CafeOutdoors.com The way it was...the way it always will be!!!

Trading Post >> Political Forum

Pages: 1 | 2 | >> (show all)
JaegerModerator
member
**

Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 2008
Loc: St. Louis

Poor Politics
      #111693 - 08/27/07 09:49 AM

Edwards?s poverty ?plague? examined.

By Robert Rector

The Census Bureau will release it annual report on poverty in America tomorrow. The report will show, as it has in recent years that around 37 million people live in official poverty. Presidential candidate John Edwards, who hopes to lead the nation in a new crusade against poverty, will, no doubt, seek to reap much publicity from the report.

In the past, Edwards has claimed that poverty in America is a ?plague? which forces 37 million Americans to live in ?terrible? circumstances. According to Edwards, an amazing ?one in eight? Americans lack ?enough money for the food, shelter, and clothing they need,? caught in a daily ?struggle with incredible poverty.?

However, examination of the living standards of the 37 million or so persons, the government defines as ?poor,? reveals that America?s poverty ?plague? may not be as ?terrible? or ?incredible? as anti-poverty crusader Edwards contends.

If being ?poor? means (as Edwards claims it does) a lack of nutritious food, adequate warm housing, and clothing for a family, then very few of America?s 37 million official ?poor? people can be regarded as actually poor. Some material hardship does exist in the United States, but, in reality, it is quite restricted in scope and severity.

The following are facts about persons defined as ?poor? by the Census Bureau, taken from a variety of government reports:

46 percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

80 percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

Only six percent of poor households are overcrowded; two thirds have more than two rooms per person.

The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

Nearly three quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.

97 percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

78 percent have a VCR or DVD player.

62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

89 percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

As a group, America?s poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100-percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, super-nourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and ten pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.

While the poor are generally well-nourished, some poor families do experience temporary food shortages. But, even this condition is relatively rare; 89 percent of the poor report their families have ?enough? food to eat, while only two percent say they ?often? do not have enough to eat.

Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR, or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry, and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family?s essential needs. While this individual?s life is not opulent, it is far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians.

Of course, the living conditions of the average poor American should not be taken as representing all of the nation?s poor: There is a wide range of living conditions among the poor. A third of ?poor? households have both cell and land-line telephones. A third also telephone answering machines. At the other extreme, approximately one-tenth of families in poverty have no phone at all. Similarly, while the majority of poor households do not experience significant material problems, roughly a third do experience at least one problem such as overcrowding, temporary hunger, or difficulty getting medical care.

Much official poverty that does exist in the United States can be reduced, particularly among children. There are two main reasons that American children are poor: Their parents don?t work much, and their fathers are absent from the home.

In both good and bad economic environments, the typical American poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work during a year ? the equivalent of 16 hours of work per week. If work in each family were raised to 2,000 hours per year ? the equivalent of one adult working 40 hours per week throughout the year ? nearly 75 percent of poor children would be lifted out of official poverty.

As noted above, father absence is another major cause of child poverty. Nearly two thirds of poor children reside in single-parent homes; each year, an additional 1.5 million children are born out of wedlock. If poor mothers married the fathers of their children, nearly three quarters of the nation?s impoverished youth would immediately be lifted out of poverty.

Yet, although work and marriage are reliable ladders out of poverty, the welfare system perversely remains hostile to both. Major programs such as food stamps, public housing, and Medicaid continue to reward idleness and penalize marriage. If welfare could be turned around to encourage work and marriage, the nation?s remaining poverty could be reduced.

Another important factor boosting poverty in the U.S. is our broken immigration system which imports hundreds of thousands of additional poor people each year from abroad through both legal and illegal immigration channels. One quarter of all poor persons in the U.S. are now first generation immigrants or the minor children of those immigrants. Roughly one in ten of the persons counted among the poor by Census is either an illegal immigrant or the minor child of an illegal. Immigrants tend to be poor because they have very low education levels. A quarter of legal immigrants and fifty to sixty percent of illegals are high-school dropouts. By contrast, only nine percent of non-immigrant Americans lack a high school degree.

As long as the present steady flow of poverty-prone persons from foreign countries continues, efforts to reduce the total number of poor in the U.S. will be far more difficult. A sound anti-poverty strategy must not only seek to increase work and marriage among native born Americans, it must also end illegal immigration, and dramatically increase the skill level of future legal immigrants.

? Robert Rector is senior research fellow in domestic-policy studies at the Heritage Foundation.

Link to NRO

--------------------
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem." - President Ronald Reagan


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Liberty
member
*

Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 5796


Re: Poor Politics [Re: Jaeger]
      #111760 - 08/27/07 12:08 PM

I might want to stress that poor is a relative term and pointing out to a poor person in America that they are better off than a middle class person in Europe will get you about two votes.

they are poor because they are compared to the people around them and every night on the TV and cable or satellite system they own they are reminded through commercials and TV just how poor they really are, because they can't afford crap they shouldn't want in the first place.

Attack Edwards for the fact that he is a damn hypocrite, that's all that is needed, but this pointing out what poor means in America is not a winning political strategy.

It's perception and someone who isn't poor telling someone who is poor that really they aren't that bad off ain't winning any votes for Republicans.

I guess you could say it is poor politics


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Ozark
member
**

Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 4012
Loc: out in the woods

Re: Poor Politics [Re: Liberty]
      #111771 - 08/27/07 12:31 PM

People's expectations of wealth have changed a lot, too, in my lifetime.

You see all those little houses built in the 1940's and 50's that are still around? Those were considered big houses at the time.

My folks were solidly middle class. We had an 1100 sq. ft. house, one car, one little black-and-white TV, no air conditioning. By today's standards we were "poor", but we didn't know it because the whole middle class lived the same way.

People today expect to live like only very wealthy people lived 40-50 years ago - and they have possessions and toys those rich people never had or dreamed of.

Poor people in America are only "poor" compared to others in this place and time. Compared with other countries, or even our own country a few decades ago, they're real well off.

But as Liberty points out, that doesn't make a bit of difference. People want it all, even if they haven't worked hard enough and smart enough to earn it and they think the government ought to give it to them.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
tanvat
member
*

Reged: 12/28/05
Posts: 251
Loc: St. Louis

Re: Poor Politics [Re: Ozark]
      #112829 - 08/31/07 02:16 PM

Sure, there are people who are poor in this country . . . relative to a population that enjoys about the best standard of living in the history of mankind!!! I'm a bit tired of "poor" people in this country whining about their circumstance when I see them watching big televisions and driving decent cars and carrying around 100 extra lbs. of fat on their arses - if you want to see "poor" go to rural Nicaragua or the shantytowns of any large Latin American city - hundreds of thousands of people who live in one or two room tin roof shacks that about blow over every time it storms. That is not to say that there are no people in this country who are having a rough go of it, but a good number of the "poor" are in that situation because of their own decisions and actions and, compared to much of the rest of the world, they live like freakin' kings.

Man, I'm startin' to sound like a Republican - if only you guys would give up your pipe dream of spreading democrcy throughout the Middle East at the point of a bayonet and would cut it out with silly religous b.s. I'd come over to the dark side.....


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Paul San Antonio
member
*

Reged: 12/16/05
Posts: 190
Loc: Ladue, Mo.

Re: Poor Politics [Re: tanvat]
      #112836 - 08/31/07 03:47 PM

"Man, I'm startin' to sound like a Republican"

Just stay out of the public restrooms when you see a certain Rebublican Senator using it!

Edited by maw (08/31/07 03:48 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Hellbender
member
**

Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 3416
Loc: Taney County

Re: Poor Politics [Re: tanvat]
      #112838 - 08/31/07 04:24 PM

Quote:

I might want to stress that poor is a relative term and pointing out to a poor person in America that they are better off than a middle class person in Europe will get you about two votes.

they are poor because they are compared to the people around them and every night on the TV and cable or satellite system they own they are reminded through commercials and TV just how poor they really are, because they can't afford crap they shouldn't want in the first place.





I knew it was true that a blind hog will find an acorn, and now Lib gets it right.

