Bush Vs Kerry Discussion

24

Comments

  • camel_fetuscamel_fetus Join Date: 2004-08-12 Member: 30547Members
    <!--QuoteBegin-JimBowen+Sep 15 2004, 12:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (JimBowen @ Sep 15 2004, 12:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->i.e. the lazy rich are making money of the hardworking poor.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    Of all the "rich" families or people I know, not a single one is lazy but are the exact opposite; determined, perseverant people. They worked 6 days a week on many occassions and also worked 12-15 hours days. As a result, their hard work paid off and they reaped the benefits and consequently were able to slow down and take it easier. This is by no means lazy though.

    However, a very small percentage of the rich individuals have not worked at all for their money (Paris Hilton) but instead inherited it. Nevertheless, her father or grandfather, whichever built up the hotel empire, most likely worked his **** off. BTW I live very near Fairfield country which is one of the richest counties in the country.
  • JimBowenJimBowen Join Date: 2003-05-30 Member: 16873Members, Constellation
    <!--QuoteBegin-camel fetus+Sep 15 2004, 02:21 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (camel fetus @ Sep 15 2004, 02:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-JimBowen+Sep 15 2004, 12:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (JimBowen @ Sep 15 2004, 12:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->i.e. the lazy rich are making money of the hardworking poor.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    Of all the "rich" families or people I know, not a single one is lazy but are the exact opposite; determined, perseverant people. They worked 6 days a week on many occassions and also worked 12-15 hours days. As a result, their hard work paid off and they reaped the benefits and consequently were able to slow down and take it easier. This is by no means lazy though.

    However, a very small percentage of the rich individuals have not worked at all for their money (Paris Hilton) but instead inherited it. Nevertheless, her father or grandfather, whichever built up the hotel empire, most likely worked his **** off. BTW I live very near Fairfield country which is one of the richest counties in the country. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
    I never described rich people as lazy, I was describing what happens in the novel animal farm.
  • Pepe_MuffassaPepe_Muffassa Join Date: 2003-01-17 Member: 12401Members
    Slicky hit on something that I belive deserves some clarification. His argument (if I understand correctly) is 2 fold.

    1). Bad circumstances are the primary cause of poverty.
    2). We help people in need because it is good for society

    First of all, I don't belive that bad circumstances is a good fall guy for being poor. Individuals are still responsible for their actions. Unless you are physically dependent on someone else (too young or disabled in some way) you have NO excuse for not being able to make money.

    Second, being "good for society" is not a trump card reason. In fact, being a darwinist, good for society would mean letting the weak die off, so as to further the natural selection process. No, you help the weak because it is the moraly right thing to do.
  • camel_fetuscamel_fetus Join Date: 2004-08-12 Member: 30547Members
    <!--QuoteBegin-JimBowen+Sep 15 2004, 03:08 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (JimBowen @ Sep 15 2004, 03:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I never described rich people as lazy, I was describing what happens in the novel animal farm. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
    ohhh, I see... <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif' /><!--endemo-->

    Well in that case you're right.
  • slickyslicky Join Date: 2004-09-15 Member: 31723Members
    <!--QuoteBegin-Pepe_Muffassa+Sep 15 2004, 03:18 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe_Muffassa @ Sep 15 2004, 03:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Slicky hit on something that I belive deserves some clarification. His argument (if I understand correctly) is 2 fold.

    1). Bad circumstances are the primary cause of poverty.
    2). We help people in need because it is good for society

    First of all, I don't belive that bad circumstances is a good fall guy for being poor. Individuals are still responsible for their actions. Unless you are physically dependent on someone else (too young or disabled in some way) you have NO excuse for not being able to make money.

    Second, being "good for society" is not a trump card reason. In fact, being a darwinist, good for society would mean letting the weak die off, so as to further the natural selection process. No, you help the weak because it is the moraly right thing to do. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
    Darwin wasnt foolish enough to say that the death of the weak was universally beneficial to the group. Often times people who are "weak" in some respect have great merits in another respect, but the merits are not such that aid their survival in a straightforward respect. Think how many brilliant artists, writers, scientists, musicians we might never have known with the introduction of hard-line capitalism. People in artistic fields are typically poor, or barely getting by. The artists who ARE succesfull, are the people who are commercially viable like Britney Spears (who doesnt qualify as an artist anyway.) My point wasnt about morality, and i stand by my words. Pure capitalism destroys all culture but consumerism, thats the greatest loss.
  • illuminexilluminex Join Date: 2004-03-13 Member: 27317Members, Constellation
    <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Think how many brilliant artists, writers, scientists, musicians we might never have known with the introduction of hard-line capitalism. People in artistic fields are typically poor, or barely getting by. The artists who ARE succesfull, are the people who are commercially viable like Britney Spears (who doesnt qualify as an artist anyway.) My point wasnt about morality, and i stand by my words. Pure capitalism destroys all culture but consumerism, thats the greatest loss. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    Wrong.

    A poor artist can still be just as great an artist if he didn't waste his money on excess and instead invested it wisely. Many of those artists did not just focus on their art, but also threw rediculously large parties. You don't have to be an entrepeneur to do well off of capitalism. You simply need to use your capital to create more capital. If said artist invested (there are many low risk investments) then overtime, as he continued to profit from his work, he could create more capital through investing his profit.

