The Death of America

[bdazel 0]

#8.

You're oblivious. That's all the headway I need.

[quade 4]

Quote

Our great nation died long ago.
Disagree?

I don't know about YOUR nation, but the one I live in isn't dead by any means no matter what the lunatics on the fringes or the talking heads they listen to say. We've survived huge mistakes on both sides of the aisle, we've gone on unnecessary adventures abroad and we've been the victims of our own greed, but we'll get over it just like we have in the past.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[makeithappen40 0]

How special. Your willing to bank on laughable headway.

[bdazel 0]

Quote

How special. Your willing to bank on laughable headway.

" You're oblivious. That's all the headway I need. "

Point made (again).

[beowulf 1]

Sounds like you're one of those people who long for the "good old days". Unfortunately the "good old days" were never really what you remembered them to be and the future will never live up to your memory. "America" will always be changing and evolving into something new as every moment passes. Try not to spend too much time mourning the past.

[makeithappen40 0]

>Not dead yet, but dying of a slow, painful, cancer-like disease called liberalism.

Not all that oblivious. I am well aware of your responses. Unfortunately, you haven't added much value to your position.

Point made, again.

You have labeled me as stupid for at least 8 posts, without substance. I thoroughly understand why someone would be opposed to socialism or liberalism, given their perception of capitalism and the self-interest that it is founded on. However, you haven't outlined very clearly why you think liberalism is a cancer to the U.S. Are you capable of doing this?

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

Our great nation died long ago.
Disagree?

I don't know about YOUR nation, but the one I live in isn't dead by any means no matter what the lunatics on the fringes or the talking heads they listen to say. We've survived huge mistakes on both sides of the aisle, we've gone on unnecessary adventures abroad and we've been the victims of our own greed, but we'll get over it just like we have in the past.

That calls for a quote from despair.com:

"Until you have the courage to lose sight of the shore, you will not know the terror of being forever lost at sea."

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Which position is that "some other position" that you don't hold, to be specific?

Well, anything about how I'd behave in a management role, for starters. Anything about my not wanting people to smoke pot, or wanting to fire them if they did.

I'm (a) in support of legalizing just about all recreational substances, and (b) opposed to judging people on their looks, rather than their performance.

I'm not going to try to make people do boring jobs and then decide they're lazy. I'm not going to decide people are lazy because they smoke pot, or have long hair. Yet you seem to think that those are somehow my positions, and you're spending time arguing against them.

When another poster said something that implied he though people who smoked pot were lazy or forgetful, I told him the problem was that the people were lazy or forgetful, and that what they chose to use recreationally was not the issue.


Maybe I'm having trouble seeing your position, but if you want to enumerate which of the following you disagree with, I'd love to discuss my actual positions with you:

1) People should be judged based on actions and performance, not appearance.

2) Employees should be judged based on work performance, not the recreation they engage in away from work.

3) Recreational activities that harm no one (like drug use) ought to be legal.

4) If a person is failing to do their work properly, the problem is their failure to do the work--not their personal recreational choices, or their appearance.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Our great nation died long ago.

Disagree?
I would enjoy your opinion

It's not dead yet, although we've been in decline for over a century.

1861 was a big blow for state's rights when we decided that secession was not part of the rights reserved for the people and states.

In 1913 we got the federal income tax to feed unlimited government growth, with payroll withholding introduced in 1943 sealing the deal with tax rolls growing-ten fold.

In 1934 we got the National Firearms Act, the first significant infringement on white people's right to keep and bear arms.

In 1937 we got the Marijuana Tax act. So much for everything else being reserved for the people and states.

In 1942 we got Wickard v. Filburn where SCOTUS stamped their seal of approval on commerce clause abuse thus granting the government law making ability far beyond what was otherwise allowed in the constitution.

In 1970 we got the RICO act where property could be confiscated without due process.

etc.

Some where along the way Congress gave executive branch appointees de-facto legislative abilities by delegating rule writing to their agencies with criminal and civil penalties assessed by courts.

