Official AppleInsider Political Affiliation Poll - Page 3

[quote]Socialist/Individualist<hr></blockquote>

eh? <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />

anyhoo.

USA
Individualist (borderline Objectivist)

And I've got to say, I'm disturbed by how many people around here seem to base their opinions of the President of mass-email forwards...

Republican

beer, I had the same reaction to "Socialist/Individualist"

Just say the catch-all:
"USA
Know-it-all teenage smart-ass"

I am an American and Australian citizen.

[quote]Originally posted by ColorClassicG4:
The observer will note the use of the vague word 'represents'. This saves Flowerbob from the necessity of actually saying anything with substance.<hr></blockquote>
by "represents" i mean that these are things which he thinks are good and which are important parts of his political platform. i will happily provide some substance (actually, i won't. i would be much happier if I couldn't, but, unfortunately, my claims have grounds).
a) "fuzzy math." need i say more? it's an appeal to the ignorance and stupidity of the average american, which translates roughly to "i'm stupid like you so vote for me"
b) are there really questions about this? he's pro-death penalty, anti-gun control and he's currently waging a war.
c) he wants government money for faith-based organizations. wants prayer in school. :blech:
d) he's a business man, a friend of big business, and is opposed to real environmental regulations ("voluntary regulations" are *NOT* regulations).
[quote]If you don't have anything to say, why expend so much effort not doing it?<hr></blockquote>
my apologies. it was poor form.

[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:
Sound like a opinion to me <hr></blockquote>
yup. one i am ready to explain and defend.

[quote]Originally posted by Mandricard:
Are you then implying that adherents to a particular set of religious beliefs are not free to spread those beliefs? Or is it just that force should not be used when promulgating one's particular religious views? Or are you implying that Islam's rapid spread across the Middle East in the 7th through 9th centuries is somehow a special case?<hr></blockquote>
it's bad enough that there are adherants of particular religious beliefs, without them going around and trying to make more of themselves. and trying to use violence to force somebody to believe in another god is stupid and criminal and evil.
nobody should ever take any action to try to coerce another person's belief system. (and yes I am aware of the inherant hypocrisy of any argument favoring this philosophy)

[quote]Originally posted by NoahJ:
Islam is not about peace and love, except to other Islamic people. Anyone else is the infidel and if they do not convert they should be put to death. It is in their Koran. Look it up.
And before you say Christians are the same way, we are not. Look it up, in context.<hr></blockquote>
Actually, neither religion is "supposed" to be about violence. It just turns out that historically both have been. Because religion is like that. like race, people use it as a channeling of hatred, an excuse to go around killing each other. stupid people make religion stupid.
anyway, the most deaths "over religion" are not at all about religious ideals. neither the Arab invasion of Europe nor the "retaliatory" Crusades were about religion for the people leading them. while for some of the people "on the ground" the idea of going to hevean (or the islamic equivalent) allowed them to get themselves killed, we also see that in very few cases in history has this alone been sufficient to motivate something of the scale of these wars. there is always need for a leading force, and for this force, the wars were about power, conquest, spoils, etc. (hence the looting of the Byzantine empire by the very christians who were supposed to be helping the Byzantines, when they were returning home defeated and without the spoils they expected to win).
[quote]Look at the Taliban and their current laws (based on Strict Islam).<hr></blockquote>
note that there are many countries across the Islamic world with the Koran as their legal constitutions, and they do not have laws like the Taliban's. the Taliban represents [i]an[/]i (extreme) interpretation of the Koran, and not necessarily (as they believe) the "one and only correct" interpretation.

I do think this (crusade argument) should be done in another thread. As it gets far off of the political affiliation Poll and onto religious and ethnic issues instead. I apologise for being off topic.

Still a Republican.

[quote]Originally posted by flowerbob:
<strong>
a) "fuzzy math." need i say more? it's an appeal to the ignorance and stupidity of the average american, which translates roughly to "i'm stupid like you so vote for me"
b) are there really questions about this? he's pro-death penalty, anti-gun control and he's currently waging a war.
c) he wants government money for faith-based organizations. wants prayer in school. :blech:
d) he's a business man, a friend of big business, and is opposed to real environmental regulations ("voluntary regulations" are *NOT* regulations).</strong><hr></blockquote>

A) How is "fuzzy math" saying we're all stupid so vote for me? He was making a point that their math is less based on facts than it is on how they want you to interpret the facts. For instance, calling a reduction in a spending increase a cut of a program even though the spending is still going up.

