later in New Hampshire. Heads WILL explode. It's going to be great.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 1, 2024 14:36:34 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2011 13:49:24 GMT -5
Wouldn't a Palin/Cain ticket be a head exploder? ;D
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on May 28, 2011 13:50:41 GMT -5
The Reactor Core: What Really Fuels Liberal RageNot only the so called "Reactor Core" but just wait until Rep Michelle Bachman R Minn announces her plans next month in Iowa and watch the Liberal "rage" take off like a rocket... Oh, if you think Bachmann is going to spin them up- just wait until Palin announces later in New Hampshire. Heads WILL explode. It's going to be great. Actually the reaction will probably be more along the lines of , and silently, as mny of them pass each other , no words given , just a little smile, a grin, and a silent given, not a word spoken, just a little skip to their steps as the pass and go on their way to more important endeavors. IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by marshabar1 on May 28, 2011 13:50:57 GMT -5
Excellent exercise, Virgil. Finely crafted, great logic. Of course I scored seven.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 1, 2024 14:36:34 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2011 13:57:30 GMT -5
You had 7 TRUE, Marsha??? LOL!!!!!!!!!!!! ;D
|
|
|
Post by marshabar1 on May 28, 2011 14:09:30 GMT -5
You had 7 TRUE, Marsha??? LOL!!!!!!!!!!!! ;D Well, you know me. ;D
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 1, 2024 14:36:34 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2011 14:12:10 GMT -5
Yeah, that's why I stalk you. You da bomb.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 1, 2024 14:36:34 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2011 14:15:47 GMT -5
Now you are going to have to explain, Marsha. How can you be a borderline liberal when you are one of the most conservative people on the boards?? Do tell??? I'm just a zero because I have no self-esteem.. I'm working on that..
|
|
Shirina
Well-Known Member
Card carrying member of the Kitty Klub!!
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 23:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Shirina on May 28, 2011 20:44:02 GMT -5
Then why are there rich people at all? Why aren't CEOs giving up there multi-million dollar paychecks to work at Wal-Mart?
Seems to me, there is plenty of incentive to succeed. I don't see successful people living an unsuccessful lifestyle. Do you? Apparently, judging from all I have seen, people who do pull off the American dream really do have something to show for it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 1, 2024 14:36:34 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2011 20:48:55 GMT -5
So far. Seems some take exception to "The American Dream" not being had for all.
|
|
cme1201
Junior Associate
Tennis Elbow, Jock Itch, and Athletes Foot, every man has a sports life!
Joined: Apr 6, 2011 13:55:07 GMT -5
Posts: 5,503
|
Post by cme1201 on May 28, 2011 20:50:17 GMT -5
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
You can chase it, you are not guaranteed to catch it.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on May 28, 2011 20:54:51 GMT -5
For me, the incentive to succeed comes from inside, not outside. It's not a matter, to me, of getting rich. I do fine, and am able to live a comfortable life. I work, and try to do the very best job I can because it gives me satisfaction to do so. It allows me to be productive, to render assistance (even making a widget to fit on the thingamabob is assisting someone), and to take pride in what I do well. That's reward, in itself. At least, it is for me.
|
|
Shirina
Well-Known Member
Card carrying member of the Kitty Klub!!
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 23:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Shirina on May 29, 2011 6:51:31 GMT -5
Far too many conservatives seem to understand and accept the fact that there will be losers and winners which, of course, is just how life works. However, by accepting this reality, they must also accept the fact that some losers will never be winners. I think it is safe to see this as a truism.
With this truism in mind, the conservative ideology itself dismantles the argument that those on welfare just need to up and better themselves and their lives will suddenly become peachy keen. By admitting the fact that the American dream "cannot be had by all" is a straight-forward admission that the poor and downtrodden will always be among us.
Yet, again, too many conservatives want a system whereby some will win and some will lose - and some folks are all but guaranteed to do one or the other - but also would love to see no welfare safety net at all. To my mind, there is a sort of maliciousness buried somewhere inside of this mantra, something that goes deeper than simply wanting lower taxes. Perhaps there is a sentiment that the farther the poor can fall, the higher everyone else will feel.
|
|