<!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Aug 29 2004, 06:35 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Aug 29 2004, 06:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Yes because joining the army automatically means you’re going to die....
Do not put words in my mouth, the only thing I was implying is that CWAG said the government is not providing any jobs, when in fact they are providing plenty of opportunities. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Alright , I was generalizing a bit too aggressively indeed.
Yet my points was : <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you can't find a job at all, I don't see why the army would be a bad option, they pay you well, you are given many benefits that you don't get with any other job that this hypothetical person couldn't get anyway. Just because you disagree with the war in Iraq doesn’t make the army any less of a carrier path.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You don't see why it's a bad option ? Prostitution pays just as well , yet we rarely see the richer people's daughter chosing a "career" in prostitution , likewise there are no congressman's son in the Army. Please explain me why it should be up to the lower classes to do the higher's dirty job.
The Military is a perfectly fine job, in my eyes. My father, a patriotic Bush supporter, is making quite the healthy living as a Sgt. First Class in the military, he recently returned from a deployment in Germany.
He makes good money, he has a great education, and he gets to see the world...there is nothing wrong with that kind of a job. Not only that, but you get to become part of the elite in the United States, one of the most revered positions in this country. If my dad happens to be in uniform when he goes into town, people will approach him and thank him for what he is doing...
I personally couldnt imagine any greater honor then serving my country in such a way. Maybe i'm just crazy.
It really depends on which branch you join too. If I had to join the military, I'd probably join the Air Force. Don't see action (if any), get some great technical training, etc.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Please explain me why it should be up to the lower classes to do the higher's dirty job. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Aug 29 2004, 09:42 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Aug 29 2004, 09:42 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Aug 29 2004, 02:43 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Aug 29 2004, 02:43 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Where? If it has been done, it certainly hasn't been done to my satisfaction. Why don't you explain to me how a child wearing rags for clothing could ever hope to be anything more if he can't get an education?
Or did you mean to say that the persuit of hapiness isn't a constitutional right? Well I suppose you've got me there, its technically part of the Declairation of Indipendance. However, if every American doesn't have the oportunity to better themselves, than how the hell can you argue that if the "lazy poor people" would just work a little harder they'd be alright? That certainly doesn't make sense.
And hell, if this country wasn't all about oportunity, then why do people keep telling me its the greatest country on earth? I mean, certain parts of it are pretty, and when the psycho religious groups aren't out preaching that aids cures homosexuality its pretty civil. But I can get that anywhere, I thought this was supposed to be a bastion of hope on the rest of the world, a land of oportunity where ANYONE could lead a decent life. Guess I was wrong. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> There once was a man that was the son of poor farmers. When he was little, the Japanese invaded his island home and disrupted everything. He never got the chance to go to school. Through hard work and learning from his parents, he managed to learn something useful and set up a small bakery. He had 5 kids. He put them all through college, and managed to send his firstborn, a daughter, to the best university in the country. That person graduated from the university with a master's degree. There, she met my father and married him.
Now, my grandfather doesn't exactly live in luxury, but he lives fairly comfortably. So nyah. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> What part of my post were you trying to disprove? The First paragraph? or the Second and Third paragraphs? Because you succeded at neither. I suppose it all boils down to what you meant when you said: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That is a ridiculous statement. And already disproved by several people in this forum.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Did you mean to say that it isn't the government's job to ensure that oportunity exists for all? In that case paragraphs 2 and 3 apply. That is, if the government doesn't ensure it, then it doesn't exist and everything I've been told about "America, land of oportunity" would be a lie, despite your anecdotal evidence to the contrary. Or did you mean that without public schools theres still plenty of oportunity for a child living in poverty to succede? Well, as far as I'm conserned that was covered earlier in this thread, and your fifty or so year old anecdotal evidence still doesn't apply because nowadays it is virtually impossible to get a decent job without, at the very least, a high school diploma.
<!--QuoteBegin-Stakhanov+Aug 29 2004, 01:04 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Stakhanov @ Aug 29 2004, 01:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You don't see why it's a bad option ? Prostitution pays just as well , yet we rarely see the richer people's daughter chosing a "career" in prostitution , likewise there are no congressman's son in the Army. Please explain me why it should be up to the lower classes to do the higher's dirty job. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So you’re comparing a job in the military to prostitution? Plenty of middle class/well off people work in the military, hell many of them are well off because of that fact. I would most certainly take offence to that statement if I was in the military.
The congressman’s son argument is so ridiculous and stupid that I cringe every time I see it brought up. It is not up to the congressmen to decide what their children do in life, if no congressmen have children in the military it's because none of those kids wanted to join up. It's not like the congressmen sit their children down when their 16 and tell them "now I'm a very rich and important man, and because of that fact you can't join the military that kind of noble work is beneath you." If my parents were rich enough that I could ride through life, I would be very tempted to do just that, but if all people had this attitude where would the world be?
However I, and many many others in this country, hold a military career to be a very noble and worthy one, certainly not one comparable to prostitution and it's a shame you see it that way.
<!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Aug 29 2004, 01:49 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Aug 29 2004, 01:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Aug 29 2004, 09:42 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Aug 29 2004, 09:42 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Aug 29 2004, 02:43 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Aug 29 2004, 02:43 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Where? If it has been done, it certainly hasn't been done to my satisfaction. Why don't you explain to me how a child wearing rags for clothing could ever hope to be anything more if he can't get an education?
Or did you mean to say that the persuit of hapiness isn't a constitutional right? Well I suppose you've got me there, its technically part of the Declairation of Indipendance. However, if every American doesn't have the oportunity to better themselves, than how the hell can you argue that if the "lazy poor people" would just work a little harder they'd be alright? That certainly doesn't make sense.
And hell, if this country wasn't all about oportunity, then why do people keep telling me its the greatest country on earth? I mean, certain parts of it are pretty, and when the psycho religious groups aren't out preaching that aids cures homosexuality its pretty civil. But I can get that anywhere, I thought this was supposed to be a bastion of hope on the rest of the world, a land of oportunity where ANYONE could lead a decent life. Guess I was wrong. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> There once was a man that was the son of poor farmers. When he was little, the Japanese invaded his island home and disrupted everything. He never got the chance to go to school. Through hard work and learning from his parents, he managed to learn something useful and set up a small bakery. He had 5 kids. He put them all through college, and managed to send his firstborn, a daughter, to the best university in the country. That person graduated from the university with a master's degree. There, she met my father and married him.
Now, my grandfather doesn't exactly live in luxury, but he lives fairly comfortably. So nyah. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> What part of my post were you trying to disprove? The First paragraph? or the Second and Third paragraphs? Because you succeded at neither. I suppose it all boils down to what you meant when you said: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That is a ridiculous statement. And already disproved by several people in this forum.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Did you mean to say that it isn't the government's job to ensure that oportunity exists for all? In that case paragraphs 2 and 3 apply. That is, if the government doesn't ensure it, then it doesn't exist and everything I've been told about "America, land of oportunity" would be a lie, despite your anecdotal evidence to the contrary. Or did you mean that without public schools theres still plenty of oportunity for a child living in poverty to succede? Well, as far as I'm conserned that was covered earlier in this thread, and your fifty or so year old anecdotal evidence still doesn't apply because nowadays it is virtually impossible to get a decent job without, at the very least, a high school diploma. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually I think I pretty much blew apart your entire argument that 'You can't succeed without hand-outs from the government'.
This is in no way meant to derail the read, no one comment on it, just except it as much needed humor. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Aug 29 2004, 02:18 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Aug 29 2004, 02:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The congressman’s son argument is so ridiculous and stupid that I cringe every time I see it brought up. It is not up to the congressmen to decide what their children do in life, if no congressmen have children in the military it's because none of those kids wanted to join up. It's not like the congressmen sit their children down when their 16 and tell them "now I'm a very rich and important man, and because of that fact you can't join the military that kind of noble work is beneath you." <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The point here though is that there is more incentive for those of a poorer background to join up than those of a rich background.
If someone enters the military because of a patriotic sense of duty/ pride in the nation that's one thing; if someone enters because of financial benefits that's another. And then I suppose there are those inbetween.
For those that join up pretty much only for the benefits, it does seem like a form of prostitution to me.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Actually I think I pretty much blew apart your entire argument that 'You can't succeed without hand-outs from the government'.
Show me where I'm wrong.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First you start answering a few questions. You asked why certain government provided services were nessesary, this was explained (without them children born in poverty would have virtually zero chance to ever work their way out of poverty) to your aparent satisfaction since you then moved on to your second question: Why are these services the domain of the government? Whcih was also answered (because they wouldn't exist otherwise). Then you called my argument rediculous, refused to elaborate and gave us a pointless family history.
You have thus far refused to explain to me how a child born into poverty could possibly work hard enough to get a decent job nowadays without being able to go to school (since he couldn't afford it if the government didn't offer it to him for free).
