American Poor still better then European

Both of these statements ring true about Europe. But what about those who do not need the states help to live? What about those who already can take care of themselves through initiative and hard work?
They are forced to pay as well. And you know why? Because the system they live in and the people they live with have allowed them to become this rich. People will not just help the lesser endowed as much as the European governments are doing now, so the governments need to force them to do what is basically a moral obligation.

It seems with sky high taxes comes a guaranteed security benefit for all to resort to if they fall on hard times. However, a crippling tax affects everything from home ownership to private businesses. One reason why the U.S. has some of the finest doctors, surgeons, etc, is because one is rewarded for being better than the other.
As if that's not the case over here.
If you're better, you get rewarded for being better.
Now comes the question of why penalize someone for being far thinking? Why penalize someone for having ambition? Why should one be penalized because they chose to be a CEO, lawyer, doctor, etc, instead of being a burger flipping sod?
Now here's the problem with your thinking: you think it's penalizing. You think that somehow we view rich people as bad and think that rich people need to be punished for being rich. That's simply not true. The richer you are, the more you can give to everyone around you and the system you live in for allowing you to become this rich.

These people don't need the government to take care of their healthcare because they themselves have taken care of it. I mean doctors, lawyers, CEOs, etc, don't get to where they are by being complacent or comprimising. They take initiative instead of depending on someone else to do it for them. They say "Hey, I need to make sure I earn plenty of money in case some really bad shit happens" or "Hey, I'm not making enough money to pay for insurance so I need to get a better job". A person could work thirty years at a job and deserve better pay if he has been loyal and hardworking. However, this does not mean that he is entitled to expect others to be responsible for their well being.
This is another mistake in people's thinking: everyone can make it.
Bullshit. Not everyone can make enough money o support themselves, and not everyone gets the same opportunities. There are loads of people who simply don't make it in life because of their upbringing, perhaps they're not smart enough or they're not ambitious enough or perhaps they don't fit in. Whatever the case, one man cannot do the same things on the same level as another man.
It is not the case of others being responsible for his well-being, it is a case of getting help from the state because these things are considered basic human rights, and the state is there to take care of those basic human rights. To do so, they need money, and they take the money from their subjects because their subjects have a responsibility towards their fellow man, who have allowed them to reach this position they're in, and towards the state for providing a system where they can flourish.


Most americans (including myself), fear the type of socialist welfare state that was elaborated on by Ayn Rands books. Yes there are still some problems with capitalism but it is nowhere near as bad as the days of "wild west capitalism". Many immigrants that come here succeed if they are willing to work hard. The benefit is that it encourages industrious and enterprising behavior . It's not the states job to be an equalizer, its the individuals job. If you don't work then you don't eat.
But if you do work, you may not eat as well. You probably don't get decent health insurance, or good housing or any of those thing. The American Dream is basically an illusion: if you're industrious you can become rich. Bullshit. You need to be smart, ambitious and probably ruthless as well to get far in life. If you don't have those things or are not willing to have those things, you can't get as far as the next man.
You're suggesting that people should be paid for the work they do. I agree. But this does mean that someone will be penalised for being born dumb, because they can't help it that they're not smart enough to be a CEO.
 
But this does mean that someone will be penalised for being born dumb, because they can't help it that they're not smart enough to be a CEO.

Ha! Brains! I'm a nominal CEO at 15, and the only plausible reason is that I know business. OK, I DO have above-average intelligence, but that isn't the point. I'd be able to do this with average intelligence.

Most americans (including myself), fear the type of socialist welfare state that was elaborated on by Ayn Rands books. Yes there are still some problems with capitalism but it is nowhere near as bad as the days of "wild west capitalism". Many immigrants that come here succeed if they are willing to work hard. The benefit is that it encourages industrious and enterprising behavior . It's not the states job to be an equalizer, its the individuals job. If you don't work then you don't eat.

Ever heard of shared ownership of corporations? If the workers owned their companies then there would be less exploitation and a fairer playing-field for the people who do the hard physical work. Something I hate about capitalism is the way that people can get rich off the work of others.
 
