Trickle Up Defies Gravity

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I'm sure 1200W is fine for a "vanilla" rig, but I'm a bit more vain and demand lights, bells, and whistles. I like pushing the envelope with creative shit too, like this build is a dual HTPC case designed to look like an 80s rack stereo. My last scratch mod was a "70s future" themed desktop build that had cathode lighting inside my custom braided cables

Wanna see what my rig looked like four years ago when I first had it built?
I've replaced the front mini-fans since then but nothing else has changed.
That ancient UPS was a custom built rig made for Disney in 1977, and it's still working.
I've replaced the monitors, too...and am getting a 50 inch 4K monitor this spring.

Like I said, it's 100% industrial/functional, not made for looks. It would be at home in a TV station.

 

[EverCurious]

I'm sure 1200W is fine for a "vanilla" rig, but I'm a bit more vain and demand lights, bells, and whistles. I like pushing the envelope with creative shit too, like this build is a dual HTPC case designed to look like an 80s rack stereo. My last scratch mod was a "70s future" themed desktop build that had cathode lighting inside my custom braided cables

Wanna see what my rig looked like four years ago when I first had it built?
I've replaced the front mini-fans since then but nothing else has changed.
That ancient UPS was a custom built rig made for Disney in 1977, and it's still working.
I've replaced the monitors, too...and am getting a 50 inch 4K monitor this spring.

Like I said, it's 100% industrial/functional, not made for looks. It would be at home in a TV station.

Sweet. I'm looking forward to my studio, which will be more aesthetically pleasing, but just as functional to my purposes.

I was thinking about it and ya know our conversation here can actually be brought back around to be somewhat OT because it touches on the true beauty of capitalism - the wheel of innovation.

I'll not presume to guess at what all your gear does, but it likely goes through a similar "capitalistic" cycle as my gaming GPUs.

First comes the expensive top-end GPU; in 2013/2014 it was Nvidia's Titan (CUDA platform) which met rave reviews and super high demand, Radeon responded with their R9-290x (HAWAII platform) which wasn't quite good enough so they rapidly had to release the R9-295, and ultimately the slightly improved R9-390 soon after to get even close to the Titan. Since then (I believe the R9-390 came out in 2016/2017) both companies have been busy releasing their budget CUDA and HAWAII platform cards (the 980 and the R7 series) for those who cannot/won't spend high end kind of money. So here we have healthy competition for big spenders (the wealthy) funding better technology for the masses (middle-class) and that also ultimately helps the "poor" (who can afford gaming computers) because used GPUs are actually a pretty big thing.

You can also see the "usefulness" of the "wealthy" who oft do the initial testing of products. For example Radeon's VEGA is a total bomb in the market for it's price ($800) the upper middle-class won't touch it (the 390 is far cheaper for the same performance) No doubt Radeon will shutter further production of VEGA, rather than making the mid range a low end cards. Meanwhile Nvidia blended their top end and mid-range cards, the TITAN and the GTX 980(? I think it was), to give the upper middle-class the Titan comparable $800 GTX 1080Ti (rather than downgrading the CUDA platform into their lower budget field, which Radeon's robust R7 series has pretty much corralled.)

And in the background of it all, Radeon put out the money for the failed VEGA; all the man hours, the research, the tweaking, the design, the marketing (which is usually ridiculous,) etc. and it was basically a loss - their risk isn't going to pay off this time. When businesses have more money to "play with" they feel less worried about taking risks like the VEGA (and honestly I wouldn't be surprised if the current accelerated economic uptick isn't to blame for their release timing - they know that American's are expecting to have some extra cash burning holes in their pockets and they were probably hoping to market the VEGA as a competition for the 1080Ti so they didn't lose the 390x buyer market.)

The same could be said for Intel's i9 CPUs. The i7 Haswell-E platform wasn't well as well received as they wanted/expected so they spit out the i7 Broadwell-E platform -- and now they're taking a pretty big risk with the i9 Skylake-X platform which requires an entirely new MB that is /not/ backward compatible to the i7's. As I recall they pulled this trick only to be slapped in the dick by the recession - they've only just gotten the stink off themselves in recent years, with Broadwell which got rave reviews.) [NOT even going to talk about Team Reds Threadripper platform because I'll start drooling on my keyboard again ]

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I've never been anti-capitalism, not in any way whatsoever.
That said, if society obsesses too much over whether or not THEIR capitalism is "PURE ENOUGH", the more predatory aspects will eventually begin to hurt the most vulnerable members OF that society.
And a society is judged by how they treat the most vulnerable.

I grew up during the postwar era, and the standard of living for the middle class AND lower working class back then was infinitely better.
Nothing in the last forty years can even remotely compare, even if you include the technological advances, because for the time period we lived in, technology was plenty advanced. We went to the Moon, and part of the reason we even HAVE consumer access to so much of the technology of today is because of research which was at least partly spurred by the Space Race to the Moon.
Even the video TIME CODE my editing software uses is a by-product of the Moon race, having been born from the Eeco On-Time Telemetry Management system which was developed for both NASA and the military.
We had filthy rich people back then too, no sensible person hated them for their wealth.

This country will never "turn socialist" even IF a couple of minor quasi-socialist tweaks are added to the economy. We already know this because that's what the economy was when I was growing up.
It made the economy stronger, more robust and healthier. That's what careful hybrid development is all about.
We're not trying to turn your peaches into dog food, we're trying to make it possible to grow nectarines.
You still get to keep your peaches, but now more people get to eat fruit because the hardier nectarine will survive harsher conditions.

 

[danielpalos]

I'm sure 1200W is fine for a "vanilla" rig, but I'm a bit more vain and demand lights, bells, and whistles. I like pushing the envelope with creative shit too, like this build is a dual HTPC case designed to look like an 80s rack stereo. My last scratch mod was a "70s future" themed desktop build that had cathode lighting inside my custom braided cables

Wanna see what my rig looked like four years ago when I first had it built?
I've replaced the front mini-fans since then but nothing else has changed.
That ancient UPS was a custom built rig made for Disney in 1977, and it's still working.
I've replaced the monitors, too...and am getting a 50 inch 4K monitor this spring.

Like I said, it's 100% industrial/functional, not made for looks. It would be at home in a TV station.

Sweet. I'm looking forward to my studio, which will be more aesthetically pleasing, but just as functional to my purposes.

I was thinking about it and ya know our conversation here can actually be brought back around to be somewhat OT because it touches on the true beauty of capitalism - the wheel of innovation.

I'll not presume to guess at what all your gear does, but it likely goes through a similar "capitalistic" cycle as my gaming GPUs.

First comes the expensive top-end GPU; in 2013/2014 it was Nvidia's Titan (CUDA platform) which met rave reviews and super high demand, Radeon responded with their R9-290x (HAWAII platform) which wasn't quite good enough so they rapidly had to release the R9-295, and ultimately the slightly improved R9-390 soon after to get even close to the Titan. Since then (I believe the R9-390 came out in 2016/2017) both companies have been busy releasing their budget CUDA and HAWAII platform cards (the 980 and the R7 series) for those who cannot/won't spend high end kind of money. So here we have healthy competition for big spenders (the wealthy) funding better technology for the masses (middle-class) and that also ultimately helps the "poor" (who can afford gaming computers) because used GPUs are actually a pretty big thing.

You can also see the "usefulness" of the "wealthy" who oft do the initial testing of products. For example Radeon's VEGA is a total bomb in the market for it's price ($800) the upper middle-class won't touch it (the 390 is far cheaper for the same performance) No doubt Radeon will shutter further production of VEGA, rather than making the mid range a low end cards. Meanwhile Nvidia blended their top end and mid-range cards, the TITAN and the GTX 980(? I think it was), to give the upper middle-class the Titan comparable $800 GTX 1080Ti (rather than downgrading the CUDA platform into their lower budget field, which Radeon's robust R7 series has pretty much corralled.)

And in the background of it all, Radeon put out the money for the failed VEGA; all the man hours, the research, the tweaking, the design, the marketing (which is usually ridiculous,) etc. and it was basically a loss - their risk isn't going to pay off this time. When businesses have more money to "play with" they feel less worried about taking risks like the VEGA (and honestly I wouldn't be surprised if the current accelerated economic uptick isn't to blame for their release timing - they know that American's are expecting to have some extra cash burning holes in their pockets and they were probably hoping to market the VEGA as a competition for the 1080Ti so they didn't lose the 390x buyer market.)

The same could be said for Intel's i9 CPUs. The i7 Haswell-E platform wasn't well as well received as they wanted/expected so they spit out the i7 Broadwell-E platform -- and now they're taking a pretty big risk with the i9 Skylake-X platform which requires an entirely new MB that is /not/ backward compatible to the i7's. As I recall they pulled this trick only to be slapped in the dick by the recession - they've only just gotten the stink off themselves in recent years, with Broadwell which got rave reviews.) [NOT even going to talk about Team Reds Threadripper platform because I'll start drooling on my keyboard again ]

With all the money in the world, I could solve all the worlds problems.

 

[jamesduncan]

After 304 posts trickle up wins as it should
If and only if.,.,.,.,.,
you use common sense to make your vote
Thank "G" common since still rules

 

[EverCurious]

I've never been anti-capitalism, not in any way whatsoever.
That said, if society obsesses too much over whether or not THEIR capitalism is "PURE ENOUGH", the more predatory aspects will eventually begin to hurt the most vulnerable members OF that society.
And a society is judged by how they treat the most vulnerable.

I grew up during the postwar era, and the standard of living for the middle class AND lower working class back then was infinitely better.
Nothing in the last forty years can even remotely compare, even if you include the technological advances, because for the time period we lived in, technology was plenty advanced. We went to the Moon, and part of the reason we even HAVE consumer access to so much of the technology of today is because of research which was at least partly spurred by the Space Race to the Moon.
Even the video TIME CODE my editing software uses is a by-product of the Moon race, having been born from the Eeco On-Time Telemetry Management system which was developed for both NASA and the military.
We had filthy rich people back then too, no sensible person hated them for their wealth.

This country will never "turn socialist" even IF a couple of minor quasi-socialist tweaks are added to the economy. We already know this because that's what the economy was when I was growing up.
It made the economy stronger, more robust and healthier. That's what careful hybrid development is all about.
We're not trying to turn your peaches into dog food, we're trying to make it possible to grow nectarines.
You still get to keep your peaches, but now more people get to eat fruit because the hardier nectarine will survive harsher conditions.

Nice analogy, except the ideas being posed effectively cut down the peach tree. You're not planting "hardier" nectarines, you're planing ******* violets that can't handle the "weather" [aka real life.]

So this is a bit of a wall-of-text and normally I'd just leave it at the above statement because the majority of the folks on here aren't actually all that interested in long discussions, but I figure what the ****, I type almost 80WPM so here ya go:

I call BS on your idea that the "quality" of life was better 40 years ago, you only feel that way because of bullshit "left-leaning" "progressive" propaganda that says you're life "should" be /much better/ than it is [with less work on your part], rather than the "same" or "a bit better" than it was back then...

The only reason it was "better" back in the 70s generation is because the American family values of "Christian morals" were still highly respected and followed by the majority across the nation. That's a luxury I continue to have up here in Alaska, which to this day is "Christian" by a very wide margin. It's not so much the religion itself, I'm actually at odds with the religious right, but the principles and philosophies that it teaches. The loss, and rejection, of those underpins of traditional "conservative" ideals are a /very/ important reason as to why we're in the state we are today; responsibility being key among them. It's like a game of Jenga, you can only pull out so many of the key values before the entire system starts to collapse, as we're seeing in America lately. Handing out free money, no matter what the good intentions are/were, was the "perfect storm" for exactly what we have today; self-entitled brats with zero responsibility who become more and more enamored to big government taking care of them and more and more envious and hateful of the wealthy/those who have more/better lives than they do - regardless of the circumstance that brought those folks into that success. That is the "hateful" platform of the left these days - and it's why I've lost nearly all respect for the D's, though thank goodness a bunch of "classical liberals" see that their party has been hijacked and are abandoning that sinking ship to become independents (which I personally feel is the most "proper" political affiliation today, all things considered.)

While there is no question that I'd very much like for there to be no poor in America, or even the world, that's just never going to happen. And it's a legitimately impossible goal when "the powers that be" [D's] continue to move the goal posts of what is 'poor.' Class warfare, OWS, income inequality, the whole 99% vs 1% is nothing but a bunch of bullshit drummed up by the D's to get votes because they ran out of legit "problems" to fight the R's with. {And don't get me wrong, the R's are just as guilty of "selling-out" to drum up votes, but their "sell-outs" have generally not been as "harmful" to as many folks. As a quick example, when the R's sold out to religious theocrat's [yes, that's an invented word, deal with it grammar nazis,] they "harmed" like 30% of the nation, when the D's sold out to "ID politics" they "harmed" 100% of the nation - and frankly the D's latest "sell out" to socialists and communists will harm the entire ******* world.}

When /you/ are talking about, the 70s (mid to late, maybe early 80s - but you also have to consider the earlier generation, the 60s, because that's the parents.) Back in the 70s and 80s people were hot for the capitalist American dream. Listen to the music of the time, watch the TV shows, you can see the blatant difference in "social ideology" and "social goals" between then and now. People back then wanted to get rich, they wanted to be successful, they wanted to be wealthy - that's a life goal that has some key built in benefits; responsibility first and foremost, but also learning from mistakes and failures, taking educated risks - which brought us innovations like cellphones, like Windows, like the internet, that in turn brought about the dot.com boom that /you/ are seeing and citing as "better" for the "less advantaged" than today. It wasn't the technology, you're correct, it was the way their /parents/ lived and believed that brought it all. And the internet itself brought up the entire world, because it opened up global trade in a way the world has never seen - on the one hand it helped alleviate poverty all across the world, on the other it brought foreign markets into America like we've never seen, nor coped with before - which again is a double sided blade in itself; it brought cheaper technologically advanced products, but that's at the cost of {individual} American's massive economic prowess [it was basically a bit of an equalizer as now American's money ultimately ends up in foreign nations as American's are buying products that had, through say the early 80s, largely been sold to them by mostly American companies, thus the "American" cash stayed mostly in "America's" economy.]