There are also more practical matters like the artificial increase in education and home prices due to government loans, and US Military which is the biggest Socialist program the world has ever seen.

[makeithappen40 0]

1) People should be judged based on actions and performance, not appearance.

Fantastic. Does that mean that you would leave your workers alone if they finished their work and completed everything that they were supposed to do that fits within their job description? I dont see managers doing this. I see them pestering their workers expecting them to "stay busy" because they are being payed for the time they are there, as opposed to their being payed for the time they are their fitting their job description. Would you do the same? It seems that the managers who apply the standard of "staying busy" rarely fit within that themselves. They make their workers do everything under the manager's job that they could do without screwing up, simply so that the manager doesn't have to do the task and looks better while doing it.

I am opposed to this, and I think you would fit under the profile of the manager who would simply call the worker "lazy" for not doing what you wanted him to do, when he does in fact do what his job description requires. This is where the "judging by appearances" comes into play. Managers always see their workers as looking for opportunities to be lazy. This is where your perception comes in. The worker feels the exact opposite way.

2) Employees should be judged based on work performance, not the recreation they engage in away from work.

Fair enough. Would you, as a manager, have something to say about a worker engaging in, oh I don't know, say BASE jumping outside of work? This person is working for you, is most likely going to accept the benefits package thate you offer, and will be compensated for the time spent in the hospital that he missed work, and at the same time you would have to find a way to get the work done that he didn't accomplish while he was in the hospital. Would you be the manager that finds some way to get this person fired? I've seen this OFTEN.

3) Recreational activities that harm no one (like drug use) ought to be legal.

Fair enough. Unfortunately, you'd be hard pressed to find a drug that has no effect on persons other than the abuser. This is still up for debate.

4) If a person is failing to do their work properly, the problem is their failure to do the work--not their personal recreational choices, or their appearance.

I had a motorcycle crash a few years ago that made it very difficult for me to walk. I was a cook at the time, so my job required me to stand and walk (sometimes quickly) for an entire shift at a time. It hindered my performance, and I was not able to push dishes to the pass as fast as normal. What would you say here?

Also, in this career, one of my performance measures was based on my personal appearance. Didn't shave that morning? Go home and shave.
Didn't take a bath that morning? Go bathe.
Hair is not neat and trimmed? Go home.
Uniform is not in immaculate condition, as anyone would expect a chef to have? Go change NOW.
Gauged earrings? Your fired.
Pierced lip? Remove it or your fired.

Again, although I like your standard, and would approve of it, I just don't see it happening in this lifetime.

[Remster 30]

Quote

Fair enough. Would you, as a manager, have something to say about a worker engaging in, oh I don't know, say BASE jumping outside of work?

Yeah Tom.. Would you?

Remster

[bdazel 0]

Quote

>Unfortunately, you haven't added much value to your position.

Which position is that? If you again quote my original post - you again show your mistake.

Quote

You have labeled me as stupid for at least 8 posts, without substance.

Sadly, I didn't have to.

Quote

[Y]ou haven't outlined very clearly why you think liberalism is a cancer to the U.S. Are you capable of doing this?

Not nearly as well as other great thinkers in America today. But I will point out one example: You stated earlier that if an employee is lazy, it is the fault of the employer for not providing enough incentive. I think this mindset captures some of the essence of the cancer. This mindset prefers to not take responsibility for its own actions and blames others. A capitalist would say "Quit and find a job that motivates you." (In a capitalist economy, you have that freedom). A liberal would say what you did, and throw the blame on others, assuming that he/she is entitled to the job and that if he/she is lazy it is the fault of the job-creator for not catering the job to his/her liking. That, in my opinion, is a cancerous mindset that is in sharp contrast to that which made this country great.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Quote

People should be judged based on actions and performance, not appearance.

Fantastic. Does that mean that you would leave your workers alone if they finished their work and completed everything that they were supposed to do that fits within their job description?

Yes. Absolutely. You contract with your employer to do certain work. That work, and your performance of it, is within the scope of your contract. Everything else is outside it.

