Yet Another Liberal Praises Despotic Communism
pyjamarama
their sins?
Useful Idiot
By Anders Lewis
FrontPageMagazine.com | December 30, 2003
University of Chicago historian Bruce Cumings is the left's leading
scholar of Korean history. In addition to contributing to documentary
films on Korean life, Cumings has written a massive and highly
critical multi-volume account of the Korean War and published a
general history of Korea, titled Korea's Place in the Sun. And he is
not shy about his opinions. In a 1997 article in The Atlantic he
called for an end to U.S.-Korean hostilities. U.S. troops, he
insisted, should be brought home and relations with North Korea (the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea, or DPRK) should be normalized.
Cumings has also been a critic of other aspects of American foreign
policy. He has participated in broad and spirited debates with
numerous scholars, including John Lewis Gaddis and Ronald Radosh. In
one debate with Radosh he was asked if he thought communism was evil.
He said no, and insisted that large numbers of people enthusiastically
embraced communism. Cumings is also a frequent contributor to The
Nation magazine, where he went on record in opposition to the Bush
administration's successful war to liberate Iraq from Saddam Hussein.
But it is Korea that is Cumings's main focus, and in his new book,
North Korea: Another Country, he sets for himself one basic goal.
Cumings wants to convince Americans to abandon what he considers to be
George Bush's simplistic and dangerous Korean policy.
Cumings believes that North Korea is a misunderstood land. Its leaders
are not dangerous megalomaniacs. Rather, DPRK leaders have always been
pragmatic and nationalistic. During the Cold War, they avoided
dependence on the Soviet Union, created a productive economy, and
improved living standards. The society they created is impressive.
North Korea's streets are clean, its people humble, and crime is
almost non-existent. Kim Il Sung, the father of North Korean
communism, was a "a classic Robin Hood figure" who cared deeply for
his people. North Korea's current leader, Kim Jong Il, is "not the
playboy, womanizer, drunk, and mentally deranged fanatic ‘Dr. Evil' of
our press." Instead he is a "homebody who doesn't socialize much,
doesn't drink much, and works at home in his pajamas." The Dear Leader
also loves to tinker with music boxes, watch James Bond movies, and
play Super Mario video games. The cover of Cumings's book neatly
summarizes his views. On it is a photograph of a group of uniformed
women performing some type of dramatic production for North Korean
soldiers. With smoke in the background, one woman stands tall and
points a gun to the horizon. Coming out of the gun is a red flag.
Everyone looks on in awe. The image implies that under communism,
North Korea's future - though not without struggle - is bright.
Occasionally, reality intrudes on this romantic portrait of North
Korea and Cumings lets slip a polite criticism of the DPRK. Its
leaders, he meekly asserts, are guilty of "hubris" and "technological
fetishism." In general, however, Cumings adopts a decidedly positive
portrait of the DPRK. Consider, for example, his comments on an
election he witnessed in 1987 in Pyongyang. He writes that he "watched
the hoopla at each polling place" and "was struck by the quaint
simplicity of this ritual: a dubious yet effective brass band, old
people bent over canes in the polling lines and accorded the greatest
respect, young couples in their finest dress dancing in the chaste way
I remember from ‘square dances' in the Midwest of the 1950s, and
little kids fooling around while their parents waited to vote." While
getting sappy about his boyhood, Cumings fails to consider what type
of "election" he had witnessed, or how much real choice North Koreans
had during this "quaint" affair.
Cumings is apologetic on behalf of the DPRK. For America, he has
nothing but scorn. American attitudes towards Korea are racist. The
Korean War, in turn, was a U.S. war of aggression that amounted to a
holocaust for the Korean people. The U.S., he contends, had no right
to interfere in Korea because the war was "a civil war, a war fought
by Koreans, for Korean goals." Equally important, after the war, the
U.S. supported a corrupt and dictatorial South Korean government.
Cumings is so filled with Chomskyian anti-Americanism that he places
almost all the blame for whatever problems the North Koreans face on
America's shoulders. Moreover, he insists the U.S., not North Korea,
must compromise on negotiations over nuclear weapons. For Americans to
think otherwise is hypocritical. After all, North Korea would simply
"like to have nuclear weapons like those that the United States
amasses by the thousands." Not surprisingly, Cumings dismisses
criticism of North Korea's 1993 withdrawal from the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty, and praises the Clinton administration's
1994 Agreed Framework, which offered the North Koreans an assortment
of bribes – including economic aid and light-water reactors – so that
they would not develop nuclear weapons. Cumings also insists that the
North Korean withdrawal from the Agreed Framework, which they
announced in October 2002 to Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly,
was understandable given continued American threats. "Diplomacy with
the North," he writes, "is anathema because the Republican right won't
allow it and because the same group that brought us an illegal war
with Iraq wants to overthrow Kim Jong Il…."
Cumings's arguments can not be sustained. On numerous levels his book
fails. Embarrassingly, North Korea: Another Country is plagued with
grammatical errors and typos. For example, in chapter 2 Cumings
references a statement by Condoleeza Rice that, he reports, was
written in 1902. In chapter 3, Cumings writes this about his first
visit to North Korea: "They took me a large pre-twentieth-century
history museum…." In Chapter 6 he writes that UN "estimates of
agricultural production [in North Korea] stood at 4 million tons in
1995, dropping to 2.8 million tons for the each of the next two
years…." There are many other annoying errors. Such mistakes could,
perhaps, be forgiven if it were not for the fact that Cumings himself
attacks more conservative scholars and analysts on the very same
grounds. Hence, he blasts CIA analyst Helen-Louise Hunter for her
ungrammatical usage of certain Korean words. Hunter, he quips, has a
"painfully obvious lack of language facility." Judge not, oh
Professor, that ye be not judged!
There are other problems. Remarkably, Cumings believes it is perfectly
acceptable, even advisable, to use the controlled North Korean press
and North Korean government reports as dependable sources of
information. Thus, in writing about alleged U.S. and South Korean
atrocities committed during the Korean War he refers to a "secret
account by North Korean authorities" that claimed that South Korean
soldiers shot almost 30,000 non-combatants, and that the U.S.
government used a "slave labor" system to punish uncooperative North
Koreans. The report, Cumings writes, "detailed gruesome tortures, and
alleged that 300 female communists and collaborators were placed in
brothels where they were raped continuously…." Reflecting a stunning
lapse of historical judgement, not to mention knowledge of the true
nature of communism, Cumings defends his use of the report by asking
"why would DPRK officials lie to their superiors in secret internal
materials?"
Cumings's most basic problem is the apologetic stance he adopts on
behalf of North Korea. He is unwilling to look the North Korean
government in the eye and call it for what it is: a brutal,
totalitarian state. Instead, he prefers empathy. "Empathy for the
underdog," Cumings explains, is something I can't help, being a
lifelong fan of the Cleveland Indians." To run cover for the DPRK,
Cumings stamps a variety of labels on it. At one point, he calls it a
"corporate state." At another, a "royal dynasty." He concludes his
book by calling it a "vexing family state." Grasping for straws,
Cumings proves unable to explain the most dominant fact of North
Korean life - the total lack of freedom. He does produce a variety of
excuses for what he sometimes admits is an authoritarian North Korean
government. Perhaps, he suggests, it is the result of ancient
Confucian values? Or, perhaps it is the fact that North Korea emerged
out of "one of the most class-divided and stratified societies on the
face of the earth"? Certainly, Korea's long history, including its
Confucianism, should not be ignored when discussing the DPRK. Still,
Cumings does not consider the many nations with class-divided
histories that have become democracies today. Further, one wonders why
Cumings can not place blame for the status of North Korea where the
blame is due: on communism. While capitalist South Korea has done well
over the past two decades, communist North Korea is an economic basket
case. One scholar, Marcus Noland, has estimated that South Korean per
capita incomes could be as much as twenty times greater than North
Korean incomes. In nipping around the edges of Korean history, Cumings
does not get close to reality.
Even more intriguing is Cumings's bizarre efforts to explain away the
totalitarian nature of the DPRK by stating that North Koreans have a
different understanding of freedom than Americans do. He writes that
"from a Korean standpoint, where freedom is also defined as an
independent stance against foreign predators – freedom for the Korean
nation – here, the vitriolic judgements do not flow so easily." Hence,
North Koreans do have freedom and South Koreans, dependent as they are
on the U.S., are not as free as most Americans believe. Nor, for that
matter, are Americans. To underscore this point, Cumings argues that
North Korean prison camps compare favorably to American prisons.
Americans, he proposes, "should do something about the pathologies of
our inner cities – say, in Houston – before pointing the finger" at
the DPRK. That Cumings can not distinguish between a prison system
designed to punish political dissidents and one designed to house
criminals who have been provided a fair trial in a democratic nation
does not encourage his readers to place much stock in his scholarly
judgments.
Because Cumings is unable to comprehend the nature of the North Korean
government, he fails to adequately describe the terrible consequences
of its policies. He dismisses the DPRK's reliance on the former Soviet
Union as unimportant, even though recent scholarship has demonstrated
that Stalin gave Kim Il Sung the green light to invade South Korea in
1950, and even though the collapse of Soviet communism has crippled
the North Korean economy. Left to itself, the DPRK has failed
miserably. In the 1990s perhaps two or three million North Koreans
died as a result of famine, and Kim Jung Il – the great lover of Super
Mario video games - could hardly have cared. He attacked international
organizations seeking to aid North Koreans. In 1997 the Dear Leader
declared that "the imperialist's aid is a noose of plunder and
subjugation aimed at robbing ten and even a hundred things for one
thing that is given." Is this the "freedom" that Cumings celebrates?
