Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 164

Thread: Who Gets Credit for YOUR Success?

  1. #121
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,941
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    If society, infrastructure and "the system" was the predominant factor in success......why are so few successful?
    Who said it was the predominant factor?

    The system and infrastructure exist only BECAUSE we have successful individuals who pay and paid their "fair share" intot he system, accounting for almost all of the funding that build these things.

    There is no spin to "correct" what was said and the collectivist anti-individualist belief system behind it. In this case, Obama's view is backwards. We have a system and infrastructrue in place thanks to successful individuals. Not the other way around.
    In some regards you are correct, but the counter argument is certainly valid as well. Successful individuals exist only because there is a framework and environment in place to make it a possibility.

    It's a chicken or the egg argument. They both need each other.

  2. #122
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    If society, infrastructure and "the system" was the predominant factor in success......why are so few successful? If all it took was those things, we'd all be equally successful. We're obviously not.

    It also fails to take into account that the successful are the ones who have paid the vast maority of tax money to fund that infrastructure, that system.

    The system and infrastructure exist only BECAUSE we have successful individuals who pay and paid their "fair share" intot he system, accounting for almost all of the funding that build these things.

    There is no spin to "correct" what was said and the collectivist anti-individualist belief system behind it. In this case, Obama's view is backwards. We have a system and infrastructrue in place thanks to successful individuals. Not the other way around.
    Solid post.

    Expect "so now we owe rich people" rhetoric in return...

  3. #123
    Quote Originally Posted by parafly View Post
    It's a chicken or the egg argument. They both need each other.
    Rich people make a productive society WAY more than society makes someone rich . . .

  4. #124
    Quote Originally Posted by parafly View Post
    Who said it was the predominant factor?
    By my own reading of the meaning and intentions behind the Presidents comments, he did.

    You can feel free to disagree.

    In some regards you are correct, but the counter argument is certainly valid as well. Successful individuals exist only because there is a framework and environment in place to make it a possibility.
    I disagree completely.

    Take away all of it, every measure of democracy, infrastructure, civilization and all the trappings therein.....and you will STILL have successful people and people who, through their own actions, talents and abillities, get more out of whatever there is that the rest of us.

    It's a chicken or the egg argument. They both need each other.
    No, they don't, thats the point. Be assured, the system needs the successful more than the successful need the system. Take away the successful, the system fails completely. Take away the system, and while these specific successful may not survive, other successful WILL take their place under the new order.

    If you argument held any water, the U.S.S.R would still be around, and beating us. They, more than any other Nationstate, bought into the "system > individuals" ideaology.

  5. #125
    I wonder how Booker T. Washington was able to accomplish so much in a society that provided him with so little . . .

  6. #126
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,941
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    By my own reading of the meaning and intentions behind the Presidents comments, he did.

    You can feel free to disagree.
    Fair enough.

    I disagree completely.

    Take away all of it, every measure of democracy, infrastructure, civilization and all the trappings therein.....and you will STILL have successful people and people who, through their own actions, talents and abillities, get more out of whatever there is that the rest of us.
    We are discussing success in the context of a modern society. Even if we go back to the hunter and gatherer era, an individual's success was reliant on the social rules in place as well as the individual contributions of the collective tribe.

    No, they don't, thats the point. Be assured, the system needs the successful more than the successful need the system. Take away the successful, the system fails completely. Take away the system, and while these specific successful may not survive, other successful WILL take their place under the new order.
    Fair enough, but that still doesn't signify that an individual's success is not partially attributed to the individual's surroundings and influences.

    If you argument held any water, the U.S.S.R would still be around, and beating us. They, more than any other Nationstate, bought into the "system > individuals" ideaology.
    My argument has nothing to do with communism, but seeing that extrapolation reinforces my original point that you are taking things to an extreme.

  7. #127
    Quote Originally Posted by parafly View Post
    We are discussing success in the context of a modern society. Even if we go back to the hunter and gatherer era, an individual's success was reliant on the social rules in place as well as the individual contributions of the collective tribe.
    Your understanding of human history is extremely flawed in my opinion. Human history is guided by those of us (not me, sadly) with greater skills, talents, work ethic and/or and abillities, i.e. the "successful".

