"shinypenny" <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Meanwhile, we've got serious economic and political issues. I want to hear what the candidates have to say about those.

I don't. Because they say the same things time and time again. What did they
say last time? The time before that? And before that? How about the
eighties? The seventies? They say the same things, and very little changes.
We'll always have economic issues, we'll always have haves and have nots.
I'll spend my energy making sure I'm a have.

To me, politics is entertainment, and little more.

"JWB" <awayspam2973@noplace.com> writes:
"shinypenny" <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote in message Meanwhile, we've got serious economic and political issues. I want to hear what the candidates have to say about those. I don't. Because they say the same things time and time again. What did they say last time? The time before that? And before that? How about the eighties? The seventies? They say the same things, and very little changes. We'll always have economic issues, we'll always have haves and have nots. I'll spend my energy making sure I'm a have.

I agree that they are all pretty terrible as far as what they say.
But think about noticing what they actually _do_. Our current
administration is engaged in highway robbery at home, and doing
everything possible to alienate other nations abroad.

This is a change from, say, the previous administration.

"JWB" <awayspam2973@noplace.com> wrote in message news:<gb4_b.82880$Lp.27936@twister.nyc.rr.com>... "shinypenny" <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote in message Meanwhile, we've got serious economic and political issues. I want to hear what the candidates have to say about those. I don't. Because they say the same things time and time again. What did they say last time? The time before that? And before that? How about the eighties? The seventies? They say the same things, and very little changes. We'll always have economic issues, we'll always have haves and have nots. I'll spend my energy making sure I'm a have. To me, politics is entertainment, and little more.

Do you vote?

jen

Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<vQ5_b.367752$I06.3840768@attbi_s01>... "JWB" <awayspam2973@noplace.com> writes: "shinypenny" <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote in message Meanwhile, we've got serious economic and political issues. I want to hear what the candidates have to say about those. I don't. Because they say the same things time and time again. What did they say last time? The time before that? And before that? How about the eighties? The seventies? They say the same things, and very little changes. We'll always have economic issues, we'll always have haves and have nots. I'll spend my energy making sure I'm a have. I agree that they are all pretty terrible as far as what they say. But think about noticing what they actually _do_. Our current administration is engaged in highway robbery at home, and doing everything possible to alienate other nations abroad. This is a change from, say, the previous administration.


Yep. This current administration is downright apalling. I think it
would be a real shame if Bush pinned his election hopes on this one
issue, and he ended up winning because people are overly emotional
about something that's none of their business. The highway robbery and
international affairs ARE our business. Let's stick to that.

jen

"shinypenny" <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c8cb5319.0402221525.9ce1b54@posting.google.co m... "JWB" <awayspam2973@noplace.com> wrote in message
news:<gb4_b.82880$Lp.27936@twister.nyc.rr.com>... "shinypenny" <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote in message Meanwhile, we've got serious economic and political issues. I want to hear what the candidates have to say about those. I don't. Because they say the same things time and time again. What did
they say last time? The time before that? And before that? How about the eighties? The seventies? They say the same things, and very little
changes. We'll always have economic issues, we'll always have haves and have
nots. I'll spend my energy making sure I'm a have. To me, politics is entertainment, and little more. Do you vote?

Every year. But I don't think it really matters.

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vQ5_b.367752$I06.3840768@attbi_s01... "JWB" <awayspam2973@noplace.com> writes: "shinypenny" <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote in message Meanwhile, we've got serious economic and political issues. I want to hear what the candidates have to say about those. I don't. Because they say the same things time and time again. What did
they say last time? The time before that? And before that? How about the eighties? The seventies? They say the same things, and very little
changes. We'll always have economic issues, we'll always have haves and have
nots. I'll spend my energy making sure I'm a have. I agree that they are all pretty terrible as far as what they say. But think about noticing what they actually _do_. Our current administration is engaged in highway robbery at home, and doing everything possible to alienate other nations abroad. This is a change from, say, the previous administration.