Thousands of North Koreans have risked their lives and attempted to
escape the land that Cumings loves. One woman who attempted to escape
was captured and, in April 2000, placed in a concentration camp in
Chongjin city. While in camp, she witnessed how DPRK thugs killed
unborn and newborn children. "If it is found that a woman is
pregnant," she stated to Human Rights Watch personnel, "they
administered a medicine to abort. If the woman gave birth to a baby,
they covered it with vinyl and placed it face-down and killed it.
Seven women gave birth to children in that prison and they killed all
of them." Such horrors - such evil - are commonplace in North Korea.
President Bush understands this. Bruce Cumings does not. His North
Korea: Another Country, fails as scholarship. More importantly, it
fails on principle. After reading of the suffering and needless loss
of life as a result of the famine, as well as the tragic and moving
testimonies of the many North Koreans attempting to escape the DPNK,
one can not help but be stunned by Cumings's statement that "I don't
feel a responsibility for what goes on there…." After all, he writes,
"It is their country, for better or worse…."
dave weil
wrote:
>The question remains the same -- will the American left ever atone for
>their sins?
I don't know but I sure get tired of the scare tactics from the right.
George M. Middius
dave weil said:
> >The question remains the same -- will the American left ever atone for
> >their sins?
>
> I don't know but I sure get tired of the scare tactics from the right.
Shut up, traitor.
dave weil
Make me, punk.
George M. Middius
dave weil said:
> >> >The question remains the same -- will the American left ever atone for
> >> >their sins?
> >>
> >> I don't know but I sure get tired of the scare tactics from the right.
> >
> >Shut up, traitor.
>
> Make me, punk.
I have the Attorney General's phone number right here, you terrorist
spy.
dave weil
Hey, I was just in Washington DC over Christmas and I'm here to tell
you that I *saw* the Bill of Rights at the National Archives and it's
still here, despite the best efforts of some to make it disappear.
I'll admit though that the ink was faded, and I wasn't happy that
there was about a 45 minute wait to view it. I should have been
allowed to the front of the line. This isn't my idea of customer
service.
Schizoid Man
> The question remains the same -- will the American left ever atone for
> their sins?
Stop trying to compensate for your penis size (or lack thereof) by
continuously changing the subject.
Hint: Try to read the name of this newsgroup.
ScottW
"dave weil" <dwe...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:bb73vvse84fkre2ae...@4ax.com...
What happened? Did the deli run out of the special?
ScottW
dave weil
wrote:
You've never *been* to the National Archives, I take it.
ScottW
> >> Hey, I was just in Washington DC over Christmas and I'm here to tell
> >> you that I *saw* the Bill of Rights at the National Archives and it's
> >> still here, despite the best efforts of some to make it disappear.
> >>
> >> I'll admit though that the ink was faded, and I wasn't happy that
> >> there was about a 45 minute wait to view it. I should have been
> >> allowed to the front of the line. This isn't my idea of customer
> >> service.
> >
> > What happened? Did the deli run out of the special?
>
> You've never *been* to the National Archives, I take it.
Nope, you have a problem with that?
ScottW
dave weil
wrote:
No, not at all. I just wanted to establish that you didn't know what
you were talking about, that's all...
Sockpuppet Yustabe
>
> Hey, I was just in Washington DC over Christmas
you should have looked me up.
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Michael McKelvy
How about scare tactics from the left, that's what they are best at.
ScottW
We've already established you don't know much about quality
cusotmer service. Even?
ScottW
George M. Middius
Garcon, another serving of Alpo for the pooch.
> > No, not at all. I just wanted to establish that you didn't know what
> > you were talking about, that's all...
> We've already established you don't know much about quality
> cusotmer service. Even?
Been toking on the Kroo-joint, I see.
ScottW
"George M. Middius" <Spam-...@resistance.org> wrote in message
news:nrc4vvcgso6qkd7do...@4ax.com...
As long as it ain't whatever you been toking,
I'll be fine.
Did you decide if you give or receive from the government?
ScottW
dave weil
It doesnt' hold a candle to the right.
I know because I just endured about a week of FoxNews blaring story
after story about potential terrorism. About 50 minutes out of every
hour was filled with "expert" after "expert" minutely grinding on
about foiled terrorist plots.
It became just a drone after a while. A one-note performance that
really blunted the pleasure of visiting our nation's Capital over
Christmas.
And it continues unabated today.
My point isn't that quashing terrorism isn't an important story - it's
just not the only one.
I will say this - the new Air and Space Museum next to Dulles is
AMAZING. 750,000 sq feet of wonder.
dave weil
wrote:
>
>"dave weil" <dwe...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>news:j404vvk4lsmtprnag...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:42:06 -0800, "ScottW" <Scot...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"dave weil" <dwe...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> >news:jfv3vvctbr4kv8gnm...@4ax.com...
>> >
>> >> >> Hey, I was just in Washington DC over Christmas and I'm here to
>tell
>> >> >> you that I *saw* the Bill of Rights at the National Archives and
>it's
>> >> >> still here, despite the best efforts of some to make it disappear.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I'll admit though that the ink was faded, and I wasn't happy that
>> >> >> there was about a 45 minute wait to view it. I should have been
>> >> >> allowed to the front of the line. This isn't my idea of customer
>> >> >> service.
>> >> >
>> >> > What happened? Did the deli run out of the special?
>> >>
>> >> You've never *been* to the National Archives, I take it.
>> >
>> > Nope, you have a problem with that?
>>
>> No, not at all. I just wanted to establish that you didn't know what
>> you were talking about, that's all...
>
> We've already established you don't know much about quality
>cusotmer service. Even?
Nope. Because I'm an expert in dealing with customer service. All you
have to do is look at my tip percentages night after night and look at
the thousands of members of the public that I deal with over the span
of a year.
Match that, office rat.
George M. Middius
A new species of terrier, or the same old 'borg crap?
> > Garcon, another serving of Alpo for the pooch.
> >
> > > > No, not at all. I just wanted to establish that you didn't know what
> > > > you were talking about, that's all...
> >
> > > We've already established you don't know much about quality
> > > cusotmer service. Even?
> >
> > Been toking on the Kroo-joint, I see.
>
> As long as it ain't whatever you been toking,
> I'll be fine.
There's the Skye, the Irish, the Boston Bull, and now the IKYABWAI
Terrier. How dreary.
> Did you decide if you give or receive from the government?
How's the boring job where you get "professional training" from a
cattle prod?
ScottW
>
>
> A new species of terrier, or the same old 'borg crap?
>
> > > Garcon, another serving of Alpo for the pooch.
> > >
> > > > > No, not at all. I just wanted to establish that you didn't know
what
> > > > > you were talking about, that's all...
> > >
> > > > We've already established you don't know much about quality
> > > > cusotmer service. Even?
> > >
> > > Been toking on the Kroo-joint, I see.
> >
> > As long as it ain't whatever you been toking,
> > I'll be fine.
>
> There's the Skye, the Irish, the Boston Bull, and now the IKYABWAI
> Terrier. How dreary.
It was IKIANYBWAY, do try to keep things straight in spite
of your frail condition.
>
> > Did you decide if you give or receive from the government?
>
> How's the boring job where you get "professional training" from a
> cattle prod?
Working for a living against your religion?
ScottW
ScottW
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:17:39 -0800, "ScottW" <Scot...@hotmail.com>
> > We've already established you don't know much about quality
> >cusotmer service. Even?
>
> Nope. Because I'm an expert in dealing with customer service.
I thought you provided customer service. You're saying this
like you're interfacing with a corporate department in
industry, but we know that isn't correct. Sorry, what was
your expertise in?
> All you
> have to do is look at my tip percentages night after night and look at
> the thousands of members of the public that I deal with over the span
> of a year.
>
> Match that, office rat.
Office rat. I love it when they get jealous.
(snigger)
How much did you say your publics gratitude is worth to you
annually Dave? 30 or 40K?
Sorry, you've been measured, and you're a bit short.
Well, more than a bit, but I don't want to rub it in.
ScottW
dave weil
wrote:
>
>"dave weil" <dwe...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>news:77f4vvcj91c5rgm5r...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:17:39 -0800, "ScottW" <Scot...@hotmail.com>
>
>> > We've already established you don't know much about quality
>> >cusotmer service. Even?
>>
>> Nope. Because I'm an expert in dealing with customer service.
>
> I thought you provided customer service. You're saying this
>like you're interfacing with a corporate department in
>industry, but we know that isn't correct. Sorry, what was
>your expertise in?
Customer service.
>> All you
>> have to do is look at my tip percentages night after night and look at
>> the thousands of members of the public that I deal with over the span
>> of a year.
>>
>> Match that, office rat.
>
> Office rat. I love it when they get jealous.
>(snigger)
I'm not jealous about working 9 to 5 (figuratively speaking) in an
office. If I were, I'd be doing that instead of what I'm doing now.
> How much did you say your publics gratitude is worth to you
>annually Dave? 30 or 40K?
Not quite 30.
Of course, I only average less than 30 hours a week plus I pretty much
set my own schedule for the most part...
Of course, I don't measure my life by how much money I make like you
apparently do.
>Sorry, you've been measured, and you're a bit short.
