Securing our borders

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by dissention

No one ever said American's never worked hard, I just don't get Mary's logic that we're a rich country simply because of hard work. I don't buy it and I think Amber put it perfectly.



Blah blah blah. Hard work is hard work, but let's not generalize this country by saying that we're rich simply because of hard work. If all it took was hard work to be rich, we wouldn't have so many problems in this world.

well, you can throw in a bit of luck too....oh and it helps to KNOW someone.

I never said it was ONLY because of hard work. But it IS a big part of the equation.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by DrummerDeanna

That's what I try to do...

I have a sort of inner dilema with all this - which is where I get confused with myself

See I figure I work hard and have been working non-stop since I was 16 - I'm trying to build a better life for myself that my mom had ya know? Therefore I should be able to buy whatever the hell I want....

BUT then I think of the homeless kids lol....I think too much - this is perhaps my problem....

Whatever though - usually my first train of thought wins out and I buy things for myself

LOL - "gimme gimme gimme" is my middle name

Seriously, if you cannot afford the $$$$, give time. I have done that before. I mean if you took your pre tax hourly work rate and donated two Sat.'s a month doing something. I think that is a substantial donation Also, I never really feel guilty about spending on myself because I know I have done many a charitable thing either with time or with money. I mean I went down the Amazon River to deliver school supplies to the natives - obviously I believe in charity even though that trip was also cool because of what and where it was. So, don't beat yourself up

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by David

Really? That's very interesting.

well, if you choose to take it LITERALLY when it was used as a GENERALITY, then I guess thats your choice........

[amber]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Respectfully, America did and so did Australia

Respectfully, America and Australia did not. America was plumb chock full of natural resources when it was settled. The lumber exported and used here in the country alone is a staggering amount. And in most areas, there was an abundance of water and game, etc. America had an enormous amount of resources.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by amber

Respectfully, America and Australia did not. America was plumb chock full of natural resources when it was settled. The lumber exported and used here in the country alone is a staggering amount. And in most areas, there was an abundance of water and game, etc. America had an enormous amount of resources.

Respectfully: the Native Americans and the Aborigines of Australia also had those same resources and didnt build world empires.

England built one without them.

its more than resources alone. I submit that the active factor IS hard work.

[strandinthewind]

Esp. Australia, which was mostly a prison colony.

[The Tower]

Originally Posted by dissention

You would think that the satisfaction of helping out your fellow human beings would be the only thing they would need.

Unfortunately, this is not a characteristic of humanity.

[amber]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

Respectfully: the Native Americans and the Aborigines of Australia also had those same resources and didnt build world empires.

England built one without them.

its more than resources alone. I submit that the active factor IS hard work.

I fear you are a bit misinformed. But that's ok. Why do you think England didn't have natural resources...

[The Tower]

Originally Posted by Lux

I don't get your point Mary. You said that the native Australians had resources and yet didn't build an empire. I have no idea what your point is but firstly, Australia does not have many resources, that's why they initially sailed their ships on by. Secondly, the native Australians believe the earth is sacred, the dirt, trees, everything are the remains of their ancestors and the one thing they would never have done is rape, even so much as touch what 'resources' were there. And Australia is so huge that until the white man came along with his gun, the Aboriginal peoples lived in relative harmony due to the fact that their was ample to share around. The Brits invaded their land, trod all over their ancestors, raped them of everything they had and then killed many of them. That is how Australia made the transition from Aboriginal land to a wealthy nation of the commonwealth. This is exactly what we're talking about only on a more specific level. What you're saying is the equivalent of saying Australia does not owe the original inhabitants anything, that anything we give them is charity. That is utter bull****. We are who we are because we put these people in these imporverished circumstances and we owe them. Same goes for any other peoples we have done this to. We owe the East Timorese and what we give them is not through generosity, it's through our obligation to give to them. This is the same scenario we're talking about but on a global scale.

It certainly was hard work when they stole and proceeded to destoy the land I'm living on. Tough times, but they pulled through and thanks to their hard work, I live in a wealthy nation. It's also tough times ripping the oil out of East Timor. It's really hard when they show us pictures of the kiddies over there (the ones we didn't aid in slaughtering atleast) who have no education and little resources, but I have my oil to pull me through it.