    Society is a product of the organization of strong and charismatic human beings, bringing together, and holding together, groups of lesser (loosly used here) human beings who followed them. That has been the case from the very beginning.

    What you describe sounds like a utopian dream of a social collective with an almost conscious "mind" of it's own, the guiding hand of collective thought.

    It's hooey in my view, a total fabrication and misunderstanding of our history as a species.

    Fair enough, but that still doesn't signify that an individual's success is not partially attributed to the individual's surroundings and influences.
    Again, if success was even partially due to "society" and "infrastucture" then that society and infrastructure would provide teh same base level of success to everyone who enjoys it, i.e. all of us. As you can plainly see, we still have many unsuccessful people despite all that society and infrastructure and a "base level" that is quite low, albeit much higher than many other nations who put more emphasis on society (collectiveism) and infrastructure.

    My argument has nothing to do with communism, but seeing that extrapolation reinforces my original point that you are taking things to an extreme.
    This defense is tiresome.

    I'm sorry my friend, but you do not get a free pass to promote ideals and political idealogy that is directly in line with the various communists/socialist/marxists who've come before you, and then simply dismiss anyone educated in history enough to see the parrallels of thinking and ideals and point them out.

    That, or you simply lack an understanding of your own argument and the words you're using. I doubt thats the case, but in either situation, "OMG U SAID COMMUNISM SO I NO LISTEN!!!!" is not a valid defense of anything, much less a rather direct, specific idealogy talking-point of collectivism/communism.

    If someone starts talking about their being a superior races, who likes eugenics, and hopes for a 1,000 year glorious superpowerdom for their nation, it's also not a valid defense to say "Whoa, whoa, WHOA!!!! YOU SAID NAZI SO I NO LISTEN!!!!!!" either.

    At the end of this, if your only point is to say "society and infrastructure helps everyone, successfula nd unsuccessful alike", sure, so obvious a fact it shouldn't need said, much less at a political rally, and absolutely was not what the President said (even if you think he meant that, thats not close to what he said).

    It's funny, or ironic, or just sad. In teh Bush era, every liberal I know, JI's residents included, jumped all over every single misspoken or misstated word of Bush, rightfully so in many cases. But many of those same folks now seem to have a belief that Obama is incappable of misspeaking, and that if teh words he speaks sound bad or wrong....it;s not him, it's that those in disagreement with him simply lack the understanding to get the real meaning.

    Sorry para, I don't buy that for a second.

  8. #128
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,523
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    If society, infrastructure and "the system" was the predominant factor in success......why are so few successful? If all it took was those things, we'd all be equally successful. We're obviously not.

    It also fails to take into account that the successful are the ones who have paid the vast maority of tax money to fund that infrastructure, that system.

    The system and infrastructure exist only BECAUSE we have successful individuals who pay and paid their "fair share" intot he system, accounting for almost all of the funding that build these things.

    There is no spin to "correct" what was said and the collectivist anti-individualist belief system behind it. In this case, Obama's view is backwards. We have a system and infrastructrue in place thanks to successful individuals. Not the other way around.
    US patent laws, personal freedom, wealth, education, safety/rule of law and opportunity all play an important part in why we as a nation have produced so many successful individuals.

    To say it's just infrastructure is ridiculous. Furthermore, while perhaps some of the very successful in this country could have done well in other countries - namely western, democratic, market economies - if Steve Jobs was born in Rawanda, he probably wasn't going to be Steve Jobs. If Thomas Edison grew up in Mongolia, I doubt we'd know about him today.

    This whole thread is an overreaction to a pretty simple statement, namely those who are successful in this country, have benefitted from this country.

    And remember, all of this collectivist/marxist reactionary nonsense you keep bringing up is ultimately in reference to a 3% tax increase (a return to tax policy from 12 years ago) and socialized medicine.

    We liberals hate the rich because we want to return to tax policy that we've already done before (and at the time, definitely were not considered communist) and provide universal healthcare, an idea floated by many mainstream American political figures of the past century.

    It's the conservative movement that wants to go back to pre-New Deal economic and government structure, actually pre Teddy Roosevelt/progressive era America.
    Last edited by SafetyBlitz; 07-19-2012 at 03:33 PM.

