O/T: What's Next?

Page 7 of 10  
Upscale wrote:

I was.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Indeed I'd think they often are but not for these concepts.....Rod
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Rod & Betty Jo wrote:

Proving that collectivism is not the sole province of the left...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's some feeble attempt at a joke right? In our North American society, the rich are richer than ever before and the divide between rich and poor grows exponentionally on a daily basis. Very few are contributing to those charities you're exalting. The rich of our society are essentially a case of absolute power corrupting absolutely. There's little interest in charitable contributions other than the occasional lip service to silence the masses.
At one point I believed you were a little smarter than that. But, it's obvious that you're so petrified at losing hold of the little that you have that it's obliterated any semblence of logic you have or once had. Life must be tough for you cowering in fear behind your barricades.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Upscale wrote:

You need to lay off the crack pipe. There are fewer people who are "poor" in objective terms than at any time in Western history. THe big "divide" you mention does exist ... because more people than ever are, um *rich*.

Is it hard to sleep at night with that much bile for people that have more than you? Is it possible they do so because you are their inferior?

I am "terrified" that collectivist bottom feeders with little or no real skin in the game of life will terrorize those of us who are productive. There are only three kinds of people in the world, Makers, Fakers, and Takers. You are certainly not the first.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

But, not like you with your wagons circled and cowering terrified in your hole. And you forgot to mention one other category. That's the liar category developed solely for scared little rabbits like you. You subsist on greed, but unfortunately you just haven't had the chutzpah to attain the station in life to accommodate that greed.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Upscale wrote:

As best as I can determine, I do not fear collectivists. I hold them in utter contempt for their irrationality and evil practices.

I am unclear on just what I've lied about. Do clarify it that for me. If you cannot, this makes you, um .... the liar.

I subsist without threatening, harming, or stealing from others. That isn't greed, it's known as "civil behaviour". You might try to develop a bit of that yourself.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I think what's at issue here, is that you hurl about the term 'collectivist' in a random and sanctimonious way. Enhanced by a sprinkling of smug, arrogant self-righteousness, your arguments do appear, to some, to hold some substance, but I see right through the hollowness.
I suppose we should all consider ourselves 'chosen' that you'll even speak to us.
But I admit, you talk shit rather well.
r
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

Let's see if I can provide the substance you feel is missing:
A "collectivist" is ordinarily understood to be someone who favors the interests of the group (the "collective") over those of the individual. There are degrees of this viewpoint. Some collectivists believe the interests of the group entirely trump those of the individual - historically, this has been expressed by the Communists, the German 3rd Reich, the Italian Fascists, the Red Chinese, Japan under Tojo, most of Africa, most of the 3rd world, and so forth. In every case cited, collectivism worked out very nicely for everyone. Witness, for example, the fine quality of life the Africans have enjoyed as they've protected their various tribal collectives.
Another view some at least try to hold is that the interest of the group and the individual must be "balanced". This is the view of most European neo-Leninists (Social Democrats) and so-called 'liberals' in the Anglosphere. This inevitably devolves into more and more power for the collective because no person or government can every agree what "balance" means. By default, power then flows to the few who govern the collective. That's how modern Marxists like Barak Obama ascend to power. It's also how phony conservatives like John McCain get a shot at power - they promise to protect the individual, and promptly start making laws for "the good of the nation". This kind of collectivism has also worked out very well. It has given the Western powers a crushing burden of debt because of social services spending, and the consequent corruption of government that follows the money. This has also led abuses of individual liberty. Examples include hate-speech laws in the US and Speech Tribunals in Canada, wherein unpopular speech is actually prosecuted as criminal. There are many other examples of the evils that follow collectivism - not the least of which is the current economic mess in the West.
Then there are those of us who are anti-collectivist to our roots. We believe that the only role of government is to keep us free. This restricts government to interdicting in matters of force, fraud, or threat. This limitation is necessary because government without such limitation will naturally use its power to oppress people as the examples above demonstrate. We who oppose collectivism also tend to have a much higher degree of confidence in the intellect, good will, and ethics of our fellow citizens: We believe that good people will step up to help those in real need without having to stick a gun to the head of those good people and make them do it. We are generally called "libertarians" (which is different than "Libertarian", a political party).
Collectivists operate by force and mob rule masking their intentions and methods in the guise of doing good things. Libertarians operate by cooperation and good will and manage to do good things without harming those around them.
Still think this is "random and sanctimonious"? If you do, here's a way to shut me up: Show me a single example of collectivist rule that does not over time cause harm to individual liberty and lead to a net reduction in freedom. Hint: You won't find one.

