Democrats not really friendly, they all look the same, pretty much all minorities...

I wonder what would happen if the chair of the DNC called the republican party a bunch of bible toting gun wielding biggots?

It's perfectly acceptible to criticize your own party to appeal to bipartisain voters so long as you bring the bacon home.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']'They all behave the same. They all look the same. It's pretty much a white Christian party'...

I wonder, just wh at would be said if the RNC Chair made this kind of statement about the stereotypical makeup of the Democratic party.
Audio Link to Howard Dean Statement [/QUOTE]

So... republicans aren't also rich middle aged white christian guys?
 
[quote name='Kayden']So... republicans aren't also rich middle aged white christian guys?[/QUOTE]

[size=-1]Creme de la crop.[/size]
 
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']It looks like no one understands what PAD was trying to say here. :roll:

Not that it matters. :lol:[/QUOTE]

Wait was he trying to say that possibly Howard Dean isn't the Democratic Partie's poster boy?:lol:
 
PAD has already totally discredited himself by making an alternate account and spamming, now he is just fishing for flames.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']'They all behave the same. They all look the same. It's pretty much a white Christian party'...

I wonder, just wh at would be said if the RNC Chair made this kind of statement about the stereotypical makeup of the Democratic party.
Audio Link to Howard Dean Statement [/QUOTE]

Is there something about Dean's statement you'd like to refute?

Me, I would; although I agree with Dean's point (regarding what kind of people are the most influential in the GOP these days), I think a statement such as this diminishes big business and related special interest groups' power in the party.

Although Jebus lovers might enjoy a good tax cut or social security reform, their priorities are elsewhere (overturning Roe v. Wade, for instance).

myke.
...again, is there something incorrect that Dean said?
 
I don't understand PAD's title - if Dems all look the same, how can they be composed of minorities? I mean, by definition all of the groups of minorities look different.
 
I just wanted to share this from News of the Weird.

In May, Jim Stelling, the Republican Party chairman in Seminole County, Fla., won a lawsuit for defamation against an intraparty official who had accused him of being married six times, which Stelling said he found particularly insulting, since he "believe(s) in family values." Stelling said he has been married only five times. (The judge ruled that Stelling was not defamed enough for money damages.) [Boston Globe, 4-11-05] [St.Petersburg Times-AP, 5-15-05]
Click to expand...

Republicans amuse me. Please keep it up.
 
[quote name='camoor']I don't understand PAD's title - if Dems all look the same, how can they be composed of minorities? I mean, by definition all of the groups of minorities look different.[/QUOTE]

I guess in PAD's eyes all nonwhites look the same.
 
Dean is a wacko and will be out by the 2006 elections.

I would have become a democrat because the MA democratic party offical support gay marriage, but with Dean in command of the DNC no chance in hell.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']PAD has already totally discredited himself by making an alternate account and spamming, now he is just fishing for flames.[/QUOTE]

This one had me rolling kitten killer. You've been completely discredited for years! Your posts consist entirely of one and two sentence flames and nothing but. Take this post as an example, two one sentence flames.

You're incapable of thought, expressing yourself or debating anything. Are you just too lazy to go beyond two sentences or just so stupid that you believe that you've sufficently "won" everything without even have to try because you "win" by just showing up?

Your entire existence on this board is spam. Why do you think I make fun of you? Because you offer absolutely nothing to conversation. I disagree with EZB, MBE, Camoor, Usisickenme and others but at least they can express thought. You're just a walking talking point without the gift of being able to elaborate why you exist as a talking point.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']This one had me rolling kitten killer. You've been completely discredited for years! Your posts consist entirely of one and two sentence flames and nothing but. Take this post as an example, two one sentence flames.

You're incapable of thought, expressing yourself or debating anything. Are you just too lazy to go beyond two sentences or just so stupid that you believe that you've sufficently "won" everything without even have to try because you "win" by just showing up?

Your entire existence on this board is spam. Why do you think I make fun of you? Because you offer absolutely nothing to conversation. I disagree with EZB, MBE, Camoor, Usisickenme and others but at least they can express thought. You're just a walking talking point without the gift of being able to elaborate why you exist as a talking point.[/QUOTE]

Actually, his post was one sentance that is a run-on that is trying to convey two separate thoughts. Had he used a ";" or ", and" it would have been one properly structured sentence.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']This one had me rolling kitten killer. You've been completely discredited for years! Your posts consist entirely of one and two sentence flames and nothing but. Take this post as an example, two one sentence flames.[/QUOTE]
Quackzilla's Dead Kitten said:
MEOW MEOW MEOW!
Click to expand...

