The American Dream...or the socialist progressive dream?

[Cecilie1200]

You shouldn't have. She's completely wrong

The American Drea, has NEVER been "INDIVIDUALS can accomplish anything they want"

The American Dream is "Obey the law, work hard, and you'll be able to get a job that can support you and your family, and a house with a picket fence, 2 cars in the garage, and a chicken in every pot"

IOW, the American Dream is not about being wealthy, or flying to the moon - it's about attaining a middle class level of financial security.

I disagree wholeheartedly with your desire to narrowly define for everyone else what they can dream about and aspire to.

"The American Dream, sometimes in the phrase "Chasing the American Dream," is a national ethos of the United States in which freedom includes a promise of the possibility of prosperity and success. In the American Dream, first expressed by James Truslow Adams in 1931, "life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement" regardless of social class or circumstances of birth. The idea of the American Dream is rooted in the second sentence of the United States Declaration of Independence which states that "all men are created equal" and that they are "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights" including "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.""
American Dream - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(I know I don't usually approve of Wikipedia, but I know most of this board seems to think it's gospel written by the finger of God, so . . . )

What is the American Dream?
The term was first used by James Truslow Adams in his book The Epic of America which was written in 1931. He states: "The American Dream is "that dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement. It is a difficult dream for the European upper classes to interpret adequately, and too many of us ourselves have grown weary and mistrustful of it. It is not a dream of motor cars and high wages merely, but a dream of social order in which each man and each woman shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which they are innately capable, and be recognized by others for what they are, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position."

In the United States’ Declaration of Independence, our founding fathers: "…held certain 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." Might this sentiment be considered the foundation of the American Dream?

Were homesteaders who left the big cities of the east to find happiness and their piece of land in the unknown wilderness pursuing these inalienable Rights? Were the immigrants who came to the United States looking for their bit of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, their Dream? And what did the desire of the veteran of World War II - to settle down, to have a home, a car and a family - tell us about this evolving Dream? Is the American Dream attainable by all Americans? Would Martin Luther King feel his Dream was attained? Did Malcolm X realize his Dream?

Some say, that the American Dream has become the pursuit of material prosperity - that people work more hours to get bigger cars, fancier homes, the fruits of prosperity for their families - but have less time to enjoy their prosperity. Others say that the American Dream is beyond the grasp of the working poor who must work two jobs to insure their family’s survival. Yet others look toward a new American Dream with less focus on financial gain and more emphasis on living a simple, fulfilling life.

Thomas Wolfe said, "…to every man, regardless of his birth, his shining, golden opportunity ….the right to live, to work, to be himself, and to become whatever thing his manhood and his vision can combine to make him."

Is this your American Dream?
What is the American Dream?

The American Dream is DEFINITELY that individuals can aspire to whatever they want, and accomplish as much as their talent, effort, and luck will let them.

If wingnuts didn't lie, they'd have nothing to say

I never said anything about telling "everyone else what they can dream about and aspire to".

I merely corrected your absurd definition of the American Dream. Even the quote you just posted proves you wrong. You said that the American Dream was that every INDIVIDUAL could be whatever they wanted to be. The truth is

"The American Dream, sometimes in the phrase "Chasing the American Dream," is a national ethos of the United States in which freedom includes a promise of the possibility of prosperity and success. In the American Dream, first expressed by James Truslow Adams in 1931, "life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement" regardless of social class or circumstances of birth.

I see nothing about individuals becoming "whatever they want to be"

Try again.

Read it again, doofus. How big a dumbfuck do you have to be to not recognize when individuals are being spoken of, rather than a collective?

 

[MaggieMae]

I disagree wholeheartedly with your desire to narrowly define for everyone else what they can dream about and aspire to.

"The American Dream, sometimes in the phrase "Chasing the American Dream," is a national ethos of the United States in which freedom includes a promise of the possibility of prosperity and success. In the American Dream, first expressed by James Truslow Adams in 1931, "life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement" regardless of social class or circumstances of birth. The idea of the American Dream is rooted in the second sentence of the United States Declaration of Independence which states that "all men are created equal" and that they are "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights" including "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.""
American Dream - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(I know I don't usually approve of Wikipedia, but I know most of this board seems to think it's gospel written by the finger of God, so . . . )

What is the American Dream?
The term was first used by James Truslow Adams in his book The Epic of America which was written in 1931. He states: "The American Dream is "that dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement. It is a difficult dream for the European upper classes to interpret adequately, and too many of us ourselves have grown weary and mistrustful of it. It is not a dream of motor cars and high wages merely, but a dream of social order in which each man and each woman shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which they are innately capable, and be recognized by others for what they are, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position."