Nah, not really. We could measure you by a lawyer and a doctor's
standards as well, and you'd fall short as well. Do you really want to
go there?
>Well, more than a bit, but I don't want to rub it in.
Frankly, I wouldn't want to change places with you at all. I don't
want to be a cell phone salesman.
Sockpuppet Yustabe
you seem like a lot happier person than a lot of others I know.
George M. Middius
Socky said:
> > Of course, I only average less than 30 hours a week plus I pretty much
> > set my own schedule for the most part...
> you seem like a lot happier person than a lot of others I know.
The Terrierborg in particular is one nasty piece of work. His
Kroogerian lying to himself, his snotty assertions of his own warped
values as the only ones that exist, and his overwhelming stupidity
that prevents him from understanding everything he doesn't know all
combine to show an individual who will never be happy.
ScottW
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:22:58 -0800, "ScottW" <Scot...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"dave weil" <dwe...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> >news:77f4vvcj91c5rgm5r...@4ax.com...
> >> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:17:39 -0800, "ScottW" <Scot...@hotmail.com>
> >
> >> > We've already established you don't know much about quality
> >> >cusotmer service. Even?
> >>
> >> Nope. Because I'm an expert in dealing with customer service.
> >
> > I thought you provided customer service. You're saying this
> >like you're interfacing with a corporate department in
> >industry, but we know that isn't correct. Sorry, what was
> >your expertise in?
>
> Customer service.
>
> >> All you
> >> have to do is look at my tip percentages night after night and look at
> >> the thousands of members of the public that I deal with over the span
> >> of a year.
> >>
> >> Match that, office rat.
> >
> > Office rat. I love it when they get jealous.
> >(snigger)
>
> I'm not jealous about working 9 to 5 (figuratively speaking) in an
> office. If I were, I'd be doing that instead of what I'm doing now.
Keep guessing Dave.
I think its funny you guys think I have am chained to a desk
in an office. You are really clueless.
>
> > How much did you say your publics gratitude is worth to you
> >annually Dave? 30 or 40K?
>
> Not quite 30.
>
> Of course, I only average less than 30 hours a week plus I pretty much
> set my own schedule for the most part...
>
> Of course, I don't measure my life by how much money I make like you
> apparently do.
You brought it up.
Didn't you say "All you have to do is look at my tip percentages
night after night"? As if money is an indication of your expertise
in customer service. Your expertise is explaining why the restaurant
failed to deliver the special. That isn't customer service,
it's customer soothing.
>
> >Sorry, you've been measured, and you're a bit short.
>
> Nah, not really. We could measure you by a lawyer and a doctor's
> standards as well, and you'd fall short as well.
Thinking of becoming a lawyer or a doctor, Dave?
> Do you really want to
> go there?
You don't want to go there.
>
> >Well, more than a bit, but I don't want to rub it in.
>
> Frankly, I wouldn't want to change places with you at all. I don't
> want to be a cell phone salesman.
Cell phone salesmen work in Radio Shack. And probably do
about as well as a waiter in Nashville.
It is a real hoot listening to you guys who have never worked
in current technical companies, think everything is still the white
shirt environment of IBM in the 70's. It isn't, but you will
never know for yourself. I guess you'll just have to trust me.
Do you have a funded retirement Dave? Your getting up
there and I'm sure no matter how much you like soothing
those customers, you can't do it forever.
Maybe you can, Arny plans to run his PC bus. forever.
ScottW
ScottW
"George M. Middius" <Spam-...@resistance.org> wrote in message
news:cgn4vv8ihmcsuaarb...@4ax.com...
>
>
> Socky said:
>
> > > Of course, I only average less than 30 hours a week plus I pretty
much
> > > set my own schedule for the most part...
>
> > you seem like a lot happier person than a lot of others I know.
>
> The Terrierborg in particular is one nasty piece of work. His
> Kroogerian lying to himself, his snotty assertions of his own warped
> values as the only ones that exist,
George believes in multiple rights and wrongs.
Makes for a pretty twisted individual.
Kind of like Trots' truth is in the eye of the
beholder.
> and his overwhelming stupidity
> that prevents him from understanding everything he doesn't know all
> combine to show an individual who will never be happy.
You're just upset that I correctly pointed out that while you
complain about rich people and advocate liberal socialist
politics, you are in reality a leach on the working mans
society. I don't like working for people like you, but I am.
You should appreciate it.
ScottW
George M. Middius
Dig in the dirt all you want, Terrierborg. Your time with the
Kroo-sausage draws near.
> It is a real hoot listening to you guys who have never worked
> in current technical companies, think everything is still the white
> shirt environment of IBM in the 70's. It isn't, but you will
> never know for yourself. I guess you'll just have to trust me.
Why wouldn't we "know"? Every IT company I've worked for sucks the
life out of their employees. You clowns who are so proud of your
"careers" tend to sacrifice a lot for them. Stock options up in smoke,
weekly investment upwards of 55 hours, good performance rewarded by
more responsibility (but not more pay)..... Yes, techies have come a
long way since "IBM in the 70's[sic]".
Arny Krueger
news:3ff25cf1$1...@127.0.0.1
>
> you seem like a lot happier person than a lot of others I know.
>
..such as yourself?
LOL!
Sockpuppet Yustabe
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:eZmdnXPUZI6...@comcast.com...
dave weil
wrote:
>> Of course, I don't measure my life by how much money I make like you
>> apparently do.
>
> You brought it up.
> Didn't you say "All you have to do is look at my tip percentages
> night after night"? As if money is an indication of your expertise
> in customer service.
You missed the point. The point isn't the money, the point is
PERCENTAGE. The percentage of a tip is a firm measure of my guest's
satisfaction.
Unfortunately, it's doubtful that *you* have such a direct one-on-one
barometer of how you satisfy *your* customers.
>Your expertise is explaining why the restaurant
> failed to deliver the special. That isn't customer service,
> it's customer soothing.
You really *don't* have a clue, telephone boy.
And your taste in dining out is suspect as well.
<chuckle>
dave weil
wrote:
> You're just upset that I correctly pointed out that while you
>complain about rich people and advocate liberal socialist
>politics, you are in reality a leach on the working mans
> society. I don't like working for people like you, but I am.
You know, saying an untruth over and over again doesn't make it true.
You're no better than Arnold.
dave weil
wrote:
You know, it's funny. LOL is usually used to respond to something
funny that *someone else* says.
Arny Krueger
That still leaves him ample territory for him to be far better than you,
Weil.
Arny Krueger
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:eZmdnXPUZI6...@comcast.com...
>> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" <idk...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:3ff25cf1$1...@127.0.0.1
>>>
>>> you seem like a lot happier person than a lot of others I know.
>>>
>>
>> ..such as yourself?
>>
> Funny how you knew I was thinking of you!
Shows you just can't read and perceive simple English, sockpuppet. You're a
career government employee, right?
MINe 109
dave weil <dwe...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Scott should rent Monty Python's "The Meaning of Life" to see another
appropriate response.
Scott's "customer service" leads to out-of-season tomato slices on fast
food burgers.
Stephen
George M. Middius
MINe 109 said:
> Scott's "customer service" leads to out-of-season tomato slices on fast
> food burgers.
If the menu says you offer tomatoes, you damn well better have
tomatoes in the kitchen. It's exactly like cell phones: They're always
supposed to be working. You can't turn off one of the towers and tell
customers it's a "special".
Arny Krueger
news:F1xIb.43012$m83.33036@fed1read01
>
> Do you have a funded retirement Dave?
Not even funded medical coverage.
> Your getting up
> there and I'm sure no matter how much you like soothing
> those customers, you can't do it forever.
Don't know about mandatory retirement in his biz.
> Maybe you can, Arny plans to run his PC bus. forever.
Depends who you believe, Scotty. Middius and his clique, including your buds
the Sockpuppet twins seem to think I'm already living off my retirement.
Life's tough for people like Weil who seem to have never gotten very far
past the $50K per anum barrier (even by his own bragging). If you consider
the fact that he's paying his own benefits, knock $10K or more off of that.
Michael McKelvy
doing stories their audience wants to hear.
It hardly compares to the tactics that Democrat politicians constantly use.
The Republicans want to poison the air and water and starve grandma, etc.,
etc..
> I will say this - the new Air and Space Museum next to Dulles is
> AMAZING. 750,000 sq feet of wonder.
Glad you enjoyed it.
MINe 109
Damn straight! As a customer, I won't be satisfied until Scott has
mapped the entire SoCal area, pausing at every step to say, "Can you
hear me now?"
Stephen
dave weil
wrote:
>"ScottW" <Scot...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:F1xIb.43012$m83.33036@fed1read01
>>
>> Do you have a funded retirement Dave?
>
>Not even funded medical coverage.
Actually *you* are funding my medical coverage.
And it's the same medical coverage that's available to you (but
probably not ScottW).
And the answer is no - I don't have a funded retirement.
>> Your getting up
>> there and I'm sure no matter how much you like soothing
>> those customers, you can't do it forever.
>
>Don't know about mandatory retirement in his biz.
Nope. No "mandatory retirement". I can certainly do it as long as I'm
comfortable doing it and it's enjoyable.
>> Maybe you can, Arny plans to run his PC bus. forever.
>
>Depends who you believe, Scotty. Middius and his clique, including your buds
>the Sockpuppet twins seem to think I'm already living off my retirement.
>
>Life's tough for people like Weil who seem to have never gotten very far
>past the $50K per anum barrier (even by his own bragging).