I see your point.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']How can you take him seriously, he's a joke.[/QUOTE]

I think you just proved him right.

You need to loosen up.
 
[quote name='usickenme']Here is the racial breakdown of delegates at the GOP convention from last year..

http://www.boston.com/news/politics...gates/gop_race/

White 87.3%
Black 6.4 %
Some other race 2 %
Asian 1.5 %
More than one race 1.5 %
American Indian/Alaska Native 0.8%
Select One 0.4 %
Native Hawaiian/Pacific .1%[/QUOTE]

Good work, detective, case closed. Close the door on your way out, I figure there's going to be more prattling on in the next chapter in the PAD-Quackzilla love triangle.

myke.
...nothing to see here, folks.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Good work, detective, case closed. Close the door on your way out, I figure there's going to be more prattling on in the next chapter in the PAD-Quackzilla love triangle.

myke.
...nothing to see here, folks.[/QUOTE]

Leave it to a dumb liberal educated in the outcome based education system that is our public schools to think a love triangle can contain two sides LOL.

Usickenme, does it really matter what the racial makeup of delegates are? What does that prove? Delegates to the national conventions are elected in the primaries. If no one runs from a certain group, they can't be represented. If a white woman ran from my precinct/district as the Bush delegate she goes to the RNC. If a black man was the delegate running it would have been a black guy going to the RNC.

This goes to show you another thing, you measure quotas and makeup. I just care who agrees with me, regardless of skin color or gender.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Leave it to a dumb liberal educated in the outcome based education system that is our public schools to think a love triangle can contain two sides LOL.[/QUOTE]

I'm sure you could include politics, the random people you suck into arguements or maybe just Quack's dead cat.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Leave it to a dumb liberal educated in the outcome based education system that is our public schools to think a love triangle can contain two sides LOL.[/quote]

Good to see you're past the "denial" stage.

Usickenme, does it really matter what the racial makeup of delegates are? What does that prove? Delegates to the national conventions are elected in the primaries. If no one runs from a certain group, no one wins. If a white woman ran from my precinct/district as the Bush delegate she goes to the RNC.

This goes to show you another thing, you measure quotas and makeup. I just care who agrees with me, regardless of skin color or gender.
Click to expand...

Well, you can look at it several ways: perhaps the racial assignment of delegates is based upon a random sample of people who identify themselves as Republican. We would expect that the delegates, then, would represent the proportion of each racial/ethnic category. Of course, being a delegate is a matter of access to people in power, so it certainly isn't random. So, if it isn't random, then it's a matter of people who have that kind of access. So, if we believe that those proportions are representative of "high-power" Republicans, then blacks are still being discriminated against; to wit, then, the "color-blind" party shows a percentage representation of blacks that is one-half that of their overall population proportion.

The third hypothesis is that those African-Americans were selected because of their racial status, to create a false sense of diversity in the Republican party. Given that 82% of people who self-identify as Republicans also identify as white christians, we would expect that this hypothesis is the most likely.

myke.
...still waiting for PAD or someone to tell me what Dean said that was incorrect.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Leave it to a dumb liberal educated in the outcome based education system that is our public schools to think a love triangle can contain two sides LOL.

Usickenme, does it really matter what the racial makeup of delegates are? What does that prove? Delegates to the national conventions are elected in the primaries. If no one runs from a certain group, they can't be represented. If a white woman ran from my precinct/district as the Bush delegate she goes to the RNC. If a black man was the delegate running it would have been a black guy going to the RNC.

This goes to show you another thing, you measure quotas and makeup. I just care who agrees with me, regardless of skin color or gender.[/QUOTE]

Well it's not my survey,but it does show that surveys measure numbers. This was to show that Dean remarks were correct, not what I "measure".

As far as those particular numbers. I realize they are a bit skewed because they are delegates BUT voting patterns also show that blacks don't vote for republicans in numbers consistant with population precentages. I think it does mean at the very least, the GOP has problems representing all people. The fact that the GOP itself has put an emphasis to include more minorities, increase the black vote means they think it important as well.



p.s I think the love triangle has to do with you, your alter-ego and Quack. 1+1+1= 3
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Good to see you're past the "denial" stage. [/quote]

What the hell are you talking about? Makes sense!

