DVD Talk
If you were stranded on a desert island, which group of people..... [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum

PDA

View Full Version : If you were stranded on a desert island, which group of people.....


grundle
03-17-08, 02:57 PM
Let's say you were stranded on a desert island.

Which of these two groups of people do you think would give you a better chance of surviving?

1) Andrew Carnegie, John Rockefeller, Andrew Mellon, Cornelius Vanderbilt, Henry Ford, Sam Walton, and Bill Gates.

or

2) Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, John Kerry, John Edwards, Al Gore, and FDR.

AGuyNamedMike
03-17-08, 03:02 PM
Group 2. Group one looks tough and stringy.

grundle
03-17-08, 03:03 PM
The first group created things of value.

The second group never created anything of value. And in fact, the people in the second group want the government to punish the people in the first group.

My vote is for the first group.

grundle
03-17-08, 03:05 PM
Group 2. Group one looks tough and stringy.

Heh heh. It took me a while to realize that you were viewing them as a food source.

JasonF
03-17-08, 03:08 PM
Group 2. That group has six live people and one dead person. Group 1 only has one live person. Odds are that one of the people in Group 2 will survive Bill Gates.

mosquitobite
03-17-08, 03:10 PM
:lol:

kvrdave
03-17-08, 03:11 PM
Group 2. That group has six live people and one dead person. Group 1 only has one live person. Odds are that one of the people in Group 2 will survive Bill Gates.

rotfl

Well played.

X
03-17-08, 03:12 PM
Group 2 so I'd have something to sit on after we buried FDR.

Rockmjd23
03-17-08, 03:12 PM
The second group never created anything of value.
I'm pretty sure one of them created the internet that you are using right now, silly.

wendersfan
03-17-08, 03:15 PM
Either way they'd all want me to take orders from them, so I see no real difference between the two groups.

JasonF
03-17-08, 03:16 PM
My real answer: Obama and Hillary Clinton immediately kill each other. Bill Clinton quickly commits suicide when he realizes that what's left on the island is a total sausage fest. John Edwards shrivels up into a little tiny ball when he realizes he can't sue his way off the island. John Kerry fakes an injury, then starts accusing everyone else on the island of committing atrocities. Al Gore claims to invent a way to get everyone off the island, but refuses to allow anyone to use it because it would increase his carbon footprint. And FDR, of course, just invents a bunch of federal agencies that are supposed to get everyone off the island but really make things much worse.

The capitalists, meanwhile, invent a computer-powered steel car-railroad with low, low prices and use it to get off the island because they are so, so, so super awesome cool!!!!

wishbone
03-17-08, 03:20 PM
:lol:

Groucho
03-17-08, 03:22 PM
Group 1 would immediately set me off to gather coconuts. After a few days of this, I would be informed that my coconut gathering has been outsourced overseas.

wendersfan
03-17-08, 03:25 PM
Group 3:

Scarlett Johansson, Adriana Lima, Giorgia Palmas, Melissa Satta, Nina Moric

:hump:

spainlinx0
03-17-08, 03:26 PM
Also, they take all your coconuts and hose you down with water.

Groucho
03-17-08, 03:26 PM
I guess the phrase "gathering coconuts" got wendersfan off on a tangent.

wendersfan
03-17-08, 03:34 PM
I guess the phrase "gathering coconuts" got wendersfan off on a tangent.Not really, that's my normal train of thought. :)

Venusian
03-17-08, 06:27 PM
Group 1 sounds like the founders of the dharma initiative

NCMojo
03-17-08, 06:41 PM
Wow... even for a grundle poll, that's pretty sukekekke.

The responses in this thread, though... :lol:

crazyronin
03-17-08, 06:43 PM
Let's see. Group 1 has a bunch of people who actually worked for a living, building empires from their own sweat (I'll just ignore Bill Gates for the moment. Group 2 is a bunch of people who have spent a large majority of their lives suckling off the public teat.

After I convince group 1 that their fortunes no longer mean anything, we attack, enslave and devour group 2. I have a great recipe for Blackened Gore.

John Galt
03-17-08, 06:58 PM
I'm surprised he didn't add the Wright Brothers to group 1.

OldDude
03-17-08, 07:03 PM
Where's the choice for Yao-man, Ozzie, Jonthan, etc?

NotThatGuy
03-17-08, 07:48 PM
Let's see. Group 1 has a bunch of people who actually worked for a living, building empires from their own sweat (I'll just ignore Bill Gates for the moment. Group 2 is a bunch of people who have spent a large majority of their lives suckling off the public teat.

Agreed.

I'd choose Group 4: Amanda Bynes, Hayden whatever, Kate Hudson, Keira Knightly, and Katie Holmes.

Why you ask?

1. None will eat a ton, so we won't have to work that hard for food.
2. I'd literally be the last man on earth/the island....so that should end well.
3. In the event a couple go lesbian....I win anyway!!

Jason
03-17-08, 07:49 PM
Let's see. Group 1 has a bunch of people who actually worked for a living, building empires from their own sweat.

