# what is wrong with america today...



## Clint Strickland (Dec 16, 2005)

Hey guess, I would like to ask what you think is wrong with todays America? Me personaly, I think that the abortion is one thing wrong with America, also another is the continueing talk about President Bush, I mean come on we all have to admit that yes he has done things wrong but again what other president had to deal with what all Bush had to deal with. Like Katrina victoms, the war in Iraq, the tsunami, and now he has to worry about the levy system. I think he's doing a pretty good job.

     Be free to post what you think, as long that it doesnt involve me .lol.
                           Thanks guys


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 16, 2005)

One thing that is wrong with the country, is the lack of understanding of History.

Those who don't remember their mistakes are doomed to repeat them.


----------



## Navarre (Dec 16, 2005)

Clint Strickland said:
			
		

> Hey guess, I would like to ask what you think is wrong with todays America? Me personaly, I think that the abortion is one thing wrong with America, also another is the continueing talk about President Bush, I mean come on we all have to admit that yes he has done things wrong but again what other president had to deal with what all Bush had to deal with. Like Katrina victoms, the war in Iraq, the tsunami, and now he has to worry about the levy system. I think he's doing a pretty good job.
> 
> Be free to post what you think, as long that it doesnt involve me .lol.
> Thanks guys


 
There are endless discussion about President Bush in The Study forum. This post would really belong there.

As I always try to make positive comments, I'll refrain from giving my opinion on the current administration. 

You'll easily find many threads to continue your thoughts in The Study. Good luck, Clint.


----------



## Floating Egg (Dec 16, 2005)

Religion, but that's not just a US problem.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 16, 2005)

Hmm.  What's wrong with America?
- An electorial process that is outdated, bogged down with innefficiency and controvercy.
- Career polititians too busy taking bribes and keeping their positions than to actually do their jobs and read stuff before making it laws.
- Continued attempts to interject religious dogma and prejudice into government and law.
- A government out of touch with the people, and a people out of touch with government.
- Growing apathy amongst the general population.
- An increase in selfishness, selfabsorbtion, and such, combined with a growing decrease in attention span, concern and compasion.
- Too many people willing to jump on a bandwagon while at the same time refusing to do proper research into an issue in order to make an informed decision.
- The idea that bombs, blood and explosions are good, while boobs, bums and intimacy is evil.
- the idea that today is really that much worse than yesterday.
- and, the continued existance of anyone who keeps pitbulls named Fluffy as pets.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 16, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Hmm. What's wrong with America?
> - An electorial process that is outdated, bogged down with innefficiency and controvercy.
> - Career polititians too busy taking bribes and keeping their positions than to actually do their jobs and read stuff before making it laws.
> - Continued attempts to interject religious dogma and prejudice into government and law.
> ...


 
I'll drink to most of that!


----------



## OnlyAnEgg (Dec 16, 2005)

We're a nation of pack-mentality super-individuals with an over-exaggerated sense of entitlement.  Community has fallen by the wayside on our ever ravenous search for what's ours.  Thanks be to all marketing and commercial barons.

pleh.  This topic always leaves a bad taste in my mouth.


----------



## DngrRuss (Dec 16, 2005)

Clint Strickland said:
			
		

> Hey guess, I would like to ask what you think is wrong with todays America? Me personaly, I think that the abortion is one thing wrong with America, also another is the continueing talk about President Bush, I mean come on we all have to admit that yes he has done things wrong but again what other president had to deal with what all Bush had to deal with. Like Katrina victoms, the war in Iraq, the tsunami, and now he has to worry about the levy system. I think he's doing a pretty good job.
> 
> Be free to post what you think, as long that it doesnt involve me .lol.
> Thanks guys



And they wonder why I drfink...


----------



## tshadowchaser (Dec 16, 2005)

any country that will not allow parents to discipline their children without fear of being jailed is setting it slef up for problems
Taxes that are paid by the lower end of the economy scale and written off by the high end
to many people on one type or another of drug to make them. sleep, stay awake, have less tension, keep calm, etc. (notice I didn't say anything about sex drive)
laws so outdated they where in exsistance when this country was born ( i live in MA)
Laws worded so badly that lawers read a different meaning into them to suit there needs.


----------



## INDYFIGHTER (Dec 16, 2005)

The loss of family values.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 16, 2005)

INDYFIGHTER said:
			
		

> The loss of family values.


 
Whose family?  Whose values?  hard to get a definition that even a majority would agree on...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 16, 2005)

I lament the loss of strong family values too. But I never could choose which families values I liked. I mean, theres the Bunkers, the Jeffersons, the Mansons, and more.  I finally settled on the Adams Family as I had an uncle who was kinda like that myself.  

(Sorry, had to interject a little humor.)


----------



## OnlyAnEgg (Dec 16, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> I lament the loss of strong family values too. But I never could choose which families values I liked. I mean, theres the Bunkers, the Jeffersons, the Mansons, and more. I finally settled on the Adams Family as I had an uncle who was kinda like that myself.
> 
> (Sorry, had to interject a little humor.)


 
Frankly, The Addams Family showed remarkable values.  They supported each other unconditionally.  The went about their lives, doing their absolute best to get along all the while not only being nothing but themselves; but, absolutely insisting that others were true to themselves, too.  Moreover.  they went to great lengths to understand others without comprimising themselves.

Not a bad set of values, actually.

(Sorry, had to be quirkily pedantic with the humor)


----------



## BlueDragon1981 (Dec 16, 2005)

The political system.....the people have lost power to the few wealthy business owners and the crooks in politics.

Family values...what family values. Both parents have to work to survive. Without a family memeber home kids are getting less attention. Sociologists and psycologists both agree that being a part of a family and having someone around causes people act out less.

America cannot be the worlds police force...we need to keep business in america and we need to quit letting politics control everything.


----------



## bignick (Dec 16, 2005)

America?  Nothing is wrong with America....

It's some of the Americans that have problems


----------



## Phoenix44 (Dec 16, 2005)

Abortion?  Of all the issues facing America today, the #1 on the hit parade of things wrong with America is abortion?  Not the $8 trillion national debt?  Not the 2,154 American troops dead in Iraq?   Not the 45 million Americans withouth health insurance?  Not the 12.5% poverty rate?  But _abortion_?

And people *talking about* Bush is the problem?  Not that he _chose_ to start a war for no good reason?  Not that someone in his administration exposed an American agent to take political revenge on her husband?  Not that his policies have caused this country to be more bitterly divided than any time since the civil war?  Not that he has hired unqualified buddies for government jobs of great responsibility?  No, he didn't cause the hurricane, but his appointment to FEMA of Michael "heckuva job Brownie" Brown, a man with no emergency management experience whatsoever, certainly contributed to the unpreparedness, death and destruction--that wasn't a problem?  But it's not Bush, it's *talking about *Bush that's the problem?


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Dec 16, 2005)

whats wrong with America?

Its educated me, at times fed and housed me, its given me great family, friends, a wife and children. Its kept me safe and healthy and Ive had a lot of fun here and nobody screws with me unless I deserved it.

Whats wrong with America? Nothing as far as I am concerned. I love America.

Whats wrong with America? People who have lived off of her yet never have anything good to say about her.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Dec 16, 2005)

I have a feeling that, one way or the other, five years from now, that people are going to view the war in Iraq quite a bit differetly.  If in five or ten years, Iraq is a free democracy with a constitution and elected officials and equal protection under law for both women and religious minorties..then *however* we got there, a lot of people there will be glad we did, and a lot of people here will be proud we did.  Especially if it is the *only* Islamic nation in the middle-east that can make those caims.  If on the other hand, it descends into worse violence and the violence spills across national boundaries, it could plunge the whole area into civill war, and the US gets the blame, and the hatred...of the world, rightfully so, for what we have wrought there.

I have a feleing that this war in Iraq could potentially be a truly historic event, the kind which raises and topples kingdoms, the kind school kids read about in history class.  I would greatly love to be able to look back on it from 300 years in the future to see what really happened and what they think of us in their history because of what we do today.  

