patrick.net

Another reason to vote Republican ass out of office. They really believe that shit. Unless your in the richest 1% -- and they implement policies to make sure you can't be -- then you are morally inferior in their perverted worldview.

Just remember, that unless you are making at least $500,000 while doing no work and producing nothing (just making this money by owning thing), you are a scumbag according to them.

So why give them your vote?

I think it depends on society. In some societies, it is more appropriate to blame the powers that be and institutions than in others. In some places, you have no chance right from birth.

Every person should think he is poor and he must get rich. It is about drive.

Peter P says

Every person should think he is poor and he must get rich. It is about drive.

That's fine in some places, but in others in may require one to become a warlord or a narco.

dublin hillz says

I think it depends on society. In some societies, it is more appropriate to blame the powers that be and institutions than in others. In some places, you have no chance right from birth.

Of course not everyone is every society can attain "success" as narrated by the west. But even African countries have warlords and local strongmen.

Genghis Khan was dealt a terrible hand. Yet he nearly ruled the world.

Who's failing when you got the government sending you food coupons, rent checks and spare cash?

Dan8267 says

Another reason to vote Republican ass out of office. They really believe that shit. Unless your in the richest 1% -- and they implement policies to make sure you can't be -- then you are morally inferior in their perverted worldview.

Just remember, that unless you are making at least $500,000 while doing no work and producing nothing (just making this money by owning thing), you are a scumbag according to them.

So why give them your vote?

You have already started blaming others. Billionaire Ma was right.

Peter says:
"Poor people are good at shifting blame to the society. The subscribe to theories that explain their condition as "unfair" policies or bad hands."

Reminds me of Jazz Music. Always posts the same mile long whiney crap.

Jack Ma gets the "handing it to yourself" award for the year.

It was Nassim Taleb who noted that random success based on pure luck turned a lot of people into trumpeting ASSHOLES!

Peter P says

He is 100% right.

So what you're saying is that it is possible for us ALL to become super wealthy?

Wow, that sounds fantastic!

Dan8267 says

. They really believe that shit. Unless your in the richest 1% -- and they implement policies to make sure you can't be -- then you are morally inferior in their perverted worldview.

You're not only poor, but you're a wicked, immoral, and incompetent to boot. Die in a Fire, ASSHOLE!

rooemoore says

So what you're saying is that it is possible for us ALL to become super wealthy?

Sure, who wouldn't collect trash or wipe asses if they had $10M or more in the bank. They'd do it for fun.

Ceffer says

Jack Ma gets the "handing it to yourself" award for the year.

It was Nassim Taleb who noted that random success based on pure luck turned a lot of people into trumpeting ASSHOLES!

Lesson: become an asshole and take as many chances as possible

Being lucky is not necessarily a one-off chance. Successful people keep trying. It is all about managing risks and maximizing gains.

Luck is the masterful synthesis of choice and chance.

rooemoore says

So what you're saying is that it is possible for us ALL to become super wealthy?

There is no such thing as ALL. You are in your own reality. Now, do you want agency or not?

Peter P says

rooemoore says

So what you're saying is that it is possible for us ALL to become super wealthy?

There is no such thing as ALL. You are in your own reality. Now, do you want agency or not?

There is no such this as ALL but there is such thing as 100%?
Peter P says

He is 100% right.

I understand it's comforting to not feel bad for the poor when you're a greedy rich asshole, but you could at least be consistent.

rooemoore says

I understand it's comforting to not feel bad for the poor when you're a greedy rich asshole, but you could at least be consistent.

I am just a poor loser trying to improve myself. Besides, I am a postmodernist. Consistency is a waste of time.

BTW, if you want consistency and 100% is the same as ALL, what the hell is 110%?

Peter P says

I am just a poor loser trying to improve myself.

I believe you.

Call it Crazy says

Hmmm..Besides Dan and Jazz Music, it also sounds like a certain duck that's always blaming policies and a certain voting party...

I'll gladly vote against the Democrats when all Republicans are dead. In this country, you vote for the lesser of the two evils, and Republicans are mother-fucking evil.

The last good Republican was Eisenhower, and he would be assassinated by his own party today.

Strategist says

You have already started blaming others. Billionaire Ma was right.

1. Blaming the responsible is the right thing to do. Do you blame yourself for the 9/11 attacks?
2. Ma was talking about the poor. I pretty damn sure I make a lot more each year than you do.
3. Nothing you said undermines my statements.

Blaming your failure on things that are not in your control is not the best way to escape the predicament.