B)That hardly makes him a warmonger. The war we are in is justified and Al Gore would be in it too if he were president (at least I hope so, if he was not he would be facing an angry public and a bigger terrorist problem than before as they found that the US cowered and did not stand up to them). I am pro guns and pro death penalty as well, so whatever.

C)He wants to be able to help all charities, including those which are faith based. It is more about removing the restrictions to giving to faith based programs than just helping those that are faith based.

D)Al Gore is quite different in this respect. Also a business man (tobacco instead of industrial), environmentalist ("that internal cumbustion engine is the biggest threat to civilization today" now let me get in my limo and go to the airport and fly across the country to speak again and then fly back tonight. ) Hypocritical to say the least. But we would sure get some doozy laws to protect the environment at the expense of the economy, and anything else. There needs to be a balance which no one has found yet.

In short, Bush is doing just fine, Gore would be no better, and I think he would not have done as well.

I'm glad to finaly see someone else talking abouut the initial Muslim expansion through violence that preceded the "crusades"

even so, the Crusades were a particularly vicious form of reclamation... and in one of the crusades, unusually bloody and unnecessarily murderous

But, there are other religions living in peaceful coexistence with Muslims ... even in Iran: there is a Christian population, Jews, even some Zaroastrians and some of the last remaining Gnostics; descendants from the original sects.

So don't go over board mister christian-right-to-lifer.

there are many different kinds of Christianity just as there are Islam: many Christians are fundamentalist idiots and many other kinds of idiots but not all are knee-jerk fundamentalists or idiots... just as in Islam.

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>beer, I had the same reaction to "Socialist/Individualist"

Just say the catch-all:
"USA
Know-it-all teenage smart-ass"

</strong><hr></blockquote>

Before I bother gracing you with my laborious keystrokes, I'd just like to say this to you in particular, groverat: **** you.

Anyhoo, I'm an individualist in that I feel the government should, for the most part, stay out of business economics rules, as well as the government staying out of my personal life. However, I like some of the not-so-zealous pieces of ideas that are usually considered "socialist" or "communist" by some--mainly redistribution of wealth, equality, and all of that. It's more achievable than you might think without the government controlling every aspect of our lives, work, and economy.

It just goes to show that YES! you can have unique viewpoints, and NO! you don't have to fit yourself into the stereotypical labelled viewtypes that already exist.

Think Different. <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />

[quote]Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
<strong>

FYI the Crusades were a belated response to the intrusion of Islam on the Christian world. Modern Turkey was once at the heart of the Byzantine Empire. The Byzantine Empire was Christian. Instanbul was once called Constantinople after the Roman Emperor Constantine - allegedly the first Christian Roman Emperor.</strong><hr></blockquote>

And how, pray tell, do you think Byzantium/Constantinopel/Istanbul became part of the Roman Empire? The Romans asked for it nicely?

Him knowing who the president of Uzbekistan is, is a moot and silly point. He's not the president of the United States after all.

[quote]Originally posted by bradbower:
<strong>
Anyhoo, I'm an individualist in that I feel the government should, for the most part, stay out of business economics rules, as well as the government staying out of my personal life. However, I like some of the not-so-zealous pieces of ideas that are usually considered "socialist" or "communist" by some--mainly redistribution of wealth, equality, and all of that. It's more achievable than you might think without the government controlling every aspect of our lives, work, and economy.

It just goes to show that YES! you can have unique viewpoints, and NO! you don't have to fit yourself into the stereotypical labelled viewtypes that already exist.</strong><hr></blockquote>

You can have unique points of view out the yin yang. Whether you can actually reconcile these different ideas into something coherent is another story entirely. This is something you didn't do. You just gave us a few of the ideas you support. You didn't do any of the intellectual spadework.

