John Bolton on the the greatest misconceptions that Democrats have about Republicans.

[PrometheusBound]

Scientific geniuses are responsible for our prosperity. Republicans claim that investors caused all our progress; this is parasite economics and is keeping us from progressing further.

How can a wonderful invention get to market without investors?

How can the investment be worth anything without inventors? Investment is static, creativity is dynamic. The inventors create the value of the investment, so they should be in control and get 50% ownership of the patents.

Nobel Prize winner Kary Mullis got a $30,000 bonus for his invention of the Polymerase Chain Reaction, which under Investor Supremacy was totally owned by the corporate parasites, who got $300,000,000 for it.

Mullis calls his mother every night, has been married three times, and is deeply into drugs. Our insults and ingratitude to High IQs creates such childish and escapist losers. If superior minds would only realize that they should be treated like superior athletes are from childhood on, they could take over the privileges granted to static capital.

 

[frazzledgear]

Posted by The Right Scoop on Dec 12, 2011 in Politics | 57 Comments
When John Bolton was asked the question of what he thought was the greatest misconception that Democrats have about Republicans, I honestly didn’t expect such a brilliantly deep answer. I guess I’ve gotten used to fluff. But Bolton hit it out of the park and I just had to start the day with it:


video and comments at site.

Bolton said..

“The core misimpression is that a fundamental belief in liberty and it’s implications is somehow cruel and uncaring. When in fact, liberty is absolutely central to the most massive economic change in the history of the world that has brought more concrete material advantages to people in the last few hundred years than in millennia before that. And that understanding liberty means you have to value the possibility of failure as well as the possibility of success. Because if you don’t have failure as an option, you’ll never have success as an option.

It’s not lack of compassion that drives many Republican policy preferences, it’s a belief in the inherent importance of individual self-worth and not being dependent on external factors like the government.”

from with comments..
John Bolton on the greatest misconception that Democrats have about Republicans | The Right Scoop

The biggest misconception Republicans have is that somehow liberty is a value that only applies to their party

Of COURSE it only applies to the Republican party -but not necessarily every Republican though. It does NOT apply to the Democrat party at all now that far leftwing extremists control it! Get real!

I can't believe you would even suggest liberals value liberty when liberty is INCOMPATIBLE with the core liberal beliefs that the proper role of government it to "take care" of perfectly normal, healthy adults. That government should be making life more "fair" somehow -when in reality the only way to do that is by making it far more unfair for others. In order to make life more "fair", liberals SERIOUSLY believe it is the proper role of government to protect people from the consequences of their own bad decisions -INSURING we get even more of it. Liberals' response to that? Shift ever more of those consequences off to the people who didn't make those bad decisions in the first place in order to avoid them! Unless you experience the consequences of both failure and success in every area of your own life, then the incentive to strive for one while avoiding the other has been removed. There are people who don't need to personally experience failure to understand the undesirable consequences- but there are people who do. We all know people like that. Liberals have yet to come up with a rational explanation as to the benefits to society by protecting people from the negative consequences of their own poor decisions making skills when that is how people LEARN TO MAKE BETTER ONES. They know full well protecting people from their own bad decisions is in reality a reward and will result in even more of it. They use that result to justify expanding the power of government to do even more. They do it by pretending that is what "caring" means.

Liberals give empty lip service to "caring" because in reality their core beliefs is all about POWER and using the force and power of government to FORCE people to live as THEY see fit. Not as a free person may see fit. FREEDOM is not a liberal value and liberals would gladly sell off their own, that of their children and my own for whatever cheap bauble is dangled in front of them. Like Obamacare. The cost to the freedom of the individual with Obamacare is in reality the nonstop liberal belief that the individual MUST be stripped of as much control over his own life and give it to government. In exchange, the individual is "taken care of". Liberals absolutely believe government can run your life better than you can and believe government is the rightful owner of your life to do with as the ruling elite sees fit. Which is why in spite of overwhelming opposition -it was Democrats, without a single Republican vote -that rammed Obamacare down our throats and AGAINST OUR WILL.

Liberty is about who makes the rules. And you either get this one or you don't. Republicans believe it is we the people who make those rules by which we CONSENT to be governed. Liberals get that, they understand that -they just disagree with it. They believe they are not only have an inherent right to rule, they believe they are justified in behaving like mini-dictators, blatantly making it obvious they don't give a rat's ass about the consent of the people -because in their world, only THEY should be making the rules.


Liberty a Democrat value in this century? ROFLMAO!

