chasteh

>From Wendy's post (I'm sure you've read it, since you used the term so much since then Yep. And it is only valid if you do not provide justification for saying it. Remember, the idea is preserving the reason why you disagreed, not simply disagreeing. Your evaluation of my post (a hasty generalization of republicans - as you claim) is not on my post. That is why you need to "try again." Thanks. >the only person you're making sense to is YOU. How do yo know that? You don't. Were you going to show how my post depended on your listening or not listening to Rush Limbaugh, or were you just looking to spill some blood? Thanks. (edit:) I did slam your slack-jawed friends though. Fuckin hilarious. I didn't, however, say "The entire conservative/republican party," now did I?

Stalking RushMC? He and I had a fairly lengthy quarrel over PMs recently. Oh yea, and just to add: I said on my very second post, on my very first thread - that I had been stalking all of you for years.

I have never met Kallend before, and I do not know who kallend is. I will admit, however, as billvon knows, I have used other screen names in the past to get around a ban. Oh man it was quite a fu nny escapade. I think bill actually enjoyed it, anyways. They were genius names, too. Chasteh Chasteh1 Chasteh2 Chasteh3 hetsahc brilliant, right? Oh, and there have been occasions where kallend has disagreed with me... I think it was in thee... oohhh what thread..... I think it was one of the religion threads. Can't remember. edit: Oh yea, I actually think your responses are pretty bright myself. Well, you know, unless you 1) contradicted yourself or 2) posted based on a hasty generalization. (This one)

If it is indeed a rock, and I am false, where in those posts did I paint the entire republican party? Hmm? Got it yet?

>Um, yes. Can they do it themselves? Then they don't need your help and it should thus be provided to those who need it You, and mntealtx, and everyone else who claims the Dems say "You cannot do it without our help, you need us" paints the picture differently than it actually is. You make it seem like the democrats are actually telling people that they are helpless and must for vote big uncle sam's help. That is false, and you know it. >"No thank you. I tripped. But I can get myself up." "No you can't. Let us show you how. Gravity is set up to make it difficult." You are painting the picture to favor your position. >That fucking guy should think the way he's told. Yea. Like the one black guy in the republican party should do. Again, you've assumed that you and the republican party are not guilty as such - th us it is easier for you to paint them all (edit: the dems) as controlling and authoritarian. Aren't you a lawyer? Ya might work a little bit harder here - maybe use, you know... compelling means to convince us that the democratic party is comprised only of people who are 1) targeting black voters, 2) targeting poor people, 3) telling them that they cannot do anything without the government's help. If your position wasn't littered with "let's protect our wealth and convince everyone the democratic party is evil" then I might be more convinced of your position. Cmon lawrocket, I would have expected you to be less bigoted. What have yo done with the real lawrocket? This one is not him. Where is he? Have you taken his soul? (Assuming he had one, of course - do lawyers have souls?) >As opposed to just caring about people. Why care about people? There's no racial identity in it. Instead let's just lie to them and tell them that fulfilling our self interest will actually benefit them by providing them jobs. Those fools, they have no fucking clue that were actually using our position as a ploy to move more of the pot in our direction - legally, of course. What better method is there of controlling the masses than convincing them that they are free to act and choose in any way they please - only if they get a job, buy my products, and and fit in like all the other pawns that keep me going!

Kinda sad, huh? There are very few these days who actually care about the interests of the U.S. and its constitution. Unfortunately, they don't stay in the spotlight long enough for people to even grasp what their message is. Well... scratch that... it would be difficult for that message to be heard anyways.

>You obviously missed the part where I said I've never listened to him. As if my comments depended on your listening to him. >What was that bit about a 'rhetorical fallacy used to paint an entire political party", again? Besides hypocrisy, that is... Not applicable to my post, thats what it was. Try harder, please. Thanks.

Well, you know, except we didn't in my post.

At what point did president Bush earn it, just out curiosity? Was it during his stellar military service in the Air National Guard? Or was it when president Bush was "Not a Pussy Democrat?" Does being a Pussy democrat make you not the kind of leader that gets you military support? What kind of leader, since you know, does get you widespread military support?

