Disgusted with obama administration - Part II

• gut

  HelloAgain;1654689 wrote: Is "profit-motivated decision" the new branding for greed? If so, that's damn clever.

  You do realize only the govt can lose money and continue to employ people?
• HelloAgain

  gut;1654695 wrote:You do realize only the govt can lose money and continue to employ people?

  What does that have to do with this brilliant re-branding of the word greed?
• believer

  

  HelloAgain;1654700 wrote:What does that have to do with this brilliant re-branding of the word greed?

  Gotcha... Profit = Greed
• HelloAgain

  believer;1654709 wrote:Gotcha... Profit = Greed

  Again, no one said that.
  
  I think using the term "profit-motivated decision" in place of the more commonly used "greed" to describe callous decisions that led to "tragic results" is strange phrasing and perhaps disingenuous. Would you agree?
• gut

  HelloAgain;1654710 wrote:...is strange phrasing and perhaps disingenuous. Would you agree?

  As opposed to the commonly accepted definition [of poor people] that greed is simply whatever they think is too much money? Again, only the govt is in business to employ people irrespective of profit & productivity.
• HelloAgain

  gut;1654721 wrote:As opposed to the commonly accepted definition [of poor people] that greed is simply whatever they think is too much money? Again, only the govt is in business to employ people irrespective of profit & productivity.

  I'm not seeing what one incorrect definition has to do with another.
  
  You're coming across like the kid tugging on his parent's shirts trying to shift the focus of the convo they're already having. You're typically better than this at providing relevant input.
  
  Do you think it's fair to attribute many of the tragedies surrounding workers and citizens in the 2nd industrial revolution to greed? Or is the intent, if not the consequences, justified by "profit motivated decisions?"
• believer

  

  HelloAgain;1654710 wrote:I think using the term "profit-motivated decision" in place of the more commonly used "greed" to describe callous decisions that led to "tragic results" is strange phrasing and perhaps disingenuous. Would you agree?

  Not at all. Hard-core socialists/"progressives"/liberals like yourself almost always equate "profit" to "greed". The negative connotations behind the word "greed" is a convenient excuse to condemn capitalism as a whole. It gives folks like you some moral justification in demonizing and masking the obvious overall economic benefits of capitalism.
  
  Profits is the fuel that drives capitalism. Without it there is no innovation, no creativity, no re-investment, and certainly no jobs.
  
  That's not to deny that greed does not exist in profit-motivated business decisions. Of course it does. Greed is an unfortunate element in capitalism that is in fact fueled by profits.
  
  The beauty of capitalism is that the system in and of itself has enough safeguards in place through the marketplace itself and through regulation to ultimately weed out the negative consequences of excessive greed. But profit in and of itself does not cause floods and deaths of the "oppressed" working masses.
  
  A reasonable person cannot deny that capitalism, fueled by profit and despite its sometimes greedy imperfections, has provided far more economic mobility and quality of life improvements for far more people than socialism (and it's evil cousin communism) ever hopes to achieve.
• gut

  HelloAgain;1654723 wrote:Do you think it's fair to attribute many of the tragedies surrounding workers and citizens in the 2nd industrial revolution to greed? Or is the intent, if not the consequences, justified by "profit motivated decisions?"

  No, I really don't. Are racing deaths because of greed? Technology and safety rules are an evolving process just like anything else. Sure, there are some rich sociopaths just like there are in any other walk of life, but only people who've never sat in a board room would say a significant number of owners put profits ahead of worker welfare.
  
  You sound like many people who have never spent any time in a board room and are completely clueless to how businesses are run. This isn't 1960 any more, work place injuries and lost time accidents are front and center for these "greedy" corporations because, surprise, we've learned doing it wrong costs more than doing it right (irrespective of fines and govt regulation).
• Belly35

  

  Make this simple so some with their heads up their ass can understand.
  
