Giuliani 08

[amber]

Originally Posted by dissention

I think it's a bigger issue than that. Before politicians start decrying the woes of the government because they have poor bums sucking off of it's tits, maybe they should start addressing exactly why so many people are in those predicaments to begin with. They should be addressing what is going on in our society that leaves so many people poor, without health insurance, and jobs that cannot support them. They should be addressing why so many people are living out on the streets. Surely they aren't all drunks and bastards, there are too many impoverished people for that to be the case.

But they will not address any of that because it all comes down to money. They're beholden to capitalism and the insurance companies (which is why we'll never have socialized medicine) and all that other jazz. So they blame it all on the people who abuse public assistance, as if they make up the majority of people who are on public assistance because they have no other option. They give everyone on public assistance bad names so that the rest of the country gets into the act and gets furious that people are taking money out of their pockets to buy Timberland shoes and bling bling, as if those people doing so are the majority. Government should be there to help people and it's currently doing a shameful job of that.

that's why I started my first post with "lets have a lesson in how Capitalism works, little Sparky"

[amber]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I agree and am pretty sure I never said as much. But, many are and that issue needs to be addressed



Aren't you guilty of that as well though? I get that you have said you give large amounts to charity; I am not asserting otherwise. I give too and I have given not only money but my time as well and have done so for many years. But, at what point is it enough when the govt. already takes like 35% or more of our income? I think the answer is that is a personal choice no one should comment on lest they want that high powered judgment turned on them. I am sure that there are homeless people who would scoff at me having a computer while they haven't eaten in days. Should I sell my computer and all my extraneous (however defined) possessions and live in a one room box with no decoration at all because somewhere someone will have less than I do I realize that is an extreme example, but the logic is the same.

Having said that, I certainly think people should be as chartiable as possible and I think most are, despite your assertion that few care. I base that on the staggering amount of private donations in this country.

You always say things like this, which, to me, is arguing within the existing system. Which is understandable, we live in the giant Capitalist power of the world.
But if you take it out of the personal, where you have it, and into the theoretical, where a new paradigm could *possibly* be established - that is more what we are talking about. You know, a new, productive way of handling resources?

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Originally Posted by amber

Wow, I'm suprised Diss didn't answer this.
Well, little Sparky, it all starts with a lesson in how Capitalism works, and why....
Seriously, it does, but it's pretty complicated.
But in the simple way, it comes down to: The gov't, and most other people, don't give a crap about the homeless, or why they are homeless, etc. And they certainly don't want to allocate money to take care of the problem. I believe that statistics will back up the fact that most homeless people are mentally ill somehow. I mean, it's hard to care about homeless people, or even education, when there is huge money to be spent on defense.

Actually the real problem is....(bet you can guess what I'm going to say before I say it....) LIBERALS! I'm sick of hearing how capitalism is the "root" of all evil and the "reason" for the homeless. And even more sick about hearing how conservatives are responsible for racism and the poor, and what links them together.

Liberals are going to have to accept at some point, that they are not responsible for civil rights and equality in this country. They are responsible for supporting the party who opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act and currently aid in the perseverance of patronizing racism that feeds a culture of entitlement which kills the incentive of the individual, white or black, to achieve.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by amber

well....for one thing, I assume they would only come to get the gov't help when they needed it. So, basically, if they don't take their meds, they'll be homeless again. I don't think they should "have to check in", but I do think their meds should always be available to them. And perhaps therapy. Job training/placement. Whatever, they should have a lot of tools available to them is my point, and then if they don't utilize them, at that point it is their problem. I don't think there are enough intensive tools available to them, though. I don't just think that, I know it's true. And if someone is hella crazy ( ) then they should just be institutionalized, like "crazy" criminals are.

I agree with you that more should be done.

I am just unsure what the best method is. I mean your statement "they should have a lot of tools available to them is my point, and then if they don't utilize them, at that point it is their problem" essentially ignores the basic conclusion that they will be homeless again and start the problem again.

I honestly do not know what the solution here is other than focring them to take their meds, which is a touchy subject. I mean I do not think tax dollars should be spent constantly institutionalizing people who refuse to take medication that could make them a productive member of society. Yet, these people have rights and some of that medication is not that much of a guarantee.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Aren't you guilty of that as well though?

Guilty of what? I don't decry my tax dollars being used to help those in need; I never have and I never will. What I do object to is wasteful spending. You know, ordering millions of bags of ice for the Katrina victims and then essentially throwing them away. That's money that could have gone to housing or feeding those people.

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I get that you have said you give large amounts to charity; I am not asserting otherwise. I give too and I have given not only money but my time as well and have done so for many years. But, at what point is it enough when the govt. already takes like 35% or more of our income?
I think the answer is that is a personal choice no one should comment on lest they want that high powered judgment turned on them. I am sure that there are homeless people who would scoff at me having a computer while they haven't eaten in days. Should I sell my computer and all my extraneous (however defined) possessions and live in a one room box with no decoration at all because somewhere someone will have less than I do I realize that is an extreme example, but the logic is the same.

Having said that, I certainly think people should be as chartiable as possible and I think most are, despite your assertion that few care. I base that on the staggering amount of private donations in this country.

I really don't think any of that applies to anything I said.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

which is exactly why we would be better off with HIM (if any R, that is)
than the current crop of favor curriers...........ACK

Which was the point of my initial comments - I would take Giuliani on a minute over just about any other R candidate currently beinf discussed save for maybe McCain.

