[Jim Jones]

[quote=Russell]Where is the mainstream media and PBS on these issues.[/quote]

Finally one on the left that has finally realized that the Mainstream media is in the tank for the Left and will not investigate anything while they are in power. Where are all the headlines in Time about Obama’s war? He plussed up 30,000 troops without a peep from the media. Get you Koolaid out until at least 2012.

[Jim Jones]

[quote=davelj][quote=Jim Jones]
Brian,

You still did not take ownership of your statement. Would you support policies which may lead to your children to inherit a lower standard of living and possibly poverty based on our current standards of living? Yes or no would suffice.[/quote]

I know it’s rude, but I’m going to butt in here. Could you provide a specific example of such a policy, past or present? It’s a little ambiguous as you’ve worded the question. I don’t have kids and will not have them, but I am curious as to what policies, exactly, you’re getting at.[/quote]

Rather than quote a policy I will post Brian’s original comment.

[quote=Brian]

Not if you look at all humans equally.

From a world humanitarian perspective, as long as more people are being lifted out of poverty than fall into poverty, then the system is working.

If 10 million Americans fall into poverty, but 100 million Chinese gain education and a “middle-class” life, it’s a net positive gain for humanity.

Actually, if Americans can no longer afford “Carlsbad-like” neighborhoods and everything in San Diego deteriorates to “El Cajon-like” and people have to move to apartments, it still won’t be the end of the world.[/quote]

He stated that he would support economic and tax policies which would in fact lead to the decline in relative wealth and quality of living for 10 million American’s. To me this is crazy our government is in power to preserve our nations wealth, not “spread the wealth around” IMHO.

[Jim Jones]

[quote=davelj][quote=Jim Jones]
Brian,

You still did not take ownership of your statement. Would you support policies which may lead to your children to inherit a lower standard of living and possibly poverty based on our current standards of living? Yes or no would suffice.[/quote]

I know it’s rude, but I’m going to butt in here. Could you provide a specific example of such a policy, past or present? It’s a little ambiguous as you’ve worded the question. I don’t have kids and will not have them, but I am curious as to what policies, exactly, you’re getting at.[/quote]

Rather than quote a policy I will post Brian’s original comment.

[quote=Brian]

Not if you look at all humans equally.

From a world humanitarian perspective, as long as more people are being lifted out of poverty than fall into poverty, then the system is working.

If 10 million Americans fall into poverty, but 100 million Chinese gain education and a “middle-class” life, it’s a net positive gain for humanity.

Actually, if Americans can no longer afford “Carlsbad-like” neighborhoods and everything in San Diego deteriorates to “El Cajon-like” and people have to move to apartments, it still won’t be the end of the world.[/quote]

He stated that he would support economic and tax policies which would in fact lead to the decline in relative wealth and quality of living for 10 million American’s. To me this is crazy our government is in power to preserve our nations wealth, not “spread the wealth around” IMHO.

[Jim Jones]

[quote=davelj][quote=Jim Jones]
Brian,

You still did not take ownership of your statement. Would you support policies which may lead to your children to inherit a lower standard of living and possibly poverty based on our current standards of living? Yes or no would suffice.[/quote]

I know it’s rude, but I’m going to butt in here. Could you provide a specific example of such a policy, past or present? It’s a little ambiguous as you’ve worded the question. I don’t have kids and will not have them, but I am curious as to what policies, exactly, you’re getting at.[/quote]

Rather than quote a policy I will post Brian’s original comment.

[quote=Brian]

Not if you look at all humans equally.

From a world humanitarian perspective, as long as more people are being lifted out of poverty than fall into poverty, then the system is working.

If 10 million Americans fall into poverty, but 100 million Chinese gain education and a “middle-class” life, it’s a net positive gain for humanity.

Actually, if Americans can no longer afford “Carlsbad-like” neighborhoods and everything in San Diego deteriorates to “El Cajon-like” and people have to move to apartments, it still won’t be the end of the world.[/quote]

He stated that he would support economic and tax policies which would in fact lead to the decline in relative wealth and quality of living for 10 million American’s. To me this is crazy our government is in power to preserve our nations wealth, not “spread the wealth around” IMHO.