[quote name='mykevermin']...still waiting for PAD or someone to tell me what Dean said that was incorrect.[/QUOTE]

You missed the point entirely. What would be said if the RNC chair came out and said the Democrats were just a bunch of socialists, athiests, minorities and gays? I mean isn't that the stereotype?

You can't paint with a broad brush which is all Howard Dean does.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']What the hell are you talking about? Makes sense!



You missed the point entirely. What would be said if the RNC chair came out and said the Democrats were just a bunch of socialists, athiests, minorities and gays? I mean isn't that the stereotype?

You can't paint with a broad brush which is all Howard Dean does.[/QUOTE]

But it is socially acceptable to attack your own group. He's a white christian, and he condemned a group for being made up mostly of them. If you attack the others (minus socialist) you are attacking a party for having members of a minority of which you are not a part of.
 
Don't you guys ever get tired of making the same pointless arguements about the same worn out subjects using the same backwards logic and petty name calling?
 
[quote name='usickenme']Well it's not my survey,but it does show that surveys measure numbers. This was to show that Dean remarks were correct, not what I "measure".

As far as those particular numbers. I realize they are a bit skewed because they are delegates BUT voting patterns also show that blacks don't vote for republicans in numbers consistant with population precentages.

p.s I think the love triangle has to do with you, your alter-ego and Quack. 1+1+1= 3[/QUOTE]

The survey is irrelevent. Like I said, if no one from a group runs, they can't be represented. If they can't find candidates to represent one eyed, lame Inuit women, they can't be represented.

As far as blacks voting Republican in tune with racial makeup of the population, does it really matter? I'm not looking for representation equally spread out amongst ethnic and minority groups. I'm looking for a majority period.

Again, you miss the point about Dean's remarks. He stereotypes. Now frankly, I don't care. I think he's the greatest DNC chair and on par with sliced bread. His fundraising totals are down sharply from McAwful, he does nothing but make bad headlines, elected officials don't want to be seen or associated with him and he's lost three top fundraisers this week.

I LOVE Howard Dean and no, I'm not kidding in the least.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']The survey is irrelevent. Like I said, if no one from a group runs, they can't be represented. If they can't find candidates to represent one eyed, lame Inuit women, they can't be represented.[/QUOTE]

Way to blame the victim to explain why more than 8 out of every 10 Republicans is a white christian.

The answer to the hypothetical RNC parallel? Hegemony, and who has it. Who has always been president? Who has always made up a majority of our government at damn near every level? Who has greater access to politicians than the average joe?

Well I'll be, it's the white christians!

fucking hegemony and homosocial reproduction. Look it up, I've got a headache.

myke.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']

Again, you miss the point about Dean's remarks. He stereotypes. Now frankly, I don't care. .[/QUOTE]

except to make a thread.

So he stereotypes..it happens to be a correct one, backed by facts. Since when has stereotying bothered conservatives? Hell, half your campaign slogans are stereotypes.

Methinks you aren't bothered by stereotyping but the fact that Dean hit the nail on the head.
 
See previous statement about how I love Howard Dean. I'm not bothered by his statement. I just ask the hypothetical "What if" the RNC chair said the Democrats are made up of socialists, atheists, minorities and gays? There would be hell to pay, even though that's the majority of Democratic groups with a loud media voice.

I've said this three times now, you think someone could actually comprehend what the point is.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']See previous statement about how I love Howard Dean. I'm not bothered by his statement. I just ask the hypothetical "What if" the RNC chair said the Democrats are made up of socialists, atheists, minorities and gays? There would be hell to pay, even though that's the majority of Democratic groups with a loud media voice.

I've said this three times now, you think someone could actually comprehend what the point is.[/QUOTE]

Well, it isn't true: the same Gallup poll that found that 82% of GOP members are white christians found that 57% of Dems are also white christians; the major point of departure is that the former group actively promotes intermingling government policies and religious ideals. It is statistically untrue that most democrats are athiests. Polytheists, perhaps, and devout secularists, likely; athiests? hardly.

As for socialists, please point me in the direction of one person who has advocated a socialist government. Of course, if you think that advocating legislation that protects workers and consumers to the detriment of the free market is socialism, then your assertion is correct (but your definitions very very wrong).