I figure it was mostly the 90s [at the risk of sounding a bit conspiracy theory, I actually suspect it was soviet propaganda/subversion,] the socialistic mentality has taken over the nation and stomped out that drive for success that always drove, and kept, America on the top prior to the 80s, and worse the communistic idea that the rich /stole/ from the workers, inherently joins forces, leading to young folks not wanting to be "rich" themselves, which means they don't have the /drive/ to succeed. The children of hot blooded, driven capitalists grew up in the luxury of their parents success; parents who had spent 30-60 years working their asses off to provide a "better" life for their kids. Their kids grew up with health insurance, yearly vacations, new cars, new phones, new computers, new walkmans/stereos, etc., [and we're talking about top of the line shit too because the "stuff" before computers is worlds below "modern" stuff and the speed of advancement with computer demand back then made even "the latest and greatest" cheap and available for the masses in supersonic time - speeds never seen before frankly] and the kids, wanted that "life style" of "the best of the best" to continue even after they moved out on their own (which back then was in the 16-20 range typically) - that's why hundreds of thousands, millions even, of idiots in their 30s are up to their ears in debt trying to "keep up" with the speed of tech advancement. This is an affliction/sickness you often see in "new middle-class" folks which I'll touch on later, but, do you remember the adage "keeping up with the Jones'?" How many people did you know who were "house poor," or who went bankrupt because they "couldn't" keep up, or how about all those sots who "made it big" then lost it all in dumb as **** ways {coke, gambling, etc.} Unfortunately, and sadly typically, the "new rich" and even the "new" upper and middle class of the 80s/90s, unlike the "wealthy elite" throughout pretty much time immortal, either didn't teach their kids the lessons /needed/ to be financially successful [99% of the time they foolishly presumed that the supersonic upward movement of the economy would continue forever], or perhaps it was the kids themselves [lured by aforementioned socialistic propaganda] simply blew off those lessons.

For example, my parents were wealthy, my grandparents were wealthy, my family has had generations to learn the basic lessons necessary for success (aka how to get, and /stay/, rich.) Contrary to popular belief of the left, my parents actually insisted that /I/ had to be able to "make it" on my own. They taught me the basics, the principles, the ideological drive for success, but also let me fail, HARD even. Example, they let me buy a two-wheel drive long bed truck for example [note I live in Alaska], which I promptly got stuck in a few snow banks and ditches, and rather quickly learned how to /not ******* do that/ because they wouldn't come dig me out either. My father made me change the tires every damn season (studs and summer), by myself, with a hand jack that literally weighed more than I did, he made me change my oil and transmission fluid, he made me do everything. And yea, at the time I hated it, I hated him because he never let my mom help me (call a tow truck to unstuck me, or take the truck to the mechanic and tire companies to change the shit - BUT he did all that because it was stuff that /he/ didn't learn how to do and he wanted to make sure that /I/ would be able to, and this is the key bit in my mind, if I couldn't afford to pay others to do it for me... That's a lesson that the "steady wealthy" teach their kids, that the "new rich" of the 70-80s [and even today] did no. It's a kind of "mental insurance" for when shit hits the fan, so you don't end up completely helpless and reliant upon others - aka you don't /need/ the government to help you because you learned to dig yourself out of that ditch.

The lefts biggest problem, prior to this recent turn to flat out communism and socialism, the "classical liberals" and even those who maybe just wanted a little democratic socialism in the form of Social Security and moderate welfare to help the elderly and disabled, was always staying power. D's just don't have anything BUT "welfare" to offer the majority of the nation (again LGBT issue stuff only really touches like 30% of the population, and that includes non-LGBT "supporters" and shit.) I think that's why they were so easily over-run by socialists, they've ***** footed around with other ideas; global warming... I mean climate change, illegal immigration acceptance, refugees, etc. but /none/ of those issues really "helps" the entire nation; they're little more than pet projects taken in purely to get votes - and if you /really/ examine the quagmire of conflicting "core" belief principles across the D spectrum, there is hypocrisy in nearly every single "platform" they support; it's laughable if you actually take a step back and think about it. (I could give some examples, but then I just come off as D-bashing and that's not my intention here. I actually like some of the D's classical changes; SSM was a life long fight for me up here, I'm a modern abolitionist [it's why I'm apposed to Islam in it's "current state"], I'm even on-board with a good deal of second-wave feminism [sexual equality, racial equality as a principle, though not in D's "method of achievement"], and many other "aspects" at their "core" - aka classical liberal ideals.)

I kind of don't blame the D's.... Okay well for the older "sell outs," this latest full-in communism/socialism thing is totally wrong and dangerous as **** so I condemn them for basically selling out American's future's and success just to get more political clout/power for their stupid party, but that's really just over the past decade [thanks globalists,] and it's only the past couple years that I stopped respecting their "side" and "position" and "intentions." I mean the D party's "remake" with JFK was all about "competing" with the R's wildly successful endorsement of raw capitalism; and if we're being completely honest here, D's only tend to win when there's a "hic-up" in the stock market that causes the economy to falter; the recession in 1958 brought in JFK in 1961, the oil crisis in 1973 [exasperated/prolonged by high gas prices during the buildup of the Iranian revolution] brought in Carter in 1977, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990 caused the "shell shock" recession regarding oil prices and brought in Clinton in 1993, and of course the sub-prime mortgage crisis in 2007 brought in Obama. Recessions and market hic-ups dredge up all the "socialist" types to get to the booths and vote for "promised" handouts - if this core D voting block is making "enough" to pay their bills they just don't vote in any numbers, that's just the way it's been - so yea, the R's are dead right, "it's the economy stupid" - also why the D's are /terrified/ of Donald J. Trump, and unfortunately, consequently, why D's are opposed to American success...

How do you compete with something as glorious and beneficial to nearly 100% of the world population? The /only/ way is through class warfare, racial divide, and, essentially, hate and fear. The exact same reasons that I am not a R ironically; because they play the same stupid "hate and fear" games - though perhaps not as "harmful" to the world population because frankly they suck at it. They can't even get the majority of Christian's to hate gays their propaganda game is so weak - and more importantly, the vast majority of "R's" deeply believe in individual freedom, which includes allowing some folks to face "eternal damnation." Of course that's another factor in the D's losing their mind this year, Trump is, like the majority of Christian's of my generation and the one prior, "gay friendly" - which means they can't play the "R's hate gays" card anymore, their "whites hate blacks" card was too over played to be useful, their "Nazi's" card is laughable, and really all they have is "racist by proxy" a la if you're for a border wall or anti-illegal immigration "you're racist," which they try very, very hard to tie into "white supremacy," but that leaks water like a sieve due to the [punny] "elephant in the room" - it's about /national security/ not /race/ and all but the most partisan know it... Just like global warming... climate change failed because the science of "imminent catastrophe" is bullshit. They totally over-played their hand on that, they could have milked the **** out of it but they're impatient and reckless, yet another lesson D's and "new rich" parents don't pass down to their kids. Then what, transgender men in the little girls room; what a foolish ******* idea that was. So what's left, oh yeah, sexist - because the man who was worlds ahead of his peers on sexual equality, who put a woman in charge of half his financial empire, is totally a sexist... buahaha

... and I think I've typed for far too long so I'm just going to stop there.

 

[TheDude]

TRICKLE UP DEFIES GRAVITY

Income distribution

{1} 1,365,856 earn more than $388,000 a year

{2} 68,292,856 earn less than $70,000 a year

https://tinyurl.com/yaw8yy3g


TRICKLE DOWN
If the IRS gave tax bracket {1} a $1,000 tax break they in turn could add $13,665,856,000 to the economy but the rich will not add it to the economy, they will put it in the bank to do nothing


TRICKLE UP
If the IRS gave tax bracket {2} a $1,000 tax break they in turn could add $68,292,856,000 to the economy because they will spend it, buying new things from houses to shoes to a new car which adds to the economy making more shoes, the car to a new house.

Now ask yourself; which is best for our economy

( ) Trickle down

( ) Trickle up

I'm not an educated person, but I did ace some economics. Both ends are important to both ends. The best meets in the middle.

I don't see how a person can deny the importance of trickle down. If you strangle a business with taxes then nothing but entitlements survive, and that's only for the short term. Soon everyone suffers.

A good government finds the middle ground, and that middle ground fluctuates. Reaganomics allowed for expansion, which allowed Clinton to increase taxes. You cannot place a consistently have high tax on business, especially with globalization and technology. They should adjust tax as business and economy allows for it. Sadly, we cannot survive without business, but we can without the lazy and poor. Business takes priority.

Trickle up is a myth. You cannot produce something from nothing. Welfare is the bottom and violates natural law, because it's an effect without action.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I've never been anti-capitalism, not in any way whatsoever.
That said, if society obsesses too much over whether or not THEIR capitalism is "PURE ENOUGH", the more predatory aspects will eventually begin to hurt the most vulnerable members OF that society.
And a society is judged by how they treat the most vulnerable.

I grew up during the postwar era, and the standard of living for the middle class AND lower working class back then was infinitely better.
Nothing in the last forty years can even remotely compare, even if you include the technological advances, because for the time period we lived in, technology was plenty advanced. We went to the Moon, and part of the reason we even HAVE consumer access to so much of the technology of today is because of research which was at least partly spurred by the Space Race to the Moon.
Even the video TIME CODE my editing software uses is a by-product of the Moon race, having been born from the Eeco On-Time Telemetry Management system which was developed for both NASA and the military.
We had filthy rich people back then too, no sensible person hated them for their wealth.

This country will never "turn socialist" even IF a couple of minor quasi-socialist tweaks are added to the economy. We already know this because that's what the economy was when I was growing up.
It made the economy stronger, more robust and healthier. That's what careful hybrid development is all about.
We're not trying to turn your peaches into dog food, we're trying to make it possible to grow nectarines.
You still get to keep your peaches, but now more people get to eat fruit because the hardier nectarine will survive harsher conditions.

Nice analogy, except the ideas being posed effectively cut down the peach tree. You're not planting "hardier" nectarines, you're planing ******* violets that can't handle the "weather" [aka real life.]

So this is a bit of a wall-of-text and normally I'd just leave it at the above statement because the majority of the folks on here aren't actually all that interested in long discussions, but I figure what the ****, I type almost 80WPM so here ya go:

I call BS on your idea that the "quality" of life was better 40 years ago, you only feel that way because of bullshit "left-leaning" "progressive" propaganda that says you're life "should" be /much better/ than it is [with less work on your part], rather than the "same" or "a bit better" than it was back then...

The only reason it was "better" back in the 70s generation is because the American family values of "Christian morals" were still highly respected and followed by the majority across the nation. That's a luxury I continue to have up here in Alaska, which to this day is "Christian" by a very wide margin. It's not so much the religion itself, I'm actually at odds with the religious right, but the principles and philosophies that it teaches. The loss, and rejection, of those underpins of traditional "conservative" ideals are a /very/ important reason as to why we're in the state we are today; responsibility being key among them. It's like a game of Jenga, you can only pull out so many of the key values before the entire system starts to collapse, as we're seeing in America lately. Handing out free money, no matter what the good intentions are/were, was the "perfect storm" for exactly what we have today; self-entitled brats with zero responsibility who become more and more enamored to big government taking care of them and more and more envious and hateful of the wealthy/those who have more/better lives than they do - regardless of the circumstance that brought those folks into that success. That is the "hateful" platform of the left these days - and it's why I've lost nearly all respect for the D's, though thank goodness a bunch of "classical liberals" see that their party has been hijacked and are abandoning that sinking ship to become independents (which I personally feel is the most "proper" political affiliation today, all things considered.)

While there is no question that I'd very much like for there to be no poor in America, or even the world, that's just never going to happen. And it's a legitimately impossible goal when "the powers that be" [D's] continue to move the goal posts of what is 'poor.' Class warfare, OWS, income inequality, the whole 99% vs 1% is nothing but a bunch of bullshit drummed up by the D's to get votes because they ran out of legit "problems" to fight the R's with. {And don't get me wrong, the R's are just as guilty of "selling-out" to drum up votes, but their "sell-outs" have generally not been as "harmful" to as many folks. As a quick example, when the R's sold out to religious theocrat's [yes, that's an invented word, deal with it grammar nazis,] they "harmed" like 30% of the nation, when the D's sold out to "ID politics" they "harmed" 100% of the nation - and frankly the D's latest "sell out" to socialists and communists will harm the entire ******* world.}

When /you/ are talking about, the 70s (mid to late, maybe early 80s - but you also have to consider the earlier generation, the 60s, because that's the parents.) Back in the 70s and 80s people were hot for the capitalist American dream. Listen to the music of the time, watch the TV shows, you can see the blatant difference in "social ideology" and "social goals" between then and now. People back then wanted to get rich, they wanted to be successful, they wanted to be wealthy - that's a life goal that has some key built in benefits; responsibility first and foremost, but also learning from mistakes and failures, taking educated risks - which brought us innovations like cellphones, like Windows, like the internet, that in turn brought about the dot.com boom that /you/ are seeing and citing as "better" for the "less advantaged" than today. It wasn't the technology, you're correct, it was the way their /parents/ lived and believed that brought it all. And the internet itself brought up the entire world, because it opened up global trade in a way the world has never seen - on the one hand it helped alleviate poverty all across the world, on the other it brought foreign markets into America like we've never seen, nor coped with before - which again is a double sided blade in itself; it brought cheaper technologically advanced products, but that's at the cost of {individual} American's massive economic prowess [it was basically a bit of an equalizer as now American's money ultimately ends up in foreign nations as American's are buying products that had, through say the early 80s, largely been sold to them by mostly American companies, thus the "American" cash stayed mostly in "America's" economy.]

I figure it was mostly the 90s [at the risk of sounding a bit conspiracy theory, I actually suspect it was soviet propaganda/subversion,] the socialistic mentality has taken over the nation and stomped out that drive for success that always drove, and kept, America on the top prior to the 80s, and worse the communistic idea that the rich /stole/ from the workers, inherently joins forces, leading to young folks not wanting to be "rich" themselves, which means they don't have the /drive/ to succeed. The children of hot blooded, driven capitalists grew up in the luxury of their parents success; parents who had spent 30-60 years working their asses off to provide a "better" life for their kids. Their kids grew up with health insurance, yearly vacations, new cars, new phones, new computers, new walkmans/stereos, etc., [and we're talking about top of the line shit too because the "stuff" before computers is worlds below "modern" stuff and the speed of advancement with computer demand back then made even "the latest and greatest" cheap and available for the masses in supersonic time - speeds never seen before frankly] and the kids, wanted that "life style" of "the best of the best" to continue even after they moved out on their own (which back then was in the 16-20 range typically) - that's why hundreds of thousands, millions even, of idiots in their 30s are up to their ears in debt trying to "keep up" with the speed of tech advancement. This is an affliction/sickness you often see in "new middle-class" folks which I'll touch on later, but, do you remember the adage "keeping up with the Jones'?" How many people did you know who were "house poor," or who went bankrupt because they "couldn't" keep up, or how about all those sots who "made it big" then lost it all in dumb as **** ways {coke, gambling, etc.} Unfortunately, and sadly typically, the "new rich" and even the "new" upper and middle class of the 80s/90s, unlike the "wealthy elite" throughout pretty much time immortal, either didn't teach their kids the lessons /needed/ to be financially successful [99% of the time they foolishly presumed that the supersonic upward movement of the economy would continue forever], or perhaps it was the kids themselves [lured by aforementioned socialistic propaganda] simply blew off those lessons.