You are a poopie head! "NO, YOU are a poopie head!" - RushMC You were first! "No, YOU were first!" - RushMC

That might be I why I don't call it capitalism. Unfortunately, not hiring those leaches means that within the U.S. society they don't get the deal they need with each transaction. They would produce while someone else tries to fuck them out of what their product is worth. Hence, "you can do that now" isn't really applicable.

>The adjudicators are the NTSB - I would put them in WHOLE different Are you kidding? The NTSB investigates crashes and incidents of fatal or non-fatal nature. The FAA writes the regulations and administers the certificates. (And can take them away.) NTSB Part 830 is actually within the Federal Aviation Regulations book, not vice versa. >Also according to the FAA Website, per occurance 50K is all that can fined per occurance for an individual that is not a Nope. My medical application says $250,000.

>Look at any restaurant. Who's working "harder"; the dishwasher or the cute chicks at the reservation desk? I experienced this first hand. The dishwasher probably works the hardest, then the cooks, then the sever's assistants, then the servers. The servers are there for half the time, and make much, much more - especially at the fine-dining restaurant I cooked for.

>Exactly Great. So we agree then. Fuck profit incentives. Hooray for actually producing things for people! >They do take a slice, but their justification is their "piece" generally is in the extra profits made for all involved. Yep. Fuck it. >You can produce the best "product" in the world but without salespeople, consultants, etc. It's not likely to be used or even produced by more people. Fine with that. I can do away with marketing executives and advertising ploys. You, again, are assuming that there will be a need to market the good to more poeple in the world - again, you are assuming there is a profit motive. If there is no profit from production, there is no need to tour the world with it - unless, of course, you wanted to trade your product with someone else's. Profit is not needed for this. >I would consider entrepreneurs producers. Did you by chance mean venture capitalists? You would? So they actually get out on the assembly line and work huh? Interesting. You could probably file venture capitalists as the same. Non- producers, yet owners of capital and the means to employ the people who actually produce. >So is this a barter based society? No money? Even so you'll have "profit" in form of extra product which can be used to trade for other goods and services. This is far different from selling something to another person above your cost to produce it. That is what I am against. Production is for an end in itself; it is not for salespeople. >>Considering the U.S. is a profit-driven capitalistic society, I guess it wouldn't work if profit were taken out of the equation. >True, we're kinda seeing the start of that now. And by "work" I mean the capitalistic mode of production would be destroyed, merely because profit seekers depend on...well... profit... Again, producing a surplus is totally allowable. However, a salesperson earning a slice by marketing the product is not acceptable. He is not producing. He is a leach. >It is? Yes. Cave men and women produced for the purposes of survival, until they finally produced enough to create other goods. There is room for this in my utopia - really, the room is there in capitalism as well, except the wealth-building motives get in the way. >How do you convince them to contribute? No force, and no profit. Oh yea, no theft. The incentive to produce still exists because 1) of survival and 2) because there are other goods to consume. Wealth-building is not an essential feature of trade. It is an essential feature of greed. >So a certain percentage of what they "produce" is used for that purpose? Absolutely not. I have said this several times already. There are other functional societies out there besides capitalism and communism. People do, actually, have other ideas that can work. Speaking of work - everyone contributes in some way. No one functions as a "private contractor" merely for the purposes of promoting a product and then reaping the rewards of that success. That person, first, must actually create something. >If there is was no real reward, why would someone risk it? You already mentioned that those that produced more got more so the question is sort of null and void The rewards are still very real. See above. Null and void? You mean that there is a contradiction being able to produce more for your own benefit and earning profit. The difference is that the profit comes from reducing the cost of your inputs and selling the good at a higher price than those inputs cost. Because this society's function is producing as an end in itself, this process of "up-selling" is no longer existent.

>What?? And risk a jar of Pace Picante sauce to cost over $100? Salsa would become a commodity. Although. . .(thinking. . .thinking) You call that shit salsa? Where I am from, you don't need to have colonoscopy cleanings.

