User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/5/2002 8:32:24 PM EDT
[#1]
Quoted: Also, I don't think that limitations of resources and "overpopulation" are new trends. These are the catalysts for change, and the sparks for the adaptions that make humans so hearty. I have faith that Americans are capable of digging deeper, of working harder, of regaining focus. I have faith in our ability to "Step Up", to rise to the occasion, to meet the challenges. A flight across the nation is an illustration of the incredible amount of unpopulated territory within our borders. Yes, less than appealing, but still we're not overflowing into the oceans. We'll adapt, I think, because we must, and then life will be easier, and then another challenge will arise, and then we'll adapt. . . " I'm sure that you understand that every human consumes vast resources and though they may live in a 2 bedroom apartment that much more is required for their existence. Not to mention the perpetuation of other species and eco-systems, all of which are necessary for our survival. IMO, the answer to this is to find other habitable planets and develop the propulsion systems to get us there. We are obviously in no hurry to curb population growth, which brings me to your other point. No doubt overpopulation and consumption of resources are not new problems but are growing exponentially. Previously these were regional problems due to localized areas of overgrowth and consumption. They now occur on a global scale. I can assure you that our resources and space are finite. Italy, Spain, Egypt, the Middle East were once rich and fertile. Same can be said of other areas. Consider this on a global scale. It IS what is going on... I thought you were going to bring this back to a discussion concerning the US.[;)] I do agree that the human spirit has adapted to overcome the struggles and challenges put before us. That, in reality, is the purpose of this entire thread. At least I believe it to be so. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/5/2002 8:33:18 PM EDT
[#2]
Damn straight, HMC, vent away.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/5/2002 8:40:36 PM EDT
[#3]
Rikwriter,
You make some excellent points. FWIW, the wisdom of Cicero should be required reading. He was correct in what he said. Rome didn't survive for 400 more years by not rising to meet its challenges. They had many periods of rise and decline, as will we. It will require people like us to make sure that the rises are greater and more frequent than the declines. I happen to believe that there is a far greater risk of nuclear war now than during the cold war. During that period the nukes were pretty much all controlled by three powers. Now every whacko with a little know how and/or financial support can become one. There will be a nuclear war. Of that I am certain. However, it will not be as widespread or devastating as once feared. I HOPE. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/5/2002 9:33:27 PM EDT
[#4]
Pakistan is toast. They are ground zero of the future. Regional conflict will arise with other nations being involved in conventional and nuclear warfare. The damage will be severe but other than a few scattered nukes hitting a few isolated cities it will largely remain regional. The subsequent power struggles should get interesting. It will be good to be where we are-unless you're in NYC...my predictions.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/5/2002 9:41:24 PM EDT
[#5]
drjarhead, you're correct that it is much more likely that a nuclear weapon will be used than during the Cold War...but I find that a bit less scarey in a cosmic sense than a full-out nuclear spasm between the US and the Soviets.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/5/2002 9:50:24 PM EDT
[#6]
SEX=GOOD
DRUGS=BAD ROCK-IN-ROLL=GOOD AS I see It Bob [8D] |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/5/2002 9:50:46 PM EDT
[#7]
Remember what the 4 Horsemen are? War, Disease, Famine, Plague, IIRC. The herd WILL be culled.
IMHO and RikWriter have the right idea. However, I did see the term "source of destabilization" used. This assumes the situation in question was ever stable. It was not. Consider: The Founding Fathers did not know if they would be building a nation, or merely paving the way for their own ignomonious shameful deaths. Without von Steuben, and French assistance, we would have been defeated. The British tried to take it back in 1812. We almost lost the Republic entirely in 1860, and spent the next 20 years recovering. The Industrial Revolution gave us scores of labor-saving devices, then they have been used to kill people we don't like in war ever since. Repeating weapons, Airplanes and Tanks came along, and made warfare a much bloodier proposition. Communications were industrialized - telegraph, telephones, movies, television, radio, computers, internet. Each one was supposed to introduce Satan into people's heads. The scourge of Naziism, then Communism visited us. We tried to blow ourselves up in 1962 with Fidel's generous help. Nothing has changed - we are still blindly limping and crashing along in a stampeding sea of humanity in a chaotic cacaphony, same as we have done for millions of years. Merely a controlled chaos. Relax - the pedulum will swing the other way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/5/2002 9:56:19 PM EDT
[#8]
Quoted: drjarhead, you're correct that it is much more likely that a nuclear weapon will be used than during the Cold War...but I find that a bit less scarey in a cosmic sense than a full-out nuclear spasm between the US and the Soviets. agreed |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/5/2002 11:34:29 PM EDT
[#9]
[b]"What The Hell Happened To Us?"[/b]