It is obvious to me that you are either not reading my posts, or simply ignoring their contents. So I'm going to stop posting in here, declare victory if you want, I don't care anymore.
I leave with this parting thought:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->However I, and many many others in this country, hold a military career to be a very noble and worthy one, certainly not one comparable to prostitution and it's a shame you see it that way.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Unless of course its John Kerry's military career, we don't have to respect that because hes a hippy.
<!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Aug 29 2004, 04:59 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Aug 29 2004, 04:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I leave with this parting thought:
Unless of course its John Kerry's military career, we don't have to respect that because hes a hippy. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually I respect Kerry's military career a great deal. He earned all 3 of his purple hearts by military standards for receiving them, which aren't that high. But he did do his service and preformed admirably, which is more then I can say for Bush. Now you weren’t assuming that just because I support Bush for president that I believe every bit of election year garbage that comes from his camp, were you?
I actually find it disgraceful that people are putting down Kerry's military career because he protested before congress about the Vietnam atrocities, and all the vets called it 'treasonous'. Shutting up about the whole thing didn't help anyone. I think people deserved to know of the heinous acts that happened in Vietnam. I'm sure people are calling it treasonous to prosecute the perpetrators in the abu-grahib prison, but that doesn't mean it's wrong for them to do it.
I find it disgraceful that you don't know anything about Vietnam. The number of atrocities in that war were no more than any other. The difference is liberal propaganda obsessed over it and made it seem like every soldier over there was killing a Vietnamese citizen on a weekly basis. Stop regurgitating and start thinking.
In any case, for the most part you guys are not thinking about <b>balance</b>. The fact is that capitalism, while it owns socialism hands down, can go overboard. It seems contradictory to my other post to say this, but I really don't care.
The reason that Socialism and Communism came about was due to the abuse of Capitalism during the Industrial Revolution. Few people saw the oppurtunity available in America, and the ones that did took it to the limit. Obviously, this is a negative thing, and certainly the man behind Capitalism would not have approved.
Capitalism is able to balance itself out naturally in many cases, as long as participants play by the rules and keep integrity. The government's <b>only</b> role in the economy is to act as a base for capitalism to thrive. The real world has rules, and so does capitalism. The government should be there to make sure that capitalism's natural laws are upheld.
The main difficulty of a totally free public education is that it is too influenced by any one group of people. The NEA is extremely liberal, and push constantly for a more liberal viewpoint to be taught in public schools, something which is obviously detrimental to a free society's well being. That's why I support things like Charter schools. Any parent has the right to take his/her tax money and go to a higher quality, less biased school. I don't have a problem with public education, just as long as it is balanced by Charter schools.
The problem with a socialist government is that the government is a monopoly over everything, thus making it impossible to try something new, something better, something more efficient, because there is always red tape of some sort. The quality of everything goes down due to inefficiency and beauracracy, something exceptionally large in socialist nations.
<!--QuoteBegin-Stakhanov+Aug 30 2004, 06:04 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Stakhanov @ Aug 30 2004, 06:04 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Aug 29 2004, 06:35 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Aug 29 2004, 06:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Yes because joining the army automatically means you’re going to die....
Do not put words in my mouth, the only thing I was implying is that CWAG said the government is not providing any jobs, when in fact they are providing plenty of opportunities. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Alright , I was generalizing a bit too aggressively indeed.
Yet my points was : <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you can't find a job at all, I don't see why the army would be a bad option, they pay you well, you are given many benefits that you don't get with any other job that this hypothetical person couldn't get anyway. Just because you disagree with the war in Iraq doesn’t make the army any less of a carrier path.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You don't see why it's a bad option ? Prostitution pays just as well , yet we rarely see the richer people's daughter chosing a "career" in prostitution , likewise there are no congressman's son in the Army. Please explain me why it should be up to the lower classes to do the higher's dirty job. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Congressional Children in War
Deceits 53-56
Early in this segment, Moore states that "out of the 535 members of Congress, only one had an enlisted son in Iraq." The action of the segment consists of Moore accosting Congressmen to try to convince them to have their children enlist in the military. At the end, Moore declares, "Not a single member of Congress wanted to sacrifice their child for the war in Iraq."
Moore’s second statement is technically true, but duplicitous. Of course no-one would want to "sacrifice" his child in any way. But the fact is, Moore's opening ("only one") and his conclusion ("not a single member") are both incorrect. Sergeant Brooks Johnson, the son of South Dakota Democratic Senator Tim Johnson, serves in the 101st Airborne Division and fought in Iraq in 2003. The son of California Republican Representative Duncan Hunter quit his job after September 11, and enlisted in the Marines; his artillery unit was deployed in the heart of insurgent territory in February 2004. Delaware Senator Joseph Biden's son Beau is on active duty in the Judge Advocate General Corps; although Beau Biden has no control over where he is deployed, he has not been sent to Iraq, and therefore does not "count" for Moore's purposes. Seven members of Congress have been confirmed to have children in the military.
How about Cabinet members? Fahrenheit never raises the issue, because the answer would not fit Moore’s thesis. Attorney General John Ashcroft’s son is serving on the U.S.S. McFaul in the Persian Gulf.
Why not count Duncan Hunter's son? Note the phrasing: "only one had an enlisted son in Iraq." Although Hunter's son "enlisted" in the Marines, he is a Second Lieutenant, which means that he is above the rank of an "enlisted man." But why hide from the viewers how many Congressmen really have sons serving in the military in Iraq?
The editing of the Congressional scenes borders on the fraudulent:
….Representative Kennedy (R-MN), one of the lawmakers accosted in Fahrenheit 9/11, was censored by Michael Moore. According to the [Minneapolis] Star Tribune, Kennedy, when asked if he would be willing to send his son to Iraq, responded by stating that he had a nephew who was en-route to Afghanistan. He went on to inform Moore that his son was thinking about a career in the navy and that two of his nephews had already served in the armed forces. Kennedy’s side of the conversation, however, was cut from the film, leaving him looking bewildered and defensive.
What was Michael’s excuse for trimming the key segment? Kennedy’s remarks didn’t help his thesis: "He mentioned that he had a nephew that was going over to Afghanistan," Moore recounted. "So then I said ‘No, no, that’s not our job here today. We want you to send your child to Iraq. Not a nephew.’"
Kennedy lambasted Moore as a "master of the misleading" after viewing the interview in question.
Fahrenheit Fact.
George Stephanopoulos, of ABC News, asked Moore about the selective cuts in the Kennedy footage:
Stephanopoulos: You have a scene when you’re up on Capitol Hill encountering members of Congress, asking them if they would ask their sons and daughters to enlist … in the military. And one of those members of Congress who appears in the trailer, Mark Kennedy, said you left out what he told you, which is that he has two nephews serving in the military, one in Afghanistan. And he went on to say that, "Michael Moore doesn’t always give the whole truth. He’s a master of the misleading."
Moore: Well, at the time, when we interviewed him, he didn’t have any family members in Afghanistan. And when he saw the trailer for this movie, he issued a report to the press saying that he said that he had a kid in—
Stephanopoulos: He said he told you he had two nephews.
Moore:… No, he didn’t. And we released the transcript and we put it on our Web site. This is what I mean by our war room. Any time a guy like this comes along and says, "I told him I had two nephews and one was going to Iraq and one was going to Afghanistan," he’s lying. And I’ve got the raw footage and the transcript to prove it. So any time these Republicans come at me like this, this is exactly what they’re going to get. And people can go to my Web site and read the transcript and read the truth. What he just said there, what you just quoted, is not true.
This Week followed up with the office of Rep. Kennedy. He did have two nephews in the military, but neither served in Iraq. Kennedy’s staff agrees that Moore’s Website is accurate but insists the movie version is misleading. In the film, Moore says, "Congressman, I’m trying to get members of Congress to get their kids to enlist in the Army and go over to Iraq." But, from the transcript, here’s the rest:
Moore: Is there any way you could help me with that?
Kennedy: How would I help you?
Moore: Pass it out to other members of Congress.
Kennedy: I’d be happy to — especially those who voted for the war. I have a nephew on his way to Afghanistan.
This Week, ABC News, June 20, 2004.
So while Fahrenheit pretended that Kennedy just stupidly looked at Moore, Kennedy agreed to help Moore.
Notice also how Moore phrased his reply to Stephanopoulos: "Any time a guy like this comes along and says, 'I told him I had two nephews and one was going to Iraq and one was going to Afghanistan,' he’s lying." But Kennedy never claimed that he had a nephew going to Iraq. The insinuation that Kennedy made such a claim is a pure fabrication by Moore.
Fahrenheit shows Moore calling out to Delaware Republican Michael Castle, who is talking on a cell phone and waves Moore off. Castle is presented as one of the Congressmen who would not sacrifice his children. What the film omits is that Rep. Castle does not have any children.
