New Study Finds Wimpy Guys More Likely To Be Socialists
Reading what's in the link, I immediately thought of my lib brother. I have four brothers. The only lib is the second wimpiest.
I'm pretty sure the wimpiest, who washed out as an Air Force recruit, is still a conservative.
At family reunions we don't discuss politics because of the lib.
My most conservative of brothers is not a wimp at all and likes to talk about the lib behind his back.
So far none of my brothers know I'm here in The Gulch. Or at least~I don't think so.
I'm pretty sure the wimpiest, who washed out as an Air Force recruit, is still a conservative.
At family reunions we don't discuss politics because of the lib.
My most conservative of brothers is not a wimp at all and likes to talk about the lib behind his back.
So far none of my brothers know I'm here in The Gulch. Or at least~I don't think so.
https://www.google.com/search?q=monta...
Think about it... Utah already kind-of/sort-of looks the other way on some Latter Day Saints stuff. I bet they may be open to a self-run community that kicks down a little bit of tax revenue.
A Mitch Rapp movie will be out in September, but you probably know that..
The linked article only provides audio of the altercation, while video would have provided more details. The politician's handlers have tried to justify the attack by claiming the reporter was asked to lower the recorder and leave, but that is not in the audio. The handlers also claim that the politician grabbed for the reporter's phone (which is an admission of assault, I believe), which made the reporter grab the politician's wrist and cause them both to fall. From the audio, this attempted justification does not ring true to me. I hear the politician acting out of control, shouting and angry in response to a reporter doing what reporters do. If he can't handle being questioned without erupting in anger, he seems like the snowflake in this situation, and he really shouldn't be pursuing any kind of public position which necessitates interacting with the press.
My two cents' worth: I don't consider bullies who respond to words with physical violence to be heroes. And I don't think reporters who merely press public figures for an answer are "snowflakes." I also don't think that anyone - snowflake or not - is deserving of physical abuse in the absence of threatening or initiating a physical attack. Are they annoying? Sure. Does anyone irritated with a snowflake or a nosy reporter have the right to beat them up? No.
In fact,it is an assault and the grabbee has a right to defend himself against the grabber.
Should the grabbee (I made that word up) has witnesses to that as being a stated (true or not) fact, he/she is pretty well in the clear.
Then it occurred to me that I most likely could not get him to walk through the front gate.
I've heard of that happening.
One was a state trooper who was told he had to lock up his gun in his car.
Another was a trainee who waved to get out, quitting as fast as the gate closed behind him.
Methinks a separate study should be made for RINOs.
That is, if they can be coaxed to come out from under the safe zones beneath their assigned Congressional desks.
RINOs don't wimp out, they are keeping their options open. They, like the POS d's, have zero fidelity to the Constitution and even less loyalty to those that elected them. Most in government are out for growing their own power, growing their own influence, and amassing their own wealth. If they prevent the opposition from doing shady things that yield enormous profit, they wouldn't be able to profiteer from those things themselves. This is why the ethic committee of the fedgov is a laughing stock, a token agency for dragging investigations out until someone chooses to retire. RINOs are far worse then d's ever could be - they lack any conviction whatever- even the wrong kind.
And will this sorry lot ever support term limits?
Only when they are up for reelection.
But should they run to be reelected yet again?
They will say they support term limits until reelected even yet again, and again, and again, and again as many times it takes for them to finally retire with a big fat pension paid for by~ guess whooooo?
It's yooooooooou!
I'll exempt the head of the College Republican Party in Minnesota 25 years ago when I was there, he was an asshole. Most of the ones that turn into professional campaign operatives are assholes though.
John McCain who is often called a Hero is about the wimpiest RINO of the bunch. I suspect he might have been neutered during his stay in the Hanoi Hilton but at some point real soon I hope the wimps in AZ decide to put him out to pasture. Wow has he become a complete disgrace IMO.
Living through Jimmy Carter and my 30th year were among factors that helped with that.
I first heard of Ayn Rand when AS1 was listed on Netflix.
Hey, Allosour....too bad about your "second wimpiest" brother...I suspect that you end up being more or less barred from speaking politics at family reunions because Mr. "second wimpiest" gets nasty and starts calling people names when he uses his one canned argument on any given subject and it gets parried by a conservative and then he has no comeback. I have a brother in law like that. What a pain in the behind.
