THE GAP BETWEEN RICH AND POOR
Liberals,HATE-America.}}
politicians out there who want to dedicate their efforts to "reducing the
widening gap between the rich and the poor." Spare me. Most of the
politicians want to address this problem by taking from the rich and giving
to the poor. Well, since there are more people who consider themselves poor
than rich, that would sure work at the ballot box. The answer here is to
address the gap between "will work hard" and "won't work hard"; the gap
between achievement and non-achievement; the gap between "paid attention in
school" and "didn't pay attention in school"; the gap between good choices
and bad choices. Poverty is a behavioral disorder .. a mental disease.
You don't cure poverty by punishing the sane.
--
Liberals are EVERYTHING they accuse the right of being.
They are mean, vicious, hateful, greedy, cold-hearted, closed-minded,
selfish, intolerant, bigoted and racist.
Guy
"Liberals,HATE-America.}}" <jsjs...@liberalscum666.org1> wrote in message
news:1113320065.feac72c621c7c9da16a65007fda9eda2@meganetnews2...
The rich are taking from the middle class and poor. Taxing them is just
returning some of that money back.
How are they taking? they are taking by using the educated work force paid
for by our tax dollars and using it to generate wealth. They are taking by
using the infrastructure paid for by our tax dollars and using it to
generate wealth. They are taking by using the system of laws and law
enforcement paid for by our tax dollars to protect the wealth they
accumulate.
In short, the wealthy need resources provided by our taxes to expand and
maintain their wealth. They owe some of that to us, and the only way we can
recoup the return on our tax "investment" is to tax them back. If we don't,
we end up with a ever widening gap between the rich and everyone else
because we've incurred the cost and they reaped the benefit.
Bob Curtin
<gmarremo...@neo.removetoorr.com> wrote:
>
>The rich are taking from the middle class and poor. Taxing them is just
>returning some of that money back.
>
>How are they taking? they are taking by using the educated work force paid
>for by our tax dollars and using it to generate wealth.
What a pantload. EVERYONE who was educated in the public education
system, and who is not a shiftless bum, is using their education to
create wealth - to better themselves, whether they work for somebody
else or whether they created their own business. To attribute to
those who work for others some sort of victim-by-exploitation status
is absurd. The only difference between me and those who work for me
is the amount of self-discipline we possess, the long-range goals we
set, and the willingness to risk everything in a venture that may or
may not succeed.
The people who work for me and are not interested in starting their
own business, are satisfied to draw a paycheck and limit themselves to
to counting on others to provide their job upon which their livelihood
depends. When their day is done, they can go home and forget about
work. I can't. I don't have that luxury. I have the responsibility
of making the business profitable and growing. If I fail and the
business goes under, there are 40 employees whose jobs are gone and
who will have to look for other work, not to mention the huge
financial loss I would sustain.
>They are taking by
>using the infrastructure paid for by our tax dollars and using it to
>generate wealth. They are taking by using the system of laws and law
>enforcement paid for by our tax dollars to protect the wealth they
>accumulate.
>
>In short, the wealthy need resources provided by our taxes to expand and
>maintain their wealth. They owe some of that to us, and the only way we can
>recoup the return on our tax "investment" is to tax them back. If we don't,
>we end up with a ever widening gap between the rich and everyone else
>because we've incurred the cost and they reaped the benefit.
>
Man, I've seen drooling, moronic fatheads before, but this idiot is at
the top of the list.
First, the rich pay the vast majority of taxes in this country -
income, real estate and corporate taxes - by a huge margin Therefore
is is they, far more than the poor or the middle class who are paying
for public education in the first place - and that's not even counting
the millions of dollars given in scholarships by business and the
rich.
The poor pay very little and what little they do pay is generally in
sales taxes and user fees. While the middle class pay taxes, the
amount is obscenely out of proportion to what is paid by the "rich."
Therefore, the "resources" businesses and "the rich" use are paid for
predominently by the rich and by corporations. So what's your
problem?
Secondly, it is not tax money that is invested in businesses, with the
exception of those cases where the government is trying to entice
business into depressed areas and gives those corporations tax breaks.
When I started my business, I invested my life's savings. There were
no government handouts and no poor or middle class people lined up to
chip in to help out. When I worked my balls off - working a full time
job at night and manning my fledgling business during the day for four
years - there were no politicians, poor or middle class folks
volunteering to lend a hand.
Thirdly, it is not business who depends on taxes to "protect and
maintain their wealth." They produced the wealth which government
rips off in taxes to give to whiners like you who are too damned thick
or lazy to support yourself. And don't give me the "I have a job and
support myself!" crap. If it wasn't for the guy who started the
business for which you work, hired you to do a job which he taught
you, and to whom you count on to maintain your livelihood, you'd
probably starve to death unless somebody else or the government didn't
pick up the tab for you.
Government produces nothing. In fact it is the greatest consumer of
all, and the greatest squanderer of resources on the planet. It is
taxpayers who support government, not the other way around, and since
business, and taxes on the rich, accounts for the vast majority of
taxes in this country, it is they who are supporting the poor, not the
other way around. That is obvious, even to the most obtuse, or should
I say to all of the most obtuse except you, apparently.
Sniveling whiners like you are the sleasiest pussies on the planet.
You don't have the balls to create your own job, never mind create
jobs for others, yet you whine about those who do. You count on
somebody else to provide you with a job (if you work, that is) and
teach you how to perform it. You assume no responsibility for
anything further than your own task, and when your day is done you hit
a bar stool on the way home and piss and moan about your lot and how
your boss (or corporate America, or "the rich") is screwing you over.
In other words, you're a pathetic little loser.
Bob Curtin
http://www.freemuslims.org/
___________________________
"Both egalitarians and those who
think they have a blanket superiority
to the rest of us have missed the point.
We are all superior to each other -- and
are all inferior to each other. It all
depends on when and what. The economic
disasters of socialism and communism
come from assuming a blanket superiority
of those who want to run a whole economy."
Thomas Sowell
Bushsucks
three aternoons a week, and plays games on the internet when he
is IN the office. While his workers sweat their ass off for $15K.
You know - this RICH PRICK who got his job thru his well-connected
and RICH Daddy-O. They are BOTH pieces of SHIT.
Bushsucks
Dana
"Bushsucks" <impeachth...@moron.com> wrote in message
news:4272C3...@moron.com...
> The gap between the boss who makes $750,000 a year and plays golf
> three aternoons a week, and plays games on the internet when he
> is IN the office. While his workers sweat their ass off for $15K.
>
> You know - this RICH PRICK who got his job thru his well-connected
> and RICH Daddy-O. They are BOTH pieces of SHIT.
Class envy at it's best.
Bushsucks
Mike Flannigan
> three aternoons a week, and plays games on the internet when he
> is IN the office. While his workers sweat their ass off for $15K.
>
> You know - this RICH PRICK who got his job thru his well-connected
> and RICH Daddy-O. They are BOTH pieces of SHIT.
Damn. He's a loser and so in his bitterness and anger lashes out at anyone
who isn't, blaming them for his own failures.
Typical democrat.
Bob Curtin
<impeachth...@moron.com> wrote:
>Then START WORKING and stop fucking around on the Internet.
>
Hey Bushie, you lying, retarded, racist, anti-Semitic welfare
recipient, I own the company! I can do anything I please.
Bob Curtin
<impeachth...@moron.com> wrote:
>The gap between the boss who makes $750,000 a year and plays golf
>three aternoons a week, and plays games on the internet when he
>is IN the office. While his workers sweat their ass off for $15K.
>
You must be talking about politicians.
> You know - this RICH PRICK who got his job thru his well-connected
>and RICH Daddy-O. They are BOTH pieces of SHIT.
>
As opposed to you, Bushie, you lying, racist, anti-Semitic, retarded
welfare recipient? You don't work - you owe your sorry existence to
us taxpayers and, of course your mother who still wipes your runny
nose.
You don't have the balls or the ingenuity to risk anything, yet you
piss and moan at the success of those who do. You can't conceive of
the amount of work, self-discipline and dedication it takes to risk
everything to start a business and nurture it to success, yet you
proclaim those who do to be evil. You're too stupid to understand
that were it not for those who who start businesses which provide the
jobs for the workers who're not willing or able to start their own
businesses, they'd most likely be on welfare right beside you, and
they'd be whining about their lot just like you are.
You're a petty little brainless asshole, Bushie, who's a born loser,
and with your attitude will remain a loser until your Twinkie-grown
fat ass is planted six feet under..
This RICH PRICK (by your standards) got his job by investing his
entire life savings into a business which provides 40 employees with
their jobs. It's a small business to be sure, but growing every year.
I took all of the risk. I conceived the idea upon which the business
is founded. I put in the years of 60-80 hour weeks to get the
business started and to the point where it was self-sustaining and
successful, and I don't have one single pang of guilt about enjoying
the monetary success and the freedom to do what I Goddamn well please.
By the way, shithead, none of my employees make 15K a year - the least
of them makes $25K and the highest paid employee makes over $100K.
traveler
------------------------------------------------------
>The rich are taking from the middle class and poor. Taxing them is
just
>returning some of that money back.
>How are they taking? they are taking by using the educated work force
paid
>for by our tax dollars and using it to generate wealth.
----------------------------------------------------------------
asserted that:
What a pantload.
*Something you are personally familiar with?
EVERYONE who was educated in the public education
system, and who is not a shiftless bum,
(this may be an indication of prejudice against those who do not share
your particular brand of "work ethic" and hence, the key to what might
be amiss with your reasoning)
is using their education to
create wealth - to better themselves, whether they work for somebody
else or whether they created their own business. To attribute to
those who work for others some sort of victim-by-exploitation status
is absurd.
The only difference between me and those who work for me
is the amount of self-discipline we possess, the long-range goals we
set, and the willingness to risk everything in a venture that may or
may not succeed.
*The only difference? How about access to capital? Don't you enjoy
that where they do not? Didn't you get your start with a loan or a
cosign that helped you secure a loan? Didn't someone help you achieve
the position as business owner you now enjoy? Did you really do it all
by yourself? As you know, many people don't have access to real money
until they are well along in years. Others are financed from a young
age. They end up doing much better than those who have to scrape for a
living before they can stand up and survey their domain.
There are different kinds of self-discipline and you assume
(wrongly) that the only kind which matters is the sort of
self-discipline it takes to run a successful business. Clearly, this
is not so. The list of great minds and great people throughout history
who were never very successful in a material sense yet who worked
incredibly hard is an unfortunately long one. As an intelligent man,
you must realize this. Van Gogh, for example, died a pauper and was
never successful, but he worked incredibly hard, from all accounts, and
left us a treasure trove of great works of art that he couldn't even
get people to spit upon while he was alive. It sounds as if you would
have been one of the dolts to have referred to this great man as "a
shiftless bum" and thus made his sorry life all that much harder to
bear.
The people who work for me and are not interested in starting their
own business, are satisfied to draw a paycheck and limit themselves to
to counting on others to provide their job upon which their livelihood
depends. When their day is done, they can go home and forget about
work.
*How do you know they don't have other work to do? Perhaps working for
you is only a part of what they work on.