<b>Are Congressional children less likely to serve in Iraq than children from other families? Let’s use Moore’s methodology, and ignore members of extended families (such as nephews) and also ignore service anywhere except Iraq (even though U.S. forces are currently fighting terrorists in many countries). And like Moore, let us also ignore the fact that some families (like Rep. Castle’s) have no children, or no children of military age.
We then see that of 535 Congressional families, there are two with a child who served in Iraq. How does this compare with American families in general? In the summer of 2003, U.S. troop levels in Iraq were raised to 145,000. If we factor in troop rotation, we could estimate that about 300,000 people have served in Iraq at some point. According to the Census Bureau, there were 104,705,000 households in the United States in 2000. (See Table 1 of the Census Report.) So the ratio of ordinary U.S. households to Iraqi service personnel is 104,705,000 to 300,000. This reduces to a ratio of 349:1.
In contrast the ratio of Congressional households to Iraqi service personnel is 535:2. This reduces to a ratio of 268:1.
Stated another way, a Congressional household is about 23 percent more likely than an ordinary household to be closely related to an Iraqi serviceman or servicewoman. </b>
Of course my statistical methodology is very simple. A more sophisticated analysis would look only at Congressional and U.S. households from which at least one child is legally eligible to enlist in the military. Moore, obviously, never attempted such a comparison; instead, he deceived viewers into believing that Congressional families were extremely different from other families in enlistment rates.
Moore ignores the fact that there are 101 veterans currently serving in the House of Representatives and 36 in the Senate. Regardless of whether they have children who could join the military, all of the veterans in Congress have personally put themselves at risk to protect their country.
During the segment, Moore is accompanied by Corporal Abdul Henderson, a Marine Corps Reservist. Corporal Henderson wears several ribbons and medals on his uniform; interestingly, a Good Conduct ribbon or medal, which is awarded "for the successful completion of a prescribed period of time of service without incident," is not among them.
(Deceits: 1. number of Congressional children in Iraq, 2. Mark Kennedy, 3. Michael Castle, 4. False impression that Congressional families are especially unlikely to serve in Iraq.)
[Moore response: Cites a May 11, 2003 article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that only Brooks Johnson had a son who had fought in Iraq. The article was accurate at the time, since Duncan Hunter's son, who had already enlisted, had not yet been sent to Iraq. But Fahrenheit premiered at the Cannes Film Festival in May 2004--two months after it had been reported that Duncan Hunter's son had been sent to Iraq. At the least, Moore could apologize that his claim about "only one" child is inaccurate, and blame the error on his having not noticed the news about Hunter while the movie was in its final production stages. But instead, Moore continues to repeat the "only one" claim, which is indisputably false. Moore offers no defense for the other falsehoods in this section.]
Part of an excellent dismissal of Farenheit 9/11 (and yes, I say that after having read Bathroommonkeys rebuttal link, given that that only thing really dealt with sufficiently with the Challenger myth). Its probably not a good idea to ask "havent you seen Farenheit 9/11, as though 9/11 actually shed light on anything. Many of us watched it merely to admire the pure genius of his consistent deception.
Anyways, the claim that the politicians send other people's kids but wont send their own is clearly fallicious.
Stakhanov, I'm not even going to bother attempting to explain the difference between being a prostitute and a soldier. Next time I see a veteran I'll be sure to call him a whor3 though, especially those that whor3d themselves off to Europe to save your little country.
you know, i was just thinking: i can't think of a single socialist country without soldiers of some sort, whether they be active or reserve. so why is the whole 'omg america spend so much $$ on soldiers it sucks' argument even coming up? soldiers are there to protect the country, and if you treat the main thing that prevents your rights from being trampled on by your neighboring countries...hrm. As the ACLU says, "protecting freedom, because freedom can't protect itself." or something to that effect.
I see this thread has gone very far off-topic already, but it is an interesting thread indeed.
First off all, let me adress your title. It is a wide-spread believe in the USA that a welfare state is something similiar to socialism. In fact, those two things are <i>completely</i> different.
The idea of a welfare state was first born in the end of the 19th century by the capitalist governments of western Europe as an answer to the revolutionary socialist movements throughout all of Europe. The idea behind it is to preserve the free economy while in the same time provide the mass and the poor enough financial aid. It serves to protect the rich and the wealthy from the wrath of the poor, it serves to prevent any revolution by giving a small share of the wealth to the poor, ill, unemployed people. So Welfare does not only help out the people in need, it actually protects the ruling class from the threat of revolution.
Now to the pros and cons of the Welfare itself:
What exactly does the welfare provide? The idea behind it is to provide basic aid to people who are in need for it, no matter if they can afford it or not. This basic aid includes: education, health care, financial aid during unemployment.
All of those are not only important for the poeple in need, but also for the wealth of the society itself. Only if the majority of the citizens can be provided an education, skillfull workers can produce at a high quality. If education was a priviledge of the rich only, the majority would be forced to do low-quality work. And only an elite could be granted access to most of the work-places. Yet in our modern society the need for well educated workers is immense, without them we wouldn't be able to keep up the wealth that we've accumulated so far. And besides, the chances for success would be extremely unequal, basically comparavle to a fall-back into an aristocracy/peasant society.
The basic health care is needed to provide basic treaty to the masses, like affordable anti-biotics and surgery on a broken bone etc. Without those basic treaties the population would simply criple down. Note that we're talking about a basic health care here, of course it's not needed to have everybody do a beaty-surgery.
And at last, the financial aid. This is actually the back-bone of a healthy society because it gives even the people who lost in the economic struggle the possibility to a) be able to survive until he can find a new job and b) still have an economic potential. The latter is very often neglected but it is an important point. a High financial aid provides masses of people with money which they in turn spend on their survival. The money goes into the local economy. Especially the poor don't safe the little money they have, they must spend it and thus keep the economy in form.
The wealthier the poor people are the richer the nation is. They are not a burden, but rather a potential.
Of course all those things have to be provided somehow. And the question is if it is the job of the government, and how much it could spend on it. Considering the above, if a nation is rich then an investment into a welfare state is quite a good investment. But providing a whole population cannot be the job of a few rich. The government should be responsible for the well-ebing of their citizens, the rich as well as the poor. Taxes have to be paid by everybody, it is a duty to the country they live in and a basic requirement for a society. And the government has the duty to spend these taxes on the well-ebing and wealth of its population, which includes everybody. The government builds roads for everybody, it does not only build roads near those places where the rich lives. The government provides the police for which the citizens do not have to pay themselves. And in the same cathegory is the welfare, it provides basic aid to the poeple in need. It does not discriminate. If someone rich should be in the position to require aid, he would get it just as much as somebody else would. We do not have a "civil right" for employment in capitalist countries. So poverty can happen to anybody in the society, and anybody would receive help if needed. that's why everybody has to contribute to it, because it secures the lifes of anybody. People who have worked hard have a right to live in dignity. Welfare does not mean that the rich pay for the poor, everybody pays to have a security of his own. Actually without welfare the poor would pay for the wealth of the rich.
So the basic idea of welfare is actually to maintain the wealth of a nation and to give even the losers of the society a chance. Without it, a flourishing capitalist economy is not possible.
As some wise man said: The wealth of a nation can be seen by the state of its poor.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I've always wondered about welfare (esp. those of the European countries) alot. Why do people think that health services, education, employment, and a decent standard of living are rights to be granted and enforced by the government? What obligates those who work hard or are innovative to pull up those who don't/aren't? Why should the government take on the responsibility of charity, rather than leaving it to individuals? It seems to me that socialism tries to buck hundreds of millions of years of natural selection(if, indeed, this is how we came to be) - is that a good idea? Are we supposed to give up a good portion of our individual liberties and freedoms in order to satisfy some of the intellectual elitists' consciences?
Furthermore, should this be the province of the government? I've always thought that personal charity is much more effective than state-enforced charity.
This has been a pretty big mystery to me, and if someone could enlighten me, that'd be awesome. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Becuase someone has to live on the bottom who would take your trash to the city dump if it was for the men who drive the truck and remove your waste. That someone who might not have had an extreme advantage of a wealthy father who could bribe your way through Yale (aka Bush). Will most likely land you a lesser job. If you can not afford to pay for medication especially life saving medical procedures or medication then that person who comes to your door no longer exsists.
Since Bush took away alot of the overtime that employees recieve it seems only fair that Bush would give them some way to keep the old alive and the young healthy. Do you have any idea the amount of money some people would have to pay for health insurance some would pay up to 1,000+ in a job where they make minimum wage they would either die or live miserably.
When you take from the top crop of rich those who own 4 mansion and 20 cars, are not likely to miss that extra money they may cry but thats it. 6% of this society makes up 67%+ of the nations taxes, with the way Bush has the nation setup this 6% also receives almost every penny of that back. Which is way were in such a strut.
