Comments
41 - 60 of 359 Comments Last updated Mar 11, 2013
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#53 Feb 9, 2013
FLBeaver wrote:
<quoted text>
You have me confused with a liberal/progressive like yourself. I don't think I have the "authority" to determine what someone else makes. That's you and your ilk who feel that it isn't "fair" that someone only makes $X because you say so. Can you show me an article written by the left that says it's a good thing that "middle class wages" have gone down because technology has made the jobs easier and thus requires a less educated, less experienced worker? It's the left that wants wage controls, unions, etc. that set wages because those that do so believe they are smarter than the 300,000,000 who are purchasing that work.
You are the one who feels that a certain position should make a certain wage because you say so, not me.
I have NEVER EVER said this one should be making this are that one should be making that. I very well understand that there will ALWAYS be those who make less than others and those who will make more than others.

But it's me that recognizes that it is NOT healthy for the economy as a whole of ANY country to have such an income disparity. Especially when it is believed there are just those who deserve to take out of it as much as they can get. Where as you have been presenting why there should be the poor.

And one thing I also recognize if if there are those who will refuse to pick up your garbage, as just an example, because they can't make a livable wage you are not going to have a problem to solve. Unless you think all that laying around your home isn't an unhealthy situation. If there is no one willing to be an auto mechanic because they can't make a living wage at it you'll probably be walking or riding the bus with all the rest of the deserving poor, at some point.

All I was doing was pointing out what the recognized experts on economics, and are concerned with the national economic health, have said. But obviously your belief is is if it's the way it is, that's the way it should be. Well it's been working out just famously hasn't it.

Apparently you are so wrapped up in your own little world to have not noticed the reports on how many people that have degrees in law, engineering, MBAs and other disciplines working as restaurant servers, in factories and other menial jobs because they can't get jobs in their filed(s). But you would probably come with all other necessary explanations on why that should be.

Because of your short attention span I feel it necessary to repeat; I have NEVER EVER said this one SHOULD BE making this much, that other one SHOULD BE making that other amount.

But I will say there is no one on the planet worth $9,000 per hour. The only one I would even possibly change that for would be someone who started up their own company and was still running it. SURELY not some hired CEO that is not and never been the founder of the company they are head of. There, I have said it FOR THE FIRST TIME. So you can go ahead and infer that to mean ANYTHING you want it to and see if I give a crap.

"When it shall be said in any country in the world, my poor are happy; neither ignorance nor distress is to be found among them; my jails are empty of prisoners, my streets of beggars; the aged are not in want; the taxes are not oppressive; the rational world is my friend, because I am the friend of it's happiness: when these things can be said, then may that country boast it's constitution and government." - Thomas Paine
You might want to look up who he was.
Really

Berrien Springs, MI

#54 Feb 10, 2013
SIB has NOT ever said what anyone should be making, to be fair. Of course, she HAS said, "it's not fair", "fair wage", "it's the fault of the Republicans only", "it's the fault of business ONLY", "I fault Obama for NOT doing enough to stifle the Republicans."
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#55 Feb 10, 2013
Really wrote:
SIB has NOT ever said what anyone should be making, to be fair. Of course, she HAS said, "it's not fair", "fair wage", "it's the fault of the Republicans only", "it's the fault of business ONLY", "I fault Obama for NOT doing enough to stifle the Republicans."
I have actually had to work hard at being, you know that ugly word, fair. It is far too easy to gain figuring 'I' deserve it because I worked so much harder than the other. When in far too many cases it's been the ones gaining the most have been in the position to make others work harder for them while recompensing them as little as possible for the "privilege".

There were several arguments on here in the past about how the United States was founded on Christian principles. Which it wasn't, but, for those believing it was, they have obviously known nothing about true Christian principles. Christian principles ARE NOT about using people as market place assets to gain more wealth from. Christian principles ARE NOT about using earthly processes to justify one being more "worthy" than another. Christian principles ARE NOT about taking from those who have less to gain more, or "giving" less to gain more. Christian values ARE NOT about having more means the justification for why others are less.

But I digress. I do not want to make this about religious values. I simply mean it to be about why I do not believe the word and concept of the word fairness is the ugly thing others do.

