| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
Namirrha
Noble Knight
Joined: 03 May 2002
Posts: 218
Location: Utah County, Utah. |
quote:
Originally posted by EverythingXen
For the record I've never said abortion wasn't murder or that the child wasn't human as an embryo: It just has no bearing on my stance.
I'm a firm believer in the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few. An unwanted child can be a burden not only physically, emotionally, and financially for the parents ... but supposing the parents already had children they could barely afford it could jeopordize their health as well.
At first, "the needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few" sounds like a reasonable and tenable philosophy, but I think it's not that different from similar beliefs that led to the beliefs of the many oppressing those of the few, which has led to great injustices and atrocities throughout human history. Slavery, racism, ethnic cleansing, the Holocaust, etc. All "justified" by the needs of the many over the needs of the few.
_________________
Give me the shadows, shield me from the light, and I shall let nothing pass in the darkness of the night. |
Mon Nov 15, 2004 10:22 am |
|
|
Darrius Cole
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 04 May 2004
Posts: 406
|
quote:
Originally by Nimirrha
At first, "the needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few" sounds like a reasonable and tenable philosophy, but I think it's not that different from similar beliefs that led to the beliefs of the many oppressing those of the few, which has led to great injustices and atrocities throughout human history. Slavery, racism, ethnic cleansing, the Holocaust, etc. All "justified" by the needs of the many over the needs of the few.
Nimirrha, that is a great point. Often times "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" is just another way of saying, "the needs of the strong outweigh the needs of the weak."
quote:
By xSamhainx
If anyone is guilty of being consumed with hatred, it's the people who have nothing but venom and contempt for the common citizenry of this country and their traditions and customs. You look at the downright mean and literally seditious things that not only supporters of the Dems have said, but the official representatives of the party have said, and it's just disgusting to most people. The neverending assault on our President, soldiers, and war effort, and taking the side of the enemy. Taking every opportunity they get to spit on the good and proud people of the South, denigrate people of faith, stir up racial conflict, and pit groups of Americans against each other. Am I being partisan? You bet. But I'm speaking the truth as far as I see it.
I don't think that it is an issue of hate as much as it is a lack of understanding on all sides. No one is trying to see it from the other side, to see where their frustration is coming from; nor are they attempting to find a middle ground.
First of all, their is a certain amount of unfair discrimination. Black people are still discriminated against, not as much as 30 or 40 years ago, but it still happens. Consequently they feel frustrated and not being able overcome all discrimination that they face on a daily basis and it shows in their rhetoric.
Gay people are still discriminated against. No doubt they look at an issue like gay marriage and feel that the law is putting an unfair restraint on them (I personally do not feel that this is true). And they constantly feel condemnation from the pulpit concerning their way of life. It is not suprising that their rhetoric would contain a steadily rising amount of increasing anger.
It seems that religious tolerance is being interpreted as intolerance of traditional Christian values. Practices such as abortion, which are against Christian values, are kept legal in communities that are overwhelming Christian, and the constituents in those areas are unable to outlaw these practices. Schools where 99.9% of students are practicing Christians are prevented from praying because of one Atheist student. It is not suprising that these people are beginning to fear the loss of their way of life.
The nature of the country is that it is made up of many different of people. As each group argues for its own agenda the groups will naturally be pitted against one another, they are different after-all. If I may be partisan as well, I don't see Republicans making any attempts to bridge any gaps or reach any middle ground. Or to be more to the point, I see Democrats doing more to attempt to reconcile all the different groups. As of late the party has been short of Conservative Christian viewpoints like mine. I credit that more to the aggressive and deliberate courting of this group by the Republican powers-that-be than to a conscious neglect by Democrats. I suspect, or rather I expect, that the party will make an honest attempt in the near future to reach out to more people who share that point of view.
As far as the assualt on the President goes, If you mean assualts on the President, whoever holds the Office, than I agree with you. If you mean direct assualts on G.W. Bush himself, then I disagree. G.W. Bush has not had half the attacks launched at him that Clinton had and still has for that matter. I haven't seen any wholesale attacks on the soldiers or any significant number of people siding with the enemy either.
