Epistemic Closure on the Right Takes a Direct Hit

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Epistemic Closure on the Right Takes a Direct Hit

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Seems to me the Takers won.

    [/QUOTE]

    That sentence only proves you have succumbed to the epistemic closure I'm talking about...

    ...provided you actually believe it.

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Epistemic Closure on the Right Takes a Direct Hit

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Seems to me the Takers won.

    [/QUOTE]

    That sentence only proves you have succumbed to the epistemic closure I'm talking about...

    ...provided you actually believe it.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    More people sitting inn the cart than pulling it, and the people sitting in the cart were just handed a whip.

    That you don't see that tells me you have succumed to the something for nothing mentality that has infected the left.

    You probably believe that the rich should be targeted for more taxes - not because it will help, but out of "fairness".  That's scary, that's our government meting out punishment on law-abiding citizens for being too good, too successful.  and you voted for it.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName99. Show UserName99's posts

    Re: Epistemic Closure on the Right Takes a Direct Hit

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Seems to me the Takers won.

    [/QUOTE]

    That sentence only proves you have succumbed to the epistemic closure I'm talking about...

    ...provided you actually believe it.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    More people sitting inn the cart than pulling it, and the people sitting in the cart were just handed a whip.

    That you don't see that tells me you have succumed to the something for nothing mentality that has infected the left.

    You probably believe that the rich should be targeted for more taxes - not because it will help, but out of "fairness".  That's scary, that's our government meting out punishment on law-abiding citizens for being too good, too successful.  and you voted for it.

    [/QUOTE]


    Curious....In your opinion, is a single mother who works a job paying $20k ($10 bucks an hour) per year "sitting in the cart" or a productive member of society?

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Epistemic Closure on the Right Takes a Direct Hit

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Seems to me the Takers won.

    [/QUOTE]

    That sentence only proves you have succumbed to the epistemic closure I'm talking about...

    ...provided you actually believe it.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    More people sitting inn the cart than pulling it, and the people sitting in the cart were just handed a whip.

    That you don't see that tells me you have succumed to the something for nothing mentality that has infected the left.

    You probably believe that the rich should be targeted for more taxes - not because it will help, but out of "fairness".  That's scary, that's our government meting out punishment on law-abiding citizens for being too good, too successful.  and you voted for it.

    [/QUOTE]


    The demos prove you wrong.  Lots of wealthy people voted for Obama this time and last.  Many are hardly what anyone could call "takers".

    Call it "fairness", if that makes you feel better.  But income inequality is indeed real and poorly skewed, and that path is unsustainable for everyone involved.  It's about giving everyone real opportunities to share in the responsibility and rewards of preserving our society.

    Provide more opportunity and a better education, and people will make more.  When people make more, they spend more.  When they spend more, everyone benefits, as they rightly should.

    Check your history.  There used to be an unspoken social contract among the ultra-wealthy to build libraries, parks, museums and schools.  They knew that philanthropy benefitted the whole and edified their future workers.

    But when they tried to monopolize industries, Teddy knew he had to stop it for the sake of everyone.  He knew that some lands were part of the public trust and therefore not for sale.  He knew that capitalism is only the means to an end and not the end itself.

    I think part of the problem with Romney was that his business 'experience' was not apparent; there was no larger benefit that anyone could see...only huge sums stashed away off-shore (true) where it could help...whom, exactly?

    Carnegie famously said (paraphrasing), "The greatest astonishment of my life was the discovery that the people who do the work are not the people who get rich."

    The denial of this basic maxim is at the root of the bubble you're in.

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Epistemic Closure on the Right Takes a Direct Hit

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Seems to me the Takers won.

    [/QUOTE]

    That sentence only proves you have succumbed to the epistemic closure I'm talking about...

    ...provided you actually believe it.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    More people sitting inn the cart than pulling it, and the people sitting in the cart were just handed a whip.

