Foxfyre wrote:
And I personally have started over several times including 'after 50' and did not mind in the least doing so. I was grateful for a country and a system that made it possible to do.
The stupidity in all this is that these brain-washed-talkin'-point-spoutin' folk think that the USA stands alone in the world in this regard.
The self-absorption is what is so sickening. And this self-absorption has a great deal to do with what's causing so much pain, death and suffering among the people of this planet.
This self absorption is also what prevents these otherwise sane folk from demanding that the grevious ills heaped upon these same millions be redressed in the fair and equitable fashion that is so often touted as being American.
Boy, I bet there's some "cheesehead" wishes he could take back that idiotic "communist' remark.
pachelbel wrote:You're not alone by any stretch of the imagination. I'm glad you're not an American, too. Another vote for Communist ideals we can do without. The American dream is alive and well. Unlike your ilk's endless pursuit of freebies and handouts; those of us who actually produce appreciate the opportunity to do so. And we understand that opportunity is greatly diminished (if not eliminated altogether) in the communistic society you would choose to live in. Stay where you are and continue to vote wealth from the community chest into your own pocket for as long as the producers remain willing to produce in an ever-less-rewarding gamble. Pray for a wall to be erected so your best and brightest will stop coming here where their efforts are rewarded.Jealous? No. Just glad I'm not an American
When did that happen? 
Boy, I bet there's some "cheesehead" wishes he could take back that idiotic "communist' remark.
bill saidQuote:Unlike your ilk's endless pursuit of freebies and handouts; those of us who actually produce appreciate the opportunity to do so.
That's quite uncareful, bill. My "cliche" yuk above was directed partly to you.
You suggest a correlation between...
- political philosophies favoring social safetynet mechanisms along with favoring some degree of policing of capitalism's negatives
-and personal tendencies to laziness, irresponsibility and parasitism.
But, overwhelmingly, Americans have favored such mechanisms for at least 80 years or so.
Or, you could consider my case. I've worked almost constantly since I was twelve (two summers off between 16 and retirement). Even while I went back to university and did five years full time, I worked on the side as well. The majority of my working life was associated with small businesses, including running my own small business (for last 20 years up to retiring). Now, I find I'm not retired any longer but, with Lola, running another small business.
It is too easy to make the move you made above. It avoids all the difficult questions and allows you to squeeze through under cover of an unreflective (and greatly false) cliche.
Canada is communist
Canada is a socialist democracy.
Suggest you look the two up. They are quite different. Did you graduate third grade? Just curious.
I'll gladly take Canada over your corporate owned monopoly capitalist fascist government in the US.
BTW there are plenty of Americans trying to get into Canada, where they can get better & affordable health care and the possibility of a pension when they retire.
The article that Hoffa wrote had everything to do with the american dream. If you are too dense or into denial to comprehend it I can't help you. Go back and read it again, slowly. If you can show me that his figures and % are wrong, go for it. :wink:
JTT wrote:What would you like to wager?Boy, I bet there's some "cheesehead" wishes he could take back that idiotic "communist' remark.
blatham wrote:I favor many of these safety nets myself and between my tax bills and charitable offerings pay WAY more than my fair share towards implementation. The fundamental difference is I recognize the difference between charity and entitlement. I would not contribute to a charity that implied I somehow owed my contribution because of my relative success. I do however, almost daily, contribute to a vast array of charities that simply ask if I'd like to help my fellow man. HUGE difference.bill saidQuote:Unlike your ilk's endless pursuit of freebies and handouts; those of us who actually produce appreciate the opportunity to do so.
That's quite uncareful, bill. My "cliche" yuk above was directed partly to you.
You suggest a correlation between...
- political philosophies favoring social safetynet mechanisms along with favoring some degree of policing of capitalism's negatives
-and personal tendencies to laziness, irresponsibility and parasitism.
But, overwhelmingly, Americans have favored such mechanisms for at least 80 years or so.
