Robin Williams Peace Plan!

[SpunGirl]

This may very well be the best thought out item we have read since
9/11/01. Leave it to Robin Williams to come up with the perfect
plan what we need now is for our UN Ambassador to stand up and
repeat this message.

I see a lot of people yelling for peace but I have not heard of a plan for peace. So, here is my plan.

1. The US will apologize to the world for our "interference" in their affairs, past & present. You know, Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, Noriega, Milosovich and the rest of those good ol' boys: We will never "interfere" again.

2. We will withdraw our troops from all over the world, starting with Germany, South Korea and the Philippines. They don't want us there. We would station troops at our borders. No one sneaking through holes in the fence.

3. All illegal aliens have 90 days to get their affairs together and leave. We'll give them a free trip home. After 90 days, the remainder will be gathered up and deported immediately, regardless of who or where they are. France would welcome them.

4. All future visitors will be thoroughly checked and limited to 90 days unless given a special permit. No one from a terrorist nation would be allowed in. If you don't like it there, change it yourself and don't hide here. Asylum would never be available to anyone. We don't need any more cab drivers or 7-11 cashiers.

5. No "students" over age 21. The older ones are the bombers. If they don't attend classes, they get a "D" (for "deport") and it's back home baby.

6. The US will make a strong effort to become self-sufficient energy wise.
This will include developing non-polluting sources of energy but will require a temporary drilling of oil in the Alaskan wilderness. The caribou will have to cope for a while.

7. Offer Saudi Arabia and other oil producing countries $10 a barrel for
their oil. If they don't like it, we go some place else. They can go somewhere
else to sell their production. (About a week of the wells filling up the storage
sites would be enough.)

8. If there is a famine or other natural catastrophe in the world, we will
not "interfere." They can pray to Allah or whomever for seeds, rain, cement
or whatever they need. Besides, most of what we give them is stolen or given
to the Army. The people who need it most get very little, if anything.

9. Ship the UN Headquarters to an isolated island some place. We don't need the spies and fair weather friends here. Besides, the building would make a
good homeless shelter or lockup for illegal aliens.

10. All Americans must go to charm and beauty school. That way no one can
call us "Ugly Americans" any longer. The language we speak is ENGLISH.....
learn it...or LEAVE...

Now, ain't that a winner of a plan?!

The Statue of Liberty is no longer saying "Give me your poor, your tired,
your huddled masses." She's got a baseball bat and she's yelling, "You want
a piece of me?"

Probably will spark some kind of giant debate, but I thought it was very funny.

-K

[crazymage]

he is such a funny shit when hes not doing disney movies.

[Pallon]

Weird, I figured Robin Williams for a bleeding heart pussy

:thumbsup:

[MPSorc]

RW is the man.

No RW is a big (R). Good man. better than say barbara or rosie.:moon:

[TheEschaton]

5. No "students" over age 21. The older ones are the bombers. If they don't attend classes, they get a "D" (for "deport" and it's back home baby.

My father was older than 21, when he came here as a student.


And he's brown, too.


-TheE-

[Betheny]

That's awesome.

Thanks for posting it!

[Mint]

Wow, I would have sworn under torture that Robin Williams was a huge liberal :wow:

[TheEschaton]

I think he was liberal when he was young, and a cokehead, Mint.


And became conservative as he got old and rich. Just like Dennis Miller.

-TheE-

[Hulkein]

Nah, it's called 9/11 changing them both.

Good man, I just may have to put him as a write in vote.

[Tendarian]

Sadly this is on snopes as well. He didnt write it except for the statue of liberty with a bat part.

[Nieninque]

If minding their business also means writing off third world debt, then there are some good parts about that plan.

[Tendarian]

Originally posted by Nieninque
If minding their business also means writing off third world debt, then there are some good parts about that plan.

If it does im going straight to my credit card company and telling them to mind their own business.

[Sean]

Originally posted by TheEschaton

5. No "students" over age 21. The older ones are the bombers. If they don't attend classes, they get a "D" (for "deport" and it's back home baby.

My father was older than 21, when he came here as a student.

-TheE-

I started college at 17 and wont grad will 22. Why? Because a BArch is a 5 year program.

[Betheny]

My boyfriend told me that people under 30 tend to be liberal, those over 30 tend to be conservative.

At least, this holds true in our household. We shall see if that changes in oh... 7 years or so, when I turn 30. :) Or maybe sooner, if I get rich. Haha.

[GSTamral]

Not to agree or disagree with his antics on foreign policy, but it is a nice and quaint way to tell people who criticize American and Bush's foreign policy to shut the fuck up, because at least one country is out there looking out for more than just its own interests.

To reiterate from before, the only reason France was against the war in Iraq is because they didnt want the world to know they were selling conventional arms and missile warheads to the Iraqi government despite the embargo. An embargo they themselves supported and voted for and understood.

We allow many other countries to invest in our bonds and into our debt despite their own issues with having soft currency, thereby turning the dollar into the new gold standard. If we tell them to fuck off, many governments of third world countries would have no choice but to declare bankruptcy.

I believe this country has no business allowing people to enter this country who have no formal education and cannot properly speak english. We can get our own unskilled labor from within without getting it from a foreign country. Those who bring with them skills however, and an education, and the ability to speak english are an assett. This is not to imply that we should accept all incomers with a degree, but allow people in based on assumptions of their ability to become quickly self sufficient and not a taxation on the system. Closing our borders outright is not a valid answer.

<<
10. All Americans must go to charm and beauty school. That way no one can
call us "Ugly Americans" any longer. The language we speak is ENGLISH.....
learn it...or LEAVE...
>>

This rings a particular bell with me, because it is an issue close to home. Being it my parents came from India, I applaud them for having the intelligence and the courage to speak English ONLY in the house until I was in kindergarten. Many of my other relatives insist on speaking only Marahti and Hindi in the house to prevent their children from losing their heritage. I find it ironic that they would say that, because they have no intention of ever returning to India, and they want their children to flourish in America and raise a family here. Every now and then they chastise my parents or myself for forgetting our roots, although they stopped it entirely when I gave them a bit of a lecture on why it was they who were mistaken. The gist of it as follows.

Allowing a child to grow up in a household where English is not spoken severely handicaps a child, especially if you plan on staying in this country. If you were planning on returning to your native land, it would be just as important to ensure they spoke the native language. When a child enters kindergarten not knowing how to speak English on least a rudimentary level, they are forced to play catch-up. While children are much faster learners, they are also much more quick to judge, and become convinced with much less reinforcement. Children in this situation are often ostracized at a very young age, and in turn, begin to form social groups only with people in a similar situation, that they can effectively communicate with.

When I was in high school, and even college, and even work, I see a trend which is, to me, disturbing. Many Indians will only talk socially with one another. The same with Chinese people, Hispanic people, and Russian/Eastern European people. Many of these people in their respective cliques were born and raised in the United States, but because of not knowing English early enough in life, their social groups became restricted in a similar situation. Many have been with the company for years and years, and yet very very few of them have ever made advancements. The reason is simple. The lack of social skills, the lack of leadership skills, and the lack of confidence in their communications skills to provide proper coordination. Even at ages of 40 and above, they remain, at least on the surface, distrustful of those who are not like them, even in the workplace, and a hint of that is often returned to them, and you cannot promote someone you don't trust, be it a valid assumption or not.

The bottom line is, you can speak whatever language you want at home, as long as you ensure your child goes into the schooling system with enough of a background and understanding of the language they need to succeed in school. I see many of my parent's friends. They only have other Indian friends, as if other races do not even exist. In my eyes, they are just as ignorant and stupid as Ben.

You should not be in the United States if you are not prepared to accept the rules and customs of being here. If you can't speak the language, either learn it ASAP or get the fuck out.

[GSTamral]

Maimara, age wise, its not quite 30, and age has less to do with it than money and level of education. breakdown by education level/money:

Now, this is not the number of people who voted republican/voted democrat in any election, this is the NUMBER of registered voters by class/education level:


Education Level:
NO H.S Democrat 83% Republican 17%
H.S Democrat 58% Republican 42%
Some College Republican 52% Democrat 48%
2 year degree Democrat 50% Republican 49%
4 year degree Republican 57% Democrat 43%
Masters deg. Republican 74% Democrat 26%
PHD. Democrat 54% Republican 46%

Now, it has been argued that the PHD numbers are skewed due to the number of PHD's that opt into teaching, a job classification that is over 80% democrat, and they have a higher propensity to register with a side than do others.


By class level: (all numbers are in gross pre-tax income)

Lower Class (under 11,700 for a single person, 18,600 for a married couple): Heavily Democrat

Lower Middle Class: Slightly Republican

Middle Class: Almost dead even (50-49 republican prior to 2000 elections).

Upper Middle Class: Heavily Republican

Lower Upper Class: Heavily Republican

Upper Class: Heavily Democrat

[GSTamral]

Niennique, that debt amount keeps increasing every year because we end up loaning them more and more every year.

How about if we were to say, were all for writing it off, but never lending them credit again. Is that more suitable to you? It's not like we'll ever see that money again anyway, so why not write them off completely, and let them not buy medicine and food with all the money they don't have?

Statements like that end up taking all of the good and noble work Bono is attempting to do and twisting it into a stupid clusterfucked argument that misses the entire point that he is trying to get across.

[Latrinsorm]

Bono's the freaking man.

[GSTamral]

I fully agree. As bleeding heart as Bono is, if he ever runs for office, I'd vote for him on the sheer knowledge that I know that while sometimes misguided, he actually cares enough to devote his life to a cause.

[TheEschaton]

Not to agree or disagree with his antics on foreign policy, but it is a nice and quaint way to tell people who criticize American and Bush's foreign policy to shut the fuck up, because at least one country is out there looking out for more than just its own interests.

Cause everything we do is not self-interested (note the dripping sarcasm). Everything we do as a foreign policy is steeped in self-interest, I doubt you can find one thing in the past 60 years we've done as a country, which wasn't self-interested. It's the reason we didn't go into Rwanda (Clinton). About the only thing that can come close to being not self-interested was taking out Milosevic (Clinton). If an action benefits another, so be it. But those are side effects, consequences, not the main purpose.


We allow many other countries to invest in our bonds and into our debt despite their own issues with having soft currency, thereby turning the dollar into the new gold standard. If we tell them to fuck off, many governments of third world countries would have no choice but to declare bankruptcy.

If we allowed third world countries to spend money to actually help themselves, through the IMF and World Bank, instead of demanding they use the money to make FTAAs, making the elite in that country and ours even more rich while leaving the rest of the country in debt, then maybe they wouldn't need to borrow so much credit.


I believe this country has no business allowing people to enter this country who have no formal education and cannot properly speak english. We can get our own unskilled labor from within without getting it from a foreign country. Those who bring with them skills however, and an education, and the ability to speak english are an assett. This is not to imply that we should accept all incomers with a degree, but allow people in based on assumptions of their ability to become quickly self sufficient and not a taxation on the system. Closing our borders outright is not a valid answer.

Are you American? I mean, honestly? A) There is no national language in the U.S. People can speak whatever the fuck they want, and thus cannot be held to your standard of "English or nothing". B) Closing immigration to only those who could be an asset? Who decides who can be an asset? What's the standard for that?

As usual, you would give up freedom, for capitalism, for production, for the almighty buck. The ONLY qualifier for people who want to come here is that you are "yearning to be free". That's why that boatload of Jews being sent back to Germany was such a big deal in the 40s. God forbid you try and define a person's freedom for them.

As for the last bit of your post, I grew up in a similar situation. My parents only spoke English, my mother didn't wear a sari, my father didn't wear a turban (then again, we are Catholics, not Sikhs), etc, etc. I also notice how Indian people tend to flock to their own, etc, etc, etc. However....and this is a big however....we cannot, by reasons stated above, force people to comply to a certain (educational) standard. This is why forbidding bilingual education, like they did in MA a couple years back, is inherently un-American. The ideals this country are FOUNDED ON say that we cannot tell a person how to be free, nor can we give them their freedom, nor can we set the course of their freedom.

I'll insert the following Doonesbury cartoon (from today, actually), just to illustrate the point of how the conservative viewpoint, while claiming to strengthen America, actually does the opposite. Note, by inserting said cartoon, I'm not claiming that Gary Trudeau is in any way, shape, or form, an unbiased source ;) :

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/db/2004/db040425.gif


-TheE-

[GSTamral]

<<<
Are you American? I mean, honestly? A) There is no national language in the U.S. People can speak whatever the fuck they want, and thus cannot be held to your standard of "English or nothing". B) Closing immigration to only those who could be an asset? Who decides who can be an asset? What's the standard for that?
>>>

Our schools are taught in English. That is the way it must remain. If we cannot communicate universally with others, we might as well go back to the stone age and draw pictures and hope people understand the meaning.

<<
As usual, you would give up freedom, for capitalism, for production, for the almighty buck. The ONLY qualifier for people who want to come here is that you are "yearning to be free". That's why that boatload of Jews being sent back to Germany was such a big deal in the 40s. God forbid you try and define a person's freedom for them.
>>

I tell you what. Why don't we let everyone come here and live here, and we'll raise taxes up to 90% across the board to pay for their education, their food, their apartments, and other such expenses. If you are coming here for the purpose of living off the system, and cannot hold a job, yes, I absolutely would send the person back.


<<<
This is why forbidding bilingual education, like they did in MA a couple years back, is inherently un-American. The ideals this country are FOUNDED ON say that we cannot tell a person how to be free, nor can we give them their freedom, nor can we set the course of their freedom.
>>>

No, you're right. People who sacrifice their own in large public ceremonies should be given the limelight in central park to do so. You're interpretation of freedom is quite malconstrued. People are also free to get the fuck out of this country. People are also free to bitch and moan that they cannot get a promotion because they can't properly communicate with others. But you're right.

I'll restate it. People are free to speak whatever language they so wish. Schools should spend billions upon billions of dollars to ensure that they have teachers who speak every language, and so they can conduct classes in any language needed. Businesses should move out of their way and hire and promote people they cannot properly understand in hopes of that making them better off in the future!.

TheE, you seem to like putting me in the light of the cold and the hateful, and just as simply so, I find you to be naive.

If you are coming to this country for opportunity, and then removing much of that opportunity by not teaching them the native tongue of the land, then you might as well have stayed home. You say we have no national language. Actually, we do have a national language, be it unofficial or not: English. If you cannot speak english, you will, by nature, not be afforded the same opportunities and amenities that are available if you can. That's plain and simple, and to change it would represent the stupidest movement this country has ever done.

If someone approaches me to get hired into a significant position making money, or even approaches me to become a worker at McDonalds, if he only speaks Cantonese, I will quickly draw him a picture of himself moving out the exit door, because if he cannot communicate with his co-workers or the people ordering food, he's useless.

[TheEschaton]

No, you're right. People who sacrifice their own in large public ceremonies should be given the limelight in central park to do so. You're interpretation of freedom is quite malconstrued. People are also free to get the fuck out of this country. People are also free to bitch and moan that they cannot get a promotion because they can't properly communicate with others. But you're right.

You know what I mean. As long as it doesn't infringe on another's rights, it is allowable. Unless you want to argue that the guy speaking Cantonese is infringing on our rights, we must go out of our way to communicate with him, including, if he wants to, teaching him English. But if he doesn't, we can't make him. And yes, he has to accept those consequences.

And I'm not trying to portray you as cold or heartless. I'm trying to portray you as you portray yourself. Freedom is fine, as long as you conform to my version of freedom.

That doesn't fly.

-TheE-

[Myshel]

We have a mexican woman who washes dishes for us. The hardest working sweetest woman you ever met. She is smart, motivated but she doesn't speak ( enough to be understood and to take simple orders) or write English. I would move her up in a second to a better higher paying position if she could. She has been in this country for 6 years. I've told her this. I don't have time to teach her and all her children are having a hard time in school, because they don't speak english.

My husband came to this country and within 6 months could speak and read English. He knew it was important and did it.

[Ilvane]

I agree that people who come here should learn English. My mother was born in Paris, and was immersed into an English only classroom. When it came across in the ballot questions, it was a good thing, it's much better to learn by fire, than to struggle through life not understanding the main language of our country.

Idiots who think drilling the Alaskan Wildlife refuge is a good idea should realize that little by little..each piece of the environment is being overrun by businesses or more houses. It would take years to get oil from there, and it wouldn't be enough to help out according to the studies done on this option.

I know around here every little bit of land available is getting housing. I think it's too much. We need the trees and places for the animals, or else they won't exist, and the pollution will only get worse..

I could go on, but I won't.

-A

[GSTamral]

<<<
You know what I mean. As long as it doesn't infringe on another's rights, it is allowable. Unless you want to argue that the guy speaking Cantonese is infringing on our rights, we must go out of our way to communicate with him, including, if he wants to, teaching him English. But if he doesn't, we can't make him. And yes, he has to accept those consequences.
>>>

You know, I just realized where the prime difference is in our outlooks.

You say I must go out of my way to communicate with him. No, I should then have equal freedom to not wish to learn to communicate in Cantonese yes? That would equally give me the right to show him the door and decline any requests he might make because what he is doing does present a "significant hardship" upon me to rectify.

