This blog originally founded by Blogger who holds a theological degree and a doctorate in Counseling Psychology. Taught Psychology for 32 years and is now Professor Emeritus. Is a board-certified psychologist and was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award in his profession. Ministered as a chaplain, and pastored Baptist and Episcopal churches. Publications cover the integration of psychology and theology. Served in the Army, the Merchant Marines and the Peace Corps.

Sunday, December 5, 2010

Our Liberal Likes to Blame Capitalism

In “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism,” Max Weber argues that Puritan ethics and ideas influenced the development of capitalism. Worldly success was evidence that one was saved.  Such belief also added to self-confidence.  Weber also noted that Luther taught that a "vocation" from God was no longer limited to the clergy or church, but applied to any occupation or trade.  A person had a divinely ordained calling through which he or she served the Creator (from Wikepedia).

It is therefore no accident that the great capitalist countries are also the great Protestant countries.

Liberal POV wrote: “Many of the problems (in underdeveloped countries)  come with Irresponsible capitalism failing to support the society and environment in existing within and the government of that nation failing to demand fair wages and opportunity.”  Sorry Lib, the problem goes way beyond your superficial analysis.  The weaknesses of the underdeveloped world result from the lack of such a profound religious concept as the Protestant Ethic that has guided the great Protestant nations.

Enhanced by Zemanta

88 comments:

Liberal POV said...

Blogger

What a leap!

Now you not only want to take on Muslims but Catholicism, Judism, Buddism and of course liberal Protestants? Wow!

I don't think I need to add any more.

How about addressing the actual point of my post?

guy faulkes said...

You certainly do not need to add any more. You are ridiculous.

Liberal POV said...

Blogger

"The weaknesses of the underdeveloped world result from the lack of such a profound religious concept as the Protestant Ethic that has guided the great Protestant nations.
"

That word ethics glad you mentioned that word I thought you conservative had misplaced it with the word justice.

Lets debate ethics.


Why are you conservatives opposed to capitalist sharing wealth with those who actually do the work? Why do you want taxpayer money to assist the American work force with food stamps and tax credits so the Corporate profits can be larger and the CEO income be increased to 300 or 400 times that of the work force?

guy faulkes said...

Why are you conservatives opposed to capitalist sharing wealth with those who actually do the work? Why do you want taxpayer money to assist the American work force with food stamps and tax credits so the Corporate profits can be larger and the CEO income be increased to 300 or 400 times that of the work force? LiberalProverbs18:2

They do share the wealth by providing jobs and wages. The socialist programs of the left that steal from all of us that produce are the problems that kill jobs and wages.

Tax credits stimulate the economy by allowing people to keep more of their money to spend, save, or invest. I suppose you would like us to believe you do not use the tax credit that is available for the mortgage on your house.

The food stamp program definitely should be administered on the state or local level in order to eliminate fraud.

The salary of a CEO is determined by the market as is the salary of everyone else. You have already demonstrated you lack the knowledge on training to discuss this.

Your proposal to steal from those that produce in order to benefit those that are capalbe of producing, but instead use entitlements offered by their leftist political masters who offer them bread and circuses in order to procure their vote is the most unethical idea of all.

Now lets hear a rousing chorus of La La La La La as you duck and try to change the subject.

Liberal POV said...

Guy

"Tax credits stimulate the economy by allowing people to keep more of their money to spend, save, or invest."

Tax credits for very low income workers is a refund even if they didn't pay any income taxes which subsidizes corporate profits and CEO compensation with government supporting low wages with taxpayer money. Lower wages means greater profits and CEO compensation.

Tie wages to management income and corporate profit with a legislation.

Wolf's Head said...

In looking around the world, there seems to be certain features of poorer countries that stand out.

Corruption by the political class, often with the help of the banks.

Lack of laws and law enforcement recognizing property rights, or ANY rights by the citizenry.

These prevent capitalism from working in their countries, as anything of value can and will be stolen by the politicos, who invariably are leftists like some posters here.

While the work ethic is very important, it is useless in a society where robber politicians can take anything on a whim.

Johnny Rico said...

Wolf's Head is correct in that third world cesspools like Mexico inevitably have a ruling elitest class opposed to capitalism and the freedom it portends. Hugo Chavez in Venezuela is another example. He is seizing corporations as fast as he can and putting them under govt. control. I still haven't heard any of the liberals like POV Sheep say if they agree or not with what Chavez is doing. LOL!

Ethics is not a word a socialist country even considers. They believe their method of governance IS ethics personified. This dangerous style of thinking gave us the holocaust and the killing fields. Hell, Hitler thought he was doing an ethical thing by ridding the country of Jews. Funny how those socialist governments stray way off the track when they think they know what is best. Our current Republic was set up to prevent such occurances, but our own apathy has allowed the wolves to enter, and I think at this point there is no way to get them out.

Good job to blogger in creating an atmosphere where everyone can contribute no matter how stupid or criminally insane they are (sheep POV). Over on Watauga Watch, they have shot themselves in the foot by censoring posts which is why hardly anyone will post over there now. I wonder what that idiot JW Williamson thinks as his blog is going exactly the way of the NY Times? This blog has over 150 posts on the Wikileaks thread alone. Again, good job Blogger in being ETHICAL and capitalistic in nature. LOL!!!!

Your ole pal

Johnny Rico

Johnny Rico said...

In talking ethics and governance, let's take a look at law enforcement. It is my contention that the more cops you place in an area, the higher the crime rate will be. Before you liberal amoeboids start yapping, please let me explain.

Up until the early or mid 80s, it was relatively unheard of for someone who deserved an ass beating to call the law. In other words, society took care of many ills that are now off-limits. Smart ass children wouldn't stand a chance in a public area in 1950. Neither would a lack of common decency and respect. There is a reason foul mouthed language and gestures didn't occur in small town America. The same methods used to stop such actions in the 1950s are now left up to the police. If someone tries to take personal responsibility in most cases it is they who will suffer the consequences.

Therefore, we have more cops to police what used to be policed by society. The only thing is, they can't and never will do as good a job as society. Take wife beating in rural 1950s America. It happened to some extent, but you never heard of husbands beating their wives to a pulp or to death. In Blowing Rock a certain clan existed that took care of miscreants who abused their wives or children. Even the mafia took care of its part of the city and those sections of large cities once controlled by Mafia are now extremely dangerous now that the Mafia has been dismanteled by the FBI. Who would you rather have in a city, a Mafia who kills mainly other mafia members or the Latin Kings or Mara Salvatrucha who kills anyone and everyone with reckless abandon over pocket change.

Again, more cops equals more crime. At one time in America, our citizens could buy machine guns and silencers at the corner hardware store with no problem. We didn't have widespread crime then. After they and other guns were outlawed, crime began to creep upward. Then after the major gun ban in our major cities the real killing began. What was the answer by liberal such as Clinton?