Beyond any religious value(s) I prefer to look at it as common human decency toward other humans to not devalue their rights to be paid at least a livable income. As it has always been there will always be those who can never and/or will never "make it" to the point of being wealthy no matter how hard they work. And a pretty good thing for those who have and will because to many that just devalues them to believe there are others as worthy.
Really

Berrien Springs, MI

#56 Feb 10, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
I have actually had to work hard at being, you know that ugly word, fair. It is far too easy to gain figuring 'I' deserve it because I worked so much harder than the other. When in far too many cases it's been the ones gaining the most have been in the position to make others work harder for them while recompensing them as little as possible for the "privilege".
There were several arguments on here in the past about how the United States was founded on Christian principles. Which it wasn't, but, for those believing it was, they have obviously known nothing about true Christian principles. Christian principles ARE NOT about using people as market place assets to gain more wealth from. Christian principles ARE NOT about using earthly processes to justify one being more "worthy" than another. Christian principles ARE NOT about taking from those who have less to gain more, or "giving" less to gain more. Christian values ARE NOT about having more means the justification for why others are less.
But I digress. I do not want to make this about religious values. I simply mean it to be about why I do not believe the word and concept of the word fairness is the ugly thing others do.
Beyond any religious value(s) I prefer to look at it as common human decency toward other humans to not devalue their rights to be paid at least a livable income. As it has always been there will always be those who can never and/or will never "make it" to the point of being wealthy no matter how hard they work. And a pretty good thing for those who have and will because to many that just devalues them to believe there are others as worthy.
And yet again I ask, who defines "livable income"? You, me, Obama, Bush, who? You can't answer that because that bites right into your fairness argument and you know it. What may be "fair" to you may not be "fair" to me. Elitists on both sides of the aisle demand "fairness" but refuse to define what is fair. Neither side of the aisle actually cares about "fairness" and neither does anyone else. As for your "common human decency" argument, if that existed in today's culture, we wouldn't have the issues we have. All that aside, do you honestly believe that the person working on the floor of the factory deserves the CEO's payrate? On the other hand, do you honestly believe that the CEO who has invested time and lack of sleep over the business and in most cases money, deserves to be paid what the person on the floor deserves? You CANNOT legislate fairness or morality. You CAN, however, legislate being poor by taking from those who have and giving to those who refuse to contribute to their own welfare and ability to succeed. In my view, that is what the "Great Society" was all about and what started all this foolishness.

I just finished reading "Kennedy, an unfinished life". Very interesting and eye opening regarding the progressives in the 1960's and Kennedy's efforts to work with them, not against them.
vox veritatis

Grand Rapids, MI

#57 Feb 10, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
From everything you have said it would seem you've never had health insurance.
Actually, I work in the field and from what you've said you have absolutely no clue (kind of like manboobie...sure you're not related?). You do realize, don't you, that if your insurance comes through an employer, it's your employer that determines your copay, deductible, annual out of pocket max and what items will and won't be covered? They determine what package is offered and then they can buy riders to add or exclude things like sterilization, experimental chemo, fertility treatments, lifestyle drugs, etc..
Of course, now...well...have fun out on the exchanges; hope you've got an extra 10 to 20K laying around to pay for your coverage.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#58 Feb 10, 2013
vox veritatis wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, I work in the field and from what you've said you have absolutely no clue (kind of like manboobie...sure you're not related?). You do realize, don't you, that if your insurance comes through an employer, it's your employer that determines your copay, deductible, annual out of pocket max and what items will and won't be covered? They determine what package is offered and then they can buy riders to add or exclude things like sterilization, experimental chemo, fertility treatments, lifestyle drugs, etc..
Of course, now...well...have fun out on the exchanges; hope you've got an extra 10 to 20K laying around to pay for your coverage.
I've had my insurance license, have you? I know what goes on where most don't see and are only told what is wanted to be.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#59 Feb 10, 2013
Really wrote:
<quoted text>And yet again I ask, who defines "livable income"? You, me, Obama, Bush, who? You can't answer that because that bites right into your fairness argument and you know it. What may be "fair" to you may not be "fair" to me. Elitists on both sides of the aisle demand "fairness" but refuse to define what is fair. Neither side of the aisle actually cares about "fairness" and neither does anyone else. As for your "common human decency" argument, if that existed in today's culture, we wouldn't have the issues we have. All that aside, do you honestly believe that the person working on the floor of the factory deserves the CEO's payrate? On the other hand, do you honestly believe that the CEO who has invested time and lack of sleep over the business and in most cases money, deserves to be paid what the person on the floor deserves? You CANNOT legislate fairness or morality. You CAN, however, legislate being poor by taking from those who have and giving to those who refuse to contribute to their own welfare and ability to succeed. In my view, that is what the "Great Society" was all about and what started all this foolishness.
I just finished reading "Kennedy, an unfinished life". Very interesting and eye opening regarding the progressives in the 1960's and Kennedy's efforts to work with them, not against them.
The economy "defines" what is a livable wage by the costs of decent housing, basic transportation, cost of food, necessary insurances, clothing, ya know the basic necessities of living.

