Hijinx
Well-Known Member
Thank you.
You were never a GOP er.
You were just registered that way.
Thank you.
You were never a GOP er.
You were just registered that way.
Not true. It was only a few years ago that Larry was a *hard* right-winger. Against abortion, against same-sex marriage, and not particularly interested in paying for illegal immigrants and their educational endeavors. He also felt that everyone should get a bill for their taxes instead of having them taken out of their paycheck; the idea being that if we actually had to *pay* that bill, we would be more interested in making our Congresstards stop taxing us to death.
Not true. It was only a few years ago that Larry was a *hard* right-winger. Against abortion, against same-sex marriage, and not particularly interested in paying for illegal immigrants and their educational endeavors. He also felt that everyone should get a bill for their taxes instead of having them taken out of their paycheck; the idea being that if we actually had to *pay* that bill, we would be more interested in making our Congresstards stop taxing us to death.
You were never a GOP er.
You were just registered that way.
Did Donald Sutherland sneak a pod into the house and replace him?
I feel like you just said that I was never really part of the Klan. Not really.
Thank you.
You're welcome.
I never disagreed with this part of your point. The part with which I disagree is whether or not liking parts of the past means you must embrace everything about that time. From my first post in this thread I said most of the kids today are ok - but I also said those who aren't are worse every generation. Like most generations, it seems, the people pushing and pulling the wagon outnumber and accept those who are going for the ride in the wagon.
Some lose faith when their prayer goes unanswered.
I don't mean to argue that if you liked the westward expansion, that the US ended up dominating the middle of the continent, that you then must like genocide. Nor do I argue that if you like the polio vaccine that you must also embrace the destruction of 1,000's of monkey's to develop it or that you must think that the segregation Brown v. Board of Ed ended the year before was just peachy. What I am saying, in direct response to this ongoing, old as time theme of todays kids are useless, pale comparisons to their hearty forbearers is complete, utter nonsense. I mean to put things into context. It was NOT necessary to due mass murder on the natives to take over. It was simply expeditious for mean men looking to make their fortune. It WOULD have happened with out without that. The segregation of Alabama may well have long been a thing of the past, died of it's own weight, had the North and South not been lead by people who saw war as the way to end slavery, an institution expanded by the cotton gin and doomed by it, were it only given time. The war was the way to long term anger and division, not national progress.
This blanket analogy of 'things were better in the good old days' is dumb, thoughtless balderdash and it's annoying because it's the core tripe of the Trump era. You can't say 'make America great again' and be about all the good things absent the context of the bad. For white men, the world was a better place, in general, in the 1950's because women and blacks were not part of the competition for jobs, promotions, raises, respect and wealth accumulation. If you, not you, generic 'you' say things were better then BECAUSE of that, as I personally know one Trump fanatic thinks, that could at least be discussed and not swept away. Even Noam Chomskey understands WHY whites and white men, the blue collar, are threatened by today; they're the ones who've lost the most to immigrants and blacks. It only makes sense that those who pay for it, and have not seen it replaced by other opportunities, would object.
And there have ALWAYS been lazy, useless people in large numbers. This is nothing new. Rome collapsed of it. Prohibition was built on the fear of it. Teddy wanted specifically for us to build our military and threaten to use it because he thought the nation had grown soft. Human nature changes no more than the nature of snakes and snails and monkeys and bears. I will conceded that what has changed over the years, starting in the industrial revolution, is tools, the direct impact on needing less people to push and pull. But, again, that has nothing to do with human nature. A steam shovel IS going to outwork 100 men. A plane is going to beat a wagon. A combine is going to feed more people. Computers do make many other jobs obsolete.
Lack of need for work is a central theme of mine to one of the, perhaps THE, major challenge we face; a world without work. We do NOT need all these people for food, shelter and clothing. More people, less need for them, is not something the majority is going to work their way out of. It's just not. Our culture has LONG been formed around things we don't need to survive. Most of what we do is useless other that as a vehicle for the few to get rich and to keep as many as possible occupied and on a financial leash. That's not good or bad in and of itself. It simply is an observation. FDR's grand economic plan was war. Kids today probably aren't gonna fall for that.
I have faith prayers, by definition, are always answered and that sometimes the answer is 'no'. Or 'maybe' or 'please restate your wish' or 'yes'. Or 'get the #### out of here'.
Philosophically, most of the kids "get" that they have to earn their keep, .
Let's see if I can simplify... you see the world as having plenty but you do not acknowledge the world only has the tangibles because there are those to work to provide. I think at some point you have to go back and read "The Little Red Hen" again.Ah, but they do NOT have to earn their keep. If we start with a farm, no store in reach, as the basis for life, you have to grow it, kill it, process it, make it, store it, take care of it or you don't have it, then, by that standard, kids today do not need to earn their keep. MOST of us do not. Food, shelter, clothing, we have WAY more than enough for everyone. In the past, migration or a technological advance or some combination of the two has kept that need, those abilities, more or less intact. But, no more. No one on this planet is starving or without clothing or shelter BECAUSE we don't have enough. We have plenty and want is purely artificial now. Everywhere.
Let's see if I can simplify... you see the world as having plenty but you do not acknowledge the world only has the tangibles because there are those to work to provide. I think at some point you have to go back and read "The Little Red Hen" again.
Ah, but they do NOT have to earn their keep. If we start with a farm, no store in reach, as the basis for life, you have to grow it, kill it, process it, make it, store it, take care of it or you don't have it, then, by that standard, kids today do not need to earn their keep. MOST of us do not. Food, shelter, clothing, we have WAY more than enough for everyone. In the past, migration or a technological advance or some combination of the two has kept that need, those abilities, more or less intact. But, no more. No one on this planet is starving or without clothing or shelter BECAUSE we don't have enough. We have plenty and want is purely artificial now. Everywhere.
That's the example you wanna use, really? That a highly successful, independent chicken makes enough bread to feed everyone on the farm but was unable or unwilling to negotiate to get some help, help, clearly, she didn't need in the first place, and then, sits there, smugly, feeding her babies while watching everyone else starve to death? Because they, ostensibly, did absolutely NOTHING the entire time, from planting to harvest to processing to eating? They did NOTHING. No cow #### to create manure? No worm aerated the soil? No bee pollinated anything? No insects were consumed by the hen until the bread was ready? No companionship? No keeping the hawks away from her while she worked? No music or entertainment?
Maybe this is what I really don't get around here; this is how you people actually think. Like children.
The little red hen CAN feed everyone. And chooses not to. Because she's a narrow minded, entirely self interested entity that sees NO value in anyone or anything else UNLESS they are doing specifically what she wants them to do.
Well, they DO have to earn their keep, because all of that stuff belongs to someone else. If they want it for themselves, they need to earn it.
So, if I read you correctly, you believe that we will continue to create and innovate, produce and cultivate, supply and restock, and everyone will be equal in those distributions of supplies while no one needs to actually do the work for it? The workers will simply do it out of the goodness of their hearts (since they don't HAVE to work, just like the people they're supplying)? Or, will we have a team that determines who must perform the slave labor?