Why Islam is disrespected.

Sorry RED, but respectfully you are dead wrong. The women and children who are on it...have a live in husband who they won't marry because it will eliminate their benifits. They try to find a job periodically and purposely don't find one, because all they are required to do is "look" and prove they did. Business' are all too aware of the job aplicant that just wants proof they applied. They enjoy the Male's income as well as hers. Yes they "work" the system and they will and really do want to stay on it. Sure some don't but most do. And it's not a neccesity in a civilized country, the Greeks and Romans were every bit as civilized if not more so than we are/have been and they took care of the poor through sponsorship and family.

As far as these people being "happy" , well that is a state of mind. One's financial well being does not necessarily make one happy. Our Politicians have created a group that has learned to "work" the system for food stamps, ( free food ) Welfare, ( money ) and medicare ( free health care ) , WIC ( women & children care ) Sometimes I wonder if they are not just smarter than the rest of us. The guy who goes out to earn what's left of the wages doesn't have to do much. Just bring home half pay and he is living large.
None of these folks file jointly. No doubt these programs had good intentions, but good intentions never stopped man from abusing something. Sure there are those that REALLy need it, a select few... very few.

I think too many people see welfare recipients as poor "tater" sack wearing folks with no shoes. Folks, these people dress as well as you and I and DEMAND that the get these things. They drive cars and trucks the same as you and I. They usually eat better than we do. They just work for cigarette and beer money. Their kids play ninetendo. A local church usually "adopts" them and their kids for Christmas because they submit themselves as the local "poor" folks at the church doorstep right before Christmas time.

They generally have the attitude that it is "owed" to them, and it crosses all Race boundaries. So Red, again respectfully... you're wrong my friend, sorry to point it out to you.... you should get out more and see some things. There are some really poor people who need Welfare, the elderly couple that has very little income and no relatives and no insurance, yeah they need it...... but a good many of welfare recipients are just laughing at us and them. Sad but true. Trust me, I live in Mississippi, I see it every day.

if Welfare was done right, it would help, but welfare wasn't designed to make these people "poor". it keeps the middle class,..... in the middle.

Sourghdough is "almost" right. but not quite. It's not designed to create voters, because RED is right, these people don't care much about voting, they have notoriously low turn outs.

BUT what it does is this, it keeps the politicians with one hand in the middle class pocket, ANd while they whisper in your ear that they are collecting ALMS for the poor, they help themselves to some too......... :shock: ah now here we have the REAL story, shhhhhhhhh better keep that under wraps, no one knows this stuff. :dis:

so the really poor people stay really poor. Other's "work" the system. and meanwhile the politicians "wink" at it all, because they NEED entitlements, after all it's how they get paid too. politics really does make strange bedfellows.

 

Once again we're off the main subject which was Islam and Muslims but if you don't think that Democrats specifically and politicians in general want to keep people poor and stupid to keep themselves a constinuency then you're dead wrong. The liberal teachers unions want no part of testing themselves or the kids and Democrats back those demands. They back those demands because they need to keep these people poor and stupid and have no one know about their utter and tragic failures. Like I said, Dems specifically and politicians in general have ruined the schools by trying to make everything equal at the expense of making sure the kids were being taught.............all of that is an unconscious effort to continue a cycle of poverty and stupidity to keep themselves elected.

The reason Democrats have lost elections and pretty much every state legislature over the last 20 years is they need a crisis, bad things to happen to get elected. They want the war to go bad, the economy to go bad, the schools to be horrible.....etc etc so they can rush in and save it all from the ignorant people. But they are the ones who have caused this all by feel good legislation that has only hurt........never helped. If everyone gets educated, gets good jobs and makes it for themselves, who will DEM's fight for?

Al Gore....."I want to fight for you." That's the problem, 65% of the country doesn't want anyone to fight for them. I want to be left alone.

 

He's at least providing some entertainment for his money. I have no problem tipping street musicians, I find some of them rather enterprising. The guy I have problems with is the guy that comes up to me w/ the sob story about having a pregnant wife, and needing $5.00 to buy some gas to get back to
Jackson, Miss....yet I see no pregnant wife and no car around. Then I come back the next night, and the same guy approaches me again w/ the same story (and believe me, I've heard enough panhandlers use this story to know that it's bogus when I hear it). That's the guy I have problems giving money to.

The Memphis Chamber of Commerce actually puts out a pamphlet about dealing w/ panhandlers in the downtown area. It says that most people
give panhandlers money just to get rid of them, but this is the wrong thing to do...it perpetuates the cycle of dependency. The pamphlet recommends that
when you're approached by a panhandler, give them a firm but polite NO. 99 out of 100 will just move on without creating a scene.

