Our Halloween Writing Contest is coming up soon. Start Writing! [ Dismiss ]
Home ยป Forum ยป Author Hangout

Forum: Author Hangout

Aren't we a piece of work?

NC-Retired ๐Ÿšซ

I sometimes read a blog where the author is plain spoken and not ashamed to acknowledge that the behavior of some individuals and groups is inexplicable when seen from his worldview.

He often cites known-to-be-biased "news" web sites and takes their agenda of disinformation as truth. Anything that contradicts his personal biases he judges as lies propagated by a liberal conspiracy.

I'd love to be able to know the circumstances that cause him to fear so greatly and, as a result of that fear, what created an individual that appears to hold hatred so solidly in their heart.

He's Caucasian and seems to feel superior in moral character to those folks that possess a darker skin tone. How can this be? Why does someone develop this sort of attitude? What are the influences that cause this way of looking at the world?

What makes individuals with this sort of worldview so certain that they're correct and everyone else is wrong?

Then... because ideas like Medicare for All and having clean water and air reek of socialism (so say the web sites he cites) he is of course adamantly opposed, regardless of how many millions of people these ideas would help have a better & healthier life.

He has railed against government interference in his private affairs, especially against any form of gun control that will help keep lunatics from having access to weapons, as a violation of his personally guaranteed constitutional rights.

Let some media outlet report a bit of information that is critical to his chosen politicians or worldview, then that's just fake news and can safely be ignored and ridiculed if necessary to dominate a dialog in the comments section.

If someone points out a blatant lie, then it's back to the old standby, a liberal conspiracy.

And... this is just one individual. But if polls are to be believed, between 30% and 40% of the American population essentially believe the same and share a similar worldview that is skewed away from facts via the constant 24/7 propaganda from those corporate and political entities that have the most to lose, i.e., their political power and profits for the various international corporations.

A bit study of human history and archeology suggests that this sort of propaganda and brainwashing is nothing new and has been used by the rich and powerful since we humans first gathered into tribes larger than an immediate family group.

I'd strongly suggest that most of the (estimated) 110 billion AMH individuals have been ill used by their elite since before any written records existed, and it continues today in a much more focused, controlling and invasive manner.

Many different authors here on SOL and in the dead tree press also see this oppression of the weak by the physically strong as an ongoing plot point in their various tales. Often the drama of the storyline exists in the protagonist defeating these individuals that use greed, violence and oppression as 'standard' tools to further their agendas without regard to collateral damage.

I guess that one of the unique aspects of Homo Sapiens is our ability to rationalize any deed. Can't say for 100% certainty, but I doubt any other animal species besides us devotes any thought (outside of the breeding rut) to ways and means of controlling and exploiting their fellows.

Aren't we a piece of work?

Ernest Bywater ๐Ÿšซ

and for every person like you mention above there's one whose the exact same on the opposite end of the political spectrum.

I know a person who absolutely hates everything that even sniffs of socialism, but then, she's very understandable. She saw over 20 members of her family murdered by Stalin's killers while a young child, and lived under his regime for many years before she could escape to the West.

I had an uncle, now deceased, who absolutely hated all Japanese. I couldn't understand it until I learned how long he spent in a place called Changi as a Japanese POW. After learning that and what he went through I could understand it.

I once worked with a man from Africa who hated people involved in certain major international industries because of the many members of his family and village killed by the mercenaries paid for by major companies that were sent in to take control of his birth country in central Africa when he was a teen.

So it's understandable that people feel that way.

.................

A lot of what people believe is developed from what they were taught as a child, there's a heck of a lot of truth in the old statement: "My dad voted party X, my granddaddy voted party X, my great granddaddy voted party X. I vote party X. My whole family vote party X, cause we always have." - study reveal somewhere between 60% to 80% of voters are of this mindset in support of one party or the other. Such people can not be swayed by any facts at all.

Another group estimated between 10% to 25% of voters will go with whatever party gets to them last with the best publicity campaign. There are times when people in this group will take note of the facts and act, but they're rare.

..........................

Please note I've not given support to either side of politics here, simply answered the original question, and added some reasoning for the problem raised.

Uther_Pendragon ๐Ÿšซ

@NC-Retired

Then... because ideas like Medicare for All and having clean water and air reek of socialism

Well, Medicare for all is socialism, or -- at least -- socialized medicine. Actually, much of what even reactionaries agree is a basic government service today was once naturally provided by the private sector.

Marx wrote that some US states were now (then) providing publicly paid secondary education. That, he noted, was publicly paid secondary education for the owning class; working-class children would be earning their living by that age and didn't have time to go to school.

Replies:   ChiMi
ChiMi ๐Ÿšซ

@Uther_Pendragon

Everything that is based on tax payers money is socialism. Military is socialism.
I don't know why the us people have such a hate boner for Universal healthcare.

Replies:   Wheezer
Wheezer ๐Ÿšซ

@ChiMi

I don't know why the us people have such a hate boner for Universal healthcare.

Because a significant portion (significant, but not in the majority) of Americans from the middle & upper income levels feel that if a person is poor, then it is their own damn fault and they deserve to be poor. They must be lazy, shiftless bastards just looking for a handout. They back this sentiment up with anecdotal and apocryphal stories of welfare fraud and apply it to all those living in poverty. So what if their kids are sick? Fuck them if they can't afford to pay.
The USA is full of greedy, selfish bastards totally lacking in compassion & civility. Most of them profess to be Christians.

Replies:   PrincelyGuy  tendertouch
PrincelyGuy ๐Ÿšซ

@Wheezer

The USA is full of greedy, selfish bastards totally lacking in compassion & civility. Most of them profess to be Christians.

Love the generalization there that if you are not on the dole and live in the USA then you are greedy, selfish, and lacking in both compassion and civility.

Where I grew up the railroad tracks were just down the street. Started working in summers when in Junior High. Nothing like stacking 30 or 40 35-pound boxes of fruit onto a pallet and filling 20 pallets an hour for 8 to 14 hours a day to build character. Note that a pallet was five boxes a layer and consisted of either 6 or 8 layers depending on how it was being shipped.

Worked with many different types of people. It amazed me how few had any intentions to get educated and get better jobs. Their goal was to make some money and go back on assistance through the fall and winter.

Did those experiences color my thinking? Sure. How could it not!

However, the jobs I held when a teenager are impossible to get now. Labor laws have deemed that those jobs are too dangerous for teenagers. Never saw anything more serious than a sprained ankle or smashed thumb in 6 years working in fruit packing sheds. I did see a forklift operator knock over a stack pallets of fruit one time. No one got hurt, except the drivers ears because of the yelling by the foreman.

ChiMi ๐Ÿšซ

@PrincelyGuy

Yeah, those nasty children labor laws. In my time we worked for 16 hours after school and liked it! *rolleyes*

you don't give your counter-argument any help with trying to paint current labor laws as evil.

Working 14 hours a day, packing heavy boxes, as a kid is the quintessence of a greedy, selfish society.

Replies:   PrincelyGuy
PrincelyGuy ๐Ÿšซ

@ChiMi

Yeah, those nasty children labor laws. In my time we worked for 16 hours after school and liked it! *rolleyes*

Liked the pay for sure. The work I did enjoy, but nowhere enough to make it a lifetime job. And I would hardly call high school kids child labor. Might make an argument for 7th and 8th graders.

Not sure why it pushes your buttons so much to think of kids out working at honest jobs? Maybe you feel it would be better if those who have jobs pay everyone else to stay home and watch TV.

As for current laws being evil? Not sure I would go that far. Are they too restrictive? Yes.

Are they a good thing to keep kids away from dangerous jobs? Definitely.

Do I want to see sweatshops return? Nope. Summer jobs even if working outside could be a good thing.

At least high school kids could get a job. What jobs are out there now for kids in high school? Some might get a job in fast food. Oh, wait, due to labor costs those are starting to move to automated systems.

Oh, how about car washes? Nope. Those are mostly automated now too. A few swiping the car with a wet mop and a few more "drying" the car with towels.

Well one thing it taught me is that low skill minimum wage work is not what I want for a living. Got a degree at a four year college and was employed in my degree field for 40 years.

Replies:   ChiMi  PotomacBob
ChiMi ๐Ÿšซ

@PrincelyGuy

Why does a kid have to have an "honest" job?
There is no correlation between the starting year of work in a person's life and his "honesty" or ANY other metric of his or her work-ethics or work-quality.

The need for a kid to have a job is a failure of society.
If a kid needs a job to "build character" then the parents or the school failed phenomenally.

Summer-jobs for kids should be about increasing pocket money for some hours a day and not back-breaking 14 hour work that 2 full-time employees should have done.

PrincelyGuy ๐Ÿšซ

@ChiMi

Summer-jobs for kids should be about increasing pocket money for some hours a day and not back-breaking 14 hour work that 2 full-time employees should have done.

Increasing pocket money and earning your own money to pay for college and your own car is a great reason for summer jobs. Or is that societies job now?

Backbreaking labor? Hmmm, football practice was more backbreaking work than what I did all summer.

I had to look back to see where honest came from. I should have said legal instead of honest. Honestly. Sincerely.

Anyway, I can see we will not agree. That is fine. You have a nice day/evening/night.

StarFleet Carl ๐Ÿšซ

@ChiMi

Summer-jobs for kids should be about increasing pocket money for some hours a day and not back-breaking 14 hour work that 2 full-time employees should have done.

Ever dig potatoes? Or detassel corn? Or bale hay?

Guess what? You grow up in a rural community, that's IT for your choice of summer jobs. I learned how to drive a Ford farm tractor years before I was ever legally allowed to drive a car on a road. I throw that word legally in there because again, rural community. No license needed to drive the combine down the road from one field to another.

Replies:   ChiMi
ChiMi ๐Ÿšซ

@StarFleet Carl

I grew up on a farm, I drove my first tractor as an 8-year-old boy.
I know all about driving in circles for hours, to turn around the hay
I know all about storing the hay, half naked in the baking summer sun, in a barn and cursing the thistles
I know all about waking up at 4AM to drive to the beets field and harvest them
I know all about hand-cranking those beets through a manual 20- to 30-year-old machine that cuts them into bite-size pieces for the cows
I know all about harvesting those tiny plant thingies (don't know the English name) that float on water and that the ducks are crazy for
I know all about searching for dandelion for the rabbits
I know all about cutting grass with a scythe.

But that was FAMILY, or helping neighbors, and not a sleazy greedy guy abusing child labor because he doesn't want to pay a grown-up person.

Replies:   REP
REP ๐Ÿšซ

@ChiMi

Not everyone who offers to pay a kid to do some work is a sleazy greedy guy. You need to be a bit more specific in your slandering people who are out to help kids earn a few bucks.

Replies:   ChiMi
ChiMi ๐Ÿšซ

@REP

Give me a break.

Someone who employs kids to work 14 hours a day isn't a good samaritan who help kids earn a few bucks.

Replies:   Ross at Play  Friar Dave  REP
Ross at Play ๐Ÿšซ

@ChiMi

Someone who employs kids to work 14 hours a day isn't a good samaritan who help kids earn a few bucks.

What about the two adults who end up on welfare due to the good Samaritan's "generosity"?

Replies:   ChiMi
ChiMi ๐Ÿšซ

@Ross at Play

Clearly, they should have made enough money as kids to support their unemployment as adults. Or make enough kids that work 14 hours to support the adults.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater ๐Ÿšซ

@ChiMi

Clearly, they should have made enough money as kids to support their unemployment as adults.

Except the government takes so much money off people in taxes and other charges to make it extremely difficult to save money unless you're earning about double the average wage or more.

Years ago if you lived on a 1/4 acre house block you could plant fruit trees and grow enough vegetables to live off if you were unemployed. Today you have so many government charges that have to be paid regardless of what you do that it's not possible to live like that now. Also, the government has changed the size of house blocks to be such you're lucky if you have ten square feet of house yard, total.

Friar Dave ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@ChiMi

Who are you to decide?

If the kid is willing to work, it's none of anybody else's business.

Employment should be a free market.

When I was young in my old country, there were poor kids who needed to work in order to help their families and most of them had very low skill jobs that paid little. When the Americans came in, they helped enact laws that eliminated 'child labour' as the Americans saw it. Those kids who were 'helped' or 'saved' by this law ended up begging for change on the streets instead of being allowed to be productive. Their families ate less because they couldn't work because nobody was allowed to give them a job anymore.

Child labour laws and minimum wage laws are designed to eliminate competition to adults. Nothing more and nothing less.

Some people without experience (young people) and people who are below certain level of IQ aren't productive enough to earn a job at a high minimum wage. Minimum wage laws puts these people out of work usually and leave them to depend on social programs to survive.

As a business owner, if I need an employee to do some low skill job that doesn't give me enough profit to justify their position at a given minimum wage, why would I hire them?

Witness the reaction of big businesses like MacDonald's to rising minimum wage levels in places like Seattle. What are they doing? They're eliminating employees like cashiers and replacing them with self serve computer terminals. Who did the minimum wage rise help? Whenever a minimum wage hike is mandated, businesses let go of a lot of employees to save on cost, then they're forced to raise their prices to compensate and after prices rise they rehire some of their needed employees at the new minim wage.

Employment everywhere is voluntary. Nobody does a job that is not worth their time or effort. A bad employer exploiting labour unfairly will eventually have competition and will lose out in a free market.

Everybody think they're worth more than what they're getting. Everybody, from the dishwasher in a restaurant surviving on minimum wage, to the CEO that makes millions. Each and every one of us think that they deserve more and wish they would make more, but in the end, the free market decides who deserves what. Minimum wage laws are nothing more than inflationary measures and they never lead to improvement in the quality of life for those who they're declared to mean to help. They only help the people pushing for minimum wage laws like unions and social workers.

Replies:   ChiMi  Safe_Bet
ChiMi ๐Ÿšซ

@Friar Dave

And thats why I said that society failed if the kid HAS to work

And the free market is shit, it will never regulate itself. It needs governmental oversight or we have 10 year old kids in coal mines. ("How dare you, if a good samaritan wants to employ 10-year-old kids in a coal mine, that is just the free market! Those kids need those 14 hour coal mine jobs because their mother and father don't find a job (because kids do them))

Replies:   awnlee jawking  Friar Dave  REP
awnlee jawking ๐Ÿšซ

@ChiMi

And the free market is shit, it will never regulate itself. It needs governmental oversight or we have 10 year old kids in coal mines.

And 5yo kids in the Congo mining cobalt so first world eco-activists can feel good about themselves thanks to their erroneous belief that electric cars are better for the planet.

Note 1 - the price of cobalt has tripled in the past few months despite electric cars only having a small percentage of the market.

Note 2 - as a UK minister admitted, the automotive industry still has a long way to go to produce electric vehicles that are commercially competitive.

AJ

Friar Dave ๐Ÿšซ

@ChiMi

And thats why I said that society failed if the kid HAS to work

What an elitist thing to say. You're talking from a point of privilege if you think this way. You assume that everybody around the world started where you started in life.

And the free market is shit, it will never regulate itself.

What a socialist thing to say. The point of a free market that it doesn't need regulation. The only thing needed in a free market is a judiciary system to allow wronged people to go after those who wronged them and help them enforce contracts. Human nature is such that there will always be those who don't abide by the rules.

It needs governmental oversight or we have 10 year old kids in coal mines.

Hyperbole much?

Just because 10 year olds can work doesn't mean that somehow businesses or coal mines will be able to force them to work.

As a father, I would do my best to give my kids the best chance in life. If I can afford to support them through schools and university then I will damn do it no matter which work opportunities are available to them.

The American society is your best proof right under your nose. Kids as young as 14 are allowed to work. What is the percentage of 14 year-olds that you know that work, even part time jobs. How many 14 year-olds work in coal mines? Technically, coal mines can hire 14 year-olds and pay them minimum wage. How many people work in coal mines and get nothing more than minimum wage?

Replies:   robberhands
robberhands ๐Ÿšซ

@Friar Dave

Hyperbole much?

AJ just reported that five-years-olds are mining cobalt in the Congo and I believe him since he didn't end his sentence with a smiley. So where is the hyperbole in 10-year-olds working in a coal mine, or why does it have to be in the USA?