Political conversation around him froze over and I think he caught on and decided to shut up also.
For some reason he likes to talk about weapons; but when a year ago I told him my son and I had recently been at a pistol range, he looked at me all appalled.
He was spending a weekend with my most conservative of brothers who later told me the lib
could not comprehend how shooting a gun at a range could be fun or even necessary.
I always thought target practice helps one shoot straight~but what do I know?
https://youtu.be/KEP4NeRrANU
“Lots of guys who are phenomenally successful in modern societies would probably be nowhere near as successful in hunter gatherer societies.”
Bill Gates comes to mind.....
They also tend to drive Subaru station wagons...
I hope that whoever buys into this isn't using the distorted and incorrect definition that substitutes the definition of communist in place of the real definition of socialist. A Socialist is somebody who wants the kind of social reforms that eliminate poverty, hunger, disease, ignorance, you know, all those symptoms of economic inequality that result when there are a rich class, a middle class and a poor class within a society.
So, if Wimpy guys are more likely to actually care about the needs of their fellow citizens, and therefor are more likely to be attracted to socialist ideals, does that mean that Capitalism is more likely to attract Neanderthal knuckle-draggers (non-wimpy) who care more about greedy gain at the expense of others than about win-win scenarios?
socialism: noun; a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution and exchange should be owned and regulated by the community as a whole.
Compact Oxford English Dictionary, Revised edition 2003.
Please do not forget that all communist tyrants called themselves socialists.
Also, please do not forget that all aspiring socialists tried to hide themselves behind more benign sounding labels, like liberals, progressives, democrats, etc. in an effort to hide from ignorant voters what they really have in mind for the future, if they get to hold power.
"Regulated by the community" really means by the individuals that wheel the power in the name of the "community".
When I was a university student in a communist tyranny in the '50s, we joked that the definition of the automobile was "the means by which the people transport themselves through their representatives".
That is socialism, by any name.
What you describe that socialists want is UTOPIA.
EDIT: added addressee and rearranged mistaken order of lines
As a practical matter, many of the reforms advocated by socialists and communists have been tried in various countries, to various degrees, over the past hundred years, and those reforms have had not been successful in eliminating or even reducing poverty, hunger, disease, ignorance, or class distinctions. Rather, they have increased those social ills.
As a moral matter, initiating force (threats or actual imprisonment, physical harm, and/or death) to achieve your preferred social goals is wrong. The ends do not justify the means. The individual matters, and the individual's rights and happiness and well-being should not be sacrificed for the illusory "common good."
I equally enjoy Victor Hugo's novels. He is also an idealist. His ideals are social(istic). His life span wasn't long enough to notice that universal education was not enough to cure poverty, illness, ignorance or to eliminate crime.
IIf you want to have your mind blown, llok at the difference in the definition of Socialism in the Webster's Dictionary of 100 years ago and compare it to the definition in the Webster's dictionary of today. Socialism is an idea that requires encyclopedic coverage to define, at the least, and thousands of pages of literature and history to understand, if you want to be thorough. 100 years ago, the Editors of Webster's understood this. Today, what you find there is a succinct definition of Soviet Communism and people who choose not to think quote it as if it were a legitimate definition of Socialism.
Socialists are a misguided people who have become so frustrated over their inability to make the lame walk that they cripple everyone in the name of equality. Communists are of similar bent except their frustration is over raising the dead.
Also:
Socialist policies can be made to appear to work as long as there is a strong enough capitalist base to support them.
" I hope that" ......You aren't ...."using the distorted and incorrect definition that substitutes the definition of"..a totalitarian.."communist in place of the real definition of a..." politically conservative American.
" the real definition of a..." politically conservative American." which is what? A lot of Democrats are politically conservative. A lot of Republicans are liberal, some of those have even served as President. If you are not a constitutionalist, you are not politically conservative, in my humble opinion. The constitution calls for equal access to all rights and privileges of citizenship. That means Education, Health Care, Protection of the law, etc. NONE of these should be more available to a monied elite than they are to the rest of the population. It is only a matter of time until each of them becomes constitutionally defined and protected.
