Employee Notice

[sentry103]

Fox News! Fair and Balanced 8)

O'reilly for prez

[holnrew]

Fox News! Fair and Balanced 8)

O'reilly for prez

Seriously?

[RobME]

Fox News! Fair and Balanced 8)

O'reilly for prez

Seriously?

Not at all... it was certainly meant in sarcasm. Fox News is alternately known (in some circles) as Fixed News. :wink:

8)

[bmwgsa]

Fox News! Fair and Balanced 8)

O'reilly for prez

As it's called over on MSNBC - The Fixed News Notwork

[sentry103]

CNN = Communist News Network

Lol did you see on O'Reilly the statistics at MSNBC news? 73% of McCain coverage was negative to 14% of Obamas coverage was negative. WOW thats impressive even for a left wing news station.

"The Eagle needs a left AND right wing to fly".... forgot who said that but it's a good statement.

[rollinred]

...and I know for a 100% fact that those crap tax policies are a destructive force and not constructive.

The more you continue along with this the more I'm convinced; You really don't see this all in context. Let it go...

"BETTER TO REMAIN SILENT AND BE THOUGHT THE FOOL... THEN TO OPEN YOUR MOUTH, AND REMOVE ALL DOUBT!"

Take the lesson.

Then you should take your advice and use it. Facts are facts. I am not going to play a spin game.

BTW... Reagan gave this country the largest peace time economic growth we have ever seen. Plus he inherited an economy that was very nearly as bad as it is today. Take history and use it for our advantage.

Would you ever see a doctor who is trying to cure a very rare form of somthing use a completely different technique than one that has worked well in the past... only if he wants a huge lawsuit. That doctor would follow the procedures that have worked.

The court system is smart enough to use this also, "stare decises" (spelling might be wrong), means "let the decision stand". They find previous cases which are similar, and apply the law as it was applied before.

Reagan was one of the single most poplular and succesful presidents because his policies worked. Why in a very tough economic time would we ever stray from what has worked before?

[Starcadia]

The progressive argument to your conservative one is simply that times change. What was true of one era will probably not be true for a later one. Same applies to the fields you brought up - law and medicine - which are also constantly evolving. Change is often painful, but is necessary for progress.

I can relate to your wanting things to be the same as how they were in the past. There's something comfortable about that idea. Unfortunately, that's simply not how the world works. It changes broadly and rapidly, and those who want to climb back into their mothers' womb are not the sort of people who should be taking on the serious challenges of our constantly evolving world.

[rollinred]

The progressive argument to your conservative one is simply that times change. What was true of one era will probably not be true for a later one. Same applies to the fields you brought up - law and medicine - which are also constantly evolving. Change is often painful, but is necessary for progress.

I can relate to your wanting things to be the same as how they were in the past. There's something comfortable about that idea. Unfortunately, that's simply not how the world works. It changes broadly and rapidly, and those who want to climb back into their mothers' womb are not the sort of people who should be taking on the serious challenges of our constantly evolving world.

People still do not change what simply works. Economics is somthing that comes down to more simple mathematics than progressive change. Unless that change is to somthing like socialism or communism, or some other form of economic policy, and in those cases they have also proven failures throughout history. China, USSR, Cuba... all perfect examples of fail redistribution of wealth. Socialism and Communism work extremely well in theory, but in practice the founders have simply forgeten what the mathematics tell them.

Now in you example of medicine and law changing, it is changing into somthing that is "New or Progessive", which would be a completely different form of government than the world has ever seen in this case, not one that has been tried and failed or not worked well at all.

We are talking about existing theories of practice and which ones have worked the best. Picking and chosing one. Obama wants to spread the wealth around and try to raise people out of poverty using the forced confescation of others hard work. This causes the hard working wealthy people to hide thier money in untaxable bonds, or simply not work as hard so not as much is taken out, it is punishing hard work and actually slowing down what you call "progression". It also reinforces lazy or unmotivated people to continue what they are doing, which in most cases is nothing anyway. Welfare didn't work even in this country. They tried to tell people you have to search for a job or your not getting your check. Eventually almost all of those people were back unemployed and doing nothing.