Don't you mean from the sweat of the working man?

movielib
03-17-08, 07:57 PM
grundle, you could have put a few Republican politicians in Group 2. they're just as bad.

JasonF
03-17-08, 08:27 PM
Don't you mean from the sweat of the working man?

Please. Everyone knows the working man doesn't sweat. He spends a large majority of his life suckling off the public teat, just like John Edwards.

crazyronin
03-17-08, 08:28 PM
Don't you mean from the sweat of the working man? You actually have no idea of the early history of the giants of industry, do you. Cornelius Vanderbilt, for one, left school at 11 and was running a ferry service at age 16. Pretty much every one of group 1 started out as a prole and worked themselves to the top.

crazyronin
03-17-08, 08:29 PM
Please. Everyone knows the working man doesn't sweat. He spends a large majority of his life suckling off the public teat, just like John Edwards.

I'm sorry. Exactly what did Edwards produce besides lawsuits and hurried footprints behind ambulances?

Dave7393
03-17-08, 08:29 PM
Captains of Industry = Good!
Liberal Democratic Swine = Bad!

Did I figure it out? -ohbfrank-

crazyronin
03-17-08, 08:31 PM
Captains of Industry = Good!
Liberal Democratic Swine = Bad!

Did I figure it out? -ohbfrank-


So close.

People who produce = good.

People who do nothing but consume = bad.

Dave7393
03-17-08, 08:33 PM
People who do nothing but consume = bad.

And funny who those people just happen to be in this case, right?

crazyronin
03-17-08, 08:40 PM
And funny who those people just happen to be in this case, right?

Meh, he could (and should) have thrown in a large handful of Republicans also.

JasonF
03-17-08, 08:48 PM
I'm sorry. Exactly what did Edwards produce besides lawsuits and hurried footprints behind ambulances?

Lawyers don't produce lawsuits. Clients produce lawsuits. Hope that helps.

crazyronin
03-17-08, 08:51 PM
Lawyers don't produce lawsuits. Clients produce lawsuits. Hope that helps.

Ah, so you just cut Edwards list of things he produced in half. Good job.

movielib
03-17-08, 09:59 PM
Lawyers don't produce lawsuits. Clients produce lawsuits. Hope that helps.
Those huge ad campaigns by tort lawyers looking for "injured" clients have nothing to do with it. ;)

JasonF
03-17-08, 10:08 PM
Those huge ad campaigns by tort lawyers looking for "injured" clients have nothing to do with it. ;)
Look -- I do corporate defense work. You don't have to work hard to convince me there's a lot of scummy plaintiffs' lawyers out there. But the reality is that the majority are working hard to represent the best interests of their clients.

movielib
03-17-08, 10:26 PM
Look -- I do corporate defense work. You don't have to work hard to convince me there's a lot of scummy plaintiffs' lawyers out there. But the reality is that the majority are working hard to represent the best interests of their clients.
And you don't have to work hard to convince me of that. But they are not making John Edwards type money such as in his junk science cerebral palsy cases. Or the silicone breast implant stuff or Erin Brockovich.

zekeburger1979
03-17-08, 11:02 PM
Give me Vibiana, Kittydreamer, Pressplay, MosquitoBite and Jadzia and I'll be set! :)

4KRG
03-17-08, 11:35 PM
I am going with group 2

Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, John Kerry, John Edwards, Al Gore, and FDR

I figure that NONE of these people want to be stuck on an island with Hillary and having to listen to her stupid ass for the rest of their lives, so someone would get us the hell off that island ASAP, motivation baby :lol: I am thinking Bill would figure it out first ;)

VinVega
03-18-08, 07:18 AM
Once again grundle not getting the results he wanted from a poll. :lol:

Red Dog
03-18-08, 07:52 AM
Group 2. All Group 1 will do is sit around and complain about lawyers and write nasty articles in the sand about group 2's Lawyers Party Island.

grundle
03-18-08, 12:29 PM
Group 2. That group has six live people and one dead person. Group 1 only has one live person. Odds are that one of the people in Group 2 will survive Bill Gates.


That's an excellent point.

grundle
03-18-08, 12:30 PM
I'm pretty sure one of them created the internet that you are using right now, silly.


Perhaps.

grundle
03-18-08, 12:32 PM
Either way they'd all want me to take orders from them, so I see no real difference between the two groups.


The first group believes in voluntary activity for mutual benefit. The second group likes coercion as a way to get people to do things.

grundle
03-18-08, 12:33 PM
My real answer: Obama and Hillary Clinton immediately kill each other. Bill Clinton quickly commits suicide when he realizes that what's left on the island is a total sausage fest. John Edwards shrivels up into a little tiny ball when he realizes he can't sue his way off the island. John Kerry fakes an injury, then starts accusing everyone else on the island of committing atrocities. Al Gore claims to invent a way to get everyone off the island, but refuses to allow anyone to use it because it would increase his carbon footprint. And FDR, of course, just invents a bunch of federal agencies that are supposed to get everyone off the island but really make things much worse.