Chinese-American
Republican

Anti-Gun Rights
Anti-Abortion (circumstantial)
Anti-Affirmative Action (as we know it)
etc. etc.

I am disgusted by images of protestors attacking carabinieri in the name of "Anti-Globalization"

Or violent anti-war protestors...paradoxical behavior.

[quote]Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
<strong>

You can have unique points of view out the yin yang. Whether you can actually reconcile these different ideas into something coherent is another story entirely. This is something you didn't do. You just gave us a few of the ideas you support. You didn't do any of the intellectual spadework.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Mm-hmm. I believe this thread was about what political affiliations you fall under, and I was naming those--not explaining my opinions in their entirety. So what's the problem with that again?

[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>
And how, pray tell, do you think Byzantium/Constantinopel/Istanbul became part of the Roman Empire? The Romans asked for it nicely?</strong><hr></blockquote>

And? They didn't conquer it in the name of Christianity. What's your point?

[quote]<strong>Him knowing who the president of Uzbekistan is, is a moot and silly point. He's not the president of the United States after all.</strong><hr></blockquote>

And it's a silly point to think that the President or a Presidential candidate should know the names of all the heads of state. I'm not the one who brought this subject up.

[ 11-16-2001: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by bradbower:
<strong>
Mm-hmm. I believe this thread was about what political affiliations you fall under, and I was naming those--not explaining my opinions in their entirety. So what's the problem with that again?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yep, but you are the one who wrote: "It just goes to show that YES! you can have unique viewpoints, and NO! you don't have to fit yourself into the stereotypical labelled viewtypes that already exist."

You showed that you have a unique point of view, all right. But so what? I'll be impressed if you can show how you resolve the internal inconsistencies in your beliefs.

USA
Bull Moose :cool:

[ 11-18-2001: Message edited by: grand illusion ]</p>

brad, so you basically don't know what you're talking about? Does that sum it up?

[quote]...I feel the government should, for the most part, stay out of business economics rules...<hr></blockquote>

And then:

[quote]However, I like ... redistribution of wealth...<hr></blockquote>

<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />

So which is it?

You have all the proper ideals down pat but you're forgetting what they actually mean.

You're a socialist capitalist? You're a democratic fascist?

[quote]It's more achievable than you might think without the government controlling every aspect of our lives, work, and economy.<hr></blockquote>

Tell me, how might you go about redistributing wealth without government intervention?

"Equality" is a vague term used by vague minds, be more specific.

[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>

And how, pray tell, do you think Byzantium/Constantinopel/Istanbul became part of the Roman Empire? The Romans asked for it nicely?</strong><hr></blockquote>

As a matter of fact, yes. Nicomedes III, the last king of Bithynia (wherein was located the relatively unimportant city of Byzantium), left his kingdom to Rome in 74 B.C., largely in gratitude for Rome's having saved Bithynia from foreign invasion in 82.

[quote]Originally posted by pfflam:
<strong>even so, the Crusades were a particularly vicious form of reclamation... and in one of the crusades, unusually bloody and unnecessarily murderous</strong><hr></blockquote>

All of them were, in fact, at least by modern standards.

And so were the initial Arab takeovers of the cities, and the massacres when Islam retook the Crusader cities such as Acre.

The modern idea of the Crusades as these bizarre attempts at ethnic cleansing by greedy Europeans desiring wealth is amusing on a number of levels. I suppose the winners really do write the history books.

Oh, if you actually want to know something about the Crusades, read this:
<a href="http://http://www.nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire111501.shtml" target="_blank">an excellent article on the Crusades</a>.

It refutes many of the usual modern myths, such as that any of the Crusaders thought they had much to gain economically.

[quote]Originally posted by flowerbob:
<strong>
(hence the looting of the Byzantine empire by the very christians who were supposed to be helping the Byzantines, when they were returning home defeated and without the spoils they expected to win).</strong><hr></blockquote>

That's not quite correct - the Fourth Crusade was diverted to Constantinople by the Venetians, who tried to use them to install a pro-Venetian puppet emperor. They never made it to the Holy Land. They only captured some of the Byzantine Empire; mostly the city and some surrounding territory. Various Byzantine successors held on to pieces of the old empire. The sacking of Constantinople is one of history's massive tragedies; it both ensured the end of the Crusader States and of the Byzantine Empire. The last bulwark against the spread of Islam was effectively gone. In the end it was only the sieges of Malta and of Vienna which stopped the tide.