In the United States’ Declaration of Independence, our founding fathers: "…held certain 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." Might this sentiment be considered the foundation of the American Dream?

Were homesteaders who left the big cities of the east to find happiness and their piece of land in the unknown wilderness pursuing these inalienable Rights? Were the immigrants who came to the United States looking for their bit of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, their Dream? And what did the desire of the veteran of World War II - to settle down, to have a home, a car and a family - tell us about this evolving Dream? Is the American Dream attainable by all Americans? Would Martin Luther King feel his Dream was attained? Did Malcolm X realize his Dream?

Some say, that the American Dream has become the pursuit of material prosperity - that people work more hours to get bigger cars, fancier homes, the fruits of prosperity for their families - but have less time to enjoy their prosperity. Others say that the American Dream is beyond the grasp of the working poor who must work two jobs to insure their family’s survival. Yet others look toward a new American Dream with less focus on financial gain and more emphasis on living a simple, fulfilling life.

Thomas Wolfe said, "…to every man, regardless of his birth, his shining, golden opportunity ….the right to live, to work, to be himself, and to become whatever thing his manhood and his vision can combine to make him."

Is this your American Dream?
What is the American Dream?

The American Dream is DEFINITELY that individuals can aspire to whatever they want, and accomplish as much as their talent, effort, and luck will let them.

Operative words:

In the American Dream, first expressed by James Truslow Adams in 1931, "life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement" regardless of social class or circumstances of birth.

Like that happens.

So people shouldn't aspire to an ideal simply because perfection never happens?

Where did I imply THAT? "...regardless of social class..." has zero to do with individual aspiration. It has to do with the upper echelon basically ignoring lower class aspirations and yet expecting them to somehow achieve all the successes of the upper classes with less than half the resources needed to be successful.

 

[sangha]

Operative words:


Like that happens.

So people shouldn't aspire to an ideal simply because perfection never happens?

Where did I imply THAT? "...regardless of social class..." has zero to do with individual aspiration. It has to do with the upper echelon basically ignoring lower class aspirations and yet expecting them to somehow achieve all the successes of the upper classes with less than half the resources needed to be successful.

This one's a real loony, Maggie. She lives in a fantasy world.

I predict you'll get a response just as disjointed and off-point as the one I got.

 

[MaggieMae]

I disagree wholeheartedly with your desire to narrowly define for everyone else what they can dream about and aspire to.

"The American Dream, sometimes in the phrase "Chasing the American Dream," is a national ethos of the United States in which freedom includes a promise of the possibility of prosperity and success. In the American Dream, first expressed by James Truslow Adams in 1931, "life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement" regardless of social class or circumstances of birth. The idea of the American Dream is rooted in the second sentence of the United States Declaration of Independence which states that "all men are created equal" and that they are "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights" including "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.""
American Dream - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(I know I don't usually approve of Wikipedia, but I know most of this board seems to think it's gospel written by the finger of God, so . . . )

What is the American Dream?
The term was first used by James Truslow Adams in his book The Epic of America which was written in 1931. He states: "The American Dream is "that dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement. It is a difficult dream for the European upper classes to interpret adequately, and too many of us ourselves have grown weary and mistrustful of it. It is not a dream of motor cars and high wages merely, but a dream of social order in which each man and each woman shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which they are innately capable, and be recognized by others for what they are, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position."

In the United States’ Declaration of Independence, our founding fathers: "…held certain 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." Might this sentiment be considered the foundation of the American Dream?

Were homesteaders who left the big cities of the east to find happiness and their piece of land in the unknown wilderness pursuing these inalienable Rights? Were the immigrants who came to the United States looking for their bit of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, their Dream? And what did the desire of the veteran of World War II - to settle down, to have a home, a car and a family - tell us about this evolving Dream? Is the American Dream attainable by all Americans? Would Martin Luther King feel his Dream was attained? Did Malcolm X realize his Dream?

Some say, that the American Dream has become the pursuit of material prosperity - that people work more hours to get bigger cars, fancier homes, the fruits of prosperity for their families - but have less time to enjoy their prosperity. Others say that the American Dream is beyond the grasp of the working poor who must work two jobs to insure their family’s survival. Yet others look toward a new American Dream with less focus on financial gain and more emphasis on living a simple, fulfilling life.

Thomas Wolfe said, "…to every man, regardless of his birth, his shining, golden opportunity ….the right to live, to work, to be himself, and to become whatever thing his manhood and his vision can combine to make him."

Is this your American Dream?
What is the American Dream?

