Re: Citizen's Dividend
Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 9:23 am
I hope PS chimes in on this question. IIRC, he knows many "real" SJWs from his time in college.
Permanent Portfolio Forum
https://www.gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/
https://www.gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8475
You are most welcome. I do hope you stick around on the bright side of the grass for a while before joining those SJWs in that common toasty ground.dualstow wrote:Thank you, Mountaineer, for finding a subset of SJW's that I can actually find common ground with.
You left out the environmentalists (though perhaps not, depending on if they are in one of the careers you mentioned) and TV preachers.Pointedstick wrote:The golden age of activism is in your 20s. My SJW acquaintances are beginning to age out of it as they realize that it doesn't bring in any real money and being dead broke all the time as an adult really sucks. However, older SJW types I know never lose the fire-- they just enter compatible careers, like journalist, magazine editor, lawyer (civil rights or criminal defense, of course) college professor, or head of a nonprofit.
"Environmentalist" isn't a job. And we must live in very different worlds, because I don't think I've ever heard of a left-leaning SJW-type TV preacher. My impression is that they're all manipulative right-wing loonies.Mountaineer wrote:You left out the environmentalists (though perhaps not, depending on if they are in one of the careers you mentioned) and TV preachers.Pointedstick wrote:The golden age of activism is in your 20s. My SJW acquaintances are beginning to age out of it as they realize that it doesn't bring in any real money and being dead broke all the time as an adult really sucks. However, older SJW types I know never lose the fire-- they just enter compatible careers, like journalist, magazine editor, lawyer (civil rights or criminal defense, of course) college professor, or head of a nonprofit.
Some in the EPA might not agree with it not being a job. As for the lefty SJW type TV preachers, you need to get out more; hint - one does not need to be ordained to "preach". For example: https://www.freespeech.org/tags/social-justice and https://answers.yahoo.com/question/inde ... 833AArrUZkPointedstick wrote:"Environmentalist" isn't a job. And we must live in very different worlds, because I don't think I've ever heard of a left-leaning SJW-type TV preacher. My impression is that they're all manipulative right-wing loonies.Mountaineer wrote:You left out the environmentalists (though perhaps not, depending on if they are in one of the careers you mentioned) and TV preachers.Pointedstick wrote:The golden age of activism is in your 20s. My SJW acquaintances are beginning to age out of it as they realize that it doesn't bring in any real money and being dead broke all the time as an adult really sucks. However, older SJW types I know never lose the fire-- they just enter compatible careers, like journalist, magazine editor, lawyer (civil rights or criminal defense, of course) college professor, or head of a nonprofit.
People who work for the EPA are regulators and bureaucrats. I stand by what I said: "environmentalist" isn't a job.Mountaineer wrote:Some in the EPA might not agree with it not being a job.
Those aren't TV preachers. They're political activists--likely mostly atheists.Mountaineer wrote: As for the lefty SJW type TV preachers, you need to get out more; hint - one does not need to be ordained to "preach". For example: https://www.freespeech.org/tags/social-justice
Joel Osteen isn't a lefty SJW type. He's a right-leaning prosperity gospel guy.Mountaineer wrote: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/inde ... 833AArrUZk
I hope I get a separate section from the other SJWs, M. Otherwise, that would be hell on ear- well, hell in hell.Mountaineer wrote:You are most welcome. I do hope you stick around on the bright side of the grass for a while before joining those SJWs in that common toasty ground.dualstow wrote:Thank you, Mountaineer, for finding a subset of SJW's that I can actually find common ground with.
Blessings Dude, and stay warm in this freezing weather (at least where I am). It will get very hot eventually.