That point is not to be confused with I want any R to win. In fact, I don't want any or most D names currently being bandied about, save maybe for Edwards. I think both parties are full of shiitte

[dissention]

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

Actually the real problem is....(bet you can guess what I'm going to say before I say it....) LIBERALS! I'm sick of hearing how capitalism is the "root" of all evil and the "reason" for the homeless. And even more sick about hearing how conservatives are responsible for racism and the poor, and what links them together.

Oh, bite my ass.

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

Liberals are going to have to accept at some point, that they are not responsible for civil rights and equality in this country. They are responsible for supporting the party who opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act and currently aid in the perseverance of patronizing racism that feeds a culture of entitlement which kills the incentive of the individual, white or black, to achieve.

And you say this with exactly what kind of experience in the real world? Go volunteer to work in a welfare office, it will be an enlightening experience for you, I promise.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by amber

You always say things like this, which, to me, is arguing within the existing system. Which is understandable, we live in the giant Capitalist power of the world.
But if you take it out of the personal, where you have it, and into the theoretical, where a new paradigm could *possibly* be established - that is more what we are talking about. You know, a new, productive way of handling resources?

Well, I am all for that - but what would that be? No one seems to be able to answer that outside of communism, which I submit the human spirit will never allow. For example, where would we be if everyone lived in the same box, ate the same foods, wore the same clothing, etc. Where would we be without the money to fund artists, etc.

[amber]

Originally Posted by dissention

Guilty of what? I don't decry my tax dollars being used to help those in need; I never have and I never will. What I do object to is wasteful spending. You know, ordering millions of bags of ice for the Katrina victims and then essentially throwing them away. That's money that could have gone to housing or feeding those people.



I really don't think any of that applies to anything I said.

Dude, wasteful spending is defense spending. And that's what most tax dollars go for. Make no mistake. Look at the statistics.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

That point is not to be confused with I want any R to win. In fact, I don't want any or most D names currently being bandied about, save maybe for Edwards. I think both parties are full of shiitte

They are both full of ****. There is no real difference between them and it's a shame that this country is beholden to the two-party system when neither party is worth having around.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by amber

Dude, wasteful spending is defense spending. And that's what most tax dollars go for. Make no mistake. Look at the statistics.

And the funny thing is that while most money is wasted on defense, we can't even give our troops overseas in Iraq and Afghainstan the proper protection for their vehincles or their bodies. If you can figure out why that is, I'll give you a cookie, because I sure as **** can't.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

Guilty of what? I don't decry my tax dollars being used to help those in need; I never have and I never will. What I do object to is wasteful spending. You know, ordering millions of bags of ice for the Katrina victims and then essentially throwing them away. That's money that could have gone to housing or feeding those people.

I am not talking about that. I am talking about personal donations, which was clear from my post.

But, regarding you changing of the topic, I agree and if the fat were trimmed, out taxes could be cut in half or more.

Originally Posted by dissention

I really don't think any of that applies to anything I said.

It applies to your statement judging people for buying Timberland shoes and bling bling. How do you know that the person buying that did not give to charity as well You don't - yet you made the assumption.

[amber]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Well, I am all for that - but what would that be? No one seems to be able to answer that outside of communism, which I submit the human spirit will never allow. For example, where would we be if everyone lived in the same box, ate the same foods, wore the same clothing, etc. Where would we be without the money to fund artists, etc.

No, not communism. But there is a middle ground. It's just almost impossible for americans to imagine it, because we are the most consumptive society ever. We feel like we need certain things. We feel entitled to a certain way of life. I'm not saying I have the answers, but I am definitely saying that a bunch of the answers have already been identified, and no politician is willing to commit to them wholeheartedly. But I feel strongly that Capitalism, in it's present definition, and practice, is unworkable for much longer. There just isn't that many resources in the world to support it. We've nearly raped everything. Capitalism runs on cheap labor, and making people desire things they don't need, and the resources to provide those things. It can't go on forever. That's just common sense!
It's the same old Power grab for resources and the control of them. Perhaps it's human nature, but I don't think it's the totality of human nature, which gives me hope.

[amber]

Originally Posted by dissention

And the funny thing is that while most money is wasted on defense, we can't even give our troops overseas in Iraq and Afghainstan the proper protection for their vehincles or their bodies. If you can figure out why that is, I'll give you a cookie, because I sure as **** can't.

yeah, what the heck is up with that?!?!?! It's all very disgraceful.


So, does anyone (Strand?) have the statistical numbers on Gov't spending yet?

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Originally Posted by dissention

Oh, bite my ass.

Didn't know you were into that stuff.

And you say this with exactly what kind of experience in the real world? Go volunteer to work in a welfare office, it will be an enlightening experience for you, I promise.

You can't deny that Josh. That complete racism that is implied by liberals..."Oh, well blacks they're stupider so they deserve special treatment", not only is that racist to whites but even more racist to the minorities and kills their incentive to achieve anything.

Why is it that you feel that someone has to have a "life experience" in order to make a relative point? The facts don't change, regardless of what "life experience" a person has had. What exactly makes you qualified Mother Theresa? I could sit here and argue about how you don't know what my life has been like or what I have volunteered for...but then that would be the liberal approach...which is "you must have an experience to have a valid argument."