It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hug A Republican

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2004 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by StrangeLands

You make a good point, Jethro, and perhaps I was too quick to dismiss you.

I have, in my time on ATS, had several meaningful discussions with Republican voters, and have learned much from the exchanges. I also agree that there have been a glut of threads recently of an accusatory and inflammatory nature. If my article has contributed to this tit-for-tat warfare, then I apologise. Perhaps we are all too quick to dismiss the opposing view, rather than considering it's potential merits.

Of course, I would also observe that your very first comment on this thread was "This is rediculous (sic) garbage" but I'm prepared to forgive and forget


Well, I appreciate your candor. I only want to try to start a unilateral front to slow the spreading tide that seems to want to turn ATS into Yahoo Chat (which would be a travisty).


But if the guiding principle of ATS is "Deny Ignorance", then I feel honour-bound to combat Republicanism - and it's watered-down equivalents in other countries - at every single step. Not, I hasten to add, in an effort to score political points or gain some measure of notoriety in these post-Colonel post-Mud Pit days, but because I believe that the story of civilisation is the story of mankind's rejection of everything Republicanism stands for. If we are ever to improve our world, we have no choice but to fight selfishness, small-mindedness, prejuidice, cynicism, greed, bigotry, idiocy, and most of all, we must fight the fear.


Well, I do think that might be a bit of your political leanings talking there. When it comes down to it, Republicans and Democrats are just people. And in truth, both sides do a piss poor job of explaining the WHY. They are really good at shooting retoric around, which for the conservatives makes us look bad and the libs look like Darma. The WHY, or reasons we want things to change or stay the same are more often then not understandable.

Republicans aren't the Huns, no one needs don battle gear to speak to them, although that seems to be the running theory around here.


Sincerely, this time, thanks for your contribution, KrazyJethro. You're right, we must embrace every opportunity to learn, because education is the surest means to defeat Republicanism in all it's forms.


Well, ignorance is not one sided. It is mearly the lack of information, not the views of political change or legislation.




posted on Jul, 10 2004 @ 06:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
Tell me strangelands what precisly do you think republicanism stands for.

Sorry for the delay in the reply - somehow, I missed your post, mwm1331!

Because I think another article would cause this thread to collapse under it's own weight, I'll try and keep this short and sweet. I suppose the simplest way would be to use your passionate and well-expressed declaration of Republicanism from earlier in this thread.



Originally posted by mwm1331
I am unafraid to say that those who work hard to become successful have the right to enjoy the fruits of thier labor.

The Republican assumption that anyone who succeeds in business, or in life generally, does so because of their own ability, skills, knowledge or hard work is fundamentally flawed. Moreover, the implied belief that any given citizen is better-placed to spend their money than governmental experts is blatantly ridiculous.

I believe that those who are dedicated, skilled or lucky enough to achieve success should share a larger proportion of their wealth with their country, than those who are less fortunate. No-one is suggesting the rich should be taxed into penury, and no-one is suggesting that the idle be given a free lunch. A compassionate, well-run and equitable tax-and-spend system benefits not just those who, by bad luck or adversity, have found themselves in a difficult position, but improves the general standard of public services, of the education and health systems, of public projects celebrating art and culture, and improves the economic, social and cultural life of the entire country.

We should take pride in the success of our society, not solely in our own success.



I am unafraid to say that those who are afraid of a good days work deserve to starve.

To dismiss those who are disenfranchised by society as "lazy" is to duck the real question. If you believe, as I do, that all people are fundamentally the same, then you must ask yourself why these people are the way they are. Then, by addressing these issues in a fair, compassionate, intelligent manner, these people can be reintegrated to society, and everyone benefits from their contribution.

And what, additionally, is the place of art in this capitalist maelstrom? In a society where people are constantly motivated by commercial success and paying the mortgage, art and cultural expression stagnates and you are left with a dozen Britney clones and an easily-consumable sound-bite pop culture. Great art takes time, and often yields no results in the artist's lifetime - should Van Gogh or Beethoven have "starved"?

I believe that those who are left behind should be motivated or educated, and that society benefits when thinkers and artists are liberated from the daily grind.

There are more important things than a paycheque.



I am unafraid to point out that all the white people responsible for slavery are dead.

But not, unfortunately, the white people who have been responsible for bigotry and the inherent formalised rascism found in business, the media, and politics. A glance at any of the statistics on educational achievment, life expectancy, average income, show that equality in America is nothing but an illusion.

I believe we shouldn't accept "close-enough equality". For as long as a child from an ethnic or religious minority has a lower chance of success in life than their white friends, the job isn't finished.

Who we are is more important that what we are.



I am unafraid to pont out that anyone who has ever experienced slavery in america is also dead.

But not, unfortunately, those people who have been the unwitting victims of the WASP hegemony.

One single incident of rascism is too many.




I am unafraid to say that those who commit murder deserve to be punished and that rehabilitation of carrer criminals is not possible.


No-one questions your assertion that the act of murder deserves punishment, but I believe that the true measure of a society can be found in it's treatment of it's criminals. Put simply, the killing of a human being, whatever their crime, is barbaric and primitive, particularly when adequate programs of rehabilitation can return many former criminals to society. Who amongst us has not made a mistake - sometimes, a terrible, heinous mistake - which we now regret utterly?

When we reject the possibility of rehabilitation because it is "too difficult" or "too expensive", we hark back to primitive times in which "an eye for an eye" was a considered, moral dispensation of justice. If we are to move beyond that - and we must - then we may leave no person behind.

I believe that our judicial process can rarely be one hundred percent certain, and that even in those cases where a criminal is clearly guilty and rejects the possibility of rehabilitation, we only maintain the moral authority to punish him or her if we do not sink to their station. If that person is not fit for re-entry to society, then it falls to society to punish that person, by incarceration, for the rest of their life. Emotion has no place in justice, and we must pay the price for our safety.

We must judge others fairly, rationally, and in a manner consistent with the tenets of civilised conduct.



I am unafraid to stand against the rising tide of liberalsm whch states that morality is subjective, murderers are victims, and that the victims of crime are responsible for creatng the criminals.

Conservativism, that tempting, easy path back into barbarism, will always reject a complicated, realistic view of the world.

I believe that morality is not black-and-white. We are required, morally and legally, to judge all people in the same fashion.

Simple definitions are rarely correct; we must seek deeper understanding.



I am unafraid to say that it is a mans (or womans) responsbilty to provide for thier own food, clothing and medical care despite knowing the liberals will brand me as a bigot.

The story of civilisation is the story of humanity's rejection of one simple belief - that I is more important than We. How can we call ourselves moral, or just, or civilised, if we ignore the suffering and hunger of those who, through no fault of their own, are unable to provide for themselves and their families?

I believe that society has the moral duty to provide to each person sufficient materials and food to meet their needs, and to offer them aid in whatever form is necessary, until that person is once again able to provide for themselves.

Compassion is a noble virtue.



I am unafraid to say that those who are on welfare are there because they are too lazy to support themselves.

What about those who are unfortunate? Those who have been made redundant in a marketplace driven by the interests of remote corporations? Those who have deep-seated physical or psychological illnesses which mean they are unable to work? Those who, due to prejuidice and bigotry, will not be given a job by middle-aged white America? Those who were not given the opportunities for education and improvement, or those who squandered those opportunities and have come to regret their decision? What about, in short, those who do not have a role to play in the Great American Workplace?

