949havoc

You're saying that the motivation for people with education and skills is exploitation, but note that your beginning was one going to the other, asking for the first's expertise in an area he has made a profession, and discovers they can be of equal service to one another. Where's the exploitation? They each have a service performed they mutually agree are of equal value. That's not exploitation. You use a term for justification that is flawed because neither party feels they have been exploited; they both achieve their needs.

The Trump you hate does not exist. 

Every president since Truman has promised to move the US Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv. Every one. Only one did it: Donald Trump. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/14/us/politics/trump-jerusalem-embassy-middle-east-peace.html

No Democrat or Republican President dared meet NoKo face-to-face until Trump did. That’s how diplomacy starts.  https://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-trump-kim-summit-20180611-story.html

No President, Roosevelt through Obama, Republican or Democrat. Passed a tax cut package the size of Trump’s. His corporate tax cut was 43%, largest in a century. That’s historic enough for me. What? You’re not a corporation? That’s on you. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-tax-history/trumps-tax-cut-wont-be-the-biggest-in-u-s-history-idUSKBN1D223O

Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act, under duress as a Southern Democrat facing loss of the South for his party, but my factoid was Black unemployment. No modern president since Roosevelt, at least, has achieved the unemployment rate reached by Trump. https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/aug/01/donald-trump-said-hes-done-more-african-americans-/

Not to mention that black poverty rate had never seen better numbers. Trump cut Johnson’s black poverty rate by half. https://infogram.com/untitled-1hxr4znwq7m54yo?live

Carter’s Iran disaster was legendary. You suggest Oba’a made a great deal. He sure did; it ensured Iran would have nuclear weapons by 2025. Read the Deal? No? I did. It’s a disaster, caving to Iran in addition to giving them $1.3B plus $400M in cash. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/03/01/was-obamas-1-7-billion-cash-deal-with-iran-prohibited-by-u-s-law/

As for the deal itself, it took all of 3 months, from July to October, for Iran to begin violating the deal, multiple times. https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Timeline-of-Nuclear-Diplomacy-With-Iran

Clinton declared a substantive deal in 1994 with NoKo, but never met with Rocketman’s father. The deal was violated by NoKo almost immediately, which was meant to deter NoKo’s advances in achieving a nuclear missile delivery system. They have it, and have had it since 2002. https://theconversation.com/why-the-uss-1994-deal-with-north-korea-failed-and-what-trump-can-learn-from-it-80578

Oba’a economy was so recovered that he never achieved a greater quarter-to-quarter growth rate above 2.5%. He declared, himself, that 2% GDP was the new norm. https://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/11/07/obama-warns-of-new-normal-for-economy/

His economy was so recovered, he lost our AAA credit rating for the first time in history in 2011, costing us billions in new interest payments on the debt, and affected the world market downgrade. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-debt-downgrade/united-states-loses-prized-aaa-credit-rating-from-sp-idUSTRE7746VF20110807

The only effect of Obama’s increase in market value was by artificial infusion of cash from the Federal Reserve, but the market saw immediate rise, then precipitous fall, because artificial infusion cannot sustain the market, and it didn’t. People look at the rise of the market during Oba’a, but ignore its numerous falls. While overall, the market grew from 8,000 to 18,000, but, in the process, it also lost 6,000 points in his 8 years; a net gain of an ordinary 4,000 point gain. https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=djia+today&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 look at the max view.

None of these highlighted presidents did anything that Roosevelt didn’t, but Trump did. I’ve cited the evidence. Cry me a river.

observe my #24 to the Skeptic

What's everyone who thinks he committed so many offenses, and have the wherewithal to charge and indict, waiting for to issue indictments? They may say they have the evidence. You may have been sucked into believing it, but, when's the rubber going to meet the road? Y'all been trying this routine since your holy Bob Mueller, but did he ever issue indictment one against Trump? Anyone named Trump? No. SDBY? No. Your Nancy Pelostomy set-up two pathetic attempts at impeachment, because she thought she had the goods, but had naught for conviction. When, then, instead of just talking about it? Talk is cheap, and you've been bought.

Because your arguments are Marxian. You're following a rock, who cannot even, and never did run a lemonade stand; perhaps the bare bones of capitalism. Follow who has already achieved, and copy their style, not Marx. Think, and do like them, not Marx. You may not even be aware of who Marx is. Burnham doesn't, either, so why is he a role model? He's a kid who found a candy store.

