Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not really. There are plenty of facts, just many choose to ignore the ones they don't want to acknowledge.
Yes, this is oft-noted behavior among conservative types. Doesn't fit with the philosophy? Pretend it never happened!
Quote:
Originally Posted by neil0311
Should we all be "rugged individualists" as you describe? Maybe not in the same way people had to be 100 years ago, but although you mock the concept of "personal responsibility," being more self reliant and making decisons that impact your life positively is something that many could benefit from doing.
I don't mock the concept of personal responsibility. I mock the smug and detached self-made man delusion and the use of meaningless buzzwords such as Personal Responsibility® and Poor Decision-making® to justify simple selfishness and an unwillingness to face up to so many of the actual responsibilities that come along with being a member of society.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neil0311
Too many people EXPECT that others will pay for their mistakes and that the government will provide for them.
And if you had gotten up this morning and found that a tree had fallen on your car overnight, would you be a man about it and take personal responsibility for the damages brought about by your poor decision-making in choosing to park near a tree? Or would you call your insurance company so that all the other innocent premium-payers could provide for you by paying for your mistake?
Quote:
Originally Posted by neil0311
In this country, there is a multitude of opportunity for those who make the decision to work hard and establish goals for themselves.
Yup...one in a thousand of those might become a bank president. What happens to the other 999?
Quote:
Originally Posted by neil0311
Contrast that with what I perceive you believe, that success is luck and that failure is a product of your environment.
Like many here, I am quite well qualified to speak from the standpoint of success, and if I attempted to deny the role that luck (e.g., being in the right place at the right time) and many other people (e.g., first-rate mentors who took me under their wing for no apparent reason) have played along the way, I would be lying. Many people are as smart, as well-educated, and in general as capable as I am. They worked as hard as I did, they went to church and paid their taxes, and some of them are having to work a 4-hour evening shift as a telemarketer in order to make ends meet. Anyone who tells you that there is any direct relationship between things like talent and effort and the actual attainment of any particular goal or level of success however measured is feeding you a line of 99 44/100's % pure bullcrap. Talent and effort are good things. There is no reason to hold back on either one. But the idea that these are enough is wrong. And the idea that success, once achieved, is attributable only to these is also wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neil0311
Sure bad things happen to good people, but the successful people are the ones who brush off the adversity and press on.
The daily lives of most people living at or near the poverty level must then define them as being very successful people indeed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neil0311
It has nothing to do with testosterone, more with a desire to control your own destiny and not blame others for your shortcomings.
No, it's closer to the sort of self-admiration, self-congratulation, and self-aggrandizement that would be associated with various forms of narcissism. Some people are simply too full of themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neil0311
Sitting back and blaming others while you pity your own perceived victimhood is nonsense.
Sitting back and blaming others while you congratulate yourself on not being one of them does not constitute an improvement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neil0311
A sense of community doesn't imply taking responsibility for others.
Yes, this is oft-noted behavior among conservative types. Doesn't fit with the philosophy? Pretend it never happened!
I don't mock the concept of personal responsibility. I mock the smug and detached self-made man delusion and the use of meaningless buzzwords such as Personal Responsibility® and Poor Decision-making® to justify simple selfishness and an unwillingness to face up to so many of the actual responsibilities that come along with being a member of society.
And if you had gotten up this morning and found that a tree had fallen on your car overnight, would you be a man about it and take personal responsibility for the damages brought about by your poor decision-making in choosing to park near a tree? Or would you call your insurance company so that all the other innocent premium-payers could provide for you by paying for your mistake?
Yup...one in a thousand of those might become a bank president. What happens to the other 999?
Like many here, I am quite well qualified to speak from the standpoint of success, and if I attempted to deny the role that luck (e.g., being in the right place at the right time) and many other people (e.g., first-rate mentors who took me under their wing for no apparent reason) have played along the way, I would be lying. Many people are as smart, as well-educated, and in general as capable as I am. They worked as hard as I did, they went to church and paid their taxes, and some of them are having to work a 4-hour evening shift as a telemarketer in order to make ends meet. Anyone who tells you that there is any direct relationship between things like talent and effort and the actual attainment of any particular goal or level of success however measured is feeding you a line of 99 44/100's % pure bullcrap. Talent and effort are good things. There is no reason to hold back on either one. But the idea that these are enough is wrong. And the idea that success, once achieved, is attributable only to these is also wrong.
The daily lives of most people living at or near the poverty level must then define them as being very successful people indeed.
No, it's closer to the sort of self-admiration, self-congratulation, and self-aggrandizement that would be associated with various forms of narcissism. Some people are simply too full of themselves.
Sitting back and blaming others while you congratulate yourself on not being one of them does not constitute an improvement.
insurance companies stand to make record profits if democrats are elected...
Really? I assume they will all be supporting Hillary or Obama then.
They're not? Why? Because while they may make more money in premiums (if this is the route taken which I doubt), those health plans would have to be much more affordable than they are now. No point in requiring a minimum wage family to spend $1500/ month on health care. So the profit per plan will go down.
Next I suspect that a priority would be made of ensuring that these companies actually pay up to cover claims.
Oops; more profit out the window.
They may not be allowed to rubber stamp an enormous percentage of claims with 'DENIED' without even bothering to read them.
When you have insurance companies requiring that a certain percentage of claims has to be denied or the reviewer doesn't get their bonus, then you have an unfair system.
It has to change. The system as it stands is an embarassment.
To me, these insurance companies are racqueteers... they are worse than mafia!
Even Mafia respects you if you cooperate and give money... here, you can pay for 20 years, and once you get sick you get "DENIED".
What amazes me even more is HOW some people here are SO convinced that this system is "best in the world" etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hobokenkitchen
Really? I assume they will all be supporting Hillary or Obama then.