 

[M14 Shooter]

What's not a misconception at all, is the observations that Republicans don't live up to this ideal. Don't even really try. Their passion for 'liberty' is utterly selective - perhaps even more so than it is for 'libruls'. Ask the banksters about failure as an 'option'.

This merely supports the premise that there's nearly no difference between Dems and Republicans.

Bolton's comments might have better used termed 'liberal' and 'conservative'.

 

[daveman]

Scientific geniuses are responsible for our prosperity. Republicans claim that investors caused all our progress; this is parasite economics and is keeping us from progressing further.

How can a wonderful invention get to market without investors?

How can the investment be worth anything without inventors? Investment is static, creativity is dynamic. The inventors create the value of the investment, so they should be in control and get 50% ownership of the patents.

Nobel Prize winner Kary Mullis got a $30,000 bonus for his invention of the Polymerase Chain Reaction, which under Investor Supremacy was totally owned by the corporate parasites, who got $300,000,000 for it.

Mullis calls his mother every night, has been married three times, and is deeply into drugs. Our insults and ingratitude to High IQs creates such childish and escapist losers. If superior minds would only realize that they should be treated like superior athletes are from childhood on, they could take over the privileges granted to static capital.

Mullis' drug use is his own choice. No one is responsible for it but him.

Plus, he signed a contract going in. He knew what the terms were. It was his choice to continue working under that contract.

Mullis' situation is his own fault.

 

[PrometheusBound]

How can a wonderful invention get to market without investors?

How can the investment be worth anything without inventors? Investment is static, creativity is dynamic. The inventors create the value of the investment, so they should be in control and get 50% ownership of the patents.

Nobel Prize winner Kary Mullis got a $30,000 bonus for his invention of the Polymerase Chain Reaction, which under Investor Supremacy was totally owned by the corporate parasites, who got $300,000,000 for it.

Mullis calls his mother every night, has been married three times, and is deeply into drugs. Our insults and ingratitude to High IQs creates such childish and escapist losers. If superior minds would only realize that they should be treated like superior athletes are from childhood on, they could take over the privileges granted to static capital.

Mullis' drug use is his own choice. No one is responsible for it but him.

Plus, he signed a contract going in. He knew what the terms were. It was his choice to continue working under that contract.

Mullis' situation is his own fault.

I am pointing out that the oppressive supremacy of the employers produces scientists who have no strength of character.
The employers have a monopoly on contracts. There is no union of superior minds like there are unions of superior athletes. These contracts do not leave open a fair or reasonable choice, just as pre-union athletes had to accept what they were offered or work low-wage jobs outside of sports.
With your attitude towards High IQs you deserve to die of a disease that only they could provide the cure to, but why should they if they have to put up with the insults and gratitude of those who worship raw power?

 

[Iggy]

Bolton knows what's going on. He's just not PC enough but that's a Republican issue that follows across the board.

 

[daveman]

I am pointing out that the oppressive supremacy of the employers produces scientists who have no strength of character.
The employers have a monopoly on contracts. There is no union of superior minds like there are unions of superior athletes. These contracts do not leave open a fair or reasonable choice, just as pre-union athletes had to accept what they were offered or work low-wage jobs outside of sports.
With your attitude towards High IQs you deserve to die of a disease that only they could provide the cure to, but why should they if they have to put up with the insults and gratitude of those who worship raw power?

My goodness. So much stupidity and hatred. Yep, you're a leftist, all right.

What's keeping an inventor from going into business for himself to exploit his own ideas?

Nothing. End of story.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Posted by The Right Scoop on Dec 12, 2011 in Politics | 57 Comments
When John Bolton was asked the question of what he thought was the greatest misconception that Democrats have about Republicans, I honestly didn’t expect such a brilliantly deep answer. I guess I’ve gotten used to fluff. But Bolton hit it out of the park and I just had to start the day with it:


video and comments at site.

Bolton said..

“The core misimpression is that a fundamental belief in liberty and it’s implications is somehow cruel and uncaring. When in fact, liberty is absolutely central to the most massive economic change in the history of the world that has brought more concrete material advantages to people in the last few hundred years than in millennia before that. And that understanding liberty means you have to value the possibility of failure as well as the possibility of success. Because if you don’t have failure as an option, you’ll never have success as an option.

It’s not lack of compassion that drives many Republican policy preferences, it’s a belief in the inherent importance of individual self-worth and not being dependent on external factors like the government.”

from with comments..
John Bolton on the greatest misconception that Democrats have about Republicans | The Right Scoop

I'm a conservative libertarian/ (real) Republican/Tea Party member and "compassion" is the first thing I thought of when I saw the thread title..

