Ted
Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
I was aboard a guided missile cruiser, in a real Navy.
I was aboard a guided missile cruiser, in a real Navy.
The Little Thread Which Grew - the Apollo '73 to Everything But
- Thread starter lkwdblds
- Start date
- Status
Terril park
Sponsor
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
Just saw " The Dictator" with Sacha Baron Cohen.
Its the most politically incorrect film I ever saw and totally hilarious. His best film.
He mocks Chinese, Philapinos [briefly] Arabs, those who follow Islam, and all who live in the middle east and asia. And much more.
The greatest mockery was reserved for American Democracy. Here it got serious. He made a speech about how US democracy allowed one percent
of the population to own 99% or whatever of the countries wealth, and those in charge to help their buddies who gambled and lost. Etc.
This was in just a few moments of film time but will probably impact many
because of his great comic popularity.
I wouldn't normally post such trivia, however I was at the first general preview of this movie in cinemas. Almost all of the crowded venue were
those of asian descent. I was surrounded by people line charging very loudly!!!
I see that as a very healthy indicator.
In the post credits his new jewish wife tells him on a TV interview that she is pregnant.
For those not comfortable with political incorrectness do not proceed!!!!
Ultra severe warning!!!
His response---- " Will it be a boy or an abortion?"
I was drowned in laughter by by the asian viewers.
Just saw " The Dictator" with Sacha Baron Cohen.
Its the most politically incorrect film I ever saw and totally hilarious. His best film.
He mocks Chinese, Philapinos [briefly] Arabs, those who follow Islam, and all who live in the middle east and asia. And much more.
The greatest mockery was reserved for American Democracy. Here it got serious. He made a speech about how US democracy allowed one percent
of the population to own 99% or whatever of the countries wealth, and those in charge to help their buddies who gambled and lost. Etc.
This was in just a few moments of film time but will probably impact many
because of his great comic popularity.
I wouldn't normally post such trivia, however I was at the first general preview of this movie in cinemas. Almost all of the crowded venue were
those of asian descent. I was surrounded by people line charging very loudly!!!
I see that as a very healthy indicator.
In the post credits his new jewish wife tells him on a TV interview that she is pregnant.
For those not comfortable with political incorrectness do not proceed!!!!
Ultra severe warning!!!
His response---- " Will it be a boy or an abortion?"
I was drowned in laughter by by the asian viewers.
lkwdblds
Crusader
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
I am responding to the paragraph I highlighted in blue about mocking American democracy. I think it is absurd of him to mock America for its distribution of wealth and not only that, I believe that doing so is not politically incorrect but is politically correct in the extreme.
Dennis Prager frequently gives a rationale for why wealth distribution is skewed in the United States as compared to other democracies. Take France as a counter example; their bywords during their revolution were, "liberty, fraternity, and EQUALITY." Your typical Euro type democracies, including socialist leaning states such as Sweden, Denmark and Netherlands all have taken on the cry for EQUALITY.
The United States founders did not have the goal of Equality as one of their motivating principles. Instead, they offered up the concept that mankind is entitled to the "pursuit of happiness". As Prager astutely points out, the bywords of our founders are the trio of terms which appear on US currency: "Liberty", "In God we Trust", and "E Pluribus Unum" (from one - many). Thus, the two systems have in common only one term, "liberty".
BTW, I know that the top 1% of wage earners in the USA pay about 40% of all income taxes collected in the USA. I don't know the figure for the percentage of wealth the richest 1% control but am guessing that it would be more like 40% than 99%. If anyone has an actual figure for this, I would like to know it.
In my opinion, and it is only an opinion, I believe that the American system of Democracy has greatly outperformed the French system since the two revolutions occurred in the late 18th century. France started that period as a large powerful country while the USA was metaphorically a tiny place still in diapers. After only 130 years, the USA was the world's Super Power while France no longer was a world power. In fact, the USA saved the French from oblivion twice in WWI and WWII.