    That you don't see that tells me you have succumed to the something for nothing mentality that has infected the left.

    You probably believe that the rich should be targeted for more taxes - not because it will help, but out of "fairness".  That's scary, that's our government meting out punishment on law-abiding citizens for being too good, too successful.  and you voted for it.

    [/QUOTE]


    The demos prove you wrong.  Lots of wealthy people voted for Obama this time and last.  Many are hardly what anyone could call "takers".

    Call it "fairness", if that makes you feel better.  But income inequality is indeed real and poorly skewed, and that path is unsustainable for everyone involved.  It's about giving everyone real opportunities to share in the responsibility and rewards of preserving our society.

    Provide more opportunity and a better education, and people will make more.  When people make more, they spend more.  When they spend more, everyone benefits, as they rightly should.

    Check your history.  There used to be an unspoken social contract among the ultra-wealthy to build libraries, parks, museums and schools.  They knew that philanthropy benefitted the whole and edified their future workers.

    But when they tried to monopolize industries, Teddy knew he had to stop it for the sake of everyone.  He knew that some lands were part of the public trust and therefore not for sale.  He knew that capitalism is only the means to an end and not the end itself.

    I think part of the problem with Romney was that his business 'experience' was not apparent; there was no larger benefit that anyone could see...only huge sums stashed away off-shore (true) where it could help...whom, exactly?

    Carnegie famously said (paraphrasing), "The greatest astonishment of my life was the discovery that the people who do the work are not the people who get rich."

    The denial of this basic maxim is at the root of the bubble you're in.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    That some rich people voted for Obama is your proof?

    Plenty of stupid rich people.  Heck, I worked for some.

    You lean on unspoken social contracts for the rich to build schools, libraries, museums, and when they don't build the ones you want, then you tax them as punishment.

    But the largest problem is your fluid mixing of economics and political policy.  Your ideas don't work economically, I've shown it on various issues.  your repsonse seems to be "So what? Gonna punish the rich anyways."

    Your worldview is one that I find makes lots of sense in the university, and almost no sense in the real world.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Epistemic Closure on the Right Takes a Direct Hit

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Seems to me the Takers won.

    [/QUOTE]

    That sentence only proves you have succumbed to the epistemic closure I'm talking about...

    ...provided you actually believe it.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    More people sitting inn the cart than pulling it, and the people sitting in the cart were just handed a whip.

    That you don't see that tells me you have succumed to the something for nothing mentality that has infected the left.

    You probably believe that the rich should be targeted for more taxes - not because it will help, but out of "fairness".  That's scary, that's our government meting out punishment on law-abiding citizens for being too good, too successful.  and you voted for it.

    [/QUOTE]


    The demos prove you wrong.  Lots of wealthy people voted for Obama this time and last.  Many are hardly what anyone could call "takers".

    Call it "fairness", if that makes you feel better.  But income inequality is indeed real and poorly skewed, and that path is unsustainable for everyone involved.  It's about giving everyone real opportunities to share in the responsibility and rewards of preserving our society.

    Provide more opportunity and a better education, and people will make more.  When people make more, they spend more.  When they spend more, everyone benefits, as they rightly should.

    Check your history.  There used to be an unspoken social contract among the ultra-wealthy to build libraries, parks, museums and schools.  They knew that philanthropy benefitted the whole and edified their future workers.

    But when they tried to monopolize industries, Teddy knew he had to stop it for the sake of everyone.  He knew that some lands were part of the public trust and therefore not for sale.  He knew that capitalism is only the means to an end and not the end itself.

    I think part of the problem with Romney was that his business 'experience' was not apparent; there was no larger benefit that anyone could see...only huge sums stashed away off-shore (true) where it could help...whom, exactly?

    Carnegie famously said (paraphrasing), "The greatest astonishment of my life was the discovery that the people who do the work are not the people who get rich."

    The denial of this basic maxim is at the root of the bubble you're in.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    That some rich people voted for Obama is your proof?