Republicans have compassion, however they're responsible.

It's one thing to be down on your luck and use some form of assistance and it's another to abuse charity...

Republicans would go out of their way to help anyone who truly needs help, however they would do it privately.. Weather it is donating to the homeless guy on the corner or donating to a private charity that helps people. However republicans have a say in who they help.

When it comes to social programs republicans don't have a say, for example a republican would never donate to a 15-year-old that has a sign reading: "Got knocked up need money for an abortion."

A republican would however tell the girl she has nothing to fear and that her family will lover her and the baby and her fear is just illogical given the bigger picture, and if she comes from an abusive family would certainly attempt to place the girl where she and her baby will be loved and protected....

I certainly wouldn't hand out a planned parenthood card, that would be too easy and the wrong solution...

I actually had that ^^^ happen to me a few years back, I brought her to a womans shelter run by a Catholic church... I checked back last year and she was doing fine, she had her baby and was enrolled in a training program funded by the same center.

Most republicans would go the extra mile to help a person....

 

[Dragon]

Indeed. But it wasn't statists or progressives or modern liberals.

As modern liberals didn't exist yet, this is true.

Actually, conservatives don't believe in liberty at all.

When you start with a falsehood, everything that follows may be immediately dismissed.

No, it may only be dismissed after you have demonstrated the alleged falsehood to be false, or at least negated the argument in favor of it. And since all the rest of my post was exactly that -- an argument supporting the assertion that conservatives don't believe in freedom -- to dismiss it "immediately" is in effect to surrender.

If that's what you want to do, fine, I accept your surrender.

 

[Dragon]

Why then if they love liberty did most all republicans support the patriot act?

Same reason most of the Democrats did, they are statists.

Let's take a look at that word, "statism." What exactly is it supposed to mean?

The only way in which the meaning is really clear is if it is presented as an opposite to "anarchism." Thus, "statists" believe in having a state, while anarchists don't. Anyone who isn't a statist is an anarchist, and vice-versa.

Failing that, it COULD mean -- but never seems to -- the same thing as totalitarianism or autocracy, so that we might refer to Nazis, fascists, and Communists as "statists." But those non-anarchists who use the word don't seem to be applying it to totalitarians (although I presume they would if any were available), so that isn't right, either.

It also COULD mean -- but again, never seems to -- support for government that works against liberty, but does not go so far as to be properly totalitarian or autocratic. Here we're coming a little closer, because a few of those who use it object to the Patriot Act and similar recent episodes of national-security and/or military overreach. But the same people also seem to refer to use of government to protect people's liberties from private power as "statist." So this isn't a universal rule, apparently.

I'm afraid we're left with the conclusion that the word "statism" has no coherent meaning at all.

 

[newpolitics]

I am pointing out that the oppressive supremacy of the employers produces scientists who have no strength of character.
The employers have a monopoly on contracts. There is no union of superior minds like there are unions of superior athletes. These contracts do not leave open a fair or reasonable choice, just as pre-union athletes had to accept what they were offered or work low-wage jobs outside of sports.
With your attitude towards High IQs you deserve to die of a disease that only they could provide the cure to, but why should they if they have to put up with the insults and gratitude of those who worship raw power?

My goodness. So much stupidity and hatred. Yep, you're a leftist, all right.

What's keeping an inventor from going into business for himself to exploit his own ideas?

Nothing. End of story.

Dave. you make it sound so easy, and you vastly oversimplify all of the information that is reality, and pack it into a concise, small box that is the republican talking point of the power of personal volition, which would be fine except for the fact that you are forgetting opportunity costs, that, among the endless hours of education, research, and the hard work it takes for genius and creative minds to create their creations, they simply don not have the time to work a 9 to 5, to raise enough capital to invest in a working business... you are speaking of literally, living two lives at once. you need to get off of your personal volition talking point and come down to reality. We do have control over certain things, but not everything. We are at the mercy of forces outside ourselves, and very often, forces set in motion by other beings vying for a controlling interest in everything around us, that we simply must accept or go elsewhere, (or challenge, but that is another lifetime of work). I see you spitting the same talking point: it is your fault if you can't do it. No. People try as hard as they can, with what they know, and other people possesses too much power, most often in the financial sectors in the forms of investment monopolies, so that anyone looking for an investor, must sacrifice a certain amount of integrity and dignity. the question then becomes, how much of yourself are you actually willing to give up. you comment on these hypotheticals from an ideological distance, and it comes off as sheer arrogance, even in how much you seem to be able to simplify the infinite complexity that is reality.