If he wants to learn English, then by all means, let him learn English. But then don't expect other people to pay for it.

If he does not wish to learn English, again, his choice, but he must then accept all consequences of living in this culture of making that decision, and not expect everyone else to conform to HIM and go out of their way, thereby infringing upon EVERYONE ELSE'S FREEDOM to not want to learn or communicate in Cantonese.

If you don't want to learn english in the United States, you have that right. But people also have the right to dig their own graves too. As long as they are prepared to live with the consequences, which may include, severely limited opportunities, ostracization from public society, and forcing them to only live amongst their own, and NOT WHINE AND CRY ABOUT IT, then yes, I agree they have that freedom.

Everyone has the right to whine and cry about anything they want. I don't think you have any room to say otherwise.

[TheEschaton]

You say I must go out of my way to communicate with him. No, I should then have equal freedom to not wish to learn to communicate in Cantonese yes? That would equally give me the right to show him the door and decline any requests he might make because what he is doing does present a "significant hardship" upon me to rectify.

Quibbling over semantics here. You, as a private person, have the right to not deal with the Cantonese guy. However, the gov't does NOT have the right (and when I say gov't, education falls under this) to say he cannot live in this country free from English. And that as a gov't, we must go out of our way to communicate in the language he wishes to be communicated in. That's the whole POINt of not having a national language.

-TheE-

[GSTamral]

You're right Ranger, Strike the whine and cry part. As long as they are prepared to live with the limited opportunities, ostracization, etc.. they have the freedom. Whether or not they want to whine and cry about it is their own perogative. But they would be extremely misled if they thought that society would spend the billions upon billions to ensure their own personal opportunities and infringe upon the rights of others to not want to communicate in a language other than English.

[Ilvane]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
[quote]
Quibbling over semantics here. You, as a private person, have the right to not deal with the Cantonese guy. However, the gov't does NOT have the right (and when I say gov't, education falls under this) to say he cannot live in this country free from English. And that as a gov't, we must go out of our way to communicate in the language he wishes to be communicated in. That's the whole POINt of not having a national language.

-TheE-

I disagree with you, I think for the first time.:) I think that you need to learn English if you are living in America, or you are at a disadvantage. If you don't understand the main language of the
country then you are not going to do well in many things.

-A

[GSTamral]

Yes TheE, the government will gladly have a translator relay to him that:

1) we will not provide special singular schooling in Cantonese.

2) The local companies have absolutely no obligation to hire you, and because the lack of speaking english presents a significant hardship to them, can hold it against you that you do not speak English.

3) When you have children, the local area schools will not go out and spend an extra 500,000 a year to hire teachers who speak Cantonese, and that all classes in the public system locally are conducted in English. This may cause said child to fall significantly behind in terms of years and grades.

The government will ensure that he understands those terms fairly and clearly. While the government has no right to tell you what language to speak, the government also has the right to inform you that making such a choice in the name of freedom may also have consequences that he must be ready to deal with.

[Sean]

But isn't it your right to chose to be at that disadvantage? Should the gov't force you to live upto your potential if you don't want to? Personally I think No. As long as your willing to live with the consequences.

Whether or not they are prepared to deal with their decisions (which everyone should regardless) has no baring on if they should be allowed in this country.

Now, if you want to make english proficiency a requisite to receive aid from the government then you might have a legitimate argument, but then again I beleive that is already effectively the case



Originally posted by GSTamral
You're right Ranger, Strike the whine and cry part. As long as they are prepared to live with the limited opportunities, ostracization, etc.. they have the freedom. Whether or not they want to whine and cry about it is their own perogative. But they would be extremely misled if they thought that society would spend the billions upon billions to ensure their own personal opportunities and infringe upon the rights of others to not want to communicate in a language other than English.

[TheEschaton]

3) When you have children, the local area schools will not go out and spend an extra 500,000 a year to hire teachers who speak Cantonese, and that all classes in the public system locally are conducted in English. This may cause said child to fall significantly behind in terms of years and grades.

This may be reasonable for, say, Cantonese. But is it reasonable for Spanish?

I don't think so. If people want to speak Spanish only their whole lives, that's fine. In my last job, we had people who were proficient in Spanish, because on the West Side of Buffalo, there's no English to be had, sometimes. It was a good business decision for us, not a bad one. Now, do we have any employees that ONLY speak Spanish? Nope. But we had some whose English was spotty, at best.

-TheE-

[i]Originally posted by TheEschaton

Quibbling over semantics here. You, as a private person, have the right to not deal with the Cantonese guy. However, the gov't does NOT have the right (and when I say gov't, education falls under this) to say he cannot live in this country free from English. And that as a gov't, we must go out of our way to communicate in the language he wishes to be communicated in. That's the whole POINt of not having a national language.

-TheE-

Being the Private person I am, why should I be required to pay higher taxes so others who only know Cantonese can get ahead?

I am for a national language.

[TheEschaton]

There's a reason you're not in charge, Edine.


-TheE-

[GSTamral]

<<<
This may be reasonable for, say, Cantonese. But is it reasonable for Spanish?
>>>

Absolutely. Who are you to say someone who knows Cantonese only is a lesser person than someone who knows only Spanish. The world of business is conducted in English. Our school systems are primarily english. The person who chooses to speak Spanish should be, from a federal standpoint, at the exact same disadvantage as someone who speaks only Cantonese. The government should not go any more or less out of their way to accomodate either.

A person who speaks only Spanish, may have marginally better opportunities because there are areas of the country where Spanish is spoken more universally, and there may be employers who are less burdened and willing to hire someone who only speaks Spanish. But again, opportunities are severely limited, and the government has absolutely no obligation to force everyone else to accomodates someone who made a choice to not speak English. That's an infringement on their freedom to not speak a language other than English.

[Snapp]

TheE, your example was a business decision.. and a wise one, sure. I agree with Tamral, this is an English speaking country. I wouldn't go to another country and expect them to teach me their language, or have someone readily available to translate for me. I'd either have to learn it, or be at a disadvantage.

[Betheny]

I don't think people should erase their cultural identities, but you know what? When in Rome. Do as the Romans do.

I'm not suggesting people change their religion or bleach their skin or anything like that. Never forget where you're from, and never forget to share with your children where they are from. However. You cannot expect people to go out of their way to cater to your every need. If you are not in China, you cannot honestly expect to speak Chinese everywhere you go. It just doesn't work that way.

[Ravenstorm]

If you intend to live in the US, speak English. Some minimal proficiency should be a requirement.

However, I do believe we should teach them if they want to be taught. A cost comparable to a similar course in a community college sounds reasonable to charge and they can be eligible for a student loan to help them cover the cost. Paying it back can be accomplished by their wages being garnished at a reasonable rate over a period of time.

Raven

[Tendarian]

In the town i live in where i went to high school we have lots of classes for english as a second language. They get taught english as well as other studies until they understand it enough to go to the mainstream classes. I think this works fine for here but i dont know if thats only because we have a very small minority of people who dont speak english. Definately if you are gonna live here be ready to learn english or for a life of misery.

[Latrinsorm]

I bet spoken/written language will be gone in 50 years anyway.

[Wezas]

In the past I didn't have a problem with people not speaking english who lived here. After all, if I were to move to Italy, it would take me a while to learn the language.

In my current office, a few years back we had the social security office a few floors down for us. I can't even think of how many times I had to tell people which floor the office was when they stopped me and said "Cheque de renta".

The office has since moved, but occasionally we still get that question. Some of these people may be legal citizens, but I doubt most of them are. Yet getting a Social Security check every month.

[SpunGirl]

Originally posted by Tijay
But isn't it your right to chose to be at that disadvantage? Should the gov't force you to live upto your potential if you don't want to? Personally I think No. As long as your willing to live with the consequences.

I couldn't agree with you more, Tijay. This means not suing the comany that didn't hire your non-English speaking ass and not petitioning the government to print ballots, driver's tests, and any other leaflet they put out in Cantonese.

-K

[Latrinsorm]

Isn't Cantonese a spoken dialect, exactly the same in written as all other Chinese dialects? :offtopic:

And y'all know we'll be speaking Spanish in 60 years anyway. I can't wait for white people to be a minority, it's going to be so interesting. :)

Naw not quite, you won't find one who speaks Cantonese being able to understand one who speaks Manderin<sp> very well
Its more like the differences between the romance languages I think, still based on the same rules somewhat, but totally different.

[Nakiro]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Isn't Cantonese a spoken dialect, exactly the same in written as all other Chinese dialects? :offtopic:

And y'all know we'll be speaking Spanish in 60 years anyway. I can't wait for white people to be a minority, it's going to be so interesting. :)


Originally posted by Latrinsorm
I bet spoken/written language will be gone in 50 years anyway.

WTF? Which is it exactly that you believe?

A national language is retarded.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Nakiro
WTF? Which is it exactly that you believe?Language will be gone in 50 years, then 10 years later it will be back (as Spanish).

[SpunGirl]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

And y'all know we'll be speaking Spanish in 60 years anyway. I can't wait for white people to be a minority, it's going to be so interesting. :)

White people already are the minority worldwide, as are Christians.

-K

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by SpunGirl
White people already are the minority worldwide, as are Christians.For whatever reason, I do not live in the rest of the world, I live here, and here white people are by far the majority. I've been way off in my Christian radar before, so I won't guess that, but it's much easier to tell if someone's white or not.

[Shari]

I think I'm going to move to Australia.

You never hear anything about political chaos down there.

:D

I wouldn't bet that.

[Shari]

I know, but I can dream, can't I?

Plus I would stay drunk and swim in the reef all day. <sighs whistfully>

[Hulkein]

Ya can stay drunk and swim in offshore dumpage in New Jersey. :D

[Sean]

Don't knock jersey you know all you philly people come over to use our shore. :(

[Hulkein]

Yeah but we know we're all garbage, haha.

Wildwood is nice now, we haven't seen a syringe for at least 8 years.

[Nakiro]

Originally posted by Jesae
I know, but I can dream, can't I?

Plus I would stay drunk and swim in the reef all day. <sighs whistfully>

Have fun with the jelly fish.

[Shari]

Originally posted by Nakiro

Originally posted by Jesae
I know, but I can dream, can't I?

Plus I would stay drunk and swim in the reef all day. <sighs whistfully>

Have fun with the jelly fish.

Let us not forget the great white shark, funnel spider, scorching heat, and the worlds 2nd deadliest snake (don't remember the name)

I'll take my chances.

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by GSTamral
If you are coming to this country for opportunity, and then removing much of that opportunity by not teaching them the native tongue of the land, then you might as well have stayed home. You say we have no national language. Actually, we do have a national language, be it unofficial or not: English. If you cannot speak english, you will, by nature, not be afforded the same opportunities and amenities that are available if you can. That's plain and simple, and to change it would represent the stupidest movement this country has ever done.

What about deaf people? Or people who are unable to speak at all? They generally dont speak English, so where do we pack them off to?

Being able to communicate with other people is a great thing, regardless of the way you do it. I will agree that if you are providing a front-line service for something, English in an English speaking country should be a pre-requisite for the job, but whats to stop you from trying to reach other people too? If kids are taught other languages and even sign language in school, it enriches life. That can only be a good thing.

[Atlanteax]

Passing a profiency test in English should be a requirement to graduate HS.

This will take care of the inability to speak English problem.

As you're not going to get anywhere in the real world without the minimum of a high school diploma.

There is a difference between a disability and not being able to speak english Nieninque, so that does not really apply.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Nieninque
If kids are taught other languages and even sign language in school, it enriches life. That can only be a good thing. That's only one half of the cost-benefit analysis (specifically, the benefit half). It would be great if each kid got a personal tutor, they would learn a lot more. But it would also be a lot more expensive.

[Caiylania]

I do believe that in America people should speak English.

Just as I am learning Italian (since I live in Italy).

What gets me, is the same people who are annoyed by people not speaking English in America, get stationed overseas, and then refuse to learn the language and get mad when the stores, resteraunts, etc...... have employees who do not speak English.

Ugh.

[Wezas]

Originally posted by Caiylania
What gets me, is the same people who are annoyed by people not speaking English in America, get stationed overseas, and then refuse to learn the language and get mad when the stores, resteraunts, etc...... have employees who do not speak English.

And the shitty thing is, at least in the places I've visited in Italy, people really make an effort to help you if your Italian is horrible. A good portion of them speak English. In most cases I didn't even need to revert to my butchered Spanish to try to communicate what I was asking. They spoke English.

But, as you've said, if I were to live there I would definately learn the language. And I think that should be the same in any country where a person resides, including America.

If you want to be stubborn and not learn English, then don't start bitching when you can't figure out what the hell to do and there isn't a translator in every business.

[Blazing247]

I wish people would stop bastardizing American "rights".

<This is why forbidding bilingual education, like they did in MA a couple years back, is inherently un-American. The ideals this country are FOUNDED ON say that we cannot tell a person how to be free, nor can we give them their freedom, nor can we set the course of their freedom. >

When the Constitution/Bill of Rights was penned, I would like to think that the drafters did not intend for it to be manipulated and mangled into conversations the way it is today. God forbid anyone in this country try to have some nationality, we get stoned and shouted down as un-American. Show me where the Chinese, Indian, etc. penned their name to this document, and I'll agree that cultural pluralism was the desired outcome of the founding fathers.

The entire analogy of the melting pot is a romantic lie. If we had several cultures melting together into one, that would certainly be idealistic. However, we have cultures coming into this country that have no desire to be a part of America. Why they come here, I have no idea. One need look only as far as the Little China's around the country to realize the separatist behaviors by the immigrants of this country. Again I say, this is not the intent nor the principle that this country was founded on.

This country was never meant to be the haven for free loading, non-English speaking immigrants that it has become. Please do not take this statement to mean that I think all immigrants are free loaders. We have our share of free loaders born on this soil, to be sure. Those who come to this country with no desire to learn at the least the basic American values, to become at least minimally contributing members of society, have NO PLACE HERE. That is not an un-American sentiment, that is very much an American sentiment.

You want to further this non-homogenous mess of a society we call America and start teaching multiple languages in school? And who foots the bill for that? I have to pay more taxes cause your lazy ass can't learn to speak the tongue of my country? Fuck you. Adapt, improvise, overcome, or get the hell out of my country. As long as I am a living and breathing person, the signs on my streets will always be in English, the operator will always answer the phone in English, and I certainly won't pay more taxes so that our schools can adapt to your unwillingness to adapt to the ways of America.

Seriously, please stop defending every argument about why people do not need to be productive English speaking members of society by waving the "land of the free" banner. It's pretty trite.

Okay, just to steer this back on topic: The original point of discussion was that people who do not speak english should not be allowed in America. There is a distinct difference between that and "lets teach everyone multiple languages"

[Tendarian]

“Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" :duh:

[Blazing247]

<Okay, just to steer this back on topic: The original point of discussion was that people who do not speak english should not be allowed in America. There is a distinct difference between that and "lets teach everyone multiple languages">

There most certainly is a difference, however that is not what he was alluding towards. I am all for making our children bi-lingual. Foreign language is already a mandatory part of our education system. He was talking about TEACHING in other languages for those that have not/will not learn English. That is what I disagree with. I wasn't attempting to derail the conversation.

No, it wasn't only you. So don't think i was singling you out this time.

[TheEschaton]

You don't think this country was founded on the right to be free, no matter who you were, what you believed, or, God forbid, how you spoke?

I would think that's a very basic tenet of what this country is founded on. That you don't have to be anything to have a shot in this country, except respectful of the "inalienable rights" of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

-TheE-

[Hulkein]

He's saying that just because we are all allowed to be free doesn't mean that everyone in the country deserves to be put at a disadvantage just to cater to every aspect of everyones life.

[TheEschaton]

Then maybe we think differently about things, in that I do not mind sacrifice for the betterment of my peers, whereas everyone else here is so tied to their capitalistic greed that they can't stop to think if they really NEED the things they swear they couldn't do without.

Sorry, that's just the anti-capitalist in me speaking out.

-TheE-

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Hulkein
He's saying that just because we are all allowed to be free doesn't mean that everyone in the country deserves to be put at a disadvantage just to cater to every aspect of everyones life. How does your next door neighbor not speaking a lot of English put you at a disadvantage?

[Hulkein]

Paying tax dollars to ensure that schools teach every class in multiple languages would put me and everyone working and paying taxes at a disadvantage.

[Edited on 4-28-2004 by Hulkein]

[Blazing247]

<How does your next door neighbor not speaking a lot of English put you at a disadvantage?>

Perhaps the fact that the ability to successfully communicate is the basis of any civilized society? Or would you have us all go back to drawing on walls or maybe clapping rocks as a form of communication? Where does one draw the line? What happens if there is an emergency, but these people can't understand the broadcast because they are English illiterate? What if someone needs help, but they can't lend a hand because they don't know what the hell the person is asking for?

I can't believe you're trying to debate this. If we lived in a world where our neighbors all spoke very different languages than us, we wouldn't be a NATION. In fact, American society as we know it would probably crumble. We are a nation of people. We need to have a common denominator. I don't care if people dress like me, worship my God (if I weren't atheist), or listen to my music, but you damn well better speak the language of the country you are in.

