You are not entitled to the money I earn.

[Grandmaster Phoenix 26]

1/ The point wasn't that they sold the chips to him, it's that he had the lucky opportunity to be able to buy the chips. Yes, he could have gotten into discs, but it wouldn't have made him that wealthy. There just happened to be an inventor who engineered the silicon chip at the time, and he happened to be around to take that opportunity.

2/ You imply that you don't want schools or roads. As in, have an uneducated nation. And the interstate roads were paved for the military, so why would you think we don't need those if you're so gung ho about our national security?

3/ No, luck happens all the time to everyone. And Skippy, hard work does make you more lucky, but you seem to completely ignore the fact that people are what they are raised as. People don't just ignore their basest feelings that they grew up with on a whim every few seconds. It takes other people to make them appreciate what they have, or certain situations that they're lucky enough to experience that makes them have a change of heart after being raised to think you're poor and will be poor forever. Some kids are raised believing that welfare will take care of them forever, so they don't have to work or go to school. That's bad luck, to have a parent like that, and the child is even more unlucky for having an easily manipulable child brain that stews in such a stupid notion. Like with our argument earlier where I asserted it's not ever truly one person's fault. You asserted that it's the person's conscious decision to shoot a gun, and that they could have just stopped. You seem to think that all people are born with a universal sense of what is right and a universal base set of emotions. People aren't like that. People aren't even born with depth perception.

5/ You're the one who looks opposed to innovation. Except in the military, apparently. Why would someone like me, who considers himself an engineer at heart, be opposed to innovation? I love the stuff. I could bathe in it. Why can't we innovate energy sources? Space travel? Something more useful than weapons designed to manipulate physics to make people suffer?

6/ Did you just compare me to North Korea in the middle of something totally unrelated?

1.)What is the point of this anyways?

2.)Does the constitution give the Federal government the power to fund education? NO. Does the constitution give all rights not given to the government to the people/states? YES. The federal government needs to remove itself from the education system and the states need to go back into control.

3.)Well, since you wanto to go into child physcology, there's a reason the fed was kept out of education in the Constitution- Look at the Soviets. By simply having teachers spread propaganda to the students, the government went generally unchallenged. Now out teachers preach the Rights of Men, which is the most horrible political bullshit ever to exist. Rights of MAN, not rights of MEN. Also, maybe the kids need motivation to succeed. Instead, they are being preached mediocracy. Also, start an education thread so we can argue about this there.

4.)How exactly am I anti-innovation? This "progressive movement" is set out for one goal- A larger, more controlling government. If they are paying you, you can't really talk bad about them, now can you? Say, for example, the fed decided to give $3 million to fox news to support the Glenn Beck show (I know this would NEVER happen). Ddo you really think Glenn would be badmouthing the government? Also, I can answer those as well.

A.)The free market is not ready for different energy sources. It will slide into place though as technologies get better and more cost-effective, but having the government subsidise, say, corn for ethanol fuel, won't help it go along, it just gives corn an unfair profitability. And since growers will switch to corn, the cost of your food goes up, as do your taxes to pay for the corn. (Note: Ethanol is more polluting than gasoline)

B.)NASA is your problem. Its still stuck way back there in the (Get ready for two words of bullshit) Cold War (We can discuss the bullshittiness of the CW later if you want). Nasa is the largest obstacle for the privitization of space. Say, AT&T wants to launch a new satilite to provide additional service for its clients. A private space company, which we will call PSA, will offer to send it up for $30 million. NASA, which receives federal funding and can take a bad loss, will offer to send it up for $15 million, though its total costs to send it up are similar. If you were at AT&T, what would you do?

C.)Please tell me you don't want to entirely cancel the defense buget. Also, due to the technology we develop, innocent bystanders, etc are suffering less than they were with older weapons.

5.)The NK reference was as to why we need a strong defense budget.

You also forgot point 4.

---

Skippy wrapped that up pretty well. SS is a ponzi scheme.

[Kimmy 0]

If I may ask, who is your father getting pension from? Unless it is military or some sort of federal service, it is also being provided on a state or local level, his disability may also be coming from there.

Well first, my dad was on long term disability at his work, which is a private company. He was getting from there. And then he was considering social security disability.

But the thing about SS disability is that it will only supplement the disability you are getting from work. Say he got 400 a month from work. If he got 200 from SS, work would only pay 200. I don't know if that's the way it is everywhere, but that's at least how it worked in his situation.

