- Feb 4, 2009
- 35,862
- 17,403
- 136
He didn't do well on that metric. I voted Obama twice, I don't expect perfection from any President (Trump included) just do more good than harm.
He didn't do well on that metric. I voted Obama twice, I don't expect perfection from any President (Trump included) just do more good than harm.
ThePresence
Elite Member
- Nov 19, 2001
- 27,727
- 16
- 81
ivwshane
Lifer
- May 15, 2000
- 33,519
- 17,024
- 136
- Feb 4, 2009
- 35,862
- 17,403
- 136
I didn't say Obama was a complete failure. He failed in one specific metric. Just like your work reviews there is always one portion that needs improvement.
No, he's actually pretty good in the right circumstances. And, it helps that Americans are desperate to normalize his election and presidency.
Sheik Yerbouti
Lifer
- Feb 16, 2005
- 14,080
- 5,452
- 136
OK, but keep in mind that I can't fully agree there's almost nothing we can agree on since I do agree that Trump disaster and Obama a partial one I also believe that truth is a synthesis of opposites, the resolution of paradox at a higher level of understanding, one leg of which opposites lies in the liberal world view and the other in the conservative side. I assume so anyway because that's how truth works for me so I see myself then as a one legged conservative.
To give a concrete example, take the issue of welfare. Nobody values what the get for free. Charity can create helpless dependency. ( conservative) The poor require help and will suffer or die if left unattended. (liberal) The third way is to help in a way that requires some sort of action, as minimum as necessary and as maximum as will work, that leaves the impression in the gift recipient's mind that they did something positive to help themselves. Poverty is caused by surrender to the feeling that one is worthless and deserves nothing, and the viciousness of poverty to denial of that feeling.This is why you cannot trust people you help not to stab you in the back and why help that does not go against the feeling of worthlessness will not help.
It's all well and good to give somebody a fish or to say better yet to teach them to fish, but the real job is to instill that desire that makes people what to fish, the feeling of joy that comes through self accomplishment.
imported_tajmahal
Lifer
- Jul 9, 2009
- 10,758
- 2,086
- 136
Modern day poverty is largely caused by lack access to (natural) resources. Humans are evolved to be reasonably sufficient off of the land, but for example when the slaves were emancipated they weren't exactly provided 40 acres and a mule. Many ended up tenant farming, redlined into slums or such, and other consequences of a hostile society which provided few economic opportunities until relatively recently. Much of the current social order is the result of these physical histories.
So it was Democrats dressing up to honor Republicans. The suffragettes were Republicans. White represented the Democrat's KKK.
I have no problem with what you say in this post and I think it's right and factual but it doesn't connect, in my opinion, to what I am saying. In the first place I wasn't looking to explain black poverty in particular or how they got that way in greater proportion, I'm fairly certain, in numbers fthan their representation in the general population. I could throw in here that our racial bigots that have appeared in this thread, who are blind to the fact and presence of that bigotry in the notions they let slip, are I think bigots precisely because they personally do not experience in life what many many blacks do experience, all the traditional stuff you listed here that has tended to hold them back. They (generally younger white conservatives) haven't walked a mile in the other guys shoes and are empathy blocked in doing so imaginatively by their unconscious assumption that what they experience in life is the experience of everybody.
Where I think you're analysis runs into trouble is that if it were the whole story the provision of resources would ipso facto fix the problem. As it turns out, the single minded answers provided by the left and the right both fail because poverty isn't just not having resources, it's a state of mind. Poor people condemn themselves to poverty by having been destroyed in childhood by being put down, told they are worthless and can't amount to anything. What remains is seething rage and the desire to steel what they need. This is why it is necessary to treat not only the symptoms, the condition of poverty that is physicao, but also the negative mental state, the unconscious assumptions that we poor deserve to be poor. With bad attitude you have struck out even before you get to bat.
Nothing ever happens to cure poverty because the resources are horded by others who also feel poor and by the lack of 'third way thinking'.
It's worth considering that before industrialization humans were often collectively/relatively poor. Probably at least a plurality of the population not that long ago lived under the modern day poverty line, for what certainly can't be attributed to endemically/historically low self-esteem (for nearly all of human existence) that's only now repaired in the developed world. It's not hard to see they were physically hinder by ignorance of modernity only recently rectified.
