Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Stormrider wrote:

We have people in this country (perfect example Katrina '05) who cannot think, act, provide or live for themselves anymore. Seeing the people with their hands in the air going: "Where's the Government?!" is embarrassing. It's a damn hurricane headed towards you, do you think you could leave? Why weren't the public school buses from NO used to bus peiople out of the city? Instead they get left in a bus barn and all become total losses to the city's budget after they get flooded.

Isn't that the entire point? What is the government supposed to do if not step in and organize things like disaster relief and maintain safety and order? My understanding is that this is the entire point of civilization since they started irrigation and flood control in the Middle East.

Stormrider wrote:
Extending un-employment 2 more years coupled with our high minimum wage is another example: Companies are looking to maintain a consistent bottom line, said bottom line can't be met when the government lays down an arbitrary limit on what someone can be paid. So, there's a price floor that creates a shortage caused by a high minimum wage. Thus, more people need un-employment and can't find jobs because the margins aren't moving. When the margins aren't moving there is undereployment and people eventually stop looking for jobs. There can't be more jobs when you have to pay someone $7.15 an hour. People can't get $5 an hour jobs because of this law. It might only be $5 but it's still a job!

There were jobs four years ago, and there was a minimum wage and unemployment then. The jobs just aren't there now. I'm not an economist and I can't tell you why those jobs aren't there, other than the fact that people were propping the economy up with debt instead of cash, but they just aren't. The fact remains that people who are able to work but cannot find a job need help. It simply has to be there, and we must find a way to afford it.

Stormrider wrote:
And no, I am no Republican, they just suck a little less, plus they have more influence than the thrid parties. I am tired of BO getting to use his mighty cudgel of "Bush bad" or "The Republicans are in the way", there's nothing stopping him, he just want's to make sure he can use any inclusion of Republican support agianst them in any way, the man cannot think outside of the political realm on anything.

Admittingly I don't watch a lot of television, but I haven't really observed that. Sure, he's a politician, like any other, so of course he's going to behave that way to some extent. Regardless of how he really feels, he has praised former Republican presidents, and seems to me to have made a good faith effort to compromise.

sebster wrote:

We have massive amounts of crime, un-employment, out of wedlock births, premature death and teenage pregancy in the black community. They have had every type of program thrown their way and yet they still are some of the poorest people in the country. Why? Because most (not all) of them have had initiative bred out of them, much like the Native Americans. It is supposedly benevolent liberals who look out for the little guy yet they keep enacting policies that crush the little guy and his employer under mountains of regulations and laws.

I'm pretty sure racism is a big no-no on Dakka. I'd suggest you stop being racist if you want to hang around.

He was making a comment about his beliefs in the deleterious effects of certain aspects of social welfare spending. I don't necessarily agree with it, but it isn't racist. I tell you, sometimes I think you're obsessed with racism on these forums. Regardless, who cares if someone does say something that the community feels is racist, can't you just ignore it? Would you ban everyone who said something racist once upon a time? Why not just tell them they're wrong and get on with life?

Regardless, I'm not seeing a MOD tag on your name. I wouldn't start prognosticating about who should stay or go, because that is probably against the rules to.

JDM wrote:

sexiest_hero wrote:1. republicans have a very solid base while democrats have to pull lots of little groups together.

2 Democrats don't have a spine.... at all. Nowhere.

3. Democrats want to work with republicans because BI partasianship was the big word in last election.

4.Bill clinton was a better president than Obama. I think Bush Jr, may have done more for minorities.

5. Democrats are weak, spineless, ineffective, BO is the leader of that bunch.

Someone Voted for McCain!

I doubt it. If you go back and read the rest of his posts you'll see. I think he's a disgruntled Obama-ite.

sebster wrote:

It's like taking a Assualt based IG army. Someparts will work out, and will rock! (i.e. tanks) But most will epicly fail. (i.e Not tanks) It's like the God part in The Pleage of Alegance. Most people don't have a problem with it, but when one person has a problem with it, than we have to make a big Facad about it.