The American Dream is DEFINITELY that individuals can aspire to whatever they want, and accomplish as much as their talent, effort, and luck will let them.

If wingnuts didn't lie, they'd have nothing to say

I never said anything about telling "everyone else what they can dream about and aspire to".

I merely corrected your absurd definition of the American Dream. Even the quote you just posted proves you wrong. You said that the American Dream was that every INDIVIDUAL could be whatever they wanted to be. The truth is

"The American Dream, sometimes in the phrase "Chasing the American Dream," is a national ethos of the United States in which freedom includes a promise of the possibility of prosperity and success. In the American Dream, first expressed by James Truslow Adams in 1931, "life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement" regardless of social class or circumstances of birth.

I see nothing about individuals becoming "whatever they want to be"

Try again.

Read it again, doofus. How big a dumbfuck do you have to be to not recognize when individuals are being spoken of, rather than a collective?

It's really difficult to carry on any kind of decent dialog with an obviously intelligent person who spoils that image by constantly using gutter language. There are plenty of theads on this board where you'll find that talk commonplace, but those are usually irrelevant except for pushing the envelope in tit-for-tat screamfests. If your intent is to prove you're smart, then my suggestion is you knock off the inflamatory name-calling or go to another message board where that kind of thing is commonplace. Most adults will move on from your kind of MO, so your perceived intellectual contributions are soon forgotten and you've just wasted your time (and ours).

 

[Cecilie1200]

Operative words:


Like that happens.

So people shouldn't aspire to an ideal simply because perfection never happens?

Where did I imply THAT?

In your post.

"...regardless of social class..." has zero to do with individual aspiration. It has to do with the upper echelon basically ignoring lower class aspirations and yet expecting them to somehow achieve all the successes of the upper classes with less than half the resources needed to be successful.

Incorrect. "Regardless of social class" is ALL about the individual, because it addresses the fact that people should aspire, achieve, and be judged by who they are INDIVIDUALLY, rather than as a member of a collective such as a race or a social class.

Who gives a rat's ass whether the "upper echelon" pays attention to anyone else's aspirations or not? And what makes you think the "upper echelon" expects ANYTHING of anyone else, and why does it matter if they do or not? And while you're at it, I'd like to see some proof that there are now less than half the resources needed to be successful than there were when the "upper echelons" became successful.

 

[Foxfyre]

Today unfortunately all too often, the American system rewards vice and punishes virtue.
This is done on many levels.
Working hard, paying your debts faithfully, living within your means, saving money for the future etc. etc. is great. But unfortunately in today's system - you will find all those who did none of these things - got many of the same things you worked for - but got it on your dime.

That's what the failures always say. "The game is rigged!!!"

Meanwhile, millions of law abiding Americans prosper

I am showing my post here again - since obviously yuo had to have misread it.

I think you must be using too many syllables or something for some here, but you made a most pertinent point.

The guy who stays in school, doesn't abuse controlled substances, stays out of trouble with the law, educates himself, develops discipline, a work ethic, and builds a resume with references working at whatever McJobs he can get, learns a trade and prepares hmself to support himself and a family will almost always enjoy a good degree of success. But too often he will then be counted among the 'rich' who should be taxed at a higher rate, regulated more, and held in contempt for 'climbing over the backs of the poor' or some such nonsense.

And he sees that all the effort he put into earning opportunities for his kids and giving them a running start is often not appreciated and can even put his kid at a disavantage to the 'disadvantaged kids'. He and his are eligible for no societal 'freebies' which he doesn't want, but he doesn't want his kids shut out either simply because he fathered them competently.

The guy who drops out of school, gets high on controlled substances whenever he can get them, disrespects the law on a regular basis, and lacks the discipline or ambition to put in an honest days work on a regular basis winds up poor with limited options, and because he is uneducated, he believes those who tell him that it is the rich and successful who are intentionally keeping him down. He might or might not marry the woman he impregnates, but he doesn't stick around to father the kids that see mom and/or dad collect a government check instead of a paycheck each month and grow up thinking that is their right.

But such folks are eligible for all kinds of government freebies provided via the tax dollars of the successful guy(s).

And no, neither of these two cases has anything at all to do with people who through no fault of their own are truly helpless.

PROPOSAL: As we are phasing out counter productive and sometimes destruction social programs, lets focus the resources on teaching that second guy the principles the first guy embraced? Stay in school, educate yourself, stay off drugs/booze and don't break the law, work at whatever you have to to develop a work ethic and references, learn skills and a marketable trade, and be prepared to do the sometimes very hard work necessary to achieve success.

What if we taught him that instead of 'the fat cats are keeping you down' lie?