  Profit, Greed, Money, Wealth, Entrepreneurs ….. = Cell Phone, Computers, Air Condition, Airplanes, Dishwasher, Yoga Pants, Windows, Espresso, Fast Food, Cars, Trucks, Ammo, Health Food, Net fix, Flat Screen, Open Heart Surgery, Fry Baby, Gas Grills, Flea Markets, Roads, Sheet Metal, Police, Fire and EMS ….. Freedom, Liberty, Prosperity, Comfort, Education .. just to list a few.
  …. Individuals with a dream, ambition and fortitude provide what you presently enjoy everyday and in return they built it and they can reap the rewards so others can invent, manufacture and develop more, better stuff…
• believer

  

  gut;1654764 wrote:You sound like many people who have never spent any time in a board room and are completely clueless to how businesses are run. This isn't 1960 any more, work place injuries and lost time accidents are front and center for these "greedy" corporations because, surprise, we've learned doing it wrong costs more than doing it right (irrespective of fines and govt regulation).

  reps
• HelloAgain

  believer;1654746 wrote:Not at all. Hard-core socialists/"progressives"/liberals like yourself almost always equate "profit" to "greed". The negative connotations behind the word "greed" is a convenient excuse to condemn capitalism as a whole. It gives folks like you some moral justification in demonizing and masking the obvious overall economic benefits of capitalism.

  Could you point out where I've done any of that here or expressed any "socialist" ideals? We're discussing a very specific time in history and a few specific acts which I think anyone would condemn. Your use of "profit motivated decision" was intriguing phrasing to describe such events and I was curious about your motivations. Condemning actions based on greed from a century ago isn't condemning capitalism as a whole.
  

  gut;1654764 wrote:No, I really don't. Are racing deaths because of greed? Technology and safety rules are an evolving process just like anything else. Sure, there are some rich sociopaths just like there are in any other walk of life, but only people who've never sat in a board room would say a significant number of owners put profits ahead of worker welfare.
  
  You sound like many people who have never spent any time in a board room and are completely clueless to how businesses are run. This isn't 1960 any more, work place injuries and lost time accidents are front and center for these "greedy" corporations because, surprise, we've learned doing it wrong costs more than doing it right (irrespective of fines and govt regulation).

  Again, we're not talking about present day. I'm curious as to your opinions of the time period we were discussing. I agree that regulations have come a long way since then, partially because as a society we decided these "profit-motivated" decision tragedies were unacceptable.
  
  You answered the question with "no I don't" but then began talking about racing, the 1960's, and corporate board rooms, all things irrelevant to the question at hand.
  
  Do you think it's fair to attribute many of the tragedies surrounding workers and citizens in the 2nd industrial revolution to greed? And do you think the regulation resulting from those tragedies has been fair or unjust?
• gut

  HelloAgain;1655039 wrote:\
  Do you think it's fair to attribute many of the tragedies surrounding workers and citizens in the 2nd industrial revolution to greed?

  No, I don't. The above is an ignorant meme. Apparently I wasn't clear enough - PROGRESS. It wasn't greed, but progress that would have happened anyway for a variety of reasons. It's not greed the first time a machine malfunctions but a learning curve. Rich people really aren't that different from anyone else - this liberal shtick to paint success as evil murderers is bullshit. The industrial titans of our past were innovators who had to solve unfortunate problems and challenges.
  
  It's really callous (and irrational) to think most people, after a fairly modest "rich" point, put money above everything else. Most are cheap, but cheap is very different from greed. Usually it's not mentoned that some of this nations greatest benefactors have been its wealthiest citizens...doesn't play well with the meme. Unless you believe they are "greedy" so they can give more to charity, which is an oxymoron only a liberal could conflate.
  
  Seriously, abandon all humanity and empathy and decency tomorrow and go make a billion dollars - I mean, all it takes is the attitude to screw your neighbor. Right? because greed is the main driver for success. Go do that and then buy this website from Justin for $10M, you know, because you've become a nice charitable rich dude.
  
  So I attribute the tragedies to a learning curve and growing pains of emerging industry, not greed. Simple enough for you?
• HelloAgain

  gut;1655700 wrote:So I attribute the tragedies to a learning curve and growing pains of emerging industry, not greed. Simple enough for you?