    Plenty of stupid rich people.  Heck, I worked for some.

    You lean on unspoken social contracts for the rich to build schools, libraries, museums, and when they don't build the ones you want, then you tax them as punishment.

    But the largest problem is your fluid mixing of economics and political policy.  Your ideas don't work economically, I've shown it on various issues.  your repsonse seems to be "So what? Gonna punish the rich anyways."

    Your worldview is one that I find makes lots of sense in the university, and almost no sense in the real world.

    [/QUOTE]

    You completely ignored what I said.  We're discussing it here only because economic policy touches everything else. 

    Your comment about "stupid rich" only works against you.  It's patently ridiculous and unrealistic.  Like you, still in that bubble of misdirected indignation.

    My 'worldview' has nothing to do with your bitter rejection of basic logic.

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Epistemic Closure on the Right Takes a Direct Hit

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Seems to me the Takers won.

    [/QUOTE]

    That sentence only proves you have succumbed to the epistemic closure I'm talking about...

    ...provided you actually believe it.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    More people sitting inn the cart than pulling it, and the people sitting in the cart were just handed a whip.

    That you don't see that tells me you have succumed to the something for nothing mentality that has infected the left.

    You probably believe that the rich should be targeted for more taxes - not because it will help, but out of "fairness".  That's scary, that's our government meting out punishment on law-abiding citizens for being too good, too successful.  and you voted for it.

    [/QUOTE]


    The demos prove you wrong.  Lots of wealthy people voted for Obama this time and last.  Many are hardly what anyone could call "takers".

    Call it "fairness", if that makes you feel better.  But income inequality is indeed real and poorly skewed, and that path is unsustainable for everyone involved.  It's about giving everyone real opportunities to share in the responsibility and rewards of preserving our society.

    Provide more opportunity and a better education, and people will make more.  When people make more, they spend more.  When they spend more, everyone benefits, as they rightly should.

    Check your history.  There used to be an unspoken social contract among the ultra-wealthy to build libraries, parks, museums and schools.  They knew that philanthropy benefitted the whole and edified their future workers.

    But when they tried to monopolize industries, Teddy knew he had to stop it for the sake of everyone.  He knew that some lands were part of the public trust and therefore not for sale.  He knew that capitalism is only the means to an end and not the end itself.

    I think part of the problem with Romney was that his business 'experience' was not apparent; there was no larger benefit that anyone could see...only huge sums stashed away off-shore (true) where it could help...whom, exactly?

    Carnegie famously said (paraphrasing), "The greatest astonishment of my life was the discovery that the people who do the work are not the people who get rich."

    The denial of this basic maxim is at the root of the bubble you're in.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    That some rich people voted for Obama is your proof?

    Plenty of stupid rich people.  Heck, I worked for some.

    You lean on unspoken social contracts for the rich to build schools, libraries, museums, and when they don't build the ones you want, then you tax them as punishment.

    But the largest problem is your fluid mixing of economics and political policy.  Your ideas don't work economically, I've shown it on various issues.  your repsonse seems to be "So what? Gonna punish the rich anyways."

    Your worldview is one that I find makes lots of sense in the university, and almost no sense in the real world.

    [/QUOTE]

    You completely ignored what I said.  We're discussing it here only because economic policy touches everything else. 

    Your comment about "stupid rich" only works against you.  It's patently ridiculous and unrealistic.  Like you, still in that bubble of misdirected indignation.

    My 'worldview' has nothing to do with your bitter rejection of basic logic.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Logic?  You call what you posted logic?

    No wonder you don't understand my posts.

    Look, Obama is exapnding government, expanding the welfare state.  Some rich people are for that, some are against.

    The rich people, in my analogy are pulling the wagon.  That some are content to pull the wagon at the point of a gun does not make their position right or moral.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Epistemic Closure on the Right Takes a Direct Hit

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Seems to me the Takers won.