POLITICAL CORRECTNESS
The politically correct thing to do now is to bash the USA and accuse it of being the most dangerous and unfair society in the World today. Political correctness calls for a one world government where a central group of nations, such as the United Nations or the World Court adjudicates disputes and Human Rights violations in the world. Nations and the concept of patriotism have now become passe and not politically correct.
Most of the other things you mention as being politically incorrect are fine but how can one say that Cohen's film is being politically incorrect by its making fun of the USA having uneven distribution of wealth? That point of view is politically correct to the nth degree!
We have the Obama administration (and his behind the scenes puppet masters) hard at work making the USA into a new "France-like" nation with "fairness" and "equality" becoming core principles. Not only are they hard at work doing this but they are succeeding and very soon they could be beyond the point of no return where the founding principles of the USA will lie somewhere in the dust bin of history and will probably never be able to be resurrected.
Lakey
I am responding to the paragraph I highlighted in blue about mocking American democracy. I think it is absurd of him to mock America for its distribution of wealth and not only that, I believe that doing so is not politically incorrect but is politically correct in the extreme.
Dennis Prager frequently gives a rationale for why wealth distribution is skewed in the United States as compared to other democracies. Take France as a counter example; their bywords during their revolution were, "liberty, fraternity, and EQUALITY." Your typical Euro type democracies, including socialist leaning states such as Sweden, Denmark and Netherlands all have taken on the cry for EQUALITY.
The United States founders did not have the goal of Equality as one of their motivating principles. Instead, they offered up the concept that mankind is entitled to the "pursuit of happiness". As Prager astutely points out, the bywords of our founders are the trio of terms which appear on US currency: "Liberty", "In God we Trust", and "E Pluribus Unum" (from one - many). Thus, the two systems have in common only one term, "liberty".
BTW, I know that the top 1% of wage earners in the USA pay about 40% of all income taxes collected in the USA. I don't know the figure for the percentage of wealth the richest 1% control but am guessing that it would be more like 40% than 99%. If anyone has an actual figure for this, I would like to know it.
In my opinion, and it is only an opinion, I believe that the American system of Democracy has greatly outperformed the French system since the two revolutions occurred in the late 18th century. France started that period as a large powerful country while the USA was metaphorically a tiny place still in diapers. After only 130 years, the USA was the world's Super Power while France no longer was a world power. In fact, the USA saved the French from oblivion twice in WWI and WWII.
POLITICAL CORRECTNESS
The politically correct thing to do now is to bash the USA and accuse it of being the most dangerous and unfair society in the World today. Political correctness calls for a one world government where a central group of nations, such as the United Nations or the World Court adjudicates disputes and Human Rights violations in the world. Nations and the concept of patriotism have now become passe and not politically correct.
Most of the other things you mention as being politically incorrect are fine but how can one say that Cohen's film is being politically incorrect by its making fun of the USA having uneven distribution of wealth? That point of view is politically correct to the nth degree!
We have the Obama administration (and his behind the scenes puppet masters) hard at work making the USA into a new "France-like" nation with "fairness" and "equality" becoming core principles. Not only are they hard at work doing this but they are succeeding and very soon they could be beyond the point of no return where the founding principles of the USA will lie somewhere in the dust bin of history and will probably never be able to be resurrected.
Lakey
Last edited:
Ted
Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
The equality goal is a ruse. It is lip service. It is a PR ploy. We have the wherewithal and capability to be a nation of poor people, all equal in that regard. No matter the label given the objective, no matter what the system is called, there will always be an elite group, outsiders if you will, who are NOT equal.
The equality goal is a ruse. It is lip service. It is a PR ploy. We have the wherewithal and capability to be a nation of poor people, all equal in that regard. No matter the label given the objective, no matter what the system is called, there will always be an elite group, outsiders if you will, who are NOT equal.
Hatshepsut
Crusader
RogerB
Crusader
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
When I look at history, I'd say the guy is out of line citing/blaming "America" as a bad example of inequality in wealth "distribution" . . .