    Not all great artists are from the poor socio-economic ladder either.

    The consumerism we have today is a product of the average person not being willing to invest. A consumer not only "consumes," but also does not produce back. The consumer simply works for a producer. If most "consumers" would stop being so damn lazy and either start investing in a producer or becoming a producer, the evil consumerism you so despise would disappear.

    Oddly enough, everytime Bush vs Kerry is brought up, it ends up, in a serious debate, coming down to Capitalism vs Socialism(which is a watered down form of Communism). The two groups will never agree, because they see two different worlds.

    The Capitalist: Everyone has the same oppurtunity, even though few will take it. Monetary inequality is inevitable, because there is choice.

    The Socialist: There is no real oppurtunity, and therefore nothing to be taken. Monetary equality is therefore ensured, because there is no choice.
  • WheeeeWheeee Join Date: 2003-02-18 Member: 13713Members, Reinforced - Shadow
    <!--QuoteBegin-JimBowen+Sep 15 2004, 12:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (JimBowen @ Sep 15 2004, 12:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You have totaly missed the point. Animal farm is a political satire about socialism. The pigs come up with the line 'some are more equal than others' because they want to screw over the other animals, and reap the rewards of the others hard work for themselves. i.e. the lazy rich are making money of the hardworking poor.

    You may notice at the end where the pigs are sitting around smoking cigars and laughing (they start to look human). They are not being forced to help the poor. They are just plain exploiting them. A trend which Orwell noticed in society. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
    I didn't miss any point. Animal Farm is a satire about socialism, yes, but more specific I think that the line "some animals are more equal than others" is a description of socialism itself, at its root, not the result of the pigs being out to screw the other animals.

    Notice how the pigs are the only animals not to produce something; instead, they take everything else that everyone produces and redistribute it to themselves. By themselves, the other animals could have produced enough to be comfortably well off.

    That was my whole point all along: socialism is a fundamentally flawed system because you *aren't* forced to help the poor. You're only forced to help the poor if you produce something, which is inherently an unequal, unfair, and unworkable proposition.
  • NessNess Join Date: 2002-12-17 Member: 10935Members, Reinforced - Onos
    So guys, what do you think? Bush or Kerry?
  • JimBowenJimBowen Join Date: 2003-05-30 Member: 16873Members, Constellation
    <!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Sep 15 2004, 05:11 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Sep 15 2004, 05:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-JimBowen+Sep 15 2004, 12:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (JimBowen @ Sep 15 2004, 12:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You have totaly missed the point. Animal farm is a political satire about socialism. The pigs come up with the line 'some are more equal than others' because they want to screw over the other animals, and reap the rewards of the others hard work for themselves. i.e. the lazy rich are making money of the hardworking poor.

    You may notice at the end where the pigs are sitting around smoking cigars and laughing (they start to look human). They are not being forced to help the poor. They are just plain exploiting them. A trend which Orwell noticed in society. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    I didn't miss any point. Animal Farm is a satire about socialism, yes, but more specific I think that the line "some animals are more equal than others" is a description of socialism itself, at its root, not the result of the pigs being out to screw the other animals.

    Notice how the pigs are the only animals not to produce something; instead, they take everything else that everyone produces and redistribute it to themselves. By themselves, the other animals could have produced enough to be comfortably well off.

    That was my whole point all along: socialism is a fundamentally flawed system because you *aren't* forced to help the poor. You're only forced to help the poor if you produce something, which is inherently an unequal, unfair, and unworkable proposition. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
    Again, uve TOTALY missed the point. So much so it hurts.
  • WheeeeWheeee Join Date: 2003-02-18 Member: 13713Members, Reinforced - Shadow
    again, i missed nothing. i know the book's a parallel/parody of the stalin dictatorship, and i know what the line was originally meant to convey.

    I'm just taking it a step further. is that wrong?
  • Marine0IMarine0I Join Date: 2002-11-14 Member: 8639Members, Constellation
    <!--QuoteBegin-JimBowen+Sep 16 2004, 02:43 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (JimBowen @ Sep 16 2004, 02:43 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->

    <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
    <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Marine 01, don't you feel that as a Christian, your extreme right wing views conflict with your religious beliefs? I mean, you support wars, you believe in capitalism, and your seem to support the divide between rich and poor. Also you sig describes socialism as cyanide? The principles of socialism talk of equality between all men, and working for the common good. Its not the ideals of socialism that are flawed, its mans inherent nature to override its principles that cause its down fall. Read George Orwell's 'Animal Farm'<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    Well the only thing you mentioned there that concerned me was support for war.

    As early as April last year I didnt believe Christians could fight at all. <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=45071&st=30' target='_blank'>Here was my thread about it</a>. Then I met a pastor who had the idea that God had used wars in the past, eg using WW2 to save the Jews from the Nazi's and bring about a Jewish state, so I've decided that war is justified for Christians. Twex also made some pretty solid points in that thread above that I've come to agree with.

