Updated version of "the Ant & the Grasshopper"

[Atlanteax]

(posted by GS4-Sirina on the "official boards" as a copy of an email she got)

.

Sadly, this (the following) seems very realistic in this time and age in the US :shrug:

.

UPDATED TELLING OF THE ANT & THE GRASSHOPPER
*********************************

OLD VERSION:
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house & laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks he's a fool & laughs & dances & plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant is warm & well-fed. The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.

MORAL OF THE STORY: Be responsible for yourself!
*********************************

MODERN VERSION:
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house & laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks he's a fool & laughs & dances & plays the summer away. Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference & demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm & well-fed while others are cold & starving.

CBS, NBC, & ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food. America is stunned by the sharp contrast. How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so? Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper, & everybody cries when they sing "It's Not Easy Being Green." Jesse Jackson stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the group singing, "We Shall Overcome." Jesse then has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper's sake.

Tom Daschle and Walter Mondale exclaim in an interview with Peter Jennings that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, & both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his "fair share." Finally, the EEOC drafts the "Economic Equity and Anti-Grasshopper Act," retroactive to the beginning of the summer. The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs &, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the government.

Hillary gets her old law firm to represent the grasshopper in a defamation suit against the ant, & the case is tried before a panel of federal judges that Bill appointed from a list of single-parent welfare recipients.

The ant loses the case.

The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he is in, which just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around him because he doesn't maintain it. The ant has disappeared in the snow.

The grasshopper is found dead in a drug-related incident & the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the once peaceful neighborhood.

MORAL OF THE STORY: Vote Republican

.

As for the "moral of the story" this all comes down to this...

"Damn bleeding-heart liberals" :spaz:

[Parkbandit]

LMAO.

Great one.

[Trinitis]

Hehe, I like that. :P

[Sean]

Cute. Lame, but cute.

[TheEschaton]

Any story who's moral is: Vote Republican doesn't know the meaning of the word moral.

-TheE-

[Atlanteax]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
Any story who's moral is: Vote Republican doesn't know the meaning of the word moral.

-TheE-
Bleeding-heart Liberal!!! :fu:

[TheEschaton]

I'd rather have a bleeding heart, then a heart of stone.

Not to mention no good liberal would deny the right of the ant to benefit from working hard.

-TheE-

[Atlanteax]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
I'd rather have a bleeding heart, then a heart of stone.

Not to mention no good liberal would deny the right of the ant to benefit from working hard.

-TheE-

But the problem is that there are no "good" liberals! :lol:

.

Meanwhile, if you wouldn't deny the right of the ant to benefit from working hard...

(which spares me the anguish of :banghead: )

... you must be a conservative!! :spaz:

[TheEschaton]

No, because I believe that the ant should feel obligated to help his grasshopper neighbor, even though he doesn't deserve it.


Note: I don't think the grasshopper deserves aid, nor do I think the ant should be forced to have an obligation to him. I do think the ant should be of the mindset of being obligated to him, though, which makes me a liberal, albeit not one of the hypocritical types.

And if you think that there's "no good liberals" but there exists a possibility of a good conservative - you're an idiot. Conservatism, at its base, is inherently self-interested, which is, at best, amoral, if not immoral.

-TheE-

[Blazing247]

<Not to mention no good liberal would deny the right of the ant to benefit from working hard.>

No good liberal would deny EVERYONE the right to benefit from the ant working hard. :thumbsdown:

[Tendarian]

You do believe the ant should be forced though,you said so in a different topic. Sense most ants arnt going to want to,and there are grasshoppers out there in need of help you said the gov't should collect taxes to pay for them cause most wouldnt give to charity.

[Atlanteax]

Originally posted by Tendarian
You do believe the ant should be forced though,you said so in a different topic. Sense most ants arnt going to want to,and there are grasshoppers out there in need of help you said the gov't should collect taxes to pay for them cause most wouldnt give to charity.

:clap:

Yep, "theE" would be all for the gov't to seize the ant's property to feed the grasshopers (in a similiar manner to the original satire).

Liberals who speak their mind = :shrug:

Crazy liberals who think people should be responsible for others (financially, emotionally, materially, etc) = :down:

(the exception to the last categorization is the traditional nuclear family unit = 2 parents + 2 kids ... which conservatives also try to protect and promote)

[TheEschaton]

Well, Tendarian, what can I say?


I'm sure pro-life advocates would say "It would be nice if people chose not to get abortions....but until then, we have to stop allowing them to choose abortions"....and it would be no different than what I'm saying.

I would never advocate the gov't siezing the property of the ant, to feed the grasshopper. I would say that the ant should pay more taxes, most certainly.

And the conservatives don't promote healthy families - they promote rigid, unchanging families. I'm willing to bet the divorce rate is higher amongst people who have such a rigid view of "family".

-TheE-

[AnticorRifling]

The ant was WORKING the grasshopper was off playing grab ass. The grasshopper was not looking for a job, taking care of a family, or doing anything to plan for his future and or better himself. The ant owes him jack shit and jack left town. Now if the grasshopper was working for the summer and come winter didn't have enough that's a different scenario. Yes I would help the grasshopper in the second sense if I was the ant. In the first? Fuck him he sowed nothing he reaps nothing.

TheE, Money is property. I own that dollar bill in my wallet.

[TheEschaton]

And you're not entitled to property. It's a benefit.


-TheE-

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by AnticorRifling
Now if the grasshopper was working for the summer and come winter didn't have enough that's a different scenario.

You're not allowed to use different scenarios. Not using the absolute extremes confuses conservatives since it plays havoc with their little black and white brains. You must only, in every instance, use the most extreme possibilities conceivable in order to cause the maximum amount of alarm.

It's in the rule book.

Raven

I'm not entilted to property? Im sorry TheE we are not commies here.
I worked for it, it is mine.

[TheEschaton]

The Declaration of Independence was SPECIFICALLY CHANGED from Rousseau's "life, liberty, and property", to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", because the Founding Fathers SPECIFICALLY thought that property was not "an unalienable right".

But then again, what else should I expect? Conservatives only SAY they promote what the Founding Fathers and our founding documents say. They don't actually believe it. Hell, they want to change the Constitution for everything.

-TheE-

[AnticorRifling]

In my pursuit of happiness I don't want to help a dead beat grasshopper.

[TheEschaton]

Your rights aren't allowed to infringe on the rights of another. ;)


-TheE-

[AnticorRifling]

Another person's rights do not include piggybacking off of what I work my ass of for. That's infringment of me.

[Hulkein]

Hey E, I'm conservative/republican and I give the bum named Dre at Pat's steaks a dollar everytime I go there for his pitiful attempt at cleaning my rims (rims as in stock on my regular car, not some souped up ricer or anything)... I do too help the less fortunate!

[Edited on 5-24-2004 by Hulkein]

[AnticorRifling]

Spare tires on a rusted ford taurus are not rims Hulkien we've been over this.

[Hulkein]

hahahahaha, just as I edit it Anticor gets me. Dammit.

[AnticorRifling]

PWND!

[Atlanteax]

TheE... the key word of the phrase "the right to pursue happiness" is pursue.

If deadbeats/etc want to pursue happiness, they have to work for it.

Don't get it confused with "entitled" to happiness.

It is NOT the same thing

Now, the Ant can give the Grasshoper a job, perhaps house-maintance, so that the Grasshoper can get by and survive.

Meanwhile, the Ant, which had pursued its right to happiness by working hard... will have its rights violated by misguided liberals like you if excessive portions of his assets are confiscated (via taxes/etc) to support a Grasshoper that refuses to do anything meaningful to fulfill the pursuit requirement NOT entitlement for happiness.

Dead-beat Grasshopers can rot in hell as far as I care... and I will violently confront any liberal or any governmental institutation that violates my right of "pursuit of happiness" that I worked for by forcing me to support said deadbeats financially/materially.

So, theE and people like you... :fu:

[AnticorRifling]

Even though he ^ is from Michigan I agree with him on that one.

[Hulkein]

As do I.

[TheEschaton]

Meanwhile, the Ant, which had pursued its right to happiness by working hard... will have its rights violated by misguided liberals like you if excessive portions of his assets are confiscated (via taxes/etc) to support a Grasshoper that refuses to do anything meaningful to fulfill the pursuit requirement NOT entitlement for happiness.

You can't even follow your own words. It's the pursuit which is guaranteed. Not the results. If the gov't makes the Ant pay anything for his grasshopper neighbor, it's taken from his results, not from the pursuit.

As far as I'm concerned, you're a fucking idiot who can't even understand the philosophy this country is based on.

And, on a personal belief, happiness is NOT based on money. If the gov't came tomorrow, and siezed everything I owned - I would not be less happy, because my happiness is not anchored, and should not be anchored, in the material.

Edited to note: Notice I'm not commenting on the state of the Grasshopper, who, obviously has the ability to forfeit his right to the pursuit (and can do so involuntarily by his actions).