100,000 new cops on the streets. Crime rates continued to climb as cops started working on the good guys - the ones who took personal responsiblity to keep society orderly and safe. Good job you sheep.

Johnny Rico

Johnny Rico said...

A far worse ethical dilemma we face is the illegal alien and her six illegitimate children who will one day soon, vote. You just think things are not looking good now. It happened in Nevada a month ago and liberals took note as did the empowered illegal aliens. Hard times haven't arrived yet and Souchek hasen't mentioned a word..........

Johnny Rico said...

Has anyone heard the word "foreign aid" used in the last two years? Me neither. And you won't. Remember, we are giving billions of dollars to other countries who hate us during the worst recession since the Great Depression and not a peep about it from either side of the aisle.

This is why I have not an inch of faith in the RINOs or Democrats. They fake a divisional line that is a divisional line for a few topical ideas. The real hard hitting issues are never mentioned. We are wondering what to cut to save money, but no mention whatsoever of foreign aid.

Johnny Rico

Johnny Rico said...

All I hear the idiot Repubs yapping about is earmarks. That isn't even a starting point. I am already ready to begin voting them (and the liberals) out of office in 2012. These politicians still don't get it.

Johnny Rico said...

Blogger,

I don't know why the repeat posts occurred again. I didn't do it.

Johnny Rico

Sarkazein said...

Johnny Rico- A well written comment. It has long been my opinion that the same has happened in the business world. As government regulations increase, ethics drop.
When ENRON ran its unethical enterprise, there were enough regulations, Fed State and Local, that a person could not read them all if they spent the next five years, five days a week, and 8 hours a day reading them.

Johnny Rico said...

Thanks Sark!

Liberal POV said...

Johnny and Wolf

Interesting comments:

"Corruption by the political class, often with the help of the banks."

I would only change slightly.

"Corruption by the political class, often owned by the banks and Corporate elite."

"Lack of laws and law enforcement recognizing property rights, or ANY rights by the citizenry."

I would change to strict law enforcement on the low income communities limited human rights for the working class and poor.

"These prevent capitalism from working in their countries, as anything of value can and will be stolen by the politicos, who invariably are leftists like some posters here."

Capitalism fails in countries where wealth is transfered as profit to foreign countries or is deposit into an off shore bank and not reinvested in to same country.
A good example of this is the coal fields of Appalachia, while not a foreign country trickle down capitalism failed in the coal fields as billions in coal revenues left these communities with little benefit to the coal towns of Appalachia.

The extreme proverty in strict capitalist countries create unstable governments which does limit reinvestments. The cycle feeds its self.

"While the work ethic is very important, it is useless in a society where robber politicians can take anything on a whim."
Blogger really missed this one.
I've seen few who can match the hispanic worker's work ethic.

The problem is not robber politicians but robber barons reducing the workers earned fair wages or job for his own increased profit and personal compensation.

Jack said...

Blogger, Your comments go beyond simple opinion and cross the line into full inanity. Your position is laughable. Until one realizes that you actually believe this drivel. It then becomes a feeling of pity, for you cannot move past your ethnocentric analysis. The vast majority of OECD countries are not predominantly Protestant. Even the U.S. is not predominantly Protestant. Japan is built upon Shinto teachings. China is Buddhist and Taoist. India is Hindu. The successful Middle Eastern countries (Egypt, Saudia Arabia, Qatar, UAE) are Muslim. Israel is Jewish. Yet all these areas have had varying degrees of economic success. The success may not line-up directly with America’s. Our cultures are vastly different, and therefore the definition of success is thus vastly different. It is truly sad that you cannot see past insignificant differences in culture. All the major religions are basically the same anyway.
Johnny, You make a freshman mistake. Assuming that a greater police presence creates a higher crime rate is overly simplistic. There are literally scores of variables that have led to higher crime rates. I assure you that an expanding police force is not one of them. When compared to the 1950s, could it not be contributed to different population demographics and dispersions, differing culture, differing technology, differing economic industries? It may be your “contention” that more cops equals more crime, but your “contention” has no basis in reality.

Anonymous said...

Here, here, Johnny. Vigilantism is truly the answer.

"Take wife beating in rural 1950s America. It happened to some extent, but you never heard of husbands beating their wives to a pulp or to death. In Blowing Rock a certain clan existed that took care of miscreants who abused their wives or children."

Thank you for finally coming out of the cross-burner closet with your published support of the sheet-and-hood crowd, girl. It's nice to see that at least one pitchforker here has the nads to stop coyly speaking in code.

Good fer you, ol' pal.

Anonymous said...

The clan around here was kind of unique. It was a punishment for "failure to do right like the community decided" organization. It even had at least one black member.

Johnny Rico is right. Sometimes a man's mouth used to run up a bill his butt had to pay for. Hitting a woman moved it to a whole different level.
the do bads were kept in check.

Honest Debate said...

Jack,


This is Blogger's thread so I'll let him respond but I do want to make one observation. I've noticed a direct inverse correlation regarding your comments in general. You get more uppity and condescending when you miss the point. The more you miss it the more condescending you get. As I have said before, that's fine if that's the way you want to roll.

Blogger wrote: "It is therefore no accident that the great capitalist countries are also the great Protestant countries."

Jack must have read: "There are no successful non-protestant countries."

Sarkazein said...

There was also the In-law Clan.

Liberal POV said...

HD

"
Blogger wrote: "It is therefore no accident that the great capitalist countries are also the great Protestant countries."

Jack must have read: "There are no successful non-protestant countries."


The difference is???

What do you think was the point of Blogger's big leap?

What does religion have to do with greed driven capitalism?
Raw capitalism is extremely flawed without some protection of society's common good and regulations protecting those who may fall victim to predatory capitalism.

Anonymous said...

Oooohhh. I see. It was the GOOD Klan, not that mean ole racist one that Johnny jumped out of the closet to toot her horn for, right?

LOVE you guys. REALLY.

Jack said...

HD,
I did not miss the point. I read the post.

Blogger draws a direct correlation between economic success and religious preference. That is both small-minded and morally offensive.

Anonymous said...

So everything is the same everywhere? Only in the real prejudiced mind.

Honest Debate said...

A swing and another miss.

Honest Debate said...

Lib and Jack,

Look at it this way, there is a direct correlation between earning a Masters degree and getting a high paying job. Surely you agree. If one makes that argument, are they saying you can't make money without a Masters degree? Of course not.

You guys are so busy looking for a reason to be offended you miss the point and add little to the debate.

As for me, I'm still digesting what Blogger wrote. As I've written before, I am not a very religious person but I have great respect for those who are. In the end I may agree or disagree, either way it's a very interesting theory and I learned about a man I've previously never heard of: Max Weber. The argument has merit if you are man enough to look at it without prejudice.