Quote

I see them pestering their workers expecting them to "stay busy" because they are being payed for the time they are there...

"Seat time" requirements are lame. If you have done your work, then you've done it. More importantly, a manager who wants an employee to "look busy" is doing a piss poor job of management. If you're more efficient than others, that's to your benefit, but it's also to the employers benefit. In fact, what they ought to do is give you a raise, along with more responsibilities, since you're finishing your current work faster. An employer who fails to recognize that an employee can do more (in fact, usually would be happier doing more) is making a huge mistake. Ditto for an employer who won't let someone just finish their work and go home. If the employee doesn't want more work and pay to go with it, then you should let them take off--they obviously value their free time, and the best way to reward them for doing their work efficiently is to let them get out of there and enjoy their free time.

Quote

...I think you would fit under the profile of the manager who would simply call the worker "lazy" for not doing what you wanted him to do, when he does in fact do what his job description requires.

You'd be wrong. I've had several management experiences. In general, if it was in my power, I'd first offer to pay them more and give them more work, and then (or first, in most cases where it wasn't in my power) I'd just ask them if they wanted to go home (with pay for the rest of the hours, if they were paid that way--even if I wasn't supposed to do that).

Quote

...Would you, as a manager, have something to say about a worker engaging in, oh I don't know, say BASE jumping outside of work?

You are aware that I employ a few people who are required to make BASE jumps as part of their work, right?

Regardless, what someone does with their time, outside of work, is their business, not their employers.

Quote

Would you be the manager that finds some way to get this person fired?

I'd be the manager out there with them, if we'd both finished our work.

Quote

Unfortunately, you'd be hard pressed to find a drug that has no effect on persons other than the abuser.

I'm happy to debate that. Can you point out a concrete negative impact on another human being? Drug use (or BASE jumping, or whatever) doesn't hurt anyone else. You can make an argument that it might "indirectly" hurt people who have to pay for medical care or something, but that's kind of outside the scope of the current (employee/employer relationships) discussion. Still, if you want to have that debate, we can have at it.

Quote

I had a motorcycle crash a few years ago that made it very difficult for me to walk. I was a cook at the time, so my job required me to stand and walk (sometimes quickly) for an entire shift at a time. It hindered my performance, and I was not able to push dishes to the pass as fast as normal. What would you say here?

If I was your boss? I'd try to find a way for you to do something else until you'd healed up enough to go back to your normal job, or make allowances for you. Treating employees with hardship circumstances thoughtfully is an excellent morale booster, and in the long run it's going to make my business more successful to have happy employees.

If I was just some guy making a comment on the internet? I'd say that if you couldn't do the work, your boss would have the right to fire you. You had contracted with him to do that work. If you can't meet the terms of the contract, then he doesn't need to do so either.

Quote

Also, in this career, one of my performance measures was based on my personal appearance.

What's your career, and is personal appearance important to the actual job? If you're a mechanic, a cook, an engineer, or something like that (a non customer-relations role) then I don't see how appearance matters.

On the other hand, if you're a salesman? Yeah, I can see how your employer might want to have you present an image of the company that matches the image it wants. Depends on what you're selling, though. It would be silly to make someone who sold tatooing and piercing equipment (for example) take out a piercing, or cover a tatoo. But if you're selling annuities to old ladies? Sure, I can see your employer having a dress code.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Quote

Fair enough. Would you, as a manager, have something to say about a worker engaging in, oh I don't know, say BASE jumping outside of work?

Yeah Tom.. Would you?

Well, to be fair, I might have some things to say about it. Most likely with regard to specific techniques, or object selection.

Oh, and I once told one of my employees that them playing a kazoo during an illegal BASE jump would make me uncomfortable.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[gjhdiver 0]

Quote

Our great nation died long ago.

Disagree?
I would enjoy your opinion

Who cares ?

Nationalism is a disease anyway.

[makeithappen40 0]

>Which position is that? If you again quote my original post - you again show your mistake.