You can't chose your family and you can't always fight the system. Natural Selection was dead long ago. When car insurance is around 1300 for a new sports car when your 18. I think everyone has rich people in mind not the poor.
BTW this is accually a form of communisim it was Welfare was taken from the first government to have it Germany...
If Germany a previously communist country can do this for its people I think a strong nation such as America can also do it.
Excuse me to go off topic (Eggmac covered pretty much everything , anyway) , but I won't tolerate personal attacks with low blows.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Stakhanov, I'm not even going to bother attempting to explain the difference between being a prostitute and a soldier. Next time I see a veteran I'll be sure to call him a whor3 though, especially those that whor3d themselves off to Europe to save your little country.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is it too much to ask , to have the smallest bit of good will when arguing ? I criticized the fact that soldiers entered the military because they were jobless/in need of money , not because they accept to die. WWII soldiers obviously had better reasons to join the military , than live comfortably after the bloodiest war is over. They fought for their country's and their allie's freedom. I'm not even blaming the capitalistic society for the Vietnam's bloodshed , the thousands of new volunteers bought the state's propaganda that this war would determine humankind's future. But hundreds of young people from the slums were lured into the Army by hearing of durable job opportunities and free studies. The war in Iraq was claimed to be a fast , "clean" war using modern technology to have little to no casualties , yet theses people were used as cannon fodder. No wonder soldiers like Brandon Hu*** didn't like being fooled and treated like expendable prostitutes.
Note that I consider prostitutes as victims , it's not a shame to be a prostitute per se , but our capitalistic society makes it shameful while encouraging it. Advanced countries like Sweden chose to put an end to hypocrisy and punish the prostitute's clients , but they're rare.
Marine , though you hardly deserve my not so precious spare time , know that no matter how bad people can flame me for my opinions , I'd never abandon my set of morals for yours.
<!--QuoteBegin-Stakhanov+Aug 31 2004, 12:16 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Stakhanov @ Aug 31 2004, 12:16 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The war in Iraq was claimed to be a fast , "clean" war using modern technology to have little to no casualties , yet theses people were used as cannon fodder. No wonder soldiers like Brandon Hu*** didn't like being fooled and treated like expendable prostitutes.
Marine , though you hardly deserve my not so precious spare time , know that no matter how bad people can flame me for my opinions , I'd never abandon my set of morals for yours. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You think nearly 1000 soldiers dead = being treated like cannon fodder? Brandon Hug*** knew what he was signing up for, he joined as Bush was talking up a war, then he reneged on his contract and ran like a coward. I thought we'd already established that his behaviour was indefensible and wrong?
I thought for a little while about my low blow, and your right, it was low, and it was aimed at you rather than your arguement.
On a more ontopic note - I pretty much agree with Eggmac. Seeing as he described almost word for word the system we run in Australia - then I guess there isnt too much more on the subject we disagree on. Poor people need a hand - up to a point.
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+Aug 30 2004, 01:50 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Aug 30 2004, 01:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> ...I thought we'd already established that his behaviour was indefensible and wrong? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Uh , no ? Anyway , old topic. It reminded me of an equally embarassing quote of yours , but I'll refrain from posting it...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I thought for a little while about my low blow, and your right, it was low, and it was aimed at you rather than your arguement.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->On a more ontopic note - I pretty much agree with Eggmac. Seeing as he described almost word for word the system we run in Australia - then I guess there isnt too much more on the subject we disagree on.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Aug 29 2004, 03:16 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Aug 29 2004, 03:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> This is in no way meant to derail the read, no one comment on it, just except it as much needed humor. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Stakhanov+Aug 31 2004, 01:08 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Stakhanov @ Aug 31 2004, 01:08 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+Aug 30 2004, 01:50 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Aug 30 2004, 01:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> ...I thought we'd already established that his behaviour was indefensible and wrong? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Uh , no ? Anyway , old topic. It reminded me of an equally embarassing quote of yours , but I'll refrain from posting it... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Please - pm it too me. I'd love to know what I said, and if I still agree I should have said it or not.
Certain "socialist" practices, like a government funded education, are actually beneficial in the long run. An educated population is far more productive and innovative than an uneducated one, thus driving economic growth.
However, the concept of protection has expanded far beyond basic necessity. Public sanitation is a worthwhile endeavor because it keeps disease and pest problems under control. However, some things have just been carried too far. For example, the idea that we need mandatory motorcycle helmet laws. This sort of thing crosses the line between protecting the nation in order to keep it free and protecting people from themselves. The government doesn't have a right to tell me how to make that sort of decision.
Socialism effectively places a soft cap on productivity. If I'm not going to adequately earn for the extra effort I put in, why would I bother to go that extra mile? Capitalism encourages hard work though added value. The sort of "economic redistribution" that goes on is a farce. The wealthy maintain their wealth because they're intelligent and industrious. If Jack Welch is pulling in hundreds of millions of dollars each year while a factory worker is pulling in $12/hr, I see no problem with that. Welch added billions of dollars of value to GE and he deserved every penny he got. If GE was only willing to pay him $200,000/year, he could get more money elsewhere. The only problem with this is the golden parachute packages that firms offer CEOs that fail. I disagree with the golden parachute packages, but I think that the overregulation and inefficient bureaucracy that comes with expanded government is far, far worse for the economy.
Free market capitalism rewards intelligence and hard work. The majority of millionaires today are self-made, not from "old money" or inheritance. Governments aren't capable of the efficiency that corporations are and are always far more wasteful, since their funding isn't tied to things like efficiency and productivity. That doesn't mean that I think that we should replace the government with Microsoft or General Dynamics. Government does have a place, but it's not in the business world.
I think in order to look at this argument objectively we need to determine what a persons "rights" are. Also, understand that when I say "government" I mean "taxes / my money"
For instance - do single moms (the ususal kind, not rape victims, etc.) have the "right" to depend on the government for help supporting thier child? Does that "right" enfringe on the "rights" of every other citizen to keep the money they earn? Do I have a social responsibility to give money to those people who make bad decisions?
Education - We all agree that education is good. I disagree that public education is good. For instance, I disagree fundimentally with a lot of things that are taught at public schools. I disagree that teaching goes to the lowest common denominator. I disagree that discipline is useless and that parents see public school as a government run day care. I disagree with the fact that there are some schools where every student gets a new laptop, and at the same time I am having trouble making house payments. The reason I disagree with all this is that I realize that my money is going towards all of this I don't support.
On the other hand, my parents worked hard evey day of their life. They made sacrifices to send me and my siblings (4 of us total) to good schools. This is on top of paying taxes to send other peoples kids to schools we don't approve of.
So when people come and say that "education is a right" I say, no it isn't. In all of history it has never been a right. You have to work for your education, or your parents have to work for it. The fact that you belive it is "societies" responsiblity shows how much you care for your kids (or kids to be).
<!--QuoteBegin-Stakhanov+Aug 30 2004, 07:16 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Stakhanov @ Aug 30 2004, 07:16 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Is it too much to ask , to have the smallest bit of good will when arguing ? I criticized the fact that soldiers entered the military because they were jobless/in need of money , not because they accept to die. WWII soldiers obviously had better reasons to join the military , than live comfortably after the bloodiest war is over. They fought for their country's and their allie's freedom. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Please don't tell me, that as America was just coming off the Great Depression, that a large amount of soldiers did not join the military because they needed a job/money.
Does that make what they did for their country, and for yours, any less noble in your eyes?
You don't seem to understand my point - I'm not criticizing the actions of the US soldiers , but the way the government recruits impoverished people to use them as expendable soldiers. Now , WWII soldiers didn't mind dying for a great cause (even if thoses landings could have been prepared a little better) , but I understand the bitterness of US soldiers in Iraq who feel betrayed by their government (costly and unjust war)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So when people come and say that "education is a right" I say, no it isn't. In all of history it has never been a right. You have to work for your education, or your parents have to work for it. The fact that you belive it is "societies" responsiblity shows how much you care for your kids (or kids to be).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
While I don't think that this is addressed at me, I'd like to address it.
I agree that education isn't a fundamental right. However, I think that government funded education is a good idea because an intelligent society is beneficial to everybody. I know you don't agree with some things that are taught, I recall you objecting to teaching evolution, but that doesn't mean the concept is unsound. The tax intrusion that education causes is worth the benefit that society gets out of it. While I think that public education needs work, particularly in the field of discipline, I support it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You don't seem to understand my point - I'm not criticizing the actions of the US soldiers , but the way the government recruits impoverished people to use them as expendable soldiers. Now , WWII soldiers didn't mind dying for a great cause (even if thoses landings could have been prepared a little better) , but I understand the bitterness of US soldiers in Iraq who feel betrayed by their government (costly and unjust war)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The military is largely recruited from the middle class. There is an overrepresentation of blacks, but an underrepresentation of hispanics. The military is popular because it's a meritocracy. You get promoted in accordance with your actions. You're making it sound like the U.S. government is coercing the poor into the infantry ranks, ready to line up and exchange a volley of fire. Military service is voluntary. It's dangerous work, which is why the government offers such lucrative benefits. The military recruitment tactics are quite legitimate.
