[angaq0k]

According to The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/20...3gabelnick.pdf)

Since September 11, the Bush administration has relied heavily on a quiet campaign of defense deals as a way to win friends for its war on terror. The unsurprising result: a significant increase in U.S. arms transfers and military aid. Although the purported goal is to improve U.S. security, too often military aid has gone to repressive regimes that use the assistance to violate the human rights of their own populations. Sometimes, these weapons and technologies fall into hostile hands and they end up being used against the United States.
The gears that drive the deals that ratchet up military aid for U.S. allies have been greased in the post� September 11 world by the steady erosion of restrictions on military transfers.

Arms exporter to the world

The United States approved arms exports and military aid to 170 countries in 2001, delivering $13.1 billion in commercial and government-to-government arms sales to 154 of those countries. In 2001, 60 countries were the lucky recipients of $3.5 billion in U.S. foreign military financing, allowing the United States to dole out money for purchasing U.S. weapons, military service, and training. All but 5.4 percent of 2001 financing went to Israel, Egypt, and Jordan, as a reward for making peace with one another. In 2001, the United States gave 113 nations $57.7 million for �international military education and training� (IMET)�aid to foreign governments to teach their military personnel (think of it as �Military 101�). The U.S. military offers more than 2,000 courses, including classes in combat skills, military management, civilian-military relations, and the use of U.S. weapons systems.
The United States isn�t too choosy about who gets these goodies. Many of the 2001 recipients weren�t exactly good guys. A number of them, in fact, were characterized by the State Department as having �poor� or �extremely poor� human rights records.
Who gets U.S. military weapons and aid? Not just the good guys.

Opportunities everywhere with whoever as long as it is not Bin Laden... (anymore).

[Millennium]

Given how much this nation seems to be ruled by fear right now, I would say that the terrorists definitely have the advantage at this point. I wouldn't say, however, that they've won yet, as they have in certain other regions which shall remain nameless.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Given how much this nation seems to be ruled by fear right now, I would say that the terrorists definitely have the advantage at this point. I wouldn't say, however, that they've won yet, as they have in certain other regions which shall remain nameless.

One wonders though who makes a profit ($$) now from this situation.

[danielsh]

The War on Terror is a complete farce. President Bush will, no doubt, publicize bin Laden's capture a week before the election. He'll save Saddam's trial for when his poll numbers drop below a certain point. The entire 'War' is politically motivated; an excuse to curtail civil liberties and hack away at human rights in the name of Order and Stability.

[Secret__Police]

Originally posted by danielsh:
The War on Terror is a complete farce. President Bush will, no doubt, publicize bin Laden's capture a week before the election. He'll save Saddam's trial for when his poll numbers drop below a certain point. The entire 'War' is politically motivated; an excuse to curtail civil liberties and hack away at human rights in the name of Order and Stability.

[Libin8tor]

Originally posted by danielsh:
The War on Terror is a complete farce. President Bush will, no doubt, publicize bin Laden's capture a week before the election. He'll save Saddam's trial for when his poll numbers drop below a certain point. The entire 'War' is politically motivated; an excuse to curtail civil liberties and hack away at human rights in the name of Order and Stability.

He doesn't need Bin Laden to win the election. It would be nice to see him get him soon before the election, nothing like sealing the fate of the democrats. How sweet that would be! This is a great election, and has been very entertaining.

I just love it when you dems foaminate and create these conspiracy theories out of thin air. Most amusing.

[danielsh]

Foaminate! Holy crud, we've got the next President on our hands here!

Anyway, Bush does need something to win the election. The 9/11 commission is exposing the truth about his horrible negligence, and the resultant tragedy. His foreign policy took a sudden flood of goodwill towards America and turned it into a sudden flood of hatred. His domestic policy is oppressive and self-serving at best, corporation-centric and moralizing at worst. All of this is going to come to the attention of the American public---even despite the media's failure to properly attack the man---over the next few months.

No, John Kerry is not the perfect candidate, but he's not a lying, cheating, stealing imperialist either. So it's a slight improvement.