<Then maybe we think differently about things, in that I do not mind sacrifice for the betterment of my peers, whereas everyone else here is so tied to their capitalistic greed that they can't stop to think if they really NEED the things they swear they couldn't do without. >

:violin: And it's playing just for you. We need a bleeding heart icon, while we're at it. You are just so compassionate and caring. I'm such a capatalistic pig. In that case, give me half your paycheck? I think we can do without the drama tugging at our heart strings in this debate. Just because I don't like making sacrifices for people I do not know (and who if the situation was reversed, would likely not do for me) does not make me a capitalistic pig. I see enough of my hard earned tax dollars wasted on a daily basis thanks to the fucking Democrats of yester years, no need to add fuel to that fire.

[Weedmage Princess]

The E, I think your heart is in the right place...but your view does more harm than good for the citizens of this country. Those like you and I who work everyday, pump millions and millions in taxes into the government with little to nothing to show for it.

Why is it that an employed woman who shells out close to $300 a week in taxes, who is pregnant and worked up until the doctor placed her on bedrest during her 8th month of pregnancy is given nothing from the government while she's on unpaid maternity leave and looking to return to work in three to four months...YET...a woman who isn't even a citizen of this country, pays ZERO dollars in taxes, doesn't work and probably has no intention of working...gets a check from the government consisting of my tax money, free formula for her baby and free food for herself and for her family? That's a little more than a minor inconvenience...and it damn sure isn't fair.

About the language issue...I agree with what Tijay said. Sure, you want to come to this country and not learn English, that's fine..however you need to deal with the consequences. I shouldn't have to dig a little deeper into my wallet to hand over my money which I work hard for 40 plus hours a week to support someone who can't support themselves due to their inability to speak the language spoken by most citizens of the country. My mother's mother came stateside knowing little English, mostly Spanish. She didn't attend any classes taught in Spanish, she wasn't apart of any English immersion programs, yet she managed to do what she had to do. She graduated from college with a Bachelor's degree in nursing, got a job and went on to get married and had eleven kids having not received a penny from welfare or any other sort of government aid. If she could do this back then...there's no friggin reason why ANYONE coming to this country can't do it today.

[Edited on 4-28-2004 by Weedmage Princess]

[SpunGirl]

YAY Weedmage. YAY.

I am so sick and tired of people feeling that they are automatically entitled to everything because of hardship or shitty choices they make, not because of hard work.

I'll give you a great example of how this kind of mentality affects people.

I was nominated for a government-sponsored scholarship my Sophomore year of college that would have paid for the rest of my education. Granted, my parents could afford it, and not getting the scholarship wasn't going to mean the difference between me finishing college or not. But the scholarship was supposed to be awarded on the basis of academic merit, and at that time I had a 4.0 GPA. I was also working THREE different jobs at the same time I was carrying a full course load (16 hours).

Another girl whose father works with my father also applied for the scholarship. This girl had a lower GPA (3.6) but was working and raising a child as a single parent. Yes, she lived with her parents, who were absorbing quite a bit of her expenses. It's not like she was stretching her every last dollar. And yes, her parents too could afford her tuition, so this scholarship didn't mean education versus no education for her, either.

Who do you think got the money? She did.

She was commended in her letter for raising her daughter on her own and staying in school. And while I think this is great, I also think it's absolute bullshit that while I DID NOT make the choice to have unsafe sex, I did NOT make the choice to have a child out of wedlock and I did NOT do ANY of these idiotic things, I was passed over for someone who did.

This is no different than the school system where I grew up offering something called "New Start" for the kids who dropped out of school. While this isn't a horrible thing, what I think is disgusting is the way all these kids got free river trips for completing the program. These trips cost upwards of $3000. Excuse me, but WHAT THE FUCK! I never dropped out of school. Where is my fucking river trip?

Lastly, in this little rant, I'll relay something my Aunt told me about. My cousin is a senior in high school this year at a public school in Yorba Linda. Apparently the school is considering doing away with the academic and athletic awards ceremony they hold at the end of each year (this year being the last) because of complaints that handing out awards makes the kids who didn't get any "feel bad." So now we're not even allowed to tout accomplishments of kids who worked hard for fear of making the ones who didn't feel inadequate?

This is all the same stuff, just on a smaller scale.

And it's all BULLSHIT.

-K

[Weedmage Princess]

Yeah, let's do away with awards...because it makes the other kids "feel bad." God forbid someone gets motivated to get off their ass and try to excel at something. No, can't have that.

That's the problem with this society...it seems the people who sit on their ass and do nothing are rewarded...while people who get up and work are punished. Funny thing is, I'm not even ASKING to be rewarded for doing what I'm supposed to do. I'm just asking not to have to fork over my money so some uneducated lazy slacker can sit on their ass all day and buy cigarettes with foodstamps.

Originally posted by TheEschaton
Then maybe we think differently about things, in that I do not mind sacrifice for the betterment of my peers, whereas everyone else here is so tied to their capitalistic greed that they can't stop to think if they really NEED the things they swear they couldn't do without.

Sorry, that's just the anti-capitalist in me speaking out.

-TheE-
Spoken like a man who has had everything handed to him and has not had to work to get ahead.

[Myshel]

What I find interesting about this discussion is the international language is English. It might well be Spanish in the future but right now its English. In Europe, (as well as Japan) parents shell out alot of money to have their kids tutored in English. In fact, in Europe most people speak a few languages. My husbands brother spent quite a bit of money out of his pocket to make sure both of his boys speak, read and write English.

Like I said in an earlier post, my husband learned to speak, read and write English in 6 months when he immigrated. He found a English class given by the school system and made it his priority. As an immigrant he thinks its stupid that people don't learn this language, and its one of his pet peaves. When he found out that they gave the citizen tests in Spanish, he was livid. There is a huge Greek community in Florida, I would say 98% know English very well, not just speech but reading and writing too.

As far as opportunity, he was making 100k a year within 10 years of immigrating here, this with no formal education. This is not unusual in the Greek Community, we know many self made men and women. Though they love their homeland, stay connected though the Greek Orthodox Church, and cont. their customs within the Greek community. They also embraced their new homeland, learned the language and took advantage of the opportunities here.

[TheEschaton]

We need to have a common denominator.

Isn't the fact that we all "yearn to be free" enough of a denominator for you?


And, if I was working, and you actually needed half my paycheck, I would very willingly give it to you, no problem.

I agree that gov't waste has to be cut, but this is the fundamental reason I don't agree with the Republican mindset of: "Forget social services, private charity will help people in need." But the fact is, people are fundamentally greedy, and, like you said, wouldn't help someone they didn't know, if they weren't compelled to.

-TheE-

[i]Originally posted by TheEschaton


And, if I was working, and you actually needed half my paycheck, I would very willingly give it to you, no problem.
-TheE-

Did anyone else have their bullshit alarm go off?

[TheEschaton]

That's a little more than a minor inconvenience...and it damn sure isn't fair.

Justice isn't meant to be fair. Neither is freedom. If it were, people who killed rapists wouldn't be put in jail, and people who had websites like NAMBLA's, would not be allowed to express their thoughts.

That is, indeed, the very price of freedom, that no one's willing to accept.


To address Spun's concerns: believe me, I'm not one to say we shouldn't give out awards to make other people "not feel bad", nor am I just for unchecked charity. I do not believe in the tenet of "Pull oneself up by the bootstraps" because often, people don't have any boots to pull themselves up by. Charity must be mixed with self-actualization. But simply saying, "Get off your ass and do it" is not enough, just like giving people everything can quickly lead to institutionalization and do nothing for them either.

As for Edine: look who's talking...I've heard enough of your own roots to make me question if you've ever worked for anything in your life. My family comes from poverty. Do you think I was rich while my dad was slaving for $100 a week for his whole family to live on? Here's a hint, no, I wasn't. I am blessed to have the opportunities I had.....but if you think I went to as good a college as I went to, despite some lack of work, you're an idiot.

Ooops, I already postulated that one before, that you were an idiot. You've yet to disprove it.

-TheE-

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Blazing247
What happens if there is an emergency, but these people can't understand the broadcast because they are English illiterate? What if someone needs help, but they can't lend a hand because they don't know what the hell the person is asking for? You missed it. THEY are at the disadvantage, not YOU.
Originally posted by Hulkein
Paying tax dollars to ensure that schools teach every class in multiple languages would put me and everyone working and paying taxes at a disadvantage. I didn't say anything about tax dollars.
Originally posted by SpunGirl
I never dropped out of school. Where is my fucking river trip?I never thought I'd see the story of the prodigal son in the real world. How bout that. :D
So now we're not even allowed to tout accomplishments of kids who worked hard for fear of making the ones who didn't feel inadequate?I got an award at the end of high school. A lot of other kids worked harder than me and got nothing. Hard work doesn't mean one will get an award, and getting an award doesn't mean one has worked hard.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

TheE, I agree with some of the things you say, and disagree with others (gee, that was insightful, lol)... anyway, obvious aside

I think your humanitarian beliefs have blinded you to the "good" that capitalism can bring about. I think a hard worker should be rewarded more than the person next to him/her doing just enough to keep from being fired. You seem to argue that we should be a socialist society and everyone gets everything they "need", and no one gets what they think they need.

I'll ask you, if you are so overwrought with grief over the plight of the uneducated, the poor, the unemployed, why don't you sell the computer you don't "need", and line the pockets of these people. Why don't you sell your car, the cable tv you watch pay television on, cancel your GS and walk the walk. Otherwise you are just preaching, not practicing. I guess I'm tired of you esposing how we are all evil capitalists when you yourself are one.

Just something to think about next time you tell us all how we are capitalist pigs, from your computer that could be better used funding the hobo's down on the corner.

I got my first job at 12, cleaning hotel rooms in Florida<family friends>, at 13 I got a job as a bus boy, when I moved to Chicago I worked for a year and a half as a butcher's assistant, then I got a job at Walmart worked there for 2 years as a stock man <cart pusher> Then got into the vision center, was there for almost two years before I left and got a job with Dr. Flora, my current employer. I have paid for my own schooling, car, ect., and I have paid rent since I turned 18 to live in my house. Ive now been working for 9 years. Now the fact that my family might have money, does not relate to my mother or myself having that money.. So, now you know more. Being first generation on my fathers side of the family and being that my father believed in letting his children find their way on their own in life, I have not asked for or recieved anything from him since I moved back in with my mother in 1998.

You know a little bit more about where I come from.

[TheEschaton]

You seem to argue that we should be a socialist society and everyone gets everything they "need", and no one gets what they think they need.

Well, I am a closet socialist, yes.


I'll ask you, if you are so overwrought with grief over the plight of the uneducated, the poor, the unemployed, why don't you sell the computer you don't "need", and line the pockets of these people. Why don't you sell your car, the cable tv you watch pay television on, cancel your GS and walk the walk. Otherwise you are just preaching, not practicing. I guess I'm tired of you esposing how we are all evil capitalists when you yourself are one.

Well, first off: socialism does not mean the selling of everything and re-appropriating everything equally. That's communism. Socialism is about making sure everyone has what they need to have a life of quality.

Secondly, I am spiritually detached from everything I own. I could give it all away tomorrow, and I would care less. In fact, I am already. I'm going to the middle of nowhere. I try and practice what I preach, but obviously, I am not perfect.

Furthermore, if I completely got rid of the computer, how would I spread my manifesto to the world? ;)

-TheE-

[TheEschaton]

My father has paid for my tuition in college, Edine, since I turned 18. That's it.

I have been charged rent to live in my parent's house, I have held a job since the age of 15 (this period right now is the first time I've been unemployed since that age, and, from my posting frequency, you can guess I'm bored out of my mind, waiting to go to Africa), I have paid my own housing at college, my own books, my own living expenses, everything.

There, now you know a little bit more about me. ;) One of my father's first lessons is the value of a dollar. I bought this computer I'm typing on right now, out of the job I held while I was in college (full course load + full time job = no sleep).

-TheE-

[Latrinsorm]

How the hell did y'all get jobs before 16? Everyone told me it was illegal. I mean, yeah I got some cash, but it wasn't a job.

[TheEschaton]

In NY you can get this special permit sorta thing. It limits how long you can work in a week, and how late. I think it was something like 15 hours a week, no later than 10 pm. I was a dishwasher.

-TheE-

[Weedmage Princess]

Depends on your state. It used to be in New York State you could get your working papers at 14.

Well then TheE we have a lot more in common than we thought.

In flordia working age is 14, no permit needed. First job at 13 was a under the table no tax job.

[TheEschaton]

And in Edine's case, I imagine he was working off the books. While technically illegal, it happens constantly. I think it may even be allowable in family businesses.


-TheE-

[DeV]

In Chicago you can get a work permit to start at 15 I believe...
I had 2 newspaper routes at 9 which we would get paid from weekly, but I believe they've since stopped letting kids deliver newpapers nowadays. Oh, you had to be 10 to get a route so I used my sisters name to start mine.

[GSTamral]

Loud Bullshit call here

<<
My father has paid for my tuition in college, Edine, since I turned 18. That's it.

I have been charged rent to live in my parent's house, I have held a job since the age of 15 (this period right now is the first time I've been unemployed since that age, and, from my posting frequency, you can guess I'm bored out of my mind, waiting to go to Africa), I have paid my own housing at college, my own books, my own living expenses, everything.

There, now you know a little bit more about me. One of my father's first lessons is the value of a dollar. I bought this computer I'm typing on right now, out of the job I held while I was in college (full course load + full time job = no sleep).

-TheE-
>>>


TheE, in an earlier thread, you stated quite clearly the following:

1) Including stocks and bonds, you made WELL in excess of what Harmnone claimed, that amount being circa $80,000. This gain, you later clarified, was the result of stock and bond gains over the year.

2) You also claimed you earned 18,500 as a social worker. Which means you earned well in excess of 60,000 (let's assume 60,000 just to keep it simple), from your personal stock gains.

3) The average bond payout currently is in the neighborhood of 4%, so let's ignore that fact entirely, and assume all the gains were stock gains, and we'll even give you a generous rate of 20%.

4) That would mean you had in excess of 300,000 in the market, at 20% to make what you claimed you did. If you had that type of money in the market, you would have no issues finding your way to Africa, no difficulty purchasing a computer whatsoever, and absolutely no trouble at all covering rent.

5) You also made it quite clear that this was money you had been given from daddy. If you expect anyone to believe you're making these types of gains without being an active day trader (which would be impossible considering you claimed you worked 55 hour weeks as a social worker for 18,500), and having an enormous amount of starting capital.


American lucky dream or not, you radiate no energy of greed, so I'm going to have to ask you to please clarify the truth.

Yes, I am obsessed with money, and I pay extreme attention to details. And if you've been paying rent and holding a job while at school, and ALL your parents gave you was tuition, there is no way in hell you made those kind of gains you claimed without starting capital. Period.

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by GSTamral
1) Including stocks and bonds, you made WELL in excess of what Harmnone claimed, that amount being circa $80,000. This gain, you later clarified, was the result of stock and bond gains over the year.


I do not believe I have ever stated my income on these boards. HarmNone did not "claim" anything. I teased Tsa`ah a bit about making more than he did, to debunk his claim of a "win", that's all.

What a person earns from their choice of vocation is not, to me, an indication of their worth, per se. There are those who make much less than I whose true worth outshines mine by a country mile. :)

HarmNone would rather earn a smile from someone who has not smiled in awhile than increase her current salary

[GSTamral]

Maybe it was Tsa'ah that claimed the 80,000, you may be right, but regardless, this has nothing to do with choice of vocation, this has to do with TheE pulling a Kerry and flip flopping on issues of money.

I can't say I'd rather earn a smile than more money, Harmnone, I'd much prefer the additional money. If I can get a smile with it, all the better.

[TheEschaton]

4) That would mean you had in excess of 300,000 in the market, at 20% to make what you claimed you did. If you had that type of money in the market, you would have no issues finding your way to Africa, no difficulty purchasing a computer whatsoever, and absolutely no trouble at all covering rent.


Let's just say I have well more than 300k in the stock market. And yes, it was originally my college fund, in the form of a stock portfolio, but when my dad got promoted, he realized he wouldn't need it any more, and handed it off to me on my 18th birthday to run on my own. Now, don't get me wrong, I get most of my investing advice from my father, and my <cough>stock broker<cough>...but I run the portfolio, and I've seen significant gains in the almost 5 years I've had it now. Needless to say, it had more than 300k in it when I GOT it. I still had to pay rent and all that from the age of 18 onwards, etc, etc, etc. The whole point is that I worked hard - not necessarily to make the money I did, but the fact of the matter is, I am a millionaire at the age of 22, and I could just live the high life, but I choose to work for my dollar. Money is a crime, and I, being raised Catholic (and poor, initially) often feel guilty about the wealth my father has made (and subsequently passed on to me), but we try and put it to best use. We're actually starting up a scholarship fund this year for disadvantaged youth. But money allows you to actually do what you love, which, in my case, is social work, which normally might not pay the bills, you might say.

