Journal Timex's Journal: It's funny cause it's true 75
I found this on http://webby.com/humor. It's lifted from today's entry, about half-way down.
A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so
many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal
Democrat, and was very much in favor of "the redistribution of wealth."
She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican,
a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had
participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that
her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what
he thought should be his.
One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes
on the rich and the addition of more government welfare programs. The
self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the
truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she
was doing in school.
Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and
let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was
taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which
left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She
didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many
college friends because she spent all her time studying.
Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing?"
She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy
classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so
popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to
all the parties, and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes
because she's too hung over."
Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's
office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your
friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and
certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA."
The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired
back, "That wouldn't be fair! I have worked really hard for my grades!
I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done
next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail
off!"
The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently,
"Welcome to the Republican party."
Come on, one has nothing to do with the other ... (Score:2)
If people WERE rewarded in life based solely on the effort they put in, you'd be right. However, we've all seen that this is not the case, and never has been.
Additionally, the redistribution of wealth is justifiable based on enightened self-interest. Its in nobody's best interest if a large portion of the population are have-nots. You'll end up spending more on police, prisons, etc., than you would if you had taxed everyone a bit more and spent the money on ensuring everyone got a decent education, healt
Re:Come on, one has nothing to do with the other . (Score:1)
Its in nobody's best interest if a large portion of the population are have-nots. You'll end up spending more on police, prisons, etc., than you would if you had taxed everyone a bit more and spent the money on ensuring everyone got a decent education, health-care, etc.
In some cases (The State of Maine comes to mind), it gets difficult to get off of any state assistance, because the State expects you to repay every penny you take. I have a couple cousins who, for one reason or anothe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Me, I just raise my price
Re: (Score:2)
Customers ALWAYS pay everything. Business ultimately has to pass it on to the end consumer - which is why its so strange that business has more pull to affect government agendas when ultimately its the voters who pay for it all ...
So, why is lobbying legal? And why are campaign contributions from business legal? They've got to want *something* in return ... (as was blatantly proven by the NAR announcing they were stopping political contributions because they weren't getting their "due consideration" at t
Re: (Score:1)
It's not strange to me at all. And you gave the answer as to why in your reply to the pudgester there:
Re: (Score:2)
What gets me is how so many people fawn over politicians, as if they're someone special. Up here, many of us have a different attitude - "You'll do what we want, or we'll kick you out so fast it will make your head spin."
We did it to the Conserviatives one year. They went from having 205 seats (the largest majority ever, iirc) in the house of commons to just 2 in one election, because they pissed off the voters too much.
Having 4 or 5 mainstream parties makes it a lot easier to "give the bums the boot."
Re: (Score:1)
Perfectly normal and natural. They're star struck. It's that hollywood magic. The power of the celebrity. You will see the same behavior in a herd of hippos when the alpha male shows up. They all muzzle up to "touch the power".
In the US, each party knows that...
The US is under one party rule, and apparently 95-99% of them are ok with it. The differences between the two faces are atomic in scale. You might see them with t
Re: (Score:2)
And those most in favor of government doling out charity give less to charity than those who don't favor government in that business.
Re:Come on, one has nothing to do with the other . (Score:2)
If people WERE rewarded in life based solely on the effort they put in, you'd be right. However, we've all seen that this is not the case, and never has been.
Beside the point.
Additionally, the redistribution of wealth is justifiable based on enightened self-interest.
Then you believe it should be voluntary?
Its in nobody's best interest if a large portion of the population are have-nots.
If that's true, then why not trust that the people will handle it on their own, without you forcing them to do it?
You'll end up spending more on police, prisons, etc., than you would if you had taxed everyone a bit more and spent the money on ensuring everyone got a decent education, health-care, etc.
Riiiiiiiiight. Because we are not spending a ton of money on education and health care NOW. Far more than we did when we needed police and prisons far less.
Pull the other one.
Besides, in case you haven't noticed, its the republicans who are the "tax and spend" party.
False. The Republicans cut taxes, significantly. And while many Republicans in DC have been guilty of increased spending, this clearly does not represent the
Re: (Score:2)
Reality is never "besides the point".
No, I believe it HAS to be involuntary, because most people wil not act in an enlightened manner. Loot at everyone who smokes, drinks too much, eats too much
Re: (Score:1)
Additionally, the redistribution of wealth is justifiable based on enightened self-interest.