Firstly, who the hell and where the hell does the idea of wealth distribution come from? What a load of balls . . . how about the idea of equal or unequal wealth production??
What a wonderful idea that would be!
Can you imagine the abundance if society was sold on the idea of equality of wealth production?
This notion of "wealth distribution" is something dreamed up by those who are too lazy or inept to produce and who want to take from others . . . . though of course, they don't tell you it's them that want to take, they slyly couch it in terms that we need it in "society."
They are, of course the "great" intellectualisers . . . they are wonderful examples of "thinking" so bloody much that they only ever screw up what is by constant added arbitraries and inapplicablenesses.
If you doubt me on this . . . go commune with the folks at the UN
. . . man what a bunch of live-off-the-production-of-others-parasites they are! If you really want to experience the ultimate in the exercise of the class most capable of constantly dealing with the irrelevant and the distraction from the important and the engaging in wrong and inapplicable wrong answers . . . go sit with some of the UN behind the scenes "thinkers" and policy makers. (I had dealings with them when I brought my "Agent 007" business to the US.) And, of course, they are big on income and wealth "distribution" and wrong answers on equality thereof!
The other point, and the point I started to express before I got into my rant on the distribution bullshit is, don't blame or cite the Americans . . . hell, they learned it from the Europeans!
Rog
When I look at history, I'd say the guy is out of line citing/blaming "America" as a bad example of inequality in wealth "distribution" . . .
Firstly, who the hell and where the hell does the idea of wealth distribution come from? What a load of balls . . . how about the idea of equal or unequal wealth production??
What a wonderful idea that would be!
Can you imagine the abundance if society was sold on the idea of equality of wealth production?
This notion of "wealth distribution" is something dreamed up by those who are too lazy or inept to produce and who want to take from others . . . . though of course, they don't tell you it's them that want to take, they slyly couch it in terms that we need it in "society."
They are, of course the "great" intellectualisers . . . they are wonderful examples of "thinking" so bloody much that they only ever screw up what is by constant added arbitraries and inapplicablenesses.
If you doubt me on this . . . go commune with the folks at the UN
. . . man what a bunch of live-off-the-production-of-others-parasites they are! If you really want to experience the ultimate in the exercise of the class most capable of constantly dealing with the irrelevant and the distraction from the important and the engaging in wrong and inapplicable wrong answers . . . go sit with some of the UN behind the scenes "thinkers" and policy makers. (I had dealings with them when I brought my "Agent 007" business to the US.) And, of course, they are big on income and wealth "distribution" and wrong answers on equality thereof!The other point, and the point I started to express before I got into my rant on the distribution bullshit is, don't blame or cite the Americans . . . hell, they learned it from the Europeans!
Rog
Smilla
Ordinary Human
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
The idea of equality in the distribution of wealth is useful only to political demagogues seeking to rally people to a cause. It's as unrealistic as insisting that everyone should be equal in running a really fast 100m, or equality in being able to play Bach really well, or equality in height or weight. I experience no discomfort in living in a society where there are people wealthier than me, but I wouldn't want to live in a society where there are people more free than me. The issue of providing for the genuinely unfortunate few who are unable to sustain their own existence, is different. I have no problem with making a contribution to their survival. That is a redistribution of wealth, but a justifiable one, to my way of thinking. YMMV.
The idea of equality in the distribution of wealth is useful only to political demagogues seeking to rally people to a cause. It's as unrealistic as insisting that everyone should be equal in running a really fast 100m, or equality in being able to play Bach really well, or equality in height or weight. I experience no discomfort in living in a society where there are people wealthier than me, but I wouldn't want to live in a society where there are people more free than me. The issue of providing for the genuinely unfortunate few who are unable to sustain their own existence, is different. I have no problem with making a contribution to their survival. That is a redistribution of wealth, but a justifiable one, to my way of thinking. YMMV.
lkwdblds
Crusader
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
I agree that it is lip service and a PR ploy. My point is that Obama and his backers are representing the principles of "equality" and "fairness" as being their core principles. They then use these core principles as rallying cries to mobilize the masses towards their way of thinking. It's hard to come out against "fairness" so these key words can be very effective!