So tell us, Streescooby, what is hard work? At what point is your definition of hard work the only definition of hard work - and why is this explicitly clear? >These things should be self evident. Well... they aren't though. What makes something "hard work"?

>but obviously you don't know fuck about Miss Lucky Not as much as you claim to know about ethics and Regulations.

You never thought she would be on a boat? Miss independeent, oooh, miss indepeeendeent

By golly, where do people defend themselves against the Federal Aviation Administration, then? Your response is very, very short. Perhaps you could delve further into how laws that you prefer to break are any less sensitive to society than an illegal immigrant is, given how much damage it can cause. I have only provided examples as to how your actions in a sport can do it. Oh yea, and as far as homework goes, who determines whether or not an action is right or wrong? At what point does breaking a law become morally correct or incorrect? How does the United States government's authority make something right or wrong, in actuality? They are illegal or legal, not right and wrong. Social Contract theory. Go read about it. Oh yea, and stop acting like your this champion of legal activity. If you really supported upholding the law then you would put forth far greater effort into incriminating yourself than you are willing to do. Crap. >You are. Did you just throw a "rock" at me?

>It's all about incentive or disencentive. Ideally a system with both. In a profit based system it is about incentive. In a society where you have to actually work to survive, your incentive is survival, and then producing to gain whatever extra you want. You can still have a system where there is trade. Unfortunately, the free-marketeer assumes that there has to be a profit motive to have a market. The problem isn't the market, it is the fact that producers only do so to benefit themselves with wealth. Thus, we have a society filled with salesmen, consultants, entrepreneurs, all of which do not produce - they earn money by marketing something and taking a slice of the profit. >With no profit allowed the whole incentive base is "for the good of your society" Actually, you can produce in excess and trade that to get more for yourself. The problem is that the production within today's American society is not for producing for people- or even yourself, it is for collecting profit. >which I do not believe would work in american society. Considering the U.S. is a profit-driven capitalistic society, I guess it wouldn't work if profit were taken out of the equation. >So this would mainly be a disencentive based system. False, for the above reasons. >What would you do to force people to work/contribute? Nothing. Don't assume, like you already have, that you have to either force people to work or explain to them that they can earn wealth to have productivity. That is a horrible, horrible folly. >Which means people would only do as little as they had to and feel they are entitled to it and more. You are assuming the society is stuck as a provider of welfare. That argument might work against socialism and giving people sustenance without question, but that isn't within my premises, now is it? >Very little new thinking, no innovation, etc. because "selfish" people would not bother as there is nothing in it for them. Mmm no they still can innovate and invent, and when they produce a new good they will have something of value for society and themselves. Where in that does there have to be profit, or businessmen working to steal a deal out of the product? There doesn't. >You mentioned the immigration issues in the past: the Chinese, the Irish, the Italians. They had it much harder than the illegal immigrants of today. I did? >They were exploited way worse by businesses looking for cheap labor. They managed to overcome and integrate into society. Yet they either remained poor or ended up working property (well, stealing it I mean). >They didn't get gov't assistance and start demanding services in their native language. Mmmm we will leave it up to a factfinder for that. But let's assume your right. What comparison does this have to what I said? edit: Oh yea, ever hear of the homestead act? >Personally, I'm very independent. If I want something enough, I'll figure out how to get it. Wait a minute, why doesn't that apply in my utopia, again? It sounds like you have motivation already - outside of profit-making. If you want food an shelter badly enough, you will go get it. If you want to add more to your possessions, you will go produce as such. Trade is still very much a part of the system. >I don't generally like feeling like I was "given" something as I tend to not appreciate it as much or even just take it for granted. I feel that the more people are given things, the less they truly have... Cute. Who is giving it to you, again? Producing for society doesn't mean that there is no exchange. It just does not occur in a way that underpays capital, labor, or raw material providers for the benefit or earning profit.

>... I do shower OOhhh. Might be too fancy for me. I thought we were workin out for a second!

