Obama says if he loses we'll be in for a new, painful era of self-reliance

Apparently, according to conservative narrative, around 1980 the workers, teachers, scientists, and engineers just started becoming incredible lazy, while, on a completely unrelated note, bankers and CEO's all of the sudden started creating hundreds of times more wealth than them. An amount of wealth that, oddly enough, seems to be similar in amount to what the productive classes of society would have made in previous generations. Well, no mystery here, they've completely solved things.
 
So basically we are to believe miscreants and losers with signs telling us they are the 99%. Um, I don't think so.
 
If you don't create wealth, you shouldn't receive any. Who creates the wealth in our society? The workers? The engineers? The scientists? The teachers? The artists? The doctors? Or those who sit on their fat ass and take wealth? Because those who sit on their fat ass are apparently "creating" hundreds of times more wealth than those who design and build their products. Clearly, we do not need engineers. We don't need scientists. Bankers and CEO's are so useful, and do so much more than them, work so much harder, that's why they receive hundreds of times more in wealth (or this is what I am called on to believe, should I worship at the free market altar). We can create an entire fucking society of bankers uselessly shoving money around.

Lame. No one forces people to go to work to earn a living. If you want an agrarian society become Amish or go create your own Amish like community. Capitalism offers those who want to become wealthy, an opportunity to do so, via ingenuity and hard work. It likewise provides those who want a middle class lifestyle through hard work, minus the ingenuity, the ability to do so. Indeed, it also allows slackers, to attempt to get what the middle class have, so long as no one catches onto their being slackers and firing them. And government jobs allow slackers to get what the middle class have and to be protected while they do so. Your kind would put us all under the mediocre grind of a single system where everyone lives off of mediocre wages doled out by a select few government officials living large off the sweat of the worker. Your ideal system would leave the worker with no hope of ever being anything other then a worker.... but hey he could go see a doctor for "free" (really his labor is paying for it) for his arthritic pain- after waiting for 6 mos.
 
Lame. No one forces people to go to work to earn a living. If you want an agrarian society become Amish or go create your own Amish like community.

I do not want an Amish community. I want to return to how it was in the 50's. I am a conservative, you are a radical anarcho-aristocrat.

Capitalism offers those who want to become wealthy, an opportunity to do so, via ingenuity and hard work.

Via owning and collecting rent. The current system rewards those who already own for what they already own, rather than those who produce for what they produce. It does not require ingenuity to be a banker or a CEO. It does not require ingenuity to inherit. Those are the roads to wealth in our society. It takes ingenuity to be a scientist or an engineer.

It likewise provides those who want a middle class lifestyle through hard work, minus the ingenuity, the ability to do so.

It gives those who are most ingenius the middle class lifestyle, and gives what those people produce to those who already own. This is feudalism, not capitalism.

Indeed, it also allows slackers, to attempt to get what the middle class have, so long as no one catches onto their being slackers and firing them.

It gives the slackers the produce of those who are ingenius and work hard.

And government jobs allow slackers to get what the middle class have and to be protected while they do so.

Such as teachers.

Your kind would put us all under the mediocre grind of a single system where everyone lives off of mediocre wages doled out by a select few government officials living large off the sweat of the worker.

Yes, that's how it was in the 50's. :rolleyes:

Your ideal system would leave the worker with no hope of ever being anything other then a worker....

You have no hope of ever being anything other than a worker unless you're a CEO or a banker. Create a new idea? Someone else is going to profit off of it, I guarantee you. Not you. It's not the conservative way to reward those who create for what they create. It's the way of conservatives to take from those who create and give it to those who do not. In America, you used to get rewarded for producing. I want to return to that. I want to reward ingenuity, because the current system absolutey does not. It provides no incentive to hard work, it provides disincentives to creativity and ingenuity. It's the opposite of a productive system.

but hey he could go see a doctor for "free" (really his labor is paying for it) for his arthritic pain- after waiting for 6 mos.

Universal healthcare doesn't require waiting lists. Universal healthcare has shorter waiting times than unproductive healthcare that only gives healthcare to those who don't produce.
 
Last edited:
An era of self reliance. Poor babies. I wonder how those pioneers settled the west? Good thing they had FEMA and the Transportation Department to help them out. Parasites.

Ah, yes. How did they settle the west? Well, they killed the people who were there and stole their land and resources.

I suppose today's analogy would be kill the wealthy individual, move into their home and collect their dividends and interest and royalties, etc.
 
Ah, yes. How did they settle the west? Well, they killed the people who were there and stole their land and resources.