 

Until you can make even a half-hearted attempt back this up WITHOUT a thought pattern littered with subjective, scapegoat generalizations, you have done nothing to prove otherwise. I wonder how large the cross-section of welfare recipients that you know well enough to make these assertions is. You seem to display a pretty intricate knowledge of how most of them conduct their day-to-day lives, and also with their overall mental conditions and reasoning. Oddly enough, your statements are conflicting with the conclusions of most sociological experts. Certainly then, it is reasonable to assume that you are well-acquainted with a large enough number of them so that you can apply these characteristics to the majority of recipients. If not, your claims are nothing more than the badly regergitated and unsubstantiated gripes of a portion of middle class citizens whose discontents with their own economic conditions are misdirected at the relatively few abusers of a necessary system.

Don't comeback with this 'I see it everyday because I live in Mississippi' nonsense. Driving your car in front of a disadvantaged housing development or subdivision everyday does not mean that you know enough about their lifestyles to make any generalization other than that their living conditions create an unsightly segment of travel.

I'll ignore the remainder of your absolutely futile attempt to justify your ludicrous thesis to expound a little on this statement.

Are you kidding me? Are you at all aware of what just happend in November? You are a fool if you don't think that those elections were won on the 'threat of terrorism' (that and gay marriage). Terrorism was the best thing that could have happened to the republicans (from a demographic standpoint) because demagogues like Karl Rove were able to scare enough weak-minded people into believing that they were the only safehaven from the looming threat. Notice that I did not say that was the only reason people voted for them. But why do you think that you now believe that democrats are the devil, and hate America?

You've fallen victim of some of the most offensively divisive political tactics we've ever seen in America. It's blindingly ignorant to think that democrats are anti-American because they're not in complete congruence with your idealology. Democrats could just as easily make the same assertion about republicans, but does that make them any more or less right, just because its the opinion of those outside of your political spectrum? Personally, I think both parties have major issues to sort out, and are wholly unrepresentative of they way most Americans really think.

Leaders are supposed to unite, not divide. Polarization is truly un-Ameican.

There is a very fundamental yet fatal philosophical flaw to this argument. You see, by virtue, 'everyone' cannot attain the status of 'educated' and/or 'well-employed'. These things are relative, and for our basic economic struture to survive, diffentiation between these varying degrees must remain in place. Otherwise, you're left with no economic 'food chain' and you're trying to tell people with degrees that they have to flip burgers for a living.

Thus the fact remains, there are a great number of people out there who need help. I don't know you, but I'm willing to bet that most of us here were reared in somewhat similar socio-economic conditions. It's always easy to be on the outside looking in, making brief assertions of what those not like us should do to make it better for themselves, without dedicating 2 seconds of thought to the conditions of their environments and upbringing.

 

and i am free to help them. but i should not use the government to enact policies to force you to help them.

if i was poor, i wouldnt be poor long. and i surely would not have kids. it is a great myth that working people cant provide for themselves. poor people in america are not even really poor. the only really poor people are either insane or have overextended themselves by having too many children. and even then they are not really that poor. people who starve in america do so by choice or mental illness.

 

do people really starve at all in america? i dont know if i ever heard of it happening.

 

If no one was 'forced' to help them, they would never get helped. Period.

First of all, you make this statement with no regard to how you would have ended up poor in the first place.

Second of all, what would you do? Save or invest your excess money? So then, poor people are in a position to acquire jobs that enable them to do this sort of thing? Do you really think poor people want to remain poor, and thus take jobs that they know are inadequate for them to provide for their families?

Yeah, it sure is. But I want to know, who in the world ever made such an asinine statement? And what relavence does it have to the current discussion? I'm pretty sure that most people that provide for themsleves are working people. There are obvious exceptions, like Paris Hilton (barf). But where did you subject yourself to such a foolish observation as 'working people cannot provide for themselves?'

They're not? Well maybe you should alert them of that, since you're so certain of it. Go ahead and let them know that they can now afford basic necessities with no help. I don't know what your definition of 'poor' is, but it appears to be vastly inconsistent with our current economic conditions.

Let's say, for one brief moment, that this foolish assumption is correct. What then, do you propose we tell those who have overextended themselves? I don't mean what policy of deterrance would you enact. I'm talking about those who currently have 'too many' children. Do they starve? Tough sh*t for you and your family, amigo, shouldn't have had that many children?

Yeah, people in America choose to starve. That's it. Pardon me for a minute while I laugh my ass off. Yes, let's choose to starve for pity's sake. What a great idea. Who needs the luxury of not wondering if you'll be able to eat when its just so easy to starve?

Thanks to this system of 'handouts' that you seem to so adamantly oppose, no, it doesn't happen.

 

maybe. doesnt mean it is justified to forcibly take from one man to give to another.

people without kids can get by easily. move to a tiny cheap apartment and eat ramen noodles. i actually think that sounds fun. you could save money and not buy a tv and just read library books. it would be awesome.

i hear that all the time, people claiming the working poor cant afford anything. they might not be able to buy an escalade, but they can afford macaroni and cheese. and that stuff is tasty.

i believe there are really poor people, but they live in places like bangladesh. poor people in new york have satellite dishes on their ghetto apartments.

and bums shouldnt choose to lie on the sidewalk drinking all day, but they do. i think they are insane.