3rdnlng Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 what? the bush family is the prototype for an establishment family. right up there with the rockefellers and vanderbilts. romney's money is only a couple generations old but he is certainly a patrician and acts the part to perfection. the dad only thing - no idea what you mean. if you mean wealth inherited from the mother's descendents , then yes, that would make someone old money in my estimation. was that the case for dukakis or mondale? We've had this discussion before and you don't seem to retain information. Romney's wealth is one generation old. He gave away to charity any inheritance from his parents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 (edited) We've had this discussion before and you don't seem to retain information. Romney's wealth is one generation old. He gave away to charity any inheritance from his parents. You're making the wrong argument. The only proper argument to make is: "The notion that a person should be judged and disqualified for the actions not of themselves but of their paternts, is bigoted and offensive to any thinking person. The fact that what you find so offense in the individual's family history is a legacy of success is, quite frankly, abhorent." Edited November 9, 2012 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 You're making the wrong argument. The only proper argument to make is: "The notion that a person should be judged and disqualified for the actions not of themselves but of their paternts, is bigoted and offensive to any thinking person. The fact that what you find so offense in the individual's family history is a legacy of success is, quite frankly, abhorent." The arguments are not incompatible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 it matters in regards to their life experiences. a room full of white men that attended hotchkiss, andover and choate will have very different life experiences than a roomful of women from east high. i'm not saying our leaders should be a roomful of either but that the republicans look a lot more like a roomful of preppys right now than the dems. and i think that hurts them and the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 The arguments are not incompatible. No, but to engage on any level other than the one I have presented lends intellectual backbone to the terrible position he has taken. You've taken up an argument built into the framework of an inverse caste-system led by inescapable anti-meritocratic legacy philosophy. It's essentially the same as arguing which totalitarian dictatorship was the best; once you've decided to agree to arguing within that framework, it's all downhill from there. it matters in regards to their life experiences. a room full of white men that attended hotchkiss, andover and choate will have very different life experiences than a roomful of women from east high. i'm not saying our leaders should be a roomful of either but that the republicans look a lot more like a roomful of preppys right now than the dems. and i think that hurts them and the country. Again, that's an incredibly bigoted view. Where someone came from, and their cultural background, have no place at the table in regards to their qualifications for leadership. Period. Quit spewing your ugliness everywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 (edited) No, but to engage on any level other than the one I have presented lends intellectual backbone to the terrible position he has taken. You've taken up an argument built into the framework of an inverse caste-system led by inescapable anti-meritocratic legacy philosophy. It's essentially the same as arguing which totalitarian dictatorship was the best; once you've decided to agree to arguing within that framework, it's all downhill from there. Again, that's an incredibly bigoted view. Where someone came from, and their cultural background, have no place at the table in regards to their qualifications for leadership. Period. Quit spewing your ugliness everywhere. it would have no place at the table if people from different cultural backrounds had historic and current proportional presence at the higher levels of leadership in the republican party. i'm far from the only person talking about it. i heard a republican strategist say much the same thing about the need for more diversity this morning on npr. seems many people, including party insiders, noted the homogeniety of the last convention and realize that it's a problem. and much of that homogeiety is in regards to socioeconomic status and background. there are signs of slow progress however, as the interviewee this am pointed out. Edited November 9, 2012 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 No, but to engage on any level other than the one I have presented lends intellectual backbone to the terrible position he has taken. You've taken up an argument built into the framework of an inverse caste-system led by inescapable anti-meritocratic legacy philosophy. It's essentially the same as arguing which totalitarian dictatorship was the best; once you've decided to agree to arguing within that framework, it's all downhill from there. Again, that's an incredibly bigoted view. Where someone came from, and their cultural background, have no place at the table in regards to their qualifications for leadership. Period. Quit spewing your ugliness everywhere. I understand what you are saying, but since I've had the discussion with him before re Romney's inheritance, I felt compelled to call him out on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 (edited) it would have no place at the table if people from different cultural backrounds had historic and current proportional presence at the higher levels of leadership in the republican party. i'm far from the only person talking about it. i heard a republican strategist say much the same thing about the need for more diversity this morning on npr. seems many people, including party insiders, noted the homogeniety of the last convention and realize that it's a problem. and much of that homogeiety is in regards to socioeconomic status and background. there are signs of slow progress however, as the interviewee this am pointed out. You're a complete and unabashed bigot. Why should the color of ones skin, who they were born too, or the place they grew up be given even a modicum of consideration? Those are circumstances, not achievements; and you can't grade an individual on their circumstances because that individual had nothing to do with their creation. It's the exact same terrible logic that xenophobes use when they say they're "proud to be an American" or that clansmen use when they say they're "proud to be white". Why would anyone be proud of something they had no part in achieving? THOSE THINGS DON'T MATTER. Ugliness. Nothing but ugliness. Edited November 9, 2012 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cugalabanza Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 This thread has evolved into something disgusting and bigoted. Why does it matter where