It isn't 'one person' as much as a body of thought that takes the seperation of Church and State within the Constitution extremely seriously. Are you comfortable with a pledge of alliegance to your government that includes a specific mention to spiritual beliefs?

First off it doesn't refer to a specific religious belief, other than implying a monotheistic belief, though in fairness atheists are left out in the cold. I don't believe the pledge was extant when my country began, but the architects of the movement that became the U.S. often spoke of God, although many of them were deists.

But to answer the question, no, I'm not at all uncomfortable with that. Even though I'm not a real atheist, my religious beliefs are different than most members of my community, but I grew up with the pledge and never really got any persecution from the community in general. Elementary and high school, on the other hand, was quite uncomfortable for me. One of the worst was when everyone during assembly was "invited" to come down and make a public statement that they accepted Jesus or to do so if they hadn't, and I was one of the few people left sitting in the bleachers because I wasn't going to confess to a belief that was different from mine. Don't get me wrong, the J.C. is a great guy, but I do not agree with that particular sectarian belief in the public expression of faith ( it has a name, I don't remember it), and I have a more Catholic leaning view of Justification. I could go on and on about how every inmate on death row has some sort of "faith alone" belief ( Marylin Manson has called it "the God band-aid"), but I'm not trying to criticize the belief, but rather being pressured by social ostracism. The point is that was a private institution, not the government. Don't worry Sebby, the pledge is fine.

The fact is, the believe that if you harm no one, everything you do is ok is not something I entierely believe in. The fact is, the community I live in, and most of the U.S., believes a certain way that is reflected in the pledge. I'm not just an individual, I belong to a community. Therefore I just have to expect to be exposed to and taught their moral beliefs.

What is the Oz pledge, " Your hood ain't crap Britain, F you for sending me here"? Just kidding, no offense meant there.

sebster wrote:

I find that to be BS. If I walk into Walmart wearing my Youth Group Shirt, and Someone says "That shirt offends me" I will politley and calmly go tell that person to go preform an Imposible act oppon them selves. I shouldn't be banned from wearing my Clothes that show that I'm a Cathlic in Public. I'm not going door to door, forcing people to belive in the Big Man Upstairs, or Preaching about him. Just a shirt.

Another thing, about the 2nd Amendment. If the Government just shows up at someones door and says
"We would like your guns now, Please" That wouldn't happen. Some people have Million Dollor Gun colections.

No government body is planning to take everyone's guns off of them. Why are you making up things to be worried about?

I mean, seriously, you're in a recession and fighting two wars. There are lots of real things to be worried about. Why are you making up random other things?

I don't think that is what he's saying, he's saying how things are, I think. I'm not sure how I read his posts though.

Vene wrote:

Stormrider wrote:[Extending un-employment 2 more years coupled with our high minimum wage is another example:

Did you seriously just call $7.15/hr a high minimum wage? I know, let's compare to other first world nations.

Annual full time work on that is $15080 compared to Australia at $24,014, Canada at$16,738, Denmark at $23,590, France at $17,621, the Netherlands at $19,358, or the UK at $22,204. So, yeah, you're either grossly misinformed or lying. I hope it's the former.

Believe it. I know plenty of college educated people where I live who are making some of those minimum wage values or a little lower. Of course, I live in an area where it is cheap to live. It floors people when I tell them you can get a 2000 sqft home for 120000$ or a nice one for 140. The problem is that minimum wage is the same here as in, say, Atlanta, AFAIK

Frazzled wrote:

Da Boss wrote:That sentiment baffles me. How is the person supposed to survive while in school?
Have you ever been really, really poor Frazzled? I don't mean to personalise this, but your viewpoint is almost totally alien to me, and it seems heartless.
I think the minimum wage should give people enough to live on. It doesn't make sense to me that it wouldn't.

When you guys say "survive" and "live" do you actually mean that someone wouldn't be able to pay rent and buy food on minimum wage? I just want to make sure we're working off the same definition.