The capitalists, meanwhile, invent a computer-powered steel car-railroad with low, low prices and use it to get off the island because they are so, so, so super awesome cool!!!!

Excellent!

grundle
03-18-08, 12:39 PM
I'm surprised he didn't add the Wright Brothers to group 1.


Unlike the people in group 1, the Wright Brothers were never hated for being successful. That's why I didn't include them.

grundle
03-18-08, 12:40 PM
Don't you mean from the sweat of the working man?

The people in group 1 worked with their minds.

grundle
03-18-08, 12:43 PM
grundle, you could have put a few Republican politicians in Group 2. they're just as bad.

Which Republicans have such a strong hatred of successful people as the people that I listed in group 2?

grundle
03-18-08, 12:52 PM
Captains of Industry = Good!
Liberal Democratic Swine = Bad!

Did I figure it out? -ohbfrank-


Not exactly.

The people in the first group created things that made everyone better off.

The people in the second group think the people in the first group should be punished for their success.

grundle
03-18-08, 12:55 PM
So close.

People who produce = good.

People who do nothing but consume = bad.


It's not just that the people in group 2 do nothing but consume. It's much worse than that. It's that they want to punish the people who produce. It's their hatred of the people in group 1 that makes the people in group 2 so bad.

Red Dog
03-18-08, 12:55 PM
Which Republicans have such a strong hatred of successful people as the people that I listed in group 2?


Richard Nixon. He used coercion to get people to do things.

grundle
03-18-08, 12:58 PM
Meh, he could (and should) have thrown in a large handful of Republicans also.


Such as who?

By the way, Bill Gates is a Democrat.

grundle
03-18-08, 01:02 PM
I am going with group 2

Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, John Kerry, John Edwards, Al Gore, and FDR

I figure that NONE of these people want to be stuck on an island with Hillary and having to listen to her stupid ass for the rest of their lives, so someone would get us the hell off that island ASAP, motivation baby :lol: I am thinking Bill would figure it out first ;)


That makes sense.

wendersfan
03-18-08, 01:02 PM
The first group believes in voluntary activity for mutual benefit. The second group likes coercion as a way to get people to do things.
rotfl

grundle
03-18-08, 01:03 PM
Once again grundle not getting the results he wanted from a poll. :lol:

People answered my poll, so I got what I wanted.

Dave7393
03-18-08, 01:04 PM
Not exactly.

The people in the first group created things that made everyone better off.

The people in the second group think the people in the first group should be punished for their success.

rotfl

Umm.. no-- exactly.

You could've just said in your first post, without a poll, "Democrats hate successful people and think they should all be punished" and saved everyone the trouble of partaking in this rather awkward little exercise. :lol:

If Barack Obama wasn't part of today's political lanscape... let's see..... I wonder if you would've found another person to take his place on your list? Oh, I don't know, another Democrat, perhaps? Just a wild guess.

Wow, Republicans must all be GREAT! :up:

wendersfan
03-18-08, 01:12 PM
<b>grundle</b>, how do you feel about Senators Herb Kohl and Frank Lautenberg, two liberal Democrats who are very successful businessmen? Or more importantly, how do you think they think about themselves? Since they hold the same political views as the Clintons, Gore, Obama, et al., yet are themselves are very successful outside the arena of electoral politics, do you suppose they are full of self-hatred? How much have they piled up in therapist bills, do you wonder?

Red Dog
03-18-08, 01:14 PM
You could've just said in your first post, without a poll, "Democrats hate successful people and think they should all be punished" and saved everyone the trouble of partaking in this rather awkward little exercise. :lol:



That would violate the forum rules. grundle has found the loophole in the rules - make a poll asking about a generalization or post an article with a generalization.

It's all quite lawyerly of him. He'd make a good Democrat.

The Bus
03-18-08, 01:15 PM
The first group created things of value.

Like George Soros!

wendersfan
03-18-08, 01:17 PM
It's all quite lawyerly of him. He'd make a good Democrat.Careful, you're verging close to a personal attack here.

wendersfan
03-18-08, 01:18 PM
Like George Soros!Or John Corzine. Or Robert Rubin.

movielib
03-18-08, 01:20 PM
Which Republicans have such a strong hatred of successful people as the people that I listed in group 2?
Rudy Giuliani's per-, er, prosecution of Michael Milken, for one.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts208.html

wildcatlh
03-18-08, 01:45 PM
Which Republicans have such a strong hatred of successful people as the people that I listed in group 2?

...you're kidding, right?

Mrs. Danger
03-18-08, 03:27 PM
The fat, juicy ones.

Th0r S1mpson
03-18-08, 03:42 PM
Next can we discuss which of these two groups we would want with us if we were in the future fighting self-aware machines bent on the extinction of the human race? Because I think it's important that we look towards the future rather than just back.