Your question turns us into "victims". The more appropriate question is this: [b]"What The Hell Did We LET Happen To Us?"[/b] We The People, in our effort to be good towards the downtrodden of our society, let ourselves be fooled by socialists into giving up our founding principles during the early 20th Century. We The People, turned away from personal responsibility, moral absolutes, God, and individualism and began to accept the poisonous ideas of collectivism, moral relativism and secular humanism. What that founding fathers created was not based on any of the principles the new humanists were professing - amoralism, atheism, centralization and collectivism. Yet those ideas were ALLOWED to replace the underlying principles of our Government, then our society. What started in the early part of the 20th Century only accelerated with the baby-boom generation. These 20 million adolescents (in numbers never before seen in ANY society) became an army of "useful idiots" to the socialists/beatniks who were already here for decades before. The baby-boomers weren't just putty in the hands of the social engineers of American destruction - they were tons of C4 to be used against every foudational pillar of our society. All according to the desire of socialists seeking to first confuse us, then lie to us, then steal our Government from us, then use it to control our society and ultimately our people for their totalitarian ends. But none of it happened TO us. We The People, gave up being ever-vigilant in protecting our freedoms and we became complacent . And in doing so, we slept on the porch, shotgun in lap, while looters by the millions emptied our house of everything we, and our ancestors, had worked so hard to achieve. All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/5/2002 11:38:02 PM EDT
[#10]
Hahah, I'm not going to bother reading all 3 pages before I answer, so excuse me if it was already said.
If you are in your mid 30's, that would make you a parent of the "problems" your speaking of. If you didn't have children (when I say that I mean raise a child, not child support), then you have no reason to even bring this up. Re-read your post and then read what I said ya hippie. [):)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/5/2002 11:41:23 PM EDT
[#11]
Quoted: This country started going down the tubes when it became cool to not have any manners, discipline, or honesty. Politeness and civility has gone out the window. We are turning in to a country of evil savages with no fear of God. Amen odobo. You've nailed it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/5/2002 11:49:20 PM EDT
[#12]
Quoted: Hahah, I'm not going to bother reading all 3 pages before I answer, so excuse me if it was already said. <<< Snip >>> Translation: Nothing anyone else says is as important as what I've got to say. [b]MurderSHO45[/b], you're an idiot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2002 12:06:16 AM EDT
[#13]
Quoted: Pure and simple.... It was the 60's......The age of enlightenment, free thought, birth control, feminism and all that other crap. [8P] [8P] [8P] Peace out [8P] [8P] [8P] Sgtar15 CORRECT! All other mentioned factors are a byproduct of the 60s revolution. A revolution created and implemented by idiots whacked out on drugs who didn't bathe. Wonder why it didn't work? Dirty drugged out hippies are usually the solution. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2002 12:11:19 AM EDT
[#14]
SA, what is the '60s revolution a byproduct of?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2002 12:19:02 AM EDT
[#15]
Quoted: All other mentioned factors are a byproduct of the 60s revolution. A revolution created and implemented by idiots whacked out on drugs who didn't bathe. I have to disagree somewhat. The hippies didn't start the revolution. They were simply the grunts at the frontlines. The revolution started way before the sixties. The infiltration of our Government, media and schools was well underway in the 30s, 40s and 50s. The liberalization of the courts (thanks FDR), the spread of the beatniks, the tolerance of "subversive" writings of Kerouac and Ginsberg and the persistent leftward swing of the media were all creating a growing anti-American underground environment that saw the baby-boomers as unlimited cannon fodder in their war against American values. The sixties were certainly a powder keg that exploded under our society, but that powder keg was positioned there and lit by the left-wing socialists/communists decades earlier. But I do agree, without that sixties sex/drugs/rebellion generation, we'd certainly be a much better off nation still. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2002 12:24:07 AM EDT
[#16]
60s hippy generation = Baby Boomers
The moral decline of our nation started when WWII ended. Because many men were fighting overseas, the women ended up working in factories, etc... When the war ended, a lot of people had a lot of cash saved up. Thus, the baby boom. Suburbanization was the result and the baby boomer children were now growing up in an idealized fantasy of reality financed by their parents who swore nothing but the finest/best for their families after surviving the horrors of war. Sure history shows a decline of every major civilization. I just so happen to also believe that the rapid decline of American civilization lies in the hands of the people who currently hold the most power and influence en masse. The baby boomers. It started with the rock and roll rebellion against the values and morals of their parents. The hypocrites chastize their children and grandchildren for being messed up, but in reality they are all suffering from the deep-seeded guilt of knowing they are looking in a mirror. I pity them when they get older and "GenX" is running things because I know they won't get the "cush ride". The baby boomers are a horde of pestulence that has ravaged our economy, decimated our natural resources, and diluted any and all senses of morality and institution with their doctrine of "I'm okay, you're okay" and free love. Just when the fallout from their 30 year assault reaches its peak, they will be too old to manage it anymore and leave us with their stinking piles of shit. Don't forget Mom on Mother's Day next weekend. "Thanks Mr. & Mrs. Cleaver. You're real swell!" |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2002 12:32:58 AM EDT