    [/QUOTE]

    That sentence only proves you have succumbed to the epistemic closure I'm talking about...

    ...provided you actually believe it.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    More people sitting inn the cart than pulling it, and the people sitting in the cart were just handed a whip.

    That you don't see that tells me you have succumed to the something for nothing mentality that has infected the left.

    You probably believe that the rich should be targeted for more taxes - not because it will help, but out of "fairness".  That's scary, that's our government meting out punishment on law-abiding citizens for being too good, too successful.  and you voted for it.

    [/QUOTE]


    The demos prove you wrong.  Lots of wealthy people voted for Obama this time and last.  Many are hardly what anyone could call "takers".

    Call it "fairness", if that makes you feel better.  But income inequality is indeed real and poorly skewed, and that path is unsustainable for everyone involved.  It's about giving everyone real opportunities to share in the responsibility and rewards of preserving our society.

    Provide more opportunity and a better education, and people will make more.  When people make more, they spend more.  When they spend more, everyone benefits, as they rightly should.

    Check your history.  There used to be an unspoken social contract among the ultra-wealthy to build libraries, parks, museums and schools.  They knew that philanthropy benefitted the whole and edified their future workers.

    But when they tried to monopolize industries, Teddy knew he had to stop it for the sake of everyone.  He knew that some lands were part of the public trust and therefore not for sale.  He knew that capitalism is only the means to an end and not the end itself.

    I think part of the problem with Romney was that his business 'experience' was not apparent; there was no larger benefit that anyone could see...only huge sums stashed away off-shore (true) where it could help...whom, exactly?

    Carnegie famously said (paraphrasing), "The greatest astonishment of my life was the discovery that the people who do the work are not the people who get rich."

    The denial of this basic maxim is at the root of the bubble you're in.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    That some rich people voted for Obama is your proof?

    Plenty of stupid rich people.  Heck, I worked for some.

    You lean on unspoken social contracts for the rich to build schools, libraries, museums, and when they don't build the ones you want, then you tax them as punishment.

    But the largest problem is your fluid mixing of economics and political policy.  Your ideas don't work economically, I've shown it on various issues.  your repsonse seems to be "So what? Gonna punish the rich anyways."

    Your worldview is one that I find makes lots of sense in the university, and almost no sense in the real world.

    [/QUOTE]

    You completely ignored what I said.  We're discussing it here only because economic policy touches everything else. 

    Your comment about "stupid rich" only works against you.  It's patently ridiculous and unrealistic.  Like you, still in that bubble of misdirected indignation.

    My 'worldview' has nothing to do with your bitter rejection of basic logic.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Logic?  You call what you posted logic?

    No wonder you don't understand my posts.

    Look, Obama is exapnding government, expanding the welfare state.  Some rich people are for that, some are against.

    The rich people, in my analogy are pulling the wagon.  That some are content to pull the wagon at the point of a gun does not make their position right or moral.

    [/QUOTE]

    Ugh.  There is no 'morality' under threat here, except in your mind, which incredibly ignores rich people voting with the full intention of being taxed more for the benefit of the larger population.  Any number of corporate social responsibility programs are based on a fundamental belief that helping to fill in certain societal gaps is in the best interests - philosphically AND financially - of the firm and thus society as a whole.

    I understand a lot more than you're willing to accept, including the philosophical hole that you and other like-minded, so-called "conservatives" have dug for yourselves.  By framing your arguments in childish "makers vs. takers" class warfare, you have alienated huge swaths of hard-working americans...and now you want to say, 'so what'...?  Why don't you smell a little of what you're shoveling...?

    I wonder whether some observers are right to say that the conservative media complex has so poisoned the minds of and misled their fans as to be completely ignorant of the truth.  Your intransigence seems to be good evidence of that theory.