    In terms of capitialism - God wasnt all for financial equality. He supported kings, he made people like Job rich beyond belief. God's attitude towards wealth wasnt it must be distributed 100% equally - it was "To those whom much has been given, much will be expected". The Bible talks about treating others as better than yourself, not as equals - and even that is an individual challenge, and definately not something you should force on someone else through legislation. Marixist Socialism is poison - it hates my God, it hates my country, it hates my countries allies, it hates our economic and political freedom, it is purely materialistic, it pretends to offer security and delivers tyranny. Socialism and Christianity have nothing to do with each other.

    <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As a Christian should you not be against the murder that takes place in war? Should you not be striving for equality between people? Should you not believe in better living conditions for the poor? You seem to come across as, a Darwinist in the political sense, that survival of the fittest should take place in society. Poor people can't simply get rich by hard work; it?s an illusion of the American dream. Go watch Arthur Miller's 'The death of a sales man'.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    Killing in war is not murder - God ordered the Israelites to fight and kill many times in the Old Testament, and he wouldnt do that if it automatically made them murderers. I do not agree with deliberate screwing of the poor in business, or in any form of tax dodging or cheating, but I do not and will not buy the claim that the poor are stuck where they are because of money. Some of them are completely destitute and I agree that they should be helped. If you cant buy food, then you cant go to school/work - those people need help. Joe Shmo who works at a Burger Joint and spends his life on a couch in front of a tv with a beer between shifts does not deserve my support.

    I used to deliver advertising to mailboxes in my city of Rockhampton in Queensland, Australia. The area I was covering was the poorer area of town. Some houses were very well kept, lawn mowed, windows shut etc. Some had no door, no curtains in the windows, beer cans strewn around the yard, TV blaring inside, with the adult hurling obscenities at some kid who would hurl em straight back. One day my brother said to me "You ever notice that in all those beaten up crappy houses - every single on of them has a satellite pay tv arial?" And he was right - paytv is relatively rare in Australia (about 30% of the pop have it), but they ALL had it. Some people wish to live in the mud, wasting money on luxuries, complain about their crappy jobs and blaming the government. I have no sympathy for them.

    You cant just take any old job and work hard at it and get somewhere. There are ZERO opportunities for promotion in my job as a vet nurse - which is why I'm only working part time while I study at uni to become a vet. You just need the drive to get an education. Poor people generally lack that.

    On topic - Bush or Kerry? I dont know much about Kerry, but I absolutely LOVE Bush, so I'd pick him any day of the week.
  • TofumasterTofumaster Join Date: 2004-04-10 Member: 27829Members
    Marine01, your views of chiristianity seemed to be based on christianity on earth throught the ages, not the bible. Christians should not support war because it violates one of its most fundamental rules, also, god did not support kings - it only seems so because corrupt popes and kings did a long time ago.

    Also, alot of the old testament should not be used to prove points literally, much of its content is, well, hateful, and contridicts alot of the core substance of the new testament, which, should probably take higher importance than the old.

    Also, your generilization of poor people at the end, is just wrong.


    On topic - Bush is a fool, go Kerry, he's not Bush.
  • Marine0IMarine0I Join Date: 2002-11-14 Member: 8639Members, Constellation
    edited September 2004
    <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Marine01, your views of chiristianity seemed to be based on christianity on earth throught the ages, not the bible.  Christians should not support war because it violates one of its most fundamental rules, also, god did not support kings - it only seems so because corrupt popes and kings did a long time ago.

    Also, alot of the old testament should not be used to prove points literally, much of its content is, well, hateful, and contridicts alot of the core substance of the new testament, which, should probably take higher importance than the old.
    <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    I like to believe my Christianity - like most Fundamentalists, is heavily Bible based. The question of war is something I've struggled with as I said, God used war all the time in the Old Testament, and that's the same God as the New Testament. But everything in the Old Testament is either aimed at the Jews or has relevance for Christians, but through the lense of the New Testament.

    Again I put to you the example of World War Two. If every Christian on this Earth had refused to participate, I'm fairly confident the outcome would have been vastly different, with either Hitler or Stalin left standing in Europe. God clearly didnt want this, and countless Christians participated both actively in the killing and the war effort. Both Stalin and Hitler hated Gods chosen people (the Jews), and it seems to me like he used both agnostic, atheist and Christian alike in either bringing them down or containing their influence. God hates evil, and these men were evil. Fighting for your own selfish means is undoubtably wrong, but fighting for the liberty of others - that cant be wrong, and I wouldnt participate in any religion that outlawed it.

    I dont believe any of the content of the Old Testament was hateful - it is a history of God and his people. Anything God ordered in the Old Testament automatically becomes valid and justified, including war. If God exists, then he makes the rules regarding things like this. I agree the New Testament takes higher priority than the OT, but the OT is there for a reason. I see no contradictions between the two, and I wouldnt be a Christian if I did. God supported King David, God supported King Solomon - and these were rich guys.... clearly equaling out the wealth wasnt the major thrust of the old testament.

    Turn the other cheek is a directive not to lash out if attacked - you cant turn the other cheek for someone else. Which is why I didnt support the Iraq war on the basis of getting revenge for 911, but to provide the Iraqi's with a future vastly superior to Saddam and sons.