Oddly enough, the majority of soldiers in World War II were draftees.
However, I think that your statement goes towards another point. The idea of a faultless society.
Increasingly, people look to pass the blame on to somebody else, be it a co-worker or the government. Personal accountability is important. If somebody fails, we shouldn't expect people to make up their shortcomings. Failure needs to have consequences while success needs to have rewards. If I want to help the needy, I'll give to a charity, which is usually more efficient with the money than the government. The Brandon Hu*** case is a perfect example of passing the blame. He volunteered for the military and for combat duty. Nobody forced him to join. However, when he failed, he blamed the government rather than admit that he didn't think the possibilities through and fell flat on his face.
<!--QuoteBegin-The Finch+Aug 30 2004, 11:33 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (The Finch @ Aug 30 2004, 11:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So when people come and say that "education is a right" I say, no it isn't. In all of history it has never been a right. You have to work for your education, or your parents have to work for it. The fact that you belive it is "societies" responsiblity shows how much you care for your kids (or kids to be).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
While I don't think that this is addressed at me, I'd like to address it.
I agree that education isn't a fundamental right. However, I think that government funded education is a good idea because an intelligent society is beneficial to everybody. I know you don't agree with some things that are taught, I recall you objecting to teaching evolution, but that doesn't mean the concept is unsound. The tax intrusion that education causes is worth the benefit that society gets out of it. While I think that public education needs work, particularly in the field of discipline, I support it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I think it goes deeper than that. Sure, an intellectual society is great - I'm all for it. I don't think that our current system is providing such a society.
Lets take evolution - one of my favorites <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> It is still a Theory, and should be taught as such - with alternative "theories" also taught (read creation).
Sexual education - lets not teach a moral standpoint (abstenance) but lets tell 15 year olds it is OK to explore - this propogates the tean pregnancy rate - feeds into the welfare / give money to single mom's problem. If our society is really concerned about being equal and helping the unfortunate, why doesn't it teach people how to not be unfortunate (don't have sex, you won't have kids, you won't be a single mom). That seems totally logical to me - but our education system doesn't have the power to do that. Why? It is funded by the government, and the government can't take a moral position.
Another tied in problem is that it severly cramps the education oportunities of these single moms. It is hard to work, raise a kid, and go to school (college), so High School is often as far as they will go. High School doesn't teach them the consequences of their actions - It teaches them that the government will look after them when they screw up.
No, the tax intrusion isn't worth it. I would rather take my tax money and send my kid (when I have one) to a school where they will be taught Values and Morals along with the 3R's (yes, I know, they are not all spelled with R's). I don't want to have to spend <b>my</b> money to support "<b>Their</b>" kid to get a bad education. That money is better spent elsewhere.
Oh, and I don't mean to offend with any of this - I am just passionate.
Comments
Do not put words in my mouth, the only thing I was implying is that CWAG said the government is not providing any jobs, when in fact they are providing plenty of opportunities.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Alright , I was generalizing a bit too aggressively indeed.
Yet my points was :
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you can't find a job at all, I don't see why the army would be a bad option, they pay you well, you are given many benefits that you don't get with any other job that this hypothetical person couldn't get anyway. Just because you disagree with the war in Iraq doesn’t make the army any less of a carrier path.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You don't see why it's a bad option ? Prostitution pays just as well , yet we rarely see the richer people's daughter chosing a "career" in prostitution , likewise there are no congressman's son in the Army. Please explain me why it should be up to the lower classes to do the higher's dirty job.
He makes good money, he has a great education, and he gets to see the world...there is nothing wrong with that kind of a job. Not only that, but you get to become part of the elite in the United States, one of the most revered positions in this country. If my dad happens to be in uniform when he goes into town, people will approach him and thank him for what he is doing...
I personally couldnt imagine any greater honor then serving my country in such a way. Maybe i'm just crazy.
Because beggars can't be chosers.
Where? If it has been done, it certainly hasn't been done to my satisfaction. Why don't you explain to me how a child wearing rags for clothing could ever hope to be anything more if he can't get an education?
Or did you mean to say that the persuit of hapiness isn't a constitutional right? Well I suppose you've got me there, its technically part of the Declairation of Indipendance. However, if every American doesn't have the oportunity to better themselves, than how the hell can you argue that if the "lazy poor people" would just work a little harder they'd be alright? That certainly doesn't make sense.
And hell, if this country wasn't all about oportunity, then why do people keep telling me its the greatest country on earth? I mean, certain parts of it are pretty, and when the psycho religious groups aren't out preaching that aids cures homosexuality its pretty civil. But I can get that anywhere, I thought this was supposed to be a bastion of hope on the rest of the world, a land of oportunity where ANYONE could lead a decent life. Guess I was wrong. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There once was a man that was the son of poor farmers. When he was little, the Japanese invaded his island home and disrupted everything. He never got the chance to go to school. Through hard work and learning from his parents, he managed to learn something useful and set up a small bakery. He had 5 kids. He put them all through college, and managed to send his firstborn, a daughter, to the best university in the country. That person graduated from the university with a master's degree. There, she met my father and married him.
Now, my grandfather doesn't exactly live in luxury, but he lives fairly comfortably. So nyah. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
What part of my post were you trying to disprove? The First paragraph? or the Second and Third paragraphs? Because you succeded at neither. I suppose it all boils down to what you meant when you said:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That is a ridiculous statement. And already disproved by several people in this forum.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Did you mean to say that it isn't the government's job to ensure that oportunity exists for all? In that case paragraphs 2 and 3 apply. That is, if the government doesn't ensure it, then it doesn't exist and everything I've been told about "America, land of oportunity" would be a lie, despite your anecdotal evidence to the contrary. Or did you mean that without public schools theres still plenty of oportunity for a child living in poverty to succede? Well, as far as I'm conserned that was covered earlier in this thread, and your fifty or so year old anecdotal evidence still doesn't apply because nowadays it is virtually impossible to get a decent job without, at the very least, a high school diploma.
So you’re comparing a job in the military to prostitution?
Plenty of middle class/well off people work in the military, hell many of them are well off because of that fact. I would most certainly take offence to that statement if I was in the military.
The congressman’s son argument is so ridiculous and stupid that I cringe every time I see it brought up. It is not up to the congressmen to decide what their children do in life, if no congressmen have children in the military it's because none of those kids wanted to join up. It's not like the congressmen sit their children down when their 16 and tell them "now I'm a very rich and important man, and because of that fact you can't join the military that kind of noble work is beneath you." If my parents were rich enough that I could ride through life, I would be very tempted to do just that, but if all people had this attitude where would the world be?
However I, and many many others in this country, hold a military career to be a very noble and worthy one, certainly not one comparable to prostitution and it's a shame you see it that way.
Where? If it has been done, it certainly hasn't been done to my satisfaction. Why don't you explain to me how a child wearing rags for clothing could ever hope to be anything more if he can't get an education?
Or did you mean to say that the persuit of hapiness isn't a constitutional right? Well I suppose you've got me there, its technically part of the Declairation of Indipendance. However, if every American doesn't have the oportunity to better themselves, than how the hell can you argue that if the "lazy poor people" would just work a little harder they'd be alright? That certainly doesn't make sense.
And hell, if this country wasn't all about oportunity, then why do people keep telling me its the greatest country on earth? I mean, certain parts of it are pretty, and when the psycho religious groups aren't out preaching that aids cures homosexuality its pretty civil. But I can get that anywhere, I thought this was supposed to be a bastion of hope on the rest of the world, a land of oportunity where ANYONE could lead a decent life. Guess I was wrong. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There once was a man that was the son of poor farmers. When he was little, the Japanese invaded his island home and disrupted everything. He never got the chance to go to school. Through hard work and learning from his parents, he managed to learn something useful and set up a small bakery. He had 5 kids. He put them all through college, and managed to send his firstborn, a daughter, to the best university in the country. That person graduated from the university with a master's degree. There, she met my father and married him.
Now, my grandfather doesn't exactly live in luxury, but he lives fairly comfortably. So nyah. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What part of my post were you trying to disprove? The First paragraph? or the Second and Third paragraphs? Because you succeded at neither. I suppose it all boils down to what you meant when you said:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That is a ridiculous statement. And already disproved by several people in this forum.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Did you mean to say that it isn't the government's job to ensure that oportunity exists for all? In that case paragraphs 2 and 3 apply. That is, if the government doesn't ensure it, then it doesn't exist and everything I've been told about "America, land of oportunity" would be a lie, despite your anecdotal evidence to the contrary. Or did you mean that without public schools theres still plenty of oportunity for a child living in poverty to succede? Well, as far as I'm conserned that was covered earlier in this thread, and your fifty or so year old anecdotal evidence still doesn't apply because nowadays it is virtually impossible to get a decent job without, at the very least, a high school diploma. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually I think I pretty much blew apart your entire argument that 'You can't succeed without hand-outs from the government'.
