chasteh

>BUT I didn't learn to skydive just to enter an environment where I have little competition for the men's attention, as you imply. Right. And as a guy, 95% of my efforts have not been towards gettin' some ass. (Channeled through being successful in other things, like sports, career work, school, or trying to make people laugh - yes, even for me this works at times) >At the risk of being accused of thinking highly of myself, I never had trouble getting male attention, in any environment. I would find a way to oppose this, but judging by your picture I just might be in the wrong thread here. (Where is that anonymous "id bang you" thread, anyways?) In other words, I believe you.

No, i'd bet that most people think engineers are very intelligent people and are generally useful for society. So, why is it, do you think, that the school bus mechanic is the player? How much more likely is the engineer to be prim and proper than bus driver? Does being prim and proper make for a person a girl wants to fuck, or a person they want to get married to? The person you get married to and the person you fuck are two different people. Don't people just get married these days so that they can get ultra-excited about having sex with someone they aren't supposed to have sex with? I think most women, to the core, are interested in someone who can get them super excited, like the guy who isn't begging them to go out on a date. (And ladies, you know what I mean by super-excited. Does your heart skip a beat when I say the words: Brad Pitt?)

I can understand when some guys aren't exactly ladies men. But that must represent the antithesis of a man who is ever going to get laid. Ever.

Just out of curiosity, what is it, then, if you do break a Federal law? Are you pilot, or the average skydiver? Part 105 says that it is against Federal law to do any of those things. Have you done them? You have. What skydiver hasn't broken an FAA regulation before? If an illegal immigrant can put other people in danger, so can skydiving. Ever heard of a bad spot before? Do you, really, know how many airliners buzz right over Eloy every day? There is an airway going directly over Eloy from Phoenix to Tucson. Aircraft are flying over/near Eloy as they are at any major drop zone. Buzzing a cloud along those airways is reckless, and it just so happens to be against the law. If you said you had never done this as an experienced skydiver, you would be a liar. You seem to be content with the notion that something's being illegal means that is is absolutely wrong to do so, or that it is always unsafe. It is illegal here to jump a reserve that has not been packed in 180 days, yet in Europe you can wait for an entire year to have the exact same equipment re-packed. Is that wrong to jump a reserve that hasn't been packed in 180 days here simply because of the law? Nuh uh. It is illegal, it doesn't mean that it is wrong. Contractarians love assuming that the only morally correct set of actions is the set that the majority of people agree on in an area. (Hence, laws) Unfortunately for contractualism, popular consent doesn't make something right, wrong, correct or false. It just means your action was or wasn't agreed upon by most - sort of like your defense of Illegal immigration laws. >And no - the horse I ride isn't high - that is a democrat thing to have. If they did in fact inhale. Yet you still think you are better than democrats. Why else would you say arrogance is a trait that democrats have?

Yet they all earn far more money than some average joe who has a stable job.

I can believe that. Well, maybe.... Ever date or marry someone from the DZ?

That is justification for finding a suitable father. That is not necessarily justification for basing your criterion for "suitable father" on someone who consistently makes as much as a Doctor or a Lawyer.

He is Kelso. Man, looking on the outside it just doesn't make sense. When you think about it, a lot of the romantic decisions people make do not make sense.

Everyone does, actually. The problem occurs as a result of the ethical set that you compare the actions to. Ever jump a packjob that was older than 120 (or now 180) days old? Ever see someone pack a parachute that was not in direct supervision of a parachute rigger? Ever jump out of an airplane that went a few hours over its maintenance schedule to keep loads going? Ever jump out of an airplane after official sunset without the right lighting equipment? Ever jump through a cloud? Everyone, at some point in time, is a little bit naughty. Do I think illegal immigration is right? or that it should be done? It might depend on the context. For example, is the person a refugee? Is their a massive drug war going on in their city, and the easiest way for them to get out of it is hop your fence? Ever been kicked off your high-horse?