1. As you said, you don't me, nor what I have been through. Would it help if i note the neighbors next door, across the street, and behind are illegal, and we get along great (ok the damn messed up rooster that crows all day and night can be annoying)
2. I'm saying that the minimum wage is not meant to be a minimum standard wage for you to live on with a decent standard of living long term.
3. Its also blindingly irrelevant. When you ahve an open border, I can get better labor more cheaply that people on minimum wage now.
Do I pick Joe "minimum wage aint enough Man!" or do I pick Jose "I just travelled 2,000 through a desert to work for you." Mmmm that question takes all of no seconds.

(can you guess what I think about illegal immigration? you might be surprised).

I don't know for sure, but I would would guess that you don't mind illegal immigration. I think you're a fiscal conservative, not a populist. I don't know, but I wouldn't be suprised if you think NAFTA is a good idea.

Frazzled wrote:So? Get a better job or improve your skills. Anyone who thinks you should be able live on the minimum wage is an idiot. Frankly if you think you should be able to live off the minimum wage I'd rather hire the illegal immigrant than you. He works harder, is more motivated, and again, isn't an idiot.

The problem Fraz is that you're assuming the market will reward the hardest workers who provide the most benefit for society. The first is probably not true and the latter is certainly not. The fact is that things we need as a society are not necessarily going to be things that people will willingly pay for. Who is going to pay the social workers who removes children from abusive homes? What about an artist who challenges conventional ideas and aesthetic values....probably not going to get paid no matter how hard he works, unless he finds a wealthy patron or gets an NEA grant.

Did the poster you responded to not go to college to improve his skills? Is it so wrong that he's disappointed that he isn't getting paid better? I don't think it is at all unreasonable to expect a return on your investment both in terms of money and job satisfaction from higher education, otherwise, why are people going in the hock for 30 years to pay for it.

The problem with the work harder argument is simply how much is enough. The idea that government aid is going to deadbeats and welfare moms doesn't reflect every situation, or I believe, the majority of situations. People who need government aid aren't necessarily showing learned helplessness ( Some are, no question, I've known them), but sometimes things happen that you just can't work your way out of. What happens if someone is uninsured, comes down with cancer, then is in debt with a 70k medical bill? I don't know about you, but I don't think I could get out of that one, no matter how hard I worked.

The idea is, what if you had something that would help you out of a bad situation, so that you could get back to working? I know its trite, but I believe in a hand up, not a hand out.

ShumaGorath wrote:

It's his fault for getting cancer? Wouldn't that depend on the type of cancer?

The problem is that you can't prove it is someone's fault for getting cancer. Lets say someone comes down with lung cancer, and they smoked two or three packs a day for 40 or 50 years. You have no proof at all that smoking caused that cancer. You can really only talk in terms of risk factors. Furthermore, tobacco use is another thing that is part of the poverty cycle. You didn't say this, but the idea of not paying for something that was likely caused by someone's behavior comes immediately to mind. I don't think that is the best way to reduce health costs when people are going to continue to do it. That is what an addiction is. Perhaps a harm reduction strategy is the way to go.

You just said you make more than minimum wage so you're not in the equation.

Thats not the point though. The suggestion is that if someone with a degree in a technical field ( same degree as me, btw) makes less than the minimum wage in some other prosperous nations, then perhaps we should look critically at the minimum wage in this country and why people are compensated what they are. I think we need to ask if the market is working the way we want it to.

Frazzled wrote:

Grignard wrote:

You just said you make more than minimum wage so you're not in the equation.

Thats not the point though. The suggestion is that if someone with a degree in a technical field ( same degree as me, btw) makes less than the minimum wage in some other prosperous nations, then perhaps we should look critically at the minimum wage in this country and why people are compensated what they are. I think we need to ask if the market is working the way we want it to.

1. Not appropriate. You have to compare costs and income streams between countries.
2. So what? What are you going to do about it? Life sucks, then you die, usually horribly and alone.

(Frazzled bringing a ray of sunshine to every thread)

I'm not good at this, are you being facetious or serious? I have difficulty picking up on that face to face and certainly over text.

mattyrm wrote:I agree with Shuma, the media is about 50/50, but Fox News is all kinds of crazy.

