"Poverty in America"... mostly rhetoric

Sorry that I didn't post a full list of their nefarious "talents."

Better?

 

.

Regarding Poverties Stereotypes



The IGNORANT rely upon their Stereotypes to maintain their IGNORANCE

For they must needs maintain IGNORANCE of their Societies Egalitarian Traditions
So as to avoid confronting their own Moral Poverty

​

 

​

 

Those States had different problems, and they did not have our federal Constitution; our Founding Fathers enumerated only sufficient socialism to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

Why is it that many alleged conservatives cannot tell the difference between the common defense and the common offense? Only one is enumerated in our federal Constitution.

 

I agree that poverty is a moral issue; why is it that we cannot bear true witness to our own laws in order to solve official poverty in our republic? We even have a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge of allegiance to our republic.

 

Bollocks......you founding fathers believed in a constitution...something most Americans are ignorant!
This document enshrines an Americans rights.

Something you have all now lost with the advent of right wing extremists and the judas's in the senate.

They lie and deceive!

Example....?
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UErR7i2onW0&feature=player_embedded"]‪7 Lies In Under 2 Minutes‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

But its the ignorance or lack of education of Americans that are allowing them to do so.
Its not right or left democratic or republican that's a fallacy they are all the same and clones of each other.
Elected to office and funded by AIPAC!
But what is necessary is to question...is it right or wrong, the need of morality, humanity of your public servants... decadence, greed, envy, avarice and debauchery has nothing to do with serving the American public!!

Regards
Highlander

 

Dan40;

What in the Sam hill are you babbling about? Look I'm sure mummy and daddy are proud of what you have done with your first trust fund check, some folks don't have that safety net.

Of course it does it shows their lack of wealth and the inability to obtain it. Now you can certainly rationalize it however you wish, you can even blame the poor for being poor, or any other irrational class warfare comments against the people least capable of causing the problems we have in this country today, but poor people didn't create welfare or any other social program in this country. The rich/elites and their bought and paid for political sock puppets did. And who do you think has benefited the most up to this point?


Where is your legitimate outrage for the actual guilty parties when it comes to the state of the union?


Your stereotypical hatred for everybody who doesn't measure up to your standards are noted.

 

First, no trust fund, no money from Mommy and Daddy. But lots of wisdom from my Dad.. My son owns his own multi-million dollar business that has no connection with my old business. He worked his way through college same as I did. The total help I gave him was a $12,000.00 loan which he paid back according to the contract he offered with the loan request. That was over 30 years ago. He's made it totally on his own since. With hopefully some wisdom imparted from me.

And I have no hate for those that don't measure up to my standards. If they measure up to their own standards, that's all I require of any other person. Those losers who constantly whine about their own self caused plight, I do find disgusting and boring. But since they have no value for themselves, why should I be asked to value them?

Winners win, losers lose. That IS the 'fairness' of real life.

 

　
　
Have to take your word for that, but I find it highly unlikely. Nobody crawls out of ditch one day with the clothes on their back and makes a successful go of it without some kind of support (financial/emotional/influential). Surely you do not believe paying for college 30-50 years ago is just as easy as it is today? At least you do admit you had a dad who pointed you in the right direction. For the poverty stricken having a dad is becoming a rarity, and if you are lucky enough to have a dad, he more than likely doesn't know anything about what direction anyone should be going including for himself. Some things are just out of your control whether you choose to admit it or not.
　
　
In any case I'm glad things worked out for you, and yours. Unfortunately you are the exception statistically not the rule.
　
　

　
　
That's awfully simplistic don't you think? Life isn't a board game and in this case the winners for the most part get to play with a different set of government established rules than the losers get too.
　
　
I find it also very interesting that when the winners say things like “life isn't fair”, it's when they are whining about how unfair something is towards them and their situation.
　
　
Sounds hypocritical to say the least, wouldn‘t you agree?

 

All you have posted are a few stanza's of the "Loser's Lament."

The chorus goes,
"Oh Woe, Oh Woe is me!"

Thousands have pulled themselves up by refusing to surrender to self pity.

I make no claim that everyone comes with the ability, or talent, or intelligence to become successful. But many have become successful with only a smattering of any of those gifts. But with BLIND DETERMINATION.

An example: I played a football game against a unanimous All-American. Play after play he beat the beans out of me. I was bleeding from the nose, mouth, eyes, ears, and toenails. But one play I beat him and sacked his QB. My thought was. Whatever I was doing WRONG all those other plays I had to stop doing and keep doing what I just did right. He told me I was going to pay for that. I decided that HE was going to experience the most painful frustrating game of his entire life. He won our battle at a high cost to him, they lost the game. A loser would have limped off the field. I limped off AFTER the game ended, SMILING ear to ear. He won, but it took everything he had to do it. We still have great respect for one another.

Life is a tougher game than football. It takes even more determination to win. And no EXCUSES are worth any consideration.

 

　
　
　
Funny I never mentioned me at all???
　
　
　