I saw Joel Osteen on television once and if it wasn't the silliest thing I ever heard I don't know what is. He was preaching a sermon about "God's Favor" and how you should recognize it in your life when you see it - like when you are in a parking lot and there is only one space left - that's God's favor. Or you are at the grocery store and suddenly the line in front of you becomes empty - that's God's favor and you should acknowledge it and give thanks to the almighty for being so special to him. I thought to myself, Jesus H. Christ, wouldn't it be better when you came upon a situation like that and you really thought God had anything to do with it, to tell him he didn't need to waste his time because there were a lot of people starving and suffering all over the world and he could help them instead?Pointedstick wrote:People who work for the EPA are regulators and bureaucrats. I stand by what I said: "environmentalist" isn't a job.Mountaineer wrote:Some in the EPA might not agree with it not being a job.
Those aren't TV preachers. They're political activists--likely mostly atheists.Mountaineer wrote: As for the lefty SJW type TV preachers, you need to get out more; hint - one does not need to be ordained to "preach". For example: https://www.freespeech.org/tags/social-justice
Joel Osteen isn't a lefty SJW type. He's a right-leaning prosperity gospel guy.Mountaineer wrote: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/inde ... 833AArrUZk
Oh god, what am I doing? I'm letting myself get dragged into a pedantic, trollish internet argument over definitions. I am now formally stopping!
Okay, so to bring it back on track, maybe the question should be would Joel Osteen approve of the Citiziens Dividend? Or better yet, how about the almighty?Xan wrote:I don't think you'll find anyone here (I could be wrong, but definitely not me and Mountaineer) who is a fan of Joel Osteen and his "gospel".
We're a bit off-track in this thread!
Hook, line, sinker. Got ya! All in good fun, of course. Peace, and, I apologize to my NM friend. Gotta go take in an Osteen show or three now so I can get reprimed for some prosperity.Pointedstick wrote:People who work for the EPA are regulators and bureaucrats. I stand by what I said: "environmentalist" isn't a job.Mountaineer wrote:Some in the EPA might not agree with it not being a job.
Those aren't TV preachers. They're political activists--likely mostly atheists.Mountaineer wrote: As for the lefty SJW type TV preachers, you need to get out more; hint - one does not need to be ordained to "preach". For example: https://www.freespeech.org/tags/social-justice
Joel Osteen isn't a lefty SJW type. He's a right-leaning prosperity gospel guy.Mountaineer wrote: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/inde ... 833AArrUZk
Oh god, what am I doing? I'm letting myself get dragged into a pedantic, trollish internet argument over definitions. I am now formally stopping!
I think the Almighty might say, render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's, and perhaps throw in a - I've told you this a thousand times, stop your naval gazing and pay attention to what is eternally important. Just guessing.farjean2 wrote:Okay, so to bring it back on track, maybe the question should be would Joel Osteen approve of the Citiziens Dividend? Or better yet, how about the almighty?Xan wrote:I don't think you'll find anyone here (I could be wrong, but definitely not me and Mountaineer) who is a fan of Joel Osteen and his "gospel".
We're a bit off-track in this thread!
I think a real honest to goodness Citizens Dividend would be to stop murdering the future citizens who are humans but not yet born. However, framing the reality of murder as womens' rights is oh so much more PC.TennPaGa wrote:You mean some people would quit their paying jobs and do something else? That would likely happen. And some of these people would spend more time at protests? Like Tea Party meetings or anti-abortion rallies? I suppose that could happen too.dualstow wrote:It just occurred to me that too many people would become professional protesters.
(shudder)
As to whether it would be "too many"... I'm not sure how to say.
dualstow, that is a very reasonable request. From my perspective, it would be far more reasonable if you refuted facts, or presented a case of your own rather than just dismissing a comment because of who said it and their position. What good is a Citizen's Dividend if we are murdering those who might benefit? It seems we tend on this forum to spend much time discussing non-core importance items rather than many of ultimate importance. I doubt my tombstone will say anything about my investing accumen, how much gold I purchased, whether or not I followed the PP or Boglehead style of investing, or how many concerts I attended. The reason I stay on this forum is I value the discussion, the opinions, and learning about the worldviews of the participants on a variety of topics because I think the participants are a cut above the normal in intelligence. I think the topic of infanticide and Citizen's Dividend are very closely connected. Squelching comments that are political or religious in nature just because it is not PC is more reflective of the intolerant, "tolerant" left that only values hearing from those within their bubble - hello Hollywood. It comes across as more like the judge who ruled against Trump's travel ban just because it was Trump that said it rather than what the Law says. Personally, I like to hear all sides, even those I think are way off reality or way off all the evidence that is in front of our eyes, if we just open those eyes to see. My opinion, YMMV.dualstow wrote:M, could you not drag abortion into this, too? Your position is well known, same as perdition.