    <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
    Also, your generilization of poor people at the end, is just wrong.
    <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    I make no apologies for those comments. They are grounded in real world experience, and I will not ever have sympathy for this kind of "poor" people. People who need food, who need shelter, who need medical aid - these are the poor, these are the people that need all the support we can offer. Anyone else can become anything they want in our society, provided they have the ability and the drive.

    <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->On topic - Bush is a fool, go Kerry, he's not Bush.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    Oh the irony.
  • WheeeeWheeee Join Date: 2003-02-18 Member: 13713Members, Reinforced - Shadow
    <!--QuoteBegin-Tofumaster+Sep 16 2004, 03:13 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Tofumaster @ Sep 16 2004, 03:13 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Marine01, your views of chiristianity seemed to be based on christianity on earth throught the ages, not the bible. Christians should not support war because it violates one of its most fundamental rules, also, god did not support kings - it only seems so because corrupt popes and kings did a long time ago.

    Also, alot of the old testament should not be used to prove points literally, much of its content is, well, hateful, and contridicts alot of the core substance of the new testament, which, should probably take higher importance than the old.

    Also, your generilization of poor people at the end, is just wrong.


    On topic - Bush is a fool, go Kerry, he's not Bush. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
    care to back up those statements? i think you've just gone against the understanding (which, i admit, may be flawed - but not likely) of several bible-thumping christians <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->

    no, God did not 'support' kings: He allowed the jews to take one because they insisted on it. But, because Israel was his nation, he would defend Israel in battle. In return, he ordered them to wipe out many countries that served pagan gods.

    That said, war is a tricky thing, and it may be the case that Christians shouldn't participate in any given war. But, I believe that is not something that is prohibited.

    Btw: generalization of poor people is not "just wrong." There are some who are poor because of bad circumstances. But what I've observed is that people who are chronically destitute are that way by their own doing.
  • KarriNKarriN Join Date: 2002-11-03 Member: 6617Members
    edited September 2004
    <!--QuoteBegin-Pepe_Muffassa+Sep 15 2004, 01:59 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe_Muffassa @ Sep 15 2004, 01:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Hmm, free education, a good job if they want it (military), continued education through the military (paid for by tax dollars).  That sounds like a pretty good leg up in life to me - and yet you see this as a negative thing? 

    America has long been a land of opportunity - equal opportunity, and just because some people are fortunate / rich doesn't mean that they have to pay the way for the unfortunate / poor. 
    <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    It's really interesting that you see learning to kill other people and risking your life as a "good job". And from what I've read, the US military pretty much has free hands once you've signed up. Soldiers having to stay in Iraq much longer than they've signed up for, soldiers not actually getting their full pay...

    And the part about America having equal opportunity for everyone is plain bull****. Equal opportunity would mean that everyone putting in the same effort should be able to reach similar goals or similar quality of life. Instead many people can hardly support their living, let alone get themselves education.

    The only kind of country to have equal opportunities to everyone would have to be some sort of communistic utopia with 0% corruption, which, as we know, is rather unlikely to happen.

    -K
  • Marine0IMarine0I Join Date: 2002-11-14 Member: 8639Members, Constellation
    Its not 100% equal opportunity - but its opportunity for the masses. A few people lose out, which is inevitable, and everyone else either wins, or has the chance to win but lack the effort.

    This is a lot like laughing at people who use cars to get around the city - cars arent the greatest form of transport around, but they work for a lot of people, and the alternatives don't cut it.
  • TofumasterTofumaster Join Date: 2004-04-10 Member: 27829Members
    <!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+Sep 16 2004, 03:44 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Sep 16 2004, 03:44 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
    I make no apologies for those comments. They are grounded in real world experience, and I will not ever have sympathy for this kind of "poor" people. People who need food, who need shelter, who need medical aid - these are the poor, these are the people that need all the support we can offer. Anyone else can become anything they want in our society, provided they have the ability and the drive.

    <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
    Well, your elaboration rationalizes this far better. But coming from a whole extended family of people who were, well, poor, and yet pretty much all succeded, your, "Poor people generally lack that." is only from your experiance, and it would be unfair for you to say that. As you said, my views in this matter are grounded in real world experiance. However, the people you elaborate on do not have my sympathy either.


    <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I dont believe any of the content of the Old Testament was hateful - it is a history of God and his people. Anything God ordered in the Old Testament automatically becomes valid and justified, including war. If God exists, then he makes the rules regarding things like this. I agree the New Testament takes higher priority than the OT, but the OT is there for a reason. I see no contradictions between the two, and I wouldnt be a Christian if I did. God supported King David, God supported King Solomon - and these were rich guys.... clearly equaling out the wealth wasnt the major thrust of the old testament.
    <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    I am a christian, and I do see a contradiction - Is not God giving the Israelites the power to destroy the previous inhabitants of israel so they could settle there, not contradicting Jesus philosophy of 'turning the other cheek, which implies not to be aggresively violent? This is why I say that God's, well, 'warmongering' in the old testament should not be interperated to mean that war is justified.