That, too, is a faulty assumption. Wealth is acquired more by working smart than working hard, or as much as one can. If your goal is only to work min wage, then, yes, long and hard might get there, but even then, probably not. Education is the key. Make one marketable. Make one skilled. Then continue learning. As soon as possible, start investing. Make money work for you instead of just working for it. Stop trying to acquire things until able to do so without borrowing so much, increasing one's debt. I still drive a 20-year-old truck, not because I must, but because it still runs without costing an arm and leg for maintenance. Do I care what people think, that I don't replace a car every three years? No. This is not rocket science. It does take ambition, planning, and execution.

You argue that I make it sound easy. It's not. It takes commitment to personal responsibility, and many have ignored that. Don't.

When do you get it that it is Marx who is exploitive. 

Yeah, woke is my new dragon, because it's like everything else progressive: It's backwards.

Who said life was fair? Who said it is supposed to be fair? Demanding fairness is an excuse for weakness and inability to get more out of life that what is fair. Get a backbone, man, since you already have it. USE IT. Since your subject appears to be money, when are you going to get it that Obama was wrong. There never comes a time when you've made enough money because the money supply is infinite. It only starts getting dragged down when you can no longer afford to pay the lifestyle you desire, so you borrow at excessive rates that make it probable you will never even the balance. Who says you have to spend what you make? Invest. Make money work for you, and live within that amount. Look, I used to have a mortgage, and car payments. I don't anymore. I own them, outright. No, I don't get a tax break for mortgage, but why do I need a tax break? It isn't dollar for dollar, anyway, so why bother? Go into debt to pay less taxes? Is that upside-down. or what?

It's a gift, that comes without price, other than your ambition. It's why it's called free will, because, to date, no one has been able to put a price on ambition. Maybe because it's free to whomever chooses to engage it? That the universe messes with my brain chemistry is so not Occam, you're going to have to tell me he really didn't have a razor. Can you?

And that kind of thinking is how you decide you're better off working for money [min wage is your apparent goal] than putting your money to work for you.

Consider: Donald Trump was given $150M, and he turned that into $1B in ten years.

That's the equivalent of getting $15,000 from your dad and turning it into $1M in ten years. Have you? It actually took me 20 years, but I did it, and I'm nobody. Until you have, stop complaining, because you don't get it how to do it, and bitching about is worthless. Who will pay you for that?

Sorry to be so harsh, but, none of this is entitled. My dad told me: be ambitious, plan, and execute. That's it. No magic. Most can't get past ambition.

Considering how the gross pie [sales] is divided into more than just two slices [proletariate, and bourgeois, per Marx], how is 30% unfair? I gave you 12 slices, only [remember I said there are more] two of which are recognized by Marx, and one gets 30%. If fair [I read equitable] is what you want, then lets give you 8.3%. Now are you satisfied? Twelve now have their fair share, and that's only if there is only one person per share. What about that don't you get? What you want is a still bigger slice, but then, you are not at all considering that some work is of greater worth than than others. You may think labor is the most important, but what is your labor is doing if you have no raw material to work with? What is your labor going to do if there is no salesman to sell the product you made? What will your labor do if no one designed the product you made? You see what I mean? Marx, the guy who didn't even know if you have lemons, you can make lemonade, never considered these factors. He has a laborer, and thinks the laborer is getting shafted because he gets only 30%, when, in fact, his 30 is the biggest slice, already. But, you demand more. Prove you are worth it! Don't give me your union rep, I know he's a clown because I've already had to deal with that idiot. YOU prove your worth.

Sure, if you act before you think, and some do that. It's called woke.

Where action driven is by prior thought , the thought is the cause. But thinking is not determinism, because determinism is just like abdicating to letting a coin toss determine your action. Therefore, determinism is a coin toss, and act of limited results, whereas thinking through a problem of which action to take is reflective of past experience, and contemplating different actions if different results are expected, since doing the same thing expecting different results is caving into the last time the situation you're now in occurred, and that's caving to the coin toss. Therefore, reflecting on different actions to achieve a different result is free will at work, not wokeness.

Good job. Go thy way and be burdened no more [my preference to sin no more], regardless of what and how it was decided, as long as you're content with the decision.

Since Socrates was Greek, shouldn't that be ΓΝΩΘΙ ΣΑΥΤΟΝ?