Ive been following them for years actually, i kinda stalk them. Ive seen all the videos, and that one Shuma posted is funny gak as well. I kinda got fascinated with them when i lived over in the US because i think the right wing media is truly ludicrous over there.

Im right wing myself, i mean, i love the military, im sick of immigrants, i hate hippies and pinkos... but gak, the USA has all kinda of crazy mo fos polluting their airways. And having only the BBC over here i have always found them US style guys to be great viewing!

But because they are ludicrous, so ludicrous that i find it hilarious.

My missus votes Dem as well, and she finds it bizzare that i love Hannitys radio show, listen to Glenn Beck and Bill O Reilly et al (oh an Micheal Savage, now theres a nice chap) They make me laugh my ass of they are so bat gak crazy.

Anyway, this makes me think though...

Is a reason that they get good ratings possibly because people like me (who disagree with 80% of what they say) still enjoy listening to them?

Frankly I don't like any political commentator like that regardless of politics. I don't like Hannity, I can't stand Michael Moore ( hypocrite ), and I think Glenn Beck is almost dangerous. I can tolerate Limbaugh and O'Reilly, but I don't make a point of listening to them.

Also, wing politics are probably different between the U.S. and Europe.

Frazzled wrote:
Serious. I always bring a ray on sunshine to every thread.

To the topic. You can't compare salaries across countries (or regions for that matter-technical tip guys!) unless you compare costs of living. It has to be an apples to apples comparison.

but assume thats correct. So what? Again what are you going to do about it? You have two options: 1) Whine and bitch, or 2) improve your condition. No one is going to help you. Baby Jebus loves you but no else cares.

Alright, I'll give you that, but is it unreasonable to compare salaries across countries with similar costs and standards of living to ours.

First off, I'm not unhappy about my condition. I consider myself very fortunate to have what I have. I realize, that everything good could disappear at a moment's notice. A storm could level my house. I could come down with cancer. I could be laid off ( I doubt that where I work, but it is possible ). I realize that there is a certain responsibility to prepare for those things. I have insurance on my home, and fortunately I get insurance from my employer for my health ( This has been critical for my family, and since I know others don't have this, this is why I support public option health coverage), and I keep my resume up to date. There are some things, however, no one can reasonably prepare for. This is why we have the social safety net. I don't know about you, but I'm willing to give up a little so that everyone has some degree of security.

How are people supposed to improve their condition if they can't get money to start with. For instance, you know a whole lot better than I do that if you have 400000$ spread out in, say, no load mutual funds, high yield CD's, and muni's, just to use an example, you're going to make a lot more money than my measly 4000 dollars in Fidelity Contrafund. It isn't just a matter of return, you're going to be able to do things like have collateral to borrow to increase your holdings. If you're in poverty, none of that has any practical meaning to you, if you understand it at all.

Yes, whining and bitching is an option. That is what people do when they see something wrong. If I order a Big Mac at McDonalds, but I get one of those thin crappy cheeseburgers, I'm going to complain about not getting what I paid for.

The fact that I'm doing ok has made me look out and see that things are not just. I am going to moan and bitch and try to do something about things that aren't right.

Frazzled wrote:Whining an bitching is an option, but at the end of the day it doesn't improve your condition.

Whining and pitching that the other guy has more money doesn't improve your condition. Again life sucks. They won life's lotto and you (and I) didn't. We can't do anything about where we started, but we can influence where we end up, and more importantly where our children start.

Now of course if you are taking steps to improve your condition or, more importantly, the lives of your children, then its ok to whine and bitch, as long as it doesn't distract you.

No, no, that isn't really what I'm trying to say. This isn't about worrying about how much money the other guy has, nor is it crying about not being able to afford a new big screen TV. It's about whether the other guy can eat and feed his family. In terms of self interest, its about knowing that everything good in your life can disappear, and the desire to give up a little now to insure that there is something for everyone to fall back on.

How exactly are people going to improve their condition if they can't get the resources to even get started? Do you disagree that poverty can be self perpetuating?

Frazzled wrote:

Grignard wrote:

How exactly are people going to improve their condition if they can't get the resources to even get started? Do you disagree that poverty can be self perpetuating?

