Ah, I see who you are now. Never mind the reasoned response I had typed up, I'm not getting into another pointless argument with another nynco.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hound
Printable View
Ah, I see who you are now. Never mind the reasoned response I had typed up, I'm not getting into another pointless argument with another nynco.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hound
Just because I don't feel like going back to the "Robber Baron" age does not mean I am all Socialist/Marxist or whatever BS you want to lable it. As with most all of my posts I look for moderation and try to learn from history. I have agreed with both Ronin and Bailey on occasion and not on others. I don't believe in an Aristocracy wither it be by blood or money, that is kinda what got the Constitution written in the first place, remember that? The times of the "Company Store" did nothing but squash the dreams of the common man creating indentured servitude for many Americans. That was a time when Capitalism was unregulated. Mean while one of the greatest times for America was when the returning WWII GI's had the GI Bill and top tax rate 90%. This is a time when Capitalism was regulated. This did not stop John Wayne from owning a mansion or going on trips. We still had very wealthy people like Hughes running around building companies and creating jobs. It was just a more fair time. No I don't support billionaires like Romney or Gates getting tax breaks. I don't support GE not paying taxes. No regulations, we get the 20's and Depression or 2008 Great Recession. Moderate regulation such as the 50's and 60's, not so bad. Over regulation like the 70's not good either. Again, I think there is a happy medium. I don't think either side has all of the answers. Another good time economically... Clinton... Why..... Split government. Both sides had to / and did work with each other.
Yeah. It's all about being fair. Got it.
Great to know "Fairness" is not an American ideal anymore.... That might be part of whats wrong with todays America.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
No the problem is that the language has been redefined so "fairness" means you or the guy down the street gets to reach into my pocket and take what King Obama thinks I don't deserve. REAL fairness is still an American ideal but redistributive "fairness" has never been an American value until recently. TR's Square Deal didn't mean a 40% tax rate and he didn't say he'd "let them keep a fair share" (statement from his FIRST YEAR in office -- WTF, Bozo actually thinks money belongs to the public and we should be grateful he lets us keep some of what we work for).Quote:
Originally Posted by Hound
American ideals historically were that we work hard or smart and the government stays out of the way -- and keeps others from interfering unfairly -- and we get to keep the fruits of our labor. Anyone subscribing to the European socialist ideal ought to migrate to Sweden or France and make room for some of those immigrants who are willing to work for the fruits of their labor.
"Fairness" never was an American ideal in terms of anything other than opportunity. "Fairness" is a liberal buzzword that's code for redistribution.
ETA: Appears Aloha beat me to it.
Is fairness of opportunity still an American ideal?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
Not if you're a leftist. Then it's all about fairness of outcome.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rucker61
No shit sherlock, ya think? My thread was after that one, and there was one before that, which we found and also merged. How many threads do you think we merge daily due to reposts? Congratulations, you're right, I should have taken the extra time to research the first thread, and revised my thread and the link I was given to reflect the first thread. Yup, that would have been well worth it. You get a cookie, and to get to feel way better about yourself for discovering and repeatedly pointing out my error.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter
So for a conservative, fairness of opportunity is still an ideal? How about fairness of treatment by the .gov? Was the treatment of conservative groups by the IRS fair? I see a lot of Humpty Dumpty word defining going on in these types of threads, and that makes it difficult to present a cogent argument in a civil discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
Rucker, that's a ridiculous question. Have you seen anyone here defending the IRS actions as "fair" or appropriate? Have you heard anyone even from the gov't defending what happened? I haven't. I've heard a lot of backpedaling and passing the buck. The Obama administration can't condemn it in harsh enough terms. No. It wasn't "fair". It was probably criminal and should be treated as such.
Bullshit. [bs] I have to pull out that flag right here right now... Did you learn that in a public school (age dependent)? Because it's a lie. Clinton presided over a good economy because of a few factors no one gives any credence to because that's the way the liberal MSM and school system plays the game. Factor 1- Reagan. Clinton rode those coat tails after the full effect of Reaganomics and the Reagan era tax cuts and spending cuts settled in. Factor 2- Congress. Clinton wanted to send spending through the roof (like our current guy), but due to a mostly Republican and very fiscally conservative Congress, he was held at bay and the economy was able to go up, up and away. Of course, this led to lax banking regulations, Fannie and Freddie and that led to a huge problem later down the road (around 7-9 years down the road no less- and look who gets the blame, Mr. Bush).Quote:
Originally Posted by Hound
In terms of fairness, to answer your other point:
There are only a few things you're guaranteed as an American- Life, liberty, PURSUIT of happiness. You aren't promised happiness, just the pursuit of it. You get fair and equal treatment under the law. That's it. You are not promised a "fair" or even equal wage, but that's the double edged sword of freedom. Not getting paid the same as your neighbor? You're free to quit your job and get a better paying one, you're free to work harder and get a raise, but you're not entitled to the same pay just because you live in the same neighborhood and live in comparable houses. Don't like it? Want fairness like that? Cuba, China, there are some Communist nations out there where they operate like that, but here, we have a- mostly- free market, capitalist society. Now, I better not see Hound at an Occupy Denver rally with a sign that says "Capitalism=Bad."