And I'm WAITING to go to Africa, only because the Peace Corps is only SENDING ME THERE in mid-June, for a 2 year assignment to help implement the Namibian gov't's HIV education program. If I was going to Africa on vacation, sure, I coulda bought a ticket a long while back. ;)

-TheE-

[GSTamral]

<<<
Let's just say I have well more than 300k in the stock market. And yes, it was originally my college fund, in the form of a stock portfolio, but when my dad got promoted, he realized he wouldn't need it any more, and handed it off to me on my 18th birthday to run on my own. Now, don't get me wrong, I get most of my investing advice from my father, and my <cough>stock broker<cough>...but I run the portfolio, and I've seen significant gains in the almost 5 years I've had it now.
>>>>


Such an amount cannot be handed over. The maximum gift contribution allowable per year is 10,000 per person, unless you and your father was cheating. Secondly, if you've had it for 5 years, you weren't making investing decisions for at least the first year. No one under the age of 18 can make an authorized brokered transaction.

You've said your father taught you the value of a dollar. Yet oddly enough, you get advice from a "broker". You I assume should also know that brokers charge a much larger sum to complete a transaction than do a typical discount investment bank.

You could not answer questions about your taxes, because someone else does it for you. Hate to break the news to you, but with less than half your claimed personal wealth, having my taxes done would cost me in excess of 800 dollars a year. Being it I was also taught the value of a dollar, I learned to do it myself.

Why would you have a broker then? and not be able to do your own taxes? Secondly, if you are maintaining active investment in the portfolio, the taxes on your capital gains more than exceeds your salary as a social worker, meaning cash on hand would be an issue.

So either you're lying about having that much money, or you're lying about how well you know the value of a dollar and how money works. I personally cannot say for sure which, but my bet is on the former.

[TheEschaton]

Such an amount cannot be handed over. The maximum gift contribution allowable per year is 10,000 per person, unless you and your father was cheating. Secondly, if you've had it for 5 years, you weren't making investing decisions for at least the first year. No one under the age of 18 can make an authorized brokered transaction.

It was a stock portfolio in my name, but, being as I was a minor, my father was the one who handled it. When I turned 18, it was merely a matter of taking my father off in terms of authorization status. I said *almost* five years, because I turn 23 next month.

Next point:

You've said your father taught you the value of a dollar. Yet oddly enough, you get advice from a "broker". You I assume should also know that brokers charge a much larger sum to complete a transaction than do a typical discount investment bank.

Not when your father is a CFO/Vice Chairman of the board of a mid-cap bank. He has professional and personal ties to many brokers, who offer him (and his whole family) said rates.


Why would you have a broker then? and not be able to do your own taxes? Secondly, if you are maintaining active investment in the portfolio, the taxes on your capital gains more than exceeds your salary as a social worker, meaning cash on hand would be an issue.

Why? Because frankly, I don't care about my portfolio enough to make it all consuming in my life. I'm unconcerned about how it does, pleasantly surprised when it does well off of tips I really have no expertise in picking but sometimes do anyways, and unperturbed when I lose.

Lastly, concerning cash on hand, I have a PMA account with my bank (coincidently, my father's bank), namely a Portfolio Management account. My dividends get deposited directly to it, and, luckily enough, I make enough in dividends and outright stock sales to have what I need. I don't need much, though, outside of my basics of rent/food/utilities, etc, etc.

When I said I knew the value of a dollar, I was merely positing that I appreciate what I have, do not take it for granted, and can easily do without it.

-TheE-

Originally posted by TheEschaton


It was a stock portfolio in my name, but, being as I was a minor, my father was the one who handled it. When I turned 18, it was merely a matter of taking my father off in terms of authorization status. I said *almost* five years, because I turn 23 next month.-TheE-
Just did that today myself... wll I got the signature verified on my paperwork so I can mail it tomorrow. My Father is the custodian on the account, but I still own them. Because of that the transfer of ownership is non taxed, and there as far as I know is not a limit on the value of the stock



[Edited on 4-29-2004 by The Edine]

[TheEschaton]

I personally find it odd that Tamral has his self-admitted obsession with money, and the need to know other people's finances.


As if you have to be poor, to understand or even appreciate the value of a dollar.

-TheE-

[Edaarin]

5. No "students" over age 21. The older ones are the bombers. If they don't attend classes, they get a "D" (for "deport" and it's back home baby.

Ehhh...wrong.

7. Offer Saudi Arabia and other oil producing countries $10 a barrel for their oil. If they don't like it, we go some place else. They can go somewhere else to sell their production. (About a week of the wells filling up the storage sites would be enough.)

Just out of curiosity, what do we pay per barrel?

As for putting a limit on immigration...we already do, and so do other countries. It's next to impossible for people from some countries to come to the States. And who are we to tell someone that they aren't good enough for the country...? Weren't the first Americans (aside from Native Americans, heh) poor Europeans who couldn't hack it over there and were hoping to get land cheap, start a new life and become wealthy?

For non English speakers...there are classes they can take virtually anywhere in the country. I do think that the bill should be footed by taxpayers, because not knowing English presents problems similar to a disability. Equal opportunity to learn, right?

right now Edaarin $36 i believe

sorry $33.20 to be exact

[SpunGirl]

Originally posted by Edaarin

For non English speakers...there are classes they can take virtually anywhere in the country. I do think that the bill should be footed by taxpayers, because not knowing English presents problems similar to a disability. Equal opportunity to learn, right?

Yep. This country provides more than enough free education in ENGLISH. If you want to move here and take advantage of that, feel free to learn the language, otherwise, don't expect us to teach it to you. I have a friend who lived in Brazil for a year. She didn't get to go to a public school there, even though the one where she lived (near her Grandparent's ranch outside Rio) was considered one of the more ritzy public schools. Instead, she went to a PRIVATE school that cost her family about $10k a semester in tuition so she could learn Portugese as a second language while still being taught in her primary language, which is English.

The Brazilian government had NO OBLIGATION WHATSOEVER to cater to her for the time she lived there. When my great-grandparents moved here from the Netherlands no one scrambled to make sure they learned English, but they made sure their daughters and sons knew it and spoke it so they could handle themselves and do what was necessary.

If you're going to move to another country to take advantage of what they have to offer, at least learn the language and don't expect everything to be handed to you. It's really not that much to ask.

-K

[SpunGirl]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
It was a stock portfolio in my name, but, being as I was a minor, my father was the one who handled it. When I turned 18, it was merely a matter of taking my father off in terms of authorization status. I said *almost* five years, because I turn 23 next month.


Not when your father is a CFO/Vice Chairman of the board of a mid-cap bank. He has professional and personal ties to many brokers, who offer him (and his whole family) said rates.


Why? Because frankly, I don't care about my portfolio enough to make it all consuming in my life. I'm unconcerned about how it does, pleasantly surprised when it does well off of tips I really have no expertise in picking but sometimes do anyways, and unperturbed when I lose.

Lastly, concerning cash on hand, I have a PMA account with my bank (coincidently, my father's bank), namely a Portfolio Management account. My dividends get deposited directly to it, and, luckily enough, I make enough in dividends and outright stock sales to have what I need. I don't need much, though, outside of my basics of rent/food/utilities, etc, etc.

When I said I knew the value of a dollar, I was merely positing that I appreciate what I have, do not take it for granted, and can easily do without it.

-TheE-

Jesus, of course it's not all-consuming. It's easy for people who don't have to worry about money to say it's meaningless and they'd gladly give it all away to someone more deserving. I have an idea, TheE, why don't you write a big fat check to people who are busting their asses working 40-plus hours a week, getting ready to have a baby and doing it all on their own steam rather than mooching off of the government?

This reminds me so much of all those trust fund babies who prance around the world supporting bleeding heart liberal causes (drive a stake into a tree, anyone, to kill the woodcutter?) because they have nothing better to do and no reason to seek out a stable income.

My parents have not always been rich, in fact they were making very little when they had me. But they worked hard and now they have plenty of money to show for it. They paid for my education. They also paid for my wedding, which was a great one. Could they afford to write me a check for $100k tomorrow? Yes. Would they? No. Why? Because they value the things they have - everything they need and plenty of things they want - because they worked for them. They would not give away their computer or their paychecks, because they work hard for them. They would not sleep in a tent and let someone else have their house, because they worked hard for it.

I would not give away my new car, my computer, or any of the more expensive things I own (which aren't that many) because I WORKED HARD FOR THEM. I can understand, though, how someone might be flippant about giving away something that they can easily replace without blinking.

You may have a swell work ethic that allowed you to work full time during college, TheE, but the knowledge that you didn't really NEED that money must've been nice.

Donate your entire portfolio to one of the causes you espouse if it means so little to you, really.

-K


[Edited on 4-29-2004 by SpunGirl]

[TheEschaton]

Considering I plan to do very much that, Spun, I don't think you are in any place to criticize me.

What *I* hate are people who automatically assume that because you have a trust fund, you're a rich, spoiled brat who only supports bleeding heart liberal causes because they don't know suffering, etc, etc. That they don't know how to work hard, that they don't know anything. I am a liberal because that is what I believe. Furthermore, my liberal friends come from all walks of the income-life. It makes me sick when people simply write my opinions off because I have money.

Edited to add: All my friends know that if they truly needed it, I would sell every last thing I own and give it to them, if they asked for it. If you were a complete stranger, you'd at least have to provide a damn good reason and a reasonable probable expense report. ;)

-TheE-

[Edited on 4-29-2004 by TheEschaton]

[Atlanteax]

TheE,

Why are you going to Africa when you could be helping out disadvantaged Americans?

Or are you another one of those bleeding heart liberals who tend to be "America Last" when it's time to talk the talk.

[Weedmage Princess]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
If you were a complete stranger, you'd at least have to provide a damn good reason and a reasonable probable expense report. ;)

-TheE-

[Edited on 4-29-2004 by TheEschaton]

So..had I approached you when my doctor put me on bedrest, then brought you up to my job and let management tell you they don't offer paid maternity leave...then let you listen to the "Cry me a river--DENIED!" lines I got from disability and unemployment (the real zinger was the lady at unemployment suggesting I quit my job..uh...riiiiight) ..you would have hooked me up with some cash while I was on leave?!?!?!?!? Because if you're willing...if I have another kid, I'll be in contact!!!

Hee...just kidding.

But really though, it is frustrating.

I don't mind so much giving the money, what really irks me is that some of these people really "don't" need it. They CHOOSE their lifestyle. Nothing's "WRONG" with them, nothing prevents them from supporting themselves, then the people who pump money into the system can't get any help when they need it. Like I said, almost $300 a week in taxes (sometimes more than $300) to be basically told "Go screw" when I got pulled out of work. The amusing thing is...during that time, I got the most assistance from...get this: The private sector. Banks and credit card companies are usually willing to let you defer payments while you're out of work (if the reason is valid) ..so are a lot of your utility companies. Not that I like to take the side of Blazing 24/7, but I have to agree when he touches on things the Founding Fathers of this country did/said being taken out of context. Give us your poor, downtrodden, etc...people who are looking to make a better life, work for it. Not give us your lying, mooching, scheming lazy ass good for nothing freeloading shitheads who want the world handed to them on a silver platter at the expense of others. Screw that.

[Edited on 4-29-2004 by Weedmage Princess]

[TheEschaton]

TheE,

Why are you going to Africa when you could be helping out disadvantaged Americans?

Or are you another one of those bleeding heart liberals who tend to be "America Last" when it's time to talk the talk.


I believe one must be grounded in the worst conditions so one can have an idea of where one stands in the world. Believe me, I'm very Buddhist in philosophy, Atlanteax, I feel change must come from within first - which is what I will be doing, in the United States, after I have the base experience of what can be considered "the worst of the worst".

And Weedmage, the whole point of freedom is that it is unconditional. We give it to people we wouldn't necessarily want to give it to. It's like unconditional love - you love a person no matter who or what they are. THAT is what our country is founded on, (mostly) unconditional freedom. The only condition that exists is that your freedom cannot infringe on the freedom of another person.

-TheE-

[Weedmage Princess]

Heh..people taking my money that I work hard for when they don't really need it is infringing on my benefits. ;p

[TheEschaton]

Money is, like you said, a benefit, not a right.


Now, pursuit of happiness is a right. Unfortunately, in this country, pursuit of happiness is too often associated with monetary wealth.

-TheE-

[Atlanteax]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
And Weedmage, the whole point of freedom is that it is unconditional. We give it to people we wouldn't necessarily want to give it to. It's like unconditional love - you love a person no matter who or what they are. THAT is what our country is founded on, (mostly) unconditional freedom. The only condition that exists is that your freedom cannot infringe on the freedom of another person.

-TheE-

But that's IT!!

The 95%+ of Americans whose tax-dollars are being WASTED on people like these... ARE having their freedom infringed on. :mad:

And no, this country was not founded on unconditional freedom/love. The Founding Fathers made perfectly clear that some things are deemed untolerable (which would invalidate any notion of unconditional), and I'm reasonably certain that they anticipated all Americans (and potentional immigrants) to be productive citizens. Those who are not, should be deported.

Unproductive citizens creates a drag on American society that adversely effects everyone else, thus infringing on their freedoms.

.

We may one day, need to require an additional amendant...
That explictly grants Americans "freedom from stupidity".
Wasn't necessary in past, because the Founding Fathers had anticipated that Common Sense would prevail.
But Common Sense is dead now, thanks to bleeding heart liberals... :rolleyes:

[Edited on 4-29-2004 by Atlanteax]

[TheEschaton]

The 95%+ of Americans whose tax-dollars are being WASTED on people like these... ARE having their freedom infringed on.

Like I said before. Money is not a freedom. It's a benefit. It's a RESPONSIBILITY.


-TheE-

[Edaarin]

Welfare reform would be nice...

I'm not working and paying taxes to feed your 13 kids. Bitch stop fucking! STOP FUCKING!

[Atlanteax]

Originally posted by TheEschaton

The 95%+ of Americans whose tax-dollars are being WASTED on people like these... ARE having their freedom infringed on.

Like I said before. Money is not a freedom. It's a benefit. It's a RESPONSIBILITY.


-TheE-

Then obviously the stupid people cannot handle the responsibility, and thus should be denied any form of financial assistance.

That will quickly solve the problem through attrition.

[TheEschaton]

Responsibility has nothing to do with intelligence. Responsibility can be taught, with education.

-TheE-

[Atlanteax]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
Responsibility has nothing to do with intelligence. Responsibility can be taught, with education.

-TheE-

Yes, but it must be an education in the form of no handouts.

[TheEschaton]

Yes, but it must be an education in the form of no handouts.

Extremism in any form is incorrect, in dealing with a problem. There must always be a dual-natured approach to such situations. Just like Aristotle taught that virtue was the median of two vices on the extreme, handouts only, and education only, are both, separately, wrong ways to handle the situation.

-TheE-

[Weedmage Princess]

I disagree with the whole "money is a benefit" thing.

Money is a necessity. You can't pay rent without money. You can't buy food without money. Shelter and food are necessities to live, therefore, money is a necessity.

Now, the whole issue about the amount of money one has, yeah...but as it stands in today's world, money is very much a necessity.

[Atlanteax]

Originally posted by TheEschaton

Yes, but it must be an education in the form of no handouts.

Extremism in any form is incorrect, in dealing with a problem. There must always be a dual-natured approach to such situations. Just like Aristotle taught that virtue was the median of two vices on the extreme, handouts only, and education only, are both, separately, wrong ways to handle the situation.

-TheE-

Huh? :?:

I think the best way to deal with the problem is to deny them any form of hands-outs, either financial or schooling.

If a charity wants to pay for it, fine.

But Americans in general should not have to.

[TheEschaton]

But your an idiot Atlanteax. Your opinion doesn't count.

Listen, I don't take my positions lightly. All of my positions are based either in my morality, or in the Constitution. I'm not going to argue the morality of it, since morality is often pushed aside for what is convienant in today's society. But the founding fathers still have some sort of sway.

Yanno, the "inalienable rights" of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, are based on Rousseau's work on freedom, "The Social Contract". However, Rousseau's three inalienable rights were life, liberty, and property......property was SPECIFICALLY REMOVED AND REPLACED with "pursuit of happiness" because the founding fathers didn't believe physical wealth was a right, but rather, a benefit.

Edited to add: Adding this because it should be obvious from the above argument, but who knows with the people who read this. The above points to the fact that the founding fathers were indeed, not "unable to see people freeloading on the system", but in fact, made certain that people could be free, not only religiously and socially, but economically, without any expectations put upon them. The founding fathers, in specifically removing the bit about property, are saying that you cannot expect to have property, and if you do, you cannot expect it to be inalienable, IE, something that cannot be taken from you justly.

-TheE-

[Edited on 4-29-2004 by TheEschaton]

[Atlanteax]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
Yanno, the "inalienable rights" of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, are based on Rousseau's work on freedom, "The Social Contract". However, Rousseau's three inalienable rights were life, liberty, and property......property was SPECIFICALLY REMOVED AND REPLACED with "pursuit of happiness" because the founding fathers didn't believe physical wealth was a right, but rather, a benefit.

