Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
The radical left doesn't hide their agenda
Published on September 22, 2007 By Draginol In Democrat

The smirking chimp is a site dedicated to not just insults of President Bush but also of promoting radical left-wing nonsense like the article "When the rich make too much money".

It never ceases to amaze me to see someone write, without irony on a computer, built by companies started by people who are now "rich" full of components made by companies whose founders are "rich"  running computer software made by companies whose founders are "rich" complaining how unfair it is that there are rich people and how it endangers us all.

How many people do you know whom you would happily claim to be worth 100 times what you are worth as a human and a citizen of a so-called "democracy"? How does the worth of people like Kenneth Lay and Warren Buffett stack up against the worth of people like Jefferson, Franklin and Lincoln? Have you ever considered the certainty that relative human worth does not have one damned thing to do with what you own or how much money you have accumulated?

Above is a quote from the article that is written without a hint of irony.  Apparently, being a politician or diplomat has more worth than Warren Buffet.  Who defines how valuable a human being is to society? Apparently in the liberal utopia, learned academics like Dr. Lower.

But before we are assigned a human worth value by the academics, I would ask -- how much has our life changed in just the past 100 years thanks to people like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, and so on?  What would our lives be like today without the tiny percentage of people who go out and truly change the world?

If the government were to tell me that I had a maximum cap I could earn, then my answer would be "fuck you" and I would simply stop working.  I have a wife and 3 kids.  Sure, I employ 50 people but if I'm not going to be able to benefit beyond a certain point from my efforts, then I'm not going to work beyond that point either. How would that affect the 50 people that work at the company I run? Probably not very well. But being forced to work without compensation is slavery and I won't be a part of that. 

I could retire right now if I wanted and live comfortably.  I'm not driven by money or wealth accumulation, but I certainly expect to enjoy the fruits of my labor (see Draginol's new car).  I expect to one day be able to afford a lot more than what I have today.  That isn't what gets me up in the morning (making cool stuff does) but there are plenty of days when my job isn't fun and having goals that involve materialism do help (well, I sure don't enjoy having to deal with employee issues but on the other hand, I can afford to buy a nice lake house up north).

One of the things that drives people like me is the desire for new experiences and new frontiers and many of those new experiences take a lot of money because, as I've written before, money can buy time to allow people to experience more in the limited amount of years they have on this Earth.

The problem with left-wingers is that most of them are inevitably divorced from reality and have no conception to how we got from serfdom (where the "goverment" did put hard limits on how much one could earn) to where we are today in a fairly egaltarian society where the child of a single parent with no economic advantages can grow up and live the American dream.

Too many left-wingers think jobs and opportunity simply exist on their own and are not connected to anyone. But our society is a reverse pyramid. You remove the handful of movers and shakers from society and it would collapse in a hurry.  Supply and demand deterine where we are on that pyramid -- not some group of learned academics.

You'd think that academics would see the obviousness in this. After all, one presumes they have some grasp of history.  Yet, when they espouse short-sighted proposals like this which would, in essence, return us to a social structure more resembling feudalism (except where our lords are "elected" rather than born into) it's hard to take their words very seriously. 

It's ironic that a site that has so much venom directed toward the current elected political leader that they would, if they had their way, redirect so much power and wealth into the hands of such leaders and away from people who made their wealth from the voluntary choices of millions of people.


Comments (Page 5)
6 PagesFirst 3 4 5 6 
on Sep 25, 2007
I think it was Basic on which DOS piggy backed.


and this was all mircosoft
on Sep 25, 2007

As for the link--anyone who quotes Spinoza to justify extreme left nonsense has to be suspect.

As for Brad always finding the "left's" outrageous illustrations to scapegoat all on the left is radical in itself and really serves little purpose other than to vent paranoia. No one is going to raid his bank account--he's small fry--unless he believes, which I doubt, he is worth, not unlike corporate CEOs--who incidentally are as a rule not entrepreneurs but simply business managers who never created anything on their own--400 times more than employees of the Draginol empire. We all tend to forget that w/o labor all the inventions would n't be worth a damnable thing.  

on Sep 25, 2007

your right but then where would macintosh be without stealing from xerox.
thanks for the historical perspective. And you're certainly right about xerox, also AT&T and unsung heroes in universities.

 

on Sep 25, 2007
stevendedalus


i guess you haven't been watching the news about the add against the general in new york times.
on Sep 25, 2007

And DOS wouldn't have neen worth a dime if he hadn't grossly under bid CPM


Ah, the old slimy trick of offering a superior product for less money! Devil, him!

"monopoly"
noun
A situation in which a company uses unfair tactics like very low prices against competing companies. Very low prices and the existence of competing companies are symptomatic of a monopoly.

(https://forums.joeuser.com/?forumid=258&aid=81628)
on Sep 25, 2007
he had a monopoly at the time because no one else wanted to do it.


how ever when the government brought charges against Microsoft for being a monopoly. they had 10000 competitors.
on Sep 25, 2007

how ever when the government brought charges against Microsoft for being a monopoly. they had 10000 competitors.


True enough.
on Sep 25, 2007
Definitely check out the comments at: http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/10079#comment
Very illuminating.

I tried to get through that thread but I found I'd rather read a newspaper covered by a pile of messy diarrheal diapers.
Good on ya for standing up for what you believe in... I love where they start trashing you for actually being successful.
on Sep 25, 2007
We all tend to forget that w/o labor all the inventions would n't be worth a damnable thing.


And the potential of that labor would be largely wasted without the inventions to make it more productive. If one person's invention can make another person's labor twice as productive, who should get the credit for that virtual laborer?
on Sep 25, 2007
Finally reached the end of that very long thread.

By the end, you had made a lot of enemies. You were clearly not welcome there... after all was said and done, you were the infidel who challenged their "I don't make enough money and those who do should be punished" pity party with some actual realistic mainstream ideas. They asked you to take your ball and go home... mostly so they could continue their circle jerk.
on Sep 25, 2007
"But before we are assigned a human worth value by the academics, I would ask -- how much has our life changed in just the past 100 years thanks to people like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, and so on? What would our lives be like today without the tiny percentage of people who go out and truly change the world?"


At least one of the people you mention also understands that our country has needs that at times are MORE important then just making the wealthy more wealthy from tax cuts. That is just what Gates and Buffet told Bush in 2001 about his tax cuts for the wealthy.

Those wealthy would still have been VERY wealthy even without the Bush tax cuts but had Bush listened to the two most successful people on earth we could have meet the more urgent needs of our country as Gates and Buffet suggested!

The tax Cuts for the wealthy was GREED not NEED and that is what Gates and Buffet understood!
on Sep 25, 2007
this thread has nothing to do with bush so stay out of it.


by the way if you cut taxes. do you cut taxes for those not paying them or do you cut taxes for those who are paying them.
on Sep 25, 2007
Gene, don't try to hijack this thread into another Bush tax cut thread.
on Sep 25, 2007
by the way if you cut taxes. do you cut taxes for those not paying them or do you cut taxes for those who are paying them.


I thought this was a great quote from the linked article that can display nothing but a disconnect with reality in the author:

"The Cheney-Bush administration has redistributed wealth to the already-too-wealthy via tax breaks ever since its was appointed into office."

By the same logic, I can claim that I am redistributing wealth to my neighbor because I stopped taking his newspaper in the morning. HA!
on Sep 26, 2007
i guess you haven't been watching the news about the add against the general in new york times.
What's the thread? Neither did many take note of the ? mark. Besides, it was cute, but damn awful try at rhyming! 
6 PagesFirst 3 4 5 6