Let me apologize for giving you the impression that I was really criticizing your merger, saying you made a mistake or trying annoy a moderator. My original intent was really to poke fun at the hypersensitivity I've seen lately on "reposts" -- just reacted too fast to the "look at the date" comment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omicron
Again, my apologies.
I'd love to agree with you, but I can't figure out if you like fair or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
Well you define "fair" for me and I'll tell you if you like it or not.
It's not a word that's easily defined, but you've hit on the missing ingredient of every back-and-forth discussion here: accepted definition of terms. In my mathematics studies, when creating a cogent, logical argument, the first step is to define all terms that will be used, so that the reader can't understand how they are used in the basis of your argument. It's accepted that the denitions so presented may be only accepted in the context of the argument and are not necessarily universal. Let's take the words "fair" and "fairness" used here, and because you're thick skinned, I'll pick on you. First you sarvastically answer Hound with "It's all about fair", presumably implying that you think that "fair", not yet defined by explanation or context, is not a desirable trait. You follow with a paraphrased statement that "fairness of opportunity is good" but "fairness of outcome" is bad, and then (again paraphrasing) "...not fair, and likely should be criminally prosecuted". In a few short posts you've gone from Fair: bad, good, bad, good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
Just look at the trouble we had defining conservative/liberal. I'd say that the statement "Being a Liberal is bad" would have near 100% acceptance here. The statement "Having any Liberal positions is bad" would be less likely to have the same level of acclaim, given the opinions posted here on gay marriage and legalized marijuana. I'm not sure what percentage acceptance we'd get on "having x percent Liberal opinions makes you a Liberal". I don't think it's definable in general, but only in context. Anyone here may certainly agree or disagree with that statement, should we populate the variable, and no one would be right or wrong.
And I think you probably know me well enough from other conversations to know which definitions of "fair" I'd probably be OK with and which I wouldn't.
Indeed I do, but does Hound?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
[pick-me]Quote:
Originally Posted by Rucker61
It doesn't take a rocket scientist (or in your case a world-class mathematician) to figure out:
I'll break it down, Barney style for ya-
1) "fairness of opportunity is good" everyone gets a fair shot at opportunity, meaning we all have the same opportunities, ground down to the skin and bones of it- you're in America, you have the chance to do just about whatever you want... next point though,
2) "fairness of outcome" - to mean that while we have a shot at it, we're not guaranteed success with that opportunity. Some win, some lose, the only guarantee is your attempt, not the outcome of that attempt.
3) then there's fair treatment under the law- we all have these things called "rights", we're born with them. We have a right to face our accuser, we have a right to trial by a jury of our peers, and we have a right to not receive strange and unusual punishment. Thus it's only "fair" that we are all subject to the same justice system (now this is a little cloudy since there are several cases where this is not quite accurate, but on paper that's how it's supposed to work).
I had no problem understanding Bailey, and I think it's not too presumptuous to give Hound the benefit of the doubt and assume that he understands the point as well. Fair opportunity and fair, in the Obama sense of the word, are two very different things.
When I say "fair", what do you think I mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin13
I don't care if Hound does. Since his "no democrats in sight during Katrina" comment he has zero credibility as far as I'm concerned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rucker61
Then why waste your time responding to him?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
For the same reason I respond to you. For the same reason I want my voice heard by politicians with whom I disagree and don't respect. By speaking my mind I'm letting others with a differing viewpoint know there is opposition to their views. They may not care but at least they'll know.
Depends on the context. Bailey provided different context- but when someone starts pushing for "fairness" my ears perk up and I try and catch their context of "fair."Quote:
Originally Posted by Rucker61
If you mean we're all entitled to fair treatment under the law- I'm cool with that.
If you mean we're all entitled to a fair shot at opportunity- Great!
But if you mean everyone (ie: the rich) need to pay their "fair share", GFY... that's socialism.
No sweat, all good man. :) [Flower]Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter
To be accurate, Bailey introduced the word into the discussion with no context.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin13
Regarding the last, you haven't defined "fair share", so I don't know if it's socialism or not. If you believe a flat tax system is fair, then a fair share is the result. Likewise, if a moderate or severe progressive tax system is your idea of fair, then what is a fair share is greatly different. Regardless of whatever system, if any system, you endorse, the results of that system end up with everyone paying their "fair share". See why agreed upon definitions are important.Quote:
If you mean we're all entitled to fair treatment under the law- I'm cool with that.
If you mean we're all entitled to a fair shot at opportunity- Great!
But if you mean everyone (ie: the rich) need to pay their "fair share", GFY... that's socialism.
And without context, you had no idea that by "fair" I meant "ball in play, runners may try to advance".