I'm not the kind of person who "brags" about money, since money isn't
all that important to me.
>If you consider the fact that he's paying his own benefits, knock $10K or more off of that.
Actually, I've taken less pay for better "benefits", so to speak. I
took a $5 grand hit to go from management back to tableside service.
Who knows, I might end up going back into management or ownership as
the years progress...the nice thing about my career over the years is
that I have never been locked into a single company or career. That's
no knock against those who *do* enjoy a single career though. I just
prefer a little more flexibility and a wider choice of life
experiences.
Shit-for-Brains
dave weil wrote:
> Who knows, I might end up going back into management or ownership as
> the years progress...the nice thing about my career over the years is
> that I have never been locked into a single company or career. That's
> no knock against those who *do* enjoy a single career though. I just
> prefer a little more flexibility and a wider choice of life
> experiences.
Are you saying I don't have "life experience's" Weil? Its like you were in
the army but I wasn't. That makes you a proven liar for what, like the 50
thousand's't'h time?
Since its already proven that you suck at customer service Wiel, I wonder
what you call "life Experience's." But thanks for admitting you wouldn't
know a "life experience" if it bit you on the ass.
S888Wheel
>you seem like a lot happier person than a lot of others I know.
>
>
That is the bottom line.
S888Wheel
>Shows you just can't read and perceive simple English, sockpuppet. You're a
>career government employee, right?
>
>
And you are unemployed right? Try not to lie or spin.
Arny Krueger
news:20031231121547...@mb-m18.aol.com
>> Shows you just can't read and perceive simple English, sockpuppet.
>> You're a career government employee, right?
> And you are unemployed right? Try not to lie or spin.
I've been unemployed and self-employed and they are vastly different
experiences. Currently, I'm self-employed. I would expect a wage slave to
not have a clue about what I'm trying to say here.
Let me put it this way, I've paid appreciable amounts of tax every year that
I've been self-employed.
Arny Krueger
>> Life's tough for people like Weil who seem to have never gotten very
>> far past the $50K per anum barrier (even by his own bragging).
> I'm not the kind of person who "brags" about money, since money isn't
> all that important to me.
Weil, your recent posturing to Scotty about the economic benefits you've
received from pandering to customers never happened, right?
If irony killed!
dave weil
wrote:
>"dave weil" <dwe...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
Right.
The "posturing", as you put it, focused on tip percentage, which is a
known determinate of "customer service", not on how much money was
earned.
You lose.
Again.
BTW, are you going to produce the Goggle quotes that support your
homicide comments? I've already indicated that I know how you
determined the "homicidal intent" of SctooW, but I'd just like to see
you support your comments.
I find it funny that everyone but you and Tom Nousaine have to supply
Goggle cites to support claims made here on RAO.
Have a nice safe New Year's Eve.
Joseph Oberlander
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:42:06 -0800, "ScottW" <Scot...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>"dave weil" <dwe...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>news:jfv3vvctbr4kv8gnm...@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>>>>>Hey, I was just in Washington DC over Christmas and I'm here to tell
>>>>>you that I *saw* the Bill of Rights at the National Archives and it's
>>>>>still here, despite the best efforts of some to make it disappear.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'll admit though that the ink was faded, and I wasn't happy that
>>>>>there was about a 45 minute wait to view it. I should have been
>>>>>allowed to the front of the line. This isn't my idea of customer
>>>>>service.
>>>>
>>>>What happened? Did the deli run out of the special?
>>>
>>>You've never *been* to the National Archives, I take it.
>>
>> Nope, you have a problem with that?
>
>
> No, not at all. I just wanted to establish that you didn't know what
> you were talking about, that's all...
>
Bummer. He really should go visit it at least once. It's quite
a nice place to visit.
dave weil
Yes, but he'll be disappointed in the deli, since there isn't
one...horrible customer service, wouldn't you say?
BTW, they only had a facsimile of the Emancipation Proclamation, which
used to only be displayed one week a year. According to the guide, the
document is in such poor shape that it will only be shown for one day
this year.
S888Wheel
>I've been unemployed and self-employed and they are vastly different
>experiences. Currently, I'm self-employed. I would expect a wage slave to
>not have a clue about what I'm trying to say here.
>
For some selfemployed is a euphemism for unemployed. That is what i suspect to
be the case for you. Your own posts have suggested as much. What do you
consider to be a "wage slave?"
Arny said
>
>Let me put it this way, I've paid appreciable amounts of tax every year that
>I've been self-employed.
>
What you consider to be "äppreciable" may not be what others consider
apppreciable.
Arny if you weren't such a hypocrite about these things I would cut you some
slack. Bottom line is you attack others for their jobs and their income yet you
are clearly an underachiever in those areas along with other important areas of
life. It must really suck being you.
S888Wheel
>If irony killed!
>
You would be many years dead.
George M. Middius
MINe 109 said:
> > If the menu says you offer tomatoes, you damn well better have
> > tomatoes in the kitchen. It's exactly like cell phones: They're always
> > supposed to be working. You can't turn off one of the towers and tell
> > customers it's a "special".
> Damn straight! As a customer, I won't be satisfied until Scott has
> mapped the entire SoCal area, pausing at every step to say, "Can you
> hear me now?"
LOL!
BTW, Terrierborg, if you're reading this, now would be a good time to
dust off the map of all the bones you've buried. Get sniffing! ;-)
George M. Middius
S888Wheel said to The Big Shit:
> Bottom line is you attack others for their jobs and their income yet you
> are clearly an underachiever in those areas along with other important areas of
> life. It must really suck being you.
The list of Real Audio Guys whom Krooger has trashed recently grew by
one: Dan Lavry. He is a successful audio entrepreneur who designs and
builds ADCs and DACs and related equipment. This is very technical
stuff that is several steps removed from consumer audio.
Lavry is what you might call a high achiever. He is one of the leading
engineers in his field ***in the entire world***. Check out his chops
on his company's site: http://www.lavryengineering.com. Click the
Innovators link on the navpanel.
Getting back to the Krooborg, Mr. Shit took his first opportunity to
attack Lavry in his usual mindless manner. Lavry may be a Real Audio
Guy in the "real world", but Usenet is Krooger's fantasy dimension. In
Usenetopia, Krooger is the Supreme Audio Authority. It's a "place"
where defamations and libel don't count, and his victims are merely
cartoonish projections of his own mind. So when Lavry, like many
engineers and designers before him, had the temerity to post about a
subject he knows backwards and forwards, Mr. Shit couldn't wait to put
Lavry in his place. Herewith a summary of their exchange posted by Dan
Lavry on RAP. (I believe Lavry is not a native english speaker.)
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =<begin quote>= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
You mentioned the big fat clock near the analog to point out an
example of why digital is no problem next to analog. That showed me
immidiatly that you realy do not understand some very fundumental
things regarding AD's and DA's. I explained that the digital clock is
BY DESIGN of proper frequency with respect to the audio. In fact I was
surprised that you chose to talk about the big square fat clock, and
not about the DIGITAL DATA input and outputs which are more difficult
to handel. There are solutions for the DATA as well, partly keeping it
in the proper frequencies (for easy rejection), partly by use of near
perfect balanced circuitry to enable rejection of unwanted pickup and
feed through... and much more, way beyond this forum!!!
You were very quick to jump all over me with disrespectful remarks
like "this is horsefeathers", and now I am still waiting for a
retraction regarding the following interaction:
Dan: When dealing with audio, Where does one need to put a mic pre, an
AD, DA and their stable LOW JITTER clock? Inside the computer?
Outside? Of course outside.
Arny: Of course, this is horsefeathers. It's based on what I find to
be two fallacies: Fallacy (1) Low noise analog circuitry can't coexist
in the same chassis as TTL digital logic. Fallacy (2) A computer
chassis is an exceptionally electrically noisy place.
I find it not just disrespectful but also ouragous! How do you find my
statments to be fallacies? Say you study advance math. Say you than
find out how many Maxwell equations are, than take a year to really
understand each one. Say you study control theory and feedback.Than
Analog design, than digital design. Say you design wide array of
electronic equipment for over 30 years. Than you may not be so quick
to disagree with what is true. But more than that, your disagreement
would be convyed with some respect. I hate it when folks try tp raise
themselves by finding a high target and shitting all over him. You may
have your areas of experties, but when it comes to electronics, you
are about as qualified to call my statments horsefeathers of fallacy,
as I am likley to be miss universe.
What is wrong here in the NG? Some folks stick to what they know,
others just spit out junk? This can not work. One needs to respect
themselves and others. One should take the responsibility to figure
out who the gurus are. One should take responsibility to share what
they really can contribute, and NEVER to substitue or confuse kneejerk
reaction or ego building with real experties. I guess I can not change
the world. I really tried to do what I preach, but maybe it is time to
to throw in the towel??? I try and contribute and for that I eat crap?
Some will say I am touchy, and maybe so. I will eat a little crap if I
feel I am doing a lot of good, but this is outragous...
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =<end quote>= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
The toilet runneth over, as usual.
Sockpuppet Yustabe
I saw a bumper sticker today:
"Work harder! Millions of people
on welfare are counting on you."
Not to imply you are on welfare, of couse.
But that class is a drain on the ret of society.
I would rather spend money on opportunities for them,
than on maintaining an unproductive lifestyle.
The problem is that single motherhood
is rampant iin depressed areas. And responsibility
for that lies within the local community. So they
stay a depressed community, while noting changes.