You know damn good and well I don't believe a person working on the factory floor doesn't "deserve" the same pay rate as the CEO. Even though without the people on "the floor" the CEO would be dumpster diving. Do I really need to explain why? And we are the only culture that believes the CEO making 300% plus, with bonuses not added in, over the workers isn't insanity.

But the poor overworked CEOs. How many of them do you really know? I'm not talking about the ones head of 50, 75, 150 or even 300 employees. I'm talking about in the thousands of employees. I'm telling you they don't go home after a sweaty day of flying a desk to hamburgs or hot dogs with beens or mac & cheese worrying about how they're going to keep the car running so they can get back and forth to work, or pay their insurance premiums, or afford to heat the house during the winter, or trying to figure out how they're going to afford their kids community college costs so they don't have to live like that. Unless of course they are lousy at managing their incomes, of which there are some. In which case they have no business controlling the finances of the business they run.

Try reading Free Lunch by David Cay Johnston. Or Crunchy Cons by Rod Dreher. Or Unequal Protection by Thom Hartmann. That is if you REALLY want to know what welfare is.

You might even want to read A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn.
Really

Berrien Springs, MI

#60 Feb 10, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
The economy "defines" what is a livable wage by the costs of decent housing, basic transportation, cost of food, necessary insurances, clothing, ya know the basic necessities of living.
You know damn good and well I don't believe a person working on the factory floor doesn't "deserve" the same pay rate as the CEO. Even though without the people on "the floor" the CEO would be dumpster diving. Do I really need to explain why? And we are the only culture that believes the CEO making 300% plus, with bonuses not added in, over the workers isn't insanity.
But the poor overworked CEOs. How many of them do you really know? I'm not talking about the ones head of 50, 75, 150 or even 300 employees. I'm talking about in the thousands of employees. I'm telling you they don't go home after a sweaty day of flying a desk to hamburgs or hot dogs with beens or mac & cheese worrying about how they're going to keep the car running so they can get back and forth to work, or pay their insurance premiums, or afford to heat the house during the winter, or trying to figure out how they're going to afford their kids community college costs so they don't have to live like that. Unless of course they are lousy at managing their incomes, of which there are some. In which case they have no business controlling the finances of the business they run.
Try reading Free Lunch by David Cay Johnston. Or Crunchy Cons by Rod Dreher. Or Unequal Protection by Thom Hartmann. That is if you REALLY want to know what welfare is.
You might even want to read A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn.
I actually have a read some of Unequal Protetion. Free Lunch..not so much, but I have read reviews, and no, the reviews were not on Fox. Not impressed, but you would be because they both complain about the "unfairness" of corporate America.

As for your other snide comments about the CEOs, I actually have met several CEOs. Some were good, down to earth, hard working people who sweated about their employees. Others, not so much. Some were Dems and some were Republicans. Liked them, wasn't jealous of them and don't want their money OR their positions. Unlike you and a lot of others, I don't worry about what others have or don't have. I only answer for me and what I have and what I have done with my resources. I also don't waste my life being jealous because the CEO drives a Cadillac and I drive a Lumina. In all actuality, I don't care what they earn or drive. I find that my life is just fine and much calmer when I don't worry about keeping up with or going ahead of, the Jones'. I leave that to you and your progressive friends.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#61 Feb 10, 2013
Really wrote:
<quoted text>I actually have a read some of Unequal Protetion. Free Lunch..not so much, but I have read reviews, and no, the reviews were not on Fox. Not impressed, but you would be because they both complain about the "unfairness" of corporate America.
As for your other snide comments about the CEOs, I actually have met several CEOs. Some were good, down to earth, hard working people who sweated about their employees. Others, not so much. Some were Dems and some were Republicans. Liked them, wasn't jealous of them and don't want their money OR their positions. Unlike you and a lot of others, I don't worry about what others have or don't have. I only answer for me and what I have and what I have done with my resources. I also don't waste my life being jealous because the CEO drives a Cadillac and I drive a Lumina. In all actuality, I don't care what they earn or drive. I find that my life is just fine and much calmer when I don't worry about keeping up with or going ahead of, the Jones'. I leave that to you and your progressive friends.
Really, do try to retain this. I know it will be difficult but even you have said everything worth while is worth working for.
I AM NOT jealous of them. I AM NOT looking to get their positions, possessions or money. My concern is and always has been that there is an absolutely clear cause and affect of the overall notion that concentrating as much wealth in the smallest concentrations because it can be done is a good thing.

