wrote:
"HeyBub" writes:

Jack Stein wrote:

Greed is a word made up by man that defines excessive desire.
Desire is fine, excessive desire is not. Desire = good, excessive
desire = bad.

Okay, I'll play. In what way(s) is "excessive desire" bad?

It's a definition. Greed = bad.

Please forward an accepted definition where greed is a synonym for bad. A
common definition is: "an excessive desire to acquire or possess more
(especially more material wealth) than one needs or deserves; avaricious:
immoderately desirous of acquiring e.g. wealth."


Now I understand that wicked thoughts, in the Christian tradition, are
sinful and therefore bad, but in my world, thoughts are neither good nor
bad, only actions and results. To me, there was nothing wrong with Carter's
famous confession: "I have lusted in my heart".


Sort of like we don't say subservient when we mean respectful.

Uh, no one says "subservient" when they mean "respectful." They are two
different things.

I can be subservient even when I don't respect the judge for hitting me with
a fine and I can be respectful of the president even while vigorously
rejecting his demands.

On 8/15/2011 4:19 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:

Greed is a word made up by man that defines excessive desire. Desire
is fine, excessive desire is not. Desire = good, excessive desire =
bad.

Okay, I'll play. In what way(s) is "excessive desire" bad?

Well first, you started the game with the statement that greed = good.

Excessive: going beyond the usual, necessary, or proper limit or degree;
characterized by excess: excessive charges; excessive criticism.

When you go beyond the "proper limit" that's considered bad.

Be careful in your choice to avoid the rejoinder "... then it's the
inability to control one's actions that's the culprit, not excessive
desire."

If you can control it, then the desire is not excessive, and greed does
not exist. When I "desire" your money so "excessively" I'm willing to
take it regardless of the consequences to you, my normal desire for
money became greed. Greed = bad.

--
Jack
When fish are in schools they sometimes take debate.
http://jbstein.com

On 8/16/2011 12:00 AM, HeyBub wrote:
wrote:
writes:

Jack Stein wrote:

Greed is a word made up by man that defines excessive desire.
Desire is fine, excessive desire is not. Desire = good, excessive
desire = bad.

Okay, I'll play. In what way(s) is "excessive desire" bad?

It's a definition. Greed = bad.

Please forward an accepted definition where greed is a synonym for bad.

Greed is not a synonym for bad. Bad is an adjective that describes
greed. Synonyms for greed might be selfishness, avarice and so on. Also
bad things.

--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
wrote:
"HeyBub" writes:

Jack Stein wrote:

Greed is a word made up by man that defines excessive desire.
Desire is fine, excessive desire is not. Desire = good, excessive
desire = bad.

Okay, I'll play. In what way(s) is "excessive desire" bad?

It's a definition. Greed = bad.

Please forward an accepted definition where greed is a synonym for bad. A
common definition is: "an excessive desire to acquire or possess more
(especially more material wealth) than one needs or deserves; avaricious:
immoderately desirous of acquiring e.g. wealth."


Now I understand that wicked thoughts, in the Christian tradition, are
sinful and therefore bad, but in my world, thoughts are neither good nor
bad, only actions and results. To me, there was nothing wrong with
Carter's famous confession: "I have lusted in my heart".


Sort of like we don't say subservient when we mean respectful.

Uh, no one says "subservient" when they mean "respectful." They are two
different things.

I can be subservient even when I don't respect the judge for hitting me
with a fine and I can be respectful of the president even while vigorously
rejecting his demands.

Clearly you have no moral compass.Ther e is no hope for you.

Jack Stein wrote:
On 8/15/2011 4:19 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:

Greed is a word made up by man that defines excessive desire. Desire is
fine, excessive desire is not. Desire = good, excessive
desire = bad.

Okay, I'll play. In what way(s) is "excessive desire" bad?

Well first, you started the game with the statement that greed = good.

Excessive: going beyond the usual, necessary, or proper limit or
degree; characterized by excess: excessive charges; excessive
criticism.
When you go beyond the "proper limit" that's considered bad.

Be careful in your choice to avoid the rejoinder "... then it's the
inability to control one's actions that's the culprit, not excessive
desire."

If you can control it, then the desire is not excessive, and greed
does not exist. When I "desire" your money so "excessively" I'm
willing to take it regardless of the consequences to you, my normal
desire for money became greed. Greed = bad.

You make a good point. Still, isn't "excessive" simply "more than normal"? I
suggest my hankering for strawberry shortcake may be greater than your
average bear's (though that's doubtful) but I can control it. If one cannot
control "excessive" desires, that person is, by definition, insane.

For example, if someone is plagued throughout life with a sexual desire for
small dogs, everyone would conclude his desire was "excessive." Yet, until
he ACTS on those desires, he may be considered the most righteous member of
the community.

You also make my point when you say "... I'm willing to take it
regardless..." Note the word "will." You made the decision [free will] to
act on that "excessive" desire. In my view, it is the TAKING that is bad,
not the inclination, even "excessive" inclination, to do so.

Of course there are those who hold that removing or suppressing the
"excessive desire" (by sufficient medication if necessary) will, inter alia,
remove the deleterious consequences. I leave it as an exercise for the
reader to examine the collateral damage of mental reprogramming.

In article ,
Jack Stein wrote:


When you go beyond the "proper limit" that's considered bad.

"Proper limit".. now THERE is a concept that is absolutely definable
in objective terms that all agree on (grin). My major concern is that
greed and most of the terms in this debate really boil down to "I want
to take away everything above the level that makes me uncomfortable".



--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

wrote:
"HeyBub" writes:

Jack Stein wrote:

Greed is a word made up by man that defines excessive desire.
Desire is fine, excessive desire is not. Desire = good, excessive
desire = bad.

Okay, I'll play. In what way(s) is "excessive desire" bad?

It's a definition. Greed = bad.

Please forward an accepted definition where greed is a synonym for
bad. A common definition is: "an excessive desire to acquire or
possess more (especially more material wealth) than one needs or
deserves; avaricious: immoderately desirous of acquiring e.g. wealth."


Now I understand that wicked thoughts, in the Christian tradition, are
sinful and therefore bad, but in my world, thoughts are neither good
nor bad, only actions and results. To me, there was nothing wrong with
Carter's famous confession: "I have lusted in my heart".


Sort of like we don't say subservient when we mean respectful.

Uh, no one says "subservient" when they mean "respectful." They are
two different things.

I can be subservient even when I don't respect the judge for hitting
me with a fine and I can be respectful of the president even while
vigorously rejecting his demands.

Greed is good if it gets more of the best bang for the buck. Greed is
good when it enhances compromise. Greed is bad when it tramples other
(people's/companies') rights.

See:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIcqb9hHQ3E&feature=youtu.be

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"HeyBub" writes:

wrote:
"HeyBub" writes:

Jack Stein wrote:

Greed is a word made up by man that defines excessive desire.
Desire is fine, excessive desire is not. Desire = good, excessive
desire = bad.

Okay, I'll play. In what way(s) is "excessive desire" bad?

It's a definition. Greed = bad.

Please forward an accepted definition where greed is a synonym for bad. A
common definition is: "an excessive desire to acquire or possess more
(especially more material wealth) than one needs or deserves; avaricious:
immoderately desirous of acquiring e.g. wealth."

As other posters have explained, all those words, excessive, avaricious,
immoderate, have a negative (bad) connotation.

Sort of like we don't say subservient when we mean respectful.

Uh, no one says "subservient" when they mean "respectful." They are two
different things.

I can be subservient even when I don't respect the judge for hitting me with
a fine and I can be respectful of the president even while vigorously
rejecting his demands.

Sounds like you haven't kept up with the news:

http://tinyurl.com/3t97wgd

Appearing on "Face the Nation" Sunday, Rep. Michele Bachmann stood by
her comment in Thursday's Republican debate, insisting that when she
said wives should be submissive to their husbands, she meant that
married couples should have mutual respect.

--
Dan Espen

On 8/16/2011 8:07 AM, HeyBub wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:
On 8/15/2011 4:19 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:

Greed is a word made up by man that defines excessive desire. Desire is
fine, excessive desire is not. Desire = good, excessive
desire = bad.

Okay, I'll play. In what way(s) is "excessive desire" bad?