StarFleet Carl ๐Ÿšซ

@robberhands

where is the hyperbole in 10-year-olds working in a coal mine, or why does it have to be in the USA?

Today, yeah, it doesn't happen. When my grandfather started working in a coal mine at 8 years old because he was the 'man of the family', it DID happen. Because someone needed to work to put food on the table, and he was the oldest male.

By the standards we have today, this is seen as horrendous. By the standards of 1903, it's seen as doing what you need to survive.

awnlee jawking ๐Ÿšซ

@robberhands

AJ just reported that five-years-olds are mining cobalt in the Congo

I wasn't sure I believed it myself, but it seems to have been widely reported eg

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4764208/Child-miners-aged-four-living-hell-Earth.html

AJ

Friar Dave ๐Ÿšซ

@robberhands

Hyperbole much?


AJ just reported that five-years-olds are mining cobalt in the Congo and I believe him since he didn't end his sentence with a smiley. So where is the hyperbole in 10-year-olds working in a coal mine, or why does it have to be in the USA?

If it's true, and I highly doubt that it is as the productivity of a five-year-old is negligible compared to an adult's, then they wouldn't if they didn't have to.

Of course, they wouldn't have to if the society around them worked better or was advance enough.

But just because the society around them is shit and they have to work at a mine, it doesn't mean it's the worst thing for them. Them being able to work and earn a living even at 5 is better than them starving or having to earn a living while begging on the streets like the 7 and 8 year olds in my old country that had to start begging on the street when western style labour laws were enacted while ignoring the conditions of the population.

My father started working when he was 7. But at that time it was not out of the ordinary for a 7 year old to work. He worked hard, eventually gained experience and got a better job and raised me and my siblings and none of us had to have a job until we wanted to. And when I was 10 there were no laws against me working and somehow miraculously, no coal or cobalt mine dragged me to work there 18 hours per day.

Somehow it seems that many people equate 'can happen' with 'bet your ass it will definitely fucking happen all the fucking time' despite the copious evidence to the contrary.

REP ๐Ÿšซ

@ChiMi

But that was FAMILY, or helping neighbors, and not a sleazy greedy guy abusing child labor because he doesn't want to pay a grown-up person.

So according to you it is okay to work the 10-year-old kids 14 hours a day in a coal mine if the parents own the mine.

robberhands ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@REP

So according to you it is okay to work the 10-year-old kids 14 hours a day in a coal mine if the parents own the mine.

You gotta love your parents to come up with such an impressive argument.

awnlee jawking ๐Ÿšซ

@REP

Apart from the coal mine, you've just described UK Social Services' attitude towards child carers.

If the kids were being paid to work, their hours would be strictly regulated and in some cases, school permission would be required. But because child carers are unpaid, there's absolutely no regulation, and some kids are missing out on a childhood and any chance of a decent education.

AJ

Safe_Bet ๐Ÿšซ

@Friar Dave

Child labour laws and minimum wage laws are designed to eliminate competition to adults. Nothing more and nothing less.

I'm sure you feel the same way about those pesky anti-slavery laws too, right?

richardshagrin ๐Ÿšซ

@Safe_Bet

I'm sure you feel the same way about those pesky anti-slavery laws too, right?

Well, actually, there are a lot more jobs available to paid workers now that slavery isn't legal. Maybe we need to work on marriage, there is a lot of unpaid labor involved in being a wife and some, but less, in being a husband.

Replies:   Jim S
Jim S ๐Ÿšซ

@richardshagrin

Maybe we need to work on marriage, there is a lot of unpaid labor involved in being a wife .....

Depending of which state you live, being a wife can pay very, very well.

Friar Dave ๐Ÿšซ

@Safe_Bet

Child labour laws and minimum wage laws are designed to eliminate competition to adults. Nothing more and nothing less.


I'm sure you feel the same way about those pesky anti-slavery laws too, right?

False equivalency penalty for you.

Slavery is a human violation by which you take people's free will. It has been appropriately abolished thanks to the enlightenment.

Child labour and minimum wage laws forbid something totally voluntary and stops people from voluntarily engaging in services exchange.

The free market (including the freedom of employment) are always win-win. You don't give your money to a merchant if you didn't value what you want more than the money you're giving in exchange. And the merchant wouldn't surrender the merchandise if he didn't value the money more than the merchandise. And employee wouldn't do the job if they didn't think it was a fair enough monetary return for their time and an employer wouldn't hire you if he didn't think you'd be worth the money they're giving you.

When third parties (like unions and legislators) interfere in this free exchange, then it's no longer a free market.

Remember, there is no free lunch. Nobody helps anybody if they didn't have something to gain. A legislator seeks political support and the union seeks higher dues.

Ross at Play ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@Friar Dave

then it's no longer a free market.

And thank heavens for that! Unrestrained free markets inevitably produce evils such as child labour, unsafe workplaces, and polluted environments - anything where the production of goods causes harm to the society which the producer can avoid paying.

I'm grateful to live in a time when governments tax my income so that the majority of society do not have to struggle for survival like animals.

richardshagrin ๐Ÿšซ

@Friar Dave

the union seeks higher dues.

In most cases they want more members paying the same dues to get higher total dues, or that dues go up because dues are a percentage of the wage received and wages go up.

REP ๐Ÿšซ

@ChiMi

Child labor laws vary considerably in different places. Age is a big factor in what is and is not abuse of child labor laws. In some places, a business offering a young child any opportunity to work is abuse of the law to include a couple of hours a day (2-3 hours).

You need to draw a line between people who offer kids 2-3 hours of work a day and 14 hours a day.

xavier721 ๐Ÿšซ

@ChiMi

Things I learned working manual labor 60 - 80 hours a week during the summer when I was 13:

How to interact with grown men.

How to be on time.

That I was expected to keep up and do my part.

Quality work is something to be proud of and sub-standard work was shameful.

Better to never give your promise than to give it and break it.

People are easy to piss off when they're hot and sweaty and you need to think about that before you run your mouth.

Buying things with money you've earned feels so much better than buying them with money people gives you.

As long as you have skills you can eat.

A man who can and won't work is a pussy and not worth knowing or feeding. If a man's down give him a hand up. If's he's truly sick or disabled take care of him.

Before you judge me for that last one. I have a neurological condition that gives me a speech disability that can and DOES at times render me mute. I work a full-time job as a Customer Service Agent on the PHONE.

I wouldn't trade my teenage work years for anything. They laid a foundation that helped me throughout my life.

Replies:   ChiMi
ChiMi ๐Ÿšซ

@xavier721

You can learn all this with 10 to 20 hours a week as a 13-year-old. And I also have a speech impairment and worked a decade in CallCenters (sometimes I stop mid-sentence because I don't know the next word that I should know and should say at that time but suddenly can't)

I am sorry you were exploited and abused as a 13-year-old and got suckered into believing an 80 hour week in the summer as a kid would make you a better person.

How to interact with grown men.

the weekly hours don't matter

How to be on time.

the weekly hours don't matter

That I was expected to keep up and do my part

the weekly hours don't matter unless you were transported to a location that you can only get back when the rest are going home, but then you should just work 2 days the week

Quality work is something to be proud of and sub-standard work was shameful.

I question the quality of the work or the efficiency of your boss's company if he needs 80 hour weeks from his employees. that's the opposite of Quality

Better to never give your promise than to give it and break it.

Again, I am sorry you got suckered into an exploitative work relationship.

People are easy to piss off when they're hot and sweaty and you need to think about that before you run your mouth.

the weekly hours don't matter

Buying things with money you've earned feels so much better than buying them with money people gives you.

Sure, but either you saved for a mortgage on a house with those hours or you got suckered into sub-sub-sub-standard pay. When I worked 20 hours a week in the summer I felt rich! There was nothing a 13-year-old couldn't buy. the rest got transferred into a savings account.

As long as you have skills you can eat.

I am sorry that you had to work 80 hours a week to survive. In what kind of hellhole did you live?

Replies:   xavier721
xavier721 ๐Ÿšซ

@ChiMi

The year was 1981. I was making $90.00 a week and happy to have it. There was usually $80.00 to $120.00 in my pocket at any given time. I sound like I am bragging. I am. At that time a lot of grown men in my county couldn't say the same thing.

Not all the time but enough of it I would cash my check and give all but $20.00 of it to help take care of my family because my Father was dead and my Mother was sick. That's what a man does no matter how young he is. I kept the other twenty to buy my smokes, lunch and other incidentals.

Yes, it was probably against labor laws. Ask me if I cared? Even as an adult looking back I'm GRATEFUL for the opportunity to take care of myself and help take care of my sister and mother.

My boss worked as hard as I did. At one point when my mom was really sick. He let me move in with his family for over a month. He fed and sheltered me and gave me work and didn't charge me a penny. I ate at his table and was treated as one of his sons. I wasn't abused.

I did a man's work so I took a man's pleasure within reason. If I could get pussy (I couldn't) the men cheered me on) If I drank, they turned a blind eye as long as I was behind closed doors and didn't act out.

In your post you kept repeating the weekly hours don't matter but they do. Imagine- you've already worked 50 hours this week and then you stayed out late say 1:30 am trying to get some and being 13 you failed. So you rub one out better make it two she was hot and go to sleep. And your fucking alarm goes off at 7:00 am and you have to crawl your happy ass out of bed and do it all over again.
How are you going to have the drive and will to do it if all you've only ever worked is 10 or twenty hours a week?

Bills gotta be paid. No, it shouldn't be you paying them, but guess what homes. If your ass ain't out the door in 45 minutes you, your momma, and your sister are going to be sitting in the dark tonight.

That's just how life is sometimes. Even if I hadn't had to pay bills I still would have cherished the experience. Back then, One Summer of work like that could buy the title
to a two or three-year-old hot rod.

Replies:   xavier721
xavier721 ๐Ÿšซ

@xavier721

As I was writing the above. I was reflecting that Sunkuwan and I probably had very different life circumstances that influenced our viewpoints.

I assume and I could be wrong that he had two parents with decent incomes as well as an extended family such as grandparents, aunts, and uncles to fall back upon in times of trouble.

My situation was different. My Father was dead and we were estranged from his side of the family. My Maternal grandmother was in her 80's at that time. several years prior to my mother's illness my aunt and uncle ( I was nine when I was told this.) informed my sister and me if anything ever happened to my mother we were orphanage bound as they were too old to care for children. It didn't really matter as they lived over 700 miles away.

When my mother became really ill the doctor told us she had a 50% chance of dying. I sat in a forest crying and smoking trying to figure a way to make a full living on $90.00 a week. I knew I couldn't get a year-round job because no one would hire a 13-year-old for that. I just knew I wasn't going to an orphanage. Fortunately, my mom survived so I didn't have to find an answer because as an adult I know what the answers would have been.

Replies:   StarFleet Carl  ChiMi
StarFleet Carl ๐Ÿšซ

@xavier721

As I was writing the above. I was reflecting that Sunkuwan and I probably had very different life circumstances that influenced our viewpoints.

I'm pretty much agreeing with you on that one.

Thing is, it sounds like he's twisting your words and your experience to excuse his own issues or actual lack thereof. You faced adversity and rather than let it beat you, stared it in the face and then kicked it in the nuts.

What I think he fails to grasp is that you cannot judge the culture and what was acceptable 50 years ago by the standards today. Nor can you judge the standards of a rural farming community by that of an urban metropolis.

Replies:   Michael Loucks
Michael Loucks ๐Ÿšซ

@StarFleet Carl

What I think he fails to grasp is that you cannot judge the culture and what was acceptable 50 years ago by the standards today. Nor can you judge the standards of a rural farming community by that of an urban metropolis.

Exactly this. That last bit is the source of a big chuck of the bitter political battles going on in the US.

ChiMi ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@xavier721

The year was 1981. I was making $90.00 a week and happy to have it. There was usually $80.00 to $120.00 in my pocket at any given time. I sound like I am bragging. I am. At that time a lot of grown men in my county couldn't say the same thing.

That's what, 1.1$ to 1.2$ an hour? Adjusted for inflation that's 3$ today.
Like I said, you were exploited and abused as a kid, they took your desperation and you developed some kind of stockholm-syndrome.
I made the same inflation-adjusted weekly pay with 10 to 20 hours.

Not all the time but enough of it I would cash my check and give all but $20.00 of it to help take care of my family because my Father was dead and my Mother was sick. That's what a man does no matter how young he is. I kept the other twenty to buy my smokes, lunch and other incidentals.

NO! That's what the state is there for. That's where the taxes go. What if you were also sick? What if you didn't exist? Should your mother and sister live on the street because there was no "man in the house"?

In your post you kept repeating the weekly hours don't matter but they do. Imagine- you've already worked 50 hours this week and then you stayed out late say 1:30 am trying to get some and being 13 you failed. So you rub one out better make it two she was hot and go to sleep. And your fucking alarm goes off at 7:00 am and you have to crawl your happy ass out of bed and do it all over again.

How are you going to have the drive and will to do it if all you've only ever worked is 10 or twenty hours a week?

because it is fucking Summer vacation? We only have 6 weeks of that in Germany, so we tried to cram in everything possible.
7AM? lol. Most of the time I had to wake up at 4AM after trying to stay up with my friends.

Bills gotta be paid. No, it shouldn't be you paying them, but guess what homes. If your ass ain't out the door in 45 minutes you, your momma, and your sister are going to be sitting in the dark tonight.

Failure of your 3rd world country (I assume we still talk about the US)

I assume and I could be wrong that he had two parents with decent incomes as well as an extended family such as grandparents, aunts, and uncles to fall back upon in times of trouble.

Yes, my parents were alive, but No, they didn't have decent income. Most of the time I lived nearly in poverty.

When my mother became really ill the doctor told us she had a 50% chance of dying. I sat in a forest crying and smoking trying to figure a way to make a full living on $90.00 a week. I knew I couldn't get a year-round job because no one would hire a 13-year-old for that. I just knew I wasn't going to an orphanage. Fortunately, my mom survived so I didn't have to find an answer because as an adult I know what the answers would have been.

This is heartbreaking, but still, it should be the task of the government to support a Family such as yours and not a 13-year-old boy.

BTW I grew up in the end80's/90's witnessing the fall of the Berlin Wall. So no, it wasn't "another time" we just had better child protection, social security and better care from the contrast to your hell-hole that you grew up in.

Replies:   xavier721
xavier721 ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@ChiMi

I hear what you're saying. In America, government help isn't that much help. My family's situation was actually better during the time I was describing than when we lived in public housing a few years previously.

Sure, we had electricity and such, but we weren't safe. walking to the corner store or the school bus stop often got you beat and could get you worse. I lost track of how many times I got beat up because I'm white. We were burgled. People tried to break in WHILE they knew we were in there. Some people go crazy for white pussy. I'm not being funny or racist. I'm saying what I saw.

Men, to emulate? Never saw any men except a cop or maybe a teacher. I saw drug dealers who looked and acted liked really old children but no men. I had seen men before I moved there.

I'll take the life I had when I was 13 all day every day over that shit. I have a much better life now.

[edit] I want to mention about the pay. It was a family-owned business. My supervisor was the 16-year-old son of the owner. The son was literally splitting his pay with me. He made $95.00 a week. I made $90.00 His dad made the rest but paid all operating expenses. It was fair money for the skill level required.

PotomacBob ๐Ÿšซ

@PrincelyGuy

Oh, how about car washes? Nope. Those are mostly automated now too. A few swiping the car with a wet mop and a few more "drying" the car with towels.

You pay for commercial car washes in the summertime? In our town, in the summertime, high school girls in shorts hold up signs most days saying "free car wash" in supermarket parking lots. Of course, they expect a tip for whatever their worthy cause is. High school girls say "thank you, sir" which the car wash machine doesn't do. And the view is nicer.

Ernest Bywater ๐Ÿšซ

@PrincelyGuy

However, the jobs I held when a teenager are impossible to get now. Labor laws have deemed that those jobs are too dangerous for teenagers.

Not sure what it was like in other countries, but I grew up in Australia and during the 1960s I first worked after school at 13 years old pulling a cart load of newspapers around the street blowing a whistle and selling newspapers to people at their front fences. At 14 years I worked after school riding a pushbike to deliver telegrams. The laws at that time meant I had a good pay for part-time work, but there's no way you would call it a living wage simply because the jobs were meant as paid work experience for teenagers. I worked a series of those jobs until I entered the full-time work force at 16 years of age.