[Jim Jones]

[quote=davelj][quote=Jim Jones]
Brian,

You still did not take ownership of your statement. Would you support policies which may lead to your children to inherit a lower standard of living and possibly poverty based on our current standards of living? Yes or no would suffice.[/quote]

I know it’s rude, but I’m going to butt in here. Could you provide a specific example of such a policy, past or present? It’s a little ambiguous as you’ve worded the question. I don’t have kids and will not have them, but I am curious as to what policies, exactly, you’re getting at.[/quote]

Rather than quote a policy I will post Brian’s original comment.

[quote=Brian]

Not if you look at all humans equally.

From a world humanitarian perspective, as long as more people are being lifted out of poverty than fall into poverty, then the system is working.

If 10 million Americans fall into poverty, but 100 million Chinese gain education and a “middle-class” life, it’s a net positive gain for humanity.

Actually, if Americans can no longer afford “Carlsbad-like” neighborhoods and everything in San Diego deteriorates to “El Cajon-like” and people have to move to apartments, it still won’t be the end of the world.[/quote]

He stated that he would support economic and tax policies which would in fact lead to the decline in relative wealth and quality of living for 10 million American’s. To me this is crazy our government is in power to preserve our nations wealth, not “spread the wealth around” IMHO.

[Jim Jones]

[quote=davelj][quote=Jim Jones]
Brian,

You still did not take ownership of your statement. Would you support policies which may lead to your children to inherit a lower standard of living and possibly poverty based on our current standards of living? Yes or no would suffice.[/quote]

I know it’s rude, but I’m going to butt in here. Could you provide a specific example of such a policy, past or present? It’s a little ambiguous as you’ve worded the question. I don’t have kids and will not have them, but I am curious as to what policies, exactly, you’re getting at.[/quote]

Rather than quote a policy I will post Brian’s original comment.

[quote=Brian]

Not if you look at all humans equally.

From a world humanitarian perspective, as long as more people are being lifted out of poverty than fall into poverty, then the system is working.

If 10 million Americans fall into poverty, but 100 million Chinese gain education and a “middle-class” life, it’s a net positive gain for humanity.

Actually, if Americans can no longer afford “Carlsbad-like” neighborhoods and everything in San Diego deteriorates to “El Cajon-like” and people have to move to apartments, it still won’t be the end of the world.[/quote]

He stated that he would support economic and tax policies which would in fact lead to the decline in relative wealth and quality of living for 10 million American’s. To me this is crazy our government is in power to preserve our nations wealth, not “spread the wealth around” IMHO.

[Jim Jones]

[quote=briansd1][quote=drboom]
None too soon: good riddance to Stepford, I say.
[/quote]

drboom, I believe that you’ve got it right.

[quote=Jim Jones]
Brian,

I don’t want to question your patriotism but this argument is counter to our national objectives and in IMHO the reason why we are in fact an independent nation in the first place. Would you subject your own children and grandchildren to a lifetime of poverty and serfdom to further global utilitarianism? [/quote]

Jim, all of us on Earth are God’s children.

If we cared about long term national security, we’d live more modestly, save our money and lend it to poor nations so that they can develop. Had we done that decades ago, we’d now own the world instead of the other way around.

Poor nations lending their money to America so we can consume more is lopsided and simply not sustainable.

There is nothing wrong with living modestly in a small house or apartment.

Instead we, as a nation, are buying McMansions on shoestring budgets. We buy houses with zero down, interest only. We lease cars for $299 a month. And we buy home appliances on installment plans.

I wonder who’s really frittering our national security away.[/quote]

Brian,

You still did not take ownership of your statement. Would you support policies which may lead to your children to inherit a lower standard of living and possibly poverty based on our current standards of living? Yes or no would suffice.

[Jim Jones]

[quote=briansd1][quote=drboom]
None too soon: good riddance to Stepford, I say.
[/quote]

drboom, I believe that you’ve got it right.