_________________
Always with you what can not be done. Hear you nothing that I say? - Master Yoda
Only the powerful are free. - Darrius Cole |
|
Mon Nov 15, 2004 7:55 pm |
|
|
EverythingXen
Arch-villain
Joined: 01 Feb 2002
Posts: 4342
|
quote:
Originally posted by Namirrha
At first, "the needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few" sounds like a reasonable and tenable philosophy, but I think it's not that different from similar beliefs that led to the beliefs of the many oppressing those of the few, which has led to great injustices and atrocities throughout human history. Slavery, racism, ethnic cleansing, the Holocaust, etc. All "justified" by the needs of the many over the needs of the few.
Now, the Holocaust was horrible and made no sense. Jewish people were every bit as strong, healthy, and intelligent as the Germans who participated in it. Additionally, the country could support their numbers... indeed the country was healthy from it because they were just as good workers and businessmen as the Germans (better if you believe stereotypes).
For the record I have also never said that I think the strong being the dominant force is wrong, either. Not physically strong, which is an asset but no longer a requirement, but the intelligent, charismatic, and perceptive. I agree with some of what Nietchze says about the existence of a Superman (I do not agree with the majority of what he sasy). Wiping out 'lesser' people isn't right... but there's nothing wrong with ruling them (which doesn't have to be the same as oppressing them -- it just usually ends up that way because people who get into positions of power make some very stupid decisions).
Every day we live with the result of the many imposing their will and demands on the few. That's what laws are (or are supposed to be). The Many say that the Few are not entitled to kill whoever they want and take their stuff. The Many will persecute and oppress the Few who do this.
Morality has always been subjective and always, always, ALWAYS changes with the times. What was acceptable yesterday becomes unacceptable today (owning slaves, beating women, etc ... all acceptable up until a short time ago) .. what was unacceptable yesterday becomes acceptable today (women working outside the home, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, etc).
If my death could benefit millions of people I would gladly die. If my death before my birth could have as well... I wouldn't care because I never would have existed.
_________________
Estuans interius, Ira vehementi
"The old world dies and with it the old ways. We will rebuild it as it should be, MUST be... Immortal!"
=Member of the Nonflamers Guild=
=Worshipper of the Written Word= |
|
Tue Nov 16, 2004 8:28 pm |
|
|
Darrius Cole
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 04 May 2004
Posts: 406
|
quote:
By EverythingXen
If my death could benefit millions of people I would gladly die. If my death before my birth could have as well... I wouldn't care because I never would have existed
If your death would benefit millions of people who hated you and hurt those people you actually loved, would you gladly die then?
Would you sacrifice your child to benefit millions of people you do not know?
_________________
Always with you what can not be done. Hear you nothing that I say? - Master Yoda
Only the powerful are free. - Darrius Cole |
|
Tue Nov 16, 2004 8:56 pm |
|
|
EverythingXen
Arch-villain
Joined: 01 Feb 2002
Posts: 4342
|
Yes to the first. If it was proven to me that my death would serve millions their feelings towards me would be irrelevant. It's the right thing to do.
As to the second... sacrifice my child? No, probably not. Donate one of my wife's eggs and my sperm to clone one in a dish or donate an aborted or miscarried embryo? In a heartbeat.
What's the difference? It's simple and brutal: I link life with awareness. A person who is not aware that they are alive I do not consider alive. This includes embryos and flat-EEG coma patients.
_________________
Estuans interius, Ira vehementi
"The old world dies and with it the old ways. We will rebuild it as it should be, MUST be... Immortal!"
=Member of the Nonflamers Guild=
=Worshipper of the Written Word= |
|
Wed Nov 17, 2004 4:52 pm |
|
|
Darrius Cole
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 04 May 2004
Posts: 406
|
To the first, I need to clarify. People hating me and me loving people are NOT mutually exclusive. I would not sacrifice myself if I knew it would hurt people that I loved, the fact that it would benefit people who hated me is unnecessary fuel for an already burning fire. Still, I would not sacrifice myself to benefit people who were my enemies, and were looking to consume me for their own selfish benefit.
Sacrifice my child, obviously not.
Donate sperm so that someone could create a child so that they could kill it, 'no' as well.
Donate a fetus or embryo that has already been aborted or miscarried, Yes. It's already dead.