 

[PrometheusBound]

I am pointing out that the oppressive supremacy of the employers produces scientists who have no strength of character.
The employers have a monopoly on contracts. There is no union of superior minds like there are unions of superior athletes. These contracts do not leave open a fair or reasonable choice, just as pre-union athletes had to accept what they were offered or work low-wage jobs outside of sports.
With your attitude towards High IQs you deserve to die of a disease that only they could provide the cure to, but why should they if they have to put up with the insults and gratitude of those who worship raw power?

My goodness. So much stupidity and hatred. Yep, you're a leftist, all right.

What's keeping an inventor from going into business for himself to exploit his own ideas?

Nothing. End of story.

You brown-noses want us peasants to grovel in the dirt before your Masters. Throwing you a bone or a hushpuppy for this attitude, the rich may pat you on the head and say, "Good boy!"

 

[daveman]

As modern liberals didn't exist yet, this is true.

Actually, conservatives don't believe in liberty at all.

When you start with a falsehood, everything that follows may be immediately dismissed.

No, it may only be dismissed after you have demonstrated the alleged falsehood to be false, or at least negated the argument in favor of it. And since all the rest of my post was exactly that -- an argument supporting the assertion that conservatives don't believe in freedom -- to dismiss it "immediately" is in effect to surrender.

If that's what you want to do, fine, I accept your surrender.

You can insist a turd is a rose, but it still stinks.

You failed. Conservatives believe in individual liberties. Liberals don't.

 

[daveman]

Why then if they love liberty did most all republicans support the patriot act?

Same reason most of the Democrats did, they are statists.

Let's take a look at that word, "statism." What exactly is it supposed to mean?

The only way in which the meaning is really clear is if it is presented as an opposite to "anarchism." Thus, "statists" believe in having a state, while anarchists don't. Anyone who isn't a statist is an anarchist, and vice-versa.

Failing that, it COULD mean -- but never seems to -- the same thing as totalitarianism or autocracy, so that we might refer to Nazis, fascists, and Communists as "statists." But those non-anarchists who use the word don't seem to be applying it to totalitarians (although I presume they would if any were available), so that isn't right, either.

It also COULD mean -- but again, never seems to -- support for government that works against liberty, but does not go so far as to be properly totalitarian or autocratic. Here we're coming a little closer, because a few of those who use it object to the Patriot Act and similar recent episodes of national-security and/or military overreach. But the same people also seem to refer to use of government to protect people's liberties from private power as "statist." So this isn't a universal rule, apparently.

I'm afraid we're left with the conclusion that the word "statism" has no coherent meaning at all.

What is it with you idiot leftists? You don't have the authority to define words. Stop pretending you do.

stat·ism (sttzm)
n.
The practice or doctrine of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy.​

You know, like you idiots want.

 

[daveman]

I am pointing out that the oppressive supremacy of the employers produces scientists who have no strength of character.
The employers have a monopoly on contracts. There is no union of superior minds like there are unions of superior athletes. These contracts do not leave open a fair or reasonable choice, just as pre-union athletes had to accept what they were offered or work low-wage jobs outside of sports.
With your attitude towards High IQs you deserve to die of a disease that only they could provide the cure to, but why should they if they have to put up with the insults and gratitude of those who worship raw power?

My goodness. So much stupidity and hatred. Yep, you're a leftist, all right.

What's keeping an inventor from going into business for himself to exploit his own ideas?

Nothing. End of story.

Dave. you make it sound so easy, and you vastly oversimplify all of the information that is reality, and pack it into a concise, small box that is the republican talking point of the power of personal volition, which would be fine except for the fact that you are forgetting opportunity costs, that, among the endless hours of education, research, and the hard work it takes for genius and creative minds to create their creations, they simply don not have the time to work a 9 to 5, to raise enough capital to invest in a working business... you are speaking of literally, living two lives at once. you need to get off of your personal volition talking point and come down to reality. We do have control over certain things, but not everything. We are at the mercy of forces outside ourselves, and very often, forces set in motion by other beings vying for a controlling interest in everything around us, that we simply must accept or go elsewhere, (or challenge, but that is another lifetime of work). I see you spitting the same talking point: it is your fault if you can't do it. No. People try as hard as they can, with what they know, and other people possesses too much power, most often in the financial sectors in the forms of investment monopolies, so that anyone looking for an investor, must sacrifice a certain amount of integrity and dignity. the question then becomes, how much of yourself are you actually willing to give up. you comment on these hypotheticals from an ideological distance, and it comes off as sheer arrogance, even in how much you seem to be able to simplify the infinite complexity that is reality.