IOW, watch out for "single minded answers" in the form of attributing everything to one psychological phenomenon.
OTOH there's some truth to cultural cycle of poverty. Surely nobody chooses to be poor, but the poor often have bad habits and lifestyles not conducive to generating wealth by rest of society's social rules. That's in large part why affirmative action was proposed as one solution to this problem through exposure.
agent00f: It's worth considering that before industrialization humans were often collectively/relatively poor.
It is probably worth considering in some context. It is not germane to what I was referring to that I can see. My intention was to say that I have points of view that conservatives can have and I gave an example regarding welfare, that there are issues with just giving money to the poor and expecting it to solve their problems and for reasons that the problem with poverty isn't being poor, but being poor and emotionally damaged in a way that destroys belief that one can improve ones life by ones own effort. It is an attitudinal problem and attitude is based on what assumptions we unconsciously operate under. Were poverty simply a matter of lack of resources welfare would be much much more effective than it actually is. The problem of poverty is intractable and is because it's root cause is not widly understood or addressed. As a proper understanding of the phenomena requires self understanding as to how self hate creates self defeating behaviors, a painful realization to actually confront, I am not surprised to find you here jumping on this explanation. I am quite aware of the fact that people do not want to know what they feel. I am also aware of just how profoundly, unimaginably difficult it is.
a: Probably at least a plurality of the population not that long ago lived under the modern day poverty line, for what certainly can't be attributed to endemically/historically low self-esteem (for nearly all of human existence) that's only now repaired in the developed world. It's not hard to see they were physically hinder by ignorance of modernity only recently rectified.
M: So while this has nothing to do with what I was talking about, welfare in the modern US, clearly if everybody is poor the difference between lack of resources and emotionally crippling can't manifest. It would only be in a world of opportunity that those who are emotionally blocked by proof of worthlessness by the fear of failure can distinguish themselves from less damaged go getters, who may actually be just as sick being emotionally driven to make money to cover their feelings of worthlessness.
a: IOW, watch out for "single minded answers" in the form of attributing everything to one psychological phenomenon.
M: I find you to be the one single-mindedly focused on that issue. It is the nature of deep insights into nature that produce simple explanations for seemingly complex issues. You, for example, attempt to do what I do using evolution as your grounding
a: OTOH there's some truth to cultural cycle of poverty. Surely nobody chooses to be poor, but the poor often have bad habits and lifestyles not conducive to generating wealth by rest of society's social rules. That's in large part why affirmative action was proposed as one solution to this problem through exposure.
M: Yes, people don't choose to be poor, they choose it unconsciously by not allowing themselves to feel what they really feel, thereby cementing themselves in the mental condition that causes poverty, just as conservatives cement themselves in ignorance for fear that science and truth will make them feel what their altered reality is there to protect them from. This is the mechanical nature of unconsciousness. Everybody feels he or she is the worst of sinners and nobody is actually guilty of anything.
As an exercise, look at the world as if people hated themselves and didn't know it and see what that will explain about what you see out there
It is probably worth considering in some context. It is not germane to what I was referring to that I can see. My intention was to say that I have points of view that conservatives can have and I gave an example regarding welfare, that there are issues with just giving money to the poor and expecting it to solve their problems and for reasons that the problem with poverty isn't being poor, but being poor and emotionally damaged in a way that destroys belief that one can improve ones life by ones own effort. It is an attitudinal problem and attitude is based on what assumptions we unconsciously operate under. Were poverty simply a matter of lack of resources welfare would be much much more effective than it actually is. The problem of poverty is intractable and is because it's root cause is not widly understood or addressed. As a proper understanding of the phenomena requires self understanding as to how self hate creates self defeating behaviors, a painful realization to actually confront, I am not surprised to find you here jumping on this explanation. I am quite aware of the fact that people do not want to know what they feel. I am also aware of just how profoundly, unimaginably difficult it is.
a: Probably at least a plurality of the population not that long ago lived under the modern day poverty line, for what certainly can't be attributed to endemically/historically low self-esteem (for nearly all of human existence) that's only now repaired in the developed world. It's not hard to see they were physically hinder by ignorance of modernity only recently rectified.