I understand your logic, but I disagree with it. I associate life with growth and death with decay. An embryo is growing therefore it is alive. If a person on a machine in a hospital is decaying in spite of our intervention, then that person is already dead. If the machine is succeeding in keeping that person's cells growing and multiplying, then the person is alive.
An embyo is growing (alive) and is a person in the earliest stage of development (will awake if this growth is not stopped). Therefore, no one owns it and no one has right to terminate it's life without being threatened by it.
_________________
Always with you what can not be done. Hear you nothing that I say? - Master Yoda
Only the powerful are free. - Darrius Cole |
|
Wed Nov 17, 2004 6:41 pm |
|
|
Ugly_Prayer
Eager Tradesman
Joined: 03 Jul 2004
Posts: 38
Location: Sinking Fast |
Wow! Good discussion.
Darrius Cole spoke of the impact on the election of: 1) Abortion. 2) Gay Marriage. IMO he is (mostly) correct. Though I would specify abortion as more so of the: LATE - TERM KIND. As in: Sticking a screw driver in the "kids-fetus" head as s/he is coming out the womb. That sh*t gives me the creeps!!!
Let me state for the all-important/but not supposed to be important:racial/geographic/sex index; that I am a White Male "Straight" Southern, former tobacco abuser- who has owned several guns, but also used to follow The Grateful Dead around the country and voted for the American Socialist Party ticket a few times when I was young because I saw the horrible abuse of women when I worked in a southern sewing factory whilst still in High School guy.
Gay Marriage: You bet! Scared the Hell outta the God-fearing. It got so much coverage!!! Really: In Your Face STUFF! Cost Kerry the election IMO. That was the fault of the NEWS MEDIA! Not FOX News: but the carnival mentality that the NEW MEDIA has because WE THE PEOPLE demand IT.
But here is the scoop. The God-fearing, (although I am a Taoist, I'm enuff kin to see semi-through their eyes) view the Blue folks as elitist intellectual schmucks! Why? Because so many ARE. They REALLY REALLY ARE. THEY SO ARE!
I'm a janitor at a major Southern University see, and I have an internet sig. file that reads: "The MORE Liberal slogans and quotes from dead zen guys that a prof has upon the door - the LESS I wish to be their janitor."
Why? Because they are the first to forget that a real live Human Being has to clean their crap. They can process it in "intellectual" general, but not so in local "real."
Now to be "fair and balanced", there are also a lot of right -wing idiots who think their sh*t don't stink cause... well: God says so. They are the moral elitist schmucks that make me wanna puke. Speaking of puke-
Sorry guys... gotta stop, I am so drunk!!! Really, really drunk. I'm sure some here know the feeling.
Been fun though.  And I do stand with the above statements.
_________________
What I am I am, and say not. Being is the great explainer.
-Thoreau |
|
Wed Nov 17, 2004 10:12 pm |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
quote:
Originally posted by Darrius Cole
Roqua, You think Democrats have more money than Republicans? OOOkkayy.
Sounds like you got a lot of pent up anger. Breath in, Breath out, Picture yourself in a happy place... 
I do have pent up anger, because people simply assume nonsense. Lets break down who has the wealth in this country.
Sports players, movie stars, super star bands and performers, all forms of media (print, TV, Cable, and Radio), hollywood producers, university proffesors, social elites, old-money families. All Democrates. All filthy rich yet unwilling to give their wealth directly to the poor, but harp on about how they are for the poor, and want higher taxes that their accountants can weasel out of so the working class people can bear the burden of it.
NY, Chigaco, LA, Boston, NJ, etc. All the wealth centers of America are Blue. The social elites and old money in our wealth centers are all Dems.
But CEO's, board members, and corporate executives are wealthy, and everyone knows that the fat cat capitalists are the only ones with wealth, right? And they're all Red right? Wrong. Once you hit executive level you become a lobbyist. Take any corp, we'll look at Micron for now though. Appleton only cares about tarriffs on imported competetors products. If the Dems take his cause he votes Dem, if the Reps take his cause he votes Rep. Like the steel Unions in Penn. Bush raised the tariffs on imported steel, so he got their vote in '00.