 

[MaggieMae]

So people shouldn't aspire to an ideal simply because perfection never happens?

Where did I imply THAT?

In your post.

"...regardless of social class..." has zero to do with individual aspiration. It has to do with the upper echelon basically ignoring lower class aspirations and yet expecting them to somehow achieve all the successes of the upper classes with less than half the resources needed to be successful.

Incorrect. "Regardless of social class" is ALL about the individual, because it addresses the fact that people should aspire, achieve, and be judged by who they are INDIVIDUALLY, rather than as a member of a collective such as a race or a social class.

Who gives a rat's ass whether the "upper echelon" pays attention to anyone else's aspirations or not? And what makes you think the "upper echelon" expects ANYTHING of anyone else, and why does it matter if they do or not? And while you're at it, I'd like to see some proof that there are now less than half the resources needed to be successful than there were when the "upper echelons" became successful.

You need "proof"?? Try doing an on-site comparison of a classroom in Compton, CA with Beverly Hills High.

You're not even on the same page in any debate over class warfare. Your head it too far up your bejeweled butt.

 

[sangha]

So people shouldn't aspire to an ideal simply because perfection never happens?

Where did I imply THAT?

In your post.

"...regardless of social class..." has zero to do with individual aspiration. It has to do with the upper echelon basically ignoring lower class aspirations and yet expecting them to somehow achieve all the successes of the upper classes with less than half the resources needed to be successful.

Incorrect. "Regardless of social class" is ALL about the individual, because it addresses the fact that people should aspire, achieve, and be judged by who they are INDIVIDUALLY, rather than as a member of a collective such as a race or a social class.

Who gives a rat's ass whether the "upper echelon" pays attention to anyone else's aspirations or not? And what makes you think the "upper echelon" expects ANYTHING of anyone else, and why does it matter if they do or not? And while you're at it, I'd like to see some proof that there are now less than half the resources needed to be successful than there were when the "upper echelons" became successful.

Boy are you dumb!!!

"Regardless of social class" means judging people by "by who they are INDIVIDUALLY, rather than as a member of a collective such as a race or a social class". You're disagreeing with a statement you agree with

 

[MaggieMae]

That's what the failures always say. "The game is rigged!!!"

Meanwhile, millions of law abiding Americans prosper

I am showing my post here again - since obviously yuo had to have misread it.

I think you must be using too many syllables or something for some here, but you made a most pertinent point.

The guy who stays in school, doesn't abuse controlled substances, stays out of trouble with the law, educates himself, develops discipline, a work ethic, and builds a resume with references working at whatever McJobs he can get, learns a trade and prepares hmself to support himself and a family will almost always enjoy a good degree of success. But too often he will then be counted among the 'rich' who should be taxed at a higher rate, regulated more, and held in contempt for 'climbing over the backs of the poor' or some such nonsense.

And he sees that all the effort he put into earning opportunities for his kids and giving them a running start is often not appreciated and can even put his kid at a disavantage to the 'disadvantaged kids'. He and his are eligible for no societal 'freebies' which he doesn't want, but he doesn't want his kids shut out either simply because he fathered them competently.

The guy who drops out of school, gets high on controlled substances whenever he can get them, disrespects the law on a regular basis, and lacks the discipline or ambition to put in an honest days work on a regular basis winds up poor with limited options, and because he is uneducated, he believes those who tell him that it is the rich and successful who are intentionally keeping him down. He might or might not marry the woman he impregnates, but he doesn't stick around to father the kids that see mom and/or dad collect a government check instead of a paycheck each month and grow up thinking that is their right.

But such folks are eligible for all kinds of government freebies provided via the tax dollars of the successful guy(s).

And no, neither of these two cases has anything at all to do with people who through no fault of their own are truly helpless.

PROPOSAL: As we are phasing out counter productive and sometimes destruction social programs, lets focus the resources on teaching that second guy the principles the first guy embraced? Stay in school, educate yourself, stay off drugs/booze and don't break the law, work at whatever you have to to develop a work ethic and references, learn skills and a marketable trade, and be prepared to do the sometimes very hard work necessary to achieve success.

What if we taught him that instead of 'the fat cats are keeping you down' lie?

I like your proposal, but who's going to do that? Republicans? Who don't want to lift a finger to advance education? Will all the conservatives form a coalition and with their own hard-earned money develop enough charter schools to provide all children a decent jumping off point? I seriously doubt it. Nice thought, though.

 

[sangha]

That's what the failures always say. "The game is rigged!!!"

Meanwhile, millions of law abiding Americans prosper

I am showing my post here again - since obviously yuo had to have misread it.