I believe that welfare serves a valuable function, as long as the ultimate aim of every person on welfare is to be off welfare. I have no more tolerance for laziness or apathy than you do - but, rather than cutting them off, I believe morality demands that we assist these people, giving them whatever aid we can until they can stand proudly on their own two feet. After all, isn't the symbolic gateway to your fine country inscribed with the words "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breath free"? Our respective countries should be places of opportunity and possibility, not inescapable poverty traps.

No-one should be left behind.


I am a republican BECAUSE I am unafraid and I have the strength to speak out against the growing culture of excuse, and denial of responsibilty.


On the contrary, Republicanism is, at it's core, an exclusive ideaology. It rejects the structures and benefits of society and civilisation, in return for a restricted world view in which you are the centre of the universe.

I believe that we must take responsiblity - but not just for ourselves and for those who are like us, but for every member of our society. We must take responsibility for those who languish on welfare due to illness, misfortune, or the lack of opportunity. We must take responsibility for every criminal, punishing offenders with equanimity and justice. We must strive, as a society, a community, and a civilisation, to improve the world around us. Every decision we take must be the best possible decision. Every action we take must be best possible action.

We can do better than this.

That, when it comes down to it, is the simplest declaration of my beliefs, and the most profound reason why I feel compelled to combat Republicanism in all it's forms. Republicanism teaches small-minded isolationism, hatred of others, and contempt for those who are unfortunate. It is mean-spirited and arbitrarily cruel and capricious.

I believe we can find a better path, that we can liberate people from the Fear, that we can do better than this.



Well, look at that, it turned into an article after all.

You'll notice, mwm1331, that I've excised certain portions of your reply - specifically, those dealing with abortion and religion. I don't think those have a place in political debate, but are matters of philosophy and faith. I will comment, however, that doing the right thing out of fear of God is no virtue - behaving well because you are compelled to behave well is still a selfish act. True goodness comes when you have free choice - and still choose the "right" course of action.

I hope, mwm1331, KrazyJethro, everyone, this post has offered some small insight into why I prowl this Pit, and why I think these things are so important.



posted on Jul, 10 2004 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by StrangeLands

Republicans are afraid.

Theyre afraid. Every minute, of every hour, of every day they are woefully, irrationally afraid.



Irrationally afraid?


After reading so many posts at ATS from people who, let's face it aren't voting Republican, all I can say is when it comes to being irrationally afraid, non-Republicans take the cake on that one! Some of the ridiculous examples of theories of conspiracy expressed continuously against the current administration are so out in left field (pun inteneded
) with no real basis in reality, I just wish some of you would put YOUR fear aside and get some real issues, or then again, a little proof would suffice.

No, I'd have to say first of all that this Republican is not "afraid" of any of the things you stated, and second of all that what many of you are afraid of is Republicans, to the point where it is just not rational.

By the way, excellent read/write though! I did enjoy it as a wonderful piece of fiction.



posted on Jul, 10 2004 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Hi, Relentless, and welcome to the fun.


Originally posted by Relentless
No, I'd have to say first of all that this Republican is not "afraid" of any of the things you stated, and second of all that what many of you are afraid of is Republicans, to the point where it is just not rational.


If you read my previous post on this thread, you'll see that I'm not afraid of Republicans in any way, shape or form. Republicans are just people who, through the corrupting influence of The Fear, believe morally dubious, small-minded things. I'm afraid of some of the things Republicans want to do, but I don't hold you responsible because you're merely victims of The Fear.

Did I exaggerate my point in order to make an entertaining article? Yes, of course I did. But the reason I wrote the article in the first place is that I genuinely believe that it's true. Republicanism - and the political Right in general - is defined by it's distrust, fear, and suspicion. What other deductive process can result in a Republican manifesto?

Seriously, I either have to conclude that you fear the world, or you just plain hate it!

I'd be interested in hearing your pitch for compassionate, optimistic Republicanism, if you're interested in making one.



Edit: repaired grammer collapse.

[edit on 10-7-2004 by StrangeLands]



posted on Jul, 10 2004 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by StrangeLands
I'd be interested in hearing your pitch for compassionate, optimistic Republicanism, if you're interested in making one.



Okay, if you read my post you will see that I am not afraid anymore than you are Granted this is probably not the case with most party people.

BTW - Would it be too much to confirm (noting your location) that you participate (vote) in the political system in this country?

Ultimately, I think at this point the only thing either group is afraid of is each other and it's getting a little ridiculous.

I do not vote Republican because of things I am afraid of. I vote Republican because of things I believe in (things a lot of Democrats are afraid of - don't need to get into it, we've all heard it before).

There are also some other less important to all of you reasons why I vote this way, not the least of which is, that every self made man I know who achieved the American Dream (came from nothing and built a successful life) places great importance in the fact that Republican administrations have always been better for them and their ability to achieve success. (I am not talking about corporate american success stories, and I am not saying there is no one who made something of themselves who doesn't feel the same way - I am just saying this is my experience, so let's not debate this).

Now for the silly reason which goes along with my experience. In my wild and crazy youth I felt I would never get myself out of my college dept to get ahead and it was making me pretty bitter. One night at a bar a total stranger, bombed off his butt, started discussing life with me and found me a very positive person. He questioned me about my attitude and asked me what bothered me. I told him about how I was angry this country doesn't let us educate ourselves without getting so in debt we can't get our feet on the ground for a decade afterward. (By then I still owed $10,000 - this was in the mid 80's)

This guy proceded to cut me a check to pay off my debt (Never saw him again by the way). His explanation was that life had been good to him and he wanted to pass it on but he attributed Republican administrations for giving him the chance to make it, having come from nothing. He had 3 conditions for this gift, never reveal who had given me the money, someday pass it on (please don't anyone solicite me over this
and always vote Republican. Honest Truth!

Hey, if a Republican could give a down and out kid living $1.00 away from homelessness at the end of every month a fresh start - well how bad can they be?

(Okay, I also don't want any speculation about if money was so tight what was I doing at a bar drinking, I was an adorable kid and never even had to compromise myself for a well deserved drink at the end of the day - LMAO)



posted on Jul, 10 2004 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Considering time, I would like to make a few comments Strangeland. I'll give you the bullet points.

1) Because we would prefer to retain control of our money rather than to let the government give to the needy (which is a bloated and ineffective system as it stands now) does not mean we are not charitable. It means we would rather not spend the 47 cents (personal est.) out of every dollar on government slush.

2) As for the "government experts" you speak of, they must be absent over here. As it stands, I would rather see it be done by local governments if it needs to be done at all. They are a) more easily accessable to the voters, b) better equiped to assess the need in their area, and c) would end up being more economical.

3) Because some conservatives are unable to be one with their humanity while speaking to liberals, does not mean we do things to be selfish and greedy.



posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Relentless
Would it be too much to confirm (noting your location) that you participate (vote) in the political system in this country?


If by "this country" you meant the US, then the answer is no. I'm a British citizen and an active political paticipant in local and national politics - though I would take pains to point out I am not a paid-up member of any political party or organisation. Before you leap on me for attacking an American institution when I'm nothing but a foreigner, I think that Republicanism is the purified form of conservativism in general, which, in my opinion, makes them fair game. wherever you come from I am not, despite what you'll read on other threads, a Democrat, a Socialist or a Communist - I'm just a concerned guy with strong beliefs and a big mouth.



I do not vote Republican because of things I am afraid of. I vote Republican because of things I believe in (things a lot of Democrats are afraid of - don't need to get into it, we've all heard it before).


Well, actually, I'm not sure we have heard it all before! The only thing I can think of that fits that description is gun control...


Now for the silly reason which goes along with my experience...