So who are we left with? The Amercian people who get up every morning and drag their asses to work. The ones who don't make it on TV, the ones who stand silently by and get the job done as the Dems hold protests and slash the tires of anyone with a Bush/Cheney sticker. The ones who get beat up on their way to work by Dems out in front of the RNC. The ones that are law abbidding citizens that are actually not violent and full of rage and hatred. The ones that believe in the American dream of hard work pays itself off, and if you want to better your situation you work hard every day for it. You don't swear off work to spearhead an issue.
One study showed that by a vast majority, stay-at-home wives are liberal and vote democrate. And that most of the wives of wallstreet workers, wealthy managers, corperate execs, etc vote democrate. Where working women are about 55% republican. So only the wealthy can afford to not have a duel income, and though the worker in the family might be republican, or at least have conservative views, his stay at home wife votes dem. So that effectively voids his vote. So you can't count the wall street workers and managers as republicans, since their families are only half-republicans when counted as a whole. I wish I had a link to that article, because it explained things better than I could ever.
So, who is more wealthy? The Dems or repubs? You tell me? Hard working Americans vs. the the media, entertainers, social elites, old-money, non-workers, people who think they are entitled to free money, and those who have just plain been dupped into believing that the ultra rich have their best interests at heart. Soros and Hienz Kerry don't use tax loopholes right? The don't make donations to violent-extrimist groups right? You could tell me a list of people they brought up from poverty right?
Ooookay.
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Tue Nov 23, 2004 8:35 pm |
|
|
xSamhainx
Paws of Doom
Joined: 11 Sep 2002
Posts: 2192
Location: San Diego |
FYI- A belated victory to tack onto election 2004, Republicans just officially won the Governorship of Washington. First time in 20-some odd years, I'm not sure of the actual timespan but I know it's like a couple decades.
Dino Rossi has prevailed! Democrats across Washington State were hoping for a recount miracle once again, but to no avail. Count those votes any way you want Dems, but Dino Rossi wins. It's been a bad month For Washington Democrats altogether, they lost the 8th Congressional Seat (again) and the Governor's office as well. Oh well, we can only hope they keep using the same politically suicidal strategy and spokespeople.
@Ugly Prayer- great post, I busted out laughing here at work
@Roqua- Tho we both have a healthy bit of anecdotal type evidence in our statements, I do agree that the lib elites are actually quite wealthy and hypocritical. I have nothing against wealth at all, in fact one of my goals in life is to become wealthy. The goal of becoming wealthy and successful used to be commonly recognized as a good thing, until some people decided to use class warfare as a primary political tactic. My problem isnt with wealthy leftists, my problem is with wealthy leftists who do nothing but bitch and moan about "the wealthy". John Kerry and Terayyza up there on that stage are worth more than the entire Bush cabinet itself, yet they have the gall to rant and rave about the inequity and greed of "the rich". Someone needs to go pull up a list of the members of the House and Senate and what they are worth, because last I looked those noble Democrat populists like Dianne Feinstein and Ted Kennedy are some of the richest political figures in Washington today. It's literally funny to see these filthy rich actors, musicians, and political figures who alreadly have their millions, all putting out the image they think wealth is bad and something to be discouraged. Well, when it comes to socialism, the upper class such as them arent going to be the ones living menial existences. It isnt going to be them using socialized medicine. No, that's for all us little people that they just care sooo much about. Go look at socialist or communist societies, and you'll see that there still is indeed an upper class of wealthy elites, they just have a real great system for keeping anyone else from financially or otherwise threatening their supreme rule or status.
@Darrius-
If you really want to compare notes on what political party and it's cohorts are currently and have in the past spent their time assaulting and obscenely deriding, undermining, mocking, and spitting in the face of not only their political opponents, but our nation's military, traditional customs, religions, traditional and quintessentially American organizations such as the Boy Scouts, or literally entire regions of the nation like the South, I'm more than ready to compare notes. If you want to really take a look at who it is that has made an industry out of pitting groups of Americans against each other, then lets compare notes, but you better be ready to accept some truth.
_________________
“Then away out in the woods I heard that kind of a sound that a ghost makes when it wants to tell about something that's on its mind and can't make itself understood, and so can't rest easy in its grave, and has to go about that way every night grieving.”-Mark Twain |
|
Thu Nov 25, 2004 1:27 am |
|
|
Darrius Cole
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 04 May 2004
Posts: 406
|
@Sam
Are you telling me that Democrats have more money than Republicans?
