Michael Moore

[Kirk]

You're lying again sir. Just because you don't say, "YOU are an
{insert insult}" does NOT mean that you don't. You're an
educated man, I KNOW you know what you're doing. Granted,
you're much more tame here, than on kenponet, but you're still
very insulting, and demeaning.

Thanks,

Kirk


Reagan is the sole person responsible for ending the cold war ...
I'd say he's a smart man.

If those aren't the facts, show me where I'm wrong.


You're also dodging the questions of your personal contributions
to the poor, non white folks of this country. What do you drive?
What's the estimated value of your home? What college did your
kids go to? How many poor kids have gone to college on your
dime?

 

[Don Roley]

Originally posted by Cliarlaoch
The illusion of private ownership? Please. It's just one owner being exchanged for a set of other owners. Oh, no, don't tell me he's frightened people with the thought that workers can actually have a voice.

That is what is scary. That he has no respect for the rights of people to their own property. What if you were the target for the people taking over whatever they want? What if, instead of determining what people can do with their factory, they were advocating what a newspaper could print?

Originally posted by Cliarlaoch
Fascism is government by an elite cadre. What he's advocating is nothing more than radical democracy, wherein (not surprisingly), the policies that have the most votes get advocated. If people want to change those policies, then they'll change their vote in the next election or referendum.

The thing is, many fascists get elected to power. They may feel that democracy is bunk (like Moore's comments about sheep that Dennis Miller commented on) but they will use it to get to power. Most often by means of a popular message demonzing those who have more than most of the voters.

Now, I do admire people who are willing to help those less fortunate than themselves. But to force others to help the people, when they themselves are of the people, is just plain greedy.

Let us face facts. Everyone on this thread advocating making the rich help the poor are rich by the standards of the majority of the people on this planet. Just living in North America or Western Europe has made you so much better off than most of the people in Africa or Asia. So, what are you doing to help them? The K-12 education you got for free is the envy of people in Kenya, and you can not make the claim that your own efforts got you that education. It was because of your parents that you got that great education, lived in houses so much better than the hovels most live in, ate better and are healthier. So now that you have been given a great advantage over the people in the rest of the world (through the advantages of your birth) what are you willing to do to help them?

I have heard people talking about the great advantages that people like the Kennedy family, or industrial giants, have had from their parents and heard talk of how this justifies taking away their control of their wealth. Well, you all are richer than most of the world and charity starts at home. If you actually apply the same set of ideals to your own actions as you would subject others to, then I will admire you. But if you merely wish to target the wealth of those above you and ignore those less fortunate, then you stand as a sterling example of why I feel that collectivism is generated by greed and envy.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
As for the actual discussion. (I was going to take out, "actual," but wottehehell.) Rich, please just leave out the "helping." I don't mean to be unkind, but it's really--well, I don't know quite how to put this--inappropriate, and regrettably it trempts me to respond in kind, and I don't see how that helps. I take it, too, as a sign of what Foucault described as the extension of the medical and psychiatric into the realm of the judicial....

Robert, No Probelm telling me to go jump into a lake. I was just a little tired of hearing how it was always someones elses fault then yours. The world hates you and this is why you are where you are at. I guess I was wrong. You say you are healthy and fine. So be it. I guess I am Wrong. :asian:

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Of course I agree that spending much time debating such issues on MartialTalk is a bit weird, but then, aren't we all in that boat?

Wierd, Nothing is wierd at all about this. Sooner or later all discussion turn into Politics, sex or religion. I could be Wrong. I have been before and will be wrong again.

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
As for Heinlein, well, I've read everything--and I mean everything--by that wacko. His god was Mark Twain, who had few things to say about corporate and personal greed, as well as patriotism being the last refuge of scoundrels.But then, so did Robert A....

Heinlein A wacko? THanks for the insult. Did I insult Twain? Nope!
By The Way you brought into the this discussionthe first Writer of Fiction. I just thought I would reply.