I think you must be using too many syllables or something for some here, but you made a most pertinent point.

The guy who stays in school, doesn't abuse controlled substances, stays out of trouble with the law, educates himself, develops discipline, a work ethic, and builds a resume with references working at whatever McJobs he can get, learns a trade and prepares hmself to support himself and a family will almost always enjoy a good degree of success. But too often he will then be counted among the 'rich' who should be taxed at a higher rate, regulated more, and held in contempt for 'climbing over the backs of the poor' or some such nonsense.

And he sees that all the effort he put into earning opportunities for his kids and giving them a running start is often not appreciated and can even put his kid at a disavantage to the 'disadvantaged kids'. He and his are eligible for no societal 'freebies' which he doesn't want, but he doesn't want his kids shut out either simply because he fathered them competently.

The guy who drops out of school, gets high on controlled substances whenever he can get them, disrespects the law on a regular basis, and lacks the discipline or ambition to put in an honest days work on a regular basis winds up poor with limited options, and because he is uneducated, he believes those who tell him that it is the rich and successful who are intentionally keeping him down. He might or might not marry the woman he impregnates, but he doesn't stick around to father the kids that see mom and/or dad collect a government check instead of a paycheck each month and grow up thinking that is their right.

But such folks are eligible for all kinds of government freebies provided via the tax dollars of the successful guy(s).

And no, neither of these two cases has anything at all to do with people who through no fault of their own are truly helpless.

PROPOSAL: As we are phasing out counter productive and sometimes destruction social programs, lets focus the resources on teaching that second guy the principles the first guy embraced? Stay in school, educate yourself, stay off drugs/booze and don't break the law, work at whatever you have to to develop a work ethic and references, learn skills and a marketable trade, and be prepared to do the sometimes very hard work necessary to achieve success.

What if we taught him that instead of 'the fat cats are keeping you down' lie?

This idiot wingnut is agreeing with the other wingnut, even though the other wingnut said the exact opposite thing

 

[Foxfyre]

I am showing my post here again - since obviously yuo had to have misread it.

I think you must be using too many syllables or something for some here, but you made a most pertinent point.

The guy who stays in school, doesn't abuse controlled substances, stays out of trouble with the law, educates himself, develops discipline, a work ethic, and builds a resume with references working at whatever McJobs he can get, learns a trade and prepares hmself to support himself and a family will almost always enjoy a good degree of success. But too often he will then be counted among the 'rich' who should be taxed at a higher rate, regulated more, and held in contempt for 'climbing over the backs of the poor' or some such nonsense.

And he sees that all the effort he put into earning opportunities for his kids and giving them a running start is often not appreciated and can even put his kid at a disavantage to the 'disadvantaged kids'. He and his are eligible for no societal 'freebies' which he doesn't want, but he doesn't want his kids shut out either simply because he fathered them competently.

The guy who drops out of school, gets high on controlled substances whenever he can get them, disrespects the law on a regular basis, and lacks the discipline or ambition to put in an honest days work on a regular basis winds up poor with limited options, and because he is uneducated, he believes those who tell him that it is the rich and successful who are intentionally keeping him down. He might or might not marry the woman he impregnates, but he doesn't stick around to father the kids that see mom and/or dad collect a government check instead of a paycheck each month and grow up thinking that is their right.

But such folks are eligible for all kinds of government freebies provided via the tax dollars of the successful guy(s).

And no, neither of these two cases has anything at all to do with people who through no fault of their own are truly helpless.

PROPOSAL: As we are phasing out counter productive and sometimes destruction social programs, lets focus the resources on teaching that second guy the principles the first guy embraced? Stay in school, educate yourself, stay off drugs/booze and don't break the law, work at whatever you have to to develop a work ethic and references, learn skills and a marketable trade, and be prepared to do the sometimes very hard work necessary to achieve success.

What if we taught him that instead of 'the fat cats are keeping you down' lie?

This idiot wingnut is agreeing with the other wingnut, even though the other wingnut said the exact opposite thing

Setting aside your ad hominem aspersions momentarily, I will first say that I think I am in complete agreement with the other member that you cut out of this discussion -- conveniently???? -- when you quoted the discussion. Was that so maybe other would think you actually understand what either of us are saying?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Where did I imply THAT?

In your post.

"...regardless of social class..." has zero to do with individual aspiration. It has to do with the upper echelon basically ignoring lower class aspirations and yet expecting them to somehow achieve all the successes of the upper classes with less than half the resources needed to be successful.

Incorrect. "Regardless of social class" is ALL about the individual, because it addresses the fact that people should aspire, achieve, and be judged by who they are INDIVIDUALLY, rather than as a member of a collective such as a race or a social class.