Lux, in case you didn't know it- I think you are awesome. Don't let anyone, including yourself, tell you any different.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by The Tower

Lux, in case you didn't know it- I think you are awesome. Don't let anyone, including yourself, tell you any different.

Well, for the record so do I - no matter how wrong she often is

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by Lux

I don't get your point Mary. You said that the native Australians had resources and yet didn't build an empire. I have no idea what your point is but firstly, Australia does not have many resources, that's why they initially sailed their ships on by. Secondly, the native Australians believe the earth is sacred, the dirt, trees, everything are the remains of their ancestors and the one thing they would never have done is rape, even so much as touch what 'resources' were there. And Australia is so huge that until the white man came along with his gun, the Aboriginal peoples lived in relative harmony due to the fact that their was ample to share around. The Brits invaded their land, trod all over their ancestors, raped them of everything they had and then killed many of them. That is how Australia made the transition from Aboriginal land to a wealthy nation of the commonwealth. This is exactly what we're talking about only on a more specific level. What you're saying is the equivalent of saying Australia does not owe the original inhabitants anything, that anything we give them is charity. That is utter bull****. We are who we are because we put these people in these imporverished circumstances and we owe them. Same goes for any other peoples we have done this to. We owe the East Timorese and what we give them is not through generosity, it's through our obligation to give to them. This is the same scenario we're talking about but on a global scale.

It certainly was hard work when they stole and proceeded to destoy the land I'm living on. Tough times, but they pulled through and thanks to their hard work, I live in a wealthy nation. It's also tough times ripping the oil out of East Timor. It's really hard when they show us pictures of the kiddies over there (the ones we didn't aid in slaughtering atleast) who have no education and little resources, but I have my oil to pull me through it.

my points are:
a) I was responding to Amber's point which said that America owed its prominence to resources alone. So, I pointed out the obvious: the Natives here had those same resources, in fact they had MORE. And yet, they didnt go out and conquer the world.

b) I KNOW the aboriginals of both continents have a different attitude toward Nature, that wasnt the point. The point was the fact that the resources in and of themselves do not a global empire make.

c) England, because it is an Island Nation by definition has limited resources.
That fact didnt stop it.

d) I DEFY you to find ANY PLACE where I said England's treatment of the Aboriginals was acceptable. In fact Lux, I think you must STILL be high because you apparently have me mixed up with the voices in your head. I NEVER said ANYTHING about colonialism being good. I never said we shouldnt aid countries in need. What I said WAS: I disagree with the position that America automatically must ante up each and every time a disaster hits some part of the globe. If you'll refer to the facts and figures I posted some pages back, I dont think America needs to hang its head at ALL. We DO help. Just because its not as much as YOU wish it were........is just something you'll have to live with.

e) you'd probably be a lot more credible if you actually did something else besides spread venom on the net and got up and did something constructive about your convictions. If you feel so strongly about these issues, become involved in your country's politics, dont just be an armchair cyber critic.

[strandinthewind]

Don't forget the Spanish here in America

[amber]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

e) you'd probably be a lot more credible if you actually did something else besides spread venom on the net and got up and did something constructive about your convictions. If you feel so strongly about these issues, become involved in your country's politics, dont just be an armchair cyber critic.

Uncalled for, and I enjoyed every moment of what Lux said, and thought she was right, as well.

[hayley]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

e) you'd probably be a lot more credible if you actually did something else besides spread venom on the net and got up and did something constructive about your convictions. If you feel so strongly about these issues, become involved in your country's politics, dont just be an armchair cyber critic.

I'm confused. At what point in this discussion did Lux say anything to you that makes it okay to personally attack her baselessly and unfairly? Her post was nothing but informed and intelligent.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by amber

Uncalled for, and I enjoyed every moment of what Lux said, and thought she was right, as well.

While I trend to agree with Lux, she tends to put forth her comments in an elitist, blase', and snobby manner - and this is self-professed. She also spins it to point out only the negative, which she seemingly gravitates toward. For example, to read her post in a own its own, one could think the world (particularly America) is a horrible place with no good in it whatsoever and that America gives very little to the world, all of which it owes some figure based on America's incomparable GNP. I think that is wrong and a gross overstatment that allows the spin to the negative. Then again, I am an optimist

Note: this is not a slam on Lux - just my perception of how her posts come off to me and I am pretty sure she is aware of that Again, I like Lux's posts and take them with a grain of salt as I am sure she does mine if she takes me at all