-TheE-

[Edited on 5-24-2004 by TheEschaton]

[Atlanteax]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
And, on a personal belief, happiness is NOT based on money. If the gov't came tomorrow, and siezed everything I owned - I would not be less happy, because my happiness is not anchored, and should not be anchored, in the material.
-TheE-


Feel free to send everything you own my way then, I'll be able to put it to good productive selfish use. :D

[Atlanteax]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
Edited to note: Notice I'm not commenting on the state of the Grasshopper, who, obviously has the ability to forfeit his right to the pursuit (and can do so involuntarily by his actions).
-TheE-


Exactly why said Grasshoper should rot in hell... especially if he forfeits from laziness.

[TheEschaton]

No one should rot in hell.


"God help us all if we all got what we deserved."
~Dorothy Day

-TheE-

[Atlanteax]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
No one should rot in hell.


"God help us all if we all got what we deserved."
~Dorothy Day

-TheE-

Says a lot about whatever fantasy world you live in... :shrug:

[TheEschaton]

Says a lot about what's wrong with the world we both live in, when such a thing is considered "fantasy".


-TheE-

[Blazing247]

I think we need to inject a few of the standards of a Meritocracy into our government. I have no problem lending a helping hand to those in need, but that is not the case in America.

It would be nice if some people (okay, just TheE) realized that a hand up is MUCH better than a hand out. Help the poor and the needy all you want, but don't GIVE them my fucking taxes. And having babies is not EARNING anything, although we certainly reward it.

Basically, people need to be more responsible for their own actions. You fuck up in life- so be it... but don't use my money to feed and clothe them while they continue to be a fuck up. Spend my taxes for programs that help people get back on their feet and provide for themselves, not programs that enable them to be goddamn bums and wastes of space and life.

I'm gonna end it here, cause this topic pisses me off so much that I can't keep a cool hand even thinking about it.

[Tendarian]

I believe lots of people should rot in hell. Anyone who kills someone for no reason or rapes anyone for any reason should definately burn in hell. Lots of evils in the world and the people who commit it id even set the fire to send em there if it was possible.

[Atlanteax]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
Says a lot about what's wrong with the world we both live in, when such a thing is considered "fantasy".

-TheE-

I'll give you that...

Maybe one day we'll see an utopia like the kind they have on "Star Trek, Next Generation" where there is no need for money with the replicator technology.

However, for now, money is a requirement to move society towards such an utopian status...

You do have to admit that we're a lot closer, especially in the Western world, to that sort of model, compared to 200 years ago.

[TheEschaton]

It would be nice if some people (okay, just TheE) realized that a hand up is MUCH better than a hand out. Help the poor and the needy all you want, but don't GIVE them my fucking taxes. And having babies is not EARNING anything, although we certainly reward it.

I've never denied the need for the "pull oneself up by the bootstrap" mentality. Everyone else just wishes I did. The point is, though, you can't pull yourself by the bootstraps, if you don't have boots.

Furthermore, Tend, I believe that none of us are so high and mighty that we don't deserve hellfire. Thus, I think it is apt to not wish hell on someone when I don't deserve any better.

But then again, that's probably the Catholic in me speaking. ;) Yanno, the whole "only worthy through the unconditional and manifest grace of God" thing.

-TheE-

[Tendarian]

If it makes you feel any better i dont know if i really believe in a "hell" so basically all im wishing on these people is torture if there was an afterlife. But you are right i do look at myself,and you and Bobmuthol and Stanley as being better than a rapist.

Please tell me what social handouts existed in 1778? How did the government help drug addicts back then? Was there welfare? Was there social security? Were federal funds diverted to housing the poor?
I think you need to pay more attention to history than how YOU interpret the constitution and what you think it says.

[TheEschaton]

So, how would YOU interpret that particular change in the Constitution, you stupid fuck?

Edine, you constantly surprise me with your stupidity.

The Founding Fathers of this country were liberals, in their times. Not conservatives. This country has continually become more conservative, since then.

-TheE-

[Hulkein]

The point is when does the degree of liberalism get out of hand? Just because they were liberals of their time doesn't mean that liberals of every time are on the right track.

[Edited on 5-24-2004 by Hulkein]

[Atlanteax]

Originally posted by The Edine
Please tell me what social handouts existed in 1778? How did the government help drug addicts back then? Was there welfare? Was there social security? Were federal funds diverted to housing the poor?
I think you need to pay more attention to history than how YOU interpret the constitution and what you think it says.

Well, to be fair to "theE", social security existed as a form as far part as the Roman Empire.

Where basically Roman politicans (where the only place to vote was in Rome, if you were a citizen in Egypt, you'd have to travel to Rome to vote) promised the poor bread and games (gladitors/etc) for votes.

Flash forward to 2004... and geez... that sounds familiar... politicans promising welfare incentives for votes? :duh:

Unfortunately for the Roman Empire, the cradle of Western Civilization, such welfare programs was a significant contribution to its decay (money lost on supplying "free food" could had been spent on military and infrastructure). :down:

Conservatives such as myself loathe welfare programs for the similiar reasons... as we see it was one of the primary elements contributing to the internal decay of the Western World as we know it.

"Mooching off others" was predominantly unheard of after the Dark Ages, and before FDR (as great a president he was) started all those public works projects.

Now, those public works projects were constructive, where they lead to the development of American infrastructure... but they had to work for it.

Meanwhile today, it has gone way past its "good intentions" where it's been corruptive in the form of "here, take this $$$$, I don't care what you do with it." However, people who have certain problems (ie drug users, HS dropouts) who predominantly qualify for such programs, do not use the money to remedy those problems, instead, they use it to continue their flaws (ie buy more drugs/alcohol). Simply put, modern welfare and charities do not solve problems but enable them to continue :shrug:

We should go back to where they only get food/housing (nothing more, maybe access to a TV/etc) after they spend a day working on improving roads or cleaning out national parks. :!:

Meanwhile, those lazy Grasshopers, who do not want to work, who would rather commit crimes than be productive members of society... should rot in hell. :D

I am not talking about the roman empire. I am talking about the United States Government. We did not have a system of Social welfare in place back in 1778, It came around in the mid 30's I believe. Now in response to TheE's question;


So, how would YOU interpret that particular change in the Constitution, you stupid fuck?
What change in the constitution you stupid fuck?

my words
>>>>Please tell me what social handouts existed in 1778? How did the government help drug addicts back then? Was there welfare? Was there social security? Were federal funds diverted to housing the poor?
<<<<
State nothing about any constitutional amendments, nor do any apply to any of the current services said above that are provided by our Federal government. You stupid Fuck.

[Edited on 5-24-2004 by The Edine]

The Founding Fathers of this country were liberals, in their times. Not conservatives. This country has continually become more conservative, since then.


Um, yes we have become FAR more conservative than we were in the 50's. /end sarcasm

[TheEschaton]

Your idea of social welfare is inadequate, Edine. That no formalized system existed before the 1930s is true - that it wasn't needed before then, is untrue. But then again, when we didn't have it, we thought it was okay for 7 year old children to work 14 hours a day in poorly lit, hazardous conditions, for a wage they couldn't even buy their lunchtime and dinnertime meals on. We believed womens and blacks weren't people.


What change in the constitution you stupid fuck?


The change from Rousseau's text, which the Declaration/Constitution was based on, which read the unalienable rights of man as "life, liberty, and property", to the new, updated text in the Declaration of Independence, which said the unalienable rights of man are "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

And we are, philosophically, still more conservative than we were....moreso now then EVER before. The 60s was a rebellion, one that's lasted awhile, but it was not a philosophy, it was not a system.

-TheE-

Hey genius, guess what The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are two completely different things. (Which means the Constitution was never changed, but it was a nice try to deflect your mistake.) The Declaration of Independence in no way sets fourth law, nor did its wording affect the writing of the constitution. Try again.

You state that the founding fathers intended for us to take care of everyone. If that was the case I believe they would have done something about it. They did not. So please in the future do not talk about how the founding fathers support us taking care of dead beats, drug addicts and all the other form of scum that walks in America because what YOU make up about this country\desire this country to be is not always the way things were, are, or ever will be.


Oh and give me examples of how we are more conservative than we were in the 50's. I would really like to know.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
And, on a personal belief, happiness is NOT based on money. If the gov't came tomorrow, and siezed everything I owned - I would not be less happy, because my happiness is not anchored, and should not be anchored, in the material.


-TheE-



TheE...

You are so full of shit... it's not even funny. If you REALLY meant what you said.. you would simply give up your worldly possessions to all the fucking low life, lazy ass grasshoppers of this world and live out your life happy as a pauper.

But it sure is easy to claim you would be happy when you have a Daddy to hand you anything you want.

And Liberals say they speak for the common American. What a load of shit.

[TheEschaton]

Parkbandit, your ideas of my own personal life mean less than zero to me. You know nothing of my life, nor what I do with my money, other than I own a computer, and I play Gemstone. As to your last comment, I find it ridiculous if you think the conservatives DO speak for the common man. The common man is a moderate.



Hey genius, guess what The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are two completely different things. (Which means the Constitution was never changed, but it was a nice try to deflect your mistake.) The Declaration of Independence in no way sets fourth law, nor did its wording affect the writing of the constitution. Try again.