In Pachelbel's twisted sense of reality, the man who earns his keep is somehow at fault for the demise of he who doesn't. He appears utterly devoid of the common-sense knowledge that business is always a gamble... and moreover that the risk-reward ratio in choosing to try is inescapable.
In short; my problem with his post is the suggestion that the American Dream is dead... justified by a lack of hand-outs. This is simply false and is proven so everyday by hard working people who are responsible enough to delay their gratification long enough to make their own mark. I know a man who parlayed $50 worth of cleaning supplies into a very successful car detailing business. He did it by busting his a$$... not whimpering about a lack of hand-outs. 80 hour work-weeks are often necessary in lieu of deep pockets, but the opportunity is there for any and all with the courage and perseverance to go after their slice. Were he forced to shoulder the burden of full benefit packages and the much sought after "living wage"; not only would he not have made it, but there'd be a couple dozen more unemployed kids.
blatham wrote:Then you likely understand as well as I the precarious balance beam that must be walked by the small businessman between social responsibility and necessary profitability. You probably know only too well how razor thin that line can be. People like Pachelbel only see the success and think they're entitled to a slice of it. They don't see the enormous risks involved in seeking such rewards nor seem to have any respect for those who earn them.Or, you could consider my case. I've worked almost constantly since I was twelve (two summers off between 16 and retirement). Even while I went back to university and did five years full time, I worked on the side as well. The majority of my working life was associated with small businesses, including running my own small business (for last 20 years up to retiring). Now, I find I'm not retired any longer but, with Lola, running another small business.
On thread after thread, Pachelbel bashes the United States and it's leadership without any clue about that which he speaks. He parades out some ultra-leftwing trash (frequently of the variety you wouldn't waste your time reading) then triumphantly claims our way of life has been destroyed. Meanwhile, those of us not caught up in blaming others for our hardships, keep plugging along in our pursuit of happiness as American's have for generations.
blatham wrote:I'll grant you I breezed past the difficult questions, but submit the reason is; past conversations with Pachelbel have left no doubt the above explanations would be wasted on him. There is no profit in debating economic realities with an idealist who has little or no experience in the real world.It is too easy to make the move you made above. It avoids all the difficult questions and allows you to squeeze through under cover of an unreflective (and greatly false) cliche.
pachelbel wrote:I always get a kick out of someone displaying their own inability to understand the printed word while questioning someone else's education. I suggested you display communist ideals and would choose to live in a communist society. Your statements above are the result of poor reading comprehension or an overactive imagination. I know a great number of Canadians who share neither your ignorance nor your ideals.Canada is communist
Canada is a socialist democracy.
Suggest you look the two up. They are quite different. Did you graduate third grade? Just curious.
pachelbel wrote:I understood you the first time and remain glad you feel that way.I'll gladly take Canada over your corporate owned monopoly capitalist fascist government in the US.
pachelbel wrote:I've no quibble with trading you draft-dodgers, deserters, drug addicts and freeloaders in exchange for your best and brightest. None.BTW there are plenty of Americans trying to get into Canada, where they can get better & affordable health care and the possibility of a pension when they retire.
pachelbel wrote:I don't recall addressing the article at all (your over-active imagination is acting up again). It is your ignorant presumptions I took issue with... and as usual you completely missed the point in favor of erecting some inane Straw men. No surprise, that.The article that Hoffa wrote had everything to do with the american dream. If you are too dense or into denial to comprehend it I can't help you. Go back and read it again, slowly. If you can show me that his figures and % are wrong, go for it. :wink:
.No surprise at all coming from someone who wears a cheese on his head.
If you can comprehend this: I said that the American Dream is DEAD because no one can afford it, whether they work their tails off or not.
Do you get that 1% of the US population controls 95% of the wealth? Don't believe me? I don't really care. It's easy to look up, but you'd rather live in Disneyland and parade around with a cheese on your head. Typical.