    We'll see soon who is able to break free of their ideological chains.  Just today I heard of Grover Norquist perhaps approving of a carbon tax if offset with an income tax cut, so I guess anything is possible when your azz has just been handed to you in a national election.

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Epistemic Closure on the Right Takes a Direct Hit

    [/QUOTE]


    Ugh.  There is no 'morality' under threat here, except in your mind, which incredibly ignores rich people voting with the full intention of being taxed more for the benefit of the larger population.  Any number of corporate social responsibility programs are based on a fundamental belief that helping to fill in certain societal gaps is in the best interests - philosphically AND financially - of the firm and thus society as a whole.

    I understand a lot more than you're willing to accept, including the philosophical hole that you and other like-minded, so-called "conservatives" have dug for yourselves.  By framing your arguments in childish "makers vs. takers" class warfare, you have alienated huge swaths of hard-working americans...and now you want to say, 'so what'...?  Why don't you smell a little of what you're shoveling...?

    I wonder whether some observers are right to say that the conservative media complex has so poisoned the minds of and misled their fans as to be completely ignorant of the truth.  Your intransigence seems to be good evidence of that theory.

    We'll see soon who is able to break free of their ideological chains.  Just today I heard of Grover Norquist perhaps approving of a carbon tax if offset with an income tax cut, so I guess anything is possible when your azz has just been handed to you in a national election.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    i saw Norquist interviewed and he appeared to be as unbending as ever.  He said that Obama got elected because he labeled Romney a "poopyhead" and people believed it.  That is a good indicator of his intellectual depth.  "Poopyhead"...

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Epistemic Closure on the Right Takes a Direct Hit

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Seems to me the Takers won.

    [/QUOTE]

    That sentence only proves you have succumbed to the epistemic closure I'm talking about...

    ...provided you actually believe it.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    More people sitting inn the cart than pulling it, and the people sitting in the cart were just handed a whip.

    That you don't see that tells me you have succumed to the something for nothing mentality that has infected the left.

    You probably believe that the rich should be targeted for more taxes - not because it will help, but out of "fairness".  That's scary, that's our government meting out punishment on law-abiding citizens for being too good, too successful.  and you voted for it.

    [/QUOTE]


    The demos prove you wrong.  Lots of wealthy people voted for Obama this time and last.  Many are hardly what anyone could call "takers".

    Call it "fairness", if that makes you feel better.  But income inequality is indeed real and poorly skewed, and that path is unsustainable for everyone involved.  It's about giving everyone real opportunities to share in the responsibility and rewards of preserving our society.

    Provide more opportunity and a better education, and people will make more.  When people make more, they spend more.  When they spend more, everyone benefits, as they rightly should.

    Check your history.  There used to be an unspoken social contract among the ultra-wealthy to build libraries, parks, museums and schools.  They knew that philanthropy benefitted the whole and edified their future workers.

    But when they tried to monopolize industries, Teddy knew he had to stop it for the sake of everyone.  He knew that some lands were part of the public trust and therefore not for sale.  He knew that capitalism is only the means to an end and not the end itself.

    I think part of the problem with Romney was that his business 'experience' was not apparent; there was no larger benefit that anyone could see...only huge sums stashed away off-shore (true) where it could help...whom, exactly?

    Carnegie famously said (paraphrasing), "The greatest astonishment of my life was the discovery that the people who do the work are not the people who get rich."

    The denial of this basic maxim is at the root of the bubble you're in.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    That some rich people voted for Obama is your proof?

    Plenty of stupid rich people.  Heck, I worked for some.

    You lean on unspoken social contracts for the rich to build schools, libraries, museums, and when they don't build the ones you want, then you tax them as punishment.

    But the largest problem is your fluid mixing of economics and political policy.  Your ideas don't work economically, I've shown it on various issues.  your repsonse seems to be "So what? Gonna punish the rich anyways."

    Your worldview is one that I find makes lots of sense in the university, and almost no sense in the real world.