Its irrelevant. Thats not the US.

That doesn't answer the questions. What makes that not the U.S.? I don't understand what you're getting at here, isn't this why we vote?

Frazzled wrote:

Grignard wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Grignard wrote:

How exactly are people going to improve their condition if they can't get the resources to even get started? Do you disagree that poverty can be self perpetuating?

Its irrelevant. Thats not the US.

That doesn't answer the questions. What makes that not the U.S.? I don't understand what you're getting at here, isn't this why we vote?

No one is in that state in the US, hence why its irrelevant.

Outside of the US, yep its different and hard. Thats wehy we have 20MM illegal aliens here. Conditions where thats at don't have minimum wage laws though, so again, its not relevant to the discussion. Wait this is way off whatever the OT is as well, so I guess it is!

What do you mean no one is in that state in the US. I see some pretty deep poverty where I live, not to mention people who are homeless. For that matter, there are plenty of uninsured middle income people who are one accident away from disaster. I think there are plenty of people right here at home who are going to have a heck of a time getting out of the poverty trap.

Frazzled wrote:No in is in that state in the US. You're talking about not being able to survive. There are far too many programs insuring that is not the case.

Thats assuming people have access to those programs, but that is beside the point.

But earlier you said that minimum wage shouldn't be enough to survive on. Also, this gets back to what you mentioned about comparing apples and oranges. I'm sure that there isn't any comparison between poverty on a worldwide scale and poverty in the United States. It also costs more to get by here than in, say, Chad, so the definitions of poverty are completely different.

I think we should be shooting a little higher than bare survival. Sure, if you are uninsured and you have to have medical care, they'll treat you. You'll just be broke the rest of your life. People who are poor tend to stay poor because of the self perpetuating nature of poverty. If you're poor, you probably came from a poor family, which means you'll probably have other things to deal with growing up than staying in school. You might well have to drop out of high school to care for a child or relative. If you have a mental illness, which are highly overrepresented in the homeless, you probably won't receive effective care for it. This all compounds into a cycle.

Lets set aside the utterly destitute for a moment and talk about the middle income range. College is getting more and more expensive, which means its harder to save up for. So much spending in the past few years was generated from debt, not wealth, so I question if real incomes were ever increasing at all over the years.

How can people improve themselves when they're unemployed and the jobs just aren't there?

How can you work harder when your hours are cut?

Red9 wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Last I heard, libraries allow free access to books for self improvement and learning. Also just because a desired job that allows a person the quality of life that they think they deserve or are conditioned to believe they are entitled to are unavailable, doesn't mean that one can't downgrade to lower wager jobs or multiple jobs.

Self training programs don't typically give degrees or marks of completion that are required for better paying jobs. They're great for self motivation or preparation for training, but they are a poor substitute for actual schooling.

True, and it leads to CLEPing a class towards a college degree, look it up. Now combine self taught knowledge with starting your own enterprise, where does it say, anywhere , that you have to have a degree to start your own business.

EDIT: grammar/spelling

A CLEP test, which you have to pay for. As for starting a business, not everyone has talent for it. So if you don't have the people skills or knowledge to start a business then you just deserve to be poor?

Red9 wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

For the example I've listed from my personal experience it cost me $10 for a basic tool set from Salvation Army, and $40 for a push mower, gas, oil and a gas can.

You're not seriously going to say that you put yourself through college by being the town lawnboy... Did you deliver newspapers too?

No to the newspapers, but I did minor landscaping, int/ext painting and what I pitched as "Handymaning" (spring cleaning of the garage, heavy moving for frail old people, general maintainance, yard work, etc). It wasn't fabulous pay that allowed for that many luxuries, but it worked for what I needed to do.

And you should be proud of that, but you can't expect your experiences to apply for everyone else.

I'm willing to bet you didn't have health insurance. What if you'd gotten very sick during that period. All of that money would have been gone, and you'd be in debt too. It still gets back to the fact that people who aren't natural entrepreneurs can contribute to society. In fact, the vast majority of the work being done isn't being done by self employed go getters like yourself, its done by people who work.