The one that claims liberals are the poison of the U.S. (How many groups out there say this again? Who outside of conservatives says this?)

>But I will point out one example: You stated earlier that if an employee is lazy, it is the fault of the employer for not providing enough incentive.

Did I say that it is strictly the fault of the employer? I think that employers (for the most part, apparently now that I've read Tom's post) aren't sensitive to the environment they create for their workers, thus, their workers end up either desiring their work to be mroe meaningful, or they end up seeing laziness as the only other route to making their jobs more rewarding. (The laziness appears because their work sucks, so they would rather be unproductive as opposed to producing something that adds no value to them as human beings. This is another method that people evaluate their worth with. People evaluate themselves by their product, i.e., by how much mindful input they can have in their jobs. Most employers don't nurture this, so they end up having employees that don't value their jobs, and either leave or become lazy.)

> I think this mindset captures some of the essence of the cancer. This mindset prefers to not take responsibility for its own actions and blames others.

I think it does for the employer who blames their employees for being lazy as opposed to interested in more meaningful work. Why should the employer blame themselves for providing a shitty job? Hell, it's the worker's fault for not finding a better job or being more motivated to do something more fulfilling, right? (How often have we heard THAT before) The business owner is guilty of projection too, dude. Oh shit, you even said it for me:
"A capitalist would say "Quit and find a job that motivates you.""
Bingo. Projection.

>A liberal would say what you did, and throw the blame on others

This happens often with business owners and managers as well. "Why, if only the laws were less stringent that manager would be able to fire that employee!"

Or "If only taxes were lower my business would be successful" Or "If only socialism didn't have its presence here, the free market would have allowed me to be successful as opposed to that other corporation"

>assuming that he/she is entitled to the job and that if he/she is lazy it is the fault of the job-creator for not catering the job to his/her liking

That's a tough one. I don't think anyone is entitled to a job. However, it is the responsibility of the employer to "sell" a job to an employee in order to keep them there and productive. Mentioning that someone is "lucky" to have the opportunity to have a job isn't a worthy effort of "selling" the position to someone, it is taking advantage of their poverty.

>That, in my opinion, is a cancerous mindset that is in sharp contrast to that which made this country great

Ok. I think it is cancerous to label liberals in the fashion that you did without fully understanding it. I think you, and all the conservative posters here, are making arguments against lazy people in general, as opposed to bonified socialists or communists as a whole. When you look at socialism in its utopian sense (that is, a currently fictional situation where a society is ACTUALLY socialist) you will find a highly productive society. Just like the free market-anarchists utopian vision. I think they are FAR more similiar in the end result than different. They both end up with:

High productivity values.
Workers engaging themselves in mindful work, free to move to another type of work if they desired to.
They have more meaningful input, as the size of each "firm" is smaller. (Smaller because both Free market liberalism (Libertarianism) and genuine socialism are NOT supposed to end up with giant beurocratic-authoritarian governments to protect corporations as they do now.

The method by which that end result is achieved is different, though...

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Nationalism is a disease anyway.

"Statism is the great political disease of the 20th century."

- Jimmy Rogers

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[billvon 2,990]

>>Nationalism is a disease anyway.
>"Statism is the great political disease of the 20th century."

True of pretty much any pre-packaged "-ism" out there.

Except for antidisestablishmentarianism. That's 100% valid.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Except for antidisestablishmentarianism. That's 100% valid.

I don't know. I'm not sure I'd support forcing protestants to tithe to the Catholic church, even in Ireland. I guess I'm just a disestablishmentarian.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[makeithappen40 0]

>Yes. Absolutely. You contract with your employer to do certain work. That work, and your performance of it, is within the scope of your contract. Everything else is outside it.

Where do managers like you come from? If there are any others out there, I will move tomarrow and do whatever it takes to have that work.

How many managers have actually followed through with that philosophy? You must be few and far between.

>More importantly, a manager who wants an employee to "look busy" is doing a piss poor job of management

Amen.