Who's that? You have this misguided opinion that I watch Fox. Nope. Sorry to disappoint.

I vote bump, but I'm not a pest about it. What are we, three-year olds?

You sound identical to Marx. His theory was exactly that, that corporate profits robbed from the workers. But Marx never ran a lemonade stand, let alone a corporation. Never ran one yourself, have you?

Typical labor costs, depending on industry, is about 30% of gross [sales]. Service industry labor can reach 40% https://smallbusiness.chron.com/calculate-employee-labor-percentage-15980.html

Labor is usually the biggest cost.https://smallbusiness.chron.com/calculate-employee-labor-percentage-15980.html

So, let's not get to hyped about the poor laborer. Not so poor if that expense is the biggest piece of the pie. Your problem is that in many cases, workers abdicate their right to negotiate their income to unions, who are in the game primarily... for themselves and not the worker. Union advantage is a myth because workers can learn how to negotiate their own income if they know how to do it, and it's pretty simple. I taught it to my employees when I was in management. I work for me, now, but my money works for me better than I do. I don't have employees, anymore. Whatmarx ignored, completely, because he never ran a lemonade stand, is that there are other costs; it is just the labor slice and the owner slice. R&D, materials purchasing and logistics and handling, process development and implementation, equipment, marketing, customer service, facilities... Marx never spoke to any of this. Neither have you. And I have not mentioned all of it, yet. You cannot ignoree this stuff. All these considerations have presence even in a lemonade stand, nd must be accounted for. An owner, if he's lucky, manages to keep about 25 cents of a $3 glass of lemonade.

Occam turning in his grave, such a convoluted spin you unravel. What, don't get how coin tosses work? See Occam.

Really? You must have watched. I didn't even know it was happening. I've moved on. I reside in the present, laughing at Biden. I can afford to do that; I profited under Trump, but that's money already reinvested elsewise, working for me, not me for it.

As to this faux; sorry, don't know who that is.

Depends on the corp. There are greedy, jealous corps, and charitable, confident corps. The latter will always, in the end, make a difference.

Again, you're painting with a brush wider than reality would allow. Concentrate on the negative, so you become. Happens to everyone who cannot allow themselves to find happiness, which is contageous.

Every knee will bow, and every tongue confess that he is Christ. But then, the prophesied sequence is that the destruction of the wicked will precede his appearance, so there will nowhere be found anyone to disagree. Time to decide, now, which side we're on.

That argument is disconnect. First you say no non-physical entity can qualify choices, then say we, physical entities, cannot make personal choices. Who can, then? Of course, that's your point; no one can, thus determinism, quantum, or not.

Then, as I offered - disagreeing with the concept, you believe the coin toss. But, just as the ultimate realization from Matrix is that there is no spoon, then there is neither a coin. What now?

To me, determinism ends up being a coin toss, which is predictable, but it is a very limited selection of potential choices: heads, tails, edge, and complete unknown [in the remote chance, but predictable] that the coin disappears, such as inside down a floor vent, or outside, through a grate. In the latter case, another coin is likely flipped. In keeping with the theme of determinism, it is not a choice made by the person at all. The person has abdicated choice to the physical conditions outside that person's control, affecting the force, distance, and relative direction of the toss, the speed of spin, the ambient micro-climate conditions, and the relative surface conditions on which the coin lands and bounces, if the latter condition occurs at all. Determinism is, therefore, complete abdication of choice; an absurdity that is entirely possible with cowards who want no encounter with the universe; cowards, because no one else would stoop to such abdication.

Not so much

You're comparing two separate conditions, and combining them. 

So, obviously, was I. But, danger lurks, lack of privacy lurks, even in your own home. And safety lurks in some crowds.

The point ought to be obvious. If you haven't profited by the last four years, and apparently, you did not, whose fault is that? Time for personal responsibility, and I can do, and would not do, anything about that. You're on your own. Enjoy your manufactured inflation; you elected it.

As I said; we disagree. And?

Some of you; you know who you are, inject Trump into a string having naught to do with him. Hint: He is no longer the President. He is no longer your boogey man. But, you're so woke, you still think the subject is relevant, which is one reason why I accuse being woke, as being completely unconscious. You just cannot move on. Why?