The problem is that the argument is built to be unfalsifiable. If you work hard you'll succeed, therefore if you don't succeed you didn't work hard enough. You're defining the second part by the first, so it has to be true.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

Grignard wrote:
A CLEP test, which you have to pay for. As for starting a business, not everyone has talent for it. So if you don't have the people skills or knowledge to start a business then you just deserve to be poor?

They don't deserve anything. they don't deserve to be poor. They don't deserve to be rich. There is no judgement of what should be.

Are you morally ok with living in a society of great wealth that just allows people to slip through the cracks?

Frazzled wrote:

ShivanAngel wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Morality is irrelevant. Its life. You play the hand you're dealt.

Except unlike cards, you can do a lot to change the odds... Either for good or for bad... There are some things you have no control over, but many you do....

You cant say slacking off in school and then dropping out was a hand dealt to you, you looked through the deck and chose a gakky hand in that case.

Thats is true. As noted, you can only improve or fall from where you start, not where you wished you started or deserved to start. Is it fair (define fair)? yes, no, its still irrelevant.

You've got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em Fraz. And in the end the gambler broke even, which is the best you can hope for apparently...( damnit Fraz, now I"m listening to Rhapsody, I have chores to do today!)

I'm not saying that everyone should have what they want and everyone should be equal, not at all. Some people are driven to get rich, and I think they should have the opportunity to do so. My opinion is that pursuit of wealth and goods can only lead to a feeling of emptiness and "running on a treadmill" just to keep up. However, I'm open minded enough to realize that some people actually aren't fooling themselves and honestly get great satisfaction from being successful in money.

I can't really argue this because its a matter of worldview. You're seeing that the world isn't fair and accepting that fact, while I see the same thing and expect to make rules to put things right. The way I explain it is that instead of free trade, I believe in fair trade. Capitalism works when trade is between those with equal knowledge of the trade. If you sell someone a pig in a poke, that isn't fair is it? People should play the game, but they should play fair. I know I use that "F" word a lot, as my father in law puts it. Thats something I've always been big on, is being fair.

I've always heard older people tell younger people with this viewpoint that they'll change when they have to work for a living. That wasn't the case with me. I find myself very fortunate to be in the position I am, even though it isn't always satisfying. I've see others who didn't get the same opportunities, and I worry that anything could happen at any time to my good fortune. I've seen that in the world the hardest workers and the brightest thinkers aren't necessarily who is getting rewarded.

As far as things like universal healthcare, food stamps, what have you, don't you think people would actually be more willing to take a risk and start a business if they knew they had a safety net?

reds8n wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Morality is irrelevant. Its life. You play the hand you're dealt.

Take that religions of the world !

This is what boggles me about how people have managed to mesh this philosophy with Christian faith. I mean, I used to have those same political convictions, but I wasn't that religious. I've read the Bible, and from my experience the J.C. wasn't big on hoarding wealth.

dogma wrote:

Red9 wrote:It's repeatable, measureable and I'm not the first to do it. So I can expect that it will apply for everyone else provided they put in the same effort as I did or those who have done it before me.

Just as an aside, if you went door to door in the area that I grew up in, or the city I went to college in, you would have a fair chance at being arrested. In my experience there a lot of places in the US that require you to have a permit to solicit, if they haven't made it outright illegal.

Yes, living next door to Beaver Cleaver would definitely make the whole door to door service selling more practical. Some people have more limited options. Entrepreneurs in these areas usually obtain a .40 smith and a dime bag as their initial investment.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Red9 wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Wealth and job placement aren't inherently moral things. If they were (and people acted on it) parents giving their wealth to their children would be illegal and we would all go to equally capable schools. Conservatives hate communism though.

I fail to see the relevency of this.

The discussion was about about the inherent morality to capitalistic society, I stated my belief that it's inherently outside of morality and that moral social concepts have been thought up and are often times deemed immoral.