Tenn: I don't think job holders would quit so they could protest, but I do think non-workers would be more free to protest. They wouldn't need sponsors to sustain them.
PS, I value your comments. However, on this one I disagree - I think if you objectively consider infanticide and the idea of a Citizen's Dividend you will see a connection; I also see that I may be wrong about that - I see lots of connections that others do not, and vice versa. Of course, you are free to ignore my posts if they are tiresome. I turn the channel on a lot of stations I think promote harmful ideas. And, of course the moderators are free to ban me if they wish. As to your frustration comment: I actually think I'm open enough that if you constantly posted material on environmentalism (love those 'isms) I'd at least try to understand your view and probably do a whole lot of asking about why you hold that view rather than discounting it out of hand just because my preconceived notion would say you are wacko.Pointedstick wrote:Mountaineer, it's getting really tiresome how your contributions to every single thread you participate in amount to relating it to God, or abortion, or your religious faith in some other capacity. We all get it. You're a proud member of the LCMS church and your faith is central to you in your remaining years. But abortion has no relationship whatsoever to the proposed "Citizen's Dividend" idea. Imagine how frustrating it would be if I were a radical environmentalist and I was constantly posting stuff like, "What good is a Citizen's Dividend if we're despoiling the planet that sustains those who might benefit?"
It's like, sure, that's a valid point, but go discuss it in a thread about environmentalism.
Mountaineer, I value your comments. However, on this one I disagree - I think if you objectively consider the destruction of the environment and the idea of a Citizen's Dividend you will see a connection; I also see that I may be wrong about that - I see lots of connections that others do not, and vice versa. Of course, you are free to ignore my posts if they are tiresome. I turn the channel on a lot of stations I think promote harmful ideas. And, of course the moderators are free to ban me if they wish. As to your frustration comment: I actually think I'm open enough that if you constantly posted material on religion, I'd at least try to understand your view and probably do a whole lot of asking about why you hold that view rather than discounting it out of hand just because my preconceived notion would say you are wacko.Mountaineer wrote:PS, I value your comments. However, on this one I disagree - I think if you objectively consider infanticide and the idea of a Citizen's Dividend you will see a connection; I also see that I may be wrong about that - I see lots of connections that others do not, and vice versa. Of course, you are free to ignore my posts if they are tiresome. I turn the channel on a lot of stations I think promote harmful ideas. And, of course the moderators are free to ban me if they wish. As to your frustration comment: I actually think I'm open enough that if you constantly posted material on environmentalism (love those 'isms) I'd at least try to understand your view and probably do a whole lot of asking about why you hold that view rather than discounting it out of hand just because my preconceived notion would say you are wacko.Pointedstick wrote:Mountaineer, it's getting really tiresome how your contributions to every single thread you participate in amount to relating it to God, or abortion, or your religious faith in some other capacity. We all get it. You're a proud member of the LCMS church and your faith is central to you in your remaining years. But abortion has no relationship whatsoever to the proposed "Citizen's Dividend" idea. Imagine how frustrating it would be if I were a radical environmentalist and I was constantly posting stuff like, "What good is a Citizen's Dividend if we're despoiling the planet that sustains those who might benefit?"
It's like, sure, that's a valid point, but go discuss it in a thread about environmentalism.