I can't. I don't have that luxury. I have the responsibility
of making the business profitable and growing. If I fail and the
business goes under, there are 40 employees whose jobs are gone and
who will have to look for other work, not to mention the huge
financial loss I would sustain.
>They are taking by
>using the infrastructure paid for by our tax dollars and using it to
>generate wealth. They are taking by using the system of laws and law
>enforcement paid for by our tax dollars to protect the wealth they
>accumulate.
>In short, the wealthy need resources provided by our taxes to expand
and
>maintain their wealth. They owe some of that to us, and the only way
we can
>recoup the return on our tax "investment" is to tax them back. If we
don't,
>we end up with a ever widening gap between the rich and everyone else
>because we've incurred the cost and they reaped the benefit.
Man, I've seen drooling, moronic fatheads before, but this idiot is at
the top of the list.
*If your arguments are superior to his, why must you call him names?
On Usenet, the first one to resort to that crap is usually the one who
is wrong.
First, the rich pay the vast majority of taxes in this country -
income, real estate and corporate taxes - by a huge margin Therefore
is is they, far more than the poor or the middle class who are paying
for public education in the first place - and that's not even counting
the millions of dollars given in scholarships by business and the
rich.
*Hmm, I'll have to remember that the next time they raise my property
taxes for the schools. I'm not paying shit. The business owners (who
are raking it in by the millions) are really the ones supporting us
all. Uh huh, sure.
The poor pay very little and what little they do pay is generally in
sales taxes and user fees. While the middle class pay taxes, the
amount is obscenely out of proportion to what is paid by the "rich."
*To most people, the upper middle class might as well be "rich." If
you are so much richer than they are, what the hell are you wasting
your time with this shit for? Go publish a book. Only the rich and
their darlings get published, so you'd have no trouble finding a
publisher.
Therefore, the "resources" businesses and "the rich" use are paid for
predominently by the rich and by corporations. So what's your
problem?
Secondly, it is not tax money that is invested in businesses, with the
exception of those cases where the government is trying to entice
business into depressed areas and gives those corporations tax breaks.
When I started my business, I invested my life's savings. There were
no government handouts and no poor or middle class people lined up to
chip in to help out. When I worked my balls off - working a full time
job at night and manning my fledgling business during the day for four
years - there were no politicians, poor or middle class folks
volunteering to lend a hand.
*You're not the only one who "worked your balls off" and some of us
have done it for far longer than "four years." Unfortunately, we are
not all as fortunate as you seem to have been. Sorry, I don't believe
you did it all on your own.
Thirdly, it is not business who depends on taxes to "protect and
maintain their wealth." They produced the wealth which government
rips off in taxes to give to whiners like you who are too damned thick
or lazy to support yourself.
*Come on. I take back the remark that you are intelligent. That is
dumbshit stuff.
And don't give me the "I have a job and
support myself!" crap. If it wasn't for the guy who started the
business for which you work, hired you to do a job which he taught
you, and to whom you count on to maintain your livelihood, you'd
probably starve to death unless somebody else or the government didn't
pick up the tab for you.
*Sometimes I think guys who sound like you are really all the same
person. It's like listening to the Democratic Party playbook, where
the same lines are repeated again and again regardless of how well they
do or do not apply to the current issue. You are not the only person
worth his salt. Just because you own your own business and make lots
of doe doesn't make you worth a good goddamn. For all we know, you
could be a kingsizes asshole that everyone hates. Believe it or not,
if you kicked the bucket tomorrow and your business went under, your
employees would find someone else to work for. I'm far more concerned
with the people who aren't getting the chances they deserve than I am
concerned about you. This pro-business climate we are currently living
under believes in nothing but the Almighty Dollar, as if nothing else
matters and everything is for sale. It's a bunch of crap and its days
are numbered or we are going down.
Government produces nothing.
*Government, for all its faults, won WWII, took us to the Moon, and was
largely responsible for the R&D that produced the computer we are using
to communicate with. Businessmen, by and large, are narrowly educated,
selfish bastards who think we need them far more than we need people
who truly contribute to the national welfare. No offense, Jack, but
you are not indispensable.
In fact it is the greatest consumer of
all, and the greatest squanderer of resources on the planet. It is
taxpayers who support government, not the other way around, and since
business, and taxes on the rich, accounts for the vast majority of
taxes in this country, it is they who are supporting the poor, not the
other way around. That is obvious, even to the most obtuse, or should
I say to all of the most obtuse except you, apparently.
*Yeah, they move into an area previously devoid of their "help," then
kick everyone out who they can't direct to their own ends. Whatever
would we do without them?
Sniveling whiners like you are the sleasiest pussies on the planet.
*Nah, I think that position is already taken, by YOU! (Sorry, couldn't
help myself).
You don't have the balls to create your own job, never mind create
jobs for others, yet you whine about those who do. You count on
somebody else to provide you with a job (if you work, that is) and
teach you how to perform it. You assume no responsibility for
anything further than your own task, and when your day is done you hit
a bar stool on the way home and piss and moan about your lot and how
your boss (or corporate America, or "the rich") is screwing you over.
In other words, you're a pathetic little loser.
Bob Curtin
*Thank God I'm my own boss, because I think I had about one boss during
my younger days who wasn't a goddamn cocksucking fatass. You sound
like just that sort of person. What arrogance. Do you go around
punching people who don't bow down and kiss your ass? Shit, buddy, you
are due for some real payback. It's guys like you who make half the
world think there is no God. I mean, how the fuck do you get to keep
on keeping on with an attitude as fucked as that? Anyone who resorts
to that "loser" shit is the real loser every time. Better watch
yourself. You may end up against a wall someday.
Bob Curtin
>Bob Curtin, in response to the following:
>
>------------------------------------------------------
>
>>The rich are taking from the middle class and poor. Taxing them is
>just
>>returning some of that money back.
>
>
>>How are they taking? they are taking by using the educated work force
>paid
>>for by our tax dollars and using it to generate wealth.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>asserted that:
>
>What a pantload.
>
>*Something you are personally familiar with?
>
You're starting off on an intellectual low.already. Is that remark
supposed to Improve your credibility? It doesn't.
>
>EVERYONE who was educated in the public education
>system, and who is not a shiftless bum,
>
>
>(this may be an indication of prejudice against those who do not share
>your particular brand of "work ethic" and hence, the key to what might
>be amiss with your reasoning)
>
There's nothing wrong with my reasoning, nor is there any prejudice
involved. It's a matter of fact. There are a certain amount of
people in society who have no inclination to work. In spite of the
trillions of taxpayer dollars spent on the War on Poverty and its
equivalents, the percentage of "poor" in America remains unchanged.
You call them what you want (victims, no doubt). I'll continue to
call them what I please. Poverty in America is for the most part a
self-induced state of being.
> is using their education to
>create wealth - to better themselves, whether they work for somebody
>else or whether they created their own business. To attribute to
>those who work for others some sort of victim-by-exploitation status
>is absurd.
>
>
>The only difference between me and those who work for me
>is the amount of self-discipline we possess, the long-range goals we
>set, and the willingness to risk everything in a venture that may or
>may not succeed.
>
>
>*The only difference? How about access to capital? Don't you enjoy
>that where they do not? Didn't you get your start with a loan or a
>cosign that helped you secure a loan?
I worked for others for over 20 years and saved a good portion of my
money. I used that to start the business and later, when the business
started making money, I borrowed from a bank to expand.
Anyone can get capital if he's got a good idea and some sort of
workable plan. There are many sources for capital and many sources
for help getting capital, such as the SBA and other more local
associations.
>Didn't someone help you achieve
>the position as business owner you now enjoy?
The SBA helped immensly - especially with market and demographic
studies. Also, I sought the advice of a bunch of people, including
other businessmen.
>Did you really do it all
>by yourself?
No, of course not. I never said I did. However, at the beginning,
before I secured a bank loan to expand, I was the one who took the
risks, worked the long hours and formed the business into a viable
company.
>As you know, many people don't have access to real money
>until they are well along in years.
>Others are financed from a young
>age. They end up doing much better than those who have to scrape for a
>living before they can stand up and survey their domain.
Again, you're making sweeping general statements which don't hold
water. Capital is available to everyone who can convince the
investors or lenders that they will make money, who has a decent
credit rating and who can show a stable and productive work history..
It is you who are limiting yourself by making assumptions that aren't
true.
> There are different kinds of self-discipline and you assume
>(wrongly) that the only kind which matters is the sort of
>self-discipline it takes to run a successful business.
No, that's an assumption you're making. The whole subject of this
thread is how the "rich" are exploiting the "poor" - that the rich are
"taking" from the poor. My point is that the CHRONIC poor are poor by
choice, the notable exception being those who are limited by mental or
physical disabilities.
>Clearly, this
>is not so. The list of great minds and great people throughout history
>who were never very successful in a material sense yet who worked
>incredibly hard is an unfortunately long one. As an intelligent man,
>you must realize this.
Yes, of course I do. But I don't hear anyone calling these people
evil. Not so with businessmen. The constant, unrelenting mantra from
the left is that businessmen are evil and exploitive and the poor are
just put-upon victims. I say that's bullshit. The poor are poor by
and large from their own choices.
>Van Gogh, for example, died a pauper and was
>never successful, but he worked incredibly hard, from all accounts, and
>left us a treasure trove of great works of art that he couldn't even
>get people to spit upon while he was alive. It sounds as if you would
>have been one of the dolts to have referred to this great man as "a
>shiftless bum" and thus made his sorry life all that much harder to
>bear.
>
Nossir. Don't you think that Van Gogh worked? Of course he did.
That he wasn't a huge financial success during his lifetime doesn't
detract from the fact of his genius, (which wasn't recongized as such
during his lifetime) that he worked hard and believed in himself.
Bear in mind also that he made choices which detracted from his
success - such as his substance abuse and his anti-social behavior.
>
>The people who work for me and are not interested in starting their
>own business, are satisfied to draw a paycheck and limit themselves to
>to counting on others to provide their job upon which their livelihood
>depends. When their day is done, they can go home and forget about
>work.
>
>
>*How do you know they don't have other work to do? Perhaps working for
>you is only a part of what they work on.
>
You're missing the point. Whether they're going to school at night or
working a part-time job or designing a new knibbling pin, their main
source of income is through their job at my company. Certainly most
of these employees (if not all) will eventually move on to other jobs
or maybe even start their own businesses. But my point is that while
they are working for me, they count on me to maintain a viable company
from which they can draw a paycheck. They can leave work and forget
about that part of their lives. I, on the other hand, must be
available 24/7/365 to maintain the company. Even while taking a
vacation, I'm on call.
>
>
> I can't. I don't have that luxury. I have the responsibility
>of making the business profitable and growing. If I fail and the
>business goes under, there are 40 employees whose jobs are gone and
>who will have to look for other work, not to mention the huge
>financial loss I would sustain.
>
>
>
>>They are taking by
>>using the infrastructure paid for by our tax dollars and using it to
>>generate wealth. They are taking by using the system of laws and law
>>enforcement paid for by our tax dollars to protect the wealth they
>>accumulate.