I am always ready to accept truth but I will only enter into an exchange with someone who is ready to accept some truth as well. In other words...Are you ready to accept some truth?
_________________
Always with you what can not be done. Hear you nothing that I say? - Master Yoda
Only the powerful are free. - Darrius Cole |
|
Thu Nov 25, 2004 2:24 am |
|
|
xSamhainx
Paws of Doom
Joined: 11 Sep 2002
Posts: 2192
Location: San Diego |
I dont know what you mean by that question, Darrius. I'm saying that there are are an awful lot of filthy rich Democrats out there, despite all their claims that it's just greedy Republicans who are swimming in cash. I'm saying that it's rich Democrat politicians and activists who spend their time shooting their mouths off about how horrible and rotten the wealthy are, that really crack me and alot of other people up. If you mean run of the mill republicans and dems like me and you, I have no idea on a grand scale. If you mean bigshot political figures and their hollywood sidekicks, I can assure you that they are by no means living modest and simple lives. If you are talking the presidential candidates, I can tell you right now that "the Johns" are worth more than Bush and Cheney. If you are talking business owners, I can tell ya that a whole lot of wealthy business owners are loyal Democrats as well as Republicans.
My point is that rich Republicans arent the ones out there as a political force, wailing and moaning about "the wealthy", as many obviously wealthy Democrats do. They arent the ones I see and hear railing against all the supposedly "evil corporations" that pay the salaries and are in good part responsible for this nation's economy. I dont see Republicans up on the stage bellyaching about people getting rich or being successful, or trying to insinuate it is a bad thing or greedy to be so. I dont see or hear Republicans as a political force accusing people who actually become wealthy as only being so because they stole, cheated, or otherwise screwed someone else to get there. You know, alot of people get wealthy because of their own ingenuity and hard work, Dems. Republicans dont sow this overall philosophy of life itself as a zero-sum game, in that anyone that has something has it at the expense of someone else. It's just not so, and it's totally despicable as a political tactic, in my opinion. It's even more contemptible yet when it's coming from the mouth of a Kennedy or Heinz-Kerry, that are the result of purely inherited wealth themselves. That's my point, Darrius.
_________________
“Then away out in the woods I heard that kind of a sound that a ghost makes when it wants to tell about something that's on its mind and can't make itself understood, and so can't rest easy in its grave, and has to go about that way every night grieving.”-Mark Twain |
|
Thu Nov 25, 2004 3:14 am |
|
|
Darrius Cole
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 04 May 2004
Posts: 406
|
I did not say any of that, nor did I imply or intend to imply any of that. I was simply reacting to something that Roqua said and now to something that you said.
I will clarify the questions.
quote:
Are you telling me that Democrats have more money than Republicans?
1. Are you telling me that the average Democrat has more money than the average Republican?
2. Are you telling me that supporters of the Democratic party as a whole have more money than supporters of the Republican party as a whole.
quote:
In other words...Are you ready to accept some truth?
Are you willing open your mind and consider that you may be mistaken and have misconceptions just as you think I do? Or... Are you simply going to try to take the high road and try to convince me that I am mistaken about everything without considering what I say with the idea that I may be correct and you may be mistaken.
_________________
Always with you what can not be done. Hear you nothing that I say? - Master Yoda
Only the powerful are free. - Darrius Cole
Last edited by Darrius Cole on Wed Dec 01, 2004 8:23 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Fri Nov 26, 2004 6:04 am |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
I don't know why you asked Sam, when I replied to a question you asked me that he answered. And i appologize if my last answer sounded angry. I try not to do it but most of my posts sound angry. Maybe because I refuse to use emotes.
I don't hate the rich Sam, but I dislike them. I despise hypocrites though, and the rich evil greedy republicans can’t be called hypocrites for being rich evil and greedy. I want to be rich also, but I will never pay more than $8 for a hair cut (current day prices, inflation not factored in), and I will never be the snooty, fancy pants, hypocrite rich that I saw my whole life growing up in Massachusetts.
Growing up a democrat, I can explain how I now can’t stand that party.
