Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Kilkrazy wrote:Because it is in the Constitution -- Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Rather ask why the Republicans don't want everyone to be happy.

John Hancock wrote:We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

It's in the Declaration of Independence, not the constitution. Also those are rights that you have as a human being, but nowhere does it say that the government has to provide them to you. The governments job is to maintain order, not maintain everyones person life for them. Saying yes to everything produces spoiled children, when there is no challenge or required effort to get anything of desire, the joy is lost. This then causes new things to become desired....that tend to be perverse, pointless or unjustifyable by any circumstances.

Saying yes to everything produces spoiled children, when there is no challenge or required effort to get anything of desire, the joy is lost. This then causes new things to become desired....that tend to be perverse, pointless or unjustifyable by any circumstances.

Best slippery slope ever.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Saying yes to everything produces spoiled children, when there is no challenge or required effort to get anything of desire, the joy is lost. This then causes new things to become desired....that tend to be perverse, pointless or unjustifyable by any circumstances.

Best slippery slope ever.

QFT

OTOH Take a look at society and tell me I'm wrong.

Red9 wrote:
QFT

OTOH Take a look at society and tell me I'm wrong.

*looks*

You're wrong.

I'll happily expand on why I consider that to be the case if you will expand on your own position.

It is a well-known fact that the happiest people on the planet are the Somalis.

Red9 wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Saying yes to everything produces spoiled children, when there is no challenge or required effort to get anything of desire, the joy is lost. This then causes new things to become desired....that tend to be perverse, pointless or unjustifyable by any circumstances.

Best slippery slope ever.

QFT

OTOH Take a look at society and tell me I'm wrong.

It's the Fall of the Eldar!


When is Slaanesh showing up? Oh wait....there's Gaga....nevermind

dogma wrote:

Red9 wrote:
QFT

OTOH Take a look at society and tell me I'm wrong.

*looks*

You're wrong.

I'll happily expand on why I consider that to be the case if you will expand on your own position.

We have people in this country (perfect example Katrina '05) who cannot think, act, provide or live for themselves anymore. Seeing the people with their hands in the air going: "Where's the Government?!" is embarrassing. It's a damn hurricane headed towards you, do you think you could leave? Why weren't the public school buses from NO used to bus peiople out of the city? Instead they get left in a bus barn and all become total losses to the city's budget after they get flooded.

Extending un-employment 2 more years coupled with our high minimum wage is another example: Companies are looking to maintain a consistent bottom line, said bottom line can't be met when the government lays down an arbitrary limit on what someone can be paid. So, there's a price floor that creates a shortage caused by a high minimum wage. Thus, more people need un-employment and can't find jobs because the margins aren't moving. When the margins aren't moving there is undereployment and people eventually stop looking for jobs. There can't be more jobs when you have to pay someone $7.15 an hour. People can't get $5 an hour jobs because of this law. It might only be $5 but it's still a job!

And no it is not a living wage, it never was intended to be, it was meant for teenagers who are just starting out in the workforce, not trying to raise a family on it. If you are trying to raise a family on that you're a fool.

We have massive amounts of crime, un-employment, out of wedlock births, premature death and teenage pregancy in the black community. They have had every type of program thrown their way and yet they still are some of the poorest people in the country. Why? Because most (not all) of them have had initiative bred out of them, much like the Native Americans. It is supposedly benevolent liberals who look out for the little guy yet they keep enacting policies that crush the little guy and his employer under mountains of regulations and laws.

We have a government that is almost at 100% of our GDP in debt, yet we want to spend more. Out unfunded liability is $119 Trillion dollars yet it's not enough. Medicare, Medicaid, SS and the host of other programs our Federal Government provides are out of money. There is no more. The only reason we haven't completely imploded is becasue fiscal policy moves faster than monetary policy. Once hyper infaltion hits I can't wait for these haughty people to say it was because of the Republicans.

And no, I am no Republican, they just suck a little less, plus they have more influence than the thrid parties. I am tired of BO getting to use his mighty cudgel of "Bush bad" or "The Republicans are in the way", there's nothing stopping him, he just want's to make sure he can use any inclusion of Republican support agianst them in any way, the man cannot think outside of the political realm on anything.

Yes, if only those black and natives didn't have the initiative bred out of them by our benevolent liberal overlords...

Speaking of bafflegab, what's up with the assumption of there being a monolithic and ideologically homogenous Republican party? There's some know-nothing Tea Partiers out there that would probably beg to differ.