-TheE-

Therefore, I will repeat... they should not recieve any form of handouts, financial or schooling.

They do not have a "right" to recieving such benefits... as you've just reinforced.

Thus, American taxpayers should be spared of the liability, and it should be left for charities funded by bleeding hearts to deal with these kind of "problems".

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by SpunGirl
drive a stake into a tree, anyone, to kill the woodcutter?I don't mean to be picky, but I'm reasonably sure the plan is put a rod into a tree so that the saw busts. Killing isn't part of the plan, but a few dudes got killed because they had shitty saws that exploded or something.

[Weedmage Princess]

Call me naive or ignorant in the ways of tree/plant life but...I can't imagine driving a metal rod through a tree being good for the tree.

What sense does that make? Doesn't it sort of defeat the purpose? :?:

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

If you've ever run a chain saw and hit a hard knot, it kicks back... a metal spike could cause it to kick back hard enough to throw it into the lumberjacks face, I'm guessing.

I don't like seal clubing btw, so this summer I'm going to go up there and drive spikes in them. That'll teach em!

[TheEschaton]

They do not have a "right" to recieving such benefits... as you've just reinforced.

They have a right to pursue happiness, and we have set standards of poverty/non-poverty, poverty being defined as the inability to function at all on an economic scale, or, be able to pursue happiness, in so many words.

-TheE-

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
If you've ever run a chain saw and hit a hard knot, it kicks back... a metal spike could cause it to kick back hard enough to throw it into the lumberjacks face, I'm guessing.

I don't like seal clubing btw, so this summer I'm going to go up there and drive spikes in them. That'll teach em!

LOL

[Atlanteax]

Originally posted by TheEschaton

They do not have a "right" to recieving such benefits... as you've just reinforced.

They have a right to pursue happiness, and we have set standards of poverty/non-poverty, poverty being defined as the inability to function at all on an economic scale, or, be able to pursue happiness, in so many words.

-TheE-

BUT not to the detriment of other Americans.
Their rights are no less important than those who are...
Lazy (don't want to work)
Dastardly Stupid (literally)
Intentionally taking advantage of the Welfare system (which the ACLU helps makes possible, and fights for the "right" for said people to continue abusing it)

Unfortunately for the rest of us, the typical Americans...
Bleeding-heart liberals are apparently undermining Common Sense, in regard to such issues...
and they also don't seem to care about how it is detrimental to the other 95% of Americans.

Which is why there is evidently a widely-held feeling of loathe and despisal towards bleeding heart liberals when it comes up as a topic of discussions among typical Americans.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Edaarin
Welfare reform would be nice...

I'm not working and paying taxes to feed your 13 kids. Bitch stop fucking! STOP FUCKING! Welfare reform has been in place since 96, but even that isn't working. There are definite changes that have been put in place, but there are people that will continue to abuse the system. I blame the government for allowing welfare abuse to continue through years passed on to the younger generations of family members.
As a side note, not only does welfare need reform, corporate welfare needs a makeover too.

[TheEschaton]

And yet, if I pointed out that these "bleeding heart liberals" are doing exactly what the Bible would say to do, the right wing, supposedly religious side of the country, would be apoplectic to insinuate that the Bible says unconditional love, support, and freedom....not "Do it yourself".

But then again, I've been saying the New Testament is the founding document and reason for a socialist gov't, but no one believes me. Capitalism is inherently UN-Christian.


I'm not saying your Christian Atlanteax, but it does point out that the vast majority of the right wing who claims to be, are nothing but bloody hypocrites.

-TheE-

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
If you've ever run a chain saw and hit a hard knot, it kicks back... a metal spike could cause it to kick back hard enough to throw it into the lumberjacks face, I'm guessing.The saw I'm talking about is the one the bad guys always try to use on James Bond, the one where there's a slow moving conveyor belt and the saw sticking up out of the middle, you know?

I never said it was a smart idea, as yeah, it can't be good for any organism to have a metal spike jammed through it.

[Atlanteax]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
And yet, if I pointed out that these "bleeding heart liberals" are doing exactly what the Bible would say to do, the right wing, supposedly religious side of the country, would be apoplectic to insinuate that the Bible says unconditional love, support, and freedom....not "Do it yourself".

But then again, I've been saying the New Testament is the founding document and reason for a socialist gov't, but no one believes me. Capitalism is inherently UN-Christian.


I'm not saying your Christian Atlanteax, but it does point out that the vast majority of the right wing who claims to be, are nothing but bloody hypocrites.

-TheE-

I follow the Christian calendar, but I am not a Church-going Christian.

X-mas is an excellent and enjoyable holiday. But I don't consider myself a Christian.

Meanwhile, it is fairly common knowledge that Religious Institutions are a crutch for those inable to think for themselves, and need to be told what to think.

However, I would say that Religion is a necessary evil as it does encourage civility and morals within Society.

... as if the Gov't were to determine was what moral and not...
... folks would be "bleep the Gov't!!!"
... but they won't as easily say "bleep God!!!"

.

Btw, wasn't this country founded on the principal of separation of Church and State? Which the Founding Fathers saw as a threat to the country?

If bleeding heart liberals are taking their cues from the Bible or New Testament, or whatever it is...
No wonder this country is "going down the crapper!"
It's the doing of those damnable bleeding heart liberals!!
Again, as I earlier posted... no wonder the typical American regard BHLs with feelings of loathe and despisal.

[Edited on 4-29-2004 by Atlanteax]

[TheEschaton]

Welfare definately needs reform, but I can tell you it's a much harder process now from the brief time I was working in social work. The Department of Social Services building (the Rath Building) in Buffalo was constantly filled with people whose benefits had lapsed or something like that, because the new reforms require you to fill out a form every coupla weeks or something, I dunno, I wasn't really dealing with welfare, I was more there for SSI/SSD hearings.

That being said, welfare reforms should have attrition, with a base. So, to start out with, you get (base + bonus), with the bonus degrading over time. Make the base just enough to not scrape by, but enough that no one's starving, and, if there was an emergency, something could be done.

Welfare should automatically require drug testing as well. One thing I hate more than anything are mom's who use their welfare checks to buy crack (had a coupla clients like this myself) at the detriment of their children.

Welfare currently requires showing proof that you're actively trying to pursue work, however, the problem is that there's so few welfare workers who have such large caseloads, that often they settle for a verbal "Yeah, I went to the Wendy's the other day, filled out an application" without looking for actual, physical proof. There needs to be a way to actively check up on that, HOWEVER, this would simply cost more money/work hours to do it, and who knows what the cost analysis would be (is it better to assume they have the job, and pay the benefits, or to use the energy and money to check up on it, and sometimes not have to pay the benefits because of a lapse?).

It's a tricky thing, if anyone ever figures it out, they can assure themselves a long political career.

-TheE-

[TheEschaton]

I think the average American would be more shocked and outraged and what is purportrated in the name of freedom. The problem is, the right wing spins so hard that tops get jealous, and they come off smelling roses, while we liberals, while we spin, apparently don't spin enough. ;)

-TheE-

[Atlanteax]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
The problem is, the right wing spins so hard that tops get jealous, and they come off smelling roses, while we liberals, while we spin, apparently don't spin enough. ;)

-TheE-

Yea, if only folks like that would spin into a pile of their own barf and dung. :lol:

[SpunGirl]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
Considering I plan to do very much that, Spun, I don't think you are in any place to criticize me.

What *I* hate are people who automatically assume that because you have a trust fund, you're a rich, spoiled brat who only supports bleeding heart liberal causes because they don't know suffering, etc, etc.

But that's exactly why your opinions are being discounted. You say it should be OK for the government to take the tax dollars that come out of my paycheck and give them to people who don't feel like learning English, or would rather have 13 kids (yes, STOP FUCKING!) and pay for them with a welfare check than actually get a job. You are free to say this because taxes taken out of your paycheck do not affect you one way or the other.

If there's a tax increase to pay for some shitty welfare program that takes an extra $50 or even $25 out of my check, it's going to make a difference. I'm only 23, I got married less than a year ago and my husband and I are both at entry-level in our jobs (and we're both college educated!) We need every penny we make, and while we have a comfortable amount of expendable income, I'm not OK with the idea of giving it away to someone who did NOT work for it.

You, on the other hand, would have no problem drawing from the money that was handed to you if, say, the government decided to lower the pay of social workers. Do I think it was wrong of your family to give you that money? No. They worked for it and should do what they want with it. I DO, however, think it is wrong for you to pretend you know what it's like to be FORCED to budget your every penny carefully.

And if you really care that much about the reform of the system you have worked for, my suggestion to you would be to refuse a salary or donate it back into the system.

And just what is it you're planning on doing with your portfolio?

-K

[Jazuela]

Originally posted by GSTamral
<<<

Such an amount cannot be handed over. The maximum gift contribution allowable per year is 10,000 per person, unless you and your father was cheating. Secondly, if you've had it for 5 years, you weren't making investing decisions for at least the first year. No one under the age of 18 can make an authorized brokered transaction.


The maximum -gift- contribution allowable per year, -from- any individual person, is $10k. A person can -receive- an unlimited amount of gift money, as long as no single giver gives more than $10k. So his mom and dad could have each given him 10k, and his grandparents on both sides of the family could've given him 10 EACH.. etc. etc.

His reference to 300k is the current value of his stock, not how much was given to him initially.

In addition, there exists an act called the Uniform Gift to Minors act (or similar - it's been awhile) that allows MUCH MORE than $10k per person, and it is a trust fund that can be built up from the moment the child first gets their social security card. It can be cashed by the child once the child reaches a certain age (in my case it was 25) and can be used prior to that for education, medical necessity, or emergency as long as the use benefits the child directly.

-Recipient of over half a mil over the course of her entire youth, thanks to the UGMA.

Oh and as pointed out previously - and it bears repeating - the initial post that started this thread is an Urban Legend. Robin Williams never wrote it or said it.

[SpunGirl]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by SpunGirl
drive a stake into a tree, anyone, to kill the woodcutter?I don't mean to be picky, but I'm reasonably sure the plan is put a rod into a tree so that the saw busts. Killing isn't part of the plan, but a few dudes got killed because they had shitty saws that exploded or something.

And yes, the point is to wreck the saw, but there have been dozens killed or maimed when the saw bounces back and lops off an arm or a head. They're not "shitty saws," they're made to cut through wood, not iron spikes.

-K

[TheEschaton]

And if you really care that much about the reform of the system you have worked for, my suggestion to you would be to refuse a salary or donate it back into the system.

I said in the interview I didn't care what I was paid, I'd even work for free if I had to, but I think they thought I was joking/showing a desire for the job/etc, and they paid me anyways.

And like I said before, my father and I are setting up a not-for-profit scholarship fund for disadvantaged youth. I'll probably be running it myself once I finish all my schooling, as my father's probably gonna be working for at least 17 more years (he's only 48), possibly 27 if he gets promoted to CEO when his boss retires (boss is 74). I'll probably be pouring my money into that. I thought of giving some money to my alma mater, but their endowment is big enough already, they don't need it.

-TheE-

[SpunGirl]

Pouring your money into a foundation from which you'll likely draw a tidy salary? Hardly selfless, though I agree with the cause ....IF you award scholarships to the kids who work hard and truly want them.

And "they thought I was joking.... and paid me anways?" (anyway)... what was preventing you from just kicking your paycheck straight back at them? Not much that I can see from here.

Now excuse me while I go to work, because if I don't, we won't be able to pay 1/2 of our bills.

-K

[TheEschaton]

Pouring your money into a foundation from which you'll likely draw a tidy salary?

Since I would run it, I suppose I could set my own salary. How does that sound? One of my the key backbones of any political office I'm going to run for will be to live on the salary of the mean income for a single person (or a family, if I ever get married) amongst my constituents.

My family used to live on $4800/year, so I think I can do it again. I'm sorry you have some sort of hatred towards me, Spun, but hell - resent a rich bastard who deserves it. Like those rap stars, who spend 100s of thousands of dollars on jewelry.


Oh, and about your argument that my money automatically does not make me eligible to have an opinion - again, that's bullshit. That's the bullshit which says men should have no say in abortion, and white people no say in race relations. It's bullshit to say opinion is only experience-based, because if it was, technically, since all politicians are people of privilege, you could NEVER have a politician who was worthy enough to give an opinion on how to deal with poverty and lack of privilege. It's a bullshit excuse, mainly founded in resentment and, I don't know, whatever.

I don't resent you because you're white and thus have white privilege, and I don't. Nor do I think you're unqualified to have opinions on what it is needed to lessen racism. I let your OPINIONS, your DEBATE, speak for what I think your expertise is. Not your skin color.

-TheE-

[Edited on 4-29-2004 by TheEschaton]

[GSTamral]

Given the contradictions of posting style in reference to the millions he currently has, I'll have to say I VERY much doubt the existence of these millions, and I won't post anything further on the matter.

When my father moved to the United States, the most important thing he ever taught me was that whatever I choose to do, make sure I do the best I possibly can, and hard work will be repaid.

To say that I would do something like walk into a country, choose not to speak their language, and then expect everyone else to cope with my judgement and give me stuff so I can pursue happiness, is quite possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard. In fact, it goes beyond stupid and into the realm of the retarded. It flies in the face of another Indian heritage, one of few that I have chosen to accept, and that is knowing how important it is to get an education. Those who refuse to get an education must pay for that choice, NOT be rewarded.

Nobody who has millions and carries such a disenchanted attitude towards money tends to keep it. As for starting your own social work club, TheE, go for it. The fact that people will to a partial extent, give to others is one of the other founding principles of capitalism.

You may believe its your duty to go take care of everyone who chooses to make decisions that hamper their lives, but personally, I don't even believe in taxpayers paying for drug addicts to get rehab.

People make their own decisions. People can choose to make good decisions, they can choose to make bad decisions, or can they can choose not to make a choice. If people want to make bad decisions, it is also their responsibility to deal with the consequences of such action. If society is expected to take care of each and every bad decision and give them happiness, people could then decide to not get educated, smoke crack all day, and the people that work hard get to NOT spend time with their families and children and work harder to ensure that the uneducated crack smokers are happy.

Sorry, TheE, I don't buy the bullshit at all. You write with the air of authority as though you are the next Mother Theresa, taking care of everyone and thats the Christian way, yadda yadda yadda. Mother Theresa won more than a million dollars when she won the Nobel Prize, and that money went straight to a charity. Not a bank, not an investment house, and certainly not to a broker.

I'll reiterate again. I severely doubt the existence of any millions in your hands and at your disposal. You speak of working hard, yet if you look at your posting history, over the past several months, you post at all times of day. Hardly the characteristic of a social worker who works 55 hour weeks. You play gemstone in spare time. You condescend in morals upon those who choose to work hard for themselves by indoctrinating upon duty to help others. If that were honestly the case, you would have either refused the "millions", never spoken to a capitalistic "broker", or outright given such money away, because the very symbol of nepotism involved in accepting such money would shoot in the foot any semblance of the sense of ethics you display.

[Edited on 4-29-2004 by GSTamral]

[Jazuela]

I come from a varied income family. One side was immigrant status relatively lower class, the other was upper class. Both sides of the family valued money, just as both sides valued charity.

Both sides earned what they could, made the most of what they earned, and gave to charities that were important to them. Papa Abe gave an endowment to Tuft's Medical school, because it was there that he learned to be a dentist. Mom's entire side of the family has always been active in various charities - giving more of themselves than money, even though they had money to give.

But they also felt that money given was money spent..once spent, you never see it again. Time given is time used - and re-used and re-used over and over again. So instead of giving money to the disadvantaged, Papa gave free dental work to those who would accept it (this was during the Depression), and would allow trade with those who refused to charity. He had lots of payments in live chickens, blocks of ice (some people still used iceboxes instead of electric freezers in those days), etc. etc.

People had pride in their own existence, even the poorest of the poor would do whatever they could to scrounge up a bit of dignity.

These days, everyone expects a handout. They "deserve" it, simply by virtue of being a citizen of the country. I call that bullshit. Bring back Workfare, is what I say. If you are desolate and -truly- want money, you can damned well get your ass out to the street with a broom and start cleaning it up. Or work as a janitor in the courthouse. Or whatever the government assigns you in exchange for your paycheck.

The only people who should be exempt from having to work are people who are physically incapable of doing it. Even insane people know how to twist a wire around a piece of red paper, which the March of Dimes does to earn money (they call them flowers).

And believe me - I'd be first in line for a street sweeper job if I qualified. It's just a damned shame that 1) I don't, and 2) the job market is so fucked around here that the lines for applying for work are longer than the unemployment lines these days.

The reason the unemployment lines are shorter is because everyone who was on unemployment ran out of benefits and are now just like me - unemployed with zero income and zero prospects for work that we are either qualified to do or physically capable of doing.

[Atlanteax]

Originally posted by GSTamral
Given the contradictions of posting style in reference to the millions he currently has, I'll have to say I VERY much doubt the existence of these millions, and I won't post anything further on the matter.

...