Minorities? Perhaps, perhaps not. Perhaps because the Democratic party advocates policies and work towards generating racial and ethnic equality in our society, which is in response to the false assertion by the right, that the free market will work out any kind of discrimination (and, boy howdy, is that a false assertion). Perhaps not because, as someone pointed out, Dean is a white christian. McAuliffe (what a cute name you had for him! That's the brilliance of a hyperbolic talk-show host shining through!) is certainly white, and probably a christian. Are whites and christians overrepresented in the political demographic of the democratic party? I'll bet my ass they are; that provides them with that much more reason to actively work towards inequlaity, than to fall into a world of falsehoods where the market remedies itself.

Gays? Feh. If they were so high in the democratic heirarchy, they wouldn't have been destroyed by the American people this past November (a result I am by no means celebrating). Of course they were a highly outspoken demographic among Dems: and don't tell me you didn't love every minute of it, since it got out the bigot vote, which put your doofus over the top. It became an issue due to localized legalization, followed by GOP reactionary measures (ironically enough, recommending a federal ban on gay marriage!). I believe it was the GOP who couldn't leave well enough alone.

myke.
 
[quote name='The_Continental']*Asian atheist Republican raises hand*

Oh - and I love Howard Dean too. Best thing to happen to the Republican party in years.[/QUOTE]

Have you ever studied statistics, outlier?

myke.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']The answer to the hypothetical RNC parallel? Hegemony, and who has it. Who has always been president? Who has always made up a majority of our government at damn near every level? Who has greater access to politicians than the average joe?

Well I'll be, it's the white christians!
[/QUOTE]

I agree with the spirit of your post. I just want to point out that most of the founding fathers, the brilliant people who started this "great experiment" and served as the first few presidents, were Deists and not Christian.

How do you think Jefferson would feel if he knew that Our Leader was George II, a landed aristocrat who coasted on his father's coattails into President, a man who claims to speak for the Christian god. Sound familiar, anyone? ;)
 
Sure, and I'm certainly not trying to present myself as the standard.

Hell, it sucks to espouse the competitive marketplace and abhor welfare during this era of religous inyourfaceness. The stats presented earlier in the thread a correct, for now.

In 25 years, people in thier early 20's now, who align themselves with classical conservative economics, but not religion, will begin to take over the party - and the stats will change - hopefully.

[quote name='mykevermin']Have you ever studied statistics, outlier?

myke.[/QUOTE]
 
[quote name='The_Continental']*Asian atheist Republican raises hand*[/QUOTE]

Actually, my buddy who campaigned for Bush told me that the Asian people donated a heck of alot of campaign cash. It was all because many of them are doctors, and they were scared to death of having a med trial lawyer as VP (can't say I blame them...)
 
[quote name='camoor']I agree with the spirit of your post. I just want to point out that most of the founding fathers, the brilliant people who started this "great experiment" and served as the first few presidents, were Deists and not Christian.

How do you think Jefferson would feel if he knew that Our Leader was George II, a landed aristocrat who coasted on his father's coattails into President, a man who claims to speak for the Christian god. Sound familiar, anyone? ;)[/QUOTE]

I'm not down with the terminology - what's a deist? How does it differ from other common terminology (such as agnostic, for instance)?

myke.
 
[quote name='The_Continental']Sure, and I'm certainly not trying to present myself as the standard.

Hell, it sucks to espouse the competitive marketplace and abhor welfare during this era of religous inyourfaceness. The stats presented earlier in the thread a correct, for now.

In 25 years, people in thier early 20's now, who align themselves with classical conservative economics, but not religion, will begin to take over the party - and the stats will change - hopefully.[/QUOTE]

But the youth are very religious, the amount of religious republicans will probably grow, especially with the youth starting out as so religious.
 
[quote name='The_Continental']Sure, and I'm certainly not trying to present myself as the standard.

Hell, it sucks to espouse the competitive marketplace and abhor welfare during this era of religous inyourfaceness. The stats presented earlier in the thread a correct, for now.

In 25 years, people in thier early 20's now, who align themselves with classical conservative economics, but not religion, will begin to take over the party - and the stats will change - hopefully.[/QUOTE]

Y'know, I've always said that I support Republican ideals (free market capitalism, anyway; fuck that Jebus nonsene). I simply cannot support free market in a society that lacks a free populace (that provides all individuals equal opportunities to succeed. Data on race show that it's just fucking ludicrous to think that upward mobility is possible for anybody but the rich; add in race, and you are fucked. I'll support free market capitalism once race doesn't matter (like that will ever happen in our lifetime, if ever).