I have a feeling that we all would really want the first of those two outcomes, or I would hope so, regardless of political leanings or personal feelings about how the events got started or who started them

I have a feeling, 500 years from now and more, as future cultures look back on us, that abortion wil be one of the issues by which they judge us, however it turns out, however they in the future turn out   Maybe it will be seen as tremendoulsly liberating, maybe it will be seen as tragically barbaric, but it will be one the the characteristics of our culture that marks us for all time.  It might be worth putting some thought and maybe some serious, open, honest, and heartfelt discussion into it, before those of us who happen to share the attrribute of being 'alive today' as thinking and loving and hating men and women are reduced to merely 'those people who lived during that age'

I think if we ever really climb above rascism, that Lincoln and Martin Luther King, Jr and Ghandi will be mentioned in the same breath, and "the late second millenium" will be seen as a great turning point of humanity.  Imagine being alive in a time like that.

We are too close to really understand what is right and wrong in American and with America.  Unless you look at it through the eyes of a historian or an anthropologist.   It's the only way to step back far enough to take the whole thing in at one time and actually be able to say "America is...", or "America was..."

History won't care about our fiscal policy or our two party squabbling.  It probably won't care much even why we went to war, or how we sought to justify the things we do.   They will see us in our values and tastes, our entertainments and accomplishments, who we chose as heros and how we treat our defenseless

Are you proud of what they will see now looking back at you today?

How you answer that, and by what reasoning, will tell you what is wrong and right with America


----------



## BlueDragon1981 (Dec 16, 2005)

America should worry about itself first. I don't believe we should be the worlds police force. America is great and i could say a lot of great things about it but sometimes you can't blind yourself. If you do the bad things will swallow you hole. It has problems and just ignoring them is not the answer. The political system is my main concern. They are going to tick someone off and innocent people of this country are going to pay.


----------



## Henderson (Dec 16, 2005)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> whats wrong with America?
> 
> Its educated me, at times fed and housed me, its given me great family, friends, a wife and children. Its kept me safe and healthy and Ive had a lot of fun here and nobody screws with me unless I deserved it.
> 
> ...


 
:cheers: I'll drink to that!


----------



## Marginal (Dec 17, 2005)

Clint Strickland said:
			
		

> Hey guess, I would like to ask what you think is wrong with todays America? Me personaly, I think that the abortion is one thing wrong with America,


 
Personally I think the fact that this is supposed to be a major issue says volumes about what's wrong with America.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 17, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> Personally I think the fact that this is supposed to be a major issue says volumes about what's wrong with America.


 Well, just to play devil's advocate, if you believed it was a human life, the murder of over a million people a year might be considered 'wrong'.  I guess it depends on your beliefs.


----------



## Marginal (Dec 17, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Well, just to play devil's advocate, if you believed it was a human life, the murder of over a million people a year might be considered 'wrong'. I guess it depends on your beliefs.


 
Nobody places a higher value on the lives of the unborn. Not even the fundies.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 17, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Well, just to play devil's advocate, if you believed it was a human life, the murder of over a million people a year might be considered 'wrong'. I guess it depends on your beliefs.


 
Everybody now ... 

~ Every sperm is sacred ~
~ Every sperm is great, ~
~ If a sperm is wasted ~
~ God gets quite Irate. ~

~ Every sperm is wanted ~
~ Every sperm is good, ~
~ Every sperm is needed, ~
~ In your Neighborhood.~


http://www.serve.com/bonzai/monty/songs/EverySpermisSacred


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 18, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Everybody now ...
> 
> ~ Every sperm is sacred ~
> ~ Every sperm is great, ~
> ...


 
Python, YEAH!!


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Dec 18, 2005)

A sperm wont become a person all on its own. I dont think that fits.


----------



## Marginal (Dec 18, 2005)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> Whats wrong with America? People who have lived off of her yet never have anything good to say about her.


Republicans against the first amendment's a growing problem as well. Nothing worse than folks who claim to love America but hate the constitution. Seems a tad contradictory to me.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Dec 18, 2005)

Did I say that they should be shut up? No. Say what you want I dont agree with you. Thats my right to.

Seems contradictory standing on the first amendment to trample on what I say too.


----------



## Floating Egg (Dec 18, 2005)

> Seems contradictory standing on the first amendment to trample on what I say too.



For the record, I know very little about the United States constitution, but from what I gather, criticism is protected by the first amendment.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 18, 2005)

The 1st amendment, actually none of the "Bill of Rights" applies to web forums...unless they are run by the government.


----------



## Floating Egg (Dec 18, 2005)

Oh, so it only refers to government controls.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Dec 18, 2005)

Correct, "Freedom Of Speech" etc..only apply to the government applying pressure or coercion.  In a forum like this, whomever owns or runs the forum may exercise editoriial control of the content and it is not considered censorship


----------



## KenpoEMT (Dec 18, 2005)

I take issue with certain sections of the Patriot Act, and I question the need for our nation's very own secret police whisking people away in the dead of night without the right to face their accusers or the right to a speedy trial. The possible future abuses of the Department of Homeland Security bother me.


----------



## Kane (Dec 18, 2005)

I'm surprised I didn't read a single "No nation is perfect" while skimming each post. Because that is the truth, America ain&#8217;t perfect. No nation in the world is. America is still one of the best nations there is. What other country can a man come to with only a few dollars in his pocket, work his way up from nothing, and become something (American Dream)? My own father is an example of this. America is the land of opportunities and while not everyone can achieve the dream most work hard can.

Probably the biggest flaw in America (in some states) is how religion has such a big grasp on the way people make decisions. Well Christianity isn't a bad religion but that whole "God said so" can really lead to the opium of the masses.

Ok, so it is really hard to classify the whole of America mainly because it is so diverse. Remember we live a federal republic over 9.5 million square kilometers in length! That is bigger than most empires of old! So of course there are going to be very different attitudes here in California than in Texas for example.

Bottom line is that no nation is perfect, but I can find a lot more flaws with the rest of the world than our own country.


----------



## Marginal (Dec 18, 2005)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> Did I say that they should be shut up?


 
Did I say you should? No. I merely said you hated the constitution.

(Semantics rule.)


----------



## bustr (Dec 18, 2005)

What's wrong with America is the presence of the bushes and their Ivy League mafia and the citizenry's willingness to them in office.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Dec 18, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> Did I say you should? No. I merely said you hated the constitution.
> 
> (Semantics rule.)



Im hating something.


----------



## Floating Egg (Dec 18, 2005)

> America is still one of the best nations there is.


 
How do you determine what the _best_ is? 



> America is the land of opportunities and while not everyone can achieve the dream most work hard can.


 
Whose opportunity? Isn't the American Dream a bit of a myth, kind of like Canada's _good government_? How different is the United States from other industrialized nations? 



> Bottom line is that no nation is perfect, but I can find a lot more flaws with the rest of the world than our own country.


 
I can say that I'm very envious of Finland's education system and not feel the need to point out the areas where Canada supposedly has it better.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Dec 18, 2005)

Since we are a nation of immigrants I guess that there was a reason we all left the old country.

We all could be better people individually too. Should we all start talking about how big of a looser the other one is? What does it accomplish?

Its sad that people who have the freedom to bash the country without being rounded up and shot still dislike it so much.


----------



## Marginal (Dec 18, 2005)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> Since we are a nation of immigrants I guess that there was a reason we all left the old country.


 
Yeah. We were broke. Best close the borders before more poor folk get in. 



> We all could be better people individually too. Should we all start talking about how big of a looser the other one is? What does it accomplish?
> 
> Its sad that people who have the freedom to bash the country without being rounded up and shot still dislike it so much.


 
Funny thing about self-improvement is you get nowhere if you ignore all criticism, even the constructive stuff. 

Does stating "We didn't need or even want Terri's Law." mean one hates America? Well, yes, but only to the haters of the constitution. Who by extension, hate America since they hate the guiding principles and laws that have held the nation together for the bulk of the nation's history.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 18, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> Funny thing about self-improvement is you get nowhere if you ignore all criticism, even the constructive stuff.