We ARE being robbed blind by the very businesses that comprise
the capitalist system. And, they are doing their duty to their stockholders
when they rob us.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/

Read "Tax Me If You Can".

"JWB" <awayspam2973@noplace.com> wrote in message news:<gb4_b.82880$Lp.27936@twister.nyc.rr.com>... "shinypenny" <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote in message Meanwhile, we've got serious economic and political issues. I want to hear what the candidates have to say about those. I don't. Because they say the same things time and time again. What did they say last time? The time before that? And before that? How about the eighties? The seventies? They say the same things, and very little changes. We'll always have economic issues, we'll always have haves and have nots. I'll spend my energy making sure I'm a have.

The gap between the haves and the have nots is growing.

To me, politics is entertainment, and little more.

"Jingle Bells" <jinglebells5555@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f804e152.0402231104.1fc86fad@posting.google.c om... "JWB" <awayspam2973@noplace.com> wrote in message
news:<gb4_b.82880$Lp.27936@twister.nyc.rr.com>... "shinypenny" <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote in message Meanwhile, we've got serious economic and political issues. I want to hear what the candidates have to say about those. I don't. Because they say the same things time and time again. What did
they say last time? The time before that? And before that? How about the eighties? The seventies? They say the same things, and very little
changes. We'll always have economic issues, we'll always have haves and have
nots. I'll spend my energy making sure I'm a have. The gap between the haves and the have nots is growing.

all the more reason to get on the good side.

"JWB" <awayspam2973@noplace.com> writes:
"Jingle Bells" <jinglebells5555@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:f804e152.0402231104.1fc86fad@posting.google.c om... "JWB" <awayspam2973@noplace.com> wrote in message news:<gb4_b.82880$Lp.27936@twister.nyc.rr.com>... "shinypenny" <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote in message > Meanwhile, we've got serious economic and political issues. I want to > hear what the candidates have to say about those. I don't. Because they say the same things time and time again. What did they say last time? The time before that? And before that? How about the eighties? The seventies? They say the same things, and very little changes. We'll always have economic issues, we'll always have haves and have nots. I'll spend my energy making sure I'm a have. The gap between the haves and the have nots is growing. all the more reason to get on the good side.

Not if it involves stealing from the poor to give to the rich.

(Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore riding through the woods.)

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 12:04:36 -0800, Doug Anderson wrote:

The gap between the haves and the have nots is growing. all the more reason to get on the good side. Not if it involves stealing from the poor to give to the rich. (Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore riding through the woods.)

Please enlighten me, how does one steal from the poor when they have so
little to steal?

I'm sorry, but it sounds more like a socialistic agenda rather than any
heartfelt compassionate concern. IMHO, of course.

Diana

"Dr. Di" <dianakd@comcast.net> writes:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 12:04:36 -0800, Doug Anderson wrote: > The gap between the haves and the have nots is growing. all the more reason to get on the good side. Not if it involves stealing from the poor to give to the rich. (Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore riding through the woods.) Please enlighten me, how does one steal from the poor when they have so little to steal?

For example by taxing them at a much higher rate than the wealthy.

For another example, by taking publicly owned resources (forests, and
other natural resources for mining, publicly owned ranch land) and
using tax dollars to make them cheaper for large corporations to
exploit.

For another example, gutting environmental regulations so that
everyone bears the costs of poor enivornmental practices so that a few
people who are already wealthy can become wealthier.
I'm sorry, but it sounds more like a socialistic agenda rather than any heartfelt compassionate concern. IMHO, of course.

Then you are mistaken. It is neither a socialistic agenda nor
heartfelt compassionate concern. Just a wish to have a country which
is governed in a fair and sustainable way.