Yeah, we get it. No one is responsible for their station in life. Some vague, amorphous, ill-defined THE MAN is keeping everyone down.

Your hand-wringing singularly fails to take into account the people who have DONE what I said: They worked their asses off and got their products to market, and profited handsomely from it.

Now who's not dealing with reality?

 

[daveman]

I am pointing out that the oppressive supremacy of the employers produces scientists who have no strength of character.
The employers have a monopoly on contracts. There is no union of superior minds like there are unions of superior athletes. These contracts do not leave open a fair or reasonable choice, just as pre-union athletes had to accept what they were offered or work low-wage jobs outside of sports.
With your attitude towards High IQs you deserve to die of a disease that only they could provide the cure to, but why should they if they have to put up with the insults and gratitude of those who worship raw power?

My goodness. So much stupidity and hatred. Yep, you're a leftist, all right.

What's keeping an inventor from going into business for himself to exploit his own ideas?

Nothing. End of story.

You brown-noses want us peasants to grovel in the dirt before your Masters. Throwing you a bone or a hushpuppy for this attitude, the rich may pat you on the head and say, "Good boy!"

I have no master. I'm a citizen, not a subject, unlike you lickspittle leftists.

I don't care what you do. Live in a van down by the river or invent the next Pocket Fisherman and earn a million dollars. Makes ZERO difference to me.

But stop insisting the world owes you a living, and keep your damn hands out of my wallet. If you want my money, come up with something I want to buy from you.

But that's toooo haaaaaard!!, isn't it?

 

[PrometheusBound]

I am pointing out that the oppressive supremacy of the employers produces scientists who have no strength of character.
The employers have a monopoly on contracts. There is no union of superior minds like there are unions of superior athletes. These contracts do not leave open a fair or reasonable choice, just as pre-union athletes had to accept what they were offered or work low-wage jobs outside of sports.
With your attitude towards High IQs you deserve to die of a disease that only they could provide the cure to, but why should they if they have to put up with the insults and gratitude of those who worship raw power?

My goodness. So much stupidity and hatred. Yep, you're a leftist, all right.

What's keeping an inventor from going into business for himself to exploit his own ideas?

Nothing. End of story.

Dave. you make it sound so easy, and you vastly oversimplify all of the information that is reality, and pack it into a concise, small box that is the republican talking point of the power of personal volition, which would be fine except for the fact that you are forgetting opportunity costs, that, among the endless hours of education, research, and the hard work it takes for genius and creative minds to create their creations, they simply don not have the time to work a 9 to 5, to raise enough capital to invest in a working business... you are speaking of literally, living two lives at once. you need to get off of your personal volition talking point and come down to reality. We do have control over certain things, but not everything. We are at the mercy of forces outside ourselves, and very often, forces set in motion by other beings vying for a controlling interest in everything around us, that we simply must accept or go elsewhere, (or challenge, but that is another lifetime of work). I see you spitting the same talking point: it is your fault if you can't do it. No. People try as hard as they can, with what they know, and other people possesses too much power, most often in the financial sectors in the forms of investment monopolies, so that anyone looking for an investor, must sacrifice a certain amount of integrity and dignity. the question then becomes, how much of yourself are you actually willing to give up. you comment on these hypotheticals from an ideological distance, and it comes off as sheer arrogance, even in how much you seem to be able to simplify the infinite complexity that is reality.

That's why only 8% of those capable of inventing things support GOPer economics. The owners of capital are low-IQ parasites and bullies.

 

[PrometheusBound]

My goodness. So much stupidity and hatred. Yep, you're a leftist, all right.

What's keeping an inventor from going into business for himself to exploit his own ideas?

Nothing. End of story.

You brown-noses want us peasants to grovel in the dirt before your Masters. Throwing you a bone or a hushpuppy for this attitude, the rich may pat you on the head and say, "Good boy!"

I have no master. I'm a citizen, not a subject, unlike you lickspittle leftists.

I don't care what you do. Live in a van down by the river or invent the next Pocket Fisherman and earn a million dollars. Makes ZERO difference to me.

But stop insisting the world owes you a living, and keep your damn hands out of my wallet. If you want my money, come up with something I want to buy from you.

But that's toooo haaaaaard!!, isn't it?