I've seen the tomb of the Venetian doge who managed to pull this off, by the way, in the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul: his name was Dandolo. When the Byzantines eventually got the city back, they opened his tomb and fed his bones to the dogs.

USA
The GOP. But also environmentally minded.

[quote]Originally posted by ColorClassicG4:

And how, pray tell, do you think Byzantium/Constantinopel/Istanbul became part of the Roman Empire? The Romans asked for it nicely?

As a matter of fact, yes. Nicomedes III, the last king of Bithynia (wherein was located the relatively unimportant city of Byzantium), left his kingdom to Rome in 74 B.C., largely in gratitude for Rome's having saved Bithynia from foreign invasion in 82.<hr></blockquote>

I didn't know that. In light of macoracle's question that's kind of funny.

[ 11-16-2001: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>

I think the two party system needs to be gotten rid of. We need to vote for a person not the party. Not to mention it would open up more choices. What if a President that is running is for BOTH abortion AND Capitol Punishment. Or Against both? Can't happen in a system we have now.

[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:
<strong>What if a President that is running is for BOTH abortion AND Capitol Punishment... Can't happen in a system we have now.</strong><hr></blockquote>

:confused: Why not? That was basically Gore's position last time around. Granted, Democrats were too busy portraying Dubya as the "happy executioner" to notice but still...

[ 11-16-2001: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
<strong>

:confused: Why not? That was basically Gore's position last time around. Granted, Democrats were too busy portraying Dubya as the "happy executioner" to notice but still...

[ 11-16-2001: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

Actually Bill tried to play this ride the fence card during the elections too. It changed once he was in office.

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>Tell me, how might you go about redistributing wealth without government intervention?</strong><hr></blockquote>

I said something along the lines of "the government staying out of our [personal] lives," meaning the government not abridging or prohibiting that which the constitution allows us (rights that don't overlap others' rights), as well as taking actions that invade our privacy.

There is no connection between the kind of privacy I'm talking about and redistribution of wealth, groverats.

If you're asking how redistribution of wealth would/could/should work, in my opinion, try to imagine a more successful implementation of Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid/Welfare, funded by local, state, and federal taxation based on your income, purchasing, and possibly property. There's a really rough comparison for you. Think you could possibly piece together how something like that might work? Don't strain yourself.

[quote]Originally posted by bradbower:
<strong>that which the constitution allows us (rights that don't overlap others' rights), as well as taking actions that invade our privacy.</strong><hr></blockquote>


The United States Constitution does not "allow" United States citizens any rights. It explicitly recognizes fundamental human rights which already exist and gives the federal government notice that it is forbidden from infringing upon them. This is an extremely important difference. It means that the Constitution recognizes higher authority than itself.

A federal statute, on the other hand, can create new 'rights', such as the right to ask that federal trial procedure work in one way or another, or the right to demand certain pieces of information from the government. These are not fundamental rights on par with those recognized in the Constitution; they are merely created by government.

[quote]I said something along the lines of "the government staying out of our [personal] lives," meaning the government not abridging or prohibiting ...<hr></blockquote>

Scribam brad:
"Anyhoo, I'm an individualist in that I feel the government should, for the most part, stay out of business economics rules, as well as the government staying out of my personal life."



[quote]There is no connection between the kind of privacy I'm talking about and redistribution of wealth, groverats.<hr></blockquote>

Redistribution of wealth is a giant invasion of privacy.

[quote]try to imagine a more successful implementation of Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid/Welfare, funded by local, state, and federal taxation based on your income, purchasing, and possibly property.<hr></blockquote>

A successful implementation on all those things would have nothing to do with individualism since they are socialist ideas.

Socialism is inherently contrary to individualism, you should see that.