I've no quibble with your statistic, while admitting I haven't recently looked it up; I simply don't care. You're talking about three million people (if you're accurate) and rather than whine and cry, I'm currently working towards becoming one of them. I was born with little, left my parents house with nothing other than the knowledge to know that regardless of my start; the only thing that stands in my way of becoming one of those 1% is my own lack of desire and/or talent and/or luck and/or effort. This is the essence of the American Dream (not that I expect you to understand). I seriously doubt I'll choose to work long enough to accomplish anything close to that goal, but have little doubt the opportunity is there. The FACT remains that every child in this Country has a fair shot at getting further than his old man got. It doesn't come easy, and the risks may not be for everyone, but the opportunity is most assuredly there. But not for the whiners who'd prefer to soak their head in the public trough... and bitch about not having what they never even tried to earn.I supplied a copy of an article that actually gave facts and percentages. You rebut with no facts, just dithering.
I rebutted nothing, imaginative one, other than your idiotic presumptions. I offered my own opinion... as opposed to the spoon-fed cut and paste nonsense you prefer for a diet. Separate the "facts and percentages" from the inane interpretations of same you prefer and you might just be able to form your own opinion.I did not mention handouts; you did. If you didn't read the article I posted, then you have nothing to say that interests me. Go cut the cheese
That's probably the second best reasoned argument I've seen you make (well done!). Read it, understood it, and vehemently disagreed with your idiotic conclusions about it. <shrugs>Magginkat gets it.
You do not.
Or, you could consider my case.
blatham wrote:Or, you could consider my case.
You mean the case of the Mennonite small businessman? Who is a confessing, card carrying liberal? But whose last vote with his feet was against a solidly liberal city and for a place whose mayor, governor, and president are all Republicans? Yeah, that's an interesting case, you closet conservative you!
Thomas wrote:But whose last vote with his feet was against a solidly liberal city and for a place whose mayor, governor, and president are all Republicans? Yeah, that's an interesting case, you closet conservative you!
Actually, Vancouver, like most jurisdictions, has flipped between liberal and reactionary civic governments. I'm not even sure who is running things presently, but when I left, the city's mayor was elected on a openly voiced set of liberal notions (needle exchange, safe place for addicts to shoot up with medical people present, for example).
Four years ago, the voters swept out a conservative city council in favor of a left-of-centre civic party. The new council announced a different approach to drugs, involving harm reduction and treatment as well as enforcement.
It set up North America's first safe heroin-injection site and pressed the provincial government to house the homeless but it was then overcome by bickering. Last autumn, voters turned to a re-energized right.
The new mayor, Sam Sullivan, is having little more success than his predecessors. His most promising scheme is an attempt to rein in sprawl by increasing housing density in central areas. But on the crucial issues of drugs and crime, he has made little progress.
Sullivan advocates a heroin maintenance and treatment program for addicts, of the kind pioneered in Switzerland. This would reduce crime, he says, but it requires federal legislation to implement.
blatham wrote:Thomas wrote:But whose last vote with his feet was against a solidly liberal city and for a place whose mayor, governor, and president are all Republicans? Yeah, that's an interesting case, you closet conservative you!
Actually, Vancouver, like most jurisdictions, has flipped between liberal and reactionary civic governments. I'm not even sure who is running things presently, but when I left, the city's mayor was elected on a openly voiced set of liberal notions (needle exchange, safe place for addicts to shoot up with medical people present, for example).
I read an article on Vancouver in the Economist just yesterday that addressed both its politics and its drug policy...
Here it is, 'on loan' to a Candian newspaper:
Vancouver's growing pains
Quote:Four years ago, the voters swept out a conservative city council in favor of a left-of-centre civic party. The new council announced a different approach to drugs, involving harm reduction and treatment as well as enforcement.
It set up North America's first safe heroin-injection site and pressed the provincial government to house the homeless but it was then overcome by bickering. Last autumn, voters turned to a re-energized right.
The new mayor, Sam Sullivan, is having little more success than his predecessors. His most promising scheme is an attempt to rein in sprawl by increasing housing density in central areas. But on the crucial issues of drugs and crime, he has made little progress.
Sullivan advocates a heroin maintenance and treatment program for addicts, of the kind pioneered in Switzerland. This would reduce crime, he says, but it requires federal legislation to implement.