During the 1970s all of the jobs I worked after school vanished due to changing laws putting the minimum age for kids to do paid work outside of the family at 15 years of age. Two decades later the minimum wage for teenager workers made it such you were better off hiring an experienced 21 year old than an inexperienced under 21 year old. Then the big move to make the minimum wage a living wage meant there was no incentive to employers to hire anyone who wasn't already experienced because you paid the same money for experienced workers and inexperienced workers. At every step along this road the number of entry level jobs diminished.

One side aspect of the employment law changes about teens was the elimination of the paperboys walking the streets due to the higher wages meant it was not longer being a profitable way to sell newspapers which meant the number of newspaper sales dropped due to having to go to the newsagent to buy papers instead of the front fence. The loss of sales caused many of the newsagents to go out of business and made buying a newspaper a lot harder. To lift sales again the newspaper companies moved to direct delivery and mail delivery, which hurt the newsagents further. Many thousands of mid-teens across the country who earned pocket money from selling newspapers no longer had a source of income at all, and the changed laws stopped them from doing a lot of other work that used to be available to them.

PotomacBob ๐Ÿšซ

@PrincelyGuy

Love the generalization there that if you are not on the dole and live in the USA then you are greedy, selfish, and lacking in both compassion and civility.

That's not what he said.

tendertouch ๐Ÿšซ

@Wheezer

Because a significant portion (significant, but not in the majority) of Americans from the middle & upper income levels feel that if a person is poor, then it is their own damn fault and they deserve to be poor. They must be lazy, shiftless bastards just looking for a handout.

I don't know when this started but Ronnie made it part of his campaign with the whole welfare queen idea and since a lot of people worship St Reagan it has stuck around without real evidence, just those anecdotes.

At the same time we were being reminded to worship money and told to give it to the wealthy so they'd give us handouts (i.e. trickle down economics - which is a great idea depending upon your goal.)

seanski1969 ๐Ÿšซ

And even here is the same indoctrinated speech of television commentators. When did socialism equal communism? When will people realize that Stalin was a dictator not a communist? All lies and propaganda to keep the wealth of the many in the hands of the so few.

Ernest Bywater ๐Ÿšซ

@seanski1969

socialism equal communism?

From the start since they both push for everything to be owned by the collective group and not the individual. What they differ on is some of the minor aspects. Mind you, fascism is the same basic agenda of collective ownership and control of everything. Mind you, most communists follow the Marxism version and they regard Marxism as being the scientific version of socialism.

Trying to find major differences between the three is like trying to find significant differences between a cup of coffee, a mug of coffee, and a glass of coffee poured from the same pot of coffee that's just been brewed.

In all three you need some method to select a leader, and they all seem to end up with some sort of dictatorship.

Oh_Oh_Seven ๐Ÿšซ

@seanski1969

Why is that over the last 120 years the dictators of the world spawned from communist/socialist societies?

Stalin
Franco
Hitler
Mao
How
Castro

Could it be that centralization into the commune/social eliminates the individual? It couldn't be that simple?

The more utopian the idea, the easier it is bastardized.

Replies:   richardshagrin  Remus2
richardshagrin ๐Ÿšซ

@Oh_Oh_Seven

How?

Sorry, the list of dictators contains a name I don't recognize. And Franco and Hitler were Fascists. Somewhat further right than Socialist. I guess if the the chamber is circular the delegates seated all the the way to the right are next to the ones all the way on the left.

Ernest Bywater ๐Ÿšซ

@richardshagrin

Franco and Hitler were Fascists. Somewhat further right than Socialist.

Study the policies and their history, Facism is a socialist political philosophy, which is why the symbol was a bundle of sticks. Facism is the right hand end of the socialist sub-spectrum with communism at the left hand end of the socialist sub-spectrum.

Oh_Oh_Seven ๐Ÿšซ

@richardshagrin

Ho

Shall we add

Pol Pot
Mugabe

robberhands ๐Ÿšซ

@richardshagrin

Don't let yourself become confused by Franco's and Mussolini's nationalist doctrines or Hitler's racial delusions. They were all obviously socialists. I'm pretty sure Ruhollah Khomeini was a socialist as well.

Socialism has nothing to do with workers and means of production. Anyone who wants to own and control everything is a socialist. It doesn't matter whether it's Vito Corleone and his extended family from Sicily, Genghis Khan and his Mongolian tribe brethren, or Billy Bob and his booze buddies.

Such a definition of socialism is really much easier. What does it matter anyway? It's not like it would change anything.

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Not_a_ID ๐Ÿšซ

@robberhands

Socialism has nothing to do with workers and means of production. Anyone who wants to own and control everything is a socialist. It doesn't matter whether it's Vito Corleone and his extended family from Sicily, Genghis Khan and his Mongolian tribe brethren, or Billy Bob and his booze buddies.

Not quite. Anyone who wants to own and control everything is likely to use socialism as a means to that end. See: Hugo Chavez.

That doesn't necessarily make them socialists. But that likewise makes socialism a very dangerous road to travel down. The failure rate for those that go "all in" is virtually 100%. Even the ones that take a more gradual approach(Western Eurooe) have typically progressed only so far before backing away from it at least a little.

"Capitalists" can likewise want to own and control everything, or at least everything within their ability to do so. The United States in particular has plenty of examples of this in the late 19th Century in particular. In that respect, I think the advantage goes to the capitalist, the U.S. started with not much, and finished with quite a bit. Most "all in" socialist efforts started with a respectable amount, and finished with not much.

Personally I would prefer somewhere "near" the middle, but with a bias towards capitalism. Both extremes have their abuses and abusers(and they seem a LOT alike), it just happens that capitalism is more likely to put "control" in the hands of more people, creating means and incentive to prevent bad situations from becoming worse.

(Which ironically is probably part of another issue at present: The situation "isn't bad" for many/most, they're just being told it will be.)

robberhands ๐Ÿšซ

@Not_a_ID

In the history of mankind, there never was a shortage of tyranny and no tyrant ever had a hard time to justify his claim to power. To believe this world would be any different with or without a particular philosophy, ideology, or religion is illusional at best and at worst a lie to start another war.

Ernest Bywater ๐Ÿšซ

@Not_a_ID

Anyone who wants to own and control everything is likely to use socialism as a means to that end. See: Hugo Chavez.

True, because socialism is so appealing to so many people who won't take the time to study the ramifications of what's being proposed, thus they support socialism and those who promote it as a way to gain power.

Remus2 ๐Ÿšซ

@Oh_Oh_Seven

Hแป“ Chรญ Sugma aka Hแป“ Chรญ Minh I assume you mean?

Replies:   Oh_Oh_Seven
Oh_Oh_Seven ๐Ÿšซ

@Remus2

Ayup

Michael Loucks ๐Ÿšซ

@NC-Retired

Then... because ideas like Medicare for All

The problem with 'one-size fits all' is that it doesn't. I've explored the problems of this (and a bunch of other) 'solution' in A Well-Lived Life 2. In the end, it's all about rationing and who gets to decide the rations. A government bureaucrat? An insurance company? An individual with personal resources? A doctor?

Fundamentally, in the US, the argument is about health insurance when it should be about health care. And honestly, I have no faith that a centralized bureaucracy of ANY kind (government or private sector) would be capable of providing individualized services to 350,000,000 extremely diverse people.

Replies:   ChiMi  richardshagrin
ChiMi ๐Ÿšซ

@Michael Loucks

It is no problem in the rest of the world.
There is always the argument that America has the best technology in health care but they are often in a very bad position by western standards, the infant mortality rate is 2 to 3 times of other western nations. Mother survivability the same, etc.

In European health care systems there is always the option to go premium if you don't want the standard free health care.

Replies:   Keet  Not_a_ID  Michael Loucks
Keet ๐Ÿšซ

@ChiMi

In European health care systems there is always the option to go premium if you don't want the standard free health care.

Here in the Netherlands there is no premium. If you want "premium" you have to go abroad. I put premium between quotation marks because our standard health care system is one of the very best in the world so if we want premium we stay in the Netherlands.
That health care system costs me around โ‚ฌ 2000 a year.

Not_a_ID ๐Ÿšซ

@ChiMi

There is always the argument that America has the best technology in health care but they are often in a very bad position by western standards,

We have the best medical care money can buy. The problem with "the best" is it doesn't come cheap, and most won't be able to afford it.

the infant mortality rate is 2 to 3 times of other western nations. Mother survivability the same, etc.

Not so fast, I think you need to look into just how uniform the reporting on these statistics are. In some European countries a birth is considered a "live birth" until the infant has spent 24 hours outside the womb.

Compared to the US standard which basically is the moment the infant leaves the birth canal(or the c-section is complete).

And the when you drill down and realize the overwhleming majority of the US infant mortality numbers come from deaths within the first few hours after birth, well...

Of course, the US also has a quality of care problem, and this gets into healthcare as a larger issue, because a number of infant mortality issues stem from mothers not getting "sufficient" medical care(if any) for their pregnancy prior to giving birth.

Michael Loucks ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@ChiMi

It is no problem in the rest of the world.

Population of the largest country in the EU? About 80 million (Germany). That's less than one-fourth the population of the US, AND about 1/30th of the area (9,525,067km vs 357,021km).

To say that what works for (relatively) densely populated Europe, where it's administered by each country individually, would work for the US administered by the Federal government, ignores those basic facts.

Replies:   ChiMi
ChiMi ๐Ÿšซ

@Michael Loucks

Then it shouldn't be a problem to test it in a narrow 80 million region...

The truth is, the health providers in the US make more money with the current system.

richardshagrin ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@Michael Loucks

And honestly, I have no faith that a centralized bureaucracy of ANY kind (government or private sector) would be capable of providing individualized services to 350,000,000 extremely diverse people.

The medicine you get in the army tends to prove your point. At Fort Gordon, Georgia I got the flu with a high temperature and they had me walk several miles to a military hospital where they gave me a bed and let me recover pretty much all by myself. They don't care if you live or die, just if you made your bed after you got up. I don't think the medical care Veterans get in Veterans Hospitals is all that much better. If the government runs it, it will run poorly if at all.

sunseeker ๐Ÿšซ

@NC-Retired

and there are just as many "hard lefties" as the "hard rightie" you describe. The people "in the middle" don't make the news...

NC-Retired ๐Ÿšซ

Ah yes, zealots. All ideologies have different levels of adherents and some individuals drink the kool-aid with enthusiasm and fervor, becoming evangelical in their quests to 'right the wrongs' as they see them.

But I'm always curious as to which zealotry is most objectionable?

Is it the zealotry that tries to stop an ill conceived pipeline? Perhaps those that take to the seas to try and stop killing of whales? How about the people that protest nazis in our streets?

Maybe most objectionable are those whose greed runs roughshod over people's property rights in the name of eminent domain? Maybe most objectionable would be those that advocate 'free speech' that includes incitement to do harm to other people?

When does traitorous action become objectionable? Do supporters of traitors themselves become traitors or are they just pawns being duped?

As I initially stated, your worldview colors what situations or actions that you find acceptable or objectionable.

I find it sad that a large number of people truly believe that poor people are lazy. That folks would rather sit on their asses and mooch versus doing a job that not only brings in money but also provides dignity.

I find it sad that St. Ronnie is revered by many instead of reviled by all thinking individuals as the catalyst that brought us our current turmoil.

Again, the most casual study of human history and archeology reveals that the powerful, the landed gentry, the aristocracy, the rich, the capitalists, those that own and control the means of production are not allies of us 'common' folks. We are just fodder for their factory machines and their war machines. Used, abused and discarded to be replaced with other poor slobs that have bought into the propaganda their minions spew as if their point of view is the only valid one to be had.

Welcome to the human condition.

Replies:   oyster50  Not_a_ID
oyster50 ๐Ÿšซ

@NC-Retired

"But I'm always curious as to which zealotry is most objectionable?

Is it the zealotry that tries to stop an ill conceived pipeline?"

Okay... you rattled MY cage. Which "ill-conceived pipeline"? DAPL? Bayou Bridge? I work for the company that owns BOTH of those. Nothing 'ill-conceived' about either one of them. Both exceeded the statutory requirements for permitting and construction.

Both add safe and reliable capacity to the national energy infrastructure, providing safe transport previously provided (in DAPL's case) by mile-long trains of tanker cars.

Further, I find it amusing that the 'protestors' arrived in fossil-fueled transportation and were clothed by and lived in structures made possible by the same fossil fuels they were protesting.

And the cleanup of the protestor camp showed exactly how much they really cared about the environment and the land they were 'protecting'.

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Not_a_ID ๐Ÿšซ

@oyster50

Both add safe and reliable capacity to the national energy infrastructure, providing safe transport previously provided (in DAPL's case) by mile-long trains of tanker cars.

This was the big one for me, much higher safety rating for the pipeline vs rail transport(or road transport), much greater efficiency as well(less co2 emitted per unit of production), and the list goes on and on.

The "real issue" there was a combination of NIMBY, and agenda driven politics where certain parties are deliberately attempting to drive up the price of oil, ostensibly "to decarbonize" society.

The actual environmental risks posed by the pipeline itself were so far down their priority list to be laughable.

Not_a_ID ๐Ÿšซ

@NC-Retired

I find it sad that a large number of people truly believe that poor people are lazy. That folks would rather sit on their asses and mooch versus doing a job that not only brings in money but also provides dignity.

I don't believe all poor people are lazy. I think a lot of them have a valid "lack opportunity" issue that prevented them from lifting themselves out of poverty.

But I also think there are a LOT of people who ARE lazy, and have very low standards for what they're willing to live/work with. For them, public assistance is more than enough.

Perversely in some cases, it actually is completely true that public assistance benefits, at least for those "that know the system" (such as the "professional beneficiaries"), tend to be better than anything they're able to obtain in the employment sector. (Which can either cycle to lack of opportunity(typically education), or their being lazy)

I'm at 2 or 3 removes from more than a few of the "professional beneficiaries" as it is, and the vast majority of them are white. So my dislike for poorly targeted assistance programs doesn't exist on the level of "I don't want to pay for black welfare families." Because I'm certainly not writing a big enough check to cover the white ones I'm aware of. Who I also think should be kicked off of public assistance.

Ernest Bywater ๐Ÿšซ

@Not_a_ID

I don't believe all poor people are lazy.

A very true statement. The biggest part of the impression given about lazy poor people is due to the media. We almost never see any media reports about poor people who work hard to make ends meet and trying to improve themselves, while we see a lot of media reports on incidents like the one in the link below. A woman with 17 kids is, once again, wanting someone to pay for her back rent while she and her husband don't work.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcGh0c6cgu4&t=1s

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Not_a_ID ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@Ernest Bywater

We almost never see any media reports about poor people who work hard to make ends meet and trying to improve themselves,

I can remember more than a few, they're actually very common in the US whenever the Republicans actually start trying to make cuts to programs. That's probably about the only time you see those stories get airtime, and that's only because it gives Republicans a proverbial black eye. (That and it "it bleeds" after a proverbial fashion under those specific circumstances)

Otherwise they're running the story you outline above because of the whole scandal aspect.

Ross at Play ๐Ÿšซ

@Not_a_ID

poorly targeted assistance programs

I can understand a level of frustration with that but I don't think this is a rational reaction:

... I also think should be kicked off of public assistance.

Tell me, what is the difference between welfare recipients using the system to their best advantage and those with high incomes using lawful ways to minimise their tax payments?

I suggest a rational and humane response to the situation that some welfare recipients are better off not working, often called the "poverty trap", is to push for better coordination between welfare programs and the tax system.

I experienced extreme difficulties just surviving as a university student with no family support because of a poverty trap created by uncoordinated programs. As a student I received a very meagre allowance. At less than $60 per week it was not enough to live on. I worked part-time and during the end-of-year breaks. My student allowance was reduced by 50 cents for every dollar of other income I earned above a very low threshold. But at that level of other income I was also paying 33 cents in tax from every extra dollar earned. I was on a marginal tax rate of 83 cents from every extra dollar earned - while my total income was well below the poverty line.

The system of support has since been changed to a rational system where university students are treated in a similar way to those unemployed and looking for work.