Honest Debate said...

BTW Jack,

Be careful with Johnny Rico. She is very bombastic but has an amazing mind. If you are going to challenge her be ready.

Johnny "Rockett" Rico said...

Yack said:

"Johnny, You make a freshman mistake"

Yack, were you born stupid or did you just get that way somehow? The freshman mistakes are consistently made by liberals - global warming, global small arms disarmament (hard to cut an arm or labia off when someone is pointing a gun at you), health care, DREAM Act, and a vast host of others. All is yellow in the jaundice eye I suppose, so it might indeed seem that original hypothesis' by conservatives might somehow seem freshman. LOL!!!

Then you go on to contradict yourself by saying:

"different population demographics and dispersions, differing culture, differing technology, differing economic industries? It may be your “contention” that more cops equals more crime, but your “contention” has no basis in reality."

Differing technology? Since a rise in more complicated technology would seem to lessen crime, this variable works against you. Differing demographics? We are more educated than ever (if you believe a modern education surpasses that of 1950 which I don't)? If this is the case then this variable works against your contentious contentions. Idiot.

You are right about differing cultures which is my original reason for implicating more cops equals more crime. The culture of the 1950s took care of socializing citizens within a basic framework of social morality. Flipping someone off in front of women and children would garner you a swift ass kicking. In other words, behavior acceptable within todays morally challenged society was not acceptable in morally superior 1950.

I call this phenomenom "personal responsibility". When a society exercises personal responsibility the public virtue increases. Less personal responsibility and more reliance on government institutions to enforce values, customs and beliefs (i.e. more police) the more crime and malicious behavior will take place. This is not simplistic, but part of our eroding national identity.

Perhaps your slug mind would like to try again Yack. I would place my money on a retard to outthink you in anything except crying and getting hurt. Idiot.

Your ole pal

Johnny Rico

PS I won handily

PSS You mentioned the industrial complex. This too has an effect on crime. A hard days work making a living wage gave people pride in what they did and pride in being part of something great (Mom and apple pie). Today's society places no value on these things. Kids play XBox into oblivion and fail to play cowboys and indians or shoot each other with BB Guns. No personal responsibility being taught and no industrial complex to give us a needed boost.

Johnny Rico said...

Thank you for the compliment Honest Debate. I was playing with my coonhound when Yack decided to take it to another level. My coondog is a Mountain Cur and not only makes a great hunting companion but keeps my boyfriends honest when they come over.

Also, I started pounding the liberal socialist sheep idiots over on the watch and got banned again. JW Williamson must feel pretty stupid to admit defeat from a hillbilly woman such as myself. Was that idiot a professor at one time? I bet he really screwed the students who disagreed with him. No wonder our colleges are rapidly becoming diploma mills. LOL!!!

Johnny Rico

Katharine

Johnny Rico said...

Nonymouse said:

"It was the GOOD Klan, not that mean ole racist one that Johnny jumped out of the closet to toot her horn for, right"

How do you know what clan I reference? Funny how I referenced the Mafia by name yet you hang your hat on one word - "clan" as if it is a living, breathing creature. The Mafia which killed thousands more than probably any other group is ignored totally here. Why is this? Perhaps because you are ignorant and racist yourself? LOL!! You idiots fall into my traps every time. It is almost getting boring setting them.

Speaking of traps, do kids dig pits and traps anymore? I remember spending countless hours digging pits for humans and animals. I don't remember catching any cannibals or tigers, but that was some of the most imaginative fun I ever had except for snowballing Nazi soldiers on the autobahn (Watauga locals on 421).

I guess the liberals have no clue what I am talking about. The current generation of sissy, spoiled, undisciplined, fat, stupid kids are products of liberal socialists who would rather their kids watch another round of teletubies than shoot a blackbird with a BB gun. Idiots.

Jack said...

“The weaknesses of the underdeveloped world result from the lack of such a profound religious concept as the Protestant Ethic that has guided the great Protestant nations.”

What am I missing? If you embrace Protestantism, you will have a greater chance of success. That statement is ridiculous on multiple levels. I’ve studied enough of Max Weber to know that his writings and theories are outdated. He laid the groundwork, but his theories have been honed and improved over the years. There is nothing to suggest that religious group affiliation predicts levels of success (in comparison to your education example).

“Be careful with Johnny Rico. She...has an amazing mind.” --HD
And then...........
“Perhaps your slug mind would like to try again Yack. I would place my money on a retard to outthink you in anything except crying and getting hurt. Idiot.” --Johnny

Right, amazing mind. There is far too much hatred and ignorant rhetoric spewing from this simpleton for her mind be classified as “amazing”.

Jack said...

Johnny,
“It is my contention that the more cops you place in an area, the higher the crime rate will be.”
Your hypothesis is hardly original. It has been stated before. Many freshman, attempting to impress a professor, try to defend the position. But you may be a freshman at ASU, so spot on. But you haven’t defended your position. And it isn’t correct. Raleigh has a higher crime rate than Boone. Raleigh also has a larger police force than Boone. That doesn’t mean that the latter caused the former.

Homework: What are the differences between the two locales (Raleigh v. Boone)? What variables could account for a difference in crime rates?
Reading: Effect of Police on Crime (1997), “Increases in police are shown to substantially reduce violent crime, but have a smaller impact on property crime. The null hypothesis that the marginal social benefit of reduced crime equals the costs of hiring additional police cannot be rejected.”
Effect of Police on Crime (1978), “Police resources and police activity independently affect the robbery rate after controlling for various socioeconomic factors.”

Do Police Reduce Crime? (2004)
, “we find a large deterrent effect of observable police on crime. The effect is local, with no appreciable impact outside the narrow area in which the police are deployed.”
Specification Problems (2006), “The impact of crime on the number of police is slight, but the impact of police on most crime types is substantial. The latter result is more robust at the city level.”
Police Crackdowns (1990), “Of eighteen case studies of crackdowns, fifteen appeared to demonstrate initial deterrent effects, including two examples of long-term effects...These findings of initial decay and residual deterrence suggest that crackdowns might be more effective if they were limited in duration and rotated across different targets.”

Jack said...

Johnny,
“It is my contention that the more cops you place in an area, the higher the crime rate will be.”

Your hypothesis is hardly original. It has been stated before. Many freshman, attempting to impress a professor, try to defend the position. But you may be a freshman at ASU, so spot on. But you haven’t defended your position. And it isn’t correct. Raleigh has a higher crime rate than Boone. Raleigh also has a larger police force than Boone. That doesn’t mean that the latter caused the former.

Homework: What are the differences between the two locales (Raleigh v. Boone)? What variables could account for a difference in crime rates?
Reading: Effect of Police on Crime (1997), “Increases in police are shown to substantially reduce violent crime, but have a smaller impact on property crime. The null hypothesis that the marginal social benefit of reduced crime equals the costs of hiring additional police cannot be rejected.”
Effect of Police on Crime (1978), “Police resources and police activity independently affect the robbery rate after controlling for various socioeconomic factors.”