I've known several CEOs. Not just have met them.As I have said before my FIL was a CFO. I have worked with other CEOs. And I can tell you all of them are concentrated on what their jobs are...to make as much money as they can for their perspective companies so they can make as much as they can. Is that "wrong". Well it can be irresponsible, if one doesn't want to label it "wrong".

Speaking of hypocritical, it surely is when you are more than willing to accept the rights of those you believe in to make as much as possible any way they can while joining the crowd denying others the rights of those you don't to collectively bargain for the best wages and benefits they can get. You are four square in favor of the rights of some while feeling the justification to deny the rights of others. Why? Because you don't happen to like whom you don't for what you believe they are doing is wrong, while expecting others to not believe the same on the other side.

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

#62 Feb 10, 2013
SIB, first you say “I have never said that this one should be making this or that one should be making that” and then you say that “no one on the planet worth $9,000 per hour.” By default if you say someone isn’t worth $9K/hour, you are saying that they should be making something else, presumably much less. So you contradict yourself right from the beginning.
You say it isn’t healthy for a country to have a large income inequality, except the ones that have income equality would be North Korea, Cuba, and the old communist countries of Russia, China, etc. Were those shining examples of where you think things should be? I would agree if the highest levels of income were only obtainable by a small group or certain classes of people. What used to make the US great is that one could come here from another country with nothing in their pockets and become incredibly wealthy. If you look at the Richest Americans, there are very few who have multi-generational money. This isn’t the European world where people have had wealth for hundreds of years.#1 is Bill Gates. He didn’t grow up as part of the landed gentry.#2 Buffett started from his own business.#3 Elison, same thing. On and on. Anyone could have created Amazon but Bezos did it. Page and Brin started Google in their 20’s and 15 years later they are #13 on the list. They had no special privileges or status that guaranteed them success. There were millions of people who could have done exactly the same thing but didn’t. The promise of income inequality is that anyone can be part of the Forbes list. History shows that when government tries to eliminate income inequality the result is still inequality but it comes from being in the right political party or by those who take it by force.
You are also wrong about there not being someone to pick up trash or fix a car because they can’t make a livable wage, ref “Dirty Jobs.” A company will mow my lawn for some amount. The kid next door will do it for $5 because he doesn’t have a lot of expenses. My kid will do it for his allowance. I’ll do it for the exercise. You can always find someone to do a job for less but there is a trade off in quality and value. If someone wanted to charge me $50,000 to take away my trash so they could make a livable wage, I guarantee I can find someone who will do it for a lot less. Or I would make the decision to do it myself. Now, you might not mow my lawn for $5 but that’s you and what you want to make. It doesn’t make me a bad person to pay my neighbor $5 instead of paying you $50.
Regarding the people with advanced degrees doing basic jobs. Been there, done that. In my 40’s I was out of work for a few years. Wife and kids and my income was just over $11,000, less than 50% of the official poverty level. So you see, my POV is from reality. You have never been poor and are just spouting theories that fail the reality test. In my world, one backed up by the IRS, like me those people won’t stay there forever unless they choose to. In your world and the one Obama wants to create, those lawyers and engineers can never make it on their own without government intervention.
Regarding Paine, I know who he is and in some ways I’m surprised you quote him. Whether one considers him a Marxist or as an anarchist, as Reagan pointed out Paine was in favor of ultra-minimal government. Paine would have been horrified by the size of our government, the level of spending and of taxation. For Paine, the absence of government would not be “the dissolution of society”; on the contrary,“the more perfect civilization is, the less occasion it has for government because the more does it regulate its own affairs, and govern itself.”“Trade and commerce” were based on “laws of mutual and reciprocal interest.” Thus, in commercial and other voluntary arrangements, society – that is people – takes care of itself. By contrast,“governments, so far from being always the cause or means of order, are often the destruction of it.”
Chip