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Again, my major point here is that we're trying to talk about the world as it really is, not as it 'spozed to be or might, in some alternative history, be. And here on this planet, capitalism rules. And partly because of historical accident, partly because of the way capitalism emerged in tandem with colonialism (Marx seems to've argued that the middle-class needed the rush of money that only the exploration and exploitations of late-Renaissance Europe made available, in order to take over from feudalism), the facts seem to be that rich white guys do run this country, as well as the rest of the Western world.

So, now it is the fault of the first cave man who traded some meat for a better club?

[/b]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
If those aren't the facts, show me where I'm wrong.

Sir, I asked for examples and counter points from you. I ahve not seen them.

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
As for meritocracy...Does anybody really think that the guys running the country, and our corporations, really are the best and the brightest? Their place at the top, for the majority--not all by any means (Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton pretty much earned their places, as did Bill Gates and lots of others), but the majority--sure looks like it's due to a) luck, b) contingency, c) wealthy parents. I mean, I'll grant you a Buckley or a Goldwater or even a Limbaugh, no real argument--but DAN QUAYLE? And does anybody really think that Reagan was smart and well-educated? leaving out little things like arms-for-hostages so-I-can-put the-money-into right-wing-death-squads (and I wish I were making that up, I was raised to think better of my country), he had an astrologer--AN ASTROLOGER, for chrissakes--determining his weekly schedule.

So it is ok for some white guys to be rich and not for others? So if one rich guys makes money he is to give it away and not allow his family to have it? Maybe we should make them prove them an make it on their own before they get their money from their family. Oh wait, this idea was published By Heinlein the Wacko.

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Hell, it's even quite arguable that the way our system works, we don't even want anybody smart, well-educated and genuinely moral running things--Jimmy Carter was brilliant by all accounts, ex-Navy, a nuclear engineer and successful businessman who actually meant it when he espoused Christian principles, and look how badly HE screwed up.

Did Jimmy Carter screw up or did he inhereit a mess? And in four years he was not able to show the recovery, yet with in 6 months of the Reagon era, things were fine? Maybe the groung work was laid back in the Carter Era?

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Hey, here's a question. We all kvetch about the way that money changes everything in martial arts. There are examples everywhere--so if Michael Moore's so wrong about capitalism, corporatism, and businessmen's greed, what are we all kvetching about? Doesn't the state of American ma's provide a wonderful example of the way capitalism converts everything into its own image, very much as ol' dead Karl argued?

Once again with Karl Marx. Yes the system and environment does affect the idividual or the object. Yet, this is Physics, and understanding the big picture and the variable involved.

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Thanks, for the discussion.

Yes it is a great discussion. I apologize if I have upset or bothered anyone on this thread. I was only trying to express my opinions and have a discussion. I think maybe I have misunderstood some replies and or issues.
:asian:

 

[rmcrobertson]

Here's a point that I don't think I've made clear. Analysis of systems, and an outlining of their development in history, is not dependant upon blaming anybody. It's easier to read it this way, but that is not the point.

Second, Reagan may have been smart. At least in some ways. But to argue that he ended the Cold War when I raised the issue of a) arms for hostages/channeling money to death squads, b) having an astrologer set your appointment calendar is what they call on courtroom dramas, "non-responsive."

Third, the intentional fallacy. Never assume you can judge what an author's thinking, or their moral character, because you read their words. To be sure, none of us actually remember this. However, calling those we do not know liars...oh, take a breath. Exhale completely. It's just internet woofin.'

I didn't dodge a bloody thing, guys. I didn't talk about the whole world. However, since the question's come up, I've worked in hospitals, been in school, or taught for nearly all the last thirty years, mostly in poorer areas. I gave at the office.

Then too, one of the things I do not like about capitalist society is the fact that we all--WE ALL--make our living, especially in the First World, at the expense of others elsewhere. Is this supposed to recommend the present world to me? The fact that our economic system requires taking advantage of others, blinders, and hypocrisy?

Heinlein's a wonderful writer. He's also a whackazoid libertarian, wwith a very appealing but fundamentally warped understanding of history. On the other hand, I bet he was a lot more fun to have dinner with than Che. And I suspect that Karl Marx never really cleaned behind his ears.