That's an interesting tale, and certainly says a lot for the integrity and generosity of your mysterious benefactor. As I said before, Republicans aren't bad people, they just believe crazy things. I only hope that you're in a position someday to pass it on.


Originally posted by KrazyJethro
1) Because we would prefer to retain control of our money...


Assume for a moment that you are indeed a charitable soul, who gives a healthy percentage of his income to those who are less fortunate. Can you say the same for your family? Your neighbours? The guy who runs the corner shop? What about the old-money family which runs the factory on the other side of town?

Society inevitably stratifies - no matter how egalitarain your laws and common morality, some people will be richer than others. This is particularly true in a dog-eat-dog capitalist culture like that of the US, since your success is often based on my failure. The policy of scaled contribution is the only fair method of financing public projects, the only fair method of allocating that money is for the wisest, most intelligent, most experienced people to make the decision on your behalf.

And as for "slush", you live in a democratic society. If money is being allocated to programs and projects you don't agree with, complain. Get involved. Make your case and start a debate.


2) As for the "government experts" you speak of, they must be absent over here...


As I said before, if any part of your government isn't performing as well as it should be, then it's your job to change things. Write letters, start campaigns, become more involved with local, regional and national politics, and, most importantly, vote. That is the price of democracy - any one who can't be bothered getting personally involved doesn't have the right to complain.

Your point on local government, however, is an interesting one. I agree that, in principle, local decisions are better taken by local government - but when you live in a nation as large as yours, a certain degree of federal co-ordination is only sensible. Would it make sense for each State to maintain their own tax infrastructures, armies or education systems? Of course not!

Mind you, it is somewhat absurd that more people will turn out to vote for a Presidential candidate that they've only seen on TV, than for the local mayor.


3) Because some conservatives are unable to be one with their humanity...


I agree enitrely, it's the attitudes to people on welfare, ethnic minorities and other people in general that make Republicans look selfish and greedy - but like I said before, it's not your fault, it's just the Fear talking.

In all seriousness, I'm not going to brand all Republicans nutters just because I've been flamed by some ill-informed morons here on ATS (present company sincerely excluded). Republicanism is based on selfishness, self-determination, and the importance of the Individual rather than the Society.



posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by StrangeLands
[The Republican assumption that anyone who succeeds in business, or in life generally, does so because of their own ability, skills, knowledge or hard work is fundamentally flawed. Moreover, the implied belief that any given citizen is better-placed to spend their money than governmental experts is blatantly ridiculous.


Just the indoctrinated drivel I would expect. Give the money to some government pinhead who has no vested interest, and whose "expert" talent could only land him... a government job! Do you think David Beckham would play soccer for the British Government? Why not? Because they couldn't "afford" his talent level, but the private sector has entities that will participate in an all out bidding war to secure his talents. Take driving a car, fast, very fast, seems like anyone should be able to do it... then why does Ferrari feel compelled to pay Michael Schumacher $36 million US dollars (plus the unbelievable perks) to do it (eighteen times a year at two hours a pop, you do the math and tell me if US athletes are overpaid). Because they want to win, and they value that commodity. The point being an individual is the best person to spend his or hers money because... drum roll please... they earned it! They have a vested interest, not an economics or accounting degree. Will some mismanage or spend their money foolishly? Absolutely, but they did it, and some will do it in a manner far wiser, and more profitable than any committee will, or government agency could ever conceive of. The Cold War demonstrated free market principles have absolute dominance over any permutation of Marxist ideals. The ridiculous ball is now in your court.



posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 10:38 AM
link   
Whadya know, Michael Schumacher won the British GP at Silverstone just moments ago, tenth win out of eleven races this season. Guess those "individuals" at Ferrari did have a clue as to what to do with their money. Vested interest breeds success. Success is the key to prosperity.



posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331

How do you define on the backs of the people working under them? If I own a business and pay my employees a fair wage am I still succeding on thier backs? Does anyone who has an empoyee succeed on that employees back?



FAIR WAGE!!!!!!!! How the hell are you supposed to live off of 6 dollars an hour and your rent is about 1000 a month. Give me a break!!! Can you saw enron!!!!!! Yea they were real fair!!!!


Originally posted by mwm1331

I am unafraid to say that many white people still hold prejudices and consider those of a different color as inferior.


Prejudice is not confined to white or any other ethnic, religous, or social group. Yes there are many ignorant whites who feel this way, just as there are many ignorant blacks who hate whites. Prejudice is not the question the question is are blacks in this country still disadvantaged?


That's right justfy one wrong with another, you will really make your point now!!!!!
according to statistics posted by another member of ths board



Percentage of African-American adults in 1960 who had completed high school: 20.1%

Percentage of African-American adults in 2002 who had completed high school: 78.7% (U.S. Department of Education)


Now you can move on up the ladder at BK and Micky D's. Knew that diploma would come in handy.




Number of black elected officials in the United States in 1970: 1,469

Number of black elected officials in the United States in 2000: 9,040 (Joint Center for Political Studies)

Number of black judges in the United States in 1970: 209

Number of black judges in the United States in 2000: 686 (Joint Center for Political Studies)




Humm...It seems the number of tokens has increased since the volitale 60's and 70's. We should be happy that people like clarence thomas are in office!!!!!! Yes masa I be real good!!!!



Percentage of all white households with incomes of $50,000 who own stock or stock mutual funds: 79%

Percentage of all black households with incomes of $50,000 who own stock or stock mutual funds: 61% (Ariel Mutual Funds/Charles Schwab

I do not see any proof that blacks in this country are still disadvatged. while I agree that affirmitive action and racial quotas were once needed they have done there job and as a result no longer are.




Don't black make up 7% of the country so that would be 61% of 7 % right?



posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mirthful Me
Just the indoctrinated drivel I would expect.


This is what we refer to, ladies and gentlemen, as the "heartsink moment". Sometimes, if you get your hug in real quick, you can stem the flow of right-wing bile, but it's a dangerous process. I'd recommend that, if faced with someone in an advanced stage of Aggressive Republican Rant, you retire the nearest Starbucks and wait for the torrent to subside.


Give the money to some government pinhead who has no vested interest, and whose "expert" talent could only land him... a government job!


Some of us - y'know, people who aren't miserly and small-minded - feel that someone who serves the public deserves our applause, our respect, and a decent salary. Some of us - people who aren't self-absorbed and ignorant - feel that a career dedicated to the good of the nation is a noble thing. Some of us - people who aren't money-grabbing hoarders - feel that some things are more important than money.


Do you think David Beckham would play soccer for the British Government?


Well, no, probably not.


Why not?


Primarily, I suspect, because they don't have a football team.


Because they couldn't "afford" his talent level, but the private sector has entities that will participate in an all out bidding war to secure his talents. Take driving a car, fast, very fast, seems like anyone should be able to do it... then why does Ferrari feel compelled to pay Michael Schumacher $36 million US dollars (plus the unbelievable perks) to do it (eighteen times a year at two hours a pop, you do the math and tell me if US athletes are overpaid).


Firstly, I don't believe that, even in the United States, the primary concern of Government is sport. Secondly, if the government did run sports events, wouldn't it pretty dull with only one team? And thirdly, of course, there's the argument that governments couldn't afford to pay Schumacher his utterly ridiculous salary because they have better things to do with the money.

It may shock you to discover that football and motor racing are not important. If Beckham can't get his breathtakingly, sickeningly overblown paycheque at the end of the month, who suffers? If, on the other hand, Republican selfishness takes even more money out of American schools, libraries and museums, the entire nation is the poorer for it.


