Okay, our boys and girls are in another country fighting for "Iraqi civilian freedom" and yet, we don't give a shit about the poor workers in the sweat shops out in Asia? The poor workers that work endless hours for American corporations...
link
oh and i dont think the military can attack a our own civilian corporations. if i remember right these sweat sops are under thats countries jurisdiction.
Outsourcing? When a corporation opens up a branch in another country, its still owned and run by the same set of people.
Outsourcing actually prevents countries from developing to a post industrial state of being. Instead, they stay an industrial nation, forever making goods for a wealthy country that offers more benefits to the intelligent people of the industrialized country. Cycle.
Quote:
also, we are fighting in Iraq, would you like us to take on most of the world too? bc attacking the whole world isnt a good thing at all, we are only one country we cant fix anything and we are not certainly not perfect.
No one is saying we should attack. Simply Just was merely pointing out the irony that we find it our right to liberate Iraq, but we support outsourcing and international sweatshops.
Quote:
seeing how we ourselves will suffer.
No one is saying taxing is the solution. That seems to be your fall back answer. You can help people in other societies without raising taxes.
Ginny: No, I'm pretty sure I'm right here. Mainland America has never been occupied by a foreign nation. The Revolution doesn't count, since America hadn't been founded yet.
Regardless of the intricacies, the point was the demonstrate to Vasaver that its rather illogical to state that the military "Protects us from invasion" Since there has never been a case where the military actually HAS. Our military is used largely as an offensive rather than a defensive. _________________ Here's How!|Graphics
but nowhere does it say that the government should hand everything to you. a right to life means to live it as you please, without fear of being put to death bc you choose the wrong religion for one example. not everything you want for life is to be handed to you by the gov. liberty is a right to enjoy your freedoms, so if you want to vote, vote. you want to go to college, get the money to go and learn what you wish. security has nothing to do with college but you were just stating that article.
If you don't think that the right to life means the right to live no matter how impoverished you are, then you have one sick view of human rights. We should not be killing people because they are poor - everybody deserves to live.
Vasaver wrote:
as for article 26 yes no matter what race or gender you are, you can get a education, they cannot deny you your education. but once again it said nowhere in that article that we should pay your way in life.
Equal opportunity. How are you supposed to get an education without the money to pay for it? Those who have parents that pay for college can get a degree and get by in life just fine, while those whose parents can't afford college can never get an education without selling their souls to hundred thousand dollar loans at high interest rates. That doesn't sound like equal opportunity to me. It's just another aristocricy. _________________
welcome to real world fm, nothing is ever gave to you on a silver platter. if people really wanted an education they would find ways. joining the military is one way. we are prejudice to poor people. dont ever say that they dont have a way out poverty. people need grit their teeth, bear life, and improve themselves on their own. no where in those precious articles of yours say we have to do it for them. sure we can give them free schooling, but hey then we would tax to death the poor. which one is it? the poor be self sufficient or have them babies and suck money from us and themselves? _________________
Then Biden got tangled in his own contradiction. He talked about his dad who, when he fell on hard times, would tell his son: "Champ, when you get knocked down, get up."
Then he lamented that he had "never seen a time when Washington has watched so many people get knocked down without doing anything to help them get back up."
Wait a minute. Who said anything about government helping folks get back up when they get knocked down? Is that what Papa Biden was talking about? It sounded like he was saying people should get themselves back on their feet.
Quote:
The same goes for the Democrats who convened in Denver. This is a party that maintains power by trying to convince people that our country is a dark place, devoid of opportunities, and that the answer is to elect more of them.
Now they're seeking a change in the White House, a change in policy, and a change in national priorities --even if they aren't ready to change their tune.