Do Police Reduce Crime? (2004), “we find a large deterrent effect of observable police on crime. The effect is local, with no appreciable impact outside the narrow area in which the police are deployed.”
Specification Problems (2006), “The impact of crime on the number of police is slight, but the impact of police on most crime types is substantial. The latter result is more robust at the city level.”
Police Crackdowns (1990), “Of eighteen case studies of crackdowns, fifteen appeared to demonstrate initial deterrent effects, including two examples of long-term effects...These findings of initial decay and residual deterrence suggest that crackdowns might be more effective if they were limited in duration and rotated across different targets.”

Jack said...

PS I won handily

Jack said...

LOL!!!

Jack said...

HD,
I have not read much into Weber’s sociology of religion writings. But here is what I do know. Weber loved bureaucracy. He thought it the ideal form of organization. Weber was part of the classical organizational theory group.

He defined bureaucratic administration as “the exercise of control on the basis of knowledge”. He also stated that, “power is principally exemplified within organizations by the process of control.” He defined both “power” and “authority” in the context of organizational management. Weber’s arguments were based on power, authority, membership, and obedience. Rules govern behavior within the organization. Weber contended that the rules were all-encompassing. These rules were enforced with strict impersonality.

The problem is that front-line workers under Weber’s system would have no control over their jobs or working conditions. Extreme subordination was expected and if not received, punished. There is also no motivation towards employee empowerment, leading the employee to strive only for mediocrity. And there are huge psychological effects, as the front-line workers now believe they are lower-class employees. Through his theory, Weber assumes that all organizations are the same. He assumes each institution has the same goals and culture.

Through further research, we now know that Weber’s view was quite short-sighted. Organizations are hugely dissimilar. Employees need multiple types of motivation, and empowerment seems to be key. Weber (along with others) began a contemporary discussion of management theory, but he only wrote the first chapter.

guy faulkes said...

Workers always have the ultimate control over their jobs. They can quit and move on to a better job. Jack thinks that one is doomed to be an employee all his life. If a person desires, he can educate himself, improve himself, and become an employer. In doing so he will better his financial condition and make what the liberals abhor, a profit. The leg breakers and intimidaters in the unions have no chance of doing this because of their servant, take care of me mentality.

Their incompetence and jealousy have gotten them high pay due to supporting left wing politicians. Theses politicians are not just slave masters to the poor on entitlement programs. They also own the unions and the members thereof. These people all want bread and circuses and would not only give up their freedom for it, they would give up yours.

Sarkazein said...

"Workers always have the ultimate control over their jobs. They can quit and move on to a better job."-Guy Faulkes

Used to be able to, when there were jobs out there. Obama has CHANGED that one.

guy faulkes said...

Sark

Obama is doomed either to defeat in 2012 or impeachment and removal. If he is impeached and removed, the incompetent Biden cannot get anything done. Obama cannot either if the Republicans hold to their promises. If they do not, then they will be gone also.

Better times are coming. That is the Change for which I Hope.

Liberal POV said...

Guy

"Their incompetence and jealousy have gotten them high pay due to supporting left wing politicians. "

Guy if you had studied history you would know politicans have used federal troops to put down union strikes or looked the other way a corporate hired guns killed union members.

The corporate elite thought out American history have owned the political power.


" In 1893, President Grover Cleveland had deployed some 12,000 federal troops to stop a strike at Chicago’s Pullman Company that was interrupting mail trains (George Pullman, the inventor of the railroad sleeping car, fired one-third of his workers and cut the wages of those who remained by 30 percent. But he would not cut prices for homes or food in Pullman, the company town near Chicago that he had built to house his employees.... a practice known as "debt slavery" , which kept workers under de facto contract by maintenance of large debts to the company store and to their "landlord," the Pullman Company, with money owed resulting in nothing being paid the worker."


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=226x4947

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_union_busting_in_the_United_States#Brute_force_attacks_against_unions

Liberal POV said...

Conservatives, HD, Guy, Mike D

tell us the history you think you know about pre union America when raw capitalism ruled? Before child labor laws exsisted and we had coal towns, mill towns and pullman towns?

This was an era when the capitalist owned all the buildings, the store the school if there was a school and paid the police. The workers were often paid in company script to buy groceries only at the company store, rent was deducted from the pay check and if the worker pissed off the employer he was not only out of a job but out of a home.

Liberal POV said...

Conservatives, HD, Guy, Mike D

tell us the history you think you know about pre union America when raw capitalism ruled? Before child labor laws exsisted and we had coal towns, mill towns and pullman towns?

This was an era when the capitalist owned all the buildings, the store the school if there was a school and paid the police. The workers were often paid in company script to buy groceries only at the company store, rent was deducted from the pay check and if the worker pissed off the employer he was not only out of a job but out of a home.

Blogger said...

Jack wrote: “Blogger draws a direct correlation between economic success and religious preference. That is both small-minded and morally offensive.” Jack, I suppose I should be grateful that you at least stayed on topic. For others, the concept was so esoteric they just ran off to play.

Anyway, take religious membership out of the discussion for a minute so as not to trigger your Pcism. I was debating Liberal who believes that all the poor countries result from capitalist imperialism. I am stating that when you see a country that is materially wealthy (i.e., not poor), you then ask yourself what guiding value is in their culture’s DNA to account for their material success. I think Max Weber is correct. (By the way, trying to obfuscate by attacking Weber ad hominem should be beneath you.)

I believe I can make a defensible argument that cultural values guide a country. I can also argue that these guiding values arise out of the peoples’ religion. If you do not believe that, then we have nothing else to discuss on this matter.

Blogger said...

Jack, Reading your comments, I was reminded of something. When I was a young professor, an older colleague gave me a piece of advice. He said, always listen carefully to the student who takes you on in class. In a few minutes you can discern if he or she understood what you said. Then you will probably discover that student was the only one who did. Again thanks for the debate. (By the way, I am not moved at all by those who make PC charges or charges of racism. I know myself so well, it does not even irritate me.)

By the way, anyone out there who thinks they were blocked by spam filter will need to give us at least the lead in sentence. The way the filter is set up, many of the comments go in it but are not blocked. I have not yet figured out how it works.

guy faulkes said...

I certainly know about unions causing many of our jobs to be moved to other countries. I know about the unions failing and wanting to be bailed out by the tax payers.

And yes I did know of three separate occasions when troops were used against American citizens. Two were against union supporters and one was against people wanting money promised them for service in the First World War.

This is reminiscent of Obama wanting to start his own Brownshirts in order to do this again and is an excellent argument against big government.

What was the name of the community college you flunked out of, Liberalproverbs18:2?