>
>>In short, the wealthy need resources provided by our taxes to expand
>and
>>maintain their wealth. They owe some of that to us, and the only way
>we can
>>recoup the return on our tax "investment" is to tax them back. If we
>don't,
>>we end up with a ever widening gap between the rich and everyone else
>>because we've incurred the cost and they reaped the benefit.
>
>
>
>Man, I've seen drooling, moronic fatheads before, but this idiot is at
>the top of the list.
>
>
>
>*If your arguments are superior to his, why must you call him names?
>On Usenet, the first one to resort to that crap is usually the one who
>is wrong.
He has no arguments. He has simply made unfounded and unsustainable
proclamations. I did refute his proclamations, if you had bothered to
read them and comprehend. The name calling is my way of saying that
I'm sick and tired of people who believe that idiocy should be given
the same respect as coherent thought.
>
>First, the rich pay the vast majority of taxes in this country -
>income, real estate and corporate taxes - by a huge margin Therefore
>is is they, far more than the poor or the middle class who are paying
>for public education in the first place - and that's not even counting
>the millions of dollars given in scholarships by business and the
>rich.
>
>
>*Hmm, I'll have to remember that the next time they raise my property
>taxes for the schools. I'm not paying shit. The business owners (who
>are raking it in by the millions) are really the ones supporting us
>all. Uh huh, sure.
>
You pay what, a couple thousand dollars a year in property taxes?
That won't even pay for ONE student for a year in ANY grade in public
school. If you have more than one kid in school, you're paying a tiny
fraction of what it's costing to send your kids to school. What
you're counting on is childless taxpayers, the rich and corporations
to take up your slack.
The figures are all there for the reading. Go to the IRS website and
the census bureau website for starters. Educate yourself.
>
>The poor pay very little and what little they do pay is generally in
>sales taxes and user fees. While the middle class pay taxes, the
>amount is obscenely out of proportion to what is paid by the "rich."
>
>*To most people, the upper middle class might as well be "rich." If
>you are so much richer than they are, what the hell are you wasting
>your time with this shit for? Go publish a book. Only the rich and
>their darlings get published, so you'd have no trouble finding a
>publisher.
>
>
>Therefore, the "resources" businesses and "the rich" use are paid for
>predominently by the rich and by corporations. So what's your
>problem?
>
>
>Secondly, it is not tax money that is invested in businesses, with the
>exception of those cases where the government is trying to entice
>business into depressed areas and gives those corporations tax breaks.
>When I started my business, I invested my life's savings. There were
>no government handouts and no poor or middle class people lined up to
>chip in to help out. When I worked my balls off - working a full time
>job at night and manning my fledgling business during the day for four
>years - there were no politicians, poor or middle class folks
>volunteering to lend a hand.
>
>
>*You're not the only one who "worked your balls off" and some of us
>have done it for far longer than "four years." Unfortunately, we are
>not all as fortunate as you seem to have been. Sorry, I don't believe
>you did it all on your own.
>
I knew that argument had to rear its ugly head - that I was
"fortunate" or lucky. That always takes the sting out of personal
failure and lessens the achievements of your betters. They are just
"lucky." Well, I hate to break it to you. Luck has little to do with
the long-term success of a business.
And I never claimed I'm the only one who worked his balls off. Again,
the subject of this thread seems to slip your mind in your zeal to
argue your case.. The original poster has made the proclamation that
the rich are taking from the poor. It is his contention that the rich
are rich at the expense of the poor (the old zero-sum argument).
>
>Thirdly, it is not business who depends on taxes to "protect and
>maintain their wealth." They produced the wealth which government
>rips off in taxes to give to whiners like you who are too damned thick
>or lazy to support yourself.
>
>*Come on. I take back the remark that you are intelligent. That is
>dumbshit stuff.
>
>
Really? Here's an example. We have a project in Boston referred to
as the "Big Dig." It has cost 16 BILLION in tax dollars, has taken
twenty years to to date construct (it still isn't finished) and was
obsolete befor the lane paint was dry. Now they're discovering
thousands of construction flaws which is causing the Charles river
into the tunnel complex and there are major allegations of government
corruption, union theft and corporate graft. This isn't waste?
The guy who started this thread has proclaimed that business is
ripping off the taxes of the poor to get rich. Well, the poor don't
pay taxes. That's dumbass stuff?
>
>And don't give me the "I have a job and
>support myself!" crap. If it wasn't for the guy who started the
>business for which you work, hired you to do a job which he taught
>you, and to whom you count on to maintain your livelihood, you'd
>probably starve to death unless somebody else or the government didn't
>pick up the tab for you.
>
>
>*Sometimes I think guys who sound like you are really all the same
>person. It's like listening to the Democratic Party playbook, where
>the same lines are repeated again and again regardless of how well they
>do or do not apply to the current issue.
I notice now that you are the one making proclamations.
>You are not the only person
>worth his salt. Just because you own your own business and make lots
>of doe doesn't make you worth a good goddamn.
You are correct. I am not the only person worth his salt and I've
never made that claim. However, I take issue with the original
subject of this thread which is that I am wealthy because I exploite
the poor - I have somehow gotten what I've got from the flayed hides
of exploited victims of evil businessmen.
The man's contention is that the services I provide and for which I
get paid
> For all we know, you
>could be a kingsizes asshole that everyone hates.
There are those who think I'm a kingsized asshole. What's your point?
What has that got to do with the subject at hand which is that I've
been called an exploiter of the poor?
>Believe it or not,
>if you kicked the bucket tomorrow and your business went under, your
>employees would find someone else to work for.
Very true. And would you then have the same animosity toward the
owner of the company for whom my former employees went to work?
>I'm far more concerned
>with the people who aren't getting the chances they deserve than I am
>concerned about you.
Since you seem to agree with the original poster of this thread, why
in the name of all that you hold dear would you want anyone to get
"the chances they deserve" and become a businessman? If you believe
that businessmen are evil exploiters who take from the poor, why would
you want the poor, put-upon unfortunates for whom you advocate
receiving their chance in life - a chance they deserve for some
unexplained reason - to become an evil, reviled businessman like me?
>This pro-business climate we are currently living
>under believes in nothing but the Almighty Dollar, as if nothing else
>matters and everything is for sale. It's a bunch of crap and its days
>are numbered or we are going down.
>
Obviously you have absolutely no experience in the business world or
you would know what a ridiculous statement that is.
>
> Government produces nothing.
>
>*Government, for all its faults, won WWII,
Government did not win WW2. First and foremost the citizens who
fought won WW2. Boeing, Ford, Northrup, General Motors, Browning,
Colt, and thousands of other companies and their employees produced
the hardware that helped win WW2 while bureaucrats sat on their asses.
>took us to the Moon,
>and was>largely responsible for the R&D that produced the computer we are using
>to communicate with. Businessmen, by and large, are narrowly educated,
>selfish bastards who think we need them far more than we need people
>who truly contribute to the national welfare. No offense, Jack, but
>you are not indispensable.
>
I'm not going to get into a point by point argument on this. The fact
of the matter is that government did not create the silicon chip. A
business did. (In fact, the idea for it evolved from an accident and
was not the result of government funded research.) Goverment produces
nothing on its own. Whatever it deems to do, it taxes from the
populace and buys from businesses. Politics plays a huge part in who
is awarded contracts and inefficiency and graft are rampant.
Again, you make hugely general and ignorant statements. In fact, in
most large corporations, upper management requires people with masters
degrees. The businessmen I rub elbows with in the business
organizations to which I belong run the gamut from high school
drop-outs to PHDs. Doctors, engineers, designers, artists,
mathematician, scientists, biologists and many other disciplines are
not exactly "narrowly educated, unless your idea of widely educated is
some loony leftist womens studies professor. You are painfully
ignorant on this account.
> In fact it is the greatest consumer of
>all, and the greatest squanderer of resources on the planet. It is
>taxpayers who support government, not the other way around, and since
>business, and taxes on the rich, accounts for the vast majority of
>taxes in this country, it is they who are supporting the poor, not the
>other way around. That is obvious, even to the most obtuse, or should
>I say to all of the most obtuse except you, apparently.
>
>
>*Yeah, they move into an area previously devoid of their "help," then
>kick everyone out who they can't direct to their own ends. Whatever
>would we do without them?
>
Now you've just lost all credibility. You sound like some high-scholl
freshman who's never held a job, never mind actually had any business
experience.
>
>Sniveling whiners like you are the sleasiest pussies on the planet.
>
>
>*Nah, I think that position is already taken, by YOU! (Sorry, couldn't
>help myself).
>
I'm not the one whining about his lot. I'm not the one sniveling
about the plight of "the poor" and how they're put-upon buy the likes
of me. You seem confused.
traveler
>Bob Curtin, in response to the following:
>------------------------------------------------------
>>The rich are taking from the middle class and poor. Taxing them is
>just
>>returning some of that money back.
>>How are they taking? they are taking by using the educated work force
>paid
>>for by our tax dollars and using it to generate wealth.
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>asserted that:
>What a pantload.
>*Something you are personally familiar with?
You're starting off on an intellectual low.already. Is that remark
supposed to Improve your credibility? It doesn't.
*No, I found your pantload remark rather funny. Perhaps it was a lame
reply.
>EVERYONE who was educated in the public education
>system, and who is not a shiftless bum,
>(this may be an indication of prejudice against those who do not share
>your particular brand of "work ethic" and hence, the key to what might
>be amiss with your reasoning)
There's nothing wrong with my reasoning, nor is there any prejudice
involved. It's a matter of fact. There are a certain amount of
people in society who have no inclination to work. In spite of the
trillions of taxpayer dollars spent on the War on Poverty and its
equivalents, the percentage of "poor" in America remains unchanged.
You call them what you want (victims, no doubt). I'll continue to
call them what I please. Poverty in America is for the most part a
self-induced state of being.
*Actually, that's not what I meant at all. What is often referred to
as "work" would more accurately be termed "making money." Making
money does not always involve much work nor does work necessarily
involve making money.
*Well, I'm happy to hear you say that, at least. Reportedly, Van Gogh
sold only one of his paintings, to a friend of a friend just before he
committed suicide. If you are referring to the allegation that he was
an absinthe drinker (substance abuse), I might agree with you, but I've
not heard of any other reports along those lines. He had psychomotor
epilepsy, which accounted for his spells of "bad behavior." Other than
that, he was merely shunned for being "a shiftless bum." Now we know
he was anything but a shiftless bum, cranking out one painting a day,
paintings that now go for tens of millions of dollars apiece, but in
his day, the common ordinary businessman looked at him like he was
worthless scum. Nobody wanted him around. These same sorts of people
now hang copies of his works on their walls. Keep in mind there may be
some modern day Van Gogh's around who are going through the same thing
all over again.
>The people who work for me and are not interested in starting their
>own business, are satisfied to draw a paycheck and limit themselves to
>to counting on others to provide their job upon which their livelihood
>depends. When their day is done, they can go home and forget about
>work.
>*How do you know they don't have other work to do? Perhaps working
for
>you is only a part of what they work on.