Dave7393
03-18-08, 04:33 PM
Screw the choices, I'd bring my own group. These guys would do. :)

http://a.abcnews.com/images/Entertainment/ld_grylls_070725_ms.jpghttp://www.macgyveronline.org/control/macgyver.jpg
http://img5.allocine.fr/acmedia/medias/nmedia/18/36/04/20/18447755.jpghttp://www.silverbulletcomics.com/~jennyg/writers/fowler/wilson.JPG

mikehunt
03-18-08, 09:40 PM
sukekekke.


oh man, I haven't seen that in ages

NCMojo
03-19-08, 07:42 AM
Unlike the people in group 1, the Wright Brothers were never hated for being successful. That's why I didn't include them.
Actually, the Wright brothers were reviled by a significant portion of the scientific and aeronautic community for their aggresive business practices. Their relentless patent lawsuits held back the aviation industry for years, leading to lots of bitter resentment, and their tireless huckstering turned off many serious members of the scientific community.

But that misses the point. No one hated the Wright Brothers -- or John Rockefeller, or even Bill Gates -- for being succesful. They hated them because of the way in which they were succesful, for how they ruthlessly crushed their competition, for their unethical and even at times criminal behaviors, and for their self-promotion and their ego. It's possible to be extremely rich and succesful and not be universally reviled -- Steve Jobs comes to mind, and I don't think Henry Ford was especially despised in his lifetime -- and in fact most of the members of Group #1 later in life had their images rehabilitated by acts of extreme philanthropy such as the Carnegie Mellon University and the Bill Gates Foundation. Nowadays few people know that John Rockefeller was one of the most cutthroat businessmen of his day -- they know Rockeffeler Center and the Rockefeller Foundation and Vice-President Nelson Rockefeller and Senator Jay Rockeffeler and perhaps the endearing image of the "Rockefeller dime".

But lots and lots of people hate the very succesful members of Group #2. So I'm not sure where you're going with this, or if there is even a semi-serious point at all.

wendersfan
03-19-08, 07:47 AM
I don't think Henry Ford was especially despised in his lifetimeHenry Ford was an anti-Semite and Nazi sympathizer.

NCMojo
03-19-08, 07:54 AM
Henry Ford was an anti-Semite and Nazi sympathizer.
Well, yeah, sure, he's reviled now. But at the time he shared those views with a significant portion of American society, and I don't believe at any point people begrudged his success.

The Bus
03-19-08, 08:58 AM
Henry Ford was a borderline socialist.

movielib
03-19-08, 09:50 AM
Actually, the Wright brothers were reviled by a significant portion of the scientific and aeronautic community for their aggresive business practices. Their relentless patent lawsuits held back the aviation industry for years, leading to lots of bitter resentment, and their tireless huckstering turned off many serious members of the scientific community.

But that misses the point. No one hated the Wright Brothers -- or John Rockefeller, or even Bill Gates -- for being succesful. They hated them because of the way in which they were succesful, for how they ruthlessly crushed their competition, for their unethical and even at times criminal behaviors, and for their self-promotion and their ego. It's possible to be extremely rich and succesful and not be universally reviled -- Steve Jobs comes to mind, and I don't think Henry Ford was especially despised in his lifetime -- and in fact most of the members of Group #1 later in life had their images rehabilitated by acts of extreme philanthropy such as the Carnegie Mellon University and the Bill Gates Foundation. Nowadays few people know that John Rockefeller was one of the most cutthroat businessmen of his day -- they know Rockeffeler Center and the Rockefeller Foundation and Vice-President Nelson Rockefeller and Senator Jay Rockeffeler and perhaps the endearing image of the "Rockefeller dime".
Not really. The people listed by grundle, while they may have been "ruthless," still by and large amassed their fortunes by their own own work and merits. There were others in the period who amassed fortunes by gaining and using government influence and force (although Gates may have done some of that). Jay Gould comes to mind. People such as Gould were the real "robber barons."

As much as I may be inviting ridicule from the Ayn Rand haters, it's the difference between her characters such as sister and brother Dagney and James Taggart.

These people were far from perfect but they were highly superior to the Jay Goulds of their era or the Archer Daniels Midland type parasites of today. And, IMO, to almost all politicians.[/QUOTE]

The Bus
03-19-08, 10:14 AM
Not really. The people listed by grundle, while they may have been "ruthless," still by and large amassed their fortunes by their own own work and merits.

Well, at least the first part of it.

wildcatlh
03-19-08, 10:42 AM
Personally, I'd want Al Gore, Nichelle Nichols, Gary Gygax, Stephen Hawking, and Deep Blue.

http://img394.imageshack.us/img394/3092/pic00632rx2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Groucho
03-19-08, 10:50 AM
Personally, I'd want Al Gore, Nichelle Nichols, Gary Gygax, Stephen Hawking, and Deep Blue.I don't know what you've got planned, Homer, but you can count me out!

NCMojo
03-19-08, 11:18 AM
Not really. The people listed by grundle, while they may have been "ruthless," still by and large amassed their fortunes by their own own work and merits. There were others in the period who amassed fortunes by gaining and using government influence and force (although Gates may have done some of that). Jay Gould comes to mind. People such as Gould were the real "robber barons."