[#17]
Quoted: SA, what is the '60s revolution a byproduct of? EASY. Lazy, overprivledged kids who had it too good. Post WW2 prosperity offered most people a chance to indluge their children in a way usually not possible in the previous history of the United States. Well meaning people raised their children with no wants or needs and lots of help from Dr. Spock. The Depression of the 30s really sucked donkey but it created good people, who went on to fight and win world war II. When life is hard you often consider others. When life is dandy you usually just think of yourself. This is why a person who never had to work for a living is usually a dick. The 50s were so carefree we raised a nation of dicks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2002 12:43:58 AM EDT
[#18]
SA, you may make the Baby Jesus cry, but you know stuffz [:)]
Push it back farther. You have already implied that the Postwar years were the antithesis of the Depression, culturally speaking. What about economically (the foundation of the economy, that is)? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2002 1:46:08 AM EDT
[#19]
IMHO, I was "resorting" to sarcasm. No I am not blaming a pop star for the decline of our countries morals and will. As a father of two I believe that I do indeed know a little about the proper way to raise children and make my statement on the subject from a qualified position. I have been married to my high school sweetheart for 25 years now. She stayed at home and taught our values to our children. They have never so much as went to the principals office for discipline. No speeding tickets or other infringements. They voted in the last two elections available to them and know the difference between a silk purse and a sows ear. Thanks for the invitation to lean on you for guidance but I think I'll muddle along like I have been. You have a nice day now.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2002 10:12:05 AM EDT
[#20]
Quoted: It started with the Warren courts. It took root with the hippies in the 60's. It grew in the 70's with the romanticization(sp) of drugs, and the beginning of action without consequence. It festered in the 80's with an overly litigious society where nobody was held legally responsible for criminal offenses, and people bringing spurious lawsuits were not disbarred. It has taken more than a few years, but it was solidified throughout the 80's and 90's by hippie dipshit liberal college professors and their PC rhetoric brainwashing entire generations hooked on MTV and deifying the scum that the network decides children should see as cool. snip Add to that: The Gotti Era and the Gangbangers message that "crime is good and organized crime is better". "Greed is good" preached everywhere. Millions of illegal immigrants that will not assimilate. "Diversity is good" preached everywhere. And the #1 cause: Eight years of Clintons. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2002 10:44:52 AM EDT
[#21]
I think that if someone could name a time where we "peaked" before changing into the "differenct world" that the original post refers to, then we could try to determine what contributed. When was the golden era, boys?
Beer Slayer, the person who started the post was born in 1967? The Summer of Love? Has the world changed since then? Still a really self-centered view of history. Everyone thinks that the "good old days" happened during their childhood. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2002 10:52:36 AM EDT
[#22]
Quoted: ... We are NOT better off than we were mid century. The country on the whole is less civil, it takes two incomes to get by which means that you usually need 2 cars which means you need to earn more money. Who ever heard of a daycare center in our parent's era? We aren't better off, we just have more stuff. Stuff that doesn't enrich our lives at all but rather distracts us from the fact that our families are falling apart around us and that it's increasingly hard for a working man to make a live-able wage. A wage that he can raise a family on. As far as falling apart on 9/11 goes I think that the fact that you could still get a slurpy at 7-11, hell ALL business stayed open and operating, shows that as a society we are only concerned with the pursuit of a dollar. Fall apart? Fall apart how? We all just went to work the next day like we always do. I think this is very true - and it raises REAL questions about how our capitalist system works. It is not "the liberals" that are to blame for selfishness, lack of civility and the pervasive "look-out-for number-one" attitude that young people have today. Much more, it is the system we have created of winner-take-all capitalism. I laugh my ass off when people whine about how evil WalMart and Microsoft are. Hello! They ARE more american than anyone - they are playing the american game and winning. I don't mean to sound like some crazy Marxist - but I don't think "the liberals" are to blame for all of our woes. I think we've created a social and economic system that rewards selfishness and places no value in civic virtue and other intangibles like ethics and honor. Don't know what the solution is - but I can whine about it along with eveyone else [:D] |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2002 11:24:57 AM EDT
[#23]