Replies:   Jim S
Jim S ๐Ÿšซ

@Ross at Play

Tell me, what is the difference between welfare recipients using the system to their best advantage and those with high incomes using lawful ways to minimise their tax payments?

Uh, one is the payer and one is the payee?

Replies:   Ross at Play
Ross at Play ๐Ÿšซ

@Jim S

Uh, one is the payer and one is the payee?

I'll treat that answer and its writer with the contempt they deserve.

Replies:   Jim S
Jim S ๐Ÿšซ

@Ross at Play

I'll treat that answer and its writer with the contempt they deserve.

So no response to the fact that welfare recipients are takers and the tax payers supporting them are givers? Which is true in ALL senses of the comparisons.

But the progressive/liberal side of the political spectrum never let facts get in the way of a good emotional argument. How else can the world be saved if "inconvenient truths" keep popping up? Then, when all else fails, there is always ad hominem to come to the rescue.

Replies:   Ross at Play  madnige
Ross at Play ๐Ÿšซ

@Jim S

.

Replies:   ChiMi
ChiMi ๐Ÿšซ

@Ross at Play

Ross, this is a battle we can't win. Let those Gammons be.

Replies:   Jim S  Ross at Play
Jim S ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@ChiMi

Ross, this is a battle we can't win. Let those Gammons be.

Is this another way of rejecting dialogue and views you don't agree with? That you want to turn all of the discussion here into an echo chamber of yours (and Ross') views?

Wow.

Ross at Play ๐Ÿšซ

@ChiMi

Ross ... Let those Gammons be.

Thanks, but my last post was already it for me.

this is a battle we can't win.

I would have settled for a pretense of debate. That ain't gonna happen.

madnige ๐Ÿšซ

@Jim S

Then, when all else fails, there is always ad hominem to come to the rescue.

Nah, when all else fails, spit your dummy out, pick up your ball, and crawl home to mummy. You beat me to that response, and probably gave a more pointed and succinct one, too.

PotomacBob ๐Ÿšซ

@Not_a_ID

I'd suggest you run for public office where, if you are elected, you can have greater influence on policy.

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Not_a_ID ๐Ÿšซ

@PotomacBob

I'd suggest you run for public office where, if you are elected, you can have greater influence on policy.

I think I would be better suited to actually unass, get my muse to actually generate a coherent plot, and become a modern day equivalent to George Orwell, with as much name recognition as a certain Rowling person. Getting her kind of money along the way would be nice too. ;)

One can dream anyway. Of course, I'd have to learn to keep my mouth shut online and in public lest a snowflake catch me out and outrage ensue over poor phrasing.

Switch Blayde ๐Ÿšซ

@NC-Retired

Medicare for All

And who will pay for it?

Replies:   Ross at Play  Jim S
Ross at Play ๐Ÿšซ

@Switch Blayde

And who will pay for it?

There are successful models in all of the more wealthy European countries, Australia, Singapore, ... They all spend much less per head of population on health than America - and have longer life expectancies!

Jim S ๐Ÿšซ

@Switch Blayde

And who will pay for it?

The people do, of course. The only thing that Medicare for All accomplishes is the government assuming all control of your healthcare. It will get paid for by raising taxes that in effect move what are now insurance premiums to government coffers. So in this way, instead of healthcare being rationed in the current manner, it will be rationed by the likes of Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

So hello to Death Panels. A topic that gets somewhat important to those in our 70s. Or maybe even earlier if your cost to the system is deemed too excessive. By Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Jim S ๐Ÿšซ

Returning to the Medicare for All discussion, I found this report somewhat disturbing.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/08/socialism_or_death_gets_creepily_literal_in_canada_with_patients_pressured_into_euthanasia.html

Replies:   robberhands
robberhands ๐Ÿšซ

@Jim S

Returning to the Medicare for All discussion, I found this report somewhat disturbing.

You probably shouldn't read blogs on 'American Thinker' if you are easily disturbed. I felt disturbed as well when I skimmed the other articles.

Replies:   Jim S
Jim S ๐Ÿšซ

@robberhands

You probably shouldn't read blogs on 'American Thinker' if you are easily disturbed. I felt disturbed as well when I skimmed the other articles.

I agree to a certain extent. American Thinker tends to lean right in their stories. However, I'm horrified by the facts presented. Those need neither left nor right filtering.

Replies:   robberhands
robberhands ๐Ÿšซ

@Jim S

... tends to lean right ...

You could've said the same about Joseph Goebbels.

Replies:   Jim S
Jim S ๐Ÿšซ

@robberhands

You could've said the same about Joseph Goebbels.

Think you got the direction wrong.

Replies:   robberhands
robberhands ๐Ÿšซ

@Jim S

Think you got the direction wrong.

Go on and make me laugh.

ChiMi ๐Ÿšซ

Don't you know about the communist Goebbels?

Replies:   robberhands
robberhands ๐Ÿšซ

@ChiMi

Don't you know about the communist Goebbels?

No, no, no! Goebbels was a socialist and thus he obviously leaned to the left. Well, a National Socialist, but let's not be fussy. Besides, it's not half as much fun if you can't say it with a straight face.

Replies:   Jim S
Jim S ๐Ÿšซ

@robberhands

No, no, no! Goebbels was a socialist and thus he obviously leaned to the left. Well, a National Socialist, but let's not be fussy. Besides, it's not half as much fun if you can't say it with a straight face.

I think Earnest Bywater put it quite succinctly in an earlier post. I won't repeat it. You can probably find it by scanning for "coffee" on this page. I'd link to it but can't remember how.

Replies:   robberhands
robberhands ๐Ÿšซ

@Jim S

It's Ernest Bywater and I don't need to look it up. I can very well imagine what he had to say.

Replies:   Jim S  Ernest Bywater
Jim S ๐Ÿšซ

@robberhands

It's Ernest Bywater and I don't need to look it up. I can very well imagine what he had to say.

Guy, here you're exposed to different viewpoints. This isn't a safe space. You need to retreat to some progressive backwater for one of those.

Replies:   robberhands
robberhands ๐Ÿšซ

@Jim S

Guy, here you're exposed to different viewpoints. This isn't a safe space. You need to retreat to some progressive backwater for one of those.

Do you believe your flawless logic and unassailable facts are somehow scaring? I feel pretty safe, so why would I need to retreat?

Ernest Bywater ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@robberhands

It's Ernest Bywater and I don't need to look it up. I can very well imagine what he had to say.

What you may need to do is to look into the information and links I give and learn something from the links and quotes below, please take special note of the last set. I couldn't find a single link for a socialist manifesto or program because every one seems to make it different for their personal situation. Note: Bold is added by me.

.................

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and workers' self-management of the means of production as well as the political theories and movements associated with them. Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective or cooperative ownership, or to citizen ownership of equity. There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them, though social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.

Core dichotomies include reformism versus revolutionary socialism and state socialism versus libertarian socialism. Socialist politics has been both centralist and decentralised; internationalist and nationalist in orientation; organised through political parties and opposed to party politics; at times overlapping with trade unions and at other times independent ofโ€”and critical ofโ€”unions; and present in both industrialised and developing countries.

..................

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Manifesto

The Communist Manifesto is divided into a preamble and four sections, the last of these a short conclusion. The introduction begins by proclaiming "A spectre is haunting Europeโ€”the spectre of communism. All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre". Pointing out that parties everywhereโ€”including those in government and those in the oppositionโ€”have flung the "branding reproach of communism" at each other, the authors infer from this that the powers-that-be acknowledge communism to be a power in itself. Subsequently, the introduction exhorts Communists to openly publish their views and aims, to "meet this nursery tale of the spectre of communism with a manifesto of the party itself".

The first section of the Manifesto, "Bourgeois and Proletarians", elucidates the materialist conception of history, that "the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles". Societies have always taken the form of an oppressed majority exploited under the yoke of an oppressive minority. In capitalism, the industrial working class, or proletariat, engage in class struggle against the owners of the means of production, the bourgeoisie. As before, this struggle will end in a revolution that restructures society, or the "common ruin of the contending classes". The bourgeoisie, through the "constant revolutionising of production [and] uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions" have emerged as the supreme class in society, displacing all the old powers of feudalism. The bourgeoisie constantly exploits the proletariat for its labour power, creating profit for themselves and accumulating capital. However, in doing so, the bourgeoisie serves as "its own grave-diggers"; the proletariat inevitably will become conscious of their own potential and rise to power through revolution, overthrowing the bourgeoisie.

"Proletarians and Communists", the second section, starts by stating the relationship of conscious communists to the rest of the working class. The communists' party will not oppose other working-class parties, but unlike them, it will express the general will and defend the common interests of the world's proletariat as a whole, independent of all nationalities. The section goes on to defend communism from various objections, including claims that it advocates "free love" or disincentivises people from working. The section ends by outlining a set of short-term demandsโ€”among them a progressive income tax; abolition of inheritances and private property; abolition of child labour; free public education; nationalisation of the means of transport and communication; centralisation of credit via a national bank; expansion of publicly owned etc.โ€”the implementation of which would result in the precursor to a stateless and classless society.

The third section, "Socialist and Communist Literature", distinguishes communism from other socialist doctrines prevalent at the timeโ€”these being broadly categorised as Reactionary Socialism; Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism; and Critical-Utopian Socialism and Communism. While the degree of reproach toward rival perspectives varies, all are dismissed for advocating reformism and failing to recognise the pre-eminent revolutionary role of the working class. "Position of the Communists in Relation to the Various Opposition Parties", the concluding section of the Manifesto, briefly discusses the communist position on struggles in specific countries in the mid-nineteenth century such as France, Switzerland, Poland, and Germany, this last being "on the eve of a bourgeois revolution", and predicts that a world revolution will soon follow. It ends by declaring an alliance with the social democrats, boldly supporting other communist revolutions, and calling for united international proletarian actionโ€”Working Men of All Countries, Unite!.

........................

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program

In Munich, on 24 February 1920, Hitler publicly proclaimed the 25-point Program of the NSDAP (National Socialist German Workers' Party) ...

Some of the most relevant parts of the 25-point Program of the NSDAP as I cut a lot to save space. Follow the link to see it all

10. The first obligation of every citizen must be to productively work mentally or physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all. Consequently, we demand:

11. Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery.

13. We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).

14. We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.

15. We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.

16. We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.

18. We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, profiteers and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.

19. We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order.

20. The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the state must be striven for by the school [Staatsbรผrgerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the state of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.

21. The state is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.

23. We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press. In order to enable the provision of a German press, we demand, that:

a. All writers and employees of the newspapers appearing in the German language be members of the race;

b. Non-German newspapers be required to have the express permission of the state to be published. They may not be printed in the German language;

c. Non-Germans are forbidden by law any financial interest in German publications or any influence on them and as punishment for violations the closing of such a publication as well as the immediate expulsion from the Reich of the non-German concerned. Publications which are counter to the general good are to be forbidden. We demand legal prosecution of artistic and literary forms which exert a destructive influence on our national life and the closure of organizations opposing the above made demands.

24. We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state so long as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race. The Party as such advocates the standpoint of a positive Christianity without binding itself confessionally to any one denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our nation can only succeed from within on the framework: "The good of the community before the good of the individual". ("GEMEINNUTZ GEHT VOR EIGENNUTZ" [all caps in original])

25. For the execution of all of this we demand the formation of a strong central power in the Reich. Unlimited authority of the central parliament over the whole Reich and its organizations in general. The forming of state and profession chambers for the execution of the laws made by the Reich within the various states of the confederation. The leaders of the Party promise, if necessary by sacrificing their own lives, to support by the execution of the points set forth above without consideration.

.........................

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist_Manifesto

Fascist Manifesto, was the initial declaration of the political stance of the Fasci Italiani di Combattimento ("Italian League of Combat")[1] the movement founded in Milan by Benito Mussolini in 1919 and an early exponent of Fascism.

Some of the most relevant parts of the 20-point Program is cut a lot to save space. Follow the link to see it all

A minimum wage;

Reduction of the retirement age from 65 to 55.

Creation of a short-service national militia with specifically defensive responsibilities;

Armaments factories are to be nationalized;

A strong progressive tax on capital (envisaging a "partial expropriation" of concentrated wealth);

The seizure of all the possessions of the religious congregations and the abolition of all the bishoprics, which constitute an enormous liability on the Nation and on the privileges of the poor;

The revision of all military contracts and the seizure of 85 percent of the profits therein.

These early positions reflected in the Manifesto would later be characterized by Mussolini in the Doctrine of Fascism

.................

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Doctrine_of_Fascism

Some of the most relevant parts the list is cut a lot to save space. Follow the link to see it all

Against individualism, the Fascist conception is for the State; and it is for the individual in so far as he coincides with the State.

The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist Stateโ€”a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all valuesโ€”interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people.

The Fascist State lays claim to rule in the economic field no less than in others; it makes its action felt throughout the length and breadth of the country by means of its corporate, social, and educational institutions, and all the political, economic, and spiritual forces of the nation, organised in their respective associations, circulate within the State.

.................

Note: In the Doctrine of facism Musolini does state that Facism is opposed to socialism as proposed by the far left socialists of his day in regards to collective control as he promotes a mroe dictatorial control. He also opposes democracy as well.

..................

Note: All of these political philosophies promote collective or state ownership of everything of everything with a total elimination of individual ownership, control, or action.

edit to bold the last note.

Replies:   Jim S  robberhands
Jim S ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@Ernest Bywater

What you may need to do is to look into the information and links I give and learn something from the links and quotes below, please take special note of the last set. I couldn't find a single link for a socialist manifesto or program because every one seems to make it different for their personal situation. Note: Bold is added by me.

I read Mein Kampf and the Nazi platform long ago. Only recently have I juxtaposed the platform with the demands/platform of the Democrat Party. It's scary how close they match up. And the left calls the right fascist? Hmmm.

The quote attributed to Daniel Patrick Moynihan comes to mind (and I've used it before):
"You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts."

robberhands ๐Ÿšซ

@Ernest Bywater

Every totalitarian regime has the same goal. Control. Control of the military, control of the production, transport, press, education, and control of health care as a cherry on top of it. Of course, every wannabe dictator could just say I want total control and spare us all the ideological justifications but maliciously they don't.

A few hundred years back the justification was quite easy. A king was chosen by God to be the sovereign of his kingdom. After Renaissance and Industrial Revolution, the 'god given' justification wasn't as successful anymore. No worries, though, newly invented social utopias were readily available to be abused instead.

Born in the 20th century, Genghis Khan probably would also have professed to be a socialist, or communist, or proud nationalist, or freedom fighter, or founding member of the beneficial society of wood gnomes.

You need to be stupendously naive to believe it makes any difference which ideological balderdash a totalitarian regime uses to justify its grasp to power.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater ๐Ÿšซ

@robberhands

You need to be stupendously naive to believe it makes any difference which ideological balderdash a totalitarian regime uses to justify its grasp to power.

Yet so many people do believe them, and then vote them into office. This is especially so when they claim to be pushing a socialist program. So many people forget that both Hitler and Mussolini were elected to office in democracies, as have many other dictators of the 20th century.

Replies:   robberhands
robberhands ๐Ÿšซ

@Ernest Bywater

So many people forget that both Hitler and Mussolini were elected to office in democracies

Hitler was not elected as Reichskanzler. Paul von Hindenburg, the German Reichsprรคsident, appointed him. The NSDAP never won more than 37% of the votes in an election.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater ๐Ÿšซ

@robberhands

He was still elected to political office in a democracy, and then used that position to move up the line in accordance with the rules before using the rules to stop others from taking him out of office. He didn't stage an armed revolution to gain control, but used the existing system.

ChiMi ๐Ÿšซ

lol

progressive backwaters like the big cities?
If we want to talk backwater, 99% think of right wing nutjobs in the bible belt.

Replies:   StarFleet Carl
StarFleet Carl ๐Ÿšซ

@ChiMi

If we want to talk backwater, 99% think of right wing nutjobs in the bible belt.

Oh, is this where you criticize those people who were called 'bitter clingers', for clinging to their guns, their religion, and the Constitution of the United States?

You know - those people who were finally sick and tired of business as usual and voted in someone who doesn't give a shit about politics as usual, only about what's best for America. And in putting America first, because he's the President of the United States of America - not some global internationalist.