>In fact, what they ought to do is give you a raise, along with more responsibilities, since you're finishing your current work faster

Why, that almost looks like the incentive that lbdaze up there is afraid of.

I have NEVER heard a manager say this, especially of they work for a giant corporation. (I worked for Hyatt Hotels when this bad experience occured)
I'm wholly impressed.

>or first, in most cases where it wasn't in my power) I'd just ask them if they wanted to go home (with pay for the rest of the hours, if they were paid that way--even if I wasn't supposed to do that

Ok. Im convinced. Tom Aiello does not exist. If you did, why aren't there more of you? In reality, would this ever fly like you mentioned? Hell no. Among the beurocratic mess that exists within each giant business, there is a chain of 10 supervisors telling that person to never to such a thing. Of course, maybe those types of employers wouldn't fit within the free-market utopia that hasn't had the opportunity to thrive yet. That would fit in with your philosophy. I would bat for your team if this happened.

>I'm happy to debate that. Can you point out a concrete negative impact on another human being? Drug use (or BASE jumping, or whatever) doesn't hurt anyone else

There is a video on youtube where a guy jumps from a tower in moscow, has a malfunction and ends up crashing through the glass of a building, as he could not controll his parachute to steer aware from it as he landed. There is another one of a guy who crashes into a few windows of a building as he bounces off the side of it, luckly being able to turn away and land on another rooftop. (I believe this one was in Kuala Lumpur)

Also, what happens when someone dies from a drug overdose? When the drug kills him, doesn't that person's death have a negative impact on those around him? I fully expect you to say: "No, because it wasn't the drug that killed him, it was his decision." (This parallels the pro-gun arguments of the NRA) This one's still on the table.

>Yeah, I can see how your employer might want to have you present an image of the company that matches the image it wants

Great. So you would judge a person based on their appearance. We can leave #4 aside then.

[billvon 2,990]

> I guess I'm just a disestablishmentarian.

Then I would definitely beat you at scrabble.

[wmw999 2,440]

Nah, he'd still be able to add ism to it. Technically you could then add an "s" to it, but that would make it nonsensical.

Which means it's a perfect Scrabble word .

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[bdazel 0]

>Why should the employer blame themselves for providing a shitty job?

They can blame themselves if they want to. If the turnaroud is so high that it affects profits, or if they simply can't get employees - then the employers dug their own hole, and will be forced to change or go away. If they go away, then they screwed up, and another will come along and take that place, hopefully learning from the mistakes of the former, and providing a more motivating environment. The employer is free to make that change, just as the employee is free to find a new job.

> Hell, it's the worker's fault for not finding a better job or being more motivated to do something more fulfilling, right?

Exactly.

>(How often have we heard THAT before)

Don't know. Don't care. It's irrelevant.

>The business owner is guilty of projection too, dude.

Projecting what, dude? laziness into the employee?

> Oh shit, you even said it for me:
"A capitalist would say "Quit and find a job that motivates you.""

And the capitalist employee would do just that (assuming his society still allowed him that freedom).

>This happens often with business owners and managers as well. "Why, if only the laws were less stringent that manager would be able to fire that employee!"

>Or "If only taxes were lower my business would be successful" Or "If only socialism didn't have its presence here, the free market would have allowed me to be successful as opposed to that other corporation"

Ah. Big difference here. The business owner is bitching about or blaming things that are out of his control (and with good reason). Your lazy employee is blaming his own laziness (something over which he has complete control) on someone else. Your lazy employee has the free agency to get his butt in gear and not be lazy if he chooses, but he CHOOSES instead to 'project' his laziness on the employer. Liberalism makes this choice easy and attractive - and the cancer spreads.

[makeithappen40 0]

>The employer is free to make that change, just as the employee is free to find a new job.

Thus, rendering quite a chunk of the responsibility on the employer as well as the employee. Bingo.

>>> Hell, it's the worker's fault for not finding a better job or being more motivated to do something more fulfilling, right?
>Exactly.

Bullshit. The responsibility is on both the employer's and the employee's shoulders. You admitted it when you said that the employer is free to make the change and needs to do it for the success of their business. Thus, the responsibility is shared.