Well first, you started the game with the statement that greed = good.

Excessive: going beyond the usual, necessary, or proper limit or
degree; characterized by excess: excessive charges; excessive
criticism.
When you go beyond the "proper limit" that's considered bad.

Be careful in your choice to avoid the rejoinder "... then it's the
inability to control one's actions that's the culprit, not excessive
desire."

If you can control it, then the desire is not excessive, and greed
does not exist. When I "desire" your money so "excessively" I'm
willing to take it regardless of the consequences to you, my normal
desire for money became greed. Greed = bad.

You make a good point. Still, isn't "excessive" simply "more than normal"? I
suggest my hankering for strawberry shortcake may be greater than your
average bear's (though that's doubtful) but I can control it. If one cannot
control "excessive" desires, that person is, by definition, insane.

I guess one could make a case that all criminals are by definition,
insane. I, and our legal system disagree:-)

For example, if someone is plagued throughout life with a sexual desire for
small dogs, everyone would conclude his desire was "excessive."

I wouldn't, I'd say it was insane, or really abnormal.

Yet, until he ACTS on those desires, he may be considered the most
righteous member of
the community.

Only because no one is aware of his abnormal desires for screwing
animals. I doubt anyone would describe bestiality as greed.

You also make my point when you say "... I'm willing to take it
regardless..." Note the word "will." You made the decision [free will] to
act on that "excessive" desire. In my view, it is the TAKING that is bad,
not the inclination, even "excessive" inclination, to do so.

Yes, the action is bad. Greed is just a word the describes the
excessive desire that caused the action. Again, no action, then the
desire was probably not excessive. Intense perhaps, but not excessive.
Once you take action, there is little doubt the desire was excessive and
uncontrollable.

You can stop saying it now:-)

--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com

On Aug 15, 11:13*am, Han wrote:
" wrote :





On Aug 15, 9:37*am, Han wrote:
" wrote
innews:c42f550e-7e0
:

On Aug 14, 5:18 pm, Han wrote:
Gordon Shumway wrote
:

On 14 Aug 2011 18:50:51 GMT, Han wrote:

Are you too lazy to work and don't pay taxes and do you want
the government to give you money to support yourself or do you
work at a government job and want to insure you never get laid
off or have to work very hard?
If yes, vote democrat.

I agree that need has to be established for a handout. Wish that
was simple. Getting unemployment because you don't want to work
should n
ot
be possible. On the other hand, if the only job available was
one th
at
cut wages to less than half, some kind of subsidy should be
available.

Why would the pay scale have anything to do with it? Let us
suppose
a
person was hired to do a high-paying job, because they
interviewed extremely well and had an impeccable resume but they
were totally unqualified. Then let us suppose in 2012 that
person is fired from that job because of his incompetence,
arrogance and corruption and someone qualified was given the
job. It shouldn't be the government'
s
(read tax payers) responsibility to hold that persons hand when
things get rough, that's what relatives, friends and charities
are for -- not my hard earned savings.

Sorry, left a sentence out. There has to be a limit above which
salary/wages wouldn't be supplemented. Also supplementation of
reduced wages needs to be to 75% (WAG number) of previous salary,
with a 2 year (another WAG) time limit.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And there you have an good example of the thinking
that's got us where we are today. *The libs think every
possible issue they can identify as needing to be fixed
requires another law, another regulation, another
federal program, another handout. *And who do they
turn to for these programs and how to run them?
Why Congress of course, with an approval rating
of 15%. * I want Congress to do less, not more.

We got were we are because of a spendthrift congress, that showered
benefits left and right so the critters could get re-elected left and
right alike. *If you think that by abrogating unemployment benefits
we will get back on track, I suggest you hire a firing squad
(figuratively speaking, mostly).

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And you just advocated that spendthrift congress start spending
more money on a new unemployment program where we now
start compensating people who go from one job to a lower
paying job. *It's EXACTLY that kind of thinking that has got
us to where we are today.

To any thinking person, it's ripe for abuse. *There are
people who are going to do the math, decide, gee,
I can leave my job making $50K, take an easier one
at $40K. *Per your own suggestion, the govt would
then pay me $7500. * Now I'm making $47.5K, at an
easier, more desirable job. *Sounds like a deal
there would be a line for. *And if I want to pick up
that extra $2500, just do a little bit of cash work
off the books.

That is an incorrect application of what I was proposing. *What I was
saying is that a person losing a 35K job for no fault of his own, should
not get full unemployment compensation if he could find a job that paid
25K. *Normally one wouldn't take that if the unemployment paid anything
reasonable. *But if a 7.5K subsidy were added to the 25K, that would get
him employed, and reduce the unemployment paid to him. *There are many
real life examples of people in that type of situation.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The example I gave you is exactly the same thing. I just used
a guy with a $50K job. You think people aren't smart enough to
figure
out how to get fired and make it look like it's not their fault if
they
want to take advantage of some federal program? This would
just cost the rest of us more money. And studies have shown
that when people lose their jobs, there are two periods when
most of them find new ones. The first period is immediately
after they are laid off. The second is when their unemployment
benefits expire.

On 8/16/2011 8:48 AM, Han wrote:

Greed is good if it gets more of the best bang for the buck.

That's not greed, that's free market competition. Greed would not get
you more bang for your buck, just the opposite. For example, greed
might lead you to eliminate competition so you could sell an inferior
product at huge profit margins far above normal, say 30%. Greed might
lead a political group to accept a boat load of money to sit on unfair
competition charges. Something like, exactly like, Microsoft.

Greed is good when it enhances compromise.

How on earth would greed *excessive desire for something) enhance
compromise? If anything, it does the opposite.

Greed is bad when it tramples other (people's/companies') rights.

Greed is always bad. It is a description of bad behavior. If I want
your money and shot you between the eyes and take your money because I'm
a greedy little *******, that is bad, EVEN if it turns out your are a
perverted mass murder on the FBI's most wanted list.

--
Jack
A.C.O.R.N: For Democrats that just can't vote often enough...
http://jbstein.com

On Aug 15, 5:13*pm, "Steve B" wrote:
The problem today is that people retiring are getting
significantly more out of SS and Medicare than they
ever paid into it.

Methinks whoms spoketh doth not have the mathematic skills of a common
garden slug when it comes to compounded interest over a 50 year tyme cycle.

If said peasant were allowed to contribute confiscated earnings to even a
lowly (less than 5%) growth fund, they would have to liveth to be over 200
years old to collect all the accrued interest, and in some cases, they would
have to liveth centuries longer if they had invested in Intel or Starbucks
or Mattel or ..............

Where doth these dolts cometh from.

Oh, dopey me. *I forgetteth current outcome based education..............

Steve

Before you start calling people dolts, you should consider that
last time I checked one does not have the option of contributing
to a plan that earns 5% interest instead of social security and
medicare. I'm not arguing that would not yield better results.
But it's not an option. All the money currently being paid in is
mostly going right back out to people receiving benefits.
That plus drawing down the reserves which will run out
for social security in 20 years and for medicare in about 7
years. And a typical person is receiving more in benefits
than they paid in. That gap was even worse in prior
decades, but there is still a large gap today.

Here's a WP article explaining it:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...010203213.html

Analysis illustrates big gap between Medicare taxes and benefits
Network NewsX Profile



By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar
Monday, January 3, 2011

You paid your Medicare taxes all those years and want your money's
worth: full benefits after you retire.

Nearly three out of five people said in a recent Associated Press-GfK
poll that people who paid into the system deserve their full benefits
- no cuts.

But an updated financial analysis shows that the amount workers have
paid does not come close to covering the full value of the medical
care they can expect to receive as retirees.

Consider an average-wage two-earner couple together earning $89,000 a
year. Upon retiring in 2011, they would have paid $114,000 in Medicare
payroll taxes during their careers. But they can expect to receive
medical services - including prescriptions and hospital care - worth
$355,000, or about three times what they put in.

On Aug 16, 10:13*am, Jack Stein wrote:
On 8/16/2011 8:07 AM, HeyBub wrote:





Jack Stein wrote:
On 8/15/2011 4:19 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:

Greed is a word made up by man that defines excessive desire. Desire is
fine, excessive desire is not. *Desire = good, excessive
desire = bad.