Obama is not trying to bring about progressive government, he is trying to get away from the most progressive form of government in the world, which is a Capitalist Democracy.

[Ainkor]

Obama is not trying to bring about progressive government, he is trying to get away from the most progressive form of government in the world, which is a Capitalist Democracy.

Just sharing my opinion!

In reality, due to human nature, there is no single form of government that works best. Some are inherently better than others while some are obviously worse. It is impossible to say that our democracy (representative (corporate/capitalist) republic really) is better than say, a theocracy. One of the longest lasting forms of governance is the monarchy, and it could be argued that under a monarchy, countries and people thrived.

Until humans as a whole change, no single governmental type will be perfect or ideal. Our system has worked well over the last few hundred years mainly because it plays on mans greed and want. I am not mentioning this to argue wether it is right or wrong, just stating an observation. In theory, communism would work very well, until you put human nature into the mix. The power of greed and the want to be more equal than others over-rides just about anything.

In my opinion, a good recipe for governance would be like making a cake:

Take your base ingredients,

Controlled regulated capitalism
Social fallbacks for the truely needy
A true representational governing body that is not influenced by greed and power
A just and authoritatorian leadership party

Mix the above ingredients in a bowl, using a wooden spoon (anyone who cooks knows you only use a wooden spoon!) and mix the desired amounts of each (I will not pretend to know the correct ratio's, I run restaurants, not countries).

Add in a healthy cupfull of rule of law and defined roles of the governming bodies and pour into a bundt pan (makes the best cakes, I swear!)

Cook in the oven at 350 degrees until done and serve warm with drizzled prosperity on top.

Pure capitalism doesnt work - We are greedy

Pure socialism doesn't work, because people wouldn't work!

Pure communism doesn't work because some of us are more equal than others

A representative republic doesn't work because some are more represented than others

A pure democracy doesn't work because mob rule has a way of, well, turning into a mob

A monarchy doesn't work because it leads to a set caste of leaders that simply rule because of inheritance versus competence

A theocracy doesn't work because some won't / don't believe

Hell, throw some more in there, nothing has worked well forever..... because we are human.

So what is the answer? Hell, I don't know. I do my best to be a good person, love my wife and kids, raise them to be good people and enjoy some nice snus. Most importantly though, is to learn. Take it for what it's worth.

/rant off....

-Ainkor

[Starcadia]

red - I sense that you're a fan of entrepreneurship, which I appreciate. The American Dream and all that. However, if you've seen the depths of America, where most of the population lives, you'll see there's very little entrepreneurship going on, at least not in any extravagant way. Most people are working very hard just to put food on the table for their families, much less become rich. Most people just want to have a simple life and some luxuries to keep up with the Joneses, send their kids to school, be able to go to a doctor when necessary, and retire comfortably. Basically.

People who want more than that, for whatever reason, should have to work honestly for it, and keep working honestly for it, not get to some point and then glide on the sweat of the working class. Riches are a privilege for those whose personal ambitions require them, not a right (they can be taken away if abused). The rest of us, who do not feel the need to compensate that way, should feel comfortable knowing that our hard work and moderate lifestyle shall provide what is necessary, and that if things go wrong, as they are wont to do on occasion, we have the support of our country.

If you really want to look at precedent, look at the fact that society is, and always has been, inherently hierarchical. Where have all the people ever been in an American hierarchy? Middle and lower class. Where has the money always been? Upper-middle and upper class. Same with quality education and health care. Yes, some from the lower classes do find the ambition to rise, and that's great. My father, for one, did. He's the only Ph.D. in his high school class. A genuine mutation.

Our real power is in our untapped majority population. If we could somehow find a way to get them educated and working and healthy, our country would set a new precedent of greatness as a nation. And we don't have to suppress the upper classes while we do it, but since they're already doing okay, let's shift some of the focus away from them and onto the people who need it the most. And let's, as a nation, try to do it first, and thereby maintain our world superiority.

Or does that not make sense? By the way, you conveniently left out the Socialist Democracies that currently rank among the nations with the highest standards of living in the world, including our beloved Sweden. They're quite Capitalistic when you examine them, in some ways more than us, not to mention highly successful and highly peaceful.