You're missing the point. Whether they're going to school at night or
working a part-time job or designing a new knibbling pin, their main
source of income is through their job at my company. Certainly most
of these employees (if not all) will eventually move on to other jobs
or maybe even start their own businesses. But my point is that while
they are working for me, they count on me to maintain a viable company
from which they can draw a paycheck. They can leave work and forget
about that part of their lives. I, on the other hand, must be
available 24/7/365 to maintain the company. Even while taking a
vacation, I'm on call.
>is wrong.
*My wife and I have no children so we are one of those childless
taxpayers. I recently suggested in an email to a local radio station
that was touting a tax override for increasing salaries and benefits to
school teachers that we ought to institute user fees for the schools,
actually charge the parents something like $100 a month per child.
Man, did that one raise a stink. They read it over the air and then
proceeded to call me names.
The figures are all there for the reading. Go to the IRS website and
the census bureau website for starters. Educate yourself.
*Ha ha, thanks for the advice. My views about businessmen are fairly
set in stone. I live in a town where the business community controls
absolutely everything and they are fucking this place over bigtime.
There are very few college grads here, almost nobody with an advanced
degree (I'm one of the few) and they think business people are the only
ones qualified to judge every single county or municipal issue. They
really take it to extremes and I'm heartily sick of them. No offense.
You don't sound so bad.
Bob Curtin
>
>>There's nothing wrong with my reasoning, nor is there any prejudice
>>involved. It's a matter of fact. There are a certain amount of
>>people in society who have no inclination to work. In spite of the
>>trillions of taxpayer dollars spent on the War on Poverty and its
>>equivalents, the percentage of "poor" in America remains unchanged.
>>You call them what you want (victims, no doubt). I'll continue to
>>call them what I please. Poverty in America is for the most part a
>>self-induced state of being.
>>
>
>*Actually, that's not what I meant at all. What is often referred to
>as "work" would more accurately be termed "making money." Making
>money does not always involve much work nor does work necessarily
>involve making money.
>
there are a certain amount of people in society who have no
inclination to support themselves, who believe that they have some
sort of inherent "right" to breed at others' expense, and expect
society to pick up the tab for them and their childrens' existences.
Although I do a lot of work which doesn't "make money." ( for
example, I help out in the Habitat For Humanity program and donate my
company's services to produce video productions for two charity golf
tournaments (One for Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and the other for
the local little leagues)) when I speak of "work" I'm speaking of
that work which people do to support themselves and their families.
>>
>>Nossir. Don't you think that Van Gogh worked? Of course he did.
>>That he wasn't a huge financial success during his lifetime doesn't
>>detract from the fact of his genius, (which wasn't recongized as such
>>during his lifetime) that he worked hard and believed in himself.
>>Bear in mind also that he made choices which detracted from his
>>success - such as his substance abuse and his anti-social behavior.
>
>
>*Well, I'm happy to hear you say that, at least. Reportedly, Van Gogh
>sold only one of his paintings, to a friend of a friend just before he
>committed suicide. If you are referring to the allegation that he was
>an absinthe drinker (substance abuse), I might agree with you, but I've
>not heard of any other reports along those lines. He had psychomotor
>epilepsy, which accounted for his spells of "bad behavior." Other than
>that, he was merely shunned for being "a shiftless bum." Now we know
>he was anything but a shiftless bum, cranking out one painting a day,
>paintings that now go for tens of millions of dollars apiece, but in
>his day, the common ordinary businessman looked at him like he was
>worthless scum. Nobody wanted him around. These same sorts of people
>now hang copies of his works on their walls. Keep in mind there may be
>some modern day Van Gogh's around who are going through the same thing
>all over again.
>
Perhaps so. In fact, I'm inclined to think that there are many Van
Gogh types struggling to practice their craft and eke out a living.
With all due respect to these folks, Van Gogh is the exception, not
the rule.
Just because Van Gogh painted pictures instead of cooping barrels for
a living does not in my mind make him any more of a heroic figure than
any other failed businessman. In fact, Van Gogh's contribution to
humanity is miniscule compared to Jonas Salk, Henry Ford, Thomas
Edison, the Wright Brothers or any of hundreds of thousands of other
inventers, businessmen and
There are far more would-be Van Goghs who're practicing their craft -
the equivalent of which is a painting on velvet (Robert Mapplethorp
comes to mind) - and who're whining that it's just not fair that the
public is not supporting them in their quest to produce the next Mona
Lisa or great American novel. Why people think that the government
should support artists with taxpayers money is beyond my
comprehension, but then, I'm a mean, nasty conservative who thinks
that tax money should go to pay for government services, not
government handouts.
>
>You pay what, a couple thousand dollars a year in property taxes?
>That won't even pay for ONE student for a year in ANY grade in public
>school. If you have more than one kid in school, you're paying a tiny
>fraction of what it's costing to send your kids to school. What
>you're counting on is childless taxpayers, the rich and corporations
>to take up your slack.
>
>
>*My wife and I have no children so we are one of those childless
>taxpayers. I recently suggested in an email to a local radio station
>that was touting a tax override for increasing salaries and benefits to
>school teachers that we ought to institute user fees for the schools,
>actually charge the parents something like $100 a month per child.
>Man, did that one raise a stink. They read it over the air and then
>proceeded to call me names.
>
What's worse is that the public educational system is failing
miserably. My company provides a variety of computer graphics
services (2D & 3D animation, digital video, digital photo, format
conversion and a variety of restoration and salvage services, among
others, including web development). Nearly all jobs I offer require a
high level of technical and artistic expertise which is nearly
impossible to learn without a solid fundamental education or without
having a personal tutor for a prohibitively expensive amount of time.
Finding help is a nightmare. I'm perfectly willing to teach skills to
people with good work ethics, a basic education in math, reading and
writng, and who'll show up for an interview dressed for business
instead of for gang banging. What I get, with ever increasing
regularity, are applicants who fail simple aptitude tests, illegibly
filling out applications, speaking English with crude, obscenity-laced
street patois, and who show up with huge egos and small minds.
Most of my employees are Asian Americans (Vietnamese, Japanese and
Chinese) and recent European immigrants. Blessed few are Americans of
any color. That scares the shit out of me.
>
>*Ha ha, thanks for the advice. My views about businessmen are fairly
>set in stone. I live in a town where the business community controls
>absolutely everything and they are fucking this place over bigtime.
>There are very few college grads here, almost nobody with an advanced
>degree (I'm one of the few) and they think business people are the only
>ones qualified to judge every single county or municipal issue. They
>really take it to extremes and I'm heartily sick of them. No offense.
>You don't sound so bad.
Your predicament is unfortunate. Your town can cure their behavior in
a matter of months. Boycott the offending businesses, draw media
attention to it with picketing, delug the local papers and all the
papers all around your town with letters to the editor and demand
official action on anything that is illegal.
Rick
wars, fixing the potholes, etc.) with the available CASH (the tax cuts that
went right into the bank accounts, already overflowing, of the
mega-millionaires -- so rich already that they couldn't even notice the
extra billions coming their way)...
Instead, the richies get the cash rebates, and the bills get put on the
credit card that is so max-ed out that we can no longer pay it down, it only
grows bigger -- and we pay with INTEREST.
This reduces the living standard of the whole world for the entire future.
INTEREST=WASTED MONEY. THE BUSH DEBT=WASTED MONEY. Clinton was paying down
the debt with his surplus. Bush gave away the surplus to the top 1% or rich
people.
Yes, the hoarding of money by the few alters the lives of EVERYONE else
forever. Everything from 'when can/will we ever cure cancer' to 'the air is
dirty and there's trash in the street'...
Some rich guys will tell you this -- those not sucked in by the evil of
greed -- check out Warren Buffet's comments about his property tax re: his
Nebraska mansion compared to his California mansion.
[Soc. security: if we LIFT THE CAP, there is no problem for a hundred
years...]
Check out these kewl links:
http://www.cafepress.com/trock/406066 <-- some great anti-dubya stuff!
http://www.failureisimpossible.com/needtoknow/scandals.htm <-- the bush
scandals
http://www.bushisantichrist.com <-- WARNING!
http://www.thinkblue2008.com <-- XLNT blue wristbands
http://www.voxfux.com/features/bush_child_sex_coverup/franklin.htm
"Bob Curtin" <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:a48c711lee7gol27m...@4ax.com...
traveler
...Just because Van Gogh painted pictures instead of cooping barrels
for
a living does not in my mind make him any more of a heroic figure than
any other failed businessman.
*I'm not aware of any barrels that are selling for $40 million. Since
he didn't realize one red cent from a massive fortune that he alone
created with his talent, hard work, and dedication, I'd call him a
heroic figure, alright, a hero martyred by the essential hypocrisy and
intolerance of bourgeois capitalism.
In fact, Van Gogh's contribution to
humanity is miniscule compared to Jonas Salk, Henry Ford, Thomas
Edison, the Wright Brothers or any of hundreds of thousands of other
inventers, businessmen and
*That's absurd.
There are far more would-be Van Goghs who're practicing their craft -
the equivalent of which is a painting on velvet (Robert Mapplethorp
comes to mind)
*Say what?!!! You simply must be kidding. Are you seriously comparing
a spray painting on velvet to a great work of art? If so, does that
mean some nature scene or an Elvis likeness that a guy in Algodones
cranks out in twenty minutes is as good as "Starry Night?" Have you
ever seen a Van Gogh original? I'm not talking about some print, even
a good print, but an original painting, the kind that are selling for
tens of millions of dollars and that are considered virtually
priceless. They had a showing of some of his originals at the art
museum in Los Angeles in the early seventies. It was unbelievable, how
good those paintings were, almost inconceivable that someone could do
something that fantastic with a little oil paint and canvas. I have
never seen a print of one of his works that does it the least bit of
justice at all.
- and who're whining that it's just not fair that the
public is not supporting them in their quest to produce the next Mona
Lisa or great American novel. Why people think that the government
should support artists with taxpayers money is beyond my
comprehension, but then, I'm a mean, nasty conservative who thinks
that tax money should go to pay for government services, not
government handouts.
*I agree with you there. Real artists don't want any handouts. To
suffer for one's art is half the reason for producing it. If you live
just like some conventional bourgeoisie all your life, without at least
several years of down and out struggling to survive, what sort of art
can you produce but bourgeoisie art, and what do they know? Jack shit,
that's what (a generalization, to be sure, but more or less accurate).
...My company provides a variety of computer graphics
services (2D & 3D animation, digital video, digital photo, format
conversion and a variety of restoration and salvage services, among
others, including web development). Nearly all jobs I offer require a
high level of technical and artistic expertise which is nearly
impossible to learn without a solid fundamental education or without
having a personal tutor for a prohibitively expensive amount of time.
Finding help is a nightmare. I'm perfectly willing to teach skills to
people with good work ethics, a basic education in math, reading and
writng, and who'll show up for an interview dressed for business
instead of for gang banging. What I get, with ever increasing
regularity, are applicants who fail simple aptitude tests, illegibly
filling out applications, speaking English with crude, obscenity-laced
street patois, and who show up with huge egos and small minds.
Most of my employees are Asian Americans (Vietnamese, Japanese and
Chinese) and recent European immigrants. Blessed few are Americans of
any color. That scares the shit out of me.
