Re: OT: The Liberal Character Flaw

Giosue wrote: 
Melanie Lynch wrote:

Mark Cipra wrote:

"Eagle" <eaglenewsgroup@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1127626326.026573.282100@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

dgsweet wrote:

The Bushes have
enough wealth to be able to choose pretty freely how they behave. Poor
people have much more limited choice, by definition. 



They have more limited choice in material possessions, and access to
exclusive clubs, etc., but that doesn't change the range of options for
behavior.  Rich or poor, one can be a kind and considerate individual,
or one can be a self-absorbed callous ***.  Money has nothing to do
with the basic behavior and outlook of an individual.  It's one's
individual choice.  Behavior has to do with the wealth in a person's
soul.





There is some truth in this, but ...

The wealthy and privileged can flee a hurricane in a car or a plane, while
knowing that leaving behind their possessions will result in the discomfort
of having to replace them, but not total personal ruin. The poor do not
have these options and must remain behind and "loot". The liberal
perspective would be, I think, that in less extreme circumstances, the
choices we must make are different in degree, but not in kind.



No, the poor who must stay behind don't have to loot; they must simply try to stay alive and if that meant breaking into grocery store for diapers for children water, food, etc, then I can condone that. It wasn't the poor per se who were stealing the TV's or breaking into drug stores - those were criminals and while they may have also been poor, they were first and foremost criminals. Kind of along the lines of we may be of the animal kingdom, but that doesn't justify acting like an animal.

I have to echo Eagle's concept of choices. It is all about choices and goals. If you think it's cool to hang around on the street corners with your pants hanging off your hips and showing everyone at best your underwear, at worst your crack, then you may be a rocket in your 20's but you have flamed out by your 30's. Sometimes I can't help but wonder if Johnson's Great Society, however altruistic is was at the time, wasn't the biggest disservice the "haves" did to the "have nots". And I agree with everything Cosby has said, but I also feel that his comments are not necessarily restricted to blacks.

Melanie

You're a total ***, you don't have the first clue what its like to be ghetto-ized be society and have NO REAL choice but to conform and that means baggy jeans and the lot. I am shocked and amazed at how easily people condemn the "other"

Im literally physicall ill....

My, My, Omniscient are we? And you would know that how? On the contrary, I know exactly what it is to be ghetto-ized as you put it. I lived itn when I was in my 20's and broke with no job. Have you ever? It may have been my present at one time, but I damn sure knew I didn't want it to be my future so did what I had to do to get out. And you know what? Even out of it and in another state, I live next door it it. Literally across the street. And I see it every single day. I hear the attitude, the expectance of public support, of being told that paying $250 for a subsidized apartment is too much and I am stupid because I don't get a subsidized apartment in the projects with them instead of paying my own freight. I'm making three times what they bring home and I'm stupid? Kind of confirms the definition, doesn't it?

So by saying that they have no choice, you are saying it is justifiable for someone to simply loot and steal whenever because they live in a ghetto? I will not return your percieved insult by calling you an asshoe or worse. I will, however, say that you have demonstrated that you are simply rude, nasty, and consistently quick to personally attack a poster you don't agree with. Almost as though you've take lessons from or are perhaps related to ............. Nah.
.

Loading