Oceanic Steam Navigation Spot
Free stuff at whose expense?

jmcoffman:

The other day I had a conversation with someone about the economy and the role of government. During this conversation, this person said something along the lines of, “people shouldn’t have to work, the government should give everyone everything.” My response: “At who’s expense?” Governments don’t produce goods, they take them either through means of taxation or brute force, and redistribute them to whomever they see fit. If a government did own the entire economy, what incentive would entrepreneurs have to innovate if their profits were taken from them, and given to those who didn’t earn it? What incentive does a hardworking farmer whose harvest was plentiful and abundant have if the lazy farmer whose harvest was lousy as his work receives the same payment? Why even have the incentive to work for money when a person knows they don’t have to work and still receive a check in the mail? Sure, it would seem nice to not have to work for a living and simply live a dreamy summer vacation all your life, but that’s all pure fancy and completely delusional. Prosperity requires work and talent, work requires incentive and sought-out rewards, and talent requires discipline, diligence, and expertise, none of which a government can ever provide. A person is defined by their actions and their actions are defined by their decisions. If a person is poor, it is because they made poor decisions. If a person is born poor, it is because their parents made poor decisions. Here in America, a person doesn’t have to remain poor whether they were born that way or not. Everyone, no matter race, religion, or creed has the same exact opportunity for prosperity. But not everyone will utilize their natural talents, diligently pursue expertise with discipline, and work hard for high rewards. America is the Land of Opportunity for all, but to some that opportunity is not missed but neglected. Some people would rather be babied, coddled from cradle to grave by government bureaucrats, and freely given food, money, healthcare, housing, schooling, and security. Of course, none of which is great quality because regardless of quality, a government will always exists so it doesn’t really need to pay attention to the service of its beneficiaries. All it needs to do is provide just enough sustenance to keep its people comfortably numb and at peace. Once this is done, the people become docile sheep and those in power become the shepherds. Every now and then, the people will be given the illusion they are free and in control, but they fail to see the fences surrounding them. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t believe welfare of any kind is evil and should be done away with because there are those who truly require it. However, I do believe our welfare system has been taken advantage of not only by some who milk it but also by those who offer it. It shouldn’t be the centerpiece of our economy because it would destroy the human spirit which is meant to be free, creative, and prosperous, not submissive, passive, and mediocre. But I guess for some, it is a lot easier to submit for free food, housing, and healthcare. I am reminded of a quote by President Dwight D. Eisenhower:
“If you want total security, go to prison. There your fed, clothed, given medical care, and so on. The only thing lacking is freedom.”

If a person is poor, it is because they made poor decisions. If a person is born poor, it is because their parents made poor decisions. Here in America, a person doesn’t have to remain poor whether they were born that way or not. Everyone, no matter race, religion, or creed has the same exact opportunity for prosperity.

lmao, you’re a temporarily embarrassed millionaire aren’t you? Also why again does having enough food to eat destroy the human spirit but toiling at a job that doesn’t pay you enough to fucking eat is freedom or some shit.

my Scotland prediction for Scotland is 53%no/47% yes

surf-goldblum:

Can anyone tell me how the Indy Ref is being reported overseas? I am really, really intrigued.

There’s not really in any depth reporting here, just standard “Scotland is undertaking a historic referendum today. This ancient land will decide whether to keep its 300 year old union with England, or to break away and become an independent nation. Polls have shown the race is too close to call and turnout is expect to be very high, with an unprecedented 97% of eligible voters now registered to vote. While passions are running high, voting today has been civil and orderly.”

*back to local news*

Y’all need to watch this fantastic video created by tumblr user gryffinwhore-love. It’s video and audio clips from the movie set to theme music of Requiem for a Dream. The edit job is fantastic, this should have been the official trailer when the movie was re-released in 3D.

iammyfather:

redbloodedamerica:

-teesa-:

9.9.14

It’s this idea of “Hey, dudes are dudes.”

Jon Stewart is now evidently a feminist.  Is there any other lower form of pandering that this liberal bootlicker won’t conform to?

Since I don’t watch his show anymore, I’m curious though what his solution was for this observation?  Perhaps he believes, like his fellow feminists, that we can prevent rapes from happening altogether by simply telling men not to do it in the first place?  And while he’s solving that societal transgression, I suppose he’ll also start preventing murders, arson, and theft as well.  Jon Stewart can figure it out though, the guy is a genius purportedly.

Back up and think about what you just said. “…murders, arson, and theft ” are pretty much looked down upon by society, whereas many will always find a reason to protect the rapist.  You have before been quite brutal towards reports of Looters, are you saying society as a whole looks upon criminals kindly?

Also to sum up Redbloodamerica’s comment in an other way “Hey y’all, I mean everything from wife beating to attacks against minorities to adolescent bullying to rape, you know, the topic at hand, actually have had their incidents reduced specifically by a mix of public shaming and education, but let me tell you how stupid you all are for not suggesting the only true solution of more guns *guns that attackers will then use against women*”

wonderwoman141:

Truth! Get over your minimum skilled asses!