Show me where I'm wrong.
<img src='http://www.stud.ntnu.no/~shane/stasj/pics/humor/div/welfare.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
The point here though is that there is more incentive for those of a poorer background to join up than those of a rich background.
If someone enters the military because of a patriotic sense of duty/ pride in the nation that's one thing; if someone enters because of financial benefits that's another. And then I suppose there are those inbetween.
For those that join up pretty much only for the benefits, it does seem like a form of prostitution to me.
Show me where I'm wrong.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First you start answering a few questions. You asked why certain government provided services were nessesary, this was explained (without them children born in poverty would have virtually zero chance to ever work their way out of poverty) to your aparent satisfaction since you then moved on to your second question: Why are these services the domain of the government? Whcih was also answered (because they wouldn't exist otherwise). Then you called my argument rediculous, refused to elaborate and gave us a pointless family history.
You have thus far refused to explain to me how a child born into poverty could possibly work hard enough to get a decent job nowadays without being able to go to school (since he couldn't afford it if the government didn't offer it to him for free).
It is obvious to me that you are either not reading my posts, or simply ignoring their contents. So I'm going to stop posting in here, declare victory if you want, I don't care anymore.
I leave with this parting thought:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->However I, and many many others in this country, hold a military career to be a very noble and worthy one, certainly not one comparable to prostitution and it's a shame you see it that way.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unless of course its John Kerry's military career, we don't have to respect that because hes a hippy.
Unless of course its John Kerry's military career, we don't have to respect that because hes a hippy. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually I respect Kerry's military career a great deal.
He earned all 3 of his purple hearts by military standards for receiving them, which aren't that high. But he did do his service and preformed admirably, which is more then I can say for Bush.
Now you weren’t assuming that just because I support Bush for president that I believe every bit of election year garbage that comes from his camp, were you?
But that’s a bit off topic.
In any case, for the most part you guys are not thinking about <b>balance</b>. The fact is that capitalism, while it owns socialism hands down, can go overboard. It seems contradictory to my other post to say this, but I really don't care.
The reason that Socialism and Communism came about was due to the abuse of Capitalism during the Industrial Revolution. Few people saw the oppurtunity available in America, and the ones that did took it to the limit. Obviously, this is a negative thing, and certainly the man behind Capitalism would not have approved.
Capitalism is able to balance itself out naturally in many cases, as long as participants play by the rules and keep integrity. The government's <b>only</b> role in the economy is to act as a base for capitalism to thrive. The real world has rules, and so does capitalism. The government should be there to make sure that capitalism's natural laws are upheld.
The main difficulty of a totally free public education is that it is too influenced by any one group of people. The NEA is extremely liberal, and push constantly for a more liberal viewpoint to be taught in public schools, something which is obviously detrimental to a free society's well being. That's why I support things like Charter schools. Any parent has the right to take his/her tax money and go to a higher quality, less biased school. I don't have a problem with public education, just as long as it is balanced by Charter schools.
The problem with a socialist government is that the government is a monopoly over everything, thus making it impossible to try something new, something better, something more efficient, because there is always red tape of some sort. The quality of everything goes down due to inefficiency and beauracracy, something exceptionally large in socialist nations.
Do not put words in my mouth, the only thing I was implying is that CWAG said the government is not providing any jobs, when in fact they are providing plenty of opportunities.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Alright , I was generalizing a bit too aggressively indeed.
Yet my points was :
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you can't find a job at all, I don't see why the army would be a bad option, they pay you well, you are given many benefits that you don't get with any other job that this hypothetical person couldn't get anyway. Just because you disagree with the war in Iraq doesn’t make the army any less of a carrier path.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You don't see why it's a bad option ? Prostitution pays just as well , yet we rarely see the richer people's daughter chosing a "career" in prostitution , likewise there are no congressman's son in the Army. Please explain me why it should be up to the lower classes to do the higher's dirty job. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Congressional Children in War
Deceits 53-56
Early in this segment, Moore states that "out of the 535 members of Congress, only one had an enlisted son in Iraq." The action of the segment consists of Moore accosting Congressmen to try to convince them to have their children enlist in the military. At the end, Moore declares, "Not a single member of Congress wanted to sacrifice their child for the war in Iraq."
Moore’s second statement is technically true, but duplicitous. Of course no-one would want to "sacrifice" his child in any way. But the fact is, Moore's opening ("only one") and his conclusion ("not a single member") are both incorrect. Sergeant Brooks Johnson, the son of South Dakota Democratic Senator Tim Johnson, serves in the 101st Airborne Division and fought in Iraq in 2003. The son of California Republican Representative Duncan Hunter quit his job after September 11, and enlisted in the Marines; his artillery unit was deployed in the heart of insurgent territory in February 2004. Delaware Senator Joseph Biden's son Beau is on active duty in the Judge Advocate General Corps; although Beau Biden has no control over where he is deployed, he has not been sent to Iraq, and therefore does not "count" for Moore's purposes. Seven members of Congress have been confirmed to have children in the military.
How about Cabinet members? Fahrenheit never raises the issue, because the answer would not fit Moore’s thesis. Attorney General John Ashcroft’s son is serving on the U.S.S. McFaul in the Persian Gulf.
Why not count Duncan Hunter's son? Note the phrasing: "only one had an enlisted son in Iraq." Although Hunter's son "enlisted" in the Marines, he is a Second Lieutenant, which means that he is above the rank of an "enlisted man." But why hide from the viewers how many Congressmen really have sons serving in the military in Iraq?
The editing of the Congressional scenes borders on the fraudulent:
….Representative Kennedy (R-MN), one of the lawmakers accosted in Fahrenheit 9/11, was censored by Michael Moore.
According to the [Minneapolis] Star Tribune, Kennedy, when asked if he would be willing to send his son to Iraq, responded by stating that he had a nephew who was en-route to Afghanistan. He went on to inform Moore that his son was thinking about a career in the navy and that two of his nephews had already served in the armed forces. Kennedy’s side of the conversation, however, was cut from the film, leaving him looking bewildered and defensive.
What was Michael’s excuse for trimming the key segment? Kennedy’s remarks didn’t help his thesis: "He mentioned that he had a nephew that was going over to Afghanistan," Moore recounted. "So then I said ‘No, no, that’s not our job here today. We want you to send your child to Iraq. Not a nephew.’"
Kennedy lambasted Moore as a "master of the misleading" after viewing the interview in question.
Fahrenheit Fact.
George Stephanopoulos, of ABC News, asked Moore about the selective cuts in the Kennedy footage:
Stephanopoulos: You have a scene when you’re up on Capitol Hill encountering members of Congress, asking them if they would ask their sons and daughters to enlist … in the military. And one of those members of Congress who appears in the trailer, Mark Kennedy, said you left out what he told you, which is that he has two nephews serving in the military, one in Afghanistan. And he went on to say that, "Michael Moore doesn’t always give the whole truth. He’s a master of the misleading."
Moore: Well, at the time, when we interviewed him, he didn’t have any family members in Afghanistan. And when he saw the trailer for this movie, he issued a report to the press saying that he said that he had a kid in—
Stephanopoulos: He said he told you he had two nephews.
Moore:… No, he didn’t. And we released the transcript and we put it on our Web site. This is what I mean by our war room. Any time a guy like this comes along and says, "I told him I had two nephews and one was going to Iraq and one was going to Afghanistan," he’s lying. And I’ve got the raw footage and the transcript to prove it. So any time these Republicans come at me like this, this is exactly what they’re going to get. And people can go to my Web site and read the transcript and read the truth. What he just said there, what you just quoted, is not true.
This Week followed up with the office of Rep. Kennedy. He did have two nephews in the military, but neither served in Iraq. Kennedy’s staff agrees that Moore’s Website is accurate but insists the movie version is misleading. In the film, Moore says, "Congressman, I’m trying to get members of Congress to get their kids to enlist in the Army and go over to Iraq." But, from the transcript, here’s the rest:
Moore: Is there any way you could help me with that?
Kennedy: How would I help you?
Moore: Pass it out to other members of Congress.
Kennedy: I’d be happy to — especially those who voted for the war. I have a nephew on his way to Afghanistan.
This Week, ABC News, June 20, 2004.
So while Fahrenheit pretended that Kennedy just stupidly looked at Moore, Kennedy agreed to help Moore.
Notice also how Moore phrased his reply to Stephanopoulos: "Any time a guy like this comes along and says, 'I told him I had two nephews and one was going to Iraq and one was going to Afghanistan,' he’s lying." But Kennedy never claimed that he had a nephew going to Iraq. The insinuation that Kennedy made such a claim is a pure fabrication by Moore.