Then you believe it should be voluntary?
No, I believe it HAS to be involuntary, because most people wil not act in an enlightened manner. Loot at everyone who smokes, drinks too much, eats too much, piles on too much debt - they can't even act in their own un-enlightened self-interest.
So... What you're advocating here is a true Communist society, where people work, the government takes everything the people earn, and doles out what the government thinks people need as-needed, because people are (to paraphrase you) "too stupid and ignorant to care for anyone else, let alone themselves".
Since you're keen on real-life examples, here are a couple:
Re: (Score:2)
Show me where I said that. Show me where I said that the government has ANY right to take everything you earn.
Its so wonderful how those who are against any form of income redistribution always resort t
Re: (Score:1)
Show me where I said that. Show me where I said that the government has ANY right to take everything you earn.
Its so wonderful how those who are against any form of income redistribution always resort to such tactics.
What IS "income redistribution", if it's not communist in nature? From where I sit, the only real difference between socialism and communism is in how the names are spelled.
A lot of people in a lot of jobs do no more than necessary. Take a look at any boring, repetitious job where the workers' input is rejected, and you'll see lots of people doing just enough to get by. Heck, that's what a lot of people, in or out of the union, do.
This, I know. If people know that there are programs they can depend on to cushion the fall, they're less likely to be concerned about how they do at work, because if they get canned, who cares? They can collect welfare for a while. (There's a difference, I think, in using it when there's no option and using it just because it's th
Re: (Score:2)
Just goes to show that you have bought into the socialism == communism BS. Canada is a socialist country, but we're
Re: (Score:1)
Just goes to show that you have bought into the socialism == communism BS. Canada is a socialist country, but we're certainly not communists. Germany is a socialist country. So's france. So's england. Gee - lots of socialist countries around, aren't there ...
Calling a form of government "socialist" or "communist" doesn't change the underlying similarities, beginning with a central government that plays "nanny" to the country's general population. The government covers the health care needs of the people, regardless of the cost. The government controls how much things cost (well, this is probably the biggest difference between Socialism and Communism)... Either way, the underlying expense is covered through high taxes imposed on the people for which the "se
Re: (Score:2)
Last things first, since we agree on so much ;-0
Gasoline tax revenues go to much more than road upkeep, because they go into the general fund. A portion - but only a portion - are used for road maintenance. Otherwise, we'd be driving on gold-plated highways.
The US government has been playng "nanny" to big business for quite a long time. Corporate welfare is alive and well in the US of A.
Children don't contribute to the tax base, but we still provide them services, in the knowledge that if we do so, t
Re: (Score:1)
The only real difference is that we extend this to such things as medical care and drug prescriptions, both of which have powerful lobbies in the US. Shouldn't adequate medical care be a basic human right?
I think that any medical plan should be headed off by doctors, not politicians, and not by politicians who used to be doctors. Whoever works on the plan that eventually dictates the health care system of this country must know first-hand what problems exist today. Doctors[1] are the only people I trust to take care of matters medical. I don't trust politicians at all.
Higher gas costs make a difference. As one example, per capita purchases of pickup trucks are 1/10 the volume of the US. Minivans are being phased out. 10 years ago, every second vehicle was a minivan, pickup, or SUV. Now you can see 10 or 15 cars in a row at traffic stops. Ironically, its the poorer areas where you still see higher concentrations of larger vehicles ... they can't afford to downsize, and are waiting for the "trickle-down" of more economical models in the used car market. That's about the only market where trickle-down economics actually works.
You need to get out more. I live in the armpit of Massachusetts. There are a lot of new SUVs on the road here, and where I work (around
Trends for the immediate future. (Score:2)
The politicians are our representatives. As such, they are responsible to us. Doctors aren't elected by us. "No taxation without representation [wikipedia.org]". There is no legitimacy in a representative democracy in giving a private body the ability to spend public funds. That's one difference between socialism and communism, btw.
As for all those SUVs around you, the end of that era is coming quickly. Higher energy costs and the credit crisis will do what tree-hugging environmentalists failed to do. People are crying
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
We're going to pay taxes no matter what. Why can't we just pay the money and let the accountants, no matter who they are, do the dirty work?