Okay, I'll play. In what way(s) is "excessive desire" bad?

Well first, you started the game with the statement that greed = good.

Excessive: going beyond the usual, necessary, or proper limit or
degree; characterized by excess: excessive charges; excessive
criticism.
When you go beyond the "proper limit" that's considered bad.

Be careful in your choice to avoid the rejoinder "... then it's the
inability to control one's actions that's the culprit, not excessive
desire."

If you can control it, then the desire is not excessive, and greed
does not exist. *When I "desire" your money so "excessively" I'm
willing to take it regardless of the consequences to you, my normal
desire for money became greed. *Greed = bad.

You make a good point. Still, isn't "excessive" simply "more than normal"? I
suggest my hankering for strawberry shortcake may be greater than your
average bear's (though that's doubtful) but I can control it. If one cannot
control "excessive" desires, that person is, by definition, insane.

I guess one could make a case that all criminals are by definition,
insane. *I, and our legal system disagree:-)

For example, if someone is plagued throughout life with a sexual desire for
small dogs, everyone would conclude his desire was "excessive."

I wouldn't, I'd say it was insane, or really abnormal.

Yet, until he ACTS on those desires, he may be considered the most
righteous member of
the community.

Only because no one is aware of his abnormal desires for screwing
animals. *I doubt anyone would describe bestiality as greed.

You also make my point when you say "... I'm willing to take it
regardless..." Note the word "will." You made the decision [free will] to
act on that "excessive" desire. In my view, it is the TAKING that is bad,
not the inclination, even "excessive" inclination, to do so.

Yes, the action is bad. *Greed is just a word the describes the
excessive desire that caused the action. *Again, no action, then the
desire was probably not excessive. Intense perhaps, but not excessive.
Once you take action, there is little doubt the desire was excessive and
uncontrollable.

You can stop saying it now:-)

--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.http://jbstein.com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The idea that greed is good flows directly from microeconomics.
It is assumed that each participant in a free economy will
seek to maximize their profits. That is seen everday. When
you go to sell your house, how will you set the price? Will
you say, well, I paid $100K for it 10 years ago, so $130K
seems like a fair price? No, you set it at the maximum
price you can get in the market, maximizing your profit.

A business introducing a new product does the same thing.
They determine as best they can what price yields the
maximum profit to the business. If you price it too low,
while you'll sell a lot, you won't make as much profit.
If you price it too high, you won't sell many, again yielding
less than maximum profit. IF you price it just right,
you will see the amount that yields the maximum
profit to the business.

That's the basis for the "greed is good" concept.
Now, if you take greed to the extreme that you break
laws, that's another story.

Why not post where you ARE on topic! You're the only turd involved here.



In ,
typed:
On Aug 15, 11:13 am, Han wrote:
" wrote
:





On Aug 15, 9:37 am, Han wrote:
" wrote
innews:c42f550e-7e0
:

On Aug 14, 5:18 pm, Han wrote:
Gordon Shumway wrote
:

On 14 Aug 2011 18:50:51 GMT, Han
wrote:

Are you too lazy to work and don't pay taxes and
do you want the government to give you money to
support yourself or do you work at a government
job and want to insure you never get laid off or
have to work very hard?
If yes, vote democrat.

I agree that need has to be established for a
handout. Wish that was simple. Getting
unemployment because you don't want to work should
n
ot
be possible. On the other hand, if the only job
available was one th
at
cut wages to less than half, some kind of subsidy
should be available.

Why would the pay scale have anything to do with
it? Let us suppose
a
person was hired to do a high-paying job, because
they interviewed extremely well and had an
impeccable resume but they were totally
unqualified. Then let us suppose in 2012 that
person is fired from that job because of his
incompetence, arrogance and corruption and someone
qualified was given the job. It shouldn't be the
government'
s
(read tax payers) responsibility to hold that
persons hand when things get rough, that's what
relatives, friends and charities are for -- not my
hard earned savings.

Sorry, left a sentence out. There has to be a limit
above which salary/wages wouldn't be supplemented.
Also supplementation of reduced wages needs to be to
75% (WAG number) of previous salary, with a 2 year
(another WAG) time limit.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And there you have an good example of the thinking
that's got us where we are today. The libs think
every possible issue they can identify as needing to
be fixed requires another law, another regulation,
another federal program, another handout. And who do
they turn to for these programs and how to run them?
Why Congress of course, with an approval rating
of 15%. I want Congress to do less, not more.

We got were we are because of a spendthrift congress,
that showered benefits left and right so the critters
could get re-elected left and right alike. If you
think that by abrogating unemployment benefits we will
get back on track, I suggest you hire a firing squad
(figuratively speaking, mostly).

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And you just advocated that spendthrift congress start
spending more money on a new unemployment program where
we now
start compensating people who go from one job to a lower
paying job. It's EXACTLY that kind of thinking that
has got us to where we are today.

To any thinking person, it's ripe for abuse. There are
people who are going to do the math, decide, gee,
I can leave my job making $50K, take an easier one
at $40K. Per your own suggestion, the govt would
then pay me $7500. Now I'm making $47.5K, at an
easier, more desirable job. Sounds like a deal
there would be a line for. And if I want to pick up
that extra $2500, just do a little bit of cash work
off the books.

That is an incorrect application of what I was
proposing. What I was
saying is that a person losing a 35K job for no fault of
his own, should
not get full unemployment compensation if he could find
a job that paid 25K. Normally one wouldn't take that if
the unemployment paid anything
reasonable. But if a 7.5K subsidy were added to the
25K, that would get
him employed, and reduce the unemployment paid to him.
There are many
real life examples of people in that type of situation.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The example I gave you is exactly the same thing. I just
used
a guy with a $50K job. You think people aren't smart
enough to
figure
out how to get fired and make it look like it's not their
fault if
they
want to take advantage of some federal program? This
would
just cost the rest of us more money. And studies have
shown
that when people lose their jobs, there are two periods
when
most of them find new ones. The first period is
immediately
after they are laid off. The second is when their
unemployment
benefits expire.

On Aug 16, 6:10*am, Jack Stein wrote:
On 8/16/2011 12:00 AM, HeyBub wrote:

wrote:
*writes:

Jack Stein wrote:

Greed is a word made up by man that defines excessive desire.
Desire is fine, excessive desire is not. *Desire = good, excessive
desire = bad.

Okay, I'll play. In what way(s) is "excessive desire" bad?

It's a definition. *Greed = bad.

Please forward an accepted definition where greed is a synonym for bad.

Greed is not a synonym for bad. *Bad is an adjective that describes
greed. *Synonyms for greed might be selfishness, avarice and so on. Also
bad things.

--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.http://jbstein.com

Greed is one of the excesses. All excesses are bad.

Youdon't have to look far for a definition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greed

On Aug 16, 1:48*pm, Han wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote innews:FqWdndnDMZjZdtTTnZ2dnUVZ_vSdnZ2d@earthlink. com:





wrote:
"HeyBub" writes:

Jack Stein wrote:

Greed is a word made up by man that defines excessive desire.
Desire is fine, excessive desire is not. *Desire = good, excessive
desire = bad.

Okay, I'll play. In what way(s) is "excessive desire" bad?

It's a definition. *Greed = bad.

Please forward an accepted definition where greed is a synonym for
bad. A common definition is: "an excessive desire to acquire or
possess more (especially more material wealth) than one needs or
deserves; avaricious: immoderately desirous of acquiring e.g. wealth."

Now I understand that wicked thoughts, in the Christian tradition, are
sinful and therefore bad, but in my world, thoughts are neither good
nor bad, only actions and results. To me, there was nothing wrong with
Carter's famous confession: "I have lusted in my heart".

Sort of like we don't say subservient when we mean respectful.

Uh, no one says "subservient" when they mean "respectful." They are
two different things.

I can be subservient even when I don't respect the judge for hitting
me with a fine and I can be respectful of the president even while
vigorously rejecting his demands.

Greed is good if it gets more of the best bang for the buck. *Greed is
good when it enhances compromise. *Greed is bad when it tramples other
(people's/companies') rights.

See:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIcqb9hHQ3E&feature=youtu.be

--

I like that guy. But as with all Americans,his English is a little
weak.
The word he was seeking was Looting.
We don't have banks, We have looters, As bad as the kids on our
streets.

That about sums it up too.

On Aug 16, 3:13*pm, Jack Stein wrote:
On 8/16/2011 8:07 AM, HeyBub wrote:





Jack Stein wrote:
On 8/15/2011 4:19 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:

Greed is a word made up by man that defines excessive desire. Desire is
fine, excessive desire is not. *Desire = good, excessive
desire = bad.

Okay, I'll play. In what way(s) is "excessive desire" bad?

Well first, you started the game with the statement that greed = good.

Excessive: going beyond the usual, necessary, or proper limit or
degree; characterized by excess: excessive charges; excessive
criticism.
When you go beyond the "proper limit" that's considered bad.

Be careful in your choice to avoid the rejoinder "... then it's the
inability to control one's actions that's the culprit, not excessive
desire."

If you can control it, then the desire is not excessive, and greed
does not exist. *When I "desire" your money so "excessively" I'm
willing to take it regardless of the consequences to you, my normal
desire for money became greed. *Greed = bad.

You make a good point. Still, isn't "excessive" simply "more than normal"? I
suggest my hankering for strawberry shortcake may be greater than your
average bear's (though that's doubtful) but I can control it. If one cannot
control "excessive" desires, that person is, by definition, insane.

I guess one could make a case that all criminals are by definition,
insane. *I, and our legal system disagree:-)

For example, if someone is plagued throughout life with a sexual desire for
small dogs, everyone would conclude his desire was "excessive."

I wouldn't, I'd say it was insane, or really abnormal.

Yet, until he ACTS on those desires, he may be considered the most
righteous member of
the community.

Only because no one is aware of his abnormal desires for screwing
animals. *I doubt anyone would describe bestiality as greed.

You also make my point when you say "... I'm willing to take it
regardless..." Note the word "will." You made the decision [free will] to
act on that "excessive" desire. In my view, it is the TAKING that is bad,
not the inclination, even "excessive" inclination, to do so.

Yes, the action is bad. *Greed is just a word the describes the
excessive desire that caused the action. *Again, no action, then the
desire was probably not excessive. Intense perhaps, but not excessive.
Once you take action, there is little doubt the desire was excessive and
uncontrollable.

You can stop saying it now:-)

--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.http://jbstein.com- Hide quoted

I thought as a bible punching American you would know your bible.
It says there that thinking about it is as bad as the deed.

On Aug 16, 4:07*pm, "
wrote:
On Aug 16, 10:13*am, Jack Stein wrote:





On 8/16/2011 8:07 AM, HeyBub wrote:

Jack Stein wrote:
On 8/15/2011 4:19 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:

Greed is a word made up by man that defines excessive desire. Desire is
fine, excessive desire is not. *Desire = good, excessive
desire = bad.

Okay, I'll play. In what way(s) is "excessive desire" bad?

Well first, you started the game with the statement that greed = good.

Excessive: going beyond the usual, necessary, or proper limit or
degree; characterized by excess: excessive charges; excessive
criticism.
When you go beyond the "proper limit" that's considered bad.

Be careful in your choice to avoid the rejoinder "... then it's the
inability to control one's actions that's the culprit, not excessive
desire."

If you can control it, then the desire is not excessive, and greed
does not exist. *When I "desire" your money so "excessively" I'm
willing to take it regardless of the consequences to you, my normal
desire for money became greed. *Greed = bad.

You make a good point. Still, isn't "excessive" simply "more than normal"? I
suggest my hankering for strawberry shortcake may be greater than your
average bear's (though that's doubtful) but I can control it. If one cannot
control "excessive" desires, that person is, by definition, insane.

I guess one could make a case that all criminals are by definition,
insane. *I, and our legal system disagree:-)

For example, if someone is plagued throughout life with a sexual desire for
small dogs, everyone would conclude his desire was "excessive."

I wouldn't, I'd say it was insane, or really abnormal.

Yet, until he ACTS on those desires, he may be considered the most
righteous member of
the community.

Only because no one is aware of his abnormal desires for screwing
animals. *I doubt anyone would describe bestiality as greed.

You also make my point when you say "... I'm willing to take it
regardless..." Note the word "will." You made the decision [free will] to
act on that "excessive" desire. In my view, it is the TAKING that is bad,
not the inclination, even "excessive" inclination, to do so.

Yes, the action is bad. *Greed is just a word the describes the
excessive desire that caused the action. *Again, no action, then the
desire was probably not excessive. Intense perhaps, but not excessive.
Once you take action, there is little doubt the desire was excessive and
uncontrollable.

You can stop saying it now:-)

--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.http://jbstein.com-Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The idea that greed is good flows directly from microeconomics.
It is assumed that each participant in a free economy will
seek to maximize their profits. * That is seen everday. *When
you go to sell your house, how will you set the price? *Will
you say, well, I paid $100K for it 10 years ago, so $130K
seems like a fair price? *No, you set it at the maximum
price you can get in the market, maximizing your profit.

A business introducing a new product does the same thing.
They determine as best they can what price yields the
maximum profit to the business. *If you price it too low,
while you'll sell a lot, you won't make as much profit.
If you price it too high, you won't sell many, again yielding
less than maximum profit. *IF you price it just right,
you will see the amount that yields the maximum
profit to the business.

That's the basis for the "greed is good" concept.
Now, if you take greed to the extreme that you break
laws, that's another story.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The concept of greed being good arises out of the motivation concept.
ie a greedy ******* will outperform one that is not in say, sales.

On Aug 16, 3:56*pm, "
wrote:
On Aug 15, 5:13*pm, "Steve B" wrote:





The problem today is that people retiring are getting
significantly more out of SS and Medicare than they
ever paid into it.

Methinks whoms spoketh doth not have the mathematic skills of a common
garden slug when it comes to compounded interest over a 50 year tyme cycle.

If said peasant were allowed to contribute confiscated earnings to even a
lowly (less than 5%) growth fund, they would have to liveth to be over 200
years old to collect all the accrued interest, and in some cases, they would
have to liveth centuries longer if they had invested in Intel or Starbucks
or Mattel or ..............

Where doth these dolts cometh from.

Oh, dopey me. *I forgetteth current outcome based education..............

Steve

Before you start calling people dolts, you should consider that
last time I checked one does not have the option of contributing
to a plan that earns 5% interest instead of social security and
medicare. *I'm not arguing that would not yield better results.
But it's not an option. *All the money currently being paid in is
*mostly going right back out to people receiving benefits.
That plus drawing down the reserves which will run out
for social security in 20 years and for medicare in about 7
years. * And a typical person is receiving more in benefits
than they paid in. *That gap was even worse in prior
decades, but there is still a large gap today.

Here's a WP article explaining it:

*http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...11/01/02/AR201....

Analysis illustrates big gap between Medicare taxes and benefits
*Network NewsX Profile

By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar
Monday, January 3, 2011

You paid your Medicare taxes all those years and want your money's
worth: full benefits after you retire.

Nearly three out of five people said in a recent Associated Press-GfK
poll that people who paid into the system deserve their full benefits
- no cuts.

But an updated financial analysis shows that the amount workers have
paid does not come close to covering the full value of the medical
care they can expect to receive as retirees.

Consider an average-wage two-earner couple together earning $89,000 a
year. Upon retiring in 2011, they would have paid $114,000 in Medicare
payroll taxes during their careers. But they can expect to receive
medical services - including prescriptions and hospital care - worth
$355,000, or about three times what they put in.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

True in all parts of the world. Mostly because of inflation.
But also because people are living longer. Here in the UK, the plan
is to make them work longer .ie retire later.

On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 11:57:14 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

Here in the UK, the plan
is to make them work longer .ie retire later.

Speaking of turds, harry...

Read this:

_THE SUN NEVER SETS ON THE BRITISH WELFARE SYSTEM_

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2011-08-10.html

On Aug 16, 1:06*pm, "Twayne" wrote:
Why not post where you ARE on topic! You're the only turd involved here.