In reply to Kessington.. I guess GinnyX is referring to the war of 1812 when Washington D.C. was actually burned by British troops. However I really wouldn't count that as invasion, because it was a raid. They didn't have enough troops to occupy the city so they were going to cause as much damage as they could. It lasted 26 hours, hardly occupation. Some of the Aleutian islands were occupied by Japanese forces initially during World War II, but I wouldn't count those either since you said Mainland America _________________
^ HP Chat & Games
Joe Biden made it clear in his speech that when we fall down, we must at all costs get back up again. It is awfully selfish of our current republican-ruled government not to extend their hands in aid to those hard-working middle class families who didn't happen to be born into a wealthy, conservative, golf-playing family with a silver spoon jutting out their mouth. Why should all of those deserving people be deprived of America's ultimate promise to ALL of it's citezens? The whole corperate republican, lobbyist idea of a prospering America is very, very wrong, selfish, and unfair. _________________ [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
In reply to Kessington.. I guess GinnyX is referring to the war of 1812 when Washington D.C. was actually burned by British troops. However I really wouldn't count that as invasion, because it was a raid. They didn't have enough troops to occupy the city so they were going to cause as much damage as they could. It lasted 26 hours, hardly occupation. Some of the Aleutian islands were occupied by Japanese forces initially during World War II, but I wouldn't count those either since you said Mainland America
Someone did a quick Google search for "How many times has American been invaded". _________________
I highly doubt that any country is interested in invading America. Considering we've been invaded all of zero times in history.
Kessy, hun, you never said "Mainland" in your original post nor did you say "occupy." So I was going with strictly "invaded." So, yes, we were invaded a couple of times, as Eric pointed out... and, also, I was remembering the time we were invaded by the Nazis, who landed on two places in the US during WWII. It was a failed attempt, but to say that no country is interested in invading us is just not true. _________________ Blame it on a simple twist of fate ~ Bob Dylan Team Cucumber, FTW!
welcome to real world fm, nothing is ever gave to you on a silver platter. if people really wanted an education they would find ways. joining the military is one way. we are prejudice to poor people. dont ever say that they dont have a way out poverty. people need grit their teeth, bear life, and improve themselves on their own. no where in those precious articles of yours say we have to do it for them. sure we can give them free schooling, but hey then we would tax to death the poor. which one is it? the poor be self sufficient or have them babies and suck money from us and themselves?
You're kidding right? There's no real way out of poverty for the vast majority of individuals. You shouldn't have to sell your soul (and your life for that matter) to the military just to survive. It's great that some people like you want to contribute to the country, but it's self-contradictory to have to risk your life to gain the right to live.
If you think people just need to 'grit their teeth, work hard and suck it up,' then research some history. There was once a president who had the same exact idea - he coined the term "rugged individualism." In January of 1929 he promised the nation that "prosperity is around the corner." If you know anything about history, then you know that prosperity was nowhere near around the corner. The only thing around the corner was the Great Depression - the direct result of the government not paying attention to the economy and claiming that every individual was responsible for his/her own poverty. _________________
welcome to real world fm, nothing is ever gave to you on a silver platter. if people really wanted an education they would find ways. joining the military is one way. we are prejudice to poor people. dont ever say that they dont have a way out poverty. people need grit their teeth, bear life, and improve themselves on their own. no where in those precious articles of yours say we have to do it for them. sure we can give them free schooling, but hey then we would tax to death the poor. which one is it? the poor be self sufficient or have them babies and suck money from us and themselves?
You're kidding right? There's no real way out of poverty for the vast majority of individuals. You shouldn't have to sell your soul (and your life for that matter) to the military just to survive. It's great that some people like you want to contribute to the country, but it's self-contradictory to have to risk your life to gain the right to live.
If you think people just need to 'grit their teeth, work hard and suck it up,' then research some history. There was once a president who had the same exact idea - he coined the term "rugged individualism." In January of 1929 he promised the nation that "prosperity is around the corner." If you know anything about history, then you know that prosperity was nowhere near around the corner. The only thing around the corner was the Great Depression - the direct result of the government not paying attention to the economy and claiming that every individual was responsible for his/her own poverty.
There are ways out of poverty. Have a strong work ethic, and you'll make it out. Most of the people in poverty are
1) People who took school as a joke
2) people who hadn't had a chance to go to school
3) Immigrants who don't know english
4) The Homeless
5) and then those in the Ghettos, who take everything as a joke. It's really there fault they're in poverty. They just refuse to work. wont get there butts off the coach, wont stop smokin weed. Thats the only reason i dislike obama, give money to the poor, tax breaks to the poor. What he's really saying is, give tax breaks to the people who are stuck in "the projects" i grew up in.
welcome to real world fm, nothing is ever gave to you on a silver platter. if people really wanted an education they would find ways. joining the military is one way. we are prejudice to poor people. dont ever say that they dont have a way out poverty. people need grit their teeth, bear life, and improve themselves on their own. no where in those precious articles of yours say we have to do it for them. sure we can give them free schooling, but hey then we would tax to death the poor. which one is it? the poor be self sufficient or have them babies and suck money from us and themselves?