M: So while this has nothing to do with what I was talking about, welfare in the modern US, clearly if everybody is poor the difference between lack of resources and emotionally crippling can't manifest. It would only be in a world of opportunity that those who are emotionally blocked by proof of worthlessness by the fear of failure can distinguish themselves from less damaged go getters, who may actually be just as sick being emotionally driven to make money to cover their feelings of worthlessness.
a: IOW, watch out for "single minded answers" in the form of attributing everything to one psychological phenomenon.
M: I find you to be the one single-mindedly focused on that issue. It is the nature of deep insights into nature that produce simple explanations for seemingly complex issues. You, for example, attempt to do what I do using evolution as your grounding
a: OTOH there's some truth to cultural cycle of poverty. Surely nobody chooses to be poor, but the poor often have bad habits and lifestyles not conducive to generating wealth by rest of society's social rules. That's in large part why affirmative action was proposed as one solution to this problem through exposure.
M: Yes, people don't choose to be poor, they choose it unconsciously by not allowing themselves to feel what they really feel, thereby cementing themselves in the mental condition that causes poverty, just as conservatives cement themselves in ignorance for fear that science and truth will make them feel what their altered reality is there to protect them from. This is the mechanical nature of unconsciousness. Everybody feels he or she is the worst of sinners and nobody is actually guilty of anything.
As an exercise, look at the world as if people hated themselves and didn't know it and see what that will explain about what you see out there
and trump's infrastructure is
via Imgflip Meme Generator
ask us how much we like that down here in texas
Not sure where you're getting that from or if you have problems understanding basic budgeting.
You see toll roads are often the result from the Federal government failing to supply the states with adequate funds for infrastructure. Therefore, the states often times have to make toll-roads in order to get adequate funds to improve infrastructure locally. This is why toll roads are often different pay systems, etc... depending on the area and state. Many states/cities will promise to stop the toll roads after the funds to pay for the road are received, my city being one of them. My city is also a piece of shit and reneged on that promise - but the original point remains. They just liked the cash flow so they figure why pull back on it... go figure.
So I'm not quite sure where you're getting federally paid for toll roads from...
ivwshane
Lifer
- May 15, 2000
- 33,519
- 17,024
- 136
From what I've heard, the proposal was to offer subsidization for roads (infrastructure in general) to private business instead of giving it to the states directly. If so then there very well could be federally funded toll roads.
ThePresence
Elite Member
- Nov 19, 2001
- 27,727
- 16
- 81
We may agree that Trump is a disaster and Obama was a disaster, but I assure you our reasons for sharing those opinions are vastly different.
Well if so, and Trump, as I suspect, isn't just a disaster in my opinion but an actual disaster, what you are saying is that everything or the vast majority of what you see in Trump as a disaster would in fact have to be something else, maybe his good points, and I find it hard to believe you would agree to that. I know that it would be difficult to convince me that what I see about Trump that is a disaster isn't real.
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,402
- 8,574
- 126
https://www.google.com/amp/thehill....-public-spending-in-trumps-infrastructure?amp
"Public-private partnership" is code for tolls.
Persistent underclasses have existed since time immemorial and it's not that hard to see the problem when you look at the type of concerted resistance any sort of solution like AA gets. It's just a matter of fact that an underclass benefits many and therefore it only makes sense for them to perpetuate it, unless you're now arguing against the reality of human self-interest, particularly for pre-enlightenment conservative mentalities.
Evolution is just an argument against magical thinking. It posits that simple explanatory mechanisms, ie what "is", can account for reality in lieu of various "ought" often anthropomorphic rationalizations. I would agree that's a deep insight.
Pretty sure the difference between the rich and the poor isn't merely self-confidence or such.