The point being an individual is the best person to spend his or hers money because... drum roll please... they earned it!


Let me get this straight - the best person to invest in public services is an average person with no special qualifications, association, experience or interest? What a revelation!

When your car breaks down, Mirthful, do you go up to someone in the street and ask them to fix it, or do it take it to a qualified mechanic? When your shower leaks, do you call in a plumber or dial the first number that comes into your head and commission some guy called Barney who works at Toys R Us to come and fix it?

Here's an interesting thought - perhaps "experts" know more than you do.


The Cold War demonstrated free market principles have absolute dominance over any permutation of Marxist ideals.


And, to finish up, the simplistic Republican belief that anything which doesn't result in an immediate tax cut is Marxist.


Thanks, Mirthful, for a highly efficient post which made my argument for me in a very small space. With luck, an enlightened liberal is on his way over to you right now with his arms spread wide...



posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by StrangeLands
Some of us - y'know, people who aren't miserly and small-minded - feel that someone who serves the public deserves our applause, our respect, and a decent salary. Some of us - people who aren't self-absorbed and ignorant - feel that a career dedicated to the good of the nation is a noble thing. Some of us - people who aren't money-grabbing hoarders - feel that some things are more important than money.


Typically, those on the public dole feel this way; those of us that fund government sanctioned wealth redistribution see it as something else. This isn't a cheap shot at those in the service of any government (I spent eight years in the U.S. Navy myself), but an indictment of those that feel only the government can do it best.



Firstly, I don't believe that, even in the United States, the primary concern of Government is sport. Secondly, if the government did run sports events, wouldn't it pretty dull with only one team? And thirdly, of course, there's the argument that governments couldn't afford to pay Schumacher his utterly ridiculous salary because they have better things to do with the money.

It may shock you to discover that football and motor racing are not important. If Beckham can't get his breathtakingly, sickeningly overblown paycheque at the end of the month, who suffers? If, on the other hand, Republican selfishness takes even more money out of American schools, libraries and museums, the entire nation is the poorer for it.


The use of sports was an effort to simplify the dynamics of economic decisions made with the best interests at heart (succeeding). The government (any government) does not have this inherent quality, this is why there is waste, and corruption (oddly enough the only "efficient" form of government spending because some one DOES have a vested interest).



Let me get this straight - the best person to invest in public services is an average person with no special qualifications, association, experience or interest? What a revelation!


The best person to create a service is one who recognizes a need (market), and develops a way of providing that service (or product) in a self-sustaining, profitable manner. This is called Capitalism, and it works... so well in fact that the better part of the Socialist world is moving towards it. I know it is probably more comforting to think that a plan is all laid out by "Big Brother", and all is taken care of, but take a brave step and enjoy the fruits of your own labor as opposed to the government "gruel" handout. Just a little "fear" of your own to get over.



When your car breaks down, Mirthful, do you go up to someone in the street and ask them to fix it, or do it take it to a qualified mechanic? When your shower leaks, do you call in a plumber or dial the first number that comes into your head and commission some guy called Barney who works at Toys R Us to come and fix it?


Thanks for making my point, I do go to some one "on the street", it's called a business, and they won't be part of the government, and they will be qualified. In fact they will probably stand behind the work they have done (try and get a government to stand behind their "work", guarantees you would not want to test) because they "value" their reputation. "Vested interest" at work, yet again.



Here's an interesting thought - perhaps "experts" know more than you do.


Sophomoric vitriol at it's best, of course I'm not personally "all knowing", no one ever is, but I'll count on the people that have made it in the real world long before I'll consider a government hack. It's a matter of personal philosophy, I embrace freedom, and all the responsibility that comes with it; others find that the security of oversight, and the lack of ultimate fiscal responsibility is desirable... too each his own, but don't mandate or penalize (tax) me for disagreeing.



And, to finish up, the simplistic Republican belief that anything which doesn't result in an immediate tax cut is Marxist.


The simplistic view that all a Republican wants is a tax cut is yet another liberal mantra that just isn't true. Conservatives want responsible spending on services that ARE the responsibility of the government. Deregulation of certain services in order to provide a more competitive environment so that private enterprise can flourish. Tort reform so that companies are not exposed to ridiculous levels of legal sanctions (the government does this on their own behalf).



Thanks, Mirthful, for a highly efficient post which made my argument for me in a very small space. With luck, an enlightened liberal is on his way over to you right now with his arms spread wide...


I cant wait, I have "enlightened" my share of liberals in my day, with luck she'll (I can't believe you wrote his) be as huggable, etcetera, as in the past.



posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mirthful Me
Typically, those on the public dole feel this way; those of us that fund government sanctioned wealth redistribution see it as something else.


Would it disillusion you awfully to know that I am in full employment and contribute my share of taxes? I see "government sanctioned wealth redistribution" as a mechanism by which the inherent flaws in a capitalist society can be addressed in a compassionate, equitable manner - and if my community, both local and national, benefits from my extra 5% tax bill, then I consider it money well spent.


The use of sports was an effort to simplify the dynamics of economic decisions made with the best interests at heart (succeeding)...


The "best interests" being the accumulation of wealth by squeezing every penny you can from the public. I don't object to the nuts and bolts of capitalism - indeed, healthy competition and fewer regulations are beneficial to all - but capitalism is not the solution to every question. There are some things - education, art, culture, conservation, basic infrastructure, environmental initiatives - which are not best served by companies who's only interest is in the bottom line.


The best person to create a service is one who recognizes a need (market), and develops a way of providing that service (or product) in a self-sustaining, profitable manner.


On the contrary, the best person to create a service is - and pay close attention to this - the person who best understands what is required. Do you really want the basic fabric of our society in the hands of snake-oil salesmen who consider it a success when they fabricate something slightly inferior but significantly cheaper than the competition? Capitalism works fine when you're talking about buying shoes or noodles, but I for one don't want my children to be educated in a school operated by a company dedicated to cutting back every possible expense in the name of profit.

Some things, Mirthful, are worth losing money on.


Thanks for making my point, I do go to some one "on the street", it's called a business, and they won't be part of the government, and they will be qualified.


Exactly. You wouldn't expect an average person to be able to fix your car, or perform a tonsilectomy - why do you think that an average person can rationally and constructively choose how to spend their noncollected taxes to benefit society?


Sophomoric vitriol at it's best, of course I'm not personally "all knowing", no one ever is, but I'll count on the people that have made it in the real world long before I'll consider a government hack.


Once again, you'll trust someone who's entire aim in life is to suck as much money as possible from you, the dumb consumer, before you'll trust a qualified, independant, impartial expert? I realise now that I forgot a fear from my original article - of all the Republican prejuidices, the unfounded fear of intelligence is the most sickening.


The simplistic view that all a Republican wants is a tax cut is yet another liberal mantra that just isn't true. Conservatives want responsible spending on services that ARE the responsibility of the government.


Yes, yes, and you reduce the areas for which the government is responsible, thereby reducing overall expenditure, thereby reducing your tax bill. The mechinism is clear for all to see. Seriously, Mirthful, if you're going to pursue economic and social policies which reward the grasping skinflint, then at least be honest about it.



(I can't believe you wrote his)


Why can't you?



posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 04:57 PM
link   
I only have one thing to add. Considering some think working for the government doesn't pay a fair wage (which is fairly true), they also seem to think that "experts" work for the government.

That strikes me as odd, because the military is having a hard time getting doctors and dentists to work for them because the money is better in the private sector.

I also think that there is a lot of "Most people are poor and only some have lots of money" which is not true. We are not modeled after the USSR.