Sockpuppet Yustabe
you are getting warmer.
Sockpuppet Yustabe
George M. Middius
Sockpuppet Yustabe said:
> > You're no better than Arnold.
> But that class is a drain on the ret of society.
> I would rather spend money on opportunities for them,
> than on maintaining an unproductive lifestyle.
> The problem is that single motherhood
> is rampant iin depressed areas.
Mothers taking care of their children is one of the most productive
lifestyles I can imagine. Of course, it doesn't turn a profit on the
books, so for you it's probably "unproductive".
dave weil
<idk...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>"dave weil" <dwe...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>news:s1j5vv8g1dvhirg2g...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 02:00:24 -0800, "ScottW" <Scot...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > You're just upset that I correctly pointed out that while you
>> >complain about rich people and advocate liberal socialist
>> >politics, you are in reality a leach on the working mans
>> > society. I don't like working for people like you, but I am.
>>
>> You know, saying an untruth over and over again doesn't make it true.
>>
>> You're no better than Arnold.
>
>I saw a bumper sticker today:
>"Work harder! Millions of people
>on welfare are counting on you."
>
>Not to imply you are on welfare, of couse.
>But that class is a drain on the ret of society.
>I would rather spend money on opportunities for them,
>than on maintaining an unproductive lifestyle.
>The problem is that single motherhood
>is rampant iin depressed areas. And responsibility
>for that lies within the local community. So they
>stay a depressed community, while noting changes.
So, are you saying that because George refused to answer an idiodic
charge that he might be on welfare, it's cool for ScottW to continue
to imply that he is?
I'm not here to defend or attack welfare, because I'm sure that there
are plenty of people on this forum who have taken advantage of some
sort of "welfare" program at some point in their life.
My point was simply that ScottW keeps reinforcing a claim that was
never confirmed, a claim that he invented out of whole cloth.
Sockpuppet Yustabe
But "NOT" on your "supposed" self employment income.
I can see why you "put it that way".
Arny Krueger
>
> My point was simply that ScottW keeps reinforcing a claim that was
> never confirmed, a claim that he invented out of whole cloth.
Tell us about all the times you complained about complained when George did
exactly the same thing, Weil you utter hypocrite!
Arny Krueger
> Arny said
>
>> I've been unemployed and self-employed and they are vastly different
>> experiences. Currently, I'm self-employed. I would expect a wage
>> slave to not have a clue about what I'm trying to say here.
>>
>
> For some selfemployed is a euphemism for unemployed.
>That is what i suspect to be the case for you.
Since you clearly believe that you are smart sockpuppet, why would anybody
pay attention to your suspicians?
Your own posts have suggested as much.
Where?
> What do you consider to be a "wage slave?"
I'm not here to educate the uneducatable, sockpuppet.
> Arny said
>
>>
>> Let me put it this way, I've paid appreciable amounts of tax every
>> year that I've been self-employed.
> What you consider to be "äppreciable" may not be what others consider
> apppreciable.
And back at you, sockpuppet!
> Arny if you weren't such a hypocrite about these things I would cut
> you some slack.
Prove that I'm a hypocite about these things, sockpuppet.
>Bottom line is you attack others for their jobs and
> their income yet you are clearly an underachiever in those areas
> along with other important areas of life.
Prove that this is clear. Show facts and figures.
>It must really suck being you.
Marc Phillips taught you that, didn't he? You surely lack the wits to find
such a slick-sounding saying on your own, sockpuppet.
Arny Krueger
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:teidnbyzVJw...@comcast.com...
>> "ScottW" <Scot...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:F1xIb.43012$m83.33036@fed1read01
>>>
>>> Do you have a funded retirement Dave?
>>
>> Not even funded medical coverage.
>>
>>> Your getting up
>>> there and I'm sure no matter how much you like soothing
>>> those customers, you can't do it forever.
>>
>> Don't know about mandatory retirement in his biz.
>>
>>> Maybe you can, Arny plans to run his PC bus. forever.
>>
>> Depends who you believe, Scotty. Middius and his clique, including
>> your
> buds
>> the Sockpuppet twins seem to think I'm already living off my
>> retirement.
>>
>> Life's tough for people like Weil who seem to have never gotten very
>> far past the $50K per anum barrier (even by his own bragging). If
>> you consider the fact that he's paying his own benefits, knock $10K
>> or more off of
> that.
>>
>>
> We arestill awaiting the details of your yearly income statement.
I haven't seen yours, so you won't see mine.
George M. Middius
dave weil said:
> So, are you saying that because George refused to answer an idiodic
> charge that he might be on welfare, it's cool for ScottW to continue
> to imply that he is?
[snip]
> My point was simply that ScottW keeps reinforcing a claim that was
> never confirmed, a claim that he invented out of whole cloth.
Very Kroogerlike of him. Mindless repetitions usually mean the accuser
is stalled because he has no idea how to press the attack. Scottie
just admitted to being a proficient IKYABWAIer, too. All the poor
little poochie can do is wait for an insult more clever than he can
think up on his own, then clumsily try to turn it around on his
betters.
Sockpuppet Yustabe
"George M. Middius" <Spam-...@resistance.org> wrote in message
news:lkc6vvc53khida87n...@4ax.com...
Productive??
Of what??
More generations living in sqaulor, crime, lack of education,
lack of opportunity and hopelessness.
Sockpuppet Yustabe
for 2003:
$78,000, all from salary.
and you?
Scott Gardner
I agree with Sockpuppet on this one. A single mother, working a
minimum-wage job to support herself and her kids, relying on a subsidy
from the government to make ends meet, with no realistic way of
breaking out of the cycle cannot be termed "productive" by anyone's
definition - regardless of the vital work she's doing raising her
children.
Better to spend more money and give them true opportunities to break
out of their "working-poor" situation than to give them just enough to
sustain their current situation indefinitely.
Scott Gardner
ScottW
> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 01:54:44 -0800, "ScottW" <Scot...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> Of course, I don't measure my life by how much money I make like you
> >> apparently do.
> >
> > You brought it up.
> > Didn't you say "All you have to do is look at my tip percentages
> > night after night"? As if money is an indication of your expertise
> > in customer service.
>
> You missed the point. The point isn't the money, the point is
> PERCENTAGE. The percentage of a tip is a firm measure of my guest's
> satisfaction.
How many people pay 15% no matter what?
Can you provide us a firm correlation of customer satisfaction
and gratuity. Where did you get the data.
Where is your data?
I doubt you know how to demonstrate correlation.
I suspect the whole claim was anecdotal
with as much real knowledge as you have
about my job. None.
>
> Unfortunately, it's doubtful that *you* have such a direct one-on-one
> barometer of how you satisfy *your* customers.
Every 6 months I get a customer appraisal as part
of my review. Consistently excellent.
I'm sure that doesn't matter to you as you are more
interested in making up shit than the truth.
Let's discuss why money isn't important to you.
Do you know why?
Dollars are important when you have dependents
counting on you. That is real responsibility.
Do you have any real responsibility Dave?
You could be happy homeless and no one will care.
Freedom is when you have nothing to lose.
Maybe that is why you don't care about
defending the country against terror.
Nothing to lose.
>
> >Your expertise is explaining why the restaurant
> > failed to deliver the special. That isn't customer service,
> > it's customer soothing.
>
> You really *don't* have a clue, telephone boy.
>
> And your taste in dining out is suspect as well.
>
> <chuckle>
Dropped the whole doctors income comparison I see?
I also see you have no response for your non-existant
retirement plan.
You haven't got a clue about my dining habits yet you
would attempt to besmirch them with a chuckle.
So much for climbing on your high horse.
You've fallen on your ass in horeshit,
again.
ScottW
ScottW
"George M. Middius" <Spam-...@resistance.org> wrote in message
news:edp5vv83bnag676sn...@4ax.com...
>
>
> MINe 109 said:
>
> > Scott's "customer service" leads to out-of-season tomato slices on fast
> > food burgers.
>
> If the menu says you offer tomatoes, you damn well better have
> tomatoes in the kitchen. It's exactly like cell phones: They're always
> supposed to be working. You can't turn off one of the towers and tell
> customers it's a "special".
This is a hoot. In sarcasm George is closer to the truth
than when serious.
ScottW
ScottW
> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 02:00:24 -0800, "ScottW" <Scot...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > You're just upset that I correctly pointed out that while you
> >complain about rich people and advocate liberal socialist
> >politics, you are in reality a leach on the working mans
> > society. I don't like working for people like you, but I am.
>
> You know, saying an untruth over and over again doesn't make it true.
>
Tell me again I'm a cell phone salesman, hypocrite.
You must like horseshit, you keep burying yourself
in it.
BTW, George has not refuted this.
ScottW
S888Wheel
>
>Since you clearly believe that you are smart sockpuppet, why would anybody
>pay attention to your suspicians?
>
Is this a deliberate attempt to look stupid? Or are you really this stupid? Do
you have any idea how ridiculous you look when you attack my literacy? Do you
have any idea how idiotic you look when you attack my logic?
I said
>
>Your own posts have suggested as much.
>
Arny said
>
>Where?
>
Look it up Mr. Google search expert. Oh, wait, youré the one who claims google
lies to you.
I said
>
>> What do you consider to be a "wage slave?"
Arny said
>
>I'm not here to educate the uneducatable, sockpuppet.
>
You really are stupid. I asked for an opinion dipshit. There is nothing
educational about your opinions. There only value is for our amusement.
