What's new
By:

I will quit!!!

QuinSnydersHair said:
Discover? Not sure that's the best choice of words but basically he helped come up with the framework for it, yes, yes he did. In Massachusetts where it was an epic fail and he later admitted it.
Click to expand...
Okay, fine, because I lose interest right around here. You might find it a fun task to educate yourself on it all a bit better, though.
 
QuinSnydersHair said:
Already am. I think you just can't see the bad in people.
Click to expand...

me? lulz..

wanna talk Obama?
or
GW?
or
Carter?
or

even though Clinton was a damn good President.. we can go there too.

Actually, I shoulda known better than to jump into politics here.. wears me out. I can see why our nation's best potential candidates say **** it.
 
PKM said:
Oh my hell this is awful. I know you are super smart and somewhat mainstream, so I fear our future for a next generation that is so liberal that this (above) is the general thought. Cannot fathom that anyone would place caring for the poor above acumen for overall global issues and how they interrelate. I know that's a bit of hyperbole/reach based on what you said.. but it's a real problem with our youth. There is this HUGE liberal movement about taking care of the less fortunate at the expense of the overall picture.
Click to expand...


It's more of me pointing out the flaws in a system that perpetuates one of the largest social. political, and economical inequalities of any developed nation on earth. A nation that likes to distance itself from the fact that the family you're born into, the community you're born into, and the racial group you're born into all have lifelong ramifications.

It's not about caring for the less needy while ignoring the big picture. It's about questioning the big picture-- questioning our priorities. If our priorities equate to a society rife with inequality, does that mean that our priorities need to shift?

What good is it that the surgery was a success but the patient dies?
Click to expand...

In and of itself-- nothing. But the provision of a service with the capacity to save lives is a societal necessity.

And, contrary to popular belief, I care a great deal about everyone.. but I also have this concern about making sure we also have the ability to help, long term.. sustainability.
Click to expand...

I totally get it. For example: cruelly-progressive tax might benefit the poor-- but is it sustainable? Particularly in the long-term? Probably not. But what's currently existing isn't really working either. So we need to be creative, pragmatic, and figure something out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
dalamon said:
It's more of me pointing out the flaws in a system that perpetuates one of the largest social. political, and economical inequalities of any developed nation on earth. A nation that likes to distance itself from the fact that the family you're born into, the community you're born into, and the racial group you're born into all have lifelong ramifications.

It's not about caring for the less needy while ignoring the big picture. It's about questioning the big picture-- questioning our priorities. If our priorities equate to a society rife with inequality, does that mean that our priorities need to shift?



In and of itself-- nothing. But the provision of a service with the capacity to save lives is a societal necessity.



I totally get it. For example: cruelly-progressive tax might benefit the poor-- but is it sustainable? Particularly in the long-term? Probably not. But what's currently existing isn't really working either. So we need to be creative, pragmatic, and figure something out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Good post. Agree with most of it. Although we take care of all classes far more than 90% of countries on the planet.. not that I am defending our governance.
 
Taking care of the less fortunate is a nice notion but we take care of those who don't care to remotely take care of themselves far more often. That teaches nothing and helps nobody in the long-run.
 
QuinSnydersHair said:
Taking care of the less fortunate is a nice notion but we take care of those who don't care to remotely take care of themselves far more often. That teaches nothing and helps nobody in the long-run.
Click to expand...

and we differentiate between the two, how? (of course everyone agrees)
 
PKM said:
Good post. Agree with most of it. Although we take care of all classes far more than 90% of countries on the planet.. not that I am defending our governance.
Click to expand...

Of course-- but there still exists a significant amount of people who don't get the support they deserve from their nation. As long as this exists, we as a nation would need to strive to help every last disadvantaged citizen in this nation. Will be succeed? Ever? Probably not-- but the action taken in order to strive for this success would be MUCH more helpful than merely accepting the fact that it's impossible, twirling our thumbs, and focusing on other issues instead. To hell with what other nations are doing-- if there is a societal problem, and we are doing nothing to fix it, we are failing as a nation. Plain and simple.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
PKM said:
I am certain there is someone better, but who is it?