So what he did was he retired, because he was essentially not going to work anyway. So he got pension from his work, and he got SS disability. And in that case, he could get both in full. So right now he's making a little less than he did when he was working. More after taxes, because he doesn't have to pay them.

I'm getting my scholarship from the University of Connecticut. Although I'm sure a percentage of UConn's money is from donations and stuff, most is from CT taxes.

A.)The free market is not ready for different energy sources. It will slide into place though as technologies get better and more cost-effective, but having the government subsidise, say, corn for ethanol fuel, won't help it go along, it just gives corn an unfair profitability. And since growers will switch to corn, the cost of your food goes up, as do your taxes to pay for the corn. (Note: Ethanol is more polluting than gasoline)

I entirely agree with this though. No I lied, partially. I think we do need to have more focus on alternative energy, but subsidizing corn is going to get us nowhere. The point of whether ethanol is more polluting than gasoline doesn't concern me, although I'd like to see documentation on it. The thing that is the problem is that we are running out of gas. Oil is technically a renewable resource. It just renews a lot slower than we are consuming it. I believe the free market is ready for different energy sources, like wind and solar, but I don't think it is ready for alternatives to oil, such as corn ethanol. Also, I think there needs to be more focus on alternative energy, because I think that higher innovation will lead eventually to higher demand, which will drive the price down.

[Ammonsa 308]

Skippy is right about the Social security going bankrupt anyway. It's going to happen, and it'll be really bad. This is because the government at the time didn't forsee people living as long, as well as the fact that there are so many more people alive now.

Also, GMP. Skippy showed me why the UH and such doesn't work. So while I still believe that it should happen, I completely understand that it can't in the current state of your economy. So yeah.

Also, I think I want to congratulate you, you've made a debate without suggesting we nuke someone. I actually enjoy this debate, it's pretty interesting.

[Sahaqiel 1232]

1.)What is the point of this anyways?

2.)Does the constitution give the Federal government the power to fund education?

3.)Well, since you wanto to go into child physcology,

4.)How exactly am I anti-innovation? This "progressive movement" is set out for one goal- A larger, more controlling government.

A.)The free market is not ready for different energy sources.

B.)NASA is your problem

C.)Please tell me you don't want to entirely cancel the defense buget.

5.)The NK reference was as to why we need a strong defense budget.

You also forgot point 4.

1/ The point was that you said Bill Gates' success was founded entirely upon hard work and innovation, when you were missing how pretty much all forms of success rely on some kind of luck along the way.

2/ You know, state government was abolished for a reason.

3/ You know "the Fed" is actually the bank's bank? Like, it has no meaning in what you're saying?

Also,

Now out teachers preach the Rights of Men, which is the most horrible political bullshit ever to exist. Rights of MAN, not rights of MEN. Also, maybe the kids need motivation to succeed. Instead, they are being preached mediocracy.

What do you suppose this even mean?

When are we being preached mediocrity?

By the way, half our society is supported on mediocrity with low skill jobs.

4/ I don't really have an opinion on your Minarchy, other than it doesn't work if one of your views is that we should all be isolated and without police, instead fending for ourselves with our guns we may or may not have.

5/ You're not thinking about actual innovation, and what the dicks is this.

What were you possibly thinking when you responded to my post about innovation with THIS.

This "progressive movement" is set out for one goal- A larger, more controlling government. If they are paying you, you can't really talk bad about them, now can you? Say, for example, the fed decided to give $3 million to fox news to support the Glenn Beck show (I know this would NEVER happen). Ddo you really think Glenn would be badmouthing the government? Also, I can answer those as well.

What is this, GMP? What am I supposed to be seeing when I mention innovation and you retort with the progressive movement's effect on the government and Glenn Beck?