  That explanation plays for some of tragedies, but not sure it's a logical explanation for things like the Triangle Shirtwaist fire, the Johnstown Flood, the Homestead Strike, etc.
• BGFalcons82

  

  How long until the ISIS/ISIL flag is as popular as the Che Guevara image on t-shirts?
• pmoney25

  

  Probably not long since they are the most destructive and unstoppable force in human history. Greece, Rome, Napoleon France, England, Hitler, Soviet Russia and even The United States can't top these guys.
• BGFalcons82

  

  If Climate Change is responsible for all of the fires in Cali, the monsoon in Arizona and the outbreak of tornados this summer, then is it equally responsible for the lack of powerful hurricanes the past few years, the cool summer and the glorious September weather in store for the next 10 days?
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  BGFalcons82;1656925 wrote:If Climate Change is responsible for all of the fires in Cali, the monsoon in Arizona and the outbreak of tornados this summer, then is it equally responsible for the lack of powerful hurricanes the past few years, the cool summer and the glorious September weather in store for the next 10 days?

  Weather is separate from climate, but sure.
  As long as people acknolwdge that the climate is changing, I do not care either way.
  Our weather has been great, but out west is still in an awful drought.
• believer

  

  ptown_trojans_1;1656931 wrote:Weather is separate from climate, but sure.
  As long as people acknolwdge that the climate is changing, I do not care either way.
  Our weather has been great, but out west is still in an awful drought.

  Weather isn't necessarily separate from climate. Climate is simply weather measured over time.
  
  Yes - the climate changes. It has since the Earth was formed. I'm simply far from convinced that long-term climate change is caused by human activity. Interaction between Earth's atmosphere and the sun, on the other hand, is a lot more believable.
  
  Droughts, floods, cold spells, warm spells, tornadoes, hurricanes, etc. happened long before we started burning fossil fuels to drive the eeeevil capitalist industrial machine.
  
  Plus reliable, measurable changes in climate will take a lot more time than the century or two (at most) we've had to reasonably and accuratly do so. True observations of climate change should be measured by monitoring weather patterns over long periods of time.
  
  And forget "computer models". LMAO Computer models are as reliable as the data being fed into the database. If a scientist or university receives gubmint money to "prove" that man-made climate change is reality, for example, you can bet the ranch the data they collect will reflect just that...even if the "books need cooked" a little so to speak.
• believer

  

  ptown_trojans_1;1656931 wrote:Weather is separate from climate, but sure.
  As long as people acknolwdge that the climate is changing, I do not care either way.
  Our weather has been great, but out west is still in an awful drought.

  Weather isn't necessarily separate from climate. Climate is simply weather measured over time.
  
  Yes - the climate changes. It has since the Earth was formed. I'm simply far from convinced that long-term climate change is caused by human activity. Interaction between Earth's atmosphere and the sun, on the other hand, is a lot more believable.
  
  Droughts, floods, cold spells, warm spells, tornadoes, hurricanes, etc. happened long before we started burning fossil fuels to drive the eeeevil capitalist industrial machine.
  
  Plus reliable, measurable changes in climate will take a lot more time than the century or two (at most) we've had to reasonably and accurately do so. True observations of climate change should be measured by monitoring weather patterns over long periods of time.
  
  And forget "computer models". LMAO Computer models are as reliable as the data being fed into the database. If a scientist or university receives gubmint money to "prove" that man-made climate change is reality, for example, you can bet the ranch the data they collect will reflect just that...even if the "books need cooked" a little so to speak.
• HelloAgain

  In a 2002 memo to President George W. Bush titled "The Environment: A Cleaner, Safer, Healthier America", obtained by the Environmental Working Group, Luntz wrote: "The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science.... Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field."

  ..
• QuakerOats

  http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/1-4-americans-25-54-not-working_806178.html
  
  
  Staggering.
  
  
  barack obama remains the King of Debt, and the Master of Unemployment.
• BGFalcons82

  

  Steve Kroft should turn in his journalist license, put on his Hopey Changey button, get on his knees and lather up Barry's ass. To sit there and nod his head up n down in agreement with wholesale lies spewed by the King of Amerika isn't journalism, it's campaigning. He is the Tool of the Month. Congrats, doucebag.
• QuakerOats

  I quit watching that garbage show a long time ago.
• BGFalcons82

  

  QuakerOats;1658543 wrote:I quit watching that garbage show a long time ago.

  Low Information Voters drool over it!
• Classyposter58

  

  Uh 60 minutes is one of the best true journalistic outputs in America. I would say easily WSJ is #1 but then probably 60 Minutes is #2