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0wptc5y33f.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... "JWB" <awayspam2973@noplace.com> writes: "Jingle Bells" <jinglebells5555@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:f804e152.0402231104.1fc86fad@posting.google.c om... "JWB" <awayspam2973@noplace.com> wrote in message news:<gb4_b.82880$Lp.27936@twister.nyc.rr.com>... > "shinypenny" <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > > Meanwhile, we've got serious economic and political issues. I want
to > > hear what the candidates have to say about those. > > I don't. Because they say the same things time and time again. What
did they > say last time? The time before that? And before that? How about the > eighties? The seventies? They say the same things, and very little changes. > We'll always have economic issues, we'll always have haves and have nots. > I'll spend my energy making sure I'm a have. > The gap between the haves and the have nots is growing. all the more reason to get on the good side. Not if it involves stealing from the poor to give to the rich. (Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore riding through the woods.)

As long as the poor can afford their lupins.

Dr. Di wrote: On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 12:04:36 -0800, Doug Anderson wrote:> The gap between the haves and the have nots is growing. all the more reason to get on the good side. Not if it involves stealing from the poor to give to the rich. (Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore riding through the woods.) Please enlighten me, how does one steal from the poor when they have so little to steal?

You guys got it all backwards. What we really need to do is steal from the
rich, and give to the poor, ala Robin Hood.
I'm sorry, but it sounds more like a socialistic agenda rather than any heartfelt compassionate concern. IMHO, of course. Diana

"Bill in Co." <LostInTime&surly@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Naw_b.5580$yZ1.1495@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net... Dr. Di wrote: On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 12:04:36 -0800, Doug Anderson wrote:>> The gap between the haves and the have nots is growing.>> all the more reason to get on the good side. Not if it involves stealing from the poor to give to the rich. (Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore riding through the woods.) Please enlighten me, how does one steal from the poor when they have so little to steal? You guys got it all backwards. What we really need to do is steal from
the rich, and give to the poor, ala Robin Hood

Would you steal from the rich and give to the poor
alcoholic-who-hasn't-worked-a-day-in-the-last-decade?

Joy wrote: "Bill in Co." <LostInTime&surly@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:Naw_b.5580$yZ1.1495@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net... Dr. Di wrote: On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 12:04:36 -0800, Doug Anderson wrote:>>> The gap between the haves and the have nots is growing.>>>> all the more reason to get on the good side.>> Not if it involves stealing from the poor to give to the rich.>> (Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore riding through the woods.) Please enlighten me, how does one steal from the poor when they have so little to steal? You guys got it all backwards. What we really need to do is steal from the rich, and give to the poor, ala Robin Hood Would you steal from the rich and give to the poor alcoholic-who-hasn't-worked-a-day-in-the-last-decade?

Probably not!

"Dr. Di" <dianakd@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.02.23.20.24.50.782179@comcast.net... On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 12:04:36 -0800, Doug Anderson wrote: > The gap between the haves and the have nots is growing. all the more reason to get on the good side. Not if it involves stealing from the poor to give to the rich. (Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore riding through the woods.) Please enlighten me, how does one steal from the poor when they have so little to steal? I'm sorry, but it sounds more like a socialistic agenda rather than any heartfelt compassionate concern. IMHO, of course. Diana

As in all things in life, balance is the best alternative.

Capitalism MUST be balance by Socialism. There is no
alternative. Business without reigns will do as it is properly
meant to do and that is take everything.

People unmotivated by need will be come stagnant.

"Joy" <joydoesntlikespam@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:103l7qptc91s107@corp.supernews.com... "Bill in Co." <LostInTime&surly@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:Naw_b.5580$yZ1.1495@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net... Dr. Di wrote: On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 12:04:36 -0800, Doug Anderson wrote:>>> The gap between the haves and the have nots is growing.>>>> all the more reason to get on the good side.>> Not if it involves stealing from the poor to give to the rich.>> (Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore riding through the woods.) Please enlighten me, how does one steal from the poor when they have
so little to steal? You guys got it all backwards. What we really need to do is steal from the rich, and give to the poor, ala Robin Hood Would you steal from the rich and give to the poor alcoholic-who-hasn't-worked-a-day-in-the-last-decade?

