Nonstopdrivel wrote:

What have the poor ever done for you?

The poor are the underbelly of society, the sticky glue of everyday workings.. the folks that work multiple minimum wage jobs, the jobs that most folks think beneath them. Without out them, the rich wouldn't have the comforts of keeping their hands clean.

Not all poverty earning people have their hand out... most don't have the time for such an act.. they are too busy working to keep the lights on and food in the fridge.

And from those of us that rose out of poverty versus those that went from their fathers house to the frat house to the office chair; there is an enormous difference in how we think, treat others, and conduct our lives.

DakotaT wrote:

And from those of us that rose out of poverty versus those that went from their fathers house to the frat house to the office chair; there is an enormous difference in how we think, treat others, and conduct our lives.

On the flip side, I agree with you. There's more respect for those who made it themselves versus those who inherited it.

I was just speaking from experience that it's a heck of a lot safer being around rich folks than poor folks, and my biggest criticism of the poor is two fold:
1) they don't take education seriously,
2) they tend not to believe in free will

Those who do take education seriously tend to do well. But in the ghetto, they will be mocked and hated. Among the upper middle classes and upper classes, people who take education seriously are the norm.

Formo - Yes. I can't stand Kiyosaki. He's very anti-intellectual and has education envy. Statistically, those with higher education have a much higher net worth than those without. Are there the drop outs who excel? Sure. They're a minority.

Kiyosaki does though have some excellent points. I'll give him that. The seven levels of investing is spot on. I've been a gambler without knowing it and the way it described me was perfect. It took reading that and losing a ridiculous amount of money to realize I was an idiot and move to level 4.

I also like how Kiyosaki convinces the reader that being rich is attainable.

John T Reed's brutal analysis of his faults:
johntreed.com/Kiyosaki.html

So yeah, read the first book and Cashflow Quadrant. But with a grain of salt. Kiyosaki talks out of his ass a lot and some of his advice is downright illegal.

zombieslayer wrote:

DakotaT wrote: And from those of us that rose out of poverty versus those that went from their fathers house to the frat house to the office chair; there is an enormous difference in how we think, treat others, and conduct our lives. On the flip side, I agree with you. There's more respect for those who made it themselves versus those who inherited it. I was just speaking from experience that it's a heck of a lot safer being around rich folks than poor folks, and my biggest criticism of the poor is two fold: 1) they don't take education seriously, 2) they tend not to believe in free will

Many are defeated before even trying and that is directly tied to their culture. And this is an American problem. We do not create an even playing field for our youth to excel; hell, we don't even try to.

And I find it appalling for politicians in both parties to exploit the poor by offering better welfare for votes; and I also find it appalling that politicians on the other side exploit the working poor for their votes by pointing the finger at the the welfare recipients and saying we'll change that and take the welfare away. Meanwhile both parties are nothing but fatcats themselves, answering to wealthy PACS. The whole system isn't right, but until the lower classes actually get some representation in Washington, nothing changes.

But as Wade said 99% of us are better off than most of the world.

zombieslayer wrote:

I was just speaking from experience that it's a heck of a lot safer being around rich folks than poor folks, and my biggest criticism of the poor is two fold: 1) they don't take education seriously, 2) they tend not to believe in free will Those who do take education seriously tend to do well. But in the ghetto, they will be mocked and hated. Among the upper middle classes and upper classes, people who take education seriously are the norm.

Ghetto verse rural America is different. Not all poor people are gang bangers or residents in the projects. Just as La Crosse/Wisconsin is different than swank parts of Dallas, New York or LA.

I call at least 20 people either family or friends that have a net worth of more than a million.. and they live differently every one of them... some have the eye on maintaining and growing their wealth.. some are comfortable just living it out.. it is an individual thing.. not a class thing.

I also know a ton of middle class to lower class (income wise) folks.. some are just as savvy, just as driven as some of those worth millions.. and just as conservative. There are also those that, like our government, live beyond their means.. but it has little to do with their income class.

My grandfather.. owned a small farm and worked on the railroad full time.. raised 11 children.. lived an unassuming life.. didn't have a pot to piss in when all the children were young.. poor as dirt.. however when he passed... his net worth was over 1/2 million dollars between stocks, liquid cash and real estate. After the last child graduated school in 1971.. he build his net worth and none of us had a clue of just how much he was worth.. not a clue.

Yet he, according to some, did nothing for this earth or society and never proved his worth.

You could walk into his house and never in your wildest dreams believe that he was worth that type of cash.. and he would have flipped to watch the infighting over his estate by a couple members of his family in the cash grab.

I could talk about 'Pep' Simek and how he rose to dominate his sector of the food world.. and how some of his children have miss managed their lives growing up with money.. yet Pep is one of the most savvy and unassuming folks you could ever meet.

It is all about the individual.. their goals and values.. not their net worth.

pack93z wrote:

It is all about the individual.. their goals and values.. not their net worth.

I have to say "Amen!" to this bit.

I'm probably as guilty as the next guy in lumping people into categories. I'm in a profession where, for a long time, that has been part of the job description. Scholarship in the social sciences has for some time now lived by its categorization. I remember back in graduate school, you couldn't do a thesis in social history unless you were willing to divide all/part of your analysis by the triumvirate of "race, class, gender."

And teachers....well, teachers love to put students into categories -- A students and C students. Students from the Midwest and students from foreign countries. First years and seniors. Etc. Etc. Etc.

I'm convinced that if current insittutions of higher ed in the USA are to have a future, it'll require us to focus on treating our students as individuals. (How we'll do that with a load of 80 or 300 students a semester I have no idea, but that's another question.) But the inertia is something terrible.