Quoted: I think this is very true - and it raises REAL questions about how our capitalist system works. It is not "the liberals" that are to blame for selfishness, lack of civility and the pervasive "look-out-for number-one" attitude that young people have today. Much more, it is the system we have created of winner-take-all capitalism. "La-la-lalala live for today" "Drugs, sex, rock-n-roll" "Tune in, turn on, drop out" "Free love, free drugs" These are not exactly conservative, capitalistic slogans. They are the catch-phrases of an entire generation whose liberal attitudes still poison our society today. Quoted: I laugh my ass off when people whine about how evil WalMart and Microsoft are. Hello! They ARE more american than anyone - they are playing the american game and winning. No argument there. Quoted: I don't mean to sound like some crazy Marxist - but I don't think "the liberals" are to blame for all of our woes. I think we've created a social and economic system that rewards selfishness and places no value in civic virtue and other intangibles like ethics and honor. Knowing that your background and perspective is business/financial in nature, you probably see more of the economic factors in most things. (that's a nice way of saying you're biased)[;)]. But I don't think that capitalism itself is part of the problem. The NEED for two incomes did not come about because of capitalism - it occurred because of oppressive taxation. From our natural desire to grow wealth and become prosperous in the face of greater and greater tax burdens, we are faced with a choice of either living at a progressively lower standard of living or relying on dual incomes to compensate for increasing overtaxation. This creates "latch-key" kids, day-care-centers, kids raising kids, neglected/troubled kids, Government assistance and ultimately irresponsible dependancy from the parents and uncivilized, amoral generations of kids raising themselves - or worse yet, being raised by liberal, power-hungry do-gooders who seek to undermine traditional parental values. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2002 11:40:47 AM EDT
[#24]
Well in case no one else said it -
"Righteousness (doing right) lifts up a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people." Prov. 14: 34 Stated another way, enuf people have decided that sinning their favorite sin outweighs the good of the nation, as far as they are concerned. Ans as such, sin is doing what it has ALWAYS done - destroying the nation that engages in it. No real magic here. Fortunately, God provides a remedy for such a nation - repent, and obey God. And it has to happen one individual at a time. Question is "Will you be part of the problem, or part of the solution?" |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2002 12:29:27 PM EDT
[#25]
I tend to agree with Garandman's problem or solution view. Lots of heckling from the cheap seats around here. Those who belive that kids are different, that music is to blame, that catch phrases are responsible have so little faith.
Words of defeatist, resigned, fatalistic losers, I think. "Traditional family values" MacCallan? This is another sign of the warped "golden age" of my childhood view. Are these the traditional family values of the immigrants of the 1700's? Post 1760's? Of the Revolutionary Generation? No, each has been much different. Of the Market Revolution? Of the Civil War? Reconstruction? Industrial America? Depression? WWII? Such differences in "traditional family values"! From where does this concept of tradition come I wonder? America changes, America adapts, and so does it's people. Look at our history and see that things aren't so bad. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2002 12:47:42 PM EDT
[#26]
"Our youths love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority. They show disrespect for their elders and love to talk rather than do something. Children are now tyrants, not servants of their household. They no longer rise when their elders enter a room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up their food, and tyrannize their teachers" is attributed is a great thinker with immense insight. A person upon which many of my feelings on the subject rest. Who do you think said that? (Again, may or may not be an authentic quote, but try to guess if you want.) Socrates. Oddly enough, though, Socrates wound up being put on trial himself for corrupting the youth of Athens. D'oh! [:D] |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2002 12:51:27 PM EDT
[#27]
Just to give you a quote to put things into perspective... "The budget should be balanced. Public debt should be reduced. The arrogance of officialdom should be tempered, and assistanceship to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt."---Cicero, 63 B.C. Rome didn't fall for over four centuries more. But the Roman Republic fell within twenty years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2002 12:58:36 PM EDT
[#28]
Quoted: But the Roman Republic fell within twenty years. The Roman Republic was NEVER a representative government...that is a misconception that many modern people have. And it didn't fall, it was transformed. Rome maintained the same beurocracy, it simply changed from a non-representative oligarchy to a non-representative dictatorship. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2002 1:02:32 PM EDT
[#29]