>
>> Arny said
>>
>>>
>>> Let me put it this way, I've paid appreciable amounts of tax every
>>> year that I've been self-employed.
I said
>
>> What you consider to be "äppreciable" may not be what others consider
>> apppreciable.
Arny said
>
>And back at you, sockpuppet!
>
Tell us what you consider appreciable Arny then it will come back to me. Try to
keep track of what is being said.
I said
>
>> Arny if you weren't such a hypocrite about these things I would cut
>> you some slack.
Arny said
>
>Prove that I'm a hypocite about these things, sockpuppet.
>
Äsked and answered.
I said
>
>>Bottom line is you attack others for their jobs and
>> their income yet you are clearly an underachiever in those areas
>> along with other important areas of life.
>
Arny said
>
>Prove that this is clear. Show facts and figures.
Asked and answered.
I said
>
>>It must really suck being you.
>
Arny said
>
>Marc Phillips taught you that, didn't he?
No, you did.
Arny said
> You surely lack the wits to find
>such a slick-sounding saying on your own, sockpuppet.
It was just an observation. I would be flattered that you thought it was a
slick sounding saying beyond my capabilities of authorship if you weren't such
a looser living by such low standards of excellence.
S888Wheel
>Tell us about all the times you complained about complained when George did
>exactly the same thing,
Arny, let's see you try to diagram your own sentence posted above. And you call
me illiterate. Maybe you are going to say it was a typo. LOL
S888Wheel
>I haven't seen yours, so you won't see mine.
>
Bullshit. As usual. Art posted his income.
ScottW
>
>
> Dig in the dirt all you want, Terrierborg. Your time with the
> Kroo-sausage draws near.
>
> > It is a real hoot listening to you guys who have never worked
> > in current technical companies, think everything is still the white
> > shirt environment of IBM in the 70's. It isn't, but you will
> > never know for yourself. I guess you'll just have to trust me.
>
> Why wouldn't we "know"? Every IT company I've worked for sucks the
> life out of their employees.
How many of those were there? Care to name a few.
When did you work there.
> You clowns who are so proud of your
> "careers" tend to sacrifice a lot for them. Stock options up in smoke,
Mine have recovered nicely and never hit zero. I definitely
can't complain.
> weekly investment upwards of 55 hours,
I've always said, show me someone working 50+
hours a week and I'll show you an inefficient person.
This is strictly an individual situation and not representative
of industry IME. Every company I've been at has had
people at both extremes.
> good performance rewarded by
> more responsibility (but not more pay).....
Not IME, every promotion has resulted in significant
benefit and salary increases. More responsibility has
also resulted in greater resources to meet those responsibilities.
How you manage and the quality of people you retain dictate
the effort required to succeed. A quality team is alway more
successful with less effort than a team filled with lazy ass
complainers. Pretty clear which category you
were in so long ago.
ScottW
George M. Middius
Sockpuppet Yustabe said:
> > Mothers taking care of their children is one of the most productive
> > lifestyles I can imagine. Of course, it doesn't turn a profit on the
> > books, so for you it's probably "unproductive".
> Productive??
Yes. Pro-duc-tive.
> Of what??
Of well-reared and well-adjusted children, of course.
> More generations living in sqaulor, crime, lack of education,
> lack of opportunity and hopelessness.
Sorry, you're babbling. Please try to make sense.
In the meantime, I believe more mothers have joined the workforce in
the years since 1965 or so because wages were not keeping pace with
inflation, particularly in real estate. I mention this because of your
use of the word "more".
George M. Middius
Scott Gardner said:
> >Mothers taking care of their children is one of the most productive
> >lifestyles I can imagine. Of course, it doesn't turn a profit on the
> >books, so for you it's probably "unproductive".
>
> I agree with Sockpuppet on this one. A single mother, working a
> minimum-wage job to support herself and her kids, relying on a subsidy
> from the government to make ends meet, with no realistic way of
> breaking out of the cycle cannot be termed "productive" by anyone's
> definition - regardless of the vital work she's doing raising her
> children.
You're not agreeing with anything Socky actually said. You're laying
over the limits of the current system of welfare, which is neither
fish nor fowl. Throw out all the existing rules about welfare handouts
and start from scratch.
> Better to spend more money and give them true opportunities to break
> out of their "working-poor" situation than to give them just enough to
> sustain their current situation indefinitely.
I think it's preferable to subidize mommies who stay at home full time
until the kids reach 12 or so. The current deduction of a couple thou
a year is a joke. A truly equitable system would give stay-at-home
mommies priority for part-time work-at-home jobs, but that's a
scenario for a perfect world.
George M. Middius
The yaps keep on coming.
> BTW, George has not refuted this.
Yes I have. I refute everything you say. But you, like Krooger, are
too stubborn or too stupid -- or both -- to hear what's said to you.
George M. Middius
The Terrierborg digs and digs, but he only finds his own poop.
> > Dig in the dirt all you want, Terrierborg. Your time with the
> > Kroo-sausage draws near.
> >
> > > It is a real hoot listening to you guys who have never worked
> > > in current technical companies, think everything is still the white
> > > shirt environment of IBM in the 70's. It isn't, but you will
> > > never know for yourself. I guess you'll just have to trust me.
> >
> > Why wouldn't we "know"? Every IT company I've worked for sucks the
> > life out of their employees.
>
> How many of those were there? Care to name a few.
> When did you work there.
I'll answer the first question: About a dozen. The other questions
are, as usual, impertinent because you imply I'm lying.
> > You clowns who are so proud of your
> > "careers" tend to sacrifice a lot for them. Stock options up in smoke,
>
> Mine have recovered nicely and never hit zero. I definitely
> can't complain.
You're one of the lucky ones. Mine never arrived.
> > weekly investment upwards of 55 hours,
>
> I've always said, show me someone working 50+
> hours a week and I'll show you an inefficient person.
You're an idiot.
> This is strictly an individual situation and not representative
> of industry IME. Every company I've been at has had
> people at both extremes.
If you've never worked in a company where the de facto *minimum* is 45
hours, you're lucky.
> > good performance rewarded by
> > more responsibility (but not more pay).....
>
> Not IME, every promotion has resulted in significant
> benefit and salary increases. More responsibility has
> also resulted in greater resources to meet those responsibilities.
> How you manage and the quality of people you retain dictate
> the effort required to succeed. A quality team is alway more
> successful with less effort than a team filled with lazy ass
> complainers. Pretty clear which category you
> were in so long ago.
Oh, darn -- you almost made it through an entire paragraph without
resorting to a groundless insult.
I have a question for you. Why are you such a prick?
ScottW
"George M. Middius" <Spam-...@resistance.org> wrote in message
news:7ji6vv0b19l0sdpfu...@4ax.com...
>
>
> Scott Gardner said:
>
> > >Mothers taking care of their children is one of the most productive
> > >lifestyles I can imagine. Of course, it doesn't turn a profit on the
> > >books, so for you it's probably "unproductive".
> >
> > I agree with Sockpuppet on this one. A single mother, working a
> > minimum-wage job to support herself and her kids, relying on a subsidy
> > from the government to make ends meet, with no realistic way of
> > breaking out of the cycle cannot be termed "productive" by anyone's
> > definition - regardless of the vital work she's doing raising her
> > children.
>
> You're not agreeing with anything Socky actually said. You're laying
> over the limits of the current system of welfare, which is neither
> fish nor fowl. Throw out all the existing rules about welfare handouts
> and start from scratch.
>
> > Better to spend more money and give them true opportunities to break
> > out of their "working-poor" situation than to give them just enough to
> > sustain their current situation indefinitely.
>
> I think it's preferable to subidize mommies who stay at home full time
> until the kids reach 12 or so.
While by age 12 the kids are likely to be able to not harm
themselves, the real dangers of the world begin.
12 - 15 are the years kids tend to join gangs.
That would be the worst time to leave them unattended.
Maybe we should discourage pregnancy at all if
the parents aren't in a position to carry out their
responsibilities. Too damn many people anyway.
Problem with large subsidies for mothers is that it
leads to more kids from the type of people we should
be discouraging prolific child bearing.
ScottW
ScottW
>
>
> The yaps keep on coming.
>
> > BTW, George has not refuted this.
>
> Yes I have. I refute everything you say.
Got a reference.
Something that clearly states, George pays taxes and
is not a recipient of social benefits from the government.
I expect more spin.
ScottW
ScottW
>
>
> The Terrierborg digs and digs, but he only finds his own poop.
>
> > > Dig in the dirt all you want, Terrierborg. Your time with the
> > > Kroo-sausage draws near.
> > >
> > > > It is a real hoot listening to you guys who have never worked
> > > > in current technical companies, think everything is still the
white
> > > > shirt environment of IBM in the 70's. It isn't, but you will
> > > > never know for yourself. I guess you'll just have to trust me.
> > >
> > > Why wouldn't we "know"? Every IT company I've worked for sucks the
> > > life out of their employees.
> >
> > How many of those were there? Care to name a few.
> > When did you work there.
>
> I'll answer the first question: About a dozen. The other questions
> are, as usual, impertinent because you imply I'm lying.
A dozen companies. Even over a 30 year career that is less
than 3 years per job. That is a very bad sign
on a resume. Did you leave all those jobs in good standing?
>
>
> > > You clowns who are so proud of your
> > > "careers" tend to sacrifice a lot for them. Stock options up in
smoke,
> >
> > Mine have recovered nicely and never hit zero. I definitely
> > can't complain.