[netgear]

Originally posted by danielsh:
Foaminate! Holy crud, we've got the next President on our hands here!

Anyway, Bush does need something to win the election. The 9/11 commission is exposing the truth about his horrible negligence, and the resultant tragedy. His foreign policy took a sudden flood of goodwill towards America and turned it into a sudden flood of hatred. His domestic policy is oppressive and self-serving at best, corporation-centric and moralizing at worst. All of this is going to come to the attention of the American public---even despite the media's failure to properly attack the man---over the next few months.

No, John Kerry is not the perfect candidate, but he's not a lying, cheating, stealing imperialist either. So it's a slight improvement.

Are we taking about the same John Kerry whose net worth is above $200,000,000? The John Kerry wiht ten times the assets of Bush?

[Spliffdaddy]

the 9/11 investigation has helped to sway MORE people to agree with Dubya.

Check the polls.

It's Condi finishing well ahead of Clarke when the question is "who do you believe is telling the truth?".

[danielsh]

Originally posted by netgear:
Are we taking about the same John Kerry whose net worth is above $200,000,000? The John Kerry wiht ten times the assets of Bush?

I think so. Are we talking about the same post, wherein I said that he was not the perfect candidate?

Spliff: I don't trust polls, and never have. They'll start to have a bit more meaning as we get closer to election day, but I don't think that they're all that accurate.

[alphasubzero949]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
the 9/11 investigation has helped to sway MORE people to agree with Dubya.

Check the polls.

It's Condi finishing well ahead of Clarke when the question is "who do you believe is telling the truth?".

I wouldn't trust what the media reports either. Especially Clear Channel.

www.whitehouseforsale.org

[netgear]

Originally posted by danielsh:
I think so. Are we talking about the same post, wherein I said that he was not the perfect candidate?

Spliff: I don't trust polls, and never have. They'll start to have a bit more meaning as we get closer to election day, but I don't think that they're all that accurate.

Well, if you were talking about lying cheating imperialists then John Kerry isn't the man to vote for either. Has the guy ever worked for anything in his entire life? How could he possibly be in touch with the average American?

[phoenixboy]

the ones winning are the ones who are interested in taking away civil liberties, pushing anti-human agendas and making shure that the rich get richer, and the poor stay poor...those who profit from war, drug trades, extorsion and religious fanatisism.

i think it's time to start a "war" on neoconservativism and religious fanatisism.

[Sven G]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
the ones winning are the ones who are interested in taking away civil liberties, pushing anti-human agendas and making shure that the rich get richer, and the poor stay poor...those who profit from war, drug trades, extorsion and religious fanatisism.

i think it's time to start a "war" on neoconservativism and religious fanatisism.

Or, even better, let them eventually collapse under their own weight: the foundations of their power-deliriousness are quite fragile and eroded, indeed!

[danielsh]

Originally posted by netgear:
Well, if you were talking about lying cheating imperialists then John Kerry isn't the man to vote for either. Has the guy ever worked for anything in his entire life? How could he possibly be in touch with the average American?

Simple: The average American doesn't like the FBI listening to his telephone conversations. Or the President starting wars to line his buddies' pockets with bloody money. Or his government lying to him every single freaking day. Once again, John Kerry's far from perfect. But he's also a heck of a lot closer than Bush.

Sven: If only.

Phoenix: Amen!

[Sandbaggins]

Originally posted by danielsh:
Foaminate! Holy crud, we've got the next President on our hands here!

He said Foaminate...not Fornicate.

[Ayelbourne]

Obviously, we are losing the War On Terriers. There are more of the little bastids walking our sidewalks than ever before... with their nasty little wiry black fur and disgusting habits - they're animals, I tell you! Nothing but animals! I say we leash them all, and if that doesn't work: euthanasia. Yes, I know it sounds harsh - but that's the only way to deal with these radical Caninists. If we don't deal with this threat now, who knows what pile of trouble we will step into in the future?

And when we've finally stamped them out, we can go after the Terrierist Sympathisers in our midsts - those misguided traitors whimpering their slogans of appeasement: "But, they can be trained! He won't do it again, I promise!" and "Oh, but isn't he just the cutest little thing? Look at his adorable little whiskers!"