Private space corporations or NASA, it doesn't matter, because they will only seek to slightly outdo one another. Take for example, our internet. Our internet is back in the stone ages. The US' bandwidth is terrible. Google's trying to jumpstart internet service providers' laziness by starting their own service that is infinitely superior. And it only takes cables that were made back in the 90's. But it took Google to just up and decide on it one day. It's like this with a lot of things, and I don't believe space travel would be any different if NASA were taken out of the equation. It's programmed in our economy. Predestined obsolescence. The product has to not be top notch at first so it has room to grow and get more money, and making privatized space programs for cellular satellites won't make that any different. Like the iPhone, or even Pokemon. That's why I think your military budget ideas are stupid. We have too much room to grow to only focus on fighting, but you say if we shouldn't worry about military, we should worry about business. Where is the innovation in this? There is a dude who learned http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGg0ATfoBgo. Guess how much budget is going into that? Not a whole lot, and it burns pretty hot. It's literally rocket fuel. You know that? Space shuttles' propulsion is liquid hydrogen and oxygen. The contrail it leaves behind is steam. We've learned to create rocket fuel with just salt water, and no one is bothering with it. Ethanol? Why make corn take its grip over the US' food even tighter? We have millions of acres of the stuff, and it's being purchased by the government below production price. It's already a major cash crop that has tons of excess. They started feeding the stuff to animals not biologically made for corn, like cows.

As for military budget, I think the military should stay funded, but as long as we're modern enough, we don't need to spend a hundred tons of money on it.

[Cascade 741]

I should have ridiculed them more, shouldn't I. Damn, missed opportunity. Oh well. But yeah, that post also works for our cousins up in Canadaland.

Don't forget your parent Britain! :>

also I lol'd hard at "Obamacare". This is the most Trubbish term I have ever heard in regards to healthcare. Never use it again. :>

also stereotypes of people on welfare are horrible and immature thank you <3

I should really get a better opinion on economic stuffs :c

[Grandmaster Phoenix 26]

1/ The point was that you said Bill Gates' success was founded entirely upon hard work and innovation, when you were missing how pretty much all forms of success rely on some kind of luck along the way.

2/ You know, state government was abolished for a reason.

3/ You know "the Fed" is actually the bank's bank? Like, it has no meaning in what you're saying?

Also,

What do you suppose this even mean?

When are we being preached mediocrity?

By the way, half our society is supported on mediocrity with low skill jobs.

4/ I don't really have an opinion on your Minarchy, other than it doesn't work if one of your views is that we should all be isolated and without police, instead fending for ourselves with our guns we may or may not have.

5/ You're not thinking about actual innovation, and what the dicks is this.

What were you possibly thinking when you responded to my post about innovation with THIS.

What is this, GMP? What am I supposed to be seeing when I mention innovation and you retort with the progressive movement's effect on the government and Glenn Beck?

Private space corporations or NASA, it doesn't matter, because they will only seek to slightly outdo one another. Take for example, our internet. Our internet is back in the stone ages. The US' bandwidth is terrible. Google's trying to jumpstart internet service providers' laziness by starting their own service that is infinitely superior. And it only takes cables that were made back in the 90's. But it took Google to just up and decide on it one day. It's like this with a lot of things, and I don't believe space travel would be any different if NASA were taken out of the equation. It's programmed in our economy. Predestined obsolescence. The product has to not be top notch at first so it has room to grow and get more money, and making privatized space programs for cellular satellites won't make that any different. Like the iPhone, or even Pokemon. That's why I think your military budget ideas are stupid. We have too much room to grow to only focus on fighting, but you say if we shouldn't worry about military, we should worry about business. Where is the innovation in this? There is a dude who learned http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGg0ATfoBgo. Guess how much budget is going into that? Not a whole lot, and it burns pretty hot. It's literally rocket fuel. You know that? Space shuttles' propulsion is liquid hydrogen and oxygen. The contrail it leaves behind is steam. We've learned to create rocket fuel with just salt water, and no one is bothering with it. Ethanol? Why make corn take its grip over the US' food even tighter? We have millions of acres of the stuff, and it's being purchased by the government below production price. It's already a major cash crop that has tons of excess. They started feeding the stuff to animals not biologically made for corn, like cows.

As for military budget, I think the military should stay funded, but as long as we're modern enough, we don't need to spend a hundred tons of money on it.

1.)Still, why are we arguing about this?

2.)I don't understand what you are saying here. State Governments do still exist.

3.)You were talking about the how people live the way their parents do.

A.)We are being peached mediocracy. In praticular, the educational system. The removal of competition, the "Everyone gets a participation trophy", the "We can't hurt their feelings" stuff. Since kids dont see failure, they get more prone to anger when they fin out they don't succeed at everything.

B.)Rights of the group (Whats best for everyone) VS Rights of the indiviual (Whats best for yourself).

4.)Minarchy: Low economic regulations and low business regulations, the government should exist mainly to protect from force, fraud, and violation of contract. The people should support the government, the government should not support the people.