    When I look at the Old testament as a Christian, I don't read it literally. (mostly) At all. The old testament is filled with flawed people and kings. God supports David and Solomon, but we also see that they are flawed men. This doesn't mean that God supports our flaws- rather, I only look at the old testament to learn from it as a 3rd party, and it not as a literal guide.

    Concerning kings, while it seems that god supports kings

    Concerning WWII, you are right that it was a tricky situation. However, as shown in the new testament, we can see that God's reaction to evil would not just be to smite it - but to help it repent. Still, in WWII, you're right to say that it would hae turned out differently, and more 'chosen people' would have died if christians stayed out on the basis of their religion.

    Sorry I can't elaborate more, don't really have the time.
  • Marine0IMarine0I Join Date: 2002-11-14 Member: 8639Members, Constellation
    <!--QuoteBegin-Tofumaster+Sep 16 2004, 11:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Tofumaster @ Sep 16 2004, 11:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> . <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
    <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well, your elaboration rationalizes this far better.  But coming from a whole extended family of people who were, well, poor, and yet pretty much all succeded, your, "Poor people generally lack that." is only from your experiance, and it would be unfair for you to say that.  As you said, my views in this matter are grounded in real world experiance.  However, the people you elaborate on do not have my sympathy either. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    I cant prove it 100%, but I have precious little else to go on. I know we were poor, I know my parents instilled in me a drive, and I've met a lot of people going no where who lack that drive. Anythings possible I suppose... there could be huddled masses out there whose only blockage in the road to success is Mr Bush and Friends, but I seriously doubt it.

    <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I am a christian, and I do see a contradiction - Is not God giving the Israelites the power to destroy the previous inhabitants of israel so they could settle there, not contradicting Jesus philosophy of 'turning the other cheek, which implies not to be aggresively violent?  This is why I say that God's, well, 'warmongering' in the old testament should not be interperated to mean that war is justified.

    When I look at the Old testament as a Christian, I don't read it literally. (mostly) At all. The old testament is filled with flawed people and kings.  God supports David and Solomon, but we also see that they are flawed men.  This doesn't mean that God supports our flaws- rather, I only look at the old testament to learn from it as a 3rd party, and it  not as a literal guide.

    Concerning kings, while it seems that god supports kings

    Concerning WWII, you are right that it was a tricky situation. However, as shown in the new testament, we can see that God's reaction to evil would not just be to smite it - but to help it repent.  Still, in WWII, you're right to say that it would hae turned out differently, and more 'chosen people' would have died if christians stayed out on the basis of their religion. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    Jesus came with a message on how God wanted his followers to act. In my view it was the final stage of his plan (well not really final, but it was the culmination of one of his plans). Christian's were NOT Jews, as Paul spent a lot of his time explaining - we are different. There are different rules for Jews and different rules for Christians, which is why I enjoyed a roast pork role this morning at uni. However, the Jewish Old Testament records the beginning of God's plan, and he had absolutely no problem with ordering the Jews to fight. That sets a precedent - clearly not all wars are wrong. God is not above instigating people to fight wars, and considered them neccessary to forefill his plan. That doesnt go on to say that therefore all wars are justified.

    I read the Old Testament pretty much the same way you do - few of it is directly aimed at me, but there is a lot to learn about God and his dealings with the Jews. In the NT, God didnt say "oh btw, the smiting stops here" - he just said he didnt want his people to do the smiting <b>on their own behalf</b> ie dont respond if someone provokes you. If you are attacked, dont lash back. He did NOT outlaw using force to help someone else. Turn the other cheek does not apply to police officers attempting to stop a murder.

    Wait wait I'm not offtopic, honest. Vote Bush - kerry sucks!.... yeah okay I'm offtopic <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
  • Pepe_MuffassaPepe_Muffassa Join Date: 2003-01-17 Member: 12401Members
    I belive that even in the NT there are plenty of examples where God has wrath for persons or people which ultmatly results in either there beating or death.

    2 that come to mind right away:

    Jesus driving out the venders in the temple - here is a group of people selling things, and Jesus goes after them and floggs them out of the temple.

    Ananias and Sophira - the two of them lied about giving money to the church and were struck down by God.

    Concerning Old or New Testament and the value of each - They are both equally valuable. The God of the OT doesn't change in the NT - his requirements don't change, his message doesn't change.

    In terms of War then? God used his people Israel as a tool of judgment against the surrounding nations. In fact, that was part of the reason they spend 400 years in Egypt - so that the sin of the other nations could reach their full extent. God specifically told them to completely destroy all the other nations - not to intermingle and intermarry with them.

    Go Bush.
  • WheeeeWheeee Join Date: 2003-02-18 Member: 13713Members, Reinforced - Shadow
    <!--QuoteBegin-Tofumaster+Sep 16 2004, 06:57 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Tofumaster @ Sep 16 2004, 06:57 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I am a christian, and I do see a contradiction - Is not God giving the Israelites the power to destroy the previous inhabitants of israel so they could settle there, not contradicting Jesus philosophy of 'turning the other cheek, which implies not to be aggresively violent? This is why I say that God's, well, 'warmongering' in the old testament should not be interperated to mean that war is justified.