Disgusting.

In perilous times like these, we need a president who is "Tough On Terriers"! Ask yourself: is John Kerry that man? Nope, didn't think so.

Hell, he's probably got a nice little doggy bed in his living room, filled with chew toys.

[netgear]

Simple: The average American doesn't like the FBI listening to his telephone conversations.

You obviously haven't heard of the NSA? Been doing it for a very long time.

Don't like the idea then get a mobile phone. Totally anonymous if you feel your conversation just might get you into trouble.

Or the President starting wars to line his buddies' pockets with bloody money.

Now who is more likely to owe big favors to big companies? A person with little to no assets or a person who stands to make even hundreds of millions more from his current investments?

Or his government lying to him every single freaking day.

Show me one government in the history of man that always told the truth.

[netgear]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
the ones winning are the ones who are interested in taking away civil liberties, pushing anti-human agendas and making shure that the rich get richer, and the poor stay poor...those who profit from war, drug trades, extorsion and religious fanatisism.

i think it's time to start a "war" on neoconservativism and religious fanatisism.

The rich will always get richer and the poor poorer. This basic concept of nature has nothing to do with being Republican or Democrat. If being a Democrat means being poorer and helping the poor then explain John Kerry's personal wealth being 10 times that of George Bush's.

Deal with it or get the hell out of the way.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by netgear:
The rich will always get richer and the poor poorer. This basic concept of nature[....]
Deal with it or get the hell out of the way.

I'm impressed.

The admittance of the utter failure of a system, and the implicit acceptance of inevitable violent revolution.

From a Republican.



LA was just the beginning, my friend.

-s*

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by netgear:
Show me one government in the history of man that always told the truth.

So that is the excuse?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by netgear:
The rich will always get richer and the poor poorer. This basic concept of nature has nothing to do with being Republican or Democrat.

Do you mean absolutely, or relatively? In absolute terms, the rich have become richer, and the poor have become richer. What once were luxuries -- access to food, electricity, indoor plumbing, cars, refrigerators, telephones, electric or gas ovens, television, free public K-12 education, and so on -- those are all things that the poor have access to as well. So the "the poor get poorer" line is, in absolute terms, bunk.

Secondly, there is also considerable social mobility for individuals and individual families. So what the picture is demographically doesn't tell you how it is perceived on an individual basis. There is some endemic, multiple generation poverty in this country. But there are an awful lot of people who have seen their own fortunes improve, and even more who see that they are basically wealthier than their parents and/or who expect their children to be wealthier than them.

[finboy]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
One wonders though who makes a profit ($$) now from this situation.

No, one doesn't. One implies that there's some evil conspiracy afoot, without one actually naming it.

[finboy]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Do you mean absolutely, or relatively? In absolute terms, the rich have become richer, and the poor have become richer. What once were luxuries -- access to food, electricity, indoor plumbing, cars, refrigerators, telephones, electric or gas ovens, television, free public K-12 education, and so on -- those are all things that the poor have access to as well. So the "the poor get poorer" line is, in absolute terms, bunk.

Secondly, there is also considerable social mobility for individuals and individual families. So what the picture is demographically doesn't tell you how it is perceived on an individual basis. There is some endemic, multiple generation poverty in this country. But there are an awful lot of people who have seen their own fortunes improve, and even more who see that they are basically wealthier than their parents and/or who expect their children to be wealthier than them.

What he said.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by finboy:
No, one doesn't. One implies that there's some evil conspiracy afoot, without one actually naming it.

Who said conspiracy?

The article reports that:

1) U.S. gives money to support countries for the WOT.
2) Some of those countries saw their status change so they could be supported financially
3) Some of these countries were recognized as not compliant with Human Rights
4) Said money is used to buy U.S. weapons and military support

Nobody said "conspiracy".

It is just business as usual!

And it pays apparently!

One might add as well the issue related to the use of private companies to do some military work. Once you privatize a war, or sectors of that war, how can you guarantee this war will be operated according to the need for peace? Aren't private interests potentially in an ethical situation? Who decides? How are contracts drafted? Who verifies the job?