When, after much soul searching, I decided to return to the classroom last fall, I made several resolutions of the "I'm going to do it the right way, regardless of what idioicies "everyone else" is doig. One of these resolutions was committing myself to focusing on individual students.

What I failed to realize, however, is just how much of an uphill battle that would be. Just how many of those individuals want the old system. I don't know whether its because of their culture, their upbringing, their prior education/babysitting/stroking by parents, teachers, and social workers, or because of sunspots and MSG. I do know, however, that I've never had student evaluations any worse than I had last year. And I know that, based on an extensive assessment exercise I did in addition to the college's standard forms, I was damned ineffective at communicating what I was trying to communicate.

Even though I was consciously trying to "reach" students as individuals, I wasn't getting it done.

Interestingly, this is also how I've always tried to deal with "the opposite sex". Or did when I was younger, anyway. With very little success.

Hmmm.

Pack - Good point about the rural. My word, I've been so far removed from the rural scene that I didn't even think about it.

But back to the ghetto, the majority of people are good people. Scared, but good. They want to do the right thing.

The problem is you have an undercurrent of class envy where every time you try to get ahead, there's someone who wants to bring you down.

Wade - I almost went for a degree in Sociology. That's where I learned all about Class and I'm still convinced that Class matters more than Race, even though nobody ever talks about Class and this country talks Race to death.

Generalizations exist because they're generally true. However, there are always exceptions to every rule and as long as people realize that, it's all good. I don't get offended by generalizations at all, even when they hit me. What I do get offended by is when it's a physical threat. For example, asshole cops when I'm just trying to get from point A to point B and I got the wrong skin color. Not at all fun.

If we talk about it on an intellectual level, it's no physical threat to me so I don't care. In fact, I find it interesting.

There are exceptions to every rule... even this one.

Coming from the farming life I'm used to the live poor die rich life but rural people are a special breed that aren't very dependent on money. I like the quote " Take away a man's money and his true wealth will be revealed"

zombieslayer wrote:

I always passed on girls with fake ones. They don't feel right. They don't move right. Etc. Yuck.

I respect you but you're full of it. If she wanted to lock you in a room and have wild sex with you for 5 straight days, you would jump all over it. Any non-gay man would.

I guess I'm not straight then. Fake boobs are a total turnoff to me.

Nonstopdrivel wrote:

I guess I'm not straight then.

Well, if you would turn down Kardashian, I might have to agree. I accept you either way bruther.

I don't find her attractive. Yes, in that one snapshot she has a pretty face, but I've seen plenty of pictures in which I didn't find her face attractive at all. And let's face it: her ass is disproportionately, almost grotesquely, large. I am a total ass man, but even for me, asses have to be proportionate to be attractive.

Nonstopdrivel wrote:

I don't find her attractive. Yes, in that one snapshot she has a pretty face, but I've seen plenty of pictures in which I didn't find her face attractive at all. And let's face it: her ass is disproportionately, almost grotesquely, large. I am a total ass man, but even for me, asses have to be proportionate to be attractive.

Sorry man, any man who doesnt find the following attractive is gay. But no worries, it's ok to be gay.

I'm glad you like heavily Photoshopped women, but I prefer mine in flesh and blood, thank you very much.

There's nothing about that face that appeals to me, the boobs are much larger than I like, and I'm into slim legs, not thick ones.

That being said, would my dick get hard if she grabbed my crotch? Hell, yes.

Nonstopdrivel wrote:

I'm glad you like heavily Photoshopped women, but I prefer mine in flesh and blood, thank you very much. There's nothing about that face that appeals to me, the boobs are much larger than I like, and I'm into slim legs, not thick ones. That being said, would my dick get hard if she grabbed my crotch? Hell, yes.

hmm, slim legs, small boobs, cuter face. Does the pic below appeal more to you?

I'm planning to shoot my girlfriend on the shores of Lake Michigan this weekend. If the shots turn out well, I'll share one or two to give you an idea of my type. (Think slim, athletic, long hair, ass to die for. . .)

Assuming she gives permission of course. She's a conceited little bitch, though, so I doubt she'll have a problem with it.

Gravedigga wrote:

Nonstopdrivel wrote: I don't find her attractive. Yes, in that one snapshot she has a pretty face, but I've seen plenty of pictures in which I didn't find her face attractive at all. And let's face it: her ass is disproportionately, almost grotesquely, large. I am a total ass man, but even for me, asses have to be proportionate to be attractive. Sorry man, any man who doesnt find the following attractive is gay. But no worries, it's ok to be gay.

I'm not gay (and actually think there's nothing whatsoever wrong with being gay - I wish more men were, less competition). I find her completely unattractive. There were better looking girls at my college.

The only place where there aren't better looking girls is at my last 2 jobs because I work as a software engineer and the girls there tend to be hideous. The job before that had a better looking girl in my department surprisingly and a few better looking ones in finance and human resources.

Honestly, you need to get behind a photoshoot one day. You'd be surprised just how plain these models are before make-up and you'd give a thumbs up to the make-up person and also to the photoshop person. Those people can be miracle workers. Let's not forget the photographer who knows how to avoid bad angles and get all the right angles so you don't see model's bad sides.

--

As for fake boobies, I've felt dozens of them. Don't like 'em one bit and yes, I'd kick them out of bed. I have high standards. A woman has to impress me, not the other way around.

This video says it all and is a perfect illustration of why I don't trust the final products of professional photo shoots:



Watch the movies Gothika or Monster's Ball to see how fine the between gorgeous and ordinary is.