We have people in this country (perfect example Katrina '05) who cannot think, act, provide or live for themselves anymore. Seeing the people with their hands in the air going: "Where's the Government?!" is embarrassing. It's a damn hurricane headed towards you, do you think you could leave? Why weren't the public school buses from NO used to bus peiople out of the city? Instead they get left in a bus barn and all become total losses to the city's budget after they get flooded.

Did you really just disparage people for wondering where the government is and then in the same paragraph criticize the government for not being there?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nurglitch wrote:Yes, if only those black and natives didn't have the initiative bred out of them by our benevolent liberal overlords...

Speaking of bafflegab, what's up with the assumption of there being a monolithic and ideologically homogenous Republican party? There's some know-nothing Tea Partiers out there that would probably beg to differ.

Movement politics are always a few years behind electoral politics due to the election cycle. The conservative base has fractured a bit but the actual party leaders are as homogenous as ever.

Stormrider wrote:
We have people in this country (perfect example Katrina '05) who cannot think, act, provide or live for themselves anymore. Seeing the people with their hands in the air going: "Where's the Government?!" is embarrassing. It's a damn hurricane headed towards you, do you think you could leave? Why weren't the public school buses from NO used to bus peiople out of the city? Instead they get left in a bus barn and all become total losses to the city's budget after they get flooded.

The public school buses are government property. It seems odd that would point out a failing of the state in the context of a comment regarding why people didn't leave due to their own incompetence. Additionally, to presume that the matter was one of incompetence rather than inability says a great deal about you and your own failings; as there are certainly alternative explanations which you seem happy to ignore, or unable to see.

Oh, and lets not forget that New Orleans' flood prevention measures were supposedly designed to handle hurricanes as strong as Katrina.

Stormrider wrote:
Extending un-employment 2 more years coupled with our high minimum wage is another example:

High minimum wage compared to what? The US minimum wage is one of the lowest in the developed world.

Stormrider wrote:
Companies are looking to maintain a consistent bottom line, said bottom line can't be met when the government lays down an arbitrary limit on what someone can be paid.

Then how is it that there are many corporations operating in the US at this moment?

Stormrider wrote:
So, there's a price floor that creates a shortage caused by a high minimum wage. Thus, more people need un-employment and can't find jobs because the margins aren't moving. When the margins aren't moving there is undereployment and people eventually stop looking for jobs. There can't be more jobs when you have to pay someone $7.15 an hour.

Then how do you explain the low unemployment rate throughout the '00s?

Additionally, it seems as though you're presuming that people are collecting unemployment just by being unemployed. This is a false, as the standards governing unemployment insurance are more stringent than that; notably considering underemployment in order to provide assistance to people earning less than they had previously.

Stormrider wrote:
People can't get $5 an hour jobs because of this law. It might only be $5 but it's still a job!

I'm not a huge fan of minimum wage laws either, but you're attributing far too much causal force to them.

Stormrider wrote:
And no it is not a living wage, it never was intended to be, it was meant for teenagers who are just starting out in the workforce, not trying to raise a family on it. If you are trying to raise a family on that you're a fool.

The rate of labor participation for both sexes, aged 16-19, has hovered between 60-70% since 1948; with no direct correlation between purchasing power and the rate of employment. Notably, more people were employed when the federal minimum wage had its highest purchasing power (1968) than during all prior years of that decade.

Stormrider wrote:
We have massive amounts of crime, un-employment, out of wedlock births, premature death and teenage pregancy in the black community. They have had every type of program thrown their way and yet they still are some of the poorest people in the country. Why? Because most (not all) of them have had initiative bred out of them, much like the Native Americans. It is supposedly benevolent liberals who look out for the little guy yet they keep enacting policies that crush the little guy and his employer under mountains of regulations and laws.

You should note that the rate social mobility isn't any higher among poor white people. The defining characteristic here is the tendency of poverty to breed defeatism. For instance, prior to the Great Society, the rate of social mobility amongst blacks was significantly lower than amongst whites, that is no longer the case.

Stormrider wrote:
We have a government that is almost at 100% of our GDP in debt, yet we want to spend more. Out unfunded liability is $119 Trillion dollars yet it's not enough. Medicare, Medicaid, SS and the host of other programs our Federal Government provides are out of money. There is no more. The only reason we haven't completely imploded is becasue fiscal policy moves faster than monetary policy.

Actually it has more to do with the means by which we have financed our spending habits, but that's another thread. To the point, the budget needs to be cut, there is no playing about that, but there is no way to cut it enough, with sufficient alacrity, to simultaneously avoid some form of tax increase.

Stormrider wrote:
Once hyper infaltion hits I can't wait for these haughty people to say it was because of the Republicans.