  9. #129
    Quote Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz View Post
    if Steve Jobs was born in Rawanda, he probably wasn't going to be Steve Jobs. If Thomas Edison grew up in Mongolia, I doubt we'd know about him today.
    Exposes some deeply racist beliefs.

    So a African or Mongolian cannot succeed in the world or within their own culture, eh?

    Suffice to say I disagree with such a hateful idea.

    This whole thread is an overreaction to a pretty simple statement, namely those who are successful in this country, have benefitted from this country.
    And remember, all of this collectivist/marxist reactionary nonsense you keep bringing up is ultimately in reference to a 3% tax increase (a return to tax policy from 12 years ago) and socialized medicine.
    Personally, I could care less about the tax beyond the fact that I prefer a flat tax based on equallity, not a progressive tax based on the politics of state-based redistribution. But yes, socialized medicine is an issue I am against as well covered elsewhere.

    But I must admit, I love this repetative liberal defense "well, we only want "insert today's step towards additional collectivism at the expense of the individual".

    Then, once they get it, it's on to the next step, and the same line is pulled out "well, we only want this now".

    Question it, and just like "YOU SAID COMMIE OMG I NO LISTEN!!!!" you get the same old defense on this one, "YOU SAID SLIPPYSLOPE, YOU DUMB, I NO LISTEN NOAW!!!"

    It's alot like pulling the sting on those old kids educational toys. The answer is predictable every single time. And every step along the way, once the collectivists goal is obtained, they have moved directly on to the working for the next step.

    For example, do you think we'll simply be happy with Obamacare in the American left? Or do you think that now, assuming it stands up post election, will America's left be asking for more, for single payor?

    We both know the answer, same as we both know that the original New Deal and Medicare/Aid programs were built to do one thing, but now cover vastly more than they used to, as qualifcation creep rolls on and on and on.

    We liberals hate the rich because we want to return to tax policy that we've already done before (and at the time, definitely were not considered communist) and provide universal healthcare, an idea floated by many mainstream American political figures of the past century.
    Two points.

    1. We once had a 90%+ tax rate on some incomes. "We've already done it before" is not a valid argument, nor is the small % rate a valid defense.

    2. I notice you're not offering to return to the same Government Spending % of GDP as when we had those "used to have" tax rates.

    It's the conservative movement that wants to go back to pre-New Deal economic and government structure, actually pre Teddy Roosevelt/progressive era America.
    Not me. I'm happy to retain, and rebuild/reform, the New Deal era social safety net programs, and the medicare/medicaid programs that came later. I don't want rid of either, I want both to work, work efficiently and work appropriately to help the needy, and help the needy get OFF those programs asap (excluding teh disabled and elderly of course, as they are on for good generally speaking).

    What I am not supportive of is any further collectivisation of our tax system, economy or services. I want a flat tax, so every person enjoys the equallity (not fairness, but equallity) of responsabillity for putting in their dollar to support our collective system, even if eventually they get more than than dollar back in social support temporarily, as opposed to the system today where half barely pay any net federal income taxes and hence have almost no stake in what the Fed. Govt. spends, and a direct fiscal motive to increase that spending for their benefit via entitlement programs and program qualification creep.

  10. #130
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,523
    Quote Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz View Post
    if Steve Jobs was born in Rawanda, he probably wasn't going to be Steve Jobs. If Thomas Edison grew up in Mongolia, I doubt we'd know about him today.

    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    Exposes some deeply racist beliefs.

    So a African or Mongolian cannot succeed in the world or within their own culture, eh?

    Suffice to say I disagree with such a hateful idea.
    ...

    I didn't read past that.

  11. #131
    Quote Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz View Post
    ...

    I didn't read past that.
    Your loss.

    When you say someone cannot succeed because of where they're from, that a bad thing. Racist. Ethnicist. Nationalist. Pick your 'ist of preference.

    By the way, how does it feel, to be labeled as a hate monger when you think you're nothing of the sort? Welcome to what talking to liberals feels like.

    Anyway, it's ok if you take your ball and go home. I doubt you'd have anything new to say on this subject anyway.
    Last edited by Warfish; 07-19-2012 at 04:23 PM.

  12. #132
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,523
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    Your loss.

    When you say someone cannot succeed because of where they're from, that a bad thing. Racist. Ethnicist. Nationalist. Pick your 'ist of preference.