5.)You lacked a 4th point, that was an insert totally unrelated to innovation, as I covered some innovation-related topics in my sub-arguments to my point 4.

6.)The water burning also requires the radio waves. Although I know how to burn salt water another way, Electrolysis. Take a 9 volt battery, an hoow each end up to a wire. Now, stick the other end into salt water. The resulting bubbles are Hydrogen and Oxygen. However, burning them releases the same amount of energy put into splitting the water.

---

Cold War is only bullshitty because there was technically warfare going on at the time. However, it was not between the two warring factions. It was via proxy war, and through competitions to build, test, and place weapons, which makes the name ring more true.

The cold war was bullshit because of the fact that neither majory power had any plans on attacking eachother. Read "My Life as A Spy" by John A. Walker.

[Sahaqiel 1232]

GMP, I think the only ones that think the Cold War was serious business were the people that were on the propaganda side of it during the Cold War.

I'll respond to the rest later, but burning water with radio waves could be the vehicle's source of fuel pretty easily, and you could like, recharge the car or something. I'm aware of the law of conservation of mass-energy.

Fitting solar panels to the roof would also help. Maybe the whole car's body could be covered in solar panels, and that new braking-energy-to-electrical-energy could be a bro too? I don't know. But innovation isn't only thinking about one preexisting idea.

[Skippy 82]

3/ No, luck happens all the time to everyone. And Skippy, hard work does make you more lucky, but you seem to completely ignore the fact that people are what they are raised as. People don't just ignore their basest feelings that they grew up with on a whim every few seconds. It takes other people to make them appreciate what they have, or certain situations that they're lucky enough to experience that makes them have a change of heart after being raised to think you're poor and will be poor forever. Some kids are raised believing that welfare will take care of them forever, so they don't have to work or go to school. That's bad luck, to have a parent like that, and the child is even more unlucky for having an easily manipulable child brain that stews in such a stupid notion. Like with our argument earlier where I asserted it's not ever truly one person's fault. You asserted that it's the person's conscious decision to shoot a gun, and that they could have just stopped. You seem to think that all people are born with a universal sense of what is right and a universal base set of emotions. People aren't like that. People aren't even born with depth perception.

Alright, Saha, now that I'm semi conscious, I'll respond to this.

You need to do a lot of research into development and nature vs. nurture before you say things like this, not only is it cynical, it is wrong on almost every base. People break their mold every day. People change from "what they are raised as" all the time, it is human nature. A child, raised on welfare, in a bad school, in a gang area, can go on to become a doctor, of his own volition. You see, you seem to operate under this idea that people don't reason, especially children, that they cannot see the world for themselves, and recognize a need to be better. DO you know what the feel of the need to improve one's life is Saha? It's greed. A base, human impulse. We all have it, greed is good, greed innovates, greed moves the economy, greed makes a child change his station for a better life. Whether we recognize it or not, that is what it is.

The Harlem child who wants to make more money and not be what his parent's were, doesn't mean his parents instilled that idea in him, he can independently decide that he does not like how he lives. That exact negative nurture can drive a child to a positive future. People are what they are raised for a time, but rebellion is encoded into us, greed is encoded into us, we have a desire to be better than our parents, than everyone. This is not a bad thing, to an extent, greed is good.

Now, it is true, that growing up taught welfare will take care of you does make it MORE LIKELY, that the child will continue to burden the system, but it DOES NOT in any, way, shape or form make it a requirement. Positive influences do not always lead to positive ends, and negative influences do not always lead to negative ends. Look at the child raised in a well off family, strict rules, good schools, enough money to be very comfortable, lots of friends, never a bad thing, then the child becomes a serial killer, rapist, or possibly even a homeless welfare recipient who refuses to work. Happens every day. Then look at the Harlem child, grew up with brother in a gang, no dad, mom an alcoholic who doesn't work, school system that doesn't care, and he becomes one of the most prominent cardiac surgeons in the Saint Louis area, because he didn't want to be his mom, and wanted his kids to have a better childhood than he did. I talked to him about this not long ago.

You see Saha, nurture is a funny thing, you have no idea how the influences on one's life will shape what choices they make, a hard life of nothing but negative influence can lead to a very productive child, and a life with every opportunity can leave you on jail or on the streets. It is all about how that person reasons, and the choices that they make. Continuing the cycle of lifetime welfare recipients is a choice, one often made because it is easy, it is what one has always done. That is not "not having a choice" that is a distaste for work and a distaste for change. It is time we stopped making excuses for people, and get them help. Continuing the cycle, as a society, will get us nowhere but bankrupt.