You'd be foolish to play at this being the consequence of Democrat, or Republican, policy when Ronald Reagan instigated the current trend of deficit spending.

Stormrider wrote:
And no, I am no Republican, they just suck a little less, plus they have more influence than the thrid parties. I am tired of BO getting to use his mighty cudgel of "Bush bad" or "The Republicans are in the way", there's nothing stopping him, he just want's to make sure he can use any inclusion of Republican support agianst them in any way, the man cannot think outside of the political realm on anything.

What did this post have to do with the idea that having certain services provided by the state, or society, necessarily leads to moral corruption?

HiveFleet wrote:

Red9 wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Saying yes to everything produces spoiled children, when there is no challenge or required effort to get anything of desire, the joy is lost. This then causes new things to become desired....that tend to be perverse, pointless or unjustifyable by any circumstances.

Best slippery slope ever.

QFT

OTOH Take a look at society and tell me I'm wrong.

It's the Fall of the Eldar!


When is Slaanesh showing up? Oh wait....there's Gaga....nevermind

You take that back! Slaanesh would never be THAT ugly.

Stormrider wrote:

We have people in this country (perfect example Katrina '05) who cannot think, act, provide or live for themselves anymore. Seeing the people with their hands in the air going: "Where's the Government?!" is embarrassing. It's a damn hurricane headed towards you, do you think you could leave? Why weren't the public school buses from NO used to bus peiople out of the city? Instead they get left in a bus barn and all become total losses to the city's budget after they get flooded.

Isn't that the entire point? What is the government supposed to do if not step in and organize things like disaster relief and maintain safety and order? My understanding is that this is the entire point of civilization since they started irrigation and flood control in the Middle East.

Stormrider wrote:
Extending un-employment 2 more years coupled with our high minimum wage is another example: Companies are looking to maintain a consistent bottom line, said bottom line can't be met when the government lays down an arbitrary limit on what someone can be paid. So, there's a price floor that creates a shortage caused by a high minimum wage. Thus, more people need un-employment and can't find jobs because the margins aren't moving. When the margins aren't moving there is undereployment and people eventually stop looking for jobs. There can't be more jobs when you have to pay someone $7.15 an hour. People can't get $5 an hour jobs because of this law. It might only be $5 but it's still a job!

There were jobs four years ago, and there was a minimum wage and unemployment then. The jobs just aren't there now. I'm not an economist and I can't tell you why those jobs aren't there, other than the fact that people were propping the economy up with debt instead of cash, but they just aren't. The fact remains that people who are able to work but cannot find a job need help. It simply has to be there, and we must find a way to afford it.

Stormrider wrote:
And no, I am no Republican, they just suck a little less, plus they have more influence than the thrid parties. I am tired of BO getting to use his mighty cudgel of "Bush bad" or "The Republicans are in the way", there's nothing stopping him, he just want's to make sure he can use any inclusion of Republican support agianst them in any way, the man cannot think outside of the political realm on anything.

Admittingly I don't watch a lot of television, but I haven't really observed that. Sure, he's a politician, like any other, so of course he's going to behave that way to some extent. Regardless of how he really feels, he has praised former Republican presidents, and seems to me to have made a good faith effort to compromise.

Ultimately we must also recognize that Bush truly was a poor President. Not only did he do a lot of things that liberals don't like, but he also exercised a rather loose fiscal policy which did not endear him to conservatives; this is evidenced by the number of conservatives currently engaged in denying the conservatism of former President Bush.

Did you really just disparage people for wondering where the government is and then in the same paragraph criticize the government for not being there?

It actually makes a lot more sense than you're letting it.

It's a problem when you make people so reliant on government assistance that they're ill prepared to solve their own problems. It's DOUBLE bad when you make them that way, and then don't help them in a time of crisis.

In my opinion, that's exactly what happened in New Orleans during Katrina.

That said, I realize it's an opinion, but it's also what's at the core of this discussion. I think "the right" resents the "verdict" on Katrina. Most people (I believe), view it as "a big storm came, and then George W Bush doesn't care about black people, and then Republicans boo."

I don't feel that's fair or accurate. It makes me pretty irritated that history will record that event as "Republicans boo" when, IMO, it's pretty clearly a failure of Democrat policy and execution from start to finish. The blame runs with the Democrats who have run that state for years, who failed to maintain/expand the levees. It lies with Nagin and Blanco, who were in charge of the response, and failed completely.

Of course, as usual, Bush did his standard "follow policy but don't explain it and then sorta look sad when everyone blames it on you, but don't respond" because he was incompetent at managing his image.