Quoted: Knowing that your background and perspective is business/financial in nature, you probably see more of the economic factors in most things. (that's a nice way of saying you're biased)[;)]. But I don't think that capitalism itself is part of the problem. The NEED for two incomes did not come about because of capitalism - it occurred because of oppressive taxation. From our natural desire to grow wealth and become prosperous in the face of greater and greater tax burdens, we are faced with a choice of either living at a progressively lower standard of living or relying on dual incomes to compensate for increasing overtaxation. This creates "latch-key" kids, day-care-centers, kids raising kids, neglected/troubled kids, Government assistance and ultimately irresponsible dependancy from the parents and uncivilized, amoral generations of kids raising themselves - or worse yet, being raised by liberal, power-hungry do-gooders who seek to undermine traditional parental values. Having grown up in northern Europe, I don't buy the "heavy tax burden" argument. The US had BY FAR the lightest tax burden of all the industrialized western democracies. That cannot be the reason, because if it was, all the problems we're having here should be ten-fold in places like Scandinavia - with marginal tax rates that can exceed 80%. The reason the real (adjusted) wages of the working american has been dropping the last ten years while corporations have had record profits and dividends is NOT the evil liberals. It is a system of legalized bribery (called PACs and other double-speak) by which US corporations own our "elected" officials. Combine that with the problem of corporate board populated by corporate executives (i.e. no real governance or principal-agency separation) and weak unions and you get a powerless workforce who has been getting shafted for the past two decades. I don't think it is Clinton or Bush who is the problem, but the whole way that the american system of government is driven by corporate money. Great, now I sound like an anarchist instead of a Marxist. Anyhoo - gotta get back to trying to publish academic articles that nobody wants to read! [:D] |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2002 1:02:38 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted: "Traditional family values" MacCallan? This is another sign of the warped "golden age" of my childhood view. Are these the traditional family values of the immigrants of the 1700's? Post 1760's? Of the Revolutionary Generation? No, each has been much different. Of the Market Revolution? Of the Civil War? Reconstruction? Industrial America? Depression? WWII? Such differences in "traditional family values"! From where does this concept of tradition come I wonder? America changes, America adapts, and so does it's people. Look at our history and see that things aren't so bad. In case you missed it [b]IMHO[/b], I already spelled out some of these "traditional family values" you so quickly impugned: Posted by The_Macallan: We The People, in our effort to be good towards the downtrodden of our society, let ourselves be fooled by socialists into giving up [red]our founding principles[/red] during the early 20th Century. We The People, turned away from [red]personal responsibility, moral absolutes, God, and individualism[/red] and began to accept the poisonous ideas of collectivism, moral relativism and secular humanism. So what is so "warped" about personal responsibility, moral absolutes, God, and individualism?? The only thing that's warped is your knee-jerk reaction to the phrase "traditional family values". Of course you know some people think "family values" is a code word for "bigotry". Your reaction implies that you too have some terribly confused connotation with that phrase. Okay, let's make it easy for you. "Traditional family values" that made this nation great are: * temperance * honesty * hard work * humility * personal freedom * personal responsibility * moderate Judeo-Christian morality (not the same as religious beliefs) Did any of these dramatically change from the Revolutionary times till the mid-20th Century? No. But our national expression of ALL these values drastically changed since the the 1950s. And it's this turning away from these values that are the poison that's rotting our society. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2002 1:07:22 PM EDT
[#31]
Quoted: Quoted: But the Roman Republic fell within twenty years. The Roman Republic was NEVER a representative government...that is a misconception that many modern people have. And it didn't fall, it was transformed. Rome maintained the same beurocracy, it simply changed from a non-representative oligarchy to a non-representative dictatorship. If you were one of the oligarchs as Cicero was, it was "representative" enough. [;)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2002 1:13:44 PM EDT
[#32]
Having grown up in northern Europe, I don't buy the "heavy tax burden" argument. The US had BY FAR the lightest tax burden of all the industrialized western democracies. That cannot be the reason, because if it was, all the problems we're having here should be ten-fold in places like Scandinavia - with marginal tax rates that can exceed 80%. Have you checked the illegitimacy rates in Scandinavia lately? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2002 1:21:50 PM EDT
[#33]
Quoted: So what is so "warped" about personal responsibility, moral absolutes, God, and individualism?? The only thing that's warped is your knee-jerk reaction to the phrase "traditional family values". Of course you know some people think "family values" is a code word for "bigotry". Your reaction implies that you too have some terribly confused connotation with that phrase. Okay, let's make it easy for you. "Traditional family values" that made this nation great are: * temperance * honesty * hard work * humility * personal freedom * personal responsibility * moderate Judeo-Christian morality (not the same as religious beliefs) Did any of these dramatically change from the Revolutionary times till the mid-20th Century? No. But our national expression of ALL these values drastically changed since the the 1950s. And it's this turning away from these values that are the poison that's rotting our society. good post. EXCEPT for your mixed mataphor. Poison doesn't "rot out" a society. Fungus, or gangreene would "rot out" a society. Poison would tend to choke out or convulse our society. otherwise, dead on. garand(GraduatingToMetaphorNazi)man |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2002 1:38:08 PM EDT
[#34]