You're kidding right? There's no real way out of poverty for the vast majority of individuals. You shouldn't have to sell your soul (and your life for that matter) to the military just to survive. It's great that some people like you want to contribute to the country, but it's self-contradictory to have to risk your life to gain the right to live.
If you think people just need to 'grit their teeth, work hard and suck it up,' then research some history. There was once a president who had the same exact idea - he coined the term "rugged individualism." In January of 1929 he promised the nation that "prosperity is around the corner." If you know anything about history, then you know that prosperity was nowhere near around the corner. The only thing around the corner was the Great Depression - the direct result of the government not paying attention to the economy and claiming that every individual was responsible for his/her own poverty.
There are ways out of poverty. Have a strong work ethic, and you'll make it out. Most of the people in poverty are
1) People who took school as a joke
2) people who hadn't had a chance to go to school
3) Immigrants who don't know english
4) The Homeless
5) and then those in the Ghettos, who take everything as a joke. It's really there fault they're in poverty. They just refuse to work. wont get there butts off the coach, wont stop smokin weed. Thats the only reason i dislike obama, give money to the poor, tax breaks to the poor. What he's really saying is, give tax breaks to the people who are stuck in "the projects" i grew up in.
I think you have a lack of understanding about the real world and basic economics.
To solve the second problem you should my earlier posts in this thread.
Your first problem can only be solved by actually leaving your house once and while and going to see the tens of millions of Americans that live in poverty.
Your points are obviously made up and I don't think you can give any statistics to back them up. The first two points are in relation to school. People who don't have a good education are unlikey to become prosperous later on life, correct. But for the vast majority of people who don't, it's not because they don't want too but because they simply can't afford it. Either they can't afford the tens of thousands of dollars to go there or they're too busy paying their way through life to have time for education.
Immigrants who don't know English is redundant since the vast, vast majority of people who live in poverty within the US are born there and as a percentage, there's more poverty withing US citizens than immigrants.
But I guess it helps white people feel better when they blame it all on the immigrants.
And being homeless and living in a ghetto is a symptom of poverty, not a cause. But the way you managed to generalise and describe those that do live in ghetto's shows your pretty ignorant and are unlikely to bother understanding any other view that doesn't agree with your "People are only poor because they're lazy and smoke crack all day".
If we look beyond America for a second we see that those who are in extreme poverty around the world, almost 1/3 of the worlds population, are not "lazy" or "immigrants". They work more hours and they work harder than the richest people in the US. _________________
If we look beyond America for a second we see that those who are in extreme poverty around the world, almost 1/3 of the worlds population, are not "lazy" or "immigrants". They work more hours and they work harder than the richest people in the US.
Uh, that's wrong. It's just a difference in the kind of labor. A lot of rich people make it rich by working their asses off and being married to their work essentially. The poor that don't make much money usually are doing a particular task somewhere over and over ever day. The fact they may work longer hours doesn't necessarily mean it's 'harder work'. Granted, some jobs are more physically demanding. But there are jobs that are very very mentally demanding too. How can you say one is 'harder' over the other? Both can be seen as hard as some people can't handle the mental things and others cannot handle the physical things.
Poverty in America, in my view, has a great deal to do with laziness. However, most people that are in poverty or homeless have some sort of inability to take care of themselves. Usually they have mental disabilities of some sort where they're in between a normal person and qualifying for all sorts of government programs to help them. There's definitely a crack that people fall into. I go to school in a city with a 33% poverty rate and this is the sort of things that the School of Social Work tells students all the time. I believe that the government should help people who cannot take care of themselves (this also goes in hand with my views on abortion. the government should protect people who cannot protect themselves, like unborn children whose lives are in the hands of another person). Unfortunately, there's logistical problems such as, who pays for all of it? And the rich, without taxes, are already big donators to such causes. _________________
^ HP Chat & Games
Indeed, so your average Indian labourer with 150+ hours a week job in a factory that wouldn't even be allowed to be built in the USA has it the same as Warren Buffet who trades stocks on his computer at home? _________________
Indeed, so your average Indian labourer with 150+ hours a week job in a factory that wouldn't even be allowed to be built in the USA has it the same as Warren Buffet who trades stocks on his computer at home?