>Of course not, but our free will is a part of His plan. Uh oh. Well wait a minute now, do we have free will? Did god give us free will? If god gave us free will, why did we have to take it? Does that make us free? Also, if our free will is part of his plan, how is it still free will? That sounds more like the imposition of a free-will delusion complex for the purposes of meeting God's goal, not necessarily free will.

>No you are right, you have a bunch of business majors who had an "easy" life at university thinking that any two toed monkey can do the job of the engineer Well I don't k now that it was necessarily easy for them to go to business school, stay there, and ending up passing all of their courses. My brother is a BS in Business Administration - Management. I know that he did his damndest to stay in school and finish. Yet, I still think his career choice is an exploitation of the efforts of others. The career does involve work, it does involve effort. However, I think in productivity value the field is absolutely worthless. It does make others pay more for the product, but it does not make the product itself more useful - nor does it create more of them - it may provide funds to create more of the product, though. It focuses primarily on increasing profit and getting a sliver of it. One monkey gets more bananas for a pile, and he either takes it for himself or takes some of it as payment for providing it to an employer. The monkeys aren't left with more bananas, only one monkey found a technique for getting more bananas than the other person. This is a common rationalization of the free-market system. "We are producing more for society." Well, maybe. Your goal is producing more to sell it and move more wealth in your direction, not producing for society, silly profiteers. I think engineers could solve many more of of humanity's problems were they not in a position that required them to sell their services, nor to think of the resale value of their services. Engineers are highly useful people - the free market dynamic and it's profiteers do not know how to use that for society's advantage, only theirs.

>Do the same with your examples? Show us, please, where it says that it is breaking a federal LAW to accidentally jump into a cloud. Cloud clearance requirements are laid out in FAR PART 91.155: http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFar.nsf/FARSBySectLookup/91.155 >What are the fines and penalties? Suspension or revocation of an airman certificate, including: Pilots licenses Operators certificates Airport access priveleges Placement on the TSA's No Fly list I'd hate to say this because I like skydivers, the sport, and the people that are in it - but you know fuck about the system that you get yourself into every time you get in and out of the airplane. You know fuck about the legal, meteorological, and the rest of the eternal list that comprises aviation and how it functions. Sorry... It had to be said. The people who work to make it happen are the ones who know: The operators, the pilots, the riggers, the FAA and its ATC representatives, and so on. The benefit? You have next to nothing to lose as a skydiver. What license do you have to lose? What are they going to do? Take your A- license? Nope. It is not an FAA certificate, and they are not involved in your certification. However, FAR part 105 says what the Federal Code of Regulations (ya know, that Federal word - the LAW) says must occur within the operation, among Part 91, 61, 43, and so on. They will shut down the operation instead, and take the pilot's certificates - ruin his career, and you will ruin a business and piss a lot of other people off. (People who jump at that DZ) That sounds like you, as a skydiver, can end up really fucking up a lot of peoples lives by breaking a law. Guess what - the FAA does watch. You never know when they could be at your DZ. They came to ours and ramp checked our entire fleet last week. We passed. >What court adjudicates the offences and charges? The U.S. Federal court does, if i'm not mistaken. I have been fortunate enough to not have an issue with the FAA. Oh yea, they also do fine people for breaking the FARs. As an airman, I will be fined $250,000 dollars for even falsifying an Airman Medical certificate. Thats a pretty big offense. Unfortunately, the SIM doesn't list any of that. What does it have for meteorology? A half a page of weather information? What does it have for FAA regulations? Six pages?

Ohh I see. Actually, there you are just an employee. Employees are merely in place to do things that machines cannot do yet. The employer/manager looks at you like you are a piece of capital, but there is a recurring cost for your services; So if the employer can find a way to hire someone for a lower wage, they will be more than happy to do it. These are among the many reasons I despise managers. Profit and movement to a higher echelon is the goal, not producing for the sake of providing a useful product or contributing to society. If we kept going here, we would have made this thread more appropriate for the speaker's corner, I think.