Here's the other funny thing. There's also a lot of us out here who, at one point or another in our lives, voluntarily gave Uncle Sam a blank check of up to and including our lives, to 'preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic". And we're still ready to let that check get cashed if need be for that cause.

NC-Retired ๐Ÿšซ

https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists/

Seems that we are again seeing cherry picking of information that supports personal agendas and is presented as incontrovertible 'fact' when, in fact, the truth is more complicated than black & white.

Replies:   StarFleet Carl
StarFleet Carl ๐Ÿšซ

@NC-Retired

Seems that we are again seeing cherry picking of information that supports personal agendas and is presented as incontrovertible 'fact' when, in fact, the truth is more complicated than black & white.

While an armchair quarterback is always able to utilize things not available at the time of the event to do analysis, that doesn't change the facts of what happened AT THE TIME IT WAS HAPPENING.

Was Hitler hypocritical and only using socialism as a tool to further his own means? Probably. Last time I checked he's not alive to actually ask.

But did he espouse the virtues of socialism as a means to an end? Damned straight he did.

"The good of the community before the good of the individual"

Replies:   Keet
Keet ๐Ÿšซ

@StarFleet Carl

"The good of the community before the good of the individual"

There's so many things wrong with that statement. What it actually states is "The good of the community despite harming the individual".
The only right statement is "The good of the individual without harming the community". No system, right, left, center, or whatever, should limit individuals if that individual doesn't hurt the community or other individuals.

Replies:   robberhands  Not_a_ID
robberhands ๐Ÿšซ

@Keet

"The good of the community before the good of the individual"

There's so many things wrong with that statement...

What about this one?

"My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."

Replies:   Keet
Keet ๐Ÿšซ

@robberhands

"My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."

My personal opinion is that it's a stupid statement. A country does nothing, people do. And if "country" implies "the people of your country" it still doesn't make sense. It almost literally refers back to "The good of the community before the good of the individual". So my answer is pretty much the same.

Replies:   robberhands
robberhands ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@Keet

It almost literally refers back to "The good of the community before the good of the individual".

Yes, it does. Both are just variations of the philosophical principle of utilitarianism and this philosophy is more than a hundred years older than any idea of socialism.

'The greatest good for the greatest number of people.'

Not_a_ID ๐Ÿšซ

@Keet

The only right statement is "The good of the individual without harming the community". No system, right, left, center, or whatever, should limit individuals if that individual doesn't hurt the community or other individuals.

I'll take that and raise you with an oldy: "Enlightened Self Interest" in order to maximize my own well being, it is in my own interest to be on the lookout for the well being others.

Which means "I got mine, fuck y'all!" Need not apply.

However, it also means looking out for your own "best interests" is the primary responsibility of you, not some government official.

Replies:   Ross at Play  Keet
Ross at Play ๐Ÿšซ

@Not_a_ID

it also means looking out for your own "best interests" is the primary responsibility of you, not some government official.

Which many extrapolate to it never being the responsibility of government to look out for an individual. The inevitable result is an uncivilised, barbaric socity.

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Not_a_ID ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@Ross at Play

Which many extrapolate to it never being the responsibility of government to look out for an individual. The inevitable result is an uncivilised, barbaric socity.

It doesn't need to be the responsibility of the government. It's supposed to be the responsibility of the community working collectively in pursuit of said "Enlightened Self interest." It actually is a VERY Christian position to take, as it means being the proverbial "good Samaritan" in your own daily life.

THAT is where America's founding fathers were coming from. (And for those who are unknowing "Enlightened self-interest" was "a Founding Father thing" as well)

The problem is most self-professed Christians actually make for very shitty Christians, they fail at so much of what their own good book is telling them to do. Well, besides the denunciation of things. If they bothered with the rest of that book, it'd be a very different story.

You take care of yourself, stick to your own business to the maximum extent practical, but when you see someone in need, render assistance. Sometimes it takes just one, other times it means the community turns out to raise a building, or plant/harvest the crops of a neighbor who is in "a bad spot." But the operative part remains: The Initiative belongs at the local level.

The "proper order" is community looking after the community. The county looking out for its respective communities, the State then looking out for the counties, and then the Federal Government looking out for the States. The Federal Government was never supposed to be taking on direct responsibility for discrete individuals. (With the exception of Military Veterans and others "in government service")

Which is where people get highly confused and tend to conflate all kinds of things. Many/most "conservatives" are actually alluding to the above, at least so far as it conforms to whatever religious creed they adhere to.

They have no interest in unrestrained and unrestricted Capitalism either. They'll agree it's a bad thing when placed in the hands of people with few to no ethical constraints holding them back. But that also doesn't mean they're going to view the current state of the Federal Government as anything close to resembling "acceptable."

Keet ๐Ÿšซ

@Not_a_ID

You take care of yourself, stick to your own business to the maximum extent practical, but when you see someone in need, render assistance. Sometimes it takes just one, other times it means the community turns out to raise a building, or plant/harvest the crops of a neighbor who is in "a bad spot."

That, exactly that.

Ross at Play ๐Ÿšซ

@Not_a_ID

The "proper order" is community looking after the community.

That is precisely what many Muslim societies do. I live in one with 90% the same version of Islam. It may have worked in medieval villages, but it does not work in modern cities. The poor in a poor society remain poor with very few of the next generation able to claw their way out.

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Not_a_ID ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@Ross at Play

That is precisely what many Muslim societies do. I live in one with 90% the same version of Islam. It may have worked in medieval villages, but it does not work in modern cities. The poor in a poor society remain poor with very few of the next generation able to claw their way out.

...Which is where it then keeps moving "up a level" until it reaches one where assistance can be rendered. The whole community -> county -> state -> nation progression. But that goes back to "Great on paper, not so great in reality." (Because people suck.)

If you have a very prosperous community next to an impoverished community, the prospering one has an obligation to provide the offer of assistance in whatever the deficiency is.

But that's another one that gets tricky and people often get it wrong. Ironically, it also gets a biblical mention. "Give a man a fish, he is fed for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he is fed for life."

Yes, obviously a person who is starving needs fed, but that isn't the real need, something else has happened that resulted in their current state of affairs. That is the issue that needs addressed. Simply giving them food and declaring the task complete is to fail from the onset.

Edit: But that also went off part of the track as well. Remember, earlier my comment about "The Federal Government was never supposed to be taking direct responsibility for discrete individuals." (I was talking about uniquely identifiable persons, not their ability to practice discretion)

Once you start talking about community to community assistance, state to community(county) assistance, or Federal to State(community) assistance. Those endeavors are aimed at uplifting "the community" as a whole, not just certain persons within it. The community(or Hillary's "village") is the one responsible to look out for the individuals within it.

So yes for building roadways, sewers, and all that jazz. No to income assistance direct to end-user.

Replies:   Ross at Play  PotomacBob
Ross at Play ๐Ÿšซ

@Not_a_ID

So yes for building roadways, sewers, and all that jazz. No to income assistance direct to end-user.

It is beyond my comprehension how anyone could consider that desirable.

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Not_a_ID ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@Ross at Play

So yes for building roadways, sewers, and all that jazz. No to income assistance direct to end-user.



It is beyond my comprehension how anyone could consider that desirable.

That's because "humans suck" and many people are terrified of the idea of being at the mercy of people in their particular community. Particularly if they're part of a fringe group actively shunned by the rest of the community. They'd rather put their trust in an outside agency rather than "rely on the locals."

It's understandable, human history is rife with examples of why such situations can turn bad. Except it's also rife with examples of how such situations can turn bad at the meta-level as well.

At least when you keep it "At the lowest level possible," even with the risks, the damage can (normally) be isolated, contained, and corrected. Once it becomes a meta-level problem where the meta level is the only level that matters, trying to fix the damage becomes a nightmare.

Replies:   Ross at Play
Ross at Play ๐Ÿšซ

@Not_a_ID

Leave me alone, please. I don't want to spend any more time even reading things like your last post.

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Not_a_ID ๐Ÿšซ

@Ross at Play

Leave me alone, please. I don't want to spend any more time even reading things like your last post.

Well, good news for you is that technology is probably going to force a UBI within the next few decades. At least if anybody with a sense of decency is in control of things, which might be a longshot given the present state of things.

PotomacBob ๐Ÿšซ

@Not_a_ID

If you have a very prosperous community next to an impoverished community, the prospering one has an obligation to provide the offer of assistance in whatever the deficiency is.

Yet, by and large, though you claim it is their responsibility, they do NOT do it.

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Not_a_ID ๐Ÿšซ

@PotomacBob

Yet, by and large, though you claim it is their responsibility, they do NOT do it.

Responsibility != Obligation or Compulsion to do so.

This returns us back to "because people suck" and don't do any number of things they probably should be doing.

StarFleet Carl ๐Ÿšซ

@Not_a_ID

You take care of yourself, stick to your own business to the maximum extent practical, but when you see someone in need, render assistance. Sometimes it takes just one, other times it means the community turns out to raise a building, or plant/harvest the crops of a neighbor who is in "a bad spot." But the operative part remains: The Initiative belongs at the local level.

The "proper order" is community looking after the community. The county looking out for its respective communities, the State then looking out for the counties, and then the Federal Government looking out for the States. The Federal Government was never supposed to be taking on direct responsibility for discrete individuals. (With the exception of Military Veterans and others "in government service")

The difference being the community that helps their neighbor in need is doing so because they want to do so because it's the right thing to do, not because their local community organizer / leader TOLD them to do so.

That's the kind of community I grew up in. Someone had a fire and lost everything, everyone pitched in to either help them rebuild or give them clothing or whatever. No one expected anything in return for their help, it's simply what they were supposed to do. This attitude is still found today in many parts of America - mostly rural areas or small communities.

In the urban areas, it might be only those people who live on your block, and in bigger cities, it may only be those people who live in your own building ... if that. That sense of group and of belonging is something that many people don't even realize they don't have - because they never knew it could be there in the first place.

You've also missed the smallest 'community', the family, where the family is to look out for each other. Two brothers may fight between themselves all the time, but when someone outside the family picks on one of them, both brothers band together against the foe.

PotomacBob ๐Ÿšซ

@Not_a_ID

It's supposed to be the responsibility of the community working collectively in pursuit of said "Enlightened Self interest." It actually is a VERY Christian position to take, as it means being the proverbial "good Samaritan" in your own daily life.

And before the government began "interfering" in the private realm of health care, how many communities and how many churches accepted that it was their responsibility to care for their fellow man (or woman or child).

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Not_a_ID ๐Ÿšซ

@PotomacBob

And before the government began "interfering" in the private realm of health care, how many communities and how many churches accepted that it was their responsibility to care for their fellow man (or woman or child).

Quite a few actually, but they were, and are, a definite minority. Or is Saint Judes Children's Hispital(to name one) a clever Illusion? Not to mention the Shriners, and so on and so forth.

Which back to "Great in theory, lousy in practice, because 'people suck.'"

However, it doesn't stop the people who do aspire to that ideal from being more than a bit annoyed when Joe Biden and Barack Obama says they're not getting taxed enough.

StarFleet Carl ๐Ÿšซ

@Not_a_ID

Joe Biden and Barack Obama says they're not getting taxed enough.

I would agree with the sentiment that Joe Biden and Barack Obama aren't getting taxed enough.

For the rest of us ... yeah, we are.

Anyone noting how well socialism works in Venezuela should maybe tell Bernie. He might have to get rid of two of his houses otherwise... (And what's with this new darling of the party, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez? She's supposed to actually have degrees in economics and international relations, right? How is it she's making such asinine comments and claiming she has no clue about either topic?

Replies:   Remus2  PotomacBob
Remus2 ๐Ÿšซ

@StarFleet Carl

http://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/PCPIPCH@WEO/WEOWORLD/VEN

Anyone noting how well socialism works in Venezuela should maybe tell Bernie.

Do you refer to the 13,860% current inflation rate there? Or do you mean the projected inflation rate of 1,000,000%?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-26/imf-s-1-000-000-inflation-forecast-is-looking-low-for-venezuela

If I'm not mistaken, only Zimbabwe and the Weimar Republic topped that in the last one hundred years. I cannot think of a single example of pure socialism that ever worked in the end. All the others collapsed or were subjected to a military overthrow before they got to the Zimbabwe/WR/Venezuela level.

Socialism looks good on paper, but it's an impossible goal when humans attempt to implement it.

Jim S ๐Ÿšซ

@Remus2

Socialism looks good on paper, but it's an impossible goal when humans attempt to implement it.

It works until the money runs out. Money that was engendered by some form of capitalism.

StarFleet Carl ๐Ÿšซ

@Remus2

I cannot think of a single example of pure socialism that ever worked in the end.

In case it wasn't obvious, I was being sarcastic regarding Bernie and his idiot supporters.

PotomacBob ๐Ÿšซ

@Remus2

I cannot think of a single example of pure socialism that ever worked in the end.

Can you provide an example of where "pure socialism" has ever been implemented? (Using the dictionary's definition of socialism, which is not the way it is frequently used on this site.)

Ernest Bywater ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@Remus2

I cannot think of a single example of pure socialism that ever worked in the end.

Actually, in the past there are thousands of cases of pure socialism that did work properly, but they were pure socialism where all of the people in the community gathered together to choose a leader (who was called the Chieftain) and to discuss major issues that affected the whole community. The leader made the day to day decisions on running the community and everyone took turns at the communal activities that didn't have someone who liked doing them. They were all small agrarian communities where most of the members were distant relatives to someone else within the community, so they were really large extended family clan situations. They started to die out around the 10th century and were almost non-existent by the 15th century.

The only successful modern variants of a pure socialist environment that worked were again small communities that were basically agricultural in nature where all major decisions were made by the whole community. The Israelis called them a kibbutz.

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Not_a_ID ๐Ÿšซ

@Ernest Bywater

They started to die out around the 10th century and were almost non-existent by the 15th century.

Thanks in large part to the Roman Catholic Church deciding to put the hammer down on "incest" beyond the immediate family. Not because they were particularly concerned about birth defects, but so it would simplify inheritances and increase the odds of it defaulting to them.

PotomacBob ๐Ÿšซ

@StarFleet Carl

new darling of the party

getting nominated in one state doesn't make one the "new darling of the party." The person she backed in yesterday's primaries came in third - that's hardly the influence of someone who is the "darling of the party." The Republican Party in Louisiana once nominated David Duke. It would be unfair to label him the male equivalent of "darling of the party" as a result.

PotomacBob ๐Ÿšซ

@Not_a_ID

Quite a few actually, but they were, and are, a definite minority. Or is Saint Judes Children's Hispital(to name one) a clever Illusion? Not to mention the Shriners, and so on and so forth.

The answer still is that the few churches and Good Samaritans are not doing enough to rid us of the plague of people in need. After all the do-gooders finish their work, there are still millions of Americans in need. Since we don't do enough, that leaves only the governments to help them out. Some governments help, others don't. We could, of course, let those in need languish.

Keet ๐Ÿšซ

@Not_a_ID

I'll take that and raise you with an oldy: "Enlightened Self Interest" in order to maximize my own well being, it is in my own interest to be on the lookout for the well being others.

Which means "I got mine, fuck y'all!" Need not apply.

However, it also means looking out for your own "best interests" is the primary responsibility of you, not some government official.

English is not my native language so I might interpret this wrong but I'll give it a try.

This is the large area between "fuck y'all" and "all for the community". Humans natural way is to first look out for himself then family and then... you get the point. There are two sides to that when living in a civilized environment with a certain system in place. (1) Looking out for yourself without harming others or the community, and (2) being able to look out for yourself. It's like between the two extreme sides of capitalism and socialism. One extreme side is you're ok as long as your able to look out for yourself but you're fucked when there comes a time you're not able to do that anymore. The other extreme side is that you're not allowed to look out for your self at all: we have everything decided for you. It's seems obvious to me that neither (extreme) side is good and I think many will agree with me. Most people's opinions depend on how far they lean one or the other side. Me, I think I stand very much in the middle. Yes, first look out for yourself without harming others, and you must if you're able to. But there needs to be some kind of safety net for those times someone is unable to care for himself. It's crazy that in some countries you can become a billionaire but you can land in the gutter when you are unable to work for some time because you broke a leg or something. The bad part from the extreme side of capitalism is that it's possible and no one cares. The bad part of the socialism side is that they take over care before you even need it. Of course there's more to it but that would take way too much text. Point is that somewhere in the middle seems best to me.