Ha! Brains! I'm a nominal CEO at 15, and the only plausible reason is that I know business. OK, I DO have above-average intelligence, but that isn't the point. I'd be able to do this with average intelligence.
So? The point is that you can get farther easier with brains than without them.
I don't see someone with a below average or average IQ getting where Bill Gates got.
 
I read the article way beack when you posted it first, and while I don't believe Bush to be stupid, that doesn't mean he has an above average IQ. Yes, he adapted his rhetric to the stupidity of Texas, a very adroit (my word of the day) decision on his part, but if he is so smart, why does he not read? Its one thing to put on a public face of ignorance and Texas Intelligence, but in private is another matter.
 
Hehe. Seems like "Dammit, Wooz" is becoming the next trendy line.

And no, I personally know a person that studied with him in Yale, and claims he already was a fucktard then.
 
*smack smack smack*
Rotten Article said:
Bush had been admitted with an SAT score of 1206 (566 verbal, 640 math) which was low for Yale but perfectly respectable anywhere else. This would correlate to an approximate I.Q. of 129. In fact, a 1300 on the SAT would have been sufficient to join MENSA. So 1206 is a far cry from stupid.
Read what it says.
While the man may not apply his intelligence correctly, he is smart.

Richard. Branson.
Ehh...who?

But whoever he is, you don't get the point. You think "let's find someone who did make it far with low intelligence", but that doesn't mean that that was easy for him. To get far in life, you either need intelligence, talent, luck or charisma, preferably a combination of the above.

If you have a below average intelligence, do not have any specific talents and have little charisma, you're simply fucked. If you have one of those things, it'll still be hard to get anywhere, and nigh impossible. The odds AGAINST succeeding are humongous, and you can't overcome them simply by being ambitious.
"Oh, but I/someone else did."
Yes, people do it. But that doesn't make it actually possible for everyone.
 
First off, someone could just be an idiot savant. Some people also take tests very well. I could point out that most tests are flawed, as they don't accurately prove that someone has complete knowledge of the subject. Harvard and Yale, in regards to actual scores, often will just give a pss grade to celeb/political offspring regardless of what they hand in, because of political matters. Just like a lot of colleges do.

However, in Bush's case, you don't get into president with smarts, charisma, or anything of that sort. All you need is your ex-prez daddy to back you, bonus bucks from people at Enron, and have a brother named "Jeb" who is also the Florida governor fuck around with the presidential election. Then you have to make your official records of governorship of Texas sealed so nobody can really see how badly that was fucked up, too. And the precise details of your laughable "military service" record. Oh, and arrest records as well.

To be honest, it looks like he has fully stepped into the act of idiot a long time ago (since the 70's). He uses lies that are often too easy to debunk, though in his favor he does appeal to the lowest common denominator of the US. Good ol' boys who love religion and DON'T BE MAKING FUN OF ME SMARTS! That, and industry folks. That is ironic, since his original step into politics was just as amusing, though for some reason "acting" like an idiot this time around seems to have "worked".

Well, given the rise of 'tard characters in recent media, I think I can understand his angle. That, and cashing in on the popularity of a snuff film. He might get re-elected because of all the "Media Christians" who became "Christian" in the same way people became Scientologists.

"Oh? It's in the media? It must be true! Let's follow the herd!"
 
The carefully-crafted image of George W. Bush as a bold, decisive leader is cracking under the weight of new revelations that the erratic President is indecisive, moody, paranoid and delusional.
“More and more this brings back memories of the Nixon White House,” says retired political science professor George Harleigh, who worked for President Nixon during the second presidential term that ended in resignation under fire. “I haven’t heard any reports of President Bush wondering the halls talking to portraits of dead Presidents but what I have been told is disturbing.”

Two weeks ago, Capitol Hill Blue revealed that a growing number of White House aides are concerned about the President’s mental stability. They told harrowing tales of violent mood swings, bouts with paranoia and obscene outbursts from a President who wears his religion on his sleeve.