Guess what? I'll admit I made a mistake when I said Constitution, I meant the Declaration of Independence. However, you are so idiotically wrong when you said the Declaration of Independence has no bearing on the Constitution. This is like saying the Bible has no effect on the Catholic Church. The Declaration of Independence is the philosophical reasoning behind the practical implication of the Constitution. It lists the reasons why the declaration was being made, and why it had to be made. The Constitution, in keeping in line with it, guaranteed that those rights which were violated by King George, would not be violated again. The Declaration of Independence IS THE PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATION of the Constitution. If you can't see this, you've gone past idiot, and moved on into the realm of absolute willful ignorance.


You state that the founding fathers intended for us to take care of everyone. If that was the case I believe they would have done something about it. They did not.

Well, whaddya know. The Founding Fathers stated all men should be equal, but didn't consider woman and blacks as members of the human race.

Maybe, because they didn't think of that - we shoulda just kept it that way! I mean, honestly, how can you BE so fucking stupid?

As for how we are more conservative than in the 50s: pre-emptive strikes. We now have a philosophy that says in order to protect ourselves better, we must now hit threats before they are threats, impervious to the fact that they might not become threats. That is much more conservative.

Our fiscal policy is much more conservative.

Our foreign policy says "With us, or against us."...much more conservative. At least in the 50s, people could be neutral.

Our security is more important than our rights - whereas in the 50s, there was still the idea that what goes on in the home is private.....more conservative. Unless you think a watchdog gov't is somehow a liberal idea.

Socially, granted, we are probably more liberal. But politically, philosophically, and fiscally, we are more conservative, which outweighs the liberalness of our social norms,

-TheE-

""Our security is more important than our rights - whereas in the 50s, there was still the idea that what goes on in the home is private.....more conservative. Unless you think a watchdog gov't is somehow a liberal idea. ""

Wow, what ever happend to Mcarthyism

[TheEschaton]

McCarthy was an idiot - and people realized that.

Ashcroft does the same thing....and people accept it.


-TheE-

But that goes against your statment. :shrug:

[TheEschaton]

How so? People accept McCarthyism today in a fashion they didn't in the 50s = more conservative now than then, more willing to give up rights for security (also conservative).

And just because it's the first time I've noticed this emoticon:

:irule:

-TheE-

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
Parkbandit, your ideas of my own personal life mean less than zero to me. You know nothing of my life, nor what I do with my money, other than I own a computer, and I play Gemstone. As to your last comment, I find it ridiculous if you think the conservatives DO speak for the common man. The common man is a moderate.
-TheE-

Actually.. you have written about your Daddy giving you all your stocks and bonds before.. so I can only go by what you have told us.

And where did I say Conservatives speak for the common man?

And it all adds up to: You are a hypocrit that says one thing and lives an entirely different lifestyle.

Gee.. sounds familiar.. hmm... wait.. it's coming clearer...

[Edited on 5-25-2004 by Parkbandit]

[Skirmisher]

As someone who considers herself of a relatively "liberal" political mindset I must pause to take a moment and rip up The E's "bleeding heart liberal" membership card.

He speaks for himself and his own utopian dream, not liberals everywhere. :thumbsdown:

[TheEschaton]

And it all adds up to: You are a hypocrit that says one thing and lives an entirely different lifestyle.

And which lifestyle is it that I live? For example, do you know what I use my stock portfolio to do? Do you know what my father does with his money? No, you do not. So do not assume that just because we HAVE money it means we are A) out of touch with Middle America, or B) lavish hedonists who are completely self-interested.

And Skirm, don't you believe in the death penalty? What authority do you have ripping MY card up? ;) You shouldn't of even been issued one.

:oops:

Edited to add: It's only a dream if you don't act on it. It's only a dream if you deny the possibility of it.

-TheE-

[Edited on 5-25-2004 by TheEschaton]

[Atlanteax]

Originally posted by TheEschaton

]Originally posted by The Edine
Hey genius, guess what The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are two completely different things. (Which means the Constitution was never changed, but it was a nice try to deflect your mistake.) The Declaration of Independence in no way sets fourth law, nor did its wording affect the writing of the constitution. Try again.

Guess what? I'll admit I made a mistake when I said Constitution, I meant the Declaration of Independence. However, you are so idiotically wrong when you said the Declaration of Independence has no bearing on the Constitution. This is like saying the Bible has no effect on the Catholic Church. The Declaration of Independence is the philosophical reasoning behind the practical implication of the Constitution. It lists the reasons why the declaration was being made, and why it had to be made. The Constitution, in keeping in line with it, guaranteed that those rights which were violated by King George, would not be violated again. The Declaration of Independence IS THE PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATION of the Constitution. If you can't see this, you've gone past idiot, and moved on into the realm of absolute willful ignorance.

The Edine is correct.

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are two separate things.

You seem to have forgoten that the DoI lead to the Articles of Confederacy, after which flaws were exposed, the Constitution was developed.


Originally posted by TheEschaton

Originally posted by The Edine
You state that the founding fathers intended for us to take care of everyone. If that was the case I believe they would have done something about it. They did not.

Well, whaddya know. The Founding Fathers stated all men should be equal, but didn't consider woman and blacks as members of the human race.

Maybe, because they didn't think of that - we shoulda just kept it that way! I mean, honestly, how can you BE so fucking stupid?

Perhaps the Founding Fathers, while being idealist, were also realists and pragmatists. They understood, that at the time, it'd be extraordinary revolutionary to grant free non-white males 1 full vote (instead of the 3/5 compromise) and to also grant women the right to vote.

You seem to applying modern values to the past. It does not work that way. The Founding Fathers did brillantly anticipate that American society would change and evolve and built into the Consitution flexibility of how it could be intrepreted (this was intentional!!) so that as American society change, the Consitution could "change" with it. Nevermind the ability to add amendants to it.


Originally posted by TheEschaton
As for how we are more conservative than in the 50s: pre-emptive strikes. We now have a philosophy that says in order to protect ourselves better, we must now hit threats before they are threats, impervious to the fact that they might not become threats. That is much more conservative.
Umm, the principle of pre-emptive strike existed ever since pre-classical Egypt.

The classical Roman Empire perfected it, with the British Empire trying to apply it via Trade (of which the military was financed by).

It is common sense to defeat the enemy before it defeats you. Let's see, FDR, a great president, and also one of the most liberal (who started the whole Welfare system), knew this, and did whatever he can to help the British and Russia fight the Germans while not violating neutrality and avoiding declaring war. Lend-lease is an example.

Currently, the specter of muslim extremism has declared war on us. Has declared war on Western Civilization as we know it, and take for granted. They percieve us as the threat, and are trying to pre-empt us by hoping to intimidate us into submission (of which they would take advantage of, and then expand into Asia, Africa, and then beyond). They will not be content with just the MiddleEast.

The Bush Admistration and Democrats in Congress (and even John Kerry) understand the principle of pre-emptive action, and they are all fully aware that the best way to preserve the American way of life is to DESTROY all traces of muslim islamic extremism, as it is a cancer in the world geopolitical system.


Originally posted by TheEschaton
Our fiscal policy is much more conservative.
Yea, we really should spend money that we do not have on welfare programs. Debt is not a good thing for governments to have. Once such debt policy sets root, it leads to an internal decay of the state's economy and by extension, its society.

This has held true from the Eyptians, to the Romans, to the British Empire, and more.

As for the Bush Adminstration's high spending levels, it is an anomoly. We would probably be seeing surpluses if there was no 9/11 that initiated great changes in the US government, US military, and US society. We will eventually be seeing supluses again, to cut down the outstanding debt, within 10 years. Btw, the current budget deficit as a % of GDP is smaller than it was for the Vietnam War, for WW2 and WW1. This clearly indicates that the US economy is more able to handle the current (and temporary) deficit spending level.

Nevermind that less debt means lower taxes, which is better for all citizens and the state's economy. If citizens want to feed and house other citizens, that is what charity is for. It is not the responsibility of the government.


Originally posted by TheEschaton
Our foreign policy says "With us, or against us."...much more conservative. At least in the 50s, people could be neutral.

Our security is more important than our rights - whereas in the 50s, there was still the idea that what goes on in the home is private.....more conservative. Unless you think a watchdog gov't is somehow a liberal idea.

Hmm, let's go back to WW2 and detention camps. Americans pressed for and accepted the practices of the government detaining Japanese citizens on the west coast, while being thoroughly suspicious of white of german and italian roots.

It was prudent in such times of crisis... as it is prudent to be a bit more consicious about airport security and suspicious about local muslims. However, as "wrong" as it was by modern standards, such suspicions of japanese and germans/italians disipated after the war was concluded and the world moved on.

The same thing in the US will happen after the ultimate conclusion of "the War on Terror" as suspicious regarding muslims disipate and the Patriot Act is scaled back to a mere skeleton.


Originally posted by TheEschaton
Socially, granted, we are probably more liberal. But politically, philosophically, and fiscally, we are more conservative, which outweighs the liberalness of our social norms,
-TheE-

I don't understand why the 50s-60s are being used as the high point of American society. Regardless, the US has pursued "conservative" policies, finances (permanent debt was non-existent until WW2) since its inception. The same would go for most other countries, and in past significant states (Rome).