 Funnier still when those who talk about improving from criticism, are usually saying that only when they are providing the criticism, but never when they are receiving.



			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> Does stating "We didn't need or even want Terri's Law." mean one hates America? Well, yes, but only to the haters of the constitution. Who by extension, hate America since they hate the guiding principles and laws that have held the nation together for the bulk of the nation's history.


 I always find it ironic how 'important' the Constitution is, as it stands.   

But, when it's convenient, it becomes a 'living document' subject to being rewritten to suit certain political interests.  But I guess that would never happen here.  Then, strict constructionists become 'closed minded' and rigid.  Funny how views change, from issue to issue.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Dec 18, 2005)

artyon:


----------



## Marginal (Dec 19, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Funnier still when those who talk about improving from criticism, are usually saying that only when they are providing the criticism, but never when they are receiving.


 
Aw, you're just peevish 'cause I'm making fun of typical right wing rhetoric. (Which is another thing wrong with America. Debate's been replaced by talking points.) 



> I always find it ironic how 'important' the Constitution is, as it stands.
> 
> But, when it's convenient, it becomes a 'living document' subject to being rewritten to suit certain political interests. But I guess that would never happen here. Then, strict constructionists become 'closed minded' and rigid. Funny how views change, from issue to issue.


 
Strict constructionists rely exclusively on their unique mental power that enables them to read the minds of men centuries dead. (It also extends to Terri Schaivo and Ciny Sheehan's son.) Then they decide on matters of modern law based on conclusions that solely fit their political agenda. 

Either way, I don't know why you advocate necromancy as credible policy.


----------



## mantis (Dec 19, 2005)

Clint Strickland said:
			
		

> Hey guess, I would like to ask what you think is wrong with todays America? Me personaly, I think that the abortion is one thing wrong with America, also another is the continueing talk about President Bush, I mean come on we all have to admit that yes he has done things wrong but again what other president had to deal with what all Bush had to deal with. Like Katrina victoms, the war in Iraq, the tsunami, and now he has to worry about the levy system. I think he's doing a pretty good job.
> 
> Be free to post what you think, as long that it doesnt involve me .lol.
> Thanks guys


shortly
arrogance
and ignorance


----------



## CanuckMA (Dec 19, 2005)

From an outsider's point of view, arrogance and ignorance. I was rolling on the floor the way CNN was covering the defeat of the Canadian government by a vote of non-confidence. They made it sound like there was a revolution going on up here.  A much too large number of American suffer from a total lack of understanding of anything beyond their own borders.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 20, 2005)

CanuckMA said:
			
		

> From an outsider's point of view, arrogance and ignorance. I was rolling on the floor the way CNN was covering the defeat of the Canadian government by a vote of non-confidence. They made it sound like there was a revolution going on up here. A much too large number of American suffer from a total lack of understanding of anything beyond their own borders.


 We think the same things about advice from those living in other nations....arrogance and ignorance.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			






What did I say in another post?  People who tell you that you should accept constructive criticism, usually only say that when they are GIVING the constructive criticism, not receiving.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 20, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> Aw, you're just peevish 'cause I'm making fun of typical right wing rhetoric. (Which is another thing wrong with America. Debate's been replaced by talking points.)


 I agree, talking points are childish...so stop it.  



			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> Strict constructionists rely exclusively on their unique mental power that enables them to read the minds of men centuries dead. (It also extends to Terri Schaivo and Ciny Sheehan's son.) Then they decide on matters of modern law based on conclusions that solely fit their political agenda.


 You don't need to read their minds, try reading their words.

What's more, you might read some of your own posts, before you start talking about self-serving political arguments.  




			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> Either way, I don't know why you advocate necromancy as credible policy.


 It could be complete lack of understanding on your part.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Dec 20, 2005)

People from other countries say we have  no idea what goes on outsie our borders.

How do we know that THEY have any idea what goes on outside THEIR borders?

Id bet that the average Canadian is no more 'enlightened' than the average American.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 20, 2005)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> People from other countries say we have no idea what goes on outsie our borders.
> 
> How do we know that THEY have any idea what goes on outside THEIR borders?
> 
> Id bet that the average Canadian is no more 'enlightened' than the average American.


 
I'll take that bet.

The 'average' Canadian, if such a thing exists, lives with 100 miles of the United States/Canadian border, and is exposed to radio and television broadcasts from within the United States. The reverse is not true.

Just ask the average American these questions.

How many 'States' are there in Canada (If you call them Provinces, you may get some confusion)?

Where is the Capital of Canada?

Who is the Prime Minister (President) of Canada?

What is the official language in Canada?


----------



## shinbushi (Dec 20, 2005)

tshadowchaser said:
			
		

> a
> Taxes that are paid by the lower end of the economy scale and written off by the high end


This is just Liberal misinformation from IRS statics "the most affluent 20 percent of taxpayers still pay 63 percent of all US taxes"


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 20, 2005)

shinbushi said:
			
		

> This is just Liberal misinformation from IRS statics "the most affluent 20 percent of taxpayers still pay 63 percent of all US taxes"


 
Source this statistic please?


----------



## shinbushi (Dec 20, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I'll take that bet.
> 
> The 'average' Canadian, if such a thing exists, lives with 100 miles of the United States/Canadian border, and is exposed to radio and television broadcasts from within the United States. The reverse is not true.
> 
> ...


1. Who cares
2. Ottawa
3. Who cares
4. Probably English and French but really Who cares.  It is interesting how many USA bashing threads are on this board.  WE are the current World Empire deal with it.  You are just lucky we are much nicer than Rome was.  Most of Europe are Has-been countries.  You had your glory let us enjoy ours, until China become a Super Power.


----------



## Floating Egg (Dec 20, 2005)

People really need to lay off Rome. They weren't _that_ bad.


----------



## shinbushi (Dec 20, 2005)

dupe post


----------



## shinbushi (Dec 20, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Source this statistic please?


Form a quick google. http://www.factcheck.org/article285.html

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/incometaxandtheirs/a/whopaysmost.htm
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/incometaxandtheirs/a/taxtrump.htm


----------



## Marginal (Dec 20, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I agree, talking points are childish...so stop it.


 
As long as they're being seriously presented, I'll persist in pointing out how useless they are. 



> You don't need to read their minds, try reading their words.


 
Anything written is open to interpretation. CLaiming you know exactly what was really meant means you claim to know and think exactly like the author of the document. That's a fantasy. It's accurate enough to call it necromancy. 



> What's more, you might read some of your own posts, before you start talking about self-serving political arguments.


 
Fact is, anyone telling you they've uncovered the real truth of a document is full of crap. 



> It could be complete lack of understanding on your part.


 
Nope.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Dec 20, 2005)

_Anything written is open to interpretation. CLaiming you know exactly what was really meant means you claim to know and think exactly like the author of the document. That's a fantasy. It's accurate enough to call it necromancy._

Then why post to a message board unless you have a reasonble hope that what you meant to say is what it's going to be interpreted roughly to say?  Especially if you write enough to give people insight into your thoughts and beliefs that can become a guide to interpreting your posts?


----------



## Marginal (Dec 20, 2005)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> Then why post to a message board unless you have a reasonble hope that what you meant to say is what it's going to be interpreted roughly to say? Especially if you write enough to give people insight into your thoughts and beliefs that can become a guide to interpreting your posts?


 
Feel free to read what's been said, and what the responses to what's been said have been. They rarely mesh 100%. How many times have people had to clairfy or defend themselves against an accusation or implication that they never intended through what they've written here. Now take a statement or piece of writing, put it under close scrutiny, and let the discourse on that initial piece of writing drift as it invariably will over hundreds of years with massive cultural drift interjecting  yet more poetential interpretations. 

The fact that there are multiple schools of thought on constitutional law should at least hint to folks that the document is in fact, open to interpretation. Asserting that it is not is, (to borrow Sgt's favorite word....) disingenuous. 