Phryxis wrote:It's a problem when you make people so reliant on government assistance that they're ill prepared to solve their own problems.

Does this also apply to people who can't rebuild the engine in their car; instead needing to pay others to do it for them?

Anyway, the Democrats received plenty of blame in Louisiana itself; witness Jindal. This seems appropriate given that the majority of the nation should be indifferent to Louisiana politics, and yet sensitive to federal ones.

Bush certainly received an unfair portion of the blame, as he pretty much went along with policy as established.

The one thing he should have been criticized for, folding FEMA into Homeland Security, went largely unnoticed.

ShumaGorath wrote:Best slippery slope ever.

It just follows logically dude. Saying yes to everything produces spoiled children, therefore saying no to everything produces virulent go getters that will all pull themselves into the top rungs of society by their bootstraps.

Bootstraps!

Red9 wrote:QFT

OTOH Take a look at society and tell me I'm wrong.

You're wrong. Simplistic, absolute moral positions just do not work when it comes to social policy.

Stormrider wrote:We have people in this country (perfect example Katrina '05) who cannot think, act, provide or live for themselves anymore.

Wow. I mean there's the "I've got mine so feth you attitude" and then there's the "I've got mine so feth all those people that couldn't escape a flooding city". I mean, wow.

Seeing the people with their hands in the air going: "Where's the Government?!" is embarrassing. It's a damn hurricane headed towards you, do you think you could leave? Why weren't the public school buses from NO used to bus peiople out of the city? Instead they get left in a bus barn and all become total losses to the city's budget after they get flooded.

As others have pointed out, you criticise people for not being able to look out for themselves, then criticise the government response.

Extending un-employment 2 more years coupled with our high minimum wage is another example: Companies are looking to maintain a consistent bottom line, said bottom line can't be met when the government lays down an arbitrary limit on what someone can be paid. So, there's a price floor that creates a shortage caused by a high minimum wage. Thus, more people need un-employment and can't find jobs because the margins aren't moving.

Your understanding of economics is dreadful. Simply, utterly dreadful.

An understanding of minimum wage laws needs to take into account information assymetry, and needs to take into account productivity measures. Once you've done this you can build an understanding of what minimum wage can be sustained without impacting employment. More than anything, any effort to relate minimum wage laws to the current level of employment needs to account for cyclical levels of demand, especially when you're in a recession.

Seriously dude, your economic thinking above is very poor.

And no it is not a living wage, it never was intended to be, it was meant for teenagers who are just starting out in the workforce, not trying to raise a family on it. If you are trying to raise a family on that you're a fool.

Yes, because there is simply people with high paying jobs, and there are fools. No consideration should ever be made for the opportunities available to each individual, we should just assume that a kid born into a middle class family is exactly the same as a kid born into poverty.

We have massive amounts of crime, un-employment, out of wedlock births, premature death and teenage pregancy in the black community. They have had every type of program thrown their way and yet they still are some of the poorest people in the country. Why? Because most (not all) of them have had initiative bred out of them, much like the Native Americans. It is supposedly benevolent liberals who look out for the little guy yet they keep enacting policies that crush the little guy and his employer under mountains of regulations and laws.

I'm pretty sure racism is a big no-no on Dakka. I'd suggest you stop being racist if you want to hang around.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phryxis wrote:It actually makes a lot more sense than you're letting it.

It's a problem when you make people so reliant on government assistance that they're ill prepared to solve their own problems. It's DOUBLE bad when you make them that way, and then don't help them in a time of crisis.

It isn't practical to require every family living in the city to own a car. The less cars there, the less space needed to store them, and the less cars on the road. This can be achieved with decent public transportation.

This means that if a disaster occurs and people need to leave a city, they will not have a car. In such a case government should help them get out of the city.

That said, I realize it's an opinion, but it's also what's at the core of this discussion. I think "the right" resents the "verdict" on Katrina. Most people (I believe), view it as "a big storm came, and then George W Bush doesn't care about black people, and then Republicans boo."

I think the general consensus is that Katrina represented another case of Bush's nepotism, as he placed Michael Brown in the role, when he was clearly incapable of performing. Brown wasn't picked for any kind of administrative skill or experience in disaster recovery, he was picked because he was mates with Joe Allbaugh, who was picked because he ran Bush's 2000 campaign.

Governor Blanco made plenty of mistake, these compounded the FEMA mistakes to produce one great big balls up. When facing that kind of poor governance across the board, the answer isn't to start another round over which party and which ideology was really to blame, that will get no-one anywhere.