>
> You're one of the lucky ones. Mine never arrived.
12 companies and you couldn't get one right.
That isn't a stat to brag about.
>
> > > weekly investment upwards of 55 hours,
> >
> > I've always said, show me someone working 50+
> > hours a week and I'll show you an inefficient person.
>
> You're an idiot.
>
> > This is strictly an individual situation and not representative
> > of industry IME. Every company I've been at has had
> > people at both extremes.
>
> If you've never worked in a company where the de facto *minimum* is 45
> hours, you're lucky.
Never.
I've heard people complain about self perceived de factos but
they were always stupid underperformers struggling for any
rationalization not to be fired.
"I don't do shit but I do it for 55 hours a week".
Talk about morons.
>
> > > good performance rewarded by
> > > more responsibility (but not more pay).....
> >
> > Not IME, every promotion has resulted in significant
> > benefit and salary increases. More responsibility has
> > also resulted in greater resources to meet those responsibilities.
> > How you manage and the quality of people you retain dictate
> > the effort required to succeed. A quality team is alway more
> > successful with less effort than a team filled with lazy ass
> > complainers. Pretty clear which category you
> > were in so long ago.
>
> Oh, darn -- you almost made it through an entire paragraph without
> resorting to a groundless insult.
12 different companies. Thats grounds for round filing that
resume.
>
> I have a question for you. Why are you such a prick?
Because I succeeded where you and Trotsky failed.
What was it JJ always said to you,
"Nerds revenge, living well".
(chuckle)
ScottW
George M. Middius
O stupidity! O stubborness! Thy godling the Krooborg beckons thee,
Terrierborg.
> > > BTW, George has not refuted this.
> >
> > Yes I have. I refute everything you say.
>
> Got a reference.
Then let's see it.
> Something that clearly states, George pays taxes and
> is not a recipient of social benefits from the government.
You're still stuck on that? Why don't you clarify what you want me to
"refute" and then produce the reference for whatever you switched to
subsequently.
Christ, you are truly dense.
Scott Gardner
<Spam-...@resistance.org> wrote:
>
>
>Scott Gardner said:
>
>> >Mothers taking care of their children is one of the most productive
>> >lifestyles I can imagine. Of course, it doesn't turn a profit on the
>> >books, so for you it's probably "unproductive".
>>
>> I agree with Sockpuppet on this one. A single mother, working a
>> minimum-wage job to support herself and her kids, relying on a subsidy
>> from the government to make ends meet, with no realistic way of
>> breaking out of the cycle cannot be termed "productive" by anyone's
>> definition - regardless of the vital work she's doing raising her
>> children.
>
>You're not agreeing with anything Socky actually said. You're laying
>over the limits of the current system of welfare, which is neither
>fish nor fowl. Throw out all the existing rules about welfare handouts
>and start from scratch.
The part of Sockpuppet's post I was agreeing with was this:
" I would rather spend money on opportunities for them,
than on maintaining an unproductive lifestyle."
That's his assertion that I was expounding on. It's better to spend
money in a manner that's more likely to help them break out of the
cycle they're in than it is to fund them at a bare sustenance level
indefinitely.
>> Better to spend more money and give them true opportunities to break
>> out of their "working-poor" situation than to give them just enough to
>> sustain their current situation indefinitely.
>
>I think it's preferable to subidize mommies who stay at home full time
>until the kids reach 12 or so. The current deduction of a couple thou
>a year is a joke. A truly equitable system would give stay-at-home
>mommies priority for part-time work-at-home jobs, but that's a
>scenario for a perfect world.
I agree with the subsidy, as long as you'd extend it to single fathers
in the interest of fairness. Perhaps if a single parent had no
education, the subsidy could cover the cost of education and child
care while the parent prepared themselves for the job market and
employment that would eliminate the need for the subsidy.
Scott Gardner
Scott Gardner
wrote:
That's the other side of the coin. It's noble to feed the poor around
the world, but if you try to educate them about birth control - watch
out!! It's as if the complainers don'r realize that the first thing a
healthy, well-fed society does is increase it's numbers. If they
didn't have enough food to feed themselves before, what good are we
really doing them by feeding them and fueling their population growth?
My wife and I are child-free, but any time I meet a couple with 7 or 8
kids, I feel like saying "come on, folks - we need to bring the
average down, and there's only so many kids I can *not have*!! "
Scott Gardner
George M. Middius
Scott Gardner said:
> >You're not agreeing with anything Socky actually said. You're laying
> >over the limits of the current system of welfare, which is neither
> >fish nor fowl. Throw out all the existing rules about welfare handouts
> >and start from scratch.
>
> The part of Sockpuppet's post I was agreeing with was this:
>
> " I would rather spend money on opportunities for them,
> than on maintaining an unproductive lifestyle."
>
> That's his assertion that I was expounding on. It's better to spend
> money in a manner that's more likely to help them break out of the
> cycle they're in than it is to fund them at a bare sustenance level
> indefinitely.
He didn't say "bare sustenance level" -- you introduced that. I can
think of two other meanings for "unproductive lifestyle".
> >> Better to spend more money and give them true opportunities to break
> >> out of their "working-poor" situation than to give them just enough to
> >> sustain their current situation indefinitely.
> >
> >I think it's preferable to subidize mommies who stay at home full time
> >until the kids reach 12 or so. The current deduction of a couple thou
> >a year is a joke. A truly equitable system would give stay-at-home
> >mommies priority for part-time work-at-home jobs, but that's a
> >scenario for a perfect world.
>
> I agree with the subsidy, as long as you'd extend it to single fathers
> in the interest of fairness.
Well, of course. Also unicorns, if you like.
> Perhaps if a single parent had no
> education, the subsidy could cover the cost of education and child
> care while the parent prepared themselves for the job market and
> employment that would eliminate the need for the subsidy.
Fuck all that. It's in society's benefit for a mommy (or parent, if
you insist) to care for little kids as generously as possible.
Full-time care until 6 or so, then part-time until 12. It's not in
society's interest for everyone to work out of the home.
What about my suggestion that stay-at-home parents get priority for
part-time work-at-home jobs? This is an issue that our hidebound
society has ducked for 10 years or more. A lot of office jobs can be
done from home without depredation in quality.
George M. Middius
Scott Gardner said:
> My wife and I are child-free, but any time I meet a couple with 7 or 8
> kids, I feel like saying "come on, folks - we need to bring the
> average down, and there's only so many kids I can *not have*!! "
Why do "we" need to bring the average down? Isn't our country's wealth
supported by the hugely productive middle class?
Scott Gardner
That was a global "we". The planet's resources simply cannot support
our current exponential population growth, and any couple that
produces more than their "replacements" is fueling that growth. I'm
not about to tell anyone how many children they can or can't have, but
in this time of very safe and effective birth control, it disheartens
me to see so few people using it. Even if a couple is in a financial
and emotional position to support a half-dozen kids, can they say the
same for the situation their kids will later be in?
Scott Gardner
ScottW
>
>
> O stupidity! O stubborness! Thy godling the Krooborg beckons thee,
> Terrierborg.
>
> > > > BTW, George has not refuted this.
> > >
> > > Yes I have. I refute everything you say.
> >
> > Got a reference.
I meant "Got a reference?"
>
> Then let's see it.
>
> > Something that clearly states, George pays taxes and
> > is not a recipient of social benefits from the government.
>
> You're still stuck on that? Why don't you clarify what you want me to
> "refute" and then produce the reference for whatever you switched to
> subsequently.
>
Still spinning I see. How long has it been since
you left your career in IT?
ScottW
Sockpuppet Yustabe
class moms selling real estate.
Yes, George, the slums, ghettos and barrios are chock full
of single mothers raising well reared, well adjusted, well behaved,
soon to be productivve little angels. I am glad we don't
have any more social problems to solve.
Sockpuppet Yustabe
"George M. Middius" <Spam-...@resistance.org> wrote in message
news:7ji6vv0b19l0sdpfu...@4ax.com...
Yes the perfect world, especially for a woman! If you want to
avoid work and stay at home, remain a single woman and bear children.
That is the 'probelm', not the 'solution'.
Scott Gardner
<Spam-...@resistance.org> wrote:
>
>
>Scott Gardner said:
>
>> >You're not agreeing with anything Socky actually said. You're laying
>> >over the limits of the current system of welfare, which is neither
>> >fish nor fowl. Throw out all the existing rules about welfare handouts
>> >and start from scratch.
>>
>> The part of Sockpuppet's post I was agreeing with was this:
>>
>> " I would rather spend money on opportunities for them,
>> than on maintaining an unproductive lifestyle."
>>
>> That's his assertion that I was expounding on. It's better to spend
>> money in a manner that's more likely to help them break out of the
>> cycle they're in than it is to fund them at a bare sustenance level
>> indefinitely.
>
>He didn't say "bare sustenance level" -- you introduced that. I can
>think of two other meanings for "unproductive lifestyle".
I read "unproductive lifestlye" to mean "working-poor vicious cycle",
and based my post on that. If you think he meant something else by
it, that's your interpretation.
>
>> >> Better to spend more money and give them true opportunities to break
>> >> out of their "working-poor" situation than to give them just enough to
>> >> sustain their current situation indefinitely.