Who gives a rat's ass whether the "upper echelon" pays attention to anyone else's aspirations or not? And what makes you think the "upper echelon" expects ANYTHING of anyone else, and why does it matter if they do or not? And while you're at it, I'd like to see some proof that there are now less than half the resources needed to be successful than there were when the "upper echelons" became successful.

You need "proof"?? Try doing an on-site comparison of a classroom in Compton, CA with Beverly Hills High.

You're not even on the same page in any debate over class warfare. Your head it too far up your bejeweled butt.

Try just answering the fucking question and substantiating your own fucking assertion, instead of giving me that tired old "EVERYONE knows that, I should just be able to say it and have everyone agree with me, how DARE you question the received wisdom of my worldview" schtick. "Go look it up and prove me right" just means you have nothing to say.

If you CAN'T just answer the question, then I will assume that you have realized that you're full of shit, and are too cowardly to admit it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Where did I imply THAT?

In your post.

"...regardless of social class..." has zero to do with individual aspiration. It has to do with the upper echelon basically ignoring lower class aspirations and yet expecting them to somehow achieve all the successes of the upper classes with less than half the resources needed to be successful.

Incorrect. "Regardless of social class" is ALL about the individual, because it addresses the fact that people should aspire, achieve, and be judged by who they are INDIVIDUALLY, rather than as a member of a collective such as a race or a social class.

Who gives a rat's ass whether the "upper echelon" pays attention to anyone else's aspirations or not? And what makes you think the "upper echelon" expects ANYTHING of anyone else, and why does it matter if they do or not? And while you're at it, I'd like to see some proof that there are now less than half the resources needed to be successful than there were when the "upper echelons" became successful.

Boy are you dumb!!!

"Regardless of social class" means judging people by "by who they are INDIVIDUALLY, rather than as a member of a collective such as a race or a social class". You're disagreeing with a statement you agree with

I'M dumb? At least I can read what Maggie wrote, shitforbrains.

" "...regardless of social class..." has zero to do with individual aspiration." Her fucking words, dimwit, not mine.

 

[sangha]

I think you must be using too many syllables or something for some here, but you made a most pertinent point.

The guy who stays in school, doesn't abuse controlled substances, stays out of trouble with the law, educates himself, develops discipline, a work ethic, and builds a resume with references working at whatever McJobs he can get, learns a trade and prepares hmself to support himself and a family will almost always enjoy a good degree of success. But too often he will then be counted among the 'rich' who should be taxed at a higher rate, regulated more, and held in contempt for 'climbing over the backs of the poor' or some such nonsense.

And he sees that all the effort he put into earning opportunities for his kids and giving them a running start is often not appreciated and can even put his kid at a disavantage to the 'disadvantaged kids'. He and his are eligible for no societal 'freebies' which he doesn't want, but he doesn't want his kids shut out either simply because he fathered them competently.

The guy who drops out of school, gets high on controlled substances whenever he can get them, disrespects the law on a regular basis, and lacks the discipline or ambition to put in an honest days work on a regular basis winds up poor with limited options, and because he is uneducated, he believes those who tell him that it is the rich and successful who are intentionally keeping him down. He might or might not marry the woman he impregnates, but he doesn't stick around to father the kids that see mom and/or dad collect a government check instead of a paycheck each month and grow up thinking that is their right.

But such folks are eligible for all kinds of government freebies provided via the tax dollars of the successful guy(s).

And no, neither of these two cases has anything at all to do with people who through no fault of their own are truly helpless.

PROPOSAL: As we are phasing out counter productive and sometimes destruction social programs, lets focus the resources on teaching that second guy the principles the first guy embraced? Stay in school, educate yourself, stay off drugs/booze and don't break the law, work at whatever you have to to develop a work ethic and references, learn skills and a marketable trade, and be prepared to do the sometimes very hard work necessary to achieve success.

What if we taught him that instead of 'the fat cats are keeping you down' lie?

This idiot wingnut is agreeing with the other wingnut, even though the other wingnut said the exact opposite thing

Setting aside your ad hominem aspersions momentarily, I will first say that I think I am in complete agreement with the other member that you cut out of this discussion -- conveniently???? -- when you quoted the discussion. Was that so maybe other would think you actually understand what either of us are saying?

For one thing, I didn't cut anything out of the quotes. I posted everything that was automatically quoted when I hit the " button

For another, you said the exact opposite of the other poster. S/he said

Working hard, paying your debts faithfully, living within your means, saving money for the future etc. etc. is great. But unfortunately in today's system - you will find all those who did none of these things - got many of the same things you worked for - but got it on your dime.