I believe that they feel that the Obama crowd feel that they are the elite and the enlightened ones and, as such, that they should be entitled to a certain degree of wealth while the rest of the population is kept in a state of limited wealth - not owning much nor being allowed to amass material wealth but instead having their basic need's provided for by a benevolent government of which they are the rulers.
Their overriding principles seem to be to eliminate all opposition to themselves, care for the planet, eliminate pollutants, preserve species and take care of the needs of the populace in approximately that order of importance.
In the last election Obama used the simple word "change" as a core principle. It was a stupid key word, ridiculous to use without specifying what form his "change" would take. As silly as it was, the people bought it.
Words such as "change", "equality" and "fairness" apparently are hard for people to be objective about. They act as buttons which arouse people's emotions and make them more tractable as far as being manipulated.
If only politicians were as skilled in running governments as they are in coming up with keywords to dupe their public and get elected, we would have a fantastic political system. They are not and we do not.
Lakey
I agree that it is lip service and a PR ploy. My point is that Obama and his backers are representing the principles of "equality" and "fairness" as being their core principles. They then use these core principles as rallying cries to mobilize the masses towards their way of thinking. It's hard to come out against "fairness" so these key words can be very effective!
I believe that they feel that the Obama crowd feel that they are the elite and the enlightened ones and, as such, that they should be entitled to a certain degree of wealth while the rest of the population is kept in a state of limited wealth - not owning much nor being allowed to amass material wealth but instead having their basic need's provided for by a benevolent government of which they are the rulers.
Their overriding principles seem to be to eliminate all opposition to themselves, care for the planet, eliminate pollutants, preserve species and take care of the needs of the populace in approximately that order of importance.
In the last election Obama used the simple word "change" as a core principle. It was a stupid key word, ridiculous to use without specifying what form his "change" would take. As silly as it was, the people bought it.
Words such as "change", "equality" and "fairness" apparently are hard for people to be objective about. They act as buttons which arouse people's emotions and make them more tractable as far as being manipulated.
If only politicians were as skilled in running governments as they are in coming up with keywords to dupe their public and get elected, we would have a fantastic political system. They are not and we do not.
Lakey
lkwdblds
Crusader
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
Brilliant Hats!! Great illustration of how a picture is worth 1,000 words!!
Lakey
Somebody's always stirrin' the pot.
Brilliant Hats!! Great illustration of how a picture is worth 1,000 words!!
Lakey
Quasinovis
Patron
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
While I certainly agree with this 100%, I DO feel that the faster runners are given greater advantage with shoes, track, equipment, training, etc. because they are faster.
Maybe that's a bad analogy. I do feel their are loopholes and other structures that those in the higher brackets are able to take advantage of. I also believe many of those advantages come about from their wealth having an effect on those creating policy. But, from me it is anecdotal - I haven't submersed myself in the policies, laws, tax code etc. so as to be an expert on it.
I do not believe in redistribution of wealth. I do not believe those that are more able or more fortunate should have to carry a heavier load. But I do believe a flat tax would fix many things for me as I see the system being unbalanced now.
Just my current viewpoint.
Quasi
While I certainly agree with this 100%, I DO feel that the faster runners are given greater advantage with shoes, track, equipment, training, etc. because they are faster.
Maybe that's a bad analogy. I do feel their are loopholes and other structures that those in the higher brackets are able to take advantage of. I also believe many of those advantages come about from their wealth having an effect on those creating policy. But, from me it is anecdotal - I haven't submersed myself in the policies, laws, tax code etc. so as to be an expert on it.
I do not believe in redistribution of wealth. I do not believe those that are more able or more fortunate should have to carry a heavier load. But I do believe a flat tax would fix many things for me as I see the system being unbalanced now.
Just my current viewpoint.
Quasi
lkwdblds
Crusader
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
Very nice distinction there in how the word "equality" can be used!