>> >
>> >I think it's preferable to subidize mommies who stay at home full time
>> >until the kids reach 12 or so. The current deduction of a couple thou
>> >a year is a joke. A truly equitable system would give stay-at-home
>> >mommies priority for part-time work-at-home jobs, but that's a
>> >scenario for a perfect world.
>>
>> I agree with the subsidy, as long as you'd extend it to single fathers
>> in the interest of fairness.
>
>Well, of course. Also unicorns, if you like.
Oh, you weren't talking necessarily about just single mothers? I
misunderstood your post. I only mentioned single fathers to parallel
what I thought was a comment from you about single mothers. My
mistake.
>> Perhaps if a single parent had no
>> education, the subsidy could cover the cost of education and child
>> care while the parent prepared themselves for the job market and
>> employment that would eliminate the need for the subsidy.
>
>Fuck all that. It's in society's benefit for a mommy (or parent, if
>you insist) to care for little kids as generously as possible.
>Full-time care until 6 or so, then part-time until 12. It's not in
>society's interest for everyone to work out of the home.
Would your subsidy be need-based, or available to any parent that
stays home to raise kids? I don't know how I'd feel about subsidizing
a stay-at-home parent that didn't "need it", financially-speaking.
>
>What about my suggestion that stay-at-home parents get priority for
>part-time work-at-home jobs? This is an issue that our hidebound
>society has ducked for 10 years or more. A lot of office jobs can be
>done from home without depredation in quality.
"depredation" in quality? I know that's just a typo, but it's a funny
one, nonetheless.
I'm not ignoring your suggestion - I'm still mulling it over. On the
one hand, it seems unfair to punish people that don't have kids when
it comes to hiring practices, but I can't deny that it would be a
benefit to the work-at-home parent. Again, my opinion would probably
be influenced by whether or not the preference would be need-based.
It's one thing to give preference to a lower-class single mother when
it comes to hiring someone to stuff envelopes out of their home, but
another if a parent just wants a part-time job to occupy some of their
time, when their spouse already has an adequate income.
Scott Gardner
Sockpuppet Yustabe
"Scott Gardner" <gardn...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:3ff35317....@news.east.cox.net...
> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 17:18:05 -0500, George M. Middius
> <Spam-...@resistance.org> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Scott Gardner said:
> >
> >> >Mothers taking care of their children is one of the most productive
> >> >lifestyles I can imagine. Of course, it doesn't turn a profit on the
> >> >books, so for you it's probably "unproductive".
> >>
> >> I agree with Sockpuppet on this one. A single mother, working a
> >> minimum-wage job to support herself and her kids, relying on a subsidy
> >> from the government to make ends meet, with no realistic way of
> >> breaking out of the cycle cannot be termed "productive" by anyone's
> >> definition - regardless of the vital work she's doing raising her
> >> children.
> >
> >You're not agreeing with anything Socky actually said. You're laying
> >over the limits of the current system of welfare, which is neither
> >fish nor fowl. Throw out all the existing rules about welfare handouts
> >and start from scratch.
>
> The part of Sockpuppet's post I was agreeing with was this:
>
> " I would rather spend money on opportunities for them,
> than on maintaining an unproductive lifestyle."
>
> That's his assertion that I was expounding on. It's better to spend
> money in a manner that's more likely to help them break out of the
> cycle they're in than it is to fund them at a bare sustenance level
> indefinitely.
>
That is 'compassionate conservatism'.
'Liberalism' is subsidiziing the status quo.
>
> >> Better to spend more money and give them true opportunities to break
> >> out of their "working-poor" situation than to give them just enough to
> >> sustain their current situation indefinitely.
> >
> >I think it's preferable to subidize mommies who stay at home full time
> >until the kids reach 12 or so. The current deduction of a couple thou
> >a year is a joke. A truly equitable system would give stay-at-home
> >mommies priority for part-time work-at-home jobs, but that's a
> >scenario for a perfect world.
>
> I agree with the subsidy, as long as you'd extend it to single fathers
> in the interest of fairness. Perhaps if a single parent had no
> education, the subsidy could cover the cost of education and child
> care while the parent prepared themselves for the job market and
> employment that would eliminate the need for the subsidy.
>
Being out of the job market for 12+ years is not exactly good preparation
for joining it later. Nor does such inactivity help build up savings for
college for the kids, or for future retirement income.
The 'real' solution is for single persons to 'not' have children.
And subsidizing those that have children does not at all help fix the
problem.
Sockpuppet Yustabe
Statisitically, single parent households are much poorer than two
parent households. It is the average number of children born to
single parents that needs to be brought down.
Arny Krueger
news:3ff33879$1...@127.0.0.1
>>>>
>>> We arestill awaiting the details of your yearly income statement.
>>
>> I haven't seen yours, so you won't see mine.
>>
>>
>
>
> $78,000, all from salary.
>
> and you?
$23,456,998.62. I can type numbers I make up, too.
Sockpuppet Yustabe
"S888Wheel" <s888...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031231165327...@mb-m15.aol.com...
> >
> >I haven't seen yours, so you won't see mine.
> >
>
> Bullshit. As usual. Art posted his income.
I will give him some more time, but I suspect Arny
is about to pull a "Ferstler" on me.
George M. Middius
Liarborg Jr. triumphs over his niggling desire to act his age.
> > O stupidity! O stubborness! Thy godling the Krooborg beckons thee,
> > Terrierborg.
> >
> > > > > BTW, George has not refuted this.
> > > >
> > > > Yes I have. I refute everything you say.
> > >
> > > Got a reference.
>
> I meant "Got a reference?"
Too late. You already fucked up.
> > Then let's see it.
No response from the Terrierborg.
How about another pointless rant about Stereophile abetting the
E.H.E.E. by not forcing their part-time reviewers to triple their
workload and do "tests" instead of writing reviews? Even you should
see how fucked-up that idea of yours is. If you still don't see it,
just remember that the Krooborg, duh-Mikey, and Nousiane all agree
with it.
> > > Something that clearly states, George pays taxes and
> > > is not a recipient of social benefits from the government.
> >
> > You're still stuck on that? Why don't you clarify what you want me to
> > "refute" and then produce the reference for whatever you switched to
> > subsequently.
> Still spinning I see. How long has it been since
> you left your career in IT?
Tell us about your pubic hair experiment. Do they grow back fuller
after you clip them? Are the clipped hairs effective as an aphrodisiac
on your neighborhood children, or are you still stuck with Mrs.
TerrierHag?
George M. Middius
Sockpuppet Yustabe said:
> > > More generations living in sqaulor, crime, lack of education,
> > > lack of opportunity and hopelessness.
> >
> > Sorry, you're babbling. Please try to make sense.
> >
> > In the meantime, I believe more mothers have joined the workforce in
> > the years since 1965 or so because wages were not keeping pace with
> > inflation, particularly in real estate. I mention this because of your
> > use of the word "more".
> The converstation was about the welfare class. Not upper middle
> class moms selling real estate.
> Yes, George, the slums, ghettos and barrios are chock full
> of single mothers raising well reared, well adjusted, well behaved,
> soon to be productivve little angels. I am glad we don't
> have any more social problems to solve.
Let me get this straight. Are you attributing the poverty of the
underclass to the fact that mothers of young children don't work?
George M. Middius
Sockpuppet Yustabe said:
> > I think it's preferable to subidize mommies who stay at home full time
> > until the kids reach 12 or so. The current deduction of a couple thou
> > a year is a joke. A truly equitable system would give stay-at-home
> > mommies priority for part-time work-at-home jobs, but that's a
> > scenario for a perfect world.
> Yes the perfect world, especially for a woman! If you want to
> avoid work and stay at home, remain a single woman and bear children.
> That is the 'probelm', not the 'solution'.
That argument is what's sometimes called "throwing out the baby with
the bathwater".
Scott Gardner
<idk...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>"George M. Middius" <Spam-...@resistance.org> wrote in message
>news:0ol6vvkajedc3m35l...@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>> Scott Gardner said:
>>
>> > My wife and I are child-free, but any time I meet a couple with 7 or 8
>> > kids, I feel like saying "come on, folks - we need to bring the
>> > average down, and there's only so many kids I can *not have*!! "
>>
>> Why do "we" need to bring the average down? Isn't our country's wealth
>> supported by the hugely productive middle class?
>>
>>
>
>Statisitically, single parent households are much poorer than two
>parent households. It is the average number of children born to
>single parents that needs to be brought down.
>
Interesting logic:
1) Single-parent households are more likely to be poor. (stated)
2) Poverty is a bad thing when it comes to raising kids (implied)
Conclusion) Bring down the average number of kids born to single
parents. (stated)
Why not just cut to the chase and say that we need to bring down the
average number of kids born to poor people? Why even bring
single-parenthood into the question. If the problem is poverty, who
cares how they became poor?
Scott Gardner
George M. Middius
Sockpuppet Yustabe said:
> > Bullshit. As usual. Art posted his income.
>
> I will give him some more time, but I suspect Arny
> is about to pull a "Ferstler" on me.
You mean he's going to plagiarize somebody else's return?
Scott Gardner
I don't go in much for labels, but I will say that one method at least
has a chance of working...
George M. Middius
Socky has a woofy.
> > That's his assertion that I was expounding on. It's better to spend
> > money in a manner that's more likely to help them break out of the
> > cycle they're in than it is to fund them at a bare sustenance level
> > indefinitely.
> That is 'compassionate conservatism'.
> 'Liberalism' is subsidiziing the status quo.
Or not. You really don't get the "compassion" part.