Quoted: Having grown up in northern Europe, I don't buy the "heavy tax burden" argument. The US had BY FAR the lightest tax burden of all the industrialized western democracies. That cannot be the reason, because if it was, all the problems we're having here should be ten-fold in places like Scandinavia - with marginal tax rates that can exceed 80%. As I recall, socialism was invented in Europe. The Europeans have a long history of monarchies, Empires and heavy authoritarian rulers and are quite accustomed to being part of the "collective". In short, the flaw in comparing the cultural effects of imposing socialistic economic factors on the people of Europe and USA is an apples/oranges comparison. Quoted: The reason the real (adjusted) wages of the working american has been dropping the last ten years while corporations have had record profits and dividends is NOT the evil liberals. It is a system of legalized bribery (called PACs and other double-speak) by which US corporations own our "elected" officials. That's not the whole story and you know it. Wages have been growing but so has BENEFITS. I don't have stats but I'd bet that the breadth and depth of health insurance coverage for workers, payed time off, bonuses, "employee discount programs" and other perks have risen dramatically in the last 30years. These are not part of the wages but still reflect in the overall compensation a worker receives from the employer. Quoted: Combine that with the problem of corporate board populated by corporate executives (i.e. no real governance or principal-agency separation) and weak unions and you get a powerless workforce who has been getting shafted for the past two decades. And who shafted Sam Walton when he was just a powerless worker? Who is the largest employer in the USA? (nope not Wallyworld) Are the the greedy, overpaid, power-hungry leaders of the Teamsters, AFL-CIO, UAW and Teachers Unions any more noble and benevolent than the greedy, overpaid, power-hungry corporate boards you lambaste? Quoted: I don't think it is Clinton or Bush who is the problem, but the whole way that the american system of government is driven by corporate money. Great, now I sound like an anarchist instead of a Marxist. So you WANT to sound like a Marxist??? [whacko] Quoted: Anyhoo - gotta get back to trying to publish academic articles that nobody wants to read! [:D] Me too! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2002 1:48:20 PM EDT
[#35]
Quoted: good post. Thanks. [:)] Quoted: EXCEPT for your mixed [red]mataphor[/red]. Poison doesn't "rot out" a society. Fungus, or [red]gangreene[/red] would "rot out" a society. Poison would tend to choke out or convulse our society. otherwise, dead on. garand(GraduatingToMetaphorNazi)man Bite me "MetaphorNazi" [stick] BTW, you spelled "metaphor" and "gangrene" wrong . [;D] The(AuditioningForSpellingNazi)Macallan |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2002 2:12:18 PM EDT
[#36]
Another piece of the puzzle...
Television happened (I believe it was mentioned). Shallow sitcoms replaced mentally stimulating books. Football replaced family meal time. ...and marketing executives learned they can control the emotions, desires and whims of a nation. Face it, well disciplined kids and adults doing great and responsible things doesn't make "good TV". TV needs to show the unwed pregnant children, the punks being cool and thrown in jail, and how the loving family handles the situation. Crap like that over and over again will desensitize anyone. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2002 3:35:38 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted: Quoted: Hahah, I'm not going to bother reading all 3 pages before I answer, so excuse me if it was already said. <<< Snip >>> Translation: Nothing anyone else says is as important as what I've got to say. [b]MurderSHO45[/b], you're an idiot. That or I have a life outside of Ar15.com and I didn't at that time, have the time to read all the post to see if someone else posted something similar to what I said. I'm sorry if I came off that I think I'm better then everyone else, that wasn't my aim. My guess is you fall into the the category of people I explained, and that's why your so bitter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2002 9:42:03 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Hahah, I'm not going to bother reading all 3 pages before I answer, so excuse me if it was already said. <<< Snip >>> Translation: Nothing anyone else says is as important as what I've got to say. [b]MurderSHO45[/b], you're an idiot. That or I have a life outside of Ar15.com and I didn't at that time, have the time to read all the post to see if someone else posted something similar to what I said. I'm sorry if I came off that I think I'm better then everyone else, that wasn't my aim. Maybe it was your condescending little "Hahah" opening. Maybe it was the automatic pigeonholeing of those who posted here, yet whom you didn't even bother to read. Maybe it was your patronizing statement: "Re-read your post and then read what I said ya hippie" when in fact YOU didn't even read what anyone wrote. Quoted: My guess is you fall into the the category of people I explained, and that's why your so bitter. No, you guessed wrong (again). My guess is you're still an idiot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2002 10:15:45 PM EDT
[#39]
Wow, The_Macallan, you sure are aggressive! I simply asked for a better understanding of your feelings, and you considered it to be an attack. Maybe not aggressive, maybe just sensitive. "Knee-jerk reaction"? No. Sorry that you interpreted my direct questions to be this way. Not familiar with this "code word" take on "family values." Where have you witnessed this type of cryptography? I have no confusion about the phrase, but I was interested in your interpretation. You provided your definition, and the clarity allows for better light to be shed on the rest of your posts.