There are, quite simply, too many Republicans and too many Democrats in positions of power because they tow the party line and say the right pieces of empty rhetoric at the right time. What is needed is to start understanding that government is complicated and very important thing, and if you want it done right you need people who are, first and foremost, capable administrators.

Of course, as usual, Bush did his standard "follow policy but don't explain it and then sorta look sad when everyone blames it on you, but don't respond" because he was incompetent at managing his image.

Bush's absolute, #1 ability was brand management and campaigning. His problem was actually running the country.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:The one thing he should have been criticized for, folding FEMA into Homeland Security, went largely unnoticed.

And his decision to appoint to head FEMA a guy with no background in disaster recovery, who had a middling to poor record in administration of much smaller, non-governmental bodies before that.

sexiest_hero wrote:1. republicans have a very solid base while democrats have to pull lots of little groups together.

2 Democrats don't have a spine.... at all. Nowhere.

3. Democrats want to work with republicans because BI partasianship was the big word in last election.

4.Bill clinton was a better president than Obama. I think Bush Jr, may have done more for minorities.

5. Democrats are weak, spineless, ineffective, BO is the leader of that bunch.

Someone Voted for McCain!

Does this also apply to people who can't rebuild the engine in their car; instead needing to pay others to do it for them?

Well, yeah, actually, it's a shame how few people are capable of solving issues in their daily life. Before we became a specialized labor force, people used to know how to do essentially all of the major tasks necessary for survival, from farming, carpentry, animal husbandry, etc.

It'd be nice if cars could be repaired by their owners, but then again, even if you know how to do it, the specialized and expensive equipment required to do it isn't something you probably have in your garage.

So, anyway, it's not good to be unable to handle major components of your own life. Specialization of labor has other benefits that offset this. I'm not sure there are as many benefits to the nanny state, especially one that doesn't always work.

Also, we're talking about being able to fix your car vs. "being able to take action to save your own life." I would say that the latter is both more important, and more intuitive. And that's not to say that the stereotype is at all accurate, where people are just standing there, confused and crying for the nanny state, while the water fills their nose.

But it does seem like the folks in New Orleans were a whole lot less proactive and "can-do" than the people in surrounding areas. And I do think that there are direct links between that difference, and liberal ideology. It's other things as well... It's also just a general urban attitude of expecting a more managed, coordinated lifestyle. It's the issue of being stuck in a city, which can actually be very hard to escape quickly, if everyone else is trying to do so. But at the end of the day, if you're of the mind that government should provide, you're going to wait longer for them to do so, and if they don't, you're going to suffer for your misplaced trust.

Well, yeah, actually, it's a shame how few people are capable of solving issues in their daily life. Before we became a specialized labor force, people used to know how to do essentially all of the major tasks necessary for survival, from farming, carpentry, animal husbandry, etc.

....

No. No that doesn't even hold up in comparison with simplistic tribal societies, it certainly doesn't hold up in modern times or even pre industrial methods of living.

It'd be nice if cars could be repaired by their owners, but then again, even if you know how to do it, the specialized and expensive equipment required to do it isn't something you probably have in your garage.

The knowledge required to do an infinite number of tasks regardless of the physical practicality is alone the first real barrier. There has been almost no time in the history of the combustion engine that the majority of people owning or operating them knew how to fix them.

o, anyway, it's not good to be unable to handle major components of your own life. Specialization of labor has other benefits that offset this. I'm not sure there are as many benefits to the nanny state, especially one that doesn't always work.

Well when you box up all of a nations social policies into a blanket terminology it becomes hard to differentiate what works and what doesn't anyway.

But it does seem like the folks in New Orleans were a whole lot less proactive and "can-do" than the people in surrounding areas. And I do think that there are direct links between that difference, and liberal ideology. It's other things as well... It's also just a general urban attitude of expecting a more managed, coordinated lifestyle. It's the issue of being stuck in a city, which can actually be very hard to escape quickly, if everyone else is trying to do so. But at the end of the day, if you're of the mind that government should provide, you're going to wait longer for them to do so, and if they don't, you're going to suffer for your misplaced trust.

I know a few people that would punch you in the face for that first sentence. In a logical unemotional sense it still doesn't work though. New orleans has recovered significantly more quickly than similarly damaged urban centers hit by the recent tsunamis and earthquakes civilizations been hit with in the last few years. Much of that is due specifically to the recovery efforts of the state performing tasks that individuals or small organizations are physically incapable of. I'm pretty sure it's been dismissed as bunk partisan dribble to assume that the majority of those that stayed in new orleans did so because they thought the government would just walk in and double rainbow their problems away after the hurricane. Most didn't understand the gravity of the forecast and the officials responsible for dispensing the information and ordering the evacuation acted poorly and with little foresight. Most people can't tell the future, that requires thousands of government operated radar stations and a massive network of climate scientists. Thats the system at work.