There are lots of people making good money.

It basically comes down to this. Both systems are fine, if you want to live like that ( and some people do, and some don't). But if the reason you take from people through taxation to redistribute is because we can't "trust" people to be charitable on their own, or because they won't do it as well as the federal government, then I say that is untrue.



posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro


I also think that there is a lot of "Most people are poor and only some have lots of money" which is not true. We are not modeled after the USSR.

There are lots of people making good money.



Here's something to add....... www.infoplease.com...

Poverty and income check it out.......



posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueLies


Here's something to add....... www.infoplease.com...

Poverty and income check it out.......


What's your point, that I'm wrong? About 90% of people have more than they need. That seems pretty good to me.



posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 04:18 AM
link   
Strangelands-
The democratic assumption that all those who succeed financially do so by lieing, cheating and stealing is patently ludicrous. The fact is yes most of those who make it do so as a result of thier own intelligence, effort and skill. I am living proof. in 1997 I was homless, as the result of a series of financial setbacks I lost my small apartment and found myself living in a public park, sleeping on a slide and giving myself a whores bath in the restroom. Many people would have (and do) given up in this situation, others would have looked to the government for a hand out. I did neither. Instead I worked, I worked at day labor, I worked part time I worked untill I had saved enough for a small efficiency. I pulled myself up by my bootstraps as it were. Today I am one of those people in the top 10% of incomes. I have a hgh school G.E.D. and no formal college education, Yet through self education I now work as venture capatalist and make well over 100,000 per year. It wasnt easy but nothing worth doing is. I began as a salesman, moved on to broker trainee at a small brokerage firm. During the days I worked as lead generator for a senior broker at nights I worked as a waiter. After working 5 days a week from 9:00 in the morning to 11:00 at night I would spend another 3-4 hours night studting for the series 7 exam. After I was licensed I would work from 9:00 in the morning to 10:00 at night in my office and then spend another 3-4 hours night educting my self on economics, finance, markets, debt, and taxes so as to become more qualified. eventually even though I had no formal education I was able to prove that my self-education made me more qualified than my collegues who had attendeed Ivy league schools. I am now the vice president of an interntional V.C. group. and have personally brought several companies public on various exchanges. So yes I do believe that the vast majority of those people who achieve financial succcess do so on thier own efforts and by thier own work. The fact is that anyone and mean ANYONE black or whte male or female can become wealthy in america IF they are willing to put forth the effort. The idea that a black man or a woman has "the deck stacked against them" is rubbish. Its an excuse plain and simple. Do people need help sometimes yes, but thier is difference between a hand up, and a hand out. I believe the government should fund job training, skills training and the like to help people provide for themselves not food and rent. when the government pays for a mans food and rent it teaches that man that he does not have to work becuse the government will take care of him, job trsaining on the other hand teaches a man a skill which will help him contribute. to paraphrase an old saying
Teach a man to fish and you will feed him for life, give a man a fish and you will make him a beggar for life.
As for your "when artists and thinkers are liberated from the daily grind" statement I could not disagree more. Why should an artist be any less responsible for his welfare than anyone else? Does the fact that a man can paint when I cannot make him better than I? Is he more useful to society? Artists will always create art. Painters will paint and sculpters will sculpt. Whether they have to work or not will not make a difference. To say that art needs to be funded by the government is drivel if his art is good and people want it he or she will make a living if he or she cant maybe there is a reason for it.


I believe we shouldn't accept "close-enough equality". For as long as a child from an ethnic or religious minority has a lower chance of success in life than their white friends, the job isn't finished.


But why not go further than that? As long as a poor child has less chance than a rich child the job isnt finished. But wait, the rich have always had an advantage over the poor so we have to abolish personal wealth. But the job is still not done because smart people have an advantage over dumb people and since we can't make people smarter how about forced brain surgery to bring everyones intelligence down to the same level? But wait studies have shown that tall people have an social advantage over short people so mandatory amputations are in order and since attractive people have an advantage over ugly people maybe we need to disfigure the attractive.
While it may seem like an overexaggeration these are the logical outgrowths of the idea of taking away an advantage to one to "even out" the whole.
Instead of taking money away from the rich to redistribute the wealth, how about insuring that children get a good enough education that they can be competitive. You want to know how to end discrimination in the workplace? Make minorities competitive enough that regardless of his personal belefs the employer has to hire the minority because to not do so, will hurt his business. Allow his self interest to determine the matter Harness his greed to overcome his prejudice. You see there will always be people who hate others for irrational reasons and there is NOTHING we can do abut it because even if you want to you can not regulate thought. The democratic approach tries to force people to believe what is right by legislating racial quotas in the workplace, which actually perpetuates the racism. By forcing an employer to hire a given number of minorities it sends the message that those minorities can not compete on a level field and in a capitalist society those who are believed to be uncompetitive are. Rather than spending money to reinforce the perception that minorities are uncompetitive that money would be better spent making suer ehey AREN'T. You want to give minority children a chance give them a chance teach them to read and write, teach them deductive and inductive reasoning and teach them the difference between the two. Teach them to be leaders and innovators rather than beggars and check cashers. That is what I call compassion Dont support them today, teach them today how to support themselves tommorow. Minorities are just as smart and just as motivated (in some cases more so) as whites and to say that they aren't good enough to compete is the most destructive form of racism imaginable.


But not, unfortunately, those people who have been the unwitting victims of the WASP hegemony.


I dont believe in some vast white conspiracy to keep all others down sorry.


One single incident of rascism is too many.


How do you define incident? Is a man thinking the "n" word? Is it a man denying opportunity? how far can we go practially?


Conservativism, that tempting, easy path back into barbarism, will always reject a complicated, realistic view of the world.


The world is complicated, knowing the difference between right and wrong isn't. turn off the opinions and dogma and just listen, god talks to us all day every day, in fact he is never quiet, you just have to learn how to listen.



The story of civilisation is the story of humanity's rejection of one simple belief - that I is more important than We. How can we call ourselves moral, or just, or civilised, if we ignore the suffering and hunger of those who, through no fault of their own, are unable to provide for themselves and their families?

I believe that society has the moral duty to provide to each person sufficient materials and food to meet their needs, and to offer them aid in whatever form is necessary, until that person is once again able to provide for themselves.

Compassion is a noble virtue.


Society does in america, there are want ads, employment agencies, day labor agencies, government job training, night school, correspondance courses, community colleges, libraries, hell that crazy guy lesko with the question marks on his shirt has made a living just gathering all the different programs into a single book, and while most of the people who need the help can't afford the book, the information can laso be found in almost any library or online if you expend the energy required to look. The fact is whle society has always helped those who needed it it is a modern idea to help those who won't help themselves.
www.cnn.com...
Society evolved because we took care of the old but can you imagine our ancestors allowing a healthy man or woman to do nothing? Why should we allow it today? While I agree we should help the people who genuinely need it, those that are unwilling (not unable) to help themselves deserve no help. A hand up not a hand out remember?
I believe in job traning, educational resources, and unemployment insurance (since you had to have had a job in the first place to collect) Not food rent and clothes.


On the contrary, Republicanism is, at it's core, an exclusive ideaology. It rejects the structures and benefits of society and civilisation, in return for a restricted world view in which you are the centre of the universe.

I believe that we must take responsiblity - but not just for ourselves and for those who are like us, but for every member of our society. We must take responsibility for those who languish on welfare due to illness, misfortune, or the lack of opportunity. We must take responsibility for every criminal, punishing offenders with equanimity and justice. We must strive, as a society, a community, and a civilisation, to improve the world around us. Every decision we take must be the best possible decision. Every action we take must be best possible action.