I remain interested in discussing the role capitalism plays in kenpo: thanks, Rich.

 

[Don Roley]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
I didn't dodge a bloody thing, guys. I didn't talk about the whole world. However, since the question's come up, I've worked in hospitals, been in school, or taught for nearly all the last thirty years, mostly in poorer areas. I gave at the office.

You gave at the office. Great. And you worked in the hospitals and schools, not for free I assume. Now before you talk about how those with more than you should give to the poor, you should set an example. Is the computer you are reading this on yours? If you sold it, you could get the equivelent of a years average wages in Burma. You know how many people can be saved if you just got rid of most of your possesions, only used what was needed for survival and sent the rest of your wages to the third world?

Or is your version of socialism is not world based but rather national? And it only applies to people who have more than you? Are you not willing to sacrifice for those with less than you, but will make those with more than you sacrifice for you?

You earlier wrote this,

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Now, then. I think that in such societies, businesses are inherently, "crooked," because in such societies, businesses are by definition constantly trying to chisel more profit. It isn't a matter of a few rotten apples, though that's always the excuse. One example: I know a guy who works for a BIG law and accounting firm. Know what he does all day, what the entire firm does? It advises corporations/businesses on ways to cut their taxes. All day, every day--that's what they do. They bill clients $700/hour.

So, do you try to pay as little as possible in taxes? If so, why is it wrong for a big buisness to do so? You can search out and find every chance to reduce your taxes, but it is a proof of greed that some corporation does the same? Your way of thinking does not seem to be very consistent.

So if keeping what you have is greed, then maybe those that feel that way should stop keeping hold of what they own and send it to the less fortunate. When you come to others telling them they have to sacrifice without doing so yourself, you will only be treated as a parasitical hypocrite.

 

[rmcrobertson]

First off, Don, courtesy being fundamental to martial arts last time I checked, why not just discuss the issues--a little Internet sparring, see--and skip the name-calling?

Now here's one of the things you wrote: "So, do you try to pay as little as possible in taxes? If so, why is it wrong for a big buisness to do so? You can search out and find every chance to reduce your taxes, but it is a proof of greed that some corporation does the same? Your way of thinking does not seem to be very consistent."

This is precisely like the scene in "Duck Soup," where Groucho says, "Well, I'm standing here waiting for the moment when I can hold out my hand to him. But what if he doesn't take it? I hold out my hand to him, and he spits in my face. Well, I'm not having it! I won't tolerate these insults any longer! We'll go to war, then," or words to that effect. You've no idea what I do with my taxes, and you are leaping to conclusions, then basing your attacks on conclusions you've drawn.

It is a similar leap or three of logic to draw conclusions about people's character based upon the kind of stuff we hear on talk shows, then jump to what such a person must be thinking and doing, then attack for what they did based on our leaps.

Rather than attack what I must be up to though I'm not, why not just attack what you read on the page? I still haven't seen much about facts, or quotes, or anything else...just the personalities, and I have to tell you that I don't know who this guy is you're writing about, but it sure ain't me.

This is precisely why, in martial arts, Clyde insists upon looking at the chest and hips, never the eyes.

 

[Don Roley]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
You've no idea what I do with my taxes, and you are leaping to conclusions, then basing your attacks on conclusions you've drawn.

So, do you pay as little as you can in taxes? Everyone I know does. I have never even heard of someone who purposely pays more than they need to. Most look up ways to claim any exemptions they are entitled to under the law.

This is what the companies you mentioned are doing. How is this wrong? Everyone does it, and I assume you do too. But why is it wrong only for big companies to do it? Why is the act of keeping the money you have earned from a buisiness for yourself instead of passing it over to the goverment some sort of "greed?" Unless you give your money totally over to the goverment and let them dole out only what they think you need to survive, then you are holding others up to a standard you are not willing to maintain yourself.

 

[rmcrobertson]

How can I put this plainly.

Corporations are not people.

Corporations, and the people who run them, have a helluva lot more money.