1) After I got out of the army I was a waiter at a restaurant. Everyday I would get a group of about 4-6 non-working, wealthy (not rich but their husbands were doing well), liberal women. This was during the ’00 election. They would chat about how stupid Bush was, as they made me bring their food back because they were super-picky. They would always make me wait at their table answering their stupid snotty questions, and would scrunch their noses up with disgust, as I had to list out what came with another plate, because they made me list them all, even though it explains it just as I do on the menu they are looking at. They were so picky and condescending and snotty. And chatting away about their liberal agenda and how stupid Bush was and how stupid anyone that voted for him was, as the ordered a something simple but had to make it overly complicated for me and the cooks.
The kicker is they would suck up all my time, and make the service I had to give the other tables sub par, and they never tipped. I was lucky to get 10% from these uppity %^^%$$%&’s. And because the would suck up all my time I would get worse tips from the other tables. Cheap, democrat, snooty scum. If their party is so keen on helping the poor then why not throw me a tip, I’m poor now, and I was then also. They could easily spare it. They could at least be 100% less picky and maybe a little nice.
2) My wife (who is from a well-to-do family) had a friend that was a hardcore liberal activist going to school in Connecticut. She would lament the plight of the poor and downtrodden and how the republicans just wanted to hurt them, blah blah. That is until she got a chance to hang out with the people she so loves, namely me and my friends. Welcome to Brockton hippy. Every one of my friends is Union. I used to be in the Roofer’s Union. I’m the only one of my friends to go to college, thanks mostly to the GI Bill. All me friends are staunch democrats.
We went out to the fancy club all her friends she came up with went to in Boston. All her friends were WASPs (besides the token black friend and my oriental wife who was friends with just the girl), stuck-up, and condescending to us. We ended up getting in a big brawl with all the fancy tight shirt, hair gel, I go to the gym and lift weights so I’m tough and strong, kids there after like a half an hour. And we got arrested. We’ve never got arrested for getting in a fight at any of the bars or clubs we frequented.
And about 6 months later she called my wife (girlfriend then) and invited her down, but told her not to bring me or my friends. I guess us po’ fold embarrassed her. Maybe if we stood to the side and offered to hop down, turn around, and pick a bail of cotton for her and her rich liberal activist friends we would have been more welcomed. So, like all the democrats that aren’t themselves poor, she thinks she is somehow fighting for us, and loves us, but just doesn’t want to be around or socialize with us po’ folk. We be to stupid to help us selfs.
3) Going to college in Massachusetts was the kicker. Being in a classroom with a Liberal professor spouting out liberal and hateful propaganda to a class full of not poor WASPs who would laugh and fully agree with the professor’s propaganda. Oh yeah, since I’m dark skinned I would be singled out, along with others of dark skin as subject experts on how the man is sticking it to me and to confirm that the propaganda he spouted was true. I would always call their bluffs and ask them to throw me some cash or pay my college fees. They would always explain how they weren’t rich and couldn’t afford it, and how raising taxes is a much better way, or socialization of America. I could feel the tension in the air, and the other student’s thoughts of, “The professor is on his side, why be mean?”
I don’t know, why be a hypocrite? The professor drives a fancy-car home to his fancy house and sends his kids to USC. Why is the college he teaches at not good enough for his kids? Can you seriously believe he couldn’t help me out if he so chose? I drove an 85 Dodge Omni for God’s sake.
4) Columnists like Ted Rahl who just writes nonsense. The article he wrote that sticks out the most is one he did right before the election where he said republicans are stupid and everyone should have to pass a test before voting. Who’s supposed to be the democrat’s base you jackass? Oh yeah, the poor and downtrodden. The uneducated. That makes a whole lot of sense to test them before letting them vote you stupid ass.
I don’t, and didn’t, really want a monetary hand out. I want to get by own my own, because I have pride. To me, being poor is more a state of mind. I believe in myself, and I believe in my ability to provide for me and mine. One day I won’t be wearing Walmart sneakers.
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Fri Nov 26, 2004 11:11 am |
|
|
xSamhainx
Paws of Doom
Joined: 11 Sep 2002
Posts: 2192
Location: San Diego |
Darrius, I answered your question, you need to really read that first paragraph. I dont know!
