Randomville

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
GigaBook.com
Advanced search  

News:

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7   Go Down

Author Topic: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?  (Read 13577 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

daytime drinking

  • City Elder
  • Posts: 1,758
Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
« Reply #60 on: September 09, 2012, 09:52:34 AM »

riddle me this: for behaviors that are the same (cheating the government for personal gain), why are welfare cheats demonized while those who find and take advantage of tax loopholes are considered to be stalwarts of the business/finiancial community?

either way, both behaviors are denying revenue from being in the pot for the greater good.

to say welfare cheats are demonized more than the rich taking advantage of tax loopholes, i don't think is correct.  isn't that one of the many occupy movement's objectives?  what about romney's taxes?  i don't hear too much about welfare cheats.  cheating a system and finding a way to keep (legally) your money is different, no?
Logged
poach eggs, not elephants

Butter

  • Suffering from early-onset douchiness
  • City Elder
  • Posts: 10,170
Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
« Reply #61 on: September 10, 2012, 07:30:08 AM »

to say welfare cheats are demonized more than the rich taking advantage of tax loopholes, i don't think is correct.  isn't that one of the many occupy movement's objectives?  what about romney's taxes?  i don't hear too much about welfare cheats.  cheating a system and finding a way to keep (legally) your money is different, no?

Are you kidding?  There is a whole cottage industry made out of the fact that people on welfare are "leeches on society".
Logged

foolsgold

  • City Elder
  • Posts: 2,601
  • To the East...Blackward
    • Teabaggin'
Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
« Reply #62 on: September 10, 2012, 08:49:26 AM »

you ever read the grapes of wrath?  even in the depression people tried to better their situation. 

That's a terrible example to support your arguments. 

One of the few times the Joads/et al experienced a sense of dignity during the entire journey west was....wait for it....at a government camp.  The rest of the time, they were used and abused by the free market (and the police forces backing them up.  And, if they had access to decent healthcare, then perhaps Grandpa, Grandma and baby Rose of Sharon would have lived.
Logged
Why there's all these ugly mans on my TV screen?  I wrap my head with foil so I don't catch them beams.

Zafer Kaya

  • City Elder
  • Posts: 3,748
Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
« Reply #63 on: September 10, 2012, 11:29:18 AM »

I would say poor people are lazier in certain ways.  Because it's easy to work hard when every time you work hard you are rewarded.  It's learned behavior-- you work hard, you get shit.  So next time you want shit, you work hard.  On the other hand, if you work your ass off or you see other people working their ass off and it comes to crap, then you lose your incentive to work hard. 

It's like those lab experiments they do on animals where they give them random shocks and after awhile they just stop doing anything.  There's a evolutionary/biological explanation for depression.  It's better to conserve your energy for reproducing than waste it trying to avoid shocks that are seemingly unavoidable.

Also, when I was a kid, one of my friends had an adopted sister that came from a war zone.  She'd lost both parents and just had a really brutal life.  She was four or five and she had no impulse control whatsoever.  If you left food in the refrigerator she would eat all of it.  If you gave her a toy, she would play with it non-stop for two days and break it.  She couldn't get the concept of saving stuff for later.  Her whole mentality was like she kind of expected to die so the concept of "later" had no meaning.  She couldn't associate behaviors with consequences.  There was little you could do to punish her because she had been through so much worse than anything you could do to her.  And she EXPECTED bad things to happen to her, so she couldn't get the concept that something bad happened to her because of something she did and that she could stop it.  She thought bad things happened because that's just the way the world works.

So for me, I guess I understand the idea that poor people are "lazy" to a certain degree and that there really isn't a way to help them just by offering them money or even an opportunity at college or a job or whatever.  I can totally see the viewpoint that a lot of liberal sort of ideals are really just codependent behaviors that don't help anyone.  At the same time, the idea that they are lazy by choice and can be easily fixed by teaching them how to fish is equally an oversimplification.

I really don't know if it matters.  I mean, Tim Tebow annoys the hell out of me and I want to hate the dude.  I disagree with his religion and his politics (to the extent he states them).  But honestly, he's a better person than I will probably ever be.  If everyone did as much shit for unfortunate people and just generally cared like he seems to, would we honestly need all of these government social programs?  Or if we had government social programs staffed with people like Tim Tebow would they really be so costly and ineffective?