Welfare in the 40s/50s was in the form of public works. Where people were provided food/housing for building dams, roads, bridges, etc to enhance the infrastructure of the US.

Currently Welfare exists in the form of handouts.

The problem is that over time, corrupt politicans brought votes by creating more generous welfare programs, which contributed to greater spending. In fact, Social Security was fiscally sound, but politicans then kept raiding the $$ that was invested to increase benefits to retirees and ultimately contributed to its state of insolvency.

If it is "conversative" to try to slowly downside this massive cancer before it implodes (causing a seriously damaging financial crisis), so be it.

If it is "conservative" to try to force people to work for welfare (social security), instead of hand-outs for being lazy grasshopers, so be it.

If it is "conservative" to say that people have to make it on their own, by their own merits, so bet it. Speaking of which, affirmative action has gone way overboard where now we have lesser qualified people getting the opportunities that have been denied to those more qualified thanks to the likes of the ACLU abusing governmental mandates.

If it is "conservative" to want the US to remain fiscally sound, to preserve the safety and well-being of American society with pre-emptive activities, so be it.

...

I just wish that the liberals would stop aiming the gun at their fellow Americans. :shrug:

[Skirmisher]

Atlanteax,

As I said, please do not use The E and liberals interchangably.

He in no way speaks for them everywhere. Your debate with him is exactly that, with him.

[Atlanteax]

Originally posted by Skirmisher
As someone who considers herself of a relatively "liberal" political mindset I must pause to take a moment and rip up The E's "bleeding heart liberal" membership card.

He speaks for himself and his own utopian dream, not liberals everywhere. :thumbsdown:

:clap:


Originally posted by Skirmisher
Atlanteax,

As I said, please do not use The E and liberals interchangably.

He in no way speaks for them everywhere. Your debate with him is exactly that, with him.

Understood... I should had probably said:

"Extremist Liberals" :!:

[Skirmisher]

Yeah, sorry i wrote back so fast. :)

He just irks me and gives conservatives everywhere more ammunition than they will probably use in a lifetime.

And yes The E, in cases where there is overwhelming evidence of cold blooded murder like serial killers and the like I've not a problem with the death penalty.

Come join us in the real world, you are a smart guy. You're a smart ass too, but a smart guy nonetheless. We could use more people who looked at the world as it is and tried to help things evolve in a manner which is actually viable instead of some fantasy.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by TheEschaton

And it all adds up to: You are a hypocrit that says one thing and lives an entirely different lifestyle.

And which lifestyle is it that I live? For example, do you know what I use my stock portfolio to do? Do you know what my father does with his money? No, you do not. So do not assume that just because we HAVE money it means we are A) out of touch with Middle America, or B) lavish hedonists who are completely self-interested.

-TheE-

[Edited on 5-25-2004 by TheEschaton]

I never claimed you were out of touch with middle America. I think you BELIEVE you know what it is like to be middle America.. as you sit on a nice chair, in front of a nice computer, in a beautiful house in a nice neighborhood with a nice strong fense built around your house to keep the real middle Americans the hell off your Father's property.

That my friend.. is NOT middle America.

And like I said before.. if you really believe you would be just as happy without money.. give it away. No one is stopping you.

You'll find out quickly.. you are much happier with money. It sure is fun to make believe that living without money that you would be just as happy.. but that isn't reality... like most of your views on the real world.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Atlanteax
"Extremist Liberals" :!:

We need new terms in general usage when discussing political and philosophical matters:

Religious conservative and religious liberal.

TheE is definitely one of the latter and is almost as far removed from my definition of the average liberal ideal as Rush Limbaugh. Like Skirmisher, I prefer to dissassociate myself from those rather extreme beliefs.

Personally, I find them almost as annoying as I find the religious right. So yes, please please please keep the argument with him instead of liberals as a whole.

Raven

[Parkbandit]

Being an athiest... I too find religious conservatives to be a pain in the ass and far off from my own beliefs.

[TheEschaton]

On the other hand, I would argue Skirmisher isn't a liberal. ;) I would say that any debate with her is not a debate with all liberals any more than I would say a debate with Atlanteax is a debate with the conservative viewpoint, or a debate with Edine is a debate with the idiot viewpoint. Namely, no one fully represents the label people attach to themselves. If Skirm doesn't think I'm a liberal - so be it. I don't think anyone who supports the death penalty is a liberal either. ;)


1) The Articles of Confederacy failed for many reasons. However, the same guidelines it used were not changed in the Constitution - it was merely expressed in a different form of gov't. If you cannot see the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as linked documents, you are blind.

Furthermore, to argue that the Founding Fathers were pragmatists seems to fly in the face of everything in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. No, the Constitution of the United States indicates liberal-mindedness which was limited by cultural boundaries. That is why blacks and women weren't equal....that's why there was no formalized system of welfare, as it was considered the Church's job. That doesn't mean the values of their words do not apply to the modern day. The only way you CAN interpret those views are that A) woman and blacks are equal, and the B) everyone has the right to pursue happiness, and no one can infringe on that right, and B part ii) that property is not a right, but merely a possible end result of said pursuit.


2) Pre-emptive military strikes did not exist in this country before Iraq. Before that, either ourselves or our allies were assaulted before we stepped in.

Terrorists are not a sovreign entity. Maybe I can understand the policy behind attacking Afghanistan - but Iraq was purely pre-emptive, in no way connected to 9/11, and based purely on speculation. This is a radical shift in American politics, and to not recognize it is to be blind.


It was prudent in such times of crisis... as it is prudent to be a bit more consicious about airport security and suspicious about local muslims. However, as "wrong" as it was by modern standards, such suspicions of japanese and germans/italians disipated after the war was concluded and the world moved on.

3) A) Prudence is never an acceptable reason for immoral/unAmerican behavior. B) and this gets to the point, it was easily recognizable in the years after WWII that the Japanese internment camps were WRONG. In the next few years, will we officially "recognize" that Guantanemo is WRONG? I highly doubt it, and if the Supreme Court rules otherwise later this summer, I'll gladly take this back.


4) You didn't really do anything to refute my comment that our fiscal policy is more conservative. Instead, you tried to argue that conservative fiscal policy is better. In truth, my economics isn't so great that I could debate the point, but all I know is this...Reaganomics didn't work....and Bill Clinton and all his "wild deficit spending" got our budget deficit to the lowest levels it has seen in decades, even, at one point, producing a surplus.

5) I did not use the 50's and 60's as a highpoint in American society. Edine did.


Welfare in the 40s/50s was in the form of public works. Where people were provided food/housing for building dams, roads, bridges, etc to enhance the infrastructure of the US.

Currently Welfare exists in the form of handouts.

6) Have you been on welfare? Neither have I, but I've worked with people on welfare, and it is near impossible to label it a "handout". Maybe my view is tainted, because my experience with welfare receipiants is all post-Welfare Reform of the mid-90s, and yours is tainted by the demonization of welfare by Reagan in the 80s, but welfare is a much different thing.


In fact, Social Security was fiscally sound, but politicans then kept raiding the $$ that was invested to increase benefits to retirees and ultimately contributed to its state of insolvency.

7) You know who did this? George W. Bush. Not liberals. And he's supposedly conservative. Maybe he's just not a conservative in your mind - but why the hell would you vote for him then, if you like conservatism so much?


If it is "conversative" to try to slowly downside this massive cancer before it implodes (causing a seriously damaging financial crisis), so be it.

If it is "conservative" to try to force people to work for welfare (social security), instead of hand-outs for being lazy grasshopers, so be it.

If it is "conservative" to say that people have to make it on their own, by their own merits, so bet it. Speaking of which, affirmative action has gone way overboard where now we have lesser qualified people getting the opportunities that have been denied to those more qualified thanks to the likes of the ACLU abusing governmental mandates.

If it is "conservative" to want the US to remain fiscally sound, to preserve the safety and well-being of American society with pre-emptive activities, so be it.


8) If it is "liberal" to leave people without an opportunity to better themselves, so be it. Whether they take it or not is not the concern, the concern is that it is offered.

If it is "liberal" to not force people to do anything they don't want to do, then so be it. Note that what I am saying is that we must approach this dualistically. We must provide the boots, and the impetus to pull oneself up by the bootstraps. If they still don't...that's not on us. You can't win them all.

If it is "liberal" to acknowledge that people, because of their race and/or gender, are at a disadvantage in the workplace, so be it. I acknowledge affirmative action is out of control, and obviously you don't know your opponent if you think I support it. ;)

If it is "liberal" to want to preserve the freedoms and rights of all people as according to the founding documents of this country, with security and fiscal well-being coming only secondary to that....so be it. I can live with that. We are guaranteed nothing in life but our death.

-TheE-

[TheEschaton]

I never claimed you were out of touch with middle America. I think you BELIEVE you know what it is like to be middle America.. as you sit on a nice chair, in front of a nice computer, in a beautiful house in a nice neighborhood with a nice strong fense built around your house to keep the real middle Americans the hell off your Father's property.