I suppose today's analogy would be kill the wealthy individual, move into their home and collect their dividends and interest and royalties, etc.

that would be awfully American of them
 
Ah, yes. How did they settle the west? Well, they killed the people who were there and stole their land and resources.

I suppose today's analogy would be kill the wealthy individual, move into their home and collect their dividends and interest and royalties, etc.

Have you ever seen Ulzana's Raid with Burt Lancaster, it depicts the West more realistically than nearly any film I ever seen. I watched it again last night, it's not on TV every often, maybe he wants to return to those days?

This is one of those movies that seems to have a lot more action than it does. It follows a young cavalry lieutenant, sent to bring a renegade Apache back to the reservation. Ulzana, reminiscent of Geronimo, leads a small band of Indians on a bloody raid of settlers homes. This is one of those rare movies that has a very methodical plot and very few illusions. Lancaster is pretty good as the tired veteran, and Bruce Davidson turns in a pretty good performance as an idealistic soldier whose views of the world are deeply shaken by what he sees.

Even more surprising is the portrayal of the Apaches. They're not menacingly evil subhumans as in some early westerns, but neither are they the always humane and sensitive pseudo flower children caricatures as in "Little Big Man" or "Dances With Wolves". They're extremely violent, ruthless, and cruel--however the movie doesn't set them up as necessarily the bad guys. They're just the adversary.

At one point Lancaster's character says "Hating the Apache is like hating the desert because there isn't any water in it." (Or something similar.) That line really sums up the movie in my view.

There isn't much black or white here, just two groups of men--and it is a masculine movie--using their stamina, wiles, and tactics in a game of cat and mouse. There are some violent scenes, but never gratuitous; the scenes can be unsettling, but its not really gruesome.

Well done.
 
Have you ever seen Ulzana's Raid with Burt Lancaster, it depicts the West more realistically than nearly any film I ever seen. I watched it again last night, it's not on TV every often, maybe he wants to return to those days?

Thanks for the info. YouTube has the full movie.


Well, I know what I'll be doing for the next hour and a half.
 
"painful era of self-reliance in America."

That is absolutely a poor choice of words. Seriously... That was stupid. Remember when just saying that he wanted to redistribute some wealth was a huge thing in the last election?

Great fodder for the campaign though. :D
 
The liberal argument has boiled down to: 'Americans stole shit from the natives, so we should be socialist'. :palm:
 
So no national government but unlimited local government, huh. That's OK then. Who will pay, then, when you find there are two firemen where there should be one? You?
Anyway I guess it would be OK just so long as they didn't tax caravans or ban guns.

What is the English for Yeee-hahhh?

Why do you idiots always take it to the extreme? No one is suggesting that we have NO Federal government nor are they suggesting UNLIMITED state government. No one.
 
Good movie. :good4u:

Well, time to do something constructive. Back in a while.

This is one of the user reviews on IMDB.

The only reason I have not given this movie a "10" is that I might find something wrong with it on subsequent viewings. If anybody knows of this film being available widescreen, unedited, and not bootlegged, let me know where. My high definition TV does not forgive picture flaws. Otherwise I will be patient for a remaster. As someone who is an amateur historian of the Indian wars, I can tell you this is the most accurate dramatization of the campaign against the Apaches ever filmed. Accurate history is presented in the fact that the Apaches were the dominant tribe of the southwest {the Comanches in Texas might have been their rival}. Ask the Puebloes, who actually welcomed the white man, as a buffer against the Apache. The Apache dominated the southwest long before the Spanish ever showed up. Their spiritual philosophy of "taking a man's power" was shared by other warlike Indian tribes all the way to the east coast {see "Last of the Mohicans", Mann's version}. The film manages to also be great western drama as well as a history lesson.There is no moral judgment, only the way it was. The cast is superb.Lancaster, Davidson, The Hispanic Indian actors. Richard Jaeckel, and Karl Swenson {two workhorse character actors, who turned in performances of a lifetime}. All these guys plus director Aldrich and the writers knew they were working on something special. Even the PC edited version is worth seeing. A great Cavalry/Indian western, maybe the best!
 
If these discussions can be classed as philosophy I've been wrong about Plato, Descartes an Wittgenstein all these years!

Philosophy 101

Plato: 'You suck.'
Descartes: 'Then shove it up your arse.'
Wittgenstein: 'Your mother is a stinkin whore.'
Plato: 'Say that again, you bloody kraut, and I'll punch your lights out.'
Descartes: 'OK. That's it. You are on ignore!'

Well, I agree with Plato, that Wittgenstein is, indeed, a bloody kraut.
 
Back
Top