No one can be responsible for anyone but themselves. The first thing a drug treatment councilor will tell you is no one who doesn't want to quit will. No one can be helped if they are not willing to help themselves. I reconise that society, the we you keep referring to is actually a collection of I's each with its own worldview, beliefs and petty (and sometimes not so petty) evils. Some people will laways be poor, some people will always be stupid, and some people will always hate. By recognising this basic truth, that all men and women are sinners, we can create a society which harness the negative aspects of human nature in a way which strengthens and supports the whole while at the same time discouraging as much as possible the expression of the darker side of human nature. Which is in truth the only thing we can regualte or control as a society. The rules of society are only supposed to stop negative behavior they can not cause positive behavior in individuals, only the Individual himself can. The fact is the more open and less restrictive a society is the more self regulated it will be by nature. Competition will insure it.


Republicanism teaches small-minded isolationism, hatred of others, and contempt for those who are unfortunate. It is mean-spirited and arbitrarily cruel and capricious.


On the contrary my friens republicanism as I know it, much like the christianity whos ideals have so influenced it, Is a phlosphy of inclusion, of connection, and respect for all Humans. There is room for all at the republican tbale the difference is we only let those eat who helped crete the bounty whether it was by raising the food, making the plates, cooking, cleaning or paying the bill. Just dont sit on your ass all day and then knock on the door.


I will comment, however, that doing the right thing out of fear of God is no virtue - behaving well because you are compelled to behave well is still a selfish act.


and giving to the poor because it makes you feel good isnt? Marching to save the rinforst because it mkes you feel good isn't? The fact is all generosity is selfish,we do it because it makes us fell good. As for being a god fearing man I'm sorry but you apparently don't have the sophistication to understand that term, it doesn't mean what you think it does.



posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
That strikes me as odd, because the military is having a hard time getting doctors and dentists to work for them because the money is better in the private sector.


This is true, but very easily rectified. Decent investment in public services - including higher salaries for public servants - is the first stage in buildng liberal utopia.



There are lots of people making good money.


Oh, well, that's okay then. Just out of curiosity, how many is "lots of people"? And more importantly, how many is enough? Is it okay when everyone in your family is making a decent wage? How about everyone you know? One in ten people in America is officially living below the poverty line! How can you, in good conscience, claim that there isn't a problem?



It basically comes down to this. Both systems are fine, if you want to live like that ( and some people do, and some don't). But if the reason you take from people through taxation to redistribute is because we can't "trust" people to be charitable on their own, or because they won't do it as well as the federal government, then I say that is untrue.


The idea that a well-educated, well-paid public servant is better placed to co-ordinate public spending than the average guy in the street is so staggeringly obvious that I'm surprised Republicans are even denying it. But, I suppose, when you fear the government, when you fear intellectualism, and you fear the people your money will be spent to help, it must be a lot easier to close your eyes and pretend you're still living in a land of opportunity.

If Republicanism works at all, it only benefits those who manage to manipulate the system to their own advantage. It perpetuates class and ethnic inequality, and leads to a conservative culture and a regressive outlook.


Originally posted by mwm1331
The fact is that anyone and mean ANYONE black or whte male or female can become wealthy in america IF they are willing to put forth the effort. The idea that a black man or a woman has "the deck stacked against them" is rubbish.


How, then, do you explain the well-documented disparity between white and non-white levels of education and income? Are you suggesting, perhaps, that all non-whites are inherently lazy or less capable?


To say that art needs to be funded by the government is drivel if his art is good and people want it he or she will make a living if he or she cant maybe there is a reason for it.


Oh dear. Mwm1331, when commercial success is the most important thing an artist has to think about, they inevitably turn to bland, mass-market products just so they can pay the bills. That is the reason that American culture is currently swamped with vast numbers of indistinguishable teenage girls selling the same insipid album over and over and over again. That is the reason that television and movies spew forth the same exhausted ideas every night. That is the reason that the most talented artists of our age work for Hallmark.

If you accept that art has an inherent value which enriches society - and we like to call that civilisation - then you must concede that art as a slave to the market is a disgusting, offensive waste. The simple truth is that creating pieces of art - whatever medium you work in - is a time-consuming, difficult process, in which success is never guaranteed. And what of philosophy, of theology, of morality? The great thinkers of our age are forced to prostitute themselves by writing insipid paperbacks catering to the lowest common denominator. Why is it, do you think, that we have no Descartes or Tchaikovsky, no Wittgenstein or Wordsworth? It's because they're too busy turfing out movie posters and advertising jingles, or writing the newest self-help book.

I'm saying this so often I should just add it to my signature: There are more important things than money!


But why not go further than that? As long as a poor child has less chance than a rich child the job isnt finished. But wait, the rich have always had an advantage over the poor so we have to abolish personal wealth.


Why is it, I wonder, that Republicans bring everything back to the contents of their wallets?

For the record, mwm1331, I've never suggested a communist system in which all wealth is the property of the people; I'm more interested in getting rid of the inequitable advantage conferred by that money. Why should Dubya get a place at Yale just because money talks? What of the innocent person who should have had that opportunity?

I find it highly amusing that Republicans advocate this type of financial aristocracy while, in the next breath, they talk of opportunity and freedom.


Instead of taking money away from the rich to redistribute the wealth, how about insuring that children get a good enough education that they can be competitive


A case in point: explain to me, please, how one can guarantee a positive, effective education for all children, if Republican tax cuts have crippled public services? How do we truly ensure that no child is left behind, when the schools everyone has access to are teaching from twenty-year-old textbooks?

Y'know, mwm1331, the problem with competition is that one person wins, and another person loses. Republicanism is based on this kind of dog-eat-dog medieval nonsense! Surely, in this day and age, we can look beyond "mine" and see the value of "our"?


Minorities are just as smart and just as motivated (in some cases more so) as whites and to say that they aren't good enough to compete is the most destructive form of racism imaginable.


I ask again - how, then, do you explain the documentary evidence which tells us the average black man is going to earn less throughout his entire career than the average white man?


I dont believe in some vast white conspiracy to keep all others down sorry.


I didn't say "conspiracy", did I? I said "hegemony". I'm not suggesting that white men and women are perpetuating their dominance deliberately, but rather that action is not being taken by all quarters of society to change the inequitable status quo.


The fact is whle society has always helped those who needed it it is a modern idea to help those who won't help themselves.


There is a marked difference between "won't" and "can't", mwm1331. I would expect someone in your professional position to be aware of it. I'm not suggesting that those who genuinely choose not to work should be supported on welfare - but that doesn't mean that everyone who needs help is a slacker or a layabout. Did you end up homeless because of your own stupidity and failure, mwm1331, or was it just bad luck?

Some people may need more help than you did. Some people may have more responsibilites than you did, or take longer to get back on their feet. Does that mean they "won't" work? Does that mean they are undeserving of our assistance?


Some people will laways be poor, some people will always be stupid, and some people will always hate. By recognising this basic truth, that all men and women are sinners, we can create a society which harness the negative aspects of human nature in a way which strengthens and supports the whole


That would be the Fear talking, then. I'm curious - from where do you get the moral authority which allows you to dismiss entire layers of society in the name of your personal profit and prosperity? And how do you "strengthen the whole" when you are willing to sentence whole areas of your society to inescapable poverty? Or are you merely expressing your inalienable Republican right to make a buck by screwing the poor?