Anonymous said...

Ku Klux Johnny: The admiration you've openly paid on this thread to the cowardly, racist, hate-mongering murderers of children, burners of churches and lynchers of men will forever taint anything else you offer on this blog. Sadly and quite tellingly, I doubt a single one of your similarly-slanted fellow conservatives will muster the integrity or the balls to call you on it.

Sarkazein said...

dufanamous- There will always be parts of history you don't like. Is no one allowed to mention them in your perverted liberal world? Oh and dufanonamous, the KKK spells clan with a K not a C. Someone mentions a fact of history, and you look for a reason to mess yourself.

Honest Debate said...

Hey gang, get a load of the nameless race-baiter claiming we are the ones with no balls!

Liberal POV said...

Blogger and HD

" I was debating Liberal who believes that all the poor countries result from capitalist imperialism. "

Please give example of poor third world countries or parts of the United States like the coal field of KY or West Virginia that Capitalist exploitation did not play a role in the poverty found there.

Compare non coal Abingtdon VA to Norton VA.

Haiti current economic despeation had nothing to do with it's history of capitalist imperialism from the French and Americans?

Oil fields around the world were not impacted by capitalist imperialism?

The current destruction for the last nine years would have occured even if Iraq had not had oil?

Johnny Rico said...

Yack,

You are going down a rabbit hole on this one. Since you are so observant of freshman behavior, that must mean you are a college professor which is part of your problem. I disagree with the theory that more police equals more crime being a mainstream thought amongst society or incoming college freshman. Quit trying to make something fit that doesn't.

At any rate, your statistics are easily refuted. Take the NY Times article below detailing falling crime rates in NY City of all places. Police Commissioners are of course at a loss, but those of us who understand that over reliance on police equals declining social morality realize that declining police numbers will help to increase personal responsibility. An increase in personal responsibility decreases crime.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/nyregion/18nypd.html?_r=2&hp

Personal responsibility, like ethics in government, is lost you you. Liberal socialists like yourself would rather push a button and have your problem taken care of rather then get your hands dirty. Of course like most elitests, you find yourself far superior to the lower class citizens you claim to support. Gated communities and posted signs are a prime example of what happens when liberal socialists move into town.

Or you could do something absolutly reprehensible to socialists and mine data from blogs to see what America thinks of more police = more crime. See below:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080213105535AA7xWj0

Or you could look at Britain (a true police state) and see that the mammoth amount of cops has no appreciable effect on crime. The opposite is true - the more cops in Britain, the more crime.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/election_2010/parties_and_issues/8645379.stm

You idiots also claim that the more guns circulating in society equals more crime. In those areas where concealed weapons permits have been made legal, crime has fallen dramatically. Those areas with strict gun laws (and more police) see rising crime rates. Care to explain that? LOL!!

Your ole pal

Johnny Rico

PS I won

Johnny Rico said...

Also, your Raleigh vs Boone arguement fails to take the totality of more police. Both Boone and Raleigh have more police per capita now than they did in 1950. Crime rates in both cities has increased due to the increase in police. Quit trying to inject absolutes into your failed theoretical arguement. I could care less if Raleigh's crime rate is higher than that of Boone or vice versa. That is irrelevant. The fact is BOTH places have higher crime rates which proves my point. Thank you for throwing a bag full of ammo over the berm!!! QED (Quite easily done).

When you call a cop to deal with something that society dealt with 30 years ago you are not ahead of the game Yack. Neither are you a winner when a cop deters a societal crime that society would have dealt with 30 years ago. The fact is, when too many police are looking for someone to arrest you begin to see a myriad of unjustified laws (or ones brought out of mothballs) to give these overglorified goons something to do. You liberals marvel at the US having the highest number of prison inmates in the world. With attitudes like yours it is no wonder.

Your ole pal

Johnny Rico

Jenny

Johnny Rico said...

Nonymouse,

Again, you referenced the KKK, not me. You draw attention to my use of the word clan but ignore the Mafia which killed far more than any other group. How do you expain your cowardly disparity in commentary? Or, like most liberals, you are a race baiter who injects racial issues into every aguement you are in danger of losing. LOL!!

At any rate, when the mafia and other CLANS were in existance, crime rates are lower than they are now. Those same areas of large cities once controlled by the Mafia are now crime infested cesspools that folks don't dare enter. How can this be now that we have more police? The answer is that society, Mafia included, took personal responsibility for their environement and took care of business. Gone are the days you can leave you car unlocked in Cleveland's Little Italy. But you could 35 years ago. How do you racial cowards explain that? LOL.

Your ole pal

Johnny Rico

PS If you liberal socialists weren't so intent on incarcerating half the population and more responsive to societal needs (like personal responsibility, carrying guns, and whipping kids in school) then we might get somewhere.

Barbara

Johnny Rico said...

Liberal Socialist Sheep POV,

I see your pedophile, race baiting, cowardly arse is absent from the debate on personal responsibility. Is this because you would feel like a hypcrite to add anything or because you see how bad your conspirators are getting thrown around? Either way you are a typical liberal socialist moronic loser. LOL!

Your ole pal

Johnny Rico

PS Got a job yet or still using my hard earned money to be lazy?

Sarkazein said...

Anonymous will remain anonymous after that thrashing. Shhhh don't anyone use the word clan.

Anonymous said...

Johnny Beckwith: What's your rope thickness of choice?

Jack said...

Johnny, you also state that the Raleigh v Boone example is moot. You say this is because both have had an increase in police force and an increase in crime since 1950.

Can you cite an area where there has been a decrease in crime/police force since 1950?

Jack said...

From the BBC article:“It would be almost perverse to argue that more police has no effect on crime.”....“For most of the last 50 years, police numbers went up as crime went up. It is impossible to know whether crime would have risen even further and faster if there hadn't been all those extra uniforms”

Also note that an increase in police force will inevitably lead to an increase in recorded crime. Without the police presence, many of these crimes would go un-reported (similar to your vigilante scenario).

From the NYT article: “One measure of that has been the department’s increased reliance on a tactic known as predictive policing, trying to use crime statistics and other information to forecast where crime may pop up next.”
“field commanders are under increasing pressure to be more creative. For instance, to handle the rush of students who flood mass transit systems on weekday afternoons, Chief James P. Hall, the head of the department’s Transit Bureau, is continually refining plans to put officers on subway platforms and along the corridors between subway stations at those times. He has also found ways to use New York City Transit safety regulations to zero in on and arrest robbery suspects on trains. As a result, subway crime has kept dropping (to 5 crimes a day, on average, from 10 a day in 2002) and the department can still afford to assign more Transit Bureau officers to counterterrorism duties, like securing vulnerable tunnels and ventilation systems.”