Maybe if we were blue bloods, I could understand your point. But my father came to this country with $40 in his pocket, and we were lower class....then we were middle class....then we were upper class.....

I lived in an 80,000 house til I was 15. Which is, if you don't know when I was born, 1996. Which we only lived in for 9 years. Before the age of six, I lived in a duplex. It had rats under the porch.


Edited to add: We don't have a fence to keep people out. We have a fence in the backyard to make sure the dog doesn't wander off, though.

-TheE-

[Edited on 5-25-2004 by TheEschaton]

[TheEschaton]

Religious conservative and religious liberal.

TheE is definitely one of the latter and is almost as far removed from my definition of the average liberal ideal as Rush Limbaugh. Like Skirmisher, I prefer to dissassociate myself from those rather extreme beliefs.

I concur. My liberalism largely stems from my religious beliefs. I won't deny that. I find it sad that there is no large religious liberal movement in this country. On the other hand, I don't see it to be as dangerous as the religious right (but that's probably cause I am one ;) ), as it embraces (the lower case) catholicity (ie, universiality of the human race), love as a guiding principle, etc, etc, ad nauseam.

I'd like to think the difference is that my religious beliefs don't require others to believe in them or even like them, and that the way it influenced my political beliefs would be to make them more open as opposed to less, but I may be just cracked-out on the cocaine or something. ;)

-TheE-

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
Maybe if we were blue bloods, I could understand your point. But my father came to this country with $40 in his pocket, and we were lower class....then we were middle class....then we were upper class.....

I lived in an 80,000 house til I was 15. Which is, if you don't know when I was born, 1996. Which we only lived in for 9 years. Before the age of six, I lived in a duplex. It had rats under the porch.


-TheE-



The duplex had no bearing on your life.. as it was prior to you becoming 6 years old. Neither does your father coming here with $40 in his pocket, as that was before your time.

I assume your Father does not share your rose colored glasses. He sounds like someone who took risks, worked his ass off and made something out of himself.

It's too bad more people are not like him in this country. There are far too many people here that have $40 in their pockets and have their hands out wanting more because it's "Due" to them.

now now Parkbandit you know full well that TheE will come here saying that his father feels the exact same way.

[TheEschaton]

No, my father is not like me. He believes in affirmative action, and is a Democratic Party fundraiser. He is also a devout Catholic along with I, but he tends to err more on the side of what the Church says, then challenging what he might thing is wrong with the Church. That being said, he has no problems with gay marriages, taxes going to welfare, or even that his son protests organizations he has professional contacts with, like the IMF or World Bank.

I'm just saying - I spent the majority of my life as middle class or lower. Yes, for the last, what, 8 years now, we've been living nicely, when my dad was promoted to CFO of his bank. If anything has changed in my life, it's that all my friends, blue collar and all, now slightly resent my family. Hell, my best friend, who I'm going to visit in Texas on Friday, comes from a family of truck drivers. My other good friend's father is a radon inspector. Do you know what that is? He checks new homes for radon leakage.

-TheE-

[Atlanteax]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
2) Pre-emptive military strikes did not exist in this country before Iraq. Before that, either ourselves or our allies were assaulted before we stepped in.

Terrorists are not a sovreign entity. Maybe I can understand the policy behind attacking Afghanistan - but Iraq was purely pre-emptive, in no way connected to 9/11, and based purely on speculation. This is a radical shift in American politics, and to not recognize it is to be blind.

Nope, not a radical shift. As I indicated, FDR utilized pre-emptive actions for WW2. The US invading Mexico (and claiming Californa, New Mexica, Arizona, etc) was pre-emptive. The Cuban Missle crisis was pre-emptive (sending the Naval blockade). There are more as well, which clearly demonstrates that the US has had a long history of pre-emptive military activity... nevermind the ill-fated 1812 attack on Canada.


Originally posted by TheEschaton
4) You didn't really do anything to refute my comment that our fiscal policy is more conservative. Instead, you tried to argue that conservative fiscal policy is better. In truth, my economics isn't so great that I could debate the point, but all I know is this...Reaganomics didn't work....and Bill Clinton and all his "wild deficit spending" got our budget deficit to the lowest levels it has seen in decades, even, at one point, producing a surplus.
Reganomics lead to the prosperity experienced during the first Bush and the two Clinton terms. Clinton completely benefited from Reganomics, but it wouldn't make good politics to give the Republicans the credit. ;)


Originally posted by TheEschaton
6) Have you been on welfare? Neither have I, but I've worked with people on welfare, and it is near impossible to label it a "handout". Maybe my view is tainted, because my experience with welfare receipiants is all post-Welfare Reform of the mid-90s, and yours is tainted by the demonization of welfare by Reagan in the 80s, but welfare is a much different thing.


In fact, Social Security was fiscally sound, but politicans then kept raiding the $$ that was invested to increase benefits to retirees and ultimately contributed to its state of insolvency.

7) You know who did this? George W. Bush. Not liberals. And he's supposedly conservative. Maybe he's just not a conservative in your mind - but why the hell would you vote for him then, if you like conservatism so much?

Umm, as I illustrated, the Bush Adminstration is being blamed for the current significant deficit spending, which was involuntary as it was a reaction to 9/11 which prompted the Homeland Department in the pre-emptive activities in the MiddleEast.

But back to the social security / welfare issue... politicans... both Ds and Rs, in Congress... kept irresponsibly expanding social security benefits and welfare programs. This went way beyond the original framework of working for food/housing.

Overtime, it just got worse and worse... and now that (almost) everyone understand it to be a PROBLEM the conversatives are leading the charge to downsize the cancer known as social security / welfare

It's going to be a long long fight (as any fight with cancer is) to slowly strip away at the convulted form of the original program design.


Originally posted by TheEschaton
8) If it is "liberal" to leave people without an opportunity to better themselves, so be it. Whether they take it or not is not the concern, the concern is that it is offered.

If it is "liberal" to not force people to do anything they don't want to do, then so be it. Note that what I am saying is that we must approach this dualistically. We must provide the boots, and the impetus to pull oneself up by the bootstraps. If they still don't...that's not on us. You can't win them all.

If it is "liberal" to acknowledge that people, because of their race and/or gender, are at a disadvantage in the workplace, so be it. I acknowledge affirmative action is out of control, and obviously you don't know your opponent if you think I support it. ;)

Well, refering to your previous rants about how people should pay to feed the homeless, drug users, etc, out of their own pockets... you seem to be the kind that is urging the mandation of increasing taxes to support hand-out programs.

As far as I'm concerned, you seem to be contradicting yourself.

To me, the "liberal" stances you articulated just now for (8) are "conservative"... where the true "liberal" stances (as I see it) is to force other citizens to give others opportunities. Such as the ACLU ponding on a small business' door, and demanding that they hire a non-white person, because the current staff is all white. Such as forcing citizens who do not believe in charity to contribute to charity (which is why conservatives prefer it be a tax-based incentive to do so, which is a positive element of capitalism)


Originally posted by TheEschaton
If it is "liberal" to want to preserve the freedoms and rights of all people as according to the founding documents of this country, with security and fiscal well-being coming only secondary to that....so be it. I can live with that. We are guaranteed nothing in life but our death.
-TheE-
Security and fiscal well-being comes first... why? Because that enables the active protection of freedom and liberity.

Meanwhile, I'll repeat, there is no "right to social benefits" (welfare) ... that is a liberal invention traced back to FDR's programs to combat the Great Depression.

Anyone who thinks we're on the path to a police state is :nutty: The Patriot Act has a built-in expiration period, of which after radical islamic militancy is crushed, the only elements that will remain in place is the necessary reforms to allow the CIA/FBI/PD to do their job (as a big flaw that led to 9/11 is that they're predominantly BLIND).

[TheEschaton]

A) The Administration has repeatedly said (Bush said it in his last SOTU as well) that the effects of the Patriot Act must be more expansive, and not expire. That points to a police state to me. Have you ever read the draft of the "Son of Patriot"?


To me, the "liberal" stances you articulated just now for (8) are "conservative"... where the true "liberal" stances (as I see it) is to force other citizens to give others opportunities. Such as the ACLU ponding on a small business' door, and demanding that they hire a non-white person, because the current staff is all white.

No good liberal would ever force anyone to do anything. The religious right, if they had their way, would. That being said, the question is: if the views held by a person do not conform to the gov't's standard on an issue (such as a racist vs. the gov't policy of non-discrimination in the workplace), how do you solve this? Do you force the racist to hire black people, or try and debate him in the topic?

As you can tell from these boards - debate is a long, slow process. A very tedious process. Affirmative Action, the ACLU....these are all temporary (and bad) solutions to a problem which is largely a matter of dissonance between what we say, and what we do. Do I like the idea of forcing people? Nope. When I say people should pay for the welfare of others, I am saying it is something I hope they would choose. And, if they didn't, to the point where the "others" couldn't live full lives any more, I don't know what I would do if I was in position to change that. That is the fundamental moral crisis of a democracy.

-TheE-

[Atlanteax]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
As you can tell from these boards - debate is a long, slow process. A very tedious process. Affirmative Action, the ACLU....these are all temporary (and bad) solutions to a problem which is largely a matter of dissonance between what we say, and what we do.
-TheE-

I definately got a lot more respect for you that you agreed that AA and the ACLU are doing more harm than good.