    [/QUOTE]

    You completely ignored what I said.  We're discussing it here only because economic policy touches everything else. 

    Your comment about "stupid rich" only works against you.  It's patently ridiculous and unrealistic.  Like you, still in that bubble of misdirected indignation.

    My 'worldview' has nothing to do with your bitter rejection of basic logic.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Logic?  You call what you posted logic?

    No wonder you don't understand my posts.

    Look, Obama is exapnding government, expanding the welfare state.  Some rich people are for that, some are against.

    The rich people, in my analogy are pulling the wagon.  That some are content to pull the wagon at the point of a gun does not make their position right or moral.

    [/QUOTE]

    Ugh.  There is no 'morality' under threat here, except in your mind, which incredibly ignores rich people voting with the full intention of being taxed more for the benefit of the larger population.  Any number of corporate social responsibility programs are based on a fundamental belief that helping to fill in certain societal gaps is in the best interests - philosphically AND financially - of the firm and thus society as a whole.

    I understand a lot more than you're willing to accept, including the philosophical hole that you and other like-minded, so-called "conservatives" have dug for yourselves.  By framing your arguments in childish "makers vs. takers" class warfare, you have alienated huge swaths of hard-working americans...and now you want to say, 'so what'...?  Why don't you smell a little of what you're shoveling...?

    I wonder whether some observers are right to say that the conservative media complex has so poisoned the minds of and misled their fans as to be completely ignorant of the truth.  Your intransigence seems to be good evidence of that theory.

    We'll see soon who is able to break free of their ideological chains.  Just today I heard of Grover Norquist perhaps approving of a carbon tax if offset with an income tax cut, so I guess anything is possible when your azz has just been handed to you in a national election.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Ugh.  So, you see holding a gun to the heads of rich people and having them pay MORE than everyone else as a morally perfect act.

    That says it all.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Epistemic Closure on the Right Takes a Direct Hit

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Seems to me the Takers won.

    [/QUOTE]

    That sentence only proves you have succumbed to the epistemic closure I'm talking about...

    ...provided you actually believe it.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    More people sitting inn the cart than pulling it, and the people sitting in the cart were just handed a whip.

    That you don't see that tells me you have succumed to the something for nothing mentality that has infected the left.

    You probably believe that the rich should be targeted for more taxes - not because it will help, but out of "fairness".  That's scary, that's our government meting out punishment on law-abiding citizens for being too good, too successful.  and you voted for it.

    [/QUOTE]


    The demos prove you wrong.  Lots of wealthy people voted for Obama this time and last.  Many are hardly what anyone could call "takers".

    Call it "fairness", if that makes you feel better.  But income inequality is indeed real and poorly skewed, and that path is unsustainable for everyone involved.  It's about giving everyone real opportunities to share in the responsibility and rewards of preserving our society.

    Provide more opportunity and a better education, and people will make more.  When people make more, they spend more.  When they spend more, everyone benefits, as they rightly should.

    Check your history.  There used to be an unspoken social contract among the ultra-wealthy to build libraries, parks, museums and schools.  They knew that philanthropy benefitted the whole and edified their future workers.

    But when they tried to monopolize industries, Teddy knew he had to stop it for the sake of everyone.  He knew that some lands were part of the public trust and therefore not for sale.  He knew that capitalism is only the means to an end and not the end itself.

    I think part of the problem with Romney was that his business 'experience' was not apparent; there was no larger benefit that anyone could see...only huge sums stashed away off-shore (true) where it could help...whom, exactly?

    Carnegie famously said (paraphrasing), "The greatest astonishment of my life was the discovery that the people who do the work are not the people who get rich."

    The denial of this basic maxim is at the root of the bubble you're in.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    That some rich people voted for Obama is your proof?

    Plenty of stupid rich people.  Heck, I worked for some.

    You lean on unspoken social contracts for the rich to build schools, libraries, museums, and when they don't build the ones you want, then you tax them as punishment.