So the NYPD has responded to shrinking budgets and a shrinking force by acting more efficiently. The NYPD has adapted to its economic environment. Greater efficiency and allocation of resources has yielded positive results overall.

You have yet to provide any evidence that more police directly causes more crime. Although you did counter my cited research with Yahoo! Answers. Funny. I’m still waiting for that amazing mind.

PS: I won

LOL!!!

Jack said...

Blogger,
I fully agree that cultural values define and direct the behaviors of different ethnic groups. I also agree that these values are derived from the group’s historical religious values. But I do not agree that a specific religious sect predicts success. The United States was founded on Christian ethics, but that is not necessarily the cause of the nation’s prosperity.

I do not know how my critique of Weber’s management theory could be classified as an ad hom attack. His theories are simply outdated.

In The Protestant Ethic, Weber argues that Protestantism, specifically Calvinism, directly led to the development of capitalism in western Europe. Weber hypothesized that capitalism was a product of the western mind for a number of reasons, not the least of which was the Protestant Ethic. The Protestant Ethic spawned and encouraged what Weber called the "spirit of capitalism." By Weber's definition, this is more than simply capitalist activity. It is, in fact, the essence which underlies the economic system.

For Weber, capitalism was more than simply an accumulation of wealth. It had in roots in rationality. In fact, Weber insisted that capitalism was the triumph of rationality over tradition. Explicit in his view of capitalism were a disciplined labor force and the regularized investment of capital. Weber asserted that this combination took place only in Europe and most strongly in Protestant nations, such as England, Holland, and Germany, where there were influential groups of ascetic Protestant sects.

Jack said...

(2/3)I don’t fully agree with Weber’s assessment of 16th European capitalism. Here are some common critiques.

Weber was heavily influenced by the writings of Ben Franklin. It is said that Weber misunderstood and misinterpreted Franklin’s writings. In his works, Franklin was not preaching a Protestant work ethic He was simply saying that if a person is interested in being successful in life and commerce, here are some virtues to follow.

other criticisms of Weber rest on his assertion that modern capitalism could not have flourished in Europe without an ethic or spirit which had its roots in ascetic Protestantism. These criticisms themselves fall into two major categories: (1) that capitalism was a growing force before the Reformation and that it would have thrived as well under Catholicism as under Protestantism and (2) that the driving force behind capitalism was not asceticism but rationality.

The Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant Churches stressed the same precepts in the 16th and 17th centuries. Amintore Fanfani wrote that, “Europe was acquainted with capitalism before the Protestant revolt. For at least a century capitalism had been an ever growing collective force. Not only isolated individuals, but whole social groups, inspired with the new spirit, struggled with a society that was not yet permeated with it. Once we have ruled out that Protestantism could have produced a phenomenon that already existed, it still remains for us to enquire whether capitalism was encouraged or opposed by Protestantism.” It is further illustrated that both Luther and Calvin opposed free-market capitalism.

Jack said...

(3/3) Capitalism certainly flourished in western Europe after the Reformation. But our modern concept of capitalism seems to have originated in the Italian merchant states, under Catholicism.

RH Tawney may be the most cited critic of Weber’s Protestant Ethic. Tawney agreed that capitalism and Protestantism were connected, but contrary to Weber’s claim: Protestantism adopted the risk-taking, profit-making ethic of capitalism, not the other way around....”There was plenty of capitalist spirit in fifteenth century Venice and Florence, or in south Germany and Flanders, for the simple reason that these areas were the greatest commercial and financial centers of the age. The development of capitalism in Holland and England in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were due, not to the fact that they were Protestant powers but to large economic movements, in particular the Discoveries and the results which flowed from them.” The strongest connection that Tawney saw between capitalism and Protestantism was rationality. Protestantism was a revolt against traditionalism and as such advocated rationality as an approach to life and business. Tawney proposed that the rationality inherent in capitalism became a tenet of Protestantism because rationality was directly opposed to the traditionalism of Catholicism.

Capitalism was a manifestation of the general revolution of thought that was the period of the Renaissance and the Reformation, in which art, philosophy, morals, and economic thought all expanded tremendously. It was not simply due to Protestantism.

The Protestant Ethic

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/frey.protestant.ethic

Sarkazein said...

As more personal responsibility is taken off the individual by liberal government, crime grows. No need to go back to 1950, go back only to the mid Sixties. More police are hired but they are ineffective because they mostly arrive after the fact. They are treating the symptoms but not the cause. They get thousands of criminals off the street, but those criminals are replaced by others with no self discipline (religious ethic). Shame is part of the Protestant religious ethic. Shame, both in criminal mischief, and business is disappearing. The landmark case of shame disappearing was the Bar allowing lawyers to advertise on TV. Protestant religion is about personal responsibility. Jesus didn't say; "What would the government do?"
Capitalism is about personal responsibility. The more government rules capitalism by regulation and mandate the more individual responsibility, my version of the Protestant, disappears. As a result shame disappears.
Someone stop me, I'm in WAY over my head.

Liberal POV said...

Sark and Conservatives

"They are treating the symptoms but not the cause. "

This I would agree with because as Capitalist get greedier creating more and more misery within the American Society individuals act out in strange ways some like Johnny and Wolf clinging to guns and religion while attacking fellow human beings blaming all but who are really responsible for their misery. Others turn to drugs, alcohol and gangs. The wealthey hide in gated commiunites and want the low income families to beg for health care and food.

No shame!

" Shame, both in criminal mischief, and business is disappearing. "

This I would also agree with, We've seen no shame from the misery caused by the invasion and ocupation of Iraq or those tortured.

We've seen no shame in the greed of American capitalist except Warren Buffet and Bill Gate.

I ask on earlier post why you want to return to the raw capitalism of the industrial revolution before unions?

Republicans have no shame!

Honest Debate said...

Lib,

Er... ugh... it's just that... nevermind.

Liberal POV said...

HD

Feel free to engage in your own blog. You know the Republican's defend the status quo, the wealthiest Americans at the expense of the working poor.

Republicans defend the interest of Corporate welfare recipients in industries like defense, sugar, and Pharmaceuticals.

Republicans defend industries who practice predatory capitalism like tobacco, banking, insurance, fast food, Junk food, low wages and payday loans.

Honest Debate said...

God bless you Lib.

guy faulkes said...

Can you cite an area where there has been a decrease in crime/police force since 1950? - Jack

Kennesaw, Georgia. where gun ownership is mandatory.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1818862/posts

Blogger said...

Jack, Good job. For the time being however, I will stand with two statements made in the post: “Worldly success was evidence that one was saved. Luther taught that a "vocation" from God was no longer limited to the clergy or church, but applied to any occupation or trade.” When I have more time, I may flesh these out to see what other empirical evidence there might be out there. For example, did the emphasis on hierarchical structure of the liturgical churches influence the values they brought to the underdeveloped (and continuing underdeveloped) parts of the world they cultured?