NC-Retired ๐Ÿšซ

Amongst all the help your neighbor out when they need it rhetoric, where does this philosophy come in?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_good

Remus2 ๐Ÿšซ

Sometimes folks just cannot see eye to eye. Especially those people from different cultures. However, you are handling being put down considerably better than I would.

Failure of your 3rd world country (I assume we still talk about the US)

Some folks are just an ass pure and simple. Only an ass would have made such a statement as quoted. Not to mention being an ignorant one. 1st, 2nd, and 3rd world designations are a cold war relic. They designated 1st as the US/western Europe allies/NATO as first world. All countries allied to the Soviet Union as second world, and all countries not allied with either as third world. For someone that professes to have grew up in Germany and witnessed the wall fall, they seem disturbingly ignorant of which country that stood on the western side of that wall with them preventing all of Germany from being walked over by the Soviets.

Just can't make some folks happy...

Keet ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@Remus2

Some folks are just an ass pure and simple.

It's worse if you know how we interpret "third world country". Wikipedia is speaking against itself when you lookup the term "Third World". In English is does explain exactly what you described but if you look up the same in my native language Dutch I get a completely different description but it is exactly how we know the same term here in the Europe:

"Het begrip derde wereld is in de moderne betekenis een synoniem voor het totaal van alle ontwikkelingslanden. De bevolking van landen in de derde wereld is over het algemeen zeer arm en de geboortecijfers zijn relatief hoog. In het algemeen zijn deze staten niet in dezelfde mate geรฏndustrialiseerd en technologisch ontwikkeld, als eerstewereldlanden."

Freely translated:

The term third world is in it's modern meaning a synonym for the total of developing countries. The population of countries in the third world is generally very poor and birthrates relatively high. In general these countries are not as industrialized as first world countries.

Edit: (add)
The German wikipedia page is even shorter but has both descriptions:

Als Dritte Welt wurden ursprรผnglich die blockfreien Staaten bezeichnet, die sich im Ost-West-Konflikt des Kalten Krieges weder der Ersten Welt noch der Zweiten Welt zuordnen lieรŸen.

Mit dem Ende des Kalten Krieges und des Ost-West-Konflikts wandelte sich die Bedeutung des Begriffs Dritte Welt von der ursprรผnglichen Blockfreiheit der bezeichneten Staaten hin zum Synonym fรผr Entwicklungsland.

where the first sentence describes the same as your description and the second the same as the Dutch description as being used after the cold war.

Ross at Play ๐Ÿšซ

@Remus2

Not to mention being an ignorant one. 1st, 2nd, and 3rd world designations are a cold war relic.

I suggest the "cold war relic" is you.

The first use of the term, according to dictionary.com, was by Albert Sauvy in 1963. Yes, he meant countries not aligned to either the West or the Soviet block.

My Oxford and Collins dictionaries don't even mention that meaning. Both only define it as the group of least developed countries, economically.

Replies:   Remus2
Remus2 ๐Ÿšซ

@Ross at Play

I suggest the "cold war relic" is you.

The first use of the term, according to dictionary.com, was by Albert Sauvy in 1963. Yes, he meant countries not aligned to either the West or the Soviet block.

My Oxford and Collins dictionaries don't even mention that meaning. Both only define it as the group of least developed countries, economically.

Context is everything, I see you missed that part.

Replies:   Ross at Play
Ross at Play ๐Ÿšซ

@Remus2

Context is everything, I see you missed that part.

Yeah. Statements here like "Not to mention being an ignorant one" tend to get my hackles up.

Upon a more careful reading, it seems you were making the opposite point to the conclusion I jumped to.

StarFleet Carl ๐Ÿšซ

@Remus2

For someone that professes to have grew up in Germany and witnessed the wall fall, they seem disturbingly ignorant of which country that stood on the western side of that wall with them preventing all of Germany from being walked over by the Soviets.

Seems that if those people like playing armchair quarterback that perhaps we ought to consider ALL of the ramifications of doing so.

Including the minor detail that if the U.S. had NOT been there to prevent a Soviet invasion, that based upon their war plans (which we had), that approximately 70 - 80% of the German civilian population would have been dead within the first 72 hours of the commencement of hostilities. Seems the Soviets wanted to mix business (taking over Germany) with pleasure (killing lots of Germans).

Ernest Bywater ๐Ÿšซ

@StarFleet Carl

Including the minor detail that if the U.S. had NOT been there to prevent a Soviet invasion,

or the detail that the US generals in charge during the last year of WW2 had an opportunity to take control of Germany before the Russians ever hit the German border but chose not to do so while they directed forces elsewhere and allowed the Russians to take control of so much of middle Europe.

Jim S ๐Ÿšซ

@StarFleet Carl

Seems the Soviets wanted to mix business (taking over Germany) with pleasure (killing lots of Germans).

I think your 70-80% estimate is a little high. The Soviets would have kept the women age ~10-70 alive for comfort. As the Rape of Berlin demonstrated. So they had use for some Germans.

Replies:   StarFleet Carl
StarFleet Carl ๐Ÿšซ

@Jim S

I think your 70-80% estimate is a little high. The Soviets would have kept the women age ~10-70 alive for comfort. As the Rape of Berlin demonstrated. So they had use for some Germans.

Nope. Their plan was to precede their conventional armored forces with a massive chemical bombardment - GB for the main axis of attack, mustard as needed when troop concentrations were in the way, and VX for flank protection of the main axis of attack.

Since their own troops regularly trained with live agents - and they used to kill off about 1% of their OWN army every year in training - they really didn't care too much about what happened to the German civilians. They wanted to make sure that the use of chemical weapons would keep OUR troops heads down and would degrade OUR effectiveness.

The reason for GB was simple - we had plenty of stuff for our troops to deal with it, but if you were exposed and took the antidote, you were combat ineffective for about 3 days. And if you didn't take it, you were dead. Mustard and other blister agents were to limit our effectiveness in getting troops OUT of their chem suits for rest or relief - you can only pee and poop inside the charcoal suit so much, then you gotta get out. And of course, VX as a lasting agent would render the area potentially unsafe for a long period - lasting in low lying areas and in innocuous places (like the underside of a door handle) for a long time.

And of course, since the German civilian population didn't have MOPP gear, then our guys would have had to make a choice - evacuate the civilians or use what we had for them, while at the same time you have a battalion of T-72's coming down the road at you.

And that doesn't ALSO take into consideration that both sides also planned to use tactical nuclear weapons on troop concentrations. If you happened to be a civilian in the area, too bad. And the Soviets wanted to maximize civilian casualties to destroy morale and make it easier for them to achieve their goal of the Rhine in 7 days and Spain in 14.

Or, as everyone that I know that served during that time says, thank God we never had to use REFORGER or deal with the Fulda Gap invasion.

Replies:   REP
REP ๐Ÿšซ

@StarFleet Carl

VX for flank protection of the main axis of attack.

If you are referring to VX Nerve Agent it wasn't developed until 1952.

both sides also planned to use tactical nuclear weapons on troop concentrations.

Nuclear weapons may have been considered for use by both sides, but they weren't available for use until 1945, so I doubt there were any serious plans to use them.

Replies:   Remus2  StarFleet Carl
Remus2 ๐Ÿšซ

@REP

I believe there is some confusion there. The mention of T-72 tanks and other points, tells me the post was regarding cold war, not WW2.

As for nerve agents, Gerhard Schrader was the father of nerve agents as of 1936. While it's true that the designation 'VX' had its birth in the 50's, that is not the original source of nerve agents.

Replies:   REP
REP ๐Ÿšซ

@Remus2

Your are probably right about the post addressing the post-WW II era. Although I suspect the Russian plan he referenced was the very early part of the Cold War era. Thus T-72s and VX gas probably weren't around.

I never said VX was the source of nerve agents.

Replies:   Remus2  StarFleet Carl
Remus2 ๐Ÿšซ

@REP

I never said VX was the source of nerve agents.

I don't recall saying you did. I was commenting on nerve agents in general for clarity.

StarFleet Carl ๐Ÿšซ

@REP

Although I suspect the Russian plan he referenced was the very early part of the Cold War era. Thus T-72s and VX gas probably weren't around.

Well, your suspicion is wrong. We were dealing with those plans all the way into the 1980's, almost literally up to the fall of the Berlin Wall. We were studying that stuff at the US Army Chemical School at Ft. McClellan, Alabama, and also at Ft. Detrick in Maryland.

The Soviet Union was the bad guys for a LONG time after WWII.

StarFleet Carl ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@REP

If you are referring to VX Nerve Agent it wasn't developed until 1952.

Nuclear weapons may have been considered for use by both sides, but they weren't available for use until 1945, so I doubt there were any serious plans to use them.

What the hell are you talking about?

I'm referencing the stuff I trained for and did in the early 1980's. So they damned sure were going to use VX if they'd come through the Fulda Gap.

PotomacBob ๐Ÿšซ

@StarFleet Carl

Seems the Soviets wanted to mix business (taking over Germany) with pleasure (killing lots of Germans).

The Russians may have been looking for revenge - didn't the Germans kill a lot of Russians earlier?

robberhands ๐Ÿšซ

@Remus2

For someone that professes to have grew up in Germany and witnessed the wall fall, they seem disturbingly ignorant of which country that stood on the western side of that wall with them preventing all of Germany from being walked over by the Soviets.

So, because the US defeated Hitler Germany and afterward allied with two-thirds of the remains, all Germans have to agree to the opinion some US citizens have in regards to child labor?

Replies:   Remus2
Remus2 ๐Ÿšซ

@robberhands

So, because the US defeated Hitler Germany and afterward allied with two-thirds of the remains, all Germans have to agree to the opinion some US citizens have in regards to child labor?

That statement just took the context of my comment out to left field and kept on walking.

My comment was driven by someone referring to the U.S. as a third world nation along with obvious attempts at baiting for an argument.

Since you've went there, I will however respond.

https://www.coe.int/es/web/commissioner/-/child-labour-in-europe-a-persisting-challen-1

https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/resources/reports/child-labor/europe-eurasia

https://osha.europa.eu/en/legislation/directives/18

That last one is particularly interesting. A quote from it;

Member States may make legislative exceptions for the prohibition of work by children not to apply to children employed for the purposes of cultural, artistic, sporting or advertising activities, subject to prior authorisation by the competent authority in each specific case; to children of at least 14 years of age working under a combined work/training scheme or an in-plant work-experience scheme, provided that such work is done in accordance with the conditions laid down by the competent authority; and to children of at least 14 years of age performing light work. Light work can also be performed by children of 13 years of age for a limited number of hours per week in the case of categories of work determined by national legislation.

That is from the current EU standard. Which btw, allows ages much lower than what is allowed for the same categories in the U.S.

Then there are the mid/eastern European countries. I've personally witnessed a boy of ten years of age working in a Ukrainian steel mill, a girl that couldn't have been over eight working to stock a store in Latvia, and don't get me started on Russia.

Asia, and South/Central America are just as bad as Russia.

You folks tossing stones in glass houses are hopefully wearing personal protective gear.

I wasn't commenting on the child labor issue in my original response. However, some folks are apparently he'll bent on stirring crap.

Replies:   robberhands
robberhands ๐Ÿšซ

@Remus2

That statement just took the context of my comment out to left field and kept on walking.

Which is exactly what you did as well. Sunkuwan's 'third world' remark was made in response to a particular statement. You ripped it out of its context to lament about the ignorance of Germans, who should be grateful to the US and its people, who saved them from the powers of evil.

Replies:   Ross at Play  Remus2
Ross at Play ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@robberhands

You ripped it out of its context to lament about the ignorance of Germans, who should be grateful to the US and its people, who saved them from the powers of evil.

ETA: The two words in bold were missing from my original post.

Perhaps you ignorant Germans should be grateful to the Japanese instead, for attacking Pearl Harbor. You'd still be waiting for the American saviors to arrive if they hadn't done that.

Replies:   Keet
Keet ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@Ross at Play

Perhaps you ignorant Germans should be grateful to the Japanese instead, for attacking Pearl Harbor. You'd still for the American saviors to arrive if they hadn't done that.

Let's make one thing very clear: the main reason the US assisted in WWII was for 2 reasons only: Money (economics) and the German technology they stole. If it weren't for those two the only remaining reason left would be disallowing the Russians to take part of Europe. They only started assisting long after others (among which a lot of Canadians) did the first dirty work. The help of the US was needed, I don't disagree with that, but don't make them the heroes they think they are because they are not.

Ross at Play ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@Keet

but don't make them the heroes they think they are because they are not.

There was a typo in my original post which I have now corrected.

Please reread it now. You should notice its vicious sarcasm implying that the late-arriving Americans are not the heroes they make themselves out to be.

Replies:   Keet
Keet ๐Ÿšซ

@Ross at Play

Please reread it now. You should notice its vicious sarcasm implying that the late-arriving Americans are not the heroes they make themselves out to be.

Yes, that makes a difference in understanding your meaning. We think the same about this issue. Americans seem to forget they would never have had a NASA or space program without stealing German technology and kidnapping some scientists.

Replies:   StarFleet Carl
StarFleet Carl ๐Ÿšซ

@Keet

Americans seem to forget they would never have had a NASA or space program without stealing German technology and kidnapping some scientists.

We would have had one, it just would not have had the same early success it did. Once our scientists knew something was possible, then it's simply a matter of time and money to recreate it.

After all, that's what the Soviets did with the Tu-4, simply copying our B-29.

StarFleet Carl ๐Ÿšซ

@Keet

They only started assisting long after others (among which a lot of Canadians) did the first dirty work. The help of the US was needed, I don't disagree with that, but don't make them the heroes they think they are because they are not.

Look at the differences in the founding of the different countries, though. Canada was made a self-governing part of the British Empire in 1867, but not granted full independence until 1931. So for them, it was a case of Mom getting into a scrap and standing up for her.

For the US, we were pulling ourselves out of the depression and had a lot of memories of having to help our cousins out 20 years prior. So while we did have some volunteers help out, as a country we preferred to be left alone if possible. More or less thinking that history was simply repeating itself, with Europe once again being a battlefield because someone couldn't get along with his neighbors - as had been the norm there for centuries.

Replies:   Keet
Keet ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@StarFleet Carl

as a country we preferred to be left alone if possible

And that's exactly what the US did until there was some "plundering" to do. Don't get me wrong, I don't blame the current citizens of the US but they do try to rewrite history if it fits them one way or another. There were plenty of years after the depression and the US military was quite capable of lending assistance way before the getting was good, they just didn't want to because there was nothing to gain (yet). Think about just about every war the US interfered in: there is always something they want to get out of it or to "protect", in most cases oil. I can't think of a single war they fought where it was just the decent thing to do, to just help out and where there was nothing to gain for them. If you can name one, please enlighten me.

edit: typos

Replies:   Not_a_ID  Jim S
Not_a_ID ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@Keet

Someone seems to have an axe to grind.

And that's exactly what the US did until there was some "plundering" to do. Don't get me wrong, I don't blame the current citizens of the US but they do try to rewrite history if it fits them one way or another. There were plenty of years after the depression and the US military was quite capable of lending assistance way before the getting was good, they just didn't want to because there was nothing to gain (yet).

US History is quite clear on this, although what is taught is a wildly variable thing(and largely dependent upon the teachers themselves as to what gets attention beyond "important dates")

1) Europe was engaged in another war involving the various colonial powers, many of which had global reach, thus making it a "World war."

2) Japan was engaged in a war of expansion as well.

3) The United States had a large, and growing, effort to join in on the fighting--on the side of the Nazis(Charles Lindbergh, and a certain Kennedy patriarch among their numbers).

4) The United States had a significant contingent of people engaged in the defense of England, and the fight against Japanese Colonial expansion.

5) FDR's administration was largely ambivalent, but leaned in favor of France/Britain/other Allied powers, and took advantage of the situation by offering what little aid he could get political cover for in the form of "lend/lease" (something we're still benefiting from)

6) Various other internal to the US powers took exception to Japanese encroachment into US business interests, not to mention the Philippines, then a US Colony. Resulting in an embargo against Japan(setting the stage for Pearl Harbor).