You've pointed your fingers at a variety of sources of our current "decline": adolescents socialists baby-boomers people who figuratively sleep on the porch Government Media Schools The Court System FDR Kerouac Ginsberg Socialists Communists Sex Drugs Rebellion New Humanists Liberal, power-hungry do-gooders Government assistance . . . Your current claim is that taxation is to blame. I continue to disagree that there is a "NEED" for a two-income family that leads to so many of the social problems that you mention. It may be a little romantic to believe that we are still in a land of opportunity, and that hard work will pay the way, but I do think that if a man is willing to work hard, then he will be able to support his family, will be able to provide for his family independently, without being forced to send his wife outside the house to work for luxuries. People don't have to rely on two incomes to support their families if one of the parents is willing to work hard enough to earn enough. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2002 10:52:20 PM EDT
[#40]
Out of curiousity, is there a reason to consistently point to post-WW2 as the turning point for the decline of morality and the increase in materialism? It seems to me that World War I would be a better break point...
Soldiers returning bring a different view of the world back, followed by the usual re-adjustment problems. Then the "Roaring 20's", and the heavily materialistic lifestyles, in parallel with an influx of immigrants and their various ideologies. Labor vs. management problems and then the Depression, followed by FDR and his socialist agenda, then WW2, then the Cold War. What you get over most of the 20th century is an increase in fragmentation and materialism, with socialist ideology taking hold with the broadest popular appeal... in it's most palatable form, it was called the "New Deal". I don't think people have changed as much as they have recycled... with the one major exception of mass communications and the ability of the centralized networks to control the information flow of the nation, to their own ends. Just my $.02 |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2002 11:14:12 PM EDT
[#41]
Quoted: Out of curiousity, is there a reason to consistently point to post-WW2 as the turning point for the decline of morality and the increase in materialism? It seems to me that World War I would be a better break point... Soldiers returning bring a different view of the world back, followed by the usual re-adjustment problems. Then the "Roaring 20's", and the heavily materialistic lifestyles, in parallel with an influx of immigrants and their various ideologies. Labor vs. management problems and then the Depression, followed by FDR and his socialist agenda, then WW2, then the Cold War. What you get over most of the 20th century is an increase in fragmentation and materialism, with socialist ideology taking hold with the broadest popular appeal... in it's most palatable form, it was called the "New Deal". I don't think people have changed as much as they have recycled... with the one major exception of mass communications and the ability of the centralized networks to control the information flow of the nation, to their own ends. Just my $.02 This is similar to my view, SysProg, as my previous posts indicate. My theory about why people consider this to be the beginning of the slide has to do with a combination of 1950's nostalgia and historical myopia. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2002 6:34:24 AM EDT
[#42]
Quoted: Wow, The_Macallan, you sure are aggressive! I simply asked for a better understanding of your feelings, and you considered it to be an attack. No, wrong. You did not "simply" ask for a better understanding. If you would have said, "Can you explain "traditional family values", because I'm not sure I understand what you mean by that" - THAT would be "simply asking for a better understanding". No, you used the term "warped" and implied the view which holds "traditional family values" is "warped". You just HAD to throw that little backhanded nugget in with your reply. THAT was not "simply" a question, it was also a slap. It was YOU who could not resist being condescending in your reply. Quoted: Maybe not aggressive, maybe just sensitive. "Knee-jerk reaction"? No. Sorry that you interpreted my direct questions to be this way. Not familiar with this "code word" take on "family values." Where have you witnessed this type of cryptography? [i]"Interviewing comedian Whoopi Goldberg on Aug. 17, 2000, Bryant Gumbel asked if she was disturbed by the Democrats "trying to strike a moral tone" about entertainment. He also asked, "What about this turn towards what's called family values? The right turn doesn't seem to concern you?" Miss Goldberg replied with a question of her own: "What's wrong with family values?" to which Mr. Gumbel replied, "It's generally been a code word for less inclusion."[/i][url=http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20020409-24749137.htm]Washington Times[/url] Left-wing Liberals just abhor the notion of "family values" because these are a politically-correct anathema to them. They often utter the words "family values" with scorn and disdain. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2002 6:36:39 AM EDT
[#43]