    But the largest problem is your fluid mixing of economics and political policy.  Your ideas don't work economically, I've shown it on various issues.  your repsonse seems to be "So what? Gonna punish the rich anyways."

    Your worldview is one that I find makes lots of sense in the university, and almost no sense in the real world.

    [/QUOTE]

    You completely ignored what I said.  We're discussing it here only because economic policy touches everything else. 

    Your comment about "stupid rich" only works against you.  It's patently ridiculous and unrealistic.  Like you, still in that bubble of misdirected indignation.

    My 'worldview' has nothing to do with your bitter rejection of basic logic.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Logic?  You call what you posted logic?

    No wonder you don't understand my posts.

    Look, Obama is exapnding government, expanding the welfare state.  Some rich people are for that, some are against.

    The rich people, in my analogy are pulling the wagon.  That some are content to pull the wagon at the point of a gun does not make their position right or moral.

    [/QUOTE]

    Ugh.  There is no 'morality' under threat here, except in your mind, which incredibly ignores rich people voting with the full intention of being taxed more for the benefit of the larger population.  Any number of corporate social responsibility programs are based on a fundamental belief that helping to fill in certain societal gaps is in the best interests - philosphically AND financially - of the firm and thus society as a whole.

    I understand a lot more than you're willing to accept, including the philosophical hole that you and other like-minded, so-called "conservatives" have dug for yourselves.  By framing your arguments in childish "makers vs. takers" class warfare, you have alienated huge swaths of hard-working americans...and now you want to say, 'so what'...?  Why don't you smell a little of what you're shoveling...?

    I wonder whether some observers are right to say that the conservative media complex has so poisoned the minds of and misled their fans as to be completely ignorant of the truth.  Your intransigence seems to be good evidence of that theory.

    We'll see soon who is able to break free of their ideological chains.  Just today I heard of Grover Norquist perhaps approving of a carbon tax if offset with an income tax cut, so I guess anything is possible when your azz has just been handed to you in a national election.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Ugh.  So, you see holding a gun to the heads of rich people and having them pay MORE than everyone else as a morally perfect act.

    That says it all.

    [/QUOTE]

    NO.  Repeat: there is no "morality" here.  And there is no "gun" either.  If they don't like it, they can leave.  Some do leave, in fact, and are free to do so. 

    Others stay, because they understand that contributing more than the bare requisite minimum ultimately benefits themselves along with everyone else. 

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from jedwardnicky. Show jedwardnicky's posts

    Re: Epistemic Closure on the Right Takes a Direct Hit

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    So, you see holding a gun to the heads of rich people

     

    Allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire is the same as holding a gun to someone's head?


    Shut up and go away.

     

    /snore

    [/QUOTE]

    http://soundcloud.com/mike-in-raleigh/skeeter-it-gets-better

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Epistemic Closure on the Right Takes a Direct Hit

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Seems to me the Takers won.

    [/QUOTE]

    That sentence only proves you have succumbed to the epistemic closure I'm talking about...

    ...provided you actually believe it.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    More people sitting inn the cart than pulling it, and the people sitting in the cart were just handed a whip.

    That you don't see that tells me you have succumed to the something for nothing mentality that has infected the left.

    You probably believe that the rich should be targeted for more taxes - not because it will help, but out of "fairness".  That's scary, that's our government meting out punishment on law-abiding citizens for being too good, too successful.  and you voted for it.

    [/QUOTE]


    The demos prove you wrong.  Lots of wealthy people voted for Obama this time and last.  Many are hardly what anyone could call "takers".

    Call it "fairness", if that makes you feel better.  But income inequality is indeed real and poorly skewed, and that path is unsustainable for everyone involved.  It's about giving everyone real opportunities to share in the responsibility and rewards of preserving our society.

    Provide more opportunity and a better education, and people will make more.  When people make more, they spend more.  When they spend more, everyone benefits, as they rightly should.