7) The Japanese allied with the Nazi's as they shared common enemies, and their respective interests lay in different hemispheres.

8) Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, and woke the feared "sleeping giant."

9) Nazi Germany, in solidarity with their ally, declared war on the United States. Instantly putting an end to #3, and significantly changing the status of #5.

10) The United States army was a joke, the Army Air Corps(Air Force) was almost non-existant, and not up to the task. Our Navy was respectable enough(as per 10+ year old international treaties that nobody else had been adhering to for at least a couple years, if not longer), but that was about the only high point for our status of military forces in 1941.

11) After December 7th, 1941 it was "game on" for the American public and its military, and they weren't going to stop until those who threatened them were defeated in accordance to terms of our choosing, and not theirs.

Think about just about every war the US interfered in: there is always something they want to get out of it or to "protect", in most cases oil. I can't think of a single war they fought where it was just the decent thing to do, to just help out and where there was nothing to gain for them. If you can name one, please enlighten me.

Think about every war every nation has ever been involved in. There "was something in it" for every single one of them, every single time. Not even UN Peacekeeping forces are immune to that, as those are more often than not proxies for other powers to play around with, send troops to ____ to help with ____ and we'll help you with _____ in exchange for 'our guys' not needing to be sent out instead."

Replies:   Keet
Keet ๐Ÿšซ

@Not_a_ID

Someone seems to have an axe to grind.

No I don't but most of your points prove my point how easy the US handles this particular piece of history.
The fact that they switched so fast from supporting the Nazis to occupied Europe is the best prove that they were only in it for their gain. In principle there's nothing wrong with that but we are talking people here, mass murder. You DON'T profit over peoples lives.

Ross at Play ๐Ÿšซ

@Keet

The fact that they switched so fast from supporting the Nazis to occupied Europe

WHAT??? America did not send troops until 1942, but the massive support they provided before then (with finance, food, and equipment) was crucial for Britain's survival until then.

Replies:   Keet  Not_a_ID
Keet ๐Ÿšซ

@Ross at Play

WHAT??? America did not send troops until 1942, but the massive support they provided before then (with finance, food, and equipment) was crucial for Britain's survival until then.

Your point 3:

3) The United States had a large, and growing, effort to join in on the fighting--on the side of the Nazis(Charles Lindbergh, and a certain Kennedy patriarch among their numbers).

The support to Britain is and always has been a special case if they deal with Europe. Britain is the foot between the door to Europe for the US.

Replies:   REP
REP ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@Keet

Your point 3:

Actually, Not_an_ID's point.

What you need to realize is large is relative. The German American Bund totaled about 25,000 people.

ETA The German American Bund was the pro-Nazi organization in the US that supported the Nazi. It included a large number of people of German ancestry. There were an even larger number of people of German ancestry who opposed the Nazis such as Babe Ruth.

Replies:   Keet
Keet ๐Ÿšซ

@REP

Actually, Not_an_ID's point.

Damn, again that click on the wrong reply arrow. Sorry.

What you need to realize is large is relative. The German American Bund totaled about 25,000 people.

The point I was making actually had nothing to do with pro or con to the Nazis. My original point was that history makes the US as the big boy that saved the whole of Europe while they came late to the party and just added that little extra that was needed to tip the scale to the other side. And they only came because it made a profit for them (economically, financially, and strategically, NOT in death-toll)

Not_a_ID ๐Ÿšซ

@Ross at Play

WHAT??? America did not send troops until 1942, but the massive support they provided before then (with finance, food, and equipment) was crucial for Britain's survival until then.

Prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor and the German Declaration of War against the United States, there were a number of (mostly German-)Americans who had gone over to fight on the side of (Nazi) Germany. Just as there were a number of Americans who went over to fight in defense of Britain. Although only the British and Chinese efforts had any kind of official support from the United States Government, little as that was.

That said, lend-lease had been going on, and keeping the UK "afloat" since March 11 of 1941, nearly 9 months before the attack on Pearl Harbor. Whether you want to say the support was to help the Brits fight of the Japanese in the Pacific, or the Nazis in Europe, or both, that's another matter.

We were technically neutral, the Presidential administration was "ambivalent" but leaning in favor of the Allies(hence lend-lease BEFORE Pearl Harbor). However "popular will" was to stay out of the fighting, with a very vocal pro-Nazi group, but hard to tell just how popular those efforts were. We also know there was a Pro-Allies movement as well, as Churchill(before becoming PM, at least), among others, were frequent visitors/speakers even before Pearl Harbor was attacked.

The government of the Untied States never "switched sides" they never claimed one ostensibly, as they were officially "neutral" even if certain things pushed the limits of that status(as happened in WW1 before). But once again, the boundry pushing that was officially happening was going on in support of the Allies, not the Axis powers.

REP ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@Keet

they switched so fast from supporting the Nazis to occupied Europe

I don't know where you came up with that, but the US as a country NEVER supported the Nazi.

ETA There were a few Nazi sympathizers in the US before the war but they didn't last long once the war started.

Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ

@Keet

The fact that they switched so fast from supporting the Nazis to occupied Europe is the best prove that they were only in it for their gain. In principle there's nothing wrong with that but we are talking people here, mass murder. You DON'T profit over peoples lives.

The US did not profit from WWII. The US spent staggering amounts of money on the war itself and then spent more helping the UK, France and West Germany rebuild after.

Replies:   Keet
Keet ๐Ÿšซ

@Dominions Son

The US did not profit from WWII.

If you believe that then I've got a nice bridge to sell you.
Their profit was not in dollars but in technical secrets and the scientists they "persuaded" to "flee" to the US.

Replies:   Ross at Play
Ross at Play ๐Ÿšซ

@Keet

@Dominions Son
The US did not profit from WWII.


Their profit was not in dollars but in ...

I'm no apologist for America, and I consider its efforts to rebuild Europe, and Asia, after WWII as perhaps its finest moment as a nation. It did not succumb to the same urges for revenge as at Versailles - and all of the disastrous consequences that led to.

Replies:   Keet
Keet ๐Ÿšซ

@Ross at Play

and I consider its efforts to rebuild Europe, and Asia, after WWII as perhaps its finest moment as a nation.

The effort was appreciated but I hate to bust your bubble...
The main help was in the form of the Marshall Plan that started appr. 3 years after the war. End 1947, so before the Marshall Plan started, the French, British and Dutch were already back to pre-war production levels. It is estimated that the MP contributed around 3% to the rebuilding of Europe. And it had some severe demands for some countries. The main motivator for the US to start the MP US was to fight communism and was specifically engineered against Russian economics.

Replies:   Ross at Play
Ross at Play ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@Keet

I hate to bust your bubble...

I was aware that the Marshall Plan added a total of about 3% to the GDP of European countries spread over the period 1948 to 1951. It was that level of generosity I consider "as perhaps its finest moment as a nation".

Jim S ๐Ÿšซ

@Keet

And that's exactly what the US did until there was some "plundering" to do. Don't get me wrong, I don't blame the current citizens of the US but they do try to rewrite history if it fits them one way or another. There were plenty of years after the depression and the US military was quite capable of lending assistance way before the getting was good, they just didn't want to because there was nothing to gain (yet). Think about just about every war the US interfered in: there is always something they want to get out of it or to "protect", in most cases oil. I can't think of a single war they fought where it was just the decent thing to do, to just help out and where there was nothing to gain for them. If you can name one, please enlighten me.

How do you spell "Marshall Plan"?

Replies:   Keet
Keet ๐Ÿšซ

@Jim S

How do you spell "Marshall Plan"?

Haven't you read my comment about the MP?

Replies:   Jim S
Jim S ๐Ÿšซ

@Keet

Haven't you read my comment about the MP?

Same response. So the US was in the war for selfish purposes? Uh, yea. Right.

Replies:   Keet  Ernest Bywater
Keet ๐Ÿšซ

@Jim S

Same response. So the US was in the war for selfish purposes? Uh, yea. Right.

Uh, yeah, mostly. Sorry, there's no other way I can explain that part of history to myself.

Replies:   Jim S  Not_a_ID
Jim S ๐Ÿšซ

@Keet

Uh, yeah, mostly. Sorry, there's no other way I can explain that part of history to myself.

Yes. I can understand that.

Not_a_ID ๐Ÿšซ

@Keet

Uh, yeah, mostly. Sorry, there's no other way I can explain that part of history to myself.

Yes, our entry was very self-serving in nature.

That said, it is what we did after entering the war which makes America very unique.

Ernest Bywater ๐Ÿšซ

@Jim S

Same response. So the US was in the war for selfish purposes? Uh, yea. Right.

They recognized that it was either fight now or fight later as the Axis Powers had an agreement about how they were going to divide up the world between them. Also, they wanted profitable trading partners.

Replies:   Keet  Jim S
Keet ๐Ÿšซ

@Ernest Bywater

Also, they wanted profitable trading partners.

That was indeed a major reason for their support.

Jim S ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@Ernest Bywater

They recognized that it was either fight now or fight later as the Axis Powers had an agreement about how they were going to divide up the world between them. Also, they wanted profitable trading partners.

I'm not so sure of that from the US side.. Public opinion in the US at the time was strongly isolationist. The only reason for the US entering the European theater is that Germany declared war first. Germany was never mentioned in the Declaration of War with Japan after Pearl Harbor. But Germany and Japan had an mutual defense pact and Germany let Japan know they would declare war if Japan attacked the US. So once Germany declared war, the US reciprocated. Sure, the US was leaning towards helping Britain after France fell. But popular opinion was still against fighting. Only something stupid, like unrestricted submarine warfare ala WW1 or Germany declaring war first, could draw us in. In fact, reports that I've read suggested that Churchill was pulling his hair out because he felt the US was going to sit this one out. So Hitler really stepped on his pecker with his move.

Japan was a little more complicated. It's doubtful the US would have fought Japan without Pearl Harbor. Again, public opinion was strongly against war. But Japanese expansion in Korea, China, Indochina, Burma, Thailand, Indonesia, et al. led the US to finally lay on a trade embargo, especially oil, in an attempt to halt their expansionist policies. Japan probably felt they were going to have to fight us anyway. And they knew they couldn't win in a prolonged war. Pearl Harbor was an attempt to completely remove the Pacific Fleet for at least one year in order to give them a free hand to consolidate enough gains to make an all out war too costly to the US. They came damn close.

Japan made one strategic shortfall and one blunder at Pearl Harbor. They didn't take out the aircraft carriers as they weren't in port. And they didn't take out the oil/fuel storage and submarine pens when they could have. Without the fuel, what fleet was available would have been very hard pressed to move around much. Those provided what offense the US had for the first 18 months or so.

Without the carriers, Midway would never have been fought and won and Hawaii would have been defenseless. Hell, San Francisco would have been defenseless in that case.

So Midway happened in June, then Guadalcanal in August. Both within that one year window of Pearl Harbor.

Japanese expansion was about resources. They didn't have any. Our opposition was fueled by the same concern, e.g. rubber. Oil we had. Kind of like present day. Except we don't really need rubber all that much anymore. :) In any case, this is eerily like present day China. I sure hope we've learned some lessons from this history.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater  Not_a_ID
Ernest Bywater ๐Ÿšซ

@Jim S

Jim,

Don't confuse what the media were saying at the time with how many of the people were feeling or what the powers in charge were thinking. The three have never been in agreement on anything, ever. Sometimes you get two out of three due to a good propaganda campaign.

A major part of the Japanese attack on the US was the trade restrictions the US was placing on Japan at the time was pushing them into conflict with the USA. However, you rarely see the details of those pressures when the lead up events are discussed. personally, I don't think they were justified to be that heavy handed with the restrictions, nor were the Japanese justified in moving it into war. But the leaderships involved were both highly egotistical, and it was a world class case of the old 'I double dog dare you' exchange escalating out of control.

Replies:   Jim S  Not_a_ID
Jim S ๐Ÿšซ

@Ernest Bywater

A major part of the Japanese attack on the US was the trade restrictions the US was placing on Japan at the time was pushing them into conflict with the USA. However, you rarely see the details of those pressures when the lead up events are discussed. personally, I don't think they were justified to be that heavy handed with the restrictions, nor were the Japanese justified in moving it into war. But the leaderships involved were both highly egotistical, and it was a world class case of the old 'I double dog dare you' exchange escalating out of control.

I agree with you that ego played no small measure with both leaderships. But this war, like every other war in history, boiled down to resources as a root cause. Which can be water, land or, in this case, natural resources like rubber, metals and oil. Just like the present day dispute with China that I mentioned.

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Not_a_ID ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@Jim S

Which can be water, land or, in this case, natural resources like rubber, metals and oil. Just like the present day dispute with China that I mentioned

Unlike 1941 Japan, China has historical precedents, two of which are comparatively recent(9/11 and OIF), to tell them that a "First Strike" policy against the United States is a bad idea. Our Allies is an as yet not fully tested thing, but given how the US responded to things in Ukraine a few years ago, there appears to be some wiggle room to be had there.

But the one thing that certainly is off the table is any action that clearly marks China as an aggressor against United States forces or territories.

Edit: Which isn't to mention the little matter that WW2 is significant in their history, and while they undoubtedly downplay it, America's full entry into WW2 is pretty significant for even China, which means the Pearl Harbor attack in particular is one that at least their leadership-track people are probably more than fully aware of.

Replies:   REP
REP ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@Not_a_ID

But the one thing that certainly is off the table is any action that clearly marks China as an aggressor against United States forces or territories.

Really ???? I think our Defense Department would disagree with you on that opinion.

The US is rated #1 and China #3. The US has worldwide commitments, and that reduces our available resources.
https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Not_a_ID ๐Ÿšซ

@REP

Really ???? I think our Defense Department would disagree with you on that opinion.

The US is rated #1 and China #3. The US has worldwide commitments, and that reduces our available resources.
https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp

China is unlikely to attack the United States in such a manner that they appear to be the aggressor(or blame deflected away from the central government/command structure).

China attacking one of our allies on the other hand, is another matter entirely.

China pre-emptively sinking the Carl Vinson as a "First strike" is going to draw a very different response than say, China attacking Taiwan and subsequently engaging in combat with U.S. forces that respond to the hostilities.

Replies:   REP
REP ๐Ÿšซ

@Not_a_ID

China is unlikely to attack the United States in such a manner that they appear to be the aggressor

A direct military attack against us or one of our allies is just one form of aggression. I suspect China would launch a military attack if they have sufficient cause and the situation indicated a favorable result.

Replies:   richardshagrin
richardshagrin ๐Ÿšซ

@REP

China would launch a military attack if they have sufficient cause and the situation indicated a favorable result.

As an example, the Korean War.

Replies:   REP
REP ๐Ÿšซ

@richardshagrin

As an example, the Korean War.

And Vietnam was a second. In both cases, China did not want to share a border with US allies.

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Not_a_ID ๐Ÿšซ

@REP

And Vietnam was a second. In both cases, China did not want to share a border with US allies.

And in both cases, while they attacked United States troops, it was in the context of "hostilities already underway" so it never saw framing as "war with China" but rather part of the existing conflict.

So again, China might attack allies of the U.S. or others whom we have defense agreements with(Taiwan). They're going to avoid anything that can be portrayed as a direct fight against the United States, at least, any such scenario where the United States has retribution on the agenda.

Not_a_ID ๐Ÿšซ

@Ernest Bywater

nor were the Japanese justified in moving it into war. But the leaderships involved were both highly egotistical, and it was a world class case of the old 'I double dog dare you' exchange escalating out of control.

Well, that and the Japanese had a very poor cultural understanding of the United States, based on our popular culture exports of the time, they thought a solid first strike would so demoralize the public that they'd push for ending hostilities ASAP.

Replies:   Jim S
Jim S ๐Ÿšซ

@Not_a_ID

Well, that and the Japanese had a very poor cultural understanding of the United States, based on our popular culture exports of the time, they thought a solid first strike would so demoralize the public that they'd push for ending hostilities ASAP.