That sounds interesting. I'd be interested in more details about
exactly what it is you do.
Bob Curtin
> Bob Curtin
>
>...Just because Van Gogh painted pictures instead of cooping barrels
>for
>a living does not in my mind make him any more of a heroic figure than
>any other failed businessman.
>
>*I'm not aware of any barrels that are selling for $40 million.
Van Gogh couldn't sell any of his paintings in his lifetime, except
for (to my knowlege) one to a friend of a friend. I'm not a Van Gogh
scholor, but it would seem to me that your hindsight is extraordinary.
I'm assuming that had you been living in Van Gogh's time and saw one
of his paintings, you would have bought everything he could produce
because you alone out of the entire population would have recognized
his genius? That being the case, I suggest, with your infallible
judgement of great art, that you find another living Van Gogh, buy all
of his work and then wait for him to kick off so you can become rich.
> Since
>he didn't realize one red cent from a massive fortune that he alone
>created with his talent, hard work, and dedication, I'd call him a
>heroic figure, alright, a hero martyred by the essential hypocrisy and
>intolerance of bourgeois capitalism.
>
Really? That he wasn't recognized as a great artist by the citizenry
of his time is the fault of capitalism? Now that's funny. Did
businessmen run around telling everyone he stunk? Did capitalists set
up some sort of blacklist making it impossible for him to sell his
work (which, no doubt, was in great demand)? Or was it that
businessmen didn't fawn all over him, tell him what a great artist he
was, and donate large sums of money so he could work in comfort? Is
that your gripe?
>
> In fact, Van Gogh's contribution to
>humanity is miniscule compared to Jonas Salk, Henry Ford, Thomas
>Edison, the Wright Brothers or any of hundreds of thousands of other
>inventers, businessmen and
>
>
>*That's absurd.
>
No it's not. Jonas Salk has saved millions from the scourge of polio.
Henry Ford, besides making personal transportation affordable to just
about everyone, invented manufacturing techniques which made many
other products affordable to the common man. Edison's inventions have
lighted the world and made life far more comfortable for billions of
people. The Wright brothers made powered flight a reality which has
led to intercontinental transportation in a matter of hours instead of
weeks. Because of Bill Gates' leadership and vision, millions of
people are able to easily communicate through their computers (because
of a standardized interface and intuitive GUI)
Van Gogh painted pretty pictures, some of which are, in my opinion,
not all that they're cracked up to be.
>
>There are far more would-be Van Goghs who're practicing their craft -
>the equivalent of which is a painting on velvet (Robert Mapplethorp
>comes to mind)
>
>
>*Say what?!!! You simply must be kidding. Are you seriously comparing
>a spray painting on velvet to a great work of art?
I said WOULD-BE Van Goghs. There are thousands of artists living
today who, like Van Gogh, are stuggling to ply their craft and, like
Van Gogh, are not being recognized as great artists in their lifetime.
You scoff at a spray painting of Elvis on velvet the same way "Starry
Night" was scoffed at during Van Gogh's life. In fact, I'd be willing
to bet that you never would have deemed Van Gogh to be "geat" had not
somebody told you he was "great." If your aristic acumen is so
infallible
>If so, does that
>mean some nature scene or an Elvis likeness that a guy in Algodones
>cranks out in twenty minutes is as good as "Starry Night?"
Picasso pumped out some of his work in less time then it'd take you to
call Geico, yet there are people who'll pay millions for it. What's
your point?
>Have you
>ever seen a Van Gogh original? I'm not talking about some print, even
>a good print, but an original painting, the kind that are selling for
>tens of millions of dollars and that are considered virtually
>priceless. They had a showing of some of his originals at the art
>museum in Los Angeles in the early seventies. It was unbelievable, how
>good those paintings were, almost inconceivable that someone could do
>something that fantastic with a little oil paint and canvas. I have
>never seen a print of one of his works that does it the least bit of
>justice at all.
>
Hey, guy, calm down. You misunderstood my analogy. I never said that
Van Gogh's work was equivalent to a spray-painting on velvet. I meant
that there are modern-day WOULD-BE Van Goghs out there who're getting
the same lack of respect for their work - some of which is the
equivalent of Elvis on velvet. There are some, like Mapplethorpe,
who're getting far more respect for their work than they deserve.
Look, I have nothing against art in any form. To some, a crucifix
dunked into a jar of piss is art. God bless 'em. I'm a bit less
amused by that sort of thing. Maybe it's because of what I do for a
living. My taste runs more toward the Coen Brothers rather than
toward Oliver Stone, Dali than Van Gogh and Rodin than Mapplethorpe.
That's not denigrating Mapplethorpe or Van Gogh - it's merely stating
my preference. Some of us just don't see the "greatness" of a Robert
Mapplethorpe, just as Van Gogh's fellow citizens failed to see the
greatness of Vinny Van Gogh.
>
>- and who're whining that it's just not fair that the
>public is not supporting them in their quest to produce the next Mona
>Lisa or great American novel. Why people think that the government
>should support artists with taxpayers money is beyond my
>comprehension, but then, I'm a mean, nasty conservative who thinks
>that tax money should go to pay for government services, not
>government handouts.
>
>
>
>*I agree with you there. Real artists don't want any handouts. To
>suffer for one's art is half the reason for producing it. If you live
>just like some conventional bourgeoisie all your life, without at least
>several years of down and out struggling to survive, what sort of art
>can you produce but bourgeoisie art, and what do they know? Jack shit,
>that's what (a generalization, to be sure, but more or less accurate).
>
Bob Curtin
Bob Curtin
whizbang
> Bob Curtin
>...Just because Van Gogh painted pictures instead of cooping barrels
>for
>a living does not in my mind make him any more of a heroic figure than
>any other failed businessman.
>*I'm not aware of any barrels that are selling for $40 million.
Van Gogh couldn't sell any of his paintings in his lifetime, except
for (to my knowlege) one to a friend of a friend. I'm not a Van Gogh
scholor, but it would seem to me that your hindsight is extraordinary.
I'm assuming that had you been living in Van Gogh's time and saw one
of his paintings, you would have bought everything he could produce
because you alone out of the entire population would have recognized
his genius? That being the case, I suggest, with your infallible
judgement of great art, that you find another living Van Gogh, buy all
of his work and then wait for him to kick off so you can become rich.
*That would be good advice were I able to enjoy all the loot, myself,
but you know what they say, you can't take it with you.
> Since
>he didn't realize one red cent from a massive fortune that he alone
>created with his talent, hard work, and dedication, I'd call him a
>heroic figure, alright, a hero martyred by the essential hypocrisy and
>intolerance of bourgeois capitalism.
Really? That he wasn't recognized as a great artist by the citizenry
of his time is the fault of capitalism?
*Certainly, one could build a pretty convincing case on that basis,
that the economic system of his time kept him and the Impressionists
down. A few were successful, like Cezanne and Gaugin, but most died in
poverty of exhaustion from what Irving Stone (author of Lust for Life)
characterized as chronic, uncompensated overwork. People who are used
to being rewarded for what they do have a tough time understanding that
working very hard for nothing can kill you. The same system is in
place today in the art world. What sells is mostly formulaic crap
because most people are too stupid to differentiate between real art
and shit.
Now that's funny. Did
businessmen run around telling everyone he stunk?
*No, it's not funny, and yes, they did.
Did capitalists set
up some sort of blacklist making it impossible for him to sell his
work (which, no doubt, was in great demand)?
*Yeah, they probably did, and they do the same thing today to other
great artists, writers, filmmakers, even scientists, who are interested
in exploring truth rather than pushing shit because it sells products
for the corporate machine.
Or was it that
businessmen didn't fawn all over him, tell him what a great artist he
was, and donate large sums of money so he could work in comfort? Is
that your gripe?
*You're beginning to waste my time. Strawman arguments don't interest
me much.
> In fact, Van Gogh's contribution to
>humanity is miniscule compared to Jonas Salk, Henry Ford, Thomas
>Edison, the Wright Brothers or any of hundreds of thousands of other
>inventers, businessmen and
>*That's absurd.
No it's not.
*Yes, it is.
Jonas Salk has saved millions from the scourge of polio.
Henry Ford, besides making personal transportation affordable to just
about everyone, invented manufacturing techniques which made many
other products affordable to the common man. Edison's inventions have
lighted the world and made life far more comfortable for billions of
people. The Wright brothers made powered flight a reality which has
led to intercontinental transportation in a matter of hours instead of
weeks. Because of Bill Gates' leadership and vision, millions of
people are able to easily communicate through their computers (because
of a standardized interface and intuitive GUI)
*Bill Gates is a cocksucking little weasel who deserves to get shot out
of his boots. He's the guy who had a break-in and didn't even know it
because his house is so big. Don't get me started on what I think of
personal computers and what they have done to our society. You
probably aren't old to enough to understand.
Van Gogh painted pretty pictures, some of which are, in my opinion,
not all that they're cracked up to be.
*You're opinion isn't worth very much when it relates to things you
obviously know very little about.
>There are far more would-be Van Goghs who're practicing their craft -
>the equivalent of which is a painting on velvet (Robert Mapplethorp
>comes to mind)
>*Say what?!!! You simply must be kidding. Are you seriously
comparing
>a spray painting on velvet to a great work of art?
I said WOULD-BE Van Goghs. There are thousands of artists living
today who, like Van Gogh, are stuggling to ply their craft and, like
Van Gogh, are not being recognized as great artists in their lifetime.
You scoff at a spray painting of Elvis on velvet the same way "Starry
Night" was scoffed at during Van Gogh's life. In fact, I'd be willing
to bet that you never would have deemed Van Gogh to be "geat" had not
somebody told you he was "great." If your aristic acumen is so
infallible
*You'd lose that bet because nobody tells me what to think or what to
appreciate. That is the clearest misunderstanding of me and my
perspective that you have yet voiced. You seem to have a penchant for
making sweeping statements about individuals whom you know nothing
about. You don't know as much as you think you do but it doesn't stop
you from expressing some shopworn opinion. If some of my remarks
strike you as unfairly anti-capitalistic and you don't appreciate them,
well then, don't worry about it. It's just my opinion and something I
toss off on this venue for morons is hardly worth losing sleep over. I
realize that capitalism has its good points and that it has achieved
many great things. My bitch with it is that we are taking it way too
far these days. Businessmen used to have a more proper role in this
society. They and their concerns weren't the be-all and end-all of
existence like they are today. Things are simply out of whack all over
this country and that is one major aspect of our system and society
that is demonstrably out of whack. If you don't understand precisely
what I mean, or can't agree with it, then the hell with it.
>If so, does that
>mean some nature scene or an Elvis likeness that a guy in Algodones
>cranks out in twenty minutes is as good as "Starry Night?"
Picasso pumped out some of his work in less time then it'd take you to
call Geico, yet there are people who'll pay millions for it. What's
your point?
*Commercial art is a very low form of art, meaning that pumped out by a
so-called artist strictly for the sake of making money rather than for
the sake of creating real art of lasting value. I'm not all that
impressed with everything Picasso did, although some of his stuff was
undoubtedly great. Some people have remarked that Picasso has
influenced my own work and I have to tell them I admire Van Gogh more.