Markalot

  • Citizen
  • Posts: 365
Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
« Reply #64 on: September 10, 2012, 01:03:00 PM »

Wow prole, really good post.
Logged
-- Mark

notoriouspbake

  • Citizen
  • Posts: 383
Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
« Reply #65 on: September 10, 2012, 09:40:57 PM »

riddle me this: for behaviors that are the same (cheating the government for personal gain), why are welfare cheats demonized while those who find and take advantage of tax loopholes are considered to be stalwarts of the business/finiancial community?

either way, both behaviors are denying revenue from being in the pot for the greater good.

to say welfare cheats are demonized more than the rich taking advantage of tax loopholes, i don't think is correct.  isn't that one of the many occupy movement's objectives?  what about romney's taxes?  i don't hear too much about welfare cheats.  cheating a system and finding a way to keep (legally) your money is different, no?

from my little bit of knowledge, both behaviors don't necessarily break the law, but both avoid the intent of the law (minus the obvious law breaking on both sides of the argument). they seem equivalent to me.

i never quite understood the occupy movement, and am not sure of their overall goals or what specifically they're protesting. more power to them, i guess, but that's something i'd never do: camp in the middle of a city for some vague ideology.

nice post prole. low social/economic issues are very complex.
Logged

daytime drinking

  • City Elder
  • Posts: 1,758
Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
« Reply #66 on: September 10, 2012, 10:35:10 PM »

you ever read the grapes of wrath?  even in the depression people tried to better their situation. 

That's a terrible example to support your arguments. 

One of the few times the Joads/et al experienced a sense of dignity during the entire journey west was....wait for it....at a government camp.  The rest of the time, they were used and abused by the free market (and the police forces backing them up.  And, if they had access to decent healthcare, then perhaps Grandpa, Grandma and baby Rose of Sharon would have lived.

that was an extraordinary time in our nation's history.  it was a natural disaster and they used the government aid effectively and tried and tried to better their situation, but they woulda been just fine camping along the road, like they tried.  i don't think it was the free market that fucked em over as much as it was some good ole' fashioned bigotry.  "ya damn okie's. why'n ya go back ta where ya came frem cuz seats tak'n.  now git!" 
Logged
poach eggs, not elephants

Zafer Kaya

  • City Elder
  • Posts: 3,748
Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
« Reply #67 on: September 11, 2012, 12:23:00 AM »

Huh?  Did you read the same book as I did?

Ron Paul jizzes in his pants when he thinks about the conditions in the US immediately prior to the Great Depression.  Banks weren't regulated, the stock market was soaring due to private investment, there was no civil rights act, and we had the gold standard.

That entire point of that book is that the protagonists suffering was NOT due to natural disasters but rather because of people's selfishness.  It was a class struggle between poor people like the Joads and rich land owners.  And the rich had the wealth to stomp all over poor people, including using physical force to deter unionization.  The bigotry in that book did not stem from the government but from private actors, which is the kind of bigotry conservative libertarians are A-OK with or wouldn't consider bigotry at all.

I mean, there's plenty of bones you can pick with that book, but the intent is pretty clear.  In fact, probably the biggest bone you could pick is that it's pretty much just Socialist propaganda.  I don't know how you could read that book and somehow think it supports Ayn Rand's theory.  They couldn't be more opposite, and neither work is exactly subtle in their message.

daytime drinking

  • City Elder
  • Posts: 1,758
Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
« Reply #68 on: September 13, 2012, 01:24:40 PM »

Huh?  Did you read the same book as I did?

Ron Paul jizzes in his pants when he thinks about the conditions in the US immediately prior to the Great Depression.  Banks werien't regulated, the stock market was soaring due to private investment, there was no civil rights act, and we had the gold standard.

i'm certainly not going to try and change your mind about ron paul.  although i do love history, i'm not currently confident enough to talk of the conditions that led up to the great depression.  but i'm sure in hindsight, dr. paul (as you said he'd love those conditions) would not have wanted any part of it.   unless you're suggesting that his principles are the perfect storm for an economic depression and the geezer's too damn stubborn to change his ways.  god damn elderly corrupting our nation's ways.  didn't we learn from reagan?   