,
typed:



On Aug 15, 11:13 am, Han wrote:
" wrote
:

On Aug 15, 9:37 am, Han wrote:
" wrote
innews:c42f550e-7e0
:

On Aug 14, 5:18 pm, Han wrote:
Gordon Shumway wrote
:

On 14 Aug 2011 18:50:51 GMT, Han
wrote:

Are you too lazy to work and don't pay taxes and
do you want the government to give you money to
support yourself or do you work at a government
job and want to insure you never get laid off or
have to work very hard?
If yes, vote democrat.

I agree that need has to be established for a
handout. Wish that was simple. Getting
unemployment because you don't want to work should
n
ot
be possible. On the other hand, if the only job
available was one th
at
cut wages to less than half, some kind of subsidy
should be available.

Why would the pay scale have anything to do with
it? Let us suppose
a
person was hired to do a high-paying job, because
they interviewed extremely well and had an
impeccable resume but they were totally
unqualified. Then let us suppose in 2012 that
person is fired from that job because of his
incompetence, arrogance and corruption and someone
qualified was given the job. It shouldn't be the
government'
s
(read tax payers) responsibility to hold that
persons hand when things get rough, that's what
relatives, friends and charities are for -- not my
hard earned savings.

Sorry, left a sentence out. There has to be a limit
above which salary/wages wouldn't be supplemented.
Also supplementation of reduced wages needs to be to
75% (WAG number) of previous salary, with a 2 year
(another WAG) time limit.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And there you have an good example of the thinking
that's got us where we are today. *The libs think
every possible issue they can identify as needing to
be fixed requires another law, another regulation,
another federal program, another handout. *And who do
they turn to for these programs and how to run them?
Why Congress of course, with an approval rating
of 15%. * I want Congress to do less, not more.

We got were we are because of a spendthrift congress,
that showered benefits left and right so the critters
could get re-elected left and right alike. *If you
think that by abrogating unemployment benefits we will
get back on track, I suggest you hire a firing squad
(figuratively speaking, mostly).

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And you just advocated that spendthrift congress start
spending more money on a new unemployment program where
we now
start compensating people who go from one job to a lower
paying job. *It's EXACTLY that kind of thinking that
has got us to where we are today.

To any thinking person, it's ripe for abuse. *There are
people who are going to do the math, decide, gee,
I can leave my job making $50K, take an easier one
at $40K. *Per your own suggestion, the govt would
then pay me $7500. * Now I'm making $47.5K, at an
easier, more desirable job. *Sounds like a deal
there would be a line for. *And if I want to pick up
that extra $2500, just do a little bit of cash work
off the books.

That is an incorrect application of what I was
proposing. *What I was
saying is that a person losing a 35K job for no fault of
his own, should
not get full unemployment compensation if he could find
a job that paid 25K. *Normally one wouldn't take that if
the unemployment paid anything
reasonable. *But if a 7.5K subsidy were added to the
25K, that would get
him employed, and reduce the unemployment paid to him.
There are many
real life examples of people in that type of situation.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The example I gave you is exactly the same thing. *I just
used
a guy with a $50K job. *You think people aren't smart
enough to
figure
out how to get fired and make it look like it's not their
fault if
they
want to take advantage of some federal program? *This
would
just cost the rest of us more money. *And studies have
shown
that when people lose their jobs, there are two periods
when
most of them find new ones. *The first period is
immediately
after they are laid off. *The second is when their
unemployment
benefits expire.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Why don't you just go **** yourself. Not only are you an
idiot who usually posts wrong advice, but now you jump on
me? I challenge you to find a single off topic post that I
started here. I never have, but once someone else does
I am as free to comment as you just did above, dickhead.

On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 17:16:26 -0400, aemeijers wrote:

On 8/14/2011 3:00 PM, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 13:27:45 -0500, Gordon Shumway wrote:

On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 11:16:05 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

It would be interesting to see how totally ****ed up this country
would be if the Republicans were in charge.
Might still get a chance to find out. Then the fur will really fly.
Nearly all these pols - D and R alike - are millionaire yuppies,
don't know the importance of manufacturing the products we buy right
here, and think everybody should be educated for "jobs of the
future.".
Right. Like China and India don't produce educated people by the
millions.
****ing morons.

--Vic

Here is a simple tutorial for voting democrat or republican.

Do you have a public sector job and pay taxes?
If yes, vote republican.

Are you too lazy to work and don't pay taxes and do you want the
government to give you money to support yourself or do you work at a
government job and want to insure you never get laid off or have to
work very hard?
If yes, vote democrat.

Class dismissed.

Oops, should have been:

Do you have a PRIVATE sector job and pay taxes?
If yes, vote republican.

Yer brush is a little broad. There are those of us who work for the
gummint, trying to fix things from the inside, and trying (often
futilely) to keep our little corner of reality from being as effed up as
y'all think it is. Saint Obama announced a few months back that I won't
be getting any cost of living increases for at least two more years, and
also signed off on jacking my health insurance premiums. So, in effect,
my pay HAS been cut.

My last raise was last century. The last 10 years of my previous job had
*zero* pay increases and the job I currently have pays about $20K less and
I've had no increases (a 10% cut for 9 months) in the three years I've been
here. Man up.

Layoffs are on the table, too, BTW. Several bills in congress to
downsize, which probably means more contractors (at a higher price) will
get hired.

*MAYBE* a higher price but likely less cost.

Enough people in my shop said the hell with the pay freeze,
et al, and retired, that I didn't get to take a vacation so far this
year. At this point, since my high-three used to calculate retirement
will likely never get any higher, I'm just trying to see how long I can
hold on to keep adding to my kinda-like-a-401k retirement plan add-on.
If I could find a job that actually interested me out in real world,
that paid even most of what the difference would be between current
take-home and what federal retirement pays, I'd be out the door as fast
as I could file the paperwork. But as you may have noticed, real-world
jobs are kinda scarce right now.

GMAB.

BTW, I don't have any use for either of the current duopoly of political
parties- they are both fulla ****. IMHO, we need to ban political
parties from Congress, and just elect people, and pass out the
committees and power positions (in theory, at least) to the person, not
the party. Of course, that would require the voters and the politicians
to think, rather than just parrot slogans, so it will never happen.

Absolutely wrong.

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

BTW, I don't have any use for either of the current duopoly of
political parties- they are both fulla ****. IMHO, we need to ban
political parties from Congress, and just elect people, and pass out
the committees and power positions (in theory, at least) to the
person, not the party. Of course, that would require the voters and
the politicians to think, rather than just parrot slogans, so it
will never happen.

Absolutely wrong.

Agreed. Political parties simplify the political process. As G. Northcott
Parkinson observed: "When a member of your party finishes speaking, you need
only shout 'Hear! Hear!' When the opposition speaks, you cry 'Shame! Shame!'
What could be easier?"

On 8/18/2011 6:49 AM, HeyBub wrote:
zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

BTW, I don't have any use for either of the current duopoly of
political parties- they are both fulla ****. IMHO, we need to ban
political parties from Congress, and just elect people, and pass out
the committees and power positions (in theory, at least) to the
person, not the party. Of course, that would require the voters and
the politicians to think, rather than just parrot slogans, so it
will never happen.

Absolutely wrong.

Agreed. Political parties simplify the political process. As G. Northcott
Parkinson observed: "When a member of your party finishes speaking, you need
only shout 'Hear! Hear!' When the opposition speaks, you cry 'Shame! Shame!'
What could be easier?"


But with the duopoly in power, no new ideas ever get brought into play,
and they make damn sure nobody with any other ideas ever gets a seat at
the table. Sorry, 'The Party' (or Parties) should not be in charge,
PEOPLE should.

The people currently in charge clearly are not up to the task. The decay
curve is getting steep. What is your idea to help?

--
aem sends...

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 18:30:47 -0400, aemeijers wrote:

On 8/18/2011 6:49 AM, HeyBub wrote:
zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

BTW, I don't have any use for either of the current duopoly of
political parties- they are both fulla ****. IMHO, we need to ban
political parties from Congress, and just elect people, and pass out
the committees and power positions (in theory, at least) to the
person, not the party. Of course, that would require the voters and
the politicians to think, rather than just parrot slogans, so it
will never happen.

Absolutely wrong.

Agreed. Political parties simplify the political process. As G. Northcott
Parkinson observed: "When a member of your party finishes speaking, you need
only shout 'Hear! Hear!' When the opposition speaks, you cry 'Shame! Shame!'
What could be easier?"


