I Miss Bush

[skysidhe]

I'm laughing at you.

edit- Mostly, I'll try to forget about you, and yours. You'll both ruin my Christmas cheer.
You two (Shaw & Monster) go right ahead and make the world a better place ,in your own way, for your particular statures,I see what that is.

From now on,I'll ignore you and your bosom buddy, for my happiness sake, not yours.

[Shawnee123]

Ok darlin', you just go about the good work of Feeding America
as is the wont of any pious, humble, and caring person such as yourself.

[classicman]

I'm with sky. You pop back in just to be a bitch and attack someone about something you have nothing to do with.
Gee thanks. Way to add to the discussion - not.

[Shawnee123]

You're welcome. I forgot how much fun this is.

And you, grand man, just sit around like a spider waiting for someone's comment to hop on to, being bereft of any original ideas or thoughts: even when it comes to who you want to insult. You hate monster, UG and monster have a tiff, you blow UG (and you're ALWAYS with sky, because you share a mutual hatred.) You are so very transparent.

UG, sweetie, your cult is going to SUCK!

Riled up yet?

Oh, yeah, and I did see your sweet post where you almost forgot you hate me and asked me to come back (before you deleted it.) It was very sweet, though full of the sugary lies so often perpetuated by you and your kind.

I can't believe I ruined this fine discussion...what page was that on again?

[Urbane Guerrilla]

More like I prefer to confine any combats to their original arena, rather than dueling throughout all the forums on the site -- that's too jerkish for me. There are things you write I find variously agreeable, and for clarity's sake I will say so as they come up. There are others I oppose with every fiber my being has and every value I've got.

I've initiated threads before. If you missed them, too bad.

I tiff with monster from time to time. Hatred's not what I feel, though.

As for your understanding of "my kind," I put it to you that it is scant, third-hand, and pretty much off. And I can't remember deleting a post here, come to that. Sugary lies? Not from me.

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

More like I prefer to confine any combats to their original arena, rather than dueling throughout all the forums on the site -- that's too jerkish for me. There are things you write I find variously agreeable, and for clarity's sake I will say so as they come up. There are others I oppose with every fiber my being has and every value I've got.

I've initiated threads before. If you missed them, too bad.

I tiff with monster from time to time. Hatred's not what I feel, though.

As for your understanding of "my kind," I put it to you that it is scant, third-hand, and pretty much off. And I can't remember deleting a post here, come to that. Sugary lies? Not from me.

Silly wabbit...

That post was for crass, not you. You just got caught in it because of all the glomming crass does.

Re-read it and know that the only part for you was that your cult is going to SUCK. I have seen your initial struggling membership, and it does not bode well for future advances. You can't have ALL the brain power in your imagined land of the free and the brave, can you? Surely you need a couple other people, at the very least, who can master skills beyond slobbering all over you and placing the correct part in each widget?

But you, UG, with all your superiority...well, I just think you're the grooviest! Though I agree with very little you say, I admire your original thought and your ability to form complete and eloquent sentences.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

See, Rich? Right there is where your problem is.

UT, the people who insist that the socialistic features of Democratic Party policymaking and of Obama's vision in particular are somehow non-socialistic do not seem to really know what socialism is. They persist in a denial not supported by evidence.

And repeating to yourself that Glenn Beck is "not a credible source, not a credible source, not a..." shall not win the argument, nor diminish the statist and socialist features of Dem Party policymaking in the least. Democrats out of power is what will manage that, particularly with libertarians and libertarian-leaning Republicans in power.

If Glenn Beck isn't going to do it for you, then hew to Mark Levin. He's got a legal background in constitutional law. The Donkey Party drones that call in from time to time can't lay a glove on the guy. Yet somehow, they believe their road has virtue to it... somewhere.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

UT, the people who insist that the socialistic features of Democratic Party policymaking and of Obama's vision in particular are somehow non-socialistic do not seem to really know what socialism is.

Oh please do tell, wise one. What is socialism?

[Undertoad]

Quite the dodge, UG, but I was talking about you and your own intellectual honesty, not the intellectual honesty of "the people who insist..."

[GunMaster357]

Socialism

An economics professor at Texas Tech said he had never failed a single student before but had, once, failed an entire class. The class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said ok, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism.