I think this is a subject that requires some discussion...

[netgear]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Do you mean absolutely, or relatively? In absolute terms, the rich have become richer, and the poor have become richer. What once were luxuries -- access to food, electricity, indoor plumbing, cars, refrigerators, telephones, electric or gas ovens, television, free public K-12 education, and so on -- those are all things that the poor have access to as well. So the "the poor get poorer" line is, in absolute terms, bunk.

Secondly, there is also considerable social mobility for individuals and individual families. So what the picture is demographically doesn't tell you how it is perceived on an individual basis. There is some endemic, multiple generation poverty in this country. But there are an awful lot of people who have seen their own fortunes improve, and even more who see that they are basically wealthier than their parents and/or who expect their children to be wealthier than them.

That is how I see things. In this country if you are poor it's because you usually choose to be that way.

If you really want to see poor people then go to a Third World country. The poor in the United States really don't have a clue as to what poverty really is.

[netgear]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
So that is the excuse?

He did mention being tired of his government lying to him.

Show me a government that doesn't lie. Please, show me one.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by netgear:
The rich will always get richer and the poor poorer. This basic concept of nature

suuuure!

social darwinism much? please learn about the basic concept of nature, and then get back to us!

[swrate]

Who is winning WOT?
It is pending, bush will not give up, a firm grip is needed, but is this the right way? I am left sinking.
The question is: does the Pentagon understand terrorism?

"Know your enemy to win a war."
A US president said, Franklin?

To know an enemy, better understand their motivations.
A winner has a good strategy.

Is WOT Iraq only? Weapons, "good opportunities".
Who is feeding retaliation? Why?
Brigades

Another leader you will know who----
a dictator thought: "War is good for economy", also an adept on expanding pipelines. 33-> needed oil too.
Derailing sorry.
Silver Gold Train


None is winning none is losing, and I fear this will go further, now, provisions/trades around weapons/security fields are increasing.

Sorry for my pessimistic outlook.

[christ]

Originally posted by netgear:
That is how I see things.

Now, let's look at this.

You said:

"The rich will always get richer and the poor poorer. This basic concept of nature"

Simey said:

"In absolute terms, the rich have become richer, and the poor have become richer."

You said:

"That is how I see things"

You disagreed with yourself.

You said:

"In this country if you are poor it's because you usually choose to be that way."

Simey said:

"There is some endemic, multiple generation poverty in this country."

You said:

"That is how I see things"

You disagreed with yourself.

If there is anyone that can start a brawl anywhere, it is a guy that disagrees with himself.

[netgear]

Do the poor not get poorer in respect to the rich getting richer? I hardly contradicted myself.

If John has $100 this year and Sam has $10, then, next year John has $200 but Sam only has $20 didn't Sam get poorer with respect to John? But if you look at Sam year to year he doubled his net worth! The Democrats would lead us to believe that Sam is poor, in poverty, and needs to have money taken from John in order to equalize the situation. Nevermind that Sam now has twice a much as he did before!

And, for the the most part, people choose to be poor. They don't save, they waste money on things which aren't necessary for survival, etc. The conscious choice may not be "I think I'll be poor" but through bad spending habits and lack of discipline the end result is the same through a series of bad choices. And if one generation makes poor choices then it's more likely the subsequent generation will inherit the same thinking (not to mention not having any wealth to inherit either).

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by netgear:
And, for the the most part, people choose to be poor. They don't save, they waste money on things which aren't necessary for survival, etc. The conscious choice may not be "I think I'll be poor" but through bad spending habits and lack of discipline the end result is the same through a series of bad choices. And if one generation makes poor choices then it's more likely the subsequent generation will inherit the same thinking (not to mention not having any wealth to inherit either).

I'd like some scientific studies to prove that.

Really, I want to know if this is real...

[netgear]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
I'd like some scientific studies to prove that.

Really, I want to know if this is real...

Well, what is it that makes one person smart? One dumb? One able to drop a ball through a hoop and another not able to hit the side of a barn right in front of them?

Why can a country like China with masses of poor people suddenly increase their standard of living? Why would a Chinese peasant give up everything to move to the city but someone in Mississippi or Appalachia won't?

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by netgear:
Well, what is it that makes one person smart? One dumb? One able to drop a ball through a hoop and another not able to hit the side of a barn right in front of them?

Why can a country like China with masses of poor people suddenly increase their standard of living? Why would a Chinese peasant give up everything to move to the city but someone in Mississippi or Appalachia won't?

Again:

Prove your point with solid documentation...

Stop rationalizing.

[netgear]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
Again:

Prove your point with solid documentation...

Stop rationalizing.

What you're asking is trying to quantify something unmeasurable like comparing how much one person loves another with respect to another couple. There's simply too many factors involved to make a fair assessment, however, I would argue that ability to control spending is most important in determining wealth (at least at the beginning). Wealth is like a cancer, once it reaches critical mass it's next to impossible to stop. For example, if I had another $100,000 I could stop working and maintain my current lifestyle simply on interest earnings alone. But when I was 18 I was so "poor" that I bounced checks to survive. Now, what happened in the meantime between then and today? I never inherited any money, never won the lottery, never got help from anyone. For me it was controlling what I spent to stop wasting it on things such as $20 meals out, movies, beer, alcohol, etc.

I know it's anecdotal but the vast majority of the people I know who are "broke" are that way simply because they waste their money. It's not due to not making enough in the first place. Consume too much and your debt will consume you in the process.

[danielsh]

Originally posted by netgear:
And, for the the most part, people choose to be poor. They don't save, they waste money on things which aren't necessary for survival, etc. The conscious choice may not be "I think I'll be poor" but through bad spending habits and lack of discipline the end result is the same through a series of bad choices. And if one generation makes poor choices then it's more likely the subsequent generation will inherit the same thinking (not to mention not having any wealth to inherit either).

Jacob A. Riis, a social reformer (who was not an altogether good man, but that's not the point), once said that the poor are "the victims, not the makers, of their fate." No one would choose to be poor, that assertion is baseless and absurd. Does the man who was born in the inner city, never educated, never encouraged to succeed, never given a glimpse of the possibilities of the world, have the same chance for success as a man who was born in a WASP town, educated at a good school, pushed into a good college, and encouraged to become a lawyer, or corporate tycoon, or oppressor of the innocent? Of course not.

I would agree that poverty is passed from generation to generation, but do you propose that the second generation is to blame, then? If a boy's father, an alcoholic, beats him daily and crushes his spirit, do you blame the boy? No, you blame the father. But why is the father an alcoholic to begin with? Perhaps because no matter how hard he works, no matter how much he saves, no matter what he does or tries in life, he is forced by his surroundings into a life of poverty.

[Libin8tor]

Originally posted by danielsh:
Jacob A. Riis, a social reformer (who was not an altogether good man, but that's not the point), once said that the poor are "the victims, not the makers, of their fate." No one would choose to be poor, that assertion is baseless and absurd. Does the man who was born in the inner city, never educated, never encouraged to succeed, never given a glimpse of the possibilities of the world, have the same chance for success as a man who was born in a WASP town, educated at a good school, pushed into a good college, and encouraged to become a lawyer, or corporate tycoon, or oppressor of the innocent? Of course not.

I would agree that poverty is passed from generation to generation, but do you propose that the second generation is to blame, then? If a boy's father, an alcoholic, beats him daily and crushes his spirit, do you blame the boy? No, you blame the father. But why is the father an alcoholic to begin with? Perhaps because no matter how hard he works, no matter how much he saves, no matter what he does or tries in life, he is forced by his surroundings into a life of poverty.

What was that vomitous mass of gobble-D-goop? Bhaaaaaaaaaa. Humbug.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by netgear:
What you're asking is trying to quantify something unmeasurable like comparing how much one person loves another with respect to another couple. There's simply too many factors involved to make a fair assessment, however, I would argue that ability to control spending is most important in determining wealth (at least at the beginning). Wealth is like a cancer, once it reaches critical mass it's next to impossible to stop. For example, if I had another $100,000 I could stop working and maintain my current lifestyle simply on interest earnings alone. But when I was 18 I was so "poor" that I bounced checks to survive. Now, what happened in the meantime between then and today? I never inherited any money, never won the lottery, never got help from anyone. For me it was controlling what I spent to stop wasting it on things such as $20 meals out, movies, beer, alcohol, etc.

I know it's anecdotal but the vast majority of the people I know who are "broke" are that way simply because they waste their money. It's not due to not making enough in the first place. Consume too much and your debt will consume you in the process.

If you are to make a judgment on people, do it with hard facts.

Otherwise, it is a generalization based on anecdotal observations. It has value to you, and those who share your methods. But only for that group of people.

I understand you feel right about it because that's what seems to be your reality.

But there are many of us (you included) with various experiences and their take on reality may be different, and they can still be right.

Respectfully,

angaq0k

[netgear]

Originally posted by danielsh:
Jacob A. Riis, a social reformer (who was not an altogether good man, but that's not the point), once said that the poor are "the victims, not the makers, of their fate." No one would choose to be poor, that assertion is baseless and absurd. Does the man who was born in the inner city, never educated, never encouraged to succeed, never given a glimpse of the possibilities of the world, have the same chance for success as a man who was born in a WASP town, educated at a good school, pushed into a good college, and encouraged to become a lawyer, or corporate tycoon, or oppressor of the innocent? Of course not.

I would agree that poverty is passed from generation to generation, but do you propose that the second generation is to blame, then? If a boy's father, an alcoholic, beats him daily and crushes his spirit, do you blame the boy? No, you blame the father. But why is the father an alcoholic to begin with? Perhaps because no matter how hard he works, no matter how much he saves, no matter what he does or tries in life, he is forced by his surroundings into a life of poverty.

Then why is he wasting precious money on alcohol?

[netgear]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
If you are to make a judgment on people, do it with hard facts.

Otherwise, it is a generalization based on anecdotal observations. It has value to you, and those who share your methods. But only for that group of people.

I understand you feel right about it because that's what seems to be your reality.

But there are many of us (you included) with various experiences and their take on reality may be different, and they can still be right.

Respectfully,

angaq0k

I see it as reality (maybe it was just stepping on the right crack on the sidewalk) but somehow I went from penniless to owning my own business. I'm confused as to how that happens. How many people today have made it without a bit of help? Yet some people are nothing more than leeches on society and money pits and no matter what you or the government does they still end up poor without a pot to piss in.

I got no help, my parents were divorced. My father was an alcoholic, blah blah blah. I could have easily said "aw, heck, it's not my fault. My parents are divorced. No wonder the deck is stacked against me."

The problem with society now is that we all want to blame our problems on something or someone else instead of trying to do something about our current situation. It's never "oh, I'm poor because it's my fault for being lazy." Now it's "oh, I'm poor because my father beat me or my grandfather of three generations ago didn't finish college." I'm sick of hearing how it's someone else's fault for a perfectly capable person's inability to make it today.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by netgear:
Then why is he wasting precious money on alcohol?

I am glad you ask because it provides me an opportunity to answer and reconnect the whole thing on who is winning the war on terror.

I know the question is addressed to danielsh, but I think I can provide my input since the thread is about the winners of the war on terror.

Alcohol is an anesthetic; it provides a way to dumb a lot of emotions, especially sadness and anger. But the effect does not last, and soon, some people are using more than they should.

Now why would people use alcohol to dumb their feelings?

It is used often (but not always) when people are dispossessed of their power to value themselves, or are hurt in their self-esteem. Get a man a job, but remove all opportunities to grow and feel proud of himself by putting him down constantly, and the grief will grow. But people need self appreciation. They need a way to get back some power. So they will take it on their kids... or their wives... or the dog...

I am not saying its OK. I am saying that it's not just a question of not spending the precious money; it's about feeling good about one self. That man will never feel good about himself because the power he gets from oppresing his wife, his kids and his dog does not make him feel any better. So he drinks more, yet he is still looking for a way to get some self-esteem in his misguided way...