Quote
That entire point of that book is that the protagonists suffering was NOT due to natural disasters but rather because of people's selfishness.  It was a class struggle between poor people like the Joads and rich land owners.  And the rich had the wealth to stomp all over poor people, including using physical force to deter unionization.  The bigotry in that book did not stem from the government but from private actors, which is the kind of bigotry conservative libertarians are A-OK with or wouldn't consider bigotry at all.

that seems like a simplified cliff note version.  so if there wasn't the dust bowl, tom joad walks out of prison and finds his family just a-ok?  since there was the dust bowl, which infected an entire region, should the banks just say, "fuck.  uhmm.... what the hell y'all is cool.  we got all kinds of people's money tied up in yer farms.  but... goddamn dust bowl.  nuttin can do 'bout it.  y'all don't worry 'bout a thang."  would you hire a pool boy if you didn't have a pool?  that's kind of a reverse analogy, and wouldn't work if you were a foxy single mother without a pool.  i wholeheartedly agree that the bigots were private actors.  but they (the police) were working with the businesses and the businesses were bigots too.  there seemed to be a statewide fatwa on anyone who wasn't already working in california.  even the gas station attendants hated the migration.  that is not libertarianism.  this is one of my favorite ayn rand quotes:  " force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins."  and in the joad's case, that was also literal and nobody forced them out there either.  they were fucked, even when they started getting wages.  i detest that that was capitalism.  yes, you can make somebody work for the wages you set, but in no way can you bully people.  what the joad's experienced wasn't laissez faire capitalism.  it was anything but the antithesis of libertarianism.  if you're wondering, by that i mean lack of freedom.  yes, they stayed in gov't camps.  but we're they actively seeking work?  did they want to work? were they using these camps as a means to an end?  i think it's the most incredible story ever told. 

Quote
I mean, there's plenty of bones you can pick with that book, but the intent is pretty clear.  In fact, probably the biggest bone you could pick is that it's pretty much just Socialist propaganda.  I don't know how you could read that book and somehow think it supports Ayn Rand's theory.  They couldn't be more opposite, and neither work is exactly subtle in their message.

i'm well aware that there is some tinge of socialism.  i'm not adverse to reading about reactionaries.  i'm not adverse to their feelings in the situations they found themselves in.  i understand their plight the best i can.  i even empathize.  my entire point is the joad families' opposition to struggle.  the hell or high water attitude that endured them.  i can read a book any way i choose.  i didn't read it the way steinbeck probably intended, but i drew my own conclusion.  i didn't set out trying to compare the two. 
Logged
poach eggs, not elephants

Zafer Kaya

  • City Elder
  • Posts: 3,748
Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
« Reply #69 on: September 13, 2012, 02:44:01 PM »

The economic conditions are merely the backdrop to the real conflict in the book, which to me is about the Joads' struggle to maintain dignity/pride/sense of belonging/contentment NOT their quest to make a few bucks.

You can interpret the book however you like personally, but when you use your interpretation to illustrate a political principle then no one is going to know what you are talking about because they will view it in a completely different context than you.

Ayn Rand is not truly a libertarian, by the way.  She's an "objectivist," which is her own crazy mish-mash of certain capitalist, libertarian, evolutionary theories filtered through her own massive ego and messed up psychology.

The main reason I think Rand sucks is because it's so easy to reject her goals outright.  Very few people would actually view the Randian ideal of happiness as desirable.  The protagonists' relationships with each other are totally bizarre.  Men get to beat women, because the women don't really mind it if the dude is just that badass.  No one has any kids.  No one retires.  No one ever goes out to watch a sports game or a movie.  No one kicks back with a beer or takes up gardening as a hobby.  The characters in that book are already ubermensch's who devote every last second of their time working to become even MORE ubermensch-y.  Even to the extent where the protagonists are in constant conflict with each other.  Their only pleasure comes from the struggle to be top dog. 

They are comic book superheroes.  Only most comic book superheroes suffer greatly because they are trying to make things better for other people.  In Rand's books, the superheroes largely suffer because they REFUSE to make things better for other people or even for each other.  Who wants to hang out with a bunch of egomaniacal workaholics who just brag about how cool they are all the time?

The kind of thing you are talking about is really just Adam Smith's model of capitalism, which he presents with far more nuanced arguments.  Capitalism to him is about the sharing.  I can bake bread, you can hunt deer.  Let's trade so we can have the best of both worlds.  It's a cooperative, teaming up venture.  By definition, we are both happier because if we weren't both happier we wouldn't do it.  It's only when someone is FORCED to do something that the equation gets messed up.

