In article <15389@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes: > > > You mean, since your philosophy took over, the economy has almost > > > collapsed.    > > Excuse me, *my* philosophy?  You don't have any idea what *my* philosophy > > is.  The American economy has had its ups and downs through a number of > > prevailing economic philosophies.  But then, economics is hardly a science.  > In my lifetime, your philosophy -- socialism masquerading as a liberal > welfare state -- has been in ascendancy.  Yo--earth to Clayton--*my* philosophy?  I have never discussed this with you. I know it's a minor point, but, gee, dude, you have no idea what economic and political principles I adhere to.  But don't let that stop you--you're on a roll.  Just ascribe to me whatever you want--I know you'll choose wisely. After all, I *do* believe in personal responsibility.  > > No, I mean exactly what I wrote--the welfare system of the New Deal is > > wholly inadequate to cope with the current state of affairs.  > Absolutely.  So the response of socialists is take us even further > into socialism.  Duh.  What else would you *expect* a socialist to do?  > > > Flash-in-the-pan?  No, your subculture has utterly dominated the > > > TV and movie industries for two decades now.  > > *My* subculture?  My, we're getting personal.  The only subculture I see > > dominating the TV and movie industries is *money*.  If you'll buy it, > > they'll sell it.  And as recent movements to boycott TV advertisers have > > shown, they're *very* sensitive about what sells.  Whatever happened to > > personal responsibility, anyway?  Or am I personally responsible for > > the decline in that, too?  > To the extent that people have been encouraged to NOT be responsible > for themselves, yes.  (a) Just when and where have I encouraged people not to be responsible for themselves?  Be specific--but do make up random dates and heinous acts as you see fit.  (b) You and I have encouraged many people to do many things.  How does that in any way make our audiences less responsible for their actions?  Is there a finite amount of responsibility, so (cf. conservation of energy) as I become more responsible for an occurrence by encouraging it the actual perpetrator becomes correspondingly less so?  At what point does the perpetrator become completely innocent altogether?  You know, this lends a whole new meaning to the term "the moral high ground".  > > > Oddly enough, all the unskilled or semiskilled people I know manage > > > to find employment almost immediately.  Maybe she needs to move to a > > > cheaper part of the country, where jobs are plentiful, and the cost > > > of living is lower.  > > The west side of Chicago is about as cheap as it gets--squalor city. > > Tell me about all these places where it's cheap to live and jobs are > > abundant--I'll pass them on.  > Sonoma County.  I will pass the info on.  Out of curiosity, what kind of jobs would these be?  What's the demographic mix wrt race, age, culture?  > > lots of employment, and utterly surrounded by socialists.  Well, I suppose > > that's the sort of environment that would attract socialists, or at least > > not dissuade them.  > No, it's that areas with a lot of wealthy breed socialists -- all the > spoiled rich kids, feeling guilty about their wealth.  But not guilty > enough to give it away -- they just look for politicians to take MY > more limited wealth away.  Life's a bitch, ain't it?  Man, you've got to get out of Fornicalia--have you considered someplace perhaps geographically distant but politically more friendly to you, like, say, Indiana?  Or maybe Utah?  > > Well, I doubt that much of this goes to drugs--there isn't much left after > > buying food, and there is very little in the first place.  Sure, you read > > about such cases now and then, but that's what makes them news.  Show me > > your statistics about AFDC abuse.  > I can tell you that relatives I have known, the drugs came first, the > food was secondary.  I don't doubt it, but unless you can show me statistics to the contrary I will persist in my apparently dogmatic socialist belief (hey, if *you* say so) that most AFDC money really does--for better or worse in the long term--feed FDCs.