    Check your history.  There used to be an unspoken social contract among the ultra-wealthy to build libraries, parks, museums and schools.  They knew that philanthropy benefitted the whole and edified their future workers.

    But when they tried to monopolize industries, Teddy knew he had to stop it for the sake of everyone.  He knew that some lands were part of the public trust and therefore not for sale.  He knew that capitalism is only the means to an end and not the end itself.

    I think part of the problem with Romney was that his business 'experience' was not apparent; there was no larger benefit that anyone could see...only huge sums stashed away off-shore (true) where it could help...whom, exactly?

    Carnegie famously said (paraphrasing), "The greatest astonishment of my life was the discovery that the people who do the work are not the people who get rich."

    The denial of this basic maxim is at the root of the bubble you're in.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    That some rich people voted for Obama is your proof?

    Plenty of stupid rich people.  Heck, I worked for some.

    You lean on unspoken social contracts for the rich to build schools, libraries, museums, and when they don't build the ones you want, then you tax them as punishment.

    But the largest problem is your fluid mixing of economics and political policy.  Your ideas don't work economically, I've shown it on various issues.  your repsonse seems to be "So what? Gonna punish the rich anyways."

    Your worldview is one that I find makes lots of sense in the university, and almost no sense in the real world.

    [/QUOTE]

    You completely ignored what I said.  We're discussing it here only because economic policy touches everything else. 

    Your comment about "stupid rich" only works against you.  It's patently ridiculous and unrealistic.  Like you, still in that bubble of misdirected indignation.

    My 'worldview' has nothing to do with your bitter rejection of basic logic.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Logic?  You call what you posted logic?

    No wonder you don't understand my posts.

    Look, Obama is exapnding government, expanding the welfare state.  Some rich people are for that, some are against.

    The rich people, in my analogy are pulling the wagon.  That some are content to pull the wagon at the point of a gun does not make their position right or moral.

    [/QUOTE]

    Ugh.  There is no 'morality' under threat here, except in your mind, which incredibly ignores rich people voting with the full intention of being taxed more for the benefit of the larger population.  Any number of corporate social responsibility programs are based on a fundamental belief that helping to fill in certain societal gaps is in the best interests - philosphically AND financially - of the firm and thus society as a whole.

    I understand a lot more than you're willing to accept, including the philosophical hole that you and other like-minded, so-called "conservatives" have dug for yourselves.  By framing your arguments in childish "makers vs. takers" class warfare, you have alienated huge swaths of hard-working americans...and now you want to say, 'so what'...?  Why don't you smell a little of what you're shoveling...?

    I wonder whether some observers are right to say that the conservative media complex has so poisoned the minds of and misled their fans as to be completely ignorant of the truth.  Your intransigence seems to be good evidence of that theory.

    We'll see soon who is able to break free of their ideological chains.  Just today I heard of Grover Norquist perhaps approving of a carbon tax if offset with an income tax cut, so I guess anything is possible when your azz has just been handed to you in a national election.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Ugh.  So, you see holding a gun to the heads of rich people and having them pay MORE than everyone else as a morally perfect act.

    That says it all.

    [/QUOTE]

    NO.  Repeat: there is no "morality" here.  And there is no "gun" either.  If they don't like it, they can leave.  Some do leave, in fact, and are free to do so. 

    Others stay, because they understand that contributing more than the bare requisite minimum ultimately benefits themselves along with everyone else. 

     

    [/QUOTE]


     

    No requirement to treat people fairly and equally?  I thought that was a liberal staple.

    I guess it only applies to people other than rich people.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Epistemic Closure on the Right Takes a Direct Hit

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    So, you see holding a gun to the heads of rich people

     

    Allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire is the same as holding a gun to someone's head?


    Shut up and go away.

     

    /snore

    [/QUOTE]

    If you allow them to expire for some people, and not others, that's not fair.  I thought the left was about fairness.

     

Share