You said

The guy who stays in school, doesn't abuse controlled substances, stays out of trouble with the law, educates himself, develops discipline, a work ethic, and builds a resume with references working at whatever McJobs he can get, learns a trade and prepares hmself to support himself and a family will almost always enjoy a good degree of success. But too often he will then be counted among the 'rich' who should be taxed at a higher rate, regulated more, and held in contempt for 'climbing over the backs of the poor' or some such nonsense.

You say that those who follows the rules, goes to school etc...succeeds. Those who don't become dependent on govt

S/he said that those who follows the rules, goes to school, etc...doesn't do any better than the person who didn't do those thing. Those who don't do those things do just as well as those that do.

And the only person here who is complaining about anyone "climbing over" anyone's back is the wingnut who thinks others are getting ahead on his dime. You know, the wingnut you think you're agreeing with while saying the complete opposite

 

[sangha]

In your post.



Incorrect. "Regardless of social class" is ALL about the individual, because it addresses the fact that people should aspire, achieve, and be judged by who they are INDIVIDUALLY, rather than as a member of a collective such as a race or a social class.

Who gives a rat's ass whether the "upper echelon" pays attention to anyone else's aspirations or not? And what makes you think the "upper echelon" expects ANYTHING of anyone else, and why does it matter if they do or not? And while you're at it, I'd like to see some proof that there are now less than half the resources needed to be successful than there were when the "upper echelons" became successful.

Boy are you dumb!!!

"Regardless of social class" means judging people by "by who they are INDIVIDUALLY, rather than as a member of a collective such as a race or a social class". You're disagreeing with a statement you agree with

I'M dumb? At least I can read what Maggie wrote, shitforbrains.

" "...regardless of social class..." has zero to do with individual aspiration." Her fucking words, dimwit, not mine.

Yes, you're dumb. Even after it's been pointed out to you, you still don't understand that

"...regardless of social class..." has zero to do with individual aspiration

means ones' social class has nothing to do with ones' individual aspirations.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Boy are you dumb!!!

"Regardless of social class" means judging people by "by who they are INDIVIDUALLY, rather than as a member of a collective such as a race or a social class". You're disagreeing with a statement you agree with

I'M dumb? At least I can read what Maggie wrote, shitforbrains.

" "...regardless of social class..." has zero to do with individual aspiration." Her fucking words, dimwit, not mine.

Yes, you're dumb. Even after it's been pointed out to you, you still don't understand that

"...regardless of social class..." has zero to do with individual aspiration

means ones' social class has nothing to do with ones' individual aspirations.

Nice attempt at hairsplitting, but though YOU don't remember the original quote after having it dragged this far out and cherrypicked, I do.

"In the American Dream, first expressed by James Truslow Adams in 1931, "life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement" regardless of social class or circumstances of birth."

The word "regardless" in that quote MAKES it about individual aspirations. That quote isn't about Maggie's bullshit whining about "oh, the rich people don't care about us".

The problem here is one of perspective (aside from the fact that you twats can't read). I see in that quote everyONE (individuals) working and getting ahead on their own. You twats see "opportunity: Oh, gosh, that means the government needs to create an entitlement."

 

[sangha]

I'M dumb? At least I can read what Maggie wrote, shitforbrains.

" "...regardless of social class..." has zero to do with individual aspiration." Her fucking words, dimwit, not mine.

Yes, you're dumb. Even after it's been pointed out to you, you still don't understand that

"...regardless of social class..." has zero to do with individual aspiration

means ones' social class has nothing to do with ones' individual aspirations.

Nice attempt at hairsplitting, but though YOU don't remember the original quote after having it dragged this far out and cherrypicked, I do.

"In the American Dream, first expressed by James Truslow Adams in 1931, "life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement" regardless of social class or circumstances of birth."

The word "regardless" in that quote MAKES it about individual aspirations. That quote isn't about Maggie's bullshit whining about "oh, the rich people don't care about us".

The problem here is one of perspective (aside from the fact that you twats can't read). I see in that quote everyONE (individuals) working and getting ahead on their own. You twats see "opportunity: Oh, gosh, that means the government needs to create an entitlement."

In wingnut world, understanding the clear meaning of words is "cherrypicking"

It means the same thing in the entire quote and I'm not surprised to see you making up "quotes" about how Maggie said something about creating an entitlement. After all

If wingnuts didn't lie, they'd have nothing to say

 

[MaggieMae]

In your post.



Incorrect. "Regardless of social class" is ALL about the individual, because it addresses the fact that people should aspire, achieve, and be judged by who they are INDIVIDUALLY, rather than as a member of a collective such as a race or a social class.