　
　
The odds of getting out of a poverty stricken environment is almost unheard of statistically. It generally has little or nothing to do with self pity. Your hatred is showing through again.

　
You got through once, what the hell was wrong with you the rest of the time??? Were you not trying hard enough? What the heck is wrong with you don't you have any pride in yourself? All I want to here from you is what year you got your Super Bowl ring? Or are you one of them losers you keep ranting about??
　
See how easy it is to point your finger and declare shame & indignant disapproval towards others you know absolutely nothing about.

 

Since you have conclusively shown that you know next to nothing about anything, you have no ability to judge anyone's hatred or lack of it. The analytical thought processes of an amoeba mean less than nothing to me.
And you assessment of a loser? I won't argue that point since you are an obvious expert in the field of losers and I have no experience there, so I bow to your unblemished record of losing.

 

What is intellectually dishonest is you trying to finesse a definition of poverty that fits your agenda. Poverty in the true meaning is not relative. Poverty in the true meaning is absolute.

I challenge you to find a legitimate definition of poverty from an accredited dictionary that fits with most poor Americans' situation.

Go ahead, I will wait.

 

Your point is taken but can you distinguish between the two?

Were Korea, Vietnam, Greneda, and Afghanistanistan in the 80's purely offensive, or was the overall strategy a defense of the USA from Soviet aggression via proxy wars?

Was Desert Storm offensive, or were we defending an ally and our regional economic interests?

Iraq 2, we won't go there, but Afghanistan was most certainly a defensive action, at least in the beginning.

 

Anything that lets you well off folks go to bed without any undo stresses on your sleep, after all we should all have life so easy. Of course, it is the poor who are ENTIRELY at fault for their plight. Yes the poor have never had it so good with tremendous amounts of calories available at a cheap price, flat screen TVs, video game systems, and cell phones that are more sophisticated than moon landing vehicles, so no need to even think about them and their LUXURIOUS lives.

If anything be thankful the poor do have all these distractions to occupy themselves with, because if they pause to look around they may realize they're being screwed by the rich, and decide to eat them.

 

All the definitions used came from the Webster’s Collegiate, and the Webster’s desk top version I keep on my desk. Are they accredited? Or would you have me post a bias most likely political minded definition from the likes of who knows what source they are quoting?


The definition is the same as it's always been. Lacking in wealth or the ability to obtain it. Please explain why that isn't a legitimate definition, and by all means don't leave out the part where it doesn't fit your agenda since you seem to be the only one with one.

 

Mleonnig how’s this first internet source I came to. Do you own a dictionary? When you have a question go to the search window and type, define- (any word), and it will take you to numerous sources. Find the one that fits your agenda and get back to us.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/poverty

 

Dan40;

All these big words and still doesn't know the definition of poverty, or how to use the search engine to find out. Dang shame too.

And Danno you left out, you poopoo head you.

 

Dictionary definitions are pretty universal and your argument fails right there. Degrees of poverty, standards of poverty and the way in which each country measures poverty-all these are relative and are not universal. A poor person in America is relatively better off than a poor person in, say, the Indian sub-continent.
The amount of money each of them needs may be significantly different, but the purchasing power of it is probably the same, depending on the relative cost of living in each country.
I don't think it could be any clearer.

 

Well Sh*t 4 brains, you post a definition of poverty in post #392.

The same one I posted in post #362. So is this indicative of problems with reading comprehension or memory retention on your part or both?

Or did you just plagiarize my post?

If you do copy enough of my posts you WILL actually become much better informed. That will be no stretch at all to start.

 

My favorite part is where these arguments get made to not only not help people, but to excuse not helping people.

If you think priorities need to be examined and the costs out weigh the benefits of social programs which target helping the poor, fine. Just don't try and justify it by suggesting the poor never needed any help to begin with.

 

　
Sh*t for brains??? Name calling Danno? Really?
　
　

　
　
So you admit you don't comprehend your own posts? Ready to concede yet?
　
　
Danno you are a peach, but all I got is tomatoes.

 

In my opinion, the common defense does not require wars on abstractions.

Providing for the general welfare is a specifically enumerated general power. Ensuring full employment of resources through public sector intervention in private sector markets could be considered a form of providing for the general welfare via current practice.

 

Would we need our wars on abstractions, if we were busier enjoying the bliss of the general prosperity through Commerce that is well regulated among the several States.

From a philosophical perspective, as social safety net should end when it is no longer needed by a person.

What if we could solve official poverty via existing laws and existing infrastructure in a market friendly manner that could act as a perpetual economic stimulus and increase the circulation of money to that extent.

Such a social safety net could provide recourse to an income that would otherwise be obtained in a more efficient market for labor and ensure that form of full employment of resources in the market for labor in the US.

 

I dont pretend to know the answer, I am merely suggesting that gameboy and cell phone notwithstanding being poor sucks, and it is a drain on our society over and above all the social programs cost. IMO it is not about the poor person, it is more about the poor persons next generation that the social programs are for. Since the "war on poverty" didn't even last a generation there really isnt a barometer to tell if it was successful or not.