For example, my parents were wealthy, my grandparents were wealthy, my family has had generations to learn the basic lessons necessary for success (aka how to get, and /stay/, rich.) Contrary to popular belief of the left, my parents actually insisted that /I/ had to be able to "make it" on my own. They taught me the basics, the principles, the ideological drive for success, but also let me fail, HARD even. Example, they let me buy a two-wheel drive long bed truck for example [note I live in Alaska], which I promptly got stuck in a few snow banks and ditches, and rather quickly learned how to /not ******* do that/ because they wouldn't come dig me out either. My father made me change the tires every damn season (studs and summer), by myself, with a hand jack that literally weighed more than I did, he made me change my oil and transmission fluid, he made me do everything. And yea, at the time I hated it, I hated him because he never let my mom help me (call a tow truck to unstuck me, or take the truck to the mechanic and tire companies to change the shit - BUT he did all that because it was stuff that /he/ didn't learn how to do and he wanted to make sure that /I/ would be able to, and this is the key bit in my mind, if I couldn't afford to pay others to do it for me... That's a lesson that the "steady wealthy" teach their kids, that the "new rich" of the 70-80s [and even today] did no. It's a kind of "mental insurance" for when shit hits the fan, so you don't end up completely helpless and reliant upon others - aka you don't /need/ the government to help you because you learned to dig yourself out of that ditch.

The lefts biggest problem, prior to this recent turn to flat out communism and socialism, the "classical liberals" and even those who maybe just wanted a little democratic socialism in the form of Social Security and moderate welfare to help the elderly and disabled, was always staying power. D's just don't have anything BUT "welfare" to offer the majority of the nation (again LGBT issue stuff only really touches like 30% of the population, and that includes non-LGBT "supporters" and shit.) I think that's why they were so easily over-run by socialists, they've ***** footed around with other ideas; global warming... I mean climate change, illegal immigration acceptance, refugees, etc. but /none/ of those issues really "helps" the entire nation; they're little more than pet projects taken in purely to get votes - and if you /really/ examine the quagmire of conflicting "core" belief principles across the D spectrum, there is hypocrisy in nearly every single "platform" they support; it's laughable if you actually take a step back and think about it. (I could give some examples, but then I just come off as D-bashing and that's not my intention here. I actually like some of the D's classical changes; SSM was a life long fight for me up here, I'm a modern abolitionist [it's why I'm apposed to Islam in it's "current state"], I'm even on-board with a good deal of second-wave feminism [sexual equality, racial equality as a principle, though not in D's "method of achievement"], and many other "aspects" at their "core" - aka classical liberal ideals.)

I kind of don't blame the D's.... Okay well for the older "sell outs," this latest full-in communism/socialism thing is totally wrong and dangerous as **** so I condemn them for basically selling out American's future's and success just to get more political clout/power for their stupid party, but that's really just over the past decade [thanks globalists,] and it's only the past couple years that I stopped respecting their "side" and "position" and "intentions." I mean the D party's "remake" with JFK was all about "competing" with the R's wildly successful endorsement of raw capitalism; and if we're being completely honest here, D's only tend to win when there's a "hic-up" in the stock market that causes the economy to falter; the recession in 1958 brought in JFK in 1961, the oil crisis in 1973 [exasperated/prolonged by high gas prices during the buildup of the Iranian revolution] brought in Carter in 1977, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990 caused the "shell shock" recession regarding oil prices and brought in Clinton in 1993, and of course the sub-prime mortgage crisis in 2007 brought in Obama. Recessions and market hic-ups dredge up all the "socialist" types to get to the booths and vote for "promised" handouts - if this core D voting block is making "enough" to pay their bills they just don't vote in any numbers, that's just the way it's been - so yea, the R's are dead right, "it's the economy stupid" - also why the D's are /terrified/ of Donald J. Trump, and unfortunately, consequently, why D's are opposed to American success...

How do you compete with something as glorious and beneficial to nearly 100% of the world population? The /only/ way is through class warfare, racial divide, and, essentially, hate and fear. The exact same reasons that I am not a R ironically; because they play the same stupid "hate and fear" games - though perhaps not as "harmful" to the world population because frankly they suck at it. They can't even get the majority of Christian's to hate gays their propaganda game is so weak - and more importantly, the vast majority of "R's" deeply believe in individual freedom, which includes allowing some folks to face "eternal damnation." Of course that's another factor in the D's losing their mind this year, Trump is, like the majority of Christian's of my generation and the one prior, "gay friendly" - which means they can't play the "R's hate gays" card anymore, their "whites hate blacks" card was too over played to be useful, their "Nazi's" card is laughable, and really all they have is "racist by proxy" a la if you're for a border wall or anti-illegal immigration "you're racist," which they try very, very hard to tie into "white supremacy," but that leaks water like a sieve due to the [punny] "elephant in the room" - it's about /national security/ not /race/ and all but the most partisan know it... Just like global warming... climate change failed because the science of "imminent catastrophe" is bullshit. They totally over-played their hand on that, they could have milked the **** out of it but they're impatient and reckless, yet another lesson D's and "new rich" parents don't pass down to their kids. Then what, transgender men in the little girls room; what a foolish ******* idea that was. So what's left, oh yeah, sexist - because the man who was worlds ahead of his peers on sexual equality, who put a woman in charge of half his financial empire, is totally a sexist... buahaha

... and I think I've typed for far too long so I'm just going to stop there.

And you got all that from changing your own tires in Alaska?
You're not old enough to remember what life was like forty years ago.
I can tell by your writing style, which points to your level of education.
90% of what you just wrote, was "rote", distilled from propaganda.
No time to tear it apart, and it deserves tearing apart, one small chunk at a time.
I'll take a shot at it when things slow down over here.

 

[danielpalos]

TRICKLE UP DEFIES GRAVITY

Income distribution

{1} 1,365,856 earn more than $388,000 a year

{2} 68,292,856 earn less than $70,000 a year

https://tinyurl.com/yaw8yy3g


TRICKLE DOWN
If the IRS gave tax bracket {1} a $1,000 tax break they in turn could add $13,665,856,000 to the economy but the rich will not add it to the economy, they will put it in the bank to do nothing


TRICKLE UP
If the IRS gave tax bracket {2} a $1,000 tax break they in turn could add $68,292,856,000 to the economy because they will spend it, buying new things from houses to shoes to a new car which adds to the economy making more shoes, the car to a new house.

Now ask yourself; which is best for our economy

( ) Trickle down

( ) Trickle up

I'm not an educated person, but I did ace some economics. Both ends are important to both ends. The best meets in the middle.

I don't see how a person can deny the importance of trickle down. If you strangle a business with taxes then nothing but entitlements survive, and that's only for the short term. Soon everyone suffers.

A good government finds the middle ground, and that middle ground fluctuates. Reaganomics allowed for expansion, which allowed Clinton to increase taxes. You cannot place a consistently have high tax on business, especially with globalization and technology. They should adjust tax as business and economy allows for it. Sadly, we cannot survive without business, but we can without the lazy and poor. Business takes priority.

Trickle up is a myth. You cannot produce something from nothing. Welfare is the bottom and violates natural law, because it's an effect without action.

Healthcare reform and a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage!

It will create more demand.

 

[EverCurious]

I've never been anti-capitalism, not in any way whatsoever.
That said, if society obsesses too much over whether or not THEIR capitalism is "PURE ENOUGH", the more predatory aspects will eventually begin to hurt the most vulnerable members OF that society.
And a society is judged by how they treat the most vulnerable.

I grew up during the postwar era, and the standard of living for the middle class AND lower working class back then was infinitely better.
Nothing in the last forty years can even remotely compare, even if you include the technological advances, because for the time period we lived in, technology was plenty advanced. We went to the Moon, and part of the reason we even HAVE consumer access to so much of the technology of today is because of research which was at least partly spurred by the Space Race to the Moon.
Even the video TIME CODE my editing software uses is a by-product of the Moon race, having been born from the Eeco On-Time Telemetry Management system which was developed for both NASA and the military.
We had filthy rich people back then too, no sensible person hated them for their wealth.

This country will never "turn socialist" even IF a couple of minor quasi-socialist tweaks are added to the economy. We already know this because that's what the economy was when I was growing up.
It made the economy stronger, more robust and healthier. That's what careful hybrid development is all about.
We're not trying to turn your peaches into dog food, we're trying to make it possible to grow nectarines.
You still get to keep your peaches, but now more people get to eat fruit because the hardier nectarine will survive harsher conditions.

Nice analogy, except the ideas being posed effectively cut down the peach tree. You're not planting "hardier" nectarines, you're planing ******* violets that can't handle the "weather" [aka real life.]

So this is a bit of a wall-of-text and normally I'd just leave it at the above statement because the majority of the folks on here aren't actually all that interested in long discussions, but I figure what the ****, I type almost 80WPM so here ya go:

I call BS on your idea that the "quality" of life was better 40 years ago, you only feel that way because of bullshit "left-leaning" "progressive" propaganda that says you're life "should" be /much better/ than it is [with less work on your part], rather than the "same" or "a bit better" than it was back then...

The only reason it was "better" back in the 70s generation is because the American family values of "Christian morals" were still highly respected and followed by the majority across the nation. That's a luxury I continue to have up here in Alaska, which to this day is "Christian" by a very wide margin. It's not so much the religion itself, I'm actually at odds with the religious right, but the principles and philosophies that it teaches. The loss, and rejection, of those underpins of traditional "conservative" ideals are a /very/ important reason as to why we're in the state we are today; responsibility being key among them. It's like a game of Jenga, you can only pull out so many of the key values before the entire system starts to collapse, as we're seeing in America lately. Handing out free money, no matter what the good intentions are/were, was the "perfect storm" for exactly what we have today; self-entitled brats with zero responsibility who become more and more enamored to big government taking care of them and more and more envious and hateful of the wealthy/those who have more/better lives than they do - regardless of the circumstance that brought those folks into that success. That is the "hateful" platform of the left these days - and it's why I've lost nearly all respect for the D's, though thank goodness a bunch of "classical liberals" see that their party has been hijacked and are abandoning that sinking ship to become independents (which I personally feel is the most "proper" political affiliation today, all things considered.)

While there is no question that I'd very much like for there to be no poor in America, or even the world, that's just never going to happen. And it's a legitimately impossible goal when "the powers that be" [D's] continue to move the goal posts of what is 'poor.' Class warfare, OWS, income inequality, the whole 99% vs 1% is nothing but a bunch of bullshit drummed up by the D's to get votes because they ran out of legit "problems" to fight the R's with. {And don't get me wrong, the R's are just as guilty of "selling-out" to drum up votes, but their "sell-outs" have generally not been as "harmful" to as many folks. As a quick example, when the R's sold out to religious theocrat's [yes, that's an invented word, deal with it grammar nazis,] they "harmed" like 30% of the nation, when the D's sold out to "ID politics" they "harmed" 100% of the nation - and frankly the D's latest "sell out" to socialists and communists will harm the entire ******* world.}

When /you/ are talking about, the 70s (mid to late, maybe early 80s - but you also have to consider the earlier generation, the 60s, because that's the parents.) Back in the 70s and 80s people were hot for the capitalist American dream. Listen to the music of the time, watch the TV shows, you can see the blatant difference in "social ideology" and "social goals" between then and now. People back then wanted to get rich, they wanted to be successful, they wanted to be wealthy - that's a life goal that has some key built in benefits; responsibility first and foremost, but also learning from mistakes and failures, taking educated risks - which brought us innovations like cellphones, like Windows, like the internet, that in turn brought about the dot.com boom that /you/ are seeing and citing as "better" for the "less advantaged" than today. It wasn't the technology, you're correct, it was the way their /parents/ lived and believed that brought it all. And the internet itself brought up the entire world, because it opened up global trade in a way the world has never seen - on the one hand it helped alleviate poverty all across the world, on the other it brought foreign markets into America like we've never seen, nor coped with before - which again is a double sided blade in itself; it brought cheaper technologically advanced products, but that's at the cost of {individual} American's massive economic prowess [it was basically a bit of an equalizer as now American's money ultimately ends up in foreign nations as American's are buying products that had, through say the early 80s, largely been sold to them by mostly American companies, thus the "American" cash stayed mostly in "America's" economy.]

I figure it was mostly the 90s [at the risk of sounding a bit conspiracy theory, I actually suspect it was soviet propaganda/subversion,] the socialistic mentality has taken over the nation and stomped out that drive for success that always drove, and kept, America on the top prior to the 80s, and worse the communistic idea that the rich /stole/ from the workers, inherently joins forces, leading to young folks not wanting to be "rich" themselves, which means they don't have the /drive/ to succeed. The children of hot blooded, driven capitalists grew up in the luxury of their parents success; parents who had spent 30-60 years working their asses off to provide a "better" life for their kids. Their kids grew up with health insurance, yearly vacations, new cars, new phones, new computers, new walkmans/stereos, etc., [and we're talking about top of the line shit too because the "stuff" before computers is worlds below "modern" stuff and the speed of advancement with computer demand back then made even "the latest and greatest" cheap and available for the masses in supersonic time - speeds never seen before frankly] and the kids, wanted that "life style" of "the best of the best" to continue even after they moved out on their own (which back then was in the 16-20 range typically) - that's why hundreds of thousands, millions even, of idiots in their 30s are up to their ears in debt trying to "keep up" with the speed of tech advancement. This is an affliction/sickness you often see in "new middle-class" folks which I'll touch on later, but, do you remember the adage "keeping up with the Jones'?" How many people did you know who were "house poor," or who went bankrupt because they "couldn't" keep up, or how about all those sots who "made it big" then lost it all in dumb as **** ways {coke, gambling, etc.} Unfortunately, and sadly typically, the "new rich" and even the "new" upper and middle class of the 80s/90s, unlike the "wealthy elite" throughout pretty much time immortal, either didn't teach their kids the lessons /needed/ to be financially successful [99% of the time they foolishly presumed that the supersonic upward movement of the economy would continue forever], or perhaps it was the kids themselves [lured by aforementioned socialistic propaganda] simply blew off those lessons.