You chose to engage every bit as much as I did. This is called a "conversation".

Good conversations are built on good manners. Using vulgar language undermines the former because it demonstrates a lack of the latter. Grow up.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sorry. I forgot the height of your horse.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

I am not trying to be arrogant - I just dislike vulgar public discourse.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yup, you're even more deluded than I thought. That vaunted "freedom" you support with all your might is mostly an illusion. You (and our society) haven't had the full freedom you're talking about for centuries.
It's an illusion and has been for a long, long time. You only survive because you've settled into a comfortable state of self-delusion. I guess that's something that makes us uniquely human, the ability to delude ourselves. Only problem is that you've taken it to the extreme. You're sick Tim, get some help.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Upscale wrote:

And you oppressive collectivists - the self anointed saviors of mankind - lacking any skill to do much on your own - are happy to continue and even grow the enslavement. You are actually *proud* of the loss of freedom the West as undergone. Your ideas are really revolting. It's a shame you can't spend a few years in a true Marxist paradise that embraces your values fully. Sadly (for you), they're almost all gone now, having failed under the weight of their own evil.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

But I admit, you talk poop rather well. There is that better?
To chose a word to make a point, a word you may not like, does not automatically negate the rest of the statement. You'll need another skirt to hide under. Next thing you know, you'll disagree with someone and the strength of you position is based on the fact that he uses a different typewriter than you do.
r
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

Only slightly.

I never said it did. I said it was poor form, bad manners, etc. and that it is.

I don't disagree with you because you used rude language. I disagree with you because you have false ideas.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

False ideas? You mean ideas you disagree with? In my mind, ideas can never be 'false'. I can see that if an idea leads to a solution which may not solve a problem, the idea might not be suitable, but I can't see an idea being 'false'. Maybe one needs to be a collectivist to have false ideas? Or is this another one of your slight-of-thoughts again?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Of course you wouldn't think so. However, the past few days reading your thoughts on the immorality of universal health care has displayed your naked fear for all to see. Can't get away from that.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Upscale wrote:

That's a statement laced with hyperbole. Growing exponentially on a daily basis? Since the left seems to believe that history started in 2000 when the evil Bush took office, let's take a look at the 2006 IRS statistics (latest year available) for the top 1% of taxpayers: Their share of total income over the past 8 years (and we'll go back a couple of years to the glorious Clinton years):
Top 1% Year %Adjusted Gross Income Share 1998 18.47 1999 19.51 2000 20.81 2001 17.53 2002 16.12 2003 16.77 2004 19.00 2005 21.20 2006 22.06
Now, for the top 50% Year %Adjusted Gross Income Share 1998 86.33 1999 86.75 2000 87.01 2001 86.19 2002 85.77 2003 86.01 2004 86.58 2005 87.17 2006 87.49
Hardly an exponential growth on a daily basis. Note that during the bulk of the eeevil Bush years, top 1% AGI share actually dropped and then has risen the past couple of years. Top 50% has remained roughly the same.

Do you have a cite for this?

Well, that's certainly true of the Dem side of the aisle, they seem to believe that charity begins in other peoples' wallets. Let's see, Biden gave what, $3000 on $3M in income, but he wants the rest of us to do our patriotic duty and pay more taxes so he can appear generous by giving away the money he takes from the rest of us. Obama didn't give much to charity until he was called on it. Al Gore was equally parsimonious in his gifts to charity. Yeah, you're right -- those are the people seeking more and more power; they are more than willing to give away others' money, just keep our hands off of their stack.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 23:28:11 -0500, Upscale wrote:

That's a very good summation of what I hear from the Canadians I know.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
[snipped evaluation of Canadian healthcare system... sort of]
Healthcare varies quite a bit from province to province. Many of the people my wife and I socialise with are medical professionals. They are aware of the flaws. And many work on the US side as well, and they are aware of their flaws.
And people from all over the world also come to Canada for treatment, especially children.
There are weak spots in healthcare in Canada, but it is functioning.
Overheard on a golf course in Michigan:
Doctor # 1 : "Say, did you know Johnson the contractor?" Doctor # 2 : "Yes, I had my house built by him. Why?" Doctor # 1 : "Well, he was a patient of mine, he passed away. ." Doctor # 2 : "Really? What did he have?" Doctor # 1 : "Sixty thousand dollars."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.