Because, if all else is equal, then the only thing left to rely on are those factors (such as effort, interest, acheivement and education, etc.) that define the idea of meritocracy. Then, and only then, would it be okay to point at the poor and say "you deserve it."

That stands as much a chance of happening (pure capitalism) as does PAD reading, much less understanding, Karl Marx's criticisms of capitalism. Maybe slightly more likely, but you get the idea. ;)

myke.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I'm not down with the terminology - what's a deist? How does it differ from other common terminology (such as agnostic, for instance)?

myke.[/QUOTE]

"Deism are defined by the view that reason, rather than revelation or tradition, should be the basis of belief in God. Deists reject organized religion and promote reason as the essential element in making moral decisions. Deism has become identified with the classical belief that God created but does not intervene in the world."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

As Deists, they wouldn't have had anthropomorphic views of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent All. Therefore Jesus as ultimate God and the old bearded man who cares about what Adam and Eve are wearing would not fall in line with their beliefs.

Agnostics don't make claims about the existence of God either way. It's taken from the term "Gnostic", a loose set of practitioners who usually feel that the question about the existence of a ultimate god is largely unanswerable or irrelevant.
 
Dean maybe half right, the majority of Republicans are white christians. But not all christians of any color can agree on their thoughts and how they should conduct their lives, so the first part makes no sense. IMO the fact that he said they all act and look the same just shows he's an arrogant jackass looking to score more points with the extremists of his party and in the end I don't think that will help the democratic party.
 
I hadn't heard that - but I'd believe it.

[quote name='camoor']Actually, my buddy who campaigned for Bush told me that the Asian people donated a heck of alot of campaign cash. It was all because many of them are doctors, and they were scared to death of having a med trial lawyer as VP (can't say I blame them...)[/QUOTE]
 
Yeah I get your idea ... and I'd probably jive with it if I could be convinced that true equality was ever possible.

But it isn't. Even if race didn't exist (and I don't believe it does - different discussion for a different time), jealousy still would.

I like the think of pure capitalism as allowing the individual to succeed in the face of adversity.

[quote name='mykevermin']Y'know, I've always said that I support Republican ideals (free market capitalism, anyway; fuck that Jebus nonsene). I simply cannot support free market in a society that lacks a free populace (that provides all individuals equal opportunities to succeed. Data on race show that it's just fucking ludicrous to think that upward mobility is possible for anybody but the rich; add in race, and you are fucked. I'll support free market capitalism once race doesn't matter (like that will ever happen in our lifetime, if ever).

Because, if all else is equal, then the only thing left to rely on are those factors (such as effort, interest, acheivement and education, etc.) that define the idea of meritocracy. Then, and only then, would it be okay to point at the poor and say "you deserve it."

That stands as much a chance of happening (pure capitalism) as does PAD reading, much less understanding, Karl Marx's criticisms of capitalism. Maybe slightly more likely, but you get the idea. ;)

myke.[/QUOTE]
 
mykeyvermin, I want to know why, seriously... you think upward mobility is impossible.

When I see Koreans open delis, grocery stores and convienence stores in great numbers as just arrived here immigrants I say BS. Meanwhile the people in the neighborhoods many families are in their 3rd generation of welfare recipients. When I see 1st generation Vietnamese children who are now teenagers or recently graduated from college getting engineering and computer jobs I say BS; especially since their parents arrived as boat people. When I went to Miami last year there were hundreds of thousands of Cubans and Hatians that owned small businesses, were every walk of professional, they dominated the popular culture with the money that comes with that and they were the political leaders as well. They also arrived on boats and were anywhere from just arrived to second generation Americans.

When I was at Morgan Stanley we hired Russian mathematicians who just emigrated for economic modeling, we also had two Indian brokers that were immigrants and both made in excess of $400,000 annually. Countless Eastern Europeans have to Pittsburgh as well because of existing Polish, Slovak and Czech neighborhoods that are working as professionals and highly paid blue collar workers. There are 100's of first generation Indian and Pakistani physicians trained here as well in any area of the medical field. Because of Carnegie Mellon we also have nearly 2,500 undergrads and 300-500 PhD's that enter our labor force, many 1st generation Americans. Their kids know nothing but riches while their parents grew up in the Indian and Pakistani middle classes which we would derisvely label; working poor.