Because some of us actually believe in liberty.
... things must managed more locally than it is now. Of course, things like natural freedom of movement is paramount. And your "one world government" should do little more than set standards for weights and measures for facilitating trade amongst all the localities.
So you admit the differences between Republicans and Democrats are significant, since Republicans believe precisely this (except that there should no world government: even those standards should be set even more locally).
Oh, and if I remember right, the ultimate goal of true communism is for the government to "wither away and die". That should be a good thing, right?
Not by taking away liberty, no.
But this is why I call it socialism and fascism, and not communism. The goal of progressives is total statist control, which is not communism.
You really do love me! (Score:1)
Besos mi amor
Re: (Score:2)
Reality is never "besides the point".
This explains a lot, actually: you do not believe there is such a thing as a red herring fallacy.
No, I believe it HAS to be involuntary, because most people wil not act in an enlightened manner.
The conclusion does not follow. Even if it is true -- and history proves it is not necessarily true -- that "most people will not act in an enlightened manner," why does it follow that we must force them?
Further, this argument is self-defeating, or it will necessarily lead to the most extreme sort of fascism: if people won't act in an enlightened manner on their own, what happens when they also don't choose r
Re: (Score:2)
You end up with George Bush Jr.
You claim its false- you off
Re: (Score:2)
Further, this argument is self-defeating, or it will necessarily lead to the most extreme sort of fascism: if people won't act in an enlightened manner on their own, what happens when they also don't choose representatives who will make such enlightened choices for them?
You end up with George Bush Jr.
Ha ha funny, except you are the one advocating it.
You claim its false- you offer no proof.
Um, it's obvious fact: cut spending and you can have more money to pay off the debt.
The only way to avoid having to pay it back eventually is to default on the debt.
Um, I never talked about not paying it back. Are you being intentionally dense?
there are only 3 options left:
False. There is the one I mentioned: pay it off without raising taxes by lowering spending.
btw, inflation is a "tax" on every penny you earn
False.
In a scenario where prices go up, but per capita effective income goes down (inflation, or the current stagflation)
False. We do not have significantly rising unemployment, which is a key component to stagflation.
eventually, something has to give
Yes. As I said several times: spending.
Saying you're earning more because you make 5% more, while the value of your dollar declines 15%, is just plain stupid.
The dollar's value is not declining 15%.
This is a direct effect of inflation on GDP. Its why oil costs more. Its why food costs more. Under such a scenario, everything you own is actually being devalued by inflation - not just today's paycheck. You have to give more of those dollars to buy the same basket of goods.
And none of t
Re: (Score:2)
Let's start with the easiest one
In case you haven't noticed, the dollar has declined by more than 20% in the lst couple of years. That's why oil is so expensive in US dollars. In the last year alone, it has lost 15% against the Canadian dollar, as one example. 13% against the Australian dollar, 10% against the Chinese Yuan, 9% against the Japanese
Re: (Score:2)
The dollar's value is not declining 15%.
In case you haven't noticed, the dollar has declined by more than 20% in the lst couple of years.
That is false. What you are talking about is the dollar versus other currencies, but this discussion is primarily about GDP, which is mostly, largely, unrelated to currency exchange rates. In context, your saying "the dollar's value is declining" implied a reference to inflation, not exchange rates. So no, the dollar's value is not declining 15%.
Now that more than 1/10 of all home mortgages are under water, and its expected that this will rise to 30% of all homes over the next couple of years ...
False on both counts. As usual.
Gee, a quick search shows that - guess what ...
Those prices do not reflect reality for most homeowners. If those homes actually sold, the prices would even out. The real problem is people who have such va
Re: (Score:2)
In case you haven't noticed, the US imports a heck of a lot of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Since when have you been interested in an honest conversation? You refuse to admit that you were blatantly wrong about more than 10% of all homes already being under-water in terms of debt. You also refuse to admit that the government cannot cut back on spending too much without throwing the country into at least a severe recession, and that therefore the alternatives are limited to increased taxes, hyper-inflation, or default on the debt. You refuse to address the issue of the 30% of homes that are expect
Re: (Score:2)
I hope you realize I've read neither of your last two posts. Just skimmed for a mention of what you refuse to mention.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course there's nothing on social security. You believe the plan is sound, I say its purposely under-funded. Those are both opinions, based on differing views as to what constitutes a debt, However, on the question of whether 10% of all houses are under water, which you claimed was false, I was able to quickly produce proof that it is in fact 10.3%, and rising.