As much as I may be inviting ridicule from the Ayn Rand haters, it's the difference between her characters such as sister and brother Dagney and James Taggart.

These people were far from perfect but they were highly superior to the Jay Goulds of their era or the Archer Daniels Midland type parasites of today. And, IMO, to almost all politicians.
I don't agree with your assessment -- John Rockefeller didn't engage in ruthless business practices? And Andrew Carnegie, Andrew Mellon, and Cornelius Vanderbilt shouldn't be considered robber barons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron_(industrialist)#Businessmen_considered_Robber_Barons)? -- but I think a larger issue is the idea that these men were reviled for their success, rather than for the nature of their success. America loves the Horatio Alger, "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" success stories -- heck, even liberal Democrats don't lazilly hate all rich people.

Saying that Group # 1 is reviled, but should be admired, while Group # 2 is admired, but should be reviled, is just hopelessly simplistic and stereotypic, even for a grundle poll.

VinVega
03-19-08, 11:34 AM
I just noticed the poll result line colors correspond to the respective party of the individuals. Crazy stuff. :eek:

movielib
03-19-08, 12:03 PM
I don't agree with your assessment -- John Rockefeller didn't engage in ruthless business practices? And Andrew Carnegie, Andrew Mellon, and Cornelius Vanderbilt shouldn't be considered robber barons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron_(industrialist)#Businessmen_considered_Robber_Barons)? -- but I think a larger issue is the idea that these men were reviled for their success, rather than for the nature of their success. America loves the Horatio Alger, "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" success stories -- heck, even liberal Democrats don't lazilly hate all rich people.
I didn't say they weren't ruthless. I said they did not manipulate government force to get what they wanted (Jay Gould and ADM did and do). As far as I know they also didn't engage in initiating force or fraud against competitors. So no, they weren't "robber barons" because they didn't rob.

grundle
03-19-08, 07:50 PM
Richard Nixon. He used coercion to get people to do things.




Which successful people did he hate and use coercion against?

grundle
03-19-08, 07:52 PM
rotfl

Umm.. no-- exactly.

You could've just said in your first post, without a poll, "Democrats hate successful people and think they should all be punished" and saved everyone the trouble of partaking in this rather awkward little exercise. :lol:

If Barack Obama wasn't part of today's political lanscape... let's see..... I wonder if you would've found another person to take his place on your list? Oh, I don't know, another Democrat, perhaps? Just a wild guess.

Wow, Republicans must all be GREAT! :up:

I'm not defending Republicans.

I'm just saying that the hatred of achievement that I see usually comes from certain Democrats. Not all Democrats. Just some.

grundle
03-19-08, 07:53 PM
<b>grundle</b>, how do you feel about Senators Herb Kohl and Frank Lautenberg, two liberal Democrats who are very successful businessmen? Or more importantly, how do you think they think about themselves? Since they hold the same political views as the Clintons, Gore, Obama, et al., yet are themselves are very successful outside the arena of electoral politics, do you suppose they are full of self-hatred? How much have they piled up in therapist bills, do you wonder?


I'm glad they succeeded.

Not all Democrats are anti-achievement. Can you post any anti-achievement quotes from them?

grundle
03-19-08, 07:55 PM
That would violate the forum rules. grundle has found the loophole in the rules - make a poll asking about a generalization or post an article with a generalization.

It's all quite lawyerly of him. He'd make a good Democrat.

Not all Democrats are anti-achievement. But it seems that most people who say anti-achievement things are Democrats.

grundle
03-19-08, 07:59 PM
Like George Soros!

But he's not hated by the people in the second list.

Bill Gates, a Democrat, is hated by the people in the second list, which is why I included him in the first list.

The first list is a list of people who created goods and services that people wanted to buy, who are hated by the people in the second list.

grundle
03-19-08, 08:01 PM
It's all quite lawyerly of him. He'd make a good Democrat.
Careful, you're verging close to a personal attack here.

I am not offended. I thought it was funny!

grundle
03-19-08, 08:03 PM
Or John Corzine. Or Robert Rubin.

I have never heard anyone criticize them for being successful.

I included Bill Gates, a Democrat, because I have heard people criticize him for being successful.

grundle
03-19-08, 08:07 PM
Rudy Giuliani's per-, er, prosecution of Michael Milken, for one.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts208.html


Thanks.

I hadn't been aware of Giuliani being against Milken. I do remember some people hating him, and John Stossel defending him.

However, junk bonds are not something that the average person buys or uses, so I don't think it's as good as the other examples. But it is something, so thanks.

grundle
03-19-08, 08:08 PM
...you're kidding, right?

No, I was being serious.

Red Dog
03-19-08, 08:09 PM
Which successful people did he hate and use coercion against?


Perhaps you've never heard of the wage and price controls that were passed under his presidency. Perhaps you've never heard of Nixon's role in affirmative action. These actions coerced a whole lot of successful people.

grundle
03-19-08, 08:10 PM
Screw the choices, I'd bring my own group. These guys would do. :)

http://a.abcnews.com/images/Entertainment/ld_grylls_070725_ms.jpghttp://www.macgyveronline.org/control/macgyver.jpg
http://img5.allocine.fr/acmedia/medias/nmedia/18/36/04/20/18447755.jpghttp://www.silverbulletcomics.com/~jennyg/writers/fowler/wilson.JPG

Actually, Man vs Wild gets help from his crew. Survivorman is much better. And I'd also add the professor from Gilligan's Island.

grundle
03-19-08, 08:13 PM
Actually, the Wright brothers were reviled by a significant portion of the scientific and aeronautic community for their aggresive business practices. Their relentless patent lawsuits held back the aviation industry for years, leading to lots of bitter resentment, and their tireless huckstering turned off many serious members of the scientific community.

But that misses the point. No one hated the Wright Brothers -- or John Rockefeller, or even Bill Gates -- for being succesful. They hated them because of the way in which they were succesful, for how they ruthlessly crushed their competition, for their unethical and even at times criminal behaviors, and for their self-promotion and their ego. It's possible to be extremely rich and succesful and not be universally reviled -- Steve Jobs comes to mind, and I don't think Henry Ford was especially despised in his lifetime -- and in fact most of the members of Group #1 later in life had their images rehabilitated by acts of extreme philanthropy such as the Carnegie Mellon University and the Bill Gates Foundation. Nowadays few people know that John Rockefeller was one of the most cutthroat businessmen of his day -- they know Rockeffeler Center and the Rockefeller Foundation and Vice-President Nelson Rockefeller and Senator Jay Rockeffeler and perhaps the endearing image of the "Rockefeller dime".

But lots and lots of people hate the very succesful members of Group #2. So I'm not sure where you're going with this, or if there is even a semi-serious point at all.


Those are some good points.

I think the government should break up John Kerry's ketchup monopoly. I bet he hates himself!

grundle
03-19-08, 08:21 PM
Perhaps you've never heard of the wage and price controls that were passed under his presidency. Perhaps you've never heard of Nixon's role in affirmative action. These actions coerced a whole lot of successful people.

I'm well aware of his wage and price controls. But I thought he was just being ignorant of economics. I didn't think he was being anti-achievement.

Affirmative action is anti-achievement. I wasn't aware that he was a supporter of it.

However, I don't think either of those things is as anti-achievement as the people that I did list.

crazyronin
03-19-08, 08:22 PM
I don't think Henry Ford was especially despised in his lifetime

I think the UAWU would disagree with you.

Red Dog
03-19-08, 08:29 PM
I'm well aware of his wage and price controls. But I thought he was just being ignorant of economics. I didn't think he was being anti-achievement.

Affirmative action is anti-achievement. I wasn't aware that he was a supporter of it.

However, I don't think either of those things is as anti-achievement as the people that I did list.

But I thought this was about coercion? That's what you just told us. Not about simple achievement.

NCMojo
03-19-08, 08:32 PM
Mods, I usually am fairly tolerant of grundle's eccentricities. But this whole thread is practically a paeon for sweeping generalizations. Going on and on about how "some" Democrats are anti-achievement is just as insulting and offensive as emphasizing how "some" Republicans are racist or homophobic -- and I don't think that's a path that we want to head down.

Numanoid
03-19-08, 09:13 PM
"Paeon"? I don't think so. -rolleyes-



Paean, maybe. ;)

Dave7393
03-19-08, 11:12 PM
Actually, Man vs Wild gets help from his crew. Survivorman is much better. And I'd also add the professor from Gilligan's Island.

Yes, Bear Grylls got help for some of the episodes, but he's still one of the youngest men (maybe the youngest, I'm not sure) to make it to the summit of Everest and back, so I think he could probably handle himself on a tropical island. Plus, anyone who can stomach drinking his own piss in order to stay hydrated gets my vote for having some decent survival instincts. :up:

The Professor? He couldn't even fix the S.S. Minnow (http://www.glitteratigossip.com/photos/uncategorized/minnow.jpg), which was mostly intact. :down:

Mods, I usually am fairly tolerant of grundle's eccentricities. But this whole thread is practically a paeon for sweeping generalizations. Going on and on about how "some" Democrats are anti-achievement is just as insulting and offensive as emphasizing how "some" Republicans are racist or homophobic -- and I don't think that's a path that we want to head down.

They were serious about the "sweeping generalizations" rule? :sarcasm: I thought this thread was proof that they weren't.

wendersfan
03-20-08, 07:00 AM
They were serious about the "sweeping generalizations" rule? :sarcasm: I thought this thread was proof that they weren't.We'd first have to take this thread seriously.

John Galt
03-20-08, 01:34 PM
Mods, I usually am fairly tolerant of grundle's eccentricities. But this whole thread is practically a paeon for sweeping generalizations. Going on and on about how "some" Democrats are anti-achievement is just as insulting and offensive as emphasizing how "some" Republicans are racist or homophobic -- and I don't think that's a path that we want to head down.
http://images.dvdtalk.com/images/buttons/report.gif

Th0r S1mpson
03-20-08, 01:41 PM
I think you mean:

<img src="http://www.bradblog.com/Images/siren.gif">

JasonF
03-20-08, 01:49 PM
I'm glad they succeeded.