I don't believe that we are all sinners. I don't believe that any person is "automatically" evil, or stupid, or ignorant. The difference between us, mwm1331 - indeed, the difference between Republicanism and Liberalism - is that you are happy to succeed at the expense of others.

I, and others like me, think that it is well within the capability of humanity to make things better for everyone. We'll remove the barriers to education, and we'll remove the ingrained ignorance and the accepted inequality. We'll ensure that every person has the chance to make the best of themselves, and that they'll do it in the context of a compassionate, enriched society. We'll achieve all these things, and we'll truly have transcended our primitive roots.

And we'll start by hugging Republicans.



posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Strangelands I am very disappinted in you, especially for that last comment. You are not a sinner? You have never once in your entire existance comiited a sin? You have never once lied? you have never once struck someone in anger? The fact is all people have negative qualities and if you dont recognise that then there is something wrong. All people can act like both beasts and enlightened persons depending on circumstances and situations. To say that you or anyone else is without sin is ludicrous.


How, then, do you explain the well-documented disparity between white and non-white levels of education and income? Are you suggesting, perhaps, that all non-whites are inherently lazy or less capable?


No I am suggesting that many minorities simply never bother to try becuse they have been indoctrinated to believe that they cant win. They have been told that they WILL make less and WON"T be allowed to advance and so they settle for less. The first step to being competitive is believing you are.


Oh dear. Mwm1331, when commercial success is the most important thing an artist has to think about, they inevitably turn to bland, mass-market products just so they can pay the bills. That is the reason that American culture is currently swamped with vast numbers of indistinguishable teenage girls selling the same insipid album over and over and over again. That is the reason that television and movies spew forth the same exhausted ideas every night. That is the reason that the most talented artists of our age work for Hallmark.

If you accept that art has an inherent value which enriches society - and we like to call that civilisation - then you must concede that art as a slave to the market is a disgusting, offensive waste. The simple truth is that creating pieces of art - whatever medium you work in - is a time-consuming, difficult process, in which success is never guaranteed. And what of philosophy, of theology, of morality? The great thinkers of our age are forced to prostitute themselves by writing insipid paperbacks catering to the lowest common denominator. Why is it, do you think, that we have no Descartes or Tchaikovsky, no Wittgenstein or Wordsworth? It's because they're too busy turfing out movie posters and advertising jingles, or writing the newest self-help book.


And is there any reason why an artist can not both work and create art? Einstein devolped his theroy of relativity while working as a patent clerk surley a painter can paint after work?


Why is it, I wonder, that Republicans bring everything back to the contents of their wallets?

For the record, mwm1331, I've never suggested a communist system in which all wealth is the property of the people; I'm more interested in getting rid of the inequitable advantage conferred by that money. Why should Dubya get a place at Yale just because money talks? What of the innocent person who should have had that opportunity?

I find it highly amusing that Republicans advocate this type of financial aristocracy while, in the next breath, they talk of opportunity and freedom.


Because democrats keep demonsing us for wanting to keep it. nd yes there is a very good reason why George W. Bush should get a place at Yale due to money. Because his father wanted it that way and he was the one who made it. Don't I as a parent have a right to pass on the benefits of my work to my chldren? Don't you? Doesn't everybody?


A case in point: explain to me, please, how one can guarantee a positive, effective education for all children, if Republican tax cuts have crippled public services? How do we truly ensure that no child is left behind, when the schools everyone has access to are teaching from twenty-year-old textbooks?

Y'know, mwm1331, the problem with competition is that one person wins, and another person loses. Republicanism is based on this kind of dog-eat-dog medieval nonsense! Surely, in this day and age, we can look beyond "mine" and see the value of "our"?


Simple by spending less on welfare, enforcing racial quotas, and affirmative action .And yes in competition there are winners and losers, and there always will be because competiton is a part of all life on earth. We compete every day for jobs, mates, and social standing. Always have always will. Further more competition is good for the whole if t wasn't why would we have passed so many anti-trust laws?. The more competitive a society is the stronger that society is.


There is a marked difference between "won't" and "can't", mwm1331. I would expect someone in your professional position to be aware of it. I'm not suggesting that those who genuinely choose not to work should be supported on welfare - but that doesn't mean that everyone who needs help is a slacker or a layabout. Did you end up homeless because of your own stupidity and failure, mwm1331, or was it just bad luck?

Some people may need more help than you did. Some people may have more responsibilites than you did, or take longer to get back on their feet. Does that mean they "won't" work? Does that mean they are undeserving of our assistance?


Yes as a matter of a factI did end up homeless because of my own failures, how else would I have gotten there? What you fal to understand s that most of those n welfare don't NEED the support. Most are healthy adults of average intelligence, who chose to cash a government check and pay wth foodstamps because it is easier than working. Though there are those who really do need the help (as I know better than most having volunteered at a group home for mentally handicapped adults which paid for all of its groceries with food stamps) most don't. I'm sorry but when a woman or man who has never worked a day in thier life is having children that we have to support that is wrong. Give them up for adoption or better yet use protection and birth control so you don't have them in the first place.


That would be the Fear talking, then. I'm curious - from where do you get the moral authority which allows you to dismiss entire layers of society in the name of your personal profit and prosperity? And how do you "strengthen the whole" when you are willing to sentence whole areas of your society to inescapable poverty? Or are you merely expressing your inalienable Republican right to make a buck by screwing the poor?

I don't believe that we are all sinners. I don't believe that any person is "automatically" evil, or stupid, or ignorant. The difference between us, mwm1331 - indeed, the difference between Republicanism and Liberalism - is that you are happy to succeed at the expense of others.


This is what dissapointed me the most strangelands because t is beneath you. Quoting me out of context to prove your pont is not the reasoned behavio I have come to expect from you. I never dismissed a whole layer of society. The fact is that most (not all) but most of those on welfare are there because of thier own choices, mindset, and behaviors. And poverty is never inescapable untill you believe it is. The day you stop trying, stop fighting thats when it becomes inescapable. and while It could be said (though just as erroneuosly) that I once made my living screwing the rich I have never screwed anyone least of all the poor, after all the are poor because they dont have money. I dont believe that all people are automatically ignorant, stupid, or evil either but we ALL have the capacity to act in that manner. Many would, if not taught differently, gladly steal from others. Again this myth of "succeding at the expense of others" why do you assume tht the only way to become rich is by "screwing the poor" and "at the expense of others" have you ever considered that is is far easier to become rich by creating value than by stealing it? Look at the difference between I.B.M. and Enron one was a flash in the pan because it defrauded and debased its cstomers and investors the other has been juggernaut for 50 years now because it created value for millions. The I.B.M.s of this world outweigh the Enrons by a factor of hundreds to one.


I, and others like me, think that it is well within the capability of humanity to make things better for everyone. We'll remove the barriers to education, and we'll remove the ingrained ignorance and the accepted inequality. We'll ensure that every person has the chance to make the best of themselves, and that they'll do it in the context of a compassionate, enriched society. We'll achieve all these things, and we'll truly have transcended our primitive roots.


How will you remove the barriers to education, when your policies send the message that minorities arn't as smart.? How will you remove the ingrained ignorance when your positions reinforce it by sending the message that minorities have to be forced upon empoyers because they arn't good enough to get the job on thier own? How will you stop the accepted unequality when you are creating a legislated unequality? How will you ensure that people even want to make the best of themselves if as soon as they do you take away thier hard won privaleges?