For example, my parents were wealthy, my grandparents were wealthy, my family has had generations to learn the basic lessons necessary for success (aka how to get, and /stay/, rich.) Contrary to popular belief of the left, my parents actually insisted that /I/ had to be able to "make it" on my own. They taught me the basics, the principles, the ideological drive for success, but also let me fail, HARD even. Example, they let me buy a two-wheel drive long bed truck for example [note I live in Alaska], which I promptly got stuck in a few snow banks and ditches, and rather quickly learned how to /not ******* do that/ because they wouldn't come dig me out either. My father made me change the tires every damn season (studs and summer), by myself, with a hand jack that literally weighed more than I did, he made me change my oil and transmission fluid, he made me do everything. And yea, at the time I hated it, I hated him because he never let my mom help me (call a tow truck to unstuck me, or take the truck to the mechanic and tire companies to change the shit - BUT he did all that because it was stuff that /he/ didn't learn how to do and he wanted to make sure that /I/ would be able to, and this is the key bit in my mind, if I couldn't afford to pay others to do it for me... That's a lesson that the "steady wealthy" teach their kids, that the "new rich" of the 70-80s [and even today] did no. It's a kind of "mental insurance" for when shit hits the fan, so you don't end up completely helpless and reliant upon others - aka you don't /need/ the government to help you because you learned to dig yourself out of that ditch.

The lefts biggest problem, prior to this recent turn to flat out communism and socialism, the "classical liberals" and even those who maybe just wanted a little democratic socialism in the form of Social Security and moderate welfare to help the elderly and disabled, was always staying power. D's just don't have anything BUT "welfare" to offer the majority of the nation (again LGBT issue stuff only really touches like 30% of the population, and that includes non-LGBT "supporters" and shit.) I think that's why they were so easily over-run by socialists, they've ***** footed around with other ideas; global warming... I mean climate change, illegal immigration acceptance, refugees, etc. but /none/ of those issues really "helps" the entire nation; they're little more than pet projects taken in purely to get votes - and if you /really/ examine the quagmire of conflicting "core" belief principles across the D spectrum, there is hypocrisy in nearly every single "platform" they support; it's laughable if you actually take a step back and think about it. (I could give some examples, but then I just come off as D-bashing and that's not my intention here. I actually like some of the D's classical changes; SSM was a life long fight for me up here, I'm a modern abolitionist [it's why I'm apposed to Islam in it's "current state"], I'm even on-board with a good deal of second-wave feminism [sexual equality, racial equality as a principle, though not in D's "method of achievement"], and many other "aspects" at their "core" - aka classical liberal ideals.)

I kind of don't blame the D's.... Okay well for the older "sell outs," this latest full-in communism/socialism thing is totally wrong and dangerous as **** so I condemn them for basically selling out American's future's and success just to get more political clout/power for their stupid party, but that's really just over the past decade [thanks globalists,] and it's only the past couple years that I stopped respecting their "side" and "position" and "intentions." I mean the D party's "remake" with JFK was all about "competing" with the R's wildly successful endorsement of raw capitalism; and if we're being completely honest here, D's only tend to win when there's a "hic-up" in the stock market that causes the economy to falter; the recession in 1958 brought in JFK in 1961, the oil crisis in 1973 [exasperated/prolonged by high gas prices during the buildup of the Iranian revolution] brought in Carter in 1977, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990 caused the "shell shock" recession regarding oil prices and brought in Clinton in 1993, and of course the sub-prime mortgage crisis in 2007 brought in Obama. Recessions and market hic-ups dredge up all the "socialist" types to get to the booths and vote for "promised" handouts - if this core D voting block is making "enough" to pay their bills they just don't vote in any numbers, that's just the way it's been - so yea, the R's are dead right, "it's the economy stupid" - also why the D's are /terrified/ of Donald J. Trump, and unfortunately, consequently, why D's are opposed to American success...

How do you compete with something as glorious and beneficial to nearly 100% of the world population? The /only/ way is through class warfare, racial divide, and, essentially, hate and fear. The exact same reasons that I am not a R ironically; because they play the same stupid "hate and fear" games - though perhaps not as "harmful" to the world population because frankly they suck at it. They can't even get the majority of Christian's to hate gays their propaganda game is so weak - and more importantly, the vast majority of "R's" deeply believe in individual freedom, which includes allowing some folks to face "eternal damnation." Of course that's another factor in the D's losing their mind this year, Trump is, like the majority of Christian's of my generation and the one prior, "gay friendly" - which means they can't play the "R's hate gays" card anymore, their "whites hate blacks" card was too over played to be useful, their "Nazi's" card is laughable, and really all they have is "racist by proxy" a la if you're for a border wall or anti-illegal immigration "you're racist," which they try very, very hard to tie into "white supremacy," but that leaks water like a sieve due to the [punny] "elephant in the room" - it's about /national security/ not /race/ and all but the most partisan know it... Just like global warming... climate change failed because the science of "imminent catastrophe" is bullshit. They totally over-played their hand on that, they could have milked the **** out of it but they're impatient and reckless, yet another lesson D's and "new rich" parents don't pass down to their kids. Then what, transgender men in the little girls room; what a foolish ******* idea that was. So what's left, oh yeah, sexist - because the man who was worlds ahead of his peers on sexual equality, who put a woman in charge of half his financial empire, is totally a sexist... buahaha

... and I think I've typed for far too long so I'm just going to stop there.

And you got all that from changing your own tires in Alaska?
You're not old enough to remember what life was like forty years ago.
I can tell by your writing style, which points to your level of education.
90% of what you just wrote, was "rote", distilled from propaganda.
No time to tear it apart, and it deserves tearing apart, one small chunk at a time.
I'll take a shot at it when things slow down over here.

Uf dah, the struggle is real... I miss "classical liberals" who had functioning brains and could actually extrapolate individual opinions, the "Borg" types are just exhausting to reason with. Sometimes I think folks on political boards aren't even worth talking to anymore :/

Anyway, how typical of the closed-minded, arrogant, partisan tool... Assume, label, and attack with baseless childish insults. Because, of course, anyone who is not towing their exact opinion on every. single. *******. thing. could possibly be "educated." (Educated in what I ask? Liberal arts? ID politics? Hypocrisy? Straight up bullshit?)

Here we have yet another lesson that parents have forgotten to teach their kids - how to be open minded, how to listen, and how to both comprehend and interpret more advanced concepts within discussions. It's almost comical how predictable and goche partisans are when someone actually uses their brain to form an independent logical opinion... It's almost like that Common Core downgrade has been installed in English comprehension classes too... So I know a crap ton of programming languages and occasionally while switching back and forth I'll code in the wrong language [for example raw C++ on my Arduino, which uses a C++ derivative that's not as robust]; talking to partisan people is just like that - the compiler just sits there for a minute, with a blank look on it's face, as it tries to process the "foreign" language, then it spits out a bunch of generally meaningless "error" complaints; because, just like ultra judgmental idiots on both sides, you didn't play by their "specific" rules - aka what /they/ were taught to believe therefore you're wrong... How utterly ******* ironic considering your "accusatory" complaint here; my argument throughout centered on the fact that parents, in general, have failed to teach their kids the ideologies necessary for success. NO shit my ideological beliefs are based on what I was taught ~shakes head~ And yet you claim to be the "educated" one?

Are you so damned "educated" and "smart" you can't even see past the nose on your face to smell the /learned/ opinions and beliefs that you no doubt planned to spew in response? Yet, astoundingly, you'll no doubt emphatically insist that the entirety of the rest of the world take your own brand of propaganda bullshit as the /only/ way to be, think, and believe - and you don't see the hypocrisy of it!? The "offender" will be "labeled" with one or more meaningless insults. The harsh truth is that such name-calling only really bothers failures and the insecure; ya know, children. Yes, even adult children, who haven't gained the real-world "wisdom" necessary to have confidence in themselves, their beliefs, opinions, and their principles. It's why folks like you wave this baseless "uneducated" insult around as though it actually means anything to anyone but you, and possibly some little bubble of like-minded automatons...

Of course, folks like me who've actually studied intelligence in depth are left snorting at the sophomoric understanding on clear display by such blatant ridiculousness and "class warfare" division tactics of the left... The liberal arts degree that the left is so fond of means jack shit in the real world outside of academia, but you dolts will bleat "uneducated" like good little sheep - simply because your masters told you it was a valid debate retort. IQ ratings means practically nothing in the "real world," this is just something partisan hacks say to make them feel better about their inability to relate to segments of the American population that disagree with their /learned/ beliefs and opinions. The truth is that an IQ only marginally above average, 120-125, can handle nearly every single job on the planet outside heavy scientific theory... Perhaps you'd like to toss around some theoretical physics to test your 'educated' assessment of my intellectual capacity [based on my individual writing style and soliloquy no less]; how about something we can both relate to like the potential of quantum entanglement for computers? Or perhaps you're more into the softer sciences; how about some psychological theory? Oh wait... I just /did/ that and you called me "uneducated," then further implied I was a spring chicken -- ******* lol


FYI, I'm not only over 40, but I am also certified at the master level for English communication and comprehension, both oral and written. I've actually been writing my entire life, I'm a published author and I've written countless speeches in support of SSM in Alaska since my teens. Word of advice, if you'd like to be taken as more than just another troll, you just might want to reassess your self-centered arrogant presumptions about your "opposition" it can easily trash your "rep" when you spout off while know /nothing/ about them, and so much worse when you make yourself out a fool whilst throwing such shit around. For example, I have not only noted that I grew up in the 80s, but I had even laid out evidence to that fact in our back and forth discussion about computers prior to your bullshit claim to my age, just a few examples to wit: "Our take home, with me playing at "retired" again, is right around $50-60k/y and last time I checked [before Xmas] we had right around $200k in the bank." "I've been building my own rigs since the 80s and there is no way I'd ever buy a pre-made system." "I have almost 20 years worth of game play and class lessons, plus sneak-peek/heads up's for all the BETA's I get invited to check out for my fan club."

~sigh~ You are coming off as intellectually dishonest at best, trollish and/or stupid at worst.

 

[danielpalos]

I've never been anti-capitalism, not in any way whatsoever.
That said, if society obsesses too much over whether or not THEIR capitalism is "PURE ENOUGH", the more predatory aspects will eventually begin to hurt the most vulnerable members OF that society.
And a society is judged by how they treat the most vulnerable.

I grew up during the postwar era, and the standard of living for the middle class AND lower working class back then was infinitely better.
Nothing in the last forty years can even remotely compare, even if you include the technological advances, because for the time period we lived in, technology was plenty advanced. We went to the Moon, and part of the reason we even HAVE consumer access to so much of the technology of today is because of research which was at least partly spurred by the Space Race to the Moon.
Even the video TIME CODE my editing software uses is a by-product of the Moon race, having been born from the Eeco On-Time Telemetry Management system which was developed for both NASA and the military.
We had filthy rich people back then too, no sensible person hated them for their wealth.

This country will never "turn socialist" even IF a couple of minor quasi-socialist tweaks are added to the economy. We already know this because that's what the economy was when I was growing up.
It made the economy stronger, more robust and healthier. That's what careful hybrid development is all about.
We're not trying to turn your peaches into dog food, we're trying to make it possible to grow nectarines.
You still get to keep your peaches, but now more people get to eat fruit because the hardier nectarine will survive harsher conditions.

Nice analogy, except the ideas being posed effectively cut down the peach tree. You're not planting "hardier" nectarines, you're planing ******* violets that can't handle the "weather" [aka real life.]

So this is a bit of a wall-of-text and normally I'd just leave it at the above statement because the majority of the folks on here aren't actually all that interested in long discussions, but I figure what the ****, I type almost 80WPM so here ya go:

I call BS on your idea that the "quality" of life was better 40 years ago, you only feel that way because of bullshit "left-leaning" "progressive" propaganda that says you're life "should" be /much better/ than it is [with less work on your part], rather than the "same" or "a bit better" than it was back then...

The only reason it was "better" back in the 70s generation is because the American family values of "Christian morals" were still highly respected and followed by the majority across the nation. That's a luxury I continue to have up here in Alaska, which to this day is "Christian" by a very wide margin. It's not so much the religion itself, I'm actually at odds with the religious right, but the principles and philosophies that it teaches. The loss, and rejection, of those underpins of traditional "conservative" ideals are a /very/ important reason as to why we're in the state we are today; responsibility being key among them. It's like a game of Jenga, you can only pull out so many of the key values before the entire system starts to collapse, as we're seeing in America lately. Handing out free money, no matter what the good intentions are/were, was the "perfect storm" for exactly what we have today; self-entitled brats with zero responsibility who become more and more enamored to big government taking care of them and more and more envious and hateful of the wealthy/those who have more/better lives than they do - regardless of the circumstance that brought those folks into that success. That is the "hateful" platform of the left these days - and it's why I've lost nearly all respect for the D's, though thank goodness a bunch of "classical liberals" see that their party has been hijacked and are abandoning that sinking ship to become independents (which I personally feel is the most "proper" political affiliation today, all things considered.)

While there is no question that I'd very much like for there to be no poor in America, or even the world, that's just never going to happen. And it's a legitimately impossible goal when "the powers that be" [D's] continue to move the goal posts of what is 'poor.' Class warfare, OWS, income inequality, the whole 99% vs 1% is nothing but a bunch of bullshit drummed up by the D's to get votes because they ran out of legit "problems" to fight the R's with. {And don't get me wrong, the R's are just as guilty of "selling-out" to drum up votes, but their "sell-outs" have generally not been as "harmful" to as many folks. As a quick example, when the R's sold out to religious theocrat's [yes, that's an invented word, deal with it grammar nazis,] they "harmed" like 30% of the nation, when the D's sold out to "ID politics" they "harmed" 100% of the nation - and frankly the D's latest "sell out" to socialists and communists will harm the entire ******* world.}

When /you/ are talking about, the 70s (mid to late, maybe early 80s - but you also have to consider the earlier generation, the 60s, because that's the parents.) Back in the 70s and 80s people were hot for the capitalist American dream. Listen to the music of the time, watch the TV shows, you can see the blatant difference in "social ideology" and "social goals" between then and now. People back then wanted to get rich, they wanted to be successful, they wanted to be wealthy - that's a life goal that has some key built in benefits; responsibility first and foremost, but also learning from mistakes and failures, taking educated risks - which brought us innovations like cellphones, like Windows, like the internet, that in turn brought about the dot.com boom that /you/ are seeing and citing as "better" for the "less advantaged" than today. It wasn't the technology, you're correct, it was the way their /parents/ lived and believed that brought it all. And the internet itself brought up the entire world, because it opened up global trade in a way the world has never seen - on the one hand it helped alleviate poverty all across the world, on the other it brought foreign markets into America like we've never seen, nor coped with before - which again is a double sided blade in itself; it brought cheaper technologically advanced products, but that's at the cost of {individual} American's massive economic prowess [it was basically a bit of an equalizer as now American's money ultimately ends up in foreign nations as American's are buying products that had, through say the early 80s, largely been sold to them by mostly American companies, thus the "American" cash stayed mostly in "America's" economy.]