Not all Democrats are anti-achievement. Can you post any anti-achievement quotes from them?

Did you post any anti-achievement quotes from the people you categorized as anti-achievement?

spainlinx0
03-20-08, 02:58 PM
I have never heard anyone criticize them for being successful.

I included Bill Gates, a Democrat, because I have heard people criticize him for being successful.

You have heard "people" or you have heard those democrats?

grundle
03-21-08, 11:45 AM
But I thought this was about coercion? That's what you just told us. Not about simple achievement.

It's about using coercion to punish acheivers. Nixon's price controls did use coercion to punish achievers. But I think he did it more out of ignorance of economics, than out of of hatred of achievement. For example, I have never read or heard any quotes from him where he was critical of people for being successful.

grundle
03-21-08, 11:50 AM
Mods, I usually am fairly tolerant of grundle's eccentricities. But this whole thread is practically a paeon for sweeping generalizations. Going on and on about how "some" Democrats are anti-achievement is just as insulting and offensive as emphasizing how "some" Republicans are racist or homophobic -- and I don't think that's a path that we want to head down.


If you can find any quotes from Republicans about the "evil drug companies" or the "evil energy companies" or about how "the richest 1% have won life's lottery," please post them.

My concern is with the attack against achievement. The fact that such attacks have been carried out mostly by Democrats is a fact, not a generalization. Also, there are Democrats, such as JFK, who never waged such an attack. He cut taxes on the rich.

Here is an article about Democrats who want to cut taxes on the rich, because they want to encourage achievement:


http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=18731

Rhode Island Democrats Seek Flat Tax

Written By: Steve Stanek
Published In: Budget & Tax News
Publication Date: April 1, 2006
Publisher: The Heartland Institute


Key Democrat lawmakers in Rhode Island have concluded that to keep the state competitive, they need to overhaul the state's tax system, including going from a progressive to a flat-rate income tax for high-income earners.

House Speaker William Murphy (D-West Warwick) and fellow Democratic lawmakers announced in February they believe the state's progressive income tax must be reformed. That reform is part of a package of nine tax initiatives Democrat leaders have offered. Rhode Island's income tax rates range from 3.75 percent to 9.9 percent, one of the highest state income tax rates in the country.

High-income earners would be given the option of paying taxes under the existing tax structure, with its multiple tax rates and income tax deductions and adjustments, or under a new flat-tax structure that eventually will go to a 5.5 percent tax rate without income adjustments available under the existing system.


Takes 'Comprehensive' Approach

"This legislation is a comprehensive approach to providing relief to all taxpayers throughout the state," said Murphy at a news conference where he and other members of the leadership team presented the legislation. "Rather than taking a piecemeal approach to the issues that affect our tax system, we're going to look at how to make the entire system work for the state and for all its taxpayers. The ultimate goal is to put more money directly into people's pockets both by giving relief to those who need it and by making Rhode Island a more attractive place for businesses that will provide high-paying jobs for more Rhode Islanders."

Democrats control both houses of the legislature. The governor, Don Carcieri, is a Republican. Carcieri has told local reporters he welcomes the tax cut and reform proposals.

"We're proposing this for better competition, fairer competition, and trying to attract new business to Rhode Island," said Larry Berman, press secretary to Murphy.


Hope to Lure Business

"What's happening is business leaders have a choice," Berman said. "These are people making $250,000 and above, and when they want to create jobs, they look at Massachusetts and see a 5.3 percent income tax, Connecticut with a 5.0 percent tax, and Rhode Island with a 9.9 percent tax. They make a choice on where to move and create jobs, and that difference in tax rates is a big factor in the choice they make."

The legislation proposes an alternative tax rate that top earners could choose to pay beginning in 2007. Instead of the current rate of 9.9 percent, those taxpayers could choose to pay 7.5 percent of their Adjusted Gross Income (AGI), without any adjustments, deductions, or credits. Over five years, the flat rate would be gradually reduced to 5.5 percent to make it more competitive with the neighboring states. The state would have two systems the current one and the optional flat-tax system. Individual workers would need to determine which system is better for them.


Economic Growth Expected

Berman said a recent survey by the Rhode Island Society of Certified Public Accountants found Rhode Island's high marginal tax rate might be causing retirees and companies to move to states with lower taxes or no income tax. The study also suggested the high tax rate may be causing large companies with multiple locations to put their highest earners somewhere other than Rhode Island.

Peter Marino, director of policy at the Rhode Island Public Expenditure Council, said that definitely is happening.

"Many of our members say they are having trouble recruiting employees with the skills to run their businesses because of our high income tax and property taxes," Marino said. "High-income earners don't want to come here."

Marino said he is "encouraged" by the proposal because it shows a recognition by the state's top lawmakers that Rhode Island's current tax structure needs to be improved and made more competitive. He cautioned, though, that a final bill is probably a long way off.