I agree that much more must be spent on education in America but the best way to come up with the money is to cut the monies wasted elsewhere. And the best way to insure equality of opportunity is to improve both the educational systems as well as the economy after all in a rising tide all ships rise. Give men pride, tell them that they are as good or better as anyone else and then sit back and watch them prove you right. Tell them that they are lesser, even by inference, and god forbid if they beleve you they will also prove you right. Whether you beleve you can get a good job, and be successful or not you are right. Whether you believe that you will be poor all of your life or not you are right. And as for luck, No I don't believe in bad luck, I believe that there are temporary setbacks but no defeats. Those who are succesful aren't successful because they had better luck they are successful because of they way they chose to look at the circumstances they were presented with and they way they dealt with it.


Read think and grow rich and you will understand.



posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
Strangelands I am very disappinted in you, especially for that last comment. You are not a sinner?


I have never tried to present myself as perfect, mwm1331. I am very aware of my own failings and, while I do not accept the notion of religiously-defined "sin", I have done things which I regret. What I object to is your idea of "original sin", and your categorisation of people as automatically and, more importantly, irretrievably evil, stupid or corrupt. But, since this, and your attitude to abortion, are articles of your faith and not of your politics, I don't propose to get into that particular debate here.

I will say, mwm1331, that I dd not deliberately take your statement out of context, I believed it to be genuinely representative of your viewpoint. Anyone who read my post is at liberty to go back and read your original statement, and come to their own judgement on the matter.


No I am suggesting that many minorities simply never bother to try becuse they have been indoctrinated to believe that they cant win.


Well, that's easily rectified, isn't it? Invest in the education system, and forcibly remove the Golf Club mentality that keeps ethnic people and women out of the upper echelons of Corporate America - and before you classify this as a rant on the merits of affirmative action, all I'm suggesting is introducing measures which ensure that the best person gets any given job, that the smartest person gets the promotion, that the best qualified, most capable person ends up in the big chair. If, as you suggest, the American workplace really is free from prejuidice and bigotry - and every single set of statistics I've ever seen say you're wrong - then you can have no objection to transparent recruitment and promotion procedures, can you?

The suggestion that desperate, talented, qualified people who are excluded from the workforce because of their ethnicity are believing themselves poor is abhorrent, mwm1331. The disparity of income is true regardless of background, peer group or education. A black man who grows up in a prosperous neighbourhood, goes to a good school, goes to a good college, and still earns less than his white colleagues doesn't think he's less deserving - he's just a victim of the status quo!


And is there any reason why an artist can not both work and create art? Einstein devolped his theroy of relativity while working as a patent clerk surley a painter can paint after work?


This is a common misunderstanding. Yes, Einstein came up with the fundamental ideas which underpin his great scientific achievments while working as a patent clerk, but he would have been unable to contribute as much as he did towards our understanding of the universe if he had been forced to continue worrying about paying off his mortgage. Also, with respect, science and art are very different - Einstein needed one sudden flash of insight to realise the fundamentals of relativity, but Beethoven or Schubert required many, many hours of exhausting, draining effort to craft a symphony.

Of course artists can work and create at the same time - but you end up with the daubings of amateurs, not the perfection of a masterpiece. Which would you rather bequeathe to your children, and the cultural heritage of your country?


Because his father wanted it that way and he was the one who made it. Don't I as a parent have a right to pass on the benefits of my work to my chldren? Don't you? Doesn't everybody?


So Daddy Bush decrees that Junior can attend a school which he had no chance of getting into on academic merit, thereby depriving a more deserving student of the chance of a place at Yale. Mwm1331, your country was founded on hard work and individual achievment - how, exactly, does perpetuating a spoiled, undeserving aristocracy help you in your pursuit of the American Dream? Each person should be judged on their own merits, not on the merits of their families - and particularly not on the size of their trust fund.


Simple by spending less on welfare, enforcing racial quotas, and affirmative action


So you think that racial quotas and affirmative action are good ideas, despite believing that there is no inherent inequality in the workplace? Affirmative action is one of the greatest frauds ever perpetrated - it tricks the public into thinking that rascism is being tackled, by allowing corporations to hire the bare minimum number of ethnic workers and proclaim proudly to the world that hey are "doing their bit". It's crap. Make the processes transparent, let's see just why the son of the CEO's golf buddy gets the job instead of the young hispanic graduate.


Further more competition is good for the whole if t wasn't why would we have passed so many anti-trust laws?. The more competitive a society is the stronger that society is.


This is true when you're talking about retail or the service industries, but not when you're talking about people's lives! For one person to "win" in a Republican society, another person has to lose. Does that sound like an enlightened, modern culture to you? Does that sound like a good place to live and bring up kids?

The saddest thing about this aggressive, capitalist culture is that it's just not necessary. So many of society's ills are based on the fact that we are indoctrinated with the idea that we have to make our own futures, that we have to beat the other guy to the great job, that we have to get that great contract by fair means or foul, that we have to cheat and slime our way up the corporate pole, lubricated by the slime of our own sycophancy. We have to compete, we have to outperform the guy in the office next to ours, we have to be stronger and more ruthless than the people who work at the other firm, we have to sacrifice our families and work longer hours for less money all in the name corporate profit...

It's crap, mwm1331. It really is. We don't need to compete. The "high standards" and "efficiency" which are the result of capitalism can be achieved just as easily by an intelligent assesment of the situation by people who are qualified to make the judgement. You can benefit because society benefits. Instead of competition, we can embrace community and civic responsibility.

But for that, of course, the Right are going to have to get over their fear of intellectualism.


The fact is that most (not all) but most of those on welfare are there because of thier own choices, mindset, and behaviors.


That's not the first time you've referred to that "fact". Do you have any evidence to support your case? In this country, where our welfare system is much more generous and well-established than in the US, there are a tiny minority of people who will try and spend their lives on government hand-outs - a tiny minority. I have gone through periods of unemployment in my life - through no fault of my own, I hasten to add - and I have been grateful that my society is compassionate enough to ensure that I do not starve when circumstances have laid me low. When that happened, I was desperately keen to get off welfare and back into work, shich I managed in a short space of time. Now I pay my share of taxes so that other people who find themselves in the same situation can also be helped back on their feet. In the past, I worked for an organisation which offered administration services and legal aid to groups run on a voluntary basis, and I saw a great deal of poverty and desperation first-hand. These people, mwm1331, are not lounging around waiting for their next cheque from the government. They are fighting tooth and nail to survive each day, to provide for their families with a modicum of dignity.

Of course, it's always easier to pretend that those who are suffering do so because of their own failures and weaknesses, isn't it? That way, you can avoid feeling guilty about the sickening poverty which afflicts your neighbours.


How will you ensure that people even want to make the best of themselves if as soon as they do you take away thier hard won privaleges?


For the second time, mwm1331, I'm not suggesting that private wealth be taken under state control. All I'm talking about it a higher tax rate, which means that those who can afford it will be called upon to donate a higher proportion of their wealth to the good of the nation. I'm not suggesting that the rich be taxed into penury, I'm suggesting that those who can afford it assist those who aren't as fortunate.


And as for luck, No I don't believe in bad luck, I believe that there are temporary setbacks but no defeats.


That, I'm afraid, is nothing short of niave. Bad things happen all the time, mwm1331, and sometimes the bad things are so numerous and so heinous that there is just no way back without assistance.

I appreciate the advice you offered at the end of your post, so I'll reciprocate with some of my own.

Get off the corporate treadmill. Talk a walk around your town. Go a church or a community hall in an impoverished area. Meet people. Donate your time to a worthy cause. Get some perspective.

And let go of the fear.

You'll feel better, and so will everyone around you.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join