The other purported source of inerrancy in American life, the Bible seems to routinely fail at this as well. If it says what it says, then we all should agree on what it says. Since we do not, the piece is open to interpretation. If the piece is open to interpretation, then we cannot credibly claim that one faction has the true reading and that the other factions do not.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Dec 21, 2005)

Well, first you start of with a premise that a person or group of people, who are putting down something as monumental, important, and far reaching as a document outling a system of government *wanted* to be understood.  Or realized there would be a need to be understood, or took it for granted that they would be understood, because they had to be.  You have to assume that anyway, that the person you are reading wanted to be understood in their intention, just as you want to be understood in yours and I want to be understood in mine.  I sorta assume that you want me to understand what you aer saying, but not just 'interpret' what you are saying in whatever that comes out as for me with the justfication of 'well I just interpreted what you said to mean you intended to say *this* because it's impossible to really tell what you meant to say so my interpretation of your intention is as valid as anyone else's'

If you wrote a book that was m\pro-capitalism and anti-communism and you  read me quoting your book to be pro-communism, I don't think you would be to happy with me, I don't think you would say my interpretation was valid; I think you would say I had at best taken you out of context and at worse had my own agenda and was trying to use you.  If you happened to be an expert in your field, where having your sanction would be impressive for me, then you could say I had a strong motivation to selectivly re-interpret your words to mean what I wanted then to mean, not what you wanted them to mean.

But you start off writing the bookin the first place under the assumption that is at least possible for someone to have a reasonable accurate understanding of what you intended to say, otherwise you wouldn't even bother trying.   I assume that the writers of the Constitution thought the same way; that it was and is possible to come up with a reasonably clear understanding of what they were trying to say.  Otherwise, why bother reading it and trying to apply it?

I think that is where the problem comes up is not so much that people argue over what the Consitution says so much as they argue over what they want it to say.  Otherwise, why are some articles never mentioned much and some articles get such heated controversy?  Did the writers suddenly get stupid writing some articles and some amendments such that suddenly it's all open to 'interpretation' where sme of the interpretations are diameltrically opposed? "They made their point clear here so no discussion but over here, well who knows what they meant so you say it means this and I say it means that"  Interestingly enough, interpretations of the Constitution seem to coincide with a prior beliefs.  I thinkwe often read into the Constitution support for our own personal, moral, political, or whatever opinions or beliefs.  Probably because it's easier to push forward a position based on "the Constituion says..." rather than "well I believe..."  Who are you?  Well the Constituion has Authority and Prestige. 

I think the Constituion is the codification of ideals about freedom,liberty, and responsibility and the role of the state and the citizen.  Within it our examples of how to apply those principals.  Within it are also the mechanisms to adapt those ideals to new situations arise.

But you have t start with the premise that someone wants tobe understood, not for what you want them to say but for what they want to say.  I assume you want me to understand what you intend.  I may *disagree* with what you say, but I have to start from understanding what you say.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 21, 2005)

shinbushi said:
			
		

> This is just Liberal misinformation from IRS statics "the most affluent 20 percent of taxpayers still pay 63 percent of all US taxes"


 
Some other quick google searches show us that 


10% of America's Households hold 72% of total wealth. 

10% of the U.S. Population holds 81% of the country's Real Estate.

10% of the U.S. Population owns 81% of the country's Stock.

10% of the U.S. Population owns 88% of the bonds.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Dec 21, 2005)

Didnt the people who left the old world come here BECAUSE they didnt care what the people in europe thought?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 21, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Some other quick google searches show us that
> 
> 
> 10% of America's Households hold 72% of total wealth.
> ...


 Some aspire, by hard work, to be represented among the 10%.  Others aspire to strip the 10% of their work, and redistribute it.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 21, 2005)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> Didnt the people who left the old world come here BECAUSE they didnt care what the people in europe thought?


 Most of us still don't.  A fact of which many Europes are quite irrate about.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 21, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> Anything written is open to interpretation. CLaiming you know exactly what was really meant means you claim to know and think exactly like the author of the document. That's a fantasy. It's accurate enough to call it necromancy.


 These are arguments you make when you wish to muddy the waters, nothing more.  "There's no way of knowing, blah blah blah". 



			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> Fact is, anyone telling you they've uncovered the real truth of a document is full of crap.


 If you're suggesting that you don't understand how to read a document, then it may be you who is full of crap.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 21, 2005)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> I thinkwe often read into the Constitution support for our own personal, moral, political, or whatever opinions or beliefs. Probably because it's easier to push forward a position based on "the Constituion says..." rather than "well I believe..." Who are you? Well the Constituion has Authority and Prestige.


 
Interesting point.  In light of the thread topic, i'm not really sure the Constitution even has a place in the discussion.  This is really about personal opinions about what is wrong with this country.

People like to argue that this is the best country going, so quit complaining.  While this may be true (another point that is open for argument), it still has plenty wrong with it and it is healthy to recognize this, discuss it and spread ideas that might make it better for all.  But again, this is all personal opinion and points of view.

Falling back on the Constitution in this topic sort of doesn't make sense.  We are all witnessing events and circumstances that the framers of the Constitution could never have envisioned.  It is just rather out of place in the thread.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 21, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Some aspire, by hard work, to be represented among the 10%. Others aspire to strip the 10% of their work, and redistribute it.


 
There truly is no such thing as a 'Self-Made-Man'. We are all products of our environment.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 21, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> There truly is no such thing as a 'Self-Made-Man'. We are all products of our environment.


 So you would have us all believe.  Interesting, however, how some would hold up the achiever as the goal to aspire too, while others want to play to the lowest common denominator.  Sorry, doesn't sell.

And it is certainly not true that we are only a product of our environment.  More and more we see evidence that our 'makeup' is the deciding factor of success.  That some of the wealthiest men came from the humblest beginnings is evidence that it's not strictly 'you're just born in to it'.  That's a lie when it was first uttered.

What's more, your belief itself is maladaptive and pathological.  If you believe things 'just happen to you', and that you play no role in it, then you will play no role in it.  There is such a thing as a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Funny how even the lowliest born member of society who believes that HE is responsible for his destiny, manages to succeed.  While those born with advantages, who believe that life is outside their control so often fail.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Dec 21, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Most of us still don't.  A fact of which many Europes are quite irrate about.


  When did Europe change from a place everybody wanted to leave to {go to America} to a place we should imitate?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 21, 2005)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> When did Europe change from a place everybody wanted to leave to {go to America} to a place we should imitate?


 Since Hollywood and leftist intellectuals made it 'trendy'.

What they rarely mention is that Europe has been the source of a great deal of American suffering in the past century.  They pulled us in to 2 world wars, and left a HUGE mess in their post-colonial wake.  They can save their advice on how to clean up the mess.


----------



## Flatlander (Dec 21, 2005)

=============
 Mod. Note. 

Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.  Thank you.

 -Dan Bowman-
 -MT Senior Moderator-

=============


----------



## Sarah (Dec 21, 2005)

Well this could get me in trouble, since I am from the outside looking in.....but I am with an American so I have a little experience with you all.

*Seems some have a bit of a 'im superior' attitude, think they are better than everyone else
*Out for myself attitude, doesnt matter who ya step on to get it
*Seems you like to dictate to others how they should/shouldnt live there lives 

Of course this is not the case with anyone here 

Just thought you might like to hear how other country's see American's, as you are not the most popular people in the world......but I still love ya 
 
Really, your not all that bad, you just need to chill out a little, its taking my boyfriend a little while to realize that here in NZ not everyone is out to get ya, in fact some people are more that happy to help you out!


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 21, 2005)

Sarah said:
			
		

> Well this could get me in trouble, since I am from the outside looking in.....but I am with an American so I have a little experience with you all.
> 
> *Seems some have a bit of a 'im superior' attitude, think they are better than everyone else
> *Out for myself attitude, doesnt matter who ya step on to get it
> ...