House Majority Leader Gordon D. Fox (D-Providence) said, "This new tax rate, as it did in Massachusetts, is certain to create new jobs, spur economic development, put money back in taxpayers' pockets, and otherwise bring Rhode Island to a position of twenty-first century economic leadership in the region and, indeed, in the country.

"This will undoubtedly help the state's highest wage-earners," Fox said. "But I am proud that this tax package also helps low-income wage earners and the middle class."


Several Changes Proposed

Other aspects of the legislative package include:

* Improved income tax transparency. Since Rhode Island began collecting income tax in 1971, the tax has gone from a very simple calculation of the amount paid in federal taxes to a complicated set of laws containing more than 40 different tax credits. This makes the system difficult to understand and compare to other states. Legislation included in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 2006 would require the state's tax administrator to submit recommendations for a Rhode Island Personal Income Tax Code specifying tax rates, income brackets, and personal exemptions.

* Creation of a new Department of Revenue to collect taxes and tax data. This would provide the state with a continuous review of the tax structure so lawmakers can stay on top of trends and changes and keep Rhode Island's tax laws competitive with those of other states. Rhode Island is the only state in New England without such a department. The department would include the current revenue-generating departments the Division of Taxation, the Division of Lottery, and the Division of Motor Vehicles and a new Division of Property Valuation, which would address the assembly's growing concern over property taxes. It also would include a new Office of Revenue Analysis, which would help the state more quickly identify problems and solutions involving its revenue stream.

Marino said this is an important part of the package, because Rhode Island's tax system is so complicated and diffuse that this information is extremely difficult to obtain.

* A sales tax holiday weekend on August 12-13, 2006. For the weekend, the bill would exempt items retailing for less than $2,500 from Rhode Island's 7 percent sales tax. Some items, such as tobacco, gasoline, meals, and automobiles, would be excluded from the holiday.

* Creation of a study commission that would determine whether the state sales tax should be changed. Rhode Island raised its sales tax from 6 to 7 percent in the early 1990s to pay for the bailout of the state's failed credit unions. The change was supposed to be temporary, but it was never rolled back.

* Changing the state earned income tax credit. A taxpayer who owes the state an amount that is less than the earned income tax credit now gets a refund for 10 percent of the difference. The Taxpayer Relief Act would increase that refund to 15 percent.

grundle
03-21-08, 11:53 AM
Did you post any anti-achievement quotes from the people you categorized as anti-achievement?



No.

But there's a whole other thread about Democrats wanting to punish the oil companies for being successful.

grundle
03-21-08, 11:54 AM
You have heard "people" or you have heard those democrats?


The people who make such criticisms happen to be Democrats. Not all Democrats say those kinds of things. But most of the people who say such things are Democrats.

adamblast
03-21-08, 11:55 AM
I just watched The Sound of Music.

Which do you prefer, nuns or nazis?

grundle
03-21-08, 11:57 AM
I haven't made any generalizations about liberals, conservatives, Democrats, or Republicans.

Instead, I have said that most people who are anti-achievement are Democrats. I never said that most Democrats are anti-achievement.

Since what I said is true, it's not a generalization.

Most of the people who want to raise taxes on the people who start businesses and create jobs are Democrats. That is not a generalization, because it is true.

adamblast
03-21-08, 12:48 PM
Most of the people who want to raise taxes on the people who start businesses and create jobs are Democrats. That is not a generalization, because it is true.And most of the people who want to raise spending without paying for it are Republicans?

grundle
03-21-08, 03:22 PM
And most of the people who want to raise spending without paying for it are Republicans?

Yes, that is correct.

grundle
03-21-08, 03:24 PM
Here's an anti-achievement Republican:


http://www.nysun.com/article/73421?page_no=1

Yet in the dark days of 1932, with unemployment at 20%, Hoover perversely signed an increase that reversed the multiple cuts by his predecessor, Calvin Coolidge.

Hoover more than doubled rates at the bottom of the tax schedule. He also increased the top marginal tax rate to 63% from 25%. The effect was predictable. That tax error has haunted economists ever since.

Dave7393
03-21-08, 04:56 PM
So it's true that the island cliche was a bullshit ploy to introduce/discuss your theory on the "anti-achievement democrats?" Nice! :up:

Here's an anti-achievement Republican:

And you only had to go back seventy-six years to find one. What a sport. :lol:

FYI:
"anti-achievement democrats"
"democrats are anti-achievement"
"democrats are against achievement"

...all yielded a grand total of 0 combined Google search results. Nice theory!

(edit: And ofcourse Hoover wasn't on your list, but FDR was. Go figure)

Nick Danger
03-23-08, 05:18 PM
If I were stranded on a desert island, which group of ruthless backstabbers would I like to be stuck with?

I'd be toast either way.

Th0r S1mpson
03-23-08, 06:21 PM
FYI:
"anti-achievement democrats"
"democrats are anti-achievement"
"democrats are against achievement"

...all yielded a grand total of 0 combined Google search results. Nice theory!


You must have included the quotes in your search. That's silly. :)


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0