Sorry, TheE, I don't buy the bullshit at all. You write with the air of authority as though you are the next Mother Theresa, taking care of everyone and thats the Christian way, yadda yadda yadda. Mother Theresa won more than a million dollars when she won the Nobel Prize, and that money went straight to a charity. Not a bank, not an investment house, and certainly not to a broker.

I'll reiterate again. I severely doubt the existence of any millions in your hands and at your disposal. You speak of working hard, yet if you look at your posting history, over the past several months, you post at all times of day. Hardly the characteristic of a social worker who works 55 hour weeks. You play gemstone in spare time. You condescend in morals upon those who choose to work hard for themselves by indoctrinating upon duty to help others. If that were honestly the case, you would have either refused the "millions", never spoken to a capitalistic "broker", or outright given such money away, because the very symbol of nepotism involved in accepting such money would shoot in the foot any semblance of the sense of ethics you display.

[Edited on 4-29-2004 by GSTamral]

Well... he is (supposedly) leaving for Africa for 2 years of service in the Peace Corps.

So, perfect way, combined with the "fight for the downtrodden", to leave these forums (and others) with the image of a Saint.

But this is the Internet...
... where anonymity prevails.

;)

[Edited on 4-29-2004 by Atlanteax]

[GSTamral]

Yes, Atlanteax, I agree.

Personally, I'd love to watch him even try to do my work for a week, and then complain about how I should give my money away and help people who smoke crack and don't have a job because it is my responsibility to provide them happiness.

You know, TheE, you spout about the American way and about the pursuit of happiness, and then call upon the Bible's teachings as the ultimate teaching.

You find me the fucking part of the Bible that says that states that God is giving us opportunity and the pursuit of happiness, because thats a CAPITALISTIC MOTTO, not a Christian one. If you're going to pick and choose your idealisms from both and then claim that christianity teaches anti-capitalism, then I'm going to have to doubt your faith in Christianity as well.

[TheEschaton]

Wow, you all suck. ;)

Listen, I didn't ask for the money. It was given to me. And frankly, while I acknowledge it's presence, and participate in what's done with it, I've yet to find a good outlet for it. Money can be used for much good, but applied wrongly, can cause much harm.

Tamral, if you don't believe me, fine. I have been honest here, after you requested I be honest, and that is that. That I am detached from my money, yet still have it, seems to bother you, right? It does bother me as well, but I *am* looking to see how it is spent. Do I need to prove it to you? I don't see how I could short of giving you my name, my father's name, and a few links on the work we're starting up (though, we don't have a website, so I guess that would be kinda counter-productive). If I did that, would that make you happy? Probably not, unless you saw our tax returns and an itemized list of how we spend our money. You strike me as one of those superficial people who need everything revealed to them before they believe it, and aren't willing to trust anyone on anything.

As for how I spend my times posting, my hours as a social worker were very fluid. If I had clients who worked 9-5, I'd meet with them at say, 7 pm...or 7 am. Often, in the middle of the day, say, 1 pm, I'd have no clients scheduled at all, because 1 pm is a time when most people are doing their own thing. That's how social work is. At least my social work, which was based on clients having AIDS, and planning their medical/financial strategies around that. I'd hope you'd see I don't have many posts in the evening, or early mornings. That's what cell phones are for - all my clients had my number, and I was on call, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.


Sorry, TheE, I don't buy the bullshit at all. You write with the air of authority as though you are the next Mother Theresa, taking care of everyone and thats the Christian way, yadda yadda yadda. Mother Theresa won more than a million dollars when she won the Nobel Prize, and that money went straight to a charity. Not a bank, not an investment house, and certainly not to a broker.

Mother Theresa and I operate on a different MO. She does direct work. While I've done direct work, hands-on work with people, I think I can see the benefits from creating capital, and using that in a good manner - philanthropy, in other words.

As for morality, all I can say is I scrutinize every aspect of my life for the morality of it, and I try and live my life to such a morality. Obviously, I fail at times - could I have donated all my money very quickly to one place already? Yup. But one of the things I *do* suffer from is a sense of pride....the idea that I can do better and bigger things. I combat that daily, but I also recognize that gift within me. That leaves me with a penchant for holding out for the "better option", but believe me when I say I'm trying to work on that. There's different aspects to Christianity, yanno. One would be Liberation Theology, where Gustavo Gutierrez says we should all seek to be poor, poor in spirit, etc....but that does not mean that if we are rich/blessed, to simply give away all we have, and live in poverty, but rather to use our gifts/blessings to do good, and be poor in spirit, if not wealth.


If people want to make bad decisions, it is also their responsibility to deal with the consequences of such action.

I think it is a rather cold thing to treat people like that. I am very much for personal responsibility (in fact, it is the central argument in my pro-life stance), but at the same time, if one person makes a mistake, we cannot, as a society, write them off as having "deserved it" and that's that. We must work to erase that mistake, not only for the benefit of the person, but for the benefit of our society as a whole. As Dorothy Day said, "God help us all, if we all got what we deserved."

As for this last part:


You condescend in morals upon those who choose to work hard for themselves by indoctrinating upon duty to help others. If that were honestly the case, you would have either refused the "millions", never spoken to a capitalistic "broker", or outright given such money away, because the very symbol of nepotism involved in accepting such money would shoot in the foot any semblance of the sense of ethics you display.

A) I try not to force my morals on anyone. I merely state them. One of my central beliefs is that people have to choose things for themselves, all I can do is offer what I can hope is a persuasive, intelligent, loving debate on the truth of the matter, and hope they see it my way. If it comes off that way, that I am forcing my morals on you, I'm most sincerely sorry. But my morals are rather high, and I am often frustrated with people's inability to grasp what seem to me to be fundamental concepts of morality (such as, "The Ends NEVER justify the Means.")

B) As I said before, money is not, in and of itself, an evil thing. Not many things are. Even anger is neutral in and of itself. It is how these things are expressed, which matter, which determine if you use them right or wrong. I am trying to use my money the right way. Is gaining capital to do more good work a good thing? I think it can be, as long as the gaining of that capital does not hurt someone else. I view it as a sacred trust (no pun intended) invested in me to do the right thing with it. I can choose to do what I will with it. The "nepotism" in accepting such a gift would only apply if I felt my father was a bad person too, and using his money in a duplicitous manner from what I think my money should be used for. It is, indeed, more like a partnership. Like the Bible says, one must let his light shine on the stand, and not cover with a bushel basket. My family has been fortunate enough to gain monetary wealth, it is our responsibility to use it for the benefit of those around us, as opposed to for frivolous materials. If you knew anything of my family, you would also know this is my biggest bone of contention with my mother, who is willing to simply spend the money on expensive clothes, etc, etc.

Again, if you can point out the conflict in my ethics which you say I have, I would love to hear them, and I will contemplate them, and do my best to remedy them. As it is, I think I live very much according to my ethos. As a Catholic, I must be Dasein, a Being-in-the-world, I cannot merely be a poverty-stricken, isolated monk-like person. Some can, because they truly see the benefit of prayerful silence for the rest of the world. I, on the other hand, am a bit more of a realist, in that sense of the world.

-TheE-

[Artha]

I've yet to find a good outlet for it.

<-----That way.

edit: The poster, not the spider.

[Edited on 4-29-2004 by Artha]

[Latrinsorm]

It's funny how similar some of Tamral's and Eschaton's views are.

[TheEschaton]

You find me the fucking part of the Bible that says that states that God is giving us opportunity and the pursuit of happiness, because thats a CAPITALISTIC MOTTO, not a Christian one.

If it said we have the right to be happy, then I might agree that it was a capitalistic motto. As it is, I see the pursuit of happiness/contentness/etc as the goal of all major pursuits. However, I also cannot see happiness as not being tied into the happiness/contentness of those around you. The Gospels speak of reaching harmony, peace, and pursuing it. It does it vastly different than capitalism, but they both profess the same goal. That you interpret it as capitalism would, is not my fault.

And Atlanteax, I did not come to these forums with the express purpose of joining the Peace Corps and leaving on a high note. I am not a saint by any stretch of the imagination (if either of you had read about my past drug history), but I try. I only mentioned it because it was a major change in my life, and I wouldn't be around for 2 years, and yes, there ARE people here I would consider friends.

As for me "supposedly" doing it...hmmmm....I could take a picture of my invitation letter. Maybe that'll do it for you. I'll try that later tonight. Maybe that'll prove it enough to you, since you two Doubting Thomas's can't accept anything on face value.

-TheE-

[Ravenstorm]

Fortunately - or actually, unfortunately - the last I heard, the fastest growing group of people among the homeless were families with children. So while it is certainly true that there are drug addicts and 'professional mothers' taking advantage of the welfare and medicaid systems, it is even more true that there are many people who don't. Too many families in America are one serious illness away from losing everything.

Taxpayers can take some real comfort in knowing that their money is going toward those who desperately and truly need it through no fault of their own. It is they - and not the abusers - that the system was created for.

Raven

[GSTamral]

You know, you can condescend all you want TheE, I've heard plenty enough, as have everyone else, to have reached their own judgements.

I have made mine clear. I doubt your work ethic, I doubt your sincerity, and I very much doubt the existence of this money you claim you own.

I do believe your parents may have money, or at least enough to keep you sheltered, because quite obviously you have no idea what the value of a dollar is.

Spungirl said it better than anyone.

If you had millions and said you didn't want a salary, you could quite easily kick it back to them.

The founder of UPS did exactly that for the last 14 years of his life, and he wasn't anywhere near the pedestal you proclaim yourself to stand on. He was just a very wealthy man who loved his company and had enough money, so he offered to work for free and then went and did it.

If I ever have enough money in my own eyes, I would do the same. But I don't. You feel detached from your own money, yet you hoard, and then ask others to give. I think the reason you're detached from your money is because it doesn't exist but in a fantasy, and by nature, we become detached from our dreams in the waking hours.

[GSTamral]

<<<
Fortunately - or actually, unfortunately - the last I heard, the fastest growing group of people among the homeless were families with children.
>>>

Actually, single working mothers with children. And I absolutely agree that is a crying shame. I volunteer at a food shelter once a month through work and I see the effects of it.

I also personally know of 2 more in my very department who will become homeless single mothers, and 1 who will become a single father with a child without a home the day the corporate tax goes up and we have to cut costs.

It is a shame that the abusers are taking advantage of the system and taking help away from those in need.

[TheEschaton]

Or maybe I'm just lazy, Tamral. I *do* have the right to be a 22 year old male, right? I was supposed to fill in all my compensations for my mileage and tolls and all that, every two weeks, but I decided I didn't want to, because I didn't really need the money. If I wasn't a laid back kind of guy, I probably would of kicked it back, but honestly, the thought just never occured to me. Hey, it's a hell of an idea, now that it's mentioned. You use the word "hoarde", but I contend that "hoarde" has a connotation to sit on the wealth for wealth's sake, in a derogatory manner, which I don't think fits the bill at all.

I find it hard to believe you honestly care this much about my financial situations. But I can guarantee you my work ethic for the things I love and hold dear is good. And I can guarantee you I know the value of a dollar, not because I would be in shambles if I lost one, but because that was how my father taught me. You seem to be of the impression that people cannot know the value of said dollar without being poor.

Furthermore, I feel one can be detached from money, even if they have too little of it to go around. That's how the poor around the whole world operate. My grandparents live on 100 rupees a week, and refuse to take money from my family. They are, by any standard, poor. Yet they are detached from the pursuit of wealth, the accumulation of wealth, not because they don't need it, but because they don't care for it.


I have made mine clear. I doubt your work ethic, I doubt your sincerity, and I very much doubt the existence of this money you claim you own.

You have all the right to doubt. But you seem to expect me to have some sort of multi-national philanthropy going by the age of 22. Yanno, til last May, I was working full time and going to college...and after that, I was working full time til last month. Give it time. One thing I don't have, which you obviously do, is a sense of being in the rat race, that if I'm going to be charitable, I must do it immediately, or I risk being duplicitous. I'm sorry, I fail to see how that works. I live in the kairos, not the chronos.

Lastly, I will give you this. You push my buttons well. I wouldn't bother responding at such length to prove a (personal) point to someone I don't know, nor wish to know. If I wasn't a pacifist, I would contemplate kicking your ass. Have a good night, and a pleasant tomorrow. ;)

-TheEschaton-

[SpunGirl]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
I'm sorry you have some sort of hatred towards me, Spun.....

I hardly have hatred towards you. I apologize if my arugmentative style and manner of debate offended you, but don't take it personally. It's not about you, it's about your opinions.


Originally posted by TheEschaton
.....but hell - resent a rich bastard who deserves it. Like those rap stars, who spend 100s of thousands of dollars on jewelry.

No. Why shouldn't they spend thousands of dollars on jewelry? They earned it, after all, because people bought their CDs and tickets to their concerts. They can do whatever they want with it. And there are plenty of famous fabulously wealthy people who give a LOT of money to charity. There are plenty of non-famous wealthy people who do the same. The difference between them and you is that they're not telling me to give my money (which is not even approaching slightly wealthy) and give it to someone who did NOT earn it. That's where the resentment comes from. Again, this is about your politics, not you personally.


Originally posted by TheEschaton....men should have no say in abortion....

Women's right to bear or not bear a child as they choose is uniquely theirs. You want to make the choice, go get yourself a vagina.


Originally posted by TheEschaton.....and white people no say in race relations.

I wouldn't dream of suggesting this.


Originally posted by TheEschaton I let your OPINIONS, your DEBATE, speak for what I think your expertise is. Not your skin color.

As I am doing for you. I think your opinions and your debate show that you have no expertise whatsoever in the area of financial insecurity. You think ALL people should be more charitable and be willing to see tax dollars go towards more and more government aid programs, because an extra $25-$200 out of your paycheck does not affect you. Until it does, you are in no position to tell the average everyday schmo what they SHOULD be doing.

-K

P.S. Just FYI, my husband is a teacher. He gets paid next to nothing for the hours he works and the extra efforts he puts in. Though I have a college degree, I make more money than he does at a job that doesn't even require one to be hired. And dammit if he doesn't earn every last penny he makes, and spends it however he fucking pleases - which doesn't include handouts to people who didn't pull themselves up, so to speak. And yes, he paid for college all on his own, with no help from anyone but himself and his hardworking (cute!) ass.

[SpunGirl]

I just thought of something else I'd like to point out. I've already said my parents have plenty of money. My mother has made having a child from the Christian Children's Fund a pet project of hers for the last 15 years or so. I agree with this charity for a few reason - it's money that all goes straight towards the child in question, and it's not always money. She buys her child expensive winter coats, clothes, books, toys and games. Also, the parents have to prove the money they're receiving is going towards the child in order to stay in the program. She's been sponsoring a little boy in Montana for about six years now. The best part about this program? It's VOLUNTARY.

I also know that my dad contributes $200 per paycheck towards United Way charities. With this deduction, you are allowed to stipulate (if you choose) which charity receives your money. He gives every last dollar - $400 a month, $4800 a year, to a non-profit organization where he also sits on the Board of Directors (and where I worked for two years in college). Again, not only is this voluntary, but he gets to make sure his hard-earned cash goes towards a cause he fully agrees with.

-K

[TheEschaton]

I'm not suggesting charity should be anything but voluntary, nor am I suggesting that people HAVE to contribute an extra soandso from their paycheck because that goes against fundamental freedoms.

I merely hope for, and work for, a day when people will willingly give of themselves for people they don't know, for people who don't necessarily deserve it. I think society is measured on how we treat the people we dislike and disdain, even hate - and I don't think any society treats them well. The difference between this country and others that don't is that I feel our country is rooted in a philosophy that demands we treat the people we dislike as equals. I try and make my point through debate. Maybe you and Tamral don't want to, and that's fine, but hopefully one day you will. That day won't come because I forced you to, but because you chose to yourself. All I can do is argue rationally, logically, and morally.

Si usted desea trabajar para la paz, entonces primero usted debe luchar para la justicia.

Edited to add: And I know a lot of teachers, they're great people. They deserve much more than they get. But the fight for justice, if anything, begins in childhood. As for your view on abortion, I still think it's fallacy for you to say I need a vagina before I can have a valid opinion on abortion.

-TheE-

[Edited on 4-30-2004 by TheEschaton]

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by SpunGirl
Women's right to bear or not bear a child as they choose is uniquely theirs. You want to make the choice, go get yourself a vagina. That's the suckiest argument ever. :no: But of course, we've been over this before.

thats fine with me spungirl. Hopefully, you (in the general sense) can accept the responsibility of having a child when the father does not want to take care of it.

[Edaarin]

Keep it, pay for it yourself.

[DeV]

Originally posted by SpunGirl
Women's right to bear or not bear a child as they choose is uniquely theirs. You want to make the choice, go get yourself a vagina. The first sentence is accurate in the respect that when it comes down to it, legal or not you have no control over what a woman does with her body once she becomes impregnated. Morally and socially her choice will be judged and she will have to deal with the consequences regarding her decision and the lives it affects. In the legal sense there is control only if that woman recognizes the laws as they pertain to her situation. If the guy doesn't want it, his loss. If the girl doesn't want it, her loss.