Fahrenheit shows Moore calling out to Delaware Republican Michael Castle, who is talking on a cell phone and waves Moore off. Castle is presented as one of the Congressmen who would not sacrifice his children. What the film omits is that Rep. Castle does not have any children.
<b>Are Congressional children less likely to serve in Iraq than children from other families? Let’s use Moore’s methodology, and ignore members of extended families (such as nephews) and also ignore service anywhere except Iraq (even though U.S. forces are currently fighting terrorists in many countries). And like Moore, let us also ignore the fact that some families (like Rep. Castle’s) have no children, or no children of military age.
We then see that of 535 Congressional families, there are two with a child who served in Iraq. How does this compare with American families in general? In the summer of 2003, U.S. troop levels in Iraq were raised to 145,000. If we factor in troop rotation, we could estimate that about 300,000 people have served in Iraq at some point. According to the Census Bureau, there were 104,705,000 households in the United States in 2000. (See Table 1 of the Census Report.) So the ratio of ordinary U.S. households to Iraqi service personnel is 104,705,000 to 300,000. This reduces to a ratio of 349:1.
In contrast the ratio of Congressional households to Iraqi service personnel is 535:2. This reduces to a ratio of 268:1.
Stated another way, a Congressional household is about 23 percent more likely than an ordinary household to be closely related to an Iraqi serviceman or servicewoman. </b>
Of course my statistical methodology is very simple. A more sophisticated analysis would look only at Congressional and U.S. households from which at least one child is legally eligible to enlist in the military. Moore, obviously, never attempted such a comparison; instead, he deceived viewers into believing that Congressional families were extremely different from other families in enlistment rates.
Moore ignores the fact that there are 101 veterans currently serving in the House of Representatives and 36 in the Senate. Regardless of whether they have children who could join the military, all of the veterans in Congress have personally put themselves at risk to protect their country.
During the segment, Moore is accompanied by Corporal Abdul Henderson, a Marine Corps Reservist. Corporal Henderson wears several ribbons and medals on his uniform; interestingly, a Good Conduct ribbon or medal, which is awarded "for the successful completion of a prescribed period of time of service without incident," is not among them.
(Deceits: 1. number of Congressional children in Iraq, 2. Mark Kennedy, 3. Michael Castle, 4. False impression that Congressional families are especially unlikely to serve in Iraq.)
[Moore response: Cites a May 11, 2003 article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that only Brooks Johnson had a son who had fought in Iraq. The article was accurate at the time, since Duncan Hunter's son, who had already enlisted, had not yet been sent to Iraq. But Fahrenheit premiered at the Cannes Film Festival in May 2004--two months after it had been reported that Duncan Hunter's son had been sent to Iraq. At the least, Moore could apologize that his claim about "only one" child is inaccurate, and blame the error on his having not noticed the news about Hunter while the movie was in its final production stages. But instead, Moore continues to repeat the "only one" claim, which is indisputably false. Moore offers no defense for the other falsehoods in this section.]
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Part of an excellent dismissal of Farenheit 9/11 (and yes, I say that after having read Bathroommonkeys rebuttal link, given that that only thing really dealt with sufficiently with the Challenger myth). Its probably not a good idea to ask "havent you seen Farenheit 9/11, as though 9/11 actually shed light on anything. Many of us watched it merely to admire the pure genius of his consistent deception.
Anyways, the claim that the politicians send other people's kids but wont send their own is clearly fallicious.
Stakhanov, I'm not even going to bother attempting to explain the difference between being a prostitute and a soldier. Next time I see a veteran I'll be sure to call him a whor3 though, especially those that whor3d themselves off to Europe to save your little country.
EDITTED out childishness
First off all, let me adress your title. It is a wide-spread believe in the USA that a welfare state is something similiar to socialism. In fact, those two things are <i>completely</i> different.
The idea of a welfare state was first born in the end of the 19th century by the capitalist governments of western Europe as an answer to the revolutionary socialist movements throughout all of Europe. The idea behind it is to preserve the free economy while in the same time provide the mass and the poor enough financial aid. It serves to protect the rich and the wealthy from the wrath of the poor, it serves to prevent any revolution by giving a small share of the wealth to the poor, ill, unemployed people. So Welfare does not only help out the people in need, it actually protects the ruling class from the threat of revolution.
Now to the pros and cons of the Welfare itself:
What exactly does the welfare provide? The idea behind it is to provide basic aid to people who are in need for it, no matter if they can afford it or not. This basic aid includes:
education, health care, financial aid during unemployment.
All of those are not only important for the poeple in need, but also for the wealth of the society itself. Only if the majority of the citizens can be provided an education, skillfull workers can produce at a high quality. If education was a priviledge of the rich only, the majority would be forced to do low-quality work. And only an elite could be granted access to most of the work-places. Yet in our modern society the need for well educated workers is immense, without them we wouldn't be able to keep up the wealth that we've accumulated so far. And besides, the chances for success would be extremely unequal, basically comparavle to a fall-back into an aristocracy/peasant society.
The basic health care is needed to provide basic treaty to the masses, like affordable anti-biotics and surgery on a broken bone etc. Without those basic treaties the population would simply criple down. Note that we're talking about a basic health care here, of course it's not needed to have everybody do a beaty-surgery.
And at last, the financial aid. This is actually the back-bone of a healthy society because it gives even the people who lost in the economic struggle the possibility to a) be able to survive until he can find a new job and b) still have an economic potential. The latter is very often neglected but it is an important point. a High financial aid provides masses of people with money which they in turn spend on their survival. The money goes into the local economy. Especially the poor don't safe the little money they have, they must spend it and thus keep the economy in form.
The wealthier the poor people are the richer the nation is. They are not a burden, but rather a potential.
Of course all those things have to be provided somehow. And the question is if it is the job of the government, and how much it could spend on it. Considering the above, if a nation is rich then an investment into a welfare state is quite a good investment. But providing a whole population cannot be the job of a few rich. The government should be responsible for the well-ebing of their citizens, the rich as well as the poor. Taxes have to be paid by everybody, it is a duty to the country they live in and a basic requirement for a society. And the government has the duty to spend these taxes on the well-ebing and wealth of its population, which includes everybody. The government builds roads for everybody, it does not only build roads near those places where the rich lives. The government provides the police for which the citizens do not have to pay themselves. And in the same cathegory is the welfare, it provides basic aid to the poeple in need. It does not discriminate. If someone rich should be in the position to require aid, he would get it just as much as somebody else would. We do not have a "civil right" for employment in capitalist countries. So poverty can happen to anybody in the society, and anybody would receive help if needed. that's why everybody has to contribute to it, because it secures the lifes of anybody. People who have worked hard have a right to live in dignity. Welfare does not mean that the rich pay for the poor, everybody pays to have a security of his own. Actually without welfare the poor would pay for the wealth of the rich.
So the basic idea of welfare is actually to maintain the wealth of a nation and to give even the losers of the society a chance. Without it, a flourishing capitalist economy is not possible.
As some wise man said: The wealth of a nation can be seen by the state of its poor.
Furthermore, should this be the province of the government? I've always thought that personal charity is much more effective than state-enforced charity.
This has been a pretty big mystery to me, and if someone could enlighten me, that'd be awesome. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Becuase someone has to live on the bottom who would take your trash to the city dump if it was for the men who drive the truck and remove your waste. That someone who might not have had an extreme advantage of a wealthy father who could bribe your way through Yale (aka Bush). Will most likely land you a lesser job. If you can not afford to pay for medication especially life saving medical procedures or medication then that person who comes to your door no longer exsists.
Since Bush took away alot of the overtime that employees recieve it seems only fair that Bush would give them some way to keep the old alive and the young healthy. Do you have any idea the amount of money some people would have to pay for health insurance some would pay up to 1,000+ in a job where they make minimum wage they would either die or live miserably.
When you take from the top crop of rich those who own 4 mansion and 20 cars, are not likely to miss that extra money they may cry but thats it. 6% of this society makes up 67%+ of the nations taxes, with the way Bush has the nation setup this 6% also receives almost every penny of that back. Which is way were in such a strut.
You can't chose your family and you can't always fight the system. Natural Selection was dead long ago. When car insurance is around 1300 for a new sports car when your 18. I think everyone has rich people in mind not the poor.
BTW this is accually a form of communisim it was Welfare was taken from the first government to have it Germany...
If Germany a previously communist country can do this for its people I think a strong nation such as America can also do it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Stakhanov, I'm not even going to bother attempting to explain the difference between being a prostitute and a soldier. Next time I see a veteran I'll be sure to call him a whor3 though, especially those that whor3d themselves off to Europe to save your little country.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is it too much to ask , to have the smallest bit of good will when arguing ? I criticized the fact that soldiers entered the military because they were jobless/in need of money , not because they accept to die. WWII soldiers obviously had better reasons to join the military , than live comfortably after the bloodiest war is over. They fought for their country's and their allie's freedom.