But back to social security for a moment ... the government has been dipping into the funds. You claim this isn't a problem, because the governm
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Your figures are accurate. The very first person to collect social security paid in something like 17 cents (one week's worth of payments), then retired. Her first check was for $3.00.
Social Security isn't on a sound footing. It has been raided to the tune of 2 trillion (at least). The surpluses were spent, not invested. However, the government doesn't carry that debt as a charge to the deficit, since it has no intention (and no way) of paying it back - they'll just raise rates and/or cut benefits. In ot
Re: (Score:2)
Of course there's nothing on social security. You believe the plan is sound, I say its purposely under-funded. Those are both opinions
Nope. I am right, and you are wrong. Social Security has more than two trillion dollars in assets. There is no sense in which it is under-funded. Next decade it MIGHT become underfunded, IF the intermediate assumption happens, and IF nothing is done to change the system (both of which are very big IFs). To call it underfunded is simply a lie.
But back to social security for a moment ... the government has been dipping into the funds.
False.
You claim this isn't a problem
False. I claim it is not a problem for Social Security. It is a problem for the general fund. Social Security has literally nothing to worry about in r
Re: (Score:2)
First, you still haven't admitted you were talking complete nonsense when you said that I was wrong about 10% of all houses being under water. This is, again, an undisputable fact. Will it get worse? Of course it will - between 30% and 50% by the time all the bad debt has washed through the system - and this will have dire consequences for social security, or any other debt.
You don't get it ... it is not in some bond fund. Every year, the government spends whatever is left over, and writes an IOU to soci
Re: (Score:2)
You don't get it ... it is not in some bond fund.
You don't get it: these bonds are far more secure than your money in any bank.
Every year, the government spends whatever is left over, and writes an IOU to social security.
False. Many times a year, the Social Security Trust Fund buys government bonds.
They don't have to redeem those IOUs.
False. They are absolutely obligated to.
"I'm using the money to write IOUs from myself to myself, and I promise I'll pay myself back later, but since I owe it to myself, its just a "paper transaction" - no real money has to change hands.
Make up your mind: before you were counting the "IOUs" as "debt" Social Security owes, and adding that to the national debt. But if what you say here is true, then that's nonsense, because you're double-counting.
This is essentially correct, except that there are legal obligations, and the government is not
Re: (Score:2)
I forgot where I saw it, but I believe that 50 years ago there were 17 workers for every retiree collecting social security. I believe it will be 3 at the height of the baby boomers' retirement years. Hardly what any reasonable person would consider sustainable.
Yep. Social Security has major problems with sustainability, and I support changes such as means testing, and perhaps other benefit changes. What I really want to do is tell everyone that they will, from now on, only get out what they have already put in, and we can end Social Security permanently (though that is unlikely to happen). But that is beside the point tomhudson is ignorantly trying to make, which is that Social Security is broke NOW, when in fact, it has over two trillion dollars in assets.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, if you consider a "promise to pay" an asset, you could be right. But like with bank deposits, those assets are occupied with other things right now. But unlike a bank, there can no unpredictable run on the fundage. They're not just sitting there waiting to be doled out. They are "faith based" in that people have to be willing to keep putting in. And/or the funds have to be withdrawn from wherever they happen to be at the moment, which will in
Re: (Score:2)
You still won't admit that the US housing market is broke, and that more than 10% of all homes are under water. That's okay - keep ignoring the problem. When it hits 30%, you won't be able to ignore it.
Actually, I trust my banks' solvency more that I would trust the US governments'. In the last 100 years, there have only been 2 (and they were small regional banks) bank failures in Canada. Not one during the entire period cove
Re: (Score:2)
...when in fact, it has over two trillion dollars in assets.
Well, if you consider a "promise to pay" an asset, you could be right. But like with bank deposits, those assets are occupied with other things right now.
And your deposit in the bank is an asset, too.
But unlike a bank, there can no unpredictable run on the fundage. They're not just sitting there waiting to be doled out. They are "faith based" in that people have to be willing to keep putting in. ... The money I put in for my retirement is not for my social security, it's for my parents who collecting now. I'm being promised that the next generation will pay for mine. I believe that's his assessment of it, and it would be correct.