They're not? Why? Because while they may make more money in premiums (if this is the route taken which I doubt), those health plans would have to be much more affordable than they are now. No point in requiring a minimum wage family to spend $1500/ month on health care. So the profit per plan will go down.
Next I suspect that a priority would be made of ensuring that these companies actually pay up to cover claims.
Oops; more profit out the window.
They may not be allowed to rubber stamp an enormous percentage of claims with 'DENIED' without even bothering to read them.
When you have insurance companies requiring that a certain percentage of claims has to be denied or the reviewer doesn't get their bonus, then you have an unfair system.
It has to change. The system as it stands is an embarassment.
To me, these insurance companies are racqueteers... they are worse than mafia!
Even Mafia respects you if you cooperate and give money... here, you can pay for 20 years, and once you get sick you get "DENIED".
What amazes me even more is HOW some people here are SO convinced that this system is "best in the world" etc.
Ya know - I have paid into my health insurance form 20 years. Had some very serious illness too - Heart attack, Cancer, COPD etc. Take medications regularly.
My wife recently had a serious accident at home - broken bones - surgeries - wheelchairs - home healthcare - rehabs
And, its funny - according to you, most of the coverage should have been "denied" - that is the word you used, isn't it?
Yet, NONE - not one itty bitty bit of treatment - of any kind, was stamped "DENIED" as you claim it would be
Oh, and the care and treatment we got? Top Notch -
My best friend had a congenital heart defect at birth, had a pacemaker at age 21. Never once got denied for insurance. Wasn't born into money and never had a job making more the 40000 a year.
My father had a heart attack, my mother has guillian-barre syndrome. Never once an issue or any kind or a denial.
As a matter of fact of all the people I know I have never of any of them ever once being denied for insurance. And I mean people from every walk of life.
Not that people don't have issues but the ones that do tend to blow it way out of proportion as if it's some widespread breakdown of society when clearly it isn't anything like that. They need to understand the scope of the problem first before deciding on a solution but unfortunately that's the issue. They don't understand the scope of the problem at all.
Yes, this is oft-noted behavior among conservative types. Doesn't fit with the philosophy? Pretend it never happened!
I don't mock the concept of personal responsibility. I mock the smug and detached self-made man delusion and the use of meaningless buzzwords such as Personal Responsibility® and Poor Decision-making® to justify simple selfishness and an unwillingness to face up to so many of the actual responsibilities that come along with being a member of society.
And if you had gotten up this morning and found that a tree had fallen on your car overnight, would you be a man about it and take personal responsibility for the damages brought about by your poor decision-making in choosing to park near a tree? Or would you call your insurance company so that all the other innocent premium-payers could provide for you by paying for your mistake?
Yup...one in a thousand of those might become a bank president. What happens to the other 999?
Like many here, I am quite well qualified to speak from the standpoint of success, and if I attempted to deny the role that luck (e.g., being in the right place at the right time) and many other people (e.g., first-rate mentors who took me under their wing for no apparent reason) have played along the way, I would be lying. Many people are as smart, as well-educated, and in general as capable as I am. They worked as hard as I did, they went to church and paid their taxes, and some of them are having to work a 4-hour evening shift as a telemarketer in order to make ends meet. Anyone who tells you that there is any direct relationship between things like talent and effort and the actual attainment of any particular goal or level of success however measured is feeding you a line of 99 44/100's % pure bullcrap. Talent and effort are good things. There is no reason to hold back on either one. But the idea that these are enough is wrong. And the idea that success, once achieved, is attributable only to these is also wrong.
The daily lives of most people living at or near the poverty level must then define them as being very successful people indeed.
No, it's closer to the sort of self-admiration, self-congratulation, and self-aggrandizement that would be associated with various forms of narcissism. Some people are simply too full of themselves.
Sitting back and blaming others while you congratulate yourself on not being one of them does not constitute an improvement.
How entirely wrong you are.
Well, now that you've twisted half my words and put your words in my mouth, I guess you're right. We're all just greedy, selfish swine, who should be our brothers' keepers and lay our resources on the table for them to have.
Dropped out of school at 16? No problem, we'll take care of you.
Had a baby (or 3) out of marriage and can't afford to take care of them? No problem, we'll take care of you.
Too lazy to work, or you just don't have the mental capacity to do more than menial or minimum wage labor? No problem, we'll take care of you.
Committed a crime and now you're back on the streets? No problem, we'll take care of you.
Why not? The greedy, selfish, "rich" people who go to work and pay their taxes don't deserve to keep their own money when there are so many good uses for it like the ones I mentioned. How nasty and selfish to actually require that people face the consequences of their own choices and actions. How mean spirited to want the fruits of your own hard work to pay off for you and your family and not be taken from you.
If only we lived in a society where there was no private property and the government shared all the resources with every citizen. Life would be a utopian paradise. No hunger, no sickness, no selfish profit motives. Oh...wait a minute...didn't they try that in eastern Europe for a good part of the 20th century? Hmmm....yeah, wasn't that what millions risked their lives to rebel against in the 1980s and early 1990s? That experiment didn't work out so well.
Its funny how as "members of a society" we are DIRECTLY forced to help others when these others who reap the benefits don't DIRECTLY help me. Oh yeah...its a one way street... the benefits of taking from those who have it... I am sorry, until you show me how you are going to serve my interests other than taking my money after all, I am helping you.... what you have nothing to offer me directly? I don't think so...
Well, now that you've twisted half my words and put your words in my mouth, I guess you're right. We're all just greedy, selfish swine, who should be our brothers' keepers and lay our resources on the table for them to have.
It's kinda a bad habit the OP has - happens all the time!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