    When I look at the Old testament as a Christian, I don't read it literally. (mostly) At all. The old testament is filled with flawed people and kings. God supports David and Solomon, but we also see that they are flawed men. This doesn't mean that God supports our flaws- rather, I only look at the old testament to learn from it as a 3rd party, and it not as a literal guide.

    Concerning kings, while it seems that god supports kings

    Concerning WWII, you are right that it was a tricky situation. However, as shown in the new testament, we can see that God's reaction to evil would not just be to smite it - but to help it repent. Still, in WWII, you're right to say that it would hae turned out differently, and more 'chosen people' would have died if christians stayed out on the basis of their religion.

    Sorry I can't elaborate more, don't really have the time. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
    Remember that God is a jealous God. All these other nations had all sorts of vile practices - prostitution in the name of religion, human sacrifice, etc. God says "do not resist an evil person," but at the same time I think you know what would happen if God had let the Canaanites and all the other nations in that area survive - the Israelites would have turned from God extremely quickly, and started taking influences from their neighbors. Unfortunately they started doing that anyway. God has the right, the authority, and the power to pass judgment and take vengeance on whomever he wants, and this time it was by using Israel's soldiers as the instrument. I think that by ordering them to destroy everything of those nations (men, women, children, livestock, belongings), it was a strong message to the Israelites that they should do away with all immorality and impurityin their lives, and continually fight against those.
  • milton_friedmanmilton_friedman Join Date: 2004-08-11 Member: 30535Members
    <!--QuoteBegin-KarriN+Sep 16 2004, 04:44 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (KarriN @ Sep 16 2004, 04:44 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Pepe_Muffassa+Sep 15 2004, 01:59 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe_Muffassa @ Sep 15 2004, 01:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Hmm, free education, a good job if they want it (military), continued education through the military (paid for by tax dollars).  That sounds like a pretty good leg up in life to me - and yet you see this as a negative thing? 

    America has long been a land of opportunity - equal opportunity, and just because some people are fortunate / rich doesn't mean that they have to pay the way for the unfortunate / poor. 
    <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    It's really interesting that you see learning to kill other people and risking your life as a "good job". And from what I've read, the US military pretty much has free hands once you've signed up. Soldiers having to stay in Iraq much longer than they've signed up for, soldiers not actually getting their full pay...

    And the part about America having equal opportunity for everyone is plain bull****. Equal opportunity would mean that everyone putting in the same effort should be able to reach similar goals or similar quality of life. Instead many people can hardly support their living, let alone get themselves education.

    The only kind of country to have equal opportunities to everyone would have to be some sort of communistic utopia with 0% corruption, which, as we know, is rather unlikely to happen.

    -K <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
    Hmm, I believe you are mixing up equal difficulty with equal opportunity.
  • TheWizardTheWizard Join Date: 2002-12-11 Member: 10553Members, Constellation
    <!--QuoteBegin-KarriN+Sep 16 2004, 04:44 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (KarriN @ Sep 16 2004, 04:44 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
    And the part about America having equal opportunity for everyone is plain bull****. Equal opportunity would mean that everyone putting in the same effort should be able to reach similar goals or similar quality of life. Instead many people can hardly support their living, let alone get themselves education.

    The only kind of country to have equal opportunities to everyone would have to be some sort of communistic utopia with 0% corruption, which, as we know, is rather unlikely to happen.

    -K <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
    Equal opportunity does not imply equal footing.
  • KarriNKarriN Join Date: 2002-11-03 Member: 6617Members
    edited September 2004
    <!--QuoteBegin-milton friedman+Sep 16 2004, 04:40 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (milton friedman @ Sep 16 2004, 04:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Pepe_Muffassa+Sep 15 2004, 01:59 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe_Muffassa @ Sep 15 2004, 01:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Hmm, I believe you are mixing up equal difficulty with equal opportunity.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    Hmm, I believe you are unnecessarily quoting my whole post to write a one-liner response.

    By Webster-Merriam's online dictionary:

    <b>Opportunity</b>

    <b>1</b> : a favorable juncture of circumstances

    <b>2</b> : a good chance for advancement or progress

    So I ask you, how does every black man/woman living in a slum or ghetto or every child of a poor immigrant family have the same good chance for advancement than every child of an upper middle class or upper class family?

    And you talk about equal difficulty - that could be translated as the amount of work and hardships you have to get through to reach the same goal. Well, it doesn't work that way. For some people, no matter how hard they try, they never reach the goal. And this doesn't necessarily have anything to do with them being or not being smart, hard-working etc. So in essence they didn't have the opportunity at all.

    Someone else mentioned equal footing. Well, an opportunity, as described by W-M up there, IS a footing. Saying everyone has an equal opportunity equals to saying everyone has the same chance of reaching a certain goal. And the goal being a certain quality of life in America, I can pretty safely repeat what I said earlier - the plain thought is, in essence, droppings of a bovine male.
    -K
  • milton_friedmanmilton_friedman Join Date: 2004-08-11 Member: 30535Members
    <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 1 : a favorable juncture of circumstances

    2 : a good chance for advancement or progress<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    Both can be achieved by hard, well though out, determined work.