Pewaukee, WI

#64 Feb 10, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
Speaking of hypocritical, it surely is when you are more than willing to accept the rights of those you believe in to make as much as possible any way they can while joining the crowd denying others the rights of those you don't to collectively bargain for the best wages and benefits they can get. You are four square in favor of the rights of some while feeling the justification to deny the rights of others. Why? Because you don't happen to like whom you don't for what you believe they are doing is wrong, while expecting others to not believe the same on the other side.
Some of us value reward in exchange for sacrifice and hard work. While others, such as yourself, seem to believe people should be rewarded for theft through coercion.
Really

Berrien Springs, MI

#65 Feb 10, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
Really, do try to retain this. I know it will be difficult but even you have said everything worth while is worth working for.
I AM NOT jealous of them. I AM NOT looking to get their positions, possessions or money. My concern is and always has been that there is an absolutely clear cause and affect of the overall notion that concentrating as much wealth in the smallest concentrations because it can be done is a good thing.
I've known several CEOs. Not just have met them.As I have said before my FIL was a CFO. I have worked with other CEOs. And I can tell you all of them are concentrated on what their jobs are...to make as much money as they can for their perspective companies so they can make as much as they can. Is that "wrong". Well it can be irresponsible, if one doesn't want to label it "wrong".
Speaking of hypocritical, it surely is when you are more than willing to accept the rights of those you believe in to make as much as possible any way they can while joining the crowd denying others the rights of those you don't to collectively bargain for the best wages and benefits they can get. You are four square in favor of the rights of some while feeling the justification to deny the rights of others. Why? Because you don't happen to like whom you don't for what you believe they are doing is wrong, while expecting others to not believe the same on the other side.
If I believe even 1/2 of what you have said you have done, who you have met or known, or professions you have had, you would have to be older than Methusela OR have the largest case of ADHD and lack of focus known to man. LOL As for some having rights and denying others...no one is denied anything IF they are willing to pursue it, or perhaps I should say, they didn't used to be. The great thing about this country used to be that everyone could pursue the American dream without fear of someone taking what they had worked to have. Now, with the progressives in charge, the taking from the haves and giving to the have nots has begun. Guess you agree with that and that's good for you. Apparently you don't mind it, but I do.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#66 Feb 10, 2013
I knew you would screw around that one statement of my believing no one is worth $9,000 per hour into I'm contradicting myself to saying what everyone else should and should not be making. And I still don't give a crap.

If you believe there was an income equality in North Korea, Cuba, old Russia and China it only goes to prove you have no concept of those economic conditions. Proclamations of communism is in no way an actuality of income equity or equality. There was always the monied powerful and then the rest. That would explain how you think there isn't inequity in the U.S. Or at least believe such a broad spectrum of inequity is the way it should be. Which you have stated quite clearly you do.

And as China is still a proclaimed Communist and totalitarian country they are kicking our butts in the capitalistic sense. Just goes to prove capitalism isn't the route to freedom. Even China is instituting a national health care system as they become more capitalistic. Even unions are gathering momentum as they become more capitalistic. Yet their government hangs tight to the ideology that there should be the monied powerful and then the rest.

But then you miss the concept of what “laws of mutual and reciprocal interest” actually means. It's the word reciprocal you don't understand. Paine as well as Adam Smith would have been horrified with the complete lack of “laws of mutual and reciprocal interest” requiring the interference of government. Though Smith warned of the consequences of self interest being more important than the common good. The founding fathers saw the human flaw so they added the "commerce clause" in the Constitution.

You completely and totally miss the reasoning behind why as long as American independence was won they instituted a central government instead of just standing back and saying now the individual colony states could do as they pleased without a central government.

As you repeatedly aren't able to recognize meanings I'll see if I can simplify it for you. When I was talking about no one being willing to pick up your garbage because they couldn't make a reasonable living from it, leaving you to wallow in your own mess; I meant ANYONE. But as you've made it clear you depend and even advocate there being those in such desperate need for the pennies you are willing to shed to do what you can't or won't do for yourself.

You don't know that I've never been poor. You don't know what I have had to do to survive. But like everything else you make accusations out of your own bias to make yourself seem more experienced. What I speak of is from my own experience as well as the desire to make things better for others. Not as you have so strongly indicated to believe everyone should have to experience. I have never had anyone else to count on or back me up. I have struggled through my failures and experienced my success only to come to the conclusion that life is too short to take such pleasure in unnecessary struggle. I take the failures caused by myself as lessons learned. While those caused by others without any respect whatsoever. I will not be able to take my successes with me when I die and struggling through the failures caused by myself and others haven't lengthened my life and/or made it more valuable to me. Maybe it's just because I've never understood the need for the ego and vanity that goes along with attracting that type of attention to myself.