Corporations have access to resources that are unavailable to ordinary folks like you and me.

In the great race of life, shouldn't everyone be treated equally? Sure. And everybody should start, too, from the same place at pretty much the same time.

 

[Kirk]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
How can I put this plainly.

Corporations are not people.

Corporations, and the people who run them, have a helluva lot more money.

Corporations have access to resources that are unavailable to ordinary folks like you and me.

In the great race of life, shouldn't everyone be treated equally? Sure. And everybody should start, too, from the same place at pretty much the same time.

NO!!!!!!!

That's life. If you want more than you have, work more!

Do you have kids? What college did they go to? Probably the
same one at which you teach, and they probably went there for
free. Was that fair? And again I ask you ....
let me space it away from the paragraph, so you won't have any
reason to miss it, or whatever it is you do to not answer
questions ....

How many children of no relationship at all to you, have you put
through college??

You're gonna reply, yet again, asking for facts. Well that's what
we're trying to establish here, aren't we?

 

[arnisador]

Originally posted by Kirk
How many children of no relationship at all to you, have you put through college??

Quite a few, if you're an American taxpayer.

 

[Kirk]

Originally posted by arnisador
Quite a few, if you're an American taxpayer.

Ah, but that's not what's being stated. Rich people paid thier
taxes too. Mr McRobertson feels that Bill Gate's kids shouldn't get
to go to Harvard, or that Mr Gates should not have gone to
Harvard either, because his parents, and now he, have are
considered rich. He directly said, "And everybody should start,
too, from the same place at pretty much the same time. " Well
I contend that his kids went to a better school than a LARGE
amount of poor people out there. And realizing he is only one
man (but still one man of the belief of wealth distribution, so that
no one makes more or has more than the other), I'd like to know
how many people less fortunate than he got to go to college on
his dime? I sure know it wasn't me, I worked 2 jobs to pay for
mine.

 

[Don Roley]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
How can I put this plainly.

Corporations are not people.

But they are composed of people who own them. So, let us say we change the question. Every small business I know of also tries to keep as much of its money instead of paying it in taxes.

So is it greedy for the store on the corner run by a family to seek out ways of keeping their money, just like the corporations?

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Corporations, and the people who run them, have a helluva lot more money.

And why should that matter, when we are all supposed to be treated equally under the law? You complain that rich people may get different treatment than poor folks, and now you are encouraging it? This is nothing but greed and envy on your part.

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Corporations have access to resources that are unavailable to ordinary folks like you and me.

They have the potential to resources, and we have the potential down the line too. Again, you are beating up on them because they have more than you and you envy their wealth. There are people who were born athletes, and they have access to resources of their body that I do not have. As long as no one gains their advantage by fraudulant or violent means, why be so filled with petty greed and envy?

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
In the great race of life, shouldn't everyone be treated equally? Sure. And everybody should start, too, from the same place at pretty much the same time.

Well, in the eyes of the law, they should. This means the rich as well as the poor. Some people will have more. And yes, just like you as compared to a peasent in Burma, they will be born with a greater advantage.

Now why do you want to stop me from making my daughter's life better? You keep talking about how others are put on this earth in better positions through the efforts of their ancestors rather than their own hard work. Well, as a father, I can tell you that I am going to make damn sure that my daughter has every advantage I can give her going into the world. All your envious talk about how people should not inherit the wealth they do sounds to me like you do not want me to give anything to my daughter other than what you feel fair. Why on earth should I care about what you feel is fair for me to give to my daughter?

Well, I can tell you that I am going to work as hard as I can to build up a comfortable life for my daughter and give her every penny I can, every educational and health advantage. You are talking about taking away my right to produce wealth and deal with it as I see fit and are trying to get your paws on the legacy I work so hard to build.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by Kirk
Ah, but that's not what's being stated. Rich people paid thier
taxes too. Mr McRobertson feels that Bill Gate's kids shouldn't get
to go to Harvard, or that Mr Gates should not have gone to
Harvard either, because his parents, and now he, have are
considered rich. He directly said, "And everybody should start,
too, from the same place at pretty much the same time. " Well
I contend that his kids went to a better school than a LARGE
amount of poor people out there. And realizing he is only one
man (but still one man of the belief of wealth distribution, so that
no one makes more or has more than the other), I'd like to know
how many people less fortunate than he got to go to college on
his dime? I sure know it wasn't me, I worked 2 jobs to pay for
mine.