But with the duopoly in power, no new ideas ever get brought into play,
and they make damn sure nobody with any other ideas ever gets a seat at
the table. Sorry, 'The Party' (or Parties) should not be in charge,
PEOPLE should.

So you'd ban people of a like mind from working together? Parties *ARE*
people.

The people currently in charge clearly are not up to the task. The decay
curve is getting steep. What is your idea to help?

Then vote for someone else! good grief

On 8/18/2011 7:16 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 18:30:47 -0400, wrote:

On 8/18/2011 6:49 AM, HeyBub wrote:
zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

BTW, I don't have any use for either of the current duopoly of
political parties- they are both fulla ****. IMHO, we need to ban
political parties from Congress, and just elect people, and pass out
the committees and power positions (in theory, at least) to the
person, not the party. Of course, that would require the voters and
the politicians to think, rather than just parrot slogans, so it
will never happen.

Absolutely wrong.

Agreed. Political parties simplify the political process. As G. Northcott
Parkinson observed: "When a member of your party finishes speaking, you need
only shout 'Hear! Hear!' When the opposition speaks, you cry 'Shame! Shame!'
What could be easier?"


But with the duopoly in power, no new ideas ever get brought into play,
and they make damn sure nobody with any other ideas ever gets a seat at
the table. Sorry, 'The Party' (or Parties) should not be in charge,
PEOPLE should.

So you'd ban people of a like mind from working together? Parties *ARE*
people.

The people currently in charge clearly are not up to the task. The decay
curve is getting steep. What is your idea to help?

Then vote for someone else!good grief

(Sorry for the direct reply- still fighting with, and losing to, Tbird)

And when all the ballot offers up, in most cases, are Tweedledum and
Tweedledee, because the system makes it near-impossible for anyone else
to get on the ballot?

Parties haven't been 'people' for many decades. They are 'the system'.

--
aem, who always votes anyway, sends....

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 23:17:52 -0400, aemeijers wrote:

On 8/18/2011 7:16 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 18:30:47 -0400, wrote:

On 8/18/2011 6:49 AM, HeyBub wrote:
zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

BTW, I don't have any use for either of the current duopoly of
political parties- they are both fulla ****. IMHO, we need to ban
political parties from Congress, and just elect people, and pass out
the committees and power positions (in theory, at least) to the
person, not the party. Of course, that would require the voters and
the politicians to think, rather than just parrot slogans, so it
will never happen.

Absolutely wrong.

Agreed. Political parties simplify the political process. As G. Northcott
Parkinson observed: "When a member of your party finishes speaking, you need
only shout 'Hear! Hear!' When the opposition speaks, you cry 'Shame! Shame!'
What could be easier?"


But with the duopoly in power, no new ideas ever get brought into play,
and they make damn sure nobody with any other ideas ever gets a seat at
the table. Sorry, 'The Party' (or Parties) should not be in charge,
PEOPLE should.

So you'd ban people of a like mind from working together? Parties *ARE*
people.

The people currently in charge clearly are not up to the task. The decay
curve is getting steep. What is your idea to help?

Then vote for someone else!good grief

(Sorry for the direct reply- still fighting with, and losing to, Tbird)

Didn't get it.

And when all the ballot offers up, in most cases, are Tweedledum and
Tweedledee, because the system makes it near-impossible for anyone else
to get on the ballot?

Then get involved!

Parties haven't been 'people' for many decades. They are 'the system'.

Nonsense. Parties are no more than a conglomeration of people.

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 18:30:47 -0400, aemeijers
wrote:

On 8/18/2011 6:49 AM, HeyBub wrote:
zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

BTW, I don't have any use for either of the current duopoly of
political parties- they are both fulla ****. IMHO, we need to ban
political parties from Congress, and just elect people, and pass
out the committees and power positions (in theory, at least) to
the person, not the party. Of course, that would require the
voters and the politicians to think, rather than just parrot
slogans, so it will never happen.

Absolutely wrong.

Agreed. Political parties simplify the political process. As G.
Northcott Parkinson observed: "When a member of your party finishes
speaking, you need only shout 'Hear! Hear!' When the opposition
speaks, you cry 'Shame! Shame!' What could be easier?"


But with the duopoly in power, no new ideas ever get brought into
play, and they make damn sure nobody with any other ideas ever gets
a seat at the table. Sorry, 'The Party' (or Parties) should not be
in charge, PEOPLE should.

So you'd ban people of a like mind from working together? Parties
*ARE* people.


So are corporations. Pets, too.

aemeijers wrote:

Agreed. Political parties simplify the political process. As G.
Northcott Parkinson observed: "When a member of your party finishes
speaking, you need only shout 'Hear! Hear!' When the opposition
speaks, you cry 'Shame! Shame!' What could be easier?"


But with the duopoly in power, no new ideas ever get brought into
play, and they make damn sure nobody with any other ideas ever gets a
seat at the table. Sorry, 'The Party' (or Parties) should not be in
charge, PEOPLE should.

The people currently in charge clearly are not up to the task. The
decay curve is getting steep. What is your idea to help?

I guess I can reveal the conservative's plan since it's been delayed
somewhat.

In the last election, many were rooting for Jeb Bush.

After his eight years, some figured we could elect that good-looking
Hispanic Bush nephew.

After his eight years, the dynasty would be firmly established and it would
be only a small step to a monarchy, which conservatives consider the
ultimate goal.

The plan suffered a setback this time around, but some progress was made.
Obama proved that the U.S. is not a racist country when he was elected as
president. He also proved it will be generations before the electorate
elects another minority.

Except maybe a Jew. Or a woman. Or an Aggie.

aemeijers wrote:

And when all the ballot offers up, in most cases, are Tweedledum and
Tweedledee, because the system makes it near-impossible for anyone
else to get on the ballot?


Ah, the dilemma of the "independent" voter. He has to pick, as you said,
between Tweedledum and Tweedledee.

In reality, the "independent" voter is the most dependent of all !

He has no say in who will be on the ballot. He has no input on the policies,
promises, or platforms of the candidates. And after the election, he has no
influence with the office holder.

Get involved with the party of your choice. Contribute money, knock on
doors, volunteer at the 'phone bank, put up signs on highway right-of-ways.
Attend your precinct convention and get elected to your county convention.
From there, get elected as a delegate to the state convention. Agitate for
the items you want included in the party platform. And so on.

Politics is not a spectator sport. It also ain't bean-bag.

On Aug 18, 11:53*pm, "
wrote:
On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 23:17:52 -0400, aemeijers wrote:
On 8/18/2011 7:16 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 18:30:47 -0400, *wrote:

On 8/18/2011 6:49 AM, HeyBub wrote:
wrote:

BTW, I don't have any use for either of the current duopoly of
political parties- they are both fulla ****. *IMHO, we need to ban
political parties from Congress, and just elect people, and pass out
the committees and power positions (in theory, at least) to the
person, not the party. Of course, that would require the voters and
the politicians to think, rather than just parrot slogans, so it
will never happen.

Absolutely wrong.

Agreed. Political parties simplify the political process. As G. Northcott
Parkinson observed: "When a member of your party finishes speaking, you need
only shout 'Hear! Hear!' When the opposition speaks, you cry 'Shame! Shame!'
What could be easier?"

But with the duopoly in power, no new ideas ever get brought into play,
and they make damn sure nobody with any other ideas ever gets a seat at
the table. Sorry, 'The Party' (or Parties) should not be in charge,
PEOPLE should.

So you'd ban people of a like mind from working together? *Parties *ARE*
people.

The people currently in charge clearly are not up to the task. The decay
curve is getting steep. What is your idea to help?

Then vote for someone else!good grief

(Sorry for the direct reply- still fighting with, and losing to, Tbird)

Didn't get it.

And when all the ballot offers up, in most cases, are Tweedledum and
Tweedledee, because the system makes it near-impossible for anyone else
to get on the ballot?

Then get involved!

Parties haven't been 'people' for many decades. They are 'the system'.