>>(How often have we heard THAT before)
>Don't know. Don't care. It's irrelevant.

I'll tell you: Often. (You even said it yourself, you said its EXACTLY right. Uhh. Wait. No, it's not for the reasons you agreed to above) Relevance: We've heard guys like you say it a million times. It is relevant, because even you admit to something that would give us reason to negate it, even if it s only so in some cases.

>Projecting what, dude? laziness into the employee?

"A capitalist would say "Quit and find a job that motivates you.""
How is this not the same thing as assigning all the responsibility to the worker, again?

I'm not your dude, dude. (You probably wouldn't watch South Park, considering they hate mormons)
(Just kidding dude. I don't hate mormons, and it's not your fault if you are)

>Your lazy employee is blaming his own laziness (something over which he has complete control) on someone else.

Isn't that a bit circular for you to be using it as justification for defending the business?
"Why is lazy employee lazy? Because he is lazy.

Thus,
>Your lazy employee has the free agency to get his butt in gear and not be lazy if he chooses, but he CHOOSES instead to 'project' his laziness on the employer.

"Your lazy employee has the free agency to get his butt in gear and not be lazy if he chooses"

Great, so your saying: If he chooses not to be lazy, then the employee has the free agency to get his butt in gear. Well how is that possibly false? You haven't proven anything outside of the assumption you made to the right of "IF." IF A occurs, then A occurs. Fucking amazing. I never knew that if something happened, that something happened. You've labeled me stupid for 8 posts, and you expect something like THAT to be sufficient for arguing with? Of course it is VALID, but how does that move us forward?

"but he CHOOSES instead to 'project' his laziness on the employer."
Possibly. However, the employer is often guilty of not facilitating a productive environment, just like Tom pointed out with my really bad manager. Incentives. Incentives. Incentives.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

There is a video on youtube where a guy jumps from a tower in moscow, has a malfunction and ends up crashing through the glass of a building, as he could not controll his parachute to steer aware from it as he landed.

If you damaged something, then the problem is that you damaged it. You're responsible for the damage you did to it, and ought to make it right to the owner of the building. Personally, I carry insurance that would cover this situation up to a million dollars. Hopefully I won't break more than a million bucks in windows. In the cases you're talking about, I'm pretty sure that the BASE event was carrying liability insurance that paid for the damage.

The issue there is the damage (to someone else's property). Not the BASE jumping. The jump itself hurts no one. Once you start damaging other people's stuff (whether by BASE jumping or anything else), then it's on you to make it right for them.

Quote

When the drug kills him, doesn't that person's death have a negative impact on those around him?

Emotionally, you mean? Or are you envisioning some kind of physical damage? Honestly, you're going to hurt your loved ones when you die, however you do it. The manner of it happening is up to you to determine. Hopefully you've talked with your family about it in advance. But regardless, you're an adult, and you make your own choices. If your death is painful for your family and friends (which I'd expect it will be), that's the price of freedom. I'd much rather my family be free and happy than confined in a padded room somewhere just to make sure their misfortunes didn't hurt me.

Quote

>Yeah, I can see how your employer might want to have you present an image of the company that matches the image it wants

Great. So you would judge a person based on their appearance. We can leave #4 aside then.

If the appearance is effecting the job, then it's a performance issue. If you are still performing well (for example, despite your facial piercings, lots of old ladies are buying annuities from you), then a smart manager wouldn't mess with success.



I'll admit that the way you keep pulling your "hypotheticals" from my life has me wondering who you are. I mean, let's just say, hypothetically, that you get hurt on a BASE jump and spend months in the hospital and need accomodations at work for a while on your return. Or, hypothetically, what if you make a BASE jump and damage some property, and it needs to be paid for? Hypothetically, what do you do if your employee finishes their work early? Do you cover for them and send them home? I'm guessing that the fact you're having this conversation with me, and I'm probably the only poster here who's actually been in all those situations, is not a coincidence.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com