>And I never said most of what you quote. You keep putting words in my mouth because you think you know my agenda and that it is politicized. My agenda is to lead a principle-centered life, and a couple of those principles are personal responsibility, ownership, awareness, etc. Really? Stay consistent with your perception of personal responsibility, ownership, and a "principle-centered life" and what will you get? Something other than "Don't touch my property, don't impose laws on me, and don't tax me?" >On the topic of the OP, if a person wants to make more money, they should build their skills and change jobs and make more money - not ask for a law that simply gives them more money. That seems pretty sensible. Of course, it would also be sensible if business owners held true to your ideals and didn't accept money from the government nor required laws to employ people in a humane fashion - because history hasn't shown business owners to be very capable of this. Maybe your ideals are different. I would prefer your utopia, but your methods (and socialism, really) haven't given us much evidence to say you wouldn't follow the industrialist's methods. Back to the OP, I understand that taxation causes firms to either reduce the cost of employment or reduce employment numbers. I also understand Unions aren't the most helpful when it comes to preserving that business. However, I also think the profit motive is irrational, and removing profit from all equations would greatly change 1) working conditions and 2) income stability for everyone. I think it is irrational to way for a profit-based economy to come around for productivity to increase again. >If a person is working for minimum wage, the problem isn't the legally mandated minimum wage - You are saying the problem isn't the fact that a law hasn't forced their employer to increase their wage or their working conditions. That makes sense. However, what doesn't make sense is requiring there to be a profit motive for people to be productive. This is irrational. Productivity need not stop because of a lack of profitability. That also does not mean the government needs to take ownership of a failing market, either. Unfortunately, it is also irresponsible to say that a worker only makes minimum wage because they haven't been able to market themselves for a better wage. Why give a shit about anyone else's well being when you are focused on your own wealth creation? >it is their marketability and lack of ownership for the fact that all they can demand is minimum wage. (The post is about minimum wage, remember). No matter how terrible the economy is, or how underemployed they are. The firm is interested not in producing for society or employing people, it exists to earn profit. To "build wealth," whatever that means. >I do understand that some are dealt a tough hand. In this country, that is a small portion of the population. Bullshit. Compared to other countries, unemployment is still rather low. Unfortunately, that isn't to say that it is all that great of a number. What is it supposed to reach, between 10-12%? One in ten people does not have a job. Utopia: Remove profit from the equation, everyone contributes to society in some fashion. The salespeople, business executives, and so on get to be productive for a few hours a day as well - that's right, they don't get fancy paychecks simply because they took advantage of a market niche. Some people call it communism. Some people confuse it with socialism. Some people confuse it with liberalism, and blame those people for being lazy and not contributing to society. Well, guess what, no one, including the CEOs who inherit high-paying positions get to be lazy anymore. Produce to produce, not to "build wealth."

Well thats different though, remember? You are hot. Because you are on a motha fuckin boat yo!

I've always wanted one of those really good girls - the kind that could care less about fucking you simply because you have no money.

>And maybe you'll even find some Yea huh. >Never listened to him - but you must be a real fan, to know whether he's 'cold, dry and informational' or not. As I have told Rush's biggest fan, RushMC, I have listened to Rush quite a bit in the past. Why? Because it is the only crap my AM receiver in the freight dog of an airplane I was flying at that point could pick up, and it kept me awake. "Well why did it keep you awake, Chasteh?" It kept me awake because he uses shock tactics and political incorrectness in place of real information. Do you want a real source of information? Find something that won't keep you awake, like NPR or PBS. You will be so much more informed that none of your slack-jawed friends will want to hang out anymore.

>Although I doubt if you will be able to grasp it in it's purest form, and that there will be some sort of defensive mechanism that comes to the front of your mind because of the injustice of it all, but I'll try anyway. Youch! How many more insults can you put in a post? Way to slam me down before bringing your point acrossed. Defense mechanisms or not, you are using attack against the person here. Fuck off. >If you can substitute a color (or race identifier) in a description of a point of view, and it causes outrage, it is a racist point of view Fair enough.. Were you going to negate my hyperbole? Or are you just flaming against me because I have pissed you off in the past? The first two thirds of your post indicate your rage. Calm the fuck down. >Just because you say "Black Power" instaed of "White Power" you are STILL a racist. Here, i'll give you the first time I have ever said "Black Power." You done yet?

Bitch shield. Is that where the woman acts like a bitch because she doesn't want you to interact with her? (Because she doesn't like you) I have seen this before. This is very real. Also, just to stir the waters a little bit... Any women who are posting in here are a part of a community that has far more men in it than women. What is it, 84% of skydivers are men and 15% are women? It isn't far from this... i'll have to check USPA I like to refer to it as working the odds. Men do this all the time. Want to meet a ton of women? Go take salsa or country western dance lessons and act like you enjoy it while your doing it. There will be 20 women staring at you in awe (as they are dancing with other women, because there simply aren't ANY guys in these classes) Bottom line: Want the odds to work in your favor? Go do something with a shitload of women involved. I think women do the same thing too. Some will even learn to skydive for the advantage.

Yep. How boring. Just like all the factual sources of information out there. Cold, dry, and informational. They should be more like Rush Limbaugh.

Neat. So now "we can help you" turns into "you can't make it without our help." What's that? An example of a rhetorical fallacy used to paint an entire political party with a false slogan? Gold star for you! Look! It's the black republican guy! Hell, now we can tell other people we really do care about ethnic minorities, and have real evidence to prove it! Hooray!