    <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So I ask you, how does every black man/woman living in a slum or ghetto or every child of a poor immigrant family have the same good chance for advancement than every child of an upper middle class or upper class family? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    Look above

    <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And you talk about equal difficulty - that could be translated as the amount of work and hardships you have to get through to reach the same goal. Well, it doesn't work that way. For some people, no matter how hard they try, they never reach the goal. And this doesn't necessarily have anything to do with them being or not being smart, hard-working etc. So in essence they didn't have the opportunity at all. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    Very true, hard work does not always mean the accomplishment of a goal within a givin timeframe. The main reason why people who work diligently and never accomplish a desired goal after months and perhaps years of dedicated effort is because where they apply that effort. They are basically following a path with a dead end. Thinking of Einstein for example, later in his life, he wanted create a "unified field theory" describing all forces throughout the universe. He would ultimately fail not because he would die before he could finish his work, its because he based his work off the notion that "the universe operates under strict laws and order"; he flatly rejected the notion of quantum mechanics which is based off "chance".

    Point is that, ultimately there will be failures associated with effort, but with time and persistence (Einstein unfortunately did not have much time) I sincerely believe that any goal can be accomplished.

    <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Someone else mentioned equal footing. Well, an opportunity, as described by W-M up there, IS a footing. Saying everyone has an equal opportunity equals to saying everyone has the same chance of reaching a certain goal. And the goal being a certain quality of life in America, I can pretty safely repeat what I said earlier - the plain thought is, in essence, droppings of a bovine male.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    Hmmm, please excuse my lack of intelligence but could you please elaborate further on how equal opportunity means equal footing/achieving a certain goal? Using the definitions above equal opportunity to me means that everyone has an equal chance for favorable juncture of circumstances and an equal chance for advancement. Both attained by working hard.
  • illuminexilluminex Join Date: 2004-03-13 Member: 27317Members, Constellation
    <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Opportunity

    1 : a favorable juncture of circumstances

    2 : a good chance for advancement or progress

    So I ask you, how does every black man/woman living in a slum or ghetto or every child of a poor immigrant family have the same good chance for advancement than every child of an upper middle class or upper class family?

    And you talk about equal difficulty - that could be translated as the amount of work and hardships you have to get through to reach the same goal. Well, it doesn't work that way. For some people, no matter how hard they try, they never reach the goal. And this doesn't necessarily have anything to do with them being or not being smart, hard-working etc. So in essence they didn't have the opportunity at all.

    Someone else mentioned equal footing. Well, an opportunity, as described by W-M up there, IS a footing. Saying everyone has an equal opportunity equals to saying everyone has the same chance of reaching a certain goal. And the goal being a certain quality of life in America, I can pretty safely repeat what I said earlier - the plain thought is, in essence, droppings of a bovine male.
    <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    Oppurtunity is neither equal difficulty nor equal footing. Oppurtunity, in the American sense, is the ability to choose your own financial destiny. It takes so much more effort for a black living in the ghetto to get out of the ghetto, but that doesn't make it impossible. You're acting like those people, because it is harder to get out, do not have the same oppurtunity.

    Wrong. In America, the system says "if you want it and are willing to work for it, you'll get it." That's the oppurtunity. The oppurtunity for success is something open to everyone, even though most Americans never become even remotely successful. If a poor person is not willing to work and go the extra mile to improve their standard of living, why should I be forced to give them more? I'd be happy to donate to something that teaches someone not so well off how to use the Capitalist system to their advantage, but I'm unwilling to support the terrible spending habits and bad decisions that a good sized majority of the poor participate in.

    Life sucks for everyone. The poor are not victims of some mean capitalist system. They are victims of themselves. That's a fact. If you're not making enough money to get ahead, then use the resources available through things like charities to get an education on something that will either enable you to get a better job, make more money so you can invest it, or start your own company.

    It's all about a willingness to do it. Just because more people are unwilling than are willing doesn't mean the standard should be lowered.

    Oh yeah, I'm also really sick of people crying about "overgeneralizations" or "stereotypes." The reason that such things exist is because they are the norm. The fact that Marine01 worked in such a poor neighborhood and saw these things on a daily basis immediately invalidates your overidealistic opinion.

    *note* See signature.
  • KarriNKarriN Join Date: 2002-11-03 Member: 6617Members
    well, referring to illuminex's post: i plain can't see how willpower and "working that extra mile" by default guarantees you what you want. for example, you need to take circumstances into consideration. for example, most poor people probably come from poor families. they might be required to support their family financially at an early age, effectively lessening their possibilities to get a good education.

    and to milton friedman: basically what you were saying sounds like "everyone has an equal opportunity as long as they manage to guess well where to put their effort". "jeez, it's hard keeping a roof on my head and chow on the table! I'm still stuck at this hot dog stand! guess I should've gone to McD, I might be the cheery guy in charge of the workshifts by now!". ok, maybe I'm being cynical and pessimistic here..