I figure it was mostly the 90s [at the risk of sounding a bit conspiracy theory, I actually suspect it was soviet propaganda/subversion,] the socialistic mentality has taken over the nation and stomped out that drive for success that always drove, and kept, America on the top prior to the 80s, and worse the communistic idea that the rich /stole/ from the workers, inherently joins forces, leading to young folks not wanting to be "rich" themselves, which means they don't have the /drive/ to succeed. The children of hot blooded, driven capitalists grew up in the luxury of their parents success; parents who had spent 30-60 years working their asses off to provide a "better" life for their kids. Their kids grew up with health insurance, yearly vacations, new cars, new phones, new computers, new walkmans/stereos, etc., [and we're talking about top of the line shit too because the "stuff" before computers is worlds below "modern" stuff and the speed of advancement with computer demand back then made even "the latest and greatest" cheap and available for the masses in supersonic time - speeds never seen before frankly] and the kids, wanted that "life style" of "the best of the best" to continue even after they moved out on their own (which back then was in the 16-20 range typically) - that's why hundreds of thousands, millions even, of idiots in their 30s are up to their ears in debt trying to "keep up" with the speed of tech advancement. This is an affliction/sickness you often see in "new middle-class" folks which I'll touch on later, but, do you remember the adage "keeping up with the Jones'?" How many people did you know who were "house poor," or who went bankrupt because they "couldn't" keep up, or how about all those sots who "made it big" then lost it all in dumb as **** ways {coke, gambling, etc.} Unfortunately, and sadly typically, the "new rich" and even the "new" upper and middle class of the 80s/90s, unlike the "wealthy elite" throughout pretty much time immortal, either didn't teach their kids the lessons /needed/ to be financially successful [99% of the time they foolishly presumed that the supersonic upward movement of the economy would continue forever], or perhaps it was the kids themselves [lured by aforementioned socialistic propaganda] simply blew off those lessons.

For example, my parents were wealthy, my grandparents were wealthy, my family has had generations to learn the basic lessons necessary for success (aka how to get, and /stay/, rich.) Contrary to popular belief of the left, my parents actually insisted that /I/ had to be able to "make it" on my own. They taught me the basics, the principles, the ideological drive for success, but also let me fail, HARD even. Example, they let me buy a two-wheel drive long bed truck for example [note I live in Alaska], which I promptly got stuck in a few snow banks and ditches, and rather quickly learned how to /not ******* do that/ because they wouldn't come dig me out either. My father made me change the tires every damn season (studs and summer), by myself, with a hand jack that literally weighed more than I did, he made me change my oil and transmission fluid, he made me do everything. And yea, at the time I hated it, I hated him because he never let my mom help me (call a tow truck to unstuck me, or take the truck to the mechanic and tire companies to change the shit - BUT he did all that because it was stuff that /he/ didn't learn how to do and he wanted to make sure that /I/ would be able to, and this is the key bit in my mind, if I couldn't afford to pay others to do it for me... That's a lesson that the "steady wealthy" teach their kids, that the "new rich" of the 70-80s [and even today] did no. It's a kind of "mental insurance" for when shit hits the fan, so you don't end up completely helpless and reliant upon others - aka you don't /need/ the government to help you because you learned to dig yourself out of that ditch.

The lefts biggest problem, prior to this recent turn to flat out communism and socialism, the "classical liberals" and even those who maybe just wanted a little democratic socialism in the form of Social Security and moderate welfare to help the elderly and disabled, was always staying power. D's just don't have anything BUT "welfare" to offer the majority of the nation (again LGBT issue stuff only really touches like 30% of the population, and that includes non-LGBT "supporters" and shit.) I think that's why they were so easily over-run by socialists, they've ***** footed around with other ideas; global warming... I mean climate change, illegal immigration acceptance, refugees, etc. but /none/ of those issues really "helps" the entire nation; they're little more than pet projects taken in purely to get votes - and if you /really/ examine the quagmire of conflicting "core" belief principles across the D spectrum, there is hypocrisy in nearly every single "platform" they support; it's laughable if you actually take a step back and think about it. (I could give some examples, but then I just come off as D-bashing and that's not my intention here. I actually like some of the D's classical changes; SSM was a life long fight for me up here, I'm a modern abolitionist [it's why I'm apposed to Islam in it's "current state"], I'm even on-board with a good deal of second-wave feminism [sexual equality, racial equality as a principle, though not in D's "method of achievement"], and many other "aspects" at their "core" - aka classical liberal ideals.)

I kind of don't blame the D's.... Okay well for the older "sell outs," this latest full-in communism/socialism thing is totally wrong and dangerous as **** so I condemn them for basically selling out American's future's and success just to get more political clout/power for their stupid party, but that's really just over the past decade [thanks globalists,] and it's only the past couple years that I stopped respecting their "side" and "position" and "intentions." I mean the D party's "remake" with JFK was all about "competing" with the R's wildly successful endorsement of raw capitalism; and if we're being completely honest here, D's only tend to win when there's a "hic-up" in the stock market that causes the economy to falter; the recession in 1958 brought in JFK in 1961, the oil crisis in 1973 [exasperated/prolonged by high gas prices during the buildup of the Iranian revolution] brought in Carter in 1977, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990 caused the "shell shock" recession regarding oil prices and brought in Clinton in 1993, and of course the sub-prime mortgage crisis in 2007 brought in Obama. Recessions and market hic-ups dredge up all the "socialist" types to get to the booths and vote for "promised" handouts - if this core D voting block is making "enough" to pay their bills they just don't vote in any numbers, that's just the way it's been - so yea, the R's are dead right, "it's the economy stupid" - also why the D's are /terrified/ of Donald J. Trump, and unfortunately, consequently, why D's are opposed to American success...

How do you compete with something as glorious and beneficial to nearly 100% of the world population? The /only/ way is through class warfare, racial divide, and, essentially, hate and fear. The exact same reasons that I am not a R ironically; because they play the same stupid "hate and fear" games - though perhaps not as "harmful" to the world population because frankly they suck at it. They can't even get the majority of Christian's to hate gays their propaganda game is so weak - and more importantly, the vast majority of "R's" deeply believe in individual freedom, which includes allowing some folks to face "eternal damnation." Of course that's another factor in the D's losing their mind this year, Trump is, like the majority of Christian's of my generation and the one prior, "gay friendly" - which means they can't play the "R's hate gays" card anymore, their "whites hate blacks" card was too over played to be useful, their "Nazi's" card is laughable, and really all they have is "racist by proxy" a la if you're for a border wall or anti-illegal immigration "you're racist," which they try very, very hard to tie into "white supremacy," but that leaks water like a sieve due to the [punny] "elephant in the room" - it's about /national security/ not /race/ and all but the most partisan know it... Just like global warming... climate change failed because the science of "imminent catastrophe" is bullshit. They totally over-played their hand on that, they could have milked the **** out of it but they're impatient and reckless, yet another lesson D's and "new rich" parents don't pass down to their kids. Then what, transgender men in the little girls room; what a foolish ******* idea that was. So what's left, oh yeah, sexist - because the man who was worlds ahead of his peers on sexual equality, who put a woman in charge of half his financial empire, is totally a sexist... buahaha

... and I think I've typed for far too long so I'm just going to stop there.

And you got all that from changing your own tires in Alaska?
You're not old enough to remember what life was like forty years ago.
I can tell by your writing style, which points to your level of education.
90% of what you just wrote, was "rote", distilled from propaganda.
No time to tear it apart, and it deserves tearing apart, one small chunk at a time.
I'll take a shot at it when things slow down over here.

Uf dah, the struggle is real... I miss "classical liberals" who had functioning brains and could actually extrapolate individual opinions, the "Borg" types are just exhausting to reason with. Sometimes I think folks on political boards aren't even worth talking to anymore :/

Anyway, how typical of the closed-minded, arrogant, partisan tool... Assume, label, and attack with baseless childish insults. Because, of course, anyone who is not towing their exact opinion on every. single. *******. thing. could possibly be "educated." (Educated in what I ask? Liberal arts? ID politics? Hypocrisy? Straight up bullshit?)

Here we have yet another lesson that parents have forgotten to teach their kids - how to be open minded, how to listen, and how to both comprehend and interpret more advanced concepts within discussions. It's almost comical how predictable and goche partisans are when someone actually uses their brain to form an independent logical opinion... It's almost like that Common Core downgrade has been installed in English comprehension classes too... So I know a crap ton of programming languages and occasionally while switching back and forth I'll code in the wrong language [for example raw C++ on my Arduino, which uses a C++ derivative that's not as robust]; talking to partisan people is just like that - the compiler just sits there for a minute, with a blank look on it's face, as it tries to process the "foreign" language, then it spits out a bunch of generally meaningless "error" complaints; because, just like ultra judgmental idiots on both sides, you didn't play by their "specific" rules - aka what /they/ were taught to believe therefore you're wrong... How utterly ******* ironic considering your "accusatory" complaint here; my argument throughout centered on the fact that parents, in general, have failed to teach their kids the ideologies necessary for success. NO shit my ideological beliefs are based on what I was taught ~shakes head~ And yet you claim to be the "educated" one?

Are you so damned "educated" and "smart" you can't even see past the nose on your face to smell the /learned/ opinions and beliefs that you no doubt planned to spew in response? Yet, astoundingly, you'll no doubt emphatically insist that the entirety of the rest of the world take your own brand of propaganda bullshit as the /only/ way to be, think, and believe - and you don't see the hypocrisy of it!? The "offender" will be "labeled" with one or more meaningless insults. The harsh truth is that such name-calling only really bothers failures and the insecure; ya know, children. Yes, even adult children, who haven't gained the real-world "wisdom" necessary to have confidence in themselves, their beliefs, opinions, and their principles. It's why folks like you wave this baseless "uneducated" insult around as though it actually means anything to anyone but you, and possibly some little bubble of like-minded automatons...

Of course, folks like me who've actually studied intelligence in depth are left snorting at the sophomoric understanding on clear display by such blatant ridiculousness and "class warfare" division tactics of the left... The liberal arts degree that the left is so fond of means jack shit in the real world outside of academia, but you dolts will bleat "uneducated" like good little sheep - simply because your masters told you it was a valid debate retort. IQ ratings means practically nothing in the "real world," this is just something partisan hacks say to make them feel better about their inability to relate to segments of the American population that disagree with their /learned/ beliefs and opinions. The truth is that an IQ only marginally above average, 120-125, can handle nearly every single job on the planet outside heavy scientific theory... Perhaps you'd like to toss around some theoretical physics to test your 'educated' assessment of my intellectual capacity [based on my individual writing style and soliloquy no less]; how about something we can both relate to like the potential of quantum entanglement for computers? Or perhaps you're more into the softer sciences; how about some psychological theory? Oh wait... I just /did/ that and you called me "uneducated," then further implied I was a spring chicken -- ******* lol


FYI, I'm not only over 40, but I am also certified at the master level for English communication and comprehension, both oral and written. I've actually been writing my entire life, I'm a published author and I've written countless speeches in support of SSM in Alaska since my teens. Word of advice, if you'd like to be taken as more than just another troll, you just might want to reassess your self-centered arrogant presumptions about your "opposition" it can easily trash your "rep" when you spout off while know /nothing/ about them, and so much worse when you make yourself out a fool whilst throwing such shit around. For example, I have not only noted that I grew up in the 80s, but I had even laid out evidence to that fact in our back and forth discussion about computers prior to your bullshit claim to my age, just a few examples to wit: "Our take home, with me playing at "retired" again, is right around $50-60k/y and last time I checked [before Xmas] we had right around $200k in the bank." "I've been building my own rigs since the 80s and there is no way I'd ever buy a pre-made system." "I have almost 20 years worth of game play and class lessons, plus sneak-peek/heads up's for all the BETA's I get invited to check out for my fan club."

~sigh~ You are coming off as intellectually dishonest at best, trollish and/or stupid at worst.

Why does the right wing believe more in the general warfare than the general welfare?

 

[TheDude]

I've never been anti-capitalism, not in any way whatsoever.
That said, if society obsesses too much over whether or not THEIR capitalism is "PURE ENOUGH", the more predatory aspects will eventually begin to hurt the most vulnerable members OF that society.
And a society is judged by how they treat the most vulnerable.

I grew up during the postwar era, and the standard of living for the middle class AND lower working class back then was infinitely better.
Nothing in the last forty years can even remotely compare, even if you include the technological advances, because for the time period we lived in, technology was plenty advanced. We went to the Moon, and part of the reason we even HAVE consumer access to so much of the technology of today is because of research which was at least partly spurred by the Space Race to the Moon.
Even the video TIME CODE my editing software uses is a by-product of the Moon race, having been born from the Eeco On-Time Telemetry Management system which was developed for both NASA and the military.
We had filthy rich people back then too, no sensible person hated them for their wealth.

This country will never "turn socialist" even IF a couple of minor quasi-socialist tweaks are added to the economy. We already know this because that's what the economy was when I was growing up.
It made the economy stronger, more robust and healthier. That's what careful hybrid development is all about.
We're not trying to turn your peaches into dog food, we're trying to make it possible to grow nectarines.
You still get to keep your peaches, but now more people get to eat fruit because the hardier nectarine will survive harsher conditions.

Nice analogy, except the ideas being posed effectively cut down the peach tree. You're not planting "hardier" nectarines, you're planing ******* violets that can't handle the "weather" [aka real life.]

So this is a bit of a wall-of-text and normally I'd just leave it at the above statement because the majority of the folks on here aren't actually all that interested in long discussions, but I figure what the ****, I type almost 80WPM so here ya go:

I call BS on your idea that the "quality" of life was better 40 years ago, you only feel that way because of bullshit "left-leaning" "progressive" propaganda that says you're life "should" be /much better/ than it is [with less work on your part], rather than the "same" or "a bit better" than it was back then...