Belief is nothing but a tool. Why not adopt a belief system that is more compatible with your success?

Call it Crazy says

The vile USA Patriot Act disproves your statement. Only three Republicans voted against it compared to 64 Democrats. That speaks volumes.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/07/1214344/-Who-Stood-for-Constitutional-Liberties-and-Voted-Against-the-USA-PATRIOT-Act-in-2001

Democrats
Tammy Baldwin (WI-02)
Thomas Barrett (WI-05)
Earl Blumenauer (OR-03)
David Bonior (MI-10)
Rick Boucher (VA-09)
Sherrod Brown (OH-13)
Mike Capuano (MA-08)
Eva Clayton (NC-01)
John Conyers (MI-14)
William Coyne (PA-14)
Elijah Cummings (MD-07)
Danny Davis (IL-07)
Pete DeFazio (OR-04)
Diana DeGette (CO-01)
John Dingell (MI-16)
Sam Farr (CA-17)
Bob Filner (CA-50)
Barney Frank (MA-04)
Alcee Hastings (FL-23)
Earl Hilliard (AL-07)
Mike Honda (CA-15)
Jesse Jackson (IL-02)
Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18)
Eddie Johnson (TX-30)
Stephanie Jones (OH-11)
Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)
Barbara Lee (CA-09)
John Lewis (GA-05)
Jim McDermott (WA-07)
James McGovern (MA-03)
Cynthia McKinney (GA-04)
Carrie Meek (FL-17)
George Miller (CA-07)
Patsy Mink (HI-02)
Allan Mollohan (WV-01)
Jerry Nadler (NY-08)
James Oberstar (MN-08)
David Obey (WI-07)
John Olver (MA-01)
Major Owens (NY-11)
Ed Pastor (AZ-02)
Donald Payne (NJ-10)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)
Nick Rahall (WV-03)
Lynn Rivers (MI-13)
Bobby Rush (IL-01)
Martin Sabo (MN-05)
Loretta Sanchez (CA-46)
Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
Bobby Scott (VA-03)
Jose Serrano (NY-16)
Pete Stark (CA-13)
Bennie Thompson (MS-02)
John Tierney (MA-06)
Mark Udall (CO-02)
Tom Udall (NM-03)
Nydia Velazquez (NY-12)
Peter Visclosky (IN-01)
Maxine Waters (CA-35)
Diane Watson (CA-32)
Mel Watt (NC-12)
Lynn Woolsey (CA-06)
David Wu (OR-01)

Republicans
Bob Ney (OH-18)
Butch Otter (ID-01)
Ron Paul (TX-14)

Neither party will get rid of patriot act. Once a law like that is on the books whoever is in power will want access to the toy, i mean weapon.

Peter P says

Blaming your failure on things that are not in your control is not the best way to escape the predicament.

Belief is nothing but a tool. Why not adopt a belief system that is more compatible with your success?

The first step to solving a problem is acknowledging its existence.

Let's apply your philosophy to the 9/11 attacks. We can't blame Al Qaeda for them; we'd have to blame ourselves. Therefore, we would have left Al Qaeda get away with their crimes and they would have attacked again.

Now let's apply my philosophy. We blame Al Qaeda and we take away their capacity to commit harm.

We can apply our two philosophies in various situations including murder, rape, burglary, pollution, and malevolent economic policies. The result is consistent. If you eliminate the cause of the problem, the problem goes away.

To argue that 100% of the cause of poverty is the laziness of the poor is just plain asinine. Poverty fluctuates too much over even a few short years. Human nature does not fluctuate that much and that quickly. A person isn't lazy as shit one year and hard-working the next only to suddenly become lazy again a few years later. That alone demonstrates the stupid the premise of this thread is.

dublin hillz says

Neither party will get rid of patriot act.

Likely, but that does not mitigate my point. Democrats are still, by far, the lesser of the two evils.

As I said, I'll vote against the Democrats when every last Republican is dead.

Dan8267 says

To argue that 100% of the cause of poverty is the laziness of the poor is just plain asinine.

Did I ever say that? Laziness is almost a virtue in my book. However, the belief that hard work must automatically be rewarded is a bad one.

Many conservatives blame laziness and I do not agree. Many poor people work way too hard. Some even question why. But they rarely come to the conclusion that their belief system has flaws. Ever fewer of them realize this is good news because they can fix it.

Fighting terrorists is not about blame. It is about a civilized people defending itself against the savages.

Peter P says

Did I ever say that?

Yes, this is the entire premise of your thread that any blame placed upon the rich for rigging the system is invalid.