I do not know how the French Revolution intended the word. They used the word as a rallying cry and the US did not but our founders built the equalities which you mention above into our Constitution.
In the 21st century under the Obama administration, the word "equality" seems to have morphed into having a lot to do about material wealth and the relative wealth of different segments of the populace. For example, Obama's term of addressing the rich is to call them the "more fortunate among us". One's who are less wealthy are called the "less fortunate among us".
In the Obama manner of looking at things, the fact that one has achieved a level of wealth is looked at as a matter of being lucky. Not being wealthy is looked at as simply not getting the breaks or, through little or no fault of one's own, having things go against one by chance.
One person being smarter than another, coming up with better ideas, working harder and the like is not factored into the equation. As a result the implication is that it is unfair for the more fortunate among us to have their monetary wealth at the expense of the less fortunate among us and the government, therefore, has the responsibility to redistribute the funds in a more "fair" manner.
Lakey
Very nice distinction there in how the word "equality" can be used!
I do not know how the French Revolution intended the word. They used the word as a rallying cry and the US did not but our founders built the equalities which you mention above into our Constitution.
In the 21st century under the Obama administration, the word "equality" seems to have morphed into having a lot to do about material wealth and the relative wealth of different segments of the populace. For example, Obama's term of addressing the rich is to call them the "more fortunate among us". One's who are less wealthy are called the "less fortunate among us".
In the Obama manner of looking at things, the fact that one has achieved a level of wealth is looked at as a matter of being lucky. Not being wealthy is looked at as simply not getting the breaks or, through little or no fault of one's own, having things go against one by chance.
One person being smarter than another, coming up with better ideas, working harder and the like is not factored into the equation. As a result the implication is that it is unfair for the more fortunate among us to have their monetary wealth at the expense of the less fortunate among us and the government, therefore, has the responsibility to redistribute the funds in a more "fair" manner.
Lakey
lkwdblds
Crusader
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
Your above two posts are really spot on, Roger. I really enjoyed the quote in the Daily Telegraph!
Lakey
Your above two posts are really spot on, Roger. I really enjoyed the quote in the Daily Telegraph!
Lakey
Ted
Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
These politically driven arguments are designed to be emotionally based rather than intellectually based.
To the short list that I highlighted above, you could add save the spotted owl, the rain forrest, eliminate acid rain (not hearing too much about that one in recent years), and a host of other issues. I call all this stuff conservation, i.e. Conservative. The media calls it Democratic talking points.
Certainly, Voltaire made sense in the statement above.
These politically driven arguments are designed to be emotionally based rather than intellectually based.
To the short list that I highlighted above, you could add save the spotted owl, the rain forrest, eliminate acid rain (not hearing too much about that one in recent years), and a host of other issues. I call all this stuff conservation, i.e. Conservative. The media calls it Democratic talking points.
“If you want to converse [argue] with me, first define your terms.” -- Voltaire
Certainly, Voltaire made sense in the statement above.
CONSERVE, v.t. [L., to hold, keep or guard.] To keep in a safe or sound state; to save; to preserve from loss, decay, waste, or injury; to defend from violation; as, to conserve bodies from perishing; to conserve the peace of society; to conserve fruits, roots and herbs, with sugar, &c.
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
Interesting to see Johan Rupert being quoted there Roger! He lived up the road from us when we were kids. At that time he was one of the most non-entity type kids that one could imagine, in spite of his rich father. Only later when in his twenties did he manage to shake that off and become a person in his own right. This was during some years he spent working in New York being groomed by the Chase-Manhattan bank people.
After that he has been stellar. An interesting example, I always thought, of how out-of-valence childhood often is.
Interesting to see Johan Rupert being quoted there Roger! He lived up the road from us when we were kids. At that time he was one of the most non-entity type kids that one could imagine, in spite of his rich father. Only later when in his twenties did he manage to shake that off and become a person in his own right. This was during some years he spent working in New York being groomed by the Chase-Manhattan bank people.