Crappy comparison.
Warren Buffet is an old man who has had an entire lifetime to manage his financials into what they are today. He didn't start out that way - he worked his ass off to get there and suffered a lot of setbacks as well. Who knows where this hard working Indian will be in as many years as Warren Buffet has lived? An Indian that works that much is going to be pretty young, and most young people (ones who aren't given money by their parents completely) start out poor and working their ass off, just like Warren Buffet.
150+ hours a week is impossible by the way. A human being could not survive that. They'd get 2.5 hours of sleep max per night for the week. So I think you're exaggerating juuuuuuust a little bit. _________________
^ HP Chat & Games
[Who knows where this hard working Indian will be in as many years as Warren Buffet has lived?
HAHAHAHA.
Sure man. You keep pretending that everyone around the work who works in a sweatshop and those more than a billion people on < 1 dollar a day can all one day become wealthy and successful.
It doesn't make any sense either logically or economically but there's nothing to stop you from believing it. =) _________________
I highly doubt that any country is interested in invading America. Considering we've been invaded all of zero times in history.
Kessy, hun, you never said "Mainland" in your original post nor did you say "occupy." So I was going with strictly "invaded." So, yes, we were invaded a couple of times, as Eric pointed out... and, also, I was remembering the time we were invaded by the Nazis, who landed on two places in the US during WWII. It was a failed attempt, but to say that no country is interested in invading us is just not true.
A bit of a stupid thing to argue over.
Regardless of what words I used, my intention was to demonstrate that our military has largely served as offensive.
Which has now been completely lost in the midst of the argument regarding invasion. _________________ Here's How!|Graphics
Last edited by Kesington! on August 30, 2008 3:25 pm; edited 1 time in total
[Who knows where this hard working Indian will be in as many years as Warren Buffet has lived?
HAHAHAHA.
Sure man. You keep pretending that everyone around the work who works in a sweatshop and those more than a billion people on < 1 dollar a day can all one day become wealthy and successful.
It doesn't make any sense either logically or economically but there's nothing to stop you from believing it. =)
You keep assuming things like an ignorant liberal =]
No where did I say he'd be a billionaire. Living comfortably is often the goal for mostly everyone. You don't know where that person will be in many years. Warren Buffet started out with little money too, and he's a perfect example of how the American dream can be accomplished. But yeah, it takes extremely hard work. And no, the opportunity isn't there for every body, but no stupid liberal policies in government are going to change that either - so, what's your point? _________________
^ HP Chat & Games
I know exactly where he'll be - the same place he is now. Why? Because ever since industrialisation the concentration of poverty in the world has become more increased, not less.
Quote:
And no, the opportunity isn't there for every body, but no stupid liberal policies in government are going to change that either - so, what's your point?
Of course government policies can change things. Unrestrained capitalism, well more appropriately, one-sided trade liberalisation and a suffocation of third world development instigated and supported by government has created and entrenched these problems. So naturally it can go quite a way in solving them.
I suggest you stop resorting to personal insults when you're lack of constructive arguments becomes obvious.
I know exactly where he'll be - the same place he is now. Why? Because ever since industrialisation the concentration of poverty in the world has become more increased, not less.
I suggest you stop resorting to personal insults when you're lack of constructive arguments becomes obvious.
And I am not a "liberal".
Yes, you are.
What the hell is wrong with industrialization? It's called advancement. Yea, companies will always be after cheap labor. Countries like India need it because there's a shortage of skilled jobs because of the huge population. If you're so concerned about the overworked Indians, don't be, they love that they just have a damn job and they love work. Read up on their culture a bit and then you may post again, but not before. _________________
^ HP Chat & Games
Rules
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in
Mainland America has never been occupied by a foreign nation. The Revolution doesn't count, since America hadn't been founded yet.