    btw, the Einstein comparison was a little clumsy, as we're talking about "making it" financially, not scientific breakthroughs. bear in mind that since Einstein died, MANY scientists who are aware of and accept both conventional physics and quantum physics have been trying for years to create "the One theory" to explain it all, but haven't achieved to do so. therefore, even if Einstein had accepted and "used" quantum physics, it would probably be highly doubtful that he'd had succeeded. unless his brain really was miles ahead of the brains of top physicists of today.
    (fortunately for us, "string theory" might hold the key for unifying the laws of the universe into one theory! I'm not too educated on physics but I'll be waiting for the news)

    but one thing we can probably agree on: this has gone way off-topic. my next post will be a quickie on my opinions on Kerry vs. Bush.
  • KarriNKarriN Join Date: 2002-11-03 Member: 6617Members
    First of all, I will state (which some might have already gotten a hint on) is that I don't live in the US. That might affect how some of you view my opinions, but I believe it's something that should be told in a discussion like this. With that out of the way...

    Kerry. Definitely Kerry.

    Simply because:

    Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice, Cheney, Powell and the lot... lied to the public. Bill Clinton lied about having sex, George W. Bush lied about the justifications of sending young people, who had signed up to the army to defend their home and get money for an education, to die. and did a pretty farked up job at doing it, too. obviously, the installing a US-benevolent puppet government didn't work, because the dolts didn't (for some frickin'-odd reason) realize that going in guns n bombs blazing and preaching the freedom of democracy wouldn't instantly "enlighten" a part of the world still heavily rooted in tradition and religion. in the process, over a 1,000 US soldiers have died, and well over 10,000 Iraqi civilians.

    Say what you want about Saddam being a tyrant bent on genocide and oppression, he wasn't a threat to the US of A. The pathetic excuse of WMD's was totally bogus. Even more pathetic were the attempts to patch the exposed truth with some dug-up "evidence". Moreover, the other reason Bush & co. said Iraq should be attacked, that Iraq had connections to Al-Qaida and Osama Bin Laden, was also, obviously, bogus. Osama hated Saddam's guts and Bush gave him a lucky winner lottery ticket by taking Saddam out.

    I could probably still go on a bit but I'm too tired. Meh.
  • camel_fetuscamel_fetus Join Date: 2004-08-12 Member: 30547Members
    <!--QuoteBegin-KarriN+Sep 17 2004, 04:36 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (KarriN @ Sep 17 2004, 04:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Moreover, the other reason Bush & co. said Iraq should be attacked, that Iraq had connections to Al-Qaida and Osama Bin Laden, was also, obviously, bogus. Osama hated Saddam's guts and Bush gave him a lucky winner lottery ticket by taking Saddam out. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
    <a href='http://www.worldthreats.com/middle_east/Iraq%20Terror.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.worldthreats.com/middle_east/Iraq%20Terror.htm</a>

    hmmm, it seems to me that there were connections. <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif' /><!--endemo-->
  • illuminexilluminex Join Date: 2004-03-13 Member: 27317Members, Constellation
    <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->well, referring to illuminex's post: i plain can't see how willpower and "working that extra mile" by default guarantees you what you want. for example, you need to take circumstances into consideration. for example, most poor people probably come from poor families. they might be required to support their family financially at an early age, effectively lessening their possibilities to get a good education.
    <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    It is especially difficult with many poor black people today because so many fathers abandon their girlfriend and child and/or end up in prison, and cannot pay child support.

    Does that mean that the human spirit cannot overcome that terrible hardship? Hell no! That child could be richer than me! That's the oppurtunity that the other guy didn't get. That poor person could very well become richer than I could ever dream of.

    There are many outreach programs available in poor communities. If someone shows real initiative towards getting higher education or learning a trade to get them started, I have little doubt that those organizations would support that person as much as possible.

    It comes back to this:

    are you going to give a starving man a fish or are you going to teach him how to fish?

    You can do both, and that is what I am advocating. If someone is poor and cannot support their family, then they need to get temporary financial aid while they learn a trade or get some real higher education. The key is to make the poor accountable, so they do not simply leech off of welfare or unemployment. That way the poor are able to not be poor.

    The key here is that it is up to the poor man to say "I need your help while I better myself." Therefore, it comes down to the poor person deciding if he will stay poor or be temporarily broke while he prepares himself for the future. It might require he make a sacrifice or two while he gets going, but it'll be more than worth it in the end.

    BUSH FTW!!!!

    <!--emo&::gorge::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/pudgy.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='pudgy.gif' /><!--endemo--> support Bush 10:1. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
  • EEKEEK Join Date: 2004-02-25 Member: 26898Banned
    edited September 2004
    I just don't see how you can support a man that doesn't care much about education, that doesn't care much about retirement plans, doesn't support enforcing lowered prices of perscription drugs, doesn't think the government should provide some sort of healthcare for those that can't afford it, doesn't care enough to help out the average Joe to keep jobs in America, and creates laws based on pseudo-christian ****.

    Anyway I'm just saying this. I find political debates on gaming forums to be stupid since the average poster 1) Knows nothing about politics, 2) Only cares about poliitcal issues to the extent of 'GUNZ R KOOL' and 3) Refuses to think about other people.
Sign In or Register to comment.