[sentry103]

O'Reilly for prez!!



lol

[Premium Parrots]

Obama is not trying to bring about progressive government, he is trying to get away from the most progressive form of government in the world, which is a Capitalist Democracy.

Just sharing my opinion!

In reality, due to human nature, there is no single form of government that works best. Some are inherently better than others while some are obviously worse. It is impossible to say that our democracy (representative (corporate/capitalist) republic really) is better than say, a theocracy. One of the longest lasting forms of governance is the monarchy, and it could be argued that under a monarchy, countries and people thrived.

Until humans as a whole change, no single governmental type will be perfect or ideal. Our system has worked well over the last few hundred years mainly because it plays on mans greed and want. I am not mentioning this to argue wether it is right or wrong, just stating an observation. In theory, communism would work very well, until you put human nature into the mix. The power of greed and the want to be more equal than others over-rides just about anything.

In my opinion, a good recipe for governance would be like making a cake:

Take your base ingredients,

Controlled regulated capitalism
Social fallbacks for the truely needy
A true representational governing body that is not influenced by greed and power
A just and authoritatorian leadership party

Mix the above ingredients in a bowl, using a wooden spoon (anyone who cooks knows you only use a wooden spoon!) and mix the desired amounts of each (I will not pretend to know the correct ratio's, I run restaurants, not countries).

Add in a healthy cupfull of rule of law and defined roles of the governming bodies and pour into a bundt pan (makes the best cakes, I swear!)

Cook in the oven at 350 degrees until done and serve warm with drizzled prosperity on top.

Pure capitalism doesnt work - We are greedy

Pure socialism doesn't work, because people wouldn't work!

Pure communism doesn't work because some of us are more equal than others

A representative republic doesn't work because some are more represented than others

A pure democracy doesn't work because mob rule has a way of, well, turning into a mob

A monarchy doesn't work because it leads to a set caste of leaders that simply rule because of inheritance versus competence

A theocracy doesn't work because some won't / don't believe

Hell, throw some more in there, nothing has worked well forever..... because we are human.

So what is the answer? Hell, I don't know. I do my best to be a good person, love my wife and kids, raise them to be good people and enjoy some nice snus. Most importantly though, is to learn. Take it for what it's worth.

/rant off....

-Ainkor

got milk?

[Ainkor]

got milk?

Yup! Just used it in my Life cereal

[rollinred]

red - I sense that you're a fan of entrepreneurship, which I appreciate. The American Dream and all that. However, if you've seen the depths of America, where most of the population lives, you'll see there's very little entrepreneurship going on, at least not in any extravagant way. Most people are working very hard just to put food on the table for their families, much less become rich. Most people just want to have a simple life and some luxuries to keep up with the Joneses, send their kids to school, be able to go to a doctor when necessary, and retire comfortably. Basically.

People who want more than that, for whatever reason, should have to work honestly for it, and keep working honestly for it, not get to some point and then glide on the sweat of the working class. Riches are a privilege for those whose personal ambitions require them, not a right (they can be taken away if abused). The rest of us, who do not feel the need to compensate that way, should feel comfortable knowing that our hard work and moderate lifestyle shall provide what is necessary, and that if things go wrong, as they are wont to do on occasion, we have the support of our country.

If you really want to look at precedent, look at the fact that society is, and always has been, inherently hierarchical. Where have all the people ever been in an American hierarchy? Middle and lower class. Where has the money always been? Upper-middle and upper class. Same with quality education and health care. Yes, some from the lower classes do find the ambition to rise, and that's great. My father, for one, did. He's the only Ph.D. in his high school class. A genuine mutation.

Our real power is in our untapped majority population. If we could somehow find a way to get them educated and working and healthy, our country would set a new precedent of greatness as a nation. And we don't have to suppress the upper classes while we do it, but since they're already doing okay, let's shift some of the focus away from them and onto the people who need it the most. And let's, as a nation, try to do it first, and thereby maintain our world superiority.

Or does that not make sense? By the way, you conveniently left out the Socialist Democracies that currently rank among the nations with the highest standards of living in the world, including our beloved Sweden. They're quite Capitalistic when you examine them, in some ways more than us, not to mention highly successful and highly peaceful.