[quote]Originally posted by Mojo the Monkey:
<strong>Don't believe the media's lies. They're covering up the greatest hijack of democracy that's ever taken place. George Bush did not win that election. He is not our legitimate president.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Gore conceded the election, remember? Bush won by default. That's generally how it works. We don't go around meticulously counting each and every single vote, we just keep counting more and more of them until one guy says to the other guy, "Ok you win, see you again in four years." Which happens to be what happened in Florida (minus a few details) as well. See? The system was followed and the system worked

Oh, I'm from America and generally conservative. Please don't confuse conservative with republican, I'm really fed up with both parties right now.

[quote] If you're asking how redistribution of wealth would/could/should work, in my opinion, try to imagine a more successful implementation of Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid/Welfare... <hr></blockquote>

It seems to me that all of those have a very direct impact on a person's life. Redistribution by definition means taking something from one place and giving it to another. Certainly if something is taken away from someone the government is having a direct impact on that person's life-- being forced to do something. Well, since we can conclude someone is forced to do something, I think we can also safely conclude that that limits one's capasity to be an individual. Right?

(Statements about some having plenty are not relavent to this arguement since the starting basic assumption was that ALL should be allowed to be individuals-- not ALL except for the rich.)

Anyone know what the unemployment rate in France is right now? SYN, you know? Another question of SYN, is it worth it? I'm just curious. Even if a socialist government leads to greater unemployment, one can argue that the trade-offs are well worth it. (But you could kiss world super power goodbye)

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>Socialism is inherently contrary to individualism, you should see that.</strong><hr></blockquote>You could be a civil libertarian (very pro-Bill-of Rights, pro-choice on abortion, etc.) and still believe in heavy economic regulation.

I think that's what many old-fashioned US liberals are all about.

Individualism need not be just economic.

[ 11-16-2001: Message edited by: BRussell ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by Whisper:
<strong>Gore conceded the election, remember? Bush won by default. That's generally how it works. We don't go around meticulously counting each and every single vote, we just keep counting more and more of them until one guy says to the other guy, "Ok you win, see you again in four years."</strong><hr></blockquote>No, what the candidates say have no bearing on who becomes president. Show me in the constitution where it says "when one candidate concedes, the other becomes president."

Gore did not make Bush president. He doesn't have that power.

[quote]Originally posted by Arakageeta:
<strong>


(Statements about some having plenty are not relavent to this arguement since the starting basic assumption was that ALL should be allowed to be individuals-- not ALL except for the rich.)

Anyone know what the unemployment rate in France is right now? SYN, you know? Another question of SYN, is it worth it? I'm just curious. Even if a socialist government leads to greater unemployment, one can argue that the trade-offs are well worth it. (But you could kiss world super power goodbye)</strong><hr></blockquote>


- on the contrary, this seems like an extremely relavent component of this argument: because the question in a capitalist system becomes "how can one be an individual if they are not rich?" if the rich keep such an astonishing percentage of the wealth in this country, how can you possibly account for the disparity in the situations that people make their beginnings in? -

- Right, because, being a world super power is so incredibly important right? and who is to say that france is not a specific example with extenuating circumstances? Germany has a much more proportionally representative system than we do....but this delves more into the two-party system which could always be an interesting topic of conversation.

...obviously on the more liberal side of the political question, vote democrat, but do i honestly have a party?...

[ 11-16-2001: Message edited by: MmeSerena ]</p>

Calling yourself an individualist while supporting collectivism is sort of like calling yourself a vegetarian just as you tuck into a big t-bone.

This isn't fun anymore, so I'll just say it outright: this entire thread is a joke if you're looking to argue about these things seriously, and in going with that I said all of those things which are OBVIOUSLY contradictory just to show, as I said (heh), arguing about labels is completely idiotic. Don't know what I mean? Read anything coming out of groverat's oriface. Well, that and to rile you angsty lot.

Your political stances aren't just evasive of categories, they are evasive of basic logic.

You didn't realize the contradiction at first because, as is typical of your lot, you see no need to question the thoughts you've cobbled together after hearing idealists spew their lines.

There can be no pursuit of happiness with socialism, it's just impossible. In a pretty vaccuum maybe, but those of us dealing in the real world and analyzing true human motivation it becomes quite obvious that socialism is inherently against the idea of self-realization and motivational behaviors.