Hmmm Rich People, I am plural? OR is thar Rich Parsons you are trying to type there Kirk?? :rofl:

Seriously, I worked at least two jobs, if not 6 part time jobs to make end meet, and those ends were not very well. Part of my eating habits of cleaning my plate and all is when I was hungry and or had to clean a plate for I would only eat one meal a day. Now, before, anyone thinks I deserve compasion or sympathy, I choose to do this to get through college. My Choice to help educate myself. I did borrow money from my Dad and I would pay him back as the semester went on.

Gee Kirk, we have something in common? I hope I have not hurt your feelings with this post.

:asian:

 

[rmcrobertson]

First off, it's like complaining that I have something against Mars, because I observed that it's a coldish, apparently-dead planet---it's an observation, not a judgment. Are you arguing that the rich are treated equally under the law? Are you arguing that their kids don't have big advantages from the git-go? As far as I can see, you're arguing that it's perfectly OK for them to have advantages, not that they have no advantages--so we're in agreement.

If you'd like a judgment, here it is: "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven," and, "Radix malorum est cupiditas."

Now secundus. I realize that it's easier to pass what I'm arguing off as a psychological issue, or one of envy, or some other such nonsense. I realize, too, that you've got all sorts of ideas about who/what I must be--probably because of years of claims by assorted media sources that anybody who says anything like, "Gee, you know, money isn't distributed fairly in this country, and the way it's distributed threatens a lot of the ideals and institutions that Americans believe in," must be a) a liberal (nope, wrong), b) gay (none of your beeswax, and who cares anyway?), c) an America-hater (sorry, no, I still get upset when I see the sloppy way Americans display flags, and when I see one touch the ground), d) ignorant of other viewpoints (doesn't it bother you a teeny bit that I know what Buckley, "The American Spectator," the "National Review," Ricardo and Adam Smith, etc. etc have to say?), e) against our soldiers (wrong again), f) ignorant of military history (wanna hear a recap of Bruce Catton on the Civil War?), g) born rich (hilariously wrong), h) unwilling to work (even funnier), i) jealous of rich people (sure...aren't you? I'm also jealous of, say, Bernie Casey and Sam Shepard, and I can live with it), j) weak (don't confuse manners with weakness), k) wanting to take away what you've worked hard to get (no, revolutions scare me, and it wouldn't be right).

Have I missed any of the assumptions? Oh, right, l) pointy-head intellectual. Guilty as charged; I don't even like it, some days, but I worked damned hard to get my education, and I'm proud of that work.

Just argue the ideas, gentlemen. I guarantee that there's plently there. Here, I'll start us out:

a) what is it in Marx's ideas that legitimated the Soviet Union, which ended up very high on anybody's list of Worst Goevrnments Ever? I think it's probably Marx's assumption that the period 1844-1848 encompassed a genuine epistemological break, giving him privileged access to historical truth, but what do you think?

b) if Marx was so right about historical evolution, why is capitalism still expanding? I think it's because it hasn't yet become a world-wide system, together with the fantasy-creation of the mass media, but those are fairly-common answers.

I don't leap to assumptions about y'all. So let's play nice, or I'm gonna take my smart-*** football and go home.

 

[Kirk]

Wrong. I believe that the kids of those who worked hard to
establish their wealth deserve to pass it on to as many
generations as they can. No one is stopping anyone from doing
the same. It's not like anyone is saying "hey, we have enough
rich ppl in America today, so those that are fortunate will be from
now on, and those who aren't will never be". The best thing
about this country is that with hard work, you can change your
own stars. A person born into a poor family, at THAT generation
and get up and change his social/financial/whatever status, it's
a beautiful thing! And when he does that, you're not entitled to
a penny of his money. It's his, he earned it, and he can do
whatever he wants with it .. INCLUDING giving it to his kids.