Secondly, did the emphasis on the special Divine calling to the spiritual life, while not extending that status to the secular life (as did Luther) have an influence?

Thanks for at least agreeing that cultural values held by a people can account for their behavior, for good or for evil. Taking it down from the social level to the individual, I believe when I am trying to understand when I am successful and when I am not, I need to look no further than to my personal values.

Jack said...

Guy,
Can’t argue with Kennesaw. It’s an interesting concept. I’d love to see some research concerning this apparent anomaly. I know that Peter Squires found that “Later research, however, found no reduction in Kenensaw burglary rates when the figures were re-examined over a longer time period.” But he was only examining property crimes, not violent crime.

The apparent reductions in violent crime, however, reminds me of the cold-war concept of “mutually assured destruction”. The Nash Equilibrium may have something to do with this phenomenon as well. I’m interested to see more

Johnny Rico said...

Yack,

"Can you cite an area where there has been a decrease in crime/police force since 1950?"


Guy Faulks hammered you with one that knowledgeable, bright folks have known for many years. Kennessaw equals personal responsibility.

It is indeed hard to find a place that has a decreased amount of police in the years since 1950. This is what the issue is about. Most places have seen increases in police since 1950 alongside drastic increases in crime. For the 4th time, personal responsibility amongst residents has decreased as overbearing laws and police have been hired (with hard-earned taxpayer money) to deal with these very same issues that were once dealt with at the neighborhood level. Liberals such as you can't seem to get it through your small minds that YOU should take a part in shaping your society and culture like your Grandparents did.

Take even non-crimes for example. A young woman who slept around and became pregnant in 1950 certainly felt the palapable disdain society heaped upon her. As a result, bastard children were a fair novelty. Not to mention if the father of the child was identified it probably wouldn't be a bastard for long as the term "shotgun wedding" was a very real concept at one time. Thank liberals such as yourself for the decline in social morality. Today you are busy rewarding single moms for their poor choices with my taxpayer money. Not a mention of personal responsibility, God, or right and wrong.

You indicated you were still waiting for a bright mind. Well, it doesn't take even a modicum of cognitive ability to trounce your faulty belief system. Your Raleigh/Boone crime stats didn't come close to addressing the original issue. LOL!!! You are on the losing end of this truism, yet you hate to admit you are wrong (a fault of most socialists).

With Kennessaw, New York City, and Great Britain as a wide ranging cross section of society, perhaps you will begin to understand that the more of YOUR personal responsibility you place in the hands of hired government officials (police and politicians), the more ethics, morals, customs, values, and beliefs you give away.

Your ole pal

Johnny Rico

PS Had enough of this bashing or do you want a bit more?

Johnny Rico said...

Liberal Socialist Sheep POV said:

"You know the Republican's defend the status quo"

Liberal Socialists like you defend pedophiles (ACORN), criminals (illegal aliens) taking American jobs, terrorists, Charlie Rangel, and government sponsored terrorism.


The chasm between liberals and conservatives is as deep and wide as your well worn throat. LOL

Your ole pal

Johnny Rico

PS How did it feel to spit on those returning Vietnam Vets?

Liberal POV said...

Conservatives

Posted by fellow conservative Johnny:

"A young woman who slept around and became pregnant in 1950 certainly felt the palapable disdain society heaped upon her. As a result, bastard children were a fair novelty. Not to mention if the father of the child was identified it probably wouldn't be a bastard for long as the term "shotgun wedding" was a very real concept at one time. Thank liberals such as yourself for the decline in social morality. Today you are busy rewarding single moms for their poor choices with my taxpayer money. Not a mention of personal responsibility, God, or right and wrong. "

Yes, if we could just turn the clock back to this time just short of stoning the woman to death.

Damn you people are insane!

Sarkazein said...

POV wrote-"Damn you people are insane!"

Another liberal loses control over the mention of societal history.
Things have changed so much, all the graduating unmarried senior girls pose for a group picture in the year book.

Liberal POV said...

Sark

Is this an endorsement of shot gun weddings and stoning those who have affairs?

" Thank liberals such as yourself for the decline in social morality."

The conservatives think sex is the only moral issue, not justice, not torture, not fair wages, not unnecessary war, not one percent of Americans in prison, not truth in government, not excessive greed.

LiberalGreggPOV said...

Yea Sark, what Lib said! Why do you endorse stoning women?

Are you also against liberating these women from their brutal oppressors? ...er ...wait a minute.

Johnny Rico said...

Liberal Fluffer Socialist POV,

What is insane about what I say. It is true whether you like it or not. Are you trying to rewrite history on us or what? LOL! This is a common tactica of freedom robbing liberals - say it never happened and hope everyone believes you. Same with Yaks moronic comparasions of Raleigh and Boone. You wacks have figured out how to breathe, eat, and procreate? LOL!!

Your ole pal

Johnny Rico

Liberal POV said...

HD

How would you say I misinterpreted Sarks or Johnny's comments?

Notice there was a question mark for him to explain he wasn't going quiet that far and he choose not to make that clear.

Do you endorse the comments of Sark and Johnny?

" A young woman who slept around and became pregnant in 1950 certainly felt the palapable disdain society heaped upon her. As a result, bastard children were a fair novelty. Not to mention if the father of the child was identified it probably wouldn't be a bastard for long as the term "shotgun wedding" was a very real concept at one time."

My response:

Yes, if we could just turn the clock back to this time just short of stoning the woman to death.

Damn you people are insane!

Johnny Rico said...

Yack,

Here you go - hot off the press. Personal responsibility might just be what saves Mexico! LOL!!

Read and weep:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/08/AR2010120807276.html


Your ole pal


Cindy

Johnny Rico

Sarkazein said...

Johnny Rico, your Mexico link made my day. It will be interesting to hear what the liberals would have done instead.
1. Wait until there are no people left to abduct.

2. Call the same police that failed them in the first place until they are charged with telephone harassment.

3. Pay the ransoms.

4. Move the village north of the border. Get on welfare to replace the ransom money.

5. Admire all the clear eyes of the chickens hanging in the clean markets.

6. Ignore the kidnappers as to not give them the attention they want.

Liberal POV said...

Conservatives

Here're what we're talking about, this is a far better example that the Hardee's of corporate greed.

What do you soppose an employee at Family Dollar Store makes?

Thanks JW on Watauga Watch for this.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/12/09/1897252/family-dollar-ceo-pay-rises-in.html

Liberal POV said...

Sark and Johnny

Sark and Johnny

As those who have the power and wealth to make decisions that make life more and more painful for those on the margins who start attacking each other just as you and Johnny do here. You and Johnny haven's resorted to extorsion or kidnaping but you have attacked weaker less powerful fellow human beings like the undocumented American residents who are our neighbors but have no legal status or voting rights and fear the local law because one of them may be just like you.