This will be a Dem vs. Rep knife fight, like everything else.

In my opinon, A Democratic government fails because they try to make everyone happy. It doesn't work. It's like taking a Assualt based IG army. Someparts will work out, and will rock! (i.e. tanks) But most will epicly fail. (i.e Not tanks) It's like the God part in The Pleage of Alegance. Most people don't have a problem with it, but when one person has a problem with it, than we have to make a big Facad about it. Obama has stopped using "Freedom of Religon" in his speaches and "Freedom of Worship". I find that to be BS. If I walk into Walmart wearing my Youth Group Shirt, and Someone says "That shirt offends me" I will politley and calmly go tell that person to go preform an Imposible act oppon them selves. I shouldn't be banned from wearing my Clothes that show that I'm a Cathlic in Public. I'm not going door to door, forcing people to belive in the Big Man Upstairs, or Preaching about him. Just a shirt. Another thing, about the 2nd Amendment. If the Government just shows up at someones door and says
"We would like your guns now, Please" That wouldn't happen. Some people have Million Dollor Gun colections.
(Technicly we all do, although I don't think I need a Permit to fire my Lasguns with 'First Wave fire, Second wave fire') So just because one persons friend was shot, that doesn't mean that everyone should be punished. Thats like when someone Shoots a hornit in Class, and everyone gets detention, because the guy who shot it didn't fess up.

Anyways, Rant over.

In my opinon, A Democratic government fails because they try to make everyone happy.

By many objective standards a democratic governmental system is the most successful one in mankinds history.

t's like taking a Assualt based IG army. Someparts will work out, and will rock! (i.e. tanks) But most will epicly fail. (i.e Not tanks)

Six killpoint 60 man IG assault blobs using stracken and al raheem with 7-9 power swords and 6-9 lascanons per blob make a very powerful army. You number near 200 in most games and you will hover around 6 killpoints while being able to kill 10 man assault terminator squads that assault you with statistical reliability. It's an amazing foil to armies that prepare to fight mech IG.

Most people don't have a problem with it, but when one person has a problem with it, than we have to make a big Facad about it.

You misused facad. And misspelled it.

Phryxis wrote:Well, yeah, actually, it's a shame how few people are capable of solving issues in their daily life. Before we became a specialized labor force, people used to know how to do essentially all of the major tasks necessary for survival, from farming, carpentry, animal husbandry, etc.

Someone's been reading Heinlein. Anyhow, any interest in responding to my reply to your post above?

ShumaGorath wrote:

In my opinon, A Democratic government fails because they try to make everyone happy.

By many objective standards a democratic governmental system is the most successful one in mankinds history.

t's like taking a Assualt based IG army. Someparts will work out, and will rock! (i.e. tanks) But most will epicly fail. (i.e Not tanks)

Six killpoint 60 man IG assault blobs using stracken and al raheem with 7-9 power swords and 6-9 lascanons per blob make a very powerful army. You number near 200 in most games and you will hover around 6 killpoints while being able to kill 10 man assault terminator squads that assault you with statistical reliability. It's an amazing foil to armies that prepare to fight mech IG.

Most people don't have a problem with it, but when one person has a problem with it, than we have to make a big Facad about it.

You misused facad. And misspelled it.

Right. Breakout the Word Book!

In such a case government should help them get out of the city.

There's no question, when a lot of people live in close proximity, there just needs to be a higher level of management. It's not just random chance that urban areas are more "collectivist" than rural areas.

So it's not like I don't think the local government should have been involved, getting it handled. But the fact is, they've got a bunch of people depending on them, doubly so because they've been promising they'd handle it, and then they didn't.

It's also not just about the transportation. People could have stocked up on clean water. They could have all types of things in place to make the situation more stable and less painful. I realize it's a big joke to have a "disaster preparedness kit" but the fact is, if you're thinking ahead, trying to be ready, you're going to have a better time of things.

When facing that kind of poor governance across the board, the answer isn't to start another round over which party and which ideology was really to blame, that will get no-one anywhere.

While I generally agree, my perception is that this is exactly what happened. It was all politicized, and Bush was blamed. If you want to make the argument that all these people suck, I'd never argue with that. But I don't think that's what history will say. I think the Republicans will be blamed, and I think that's completely wrong.