In Adam Smith's world, everyone ends up happier and at the end of the day that rising tide raises all boats so everyone gets to kick back and relax.  In Rand's world some people are better than others, and the good ones let the bad ones starve and everyone races unceasingly to try and achieve some pinnacle of human achievement which who knows what that even is?  My idea of happiness is not to spend my entire life trying to make the best steel possible so I can get one over on that Galt dude.

daytime drinking

  • City Elder
  • Posts: 1,758
Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
« Reply #70 on: September 13, 2012, 04:04:15 PM »

The economic conditions are merely the backdrop to the real conflict in the book, which to me is about the Joads' struggle to maintain dignity/pride/sense of belonging/contentment NOT their quest to make a few bucks.

what precipitating that?  obviously the real struggle was their journey, but why did they have to journey?  and how you gonna eat if you ain't got a few bucks?  so pride and all that takes precedent over trying to stay alive?   

Quote
You can interpret the book however you like personally, but when you use your interpretation to illustrate a political principle then no one is going to know what you are talking about because they will view it in a completely different context than you.

i really wasn't trying to illustrate a political principle.  it just became that way.  all i was initially trying to say is that them joad's were some resilient motherfuckers and them people on the government doll today wouldn't stand a chance.   maybe i was

Quote
Ayn Rand is not truly a libertarian, by the way.  She's an "objectivist," which is her own crazy mish-mash of certain capitalist, libertarian, evolutionary theories filtered through her own massive ego and messed up psychology.

i don't think you've read atlas shrugged.  if i'm wrong, correct me.   

Quote
The main reason I think Rand sucks is because it's so easy to reject her goals outright.  Very few people would actually view the Randian ideal of happiness as desirable.  The protagonists' relationships with each other are totally bizarre.  Men get to beat women, because the women don't really mind it if the dude is just that badass.  No one has any kids.  No one retires.  No one ever goes out to watch a sports game or a movie.  No one kicks back with a beer or takes up gardening as a hobby.  The characters in that book are already ubermensch's who devote every last second of their time working to become even MORE ubermensch-y.  Even to the extent where the protagonists are in constant conflict with each other.  Their only pleasure comes from the struggle to be top dog. 
 

ok.  i admit the rape scene in fountainhead was disturbing.  if that's what you're referring too.  howard roark was rather violent initially.  i can only assume it was allegorical to how "man" (and she uses the term loosely) can get want he wants.  if that's the case, she put it rather bluntly.  i cannot imagine she condones the abject beating of women.  for the rest of your post, it's a work of fiction.  it's to perpetuate her philosophy.  in all of those 1100 pages, not much time lapses.  hard to be concerned about the yankees and having kids when the world's falling apart. 

Quote
They are comic book superheroes.  Only most comic book superheroes suffer greatly because they are trying to make things better for other people.  In Rand's books, the superheroes largely suffer because they REFUSE to make things better for other people or even for each other.  Who wants to hang out with a bunch of egomaniacal workaholics who just brag about how cool they are all the time?

ha!!  they are trying to make things better for people!  go on strike, take menial jobs and see how "leadership" propels.  she was attempting to tear down a bureaucratic regime and just let people be.  she was giving them a choice. be part of the problem, or be part of the solution. the "leaders" see john galt as their savior after his speech and they don't like his conditions.  cake anyone?  you haven't read the book! 

Quote
The kind of thing you are talking about is really just Adam Smith's model of capitalism, which he presents with far more nuanced arguments.  Capitalism to him is about the sharing.  I can bake bread, you can hunt deer.  Let's trade so we can have the best of both worlds.  It's a cooperative, teaming up venture.  By definition, we are both happier because if we weren't both happier we wouldn't do it.  It's only when someone is FORCED to do something that the equation gets messed up.

more nuanced?  how dare you!   ;D  sounds like the birth of society, which is the only available term of survival, for most people.

Quote
In Adam Smith's world, everyone ends up happier and at the end of the day that rising tide raises all boats so everyone gets to kick back and relax. 

right.  a system that would guarantee no folks left behind.  what economic model can achieve that?  what economic model has better principles?