Sea Ray
Golden Member
- May 30, 2013
- 1,459
- 31
- 91
What's a scam is folks who think the gov't needs to pay for you to raise your kids. Luckily this administration knows better
Sea Ray
Golden Member
- May 30, 2013
- 1,459
- 31
- 91
One significant difference is that for folks over $100K, they're getting their own money back (that they paid in taxes). For the lower income folks they're getting a refundable tax credit. You know what that is? It's a refund on taxes you haven't paid. I call that welfare but call it what you may. It's different than what the rich folks are getting
It's in everyone's interest to have the next gen raised above poverty levels, which is why there's some org representative of that interest seeing to it. Don't worry though, none of the other conservatives have the cognitive faculties to ever grasp this either.
agent00fersistent underclasses have existed since time immemorial and it's not that hard to see the problem when you look at the type of concerted resistance any sort of solution like AA gets. It's just a matter of fact that an underclass benefits many and therefore it only makes sense for them to perpetuate it, unless you're now arguing against the reality of human self-interest, particularly for pre-enlightenment conservative mentalities.
M: a few minutes ago you were using the notion that in the past everybody was poor to say that self hate couldn't have been the reason and I showed you what was wrong with that idea. Now you are arguing that there was always a persistent underclass. So what is it? Was everybody poor or were some self haters especially poor. I am not going to bother answering arguments that one minute affirm one thing as fact and in the next deny it.
a: Evolution is just an argument against magical thinking. What you can't see lacking the experiential insight required to see it does not make it magical to any but you. You are limited in your understanding and wind up falling back on your unconscious assumptions about how reality works no matter what argument I make. We evolved in a way that allows us to be programmed to hate ourselves. The key to understanding how people works lies in understanding what motivates them. You can't know what that is if you are afraid to feel.
a: It posits that simple explanatory mechanisms, ie what "is", can account for reality in lieu of various "ought" often anthropomorphic rationalizations. I would agree that's a deep insight.
M: There is a simple truth that evolution gave us the power to use language that gave us the capacity to think and share our thoughts, to invent ideas that have no real existence like good and evil that can be associated with the feelings we feel such that we will not feel what was made taboo via putdowns and punishment. This is how we learned to hate ourselves and why we repress it, why our lives become one long avoidance of our real condition.
a: Pretty sure the difference between the rich and the poor isn't merely self-confidence or such.
M: Try to understand that these words mean nothing to me. What does it mean to be rich. A person who is rich is a person who has no ego needs. A poor person has endless desires. Rich and poor are emotional states that can be tied to money or not. 4 classes of people. When we refer to self confidence we refer to an inner sense that ones innate and acquired skills will be sufficient to meet some task or future upcoming. Self love is simply being joy.
ersistent underclasses have existed since time immemorial and it's not that hard to see the problem when you look at the type of concerted resistance any sort of solution like AA gets. It's just a matter of fact that an underclass benefits many and therefore it only makes sense for them to perpetuate it, unless you're now arguing against the reality of human self-interest, particularly for pre-enlightenment conservative mentalities.M: a few minutes ago you were using the notion that in the past everybody was poor to say that self hate couldn't have been the reason and I showed you what was wrong with that idea. Now you are arguing that there was always a persistent underclass. So what is it? Was everybody poor or were some self haters especially poor. I am not going to bother answering arguments that one minute affirm one thing as fact and in the next deny it.
a: Evolution is just an argument against magical thinking. What you can't see lacking the experiential insight required to see it does not make it magical to any but you. You are limited in your understanding and wind up falling back on your unconscious assumptions about how reality works no matter what argument I make. We evolved in a way that allows us to be programmed to hate ourselves. The key to understanding how people works lies in understanding what motivates them. You can't know what that is if you are afraid to feel.
a: It posits that simple explanatory mechanisms, ie what "is", can account for reality in lieu of various "ought" often anthropomorphic rationalizations. I would agree that's a deep insight.
M: There is a simple truth that evolution gave us the power to use language that gave us the capacity to think and share our thoughts, to invent ideas that have no real existence like good and evil that can be associated with the feelings we feel such that we will not feel what was made taboo via putdowns and punishment. This is how we learned to hate ourselves and why we repress it, why our lives become one long avoidance of our real condition.
a: Pretty sure the difference between the rich and the poor isn't merely self-confidence or such.
M: Try to understand that these words mean nothing to me. What does it mean to be rich. A person who is rich is a person who has no ego needs. A poor person has endless desires. Rich and poor are emotional states that can be tied to money or not. 4 classes of people. When we refer to self confidence we refer to an inner sense that ones innate and acquired skills will be sufficient to meet some task or future upcoming. Self love is simply being joy.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 393
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter