makeithappen40

"Ironically, middle-class and wealthy Americans also receive "welfare" in the form of tax deductions for home mortgages, corporate and farm subsidies, capital gains tax limits, Social Security, Medicare, and a multitude of other tax benefits. Yet these types of assistance carry no stigma and are rarely considered "welfare" (Goodgame, 1993). Anti-welfare sentiment appears to be related to attitudes about class and widely shared and socially sanctioned stereotypes about the poor"

>Too bad that's not the case here. "NUH UHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!" -lbdazel >they spend so much time trying to spin magic out of words without actually saying anything. Just like you encompass all liberals as cancerous. You've made a bold step, assuming that lazy people are liberals, and liberals are lazy. You've also assumed that the social programs in place allow people to sit luxuriously by in society while others work for their ability to do nothing. "You people" do this all the time. "You are that guy" >By the way, you are incorrect to label me religious I really do not care. You are conservative and proud enough of your own perception that there are plenty of ideas with which to terrorize you for an eternity. Ohhh yeaaaaaa.... MMMMMMMmmmm. Socialism... so hot... gotta love livin large when lbdazels paying for it! 'Cause welfare gives us all soo much money.. thats why we have these pieces of information here: Myth: Poverty Results From a Lack of Responsibility Fact: Poverty Results From Low Wages Myth: A Huge Chunk of My Tax Dollars Supports Welfare Recipients Fact: Welfare Costs 1 Percent of the Federal Budget Myth: People on Welfare Become Permanently Dependent on the Support Fact: Movement off Welfare Rolls Is Frequent Fact: Most Welfare Recipients Are Children-Most Women on Welfare Are White Myth: Welfare Families Use Their Benefits to Fund Extravagance Fact: Welfare Families Live Far Below the Poverty Line I'll take your "bottom line factor..." "Still trying to throw the blame elsewhere. I find it sad. You find it fascinating. Liberal cancer." What liberal cancer? What are the odds that you support a higher form of socialism than welfare? What are the odds that you worship the military? What are the odds that you don't know what the fuck your simple-minded views come from? http://www.apa.org/pi/wpo/myths.html You answer the question: Why is the employee lazy? Because he chooses to be lazy. Why does he choose to be lazy? Because you think he chooses to be lazy. Circular. No value added.

Shiner isn't bad. You wouldn't believe some of the filth the youth out there were telling me. They all wanted to drink Beck's, Corona, and Heineken. German kids, drinking crap beer! The humanity!

Ugh. Bud isn't even good enough to tame the flames on a BBQ grill. Dark Guiness on tap, please. edit: And I lived in Germany. For those of you who are beer enthusiasts, that would mean I know what real beer tastes like. A real guinness is the best beer I have EVER had. The beer in Germany was really good, but I don't remember it so well. (My time there is very blurry to me now)

I was wondering if someone would say that. Examining the soundness of mnealtx's post is far more difficult, time consuming, and involved than I think any of us are interested in researching for the mere benefit of having enough information to negate each claim by county.

Phew, didn't want you to catch me on it. Glad i caught it first. (is this a dreamdancer parenthical postscript? Ill have to add that)

>There's a difference between hurting someone intentionally and having an accident. Accidents will happen, and they will hurt people--that's just the nature of life. If your accident hurts someone, then you are responsible for making it right. That doesn't mean that you should never do anything that might result in an accident. If you did that you'd never do anything at all Accident or not, it hurt someone else who didn't will it on themselves.

>You are making no sense This happens when an otherwise intelligent person is not willing to admit something. >Guys like you try to pull this crap all the time. I have studied a bit of political science, but it is only among several subjects I have studied. What would that have to do with "the crap I am pulling," anyways? There are more than enough copies of guys like you in poli sci classes who are poli sci majors. They pull the same kind of stunts that any other smartass in the class is willing to do. They are also some of the loudest because they take every chance of approaching something objectively and take offense at others making their points instead of providing counterexamples. Every day, there was crazy religious conservative guy screaming at the teacher and crazy coffee-shop liberal screaming back. No change of opinion was made as a result. Every once in a while there was a Tom Aiello telling everyone else they were crazy socialists, but he usually made interesting points. You aren't that guy. >Clearly you have issues with Mormons. Go see a therapist Nope. I have issues with your people who come to my door wearing white button-ups with ties and packpacks. Enough. Leave me the fuck alone about your religion. Thanks. >Nope. Lazy employee is lazy because he chooses to be. Very simple Great. So you justify "the employee is lazy because he chooses to be" with "the employee is lazy because he chooses to be." You're begging the question. Bad bad boy. >You go left, or you go right. You seem to be running in circles in the intersection. There is no other road dude. You can't end the road where it begins in logic without committing a fallacy. "Employee has two choices: 1. Be lazy. 2. Don't be lazy." Why are they lazy? Because they choose option one, and option one is Be Lazy. Fascinating. >Bottom line here: A chooses of his own free will to be lazy. You claim B is to blame for that laziness. That mentality, my friend (my dude), is American Liberal cancer. Oh. It looks alot like its your perception being set up to justify your perception. Hmmmmmmm

Well done. Of course, this is the Speaker's Corner, so I'm just going to use my "rock" card. Nope! Try again! edit: Sorry. My smartass response wouldn't be right without an emoticon. (dreamdancer parenthical postscript- thanks mnealtx)

"Nuh uhh!!!!" That would have been way, way shorter.

This one's just a friendly response to the other satyrical thread, Liberals and Conservatives. I didn't type this one up, but if you can laugh at the other, you can laugh at this. I thought they were both funny.

>I don't care who you vote for, that's good humored politics. I agree, it was pretty funny. I got another one for you guys. Posting in another thread.

>They choose to get stuck. Conservativism outlines that pretty well. Is it accurate? Are we able to answer that here? Stuck also implies that you wouldn't accept worse alternatives. For example, if someones car was stuck in three feet of mud, they wouldn't choose to spend the time to dig it out. They would spend their time looking for other options, like calling someone to pull them out, or using a wench (the tool, not the person) or avoiding the mud altogether. However, circumstances prevent that at times. (Like flash floods, driving at night in the countryside to get to your home, and so on) Thus, they don't always choose that responsibility, or they choose some of the circumstances that get them even more stuck. Do they choose all of them? I don't think so. Is their always another option? Probably. Are those options always preferable? No. If I was born to an outdoor family in India, would it be my choice that I lived in poverty? >Don't spend so much trying to find someone to blame. It doesn't matter. Fair enough. I'm far less interested in assigning blame than I am in the solutions. However, I think it is important to note which perspectives result in more destruction when suggesting solutions. Thus, we need to have at least an idea of who is to blame.

>Each person can contribute to the environment. It's not all up to the management. Employees can talk to management (i.e. by providing constructive criticism), and they can vote with their feet Right on. (Well, when constructive crticism actually is allowed in reciprocation) Also, people don't really have the freedom to "vote with their feet" once they are obligated in one job/area/set of bills/family establishment. People get "stuck." >A single employee can't make management "do it right" any more than a single manager can in a larger company Right on. I dislike giant corporations for the same reason that I, and so many of those crazy libertarians, dislike giant beurocratic governments. They are the same thing: Inefficient, wasteful, and out of control.

>Someone needs to take him to task for that. Uh oh. lbdazel might disagree, "because its that managers own damned fault for doing it, and that you can't do it for him" >If he's at a larger enterprise, the problem is that his manager is failing to take him to task--and in so doing the higher level manager is doing a bad job, too. Get enough of that, and your whole enterprise has issues And boy does that EVER happen. After all, there must be some reason that McDonald's has a high turnover rate. McD's used to have a great product, from what I hear. Apparently, it was long before I was born that they lost it, and their product suffered. >The major problem comes when the government tries to shield the company from having to face the consequences of it's poor management because it's "too big to fail" or whatever. The solution there is to get the government out of the way, and let the bad managers/owners/businesses actually fail. Amen. How long can this last for? How many lifetimes will it take for people to be running businesses so that they can both 1) make money and 2) employ happy workers? Will we ever have a situation where people "deserve" to have property and "deserve" to hold their jobs, by virtue of how the economy dictates it? >Bottom line: if you're a manager and everyone who works for you is unmotivated and unhappy, you're doing a piss poor job, and you probably need to be fired So cool. I needed to hear that.

>The key to shared responsibility, however, is that each person can only take charge of their own responsibility. Individuals cannot force the other to take theirs. Sure. Only the problem is that not everyone fosters that environment very well, even if it is to their advantage. Maybe Tom will have a management course, and people will actually listen to what he has to say about management, and then everyone will stay true to it, even though there exist many self-interested reasons for those firms to screw their workers out of the compensation they deserve.

>Drug use (or BASE jumping, or whatever) doesn't hurt anyone else >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. Great, you have responsibility for fixing it. That doesn't change the fact that the activity hasn't negatively impacted someone else. What if that person landed on the camera crew on the ground? Sure, they should'nt have been standing there or should have at least been aware of the situation, but does that mean that the jump didn't negatively impact someone else? It did negatively impact someone else. >The jump itself hurts no one. Neat, so instead we can make some lame assed excuse about how the property damage was a result of the will of the jumper as opposed to his engaging in the sport and mislabeling the sport as a result of something that happened when the sport occured. "The gun didn't kill him, the person did." "Would the person had killed him, hadn't the gun been there?" This is the same damned arguement, only it looks different. Whether it is "up to the guy to make it right to the building owner," it still negatively impacted someone else. That's all we need here. (The point was about drugs, though...) >Emotionally, you mean? Or are you envisioning some kind of physical damage? Sure, emotionally. How a person dies has a major impact on the family, as you well know in BASE. When grandma dies at age 100, we all expected it, it hurts us, but it does not hurt the same as when someone is killed, or dies from drugs (that, for me, is more real than the BASE death at this time) or when they die in BASE. I'd say a death from drugs or BASE have a pretty negative impact relative on others as opposed to other deaths. This isn't changed by the notion that you wouldn't want your family to be kept in a padded room to keep you from having the bear the news of one of their violent deaths. >If the appearance is effecting the job, then it's a performance issue Thus, you would judge a person's performance based on their appearance. >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 Nope. I have never met you, most likely never will, and do not know any of your family. All i know is that you run a BASE course, and that you live near the Perrine. However, I do find it within my own self-interest to post here on this forum. I am very interested in Philosophy, and I would be more interested in finding out if there really is any sense to each one of the political/economic/social philosophies that are out there. Unfortunately, I have only found two philosophies that keep people from sounding off contradictions in speech. Well, really one, but I have more to look through in the second. I'm taking a Social and Political Philosophy class this term, so maybe that will make the search a little bit more interesting. (As if it wasn't already)

>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.

>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.

>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...

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.

>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?

How special. Your willing to bank on laughable headway.

>I've essentially agreed with you Huh? You must be thinking this is the thread about providing people with food before health care. That is where we were aligned pretty well. Which position is that "some other position" that you don't hold, to be specific?

Uh huh. Mockery is a bit different than admittance. You've used a lot of energy to try to label me as stupid, but the headway you have made is laughable, at best.