On top of everything else wrong with this, the numbers are bullshit. 35k is about what an E5 with no dependents makes in BASE PAY. Add three hundred bux a month for food, a thousand for housing, and more if they have dependents. Lower ranks do get ripped off paywise but they also get free housing, food, medical, education, and discounts on retail shit right next to where they work. Additionally, if in a com.bat zone, add hazard pay. I was taking home (net) 3600 per month as an E5 with no dependents in iraq, and living totally free of expenses. Enlistees often see the number on their yearly tax return and think that’s how much they’re making, when it’s really only half what they’re making because it’s only the taxable part of their income. Not that they don’t deserve it, but they are well compensated, and incomparably so to fast food workers. E: I’d also like to mention that the enlisted corps is pretty much a socialist utopia (ironically, for all the repubs and libertarians at its teat) and most or all of a sergeant’s skill is gained via education and training provided by the taxpayer, not bootstraps.

Version 2: Most freshly enlisted military personal have absolutely minimal skills(often the reason they joined the military) and are in fact receiving substantial more in compensation than they’d otherwise get for it.
Version 3: Does the sentiment apply to you? Who cares what your skills are. OUR TROOPS are getting shot at(despite the fact most of the military has never and will never see combat minus WW3). I mean why should any civilian ever get a pay raise when OUR TROOPS might be getting shot at?

wonderwoman141:

Truth! Get over your minimum skilled asses!

On top of everything else wrong with this, the numbers are bullshit. 35k is about what an E5 with no dependents makes in BASE PAY. Add three hundred bux a month for food, a thousand for housing, and more if they have dependents. Lower ranks do get ripped off paywise but they also get free housing, food, medical, education, and discounts on retail shit right next to where they work. Additionally, if in a com.bat zone, add hazard pay. I was taking home (net) 3600 per month as an E5 with no dependents in iraq, and living totally free of expenses.

Enlistees often see the number on their yearly tax return and think that’s how much they’re making, when it’s really only half what they’re making because it’s only the taxable part of their income.

Not that they don’t deserve it, but they are well compensated, and incomparably so to fast food workers.

E: I’d also like to mention that the enlisted corps is pretty much a socialist utopia (ironically, for all the repubs and libertarians at its teat) and most or all of a sergeant’s skill is gained via education and training provided by the taxpayer, not bootstraps.

Version 2: Most freshly enlisted military personal have absolutely minimal skills(often the reason they joined the military) and are in fact receiving substantial more in compensation than they’d otherwise get for it.

Version 3: Does the sentiment apply to you? Who cares what your skills are. OUR TROOPS are getting shot at(despite the fact most of the military has never and will never see combat minus WW3). I mean why should any civilian ever get a pay raise when OUR TROOPS might be getting shot at?

"1,500 people went into the sea as Titanic sank from beneath us. There were 20 boats floating nearby, and only one came back. One. Six were rescued from the water, myself included. Six, out of 1,500. Afterwards the 700 people in the boats had nothing to but wait. Wait to die, wait to live, wait for an absolution that would never come.”

gryffinwhore-love:

Titanic - Requiem For a Dream

Everyone watch this, this is really well made. This should have just been the trailer to the 3D re-release. It’s also proof on why you should just skip forward to right before the iceberg being spotted when watching.

Confession: I think people seriously overstate the interior of the Titanic in terms of elegance. Yeah the first class public staterooms were marvelous, as well as some cabins, but outside of that, I mean they actually had exposed piping even in some first class hallways. Her luxury came from an old school regal elegance which is also a matter of taste. In the same area the France also from 1912 had absolutely fantastic interiors also based on an old school regal flair. Meanwhile the Imperator in 1913 had so much luxury(although a bit more modern in its tastes) that some of it had to be removed. The ship was so top heavy it sometimes listed even in calm seas, especially at the end of voyages once the ship had lost thousands of tons of ballast. NYC harbor pilots nicknamed her the “Listerator” The following year a whole bunch of marble from first class(and a lot of that marble was in private bathrooms) had to be taken out among other things to try to fix the listing problem. White Star’s Homeric also had spectacular first class quarters. As an Art Deco fan I also have to say the Ile de France of 1927 was spectacular inside. Even modern ships, a lot of people go on more tackier cruise ships when on cruises, and these ships are basically the modern equal of the mundane, mid-sized ocean liners of yesteryear that no one talks about anymore. Their focus isn’t luxury, it’s trying to create a decent but cheap atmosphere. Contrast with Cunard whose niche in the Carnival umbrella of shipping lines is more upscale cruising(they even refer to it as “White Star service in a nod to their connection with the White Star line) as well as trans-Atlantic travels. The interiors of the QM2 are absolutely elegant and luxurious.
HOWEVER! When it comes to exteriors, the lines of the Olympic class only have a few that can even compete. They were Harland and Wolff’s masterpiece of grace and symmetry, with a sleek, yacht like hull(which really starts to become an impossibility when you get to tonnage above the Olympic/Titanic/Britannic, they really pushed it to its limits), I mean just look at this