(btw, check out my response to your comment about our respective appearances in that other thread)

[Trinitis]

I lived in an 80,000 house til I was 15. Which is, if you don't know when I was born, 1996. Which we only lived in for 9 years. Before the age of six, I lived in a duplex. It had rats under the porch.


I'm not really wanting to dive deep into this debate or anything. But gorwing up in an duplex, or an 80,000 house is not growing up in middle class, IMO.

Just my half-a-cent

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Atlanteax


Nope, not a radical shift. As I indicated, FDR utilized pre-emptive actions for WW2. The US invading Mexico (and claiming Californa, New Mexica, Arizona, etc) was pre-emptive. The Cuban Missle crisis was pre-emptive (sending the Naval blockade). There are more as well, which clearly demonstrates that the US has had a long history of pre-emptive military activity... nevermind the ill-fated 1812 attack on Canada.

Glad you brought that up, toss in the Spanish American war and we have a nice ole party.


Hell lets not forget the Monroe Doctrine in which we rather gallantly reserved the right to control and/or overthrow all the governments in our hemisphere for ourselves.

Yah..Panama existed before we had a need for it...riiiight.

And Admiral Perry's Black Ships of course went to japan to force it to open up for trade with the US at the invitation of the Shogun I'm sure.

Our history is rife with examples.

Hell, I'm voting to knock bush from office this election, just lets not sugar coat our true history in an attempt to make Bush look more idiotic than he is.

And the Articles of the Confederation failed for one major reason, and that was a lack of power to make decisions and even worse....a lack of a military capable to back up what meager decisions it did make.

Sounds alot like the UN now. Imagine them trying to govern.:lol:

Skirm, I almost agreed with half of what you said there :)

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

TheE, in your perfect society, wouldn't your fathers rise to upper class have been halted by the burden of paying for the grasshoppers of the world?

I agree with some of the things you say, and your arguments have swayed me more towards the middle than all the way conservative, but you need to turn that intellect and magnifying glass on yourself. You are a self professed millionaire (some other thread), that makes you a hypocrite from all you are espousing here. I know you will come back with a "I don't know what you do with your money", and I don't... but the fact that you are a millionaire debunks your argument that we should all give hand outs (ups) to the grasshoppers of the world.

I think that is what chaffs the majority of us... you preach it, but you also enjoy the benifits of a capitalistic society that you profess to hate.

[Atlanteax]

Damn (rich) hippies :down:

(isn't that quite a bit of irony? an affluent hippie :lol: )

[TheEschaton]

I can see why it bothers you, and it bothers me. Would my father have been hindered on his rise up? I suppose so. My father, I hope, would not of considered himself less successful or less happy because of it, though.


I was born into my wealth. I had a mother and a father who through sheer luck got into the United States in a period where immigration to the U.S. as a student was near impossible, and through sheer talent rose to the top of their respective fields (my mother's a social worker, though, so the "top" of her field is a gov't job which pays her less than my sister's gonna be making at an internship for Pfizer). I cannot help that.

In all honesty, I often wish that I didn't have the wealth, in that people seem to use it to automatically debunk my opinions. Now, I am an anti-capitalist - however, it is more of a situational anti-capitalism than anything else. I would say that money (if preceded by love and actual human affection) can do a great deal of good in the world. I do believe, though, that capitalism in this country has gone horrible awry, where we put profit before people, and our own financial wealth, before others financial need. The easy path is to be an anti-capitalist preaching socialism. I try not to do that, no matter how many socialist revolution jokes I make, as I said earlier, that preaches forcing people to do things. To be an anti-capitalist preaching a humane capitalism is much more difficult, but the right thing to do, I believe. A capitalism where, by choice, people are put in front of profit, instead of the rampant laissez-faire capitalism that has, IMHO, ruined this country.

In the theology which I loved in college, liberation theology, Gustavo Gutierrez, the founder of this particular branch of theology, was often accused of Marxism and Communist sympathizing. He did, indeed talk about being materially and spiritually poor. In the second edition of his book, The Theology of Liberation, after the Vatican criticisms, he explained that to be materially/spiritually poor did not mean to be, materially lacking things, or spiritually disconnected from things....it meant to be indifferent to them, that if both were taken away tomorrow....your money, or your connections to someone, that it wouldn't affect your outlook, your belief, your faith. The third principle of liberation theology (after material poverty, and spiritual poverty) was solidarity, and he went even further to say that a rich man did not gain solidarity with the poor man by giving up everything he had and sitting in the ashes with him - it was to use what he was given to do what he can for the Other.

I offer the above as sort of the viewpoint I'm coming from. I had a girlfriend in college who was of similar views, but from a very blue collar type of background. When she found out that my father was vice chairman of the board and CFO of the bank she banked at (in Eastern PA.) she couldn't accept my views as valid.

I'd like to think the situation we come from shouldn't matter to the validity of our philosophies.

-TheE-

[Edited on 5-26-2004 by TheEschaton]

[Delirium]

Do you see the irony in saying other rich people are greedy and step on people to make money any way they can and then in the next breath saying even though your rich you care about people and arnt like those others,that you're just not understood?

[Atlanteax]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
I offer the above as sort of the viewpoint I'm coming from. I had a girlfriend in college who was of similar views, but from a very blue collar type of background. When she found out that my father was vice chairman of the board and CFO of the bank she banked at (in Eastern PA.) she couldn't accept my views as valid.

I'd like to think the situation we come from shouldn't matter to the validity of our philosophies.

-TheE-


Welcome to the world of muckraking. ;)

It'll always be a part of debates and real world interaction.

[TheEschaton]

Do you see the irony in saying other rich people are greedy and step on people to make money any way they can and then in the next breath saying even though your rich you care about people and arnt like those others,that you're just not understood?


Gee, I thought there were exceptions to the rule. I'm saying capitalism tends to be greedy and step on people to make money. It's certainly not an indictment of every capitalist.

My father always claims he was so successful because he was actually nice to people - and people were surprised to see that in the business world.

I suggest the following book. It's by a Jesuit who left the Society to work for some big company, to try and spread an ethos of love to the business world:

Heroic Leadership (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0829418164/qid=1085589058/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-5606533-8125412?v=glance&s=books)

-TheE-

[Delirium]

To me you do the same thing as what you are complaining others do to you. You assume since they are so rich they lied cheated and stole their way to their riches. Im assuming you dont know 99% of the rich people you yell about when you say they are greedy and would do anything right? I could be wrong. I actually like your views on most things and wish i could believe them,but the cynical side of me sees the other side way too much as a reality to do so.

[TheEschaton]

No, I don't know the majority of rich people. But I can see the trends rising over the last two centuries, where companies move offshore to get better profit margins at the expense of A) American workers who have a higher standard of "minimal standards", and B) 3rd world country workers who suffer from hazardous conditions to make products which will sell for many thousands times what it cost to make it. I can see companies like Enron, and Adelphia (in my region), Martha Stewart and all the horror stories of lobbiests, like the tobacco lobby, and the gun lobby, and the cotton lobby.

This is what I base my views on capitalism on.

On a side note...
I assume this could be a whole other thread topic, but then, what is reality?

To me, the human "realities" of poverty, hunger, homelessness....are merely human implemented institutions. No natural law deemed it necessary, no deity said that some people are just supposed to be the dregs of society. It is a purely human condition - and thus can be changed, purely with the will of the human race.

The same goes for any human system....capitalism/socialism, communism/democracy....politics, medicine, whatever. All these systems are what they are now because of human decision (or indecision). We can just as easily decide to make it another way.


-TheE-

[Parkbandit]

My issue with you TheE isn't that you are rich and that you belittle capitalism. You cannot help what family you are born into. While I do believe that your environment does help define who you are.. it's not the only thing. There are many other things that also define you and shape your beliefs.

My issue is with you saying that you would be just as happy without money as you are with money. That simply is not and has never been the case. People can proclaim it .. but when reality sits in and you cannot afford to eat.. there is very little to be happy about. When you cannot afford a nice safe home to live in... when you cannot give your child the bike they really want..

Complete Liberalism is great in theory... just like Communism and Socialism.

Unfortunately.. with human beings involved.. with all their emotions.. it simply does not work in reality.

I would love to have no real worries in my life.. knowing that my room and board is taken care of.. knowing I will never go hungry.. knowing I have full medical.. knowing I will be able to live and work in a relaxed atmosphere. Unfortunately, the Grasshoppers, the extreme capitalists, etc... of the world make it impossible. I know that if I want to be able to provide effectively for my family.. that I have to work and work hard each and every day.

That is my reality.

[Edited on 5-26-2004 by Parkbandit]

[TheEschaton]

I actually have no medical insurance right now. It lapsed between my job and my stint with the Peace Corps, which starts in 3 weeks. Gotta be careful.


Human emotion is something that can be controlled. I'm not saying stifle it completely, to do so is unhealthy. Anyone can, if they have discipline, acknowledge their anger/passion/what-have-you, without having to kill someone/rape someone/what-have-you.