You say you don't pass judgement, but you also say:


I realize that it's easier to pass what I'm arguing off as a psychological issue, or one of envy, or some other such nonsense. I realize, too, that you've got all sorts of ideas about who/what I must be--probably because of years of claims by assorted media sources that anybody who says anything like, "Gee, you know, money isn't distributed fairly in this country, and the way it's distributed threatens a lot of the ideals and institutions that Americans believe in," must be..."

The problem I have with people who believe in Marxism, Socialism,
Lenninism ... collectivism of any sort is that none of them realize
what kind of simple peasant they'd be in a world like that. It's
either that, or they think that they're so far out of the norm ...
so much more special than every other swingin *ahem* out there
that they'd end up being one of the leaders of it all.
I'm sure you'll take insult from that, but that's the god's honest
truth of how I feel about it. And none that I have ever spoken
to have ever given me reason to believe otherwise.

The bible quote is true. The message behind is that greed can
get you into trouble. A rich person, has just as much choice as
you and I, under christian belief, to go to heaven or hell. The
scripture you quoted serves as a warning .. it doesn't say share
it all with everyone.

 

[rmcrobertson]

..."collectivism of any sort is that none of them realize
what kind of simple peasant they'd be in a world like that. It's
either that, or they think that they're so far out of the norm ...
so much more special than every other swingin *ahem* out there
that they'd end up being one of the leaders of it all.
I'm sure you'll take insult from that..."

Yep, I'm a bit offended. Not much, though: I can probably deal with the assumption that a) I've never thought about my ideas and b) I want power. It can't be more than 25 years ago that I first read LeGuin's, "The Dispossessed," and probably no more than 35 since I first read, "1984," so to be sure I've never considered the implications of either collectivism or absolute power.

Nonetheless, I thank you for the response.

 

[Don Roley]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Are you arguing that the rich are treated equally under the law? Are you arguing that their kids don't have big advantages from the git-go? As far as I can see, you're arguing that it's perfectly OK for them to have advantages, not that they have no advantages--so we're in agreement

Some of the rich are treated differently under the law. Many people have some sort of advantage over others in what is supposed to be an equal playing field in the eyes of the law.

Now, if you try to make the case that all rich people have some sort of super advantage over the peons, that is a broad statement that treats everyone in a group the same instead of on their individual merits. In other words, bigotry.

And the distrubution of wealth you propose would hit every rich person equally, whether or not they commited some offense against others. So you would treat every rich person based, not on what they do themselves, but on what you think of the nature of the entire group. This is bigotry.

It does not matter how much you say, "but it is true! all Xs really are Y," any attempt to treat each member of a group not as an individual but rather by the group they belong to is bigotry. And bigotry and greed is what you are appealing to and justifying your grab of other peoples wealth.

And, if rich people get out of certain laws or get treated better by the goverment, is not the correct response to tryt to prevent them from getting out of laws we have to follow? The only side of this aurgumetn that makes the claim that certain people should be treated differently under the law is your side.

And let us get back to the fact that you complain about people who inherit advantages, and your using this as justification for taking away the rights of anyone who has more wealth than you. Why is it wrong for me to work hard to give my daughter a better life? I am not some Kennedy scion that you can demonize. I am a working class guy who wants to make my child's life better. You are complaining about how people inherit wealth. Well if I can get some wealth, I want to pass along every penny of it to my daughter. It probably will not be enough to buy the state of Texas, but if I can get enough money to send her to the best university I will. You complain about how the rich do not get into such places on their own finances, I am an example of a father eager to make the sacrifices to give my daughter any advantage such an education can give her. And you are the one that says that other people, like yourself, should somehow pass judgemetn on whether she is worthy or not for my money.

Now why should I give you any say what so ever in how I deal with my wealth and what I pass along to my daughter?