There are millions of immigrants here that are making so much of this country's gifts. Ironically you never hear them as the ones that complain about a lack of upward mobility. The only people that do are liberals like you. When I see people like Sean Combs walk out of the ghetto to form a now $300+ million dollar company, the American dream isn't dead. Same thing with countless once poor people like Oprah, Bob Johnson (BET), Richard Parsons (Time Warner/AOL) the head of American Express and many others who made it without being entertainers or athletes.

What did Bill Gates start with? Sure he came from a middle class family but at one point the MS boys were lving in cheap motel rooms together because they couldn't afford rent. Apple was started in a garage by Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs. Atari started in a warehouse. Nintendo of America started in a warehouse converting Radarscope machines into Donkey Kongs and soon became the American icon of gaming within 4 years. General Computer was started by 2 kids who owned 3 Missile Command machines and made modification boards to make them into enhanced games; they went on to make Ms. Pac Man and made millions.

You can look at many companies and say the same thing; Dell computer, started by Michael Dell in his dorm room building machines for students. Demand grew so much that he quit school. Dell now employs over 30,000 people. TiVo? Not from a major electronics company like Thompson, Samsung, Sony or Thompson but from private investment dollars and venture capitalists, the creators are millionaires. Look at Mike Judge (Beavis & Butthead, King of the Hill) and the South Park creators; penniless when they started. They get their break on Liquid TV and from an underground cult DVD circulating around Hollywood. Now all those guys are multi-millionaires. Matt Goening; drew "Life In Hell" syndicated to college newspapers for nearly nothing, then created the Simpsons.

All of those creations made hundreds of millions, in the case of the Simpsons... billions. They employed countless professionals from animators to marketers and salespeople. The American dream is far from dead. With every new fad, trend, product and innovation people get rich and people move up in the world.

It's only the pessimists and dare I say America haters that can't see the opportunities before their eyes and think it's up to the government to innovate them into prosperity. The only thing that can do that is a reduction in taxes and regulations. You do that the ingenuity of common people doing extraordinary things will always occur. The examples I gave are proof of that. There are countless more that, if you stop to think about, you can identify on your own without my help.

All of these creations took place regardless of who was President or who was in Congress. They took place in the 70's, 80's, 90's and are happening today. The American Dream and the people creating and living their own are not encumbered by what politicians say, do or the policies they stand by or espouse. The American Dream rolls on like a powerful freight train taking anyone for the ride that is brave enough to get on board. The people living it and taking that journey are only limited by their ambition and abilities. The examples I've given you have shown that and none of those dreams were accomplished by government programs, speeches or rhetoric.
 
See, there is a difference here, PAD bases his opinions on a few visible examples (I had to laugh when he mentioned puff daddy, or whatever he's called now), while myke seems to be basing his opinion on overal statistics (that is assuming the "impossible" part was an overstatement and not his real belief).

Though I wonder if the canadians he mentioned moved to america before or after they became big. Just curious though, not making a point or anything (since wealth wise there really isn't any difference).

Also, is it just me or did anyone else hear the flute from green acres (heard during oliver's farming speeches) when reading PAD's post?
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']See, there is a difference here, PAD bases his opinions on a few visible examples (I had to laugh when he mentioned puff daddy, or whatever he's called now), while myke seems to be basing his opinion on overal statistics (that is assuming the "impossible" part was an overstatement and not his real belief).

Though I wonder if the canadians he mentioned moved to america before or after they became big. Just curious though, not making a point or anything (since wealth wise there really isn't any difference).

Also, is it just me or did anyone else hear the flute from green acres (heard during oliver's farming speeches) when reading PAD's post?[/QUOTE]

Few examples: Microsoft, employs hundreds of thousands here and around the world. Created hundreds of millionaires and a handful of billionaires.

Dell Computer: Created multi-billionaire before he was 30. Employs over 30,000 people. Has forced nearly every major U.S. home PC maker out of business except HP/Compaq. Market value $41 billion.

Martha Stewart Omnimedia: Multi-billion dollar corporation. Responsible for double digit percentages of revenue at K-Mart. TV shows, magazines employ hundreds.

Apple Computer: iPod, employs thousands in the U.S.

Every U.S. gaming company of note; EA, Activision, Take Two, ID, Majesco etc. all started in homes or with small venture capital investments.