God is a patient fellow, after all, because he loves us, unconditionally. That does not mean he will always strive with us, allowing us our fumbling around in the dark. He offered the light in his Only Begotten, but it is we who must use that light to shine it into the dark. That's our part of the bargain of being provided with fire. Use it for warmth and light, not destruction. The day is coming, probably at night, like a thief, for most, when we must demonstrate we have found the light and know how to use it, and those that still don't will never know it again.

He will look like a man. Does it matter by what physical traits? These things should not matter to us, now, with one another. The alternative is the root of racism. Just stop. We should celebrate our differences, and maybe when we have crossed that hurdle, he will come and then your childish curiosity will be satisfied once and for all. Meantime, I'm more interested in what he will say to us after our bungling of two thousand years.

He gave us a simple set of instructions, after all: Love God, Love our neighbors, including our enemies. After two thousand years, we cannot do it. 

CK Chesterton was right:

"It is not that Christianity has been tried and found wanting. It has never been tried."  Jesus is an incredibly patient man.

Show me. Don't show me statements by so-called academics, or legal scholars, who just say that. Show me the statute. Show me the department policy that says that.

Time for the rubber to hit the road. I want evidence, not just claims.

Depends on the Christian to whom you refer, doesn't it. Hell, I know people who remove pages of their Bibles because they don't understand or they disagree with what is said, so your same comment applies, doesn't it?

There are Jews who convert to Christianity and accept additional scripture.

Who, after all, is cheeky enough to limit God and tell him his is now mute? Apparently, even you.

And as late as the mid-nineteenth century, even after a century and more of suggestion otherwise, all the evidence suggested that Earth was central to the universe, so how reliable is five-senses evidence? As I have continuously maintained, faith is a sixth sense, but, just as the other five, needing analysis and learning to interpret nuance, it needs these applications of effort, as well. Mostly, people, more than Christians, don't know how. They believe faith and belief are synonymous. No. Simply, no. Yet the process is fully described, OT, NT, Book of Mormon, Qur'an, Buddha, and more. Belief can lead to faith, which can lead to knowledge. Even empirical knowledge so well as science can describe it. Time to read with purpose, ponder and pray.

etc, etc, 

Yes, but what did I say about creation? That God had no intent, and did not create a perfect world. Never did, never intended to, never will. Why create something and someone already perfect when growth from imperfection to perfection is the whole point of creation in the first place? How many Christians loonies tell you that? Not many. I'm one of the few. If we were already perfect, what need have we of Christ? It's because we're not perfect that Christ is needed. And that was the second point of creation. That Christ is needed. And we learn that from Genesis. The need of Christ did not become a reality only upon his birth. Why else is Adam & Eve told that though they would suffer from temptation by Satan, that Christ would bruise Satan's head, and Satan would bruise Christ's heel? Gen 3: 14 - 17.

Sorry, you're going to have to spell it out. I don't youtube unless I know the reference is safe.

Not to mention that anyone can post just about anything on youtube with no guarantee that it has academic substance in fact.

Agreed, but teaching children that systemic racism plagues Amerrica when not one systemic [read government at any level legal statute of policy statement] statement currently exists is harmful. let schools teach that individual racism is rampant, because that is true. I have long challenged that a single statute or agency policy exists that is racist be demonstrated. No one can do it, because it currently does not exist. Jim Crow died with the compliance to Civil Rights Act in 1964. All such laws and policies were eradicated. That does not mean that individuals in the system are following law and policy, but that's my point: it's individual racism, not systemic.

Yes, and thus my reply #25 to 3RU7AL

And in America, though a capitalist enterprise, meaning one where the citizens should be allowed to determine their own destinies, whether that affects their ownership of whatever, or the care of their persons, we have a President who wants to dictate both.

Meaning that both in Russia and China, you have a communist system that isn't purely Marxist. And?

Yes, actually, in most regards, the separation of ownership of property is said to be distinction between socialists and communists, but, Marx, himself, in the Manifesto, draws no distinction. Socialism and communism, in Marxism, is merely binary in the two words, but the thoughts are identical.

"If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him." - James 1: 5. Actually, read the entire chapter, a description of how to deal with "clues" to find out if what you're thinking is actually true, or not. Have I ever said anything different than this on how to read and understand the Bible? No, I have not. It works if you follow the clearly defined path of this chore. If you don't, you remain in a dark cloud. Your choice; something I have also said repeatedly.

Yes, as described above, #17.