That is because I am an expressionist in my use of color, but I don't
really paint like Van Gogh. I enjoy making precise lines and am
probably more of a surrealist. On the other hand, I haven't painted
for years, so I can't knock off some profound statement about it for
you. The most I might say is to watch what the brush does rather than
what you are doing with the brush. Actually, I find the different
artistic media very much the same, from the written word to painting to
photography to film making to carpentry to forestry to landscaping,
even to road building. It's all the same, what it is you're dealing
with and how you go about molding something into a final product.
>Have you
>ever seen a Van Gogh original? I'm not talking about some print, even
>a good print, but an original painting, the kind that are selling for
>tens of millions of dollars and that are considered virtually
>priceless. They had a showing of some of his originals at the art
>museum in Los Angeles in the early seventies. It was unbelievable,
how
>good those paintings were, almost inconceivable that someone could do
>something that fantastic with a little oil paint and canvas. I have
>never seen a print of one of his works that does it the least bit of
>justice at all.
Hey, guy, calm down. You misunderstood my analogy. I never said that
Van Gogh's work was equivalent to a spray-painting on velvet. I meant
that there are modern-day WOULD-BE Van Goghs out there who're getting
the same lack of respect for their work - some of which is the
equivalent of Elvis on velvet. There are some, like Mapplethorpe,
who're getting far more respect for their work than they deserve.
*Once again, you can't compare some guy tossing off a velvet painting
for a few bucks to someone who has spent their whole life attempting to
create great art. The analogy just doesn't work at all.
Look, I have nothing against art in any form. To some, a crucifix
dunked into a jar of piss is art. God bless 'em.
*I doubt it.
I'm a bit less
amused by that sort of thing. Maybe it's because of what I do for a
living. My taste runs more toward the Coen Brothers rather than
toward Oliver Stone, Dali than Van Gogh and Rodin than Mapplethorpe.
That's not denigrating Mapplethorpe or Van Gogh - it's merely stating
my preference. Some of us just don't see the "greatness" of a Robert
Mapplethorpe, just as Van Gogh's fellow citizens failed to see the
greatness of Vinny Van Gogh.
Who gives a shit about this Maple sugar asshole? What does he have to
do with anything? How can you place some asshole like that in the
same sentence as Vincent Van Gogh, who was demonstrably one of the
greatest artists ever, even if you don't understand why or appreciate
his work very much? That's no cause to lump him in with some faggot
using federal grants to outrage the stupid, conformist middle class.
"Vinny?" What's with that shit? Take care, Bob. I think we've done
this one to death.
zzbunker
> Bob Curtin
>
> ...Just because Van Gogh painted pictures instead of cooping barrels
> for
> a living does not in my mind make him any more of a heroic figure than
> any other failed businessman.
>
> *I'm not aware of any barrels that are selling for $40 million. Since
> he didn't realize one red cent from a massive fortune that he alone
> created with his talent, hard work, and dedication, I'd call him a
> heroic figure, alright, a hero martyred by the essential hypocrisy and
> intolerance of bourgeois capitalism.
He wouldn't have considered it that way, though.
Since he only become a hero, because he cut on his ear.
Because he detested the essential hypocrisy
of art students, not capitalism.
Bob Curtin
wrote:
BOB
>>Van Gogh couldn't sell any of his paintings in his lifetime, except
>for (to my knowlege) one to a friend of a friend. I'm not a Van Gogh
>scholor, but it would seem to me that your hindsight is extraordinary.
>I'm assuming that had you been living in Van Gogh's time and saw one
>of his paintings, you would have bought everything he could produce
>because you alone out of the entire population would have recognized
>his genius? That being the case, I suggest, with your infallible
>judgement of great art, that you find another living Van Gogh, buy all
>of his work and then wait for him to kick off so you can become rich.
>
>WHIZBANG
>*That would be good advice were I able to enjoy all the loot, myself,
>but you know what they say, you can't take it with you.
>
Nice cop out. You failed to address the issue. Your disdain for
those in Van Gogh's lifetime who failed to recognize his genius (which
apparently was just about everyone) is palpable. Are you saying that
you, had you been living in his time and saw his work, would have
recognized that which the rest of the population failed to see?
Again, your hindsight is both 20/20 and arrogant.
>WHIZBANG
>> Since
>>he didn't realize one red cent from a massive fortune that he alone
>>created with his talent, hard work, and dedication, I'd call him a
>>heroic figure, alright, a hero martyred by the essential hypocrisy and
>
>>intolerance of bourgeois capitalism.
>
>BOB
>Really? That he wasn't recognized as a great artist by the citizenry
>of his time is the fault of capitalism?
>
>WHIZBANG
>*Certainly, one could build a pretty convincing case on that basis,
>that the economic system of his time kept him and the Impressionists
>down.
How? Just proclaiming it doesn't make it fact. Art is like any other
commodity. People who pay millions for a piece of art find value in
it - either in its intrinsic beauty or in its investment value, or in
some cases to keep up with the Rockefellers. Are you saying that
society owes these guys a living? I still don't understand how
capitalism kept Van Gogh down, especially since he lived in a
socialist society.
>WHIZBANG
>A few were successful, like Cezanne and Gaugin, but most died in
>poverty of exhaustion from what Irving Stone (author of Lust for Life)
>characterized as chronic, uncompensated overwork.
BFD. They chose their line of work freely. Blaming their fellow man
for their abject failure to make money is the height of stupidity,
Just because YOU think Van Gogh is the cat's meow - and that opinion
was formed after his death and after somebody else peoclaimed him
great - does not make the citizens of Van Gogh's time stupid or evil.
Or is it that you're one of those asshole elitists who think that
being an "artist" (monetarily successful or not) somehow places you on
a level above the guy who makes millions from a chain of furniture
stores? I hope not. You seem more intelligent than that.
The fact of the matter is that the art world is filled with
incompetents, hacks, phonies, bullshit artists (some literally),
crackpots and con artists just like any other line of work. Anybody
can buy an easel and call themselves an "artist," and wallow in
self-pity, bemoaning the fact that the stupid population around him is
too unsophisticated and ignorant to see the genius in his work.
>WHIZBANG
>People who are used
>to being rewarded for what they do have a tough time understanding that
>working very hard for nothing can kill you.
Again, you seem to think that just because you proclaim yourself to be
an (unsuccessful) "artist," it entitles you to some sort of victimhood
status and a free ride. You also give the impression that somehow
"artists" work harder and for less than those involved in other
endeavors. Your arrogance knows no limits.
>WHIZBANG
>The same system is in
>place today in the art world. What sells is mostly formulaic crap
>because most people are too stupid to differentiate between real art
>and shit.
>
What a condescending, pompous ass. Of course you, on the other hand,
because your art doesn't sell, are one of the producers of "real art."
and you, unlike "most people" know "real art" from "formulaic crap."
I think your arrogance and whiny petulence is nothing more than your
own frustration from the failure of your fellows to see your imagined
greatness.
Are you suggesting that artists should be exempt from the same market
forces the rest of us are dealing with? Why? Why should artists get
a free ride?
>BOB
> Now that's funny. Did
>businessmen run around telling everyone he stunk?
>
>WHIZBANG
>*No, it's not funny, and yes, they did.
>
Another proclamation? Or do you have actual instances and examples to
cite or are you just pulling it out of your ass.
>
>BOB
> Did capitalists set
>up some sort of blacklist making it impossible for him to sell his
>work (which, no doubt, was in great demand)?
>
>WHIZBANG
>*Yeah, they probably did, and they do the same thing today to other
>great artists, writers, filmmakers, even scientists, who are interested
>in exploring truth rather than pushing shit because it sells products
>for the corporate machine.
>
Probably? Your speculation couldn't, of course, come from your utter
contempt of us lowly businessmen.
>BOB
> Or was it that
>businessmen didn't fawn all over him, tell him what a great artist he
>was, and donate large sums of money so he could work in comfort? Is
>that your gripe?
>
>WHIZBANG
>*You're beginning to waste my time. Strawman arguments don't interest
>me much.
>
Oh, poor baby. I'm really really sorry to have touched the hem of
your robe. Your problem is that you think that "artists" are some
sort of heroic elite that are put upon by the social fabric. Idiotic.
Creating art is no different from any other creative endeavor, whether
it's designing a radical new knibbling pin or working out the
mathematics of quantum physics.
>BOB
>> In fact, Van Gogh's contribution to
>>humanity is miniscule compared to Jonas Salk, Henry Ford, Thomas
>>Edison, the Wright Brothers or any of hundreds of thousands of other
>>inventers, businessmen and
>
>WHIZBANG
>>*That's absurd.
>
>BOB
>No it's not.
>
> Jonas Salk has saved millions from the scourge of polio.
>Henry Ford, besides making personal transportation affordable to just
>about everyone, invented manufacturing techniques which made many
>other products affordable to the common man. Edison's inventions have
>lighted the world and made life far more comfortable for billions of
>people. The Wright brothers made powered flight a reality which has
>led to intercontinental transportation in a matter of hours instead of
>weeks. Because of Bill Gates' leadership and vision, millions of
>people are able to easily communicate through their computers (because
>of a standardized interface and intuitive GUI)
>
>
>WHIZBANG
>*Bill Gates is a cocksucking little weasel who deserves to get shot out
>of his boots. He's the guy who had a break-in and didn't even know it
>because his house is so big.
A cocksucking little weasel? Why, because he made billions of dollars
and created millions of jobs? Because he donates more to charity each
month than you'll donate in your entire life? Because you're a
jealous little loser who can't admire the work of businessmen who you
consider to be oh so much lower than the most hackneyed of "artists?
How pathetic
>Don't get me started on what I think of
>personal computers and what they have done to our society. You
>probably aren't old to enough to understand.
>
Ah, you're a Luddite as well. Figures.
What the personal computer has done for society is to take the
dissemination of information and news away from the mainstream
media.and static paper books and place it where it belongs.
What the digital computer has done for society is to spawn huge
strides in medicine, scientific research, space exploration,
manufacturing transportation and entertainment.
What the personal computer has done for society is to yank the
mystique and isolation away from heretofore social elites, such as
politicos, academia and the fourth estate and take great progress in
showing them up for what they really are.
And most importantly, the personal computer has allowed instant and
near instant communication between diverse and distant peoples.
>BOB
> Van Gogh painted pretty pictures, some of which are, in my opinion,
>not all that they're cracked up to be.
>
>WHIZBANG
>*You're opinion isn't worth very much when it relates to things you
>obviously know very little about.
>
I knew that had to come sooner or later. You can't refute the
argument, so you attack my credibility. You have no idea what my
educational background is, yet you make a flat-out proclamation - the
result, no doubt, of your hard-wired arrogance.
>
>>There are far more would-be Van Goghs who're practicing their craft -
>>the equivalent of which is a painting on velvet (Robert Mapplethorp
>>comes to mind)
>
>
>>*Say what?!!! You simply must be kidding. Are you seriously
>comparing
>>a spray painting on velvet to a great work of art?
>
>
>
>I said WOULD-BE Van Goghs. There are thousands of artists living
>today who, like Van Gogh, are stuggling to ply their craft and, like
>Van Gogh, are not being recognized as great artists in their lifetime.