Tanvat if Republicans are defined by religious zealots, are Democrats defined the Mark Rich's and now the Hsu's, or just the fact they have always been at the root of human suppression. I suppose as long as the Stockholm syndrome keeps kicking in, they'll keep suppressing.

--------------------
A government survey has shown that 91% of illegal immigrants come to this country so that they can see their own doctor.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Liberty
member
*

Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 5796


Re: Poor Politics [Re: Hellbender]
      #112844 - 08/31/07 04:46 PM

"I knew it was true that a blind hog will find an acorn, and now Lib gets it right."--HB

I've had it right all along, but occasionally I drop back from my normal position ahead of the curve to communicate in terms followers like you can understand.

You're welcome


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Hellbender
member
**

Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 3416
Loc: Taney County

Re: Poor Politics [Re: Liberty]
      #112854 - 08/31/07 06:20 PM

don't wet yourself Lib..........again.

--------------------
A government survey has shown that 91% of illegal immigrants come to this country so that they can see their own doctor.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Liberty
member
*

Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 5796


Re: Poor Politics [Re: Hellbender]
      #112855 - 08/31/07 07:29 PM

don't chit yourself again...old man

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
JaegerModerator
member
**

Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 2008
Loc: St. Louis

Re: Poor Politics [Re: Liberty]
      #113229 - 09/04/07 04:24 PM

I like the new and improved Tanvat.

I just want to know the answer to one question?..

How many peaceful changes from totalitarianism to democracy can you recount?
Change in power structures almost never come peacefully, and when it is as radical as totalitarianism to representative government I don?t think it EVER has. Democracy is unique almost exclusively because those who gain the power at the point of a sword have to be mature and intelligent enough to give up that power peacefully when it is time. George Washington was the father of our country, and one of our greatest citizens because he refused a crown, and stepped down from power after winning it at the point of a bayonet. The Revolution in France followed the same ideals and track with the exception that those who fought for the power then refused to relinquish it, and that led to nothing less than another king (emperor).

Peaceful change is nearly impossible when the few hold all the power, because history has shown that they will do anything, anything, to retain it.

In this country we believe that our rights are not granted by a king, or by a government, but are a covenant with God, and not man?s to take away. If man tries to take them away it is our solemn duty as human beings to violently rebel, and throw off the yoke of tyranny, even if it claims to be benevolent.

It?s sort of hard to eliminate religion in a country that was founded on a religious ideal, and whose values and laws all stem from that religion. A better idea than eschewing it is to study it and understand it. If you did I am quite sure that you would at least stop fearing it, if not actually agree with many of its tenants.

--------------------
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem." - President Ronald Reagan


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
tanvat
member
*

Reged: 12/28/05
Posts: 251
Loc: St. Louis

Re: Poor Politics [Re: Jaeger]
      #113538 - 09/05/07 04:09 PM

Jaeger, sorry to burst your bubble, its the same old me - the problem is that I'm not and never have been the utopian socialist you think I am....

You ask, "How many peaceful changes from totalitarianism to democracy can you recount?" I recall none, though I'm no expert in history. I'm not sure what your point is, but I assume you are hinting at Iraq. If so, the fact that transitions from totalitarianism to democracy are not peaceful does not mean that we should be in the business of trying to force that transition in far flung corners of the Earth. Both of your examples - the American and French revolutions - are not poor analogies to Iraq. Both were, well, revolutions and not invasions/occupations followed by efforts to cobble support from factions that have been at each other's throats for centuries. Both revolutions were started and largely maintained by the oppressed population -populations I might add that were not divided upon along relgious and ethnic divisions that have a bitter history going back a millenium or so. While there were differences and disagreements in the American and French revolutions, there was a commont thread of identity as new Americans (and British ex pats) and Frenchmen - in Iraq, you've got a few Iraqis and a lot of Sunnis, Shia, and Kurds - which makes some sense as modern day geopolitical Iraq is the product of past interventions - the birth of the nation of Iraq was not a voluntary collection of people with historic, common ties to one another - the whole thing has been a mess and will be for the foreseeable future. Ah, the wonders of primitive, inflexible, fundamentalist religion! But, whatever - we're there now, the going is tough, and we owe it to the Iraqis who have fought with us and our fellow Americans who have died/served over there to try and establish some security/stability over there - the hole has been dug, so we gotta shore it up.


Never said "eliminate religion" - its just the nutcase flat Earth folks that have such influence over Republican social policy. And no, our rights don't stem from a covenant with God, or Allah, or Santa - our rights stem from an ancient Western tradition of philosophy and political thought that recognizes a certain conception of rational human being possessed with free will. Its up to us, not God - therein lies both the opportunity and the peril.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Liberty
member
*

Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 5796


Re: Poor Politics [Re: tanvat]
      #113549 - 09/05/07 04:38 PM

Tanvat you have nailed one thing on the head in that dispatch

you truly are no expert in history

Now as to a common thread in the American Revolution, the American population was split we had these people called Torries ya see, and they liked the crown over in Britain and they fought their American brethren right up to the end, many shipped out when they lost. Some estimations placed the Torries as a majority of the populace.

Now as to your uninformed statement as to where we get our rights. Tanvat, the Declaration of Independence (this is really something you should read and comprehend, it's really one of the finest pieces of persuasion in literary history, actually the finest) what part of "we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights" do you not understand?

Your denial of the fact that this nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles is absolutely disturbing. I know it wins a Democrat no points in his talking point circles to point out these facts of our history as it is your party's policy to change our history right before our very eyes.

Tanvat, you keep reading though and someday you'll get it.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Liberty
member
*

Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 5796


Re: Poor Politics [Re: Liberty]
      #113552 - 09/05/07 04:55 PM

Tanvat's version of the Declaration of Independence

"we are endowed by an ancient Western tradition of philosophy and political thought that recognizes a certain conception of rational human being possessed with free will."

I'm sure that would grab the reader


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
tanvat
member
*

Reged: 12/28/05
Posts: 251
Loc: St. Louis

Re: Poor Politics [Re: Liberty]
      #113566 - 09/05/07 05:43 PM

Lib - the point remains that any analogy b/t the American and French revolutions and Iraq is very weak. That there were substantial numbers of British loyalists does not overcome the fact that there was a large nucleus of rebels united around a more or less common cause. There were, fundamentally two sides - the British and their colonial loyalists vs. the colonial revolutionaries. Iraq is, and always has been, fractured along multiple tribal, religous, and ethnic loyalites - so much so that people identify themselves along religious or tribal lines almost more than they identify themselves as Iraqis. The analogy simply does not work.


Lib, what is disturbing - well, amusing is more like it - is the profound ignorance revealed in the following statement:

"Now as to your uninformed statement as to where we get our rights. Tanvat, the Declaration of Independence (this is really something you should read and comprehend, it's really one of the finest pieces of persuasion in literary history, actually the finest) what part of "we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights" do you not understand?"

The Declaration of Independence is a remarkable document. However, it is not the source of our political order. That is pretty elementary Lib - basic civics. The document that is the source of our national political order is the Constitution. Read it. See how many times it mentions God or the Creator. Look hard as you want, but you'll not find it. Instead, the preamble begins with the actual source of the social contract that forms gives form to our democracy; i.e., "We the People....."

In any event, even if we indulge your erroneous assumption that the Declaration of Independence is the foundational document of our union the fact that it uses the term Creator don't make it so for it presupposes that there is a Creator up there who is concerned with us. And never said the country wasn't founded on Judeo-Christian principles, though I'm not certain that three branches of goverment, a post office, and slaves getting counted as 3/5 of a person all reflect deep-seated Judeo-Christian principles....

This has gotten sufficiently off topic now and I'm not going to change your mind and you won't change mine. I'd imagine we both agree on less taxes and less spending though.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Hellbender
member
**

Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 3416
Loc: Taney County

Re: Poor Politics [Re: tanvat]
      #113584 - 09/05/07 06:04 PM

Tanvat how do you place the insurgents into the mix? there is no denying that they are responsible for much of the violence. How much responsibility do you believe they have for some of the violence attributed to the Iraqi's?