The only reason it was "better" back in the 70s generation is because the American family values of "Christian morals" were still highly respected and followed by the majority across the nation. That's a luxury I continue to have up here in Alaska, which to this day is "Christian" by a very wide margin. It's not so much the religion itself, I'm actually at odds with the religious right, but the principles and philosophies that it teaches. The loss, and rejection, of those underpins of traditional "conservative" ideals are a /very/ important reason as to why we're in the state we are today; responsibility being key among them. It's like a game of Jenga, you can only pull out so many of the key values before the entire system starts to collapse, as we're seeing in America lately. Handing out free money, no matter what the good intentions are/were, was the "perfect storm" for exactly what we have today; self-entitled brats with zero responsibility who become more and more enamored to big government taking care of them and more and more envious and hateful of the wealthy/those who have more/better lives than they do - regardless of the circumstance that brought those folks into that success. That is the "hateful" platform of the left these days - and it's why I've lost nearly all respect for the D's, though thank goodness a bunch of "classical liberals" see that their party has been hijacked and are abandoning that sinking ship to become independents (which I personally feel is the most "proper" political affiliation today, all things considered.)

While there is no question that I'd very much like for there to be no poor in America, or even the world, that's just never going to happen. And it's a legitimately impossible goal when "the powers that be" [D's] continue to move the goal posts of what is 'poor.' Class warfare, OWS, income inequality, the whole 99% vs 1% is nothing but a bunch of bullshit drummed up by the D's to get votes because they ran out of legit "problems" to fight the R's with. {And don't get me wrong, the R's are just as guilty of "selling-out" to drum up votes, but their "sell-outs" have generally not been as "harmful" to as many folks. As a quick example, when the R's sold out to religious theocrat's [yes, that's an invented word, deal with it grammar nazis,] they "harmed" like 30% of the nation, when the D's sold out to "ID politics" they "harmed" 100% of the nation - and frankly the D's latest "sell out" to socialists and communists will harm the entire ******* world.}

When /you/ are talking about, the 70s (mid to late, maybe early 80s - but you also have to consider the earlier generation, the 60s, because that's the parents.) Back in the 70s and 80s people were hot for the capitalist American dream. Listen to the music of the time, watch the TV shows, you can see the blatant difference in "social ideology" and "social goals" between then and now. People back then wanted to get rich, they wanted to be successful, they wanted to be wealthy - that's a life goal that has some key built in benefits; responsibility first and foremost, but also learning from mistakes and failures, taking educated risks - which brought us innovations like cellphones, like Windows, like the internet, that in turn brought about the dot.com boom that /you/ are seeing and citing as "better" for the "less advantaged" than today. It wasn't the technology, you're correct, it was the way their /parents/ lived and believed that brought it all. And the internet itself brought up the entire world, because it opened up global trade in a way the world has never seen - on the one hand it helped alleviate poverty all across the world, on the other it brought foreign markets into America like we've never seen, nor coped with before - which again is a double sided blade in itself; it brought cheaper technologically advanced products, but that's at the cost of {individual} American's massive economic prowess [it was basically a bit of an equalizer as now American's money ultimately ends up in foreign nations as American's are buying products that had, through say the early 80s, largely been sold to them by mostly American companies, thus the "American" cash stayed mostly in "America's" economy.]

I figure it was mostly the 90s [at the risk of sounding a bit conspiracy theory, I actually suspect it was soviet propaganda/subversion,] the socialistic mentality has taken over the nation and stomped out that drive for success that always drove, and kept, America on the top prior to the 80s, and worse the communistic idea that the rich /stole/ from the workers, inherently joins forces, leading to young folks not wanting to be "rich" themselves, which means they don't have the /drive/ to succeed. The children of hot blooded, driven capitalists grew up in the luxury of their parents success; parents who had spent 30-60 years working their asses off to provide a "better" life for their kids. Their kids grew up with health insurance, yearly vacations, new cars, new phones, new computers, new walkmans/stereos, etc., [and we're talking about top of the line shit too because the "stuff" before computers is worlds below "modern" stuff and the speed of advancement with computer demand back then made even "the latest and greatest" cheap and available for the masses in supersonic time - speeds never seen before frankly] and the kids, wanted that "life style" of "the best of the best" to continue even after they moved out on their own (which back then was in the 16-20 range typically) - that's why hundreds of thousands, millions even, of idiots in their 30s are up to their ears in debt trying to "keep up" with the speed of tech advancement. This is an affliction/sickness you often see in "new middle-class" folks which I'll touch on later, but, do you remember the adage "keeping up with the Jones'?" How many people did you know who were "house poor," or who went bankrupt because they "couldn't" keep up, or how about all those sots who "made it big" then lost it all in dumb as **** ways {coke, gambling, etc.} Unfortunately, and sadly typically, the "new rich" and even the "new" upper and middle class of the 80s/90s, unlike the "wealthy elite" throughout pretty much time immortal, either didn't teach their kids the lessons /needed/ to be financially successful [99% of the time they foolishly presumed that the supersonic upward movement of the economy would continue forever], or perhaps it was the kids themselves [lured by aforementioned socialistic propaganda] simply blew off those lessons.

For example, my parents were wealthy, my grandparents were wealthy, my family has had generations to learn the basic lessons necessary for success (aka how to get, and /stay/, rich.) Contrary to popular belief of the left, my parents actually insisted that /I/ had to be able to "make it" on my own. They taught me the basics, the principles, the ideological drive for success, but also let me fail, HARD even. Example, they let me buy a two-wheel drive long bed truck for example [note I live in Alaska], which I promptly got stuck in a few snow banks and ditches, and rather quickly learned how to /not ******* do that/ because they wouldn't come dig me out either. My father made me change the tires every damn season (studs and summer), by myself, with a hand jack that literally weighed more than I did, he made me change my oil and transmission fluid, he made me do everything. And yea, at the time I hated it, I hated him because he never let my mom help me (call a tow truck to unstuck me, or take the truck to the mechanic and tire companies to change the shit - BUT he did all that because it was stuff that /he/ didn't learn how to do and he wanted to make sure that /I/ would be able to, and this is the key bit in my mind, if I couldn't afford to pay others to do it for me... That's a lesson that the "steady wealthy" teach their kids, that the "new rich" of the 70-80s [and even today] did no. It's a kind of "mental insurance" for when shit hits the fan, so you don't end up completely helpless and reliant upon others - aka you don't /need/ the government to help you because you learned to dig yourself out of that ditch.

The lefts biggest problem, prior to this recent turn to flat out communism and socialism, the "classical liberals" and even those who maybe just wanted a little democratic socialism in the form of Social Security and moderate welfare to help the elderly and disabled, was always staying power. D's just don't have anything BUT "welfare" to offer the majority of the nation (again LGBT issue stuff only really touches like 30% of the population, and that includes non-LGBT "supporters" and shit.) I think that's why they were so easily over-run by socialists, they've ***** footed around with other ideas; global warming... I mean climate change, illegal immigration acceptance, refugees, etc. but /none/ of those issues really "helps" the entire nation; they're little more than pet projects taken in purely to get votes - and if you /really/ examine the quagmire of conflicting "core" belief principles across the D spectrum, there is hypocrisy in nearly every single "platform" they support; it's laughable if you actually take a step back and think about it. (I could give some examples, but then I just come off as D-bashing and that's not my intention here. I actually like some of the D's classical changes; SSM was a life long fight for me up here, I'm a modern abolitionist [it's why I'm apposed to Islam in it's "current state"], I'm even on-board with a good deal of second-wave feminism [sexual equality, racial equality as a principle, though not in D's "method of achievement"], and many other "aspects" at their "core" - aka classical liberal ideals.)

I kind of don't blame the D's.... Okay well for the older "sell outs," this latest full-in communism/socialism thing is totally wrong and dangerous as **** so I condemn them for basically selling out American's future's and success just to get more political clout/power for their stupid party, but that's really just over the past decade [thanks globalists,] and it's only the past couple years that I stopped respecting their "side" and "position" and "intentions." I mean the D party's "remake" with JFK was all about "competing" with the R's wildly successful endorsement of raw capitalism; and if we're being completely honest here, D's only tend to win when there's a "hic-up" in the stock market that causes the economy to falter; the recession in 1958 brought in JFK in 1961, the oil crisis in 1973 [exasperated/prolonged by high gas prices during the buildup of the Iranian revolution] brought in Carter in 1977, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990 caused the "shell shock" recession regarding oil prices and brought in Clinton in 1993, and of course the sub-prime mortgage crisis in 2007 brought in Obama. Recessions and market hic-ups dredge up all the "socialist" types to get to the booths and vote for "promised" handouts - if this core D voting block is making "enough" to pay their bills they just don't vote in any numbers, that's just the way it's been - so yea, the R's are dead right, "it's the economy stupid" - also why the D's are /terrified/ of Donald J. Trump, and unfortunately, consequently, why D's are opposed to American success...

How do you compete with something as glorious and beneficial to nearly 100% of the world population? The /only/ way is through class warfare, racial divide, and, essentially, hate and fear. The exact same reasons that I am not a R ironically; because they play the same stupid "hate and fear" games - though perhaps not as "harmful" to the world population because frankly they suck at it. They can't even get the majority of Christian's to hate gays their propaganda game is so weak - and more importantly, the vast majority of "R's" deeply believe in individual freedom, which includes allowing some folks to face "eternal damnation." Of course that's another factor in the D's losing their mind this year, Trump is, like the majority of Christian's of my generation and the one prior, "gay friendly" - which means they can't play the "R's hate gays" card anymore, their "whites hate blacks" card was too over played to be useful, their "Nazi's" card is laughable, and really all they have is "racist by proxy" a la if you're for a border wall or anti-illegal immigration "you're racist," which they try very, very hard to tie into "white supremacy," but that leaks water like a sieve due to the [punny] "elephant in the room" - it's about /national security/ not /race/ and all but the most partisan know it... Just like global warming... climate change failed because the science of "imminent catastrophe" is bullshit. They totally over-played their hand on that, they could have milked the **** out of it but they're impatient and reckless, yet another lesson D's and "new rich" parents don't pass down to their kids. Then what, transgender men in the little girls room; what a foolish ******* idea that was. So what's left, oh yeah, sexist - because the man who was worlds ahead of his peers on sexual equality, who put a woman in charge of half his financial empire, is totally a sexist... buahaha

... and I think I've typed for far too long so I'm just going to stop there.

And you got all that from changing your own tires in Alaska?
You're not old enough to remember what life was like forty years ago.
I can tell by your writing style, which points to your level of education.
90% of what you just wrote, was "rote", distilled from propaganda.
No time to tear it apart, and it deserves tearing apart, one small chunk at a time.
I'll take a shot at it when things slow down over here.

Uf dah, the struggle is real... I miss "classical liberals" who had functioning brains and could actually extrapolate individual opinions, the "Borg" types are just exhausting to reason with. Sometimes I think folks on political boards aren't even worth talking to anymore :/

Anyway, how typical of the closed-minded, arrogant, partisan tool... Assume, label, and attack with baseless childish insults. Because, of course, anyone who is not towing their exact opinion on every. single. *******. thing. could possibly be "educated." (Educated in what I ask? Liberal arts? ID politics? Hypocrisy? Straight up bullshit?)

Here we have yet another lesson that parents have forgotten to teach their kids - how to be open minded, how to listen, and how to both comprehend and interpret more advanced concepts within discussions. It's almost comical how predictable and goche partisans are when someone actually uses their brain to form an independent logical opinion... It's almost like that Common Core downgrade has been installed in English comprehension classes too... So I know a crap ton of programming languages and occasionally while switching back and forth I'll code in the wrong language [for example raw C++ on my Arduino, which uses a C++ derivative that's not as robust]; talking to partisan people is just like that - the compiler just sits there for a minute, with a blank look on it's face, as it tries to process the "foreign" language, then it spits out a bunch of generally meaningless "error" complaints; because, just like ultra judgmental idiots on both sides, you didn't play by their "specific" rules - aka what /they/ were taught to believe therefore you're wrong... How utterly ******* ironic considering your "accusatory" complaint here; my argument throughout centered on the fact that parents, in general, have failed to teach their kids the ideologies necessary for success. NO shit my ideological beliefs are based on what I was taught ~shakes head~ And yet you claim to be the "educated" one?

Are you so damned "educated" and "smart" you can't even see past the nose on your face to smell the /learned/ opinions and beliefs that you no doubt planned to spew in response? Yet, astoundingly, you'll no doubt emphatically insist that the entirety of the rest of the world take your own brand of propaganda bullshit as the /only/ way to be, think, and believe - and you don't see the hypocrisy of it!? The "offender" will be "labeled" with one or more meaningless insults. The harsh truth is that such name-calling only really bothers failures and the insecure; ya know, children. Yes, even adult children, who haven't gained the real-world "wisdom" necessary to have confidence in themselves, their beliefs, opinions, and their principles. It's why folks like you wave this baseless "uneducated" insult around as though it actually means anything to anyone but you, and possibly some little bubble of like-minded automatons...

Of course, folks like me who've actually studied intelligence in depth are left snorting at the sophomoric understanding on clear display by such blatant ridiculousness and "class warfare" division tactics of the left... The liberal arts degree that the left is so fond of means jack shit in the real world outside of academia, but you dolts will bleat "uneducated" like good little sheep - simply because your masters told you it was a valid debate retort. IQ ratings means practically nothing in the "real world," this is just something partisan hacks say to make them feel better about their inability to relate to segments of the American population that disagree with their /learned/ beliefs and opinions. The truth is that an IQ only marginally above average, 120-125, can handle nearly every single job on the planet outside heavy scientific theory... Perhaps you'd like to toss around some theoretical physics to test your 'educated' assessment of my intellectual capacity [based on my individual writing style and soliloquy no less]; how about something we can both relate to like the potential of quantum entanglement for computers? Or perhaps you're more into the softer sciences; how about some psychological theory? Oh wait... I just /did/ that and you called me "uneducated," then further implied I was a spring chicken -- ******* lol


FYI, I'm not only over 40, but I am also certified at the master level for English communication and comprehension, both oral and written. I've actually been writing my entire life, I'm a published author and I've written countless speeches in support of SSM in Alaska since my teens. Word of advice, if you'd like to be taken as more than just another troll, you just might want to reassess your self-centered arrogant presumptions about your "opposition" it can easily trash your "rep" when you spout off while know /nothing/ about them, and so much worse when you make yourself out a fool whilst throwing such shit around. For example, I have not only noted that I grew up in the 80s, but I had even laid out evidence to that fact in our back and forth discussion about computers prior to your bullshit claim to my age, just a few examples to wit: "Our take home, with me playing at "retired" again, is right around $50-60k/y and last time I checked [before Xmas] we had right around $200k in the bank." "I've been building my own rigs since the 80s and there is no way I'd ever buy a pre-made system." "I have almost 20 years worth of game play and class lessons, plus sneak-peek/heads up's for all the BETA's I get invited to check out for my fan club."