Bush's absolute, #1 ability was brand management and campaigning. His problem was actually running the country.

I couldn't disagree more. He was TERRIBLE at presenting his reasoning, TERRIBLE at making arguments for why things needed to be done. The fact is, so much of what he did was actually perfectly logical progression of American policy. The only reason people don't realize that is because he was so incredibly bad at explaining it.

I mean, I don't mean to pull rank, but I'm American... I was here. I saw how gak was being portrayed, how he managed it. Dude was BAD. His whole Presidency was a series of poor explanations. The whole "missing MWD" issue is just the most popular.

No that doesn't even hold up in comparison with simplistic tribal societies, it certainly doesn't hold up in modern times or even pre industrial methods of living.

For future references you can just say "No+Sophistry" and then we'll know what you mean. Support your arguments.

The fact is, people in the 1800s (for example) were much more multi-faceted. A family living in a rural area is going to know how to build their own house, tools, take care of their animals, etc. Certainly there were specialists, carpenters, blacksmiths, etc. But people still did a lot more on their own.

Well when you box up all of a nations social policies into a blanket terminology it becomes hard to differentiate what works and what doesn't anyway.

Yes, well, I have full confidence in your ability to not understand things you don't want to understand and then feel smart about it.

I could explain what I meant in more detail, but I think we both know you'll manufacture a reason to disagree.

I know a few people that would punch you in the face for that first sentence.

I'm not sure why that's my problem. But I appreciate you mixing things up. The "longwinded no" stuff was getting boring, a threat of physical violence really spices things up.

Most didn't understand the gravity of the forecast and the officials responsible for dispensing the information and ordering the evacuation acted poorly and with little foresight.

As I said above, there are other ways to be prepared. It's not just about fleeing the city.

You misused facad. And misspelled it.

So did you.

Anyhow, any interest in responding to my reply to your post above?

Of course, but then Shuma came along and made wordbarf, and I got distracted. You're probably right though, I should probably just reply to you and ignore him.

JDM wrote:In my opinon, A Democratic government fails because they try to make everyone happy. It doesn't work.

That's another grand sweeping statement about things that just aren't that simple.

It's like taking a Assualt based IG army. Someparts will work out, and will rock! (i.e. tanks) But most will epicly fail. (i.e Not tanks) It's like the God part in The Pleage of Alegance. Most people don't have a problem with it, but when one person has a problem with it, than we have to make a big Facad about it.

It isn't 'one person' as much as a body of thought that takes the seperation of Church and State within the Constitution extremely seriously. Are you comfortable with a pledge of alliegance to your government that includes a specific mention to spiritual beliefs?

I find that to be BS. If I walk into Walmart wearing my Youth Group Shirt, and Someone says "That shirt offends me" I will politley and calmly go tell that person to go preform an Imposible act oppon them selves. I shouldn't be banned from wearing my Clothes that show that I'm a Cathlic in Public. I'm not going door to door, forcing people to belive in the Big Man Upstairs, or Preaching about him. Just a shirt.

No government body is telling you you can't wear a God themed shirt. Why are you making up things to be worried about?

Another thing, about the 2nd Amendment. If the Government just shows up at someones door and says
"We would like your guns now, Please" That wouldn't happen. Some people have Million Dollor Gun colections.

No government body is planning to take everyone's guns off of them. Why are you making up things to be worried about?

I mean, seriously, you're in a recession and fighting two wars. There are lots of real things to be worried about. Why are you making up random other things?

Phryxis wrote:
Also, we're talking about being able to fix your car vs. "being able to take action to save your own life." I would say that the latter is both more important, and more intuitive. And that's not to say that the stereotype is at all accurate, where people are just standing there, confused and crying for the nanny state, while the water fills their nose.

I think you're leaning to far towards generality in your description of the latter action. What we're talking about here is the capacity of any given individual to do a certain thing. Everyone is capable of taking action to save their own lives, even the people who remained in New Orleans did so when they climbed onto the roofs of their houses. What certain individuals were unable to do is evacuate the city, and it seems deeply crass to presume that they failed to leave simply because they're too dependent on the state. I mean, in the absence of the state, I doubt those people would even have been aware of the approaching hurricane.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JDM wrote:
Most people don't have a problem with it, but when one person has a problem with it, than we have to make a big Facad about it.

I got an in school suspension in junior high for refusing to say the pledge of allegiance because it referenced God. The compromise solution which saw me placed back into class basically amounted to being granted permission to omit, or replace, the phrase 'under God' when I recited the pledge.