We don't owe those who own the world a living, which these parasites make off the rest of us by controlling our minds to think that failure in the game that they make the rules for means we are losers and that success by being one of their brown-nosing flunkies makes us winners.

 

[newpolitics]

My goodness. So much stupidity and hatred. Yep, you're a leftist, all right.

What's keeping an inventor from going into business for himself to exploit his own ideas?

Nothing. End of story.

Dave. you make it sound so easy, and you vastly oversimplify all of the information that is reality, and pack it into a concise, small box that is the republican talking point of the power of personal volition, which would be fine except for the fact that you are forgetting opportunity costs, that, among the endless hours of education, research, and the hard work it takes for genius and creative minds to create their creations, they simply don not have the time to work a 9 to 5, to raise enough capital to invest in a working business... you are speaking of literally, living two lives at once. you need to get off of your personal volition talking point and come down to reality. We do have control over certain things, but not everything. We are at the mercy of forces outside ourselves, and very often, forces set in motion by other beings vying for a controlling interest in everything around us, that we simply must accept or go elsewhere, (or challenge, but that is another lifetime of work). I see you spitting the same talking point: it is your fault if you can't do it. No. People try as hard as they can, with what they know, and other people possesses too much power, most often in the financial sectors in the forms of investment monopolies, so that anyone looking for an investor, must sacrifice a certain amount of integrity and dignity. the question then becomes, how much of yourself are you actually willing to give up. you comment on these hypotheticals from an ideological distance, and it comes off as sheer arrogance, even in how much you seem to be able to simplify the infinite complexity that is reality.

Yeah, we get it. No one is responsible for their station in life. Some vague, amorphous, ill-defined THE MAN is keeping everyone down.

Your hand-wringing singularly fails to take into account the people who have DONE what I said: They worked their asses off and got their products to market, and profited handsomely from it.

Now who's not dealing with reality?

I am not saying no one is responsible for their station in life. We have control over ourselves. That's it. As far as the world, any number of variables can be thrown our way that make a situation anywhere from easy to damn near impossible in terms of bringing a dream or concept to fruition, getting past all of the obstacles that may or may not be thrown in our way depending on where we are coming from within a society, and how that society views us. People try, but just because a few have done it, doesn't mean everyone faces the same odds, or has the same resources. Once again, you oversimplify reality based the few who have done it, without looking into greater detail. "the devil is in the details.' Painting broad strokes sounds great in motivational speeches, but in reality, there is much more. What concerns me is that it is obvious you are literally compelled to say such things because you are so invested in your republican ideology, that your brain literally will not accept anything to the contrary. Anyone so unable to see reality for what it is, is dangerous, especially when given a pulpit. Unfortunately, such is the nature with human beliefs. We form them so the world makes sense to us. Unfortunately, they have nothing to do with reality, only that which is comfortable to us to alleviate cognitive dissonance and anxiety. I don't know where I am going with this, but Dave, you say the same thing over an over again, without considering into the idea that there is far more information than simply a talking point about personal volition. It makes impossible the possibility for empathy for the reality of an individuals situation. Instead, you hold them up to some ideal 'should' about what they should be able to accomplish. i am simply saying, don't let your beliefs cover over reality. reality is far too complex, and it is inherently arrogant to paint reality with a singular belief. what you don't realize is that your perceptions are based on beliefs you don't' even know you have, as is the case with everybody, to an extent, and with exception to those who actively challenge their own arbitrary beliefs and realize that beliefs are only beliefs. Not reality. Do I get credit for this?

 

[daveman]

You brown-noses want us peasants to grovel in the dirt before your Masters. Throwing you a bone or a hushpuppy for this attitude, the rich may pat you on the head and say, "Good boy!"

I have no master. I'm a citizen, not a subject, unlike you lickspittle leftists.

I don't care what you do. Live in a van down by the river or invent the next Pocket Fisherman and earn a million dollars. Makes ZERO difference to me.

But stop insisting the world owes you a living, and keep your damn hands out of my wallet. If you want my money, come up with something I want to buy from you.

But that's toooo haaaaaard!!, isn't it?

We don't owe those who own the world a living, which these parasites make off the rest of us by controlling our minds to think that failure in the game that they make the rules for means we are losers and that success by being one of their brown-nosing flunkies makes us winners.

Looks like you're going to have to stop buying stuff, Snowflake.

Put up or shut up. Get off the grid, quit wearing Nikes, and throw away the iPhone.

Just. Stop. Your. Fucking. Whining.