I'm not even blaming the capitalistic society for the Vietnam's bloodshed , the thousands of new volunteers bought the state's propaganda that this war would determine humankind's future. But hundreds of young people from the slums were lured into the Army by hearing of durable job opportunities and free studies. The war in Iraq was claimed to be a fast , "clean" war using modern technology to have little to no casualties , yet theses people were used as cannon fodder.
No wonder soldiers like Brandon Hu*** didn't like being fooled and treated like expendable prostitutes.
Note that I consider prostitutes as victims , it's not a shame to be a prostitute per se , but our capitalistic society makes it shameful while encouraging it.
Advanced countries like Sweden chose to put an end to hypocrisy and punish the prostitute's clients , but they're rare.
Marine , though you hardly deserve my not so precious spare time , know that no matter how bad people can flame me for my opinions , I'd never abandon my set of morals for yours.
No wonder soldiers like Brandon Hu*** didn't like being fooled and treated like expendable prostitutes.
Marine , though you hardly deserve my not so precious spare time , know that no matter how bad people can flame me for my opinions , I'd never abandon my set of morals for yours. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You think nearly 1000 soldiers dead = being treated like cannon fodder? Brandon Hug*** knew what he was signing up for, he joined as Bush was talking up a war, then he reneged on his contract and ran like a coward. I thought we'd already established that his behaviour was indefensible and wrong?
I thought for a little while about my low blow, and your right, it was low, and it was aimed at you rather than your arguement.
On a more ontopic note - I pretty much agree with Eggmac. Seeing as he described almost word for word the system we run in Australia - then I guess there isnt too much more on the subject we disagree on. Poor people need a hand - up to a point.
EDITed out childishness
Uh , no ? Anyway , old topic. It reminded me of an equally embarassing quote of yours , but I'll refrain from posting it...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I thought for a little while about my low blow, and your right, it was low, and it was aimed at you rather than your arguement.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->On a more ontopic note - I pretty much agree with Eggmac. Seeing as he described almost word for word the system we run in Australia - then I guess there isnt too much more on the subject we disagree on.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Looks like we're fighting over nothing then.
<img src='http://www.stud.ntnu.no/~shane/stasj/pics/humor/div/welfare.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' /> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Corporate America's Motto
<b><i><u><span style='font-size:23pt;line-height:100%'>If your hands aren't bleeding you aren't working hard enough</span></u></i></b>
Uh , no ? Anyway , old topic. It reminded me of an equally embarassing quote of yours , but I'll refrain from posting it... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Please - pm it too me. I'd love to know what I said, and if I still agree I should have said it or not.
However, the concept of protection has expanded far beyond basic necessity. Public sanitation is a worthwhile endeavor because it keeps disease and pest problems under control. However, some things have just been carried too far. For example, the idea that we need mandatory motorcycle helmet laws. This sort of thing crosses the line between protecting the nation in order to keep it free and protecting people from themselves. The government doesn't have a right to tell me how to make that sort of decision.
Socialism effectively places a soft cap on productivity. If I'm not going to adequately earn for the extra effort I put in, why would I bother to go that extra mile? Capitalism encourages hard work though added value. The sort of "economic redistribution" that goes on is a farce. The wealthy maintain their wealth because they're intelligent and industrious. If Jack Welch is pulling in hundreds of millions of dollars each year while a factory worker is pulling in $12/hr, I see no problem with that. Welch added billions of dollars of value to GE and he deserved every penny he got. If GE was only willing to pay him $200,000/year, he could get more money elsewhere. The only problem with this is the golden parachute packages that firms offer CEOs that fail. I disagree with the golden parachute packages, but I think that the overregulation and inefficient bureaucracy that comes with expanded government is far, far worse for the economy.
Free market capitalism rewards intelligence and hard work. The majority of millionaires today are self-made, not from "old money" or inheritance. Governments aren't capable of the efficiency that corporations are and are always far more wasteful, since their funding isn't tied to things like efficiency and productivity. That doesn't mean that I think that we should replace the government with Microsoft or General Dynamics. Government does have a place, but it's not in the business world.
For instance - do single moms (the ususal kind, not rape victims, etc.) have the "right" to depend on the government for help supporting thier child? Does that "right" enfringe on the "rights" of every other citizen to keep the money they earn? Do I have a social responsibility to give money to those people who make bad decisions?
Education - We all agree that education is good. I disagree that public education is good. For instance, I disagree fundimentally with a lot of things that are taught at public schools. I disagree that teaching goes to the lowest common denominator. I disagree that discipline is useless and that parents see public school as a government run day care. I disagree with the fact that there are some schools where every student gets a new laptop, and at the same time I am having trouble making house payments.
The reason I disagree with all this is that I realize that my money is going towards all of this I don't support.
On the other hand, my parents worked hard evey day of their life. They made sacrifices to send me and my siblings (4 of us total) to good schools. This is on top of paying taxes to send other peoples kids to schools we don't approve of.
So when people come and say that "education is a right" I say, no it isn't. In all of history it has never been a right. You have to work for your education, or your parents have to work for it. The fact that you belive it is "societies" responsiblity shows how much you care for your kids (or kids to be).
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Please don't tell me, that as America was just coming off the Great Depression, that a large amount of soldiers did not join the military because they needed a job/money.
Does that make what they did for their country, and for yours, any less noble in your eyes?
While I don't think that this is addressed at me, I'd like to address it.
I agree that education isn't a fundamental right. However, I think that government funded education is a good idea because an intelligent society is beneficial to everybody. I know you don't agree with some things that are taught, I recall you objecting to teaching evolution, but that doesn't mean the concept is unsound. The tax intrusion that education causes is worth the benefit that society gets out of it. While I think that public education needs work, particularly in the field of discipline, I support it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You don't seem to understand my point - I'm not criticizing the actions of the US soldiers , but the way the government recruits impoverished people to use them as expendable soldiers. Now , WWII soldiers didn't mind dying for a great cause (even if thoses landings could have been prepared a little better) , but I understand the bitterness of US soldiers in Iraq who feel betrayed by their government (costly and unjust war)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The military is largely recruited from the middle class. There is an overrepresentation of blacks, but an underrepresentation of hispanics. The military is popular because it's a meritocracy. You get promoted in accordance with your actions. You're making it sound like the U.S. government is coercing the poor into the infantry ranks, ready to line up and exchange a volley of fire. Military service is voluntary. It's dangerous work, which is why the government offers such lucrative benefits. The military recruitment tactics are quite legitimate.
Oddly enough, the majority of soldiers in World War II were draftees.
However, I think that your statement goes towards another point. The idea of a faultless society.
Increasingly, people look to pass the blame on to somebody else, be it a co-worker or the government. Personal accountability is important. If somebody fails, we shouldn't expect people to make up their shortcomings. Failure needs to have consequences while success needs to have rewards. If I want to help the needy, I'll give to a charity, which is usually more efficient with the money than the government. The Brandon Hu*** case is a perfect example of passing the blame. He volunteered for the military and for combat duty. Nobody forced him to join. However, when he failed, he blamed the government rather than admit that he didn't think the possibilities through and fell flat on his face.
While I don't think that this is addressed at me, I'd like to address it.
I agree that education isn't a fundamental right. However, I think that government funded education is a good idea because an intelligent society is beneficial to everybody. I know you don't agree with some things that are taught, I recall you objecting to teaching evolution, but that doesn't mean the concept is unsound. The tax intrusion that education causes is worth the benefit that society gets out of it. While I think that public education needs work, particularly in the field of discipline, I support it.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think it goes deeper than that. Sure, an intellectual society is great - I'm all for it. I don't think that our current system is providing such a society.
Lets take evolution - one of my favorites <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> It is still a Theory, and should be taught as such - with alternative "theories" also taught (read creation).
Sexual education - lets not teach a moral standpoint (abstenance) but lets tell 15 year olds it is OK to explore - this propogates the tean pregnancy rate - feeds into the welfare / give money to single mom's problem. If our society is really concerned about being equal and helping the unfortunate, why doesn't it teach people how to not be unfortunate (don't have sex, you won't have kids, you won't be a single mom). That seems totally logical to me - but our education system doesn't have the power to do that. Why? It is funded by the government, and the government can't take a moral position.
Another tied in problem is that it severly cramps the education oportunities of these single moms. It is hard to work, raise a kid, and go to school (college), so High School is often as far as they will go. High School doesn't teach them the consequences of their actions - It teaches them that the government will look after them when they screw up.
No, the tax intrusion isn't worth it. I would rather take my tax money and send my kid (when I have one) to a school where they will be taught Values and Morals along with the 3R's (yes, I know, they are not all spelled with R's). I don't want to have to spend <b>my</b> money to support "<b>Their</b>" kid to get a bad education. That money is better spent elsewhere.
Oh, and I don't mean to offend with any of this - I am just passionate.