So they have submarine races where you are too?Mountaineer wrote:I think the Almighty might say, render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's, and perhaps throw in a - I've told you this a thousand times, stop your naval gazing and pay attention to what is eternally important. Just guessing.farjean2 wrote:Okay, so to bring it back on track, maybe the question should be would Joel Osteen approve of the Citiziens Dividend? Or better yet, how about the almighty?Xan wrote:I don't think you'll find anyone here (I could be wrong, but definitely not me and Mountaineer) who is a fan of Joel Osteen and his "gospel".
We're a bit off-track in this thread!
OK, you got me, I yield to the master. But, I am forgiven. Those stinking land rapists will become filthy rich and are rarely forgiven ... unless they run for office ... or become a TV talking head ... or move to NM. By the way, have you visited the Trinity site? - there's another Citizen's Dividend connection for you to ponder.Pointedstick wrote:Mountaineer, I value your comments. However, on this one I disagree - I think if you objectively consider the destruction of the environment and the idea of a Citizen's Dividend you will see a connection; I also see that I may be wrong about that - I see lots of connections that others do not, and vice versa. Of course, you are free to ignore my posts if they are tiresome. I turn the channel on a lot of stations I think promote harmful ideas. And, of course the moderators are free to ban me if they wish. As to your frustration comment: I actually think I'm open enough that if you constantly posted material on religion, I'd at least try to understand your view and probably do a whole lot of asking about why you hold that view rather than discounting it out of hand just because my preconceived notion would say you are wacko.Mountaineer wrote:PS, I value your comments. However, on this one I disagree - I think if you objectively consider infanticide and the idea of a Citizen's Dividend you will see a connection; I also see that I may be wrong about that - I see lots of connections that others do not, and vice versa. Of course, you are free to ignore my posts if they are tiresome. I turn the channel on a lot of stations I think promote harmful ideas. And, of course the moderators are free to ban me if they wish. As to your frustration comment: I actually think I'm open enough that if you constantly posted material on environmentalism (love those 'isms) I'd at least try to understand your view and probably do a whole lot of asking about why you hold that view rather than discounting it out of hand just because my preconceived notion would say you are wacko.Pointedstick wrote:Mountaineer, it's getting really tiresome how your contributions to every single thread you participate in amount to relating it to God, or abortion, or your religious faith in some other capacity. We all get it. You're a proud member of the LCMS church and your faith is central to you in your remaining years. But abortion has no relationship whatsoever to the proposed "Citizen's Dividend" idea. Imagine how frustrating it would be if I were a radical environmentalist and I was constantly posting stuff like, "What good is a Citizen's Dividend if we're despoiling the planet that sustains those who might benefit?"
It's like, sure, that's a valid point, but go discuss it in a thread about environmentalism.
---
YMMV, just my two cents, all in good fun! In the end we're all a bunch of sinners land rapists who will reap what we sow today!
Ehh...more for the rest of us? Seriously, you've been asked by a mod now, so how about this:Mountaineer wrote: What good is a Citizen's Dividend if we are murdering those who might benefit
We've discussed this recently here. And, this is part of Yang's plans.WiseOne wrote: ↑Sun Jun 05, 2016 6:45 am Switzerland's guaranteed income referendum went down. 78% of voters voted against:
http://www.oann.com/swiss-voters-to-dec ... come-plan/
The main complaint was that the plan would be too expensive. It was $2500 francs/month per adult and $625/month per child. That's an absurdly high "basic" income level, even given the high living costs in Switzerland. A shame, because it would have been nice for the first vote on a citizen's dividend to be on a realistic plan.
Or, in the extreme.....become a major in Vermont, then go to the Senate and then perpetually run for president while somehow also doing his senatorial duties!Pointedstick wrote: ↑Fri Mar 17, 2017 9:47 am The golden age of activism is in your 20s. My SJW acquaintances are beginning to age out of it as they realize that it doesn't bring in any real money and being dead broke all the time as an adult really sucks. However, older SJW types I know never lose the fire-- they just enter compatible careers, like journalist, magazine editor, lawyer (civil rights or criminal defense, of course) college professor, or head of a nonprofit.