I forgot that people still used the word shibboleth. It is funny that you use it here. Based on this definition: "A shibboleth is (either) a saying that people repeatedly cite that is wrong" the commonly used definitions of liberal and socialism/st are the most often repeated shibboleths I can think of. Speaking of people who would rather turn over their right to think to some organizational label and use labels to categorize others, because it is too much work to think for themselves and consider ideas on their merit, that is.
Does the Constitution guarantee access to education and health care? I don't think it mentions health care, although maybe this was less of an issue at the time it was written because there weren't expensive treatments available. I have an issue with sanctifying services people provide one another, like health care, as "rights". We have the right to free speech, meaning the gov't won't stop us from speaking. If it does, it violates our rights. If we have a right to education, does that mean if gov't can't find the money to pay for education, it is violating our rights as badly as if it made on popular speech illegal or banned basic weapons?
That is bull shit!
As for education you probably were for Bernies Free college . When something is free it is worth
less, your socialist collectivists have already ruined the public education system. All to make sure the test scores from the no study no effort kids are similar to the kids who do the work.
Your kind is winning but that doesn't make it right.
If an individual chooses to trade value for value i.e. Be an employee he is a producer in my book. The taxes and how he is required to report it is theft by collectivists. I never said anyone or business should get special rights.
My wife and I had 3 children by the time we were 27 .We both choose to sacrificed our own personal interests and time to provide for them , we paid from our own work our earnings to house,educate, feed, and we paid for their healthcare and dental and never got a dime from the state or federal govt. We never expected any either. My wife had her tubes tied after the third because we understood the responsibility to care for our own and are ability to do so.
You are right that it is in all our best interests that children are cared for! The best way to have access to high quality Healthcare or increase the standard of living is for a govt. to allow laissez fare capitalism to enrich the community. Period.
You ,who claim to have such an interest in the 100 -200 year history of the definition of socialism would be better served to study the 200 year history of the most successful
Country in the world in terms of standard of living progress , innovation rather than promote ideas that are destroying the USA's ability.
It is not my responsibility to care for anyone else's children , I do choose to donate to St Joseph's Indian School in So. Dakota .That school , solely on donations provides for room and board , education and healthcare. The kids are asked to do chores and to Learn. I have also volunteered my time working with kids as well as mentoring many young adults.
I gave you a point +1 with the hope you will understand the flaw of your philosophy and Because you like kids.
How is Daniel doing?
We're told opiate medication is usually prescribed after surgery to fix a herniated disk.
I just hope and pray for my son to need nothing for pain or be lying about in bed after his surgery this coming Tuesday.
Right now Daniel can stand at times on or off his crutches or lie across a car's back seat thus without a seat belt en route to a medical appointment but he can't sit straight up in the chair of a waiting room. So he wearily stood on crutches in that ER for four hours to end up doing particularly good tonight. I can hear him in his room having a good time with his PC, but he's still in bed lying on one side.
Pain and condition? To me it is like they are sacrificing him for the greater good.
You must have shown great restraint from showing those idiots what pain feels like.
Wishing him a successful surgery anda speedy recovery :)
The so-called "health insurance industry" that doctors these days kowtow to may have much influence on that.
My ex and Daniel's mother, who is still an active nurse, suggested we try the ER to seek the stuff of poppies.
The ER doctor referred to the current opioid epidemic and said he would not work against the decisions of both Daniel's doctor and the neurosurgeon.
For now the non-opioids the ER doctor prescribed has removed much of the pain. Yesterday Daniel twice walked without crutches to the kitchen, though with a slightly crooked posture.
I would use the active voice. "Some person told you," because some person's bad decision is responsible for this problem. I would avoid a hospital that won't treat the pain and/or does not have a pro-active service attitude. They probably won't provide good service is other areas. I would shop other providers. I know most providers seem to mindlessly follow government guidelines, but there are providers who care about their customers. It sucks to have find them while someone's suffering.
I am so sorry to hear it. I think you should politely and firmly tell him five (5) more days in pain is unacceptable. I'm not sure I would be able to maintain the equanimity to do that if my son were suffering.
There's no way around that for a fact.
