OCCUPY

[eyeball]

And you are blaming the 1% for all the misery in the world.

Not all the misery, only about 99% of it.

Edited November 11, 2011 by eyeball

[jacee]

Um, except it is their fault, no one had a gun to their head forcing them to take drugs and become junkies.

Blueblood, you obviously have no idea about the traumas of people's lives that leave them vulnerable to drug addiction. I will just mention a few:

1) Incest and other chronic abuse

2) Combat

3) Chronic pain

"It's their fault" is a disgustingly uninformed perspective.

While it is true that only the addict can change him/her self, the circumstances that made them vulnerable to addiction are usually not in their control.

I'd really like to blow up that pedestal you put yourself on, looking down your nose at the rest of us. You obviously don't know jackshit about humanity as it seems to have bypassed you entirely.

Edited November 11, 2011 by jacee

[WWWTT]

Aswell Mike there is a common belief or possibly a stereo type that the 1% put value on money ahead of all other aspects of/in life.

Myself family comes first!

WWWTT

[cybercoma]

Um, except it is their fault, no one had a gun to their head forcing them to take drugs and become junkies.

And if you keep attacking the people instead of the problems, you will never solve the latter.

[Michael Hardner]

The against side was in my opinion generally the right wing pro big business or pro 1%.

I don't think that the 1% votes entirely for the CPC, or supports social Conservatism across the board, so this may be a stretch.

Socio Economic Factors on Voting in Canada

Browsing the study above, Table 3, it seems that income wasn't a determinant for voting for Liberals and Conservatives in Ontario Provincial Elections.

[cybercoma]

This is untrue!

Many of these so called junkies live in a world of no hope and despair "created" by the 1%.

The ability to help them reach a better life is being supresed by the 1%.

Essentially you are blaming the victims for the crime!

WWWTT

This is not my argument. I just want to make that clear.

[cybercoma]

I don't think that the 1% votes entirely for the CPC, or supports social Conservatism across the board, so this may be a stretch.

Socio Economic Factors on Voting in Canada

Browsing the study above, Table 3, it seems that income wasn't a determinant for voting for Liberals and Conservatives in Ontario Provincial Elections.

I admittedly just skipped through the study to the parts I wanted to see, but I find it peculiar that odds-ratios were used with the Liberal Party as a baseline. I'm not sure this is the most accurate way of examining this, but it's not my field so I could be wrong. I'll have to go back and read the methods section to get a better understanding of the rationale.

[cybercoma]

Oh... another thing that could skew the results would be a scenario where particular career paths offset each other. For instance, liberal arts professors and labourers voting NDP. The professors' incomes would offset the labourers incomes. I think a better study would examine the voting patterns of various professions, rather than their particular incomes.

[WWWTT]

I don't think that the 1% votes entirely for the CPC, or supports social Conservatism across the board, so this may be a stretch.

Socio Economic Factors on Voting in Canada

Browsing the study above, Table 3, it seems that income wasn't a determinant for voting for Liberals and Conservatives in Ontario Provincial Elections.

Good point made here!

WWWTT

[jbg]

Um, Nixon to China. Ending the Vietnam war. Some of his domestic initiatives such as the creation of the Evironmental Protection Agency.

I thought you were conservative. Let's go through them one by one:

1. Nixon to China - Craven surrender of the Taiwanese people, who stood with the West and against their powerful conqueror. They built a country while the Chinese engaged in wanton "cultural revolutions". Nixon rewarded them with a visit just to buttress his 1972 re-election prospects;
   
2. Ending the Vietnam War - Another craven surrender, including the lives of POW's; and
   
3. Forming the Environmental Protection Agency - Started out good, but now engaged in overkill on many issues. Huge job killers nowadays.
   

[jbg]

The next time hundreds of Americans get killed by a terrorist, remind me to laugh and give thanks that the world's a better place because for it.

So you're saying the best way to deal with terrorists is to surrender to them? Great idea. Not.

[Moonlight Graham]

Blueblood, you obviously have no idea about the traumas of people's lives that leave them vulnerable to drug addiction. I will just mention a few:

1) Incest and other chronic abuse

2) Combat

3) Chronic pain

"It's their fault" is a disgustingly uninformed perspective.

While it is true that only the addict can change him/her self, the circumstances that made them vulnerable to addiction are usually not in their control.

Exactly. I'd say exactly the same thing about homeless people (who are often also addicts).

[Bonam]

Ah yes, the usual mumbo jumbo about everyone being a victim of circumstance, having no control, being ineffectual in the face of some cruel universe. What ever happened to people overcoming adversity and making something of themselves?

[dre]

Ah yes, the usual mumbo jumbo about everyone being a victim of circumstance, having no control, being ineffectual in the face of some cruel universe. What ever happened to people overcoming adversity and making something of themselves?