All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A. After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. But, as the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too; so they studied little.. The second Test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average was an F.

The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for anyone else. All failed to their great surprise. The professor told them that socialism would ultimately fail, not because the harder to succeed the greater the reward, but when a government takes all the reward away; no one will try or succeed.

[DanaC]

Socialism isn't about removing rewards.

There is a great distinction between 'grades' and 'money'/'ownership of the means of production'. Grades are not necessary to exchange for shelter, food and warmth. Nor did giving them a mass grade in anyway place the means of acquiring those grades (production) into their hands.


[eta] My own personal opinion is that those things necessary to survival and basic human dignity should not be seen as 'rewards'. They are a starting point.

[SamIam]

Arguing the finer points of socialism with UG is like trying to discuss atheism with the Spanish Inquisition.

As an aside, I am amazed how we characterize socialism as "da debbil' while at the same time allowing our economy to become ever more dependent on the whim of communist China. Everyone tries to excuse this by saying that China has become "capitalist" or more like us. Actually, the US is becoming more like China. Our government pours money into failing corporations and subsidizes financial entities that have acted to the detriment of the country, and politicians pass these actions off as sound economics.

The Chinese government gives loans at low or no interest to Chinese corporations which allow them to flood the world with cheap products. Chinese manufacturing is heavily subsidized, and the Communist system allows workers to get by on such a low wage that no capitalist country can compete with it.

[tw]

Apparently I have been drinking too much coffee (the gateway drug). Still, this is an excellent statement.

Originally Posted by SamIam

Arguing the finer points of socialism with UG is like trying to discuss atheism with the Spanish Inquisition.

Why? Because Glenn Beck said it.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by DanaC

[eta] My own personal opinion is that those things necessary to survival and basic human dignity should not be seen as 'rewards'. They are a starting point.

But now don't you think you are adjusting the model to fix your own personal opinion? Because any idealist could put anything they want into that opinion as you define it. If I think some form of person transportation is necessary to my survival then someone else should provide it to me. And if I don't think I make enough money to get those things that I think I should have, for what ever reason, then someone else (the government) should provide it for me. And the government should be available in selected cases to do that. But for the majority of situations it should be a stop gap, not a means to an end.

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

But now don't you think you are adjusting the model to fix your own personal opinion? Because any idealist could put anything they want into that opinion as you define it. If I think some form of person transportation is necessary to my survival then someone else should provide it to me. And if I don't think I make enough money to get those things that I think I should have, for what ever reason, then someone else (the government) should provide it for me. And the government should be available in selected cases to do that. But for the majority of situations it should be a stop gap, not a means to an end.

Try being unable to afford a car and living in a town with no public transportation. Uncle Sam doesn't owe me or anyone else a car, but some sort of public transit is invaluable to the population at large for any number of reasons.

Various groups still adhere blindly to the dogma that the US is the land of opportunity and anyone who works hard enough can obtain entrance to the upper middle class, no matter what their background. Certainly, its possible to work hard and live better here than in many other less fortunate countries.

But the "land of opportunity - fields of waving grain" construct died with the passing of the 19th century. In the 1800's an immigrant could land in New York and make his way West to claim 160 acres of land at little or no cost, work hard, and create a new life for himself. No more.

Today our resources are finite and our society is stratified. A child brought up in the semi-war zone of the urban housing projects simply does not have access to the quality of education and opportunities that a child of upper middle class parents living in a gated community does. I continue to be amazed that there are people who argue otherwise.

I don't expect the government to provide me with silk underware and a 60 inch flatscreen TV. However, a society which provides it children with a good education, basic health care and the food to mature into healthy adults is making a very wise investment that will pay off in terms of increased worker productivity and greater economic well-being.

If you don't believe this, take a visit to the city of Receife (pop one million plus) in northern Brazil where I once lived. Only children of the well to do go to school. The rest run in packs on the streets, always hungry, often suffering chronic disease, and poorly clothed. Girls 10 years of age or younger resort to prostitution - the only work available. The Brazilian government either cannot or will not intervene on the behalf of the country's children or its adult citizens. If you want a road to your house, you build it yourself. If you want security for your home or neighborhood, you hire private thugs. Its a libertarian's dream, but its not mine.