Nonsense. *Parties are no more than a conglomeration of people. * * *- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have to agree with aemeijers on this one. The two parties are
indeed systems. The way candidates are elected for the most
part is to come up through the party system. That means serving
time in one party or the other, usually starting out at some
local office level. And that's where they learn to play the
usual games, exchange favors for votes, get funding
from various sources who they then become committed to
and going along with the party bosses. If they don't play
the game, they don't get beyond being a local township
committeeman.

The Tea Party candidates recently elected were somewhat
of a departure from that with most of them having little or
no prior experience and perhaps it's a trend that will
continue. But it remains to be seen if they will even stay
in office. If polls are correct, they seem
to have lost a lot of support when they recently did exactly
what people elected them to do. At the same time, they
clearly ****ed off the party leadership, which could have
serious consequences in terms of their getting support
for re-election from their own party machine.

There are a few other exceptions, those being people
with enough personal wealth to finance a campaign
for high office themselves. But they are few and far
between and the results not impressive.

On Aug 19, 11:53*am, "
wrote:
On Aug 18, 11:53*pm, "





wrote:
On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 23:17:52 -0400, aemeijers wrote:
On 8/18/2011 7:16 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 18:30:47 -0400, *wrote:

On 8/18/2011 6:49 AM, HeyBub wrote:
wrote:

BTW, I don't have any use for either of the current duopoly of
political parties- they are both fulla ****. *IMHO, we need to ban
political parties from Congress, and just elect people, and pass out
the committees and power positions (in theory, at least) to the
person, not the party. Of course, that would require the voters and
the politicians to think, rather than just parrot slogans, so it
will never happen.

Absolutely wrong.

Agreed. Political parties simplify the political process. As G. Northcott
Parkinson observed: "When a member of your party finishes speaking, you need
only shout 'Hear! Hear!' When the opposition speaks, you cry 'Shame! Shame!'
What could be easier?"

But with the duopoly in power, no new ideas ever get brought into play,
and they make damn sure nobody with any other ideas ever gets a seat at
the table. Sorry, 'The Party' (or Parties) should not be in charge,
PEOPLE should.

So you'd ban people of a like mind from working together? *Parties *ARE*
people.

The people currently in charge clearly are not up to the task. The decay
curve is getting steep. What is your idea to help?

Then vote for someone else!good grief

(Sorry for the direct reply- still fighting with, and losing to, Tbird)

Didn't get it.

And when all the ballot offers up, in most cases, are Tweedledum and
Tweedledee, because the system makes it near-impossible for anyone else
to get on the ballot?

Then get involved!

Parties haven't been 'people' for many decades. They are 'the system'.

Nonsense. *Parties are no more than a conglomeration of people. * * *- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have to agree with aemeijers on this one. *The two parties are
indeed systems. *The way candidates are elected for the most
part is to come up through the party system. *That means serving
time in one party or the other, usually starting out at some
local office level. *And that's where they learn to play the
usual games, exchange favors for votes, get funding
from various sources who they then become committed to
and going along with the party bosses. *If they don't play
the game, they don't get beyond being a local township
committeeman.

The Tea Party candidates recently elected were somewhat
of a departure from that with most of them having little or
no prior experience and perhaps it's a trend that will
continue. *But it remains to be seen if they will even stay
in office. *If polls are correct, they seem
to have lost a lot of support when they recently did exactly
what people elected them to do. *At the same time, they
clearly ****ed off the party leadership, which could have
serious consequences in terms of their getting support
for re-election from their own party machine.

There are a few other exceptions, those being people
with enough personal wealth to finance a campaign
for high office themselves. *But they are few and far
between and the results not impressive.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

But money buy the government in all cases.
No-one represents the poor. Or even the working/middle classes.

On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 03:53:10 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Aug 18, 11:53*pm, "
wrote:
On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 23:17:52 -0400, aemeijers wrote:
On 8/18/2011 7:16 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 18:30:47 -0400, *wrote:

On 8/18/2011 6:49 AM, HeyBub wrote:
wrote:

BTW, I don't have any use for either of the current duopoly of
political parties- they are both fulla ****. *IMHO, we need to ban
political parties from Congress, and just elect people, and pass out
the committees and power positions (in theory, at least) to the
person, not the party. Of course, that would require the voters and
the politicians to think, rather than just parrot slogans, so it
will never happen.

Absolutely wrong.

Agreed. Political parties simplify the political process. As G. Northcott
Parkinson observed: "When a member of your party finishes speaking, you need
only shout 'Hear! Hear!' When the opposition speaks, you cry 'Shame! Shame!'
What could be easier?"

But with the duopoly in power, no new ideas ever get brought into play,
and they make damn sure nobody with any other ideas ever gets a seat at
the table. Sorry, 'The Party' (or Parties) should not be in charge,
PEOPLE should.

So you'd ban people of a like mind from working together? *Parties *ARE*
people.

The people currently in charge clearly are not up to the task. The decay
curve is getting steep. What is your idea to help?

Then vote for someone else!good grief

(Sorry for the direct reply- still fighting with, and losing to, Tbird)

Didn't get it.

And when all the ballot offers up, in most cases, are Tweedledum and
Tweedledee, because the system makes it near-impossible for anyone else
to get on the ballot?

Then get involved!

Parties haven't been 'people' for many decades. They are 'the system'.

Nonsense. *Parties are no more than a conglomeration of people. * * *- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have to agree with aemeijers on this one. The two parties are
indeed systems. The way candidates are elected for the most
part is to come up through the party system. That means serving
time in one party or the other, usually starting out at some
local office level. And that's where they learn to play the
usual games, exchange favors for votes, get funding
from various sources who they then become committed to
and going along with the party bosses. If they don't play
the game, they don't get beyond being a local township
committeeman.

Because that's how people *CHOOSE* to operate. There is nothing
constitutional about parties. How do you propose to outlaw them?

The Tea Party candidates recently elected were somewhat
of a departure from that with most of them having little or
no prior experience and perhaps it's a trend that will
continue. But it remains to be seen if they will even stay
in office. If polls are correct, they seem
to have lost a lot of support when they recently did exactly
what people elected them to do. At the same time, they
clearly ****ed off the party leadership, which could have
serious consequences in terms of their getting support
for re-election from their own party machine.

Perhaps the party machine is in the process of being replaced?

There are a few other exceptions, those being people
with enough personal wealth to finance a campaign
for high office themselves. But they are few and far
between and the results not impressive.

Patience.

On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 05:27:16 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 18:30:47 -0400, aemeijers
wrote:

On 8/18/2011 6:49 AM, HeyBub wrote:
zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

BTW, I don't have any use for either of the current duopoly of
political parties- they are both fulla ****. IMHO, we need to ban
political parties from Congress, and just elect people, and pass
out the committees and power positions (in theory, at least) to
the person, not the party. Of course, that would require the
voters and the politicians to think, rather than just parrot
slogans, so it will never happen.

Absolutely wrong.

Agreed. Political parties simplify the political process. As G.
Northcott Parkinson observed: "When a member of your party finishes
speaking, you need only shout 'Hear! Hear!' When the opposition
speaks, you cry 'Shame! Shame!' What could be easier?"


But with the duopoly in power, no new ideas ever get brought into
play, and they make damn sure nobody with any other ideas ever gets
a seat at the table. Sorry, 'The Party' (or Parties) should not be
in charge, PEOPLE should.

So you'd ban people of a like mind from working together? Parties
*ARE* people.


So are corporations. Pets, too.

I'll give ya' a .500 on that one. ;-)

On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 05:37:14 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:

aemeijers wrote:

Agreed. Political parties simplify the political process. As G.
Northcott Parkinson observed: "When a member of your party finishes
speaking, you need only shout 'Hear! Hear!' When the opposition
speaks, you cry 'Shame! Shame!' What could be easier?"


But with the duopoly in power, no new ideas ever get brought into
play, and they make damn sure nobody with any other ideas ever gets a
seat at the table. Sorry, 'The Party' (or Parties) should not be in
charge, PEOPLE should.

The people currently in charge clearly are not up to the task. The
decay curve is getting steep. What is your idea to help?

I guess I can reveal the conservative's plan since it's been delayed
somewhat.

In the last election, many were rooting for Jeb Bush.

After his eight years, some figured we could elect that good-looking
Hispanic Bush nephew.