Quoted: You've pointed your fingers at a variety of sources of our current "decline": adolescents socialists baby-boomers people who figuratively sleep on the porch Government Media Schools The Court System FDR Kerouac Ginsberg Socialists Communists Sex Drugs Rebellion New Humanists Liberal, power-hungry do-gooders Government assistance . . . Your current claim is that taxation is to blame. No, what you listed were mostly [u]manifestations[/u] of a common cause, namely liberalism. It is liberalism/socialism (and all it entails) AND our willingness to accept the demise of our founding principles and take on the rotten principles of socialism (dependancy, moral relativism, collectivism, etc) that accounts for much of the decay of our society. Quoted: I continue to disagree that there is a "NEED" for a two-income family that leads to so many of the social problems that you mention. It may be a little romantic to believe that we are still in a land of opportunity, and that hard work will pay the way, but I do think that if a man is willing to work hard, then he will be able to support his family, will be able to provide for his family independently, without being forced to send his wife outside the house to work for luxuries. Yes and no. I do agree in part with your assessment. One person working two jobs CAN overcome the need for a two-spouse income. Or they can just live at a lower standard of living. But my point was that because up to 40-50% of the primary income of a family is confiscated by the Gov't (mainly due to high income taxes), compared to a generation or two ago (when most people didn't even pay much income tax) the need for a double salary to offset the higher tax burden usually puts both spouses to work. But you're right - it's often a choice for both spouses to work. I am fortunate enough to have the ability to work overtime (30% overtime) in the last two years so that my wife doesn't have to work and can be a "stay-at-home-mom". Many people though, don't have jobs that afford them overtime, and thus, a second job or a working spouse is needed to maintain their standard of living. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2002 9:08:30 AM EDT
[#44]
Quoted: Quoted: You've pointed your fingers at a variety of sources of our current "decline": adolescents socialists baby-boomers people who figuratively sleep on the porch Government Media Schools The Court System FDR Kerouac Ginsberg Socialists Communists Sex Drugs Rebellion New Humanists Liberal, power-hungry do-gooders Government assistance . . . Your current claim is that taxation is to blame. No, what you listed were mostly [u]manifestations[/u] of a common cause, namely liberalism. It is liberalism/socialism (and all it entails) AND our willingness to accept the demise of our founding principles and take on the rotten principles of socialism (dependancy, moral relativism, collectivism, etc) that accounts for much of the decay of our society. Quoted: I continue to disagree that there is a "NEED" for a two-income family that leads to so many of the social problems that you mention. It may be a little romantic to believe that we are still in a land of opportunity, and that hard work will pay the way, but I do think that if a man is willing to work hard, then he will be able to support his family, will be able to provide for his family independently, without being forced to send his wife outside the house to work for luxuries. Yes and no. I do agree in part with your assessment. One person working two jobs CAN overcome the need for a two-spouse income. Or they can just live at a lower standard of living. But my point was that because up to 40-50% of the primary income of a family is confiscated by the Gov't (mainly due to high income taxes), compared to a generation or two ago (when most people didn't even pay much income tax) the need for a double salary to offset the higher tax burden usually puts both spouses to work. But you're right - it's often a choice for both spouses to work. I am fortunate enough to have the ability to work overtime (30% overtime) in the last two years so that my wife doesn't have to work and can be a "stay-at-home-mom". Many people though, don't have jobs that afford them overtime, and thus, a second job or a working spouse is needed to maintain their standard of living. So I believe that what you're saying is that now both parents MUST work in order to support the ever growing population of entitlement parasites with which this country is now infested? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2002 9:45:20 AM EDT
[#45]
Quoted: Quoted: [red]One person working two jobs CAN overcome the need for a two-spouse income.[/red] Or they can just live at a lower standard of living. But my point was that because up to 40-50% of the primary income of a family is confiscated by the Gov't (mainly due to high income taxes), compared to a generation or two ago (when most people didn't even pay much income tax) the need for a double salary to offset the higher tax burden [red]usually[/red] puts both spouses to work. But you're right - [red]it's often a choice for both spouses to work.[/red] I am fortunate enough to have the ability to work overtime (30% overtime) in the last two years so that my wife doesn't have to work and can be a "stay-at-home-mom". Many people though, don't have jobs that afford them overtime, and thus, a second job or a working spouse is needed to maintain their standard of living. So I believe that what you're saying is that now both parents MUST work in order to support the ever growing population of entitlement parasites with which this country is now infested? No, I said it's their CHOICE to have EITHER one spouse work overtime/2nd job OR have the other spouse take a job too. I thought I clarified that in the above post. But, yes I do believe that because of the socialist/welfare state we've allowed to be imposed on us, WE - the productive members of society - now have to work much harder and longer to support our families AND the growing infestation of human parasites filling our socialist society. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