The notion that God can only create perfect things is just an excuse to attempt to demonstrate that he is not, because, we suppose, erroneously, that God cannot create imperfect things, or he would not be God. That's just forced limited thinking.

To think that God is omnipotent does not mean that he must always act omnipotently. Do you use all your power you possess, all the time, or do you use just enough to get the job done?

Enter the purpose of creation. The design is not flawed, we were not intended to be created as perfect beings. As I said, we were given the gift of dominion to learn how to overcome our inadequacies, to learn how to become perfect by our own efforts, with help from God if we ask properly. We are not born perfect, we acquire perfection by our effort to put off the natural man and become divine by our choice to do so, and act properly by our choices, This is why determinism is false. We cannot be coerced to be perfect.

As I just described. It is possible to have assumed peace in one's own home, yet a family member turns against them in the home. At the same time, one can be in a crowd, the right kind of crowd, and be as safe and secure as a baby in loving mother's arms.

But, by the 4A, the State must not take the authority to search without warrant.

Rape and Resurrection
 
What have they done to the earth?
What have they done to our fair sister?
            - Jim Morrison
 
 
 
I come to kiss the stones,
To hear her granite thunder memory,
Recovery of wonder,
With fingers dredged in her wet skin,
In her dry boil of dust, in her grass tide.
 
I would know her as a virgin,
Green, untied, uncombed,
Uncompromised blue heaven,
Before the manic apathy of eyes
And lecherous hands,
Stampede of bulls
Before the whoring sweat
And violent mix of blood and tears, 
And cracking clay,
The last sweet stink of butchery,
Of their blood retching in the dust.
They cheer their hot foul fury,
Breathing in the adoration,
Breathing out wide nostril carnage.
Emphatic grace in speed magnificent,
Their dance in dust in time to fury’s lust,
The plant, the thrust, and gorge her delicate skin.
The rape of Gaia:
Sharp and gray as steel thunder,
As roar of leaves before the storm.
 
 After the fall,
The stone dropped in the brilliant air
Will shatter the water,
Erupt a crown,
Will ripple to the water’s edge,
Embrace the shore,
Shake the roots,
Tremble in the trees,
Gather the clouds,
Roll the earth upon her glory road.
And I will walk the road
And kiss the stones,
And tell her, whisper in her grass,
You are my only country now.

©1993 Havoc

The assumption that God created robots is contrary to what is given in the creation account, strictly because among the gifts given to man was dominion, and that dominion is possible only by agency to act for and on behalf of himself, but as importantly, for the whole Earth. Gen 1: 26. Had God wanted to be a puppet master, he'd have retained the dominion for himself, but we're supposed to learn how its done in order to become like God, ourselves.  That's not blasphemy if we truly act to deserve it.

That said, it is man who decides to surrender that dominion to act by his nature, which is carnal, sensual, and devilish. The natural man is an enemy of God. The divine man takes dominion, but uses it to benefit the whole Earth, to make of Earth the heaven it deserves to be, and will be. The conundrum in all this is that it is man, the highest and most holy of creations, by intention of God, who can so easily fall from his place of honor among all creation, while the lower animals, in our reckoning, who, by their nature, fulfill the full measure of their creation, will inherit heaven, whether we do so, or not. It all depends on how we handle the gift of dominion.

So, now security is privacy? If only it were so. But, in the privacy of your home, nevertheless, you can be insecure against attack from within. At the same time, a person out of their home in a crowd can be as secure as promised in the 4A. It all depends on the company you keep, and that's by your choice. The Justices of Roe v. Wade did not consider that conundrum in their deliberations, but some have considered it since, and have criticized the decisions of Roe. That included Ruth Bader Ginsberg, by the way.

Having a powerful drive to be sexual just means we have a long way to go before we truly master ourselves and our nature because it is not intended for man to act like the instinctual beast, but to have dominion, even over himself. There is a time and a place, and an order to be followed to develop that dominion. There is disorder in merely being driven by instinct; the natural man. The natural man believes he is driven, that he has no control of his agency and, therefore, his God -given dominion. It is the man after the order of God that masters dominion, who organizes order in his universe by his agency to do so; an act foreign to the natural man; the woke man in this generation's vernacular.

When are you going to define virtual rape? Do you even know, or do the words just trip off your tongue. Hint: you're drooling. Ands I'm clueless? 

Hello, it's a simple question, or are you Joe Biden?