someone came from? My only concern is where they are going. This callous disregard of a persons merit, giving no creedance to their individual character, philosophies, or achievements, based solely on the amount of money their parents had represents everything that is wrong with this country. I agree with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattM Posted November 10, 2012 Share Posted November 10, 2012 This thread has evolved into something disgusting and bigoted. Why does it matter where someone came from? My only concern is where they are going. This callous disregard of a persons merit, giving no creedance to their individual character, philosophies, or achievements, based solely on the amount of money their parents had represents everything that is wrong with this country. This thread has evolved into something disgusting and bigoted. Why does it matter where someone came from? My only concern is where they are going. This callous disregard of a persons merit, giving no creedance to their individual character, philosophies, or achievements, based solely on the amount of money their parents had represents everything that is wrong with this country. Shouldn't the true measure of merit take into account the distance one has traveled? For instance I think most agree that it's more impressive for someone to rise to the top from a public housing project in Harlem or Southie than someone to make it to the top from Exeter or Andover (especially if not a scholarship student)? This Randian superman/job creator worship often ignores the real world reality that outcomes in our society are influenced heavily by starting point factors in one's background (see the recent Pew study on intergenerational mobility, for ex.). That's what I find galling about those arguments, which are usually supported by anecdotes rather than broad data sets (like said Pew study). In terms of policies, I'm in favor of those that seek to give the poor/working class a fighting chance rather than pull the ladder up behind me to cut millionaires' taxes (even my own)..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 10, 2012 Share Posted November 10, 2012 Shouldn't the true measure of merit take into account the distance one has traveled? For instance I think most agree that it's more impressive for someone to rise to the top from a public housing project in Harlem or Southie than someone to make it to the top from Exeter or Andover (especially if not a scholarship student)? This Randian superman/job creator worship often ignores the real world reality that outcomes in our society are influenced heavily by starting point factors in one's background (see the recent Pew study on intergenerational mobility, for ex.). That's what I find galling about those arguments, which are usually supported by anecdotes rather than broad data sets (like said Pew study). In terms of policies, I'm in favor of those that seek to give the poor/working class a fighting chance rather than pull the ladder up behind me to cut millionaires' taxes (even my own)..... Those are noble goals, which unfortunately have fallen short despite two generations of trying to fix them. You fall into the usual progressive trap that thinks that throwing more money at an issue is going to solve the problem. You ask for data driven studies, and there are also plenty of data that show greater spending per capita in bad school districts with very little results to show for them - poor attendance, horrible scores and graduation rates. Yet all efforts at reform are stymied because it's obvious to you and your compatriots is that more money is needed for a proper fix. The difference between your approach and ours is not that we don't recognize that the problem exists, but how to fix it. You think that not enough money is going in. We think the money is misspent. You believe in the carrot only. We believe in the carrot and the stick. Forget sending cash to the districts. Send the cash to the parents to spend on schooling & support, with a little caveat. Your kids have to have 90%+ attendance at school and take the tests. If they don't meet it, the money disappears. What do you think will happen in that situation? It's pretty sad that we have to look at Brazil for ideas on reforming education levels for the poor classes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted November 10, 2012 Author Share Posted November 10, 2012 Shouldn't the true measure of merit take into account the distance one has traveled? For instance I think most agree that it's more impressive for someone to rise to the top from a public housing project in Harlem or Southie than someone to make it to the top from Exeter or Andover (especially if not a scholarship student)? This Randian superman/job creator worship often ignores the real world reality that outcomes in our society are influenced heavily by starting point factors in one's background (see the recent Pew study on intergenerational mobility, for ex.). That's what I find galling about those arguments, which are usually supported by anecdotes rather than broad data sets (like said Pew study). In terms of policies, I'm in favor of those that seek to give the poor/working class a fighting chance rather than pull the ladder up behind me to cut millionaires' taxes (even my own)..... So, basically, if you were born to wealthy parents you can't possibly understand macroeconomics? I think you guys WAY overstate the value of growing up in mediocrity. Not to say there's no value in having a leader who knows what it's like to struggle, but let's not blow it out of proportion here. I also find it interesting the extent to which you discount the undeniable reality that some of the most important factors causing those who start off with money ending up with money include growing up in a household with parents who value success, know how to make it happen, instill those values, and take an active role in making sure their children make the most of their education. There's nothing government can do to provide an equivalence. The idea that equal access to facilities is the difference is beyond naive. The part that really gets me is this idea that free market principles shut the door on those at the bottom while liberal policies somehow elevate them. In truth, the exact opposite is true. I know plenty of people who have risen from nothing to prosperity & NOT ONE owes his success to some feel good government program. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted November 10, 2012 Share Posted November 10, 2012 So, basically, if you were born to wealthy parents you can't possibly understand macroeconomics? I think you guys WAY overstate the value of growing up in mediocrity. Not to say there's no value in having a leader who knows what it's like to struggle, but let's not blow it out of proportion here. I also find it interesting the extent to which you discount the undeniable reality that some of the most important factors causing those who start off with money ending up with money include growing up in a household with parents who value success, know how to make it happen, instill those values, and take an active role in making sure their children make the most of their education. There's nothing government can do to provide an equivalence. The idea that equal access to facilities is the difference is beyond naive. The part that really gets me is this idea that free market principles shut the door on those at the bottom while liberal policies somehow elevate them. In truth, the exact opposite is true. I know plenty of people who have risen from nothing to prosperity & NOT ONE owes his success to some feel good government program. not one? none of them had guaranteed student loans or government supported grants? or went to a tuition subsidized public university or grad school. had research or teaching assistantships? you take government out of it and you couldn't set foot in a college for less than $40k per year. and there'd be no community colleges where you can cut the cost of a 4 year degree nearly in half by doing 2 out of 4 years there. and i trust from your statement that none of them ever got sick and needed a healthcare provider, the majority of which got some training at a publicly funded institution. i'll be they used public libraries to feed their imaginations early in life and public transport at times to get to where they needed to go. i could go on but i'm sure you get the point. but let's imagine the world described above without government "interference" and we'd be right where so many here think is the desired place. a place where circumstance and not merit decides success and ultimately control. a place where alternative perspectives and voices aren't seen, heard or wanted. a place thankfully destined from the beginning to be lost forever due to changing demography Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 10, 2012 Share Posted November 10, 2012 Your "White Man's Burden" mentality would be comical if if weren't completely stomache turning. Tell us again about how minorities, the LGBT community, and women aren't good enough to make their own way, and require your helping hand and generosity to get ahead. So !@#$ing ugly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted November 10, 2012 Share Posted November 10, 2012 Your "White Man's Burden" mentality would be comical if if weren't completely stomache turning. Tell us again about how minorities, the LGBT community, and women aren't good enough to make their own way, and require your helping hand and generosity to get ahead. So !@#$ing ugly. time to look in a mirror or at least read your own posts. how many contain implied or actual vulgarities? and while you're at it look up the origin of the word "vulgar". maybe you're not as superior as you think. i'm still waiting for you to insult westside's wife in some disgusting way in the other thread. anytime now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 10, 2012 Share Posted November 10, 2012 (edited) time to look in a mirror or at least read your own posts. how many contain implied or actual vulgarities? and while you're at it look up the origin of the word "vulgar". maybe you're not as superior as you think. i'm still waiting for you to insult westside's wife in some disgusting way in the other thread. anytime now... So you're changing the subject rather than confront the intellectual implications of your ugly, bigoted, and racist philosophy? You'd rather talk about your wife? OK, I guess. Do you also tell her that she wasn't good enough to succeed on her own, because she's a woman, and is fortunate to have a big, strong, straight, white man like yourself to provide the opportunities that she is incapable of creating on her own personal merit? Edited November 10, 2012 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted November 10, 2012 Author Share Posted November 10, 2012 not one? none of them had guaranteed student loans or government supported grants? or went to a tuition subsidized public university or grad school. had research or teaching assistantships? you take government out of it and you couldn't set foot in a college for less than $40k per year. and there'd be no community colleges where you can cut the cost of a 4 year degree nearly in half by doing 2 out of 4 years there. and i trust from your statement that none of them ever got sick and needed a healthcare provider, the majority of which got some training at a publicly funded institution. i'll be they used public libraries to feed their imaginations early in life and public transport at times to get to where they needed to go. i could go on but i'm sure you get the point. but let's imagine the world described above without government "interference" and we'd be right where so many here think is the desired place. a place where circumstance and not merit decides success and ultimately control. a place where alternative perspectives and voices aren't seen, heard or wanted. a place thankfully destined from the beginning to be lost forever due to changing demography Good God man. How did you fit so many false choices & red herrings in such a short post? I'm coming back to this one when I have time to address it thoroughly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outsidethebox Posted November 10, 2012 Share Posted November 10, 2012 time to look in a mirror or at least read your own posts. how many contain implied or actual vulgarities? and while you're at it look up the origin of the word "vulgar". maybe you're not as superior as you think. i'm still waiting for you to insult westside's wife in some disgusting way in the other thread. anytime now... He has to putting us on. I sure hope so. some of the things he posts are just so arrogant. There are a lot of good people in PPP who are repulicans who should be calling him out. TYTT makes the right look like a bunch snobby elitists, which I know they are not. Don't let people like him put down your whole party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 10, 2012 Share Posted November 10, 2012 He has to putting us on. I sure hope so. some of the things he posts are just so arrogant. There are a lot of good people in PPP who are repulicans who should be calling him out. TYTT makes the right look like a bunch snobby elitists, which I know they are not. Don't let people like him put down your whole party. Remember, folks: it's not about the bigoted philosophies of the left, or the freedom loving philosophies of libertarianism; but rather is about Republicans being bad because a libertarian pulled himself up from a lower-working class upbringing, and made a moderate success of himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outsidethebox Posted November 10, 2012 Share Posted November 10, 2012 Remember, folks: it's not about the bigoted philosophies of the left, or the freedom loving philosophies of libertarianism; but rather is about Republicans being bad because a libertarian pulled himself up from a lower-working class upbringing, and made a moderate success of himself. I feel sorry for you if your not putting us on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts