@vivify saidVivify....someone has to 'control the economy'. Whom would you suggest?
When they wake up in a world with racists like you who hate them, changing their future isn't merely a matter of choice. Blacks in South Africa can't just "wake up" and will a better future when the economy is still controlled by racist whites.
But again: racists like yourself don't need an excuse to continue being hateful. Facts and history don't matter to you.
@rajk999 saidRajk, move to the head of the class. Comments like this fly right in the face of dependents.
When a man decides to allow the opinion of others to negatively affect his life he is a weakling, a hopeless loser, a man of straw and destined to failure and poverty. Strong men start off every day with the vow to make each day better regardless of the obstacles and opinions of others.. People like you encourage weaklings to find excuses to continue to live in poverty.
@averagejoe1 saidI said *racist* whites, like in South Africa. I'm not referring to economies that just happened to be majority white like Switzerland.
Vivify....someone has to 'control the economy'. Whom would you suggest?
1 edit
@rajk999 saidThis is about as arrogant as anything I've seen here. What right have you to judge others?
When a man decides to allow the opinion of others to negatively affect his life he is a weakling, a hopeless loser, a man of straw and destined to failure and poverty. Strong men start off every day with the vow to make each day better regardless of the obstacles and opinions of others.. People like you encourage weaklings to find excuses to continue to live in poverty.
... there but for the grace of God go I
... walk a mile in my shoes
... and so many other statements used in the process of striving for a better society.
Some can overcome their disadvantage, others cannot. And no-one who has been given any kind of advantage from birth has the right to judge others.
And again, this thread is not about skin colour. If you think it should be, go start your own thread.
@kewpie saidIt would be good to see a statistic for what percentage of disadvantaged have absentee fathers.
Please, try to keep this thread as calm and non-specific as we can.
Rajk999 posted this in another thread. I think he's made some good points in it.
1. Absentee fathers - one man impregnating several women and moving on, thereby destroying several families and creating single mothers.
2. Low educational achievement - kids are not able to go to school, or properly functio ...[text shortened]... very little chance of a decent future. If we could solve #1, the other points would follow, surely.
I think number 1 is the absence of inherited generational wealth.
@kewpie saidRan is correct. And your point that some simply ‘cannot do’ what Raj says must be done to better yourselves ……you also are correct. Some cannot, some are destitute. We need to support (only) those people, not the losers refer to by Raj post.
This is about as arrogant as anything I've seen here. What right have you to judge others?
... there but for the grace of God go I
... walk a mile in my shoes
... and so many other statements used in the process of striving for a better society.
Some can overcome their disadvantage, others cannot. And no-one who has been given any kind of advantage from birth has ...[text shortened]... d again, this thread is not about skin colour. If you think it should be, go start your own thread.
Really, do you have distain for Raj’s post about people get out of bed every morning and making the most of themselves?
2 edits
@AverageJoe1
Raj’s comment is inarguable, and therefore, the word judge does not really fit into something that is a fact. “ work hard, be successful.” How else would one judge that fact?
1 edit
@averagejoe1 saidYou think Paris Hilton worked hard? Don Jr.? Hunter? You think it's a "fact" they worked for their wealth?
@AverageJoe1
Raj’s comment is inarguable, and therefore, the word judge does not really fit into something that is a fact. “ work hard, be successful.” How else would one judge that fact?
Are you saying people are poor because they don't work hard?
1 edit
@vivify saidI just re-read the OP, and cannot for the life of me see what you just wrote has to do with the issue.
You think Paris Hilton worked hard? Don Jr.? Hunter? You think it's a "fact" they worked for their wealth?
Are you saying people are poor because they don't work hard?
Can you re-write your comment in a fashion which stays on issue, as is requested by the very first post?
The monitors should pay me for my efforts to keep you fellers on issue.
@wildgrass saidMy first instinct would be to agree with you, but on reflection I'd go for the absence of inherited education/betterment focus.
It would be good to see a statistic for what percentage of disadvantaged have absentee fathers.
I think number 1 is the absence of inherited generational wealth.
@kewpie saidYes certainly a good issue/post, although I always puzzle with the underlying 'grumbling' about, well, inheritance. It comes up in many threads, as some sort of ogre. What is the basis for this, is it saying that it isn't fair that some people have money and some don't? Is it saying, something should be DONE about it? No one should be allowed to inherit money amassed (legally, Sonhouse) by a man during his productive lifetime? Is this not the issue?
My first instinct would be to agree with you, but on reflection I'd go for the absence of inherited education/betterment focus.
No one ever says what. Except, or course, govt control and socialism. Any other ideas?
@vivify saidI don't care about your innocuous first paragraph here, nuthin to do with nuthin. Ask Kev or somebody who really thinks a lot about other people's money.
You think Paris Hilton worked hard? Don Jr.? Hunter? You think it's a "fact" they worked for their wealth?
Are you saying people are poor because they don't work hard?
As to your second para, of course, yes, the average person who does not work hard is likely to be more poor than one who works harder. You just parsing sentences, are you? What? That is a fact. Ahhh, but a lib will come back at us and say 'some people get money who do not work hard'. Shav, for instance, may have hit a lottery, and that is why he says he rides in the country side a lot, takes off a month from work, etc. He may not be poor, though. Not working hard, but not poor. Do you see how laborious your comments can get? There a million diff circumstances, beginning wit Paris Hilton and the guy who is in charge of the dart board at your pub.
I never get the issue of libs, but I sure do get their dislike for the wealthy. But they prob all work for a wealthy person. Go figure.
@kewpie saidAnother good one. But a family living with enough wealth is more important, mostly for placements in better school districts, and dispensable income to invest kids in club activities/sports/enrichment programs.
My first instinct would be to agree with you, but on reflection I'd go for the absence of inherited education/betterment focus.
@averagejoe1 saidYou're constantly grumbling about fairness here, not the socialists.
Yes certainly a good issue/post, although I always puzzle with the underlying 'grumbling' about, well, inheritance. It comes up in many threads, as some sort of ogre. What is the basis for this, is it saying that it isn't fair that some people have money and some don't? Is it saying, something should be DONE about it? No one should be allowed to inherit money amassed (l ...[text shortened]... issue?
No one ever says what. Except, or course, govt control and socialism. Any other ideas?