    By the way, how does it feel, to be labeled as a hate monger when you think you're nothing of the sort? Welcome to what talking to liberals feels like.

    Anyway, it's ok if you take your ball and go home. I doubt you'd have anything new to say on this subject anyway.
    Steve Jobs would not have been the head of a fortune 500 international computer company if he was born and lived his whole life in Rawanda.

    Do you disagree with that statement?

  13. #133
    Quote Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz View Post
    Steve Jobs would not have been the head of a fortune 500 international computer company if he was born and lived his whole life in Rawanda.

    Do you disagree with that statement?
    I disagree that "head of a fortune 500 international computer company" is the universal definition of "successful". Thats a jingoistic, materialistic Amero-centric qualifier, a rather non-multicultural, non-inclusive and distictly capitalist-specific ideal of what success is.

    The real question is, would a Rwandan Steve Jobs (brilliant genius, self-starter, hard worker, hardass) be more successful, despite equal access to all of Rwandan admittedly limited society and infrastructure, than other Rwandans. My answer is an obvious yes, although that nature of that success, the "top end" if you will, is decided in part by the economic and freedom systems, the power of the State or other control powers over the Individual, of the Nation of residence.

    Another interesting question is this, would a Soviet Steve Jobs, under a system of true socialist collectivism and equal access to societal support and infrastructure to all, have been as successful, living in the far-more-U.S.-equivalent "other superpower" of the last 70 years.

    If forced to answer your hypothetical, I would theorize that a Rwandan Steve Jobs would be one of the most successful men in his native Rwanda OR would have been smart enough and hard working enough to not be forced to "live his whole life in Rwanda" if better opportunities for him lay elsewhere.

    Figured my "no worthy answer" would bring you back.
    Last edited by Warfish; 07-19-2012 at 05:03 PM.

  14. #134
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,523
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    I disagree that "head of a fortune 500 international computer company" is the universal definition of "successful". Thats a jingoistic, materialistic Amero-centric qualifier, a rather non-multicultural, non-inclusive and distictly capitalist-specific ideal of what success is.

    The real question is, would a Rwandan Steve Jobs (brilliant genius, self-starter, hard worker, hardass) be more successful, despite equal access to all of Rwandan admittedly limited society and infrastructure, than other Rwandans. My answer is an obvious yes, although that nature of that success, the "top end" if you will, is decided in part by the economic and freedom systems, the power of the State or other control powers over the Individual, of the Nation of residence.

    Another interesting question is this, would a Soviet Steve Jobs, under a system of true socialist collectivism and equal access to societal support and infrastructure to all, have been as successful, living in the far-more-U.S.-equivalent "other superpower" of the last 70 years.

    If forced to answer your hypothetical, I would theorize that a Rwandan Steve Jobs would be one of the most successful men in his native Rwanda OR would have been smart enough and hard working enough to not be forced to "live his whole life in Rwanda" if better opportunities for him lay elsewhere.

    Figured my "no worthy answer" would bring you back.
    Steve Jobs net worth at his death was estimated at about 7 billion.

    I'm saying he never would have achieved that in Rawanda.

    And you agree.

    That's why we say that successful Americans, specifically the top 1%, could not have achieved what they achieved without American society.

  15. #135
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,931
    Quote Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz View Post
    Steve Jobs net worth at his death was estimated at about 7 billion.

    I'm saying he never would have achieved that in Rawanda.

    And you agree.

    That's why we say that successful Americans, specifically the top 1%, could not have achieved what they achieved without American society.
    Why bother, Blitz? You're just man-dog f*cking a wall.

    There are people who think that people being able to go to the doctor w/o going bankrupt will eventually lead to a world where Tom Cruise pulls red marbles from a machine and sentences you to death.

    Anybody who has ever achieved anything have ALWAYS thanked people for the opportunities that they got because of them. No sucessful person has ever gone on a stage and said "F*ck all of you. I did all of this because of me and only me. ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME"....

    Just save the bandwidth....

  16. #136
    Quote Originally Posted by PlumberKhan View Post
    Anybody who has ever achieved anything have ALWAYS thanked people for the opportunities that they got because of them. No sucessful person has ever gone on a stage and said "F*ck all of you. I did all of this because of me and only me. ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME"....