Some terrorist are the same, especially the followers. The leaders are may have been through this search of self-esteem, or they may be completly psycho. What they need is someone to give them credit to their beliefs, whatever these beliefs may be.

In the search to retrieve some pride back, the dispossessed of this world will follow any leader who will provide them with a way to do justice for themselves. Even the craziest ones.

The Middle East countries are all totalitarian states. the population is suffering and the rich are getting richer from their national resources for which they lose land and pride. A land to live on and the pride of doing something by themselves for themselves.

Like you netgear, who is self-sufficient, they aspire for the same, but do not have that freedom. And they often do not have that freedom of that opportunity to try because most industrialized countries are giving their dictators the money they need to buy the weapons to control them.

After a while, poverty and helplessness turns into rage and it becomes easy to use a religious rethoric to rationalize their victimization and search for a will to revenge and do justice. At that point, I think people are just desparate and will either kill themselves or bring other innocent people with them.

And yes, there is also a place for sociopaths to get others killed and leave untouched.

In the process, we are arming those terrorists when it suits our needs. But then, we arm others when that first bunch gets out of control. We use them to create unrest as well, which facilitates the control of the population (by fear, by government destabilization) and on the same token, we take their resources and give them the good money they need to buy our weapons...

Edit: I feel I was a bit patronizing after posting this. I am sorry for that overtone...

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by netgear:
I see it as reality (maybe it was just stepping on the right crack on the sidewalk) but somehow I went from penniless to owning my own business. I'm confused as to how that happens. How many people today have made it without a bit of help? Yet some people are nothing more than leeches on society and money pits and no matter what you or the government does they still end up poor without a pot to piss in.

I got no help, my parents were divorced. My father was an alcoholic, blah blah blah. I could have easily said "aw, heck, it's not my fault. My parents are divorced. No wonder the deck is stacked against me."

The problem with society now is that we all want to blame our problems on something or someone else instead of trying to do something about our current situation. It's never "oh, I'm poor because it's my fault for being lazy." Now it's "oh, I'm poor because my father beat me or my grandfather of three generations ago didn't finish college." I'm sick of hearing how it's someone else's fault for a perfectly capable person's inability to make it today.

Well, congratulations to your success! I am glad it worked well for you and certainly you own all that success to your stamina, your intelligence, your determination and your ability to stay focused.

But not everybody is like you, unfortunately. And opportunities are not always the same either.

But sincerily, good for you!

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by netgear:
And, for the the most part, people choose to be poor. They don't save, they waste money on things which aren't necessary for survival, etc. The conscious choice may not be "I think I'll be poor" but through bad spending habits and lack of discipline the end result is the same through a series of bad choices.

this is the typical conservative bullsh1t all the neocons peddle.

let me tell ya something here. if you are making minimum wage (or less), there IS NOY WAY YOU CAN SAVE ANYTHING! hello!!!

there are things that are called "fixed costs" like rent, food, medical bills, etc.! (not to mention other things people NEED as well, - no, simple survival will NOT CUT IT!!!!!)

all this crap about "making the right choices", "discipline" etc. are all apologetic lies to justify a system and politics which DO NOT give everybody the same chance at a healthy life, or in some cases even survival.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by netgear:
I see it as reality (maybe it was just stepping on the right crack on the sidewalk) but somehow I went from penniless to owning my own business.

when did this happen? in the 90s? or even earlier?

[netgear]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
this is the typical conservative bullsh1t all the neocons peddle.

let me tell ya something here. if you are making minimum wage (or less), there IS NOY WAY YOU CAN SAVE ANYTHING! hello!!!

there are things that are called "fixed costs" like rent, food, medical bills, etc.! (not to mention other things people NEED as well, - no, simple survival will NOT CUT IT!!!!!)

all this crap about "making the right choices", "discipline" etc. are all apologetic lies to justify a system and politics which DO NOT give everybody the same chance at a healthy life, or in some cases even survival.

I did. You know what minimum wage used to be? $3.35 an hour. That's $536.00 per month about 25 years ago. That was plenty to live on. If you couldn't then something was seriously wrong with you.