I took full advantage of the 'or replace' portion; in my mind, at that time, the USA was a nation founded under Yoda and Chris Chelios.

For future references you can just say "No+Sophistry" and then we'll know what you mean. Support your arguments.

The fact is, people in the 1800s (for example) were much more multi-faceted. A family living in a rural area is going to know how to build their own house, tools, take care of their animals, etc. Certainly there were specialists, carpenters, blacksmiths, etc. But people still did a lot more on their own.

No + Sophistry. Also learn frontier history please, your metalworker wasn't your trapper and your average farmer didn't know crap about how to bind books. I can make a website, do 3d animation, design advertisements, shoot and process video, do effects work all the while being able to service and repair my own computers. I can install home electronics with ease, I can write you a good number of different business documents, I can sell you something, and you know what? I can do a good half the things frontiersman had to do as well (I can shovel things into other things very well). People don't know how to do less things now, we just distribute the work to specialists to enable a higher quality of production while becoming more multifaceted in our daily work requirements. The advent of public education and it's uptake alone ensures that the majority of westerners know how to do more things now than they did during the 1800s when a good number of them couldn't read.

Yes, well, I have full confidence in your ability to not understand things you don't want to understand and then feel smart about it.

I could explain what I meant in more detail, but I think we both know you'll manufacture a reason to disagree.

I'm actually pretty confident you couldn't but thats not really the issue since it appears that you won't.

I'm not sure why that's my problem. But I appreciate you mixing things up. The "longwinded no" stuff was getting boring, a threat of physical violence really spices things up.

Well you're making insulting tactless blanket statements with little substance. I figured I would inform you of their implications before you actually took one in the chin in real life. I'm not going to punch you. I don't think my monitor is directly behind yours and I don't live in new orleans.

As I said above, there are other ways to be prepared. It's not just about fleeing the city.

Interesting thing though, I was arguing about the reasons for lack of preparedness. Not the steps that can be taken to ensure it. They could have done plenty of things, many didn't think they had too.

So did you.

I know!

sexiest_hero wrote:1. republicans have a very solid base while democrats have to pull lots of little groups together.

2 Democrats don't have a spine.... at all. Nowhere.

3. Democrats want to work with republicans because BI partasianship was the big word in last election.

4.Bill clinton was a better president than Obama. I think Bush Jr, may have done more for minorities.

5. Democrats are weak, spineless, ineffective, BO is the leader of that bunch.

Trolls are funny

JDM wrote:This will be a Dem vs. Rep knife fight, like everything else.

In my opinon, A Democratic government fails because they try to make everyone happy. It doesn't work. It's like taking a Assualt based IG army. Someparts will work out, and will rock! (i.e. tanks) But most will epicly fail. (i.e Not tanks) It's like the God part in The Pleage of Alegance. Most people don't have a problem with it, but when one person has a problem with it, than we have to make a big Facad about it. Obama has stopped using "Freedom of Religon" in his speaches and "Freedom of Worship". I find that to be BS. If I walk into Walmart wearing my Youth Group Shirt, and Someone says "That shirt offends me" I will politley and calmly go tell that person to go preform an Imposible act oppon them selves. I shouldn't be banned from wearing my Clothes that show that I'm a Cathlic in Public. I'm not going door to door, forcing people to belive in the Big Man Upstairs, or Preaching about him. Just a shirt. Another thing, about the 2nd Amendment. If the Government just shows up at someones door and says
"We would like your guns now, Please" That wouldn't happen. Some people have Million Dollor Gun colections.
(Technicly we all do, although I don't think I need a Permit to fire my Lasguns with 'First Wave fire, Second wave fire') So just because one persons friend was shot, that doesn't mean that everyone should be punished. Thats like when someone Shoots a hornit in Class, and everyone gets detention, because the guy who shot it didn't fess up.


nyways, Rant over.

Wouldn't it be more important that the original pledge was designed by a communist in order to indoctrinate children into mindlessly following the leadership of their country. And that the under god wasn't added till the 50's. and that separation of church and state is the most important tenant of our constitution behind freedom of expression

Oh my god were all gonna die he uses a phrase that means the exact same thing but its different hes the antichrist.

Stormrider wrote:[Extending un-employment 2 more years coupled with our high minimum wage is another example:

Did you seriously just call $7.15/hr a high minimum wage? I know, let's compare to other first world nations.

Annual full time work on that is $15080 compared to Australia at $24,014, Canada at$16,738, Denmark at $23,590, France at $17,621, the Netherlands at $19,358, or the UK at $22,204. So, yeah, you're either grossly misinformed or lying. I hope it's the former.