[SpunGirl]

Originally posted by RangerD1
Hopefully, you (in the general sense) can accept the responsibility of having a child when the father does not want to take care of it.

I agree with this as well. There are plenty of women who get pregnant on the sly and then go after the poor guy for the rest of his life for child support, moral support, et cetera. If you give men the right to have a say in whether or not women can abort their children, you'll have the reverse effect - men getting women pregnant on the sly. Both actions are, or would be, equally disgusting.

-K

[SpunGirl]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
As for your view on abortion, I still think it's fallacy for you to say I need a vagina before I can have a valid opinion on abortion.

-TheE-


I'm not saying your opinion isn't valid. I'm saying you're in no position to tell an individual woman, any individual woman, what to do with her body. This is something you will never have the ability to fully understand, any more than I will ever have the ability to understand, I don't know, how it feels if your nads hurt.

-K

[TheEschaton]

My opinions never tell anyone that they HAVE to do something.


-TheE-

[Atlanteax]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
My opinions never tell anyone that they HAVE to do something.


-TheE-

You just encourage it in a round about way... by suggesting that the "less fortunate" should be assured of handouts and education...

... which would be to the detriment of American taxpayers who would likely prefer not to have to pay the dollars required for such programs...

... and instead spend it on themselves.

[SpunGirl]

You've downgraded to arguing about the manner of debate, Eschaton. It's ridiculous. I tell you I disagree with your opinions, and I tell you why. Your response, "don't tell me my opinions aren't valid."

Your arguments for charity are abstract and idealistic at best. Telling people they should give away things they've worked hard for to people who don't necessarily even DESERVE it because "we are all human" isn't even realistic.

And hey, since maybe you didn't see it before, thanks v. much for assuming that Kristin = Naessi. They don't now, nor will they ever. Telling me that you're surprised at my attitude here because you thought "Naessi was nice in game" has to be one of the more ridiculous comments you've made. I said it a little more nicely in an earlier post, but you conveniently chose to ignore and/or sidestep that little gem.

-K

[TheEschaton]

And I chose to not mention that I knew Naessi in an OOC context. Ooops. ;)

Edited to add: Since you decided to press the issue, and all that, yanno.

-TheE-

[Edited on 5-1-2004 by TheEschaton]

[TheEschaton]

And furthermore:


Your arguments for charity are abstract and idealistic at best. Telling people they should give away things they've worked hard for to people who don't necessarily even DESERVE it because "we are all human" isn't even realistic.

I never claimed they weren't idealistic. As to realistic? No, not in the present society we live in. But then again, my main motivation is to change the society we live in, to a more idealistic one.

-TheE-

[SpunGirl]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
And I chose to not mention that I knew Naessi in an OOC context. Ooops. ;)

Edited to add: Since you decided to press the issue, and all that, yanno.

-TheE-

[Edited on 5-1-2004 by TheEschaton]

And to assume that you know me because you know Naessi in any context is also ridiculous.

Speaking of pressing issues, let's talk about your assumptions that I hate you because I disagree with your opinions. Sensitive much?

-K

[TheEschaton]

This reminds me so much of all those trust fund babies who prance around the world supporting bleeding heart liberal causes (drive a stake into a tree, anyone, to kill the woodcutter?) because they have nothing better to do and no reason to seek out a stable income.

The vitriol in this passage, amongst others, can be construed as extreme dislike. It was in reference to me, I believe. That's just from this thread. I needn't go on about the one time you MADE a thread because you were pissed at something I did in another person's thread. ;)

Furthermore, I THOUGHT I got a glimpse into the life of the player behind Naessi once or twice before, in an OOC situation. And she seemed like a nice person to me. If I was wrong in thinking I was glimpsing the real player, so be it. If I'm wrong in my impressions of you from this board, so be it. I apologize for my wonderment at the differences in the (supposedly) same people. Forget I said it. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Thus, given just what I know of you from this board, I can't say I have a very good impression.

-TheE-

[Drew2]

Just because she doesn't like you (or your opinions, whatever) doesn't make her a mean person.

It just means she doesn't like you.

[TheEschaton]

She's a mean person to me, then, if she doesn't like me. ;)

Edited to add: With that diatrebe out of the way, I'm going to bed.

-TheE-

[Edited on 5-1-2004 by TheEschaton]

[SpunGirl]

I'm mean to you because I disagree with your opinions? Please, give me a fucking break at once. I made a thread in which you saw me complaining about something you think you did? If I remember correctly, I didn't directly attack you in any fashion, I simply said there was something I had noticed that irritated me. You think this is mean? Please, give me a break AGAIN! You are way too sensitive.

An aggressive stance when debating a topic someone feels very strongly about does not translate into a personal attack. You need to learn to separate the two issues, like, NOW. If you ever plan on going into politics, you can't burst into tears the first time the meaniehead at the other pioium is aggressive in disagreeing with the things you've got to say.

I've apologized several times for having said anything to upset you on a personal level, so take that and run with it as you will.

But again, if you cannot separate aggressive debates from your personal feelings, maybe you should think twice before engaging in one again.

-K

[TheEschaton]

An aggressive stance when debating a topic someone feels very strongly about does not translate into a personal attack. You need to learn to separate the two issues, like, NOW. If you ever plan on going into politics, you can't burst into tears the first time the meaniehead at the other pioium is aggressive in disagreeing with the things you've got to say.

<laugh>

I could give two shits about what you feel about me, or how aggressive your debate stance is. However, I always (unless your name is Edine) go out of my way to be polite and respectful in my debate - one would hope the other end could reciprocate. Instead of spewing acid, maybe, for example, you could clearly and rationally explain your position, which, to this point, you have not done, instead, opting to make character attacks on why my opinion holds no water, instead of addressing the opinion itself.

To debunk your criticism anyways, I know people who have little to no money, community activists in Boston and Buffalo both, who feel the same way as I do. It is not just a position I hold.

-TheE-

[SpunGirl]

If you could give "two shits" about the way I feel about you personally, stop complaining about how "mean" I am. How obvious is that?

In addition, if you don't like people "spewing acid," maybe you should refraid from telling Atlanteax he's an idiot, or beginning posts with phrases such as, "wow, you people suck."

-K

P.S. I also never accused you of lying, instead taking the things you said at face value. But no, I'm the mean one.

[Edited on 5-1-2004 by SpunGirl]

[DarknessWithin]

Ok...first off: wow

TheE, you have some issues my friend. You started off on the wrong foot with me when you called Spun mean. I <3 Spun so that's just not cool. This seemed to be a good debate yet somewhere we took a U-turn back to the third grade. No no it's my turn to play with the Flintstone phone!! You meanie head!! :lol:

But seriously, You rant and rave about how you believe in giving lots and lots of money for charity to anyone and everyone who might need it. By reading all your previous posts one could assume that this includes the crazy crackheads, the ever so popular baby poppin sluts on welfare, and anyone with any type of disability, including people who move here and refuse to learn english. That's fine and dandy that you think you should want to do this but did you ever happen to think that your hindering those that are trying to help themselves?

There are people out there who are at actual disadvantages who prefer not to be treated like some kind of charity case. No i'm not talking about the idiots who sit there and say, "Man...I smoked too much crack in school and I didn't learn crap, help me out?" Want proof? Me. Born with Muscular Dystrophy, I've been in a power wheelchair since I was three. So I can't walk or run and do stuff like a "normal" person. So I'm "disadvantaged." Big whoopity do da! (Need I remind us all who almost beat Chadj in the PC Pimp contest??) Just because I'm in a wheelchair doesn't mean I expect you to bend over backwards to help make my life better. I want a better life? That's my job, not yours.

TheE, by the way you talk I seriously wonder, have you ever actually, in person, dealt with someone who is "disadvantaged?" I can tell you obviously haven't dealt with anyone like me because there are a LOT of disabled people who despise people like you. Yes we're physically disabled and can't do everything you do, but that doesn't mean we want you to make everything all better. Now i'm not speaking for every guy in a wheelchair out there, but all I believe I'm entitled to is equal treatment. No advantages, no perks, no one up's on someone else. Yes I'm worse off than you physically but I can still work towards things, I dont need to be treated like i cant do anything for myself. Having people like you sit and think that you need to do all you can to make life better for "disadvantaged" people does nothing but make it worse than it is.

I've always been told if you want something you need to work for it. If I can do this, there is no reason your local crackhead or welfare users cant. Crackheads can put down their pipes. Welfare users can go to school or get a job. People like me can keep on rollin. It's life. We're dealt the cards life gives us. It's up to US to make things better for ourselves, not you.

TheE, your starting to sound like you think your the King of Charity and God's gift to the world. Anyone got a reciept for this gift?

--Darkness

It's life. We're dealt the cards life gives us. It's up to US to make things better for ourselves, not you.

Worth repeating.

[TheEschaton]

TheE, by the way you talk I seriously wonder, have you ever actually, in person, dealt with someone who is "disadvantaged?"

No, not once. Never. Ever.

/sarcasm.
(Do you really want me to delineate this? Yes, I have. I wasn't making the point that you force charity on someone - I was working on the assumption that the person WANTED help. People are free not to take charity. And if they choose not to accept charity - they have no right to bitch about those who DO get it.)


And yes, I do believe everyone who WANTS charity should get charity. The same charity. Regardless of their situation. No one is less human or more human, because of their situation. Everyone should be treated no less, or no more than the person before them, as a human being, as (in my religious tradition), something sacred beyond all.

I remember once, in grammar school, 7th or 8th grade, I asked one of my teachers (a nun) the following question: If Hitler did all he did....but truly and sincerely repented, in the eyes of God and everything....should we treat him like the criminal and sinner he was? And she said no, that he should be treated as God's most exalted creature - the lost lamb who has returned to the fold. At the time, it shocked me - it goes against all reasonable response. But that is how I feel now.

I do not think I am the king of anything, or God's gift to anyone - actually, rephrase that, I think we're all God's gifts. Some choose not to express those gifts, though. I do not appreciate your attempt to "return me". I'm not going anywhere. ;)

As for Spun being mean? <shrug> I just go on the basis that while everyone else (besides Tamral) can have a civilized debate, she has not once debated the point, and instead, tried to invalidate me, and thus my opinion. Which is, by the rule of any debate, irrelevant (IE, the person debating the topic does not affect the trueness or falsity of the opinion (s)he espouses). And, I once, apparently mistakenly, lamented the fact that I A) had had positive encounters with her in a different setting, and B) had heard many good things about her, thus leading me to conclude those encounters were false, which again, is supposedly a mistake. She's yet to show me otherwise here, since she has done nothing to further the debate, except take pot shots here, and in other threads. Do I care how she feels about me? Not really. But it does hinder the debate at hand.

-TheE-

[SpunGirl]

I repeat, if you don't care, stop harping on it.

If you believe charity should be "nothing but voluntary," then I'll agree with you, and perhaps we could work towards getting the government to stop giving my tax dollars to people who I do not feel shoud have them. After all, if they DO get that money, that's involuntary on my part, right? If charity should be "nothing but voluntary," then all charities should be privatized.

Also, you want to talk about taking pot shots? "Hey, I once thought you were nice, but in reality I think you suck," basically sums up your opinion of me, which you've been eager to make sure I was aware of. People challenge other people's opinions based on their backgrounds ALL THE TIME. It happens regularly in politics, which is something you ought to be aware of. You can say you don't like it, but please don't turn the fact that it happens into a personal attack against you so you can martyr yourself.

Chris, excellent post. Having known you for almost two years now, I can definitely say I have so much respect for you - someone who makes his own way and plays his own hand, so to speak - and does it with a smile on his face regardless. You may have it worse than I do or someone else that can walk, but you never forget that there are people who have it worse than YOU. You're a great example to anyone.

-K

[TheEschaton]

People challenge other people's opinions based on their backgrounds ALL THE TIME.


Doesn't make it any more right.

Edited to add: I'm a tax-raising liberal because I don't have any faith in your average American. If we said "Hey, all charity is voluntary, here's your tax money back", there would be too little charity. Don't try to argue that there wouldn't be - in today's me-first society, I don't think you could come to any other conclusion. Maybe, when we as a society learns to act humanly and humanely towards all members of the human race, I'll become a fiscal conservative and advocate tax refunds and smaller gov't in the social services area. But I cannot even express how far we are from that point, right now. I'll be first to admit that it isn't an ideal situation now, where we force charity. But we, as a society, aren't at a place where we can be trusted to do the right thing. That's why, even though I am pro-life, I would never advocate a law banning abortion until we as a society rethought our views towards women, specifically single mothers, both socially and economically.


-TheE-

[Edited on 5-2-2004 by TheEschaton]

[SpunGirl]

See last post, second paragraph, me "debating the point."

And while it constantly happening might not make it any more "right" in YOUR eyes, that doesn't change the fact that it will happen to you, probably again in the near future, if you intend to enter politics. You should be prepared with a better rebuttal than, "hey, you can't do that!"

-K

[TheEschaton]

Reference above edits.



As to how I respond to people who think my background debunks my views, I'll respond in like - that my background is irrelevant, and that many other people of varying backgrounds DO believe what I believe.


-TheE-

[Tendarian]

I like your idealistic ideas TheE but you dont live up to them. You cant on one finger say humans are selfish and pretend to be above it and then on the next finger say your keeping all your money. Doesnt it suck to be vilified for having money? What you say sounds great,no one should be without until you look deeper and see why should someone who busts their butt HAVE to support someone who doesnt? I think there should be saftey nets in place to make sure people get enough food and have some kind of shelter but thats it. The charity organizations can take the rest of the stuff. People give to charities all the time and if they had a lil more tax money i truly believe they would give more(even if its just so they can get tax breaks).

If anyone wants to be charitible, Paypal Thecla923@aol.com with money

SCORE!!!!!

You've Got Cash!

Dear Daniel Rogers,

Pimp Daddy just sent you money with PayPal.

Payment Details


Amount: $0.09 USD

[TheEschaton]

You cant on one finger say humans are selfish and pretend to be above it and then on the next finger say your keeping all your money.

It's called professional philanthropy. You have a certain capital. You invest it. On the profit, you re-invest, say, 25% of it, and put the 75% towards charity.

Initially, it does seem crappy, that one is hoarding the money, that it is, in a way, hypocritical. However, over time, it is better than than a one time large gift, and it allows you to live. And, then, when you die, that's what wills are for.....leave everything to charity. I'm already working on my will myself, but I don't have any idea of where I'd like to leave my money.

The key is that of the 125% you keep, you don't start dipping into much. I don't plan on it, but even sinless men have moments of doubt in the garden.

-TheE-

[SpunGirl]

I'd rather see tax dollars poured towards education of our youth than keeping adults who have made some shitty decisions in crack money. One could, in fact, prevent the other.

To say that we as a society cannot be trusted at this point to make the "right" decisions as far as charity is a mighty dangerous view to take. Now, The E, if someone were elected into office that you did not like, and started making decisions about what to do with your tax dollars that you did not agree with - would you accept this phrase as justification? "You are not at a point in society where you can be trusted."

No matter what kind of change you try to bring about in society, there will always be people who believe that "me-first" is the right attitude to take. And as long as these people are earning their own money and not mooching off of the system, they have a right to spend it how they please. And incidentally, "me-first" does not always mean "and no one else," sometimes it just means, "me first and someone else second."

Again. Plenty, PLENTY of wealthy people who contribute over the top amounts of money to charity. Sam Walton is one example I can think off right off the top of my head.

-K

[SpunGirl]

Man, The E, you went offline before I had a chance to tell you I don't want blind charity. I'll make you an avatar that equals the artsy genius of Bob's for the LOW LOW price of $1000.00! So see, this way you get something of value for your money.

Paypal accepted, Jojobabee@aol.com

-K

[GSTamral]

<
And yes, I do believe everyone who WANTS charity should get charity. The same charity. Regardless of their situation. No one is less human or more human, because of their situation. Everyone should be treated no less, or no more than the person before them, as a human being, as (in my religious tradition), something sacred beyond all.
>

This is the stupidest thing I've truly ever heard. Because everyone could then ask for charity and live like a bum, just asking for charity. Nobody would work, because, well, why work and try and accomplish anything? all of your money and earnings does nothing for you. You could just feel free to live off of the work of others, free of anything.

Nobody would bother to farm for food, because even if they did, after everything is divided equally, they wouldnt even have enough to eat. Want to go to watch the NCAA's? sorry, why the fuck bother to get an education to earn a living when you can just mooch from the system and enjoy 24 hours of freedom per day?

TheE, you say I cannot argue a civilized argument? You're right, I can't make a civilized debate when your point is so absurd, naive, and outright stupid that it doesn't warrant a civilized debate.

Your professional philanthropy argument is equally absurd, because you use and take advantage of the very system you preach against in order to get to your means. It's like a murderer who preaches against murder.

If Hitler repented and felt truly sorry for what he did, maybe he should be given the mercy of just shooting him in the head as opposed to outright torture for his crimes. You fail to realize that people can be spiritual without believing in your ideallistic babble.