Take Germany for example:
You have a country with very few jobs because the working laws are so socialist no company desiring profit would ever build there.

Germany had a 3% increase in GNP last year and you know why? Tax cuts. Anti-socialist reform is what MIGHT save it from the downward spiral it's in. Anti-socialist reform MIGHT keep it going in the right direction.

You cannot call a man free while taking from him what he has worked for. It is hypocrisy.

There is case after case after case after case of failing socialism. And these European socialist societies gasping for air, how do they stay alive? From the capitalist U.S.'s capital influx.

It's like a religion to some people, it makes sense in a fairy world but it just doesn't translate to real life.

*cheers on Groverat*

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>
(snip)

There can be no pursuit of happiness with socialism, it's just impossible. In a pretty vaccuum maybe, but those of us dealing in the real world and analyzing true human motivation it becomes quite obvious that socialism is inherently against the idea of self-realization and motivational behaviors.

Take Germany for example:
You have a country with very few jobs because the working laws are so socialist no company desiring profit would ever build there.

Germany had a 3% increase in GNP last year and you know why? Tax cuts. Anti-socialist reform is what MIGHT save it from the downward spiral it's in. Anti-socialist reform MIGHT keep it going in the right direction.

You cannot call a man free while taking from him what he has worked for. It is hypocrisy.

There is case after case after case after case of failing socialism. And these European socialist societies gasping for air, how do they stay alive? From the capitalist U.S.'s capital influx.

It's like a religion to some people, it makes sense in a fairy world but it just doesn't translate to real life.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I would think a registered green would take a more pro-socialist stance?

[quote] You cannot call a man free while taking from him what he has worked for. It is hypocrisy.<hr></blockquote>

&lt;regurgitation_of_AP_government_class&gt;
That depends on whether one believes that the work one does should benefit the whole, or the individual. The united states has traditionally been very individualist. The first people who travelled here from europe were generally on equal footing, and all had the same opportunity to succeed. Great value was placed on personal achievement and personal success. This was due to religious beliefs (protestant work ethic) and the availability of land. That could be a reason for the low taxes in the United States. If you look at taxes as a redistribution of wealth (money that goes to the government to pay for programs to benefit the people), you will see that the american system leaves large quantities of money to the people who made them. That's why you see such disparity between the incomes of the worker and the CEO in the united states (<a href="http://directory.google.com/Top/Science/Social_Sciences/Economics/Consumption_and_Wealth/Inequality/" target="_blank">http://directory.google.com/Top/S cience/Social_Sciences/Economics/Consumption_and_Wealth/Inequality/</a>) as opposed to countries in western europe, which tend to have higher taxes, equalising income between working folk and business leaders. I'm not saying one system is better than the other or anything. I'm just trying to clarify the difference between high tax / low tax philosophy.
&lt;/regurgitation_of_AP_government_class&gt;

(i'll probably edit this thing for clarity one of these days, but for now, i'm sleepy)

[ 11-18-2001: Message edited by: owenc ]</p>

Libertarian all the way. Do whatever the **** you want, so long as you cause no harm to anyone else.

[quote]I would think a registered green would take a more pro-socialist stance?<hr></blockquote>

You would, wouldn't you?
I would, too.

I'm confusing sometimes, sorry.

My literal political allegiance (Dem, Repub, blah) is fickle. I liked Nader as a person, I like people offering real alternative ideas. I like intelligent leaders. Bore and Gush sucked.

[quote]That depends on whether one believes that the work one does should benefit the whole, or the individual.<hr></blockquote>

Well human nature answers that question. You act for self, always. Even when you act for others it is usually mainly for yourself.

[quote]The united states has traditionally been very individualist.<hr></blockquote>

Amen. That is why we are #1.
Let's keep it that way.

[quote]I'm not saying one system is better than the other or anything.<hr></blockquote>

I am. Ours is better.

[quote] I'm just trying to clarify the difference between high tax / low tax philosophy.<hr></blockquote>

Yes, I understand the philosophies and agree with the basic premises of both, but I think it's just obvious that one translates to real world success while the other translates to happy feelings in coffeshop discussions.