I posted this earlier:

"Dancing on the electric grid
By Per Fagereng
Picture this standard experiment in psychology: A group
of rats is placed on an electric grid and the voltage is slowly
increased. After a while the rats feel a burning tingle in
their feet. The experimenters up the voltage some more, and watch
the rats dance and bite each other.
The experimenters are seeking knowledge, and the rats'
pain is presumably worth it. The experimenters don't blame the
rats for fighting each other, or punish the more aggressive ones.
They know that individuals react to pain in different ways.
Now picture the economic terrain as a different kind of
pain grid. Instead of electric shocks, the inhabitants experience
job loss, higher prices, less pay, overwork, polluted
neighborhoods and so on. Controlling the grid are not
psychologists, but CEOs and bankers. Instead of knowledge,
they are seeking profit. And so they up the pain, but not
because they want to hurt people. They are really trying to up
their profits, and the pain is a side effect.
After a while people on the grid do nasty things to
each other, everything from domestic violence to immigrant-bashing
to crime. Unlike the rats, the people get blamed for their
misbehavior. We are told to point our fingers at the victims
on the grid, instead of at the economic rulers who keep
increasing the pain.
You'd think that the CEOs and bankers would ease up on
the pain, but think again. They continue to demand more
sacrifice from the poor, knowing full well how they'll react.
Would you call this a big conspiracy? Or the sum of
many small conspiracies? Maybe it doesn't matter that much. I'm
not a mind reader. The point is, the economic rulers pursue
their profits and they know the consequences. So to that extent,
they are choosing to inflict pain."

http://killinghope.org/bblum6/booming.htm

December 3, 2010 8:11 AM

Johnny Rico said...

Liberal Socialist Sheep POV said:

"but you have attacked weaker less powerful fellow human beings like the undocumented American residents"

Are you really this stupid? How can you be an illegal alien and an American resident at the same time? Either you are or your not. If your not, then you should be deported immediately. If you are, then you should support these deportations to give American residents a living wage with which to support their families. You fictional single mom Hardees laborer fits nicely with illegal aliens taking American's jobs. Fast food, once a bastion for high school students, is now nationally known for hiring illegal aliens. So you really don't have to worry about single Mom at Hardees - she couldn't get a job there anyway. LOL!!! What an idiot.

Your ole pal

Johnny Rico

PS Does it feel bad to lose all the time or are you used to it?

LOL


Barbara

Johnny Rico said...

Fluffer Lemming POV said:

"Controlling the grid are not
psychologists, but CEOs and bankers"

Here's a good one. Show me one "grid" controlled by CEOs and bankers? The government forced banks to loan to poor people which is the reason your home is worth much less than before the Democrats forced banks to loan to people who had no chance of making payments. Your grid theory, like you morals and values, is full of holes. LOL!! You only have yourself to blame for the mess you live in. We are just trying to fix it. LOL!!

Your ole pal

Johnny Rocket Rico

Billy

Johnny Rico said...

Liberal fluffer Lemming POV said:

"We are told to point our fingers at the victims
on the grid"

Only liberal socialists are into doing what despots tell them to. The rest of us know better. LOL

Very easy

Your ole pal

Johnny Rico

Stings don't it

PS Were you told to support ACORNS pedophilia pleasures?

Liberal POV said...

Johnny

"So you really don't have to worry about single Mom at Hardees - she couldn't get a job there anyway."

The local Hardees is a Republican strong hold home of local Tea Party Mob. Would they hire undocumented American residents?

The woman I refer to is there, she bakes biscuits on the morning shift coming in at 4:00 AM so the Republicans like Guy will have fresh biscuits as the bitch.

The other Republicans here are unable to do simple math. Do you have what it takes to show the budget the Hardees employee will need to stretch her $16,000.00 wages to cover the rent, transportation, food, co health insurance, sales tax, medicare, social security and clothing for her children without government assistance?
Could you do it if she got promoted to Manager making $40,000? Would she then be able to buy a home, send her kids to a state supported university without government assistance?

Do the math.

Check out the Family Dollar Store CEO compensation at $6.7 million as the employees make about the same as the Hardees employees.

When did you first learn of the oppression of American's billionaires?

Jack said...

Johnny, you still have yet to show evidence that an increase in police directly causes an increase in crime.

NYPD became more efficient, doing more with less. The BBC article was inconclusive. And I would conjecture that the Kennesaw phenomenon is due to the "mutually assured destruction" concept and/or the Nash Equilibrium. But I'm definitely interested in reading more research on Kennesaw if you have any. Guy sparked my curiosity, so thank you.

LOL!!!

PS: You should focus on studying for your SOC 101 final before trying to wax poetic with others.

Johnny Rico said...

Yack,

I did give you evidence. As for more streamlined policing being the reason for less crime with less cops, you echo exactly what the liberal police commissioners said as an excuse to the situation. In other words, you wax poetic with political hacks and elitests who will spin any harmful statistic into something they can take credit for. Same with BBC and Great Britain.

There are more bobbies than ever in Britain, and their crime rate has risen over 100% in some areas, especially Manchester. Of course us gun owners know the real reason for the rise in violent crime in England, Australia, Canada, Mexico (see my recent article?) and France - gun confiscations and more police, but trying to explain that to you liberal socialist sheep is like ramming your head into a wall. LOL!!

Perhaps you should look towards common sense and logic as the basis for scientific, educated thought. You do realize that the basis for any hypothesis is common sense and logic. Try it on for size Yack. Question your hypothesis'and measure it against common sense and logic before jumping to your usual inane conclusions.

Your remind me of the ASU professors who were caught trespassing in a farmer's field in Western Watauga County some years ago. When confronted about their tresspass, one of the professors indicated they were studying some rocks in the field as evidence to glaciers in the Southern Appalachians. The idiot professor pointed out some pecular "drag" marks on the rocks as evidence. The farmer, before telling the brainlss idiots to leave, waxed poetic explaining he had logged the area several years before with his logging chain making those marks. The numbskulls (professors) left without saying a word. The moral of this non-fictional story is that common sense and logic go a long way in not letting your wide mouth override your equally wide ass. LOL!!

I know this one hurt, but you asked for it. LOL!!

Your ole pal

Johnny Rico

PS The professor named JW Williamson over on the watch could use some common sense and logic as well. His censorhip of the blog has reduced commentary to near zero. Even socialist sheep realize he is a clown. LOL

Kristin

Johnny Rico

PS I won

Your ole pal

Johnny Rico

Jack said...

Johnny, giving you an extreme amount of leeway, you have provided some evidence in favor of the idea that less police decreases crime rates. You have not, however, provided anything towards the idea that more police cause more crime.

LOL!!!

PS: Good luck on your finals.

Johnny Rico said...

Fair enough Jack. Fairly good arguments yourself. Life is like a final...