 
Thank you for an outsider's input.  I was wondering when we might start to get some of that.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 21, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> So you would have us all believe. Interesting, however, how some would hold up the achiever as the goal to aspire too, while others want to play to the lowest common denominator. Sorry, doesn't sell.
> 
> And it is certainly not true that we are only a product of our environment. More and more we see evidence that our 'makeup' is the deciding factor of success. That some of the wealthiest men came from the humblest beginnings is evidence that it's not strictly 'you're just born in to it'. That's a lie when it was first uttered.
> 
> ...


 
I posit this is a very limited view of 'environment'.


----------



## Martial Tucker (Dec 21, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> There truly is no such thing as a 'Self-Made-Man'. We are all products of our environment.



This statement is one of the biggest piles of crap I've come across in recent memory, and its sentiment is a good summary of what is wrong with our country. The implication is that we are helpless passengers in the rudderless ship of life, and have no control over the outcome, and therefore are somehow not responsible for the outcome. 

There are countless stories of children born into abject poverty who worked hard and became successful. Similarly, there are as many stories of children born into wealth and privilege who manage to squander everything.
Additionally, there are numerous instances of siblings born into identical circumstances, where one was successful and one was not. 

Personally, I'm sick and tired of people blaming circumstances beyond their control for their failings. IMO, the biggest problem this nation faces is that many, if not most people are not willing to admit that they are personally responsible for their lives, their actions, and their outcomes.

This is not to say that those born into poverty or other adverse conditions are not at a severe disadvantage, and have significantly less chance for success. This is undeniable. I wish there were an easy fix for this. I think there is ample evidence that just throwing money at this problem doesn't fix it. The idea that we, as a nation need to devote resources to this area is also undeniable. But at the same time, there needs to be incentives created for correct action, and there needs to be accountability/circumstances for failing to take correct action when resouces have been redirected to you.


----------



## Marginal (Dec 21, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> These are arguments you make when you wish to muddy the waters, nothing more. "There's no way of knowing, blah blah blah".


 
At best, we can guess on what the founding fathers would think right now. Most would be horrified by Cheney's recent statements I'm betting. (That is, if you wanna go down that road. Sam Adams for example wasn't a keen proponent of making the president super strong.) 

Fact is, each side's of the constitutional arugment's doing the exact same thing. Validating their world view with compatible filters. 



> If you're suggesting that you don't understand how to read a document, then it may be you who is full of crap.


 
I'm stating I'm not a necromancer.


----------



## Marginal (Dec 21, 2005)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> Didnt the people who left the old world come here BECAUSE they didnt care what the people in europe thought?


 
Yes, the criminals that formed up several of the colonies certainly did not.


----------



## Marginal (Dec 21, 2005)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> I think the Constituion is the codification of ideals about freedom,liberty, and responsibility and the role of the state and the citizen. Within it our examples of how to apply those principals. Within it are also the mechanisms to adapt those ideals to new situations arise.


 
Perhaps, but then you refuse to admit that the founding fathers had crystal balls which enabled them to adress our current societal issues. (Which is what the strict constitutional fundimentalists are basically arguing.) Adaptive mechanisms imply that the document is still a living document, and that the founders recognized that they weren't inerrant.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 22, 2005)

Martial Tucker said:
			
		

> This statement is one of the biggest piles of crap I've come across in recent memory, and its sentiment is a good summary of what is wrong with our country. The implication is that we are helpless passengers in the rudderless ship of life, and have no control over the outcome, and therefore are somehow not responsible for the outcome.
> 
> There are countless stories of children born into abject poverty who worked hard and became successful. Similarly, there are as many stories of children born into wealth and privilege who manage to squander everything.
> Additionally, there are numerous instances of siblings born into identical circumstances, where one was successful and one was not.
> ...


 
Again, you seem to have a very limited view on 'environment'. You also seem to be ascribing to this, how did you put it, "_biggest piles of crap_", much which I am not saying. 

The statement was diliberately short. Because I didn't want to muddy the issue with further exposition. Apparently, you have inferred that exposition, whether it was there or not. 

Oh, well. 

Just be sure, You are making assumptions about things I have not said, claimed, or intended.

And, so you know, I take a bit  of offense that you believe that I am part of, or at least my thoughts are, how did you say it, "_a good summary of what is wrong with our country_".


----------



## Martial Tucker (Dec 22, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Again, you seem to have a very limited view on 'environment'. You also seem to be ascribing to this, how did you put it, "_biggest piles of crap_", much which I am not saying.
> 
> The statement was diliberately short. Because I didn't want to muddy the issue with further exposition. Apparently, you have inferred that exposition, whether it was there or not.
> 
> ...



There is no one that would agree more than me that we are all affected by our environment. My favorite movie is "It's a Wonderful Life" _because _the central theme of the movie is that we have an impact, and are impacted by
everyone we meet. 

You made the short, conclusive statement "we are all products of our environment". The way you worded this makes if very difficult to infer anything other than the sentiment that "environment" is by far the dominant, if not sole determinant of our fate. Again, I think that is crap, for the reasons that I mentioned in my previous post. 

I guess I naively believe that success in life is not about "what happens to you", but rather "how you react to what happens to you".

Please do us a favor. I was not the only member who took issue with your statement. When you post a short, broad statement like "we are products of our environment", you leave much room for interpretation. This is too easy, because it also leaves you maximum "wiggle room" to claim that you were misunderstood. How about if you get specific in your statements. Exactly what DID you mean with your statement, and WHY do you believe this?


----------



## mantis (Dec 22, 2005)

what's up with the environment stuff
can any of you guys put that in a real life example to explain how that's related to what's wrong with american today?
thanks


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 22, 2005)

Martial Tucker said:
			
		

> Exactly what DID you mean with your statement, and WHY do you believe this?


 
A statment was made  ...



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Some aspire, by hard work, to be represented among the 10%. Others aspire to strip the 10% of their work, and redistribute it.


 
... that propsed the idea that the wealthy are wealthy because they work hard ... and those that are not wealthy are just looking to take something that doesn't belong to them.

To which there was a response ...



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> _There truly is no such thing as a 'Self-Made-Man'. We are all products of our environment._


 
The wealthy are not wealthy *soley* because they work hard. They are allowed to become wealthy because in their environment, there is a government, which codifies and enforces a set of rules. Without those rules, no amount of hard work could guarantee accumulation of wealth. Because the rules are required for wealth accumulation, and government is required for the rules, and government needs funding in order to operation (environment), taxes are imposed.

As to how collected taxes are spent, currently, they are being redistributed to Halliburton, Bechtel, and Lockheed, much more than going to the 90% of the population that could use things like a college education, for instance.

To sum up:

You can take wealth out of the government, but you can't take government out of the wealth.

Or, we are all products of our environment.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Dec 22, 2005)

_
 Perhaps, but then you refuse to admit that the founding fathers had crystal balls which enabled them to adress our current societal issues. (Which is what the strict constitutional fundimentalists are basically arguing.) Adaptive mechanisms imply that the document is still a living document, and that the founders recognized that they weren't inerrant._

Not me, I was very carful to say what I meant. I think the Consitution, within the article and bill of rights, is the codification of *ideas*, with example of principles.  Principles about liberty, freedom, civil responsibility and duty, the role of the state and the role of the citizen, and recognition of where the power of the state would end because of the 'inalienable' rights of humans that were not granted by the state but merely aknowledged.  Within the Bill of Rights are examples of the application of those ideals.  But rather than try to set up a lengthy series of laws to explain, outline, and cover every contingency, they set up a) a judicial system to use the Bill of Rights as a guidline to apply those ideals in new or unforseen situations and b) a mechanism for changing  the document itself if need be.  The ideals themselves are key, and they seem pretty good.  