>You scoff at a spray painting of Elvis on velvet the same way "Starry
>Night" was scoffed at during Van Gogh's life. In fact, I'd be willing
>to bet that you never would have deemed Van Gogh to be "geat" had not
>somebody told you he was "great." If your aristic acumen is so
>infallible
>
>
>
>*You'd lose that bet because nobody tells me what to think or what to
>appreciate. That is the clearest misunderstanding of me and my
>perspective that you have yet voiced.
Of course. The fact that Van Gogh has been proclaimed "great" by the
art world had no effect on your opinion of his work. You arrived at
that conclusion all by your little onezie. Sure.
>WHIZBANG
>You seem to have a penchant for
>making sweeping statements about individuals whom you know nothing
>about. You don't know as much as you think you do but it doesn't stop
>you from expressing some shopworn opinion.
Oops! Looks like you're also quite guilty of making sweeping
statements about individuals you know nothing about,
>If some of my remarks
>strike you as unfairly anti-capitalistic and you don't appreciate them,
>well then, don't worry about it. It's just my opinion and something I
>toss off on this venue for morons is hardly worth losing sleep over. I
>realize that capitalism has its good points and that it has achieved
>many great things. My bitch with it is that we are taking it way too
>far these days.
I'm quite familiar with The Anti-Capitalist Mentality. If you'd like
to look into a mirror, pick up the book by the same name authored by
Ludwig Von Mises.
>WHIZBANG
>Businessmen used to have a more proper role in this
>society. They and their concerns weren't the be-all and end-all of
>existence like they are today. Things are simply out of whack all over
>this country and that is one major aspect of our system and society
>that is demonstrably out of whack. If you don't understand precisely
>what I mean, or can't agree with it, then the hell with it.
>
>
Again your elitist, pompous, moronic arrogance is drooling out of your
mouth again. We businessmen used to know our place, is that it? We
are just some lower caste citizens who are getting too big for our
britches? Would you care to elaborate on just precisely our "proper
role" is in society? I thought not.
>
>WHIZBANG
>*Commercial art is a very low form of art, meaning that pumped out by a
>so-called artist strictly for the sake of making money rather than for
>the sake of creating real art of lasting value.
You might want to tell that to Norman Rockwell, Richard Avedon, Edward
Steichen, Andy Warhol and thousands of other commercial artists whose
work is hanging in museums all over the world.
>I'm not all that
>impressed with everything Picasso did, although some of his stuff was
>undoubtedly great. Some people have remarked that Picasso has
>influenced my own work and I have to tell them I admire Van Gogh more.
>That is because I am an expressionist in my use of color, but I don't
>really paint like Van Gogh. I enjoy making precise lines and am
>probably more of a surrealist. On the other hand, I haven't painted
>for years, so I can't knock off some profound statement about it for
>you. The most I might say is to watch what the brush does rather than
>what you are doing with the brush. Actually, I find the different
>artistic media very much the same, from the written word to painting to
>photography to film making to carpentry to forestry to landscaping,
>even to road building. It's all the same, what it is you're dealing
>with and how you go about molding something into a final product.
>
Artistic principles are the same but there's a huge different between
working in oils on canvas and creating the same scene in 3DS Max. And
there's a big difference between working with digital video and
photography as opposed to film, both still and motion pictures. The
media are not the same. They each have their own strengths and
weaknesses and each presents different problems and challenges. Only
very casual users wouldn't understand the difference.
Again, your pomposity is astounding. You seem to set yourself up as
the final judge of not only what is "low" art and what is "real" art,
but who is an artist and who isn't. You're a laugh riot, my friend.
>That's no cause to lump him in with some faggot
>using federal grants to outrage the stupid, conformist middle class.
Oh that's right, I forgot. We here in the middle class are stupid
conformists and you are the ulimate authority on art.
>"Vinny?" What's with that shit? Take care, Bob. I think we've done
>this one to death.
My middle name is Vincent. Vinny is short for Vincent. Van Gogh's
first name was Vincent. I used his nickname; Vinny. I thought it'd
be obvious. Man, you are one uptight elitist. You ought to change to
boxer shorts. Your panties keep getting into a knot.
JC Martin
That's a pretty silly idea Bob. If there were no poverty, there would
be no cheap labor, right? How could a business survive? I'm all for
small businesses like yours, but the fact it that big corporations use
more resources than regular folks and their tax burden should reflect
that. I mean, how much free land, air, water and money should we give
to corporations? If you build your company up large enough, hire a few
big time lobbyists and lawyers, you can expect the government to bail
you out when the going gets tough. And if you poison some small
community's back yard, you don't have to pay a dime.
-JC
Bob Curtin
wrote:
>>
>> There's nothing wrong with my reasoning, nor is there any prejudice
>> involved. It's a matter of fact. There are a certain amount of
>> people in society who have no inclination to work. In spite of the
>> trillions of taxpayer dollars spent on the War on Poverty and its
>> equivalents, the percentage of "poor" in America remains unchanged.
>> You call them what you want (victims, no doubt). I'll continue to
>> call them what I please. Poverty in America is for the most part a
>> self-induced state of being.
>
>
>
>That's a pretty silly idea Bob. If there were no poverty, there would
>be no cheap labor, right?
Now THAT'S a pretty silly idea. Are you suggesting that somehow
business is creating poverty to maintain a pool of cheap labor? If
so, I'd really like to know how they're doing that so I can get in on
it.
>How could a business survive?
We survive just fine.
>I'm all for
>small businesses like yours, but the fact it that big corporations use
>more resources than regular folks and their tax burden should reflect
>that.
We already do pay more in taxes than "regular folks." What's your
point.
> I mean, how much free land, air, water and money should we give
>to corporations?
Who's getting free land, water and money? You're rambling on about a
non-existent scenario. I had to buy my land, I pay for my water and
nobody's giving me free money.
>If you build your company up large enough, hire a few
>big time lobbyists and lawyers, you can expect the government to bail
>you out when the going gets tough. And if you poison some small
>community's back yard, you don't have to pay a dime.
>
Is that so? Great!! I never knew that was an option for me should my
business fail! Thanks for letting me know!! I just thought I'd have
to go through bankruptcy and liquidate. I never knew the government
would bail me out.
It's also good to know that if I pollute the area, It won't cost me a
dime.
JC Martin
> On Thu, 05 May 2005 17:14:48 GMT, JC Martin <jcma...@sonic.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>>There's nothing wrong with my reasoning, nor is there any prejudice
>>>involved. It's a matter of fact. There are a certain amount of
>>>people in society who have no inclination to work. In spite of the
>>>trillions of taxpayer dollars spent on the War on Poverty and its
>>>equivalents, the percentage of "poor" in America remains unchanged.
>>>You call them what you want (victims, no doubt). I'll continue to
>>>call them what I please. Poverty in America is for the most part a
>>>self-induced state of being.
>>
>>
>>
>>That's a pretty silly idea Bob. If there were no poverty, there would
>>be no cheap labor, right?
>
>
> Now THAT'S a pretty silly idea. Are you suggesting that somehow
> business is creating poverty to maintain a pool of cheap labor? If
> so, I'd really like to know how they're doing that so I can get in on
> it.
I'm suggesting that large global corporations get that large because of
cheap labor and lax regulations, yes. That's a no-brainer.
>>How could a business survive?
>
>
> We survive just fine.
>
>
>>I'm all for
>>small businesses like yours, but the fact it that big corporations use
>>more resources than regular folks and their tax burden should reflect
>>that.
>
>
> We already do pay more in taxes than "regular folks." What's your
> point.
>
>>I mean, how much free land, air, water and money should we give
>>to corporations?
>
>
> Who's getting free land, water and money? You're rambling on about a
> non-existent scenario. I had to buy my land, I pay for my water and
> nobody's giving me free money.
Do you think the world revolves around you? Where have I said that I'm
talking about YOU specifically?
>>If you build your company up large enough, hire a few
>>big time lobbyists and lawyers, you can expect the government to bail
>>you out when the going gets tough. And if you poison some small
>>community's back yard, you don't have to pay a dime.
>>
>
>
> Is that so? Great!! I never knew that was an option for me should my
> business fail! Thanks for letting me know!! I just thought I'd have
> to go through bankruptcy and liquidate. I never knew the government
> would bail me out.
Absolutely. See the airline or energy industries.
> It's also good to know that if I pollute the area, It won't cost me a
> dime.
Depends how powerful you are. Maybe you're too *lazy* to get to that
level though. :-)
-JC
Bob Curtin
wrote:
>Bob Curtin wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 May 2005 17:14:48 GMT, JC Martin <jcma...@sonic.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>There's nothing wrong with my reasoning, nor is there any prejudice
>>>>involved. It's a matter of fact. There are a certain amount of
>>>>people in society who have no inclination to work. In spite of the
>>>>trillions of taxpayer dollars spent on the War on Poverty and its
>>>>equivalents, the percentage of "poor" in America remains unchanged.
>>>>You call them what you want (victims, no doubt). I'll continue to
>>>>call them what I please. Poverty in America is for the most part a
>>>>self-induced state of being.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>That's a pretty silly idea Bob. If there were no poverty, there would
>>>be no cheap labor, right?
>>
>>
>> Now THAT'S a pretty silly idea. Are you suggesting that somehow
>> business is creating poverty to maintain a pool of cheap labor? If
>> so, I'd really like to know how they're doing that so I can get in on
>> it.
>
>
>I'm suggesting that large global corporations get that large because of
>cheap labor and lax regulations, yes. That's a no-brainer.
>
Uh huh. It's that simple is it? I never knew that. You ought to
teach economics - you really have it down pat.
JC Martin
> On Thu, 05 May 2005 18:05:07 GMT, JC Martin <jcma...@sonic.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Bob Curtin wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 05 May 2005 17:14:48 GMT, JC Martin <jcma...@sonic.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>There's nothing wrong with my reasoning, nor is there any prejudice
>>>>>involved. It's a matter of fact. There are a certain amount of
>>>>>people in society who have no inclination to work. In spite of the
>>>>>trillions of taxpayer dollars spent on the War on Poverty and its
>>>>>equivalents, the percentage of "poor" in America remains unchanged.
>>>>>You call them what you want (victims, no doubt). I'll continue to
>>>>>call them what I please. Poverty in America is for the most part a
>>>>>self-induced state of being.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That's a pretty silly idea Bob. If there were no poverty, there would
>>>>be no cheap labor, right?
>>>
>>>
>>>Now THAT'S a pretty silly idea. Are you suggesting that somehow
>>>business is creating poverty to maintain a pool of cheap labor? If
>>>so, I'd really like to know how they're doing that so I can get in on
>>>it.
>>
>>
>>I'm suggesting that large global corporations get that large because of
>>cheap labor and lax regulations, yes. That's a no-brainer.
>>
>
>
> Uh huh. It's that simple is it?
Nothing is ever simple in life. But it an accurate summation.
>I never knew that. You ought to
> teach economics - you really have it down pat.
Being a smart-ass I see. Whatever gets you through the day is all right
by me.