We are talking principles here. Please do not bring up examples of bad people that inherited wealth. We know that there are abuses in every factor and element of human existence. Tell me why you have the right to take away the wealth I build up from practically nothing and out of the mouth of my child.

If you, you want to help those that are less advantaged with your own money, I will only applaud. But you are talking about how you should have a say in the wealth I build and pass along to a daughter I love more than life itself. Charity begins at home. There are many things you can do to help those that need it that does not indirectly line your own pockets.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Mr. Roley:

Let me repeat. I've no intention of taking away a thing from your daughter, and I've no idea how the hell you got this notion--other than, to repeat myself again, the way that left-wing and socialist ideas typically are presented on talk shows. One more time: no, that is not the idea. Not at all.

Secondly, the assertion that one is, "bigoted," because of actually looking at reality is, well, a bit twisted. In the first place, I wrote nothing about all individuals--I wrote about a class. And I believe the idea that the rich, the upper middle class, earned their money through sheer hard work and talent is sheer humbug.

What would you call the latest gigantic tax rebate, if not one more example of a class taking advantage of its privileges? I know, I know, a "rising tide lifts all boats." The wealthy will, "use the money to invest in America." It's trickle-down economics revived yet again--the same trickle-down (wonderful image, by the way) that Bush Sr. once called, "voodoo economics." Fine, I guess--just don't pee on my head and tell me it's raining.

I've met some of these guys, OK? They couldn't care less about helping America--their big idea is to grab as much as they can. Of course, capitalist theory says that that's a Good Thing....

Thanks for the discussion.

 

[Kirk]

You've just written a bunch of gobble-dee-gook. Once again you
fail to address the issues at hand, and go off on your own
personal rant of what was stated, yet not answering questions.

When presented with fact, you question the source, when
presented with opinion of how things would work under the
regime you desire, you come back with sheer sarcasm. And now
you've made an attempt to change the subject to current events.

I've no intention of taking away a thing from your daughter, and I've no idea how the hell you got this notion--other than, to repeat myself again, the way that left-wing and socialist ideas typically are presented on talk shows. One more time: no, that is not the idea. Not at all.

Then what is the idea???? You want everyone on equal footing, but don't want to take away from anyone? How's that possible?
Or is it that you just want to take from the rich, and who cares
about those less fortunate than yourself?

Secondly, the assertion that one is, "bigoted," because of actually looking at reality is, well, a bit twisted. In the first place, I wrote nothing about all individuals--I wrote about a class.

Yep, and entire group of people, and you put labels on them.

And I believe the idea that the rich, the upper middle class, earned their money through sheer hard work and talent is sheer humbug.

Ever hear of Bill Gates? Walt Disney? Henry Ford? Steve
Wozniak? Steve Jobs? Not to mention the multitude of
immigrants who have come to this country with nothing, busted
their butts and have joined the classes which you abhore. How
about a change on the Statue of Liberty? "Give me your tired,
your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free ... so
they can support the lazy bums of this country that don't want
to earn their own living".

 

[brianhunter]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson

Secondly, the assertion that one is, "bigoted," because of actually looking at reality is, well, a bit twisted. In the first place, I wrote nothing about all individuals--I wrote about a class. And I believe the idea that the rich, the upper middle class, earned their money through sheer hard work and talent is sheer humbug.

So when you bastardize a whole class of people and label them it is not prejudice? So lets take a green money symbol and make all rich white guys sew it on their jacket so they are easily recognized. Someone once did this with the star of David too because they singled out a group for all the economic whoas of their country.

I keep waiting for you to answer some of the questions asked of you or justify something with a fact, not a theory, or something you read in a science fiction novel, or marxist text. I suppose the questions where retorical since they already knew the answers you refused to give. You continue to try to amaze people with verbal feces instead of answering the question.....I guess its easy to parrot "No war for oil" since thats what all evil rich white guys want, instead of looking into facts.

I know a man who had a 9th grade education and could barely write a check or his name in cursive, who later dusted himself off started his own business and made 6 figures a year by the time he was 40, dont tell me it cant happen. Its here if you want it bad enough.