Although supporters of President Bush dismissed the reports as “fantasies from anonymous sources,” a new book by Dr. Justin Frank, director of psychiatry at George Washington University, raises many similar questions about the President’s mental stability.

"George W. Bush is a case study in contradiction," Dr. Frank writes in Bush On The Couch: Inside the Mind of the President. "Bush is an untreated ex-alcoholic with paranoid and megalomaniac tendencies."

In addition, a new film by documentary filmmaker, and frequent Bush critic, Michael Moore shows the President indecisive and clearly befuddled when he learned about the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

While conservative critics who have not yet seen Fahrenheit 9/11 dismiss the work as an anti-Bush screed, Roger Friedman of the normally pro-Bush Fox News Network has seen the film and calls it “a tribute to patriotism, to the American sense of duty — and at the same time a indictment of stupidity and avarice.”

Friedman also says the films “most indelible moment” comes when Bush, speaking to a group of school kids in Florida, is first informed of the 9/11 attacks.

“Instead of jumping up and leaving, he instead sat in front of the class, with an unfortunate look of confusion, for nearly 11 minutes,” Friedman says. “Moore obtained the footage from a teacher at the school who videotaped the morning program. There Bush sits, with no access to his advisers, while New York is being viciously attacked. I guarantee you that no one who sees this film forgets this episode.”

Dr. Frank says the episode is typical of how Bush deals with death and tragedy. He notes that Bush avoids funerals.

“President Bush has not attended a single funeral - other than that of President Reagan. In my book I explore some possible reasons for that, whether or not it is "presidential". I am less interested in judging his behavior on political grounds than I am in thinking about its meaning both to him and to the rest of us,” Dr. Frank says. “He has spent a lifetime of avoiding grief, starting with the death of his sister when he was 7 years old. His parents didn't help him with what must have been confusing and frightening feelings. He also has a history of evading responsibility and perhaps his not attending funerals has to do with not wanting to see the damage his policies have wrought.”

In his book, Dr. Frank also suggests Bush resents those in the military.

“Bush's behavior strongly suggests an unconscious resentment toward our own servicemen, whose bravery puts his own (nonexistent) wartime service record to shame,” he wrote.

Supporters of President Bush dismiss Frank’s book as the work of a Democrat who once headed the Washington Chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility, but his work has been praised by other prominent psychiatrists, including Dr. James Grotstein, Professor at UCLA Medical Center, and Dr. Irvin Yalom, MD, Professor Emeritus at Stanford University Medical School.

Dr. Carolyn Williams, a psychoanalyst who specializes in paranoid personalities, is a registered Republican and agrees with most of Dr. Frank’s conclusions.

“I find the bulk of his analysis credible,” she said in an interview. “President Bush grew up dealing with an absent but demanding father, a tough mother and an overachieving brother. All left indelible impressions on him along with a desire to prove himself at all cost because he feels surrounded by disapproval. He behavior suggests a classic paranoid personality. Additionally, his stated belief that certain actions are 'God's Will' are symptomatic of delusional behavior.”

Ryan Reynolds, a childhood friend of Bush, concurs.

“George wanted to please his father but never felt he measured up, especially when compared to Jeb,” Reynolds said.

Dr. Williams wonders if the Iraq war was not Bush’s way of “proving he could finish something his father could not by deposing Saddam Hussein.”

But Bush's desire to please his father may have backfired. Former President George H.W. Bush has remained silent publicly about the war, saying he will only discuss it with his son "in private." Close aides say that is because he disapproves of his son's actions against Iraq.

"Former President Bush does not support the war against Iraq," says former aide John Ruskin. "It is as simple at that."

While current White House aides and officials would not allow their names to be used when commenting about Bush’s erratic behavior, others like former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill confirm concerns about Bush’s mood swings.