-JC
Bob Curtin
wrote:
>>>
>>>I'm suggesting that large global corporations get that large because of
>>>cheap labor and lax regulations, yes. That's a no-brainer.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Uh huh. It's that simple is it?
>
>
>Nothing is ever simple in life. But it an accurate summation.
>
>
>
>>I never knew that. You ought to
>> teach economics - you really have it down pat.
>
>
>
>Being a smart-ass I see. Whatever gets you through the day is all right
>by me.
>
What's the matter? You made the proclamation without evidence or
explanation! I guess I'm supposed to just take your word for it. So
I did. Now you're all bent out of shape? Jeez. There's just no
pleasing some people.
whizbang
had enough spare time to futher spew:
>WHIZBANG
>*That would be good advice were I able to enjoy all the loot, myself,
>but you know what they say, you can't take it with you.
Nice cop out. You failed to address the issue.
*No, you failed to understand my answer. If it doesn't smack you over
the head like a 2 x 4, you don't get it.
...Art is like any other
commodity.
*Just ask a businessman. To him, EVERYTHING is a commodity.
>WHIZBANG
>A few were successful, like Cezanne and Gaugin, but most died in
>poverty of exhaustion from what Irving Stone (author of Lust for Life)
>characterized as chronic, uncompensated overwork.
Anybody
can buy an easel and call themselves an "artist," and wallow in
self-pity, bemoaning the fact that the stupid population around him is
too unsophisticated and ignorant to see the genius in his work.
*Is that from personal experience or did you get it off the boob tube?
Again, you seem to think that just because you proclaim yourself to be
an (unsuccessful) "artist,"
*I did???
it entitles you to some sort of victimhood
status and a free ride. You also give the impression that somehow
"artists" work harder and for less than those involved in other
endeavors.
*I do???
Your arrogance knows no limits.
*You ought to know since you define the term.
What a condescending, pompous ass.
*Yup, you sure as fuck are, and it is particularly galling considering
your naivete and general lack of knowledge. Hopefully you can work on
that bad attitude before too many more employees quit you or you lose
another wife.
Of course you, on the other hand,
because your art doesn't sell,
*Really? Where did you get that idea?
are one of the producers of "real art."
and you, unlike "most people" know "real art" from "formulaic crap."
I think your arrogance and whiny petulence is nothing more than your
own frustration from the failure of your fellows to see your imagined
greatness.
*I think you like the sound of your own voice because you sure don't
know what you're talking about.
Your speculation couldn't, of course, come from your utter
contempt of us lowly businessmen.
*You ARE a lowly craven bunch, aren't you. Glad to hear you admit that
much, at least.
Oh, poor baby.
*And here I thought you were supposed to be rich.
I'm really really sorry to have touched the hem of
your robe.
*Well, it can be forgiven considering your position at my feet.
Your problem is that you think that "artists" are some
sort of heroic elite that are put upon by the social fabric.
*I do???
Idiotic.
*What can one expect you to come up with but idiocies?
Creating art is no different from any other creative endeavor, whether
it's designing a radical new knibbling pin or working out the
mathematics of quantum physics.
*Wow, let me jot that down.
>WHIZBANG
>*Bill Gates is a cocksucking little weasel who deserves to get shot
out
>of his boots. He's the guy who had a break-in and didn't even know it
>because his house is so big.
A cocksucking little weasel?
*Hey, you can read.
Why, because he made billions of dollars
and created millions of jobs?
*I'm not concerned with why he's a cocksucking little weasel. I can
only observe that quite plainly, he IS a cocksucking little weasel.
Because he donates more to charity each
month than you'll donate in your entire life?
*Gee, I wonder how you know that? One thing's certain, he sure has YOU
fooled, dummy.
Because you're a
jealous little loser who can't admire the work of businessmen who you
consider to be oh so much lower than the most hackneyed of "artists?
How pathetic
*I don't admire people whom I cannot respect, no matter how
"successful" others think they are, and that includes you. I mean,
really, all you've got is the Gen X mantra in your quiver when it comes
right down to cases? "You're a loser!" Next you'll tell me I must
live in a double wide. What a shallow, empty generation, speaking of
"losers." We'll see what kind of happiness you can hold onto after
you've been here another two or three decades, Mr. "Winner."
>Don't get me started on what I think of
>personal computers and what they have done to our society. You
>probably aren't old to enough to understand.
Ah, you're a Luddite as well.
*Never heard of him so I guess I can't be one.
Figures.
*In your beer-addled, strawman-spewing brain, I guess.
What the personal computer has done for society is to take the
dissemination of information and news away from the mainstream
media.and static paper books and place it where it belongs.
*Static paper books? You got a problem with detailed information that
has stood the test of time and wasn't spewed out by some dumb kid
unaware of the world before about 1990? What horseshit. Some frigging
"conservative." He doesn't like books and thinks shallow, here today
gone tomorrow, generally erroneous info available on the Internet is
somehow superior. Nah, you couldn't be THAT dumb.
What the digital computer has done for society is to spawn huge
strides in medicine, scientific research, space exploration,
manufacturing transportation and entertainment.
*Sounds good, but the specifics don't quite measure up to the mantra.
What the personal computer has done for society is to yank the
mystique and isolation away from heretofore social elites, such as
politicos, academia and the fourth estate and take great progress in
showing them up for what they really are.
*We all knew what they really were long before the pc came along, or
you, for that matter.
And most importantly, the personal computer has allowed instant and
near instant communication between diverse and distant peoples.
*If this is the sort of "communication" you are referencing, we don't
need it. It's mostly garbage, like the rest of what your generation
keeps touting as so eminently desirable.
>BOB
> Van Gogh painted pretty pictures, some of which are, in my opinion,
>not all that they're cracked up to be.
>WHIZBANG
>*You're opinion isn't worth very much when it relates to things you
>obviously know very little about.
I knew that had to come sooner or later. You can't refute the
argument, so you attack my credibility.
*I didn't hear an argument and you don't have much credibility to
attack. It was simply an observation about you and your general lack
of in-depth knowledge or experience.
You have no idea what my
educational background is, yet you make a flat-out proclamation - the
result, no doubt, of your hard-wired arrogance.
*I don't need to know the specifics of your formal education to
perceive rather clearly that you have the perspective of a dumbass. It
just keeps coming out, no matter what command of the language you think
you possess.
Of course. The fact that Van Gogh has been proclaimed "great" by the
art world had no effect on your opinion of his work. You arrived at
that conclusion all by your little onezie. Sure.
I arrived at that decision long before I became an artist, myself. We
had "Starry Night" hanging on our wall as I grew up. That was long
before you were a faint gleam in your old man's eye. Then as a young
man, I went and saw an exhibit of his original works and was
completely blown away by it. It had little to do with what the art
world thought of him and I've never given a hot crap about them because
I was always planning to be a biologist, not an artist. Nobody tells
me what to think. Nobody ever has and nobody ever will, and certainly
not a minor leaguer like you. It's probably difficult for you to
believe because your own thinking is obviously so derivative. That's
got to be the explanation for why you keep returning to the same tired
themes.
We businessmen used to know our place, is that it?
*Oh, no, you've got it completely wrong once again. You businessmen
(if that is truly what you are and it's not some sort of Gen X "winner"
pose) never seem to know your place.
We
are just some lower caste citizens who are getting too big for our
britches?
*You're getting warmer.
Would you care to elaborate on just precisely our "proper
role" is in society? I thought not.
*You thought wrong. Go grab yourself a pick and shovel and start
digging ditches by hand, and don't think you can bribe someone else
into doing it for you at quarter pay.
>WHIZBANG
>*Commercial art is a very low form of art, meaning that pumped out by
a
>so-called artist strictly for the sake of making money rather than for
>the sake of creating real art of lasting value.
You might want to tell that to Norman Rockwell, Richard Avedon, Edward
Steichen, Andy Warhol and thousands of other commercial artists whose
work is hanging in museums all over the world.
*You go tell them since you give a shit what they think.
Artistic principles are the same but there's a huge different between
working in oils on canvas and creating the same scene in 3DS Max.
*Gee, that makes sense.
And
there's a big difference between working with digital video and
photography as opposed to film, both still and motion pictures.
*Jesus, you'd probably tell Ansel Adams or Elliot Porter how to handle
a 4 X 5.
The
media are not the same.
*No shit???
They each have their own strengths and
weaknesses and each presents different problems and challenges.
*Wow, poignance plus.
Only
very casual users wouldn't understand the difference.
*What was the point you were trying to make? That some kid with a
website or something is more of an artist than I am? That's a good
one, sonny. Keep trying. You'll get it right one of these years.
I never said that
>Van Gogh's work was equivalent to a spray-painting on velvet.
*No, nothing like that. You merely equated the two several times,
already.
Some of us just don't see the "greatness" of a Robert
>Mapplethorpe, just as Van Gogh's fellow citizens failed to see the
>greatness of Vinny Van Gogh.
>Who gives a shit about this Maple sugar asshole? What does he have to
>do with anything? How can you place some asshole like that in the
>same sentence as Vincent Van Gogh, who was demonstrably one of the
>greatest artists ever, even if you don't understand why or appreciate
>his work very much?
Again, your pomposity is astounding.
*Coming from you, that is probably a compliment.
You seem to set yourself up as
the final judge of not only what is "low" art and what is "real" art,
but who is an artist and who isn't. You're a laugh riot, my friend.
*I don't "set myself up" as anything. I have always been very capable
of discriminating between quality and pretense, and not just in art. I
couldn't care less that stupid people are jealous or find the concept
laughable. Guys like you laugh at what you don't fully understand as a
defense mechanism, a reflex. It protects your brittle little ego.
And your kind seldom get wise to themselves, either. It's why the
world is in such sad shape most of the time. A lot of stupid people
have way too much influence. It's the story of the race, I'm afraid.
>We here in the middle class are stupid
conformists and you are the ulimate authority on art.
*Nobody said anything about being an "ultimate authority" about
anything (except you, Mr. Strawman), but as for being a stupid middle
class conformist, hey, if the shoe fits, why stick it in your mouth.
>"Vinny?" What's with that shit? Take care, Bob. I think we've done
>this one to death.
My middle name is Vincent. Vinny is short for Vincent. Van Gogh's
first name was Vincent. I used his nickname; Vinny. I thought it'd
be obvious. Man, you are one uptight elitist. You ought to change to
boxer shorts. Your panties keep getting into a knot.
Bob Curtin
Nah, your middle name is "asshole" and nobody believes you aren't
wearing panties under your shorts. Why else would you think of it?
Cruising the net, or something? No thanks. Ain't interested.
Bob Curtin
wrote:
>Bob Curtin (who doesn't seem to understand or care what goodbye means)
>had enough spare time to futher spew:
>
WHIZBANG, you're a pompous windbag who doesn't seem to understand that
when you scrawl long, agonizingly irrational posts in some feeble
attempt to get in the last word, pasting a "goodbye" on the end
doesn't mean shit. If you want to say goodbye, just do it. Don't
take the time to write a littany of insults, condescension and excuses
and then end a post with a goodby in an attempt to run away.
But okay, go ahead, run along, you little coward.
Bub bye,