Are you familiar with the "give a man a fish" concept? Giving people lifelong welfare is giving them a fish. As a society, we need to teach them to fish.

ETA: Saha, if you want the short version, how and where one is raised is only one of an infinite number of deciding factors as to who that person is and how he acts. Your concept of "we are what we are raised" is incredibly narrow and short sighted. Not to sound insulting, but there is so much more too it than that.

[なべ 184]

Who caaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaares

[Grandmaster Phoenix 26]

Actually, I do, and it also seems most other members who contributed to this debate also cared. If you aren't going to contribute, posting random stuff is spam.

[PrimaGaga 1025]

This....This topic is.... It's so.... BORING!

[Sahaqiel 1232]

ETA: Saha, if you want the short version, how and where one is raised is only one of an infinite number of deciding factors as to who that person is and how he acts. Your concept of "we are what we are raised" is incredibly narrow and short sighted. Not to sound insulting, but there is so much more too it than that.

You probably didn't gather that my beliefs aren't just people based raising, but also experience based raising.

Choices are taken away from us a lot, from where we're born, to who we encounter, and even the genetics in the brain we are given. Weaker minds wouldn't rebel. That's why a large part of the country does menial work that doesn't please them. People fall into a habit and get used to it. I'm not saying a person with opportunity doesn't take it. Opportunity's always there. But you are really quick to dismiss every action a person makes as 100% their fault, and you also seem to think that we do have a predestined decision to make all the time.

For instance, I brought up the ridiculous scenario that it wouldn't matter if a person was born some place in America, or some place in Russia, but according to your views, both alternates would have that person end up in Russia doing the exact same things, and you didn't even mention it. Something along those lines. I can't remember exactly what it was. But think of it like this. Peoples' greed is influenced a lot by our consumerist culture. What if we all lived in shacks in a third world country and never heard of the kind of lives we have here in the US, good or bad? They wouldn't desire anything better, because they don't know about anything that they consider better, and their culture might not even think of ours as better than theirs anyway. Emotional programming is largely based on the cultures you're a part of.

A person can spontaneously change their ways, but sometimes people are really really far gone. Would a child with multiple personality disorder have it if they weren't traumatized and beaten as a child? Would a shell shocked man returning from war just up and not be shell shocked anymore? Human psychology isn't all on its own. The infinite scenarios we are faced with all shape us and who we are. The decisions of whether or not to murder are both determined by what you believe, and if your life has taught you to believe that it's wrong to kill someone, those thoughts probably weren't yours. If the decision was to murder, the thoughts telling you it's OK were probably not yours either. Both decisions might have been influenced by the brain you got or the people who swayed you.

To an extent, I am saying that we have destinies, but I'll be the first to tell you that they're the most wrong and stupid things to buy into. I don't want people to make excuses for themselves like how they were raised if they did something they think is wrong. That's because they believed it to be wrong and thought they could do nothing about it, despite having control over themselves. I believe a desire to do something can overcome your situation. But if a person thought that what they did was right, then their actions and their beliefs have produced a situation that is good to them. I might think it's wrong, but I haven't gone through what that person has, and I am not that person, so who am I to totally blame them for their actions?

Sahaqiel

[ChewyChunx 0]

I live in Canada. Personally when I used to have a job ( I am now going to Animation School with the help of my parents) I used to have around (If I remember correctly) $400 dollars taken off my check for various things. Now I don't mind giving money to the government. If they would use it for what it was ment for I wouldnt have to be furstrated. For reals they spent around a billion dollars putting lights on a bridge in my city "So it would looks nicer" Which by the way is going to collapse any day now....Why didnt they put it into fixing the streets or putting in more tranist areas (bus) or helping the elderly. Just doesnt make any sense. Plus they give my money to people that are quite capable of working, the walfare people. I can undersand if you cannot work, or if there are no jobs and you need uninployment, or if you got hurt and can't work, you need money of course to live. However there are people that just sit around and get paid, which is dumb. Since I was young my parnets told me I have to go to college and get myself a good job. Even if I do I still have to pay for these people that do nothing.

This is just me, and my opinion in the corner. I probably didn't make sense at all

Cheers

[Max 10]

"Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed"

[Jo-Bengt 0]

GMP where did you say you live again?