Who gives a rat's ass whether the "upper echelon" pays attention to anyone else's aspirations or not? And what makes you think the "upper echelon" expects ANYTHING of anyone else, and why does it matter if they do or not? And while you're at it, I'd like to see some proof that there are now less than half the resources needed to be successful than there were when the "upper echelons" became successful.

You need "proof"?? Try doing an on-site comparison of a classroom in Compton, CA with Beverly Hills High.

You're not even on the same page in any debate over class warfare. Your head it too far up your bejeweled butt.

Try just answering the fucking question and substantiating your own fucking assertion, instead of giving me that tired old "EVERYONE knows that, I should just be able to say it and have everyone agree with me, how DARE you question the received wisdom of my worldview" schtick. "Go look it up and prove me right" just means you have nothing to say.

If you CAN'T just answer the question, then I will assume that you have realized that you're full of shit, and are too cowardly to admit it.

Uh, what was the question, sweetie? All I remember are a bunch of quotes, many of which disproved your own points you attempted to make further on. A little confused are we?

 

[Foxfyre]

This idiot wingnut is agreeing with the other wingnut, even though the other wingnut said the exact opposite thing

Setting aside your ad hominem aspersions momentarily, I will first say that I think I am in complete agreement with the other member that you cut out of this discussion -- conveniently???? -- when you quoted the discussion. Was that so maybe other would think you actually understand what either of us are saying?

For one thing, I didn't cut anything out of the quotes. I posted everything that was automatically quoted when I hit the " button

For another, you said the exact opposite of the other poster. S/he said

Working hard, paying your debts faithfully, living within your means, saving money for the future etc. etc. is great. But unfortunately in today's system - you will find all those who did none of these things - got many of the same things you worked for - but got it on your dime.

You said

The guy who stays in school, doesn't abuse controlled substances, stays out of trouble with the law, educates himself, develops discipline, a work ethic, and builds a resume with references working at whatever McJobs he can get, learns a trade and prepares hmself to support himself and a family will almost always enjoy a good degree of success. But too often he will then be counted among the 'rich' who should be taxed at a higher rate, regulated more, and held in contempt for 'climbing over the backs of the poor' or some such nonsense.

You say that those who follows the rules, goes to school etc...succeeds. Those who don't become dependent on govt

S/he said that those who follows the rules, goes to school, etc...doesn't do any better than the person who didn't do those thing. Those who don't do those things do just as well as those that do.

And the only person here who is complaining about anyone "climbing over" anyone's back is the wingnut who thinks others are getting ahead on his dime. You know, the wingnut you think you're agreeing with while saying the complete opposite

Yes I agreed with the one you quoted to respond. Whether it was your doing or a malfunction of the quote function though, I was not arguing with that person but to another member who didn't seem to agree with my opinion. If you go back and look at the discussion in context, you might see that.

 

[sangha]

Setting aside your ad hominem aspersions momentarily, I will first say that I think I am in complete agreement with the other member that you cut out of this discussion -- conveniently???? -- when you quoted the discussion. Was that so maybe other would think you actually understand what either of us are saying?

For one thing, I didn't cut anything out of the quotes. I posted everything that was automatically quoted when I hit the " button

For another, you said the exact opposite of the other poster. S/he said


You said

The guy who stays in school, doesn't abuse controlled substances, stays out of trouble with the law, educates himself, develops discipline, a work ethic, and builds a resume with references working at whatever McJobs he can get, learns a trade and prepares hmself to support himself and a family will almost always enjoy a good degree of success. But too often he will then be counted among the 'rich' who should be taxed at a higher rate, regulated more, and held in contempt for 'climbing over the backs of the poor' or some such nonsense.

You say that those who follows the rules, goes to school etc...succeeds. Those who don't become dependent on govt

S/he said that those who follows the rules, goes to school, etc...doesn't do any better than the person who didn't do those thing. Those who don't do those things do just as well as those that do.

And the only person here who is complaining about anyone "climbing over" anyone's back is the wingnut who thinks others are getting ahead on his dime. You know, the wingnut you think you're agreeing with while saying the complete opposite

Yes I agreed with the one you quoted to respond. Whether it was your doing or a malfunction of the quote function though, I was not arguing with that person but to another member who didn't seem to agree with my opinion. If you go back and look at the discussion in context, you might see that.

You disagreed with both. The one you think you agree with thinks people who work hard, go to school and follow the rules get screwed. S/he's been posting the same self-pitying rant in multiple threads.

You think they succeed. S/he thinks they get screwed