[quote=Jim Jones]
Brian,

I don’t want to question your patriotism but this argument is counter to our national objectives and in IMHO the reason why we are in fact an independent nation in the first place. Would you subject your own children and grandchildren to a lifetime of poverty and serfdom to further global utilitarianism? [/quote]

Jim, all of us on Earth are God’s children.

If we cared about long term national security, we’d live more modestly, save our money and lend it to poor nations so that they can develop. Had we done that decades ago, we’d now own the world instead of the other way around.

Poor nations lending their money to America so we can consume more is lopsided and simply not sustainable.

There is nothing wrong with living modestly in a small house or apartment.

Instead we, as a nation, are buying McMansions on shoestring budgets. We buy houses with zero down, interest only. We lease cars for $299 a month. And we buy home appliances on installment plans.

I wonder who’s really frittering our national security away.[/quote]

Brian,

You still did not take ownership of your statement. Would you support policies which may lead to your children to inherit a lower standard of living and possibly poverty based on our current standards of living? Yes or no would suffice.

[Jim Jones]

[quote=briansd1][quote=drboom]
None too soon: good riddance to Stepford, I say.
[/quote]

drboom, I believe that you’ve got it right.

[quote=Jim Jones]
Brian,

I don’t want to question your patriotism but this argument is counter to our national objectives and in IMHO the reason why we are in fact an independent nation in the first place. Would you subject your own children and grandchildren to a lifetime of poverty and serfdom to further global utilitarianism? [/quote]

Jim, all of us on Earth are God’s children.

If we cared about long term national security, we’d live more modestly, save our money and lend it to poor nations so that they can develop. Had we done that decades ago, we’d now own the world instead of the other way around.

Poor nations lending their money to America so we can consume more is lopsided and simply not sustainable.

There is nothing wrong with living modestly in a small house or apartment.

Instead we, as a nation, are buying McMansions on shoestring budgets. We buy houses with zero down, interest only. We lease cars for $299 a month. And we buy home appliances on installment plans.

I wonder who’s really frittering our national security away.[/quote]

Brian,

You still did not take ownership of your statement. Would you support policies which may lead to your children to inherit a lower standard of living and possibly poverty based on our current standards of living? Yes or no would suffice.

[Jim Jones]

[quote=briansd1][quote=drboom]
None too soon: good riddance to Stepford, I say.
[/quote]

drboom, I believe that you’ve got it right.

[quote=Jim Jones]
Brian,

I don’t want to question your patriotism but this argument is counter to our national objectives and in IMHO the reason why we are in fact an independent nation in the first place. Would you subject your own children and grandchildren to a lifetime of poverty and serfdom to further global utilitarianism? [/quote]

Jim, all of us on Earth are God’s children.

If we cared about long term national security, we’d live more modestly, save our money and lend it to poor nations so that they can develop. Had we done that decades ago, we’d now own the world instead of the other way around.

Poor nations lending their money to America so we can consume more is lopsided and simply not sustainable.

There is nothing wrong with living modestly in a small house or apartment.

Instead we, as a nation, are buying McMansions on shoestring budgets. We buy houses with zero down, interest only. We lease cars for $299 a month. And we buy home appliances on installment plans.

I wonder who’s really frittering our national security away.[/quote]

Brian,

You still did not take ownership of your statement. Would you support policies which may lead to your children to inherit a lower standard of living and possibly poverty based on our current standards of living? Yes or no would suffice.

[Jim Jones]

[quote=briansd1][quote=drboom]
None too soon: good riddance to Stepford, I say.
[/quote]

drboom, I believe that you’ve got it right.

[quote=Jim Jones]
Brian,

I don’t want to question your patriotism but this argument is counter to our national objectives and in IMHO the reason why we are in fact an independent nation in the first place. Would you subject your own children and grandchildren to a lifetime of poverty and serfdom to further global utilitarianism? [/quote]

Jim, all of us on Earth are God’s children.

If we cared about long term national security, we’d live more modestly, save our money and lend it to poor nations so that they can develop. Had we done that decades ago, we’d now own the world instead of the other way around.