That's not accurate. They knew we would fight as would any major country at the time that was attacked. And they knew they couldn't win a prolonged war against us. Pearl Harbor was designed to give them a year. But they didn't count on us cracking their military code. Which gave us enough advance warning to allow optimum deployment at both Coral Sea and Midway that lead to significant defeats for them. And gave the US enough time to really gear up for the war. Then it was just a matter of time. And about 110,000 US battle dead.

Replies:   Not_a_ID  StarFleet Carl
Not_a_ID ๐Ÿšซ

@Jim S

Then it was just a matter of time. And about 110,000 US battle dead.

Pretty safe bet they didn't think that would be considered "acceptable loses" on the American side. Which brings us back to the whole "they expected negotiations."

Replies:   Jim S
Jim S ๐Ÿšซ

@Not_a_ID

Pretty safe bet they didn't think that would be considered "acceptable loses" on the American side. Which brings us back to the whole "they expected negotiations."

Right. After a pretty significant fight. Which, according to their naval doctrine, they expected to win. Then would come the negotiations.

StarFleet Carl ๐Ÿšซ

@Jim S

Pearl Harbor was designed to give them a year. But they didn't count on us cracking their military code. Which gave us enough advance warning to allow optimum deployment at both Coral Sea and Midway that lead to significant defeats for them.

That, and as you noted above, they made the fatal tactical and strategic error in not taking out the fuel tanks. In truth, not taking out the carriers really wouldn't have mattered if they'd taken out the fuel tanks.

Battles are fought by tactics, but wars are won by logistics. Take out the oil tanks and the capability to refuel ships and you cut the operations area drastically. Saratoga was at San Diego, she probably would have been kept close for defense. Lexington was at Midway and could have either gone down to Australia or back to the West Coast. Enterprise should have been at Pearl - she was running late due to a storm - and would have had to return to the west coast as well.

But the key thing would be whether they would have been able to transfer Yorktown, Hornet, and Wasp to the Pacific from the Atlantic, since the refueling at Pearl wouldn't have existed. It was Enterprise and Hornet that carried the Doolittle bombers in April. The Battle of the Coral Sea in May might still have happened, but with only Lexington down there, which wouldn't have been enough to stop the Japanese. And even if Yorktown had been there so the battle ended the same way, Yorktown was seriously damaged and it's only because Pearl had the capability to repair her so quickly that she was able to join Enterprise and Hornet for Midway in June.

Doesn't do you a lot of good to read the other guys mail if you only have three carriers in the fleet instead of six.

In gaming it out, I think taking out the oil tanks would have really given them that full year without much opposition that they needed, not with what we actually were able to do. Because you're also right - without an actual negotiated settlement, it really was only a matter of time before the U.S. was able to build up enough material to engage in and win a war on both fronts.

Not_a_ID ๐Ÿšซ

@Jim S

Japan was a little more complicated. It's doubtful the US would have fought Japan without Pearl Harbor. Again, public opinion was strongly against war. But Japanese expansion in Korea, China, Indochina, Burma, Thailand, Indonesia, et al. led the US to finally lay on a trade embargo, especially oil, in an attempt to halt their expansionist policies. Japan probably felt they were going to have to fight us anyway. And they knew they couldn't win in a prolonged war. Pearl Harbor was an attempt to completely remove the Pacific Fleet for at least one year in order to give them a free hand to consolidate enough gains to make an all out war too costly to the US. They came damn close.

Attacking the P.I. likely would have drawn our ire all the same(but probably not to the same level), and strategically, given we were already doing lend-lease with one of their adversaries made leaving them alone a bad idea.

REP ๐Ÿšซ

@Keet

If my recollection of history is correct, America took an isolationist view of the war (WWII) in Europe. Our citizens did not want to get involved in another foreign war. Our politicians felt the US should be involved, but they knew the citizens would not support them.

The US did not enter the war to become heroes and save the Allied Powers. We entered the war because we were attacked by the Japanese. Our industry cranked out the ships, planes, tanks, weapons, munitions, etc., we needed to fight that war, and we also provided Russia and others with the industrial resources to fight the war.

To some businessmen, money may have been a motivation, but not to the majority of the US's citizens. The German technology we "stole" was in its infancy at the time we became involved, and at the time we entered the war, the immature technology was not worth the lives, harm, and money it would cost to fight a major war. After the war ended, the US, Russia, and other countries did want the more mature technology, especially rocketry.

As Americans, our citizens are proud of our military defending us, and we considered them to be heroes. The people of other countries also considered American soldiers to be heroes. I don't recall the US rubbing our effort into other countries faces without provocation, but it may have happened. I do recall other countries putting the US down for not aiding them as much as they thought we should after the war, and the US reminding those people of the contribution we made to their countries during the war. For the most part, it has been other countries labeling the US as a hero, and yes, the US was and is willing to accept that acknowledgement.

Replies:   Keet
Keet ๐Ÿšซ

@REP

As Americans, our citizens are proud of our military defending us, and we considered them to be heroes. The people of other countries also considered American soldiers to be heroes. I don't recall the US rubbing our effort into other countries faces without provocation, but it may have happened.

Nothing wrong about being proud of your country although I think the US people overdo it a little. We could use a little more pride of our country over here but it's not really a part of our culture.

Remus2 ๐Ÿšซ

@robberhands

So I quote the E.U. law and you revert to the original line of attack when you cannot dispute facts. Now it's back to the twisting of context...

When an argument goes circular like that, it's clear the opposite party will not stop and it begins a schoolyard tit for tat. I'll save you the trouble by ceding the last word since you're obviously the type to insist on it.

xavier721 ๐Ÿšซ

Hmmmm... I knew I was breaking the child labor laws. The owner knew as well. He grew up during the Depression and figured I was old enough to know if I wanted to make money and if I needed it not. We both knew that the best person to take care of you is yourself. At least you're motivated. The Government is not your friend. I knew that as a child.

He had work I needed money so we were willing to ignore the laws to meet our needs. That law was hurting me in the real world not protecting me. Had my mother died there is a good chance I would have ended up in prison or selling blowjobs because the state wanted to "protect" me from the dangers of a job. Where would the state have put me? In an orphanage, with kids bigger and meaner than me. Not much different than jail or the hood I had just come from.

Plus, when Mom was better I had Bank. Pretty, Pretty Benjamins and Uncle Sugar didn't get a penny. You don't pay taxes on a job you technically don't have. lol

Remus2 ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

One thing to keep in mind here, historical facts are liquid. It should not be that way, but it is.

British Natural History, Louvre, Smithsonian, Tokyo National, Hermitage, among many other museums; are the official keepers of history, either overt or covert, of their respective countries. They are largely responsible for what ends up in historical references for their countries.

To date, I've managed to visit twenty three of them around the world. For any given major world historical event, they each have their own version of history. Some would say it's a cultural variance, but from what I've seen, that doesn't account for all the differences. Some are greater, some are minor, but differences there be.

I can only speak for the ones I've personally visited, and for 23 out of 23 the above was true. A rational person would be quick to realize that's not possible short of 23 seperate time lines.

Interpretations have been made over the course of centuries, along with outright falsification on the part of every country in the world. Therein is a major point of contention in the age of the Internet. A point that has yet to be resolved and only slightly brushed over.

Revisionist history is alive and active as a result. Many would point to wikipedia to resolve it. However one look at the revision log for any major country you care to name will kill that thought for a thinking mind.

If you were not personally there, or had close family or friends there for a first hand accounting, it should be considered suspect in my opinion.

Replies:   REP  StarFleet Carl
REP ๐Ÿšซ

@Remus2

I think you are trying to say - the winners/survivors write history and two or more views of the same thing don't always match.

Replies:   Remus2
Remus2 ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@REP

Partially, but not 100%. Example; compare U.S., French, Russian, and British versions of nuclear bomb development. They were on the same side of WW2 until the end.

It's not always about being the victor, and more about painting the best possible light on the country in question.

Another strong example of this was the British and U.S. Nazis prior to hostilities. Neither could be totally eradicated due to a multitude of historical recordings, but they damn sure got pushed under a rug as far as could be after the fact.

Replies:   REP
REP ๐Ÿšซ

@Remus2

They were on the same side of WW2 until the end.

Precisely, they were on the winning side and got to write their version of history. The losing side did not.

Replies:   Remus2
Remus2 ๐Ÿšซ

@REP

The losing side was the axis powers. At the time of the war, that did not include Russia.

Replies:   REP
REP ๐Ÿšซ

@Remus2

did not include Russia.

Russia was one of the Allied Powers.

StarFleet Carl ๐Ÿšซ

@Remus2

If you were not personally there, or had close family or friends there for a first hand accounting, it should be considered suspect in my opinion.

I mentioned my age in another thread. I was born in '61. My parents were both the babies in their families, dad was born in '31, mom in '34. Maternal grandmother was both in '00, maternal grandfather I actually don't know, he was a WWI Marine and died in 1936. Paternal grandparents both in 1898 and 1899.

So yeah, I've heard plenty of first hand accountings. Paternal uncle was a crew chief on P-38's in the Southern Pacific - one of the pilots in his group is who shot down Admiral Yamamoto. One maternal uncle enlisted in the Marines after Pearl - fought in the Pacific with the 1MarDiv, including Iwo. Other maternal uncle was in the Navy on a DE doing the Murmansk run but managed to get out after the Sullivan brothers incidient.

So yeah, I've heard plenty of first hand experiences growing up. Prior to the war, the U.S. Military was NOT seen as a good career choice - mostly it was for losers who couldn't do better in life. The USAAC had as front line fighters planes there were obsolete 10 years before the war started. Think about it - we had Brewster Buffaloes at Midway. They were cut to riboons.

The US was perfectly happy to sit this one out. We'd shed our blood during the War of Northern Aggression, the Spanish Civil War (Remember the Maine!), and WWI. We'd learned what price we'd have to pay, and while there were some people who wanted us to be in on one or the other side, Mr. & Mrs/ American (and all the ships at sea) didn't see this internal conflict of Europe and China as being worth the blood of even one of their sons.

So yeah, we sat out until Pearl Harbor. And then we did our damnedest to make sure Japanese was only spoken in Hell afterwards.

Replies:   Remus2  Jim S
Remus2 ๐Ÿšซ

@StarFleet Carl

We are from the ~same generation then.

Jim S ๐Ÿšซ

@StarFleet Carl

So yeah, I've heard plenty of first hand accountings. Paternal uncle was a crew chief on P-38's in the Southern Pacific - one of the pilots in his group is who shot down Admiral Yamamoto. One maternal uncle enlisted in the Marines after Pearl - fought in the Pacific with the 1MarDiv, including Iwo. Other maternal uncle was in the Navy on a DE doing the Murmansk run but managed to get out after the Sullivan brothers incidient.

So yeah, I've heard plenty of first hand experiences growing up.

You were far more fortunate than I. I had three uncles in WWII. One of them died just recently (97 years old). He was in the 4th Armored Div and fought in Europe from D-day to the end. Including the relief of Bastogne. Which I didn't find out until two months before his death.

I had a vested interest so to speak as I served in the 4th Armored for my entire tour in Germany. And I never knew we were both in the same outfit. But 20 years apart.

My point is none of them ever talked to me about their combat experience. They didn't even talk to their own kids about it much. At least from what I could gather from them (my cousins) at family reunions over the years.

So I envy you in that regard.

Replies:   StarFleet Carl
StarFleet Carl ๐Ÿšซ

@Jim S

My point is none of them ever talked to me about their combat experience. They didn't even talk to their own kids about it much. At least from what I could gather from them (my cousins) at family reunions over the years.

Two of my uncles never had issues talking, even when I was little. My uncle that served in the Marines didn't talk until one of his own grandsons came home from boot camp with the Corps. That sort of broke him loose.

Remus2 ๐Ÿšซ

National 'Socialist' German Workers Party. AKA Nazis.
Isn't it interesting how current socialist forget the Nazis were socialist when they point fingers at center and right.

richardshagrin ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

There is a board game that I played once called "Brezhnev's War" set in 1980 where the Russians, East Germans, and Czechoslovakians attack the Allied powers. There are several options other than going through the Fulda Gap, it was fun to play with the Russians rushing the first few turns and then enormous allied reinforcements including a lot of French division which the game overstates the strength for stop the Communists from conquering enough allied cities and the Industrial area of West Germany which is the Russian victory condition.

Quoting from the game's website:

"Brezhnev's War: NATO vs. the Warsaw Pact in Germany, 1980 enables two players to game the first month of a hypothesized communist invasion of Western Europe sometime between the fall of Saigon and the start of the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan. It was during that period the conventional "correlation of forces" between the two hostile alliances most favored the communists.

The scenario portrayed is the one that was most anticipated and feared by NATO's intelligence analysts at the time. That is, despite their knowledge of the existence of Soviets plans to begin such a war with massive chemical and nuclear strikes, the West's military planners gave those schemes little credence. They knew the Soviets understood such a strategy would bring on immediate nuclear retaliation by the West. That would've ended the war as quickly as it began โ€“ mostly likely along with all of civilization โ€“ with no winner identifiable.

What was feared then was, one fine summer day, the Soviet units in East Germany would move out from eating breakfast in their mess halls and roll across the border into West Germany. It would've been a "come as you are" kind of war, the aim of which would've been to blitz across Germany โ€“ using only conventional weaponry โ€“ in under a month.

The Soviets would then have called for a ceasefire before any nuclear or chemical weapons had been detonated or the massive economic power of the Atlantic community brought to bear. With that, West Germany โ€“ the geo-strategic lynchpin of NATO in Europe โ€“ would've been neutralized and its Ruhr industrial area โ€“ then as now, one of the most important manufacturing centers on the planet โ€“ entirely wrecked. That would've caused a shift in the global balance of power in favor of the Kremlin, setting them up to deliver the knockout blow later.

The 50" x 35" map covers the core area of the Federal Republic of Germany at 6.66 miles (10.8 km) per hex. There are 352 large-size (5/8") unit counters, representing the divisions and brigades immediately on scene at the time, along with the masses of other units that could've been sent as reinforcements. Each of the 10 game turns represent three days of real time.

The turn sequence uses the classic fight-move or move-fight structure. Special rules account for heliborne units, Spetsnaz, the ultra-elite Soviet Eighth Guards and Guards Airborne Armies, East German and Czechoslovakian disloyalty, ranged Soviet artillery divisions, air power, supply, the criticality of Frankfurt for US operations, paradrops, German territorials, electronic warfare and variable Soviet victory objectives.

The overall system is simple, at about 6 on the 1-10 scale. Two experienced players can get through a match in about four to six hours."

Replies:   StarFleet Carl
StarFleet Carl ๐Ÿšซ

@richardshagrin

That is, despite their knowledge of the existence of Soviets plans to begin such a war with massive chemical and nuclear strikes, the West's military planners gave those schemes little credence. They knew the Soviets understood such a strategy would bring on immediate nuclear retaliation by the West.

That game came out just a couple of years ago. It misses one point in the thinking of military and political commanders of the time. Specifically, the Soviet / Warsaw Pact leadership did consider there to be a difference between strategic and tactical nuclear devices. And keep in mind what was acceptable in the late 1970's / early 1980's changed late in the 1980's. The Soviet plan which included use of some nukes, as well as chemical attacks, was released by the Polish government in 2005. (Oops, they didn't think about their puppet state not being their puppet state forever.)

A lot of the NATO defense strategy was based upon a defense in depth - trade ground for time. REFORGER was the NATO plan to bring troops from the United States and was something we both gamed out and actually practiced. My unit, since we were NBC, was required to maintain our equipment in 72 hour readiness at all time. When we got our warning orders, we had 72 hours to be feet wet and heading for Germany.

That was one thing that made the role playing game Twilight 2000 so interesting back in 1984.

rustyken ๐Ÿšซ

The novel 'Red Storm Rising' by Clancey covers one possibility.

Not_a_ID ๐Ÿšซ

Noriega didn't strike me as much of a commie(he was ousted because of drugs IIRC).
The Shah of Iran wasn't particularly cuddly.
Saddam Hussein was "one of ours" as well to some degree, and while a dictator, not a Commie.
The Marcos name also seems to come to mind.
And then the numerous iterations of the South Vietnamese government after the Americans started getting involved....

Back to Top

Close
 

WARNING! ADULT CONTENT...

Storiesonline is for adult entertainment only. By accessing this site you declare that you are of legal age and that you agree with our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.