>Our poor I have not problem with. As long as they aren't cadillac queens. Then they need to stop being lazy socialistic liberal democrats and get jobs. >Mexico should take care of their own. Unless, of course, you were a crazy conservative citizen of Mexico. Then they shouldn't.

Haven't you heard? God isn't your friend. He is your master. Yep. The one master that you, apparently, need to be in favor of. The one who has this plan, we think, who is a good god, we hope, who shares the same interests as us, we are sure.

God help us. Maybe after ACORN gets the money they will lobby for fighter jet production and armament. Oops! The last conservative president responded to that already.

It is minimal compared to the cost of funding a giant illegal immigration expulsion. It is also cheaper than funding the construction of a wall and a police force to watch that wall. Oh wait, we already do have that police force. Since when did you give a shit about helping the poor?

>Because of the increase in debt associated with spending the money to buy them at well above market prices? You are consistent here. However, if it were necessary for there to be stimulus spending (some here say this) then it is far more justifiable to do so with a $4 billion dollar stimulus as opposed to a two trillion dollar stimulus to mega corporations. >Or, are you not worried about debt, John? Considering the government already spends $600 billion on national defense, I would happily take this out of that money. Well... actually it kind of already is considering the G.E. plant here just shut down, meaning the hundreds of F-35 fighters that were going to be produced no longer will. Looks like Lockheed is fucked too. You are still consistent in your objection here, but I think it is a wasted effort compared to other stimulus funds you don't like. >Or perhaps you only worry about debt incurred to support programs you don't like? That sounds a lot like something you could say to modern Republicans, too. (I know you would) Actually, given that you do support at least a few government programs, like bridge construction and maintenance, you also would support some government stimulus programs. Wait, wasn't that the initial purpose of the stimulus package? To rebuild and maintain infrastructure (including bridges elevated over 500 feet?)

>What I dont understand is what you have against those of very low incomes....... "Someone, but not the government, or really myself, save the poor people!"

>Those labels are rather infantile in my opinion; a form of groupspeak (or mobspeak) for those that think and act divisively. Uh huh. And what do you think of people who do not support the free-market structure you endorse? There is no chance that you label people based on their view of a free-market? Interesting. You might be the first free-market guy on the planet who has done this. "Just don't touch my private property, don't tax me, and don't impose laws on me. Thats all I want." How many politicians would we have left? That sounds like divisive thinking hidden behind: "All I want is X, Y, and Z." What would you think of a socialist touching your property, then? >I don't think any political faction has the market cornered on laziness or productiveness. You are a free-marketeer, but you have no position on welfare? You have no position that says the person who owns property is doing more for society than others? Interesting. You are the first apparently. >So you think when a business is in a crunch they should not cut costs? Do you think they should just bleed away their capital until they go under? In honor of their employees of course. Maybe. My goal isn't to kill the business. My goal is to make sure those business owners don't have room to search for methods to exploit their workers and treat them unfairly. You know, like the little children who work day and night in those sweatshops to build your Nike shoes, or the Chinese workers who do the same to ship goods to Wal-Mart to preserve their pricing structure. Businesses can be a great thing for society, just not when they resort to abusing their workers so they can "build wealth," whatever that means. >Tell me what economic model would call for an employer to pay more than they need to. What kind of voodoo world would it be if an employer paid someone $30 per hour when they could get someone to do the job just fine for $20 per hour? Sure, it would hurt their business. At the same time, I don't think that gives them the right to say run a sweat shop. (Ever) I don't think that gives them a right (ever) to own slaves. Fuck that. >Just like any other asset; a person's labor is worth what they can get for it - no more. That appears to be in direct contradiction to most of what you posted. You are stuck evaluating the productivity of a person in terms of the monetary gain they can get from it. I can think of several Engineers who aren't employed as engineers and cannot obtain those jobs. As a worker, they are capable of far more than what they currently produce. They are not employed because there isn't anyone who can "use" their services to earn profit. Imagine if we all produced for the purposes of productivity again, and the monetary system actually were used to trade credits between people who actually earned their money. Salespeople would be extinct, and productivity wouldn't be dependent on profit motives. I think it is obscene to wait around for a made-up system to come around to be productive. Society should be smaller, and people not exploited for the profit of a nother. That there might even make me more conservative than you. >So you tell me, what do you think is a better formula for determining the worth of a person's labor? Not profit. Fuck your defense of wealth-building. I think there are better ways for society to work. It may be a bit Utopian. So is free-market liberalism. >Everyone gets the life they chose by virtue of all the little decisions they make along the way. Sure sure. Well mostly. I didn't chose where I was born or who my parents were. It turns out I was pretty lucky, I think. You probably were too. >They may not be able to predict the consequences, but that in no way makes them any less responsible for their choices. There is no perfect path, and no perfectly predictable path, but every person sets their own path in itty-bitty course changes caused by all the itty-bitty as well as the really big decisions we make every day. Yes and no. See above. Of course, we have a big impact in our own decision-making. So does the rest of the world. >To deny that means a person hands over responsibility for their life's path to other people; which is unfortunately how a lot of people behave. Not necessarily. You can't realistically say your life's path has been a result of your own decisions. Sorry. (Throws apple at 6 year old - Uh oh. I created a monster!) >They do not want to own who they are, where they are, how they live, etc. In effect they do own it even in the face of their superficial denial, but that little nugget of reality is too much to bear. Youch. Take that, Indish child who is too stupid to get into Engineering school like all his other school chums! Looks like you'll be stuck going to an American Ivy-League school and become a doctor instead. Loser. >My utopia is where everyone takes ownership of their life, the parts they claim not to like as well as the parts they do like; instead of taking credit for what they've acheived while placing blame elsewhere for everything they percieve to have failed. That seems pretty fair. You can't blame other people for everything (or most even) of your problems. However, there are things that are out of your control. Life will slap you hard at some point, and freqeuently - this is the case with my mother. >But I digress; I am truly interested in how you would determine the value of someone's labor if it is not what they could get for it on the open market. I'm not sure. It is just so hard to steer around the problems of both Social control and free-market liberalism, as well as the savage state-of-mind that property possession puts people in. Maybe socialism is the cause of all of it, maybe not. I won't deny to you that the U.S. has been a mad success relative to other nations in history, or even other Industrialized nations. That isn't to say that it is such a good success. edit: Horrible speling. Spelling.