There is ONLY one way that laissez faire capitalism can enrich a community or nation: The capitalists must reinvest their profits in the community. J Paul Getty understood this when he wrote "How to Be Rich". Not How to get rich, How to BE Rich. But laissez faire means that there is no external compulsion. The capitalists must do so of their own volition. And they used to do so. Many do not do so and there are vast pools of capital that have been siphoned out of the economy thanks to you and me and all of the other consumers doing exactly as we are programmed to do, but these vast pools of capital are NOT being reinvested or taxed. They don't enrich the community. These capitalists have been impoverishing the nation and the communities within the nation because they have been "laissed" to do whatever they wish thanks to trickle down Reaganomics, which has been reinforced since it was instituted and which absolutely FAILS to cause a trickle down, but instead causes a fountain of capital up to the wealthiest corp owners/major stockholders that never re-enters the US economy. THAT is the cause of any stagnation in the nation's economic growth far more than any so called government intervention.
Do you agree they must either spend it or invest it? Even if they attempt to "save" it, the banks lend out that money or if they buy precious metals they drive the price up. I don't understand how what we choose to do can be right or wrong.
I'm not talking about the idiotic national debt. That will never be paid off.
Yes. This is how I understand it too. Spending is needed when there's unused productive capacity. Wealth comes from investing in new factors of production.
We were the most successful country in the world once and we used to be able to boast innovation thanks to a superior educational standard. We can hardly make those boasts today.
The question isn't about your (personal) responsibility to care for other people's kids. It is a parent's job to care for their kids. But the question is why does one child have more right to health and education than another? And please don't suggest that the opportunity to access either is equal for all children.
Economic growth in the United States has, on average, been slowed by 0.8 percent per year since 1980 owing to the cumulative effects of regulation:
If regulation had been held constant at levels observed in 1980, the US economy would have been about 25 percent larger than it actually was as of 2012.
This means that in 2012, the economy was $4 trillion smaller than it would have been in the absence of regulatory growth since 1980.
This amounts to a loss of approximately $13,000 per capita, a significant amount of money for most American workers.
That my friend is enough to pay for a child's healthcare and dental along with private education.
Even with those shackles on our economy people still risk their lives to come to America
Economic growth is the increase in the inflation-adjusted market value of the goods and services produced by an economy over time. It is conventionally measured as the percent rate of increase in real gross domestic product, or real GDP, usually in per capita terms.
When you say corps I must assume you mean Top Management vs Rank and file. The income disparity is obscene, I would agree with that. The FED 's increase of the money supply many have argued and I agree has caused an asset bubble and part of the strong increase in the value of the DJIA.
"But the question is why does one child have more right to health and education than another?" More Right to health and Education
These are not rights. Just like anything of value it is created. By your way of thinking every child should have a swimming pool in his backyard because some other kids do.
Go to Venezuala
Chavez and Maduro promised to equalize everything to be elected and the result is people starving to death.
There is ONLY one way that laissez faire capitalism can enrich a community or nation: The capitalists must reinvest their profits in the community. J Paul Getty understood this when he wrote "How to Be Rich". Not How to get rich, How to BE Rich. But laissez faire means that there is no external compulsion. The capitalists must do so of their own volition. And they used to do so. Many do not do so and there are vast pools of capital that have been siphoned out of the economy thanks to you and me and all of the other consumers doing exactly as we are programmed to do, but these vast pools of capital are NOT being reinvested or taxed. They don't enrich the community. These capitalists have been impoverishing the nation and the communities within the nation because they have been "laissed" to do whatever they wish thanks to trickle down Reaganomics, which has been reinforced since it was instituted and which absolutely FAILS to cause a trickle down, but instead causes a fountain of capital up to the wealthiest corp owners/major stockholders that never re-enters the US economy. THAT is the cause of any stagnation in the nation's economic growth far more than any so called government intervention.
Employees are the producers, the doers.
I agree with the rest of your post, but fundamentally I think employees who are doing the work as produces.
You have it backwards. In Fountainhead the heroic producer was out of a job or working a menial job to make ends meet most of the book. The wealthy business owners were total sellouts, troubled that they weren't producers.
BTW, I did not downvote your comment.
I see it as a good idea but not technically a right. Maybe it's just semantics.
I don't see it as a "right" because it is a service one person provides for another. Calling it a right moves closer to the idea that people have a moral obligation to put others' needs ahead of their own, which I think is evil.
My most conservative brother lives half an hour away on the other side of Birmingham, the lib moved from California to Delaware two years ago, another lives in Tennessee and the wimp lives in North Carolina.
No one wants trouble during a somewhat rare family reunion.