Simple "survival" won't cut it? No wonder you expect your neighbor to pitch in to support you. What a totally typical liberal arrogant SOB you are.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by netgear:
I did. You know what minimum wage used to be? $3.35 an hour. That's $536.00 per month about 25 years ago.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL. 25 years ago, - yeah right. this is 2004, not 1979!!!!

[netgear]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
Well, congratulations to your success! I am glad it worked well for you and certainly you own all that success to your stamina, your intelligence, your determination and your ability to stay focused.

But not everybody is like you, unfortunately. And opportunities are not always the same either.

But sincerily, good for you!

You what it takes? Find a need and satisfy it. I for example realized many years ago that real estate agents don't always tell the truth when it comes to telling a potential homeowner the relevant facts they need in considering the purchase of a house. So I worked as a waiter for several years so that I could save the money to buy my first computer that I could then use to look up such data as income level, school performance, property values, etc. for a chosen house. Things that would be very useful to a potential home buyer, sort of like a consultant. I worked overtime and any hours that I could to save money for the time when I knew I would need it. You'd be amazed at how many people simply turn down the chance to work extra hours because going out on a date or to a movie is way more important than paying their rent this month. So I jumped at the opportunity to earn extra money and saved it. Once I had what I needed (and money saved for a year's worth of rent) I quite and began advertizing for about $10 a week in the local paper. That's all I spent to get my business up and running (aside from a $4000 computer...my God remember when a 486 was that much money?). I even gave away the first booklets for free just to get good word of mouth. Now I charge about $200 per house to investigate it (works out to be about $25 per hour) and provide a neutral information sheet to potential home buyers. You'd be a amazed at how few real estate agents actually bother or come close to telling the truth about a neighborhood. Their main concern is commission and that's it.

That's how a successful business makes it. Doesn't require much intelligence or even a college degree! Christ, even Bill Gates didn't finish college and look where he's at now. All it takes is the recognition of a good idea and how to impliment it.

Some people are just content with being employees. I was never content until I was the employer.

[Edit for converting wage into hourly rate]

[netgear]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL. 25 years ago, - yeah right. this is 2004, not 1979!!!!

25 years ago a 1 bedroom apartment cost about $225 per month. Out of $535 per month full time you were left with $300 per month.

Ok, today, where I live MW is about $7.00 per hour. That's $1120 per month and assuming you always get stuck at the bottom (if you do then something's wrong with you and maybe it would be better for all of us if you slit your wrists). A "luxury" 1 bedroom apartment runs about $500 per month. That leaves $600 a month. Since you make such "little" money then your tax burden is extremely small so maybe your remaining net is about $450-$500 per month. That's only if you work 40 hours per week.

If you can't make it on that then something's wrong.

[netgear]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
Well, congratulations to your success! I am glad it worked well for you and certainly you own all that success to your stamina, your intelligence, your determination and your ability to stay focused.

But not everybody is like you, unfortunately. And opportunities are not always the same either.

But sincerily, good for you!

Mental attitude is a large part of it. Prior to my parent's divorce my mother was very successful in real estate. When my parents divorced she went into the bottle, got involved with the wrong men, and soon was in a total rut over what to do with her life since teh divorce. Always blaming someone else for her problems.

10 years later she finally comes to the realization that if SHE doesn't do something about her life then nobody will. Within a year or two of pulling herself out of the blame game then suddenly the ability to success resurfaces and now once again she can sell real estate without a problem.

As long as we are blaming someone else for life's problems we're never going to do a thing for ourself.

[netgear]

And one more thing I find humorous: my brother and sister-in-law make about $125,000 per year between them. Know how much money they have in the bank? $0. They are in massive debt for a house, two vehicles, and two college degrees. Not only that but they spend every dime they make. Sure, they have a "nice" house and "nice" vehicles but so what? Life's about more than just shiny cars and the latest technological gadgets.

Between the two they make almost 3 times in one year compared to what I do but I currently have about $50,000 in my bank account. And, on top of it all I don't even work 40 hours per week. They constantly whine about not having enough money despite making 3 times what I do! It's because they are slaves to their possessions and I'm not.