Nope. You are confusing two separate things. The money that we put into Social Security WHICH IS NOT given to current retirees is put into the Trust Fund, and that money is used to buy bonds, which are absolutely gauranteed, and is an asset worth over two trillion dollars which is 100% fully backed and guaranteed, far more securely than any deposits you have in a bank. The only things that will prevent that money from being paid back is collapse of the U.S.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You haven't been looking hard enough. Go up a few posts and do a word count for the phrase "social security". Its there.
So, when are you going to admit you were pulling numbers out of your anus when you said that it wasn't true that 10% of the houses in the US are under water on their mortgage?
Or that a drop in the exchange rate of the dollar actually DOES affect the GDP, by making imports more expensive, causing people to cut back on discretionary spending?
Or that the US Treasury is in fact stone-co
Re: (Score:2)
If you can't even recognize basic facts about Social Security -- such as that the Social Security, far from being underfunded, has two trillion dollars in hard assets that gain interest -- then I am not going to bother discussing anything else with you.
Re: (Score:1)
Does this mean the debt incurred under the general fund could be defaulted(?) to assure that the bonds remain solvent? Who gets paid first if the government does "file Chapter 11"? It seems that taxes would have to go up to cover that. Or, as you say cut spending. Those spending cuts would have to be pretty massive, no? The two biggest expenditures are military and entitlements, right? When entitlements are mentioned, does that include social security? Or just medicare and
Pudge doesn't know what a "hard asset" is ... (Score:2)
Hard assets? Sorry, but an IOU (or US T-Bills or other government debt) is not a "hard asset." Gold is a "hard asset". Silver is a "hard asset". Oil is a "hard asset."
Why not learn the definition of a hard asset before you spout any more nonsense. Hard a
Re: (Score:2)
Does this mean the debt incurred under the general fund could be defaulted
No. The debt of the United States shall not be questioned. Period. It's in the Constitution.
It seems that taxes would have to go up to cover that.
No.
Or, as you say cut spending. Those spending cuts would have to be pretty massive, no?
Yes, one would hope.
The two biggest expenditures are military and entitlements, right? When entitlements are mentioned, does that include social security? Or just medicare and welfare and such?
All of the above. And as military expenses are not unconstitutional and almost all entitlements ARE unconstitutional, obviously, those should be the first to go.
If we could magically cut all that corruption out, would that put us into the black?
If you include violations of the Tenth Amendment as corruption, then yes. Otherwise, no.
They shouldn't be selling the bonds to social security to cover the other debts without insuring it won't break the bank when they have to buy them back.
Yes, I tend to agree.
If social security has such rich assets, which I'm not arguing here, that would indicate to me that it is a raging success. Better than the Post Office even. Then again, the government is not supposed to be a for profit institution. Any money left over at the end of the year should go back to the people.
No, you are misunderstanding. Social Security does have lots of assets; there is no "if." But none of that is profit. It is set aside specifically for paying future Social Security benefits. In the 80s, we would waver between Social Security being able to pay all of its benefits, and ... not. So the Trust Fund was created so we could put money into the program and hold on to it, insuring many years of future solvency. It is not profit at all.
Re: (Score:2)
If you can't even recognize basic facts about Social Security -- such as that the Social Security, far from being underfunded, has two trillion dollars in hard assets that gain interest -- then I am not going to bother discussing anything else with you.
Hard assets? Sorry, but an IOU (or US T-Bills or other government debt) is not a "hard asset."
Yes, it is, just as a legal tender in your pocket is a hard asset. Absolutely.
Gold is a "hard asset". Silver is a "hard asset". Oil is a "hard asset."
As are currencies. As are reliable, government-backed, bonds.
Why not learn the definition of a hard asset before you spout any more nonsense.
You first. You are, once again, clearly incorrect.
Here's one of the first links that anyone can look at for what a "hard asset" is.
Funny that you didn't click on the FIRST one: {A hard asset is a t]angible asset, whether physical (such as land, buildings, inventory, machines) or financial (cash, credit, financial instruments). [businessdictionary.com]
... you're wrong. Again.
So
So no, Social Security doesn't have any hard assets, contrary to your assertion.