You need to quit the attempt to trap me here with some nifty little trivia fact of "more average republicans have more money that average democrats", or spend money on political causes, etc. How one could even come to such a conclusion and present it as a hard fact is dubious at best, and fairy-tale "what if" assumption logic at worst. There are tons of "nonpartisan" interest groups that collect dues such as the NAACP, NRA, etc. There are political action commitees such as MoveOn that get donations and spend like crazy. All that is supposedly nonpartisan. There are people who arent registered Dem or Republican who are non-official supporters of the parties. Also, there are conservative Democrats as well as liberal Republicans, and marriage & divorce, children, death & tragedy, government assistance, education, location, and so on will have tax and income ramifications as well regardless of party affiliation. I know youre just dying to whip out your trivia factoid about the income of the parties, go right ahead, but it still doesnt change the reasons why people like me are snickering at these spoiled millionaire Democrats wailing and moaning about "the rich".
But if you feel you must, go ahead and fire your silver bullet factoid at me and my argument Darrius. I'm truly eager now to finally read this earth-shattering, Republican-smashing, Tiger-crashing financial revelation for myself.
edited for brevity and wit ='.'=
_________________
“Then away out in the woods I heard that kind of a sound that a ghost makes when it wants to tell about something that's on its mind and can't make itself understood, and so can't rest easy in its grave, and has to go about that way every night grieving.”-Mark Twain
Last edited by xSamhainx on Mon Nov 29, 2004 7:34 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
Fri Nov 26, 2004 8:28 pm |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
I would like to clarify a few things. I don’t dislike the rich for being rich, but I do feel that I am better than those who inherited wealth and never had to overcome any real obstacles in life. I have nothing but respect for those who weren’t born wealthy but through hard work and perseverance (or even by dumb luck) become wealthy. I have a lot more respect for them than I do for my friends who are Union and will always be Union. They will have a comfortable life, but they set their goals low and have no ambition at all. And their jobs are back breaking hard work. I respect what they do, mjust not they way they think.
I believe they have the poor mindset. I think they think that this is how they were born, and this is what they can do. Why bother trying to better yourself and advance your situation? I think the big difference between them and me is my parents are immigrants. My parents expect me to do better than they did, as they did better than their parents. They understand that in America the sky is the limit, if I roll up my sleeves and bust my ass, and never quit I will go far. I believe only immigrants can truly understand the American Dream. Look at the Indians that came from a cast system. If you were born low you die low, there is no way to advance your situation. They come here and fully exploit the American dream. Their children are geniuses. I love them, I really do. They motivate me to try harder and harder. And I hope one day they take over this country, because those who work the hardest and put in the most effort deserve to lead us. I hope we see, and realize, the truth of the American Dream through them. And as Carter said, “Its time to stop crying and start sweating.”
I might be poor financially, but mentally I am middle-class. And one day I will be rich financially, but still mentally middle-class.
And as for serving, all groups of ladies, democrats or republicans, are generally poor tippers. No one wanted to serve the groups of ladies, but the worst were the uppity liberals, because they would be picky, contemptuous, and so snotty you wanted to choke them. I never served to a big group of guys, they tended to tip girl servers a lot better so I would pass them off to a girl server. My best tippers were guys on a first date that wanted to impress their date. I could get a good tip of a lady if there were only one or two of them and one of them had been a waitress before. Other than that, even the nice ones were crap tippers.
I respect your views DCole, and I'm sure your life experiences have shown you that the Democratic party is the kinder, gentler, more open minded, and more tolerant party that is trying to help the working stiffs. I heartily disagree since my life experiences, and what i have learned about government and economics, as well as what I have seen growing up in a very liberal, very wealthy, democratic state, as well as everything I read, has shown me that they are not.
Since I'm a social liberal I do not fit very well into the Republican party. I agree with the Libertarians on some key issues, but heartily disagree on others, such as Iraq. So I can't be a true Libertarian, but i can be a Jeffersonian Libertarian. Jefferson was a great man I think, and worthy enough to spend some time studying and philosophizing over his ideas and thoughts.
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Fri Nov 26, 2004 11:46 pm |
|
|
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat Apr 13, 2019 4:51 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