Confession: I think people seriously overstate the interior of the Titanic in terms of elegance. Yeah the first class public staterooms were marvelous, as well as some cabins, but outside of that, I mean they actually had exposed piping even in some first class hallways. Her luxury came from an old school regal elegance which is also a matter of taste. In the same area the France also from 1912 had absolutely fantastic interiors also based on an old school regal flair. Meanwhile the Imperator in 1913 had so much luxury(although a bit more modern in its tastes) that some of it had to be removed. The ship was so top heavy it sometimes listed even in calm seas, especially at the end of voyages once the ship had lost thousands of tons of ballast. NYC harbor pilots nicknamed her the “Listerator” The following year a whole bunch of marble from first class(and a lot of that marble was in private bathrooms) had to be taken out among other things to try to fix the listing problem. White Star’s Homeric also had spectacular first class quarters. As an Art Deco fan I also have to say the Ile de France of 1927 was spectacular inside. Even modern ships, a lot of people go on more tackier cruise ships when on cruises, and these ships are basically the modern equal of the mundane, mid-sized ocean liners of yesteryear that no one talks about anymore. Their focus isn’t luxury, it’s trying to create a decent but cheap atmosphere. Contrast with Cunard whose niche in the Carnival umbrella of shipping lines is more upscale cruising(they even refer to it as “White Star service in a nod to their connection with the White Star line) as well as trans-Atlantic travels. The interiors of the QM2 are absolutely elegant and luxurious.

HOWEVER! When it comes to exteriors, the lines of the Olympic class only have a few that can even compete. They were Harland and Wolff’s masterpiece of grace and symmetry, with a sleek, yacht like hull(which really starts to become an impossibility when you get to tonnage above the Olympic/Titanic/Britannic, they really pushed it to its limits), I mean just look at this

I don’t know even know what to say about this when posting this, beyond what is the fixation men have with the age of 20? Is it the drinking age in America? A fixation on having a barely legal girl, i.e. someone who is old enough to fuck(and be sure they’re out of high school), but young enough to still be illegal for something(drinking)? Is it constant media bombardment? It’s not an issue of looks because most people don’t age all that much in appearance between 20-25.(x)

wheretheroadlies:

I think Scotland has the right to determine its future. National health care, welfare, public education are all good things for the country. But a Britain free of left leaning Scotland will leave a perpetual Tory government, and England and Wales will suffer. Scotland can change Westminster.

This seems like an issue for England, not Scotland, namely England needs to change itself. It also seems an appealing point for the “Yes” campaign as Scotland would probably never have to see a Tory government ever again, at least in the near future.

Well, let me give an example. When I’m driving, I sometimes turn on the radio and I find very often that what I’m listening to is a discussion of sports. These are telephone conversations. People call in and have long and intricate discussions, and it’s plain that quite a high degree of thought and analysis is going into that. People know a tremendous amount. They know all sorts of complicated details and enter into far-reaching discussion about whether the coach made the right decision yesterday and so on. These are ordinary people, not professionals, who are applying their intelligence and analytic skills in these areas and accumulating quite a lot of knowledge and, for all I know, understanding. On the other hand, when I hear people talk about, say, international affairs or domestic problems, it’s at a level of superficiality that’s beyond belief.

Noam Chomsky, on people and seeing sports as an important factor rather than world issues, in a interview with Alternet.org.  (via assangistan)

yeah

(via twistedlandstourguide)

queen-dreaveev:

TRUTH!

So then I mean who is allowed to make more than $18k a year because “OUR TROOPS!”? Also should the most of the military that has never and will never come near combat have their pay and benefits cut(actually fun fact, that E1 if in combat will be making quite a bit more by way of untaxed combat pay)?
I mean they’re also leaving out the fact maybe military personal should be paid somewhat more, and also leaving out the giant fringe benefits soldiers get ranging from health care, to housing and food allowances as well as discounts both on and off base, something most people minimum wage employees(or employees in general) don’t get.

queen-dreaveev:

TRUTH!

So then I mean who is allowed to make more than $18k a year because “OUR TROOPS!”? Also should the most of the military that has never and will never come near combat have their pay and benefits cut(actually fun fact, that E1 if in combat will be making quite a bit more by way of untaxed combat pay)?

I mean they’re also leaving out the fact maybe military personal should be paid somewhat more, and also leaving out the giant fringe benefits soldiers get ranging from health care, to housing and food allowances as well as discounts both on and off base, something most people minimum wage employees(or employees in general) don’t get.

offbeatchina:

A Chinese middle school history teacher draws a world map on blackboard in min

Yo I won the school geography bee twice and even I can’t come close to that accuracy(although that may be part of the larger problem of my shit skills with size, scale, ect when drawing).