This really pissed me off!

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Tue Feb 03, 2004 9:38 am

[rant]
I heard something on NPR this morning that really pissed me off. The subject was â??Two Americasâ?

TheCops · Post by **TheCops** » Tue Feb 03, 2004 11:29 am

it's sick isn't it. it's always everyone elses fault... freakin' country of crybabies.

Tetrad · Post by **Tetrad** » Tue Feb 03, 2004 11:44 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by [NuB] Dedman:
I rank that up near the infamous McDonalds hot coffee debacle.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you actually look at that particular case, you can see it isn't as frivilous as you might suspect. McDonalds kept their coffee at near-boiling levels to keep costs down, despite their own internal research showing most people wanted to drink their coffee immediately.

Edit: also the woman in question suffered burns that were more than just superficial, and the reward she got was dramatically reduced from what was initally said.

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Tue Feb 03, 2004 12:08 pm

I have no doubt that her injuries were serious. But you don't put hot coffee in your lap. That is plain stupid. The extent of her injuries have no bearing on the legitimacy of the claim. It was a dumb lawsuit and, IMO, never should have been allowed to go forward.

At any rate, the point is not to debate that particular suit. The point is that there are far too many people in this country that feel that they are owed something by someone. It sickens me.

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Tue Feb 03, 2004 1:44 pm

Well, what do you expect? We are a nation of "It's someone else's responsibility, not mine."

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Tue Feb 03, 2004 2:27 pm

Only the losers in America have the attitude that you speak of, Sol. We can all, at least, endeavor not to be that way in our own lives. Someone with that attitude is out of touch with reality.

Tetrad · Post by **Tetrad** » Tue Feb 03, 2004 3:24 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by [NuB] Dedman:
 I have no doubt that her injuries were serious. But you don't put hot coffee in your lap. That is plain stupid. The extent of her injuries have no bearing on the legitimacy of the claim. It was a dumb lawsuit and, IMO, never should have been allowed to go forward.

At any rate, the point is not to debate that particular suit. The point is that there are far too many people in this country that feel that they are owed something by someone. It sickens me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So are you saying that companies should not worry about the safety of their customers and employees?

IMO you chose a bad analogy. On one hand you seem to be ranting about somebody who wants more wealth distribution. On the other hand you call for more tort reform. What exactly are you trying to get at here?

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Tue Feb 03, 2004 3:26 pm

There is an awful lot of them, Thorne!

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Tue Feb 03, 2004 9:36 pm

Tetrad,

I seem to have made my point poorly. My only point was that I think the "entitlement" mentality is really harming our country. IMO, until we get that under control, a lot of our societies ills will go unfixed.

Oh BTW, I am typing after a Guinness and no dinner so please forgive the unusually bad spelling

roid · Post by **roid** » Thu Feb 12, 2004 3:13 am

the guy talking about the "haves and the havenots", he is probably talking about "keeping up the status quo".

you know... like how members of rich familys stay rich no matter what, and they stay in power no matter what. that's probabaly what he's talking about. the status quo keep the status quo where they are.

T-Bone · Post by **T-Bone** » Thu Feb 12, 2004 10:42 pm

I think the "status quo" is a crock. There is opportunity available for those that are smart and willing to work hard. Studies show that 80% of millionaires in America are first generation. That means they didn't buy into the "status quo" or entitilement mentality and got off their duffs!

source...

http://www.charlestonbusiness.com/issue ... 222-1.html

Sarge · Post by **Sarge** » Thu Feb 12, 2004 10:58 pm

Wake up...

http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/

You just figurin this out *now*?

Delkian · Post by **Delkian** » Fri Feb 13, 2004 4:25 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by [NuB] Dedman:
If this guy (who presumably belongs to the have-nots) wants to belong the haves then what he needs to do is work his butt off like the rest of us to earn it. With the exception of a privileged minority, the plurality of the wealthy and/or successful people in the U.S. are self made.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unfortunately working one's butt off doesn't guarantee wealth. Furthermore, the chances of success are certainly unequal for example due to the cost of good education.

It might also be questioned if working one's butt off is what should be encouraged as the greatest thing since bread came sliced in the first place, but that's another story and outside of the point here. Clearly one who gets a lot done should get more out of it than someone else who doesn't get a lot done but the "I'm not gonna give anything to those lazy bastards who don't work 60 hours a week!" attitude isn't very healthy or beneficial either.

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Fri Feb 13, 2004 7:50 am

What T-Bone said.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Delkian:
 Unfortunately working one's butt off doesn't guarantee wealth. Furthermore, the chances of success are certainly unequal for example due to the cost of good education.

It might also be questioned if working one's butt off is what should be encouraged as the greatest thing since bread came sliced in the first place, but that's another story and outside of the point here. Clearly one who gets a lot done should get more out of it than someone else who doesn't get a lot done but the "I'm not gonna give anything to those lazy bastards who don't work 60 hours a week!" attitude isn't very healthy or beneficial either.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not trying to imply that he should work 60 hours a week. And it is not up to me, or anyone else for that matter, to give anyone anything. My point was, if you (the generic you) want something, earn it. Don't expect it to be given to you.

Delkian · Post by **Delkian** » Sat Feb 14, 2004 11:41 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by [NuB] Dedman:
I am not trying to imply that he should work 60 hours a week.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was using hyperbole as stylistic means.

My point, however, was that just working one's butt off wouldn't remove the 'two Americas' aspect.

Disclaimer:
I don't know what everyday life is like there. Mentioning America was just because the first post in this thread mentioned it. This is more general, not regarding to just one country.

Palzon · Post by **Palzon** » Mon Feb 16, 2004 11:56 am

I didn't hear the interview so it's hard to question Dedman's reaction. But...the quote that pissed him off doesn't indicate the man interviewed felt entitled to anything. IIRC there are about 30 million working poor, i.e. below the poverty line but still employed full time. If that's not two Americas (economically), then what is? In fact, far from being controversial, the point of the quote is kind of obvious.

Mobius · Post by **Mobius** » Mon Feb 16, 2004 1:44 pm

Just as an aside: if you want to be a member of the "Haves" then it helps if you can spell your way there:

"frivolous"
"Britain"
"Businesses" (http://www.write101.com/fota.htm)
"its" (http://www.write101.com/fota.htm)

bash · Post by **bash** » Mon Feb 16, 2004 2:27 pm

Pally, your information is wrong. The TOTAL number of Americans designated at or below Poverty Level is the number you quoted (34.6 million, actually), NOT that each of those persons is a full-time worker. If that was true, I'd agree with you it would be an extremely alarming statistic (as well as it would indicate an awful lot of people were getting paid about 50 cents an hour).

Gotta love the *Helping You Make Informed Decisions* tagline of the US Census Bureau. Of course, that assumes folks want to make informed decisions rather than simply indulge a predilection toward spreading pessimism.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Tue Feb 17, 2004 7:10 am

The problem here is you're trying to describe poverty based on American standards of living. Compare our poverty stricken with the rest of the world and you'll see our poor people really live quite well.