Poor nations lending their money to America so we can consume more is lopsided and simply not sustainable.

There is nothing wrong with living modestly in a small house or apartment.

Instead we, as a nation, are buying McMansions on shoestring budgets. We buy houses with zero down, interest only. We lease cars for $299 a month. And we buy home appliances on installment plans.

I wonder who’s really frittering our national security away.[/quote]

Brian,

You still did not take ownership of your statement. Would you support policies which may lead to your children to inherit a lower standard of living and possibly poverty based on our current standards of living? Yes or no would suffice.

[Jim Jones]

[quote=CONCHO]Man I just have to keep doing this to save us all time. Here are the arguments that we will see in this thread:

4) Americans are overpaid. What, you think you *deserve* a roof over your head? There’s someone in Thailand that lives in a shanty that can do your job cheaper, bub!

OK so I’ve saved us all the trouble of what we would normally have to spend time typing and reading here. Now we can go back to work (if we still have any ha ha ha).[/quote]

CONCHO,

I like your prediction of Brian’s statement which followed.

[quote=Brian]If 10 million Americans fall into poverty, but 100 million Chinese gain education and a “middle-class” life, it’s a net positive gain for humanity.

Actually, if Americans can no longer afford “Carlsbad-like” neighborhoods and everything in San Diego deteriorates to “El Cajon-like” and people have to move to apartments, it still won’t be the end of the world.”[/quote]

[Jim Jones]

[quote=CONCHO]Man I just have to keep doing this to save us all time. Here are the arguments that we will see in this thread:

4) Americans are overpaid. What, you think you *deserve* a roof over your head? There’s someone in Thailand that lives in a shanty that can do your job cheaper, bub!

OK so I’ve saved us all the trouble of what we would normally have to spend time typing and reading here. Now we can go back to work (if we still have any ha ha ha).[/quote]

CONCHO,

I like your prediction of Brian’s statement which followed.

[quote=Brian]If 10 million Americans fall into poverty, but 100 million Chinese gain education and a “middle-class” life, it’s a net positive gain for humanity.

Actually, if Americans can no longer afford “Carlsbad-like” neighborhoods and everything in San Diego deteriorates to “El Cajon-like” and people have to move to apartments, it still won’t be the end of the world.”[/quote]

[Jim Jones]

[quote=CONCHO]Man I just have to keep doing this to save us all time. Here are the arguments that we will see in this thread:

4) Americans are overpaid. What, you think you *deserve* a roof over your head? There’s someone in Thailand that lives in a shanty that can do your job cheaper, bub!

OK so I’ve saved us all the trouble of what we would normally have to spend time typing and reading here. Now we can go back to work (if we still have any ha ha ha).[/quote]

CONCHO,

I like your prediction of Brian’s statement which followed.

[quote=Brian]If 10 million Americans fall into poverty, but 100 million Chinese gain education and a “middle-class” life, it’s a net positive gain for humanity.

Actually, if Americans can no longer afford “Carlsbad-like” neighborhoods and everything in San Diego deteriorates to “El Cajon-like” and people have to move to apartments, it still won’t be the end of the world.”[/quote]

[Jim Jones]

[quote=CONCHO]Man I just have to keep doing this to save us all time. Here are the arguments that we will see in this thread:

4) Americans are overpaid. What, you think you *deserve* a roof over your head? There’s someone in Thailand that lives in a shanty that can do your job cheaper, bub!

OK so I’ve saved us all the trouble of what we would normally have to spend time typing and reading here. Now we can go back to work (if we still have any ha ha ha).[/quote]

CONCHO,

I like your prediction of Brian’s statement which followed.

[quote=Brian]If 10 million Americans fall into poverty, but 100 million Chinese gain education and a “middle-class” life, it’s a net positive gain for humanity.

Actually, if Americans can no longer afford “Carlsbad-like” neighborhoods and everything in San Diego deteriorates to “El Cajon-like” and people have to move to apartments, it still won’t be the end of the world.”[/quote]

[Author]

Posts