A free market is amoral, and you can engineer an economy on a moral basis,but is it not a case of 1 or 10? Isn't that the point of a mixed economy, where people are allowed to have ownership, but that they have to follow the rules. One of the things I was glad to hear about this financial reform is they're creating some sort of consumer protection agency. We've needed that ever since banks became fee oriented businesses and probably before that. I've been told that one of the things exacerbating this latest downturn was that people were sold financial products that they didn't understand, could not be expected to understand, and by people who did not make an effort or actively avoided enlightening them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Morality is irrelevant. Its life. You play the hand you're dealt.

Wait, so if a certain person is dealt a gun, but not a lot of money, and morality is irrelevant, is it then acceptable for them to engage in armed robbery?

It could be argued that trade cannot be compared to behavior. They're apparently separated in laws.

dogma wrote:

Grignard wrote:
It could be argued that trade cannot be compared to behavior. They're apparently separated in laws.

I agree that they're not comparable. The point I was trying to make is that the reason they aren't comparable is a moral one.

If morality is irrelevant, then Bernie Madoff was not a criminal, but a shrewd businessman with an entrepreneurial mind.

But there is some similarity then. Its sort of like Dante writing about those who squandered their money in hell, which he judged as a crime of violence. To the modern mind, I think it is puzzling why its a sin in the first place, and why it is violent. The reasoning is that wasting money is a violent act against the means of your own sustenance, you know, like shoeing a horse with silver f'ing horseshoes. Would that reasoning make collective ownership of property immoral, as taking someone's property is violence against the person, just like striking them?

Vene wrote:

Red9 wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Last I heard, libraries allow free access to books for self improvement and learning. Also just because a desired job that allows a person the quality of life that they think they deserve or are conditioned to believe they are entitled to are unavailable, doesn't mean that one can't downgrade to lower wager jobs or multiple jobs.

Self training programs don't typically give degrees or marks of completion that are required for better paying jobs. They're great for self motivation or preparation for training, but they are a poor substitute for actual schooling.

True, and it leads to CLEPing a class towards a college degree, look it up. Now combine self taught knowledge with starting your own enterprise, where does it say, anywhere , that you have to have a degree to start your own business.

EDIT: grammar/spelling

You can't get a degree through CLEP, there are a lot of courses that universities and colleges won't let you CLEP out of. They require you to actually take some classes. So, this really isn't a good alternative.

I think its great how people say that you need to work harder or get more skills if you want to get ahead, and then call you a whiner if you mention that breaking your ass through 4 or more years of difficult material didn't pay off quite the way you had hoped.

mattyrm wrote:Woah woah woah woah... lets all slow down.

20 bucks a lawn?!!

Im coming over in September, anyone want their lawn mowing?!

Ill do it for $19.50!

Hell, i've heard of people getting a lot more than that, and not for lawns that are huge. Its sad when you've seriously considered a career change as an adult to get into that.

sebster wrote:

This is what boggles me about how people have managed to mesh this philosophy with Christian faith. I mean, I used to have those same political convictions, but I wasn't that religious. I've read the Bible, and from my experience the J.C. wasn't big on hoarding wealth.

Yeah, all that stuff about charity and good works is kind of problem, but don't worry, there's conservatives fixing that!

http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project

They're re-writing the bible to take out all the liberal bias that's gotten in there. Seriously.

dogma wrote:It does seem over the top, even for the Schlafys, but given how nutty that family is I wouldn't presume that its fake. Then again, I also wouldn't presume that its representative of conservatism. There are some pretty well known (and not necessarily respectable) conservative bloggers that have sounded off against that particular part of conservapedia.

I have no idea who the Schalfys are. Is that something that I could look up on wikipedia or some such thing?

dogma wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Well the "strength" of Wikipedia is that everyone can edit it, so why don't you make an entry for her>

Or do you have to be tight with Jimmy Wales now?

No need.

The founder of conservadpedia.

The mother of the founder of conservapedia

Phyllis Schlafly is noted for stating that she does not believe that rape can occur under the auspices of marriage.

Most of it was of the extreme end of the spectrum, and while I may not agree with it, it wasn't all wacko. That particular line though is really weird, and made my skin crawl just a little.