That is, as shown above, false. But more to the point, it is BESIDE the point: regardles
Re: (Score:1)
Well, I would have to consider that a good thing. If only the rest of the government would act so responsibly.
If I had to pick and choose which parts of the constitution to enforce, I could find a much better place to start. I happen to consider establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense, p
Re: (Score:2)
So the Trust Fund was created so we could put money into the program and hold on to it, insuring many years of future solvency.
Well, I would have to consider that a good thing. If only the rest of the government would act so responsibly.
Well, it is responsible if we have low debt so we can easily pay it off when the time comes. We don't. So it WILL be painful, come next decade. But that is the general fund's problem, not Social Security's.
...almost all entitlements ARE unconstitutional...
If I had to pick and choose which parts of the constitution to enforce, I could find a much better place to start.
I cannot think of a better place to start than liberty. But I wouldn't "pick and choose," I would enforce the entire Constitution.
I happen to consider establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare, securing the blessings of liberty
The Preamble is not a power of the federal government, it describes the PURPOSE of the powers of the federal government. And the Tenth Amendment is all about securing l
Re: (Score:1)
"The Constitution was written in 1787 by 55 rich white men - slave owners, bondholders, merchants - who established a strong central government that would serve their class interests.", Horward Zinn
You can keep it.
Respect has to be earned. The black robe doesn't make it automatic. And it's a two way street. I'm sure the slave owners of the 1800s were taking the same stance about those who would free, protect and shelter the runaways. For tho
Follow up (Score:1)
Jermain Wesley Loguen, escaped slave, speaking in Syracuse on the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850: "I received my freedom from Heaven and with it came the command to defend my title to it. . . . I don't respect this law - I don't fear it - I won't obey it! It outlaws me, and I outlaw it."
Emma Goldman, speaking to the jury at her trial for opposing World War I: "Verily poor as we are in democracy, how can we give of it to the world?
Re: (Score:2)
I have the Constitution...
"The Constitution was written in 1787 by 55 rich white men - slave owners, bondholders, merchants - who established a strong central government that would serve their class interests.", Horward Zinn
Howard Zinn is a moron. None of that is accurate.
Adams was none of the above, for example, and he was perhaps the most influential member of the group. He was simply a lawyer, the son of a minister, who married the daughter of another minister, who argued for -- and got -- a Constitution for a very limited federal government that promoted liberty for all classes of people.
You can keep it.
As can, and will, everyone else who respects liberty.
...you have a lack of respect for law...
Respect has to be earned. The black robe doesn't make it automatic.
I said respect for the law, not the people who tell us what the law says. The
Re: (Score:2)
I received my freedom from Heaven and with it came the command to defend my title to it. . . . I don't respect this law - I don't fear it - I won't obey it! It outlaws me, and I outlaw it.
Shrug. Then he cannot appeal to any authority to protect his rights.
Verily poor as we are in democracy, how can we give of it to the world? ... [A] democracy conceived in the military servitude of the masses, in their economic enslavement, and nurtured in their tears and blood, is not democracy at all.
This quote is unrelated to anything I said.
Re: (Score:1)
HAHAHAHAHA!!!! That's a good one! Well, I guess I'll just have to appeal to his authority with his education and life experience by stating his perspective on American history is much more accurate than yours. Consider that as a indirect ad hominem against you as you see fit. Glass half empty/half full, and all that. I would love to see you two in a real debate sometime. You would be real nice roadkill. He would smash you so flat that the crows wouldn't be able to pick the pieces off
Re: (Score:1)
He was his own authority. Since, as you say, there was no real outside authority for him to appeal to, much less any law, his authority was more than adequate, if not quite bullet proof. He carried Heaven within. Very inspirational, I might add. His authority more than matches that of the legal authorities, even if they did not respect it. What exactly are you saying? That he should have respected the law and stayed on the plantation?
This quote is
Re: (Score:2)
Then he cannot appeal to any authority to protect his rights.
He was his own authority. Since, as you say, there was no real outside authority for him to appeal to, much less any law, his authority was more than adequate, if not quite bullet proof.
Well no, that's the thing: it is not actually bullet proof. The whole point of government is to organize our individual right of defense of person and property. If he thinks he can do that on his own, fine. Good luck.