And Romney did not discover Obamacare. Do you know much on the subject? Not calling you out, just curious.
Click to expand...

1-12-14-Neil-deGrasse-Tyson-inside-main-ftr.jpg



^One of many
 
QuinSnydersHair said:
Taking care of the less fortunate is a nice notion but we take care of those who don't care to remotely take care of themselves far more often. That teaches nothing and helps nobody in the long-run.
Click to expand...

That's more of a commentary on how poor our welfare & community-support programs are-- doesn't mean that constructively taking care of the less fortunate is impossible

PKM said:
and we differentiate between the two, how? (of course everyone agrees)
Click to expand...

Figure out what our main priorities are. Afterwards, try to devise a plan that promotes these priorities while minimizing the unintended negative consequences as much as possible.

Of course, there will be citizens who undeservingly leach off the welfare net. However, I'm fine with 4-5 ppl leaching off of my hard earned dollars for every brilliant pupil who is given a future-- a future he/she might not have ever imagined having.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
dalamon said:
Of course-- but there still exists a significant amount of people who don't get the support they deserve from their nation. As long as this exists, we as a nation would need to strive to help every last disadvantaged citizen in this nation. Will be succeed? Ever? Probably not-- but the action taken in order to strive for this success would be MUCH more helpful than merely accepting the fact that it's impossible, twirling our thumbs, and focusing on other issues instead. To hell with what other nations are doing-- if there is a societal problem, and we are doing nothing to fix it, we are failing as a nation. Plain and simple.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Well, that was positioned in such a way that it is somewhat hard to argue.
Having said that, I have a saying in business and life, I love a problem money can fix. It is possible in life, business, and even our country that we can become so inundated/committed to a cause that we lose focus on what a well run government can do for all people. That is where my frustration lies. I want to do MORE, not less, for those in need. So I get pissed about programs designed to combat an imposing political party, about gross waste, and about the seemingly sinful aura that has somehow surrounds the idea of doing things for profit, efficiency, and wealth.

My agenda isn't to collect wealth, but rather to earn and spend it wisely and for greater good. But can't truly have one without the other.. Though our two party system would have you believe we must choose one.
 
PKM said:
Well, that was positioned in such a way that it is somewhat hard to argue.
Having said that, I have a saying in business and life, I love a problem money can fix. It is possible in life, business, and even our country that we can become so inundated/committed to a cause that we lose focus on what a well run government can do for all people. That is where my frustration lies. I want to do MORE, not less, less for those in need. So I get pissed about programs designed to combat an imposing political party, about gross waste, and about the seemingly sinful aura that has somehow surrounds the idea of doing things for profit, efficiency, and wealth.

My agenda isn't to collect wealth, but rather to earn and spend it wisely and for greater good. But can't truly have one without the other.. Though our two party system would have you believe we must choose one.
Click to expand...

I agree with you but I also agree with Dal's assessment of Mittens. He seems incredibly self serving to me. I get the feeling that he doesn't give a **** about changing a damn thing. I get the feeling that he believes that he deserves to be POTUS. His only motivation seems to be to satisfy his own ego.
 
heyhey said:
I agree with you but I also agree with Dal's assessment of Mittens. He seems incredibly self serving to me. I get the feeling that he doesn't give a **** about changing a damn thing. I get the feeling that he believes that he deserves to be POTUS. His only motivation seems to be to satisfy his own ego.
Click to expand...

Could be right. I wouldn't mind having a President that fed his own ego by kicking some *** and leaving it as a legacy to himself.
 
I see this attitude from mitt that is like "I have done everything but be the president, gotta mark it off my bucket list".


My question is though, would that make him a good president? Like would be be super motivated to be better than most presidents?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top