Yes, entrepreneurism is a very highly studied topic of mine.

Did you know that small businesses, which are always started as and entrepreneurship hire between 50-55% of our nations work force, depending upon the source you get it from? Also they account for over 99% of the businesses that employ people. Yes those are true figures, those are the people who are affected by higher taxes, the people who give other people jobs.

If you suppress those small-businesses with higher taxes they can not afford to hire or keep employees.

I have heard the Obama camp say somthing like only 50% of small business owners make over $200,000 the level he wants to start higher taxes at (except for in the last few days he hasnt been able to decide the actual number). Well that my be true for thier take home pay. You have to realize that just like individual income tax, he want to tax the revenues of this business, not net income. So even before expenses are taken out he is going to start his taxes.

My figures wont be exact here, just quick rough estimates, but if you take a small business owner like my father, he gives himself a take home pay of about $90,000, but that is obviously not the money the business makes. Revenues wise it is over $400,000. So with obamas plan the he will pay at least $30,000 to $50,000 he figures, compared to the 20,000 or a little bit more under Bush or McCain. That difference could offset fuel costs for over half a year, hire an employee for half a year....Or, give every single employee a $1 raise per hour each year. Again I dont have exact numbers but the example still stands.

Google, Yahoo, Ford, Chevrolet, Ebay, etc ... all started as small busineses so did most other corporations which now hire most of the other half of the work force. So now your eliminating these brilliant risk takers who may just have an idea for a company that could become as large and employ as many people as huge corporations some day.

Sweden is a "socialist" nation which in my readings on economics from a year ago are having some grave troubles with thier welfare programs, health care programs, and the such because the money is being spent by the government, which not government ever spends money wisely. Maybe a few Swedes will read this and let us know of their current status.

There is only one thing I will actaully say I have a high degree of disagreement with you on. And that is "tapping the majority population of lower class" by educating them, and getting them working. My sence is that you are saying to do what Obama plans, to take some from the rich and send it down. I could just be taking what your saying in the wrong way, if thats the case sorry :wink: .

On that issue you really have to look away from what I call "face value" which is one of the huge shortcomings of the liberal ideology. God would I absolutely love to see all Americans thriving, and it just seems initially that the super rich dont need all that money and could spare a few bucks, or hell a few thousand, or ok million. But what does that really do in the long run. What is the fallout of that, the answer is lost jobs and simply more people just recieving government checks. More welfare really, and we know that doesnt work in our country as recently as the Clinton years. So now more people are in welfare, there are now fewer jobs, and wealth actually continues to drop per capita. The rich are making less, and more people are falling to super low income levels. It is just a mud slide for an extremly powerful and wealthy nation.

The only way to get out of that would be to essentially lower GDP, lower standards of living and accept that now we are like every European nation.

Obviously I am sure you can understand that getting rid of the wealthy peoples money also lowers research for new ideas because you create more working class people by doing so, lets face it, working class people are not as ingenuitive and we essentially will start to fall as inovators in the world.

BTW... in case anyone wondered, I only make $16,000 a year, so I am well below the poverty level on my own, so I understand it all and if Obama's plan goes as he wishes I would even recieve one of his checks. But it just doesnt make sence for me to get one of those when my boss could give me a $.50 raise and I would make just as much. And he would be able to invest more in growing the business and giving me more raises. All of that could be done with the money that Obama is going to take from him.

[Starcadia]

I hear ya, red. The debate will go on and on. Seems there will always be antagonism between those who favor big, exclusive investment and those who favor consumerism as the real drivers of a soaring economy.

Most likely Obama will be our next president. And fortunately his beliefs are somewhere in between. The GOP has done a great job of convincing people that he's an ultra-liberal Communist terrorist as a way to swing votes, but you have to admit that it's just a bunch of manipulative rhetoric in just another heated, gloves-off battle for the presidency. Obama is right of Hillary, and is quite conservative compared to real liberals in other parts of the world. If nothing else, we'll be treated to a presidency that is in touch with a sense of moderation. I for one am very curious to see how it works, once all this election crap is behind us.