This quote is unrelated to anything I said.
It has everything to do with respect for the law
Not really. It has to do with being an anarchist wackjob. She was not speaking out against a particular law (although it was a particular law, the military draft, that gave her motivation -- and I absolutely agree, as do most conservatives, that the very liberal/progressive idea of a man
Re: (Score:2)
Howard Zinn is a moron.
HAHAHAHAHA!!!! That's a good one!
Shrug. He is about as clueless as they come, and the quote you provided -- which is easily refutable, as I showed -- is a good example.
stating his perspective on American history is much more accurate than yours
No, in fact, it is not. In the one example before us, I already proved otherwise.
I would love to see you two in a real debate sometime.
He wouldn't. I do concede he knows more historical facts in his head than I do; unfortunately, he has a complete and utter lack of perspective. He is not only incapable of putting things into their proper context, but when he attempts to do so, he completely ignores facts that don't fit t
Re: (Score:1)
...almost all entitlements ARE unconstitutional...
If I had to pick and choose which parts of the constitution to enforce, I could find a much better place to start.
The Constitution is a "living" document. It is not something one should "pick and choose"-- it's all or nothing. If there's something wrong with it, then it can and should be changed. In the mean time, it defines the rules by which our government should work.
Re: (Score:1)
"The Constitution was written in 1787 by 55 rich white men - slave owners, bondholders, merchants - who established a strong central government that would serve their class interests.", Horward Zinn
You can keep it.
You should find better people to quote. Sure, some of the people that worked to form the US Constitution were slave owners, but that was then. Not all of them were. As for Zinn's comment about the "strong central government" bit, that's completely wrong. The first attempt at a constitution for the United States resulted in a weak central government, where the states had more power than the federal government did. The constitution we have now, the one that was ratified by the states in 1789, was the se
Re: (Score:1)
Well, I guess I'll just have to appeal to his authority with his education and life experience by stating his perspective on American history is much more accurate than yours.
Why? Because Zinn is recognized as an historian and has several books published? That doesn't mean anything, if he's spouting garbage.
I have no idea who this guy (Zinn) is, so I looked him up on Google. Imagine my (total lack of) surprise, when I read this on Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:
Zinn's philosophy incorporates ideas from Marxism, anarchism, and socialism. Since the 1960s, he has been active in the Civil Rights and anti-war movements in the United States. ... He lives in the Auburndale neighborhood of Newton, Massachusetts
So... Yeah. That he lives in Newton, MA speaks volumes to me. They have regular assemblies promoting the United Nations over the United States at a park in the middle of town. (Geez... How do I know that? I go through there every s
Re: (Score:1)
*I do agree that their claims of intentional demolition did much to discredit them. But government credibility is also very questionable for very obvious reasons going back way before Bush. There will be no "Pentagon Papers" on this one. Nixon was a good teacher, even if unintentionally.
I was
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I also discovered what looks like the main reason for the derision, because I can't believe that you would think that the civil rights movement was a bad thing,
That's GOOD, because I believe that the Civil Rights Movement is a good thing. It's sad, actually, that it has to exist (people are people, and shouldn't be judged, classed, or treated a certain way by the color of their skin).
As for the "critical pedagogy" stuff, that's pretty interesting, but consider that I tend to be a pretty straight-forward person. I say what I mean, and where my comments seem vague (or might otherwise be taken several ways), I hope that the reader is willing to ask me to explain w
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, to you he would be. He doesn't conform to your preconceptions and conditioning.
Nope. He doesn't conform to FACTS.
His context goes way beyond yours
Nope. Entirely false. On the contrary, his context is far more limited than mine: to him, everything has to be showhorned into his preconceptions and conditioning. I, on the other hand, keep an open mind and let history speak for itself, rather than try to get history to say what I want it to say.
The only preconceptions and conditioning I have that are relevant to this topic is that one should allow history to speak for itself and not try to make it fit what you want
Re: (Score:1)
This has to be a trick
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Sorry, T...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Health Net's lawyers had argued that Bates' suffering was minimal... The company has three other cancellation lawsuits pending in California, including a proposed class action mounted by Shernoff. That case seeks damages on behalf of 1,600 people whose policies were allegedly illegally canceled over
Re: (Score:1)
I would have to ask (Score:2, Insightful)