People earn what they earn based on who they are, and what they do. Nobody owes you anything, and even by taking that little jab at me, you think you can shift opinion by throwing negativity at an open target. Just the kind of thing Jesus would do.

Seriously, you and I have nothing in common. You claim to do social work 55 hours a week and devote your life to charity, yet you hoard the money (which I still do not believe exists) and then tell others that their hard earned money should go to people who just feel like taking from others. Everything you own now has been given to you, and you pay no respect to that fact, that your lifestyle today is afforded not from 18,500 a year as a social worker, but by money given to you by daddy. And even if you did have some 6 figure gains, the taxes on that money would exceed your salary as a social worker, so you are basically living off of daddy's money, and then telling other people what they should be doing with their money.

My father paid my college tuition. I earned a full scholarship, and so I was allowed to keep that money for myself, for having earned the scholarship. Even so, I still understand that it was my parents, not myself, that gave me that money, because many people who had scholarships would get no such money. That money has not been touched, and I don't use a dime of it. That money will go towards the purchase of a rental home after I have purchased myself a primary home.

The fact is, with your attitude and education, and your supposed salary, you couldnt earn a non daddy living even if you tried. I'd love to see you step into a REAL 55-60 hour a week job like mine and try and see if you can even garner the first inkling of respect from managers and supervisors underneath you.

When you bother to go out, get two B.S's in Engineering and an MBA, then you can tell me whether or not I deserve the money I have and what I can and cannot do with it. I just find it hypocritical that you tell others what to do with their money, when you've earned nothing for yourself.

[SpunGirl]

I think you make a good point, Tamral, but The E would rather hear general sweeping arguments than points based off of individual people. Believe me, I've tried.

Another thing I'd like to point out is that people spending money on themselves is good in many ways. For example, my husband and I are saving money to go on a vacation next year. We haven't picked a spot yet, but we're looking at both England (I've been and he hasn't) and Mexico (just for relaxation and margaritas, really).

So we're saving somewhere in the realm of $2500-$3000 for this vacay. Sure, it'd be a nice thing to give it all to someone who could feed and take care of his whole family for two months with that money. It might even be gratifying. But why?!?! Wouldn't that money, in a roundabout way, be better spent taking the vacation, supporting the industry in which many hardworking people earn their keep, and maybe even generously tipping some 10 year old Mexcian towel boy so he can help his mom pay the rent? Because he did a good JOB, not because he was asking for charity!?!?

You seem to be into religion, The E.... I'm not really, but I know the one about giving away fish versus teaching people to fish.

-K

[GSTamral]

<<
You seem to be into religion, The E.... I'm not really, but I know the one about giving away fish versus teaching people to fish
>>

I know exactly what you mean. I devote myself to 3 charities each year. I usually spend a weekend in November helping at a food bank preparing thanksgiving meals, I tutor people at a community college roughly 3 hours a week, and I devote two entire weekends a year to Habitat for Humanity.

Aside from the food bank work, the charity I enjoy giving is to help people help themselves. At the community college there are a lot of people who at one point in life did not realize the value of an education, and are trying to go back, take the initiative and do it. I enjoy helping them because they are self motivated, understand that they will be at a disadvantage getting the education late in life, but they don't ask for free handouts, preferring instead to earn their way back up.

Habitat for Humanity is probably the one I enjoy the best, because they build houses at cost for people, so they can have a roof over their head, but not without a stipulation. You want the near free house, you work on it too. These people are working to help themselves get ahead by not only working their usual jobs, but chipping in 4-6 hours of their own time to help build their own house. That's inspirational, because you can see how tired they are after 2 weeks, and how all the tiredness is replaced with joy at the sight of something they helped to create with their own two hands.

But if you wish to talk of sin, perhaps you should check out some of the missions worldwide. The mission in Pune, for example, will feed and clothe the homeless in exchange for conversion to Christianity. Their "excuse" for not doing otherwise is because they simply do not have enough food to feed all the homeless who enter, thereby coercing them into Christianity in order to receive aid.

Maybe that's the type of person you want, TheE. You prefer the helpless, because they are more easily converted.

I for one, prefer a strong minded and strong willed person who will be productive to society than a lifelong bum and taker who serves only to add to the number of believers in a faith.

[SpunGirl]

Tamral and I have reached a decision.

We will stop disagreeing with your opinions. We will agree that you are a truly selfless and generous person. We will agree that you, while idealistic, are indeed geniunely devoted to the idea of charity for "anyone who asks" and not necessarily just to those people who deserve it.

All you have to do is paypal each of us $500.00 USD. We will, in turn, each donate said $500.00 to a charity of our individual chosing (not yours!) and provide receipts for such.

-K

[Edited on 5-2-2004 by SpunGirl]

[Artha]

I want charity plz.

[GSTamral]

I'd donate my share to Walk America, the Cancer Walk happening on May 22. I've got 5 people in my group going and an extra 100 to sponsor each for Cancer Research would make them quite happy. Hell, I'm donating 100 (20 each) already, but I'm sure they'd love the extra.

[TheEschaton]

This is the stupidest thing I've truly ever heard. Because everyone could then ask for charity and live like a bum, just asking for charity. Nobody would work, because, well, why work and try and accomplish anything? all of your money and earnings does nothing for you. You could just feel free to live off of the work of others, free of anything.

The world I envision, of course, would be one based on MUTUAL cooperation, where people wouldn't take advantage of said system.

As for the religious thing, the Bible never SAID teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime. It says give the man a fish. The parable you may be (?) thinking of was the parable of the loaves and fishes - Jesus's apostles, overawed by the crowds, say to send them all home hungry, that they couldn't feed them - Jesus says to feed them.

There is another parable, where he sends Peter and his cronies out to fish and Jesus himself fills their nets.

If you do want to talk about the Bible, in reference to this point:


Again. Plenty, PLENTY of wealthy people who contribute over the top amounts of money to charity. Sam Walton is one example I can think off right off the top of my head.

I would reference the parable of the widow and the two mites. That parable is merely about motivation, and the nature of charity.

As for the rest of Tamral's post? It's too long. But your shadow critique of Communism doesn't hold up in my (admittedly ideallistic) vision. Furthermore, I am currently unemployed now, but you seem to think I'm still working 55 hours a week. I am not. I very much respect that I have been so blessed as to have all the opportunity in the world, Tamral. Everything I need has been amply provided for by my father in the first 18 years of my life. This does not, however, mean that I cannot be "spiritually detached" from it. This does not mean I throw it around frivolously, nor does it mean I give it all away, it simply means that if tomorrow all of it was gone, I would still be as content as I was today. As for my attitude, I really am pretty laid back - but you know how the internet is. It brings out your alter ego. ;)

And that bit on the missions are just low - I'm not the "preach or be damned" type, one bit. However, I do advocate change, and vociferously. You seem to think that I'm trying to force people to change, I am not. I cannot, though, make people think differently about things, by staying silent. I do not adhere to the credo of "If you don't like it, just be quiet." As for not earning anything, I suppose my B.S. in Computer Science just dropped into my lap. I suppose my admittance to college was like that too....oh yeah, let's just take him! He has a funny sounding name, it'll look good for our freshman fact book.

As for this:


Tamral and I have reached a decision.

We will stop disagreeing with your opinions. We will agree that you are a truly selfless and generous person. We will agree that you, while idealistic, are indeed geniunely devoted to the idea of charity for "anyone who asks" and not necessarily just to those people who deserve it.

All you have to do is paypal each of us $500.00 USD. We will, in turn, each donate said $500.00 to a charity of our individual chosing (not yours!) and provide receipts for such.

-K

How am I supposed to know that if I were to do such a thing, you would not be writing me off as doing it just to "prove a point"?

-TheE-

[SpunGirl]

Because I have a hard time believing anyone who values money - as you say you do, and I believe you - would part with $1,000 just to prove a point. (Not that I originally thought you did, but your repeated assertions that you do have to be taken at face value. The debate is pointless otherwise, I suppose). And if you WERE doing it for that reason, the only point you'd be proving would be that you're arrogant and not at all generous. Of course, we wouldn't know that, but you would, which would be even worse. If you're as idealistic as I think you are, I don't think you'd want to live with that image of yourself.

-K

P.S As for the fish, I wonder what Jesus would have said if he did not have the ability to magically multiply food and wine at his disposal. Somehow I can't see him saying, "well, these people paid for the bread and are hungry, but these other people would like some too. So take away from one and give to the other."

That's the very basis of what I'm arguing against, and what I have trouble understanding why you advocate.

Edited to clarify.

[Edited on 5-3-2004 by SpunGirl]

[Ravenstorm]

Isn't it time to take this to U2U yet?

Raven

[SpunGirl]

U2U between three separate parties with ocassional interjections from other slightly interested parties is kind of difficult, IMO.

Not interested, don't read.

-K

[Hulkein]

I enjoy reading it, just because Raven isn't interested doesn't mean others aren't.

[Edited on 5-3-2004 by Hulkein]

[TheEschaton]

So - if I give up $1000, Tamral argues I don't value money properly, .

If I don't, I value money, but I'm a greedy bastard.

In a world where you use "not valuing money" and "being greedy" as two critiques of my viewpoint, I don't see how either situation is indicating anything to you.

I'm trying to make the point that I appreciate what a dollar can do for a person, IE, that I value the good money CAN do, and, at the same time say that the money I have is not important to who I am, what I do, or what I believe, and that if I didn't have it, my life would not be any worse than it is now, in terms of happiness and contentment.

Furthermore, in giving this money, I would be doing so under what motivation? If I give it, it is seen as trying to prove a point, which, to me, is pretty much the antithesis of what charity means.

So, from you two, I'd like to hear what giving/not giving this money would mean to you. It's a complicated web you've spun.

-TheE-
P.S. Which charity would you donate to, Spun?

[Edited on 5-3-2004 by TheEschaton]

[SpunGirl]

What it would say to me is that you truly mean what you say and practice what you preach. Take for example your assertion that charity should be voluntary, coupled with your assertion that charity should be given to anyone who asks for it. Anyone - even people who may not necessarily be deserving.

In doing this, you would prove that you are willing to place money that is yours -which you appreciate the value of - in the hands of someone else to be dispensed in a charitable fashion. You may not think the particular charity I'd select is an important one, but it wouldn't matter, right? If it's a group that could use the money and is asking for it, that would fulfill your assertions regarding charity.

-K

I'm not as decided as Tamral. My first choice would probably be a local no-kill shelter where I adopted my most recent pet. They're comitted to finding homes for stray animals but don't let them be adopted without being fixed first, so in a way they're doing a good deed and trying to prevent the problem from continuing.

Or hey, maybe a family planning charity, I'd have to look more closely into that.

[Edited on 5-3-2004 by SpunGirl]

[GSTamral]

<<<
I suppose my B.S. in Computer Science just dropped into my lap. I suppose my admittance to college was like that too....oh yeah, let's just take him! He has a funny sounding name, it'll look good for our freshman fact book.
>>>

My point is simple. Earlier in this thread you stated that your father had given you NOTHING other than pay for your education.

Quote
"My father has paid for my tuition in college, Edine, since I turned 18. That's it.

I have been charged rent to live in my parent's house, I have held a job since the age of 15 (this period right now is the first time I've been unemployed since that age, and, from my posting frequency, you can guess I'm bored out of my mind, waiting to go to Africa), I have paid my own housing at college, my own books, my own living expenses, everything."

End Quote

paid for just tuition? What about the other millions of dollars you claim he gave you?

Paid for all expenses? BULLSHIT. Your daddy gave you all your money.... and you've even admitted it.

What would giving the 500 to charity mean to me?

Really, it would mean nothing to me. To my co-workers who are walking, it would mean they get to raise more money for Cancer Research, which would make them happy.

If Daddy gave you the money, and it truly means nothing to you, then for you, this is merely an opportunity to give in a manner that would make others happy, and work towards helping a good cause. Many of the people who participate in the walk do so to try and raise money for their cause. Many people end up being only one time participants because they become unmotivated by the fact that they feel not enough people are donating.

Since my co-workers and myself have already raised enough money for ourselves, I would actually instead give 100 each to the 5 people in the building with the lowest tallies of donations. This would help ensure a better chance of a repeat walker, and someone else who will donate time and effort to help others.

Personally I will gain nothing. Personally, you will gain the knowledge and receipts thereof (you could instead simply sign up on their behalves directly instead of giving me the money, I will provide you the names as well as forms), that your money is not only going to help a good cause, but also that it is helping to keep those who are donating their time and effort motivated to continue to do so. Personally, each of them will gain the satisfaction of having raised more money to the cause.

From my own standpoint, based on your views, I will ALWAYS find you to be poor with money simply because you've never earned your own keep and likely never will.

However, by donating so, you will have proven that you practice what you preach and therefore, have much more of a leg to stand on in showing you do care past what you simply write and preach on the message boards.

[GSTamral]

And just to drop the gauntlet on this web of BS, TheE, here's a proposal to you.

You make the donation to the charity of my choice, and hell, I'll donate 500 back to the charity of YOUR CHOICE, and mail you the receipt for donation. Once I have proof of the donation, and verification from the Cancer Research that the money was given, I will then turn around and donate 500 to whatever charity you want.

So now, your 500 becomes 1000. That should be motivation aplenty. I've got plenty of money, even though I'm no millionaire, If you're willing to put your money where your mouth is, I'll back up my own words as well. Fair enough?

[TheEschaton]

A) I had expenses, all of which could and was paid for by my full time job - and not with the money my father gave me. Could I have simply used the money my father gave me to do so? Yes, and I know people who have - but like I've said before, my father raised me better than that.

B) While it is true that since gaining this money, I have paid higher taxes than any salary I've gotten from a job, what I am trying to convey is that I lived on 18,500. All the money ended up in the same acct, yes, but my budgeting, etc, etc, etc, was under my bi-weekly paycheck. The money my father gave me is purely fringe money - like the money you said your parents gave me. I have plans on using my father's money, like I said, for philanthropic purposes.


From my own standpoint, based on your views, I will ALWAYS find you to be poor with money simply because you've never earned your own keep and likely never will.

This is the part that disturbs me. Have I earned my keep? Technically, no, not all of it. I've been more than well off since the day I turned 18. The majority of my money has come from my father. Have I used this as an excuse? Nosir, and I hope that would at least mean some damn thing. Instead, I have continued to work, and work hard, and decided to use the money for other purposes. I know enough bluebloods for whom this isn't true.

As for "having a leg to stand on", I've already demonstrated charity on these board. What would giving this money be but an attempt to appease you two?

-TheE-

[SpunGirl]

I wish I could do the same, I really do.

But I can't even afford to donate to charities I like, much less those I disagree with - hence my argument (or should I say agreement) that charity should always be voluntary, privatized, and never doled out from my tax dollars.

You'd be giving me the gift of being able to give money to a cause I care about because I cannot afford to do so.

-K

You don't have to appease us, The E. And it's not even about appeasement, it's about you saying certain things and then not backing them up. I'm sure you agree with going to Africa (which is charity by way of you donating your time). You obviously felt strongly about your job. I'm sure you also agree with your future philantrhopist causes you've been talking about.


[Edited on 5-3-2004 by SpunGirl]

[GSTamral]

Read the above TheE.

Your donation of 500 would double because I would match it to a charity of your choice.

That should go more and above the appeasement statement.

[TheEschaton]

Alright then....I had reservations about how such an action would be viewed...but if you're willing to view the action disinterestedly, I suppose I can take your word on that.

I've got Spun's EMail address, what's yours, Tamral? I can paypal both of you the money, I'd rather you do the donation. You can put your $500 back in your own charity as well.

-TheE-

[SpunGirl]

The dogs and cats are going to be so happy. I'm not even kidding. I'm going to send you pictures of my kitten who was saved by these people. Of all the furries!

-K

[GSTamral]

Well we are in agreement then. TheE has agreed to donate 500 to walk america, 5 checks of 100 each in Leiu of his Dog, Blaze. I will be matching this donation also in lieu of blaze to Rosie's Place, a Woman's Soup/Shelter in Boston, MA.

To an extent I'll eat my words and say at this point, while I morally disagree with TheE's stances and beliefs, at least at this point he has earned the respect of at least backing up his word with action.

I'm a little peeved that I'm out 500 bucks when I didn't expect to be, but well, I guess I deserve to be.

[SpunGirl]

I can't match The E's donation with money, but I can with time. The E, pick a charity that either has an office here in Vegas, or a category I'd be able to find here, and I'd be happy to spend 35 hours there over the next month (that's your donation divided by my approx. hourly rater before taxes, that I earn at my job).

-K

[SpunGirl]

In conclusion:

The Eschaton has some very idealized views of how things should be. While I do not agree with these things, I am a lot less vehement about it now than I was three days ago. This is because he has shown me that he can practice what he preaches and truly act on his ideals instead of just talking about them.

It gives a person a lot to think about when someone takes action on something that seems unrealistic rather than just talking about it.

The dogs and cats thank you.

-K

[Tendarian]

:thumbsup: TheE is the man. I could use $500 too umm for charity. MrShaymus@aol.com Thanks :whistle:

[SpunGirl]

I'd say he's proven his convictions beyond a doubt:)

-K