Like the 2nd amendment.  These were people who had just used their own weapons to hold of a much larger military, successfully.  The idea behind the2nd amendment is simple (and is actually spelled out in the amendment), "an armed citizenry is a defense against the tyranny of the state through military power".  That, as a *principle*, is true.  We saw it in Vietnam, the Soviets saw it in Afghanistan, we are seeing it in Iraq; if you want to bring military force against an armed citizenry, you had best think twice because it could be more trouble than it's worth to you so youmay want to find another means of accomplishing your goals.  Now, the people who wrote that amendment could not forsee things like a large standing military, m-16s, and branch davidians which is why we have courts standing on precedence to determine how to apply that principle in today's environment.  But the trick is, the principle *is* still true, so if you pass laws or rule on laws in a way counter to the principle, at least be honest enough to say that the ideal is no longer important.  Don't try to wrestle the language to try to get the wording of the amendment to give sanction to to your cause, just have the courage to admit that you are trading the ideal  of public safety for the ideal of an armed citenzry in defense against state tyranny.  After all, *both* are guide ideals.  Since in this case the ideal is also law...change the basic law if you have to, or admit that your opinions, while maybe justifiable to some opinions, don't really find fit in the laws of theland.  And no, I do not own guns and I do not know the answer to how the 2nd amendment should be applied in a society with a large standing army of volunteer citizens and automatic weapons, although in a hundred years they will probably be passe and we'll have the same agurment over laser rifles or something..that's why I'm not a judge.

That becomes the problem, I think.  Some people have opinions, principles, ideals, whatever, that are really opposed to the ideals that were set down in the Constitution, but the Constitution is the law of the land, which sorta becomes a sticking point to proposing certain ideas as law.  So the solution seems to become to reinterpet the letter of the wording to try to get it to support a different ideal, because the Constitution *is* changeable, but not quicky and not easily

Judges interpret the Consitution and subsequent law to apply the principles by which those laws are established to new and unknown or unforeseen circumstances...that's their job.  Amendments to the Constitution go one further because they effectively re-scramble or re-set the principles under which we operate as a nation.  I believe the Constitution is designed to be flexible within those guiding principles, and I think those principles are good and strong and we should be very slow to deviate from the principles themselves, particularly in response to social whims of the day


I have no problem interpreting  the Consitution in light of our environment, society, technology today, as long as the interpretation is based on following the guiding principles of fredom, liberty and civic responsibilities that are behind what is laid down in print.  It's a living document but even living creatures can only stretch so far before they lose thier identity and the attributes that make them reconizable and special


----------



## Marginal (Dec 22, 2005)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> > I have no problem interpreting the Consitution in light of our environment, society, technology today, as long as the interpretation is based on following the guiding principles of fredom, liberty and civic responsibilities that are behind what is laid down in print. It's a living document but even living creatures can only stretch so far before they lose thier identity and the attributes that make them reconizable and special
> 
> 
> 
> That still denies the basic arguments of the strict constutionalists. Which was the point of my previous post.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Dec 22, 2005)

_That still denies the basic arguments of the strict constutionalists. Which was the point of my previous post._

But not mine   My only point was that for any given written document that you have to assume that the writer intended his inentions to be known and to even attempt to read it requires you to assume that you can discover that intention, otherwise there is not point in reading itt, and no point in writing it.  Whether the US Constituion or anything else

I don't care about strict constitutionalists, I cared that you seemed to be putting forth that original intent was impossible to determine and my only point to that was that if you don't assume, as a writer, that your intent at least *can* be determined then there is nopoint to writng, and that if ypu don't assume, as a reader, that original intent can be discovered than here is no point in reading.  But I believe you referred to that second attempt as 'necromancy' in regards to reading the US Constitution.

How you act on what you think the original intent was, and how you apply it today, is a much different issue...


----------



## Marginal (Dec 22, 2005)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> But not mine  My only point was that for any given written document that you have to assume that the writer intended his inentions to be known and to even attempt to read it requires you to assume that you can discover that intention, otherwise there is not point in reading itt, and no point in writing it. Whether the US Constituion or anything else


 
Doesn't really explain the existence of lawyers though. 

Death of author's not a new concept.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 23, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> A statment was made ...
> 
> 
> ... that propsed the idea that the wealthy are wealthy because they work hard ... and those that are not wealthy are just looking to take something that doesn't belong to them.
> ...


 That is the most convoluted BS defense of an argument i've seen in quite a long history of watching convoluted arguments.  You went from 'we are products of our environments' immediately to 'you can take wealth out of the government'.  You did NOT, I not, show how hard work and talent have nothing to do with accumulation of wealth.

I will note that the LESS rules in place, the MORE effect talent and hard work have to accumulating wealth and power.  In a lawless environment, the MOST talented and hard working are the successful.  Just the opposite of your conclusion is true, that rules actually impede the accumulation of success in many instances.

Now, you may be right, if by 'environment' you mean an environment where an individual is taught the power of hard work and determination, instead of excuse making.  If that is what you mean by environment (though, I know it is not) then you might be correct.

The richest men in American History started out poor.  If the accumulation of wealth was merely something handed down, then the rich would always be rich and the poor would always be poor.  And the rich would only get richer.  History of wealth in America, however, runs contrary to this.  The singular men that accumulated most wealth in America were, as a rule, rather than exception, self-made men who came from humble beginnings.

John D. Rockefeller, arguably the richest man to have lived in America, had his first job as a bookkeeper, for which he toiled for 3 months before even receiving his first pay, which consisted of a whole $50.00 for three months work.  If we were to believe your model, there is no way that Rockefeller would have accumulated the wealth he did, as the accumulation of wealth would have been reserved for those who already possessed huge sums of money.  

But the question is, why did Rockefeller, and not THEY, accumulate all that wealth?  Did the government decide they liked Rockefeller better?

Andrew Carnegie came to America an impoverished immigrant.  The environmental factor that drove him to financial success was that his mother PUSHED him to the point that failure was not an option.  

As Margaret Carnagie was fond of telling young Andrew 'Look after the pennies, and the pounds will look after themselves.'  Had she, instead, told Andrew Carnagie 'Society is stacked against the poor, so you shouldn't even try, because it's all a matter of environment and being born rich' I sincerely doubt he would have achieved his level of success.

Cornelius Vanderbilt was born the 4th of 9 children to parents of modest means in New York.  He quit school at 11 and worked on ferries.  Through hard work and frugal and shrewed financial management, he expanded his business to control shipping on the Hudson River.

John Jacob Astor was born the son of a butcher.  

Again, where is the environmental factors to these men's success?  They represent some of the wealthiest men in US history.  

According to you, these men should have never had a chance. Please point to the external environmental factors that were more important than internal factors to these men's success.

That the individual is helpless in the face of social forces and has no impact denies the achievements of great men, who were great BEYOND their environment.  Environmental factors cannot explain the genius of Einstein or Capernicus, who altered their environment.  That we are but helpless beings adrift on a sea of unalterable environmental factors is idiotic thinking.  Life adapts to it's environment, and seeks to dominate it's environment.  It is pathological thinking to suggest that we are simply victims and products of our environment, as we are constantly in conflict with our environment. 

Ideas have power.  Ideas can alter societies, they can change environments.  Of course, that we are 'victim's' of society is an idea meant to alter things as well.  It's a tool, and I know it for what it is.  It's designed to create the appearance of helplessness so that, in that void created by helplessness, a political agenda can be driven with the intent of 'helping the helpless'.  It's pure ideological drivel designed to keep people in self-imposed helplessness for the enrichement of a certain political ideology.   Save it for someone who's buying.

The belief that you cannot rise above your environment pretty much guarantees you won't.  A motivated and talented man could turn a dollar in to millions, while a lazy and careless man could turn millions in to dust.  The history of wealth is paved by men who won and lost a dozen fortunes in their lifetimes, and were never discouraged or tempted to simply resign themselves to fate.

Many want to write off success as luck, because it makes them feel better about resigning themselves to failure.  But luck is when opportunity meets preparedness.  

Audaces fortuna iuvat-Fortune favors the bold.

Now, read Rudyard Kiplings 'IF' 100 times and get back to work.