What ever happened to people overcoming adversity and making something of themselves?

That depends on a system that has some semblence of economic equalibrium. Upward mobility is still possible, but its getting harder and harder. Most people used to claw their way up into the middle class through labor but theres been a huge swing in how much capital is allocated towards labor vs investment.

[jacee]

Ah yes, the usual mumbo jumbo about everyone being a victim of circumstance, having no control, being ineffectual in the face of some cruel universe. What ever happened to people overcoming adversity and making something of themselves?

People who have overcome those things, are entitled to that opinion.

People who haven't faced such challenges can count their blessings.

Edited November 12, 2011 by jacee

[WWWTT]

What ever happened to people overcoming adversity and making something of themselves?

I actually agree!

But when the government focuses more on punishment instead of creating opportunity then where are they to work themeselves to?

Many people in this world have little or find little interest in the persuite of happiness because the opportunity to achieve is too dificult.

WWWTT

[cybercoma]

Exactly. I'd say exactly the same thing about homeless people (who are often also addicts).

A great many of the homeless people that I've encountered and worked with suffer from debilitating mental illness and have lost contact with the crucial social services that they need. Many of them will develop addictions as a way to self-medicate. It's fine for people to want to cut back on social programs because sometimes it is warranted, but we need to be aware of the people that are affected by these changes.

[Shwa]

Ah yes, the usual mumbo jumbo about everyone being a victim of circumstance, having no control, being ineffectual in the face of some cruel universe. What ever happened to people overcoming adversity and making something of themselves?

Whatever happened to living life according to vapid slogans?

[Michael Hardner]

..theres been a huge swing in how much capital is allocated towards labor vs investment.

Dre - I'm quite confused here. How are these things mutually exclusive ? Why labour VERSUS investment ?

[blueblood]

Blueblood, you obviously have no idea about the traumas of people's lives that leave them vulnerable to drug addiction. I will just mention a few:

1) Incest and other chronic abuse

2) Combat

3) Chronic pain

"It's their fault" is a disgustingly uninformed perspective.

While it is true that only the addict can change him/her self, the circumstances that made them vulnerable to addiction are usually not in their control.

I'd really like to blow up that pedestal you put yourself on, looking down your nose at the rest of us. You obviously don't know jackshit about humanity as it seems to have bypassed you entirely.

That's like saying if a person has an argument with their spouse, gets liquored up and drives, they get a free pass because they're going through a tough time. Give me a break. And it is precisely their fault. They could choose to do drugs and take the risk that comes with it or not. They chose poorly. Why should society have to subsidize poor choices?

That pedestal ain't going anywhere. I know enough about humanity that it is folly to try and snell the snake oil of "it's okay to be lazy and poor, somebody else will take care of us."

[CPCFTW]

Oh... another thing that could skew the results would be a scenario where particular career paths offset each other. For instance, liberal arts professors and labourers voting NDP. The professors' incomes would offset the labourers incomes. I think a better study would examine the voting patterns of various professions, rather than their particular incomes.

How does that skew the results? Are liberal arts professors not part of the 1% because they teach a subject hippies like?

Let's not forget offsetting ndp cabinet members, and hippy celebrities with those on welfare and the handicapped!! Also that brett guy and the chick from dragon's den! So skewed!!

More ridiculous lefty reasoning of anything that doesn't conform to their a priori beliefs.

[cybercoma]

How does that skew the results? Are liberal arts professors not part of the 1% because they teach a subject hippies like?

Let's not forget offsetting ndp cabinet members, and hippy celebrities with those on welfare and the handicapped!! Also that brett guy and the chick from dragon's den! So skewed!!

More ridiculous lefty reasoning of anything that doesn't conform to their a priori beliefs.

What are you even talking about? It certainly doesn't have anything to do with my post that you're replying to.

[CPCFTW]

What are you even talking about? It certainly doesn't have anything to do with my post that you're replying to.

How are the "results" of that study "skewed"?

[CPCFTW]

Dre - I'm quite confused here. How are these things mutually exclusive ? Why labour VERSUS investment ?

I was also very confused by that statement.. Too confused to even bother asking about it. I figure it is the tried and tested "the 1% are hoarding all their money under their mattresses instead of being overtaxed to pay for the defined benefit pensions of high school dropouts working in the public sector" (aka the let the government pick winners and losers and fabricate a "strong middle class") argument. But you know what they say about assumptions.

Btw you seem to be playing devil's advocate to your own views more often these days.. Thank you for stimulating discussion from both sides!

Edited November 12, 2011 by CPCFTW

[cybercoma]

How are the "results" of that study "skewed"?

I never said they were. Go back and have someone read my post to you. Maybe they can help you.