O’Neill says Bush was moody in cabinet meetings and would wander off on tangents, mostly about Saddam Hussein and Iraq. Bush, O’Neill says, seemed more focused on Iraq than on finding Osama bin Laden and would lash out at anyone who disagreed with him.

Harleigh says it is not unusual for White House staffers to refuse to go public with their concerns about the President’s behavior.

“We saw the same thing in the Nixon years,” he says. “What is unusual is that the White House has not been able to trot out even one staffer who is willing to go public and say positive things about the President’s mental condition. That says more than anything else.”

Dr. Frank, the Democrat, says the only diagnosis he can offer for the President’s condition is removal from office.

Dr. Williams, the Republican, says she must “reluctantly agree.”

“We have too many unanswered questions about the President’s behavior,” she says. “You cannot have those kinds of unanswered questions when you are talking about the leader of the free world.”

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_4704.shtml
 
Nice post Kharn. Scary stuff.

Somedays I wish some of the stuff we discuss on this board was more widely circulated.
 
Sander said:
Richard. Branson.
Ehh...who?
Businessman/entrepenuer and founder of Virgin. I don't know what RAK is basing his comment upon, but Branson always seemed rather intelligent to me. Except when it comes to balloons.
But whoever he is, you don't get the point. You think "let's find someone who did make it far with low intelligence", but that doesn't mean that that was easy for him. To get far in life, you either need intelligence, talent, luck or charisma, preferably a combination of the above.
Or sheer hard work (in Branson's case, not Bush's).
“Instead of jumping up and leaving, he instead sat in front of the class, with an unfortunate look of confusion, for nearly 11 minutes,” Friedman says.
And how crucial were those minutes?
I fail to see how anybody could be comfortable with Dubya in the White House.
Sheesh.
 
welsh said:
Nice post Kharn. Scary stuff.

Somedays I wish some of the stuff we discuss on this board was more widely circulated.

Yes. about that article, besides its main contact, it brough this old point up, for me:

“We have too many unanswered questions about the President’s behavior,” she says. “You cannot have those kinds of unanswered questions when you are talking about the leader of the free world.”

I find it strange that nobody ever put question marks to this statement. The president of the Us seems to simply be accepted, worldwide, as the leader of the free world. Yet "the free world" would be, of old, be then on-communist nations, or rather the democratic nations. As these're all democratic nations, isn't it strange that its "leader" is elected by a minority of a country that constitutes the minority of the "free world", on its own.

People let statements like those slip too easy. No wonder americans are conceited :D

Jebus said:
And how crucial were those minutes?

Yeh, look at it this way, all Dubyah heard, basically, was "we're under attack, the world trade center has been hit" or something

What Bush should've done: rushed off, gather as much information and work on counter-measures using his central position of authority, like a good president should. Yes, there were only 4 (?) planes, but remember, OBL wanted to strike with more than that, and there was no way to know it wasn't part of a larger attack. So what if it was? Dubyah would still be sitting, gaping 'n drooling.

What Bush did: sat around for a while, before wandering off and not coordinating much of anything, from what I hear

Tchyeah.
 
Kharn said:
People let statements like those slip too easy.

You know, I had typed a "hahahaha free world hahahahahhaha" -post, but thought it' just look like spam.

Meh.
 
Wooz69 said:
you know, I had typed a "hahahaha free world hahahahahhaha" -post, but thought it' just look like spam.

Meh.

You mean this version of the post is not spam?

(also, I think it pretty clear that I don't attach much value to the concept "free world", basically just us against the commies)
 
Kharn said:
Jebus said:
And how crucial were those minutes?
...What Bush did: sat around for a while, before wandering off and not coordinating much of anything, from what I hear
Firstly, I'm not Jebus. :evil:
Secondly, that was rhetorical, I wasn't expecting an answer. Considering that the US can get planes (fighters for defence, bombers for nuclear defence) up in minutes, particularly around such major cities as NYC and Washington, 11 minutes should have been enough to get all but the first plane. They had quite a while from the planes ceasing to respond to air traffic control and the actual strikes.
 
Back
Top