After his eight years, the dynasty would be firmly established and it would
be only a small step to a monarchy, which conservatives consider the
ultimate goal.

The plan suffered a setback this time around, but some progress was made.
Obama proved that the U.S. is not a racist country when he was elected as
president. He also proved it will be generations before the electorate
elects another minority.

Except maybe a Jew. Or a woman. Or an Aggie.

Or perhaps a Stormin'.

On Aug 20, 12:04*am, "
wrote:
On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 05:37:14 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:
aemeijers wrote:

Obama proved that the U.S. is not a racist country when he was elected as
president. He also proved it will be generations before the electorate
elects another minority.

Except maybe a Jew. Or a woman. Or an Aggie.

Or perhaps a Stormin'.-
*


Or a retard. (Palin)

No-one can fix what Republicans have done to America.
You can't blame Obama. He was clearly way out the best. The others
were a sad bunch of losers and dimwits. I think if he had a clear
run, he might have fixed things. But too late now. The Repubs have
f****d things up even more.

I'll put my name forward.
You could do with an intellectual for once.

I will solve your problems. All bankers will be exceuted and their
assets siezed and redistributed..
There's a slogan should get me in power.
Heh Heh!

On Aug 19, 7:02*pm, "
wrote:
On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 03:53:10 -0700 (PDT), "





wrote:
On Aug 18, 11:53*pm, "
wrote:
On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 23:17:52 -0400, aemeijers wrote:
On 8/18/2011 7:16 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 18:30:47 -0400, *wrote:

On 8/18/2011 6:49 AM, HeyBub wrote:
wrote:

BTW, I don't have any use for either of the current duopoly of
political parties- they are both fulla ****. *IMHO, we need to ban
political parties from Congress, and just elect people, and pass out
the committees and power positions (in theory, at least) to the
person, not the party. Of course, that would require the voters and
the politicians to think, rather than just parrot slogans, so it
will never happen.

Absolutely wrong.

Agreed. Political parties simplify the political process. As G. Northcott
Parkinson observed: "When a member of your party finishes speaking, you need
only shout 'Hear! Hear!' When the opposition speaks, you cry 'Shame! Shame!'
What could be easier?"

But with the duopoly in power, no new ideas ever get brought into play,
and they make damn sure nobody with any other ideas ever gets a seat at
the table. Sorry, 'The Party' (or Parties) should not be in charge,
PEOPLE should.

So you'd ban people of a like mind from working together? *Parties *ARE*
people.

The people currently in charge clearly are not up to the task. The decay
curve is getting steep. What is your idea to help?

Then vote for someone else!good grief

(Sorry for the direct reply- still fighting with, and losing to, Tbird)

Didn't get it.

And when all the ballot offers up, in most cases, are Tweedledum and
Tweedledee, because the system makes it near-impossible for anyone else
to get on the ballot?

Then get involved!

Parties haven't been 'people' for many decades. They are 'the system'..

Nonsense. *Parties are no more than a conglomeration of people. * * *- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have to agree with aemeijers on this one. *The two parties are
indeed systems. *The way candidates are elected for the most
part is to come up through the party system. *That means serving
time in one party or the other, usually starting out at some
local office level. *And that's where they learn to play the
usual games, exchange favors for votes, get funding
from various sources who they then become committed to
and going along with the party bosses. *If they don't play
the game, they don't get beyond being a local township
committeeman.

Because that's how people *CHOOSE* to operate. *There is nothing
constitutional about parties. *How do you propose to outlaw them?

I think you mean there is nothing unconstitutional and I agree.
I'm not proposing to outlaw them. I'm only making the
observation that the two party system is just that, a
system that is almost impossible to go around.
The two parties have the power and the mnoney to determine
the candidates and it's naive to think that you can just
vote for someone who is different. I see people
writing letter to the local paper all the time, saying
this time, just vote all the incumbents out. What
they fail to realize is that the choices on the ballot
are coming from the same exact pool that produced
the guy they want to throw out.

In almost all cases
the candidates on the ballot for higher office have been
part of that political system for a long time, have learned
how to get along, how pay to play works, are
controlled to a large extent by the party bosses, etc.



The Tea Party candidates recently elected were somewhat
of a departure from that with most of them having little or
no prior experience and perhaps it's a trend that will
continue. *But it remains to be seen if they will even stay
in office. *If polls are correct, they seem
to have lost a lot of support when they recently did exactly
what people elected them to do. *At the same time, they
clearly ****ed off the party leadership, which could have
serious consequences in terms of their getting support
for re-election from their own party machine.

Perhaps the party machine is in the process of being replaced?

Yes, it's possible. But I would not bet on it.
As I said above, the Tea Party took a big hit in the polls
when they did precisely what the people elected them
to do. I see that as part of an immature electorate
that wants painless, impossible and unrealistic
solutions. I would not be surprised for the next
election to in turn throw the Tea Party folks out
and put back in more of the old guard.

On Aug 20, 3:51*am, harry wrote:
On Aug 20, 12:04*am, zzz wrote:
On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 05:37:14 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:
aemeijers wrote:

Obama proved that the U.S. is not a racist country when he was elected as
president. He also proved it will be generations before the electorate
elects another minority.

Except maybe a Jew. Or a woman. Or an Aggie.

Or perhaps a Stormin'.-

*

Or a retard. (Palin)

No-one can fix what Republicans have done to America.
You can't blame Obama. *He was clearly way out the best. The others
were a sad bunch of losers and dimwits. *I think if he had a clear
run, he might have fixed things. *But too late now. *The Repubs have
f****d things up even more.


Say what? He did have a "clear run". The Democrats
controlled the White House, Senate, and House for
Obama's first two years. They had a fillibuster proof
majority in the Senate. The problem is not that he
did not get his way. The problem is just about
everything he has done has been wrong. Yet,
Obama and the libs continue to blame everyone
but themselves.

The biggest problem now is Obama himself.
As a great example, look at how he has screwed
Boeing and the people in South Carolina that
need jobs. Boeing built a $1 bil plant in that
state to build parts for the just launced 787.
The NLRB, acting on allegations from a
union in Washington state, won't allow Boeing
to open that plant. The union alleges that
Boeing built the plant in retaliation for a strike
several years ago. That despite the fact that
Boeing has created MORE jobs in WA as
well. The repercussions and effect on jobs
and the ecomomy extend way beyond that
one plant. How about it delays the 787 and
costs Boeing billions in lost orders that go
to Airbus instead, resulting in lost jobs for
Boeing workers in WA, Boeing suppliers
through out the USA?

Why would anyone expect the economy to
improve when we have a president allowing
stupid things like this to go on? Spend
$830 on govt stimulus, but have the same
govt blocking a major plant. And then people
wonder why corporations move jobs
overseas?

Until he goes and we get a president that is pro
business with a positive message, don't expect
things to be any different.

wrote:

I have to agree with aemeijers on this one. The two parties are
indeed systems. The way candidates are elected for the most
part is to come up through the party system. That means serving
time in one party or the other, usually starting out at some
local office level. And that's where they learn to play the
usual games, exchange favors for votes, get funding
from various sources who they then become committed to
and going along with the party bosses. If they don't play
the game, they don't get beyond being a local township
committeeman.


In addition, and this is more important, they have to learn that
governmental methods vary DRAMATICALLY from non-governmental techniques.
These methods have been honed over literally thousands of years and have
been proven to provide the best result. Here are a few examples:

Commercial mind-set: Shun force.
Guardian mind-set: Shun trading.

Commercial: Be optimistic.
Guardian: Be fatalistic.

Commercial: Respect contracts.
Guardian: Deceive for the sake of the task.

Commercial: Collaborate easily with strangers and aliens.
Guardian: Be exclusive.

I commend the book "Systems of Belief" by Jane Jacobs in which these and
other attributes are discovered.

harry wrote:

I will solve your problems. All bankers will be exceuted and their
assets siezed and redistributed..
There's a slogan should get me in power.
Heh Heh!

Wouldn't matter. If all the wealth of the richest 10% of Americans were
confiscated and redistributed, two things would happen:

1. Each person would get a surprisingly small amount, and
2. Within in relatively short period, the original distribution would
return.

Re that last: Surprisingly many people would use a windfall to obtain crack
cocaine or buy a motorcycle. Or both.