    Just save the bandwidth....
    How many of them said "Thank God for Government, without whom I would be nothing today".

    The issue isn't one of getting voluntary help for other individuals PK.

    It never was.

    Obscuring the issue, as both you and Blitzey are doing, won't change the issue or what the President said, or how deeply and fundamentally flawed the idea and ideals behind it is.

    if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)

    If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
    You're right though, it's a wonder any of bother wasting the bandwidth. There is simply no room for compromise between a worldview such as Blitzey's and my own. Better to simply vote your mind, live your life, and be done with it.

    Of course, thats what liberals, traditionally far more active in protest and change and efforts to "fundamentally transform" the U.S. into Socialist Europe than the rest of us are about protecting the status quo, want. Lazy non-liberals too uncaring or hopeless to stop the system being changed out from under them.



    The good thing is, no matter the system, the smart, skilled and hard working will always get comparatively further ahead than the rest. Hell, even a communist system needs Commisars to manage you proles. Have no fear PK, come the eventual Glorious Communist Revolution, some of you will still just be drones, and some of us will still be running the show.
    Last edited by Warfish; 07-19-2012 at 05:45 PM.

  17. #137
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,523
    Would Steve Jobs have made 7 billion dollars if he lived his whole life in Thailand?

    I rest my case.

  18. #138
    Quote Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz View Post
    Would Steve Jobs have made 7 billion dollars if he lived his whole life in Thailand?

    I rest my case.
    Your case seems to be that Capitalism and Free Markets with as little regulation as possible (as Apple enjoyed) is the "best system".

    Jobs didn't make his money because of the Government, high taxes, welfare, entilements, Govt services, redisribution policies, Public Education, Food Stamps or Universal Healthcare. Government had very little to do with his success in any form, but wow, did Government make ALOT of money all told off of Steve Jobs.

    He made his money because he was a genius, hardass, notorious hardworker with personal charisma and inspiring belief in his productive ideas, and his efforts combined with a free markets and free individuals free to buy what they like, created all that wealth. And, I should note, created me my iPod, the greatest invention ever.

    Again, if you want to believe Obama meant "capitalism and free markets" when he said what he said, be my guest. I know what I believe his remarks meant, and what his remarks say about the man and his socio-political beliefs, and I know he meant "success is due to Government".

    I don't expect to covince you otherwise, you are a representative of the ideals and beleifs I stand in opposition to politically generally speaking, an ideal that boils down on most issues (as I see it) to "the good (as we and only we see it) for the collective > the individual or his rights and freedoms".
    Last edited by Warfish; 07-19-2012 at 06:18 PM.

  19. #139
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,523
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    Your case seems to be that Capitalism and Free Markets with as little regulation as possible (as Apple enjoyed) is the "best system".

    Jobs didn't make his money because of the Government, high taxes, welfare, entilements, Govt services, redisribution policies, Public Education, Food Stamps or Universal Healthcare. Government had very little to do with his success in any form, but wow, did Government make ALOT of money all told off of Steve Jobs.

    He made his money because he was a genius, hardass, notorious hardworker with personal charisma and inspiring belief in his productive ideas, and his efforts combined with a free markets and free individuals free to buy what they like, created all that wealth. And, I should note, created me my iPod, the greatest invention ever.

    Again, if you want to believe Obama meant "capitalism and free markets" when he said what he said, be my guest. I know what I believe his remarks meant, and what his remarks say about the man and his socio-political beliefs, and I know he meant "success is due to Government".

    I don't expect to covince you otherwise, you are a representative of the ideals and beleifs I stand in opposition to politically generally speaking, an ideal that boils down to "the good (as we and only we see it) for the collective > the individual or his rights and freedoms".
    Silicon valley and the internet would not have existed without the US government taxing and spending.

    Apple, and therefore, Steve Jobs, would not have made billions without silicon valley and the internet (which led to the home computer becoming ubiquitous, which is the foundation for apple's entire product line).

  20. #140
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,523
    Jobs was also educated in public schools up until college, which he dropped out of after 6 months.

    Public school systems are collectivist and fundamentally a redistribution of wealth from all in a community, more from those in the community that pay higher property taxes, to children of that community.

    We do it for the greater good.

    We are communists.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us