Quote
In Rand's world some people are better than others, and the good ones let the bad ones starve and everyone races unceasingly to try and achieve some pinnacle of human achievement which who knows what that even is?  My idea of happiness is not to spend my entire life trying to make the best steel possible so I can get one over on that Galt dude.

per your last statement, in atlas shrugged the rational don't out do each other.  they founded utopia, wherein each according to their needs based upon what they can provide.  but it's more about mortality.  but she's an atheist.  wouldn't hank rearden's steel be like the pursuit of hank aaron's 714? 
Logged
poach eggs, not elephants

Zafer Kaya

  • City Elder
  • Posts: 3,748
Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
« Reply #71 on: September 13, 2012, 06:05:05 PM »

i don't think you've read atlas shrugged.  if i'm wrong, correct me.  

Yes, I have read it.  I was a philosophy major in college.  Have you? :laugh:

Ayn Rand hated libertarians.  She thought they were slacker hippies who ripped off and watered down her ideas, nevermind the fact that libertarian principles had been around for hundreds of years.

Libertarianism is (or was) pretty much based on live-and-let-live.  Ayn Rand was extremely intolerant.  Selfishness=virtue, compromise=sin, lazy=evil.  This put her at odds with most of the libertarians at the time, because she more or less wanted to invade every country and kill them all for not being John Galt-ish enough.  This led to "neo-libertarianism" which is the notion that the US is made up of mostly John Galts so we should not have a government of looters telling us what to do.  But the rest of the world is filled with lazy, blank-thinkers who probably like Victorian architecture and we should exterminate them right quick as they are evil and will inevitably try and destroy us.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2012, 08:25:56 PM by Zafer Kaya »
Logged

daytime drinking

  • City Elder
  • Posts: 1,758
Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
« Reply #72 on: September 14, 2012, 09:46:22 AM »

i don't think you've read atlas shrugged.  if i'm wrong, correct me.  

Yes, I have read it.  I was a philosophy major in college.  Have you? :laugh:

Ayn Rand hated libertarians.  She thought they were slacker hippies who ripped off and watered down her ideas, nevermind the fact that libertarian principles had been around for hundreds of years.

Libertarianism is (or was) pretty much based on live-and-let-live.  Ayn Rand was extremely intolerant.  Selfishness=virtue, compromise=sin, lazy=evil.  This put her at odds with most of the libertarians at the time, because she more or less wanted to invade every country and kill them all for not being John Galt-ish enough.  This led to "neo-libertarianism" which is the notion that the US is made up of mostly John Galts so we should not have a government of looters telling us what to do.  But the rest of the world is filled with lazy, blank-thinkers who probably like Victorian architecture and we should exterminate them right quick as they are evil and will inevitably try and destroy us.

where do you get your crazy theories?  the woman was against a conscripted draft, deems force evil.  it would run contrary to her doctrine.  her ideals were for the individual man, not a state.  i'd be more than happy to read how she approved of imperialism.  did you extrapolate that from atlas?
Logged
poach eggs, not elephants

Zafer Kaya

  • City Elder
  • Posts: 3,748
Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
« Reply #73 on: September 14, 2012, 10:26:03 AM »

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_campus_libertarians

It's not that Rand approved of imperialism.  Well... she did kinda.  But not really.

Rand was against the draft, because it had the possibility of "enslaving" objectivist, capitalist, awesome people such as herself.  And she was against the war in Vietnam because it put draftees in harms way.  The Vietnamese?  Fuck 'em.  You can kill as many of them as you want.  They weren't objectivists so they don't count. 

She was heavily influenced by the Nietschze, and all the protagonists in her novels are ubermensches.  They aren't necessarily going out of their way to hurt people, but they don't really care.  They are certainly NOT trying to help other people.  They owe no duty to each other because they are all fully-realized ubermensches who can take care of themselves.   And they owe no duty to the plain old mensches of the world because they're just crap.  You couldn't help them if you tried, they're unimportant, and so really why bother? 

So yeah, Rand was against violence, but squashing an ant that bit you doesn't really count.  Which is how she viewed pretty much any other country or person that didn't think like her.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2012, 11:04:37 AM by Zafer Kaya »
Logged

daytime drinking

  • City Elder
  • Posts: 1,758
Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
« Reply #74 on: September 14, 2012, 12:02:29 PM »

damn. she certainly had a beef with the libertarian party.  she sounds bitter.  though i imagine any philosopher would feel their ideas blasphemized.  whatever, those are her words.  but as i said before, her ideals are for the betterment of man, not a state.  enhance the state through good men.  but what i asked of you is the unilateral slaughter of state leaders replaced by john galt. 
Logged
poach eggs, not elephants
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7   Go Up