>My tagline is a comment on how unnecessary it is to use force. Nothing more. My opinion on why force is unnecessary would get me flamed by those that live the victim role in life; expecting to be cared for cradle to grave and making someone else responsible for everything about their lives. Actually, the "liberals" you conservatives despise so much say the same thing. They don't want government intervention in their lives. It is a misconception to consider those on the left to be lazy, unproductive, and self-labeled "victims." Just like it is a misconception to say that all conservatives are religious flag-loving fanatics. There are examples of persons who are dependent on social processes (taxation, welfare) in both the republican and democratic parties. Your criterion are examples of how you can both evaluate "lefties" and republicans, alike. There are plenty of people on both sides who adore the thought of having a police-state in place of democracy. >What rights do you think workers need that they don't have now? "Rights" might be kind of hard to justify. I would actually prefer the utopian vision of a free-market society that you conservatives endorse. Unfortunately, you often get off track and start abusing your workers, firing them at will, and being guilty of performing human rights violations. Is this not another reason why progressives push so hard to keep you business owners in check? If it came down to workers rights, I think it would mean being consistent with the notion that "no man is to be exploited for the purposes of another man, and that every man exists as an end in himself." It is hard to do this when the business owner is in a crunch (always) and uses cost-cutting methods to preserve his profit margin. >"Compensate them fairly." What do you mean by that? IMO, if an employer has an opening, a person agrees to take it, and the wage is agreed upon - that is fair. When, in history, has the wage been agreed upon? Think underemployment: People are very willing to take jobs that they are overqualified to perform, should the situation arise. (It does... often) >If a wage is too low for the market, the employer will not be able to attract the people they need and either they will have to offer more, or close down. That most definitely isn't true today. People are thankful that at the very least they receive a paycheck, and are willing to sacrifice their own pay standards to simply be able to pay bills. Thus, the employer is still able to attract the people they need while not compensating them for what they are worth. It is called underemployment, and the U.S. is quite popular for it. >It's called free market forces and they are amazingly good at ensuring people end up with what they deserve and with what they've earned. What they deserve? Who determines that? Why, historically, have they been so bad at it? When the textile worker spends his entire life to make a few hundred thousand in his lifetime, at what point does it become acceptable for say a cocaine dealer to make more in a few hours? Do they "deserve" what they have made at that point? One person is exploited, the other exploits a niche in the market. One works far beyond the efforts of the other. That doesn't sound fair at all. >I never thought of paying or charging what the market will bear as exploitative; not from either end or by any party. I do understand the victim mentality of a person crying out whenever they do not get what they personally desire; despite the fact that they are quite simply living out the consequences of the choices they have made. That statement is LOADED with assumptions, starting with a person's simply living out the consequences of the choices that they have made. You might want to show, here, how a person's poverty is a result of their own choices, or that in every case of wealth creation, how their wealth is strictly a result of their own choices. That one is gonna be tough. Wait a minute, we have already been arguing this in an other thread, right? Wealthy persons and their businesses are both highly dependent on public infrastructure, thus they haven't simply earned their wealth on the basis or their own efforts and entirely on their own choices. So if it is not correct to say that the wealthy are such because of their own decisions, then we can't quite say that the poor are poor strictly by their own decisions, either.