No one has ever argued that there are no lazy people in the world who are poor. But when unemployment skyrockets, it's not the fault of lazy poor people.

The counter-arguments presented to you have been that the wealthy rig the system with unjust laws that prevent others from achieving wealth, most of the 0.1% got their wealth not by being productive, but rather by exploiting others, and that the typical middle class person can be thrusted into poverty because of zero-sum games played by the owner class. All three of these points are indisputable.

I would go on to say that the only way to become filthy rich in our country is by abandoning any activity that is good for society and pursuing only zero-sum games. A lot of people agree with me and have devoted their lives to zero-sum games. Of course, the greater the percentage of the population that does this, the less the real GDP of the country is. The more people playing zero-sum games, the fewer people left to perform productive work.

Peter P says

Fighting terrorists is not about blame. It is about a civilized people defending itself against the savages.

I don't give a crap what word you use. The first step in fighting terrorism is knowing who attacked you. This is by definition blame, but if prefer the work splunking, then we have to splunk the people responsible for the problem, whether the problem is a terrorist attack or a failed economic system.

I'm not going to get into a stupid nomenclature debate with you.

Peter P says

the belief that hard work must automatically be rewarded is a bad one.

Another Straw Man argument. No one has ever stated that hard-work is what should be rewarded. People on my side said that productivity is what should be rewarded instead of bargaining power, which is all that capitalism rewards. People on your side have argued that the poor and middle class are morally inferior and lazy compared to the rich and that is why the rich are rich. Your statement is laughably false.

Dan8267 says

trategist says

You have already started blaming others. Billionaire Ma was right.

1. Blaming the responsible is the right thing to do. Do you blame yourself for the 9/11 attacks?

If you can't identify the responsible party you will still end up blaming the wrong guys.
I only blame Islam for 911 and every single atrocity committed by a Muslim in the name of religion.

Dan8267 says

2. Ma was talking about the poor. I pretty damn sure I make a lot more each year than you do.

I'm glad for you. I hope you make twice as much next year. When I visit Florida and we go for lunch, you can pick up the tab. :)

Dan8267 says

3. Nothing you said undermines my statements.

Your statements in post #1 was gibberish.

Dan8267 says

Yes, this is the entire premise of your thread that any blame placed upon the rich for rigging the system is invalid.

No. Laziness is not a bad thing. Making excuses for your failure is.

There is a difference between adopting a belief system and arguing that it is the truth. I do not give a shit about the latter.

Truth is meaningless unless it has something to do with you personally. It is a matter of choice.

Here peter, I think this is what you are getting at:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/nlD9JYP8u5E

In musical chairs, you could blame the people without chairs. Maybe they were slow, handicapped, old or distracted. Maybe they misunderstood and thought they had a right to a chair too.

Me? I'd try to ensure there are enough chairs for everyone.

If there are 15 jobs and 150 applicants, you can't blame the also-rans.

CL says

In musical chairs, you could blame the people without chairs. Maybe they were slow, handicapped, old or distracted. Maybe they misunderstood and thought they had a right to a chair too.

Or, there is no need for blaming. Winners are winners.

CL says

Me? I'd try to ensure there are enough chairs for everyone.

That is a good alternative in some cases. But you cannot change the game.

CL says

If there are 15 jobs and 150 applicants, you can't blame the also-rans.

No, you should not blame them. You should not even think about them. To you, they are out of the picture and they do not even exist.

They, on the other hand, can "blame" themselves and improve their strategy for the next round.

https://www.google.com/finance?cid=23536317556137

How does he explain his failure to maintain shareholder value?

John Bailo says

How does he explain his failure to maintain shareholder value?

Why does he have to explain anything? The insiders have control over the board. Stockholders who bought shares did so willingly.

Peter P says

John Bailo says

How does he explain his failure to maintain shareholder value?

Why does he have to explain anything? The insiders have control over the board. Stockholders who bought shares did so willingly.

He failed to maintain investor integrity.

Ma laundered inflated Yuan for Dollars.

He has to explain his failure.

Losing 14% of the value of one of the world's most heavily capitalized companies -- in three days -- is more than 1000x the average debt of the average "failed" poor person combined across the whole globe!

Ma is thus a bigger loser, times 1000, than all the poor on Earth!

John Bailo says

He has to explain his failure.

Again, why does he owe anyone any explanations?

Great man do not explain themselves. They shrug and move on.

Peter P says

Great man do not explain themselves. They shrug and move on.

He stole money.
His IPO failed.
Billions are missing.

And you defend this?

John Bailo says

And you defend this?

Who cares?