Which is why discipline and personal responsibility are a large part of my theory.

Edited to add: Maybe I'm Buddhist, in that, in that I feel that pain and suffering and insecurity does not take away from one's happiness, unless one allows it to. My good friend's family (2 parents, 5 kids) have always lived on an income of about 30,000 a year (which, for a family of 7, isn't much)....and yet they're the happiest family I know. Much more than the rich kids I knew when I was in college.

-TheE-

[Edited on 5-26-2004 by TheEschaton]

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
I actually have no medical insurance right now. It lapsed between my job and my stint with the Peace Corps, which starts in 3 weeks. Gotta be careful.


Human emotion is something that can be controlled. I'm not saying stifle it completely, to do so is unhealthy. Anyone can, if they have discipline, acknowledge their anger/passion/what-have-you, without having to kill someone/rape someone/what-have-you.

Which is why discipline and personal responsibility are a large part of my theory.

-TheE-

Again.. your 'theory' sounds great.. but unfortunately, it has no real basis in the real world.

How do you get the grasshoppers off their ass and actually CONTRIBUTE to society? If you constantly give to them when their hands are out.. what is their motivation?

[Delirium]

Im not going to claim i wouldnt be happier if i was rich but i am happy now and i assume most here would think im lower middle class if that. You can be happy and be poor at the same time. You just have to have other kinds of riches to make it so. If tomorrow TheE sent me his riches would i happier? Hell yeah i would be,id go shopping but even if he doesnt ill still happy tomorrow anyway.

[Atlanteax]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
No, I don't know the majority of rich people. But I can see the trends rising over the last two centuries, where companies move offshore to get better profit margins at the expense of A) American workers who have a higher standard of "minimal standards", and B) 3rd world country workers who suffer from hazardous conditions to make products which will sell for many thousands times what it cost to make it. I can see companies like Enron, and Adelphia (in my region), Martha Stewart and all the horror stories of lobbiests, like the tobacco lobby, and the gun lobby, and the cotton lobby.

This is what I base my views on capitalism on.

On a side note...
I assume this could be a whole other thread topic, but then, what is reality?

To me, the human "realities" of poverty, hunger, homelessness....are merely human implemented institutions. No natural law deemed it necessary, no deity said that some people are just supposed to be the dregs of society. It is a purely human condition - and thus can be changed, purely with the will of the human race.

The same goes for any human system....capitalism/socialism, communism/democracy....politics, medicine, whatever. All these systems are what they are now because of human decision (or indecision). We can just as easily decide to make it another way.

-TheE-

And yet, thanks to Capitalism... living standards are increasing across the world at a faster rate in the 20th/21st centuries, than in the past.

Nowadays, the average American has more access to positive utilities that are steadily decreasing in cost.

Take a sports bar... Capitalism allows it to become a niche in the restruaunt industry, where individuals who cannot afford their own TV can walk in, and watch the local games while enjoying a meal (or not).

Nevermind the distance that many corporations go to try to paint themselves as socially-conscious, where they contribute to charity, dedication of parks, offering generous packages for the elderly and the young. But they do it because it is naturally in their best interests to do so as it encourages the public to purchase their goods/services ... which is a function of Capitalism that you seem to be constantly overlooking.

You focus way too much on the struggles of citizens of 3rd world countries toiling away in factories (nevermind that we once did the same) where such jobs offers them a hope for the future, and also a way to survive (instead of starving to death).

In several decades, the working conditions in those countries will evolve and improve, just as the working conditions in the US evolved and improved during the 18-20th centuries.

Capitalism is a self-regulating and self-improving economic/social system. If you want changes to take place, you must provide an incentive to do so just as those socially-minded corporations have an incentive to do so to attract and retain customers.

[TheEschaton]

Nevermind the distance that many corporations go to try to paint themselves as socially-conscious, where they contribute to charity, dedication of parks, offering generous packages for the elderly and the young. But they do it because it is naturally in their best interests to do so as it encourages the public to purchase their goods/services ... which is a function of Capitalism that you seem to be constantly overlooking.

They merely have to create said impression. They don't have to actually practice it. In fact, it is far more profitable and in their self-interest to lie, pretend they're doing good, and not actually do it. Since you believe that self-interest rules corporations/capitalism , and this is the most self-interested course....that must be what they're doing, right?

And did you not see the previous post where I said capitalism does not have to be a bad thing. The only reason the preceding paragraph CAN happen is because we ALLOW it to happen. If we (the public) kept a closer eye on these corporations, and demanded (real) efforts....then they would be forced to comply. However, capitalism in the past 40 years especially, has sought to make people indifferent to what the company does, as long as it delivers the product they want. And they've done a pretty good job.

Edited to add: Not to mention, our standards only rose when highly-socialistic concepts, such as a minimum wage, safe workplace laws, maximum work weeks, minimum age to work, were put into place. Do you think that without the New Deal, those things would of risen on their own?

-TheE-

[Edited on 5-26-2004 by TheEschaton]

[Atlanteax]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
Edited to add: Not to mention, our standards only rose when highly-socialistic concepts, such as a minimum wage, safe workplace laws, maximum work weeks, minimum age to work, were put into place. Do you think that without the New Deal, those things would of risen on their own?

-TheE-

[Edited on 5-26-2004 by TheEschaton]

Yes, if customers (society) focused their purchasing power on corporations that did adopt such policies.

Meanwhile, the real intent behind the New Deal was to increase the number of Americans employed, by restricting the workweek. So it was not for the positive intentions behind such socialistic elements. However, it was a positive benefit resulting in improving living standards.

Some corporations tried to go back to the old model, and they predominantly failed trying to a combination of strikes, boycotts, and public shaming by the government. (this may not be completely accurate, but is what I'm remembering)

Anyhow, the bottom line is that Capitalism is a flexible evolving system. The internal dynamics will influence the overall structure if the incentive to do so arises.

Capitalism will continue to lead society towards the utopia you desire, but it does need some guidance along the way... where the strongest influence is the government responding to its citizens.

.

So you should spend your time trying to educate your peers about why they should pay a little more $ for the goods/services of corporations that are more socially-minded than others... instead of wailing against the system.

The primary hold-up to the progress that you desire is that the aggregate purchasing power of people who do not "care" in the manner that you do, is greater than those who do "care". Until strength is transferred from the former to the later, the status quo continues. (this is why Hollywood can be influential in shaping the hearts and minds of others ... ie those who wailed about the baby seals).

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Delirium
Im not going to claim i wouldnt be happier if i was rich but i am happy now and i assume most here would think im lower middle class if that. You can be happy and be poor at the same time. You just have to have other kinds of riches to make it so. If tomorrow TheE sent me his riches would i happier? Hell yeah i would be,id go shopping but even if he doesnt ill still happy tomorrow anyway.

Never did I assume that poor people cannot be happy. There is always happiness to be found.

And like you said, "hell yeah" you would be happier with more money.. who wouldn't be??

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Atlanteax

Take a sports bar... Capitalism allows it to become a niche in the restruaunt industry, where individuals who cannot afford their own TV can walk in, and watch the local games while enjoying a meal (or not).



It didn't become a niche because people with no TVs could go there and watch games... it became a niche because people like me who enjoy watching sports and drinking beer.

I've spent plenty of Saturdays and Sundays in a Sports bar.. and I can't remember a time where I saw a person there just watching TV

[Atlanteax]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by Atlanteax

Take a sports bar... Capitalism allows it to become a niche in the restruaunt industry, where individuals who cannot afford their own TV can walk in, and watch the local games while enjoying a meal (or not).



It didn't become a niche because people with no TVs could go there and watch games... it became a niche because people like me who enjoy watching sports and drinking beer.

I've spent plenty of Saturdays and Sundays in a Sports bar.. and I can't remember a time where I saw a person there just watching TV

My point is that it allowed for the possibility of a poor working stiff, who loves sports (but can't afford his own TV)... to be able to do what you said regularly. :shrug:

[TheEschaton]

Anyhow, the bottom line is that Capitalism is a flexible evolving system. The internal dynamics will influence the overall structure if the incentive to do so arises.


Then why is it that it took a huge disaster for these "beneficial work practices" to be implemented in capitalism?

Why is it that 3rd world countries haven't developed these same standards? Because it's not profitable to them...and it's not profitable to the companies that move there, if they have to pay them the same amount as an American worker, but spend the expense to move there as well.

Capitalism is fundamentally flawed (which is why it works so well in a system of flawed people) in that it is based on competition, and competition is defined by a balls-to-the-wall, pedal-to-the-metal mentality. There IS no sense of ethos in competition, and until there is one, capitalism will continue to exploit. It's the whole "It's not personal....it's just business" mentality. Until business IS personal, there will be a problem. Competition can be good - but it has reached a level of hysteria where it's become a problem. Reference hockey dads killing each other because their sons got in a fight, or soccer moms ripping each others hair out. What should be a competition within certain boundaries has lost all sense of boundary.