Your mistake is in the belief that hard work does not always equal success.  That there are no guarantees of success is true, but hardworks opposite almost always leads to failure.  Successful men don't worry about failure.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 23, 2005)

I hear the approaching hoof-beats of Barbara Ehrenreich and her ilk.  I expect to hear soon how i'm 'Nickeled and Dimed'.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_4_working_poor.html

Barb betrays her true purpose in this overly candid statement.  "In fact, the anger, at least, is healthy -- and could be channeled into something worthwhile, like advocating for health insurance and other social supports for the unemployed."  That's a little more honest than i'm sure she meant to be.  She doesn't want the poor to work or be successful, she wants to convince them to stop trying, because their only hope is people like her.  

http://www.barbaraehrenreich.com/qanda.htm

What she wants is to foment the alleged poor in to petitioning for MORE government by telling them 'it's not your fault, just give up, there's nothing you can do'.  Pathetic.  But I digress.

Again, it's no surprise where much of the talking points are coming from on this topic.  It's the same old class warfare in a new dress.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 23, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> That is the most convoluted BS defense of an argument i've seen in quite a long history of watching convoluted arguments. You went from 'we are products of our environments' immediately to 'you can take wealth out of the government'. You did NOT, I not, show how hard work and talent have nothing to do with accumulation of wealth.
> 
> I will note that the LESS rules in place, the MORE effect talent and hard work have to accumulating wealth and power. In a lawless environment, the MOST talented and hard working are the successful. Just the opposite of your conclusion is true, that rules actually impede the accumulation of success in many instances.
> 
> ...


 
That you totally mis-understand the argument does not surprise me, which is why I kept the initial point short.

In a Lawless environment, Hard Work and Talent, do not guarantee wealth accumulation. It guarantees, he who has the power to enforce the rules accumulates wealth.

By *your *definition, Saddam Hussien would be a wonderful example to put beside Carnagie and Rockefeller. Because he had amassed great wealth, he must be talented and hard working. Instead of capturing him for trail by Iraqi's, we should have brought him here and gave him a chair at the Harvard Business School (or at least some Right Wing Think Tank)


----------



## FearlessFreep (Dec 23, 2005)

_
 Doesn't really explain the existence of lawyers though._

Sure it does.  If the role of the judge is to interpret the Constitution (and precedent) in terms of a given situation, it's the role of the lawyer to present evidence and argument to the judge as to what the iterpretaton should be.  Lawyer A says "Your honor, this law is unconstitutional so my client *should* be allowed to do X" and Lawyer B says "Your honor, the city was within it's rights to pass a law against X" and the judge ways  the arguments against the Consitution and precedence, especially the Supreme Cout's prior decisions


----------



## Martial Tucker (Dec 23, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I will note that the LESS rules in place, the MORE effect talent and hard work have to accumulating wealth and power. In a lawless environment, the MOST talented and hard working are the successful.






			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> In a Lawless environment, Hard Work and Talent, do not guarantee wealth accumulation. It guarantees, he who has the power to enforce the rules accumulates wealth.
> 
> By your definition, Saddam Hussien would be a wonderful example to put beside Carnagie and Rockefeller. Because he had amassed great wealth, he must be talented and hard working.



Maybe it's just me, but I thought it was obvious that sgtmac_46 was referring to a democracy where there are few laws restricting activity, but the laws that do exist are generally followed by the populus.

By comparing to Hussein's Iraq, you are comparing to an environment where the laws are created by one person, and that person is not even subject to his own laws. Of course that person will come out ahead of the rest. 

Put another way, if a bunch of people are playing a game, the player who 
works the hardest at being good at the game usually wins more often. Additionally, the fewer rules there are in the game, the easier it is for EACH PLAYER to have a chance at winning the game, as long as everyone follows the rules.

Your analogy describes a situation where one player has the ability to create arbitrary rules as the game progresses, who is not subject to those rules, and can eliminate any other players who challenge him. 

In other words, a ridiculously invalid comparison......


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 23, 2005)

Martial Tucker said:
			
		

> In other words, a ridiculously invalid comparison......


 
Really? O.K. then.

We are not products of our environment. 

Each of us can operate completely out of any system of laws (such as that of the United States government), and the Rockefellers, the Gates, and the Carnegie will always rise to the top. Because, obviously, they are more talented and work harder than all others.


----------



## Martial Tucker (Dec 23, 2005)

Hmmm.......how odd.......according to some theories, growing/living up in Chihuahua, Mexico would be a definite environmental disadvantage to growing up/living in an America.....

*


Immigrants find opportunity in ruined New Orleans                  *

                                                                                                               By Jeff Franks _Fri Dec 23,10:59 AM ET_ 

NEW ORLEANS (Reuters) - Much of New Orleans lies abandoned and destroyed after Hurricane Katrina struck nearly four months ago, but for Latin American immigrants the storm-ravaged city has become a land of opportunity. 

While New Orleans residents are slow to return, the immigrants, most of them illegally in the United States, have swarmed in to do the hard work of cleaning up and rebuilding that others so far have shunned.
They are not here because of altruism -- New Orleans is just another place in a strange land to them -- but because there is a huge unfulfilled demand for labor and, as a result, high wages they cannot get in their homeland or in other U.S. cities.
In a sight common in the southwestern U.S., but new to New Orleans, they crowd street corners starting at daybreak, offering themselves as day laborers to anyone who needs them.
"You need worker?" asks Carlos Delgado, leaning against a light pole overlooked by a nearby statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee.
"I can put up Sheetrock, roofing, concrete and I can do clean-up," the 31-year-old Mexico native says in a mixture of English and Spanish.
He had been in Houston for eight years before coming to New Orleans in October and like most of the immigrants lives in a cheap hotel room with several acquaintances.
Most days, Delgado and his colleagues -- sometimes as many as 200 on this corner parking lot near the New Orleans central business district -- get hired quickly by contractors in passing pickup trucks, who whisk them off to whatever project is pending.
 "Baby, we couldn't do it without them," one of the employers shouted through his truck window.
 DAILY RATES
There is so much work to be done, the immigrants say, that often they finish, return to the corner and get hired the same day for another job.
The pay is good -- "$10, $12, $15 an hour," said Jose Del Rio, 38, from Chihuahua, Mexico -- and there are few problems...............

* The immigrant workers do not feel too threatened by competition from the local Americans. They point to the back of the parking lot where the only "gringos" in sight are sleeping on sheets of cardboard or sitting on wooden boxes, surrounded by empty beer cans and booze bottles. 
  "There are a lot of drunks here," said Delgado. 
When asked where the American workers were, Del Rio shook his head and said, "Who knows? It just seems like the Latin race likes to work more."*


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 23, 2005)

Martial Tucker said:
			
		

> Hmmm.......how odd.......according to some theories, growing/living up in Chihuahua, Mexico would be a definite environmental disadvantage to growing up/living in an America.....


 
No doubt, that's why Chihuahua, Mexica has generated so many multi-billionaires. They work hard, and they have talent.


----------



## Martial Tucker (Dec 23, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> No doubt, that's why Chihuahua, Mexica has generated so many multi-billionaires. They work hard, and they have talent.



It's a heckuva lot more likely for them than for someone who spends their time
"sleeping on sheets of cardboard or sitting on wooden boxes, surrounded by empty beer cans and booze bottles".

Paradoxically, Mexico has more millionaires than Germany, yet half its population is supported only by traditional low technology industry and agriculture.
http://chicagosociety.uchicago.edu/mexico/mexicofacts.html


The key factor is, when you are presented with an opportunity, do you seize it, or ignore it. It comes down to choices. Two people in the same place, given the same opportunity. One chooses to work, the other to sit on a box and drink. Neither has much of a chance of becoming the next Bill Gates. One makes the most of what he has, the other sits.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 23, 2005)

Martial Tucker said:
			
		

> The key factor is, when you are presented with an opportunity, do you seize it, or ignore it. It comes down to choices. Two people in the same place, given the same opportunity. One chooses to work, the other to sit on a box and drink. Neither has much of a chance of becoming the next Bill Gates. One makes the most of what he has, the other sits.


 
The key factor is ... being in the right place. A place with a stable government, with rules of conduct and a method of enforcing those rules.

Without *that*, only strongmen, mob bosses have a shot. 

First ... before personal endeavor ... systems need to be in place.

That is my point, and you are talking around it.