--------------------
A government survey has shown that 91% of illegal immigrants come to this country so that they can see their own doctor.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Liberty
member
*

Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 5796


Re: Poor Politics [Re: tanvat]
      #113604 - 09/05/07 06:18 PM

typical liberal always going to a latter document, written for the specific purpose of government than go to the primary document of this nation's birth

Now I wonder why it is we celebrate July 4 every year when the Declaration of Independence was signed? Instead of Sept. 17 when the Constitution was ratified. Because it was THE founding document of this nation, the Constitution, as important as it is, though not to Democrats, was the nation's second attempt at how to figure out how best to run this government of the people and by the people, but those people were endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable right, ya know life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, you know it in the fifth amendment to the latter document your party daily chits on as life, liberty and property.

you mention that we got our rights from "an ancient Western tradition of philosophy and political thought that recognizes a certain conception of rational human being possessed with free will."

now where was that written in the Constitution, let's use your document, where in the Constitution was your phrase even paraphrased.

Now when they convened in the hot Philadelphia summer of 1787 how did they begin their meetings? Did they begin with a prayer to the "ancient Western tradition of philosophy and political thought that recognizes a certain conception of rational human being possessed with free will."???

I never read that anywhere.

Though I did read in Article I, Section 7, Paragraph 2: "If any bill shall not be returned by the President within 10 days (Sundays excepted)...

now why did those followers of "an ancient Western tradition of philosophy and political thought that recognizes a certain conception of rational human being possessed with free will" put that in the Constitution of all places, such a secular document to be revering such a perfectly good day to get some work done.

then there was this little diddy that just puzzles the hell out me since you have shared your infinite wisdom on the subject

"Done, in Convention, by the unanimous consent of the States present, the seventeenth day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven."

Now why would they have said in the year of our Lord rather than just a plain ole 1787. And come to think of it, why in the hell is this year 2007, why surely there are other calendars out there, why is it officially 2007 in the United States.

now also this puzzles me and I am sure an astute historian such as yourself can help me with this one, now Tanvat obviously you know James Madison is basically the man who fathered the Constitution you speak of that is devoid of God.

Now why would this man say this...
"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

Now why would he reference something so Judeo-Christian as the Ten Commandments Tanvat, Why would he do that?

then damn it Tanvat, I know this just run contrary to the whole liberal notion that we ain't a nation based on Judeo-Christian beliefs and Thomas Jefferson was obviously not a Christian--I know you guys keep saying that stuff.

Now why did Thomas Jefferson propose to the committee to draft the seal of the new nation that it should say "the children of Israel in the wilderness, led by a cloud by day, and a pillar of fire by night."

Why would he propose such a thing.

Why would he say, "God who gave us life gave us liberty."

Why would Jefferson say that?

I'm sure an astute historian who earlier knew nothing about history, then later implied he knew everything and I was a simpleton but only proved his former statement that he knew nothing, I'm sure you could find the answer

If you weren't such a hater



Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Liberty
member
*

Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 5796


Re: Poor Politics [Re: Liberty]
      #113612 - 09/05/07 06:30 PM

damn Tanvat how long are you going to be reading wikipedia before you respond

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Liberty
member
*

Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 5796


Re: Poor Politics [Re: Liberty]
      #113619 - 09/05/07 06:46 PM

of course I never got an answer from you a few years back as to why Jefferson would say this either

"The Christian religion, when divested of the rags in which they (the clergy) have enveloped it, and brought to the original purity and simplicity of its benevolent institutor, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind."

I wonder why he didn't say atheism was better for all that?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Liberty
member
*

Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 5796


Re: Poor Politics [Re: Liberty]
      #113621 - 09/05/07 06:52 PM

and then there's Jefferson writing to his old friend Dr. Benjamin Rush in Jefferson's first term in office as President

"My views...are the result of a life inquiry and reflection, and very different from the anti-christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others."