After that he has been stellar. An interesting example, I always thought, of how out-of-valence childhood often is.
CarmeloOrchards
Crusader
The Art of Intelligence
this morning on Morning Joe:
former operations officer for the CIA's Clandestine Service, Henry Crumpton
[video]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/[/video]
this morning on Morning Joe:
former operations officer for the CIA's Clandestine Service, Henry Crumpton
[video]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/[/video]
Ted
Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: The Art of Intelligence
Anger works. People take notice.
Robert De Niro made a career of showcasing that one emotion. Others have done likewise but not as much as De Niro.
The morning joe people are incredibly spectatorish and reasonable.
Anger works. People take notice.
Robert De Niro made a career of showcasing that one emotion. Others have done likewise but not as much as De Niro.
The morning joe people are incredibly spectatorish and reasonable.
Smilla
Ordinary Human
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
I understand what you're saying and have no disagreement with you.
I'm not even sure that 'government' is the right organ to manage the provision of assistance to the genuinely needy.
A close friend of mine has over the years - completely out of the goodness of her own heart, taken it upon herself to take in some homeless people, and help them to get on their feet living a productive and decent life. The state played no part. Obviously not everyone can do that, but there many ways of helping a person outside of the traditional models. Should we abdicate that helping solely to the government? I'm not sure we should. Another friend of mine - a wealthy and successful professional, volunteers some hours of his week as a cook in a project that feeds the very poor. It's a great project and he loves playing a part in it.
I understand what you're saying and have no disagreement with you.
I'm not even sure that 'government' is the right organ to manage the provision of assistance to the genuinely needy.
A close friend of mine has over the years - completely out of the goodness of her own heart, taken it upon herself to take in some homeless people, and help them to get on their feet living a productive and decent life. The state played no part. Obviously not everyone can do that, but there many ways of helping a person outside of the traditional models. Should we abdicate that helping solely to the government? I'm not sure we should. Another friend of mine - a wealthy and successful professional, volunteers some hours of his week as a cook in a project that feeds the very poor. It's a great project and he loves playing a part in it.
Last edited:
lkwdblds
Crusader
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
Should we abdicate out helping solely to the government? Of course not! That is a terrible thing to do. The blunt reality, however, is that in a government of the type that Obama is pursuing, the government takes more money from wage earners, especially the "most fortunate among us", and doles it out to whomever it feels is being treated unfairly by life. This has several adverse effects!
First, money is removed from the hands of individuals. Let's say an upper middle class person paid $30,000 in taxes last year and donated $5,000 to charities. This year his income has not gone up but his taxes go up to say $33,000. With this new tax burden, he is unable to donate $5000 to charity and gives $2,000 instead.
Next, people who have not earned money but have taken it from the labor of others tend not to be prudent when spending that money. There is usually an enormous amount of waste taking place in their handling of money as well as pay offs, graft, cronyism, corruption and all of that.
That leads to a third point in that a much lower percentage of the funds earmarked for charity are likely to reach charities when the government makes a donation compared to when an individual citizen makes a donation.
Lakey
Should we abdicate out helping solely to the government? Of course not! That is a terrible thing to do. The blunt reality, however, is that in a government of the type that Obama is pursuing, the government takes more money from wage earners, especially the "most fortunate among us", and doles it out to whomever it feels is being treated unfairly by life. This has several adverse effects!
First, money is removed from the hands of individuals. Let's say an upper middle class person paid $30,000 in taxes last year and donated $5,000 to charities. This year his income has not gone up but his taxes go up to say $33,000. With this new tax burden, he is unable to donate $5000 to charity and gives $2,000 instead.
Next, people who have not earned money but have taken it from the labor of others tend not to be prudent when spending that money. There is usually an enormous amount of waste taking place in their handling of money as well as pay offs, graft, cronyism, corruption and all of that.
That leads to a third point in that a much lower percentage of the funds earmarked for charity are likely to reach charities when the government makes a donation compared to when an individual citizen makes a donation.
Lakey
- Status