----------



## Martial Tucker (Dec 23, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> The key factor is ... being in the right place. A place with a stable government, with rules of conduct and a method of enforcing those rules.


Well, it seems to me that the people sitting on the boxes and drinking in New Orleans were "in the right place" to find work before the people from Mexico arrived. 
The "box-sitters" CHOSE to sit and do nothing, while the workers from Mexico put themselves at risk to travel to find work, in a place where they actually have a DISADVANTAGE, because our laws are structured against them, and 
they persist and prosper. The same opportunity is there, for two groups of people, existing under the same government/rules of conduct/method for enforcing the rules.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 23, 2005)

Martial Tucker said:
			
		

> Maybe it's just me, but I thought it was obvious that sgtmac_46 was referring to a democracy where there are few laws restricting activity, but the laws that do exist are generally followed by the populus.
> 
> By comparing to Hussein's Iraq, you are comparing to an environment where the laws are created by one person, and that person is not even subject to his own laws. Of course that person will come out ahead of the rest.
> 
> ...


 I'm glad you get it, because it's obvious michael doesn't.  It doesn't surprise me.  It is not rules that create opportunities, in fact, too many rules stiffle opportunity.  Saddam's Iraq, for example, is an example of TOO MUCH rule, not too little.

That michael thinks it requires a government to provide opportunity is only an example of his mindset.  Those of us who know better, know that opportunity exists MOST where government interfers least.  Governments are designed to restrict, not to to free.

What michael fails to realize, though, is that in ANY system, those who are creative and industrious ALWAYS find a way to rise to the top.  Even in communist systems, designed to stiffle innovation and individual initiative, the creme STILL finds a way to rise....they just do so within they party.

However, the system designed to allow the most opportunity for the most people is a system, somewhat like our present system, that still provides and allows opportunities by NOT interferring.  Freedom and freemarkets have provided more prosperity for more people than any other system in the world.

That michael thinks that governments provide prosperity is just more evidence that he has the wrong idea.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 23, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Really? O.K. then.
> 
> We are not products of our environment.
> 
> Each of us can operate completely out of any system of laws (such as that of the United States government), and the Rockefellers, the Gates, and the Carnegie will always rise to the top. Because, obviously, they are more talented and work harder than all others.


 None of those people started out as part of the 'elite', Gates, the son of lawyers, was about the highest on the social ladder.  The rest were the sons of peasants, who accumulated wealth on hard work and discipline.

But you are right, YOU cannot succeed where they did....because you believe you are a victim of fate, not a master of your own destiny.  

Hardwork and creativity do not guarantee success, but their opposites are almost a clear guarantee of failure.  Again, the belief that you are a victim of fate is a crutch, designed to console for failure.

The irony is, throughout history, the same types of people (many of them not born elite) manage to rise to the top in ANY system.  They all share similar attributes, ambition being chief among them.  They are willing to sacrifice.  

As I said in the last post, however, it isn't government setting up rules that ALLOWS success, it's restricting government from setting up rules that allows success.  The US hasn't been successful by a system of programs, but because it knows when to stay OUT of the business of business.  Not everyone is successful, but more people as a percentage of the population are successful than any other time in history.

That you think you can improve on the success of the free market THROUGH government makes you no different than the failed bureaucrats of the past who think they can guide the market to better success.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 24, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I'm glad you get it, because it's obvious michael doesn't. It doesn't surprise me. It is not rules that create opportunities, in fact, too many rules stiffle opportunity. Saddam's Iraq, for example, is an example of TOO MUCH rule, not too little.
> 
> That michael thinks it requires a government to provide opportunity is only an example of his mindset. Those of us who know better, know that opportunity exists MOST where government interfers least. Governments are designed to restrict, not to to free.
> 
> ...


 
Government does not 'provide opportunity' and that is not what I said.

I do not think that 'goverments provide prosperity' and that is not what I said.

So, again, by your argument 'Saddam Hussein' was 'creative' and 'industrious'. Why then aren't we studying his methods and tactics?


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 24, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> None of those people started out as part of the 'elite', Gates, the son of lawyers, was about the highest on the social ladder. The rest were the sons of peasants, who accumulated wealth on hard work and discipline.
> 
> But you are right, YOU cannot succeed where they did....because you believe you are a victim of fate, not a master of your own destiny.
> 
> ...


 
I believe I am a victim of fate? 

Please Dr. Freud, explain to me how it is you come to understand what my beliefs are? Because, I am unaware of that belief. It must be in my unconcious somewhere. 

Please Dr. Freud, help me understand these beliefs that I don't think I have. It must be like high cholesterol, or something, cuz I'm not aware of it.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 24, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Government does not 'provide opportunity' and that is not what I said.
> 
> I do not think that 'goverments provide prosperity' and that is not what I said.
> 
> So, again, by your argument 'Saddam Hussein' was 'creative' and 'industrious'. Why then aren't we studying his methods and tactics?


 That Saddam Hussein was creative and industrious IS true.  That he was also pathological is also true.  Apparently you can't tell the difference between successful attributes, and an individual who possess them.  

This is a logical fallacy.  'If Saddam was industrious and creative, and he was evil, then anyone who is industrious and creative MUST be evil'.  That's faulty reasoning.   

So pointing out that Saddam Hussein was industrious and creative is irrelavent.  Those are the reasons WHY he was successful, but they have nothing to do with what was wrong with his regime.  He just happen to be successful at being a sociopath, and his industriousness and creative are what allowed him to rise above the level of hoodlum, to lead a nation.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 24, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I believe I am a victim of fate?
> 
> Please Dr. Freud, explain to me how it is you come to understand what my beliefs are? Because, I am unaware of that belief. It must be in my unconcious somewhere.
> 
> Please Dr. Freud, help me understand these beliefs that I don't think I have. It must be like high cholesterol, or something, cuz I'm not aware of it.


 I must have hit a button for you to be taking this argument personally.  I had been dealing with your arguments, not you.  I can't tell if YOU feel you are a victim of fate, only you know.

However, your argument is predicated on the idea that no one is responsible for their own success or failure, therefore, it is the job of government and well-meaning people to ensure that people are successful.  That is, quite frankly, wrong.  That is my 'point'.  

What you feel about your own life, quite frankly, is of no consequence to me.  It is not in any way my intention to engage in an ad hominem war of personal attack, as I have no idea what you think, personally, toward yourself.  I am only dealing with the ideas that we are debating, and as such, the difference between what you are claiming, and what I am claiming.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 24, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I must have hit a button for you to be taking this argument personally. I had been dealing with your arguments, not you.


 
Dealing with the argument's, eh?



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I'm glad you get it, because it's obvious *michael* doesn't. ...
> 
> That *michael* thinks it requires a government to provide opportunity ...
> 
> ...


 
I haven't included the 2nd person pronouns you used is a few of the last posts, which were also directed at me.

No, sir, you *were attacking me*.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 24, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> However, your argument is predicated on the idea that no one is responsible for their own success or failure, therefore, it is the job of government and well-meaning people to ensure that people are successful. That is, quite frankly, wrong. That is my 'point'.


 
There are no predicates in my argument. 

I have spelled out, in what I believe is a consice (although perhaps, this medium requires a too contracted consiceness) argument that governments are required for the accumulation of wealth. They don't cause it, they create the environment for the accumulation to occur.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 24, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Dealing with the argument's, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Call it whatever makes you feel better, michael.  If you feel that I have offended you, personally, then please accept my most humble apologies.   

Merry Christmas to you, sir.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 24, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> There are no predicates in my argument.
> 
> I have spelled out, in what I believe is a consice (although perhaps, this medium requires a too contracted consiceness) argument that governments are required for the accumulation of wealth. They don't cause it, they create the environment for the accumulation to occur.


 Actually, societies have created an environment for wealth accumulation.  Governments are a product of socieities, not the other way around.  Originally, the development of societies and the ability to plant crops, specialize tasks, and store resources, created an environment for wealth accumulation.

My argument, however, is that TOO MUCH government involvement stiffles wealth accumation for the majority of people.  That a government that governs least governs best.

Subtle, but important distinctions.


----------