I just can't fathom why he would say that since the Democrats always run out and say something contrary to the man's own words.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Liberty
member
*

Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 5796


Re: Poor Politics [Re: Liberty]
      #113622 - 09/05/07 06:56 PM

Tanvat should I supply you with a couple of search terms to get you started

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Liberty
member
*

Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 5796


Re: Poor Politics [Re: Liberty]
      #113623 - 09/05/07 07:01 PM

now why would the Supreme Court of the United States in 1892 in the case Church of the Holy Trinity v. US have the man who wrote the decision Justice Josiah Brewer write in a commentary of his decision "our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian."

not just Christian, but emphatically Christian.

in the decision he also wrote this

"this is a Christian nation...we find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth."


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Ozark
member
**

Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 4012
Loc: out in the woods

Re: Poor Politics [Re: Liberty]
      #113631 - 09/05/07 07:23 PM

Tanvat, you're right. Both the American and French Revolutions came from the people, so they're not a very good comparison with modern Iraq.

But we DID successfully impose democracy-at-gunpoint on both the Japanese and the West Germans and it worked out real well. 60+ years later, both nations are still democracies and U.S. allies.

So we've done this successfully before, and surely the Muslims aren't any more fanatic than the Nazis and the Imperial Japanese were. Maybe we ought to look real close at our occupations of Germany and Japan from 1945 on, and whatever we did then, that's exactly what we ought to do in Iraq.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Liberty
member
*

Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 5796


Re: Poor Politics [Re: Liberty]
      #113632 - 09/05/07 07:23 PM

"In any event, even if we indulge your erroneous assumption that the Declaration of Independence is the foundational document of our union the fact that it uses the term Creator don't make it so for it presupposes that there is a Creator up there who is concerned with us. And never said the country wasn't founded on Judeo-Christian principles"--Tanvat

let's break that down using quotes from the Declaration to see just how wrong you are

now of course, you've at least admitted Creator was in there, that's good you've possibly read the first few lines.

now I think you were making some erroneous argument that my argument presupposes there is a Creator up there that is concerned with us.

well let's look at what Jefferson wrote in the Declaration to see how your argument fleshes out.

let's see oh there it is at the end

"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."

what did he mean by Divine Providence? I'm sure you can figure that one out. Obviously you like less taxes and less spending so you're not an ignorant beast, though your denial of this country's founding does place you in the stupid column since it's been pointed out to you and yet you refuse to accept it.

you know they also appealed to the "Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions."

gosh that just sounds a lot like some guys were praying when they made this decision, it more than sounds like that, they were praying and they mentioned it right there in the Declaration, they must have believed the Creator was up there paying attention.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Liberty
member
*

Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 5796


Re: Poor Politics [Re: Liberty]
      #113634 - 09/05/07 07:26 PM

Ozark,

as Jaeger eloquently put Tanvat to the question earlier, he rightly makes a very important point as to why Tanvat ain't going to get it.

Tanvat, if we ever hear back from him will, as he did earlier today, will further give credence to why Jaeger would pose such a question in such a manner.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Ozark
member
**

Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 4012
Loc: out in the woods

Re: Poor Politics [Re: Liberty]
      #113679 - 09/05/07 10:21 PM

The foundation of American democracy is Judeo/Christian morality and the idea of a Creator, that's for sure.

I'm not sure a democracy can exist where there is no such system of moral belief. Russia, for instance, used to be Christian but 70 years of communism stamped out Judeo/Christian moral beliefs. Democracy sure isn't working there.

Many democratic countries that aren't very religious now still retain strong beliefs in right and wrong that come from their religious past. Modern European countries are like that.

The exceptions, I guess, would be India and Japan. They're both democracies without Judeo/Christian backgrounds. Maybe those two cultures have belief or behavior patterns of their own that make democracy possible?

I don't think the Muslim world will ever achieve democratic government. That's not a peaceful religion, it's based on killing - and with that underlying "morality", I think that's how power will always be held there.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | >> (show all)



Extra information
0 registered and 1562 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  Jaeger 

Print Topic

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Rating:
Topic views: 639

Rate this topic

Jump to

Contact Us Return to Main Page

*
UBB.threads™ 6.5