~sigh~ You are coming off as intellectually dishonest at best, trollish and/or stupid at worst.

Why does the right wing believe more in the general warfare than the general welfare?

You proved some of his points.

 

[EverCurious]

Why does the right wing believe more in the general warfare than the general welfare?

I'm not "right wing," but I'll hazard a guess and say that the right wing is willing to fight for what they believe in. I have some questions too:

Why does the modern left wing believe more in acts of violence against fellow citizens who have apposing opinions, than in even trying to find workable compromises to address the ideological divide?

Why does the modern left wing believe more in the failed ideals of socialism, than the proven success of capitalistic ideals? (same general idea) Why does the modern left wing believe more in communistic leaning ideals, than in American republic ideals?

Why does the modern left believe more in consistently regressive religions like Islam, than in proven "progressive" or "accepting" religions like Christianity?

Why does the modern left wing believe more in constantly encouraging racism, than in putting it behind us and moving forward?

Why does the modern left wing believe more in controlling people, than in freedom of individuality? (freedom of speech, of thought, and of assembly, to be "different," to be "normal," even to be "hateful") [Don't believe they're controlling people? Read this How to Recognize a Controlling Person and tell me that's not textbook modern left tactics...]

---

That last one actually ties directly back into my commentary about "bad shit well intentioned parents did/didn't teach their kids that have brought us to the mess we're in today"; in that particular case it was "helicopter" parents who unfortunately failed to balance out the dictatorship of parenthood - while some "absolute law" /is/ necessary to ensure kids safety - it must be balanced with individual freedom. One example I touched on before is letting kids make mistakes and fail, another, more relevant to "controlling people" is letting them form their own opinions. And don't get me wrong, the right wing, specifically the religious right wing, made the same mistake in the past; up until about my generation these "controlling" religious parents didn't let their kids decide on religious related stuff - but the religious parents learned, and the majority of religious folks my age are generally okay with LGBTs doing whatever [being homosexual, getting "married," etc.] they may not want to associate heavily with them, they may think it's a sin and that "evil" has brainwashed em/taken root in em, they generally think it's disgusting [some even believe its not "real" - often coming out as "it's a mental illness,"] and they might not want to hear about it (don't ask, don't tell kind of thing,) but I'd say the vast majority of them my age (from my experience) generally blanch, shrug, and say something along the lines of "it's your afterlife."

Their parents had "learned" from the way that they were "controlled" as kids, the 60s when their parents grew up, was the sexual revolution after all. That lasted until the 80s when AIDS forced parents/society to put the breaks on the unabashed *******. -- This is also why I warn about ya'll applying modern social "morals" regarding sexual assault to events that happened 30-40 years ago... IF ya'll want to change the "rules" that you play by, that's completely fine, but you have got to at least acknowledge the way it was when that shit actually happened... I remember a thing called "stopping short" (Urban Dictionary: stop short - and yea, it was acceptable by most women, in fact, back then there wasn't a seat belt law, so it was even considered to be kind of gentlemanly LOL!)

 

[danielpalos]

I've never been anti-capitalism, not in any way whatsoever.
That said, if society obsesses too much over whether or not THEIR capitalism is "PURE ENOUGH", the more predatory aspects will eventually begin to hurt the most vulnerable members OF that society.
And a society is judged by how they treat the most vulnerable.

I grew up during the postwar era, and the standard of living for the middle class AND lower working class back then was infinitely better.
Nothing in the last forty years can even remotely compare, even if you include the technological advances, because for the time period we lived in, technology was plenty advanced. We went to the Moon, and part of the reason we even HAVE consumer access to so much of the technology of today is because of research which was at least partly spurred by the Space Race to the Moon.
Even the video TIME CODE my editing software uses is a by-product of the Moon race, having been born from the Eeco On-Time Telemetry Management system which was developed for both NASA and the military.
We had filthy rich people back then too, no sensible person hated them for their wealth.

This country will never "turn socialist" even IF a couple of minor quasi-socialist tweaks are added to the economy. We already know this because that's what the economy was when I was growing up.
It made the economy stronger, more robust and healthier. That's what careful hybrid development is all about.
We're not trying to turn your peaches into dog food, we're trying to make it possible to grow nectarines.
You still get to keep your peaches, but now more people get to eat fruit because the hardier nectarine will survive harsher conditions.

Nice analogy, except the ideas being posed effectively cut down the peach tree. You're not planting "hardier" nectarines, you're planing ******* violets that can't handle the "weather" [aka real life.]

So this is a bit of a wall-of-text and normally I'd just leave it at the above statement because the majority of the folks on here aren't actually all that interested in long discussions, but I figure what the ****, I type almost 80WPM so here ya go:

I call BS on your idea that the "quality" of life was better 40 years ago, you only feel that way because of bullshit "left-leaning" "progressive" propaganda that says you're life "should" be /much better/ than it is [with less work on your part], rather than the "same" or "a bit better" than it was back then...

The only reason it was "better" back in the 70s generation is because the American family values of "Christian morals" were still highly respected and followed by the majority across the nation. That's a luxury I continue to have up here in Alaska, which to this day is "Christian" by a very wide margin. It's not so much the religion itself, I'm actually at odds with the religious right, but the principles and philosophies that it teaches. The loss, and rejection, of those underpins of traditional "conservative" ideals are a /very/ important reason as to why we're in the state we are today; responsibility being key among them. It's like a game of Jenga, you can only pull out so many of the key values before the entire system starts to collapse, as we're seeing in America lately. Handing out free money, no matter what the good intentions are/were, was the "perfect storm" for exactly what we have today; self-entitled brats with zero responsibility who become more and more enamored to big government taking care of them and more and more envious and hateful of the wealthy/those who have more/better lives than they do - regardless of the circumstance that brought those folks into that success. That is the "hateful" platform of the left these days - and it's why I've lost nearly all respect for the D's, though thank goodness a bunch of "classical liberals" see that their party has been hijacked and are abandoning that sinking ship to become independents (which I personally feel is the most "proper" political affiliation today, all things considered.)

While there is no question that I'd very much like for there to be no poor in America, or even the world, that's just never going to happen. And it's a legitimately impossible goal when "the powers that be" [D's] continue to move the goal posts of what is 'poor.' Class warfare, OWS, income inequality, the whole 99% vs 1% is nothing but a bunch of bullshit drummed up by the D's to get votes because they ran out of legit "problems" to fight the R's with. {And don't get me wrong, the R's are just as guilty of "selling-out" to drum up votes, but their "sell-outs" have generally not been as "harmful" to as many folks. As a quick example, when the R's sold out to religious theocrat's [yes, that's an invented word, deal with it grammar nazis,] they "harmed" like 30% of the nation, when the D's sold out to "ID politics" they "harmed" 100% of the nation - and frankly the D's latest "sell out" to socialists and communists will harm the entire ******* world.}

When /you/ are talking about, the 70s (mid to late, maybe early 80s - but you also have to consider the earlier generation, the 60s, because that's the parents.) Back in the 70s and 80s people were hot for the capitalist American dream. Listen to the music of the time, watch the TV shows, you can see the blatant difference in "social ideology" and "social goals" between then and now. People back then wanted to get rich, they wanted to be successful, they wanted to be wealthy - that's a life goal that has some key built in benefits; responsibility first and foremost, but also learning from mistakes and failures, taking educated risks - which brought us innovations like cellphones, like Windows, like the internet, that in turn brought about the dot.com boom that /you/ are seeing and citing as "better" for the "less advantaged" than today. It wasn't the technology, you're correct, it was the way their /parents/ lived and believed that brought it all. And the internet itself brought up the entire world, because it opened up global trade in a way the world has never seen - on the one hand it helped alleviate poverty all across the world, on the other it brought foreign markets into America like we've never seen, nor coped with before - which again is a double sided blade in itself; it brought cheaper technologically advanced products, but that's at the cost of {individual} American's massive economic prowess [it was basically a bit of an equalizer as now American's money ultimately ends up in foreign nations as American's are buying products that had, through say the early 80s, largely been sold to them by mostly American companies, thus the "American" cash stayed mostly in "America's" economy.]

I figure it was mostly the 90s [at the risk of sounding a bit conspiracy theory, I actually suspect it was soviet propaganda/subversion,] the socialistic mentality has taken over the nation and stomped out that drive for success that always drove, and kept, America on the top prior to the 80s, and worse the communistic idea that the rich /stole/ from the workers, inherently joins forces, leading to young folks not wanting to be "rich" themselves, which means they don't have the /drive/ to succeed. The children of hot blooded, driven capitalists grew up in the luxury of their parents success; parents who had spent 30-60 years working their asses off to provide a "better" life for their kids. Their kids grew up with health insurance, yearly vacations, new cars, new phones, new computers, new walkmans/stereos, etc., [and we're talking about top of the line shit too because the "stuff" before computers is worlds below "modern" stuff and the speed of advancement with computer demand back then made even "the latest and greatest" cheap and available for the masses in supersonic time - speeds never seen before frankly] and the kids, wanted that "life style" of "the best of the best" to continue even after they moved out on their own (which back then was in the 16-20 range typically) - that's why hundreds of thousands, millions even, of idiots in their 30s are up to their ears in debt trying to "keep up" with the speed of tech advancement. This is an affliction/sickness you often see in "new middle-class" folks which I'll touch on later, but, do you remember the adage "keeping up with the Jones'?" How many people did you know who were "house poor," or who went bankrupt because they "couldn't" keep up, or how about all those sots who "made it big" then lost it all in dumb as **** ways {coke, gambling, etc.} Unfortunately, and sadly typically, the "new rich" and even the "new" upper and middle class of the 80s/90s, unlike the "wealthy elite" throughout pretty much time immortal, either didn't teach their kids the lessons /needed/ to be financially successful [99% of the time they foolishly presumed that the supersonic upward movement of the economy would continue forever], or perhaps it was the kids themselves [lured by aforementioned socialistic propaganda] simply blew off those lessons.

For example, my parents were wealthy, my grandparents were wealthy, my family has had generations to learn the basic lessons necessary for success (aka how to get, and /stay/, rich.) Contrary to popular belief of the left, my parents actually insisted that /I/ had to be able to "make it" on my own. They taught me the basics, the principles, the ideological drive for success, but also let me fail, HARD even. Example, they let me buy a two-wheel drive long bed truck for example [note I live in Alaska], which I promptly got stuck in a few snow banks and ditches, and rather quickly learned how to /not ******* do that/ because they wouldn't come dig me out either. My father made me change the tires every damn season (studs and summer), by myself, with a hand jack that literally weighed more than I did, he made me change my oil and transmission fluid, he made me do everything. And yea, at the time I hated it, I hated him because he never let my mom help me (call a tow truck to unstuck me, or take the truck to the mechanic and tire companies to change the shit - BUT he did all that because it was stuff that /he/ didn't learn how to do and he wanted to make sure that /I/ would be able to, and this is the key bit in my mind, if I couldn't afford to pay others to do it for me... That's a lesson that the "steady wealthy" teach their kids, that the "new rich" of the 70-80s [and even today] did no. It's a kind of "mental insurance" for when shit hits the fan, so you don't end up completely helpless and reliant upon others - aka you don't /need/ the government to help you because you learned to dig yourself out of that ditch.

The lefts biggest problem, prior to this recent turn to flat out communism and socialism, the "classical liberals" and even those who maybe just wanted a little democratic socialism in the form of Social Security and moderate welfare to help the elderly and disabled, was always staying power. D's just don't have anything BUT "welfare" to offer the majority of the nation (again LGBT issue stuff only really touches like 30% of the population, and that includes non-LGBT "supporters" and shit.) I think that's why they were so easily over-run by socialists, they've ***** footed around with other ideas; global warming... I mean climate change, illegal immigration acceptance, refugees, etc. but /none/ of those issues really "helps" the entire nation; they're little more than pet projects taken in purely to get votes - and if you /really/ examine the quagmire of conflicting "core" belief principles across the D spectrum, there is hypocrisy in nearly every single "platform" they support; it's laughable if you actually take a step back and think about it. (I could give some examples, but then I just come off as D-bashing and that's not my intention here. I actually like some of the D's classical changes; SSM was a life long fight for me up here, I'm a modern abolitionist [it's why I'm apposed to Islam in it's "current state"], I'm even on-board with a good deal of second-wave feminism [sexual equality, racial equality as a principle, though not in D's "method of achievement"], and many other "aspects" at their "core" - aka classical liberal ideals.)

I kind of don't blame the D's.... Okay well for the older "sell outs," this latest full-in communism/socialism thing is totally wrong and dangerous as **** so I condemn them for basically selling out American's future's and success just to get more political clout/power for their stupid party, but that's really just over the past decade [thanks globalists,] and it's only the past couple years that I stopped respecting their "side" and "position" and "intentions." I mean the D party's "remake" with JFK was all about "competing" with the R's wildly successful endorsement of raw capitalism; and if we're being completely honest here, D's only tend to win when there's a "hic-up" in the stock market that causes the economy to falter; the recession in 1958 brought in JFK in 1961, the oil crisis in 1973 [exasperated/prolonged by high gas prices during the buildup of the Iranian revolution] brought in Carter in 1977, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990 caused the "shell shock" recession regarding oil prices and brought in Clinton in 1993, and of course the sub-prime mortgage crisis in 2007 brought in Obama. Recessions and market hic-ups dredge up all the "socialist" types to get to the booths and vote for "promised" handouts - if this core D voting block is making "enough" to pay their bills they just don't vote in any numbers, that's just the way it's been - so yea, the R's are dead right, "it's the economy stupid" - also why the D's are /terrified/ of Donald J. Trump, and unfortunately, consequently, why D's are opposed to American success...

How do you compete with something as glorious and beneficial to nearly 100% of the world population? The /only/ way is through class warfare, racial divide, and, essentially, hate and fear. The exact same reasons that I am not a R ironically; because they play the same stupid "hate and fear" games - though perhaps not as "harmful" to the world population because frankly they suck at it. They can't even get the majority of Christian's to hate gays their propaganda game is so weak - and more importantly, the vast majority of "R's" deeply believe in individual freedom, which includes allowing some folks to face "eternal damnation." Of course that's another factor in the D's losing their mind this year, Trump is, like the majority of Christian's of my generation and the one prior, "gay friendly" - which means they can't play the "R's hate gays" card anymore, their "whites hate blacks" card was too over played to be useful, their "Nazi's" card is laughable, and really all they have is "racist by proxy" a la if you're for a border wall or anti-illegal immigration "you're racist," which they try very, very hard to tie into "white supremacy," but that leaks water like a sieve due to the [punny] "elephant in the room" - it's about /national security/ not /race/ and all but the most partisan know it... Just like global warming... climate change failed because the science of "imminent catastrophe" is bullshit. They totally over-played their hand on that, they could have milked the **** out of it but they're impatient and reckless, yet another lesson D's and "new rich" parents don't pass down to their kids. Then what, transgender men in the little girls room; what a foolish ******* idea that was. So what's left, oh yeah, sexist - because the man who was worlds ahead of his peers on sexual equality, who put a woman in charge of half his financial empire, is totally a sexist... buahaha

... and I think I've typed for far too long so I'm just going to stop there.