You won't believe it but I am no lover of governments. I just understand the need for good ones. And with all it's flaws, that can be corrected, we still have one of the best. What I do know from experience is people left to their own self interest and devises there is no order. There is only chaos. Anarchy. Of which if you knew anything about history should have told you.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#67 Feb 10, 2013
Really wrote:
<quoted text>If I believe even 1/2 of what you have said you have done, who you have met or known, or professions you have had, you would have to be older than Methusela OR have the largest case of ADHD and lack of focus known to man. LOL As for some having rights and denying others...no one is denied anything IF they are willing to pursue it, or perhaps I should say, they didn't used to be. The great thing about this country used to be that everyone could pursue the American dream without fear of someone taking what they had worked to have. Now, with the progressives in charge, the taking from the haves and giving to the have nots has begun. Guess you agree with that and that's good for you. Apparently you don't mind it, but I do.
Only one thing to say Really. If you were right when you say "The great thing about this country used to be that everyone could pursue the American dream without fear of someone taking what they had worked to have. Now, with the progressives in charge, the taking from the haves and giving to the have nots has begun"
we would not now be a RTW state where the REAL takers now get the benefits for what others pay to be negotiated for. It would not have gone through the taking away what others have done the work for.

I know how you will respond to that so don't even bother. Lest just leave it as we have completely different notions of who the takers really are. And that isn't restricted to the RTW issue.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#68 Feb 10, 2013
Chip wrote:
<quoted text>
Some of us value reward in exchange for sacrifice and hard work. While others, such as yourself, seem to believe people should be rewarded for theft through coercion.
Reward decided by others on what and/or how much that should be?
Chip

Pewaukee, WI

#69 Feb 10, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
Reward decided by others on what and/or how much that should be?
Unlike you, I believe in the American dream and don't believe anyone should be limited.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#70 Feb 10, 2013
Chip wrote:
<quoted text>
Unlike you, I believe in the American dream and don't believe anyone should be limited.
To say I don't believe in the American dream is in your mind alone.

It's proven useless for me to explain why you are incorrect in believing you aren't being limited. At least being limited from where you don't want to believe it's coming from. Though I don't believe this will do any good;
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2012/1...
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#71 Feb 10, 2013
Come to think it through deeper it is a result of there being no limits on some.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#73 Feb 11, 2013
Linda wrote:
<quoted text>
"To say I don't believe in the American dream is in your mind alone". Your wrong again!! He is defiantly not alone in that thought!!
Because you and Chip do not believe I believe in the American Dream does not mean I don't. It's in your, and probably others, minds alone. Not mine.

But then I have the concept of what the "American Dream" actually meant at the time it coined. You don't. It did not mean the opportunity to become among the strata that have the means and power to restrict others of it.

For me to try and give sociopaths instruction in social responsibility that goes along with with the "American Dream" is a proven futility. As you would only again re-define it as socialism.
Chip

Madison, WI

#74 Feb 11, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
Because you and Chip do not believe I believe in the American Dream does not mean I don't. It's in your, and probably others, minds alone. Not mine.
But then I have the concept of what the "American Dream" actually meant at the time it coined. You don't. It did not mean the opportunity to become among the strata that have the means and power to restrict others of it.
For me to try and give sociopaths instruction in social responsibility that goes along with with the "American Dream" is a proven futility. As you would only again re-define it as socialism.
Sorry, I do believe in the American Dream and that is precisely why I hate bitter old people like you who aren’t willing to work hard and sacrifice and would rather just steal it from someone else. You want to cry about the "Good Jobs" that have left when its union morons like yourself that drove those jobs away. You’re just too stubborn or stupid to accept responsibility for your actions.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Grand Rapids Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
MI Michigan Felon Politician Ban Amendment, Propos... (Oct '10) 28 min just the tip 303
President O'Blama' Punts Again 38 min Rob 3
'We Don't Have a Strategy' to Fight ISIS t 4 hr Rob 17
College football roundup: Ohio State starts the... (Sep '13) 5 hr Buffalo Bull 1,331
Meet The Press 6 hr Oneal 7
Van Buren County makes changeover to video cour... 19 hr Anon 1
Movie Theater Demolished Mon Oneal 14
•••
•••
•••

Grand Rapids Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Grand Rapids People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Grand Rapids News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Grand Rapids
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••