-TheE-

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by TheEschaton


In the theology which I loved in college, liberation theology, Gustavo Gutierrez, the founder of this particular branch of theology, was often accused of Marxism and Communist sympathizing. He did, indeed talk about being materially and spiritually poor. In the second edition of his book, The Theology of Liberation, after the Vatican criticisms, he explained that to be materially/spiritually poor did not mean to be, materially lacking things, or spiritually disconnected from things....it meant to be indifferent to them, that if both were taken away tomorrow....your money, or your connections to someone, that it wouldn't affect your outlook, your belief, your faith. The third principle of liberation theology (after material poverty, and spiritual poverty) was solidarity, and he went even further to say that a rich man did not gain solidarity with the poor man by giving up everything he had and sitting in the ashes with him - it was to use what he was given to do what he can for the Other.

-TheE-
[Edited on 5-26-2004 by TheEschaton]

I knew I recognized that damned name.

He was one of those who did sympathize with the Sendero Luminoso(The Shining Path) communist terrorist group in Peru who killed indiscriminately, blew up bombs and kidnaped people for ransom in their noble quest to "liberate" Peru.

My uncles house was firebombed and a cousin of mine was kidnapped and later killed even AFTER the godamned ransom was paid to those maggots.

Get a new role model. Yours sucks beyond belief. Anyone who will side with those disgusting animals is offensive to me beyond words and clearly people up here who in their pristine worlds of priviledge dare to talk about it should shut the hell up.

[TheEschaton]

I'm sorry your uncle's house was firebombed, and your cousin killed, but Gustavo Gutierrez A) had nothing to do with that, B) was only ACCUSED of being a Communist/Marxist, when he wasn't, and C) would never promote the killing of other people.

Unless you have an article you can post, I won't believe for a second that Gutierrez had anything to do with an organization that promotes such things. I don't think Notre Dame allows terrorist sympathizers to teach on their faculty, nor do I think the Vatican embraces theologians who do (after they realized he WAS NOT a communist or a Marxist, but rather, a Catholic).

-TheE-

[Skirmisher]

Like it or not, some Catholic Priests HAVE taken sides in conflicts in the past.

That does not mean they are publicly or even privately endorsed by the vatican, but to say they have not is simply in error.

[TheEschaton]

Of course, you may know Gustavo Gutierrez because he's Peruvian....and the most important Catholic theologian post-Vatican II.

And you might just be transferring the idea of him being my role model, onto something disgusting and horrifying, simply because you don't like my views.

-TheE-

[Skirmisher]

The E, I will at this time offer a partial retraction of my previous post.

It seems he did not openly side with those scum, but his words WERE used by them. I knew I had heard his name in a less than flattering light by friends and or relatives.

He should have been more vocal about repudiating such use of his name and words if he felt strongly. I did not come across such denunciations, but would be heartened if you were aware of any such.

There is a reason that there is an acknowledged cycle in most revolutions. Different times call for different measures. Just as Rudy Giuliani was far from my favorite mayor for most of his time in office, in time of emergency I found him simply amazing.

During those times in Peru, there was not room for much middle ground between Sendero and other marxist proponents. It is easy to sit here and think otherwise, but in Peru at that time and in other countries suffering similar tragedies it was a state of war. I don't mean war as we have come to use it here in the US like a "war on terror" or a "war on drugs", but something much more akin to the US civil war, even if an unrecognized one.

Below are just a few links that I found in a rather cursory search using only Yahoo.

http://www.aei.org/include/news_print.asp?newsID=14844

http://www.bgsu.edu/offices/pr/monitor/pastissues/12-04-95/peru.html

http://www.chatham.edu/pti/2002%20Units/Latin%20America%20&%20U.S.Pop%20culture/Demmler_02.htm

http://66.218.71.225/search/cache?p=Gustavo+Gutierrez+shining+path&ei=UTF-8&n=20&fl=0&xargs=0&pstart=6&b=21&u=www.nacc.org/vision/edc/1999/staring-as99.htm&w=gustavo+gutierrez+shining+path&d=D67F61 3C55&c=482&yc=26737&icp=1

http://66.218.71.225/search/cache?p=Gustavo+Gutierrez+shining+path&ei=UTF-8&n=20&fl=0&b=41&u=carlisle-www.army.mil/usamhi/usarsa/ACADEMIC/Ramsey%2520%2520presentation%2520-%2520St%2520Johns.htm&w=gustavo+gutierrez+shining+ path&d=97DF8C1DC0&c=482&yc=29194&icp=1

Originally posted by TheEschaton
I actually have no medical insurance right now. It lapsed between my job and my stint with the Peace Corps, which starts in 3 weeks. Gotta be careful.


Well, You have been out of work for what. a month or two now? Did you think about taking up Cobra? If having insurance was so Important I think you would have not hesitated to do that.

[TheEschaton]

The whole point is that he WASN'T Marxist. Nor did he want to be. The Vatican feared that he was, later on, they feared people would interpret him as such (as the Sendero Luminoso apparently did?), but his message is far from Marxist.


Furthermore, how can a man be responsible for someone misinterpreting his words? Martin Luther King said, "There is nothing worse than conscientious stupidity and willful ignorance"....should he be held responsible if someone goes out and kills stupid people? You can only throw your hands up and shake your head at such idiocy.

As for your links.

1) The first mentions nothing about how the SL is connected to Gutierrez at all. Somehow he "caused" the revolutions, even though the SL was already formed? It's also written by the AEI, who say this on their "About AEI" page.

"The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research is dedicated to preserving and strengthening the foundations of freedom--limited government, private enterprise, vital cultural and political institutions, and a strong foreign policy and national defense--through scholarly research, open debate, and publications. Founded in 1943 and located in Washington, D.C., AEI is one of America's largest and most respected "think tanks." "

In other words, a conservative think tank who would love to discredit Gutierrez.

2) The second link says " 'As the confrontation between the interests of the right and those of the left comes to a head, liberation theology falls right in the middle of all that,' Peña said."

Between the Church and the Marxists - but not either. One thing it does say is that if the Marxists recognize the inability to remove religion from the lives of the masses, the SOCIAL concerns both liberation theology have, as well as the Marxists....then they may be able to work together, in the future.

3) The relevant paragraphs are below:

Peruvian priest, Gustavo Gutierrez, is credited with coining the phrase, Liberation theology, in his 1971 book The Theology of Liberation, where he called on the church to free the poor from “unjust and degrading conditions.” The Catholic Church is still the official religion for many Latin American nation-states. Some liberation theologians have used violence against Latin American governments, resulting in some Catholic leaders opposition to the movement because it emphasizes material concerns instead of spiritual concerns. Some theologians have even been referred to as Marxists or communists because their concerns are about class struggle.

Not surprisingly, some theologians’ ideas do coincide with some of the ideas of Marx’s social analysis, in the sense that oppression is political, and exploitation is economic and “after life” experiences i.e. eschatology, are dependent upon actions in the present. “True, liberation theology is framed religiously—in terms of Christian, not Marxist eschatology . . .liberation theology might well be the vehicle for the church’s absorption of Marxism.” (Spickard 2002: 2) The social analyses of real ecumenical or equalitarian existence; the analyses of specific time and space, the dynamic and elastic interactions between “those who have and those who have not.”

This basically says some liberation theologists joined the Marxist revolutions, not that Marxist revolutions were fueled by liberation theology, let alone Gutierrez. Of the cases I've heard of this, none of these priests weren't excommunicated.

4) This link is just a reflection. I stumbled across it earlier, when I tried to find a connection between Gutierrez and the SL. It basically has two separate passages....one where the author says, "I remember sitting somewhere in the dark while the SL bombed the power station". The other passage, quite a bit later, speaks of how he "laughed with Gustavo Gutierrez", because this head of a major theological movement, was a small parish pastor in his hometown.

5) The fifth link is the most interesting. What it says is that Marxists warp the vision of liberation theology:

Liberation theology, a high respected doctrine based upon Jesus’ compassion for the poor expressed in Luke 4:18-23, preached by giants like Bishop Gustavo Gutierrez of Peru, is distorted by secular Marxist intellectuals into a justification for armed guerrilla warfare. This idea re-opens the old Donatist heresy condemned by the Council of Nicea in 325 AD, and by Pope John Paul II in 1991 and 1993. Theologically, this doctrine assumes that Jesus of Nazareth can be separated from the Trinity and made into a guerrilla warfare hero figure, the 4th century Greek concept here being homo-ousous, or Jesus apart from the Trinity, in place of homo-iousous, or Jesus subsumed into the Trinity.

-TheE-

[Skirmisher]

E, as i said before, the problem was not simply the words, but the timing of the same.

Its one thing to sit here safely and debate these issues, but another quite different when they are being used while various civil wars are ongoing not only in that very country, but in others on the same continent.

And he may not be responsible for those who used his words for their own purposes, but I havent seen any links so far showing a public record of him clearly condeming the actions of Sendero and their apparent misuse of his theories either.

[TheEschaton]

Would Martin Luther King need to come out and say people who killed white people "because of his message" were not following said message?

I mean, if you READ any liberation theology, or what Gustavo Gutierrez has said/done in his life, you know he doesn't promote these things.

-TheE-

[Skirmisher]

Yeah, that'll do it just fine.