And you got all that from changing your own tires in Alaska?
You're not old enough to remember what life was like forty years ago.
I can tell by your writing style, which points to your level of education.
90% of what you just wrote, was "rote", distilled from propaganda.
No time to tear it apart, and it deserves tearing apart, one small chunk at a time.
I'll take a shot at it when things slow down over here.

Uf dah, the struggle is real... I miss "classical liberals" who had functioning brains and could actually extrapolate individual opinions, the "Borg" types are just exhausting to reason with. Sometimes I think folks on political boards aren't even worth talking to anymore :/

Anyway, how typical of the closed-minded, arrogant, partisan tool... Assume, label, and attack with baseless childish insults. Because, of course, anyone who is not towing their exact opinion on every. single. *******. thing. could possibly be "educated." (Educated in what I ask? Liberal arts? ID politics? Hypocrisy? Straight up bullshit?)

Here we have yet another lesson that parents have forgotten to teach their kids - how to be open minded, how to listen, and how to both comprehend and interpret more advanced concepts within discussions. It's almost comical how predictable and goche partisans are when someone actually uses their brain to form an independent logical opinion... It's almost like that Common Core downgrade has been installed in English comprehension classes too... So I know a crap ton of programming languages and occasionally while switching back and forth I'll code in the wrong language [for example raw C++ on my Arduino, which uses a C++ derivative that's not as robust]; talking to partisan people is just like that - the compiler just sits there for a minute, with a blank look on it's face, as it tries to process the "foreign" language, then it spits out a bunch of generally meaningless "error" complaints; because, just like ultra judgmental idiots on both sides, you didn't play by their "specific" rules - aka what /they/ were taught to believe therefore you're wrong... How utterly ******* ironic considering your "accusatory" complaint here; my argument throughout centered on the fact that parents, in general, have failed to teach their kids the ideologies necessary for success. NO shit my ideological beliefs are based on what I was taught ~shakes head~ And yet you claim to be the "educated" one?

Are you so damned "educated" and "smart" you can't even see past the nose on your face to smell the /learned/ opinions and beliefs that you no doubt planned to spew in response? Yet, astoundingly, you'll no doubt emphatically insist that the entirety of the rest of the world take your own brand of propaganda bullshit as the /only/ way to be, think, and believe - and you don't see the hypocrisy of it!? The "offender" will be "labeled" with one or more meaningless insults. The harsh truth is that such name-calling only really bothers failures and the insecure; ya know, children. Yes, even adult children, who haven't gained the real-world "wisdom" necessary to have confidence in themselves, their beliefs, opinions, and their principles. It's why folks like you wave this baseless "uneducated" insult around as though it actually means anything to anyone but you, and possibly some little bubble of like-minded automatons...

Of course, folks like me who've actually studied intelligence in depth are left snorting at the sophomoric understanding on clear display by such blatant ridiculousness and "class warfare" division tactics of the left... The liberal arts degree that the left is so fond of means jack shit in the real world outside of academia, but you dolts will bleat "uneducated" like good little sheep - simply because your masters told you it was a valid debate retort. IQ ratings means practically nothing in the "real world," this is just something partisan hacks say to make them feel better about their inability to relate to segments of the American population that disagree with their /learned/ beliefs and opinions. The truth is that an IQ only marginally above average, 120-125, can handle nearly every single job on the planet outside heavy scientific theory... Perhaps you'd like to toss around some theoretical physics to test your 'educated' assessment of my intellectual capacity [based on my individual writing style and soliloquy no less]; how about something we can both relate to like the potential of quantum entanglement for computers? Or perhaps you're more into the softer sciences; how about some psychological theory? Oh wait... I just /did/ that and you called me "uneducated," then further implied I was a spring chicken -- ******* lol


FYI, I'm not only over 40, but I am also certified at the master level for English communication and comprehension, both oral and written. I've actually been writing my entire life, I'm a published author and I've written countless speeches in support of SSM in Alaska since my teens. Word of advice, if you'd like to be taken as more than just another troll, you just might want to reassess your self-centered arrogant presumptions about your "opposition" it can easily trash your "rep" when you spout off while know /nothing/ about them, and so much worse when you make yourself out a fool whilst throwing such shit around. For example, I have not only noted that I grew up in the 80s, but I had even laid out evidence to that fact in our back and forth discussion about computers prior to your bullshit claim to my age, just a few examples to wit: "Our take home, with me playing at "retired" again, is right around $50-60k/y and last time I checked [before Xmas] we had right around $200k in the bank." "I've been building my own rigs since the 80s and there is no way I'd ever buy a pre-made system." "I have almost 20 years worth of game play and class lessons, plus sneak-peek/heads up's for all the BETA's I get invited to check out for my fan club."

~sigh~ You are coming off as intellectually dishonest at best, trollish and/or stupid at worst.

Why does the right wing believe more in the general warfare than the general welfare?

You proved some of his points.

all the right wing has, is fallacies of false Cause.

the general powers in question are, to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

 

[danielpalos]

Why does the right wing believe more in the general warfare than the general welfare?

I'm not "right wing," but I'll hazard a guess and say that the right wing is willing to fight for what they believe in. I have some questions too:

Why does the modern left wing believe more in acts of violence against fellow citizens who have apposing opinions, than in even trying to find workable compromises to address the ideological divide?

Why does the modern left wing believe more in the failed ideals of socialism, than the proven success of capitalistic ideals? (same general idea) Why does the modern left wing believe more in communistic leaning ideals, than in American republic ideals?

Why does the modern left believe more in consistently regressive religions like Islam, than in proven "progressive" or "accepting" religions like Christianity?

Why does the modern left wing believe more in constantly encouraging racism, than in putting it behind us and moving forward?

Why does the modern left wing believe more in controlling people, than in freedom of individuality? (freedom of speech, of thought, and of assembly, to be "different," to be "normal," even to be "hateful") [Don't believe they're controlling people? Read this How to Recognize a Controlling Person and tell me that's not textbook modern left tactics...]

---

That last one actually ties directly back into my commentary about "bad shit well intentioned parents did/didn't teach their kids that have brought us to the mess we're in today"; in that particular case it was "helicopter" parents who unfortunately failed to balance out the dictatorship of parenthood - while some "absolute law" /is/ necessary to ensure kids safety - it must be balanced with individual freedom. One example I touched on before is letting kids make mistakes and fail, another, more relevant to "controlling people" is letting them form their own opinions. And don't get me wrong, the right wing, specifically the religious right wing, made the same mistake in the past; up until about my generation these "controlling" religious parents didn't let their kids decide on religious related stuff - but the religious parents learned, and the majority of religious folks my age are generally okay with LGBTs doing whatever [being homosexual, getting "married," etc.] they may not want to associate heavily with them, they may think it's a sin and that "evil" has brainwashed em/taken root in em, they generally think it's disgusting [some even believe its not "real" - often coming out as "it's a mental illness,"] and they might not want to hear about it (don't ask, don't tell kind of thing,) but I'd say the vast majority of them my age (from my experience) generally blanch, shrug, and say something along the lines of "it's your afterlife."

Their parents had "learned" from the way that they were "controlled" as kids, the 60s when their parents grew up, was the sexual revolution after all. That lasted until the 80s when AIDS forced parents/society to put the breaks on the unabashed *******. -- This is also why I warn about ya'll applying modern social "morals" regarding sexual assault to events that happened 30-40 years ago... IF ya'll want to change the "rules" that you play by, that's completely fine, but you have got to at least acknowledge the way it was when that shit actually happened... I remember a thing called "stopping short" (Urban Dictionary: stop short - and yea, it was acceptable by most women, in fact, back then there wasn't a seat belt law, so it was even considered to be kind of gentlemanly LOL!)

Not sure what you mean. It is probably a recent phenomena. Right wingers wanting to "place the blame on the left"?

 

[EverCurious]

Why does the right wing believe more in the general warfare than the general welfare?

I'm not "right wing," but I'll hazard a guess and say that the right wing is willing to fight for what they believe in. I have some questions too:

Why does the modern left wing believe more in acts of violence against fellow citizens who have apposing opinions, than in even trying to find workable compromises to address the ideological divide?

Why does the modern left wing believe more in the failed ideals of socialism, than the proven success of capitalistic ideals? (same general idea) Why does the modern left wing believe more in communistic leaning ideals, than in American republic ideals?

Why does the modern left believe more in consistently regressive religions like Islam, than in proven "progressive" or "accepting" religions like Christianity?

Why does the modern left wing believe more in constantly encouraging racism, than in putting it behind us and moving forward?

Why does the modern left wing believe more in controlling people, than in freedom of individuality? (freedom of speech, of thought, and of assembly, to be "different," to be "normal," even to be "hateful") [Don't believe they're controlling people? Read this How to Recognize a Controlling Person and tell me that's not textbook modern left tactics...]

---

That last one actually ties directly back into my commentary about "bad shit well intentioned parents did/didn't teach their kids that have brought us to the mess we're in today"; in that particular case it was "helicopter" parents who unfortunately failed to balance out the dictatorship of parenthood - while some "absolute law" /is/ necessary to ensure kids safety - it must be balanced with individual freedom. One example I touched on before is letting kids make mistakes and fail, another, more relevant to "controlling people" is letting them form their own opinions. And don't get me wrong, the right wing, specifically the religious right wing, made the same mistake in the past; up until about my generation these "controlling" religious parents didn't let their kids decide on religious related stuff - but the religious parents learned, and the majority of religious folks my age are generally okay with LGBTs doing whatever [being homosexual, getting "married," etc.] they may not want to associate heavily with them, they may think it's a sin and that "evil" has brainwashed em/taken root in em, they generally think it's disgusting [some even believe its not "real" - often coming out as "it's a mental illness,"] and they might not want to hear about it (don't ask, don't tell kind of thing,) but I'd say the vast majority of them my age (from my experience) generally blanch, shrug, and say something along the lines of "it's your afterlife."

Their parents had "learned" from the way that they were "controlled" as kids, the 60s when their parents grew up, was the sexual revolution after all. That lasted until the 80s when AIDS forced parents/society to put the breaks on the unabashed *******. -- This is also why I warn about ya'll applying modern social "morals" regarding sexual assault to events that happened 30-40 years ago... IF ya'll want to change the "rules" that you play by, that's completely fine, but you have got to at least acknowledge the way it was when that shit actually happened... I remember a thing called "stopping short" (Urban Dictionary: stop short - and yea, it was acceptable by most women, in fact, back then there wasn't a seat belt law, so it was even considered to be kind of gentlemanly LOL!)

Not sure what you mean. It is probably a recent phenomena. Right wingers wanting to "place the blame on the left"?

Which of my questions are you thinking that the right wing has done that they're "blaming" on the left wing?

I do agree though, it's a recent phenomena to employ violence against others simply for their differing political opinions and viewpoints. In my entire life I have never seen anything even close to the behavior of the left this past couple years; that's why I say that the left has lost their ******* minds...

---

I've said it before, until the past few years I have actually been in agreement with left issues on the social side of things, however, I cannot, and will not, be associated with the violent, oppressive bullshit that the left has become. For months, starting mid to late 2015 through mid-2016 I was telling reasonable folks on the left that they need to either take their party back or abandon it and start a new one. While I am happy that many have done just that, I wish they'd taken the DNC back because now we have a radical and violent party with a "leg up" over other party alternates [just look up the expensive bullshit hoops third parties have to jump through in order to participate - and of course the MSM assholes don't give them any airtime either.]

It's really sad for people like me who have "lefty" beliefs that have been hijacked and ******* destroyed by what amounts to domestic terrorists. I suppose it's par for the course, maybe even karma, the left by and large stood by as the "southern pride" folks lost their "symbol" [aka confederate flag] at the hands of a eerily similar historic take over, and subsequent destructive fall-out. The ironic part is that the only reason that happened is because the "reasonable" lefties and "reasonable" righties both agree that it's not worth getting violent about, both sides in trying /not/ to fight have ended up losing something quasi-important to them...

Personally, I tend to believe we should "fight for what we believe in," like I have done fighting for SSM in Alaska most of my life - but I dray the line at violence of any flavor; that includes non-physical "violence" like stealing other peoples money for failed socialist experiments like welfare, ACA, and so-forth. The only silver lining I can find in the events the past few years is that classical liberals are "seeing the light" on those failed experiments; they're realizing that their goal is actually to /fix/ these problems, not uselessly throw money at them (which is what politicians do for votes.) It remains to be seen if the "new independents" have enough votes to actually help the poor and down on their luck or not, but I'm liking what I'm hearing from many of them. Rubin and DeFranco are my favorite two.

...Well aside from my Mother who left when the DNC put up Hillary; she's not /at all/ fond of the Clinton's. Personally I thought Bill Clinton did alright. Sure the sub prime mortgage thing was a complete disaster, but I honestly don't think he knew it was going to blow up like that so I think his intentions were good (though perhaps a bit more communistic than I'm really comfortable with.) I do wish he'd kept his cigars in an apartment or cottage instead of stinking up the oval office with that whole scandal, and there's no longer any doubt in my mind that the Clinton's have a different brand of justice than the rest of us "little people." My husband was "requested" to leave the Army because he and his wife were going through divorce but it wasn't final and he'd slept with another woman - they basically black balled him for adultery, essentially because the courts were/are slow up here so the Judge hadn't signed the paperwork yet [it was a year and a half after she'd cheated on him and they'd split...] And the whole time that was going on for him, Bill Clinton was getting busted for doing that shit in the White House, oh but that was okay... He kind of hates Bill Clinton now, I try to tell him it's the system not the man, but he won't hear it, he thinks the Clinton's are "above the law" just like my mother. Given the recent scandalous bullshit we're learning about the politicization of the DOJ and FBI, they're right... I'm just glad their out now, hopefully they'll stay out and we can get back to true equality under the law.

 

[danielpalos]

Usually, it is the right wing doing that. That is why you are more surprised.