TiVo: Changing TV around the world raking in more money from licensing to every manufacturer of satellite and cable tuners.

Scientific Atlanta: Leading cable set top box manufacturer. Started less than 30 years ago.

America Online: Worldwide ISP leader. Started from venture capital. Current Time Warner value $44 billion.

Wal Mart: Also, less than 30 years old in its major growth phase.

Further retailers less than 30 years old making major presences in the American marketplace (May bey older but not in national importance.) Home Depot, Lowes worth $31 billion, Target $48 billion, Best Buy $22.6 billion, Costco worth $43 billion.

Intel $30 billion company, 80% market share of the desktop PC market worldwide.

Viacom $26 billion company, also less than 30 years old as a media player.

FedEx $22.4 billion company, founder got a "B" on his thesis from Harvard Business School that turned out to be the blueprint for his business plan. Largest overnight shipper in the world. Also employs hundreds of thousands worldwide.

AutoNation $19.3 billion, started less than 20 years ago.

Cisco $19.8 billion, almost unparalleled worldwide networking solution provider. Also venture capital funded.

The Gap $15.8 billion, started as a reseller for Levi Strauss, now in nearly every American mall.

Nike, started by Phil Knight selling sneakers he hand made from the back of his car at track meets in the 70's. Now a $10.7 billion company.

Capital One $9.7 billion, started in the 80's by ex-major banking executives with venture capital money. Now one of the largest credit card companies in the U.S.

Oracle, started in the 80's company now valued at $9.4 billion.

Limited Brands $8.9 billion, many mall stores including Victoria's Secret. Started less than 30 years ago.

EMC Corporation, leading RAID provider, founded less than 20 years ago $6.2 billion.

Southwest Airlines, less than 30 years old, $5.9 billion.

Amazon.com $5.2 billion company in less than 10 years. Business plan written on a cross country trip by one guy and funded entirely by his parents and relatives at start up.

That's just some of the now Fortune 500 companies that have gotten that big in the last 10-30 years. Many of them not even 30 years old. Collectively they employ millions directly and indirectly. They made investors rich, bettered our lives and were started in many cases by small groups of people or even individuals.

There are also hundreds of thousands of more people not working in the corporate enviornment of the above companies that are millionaires from their own small businesses that we'll never hear of. Again, this isn't "a few examples" it's upward growth and mobility that creates these new Fortune 500 companies.

I mean where was Pixar 15 years ago? Now they're the hottest animation studio on the planet. Dreamworks? Non existent 10 years ago. LucasFilm/Lucas Arts? Barely 25 years old as a corporate entity. Any rap label of note? Less than 20 years old, all started by individuals as the major record labels 20 years ago didn't "get" rap music.

I can't even begin to guess how many millionaires were made when cellular phone companies existed in each city or a few cities and then gobbled up one after another by every growing players. At one point there were dozens of cell companies in the 80's before the industry consolodated into less than 5 major players. Anyone that was on board early for the cell phone bonanza that had one of the old "A Side" or "B Side" licenses is now a millionaire regardless of which market they operated in.

This goes to show you the overall pessimism of liberals. You can show them countless examples of individuals changing the world, millions more finding their way in this country that started somewhere else or with nothing and they don't understand how it can come to be.

They say it's a "few examples" or "life's lottery winners" when there was clearly nothing exceptional about many of the people that started these firms except they had the right idea at the right time with the right way to bring their product, service or idea to market. When those people and teams made it they brought millions of employees along for the ride.

In 20 more years you'll be able to look at the Fortune 500 list and see at least 15-25 companies that do not exist today. You can't get that big, that fast and displace major companies from that list without major possibilities of upward mobility in the economy and country. It's absolutely impossible.

You trying to refute my post really proves my point. Liberals just don't see it or get it when it comes to how America works.
 
I woundn't cite Walmart as a company that provides upward mobility.

They often give their workers only 35 hours a week to keep them in part-time positions with no health benefits, thus keeping a large work force wedged firmly on/below the poverty line.

Ask any Walmart employee and I'm sure they'd prefer to work in one of the old mom-and-pop stores that Walmart crushed.

While I still believe USA is the land of opportunity, I also think that the rich and powerful are using congressional influence to increasingly supress the rights of the working class to earn a fair living wage. I believe in capitalism, but not laissez-faire capitalism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top