I presume this is a slam on giving to the less fortunate.

urf wrote: "Joy" <joydoesntlikespam@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message news:103l7qptc91s107@corp.supernews.com... "Bill in Co." <LostInTime&surly@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:Naw_b.5580$yZ1.1495@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net... Dr. Di wrote:> On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 12:04:36 -0800, Doug Anderson wrote:>>>>>> The gap between the haves and the have nots is growing.>>>>>> all the more reason to get on the good side.>>>> Not if it involves stealing from the poor to give to the rich.>>>> (Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore riding through the woods.)>> Please enlighten me, how does one steal from the poor when they have so> little to steal? You guys got it all backwards. What we really need to do is steal from
the rich, and give to the poor, ala Robin Hood Would you steal from the rich and give to the poor alcoholic-who-hasn't-worked-a-day-in-the-last-decade? I presume this is a slam on giving to the less fortunate.

It may sound like that on the surface, but I don't think that is true - for
Joy. My guess is it struck a hot button (somewhat understandably), just like
we all have. (We'll, there may be a few here in denial of that fact, but you
know what I mean!)

Dr. Di <dianakd@comcast.net> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 12:04:36 -0800, Doug Anderson wrote: > The gap between the haves and the have nots is growing. all the more reason to get on the good side. Not if it involves stealing from the poor to give to the rich. (Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore riding through the woods.) Please enlighten me, how does one steal from the poor when they have so little to steal?

You can't steal from the destitute, but it is easy to steal from the
working poor. Jack up social security taxes beyond what is needed to
pay for the program and use the excess for general funds. Eliminate
overtime pay. Move them to working several part time jobs instead of
one full time jobs so they have no health care or benefits.
I'm sorry, but it sounds more like a socialistic agenda rather than any heartfelt compassionate concern. IMHO, of course.

Not at all. I am on the right side of the divide and happy to be there.
But looking around I notice that when the divide between haves and
have-nots becomes too wide, it gets very unpleasant for both halves.
Have you ever visited Brazil, for example?

There's a happy medium, where people who work hard can afford housing
and medical care, and have a chance to better themselves and provide
some kind of opportunities for their children.

"urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:BLM_b.2299$ax2.2226@nwrdny03.gnilink.net... "Joy" <joydoesntlikespam@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message news:103l7qptc91s107@corp.supernews.com... "Bill in Co." <LostInTime&surly@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:Naw_b.5580$yZ1.1495@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net... Dr. Di wrote: > On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 12:04:36 -0800, Doug Anderson wrote: > > >>>> The gap between the haves and the have nots is growing. >>> >>> all the more reason to get on the good side. >> >> Not if it involves stealing from the poor to give to the rich. >> >> (Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore riding through the woods.) > > Please enlighten me, how does one steal from the poor when they have so > little to steal? You guys got it all backwards. What we really need to do is steal
from the rich, and give to the poor, ala Robin Hood Would you steal from the rich and give to the poor alcoholic-who-hasn't-worked-a-day-in-the-last-decade? I presume this is a slam on giving to the less fortunate.

Not at all. It is a recognition that some are less fortunate through no
fault of their own and unable to do better, and deserve help - and some are
less fortunate because they choose to be, and stealing from the rich and
giving to them would be just enabling. You do have to exercise judgement.
I would - and do - support organizations that provide for the truly needy.
I'm also rather more closely acquainted than I would like with some who are
poor because they squander what they have. Also, while I only know a few
really wealthy people, the few that I do know got that way by doing things
like starting companies and working their tails off to make them successful.
I don't think it would be right to "steal" from those hard workers who did
well, either. (Note: this is not intended to imply that all rich people are
hard working wonderful people, any more than that all poor people are
wastrels. It is intended to imply that you shouldn't arbitrarily "steal"
from one category and "give" to another.)

"Joy" <joydoesntlikespam@nospam.yahoo.com> writes:
"urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message news:BLM_b.2299$ax2.2226@nwrdny03.gnilink.net... "Joy" <joydoesntlikespam@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message news:103l7qptc91s107@corp.supernews.com... "Bill in Co." <LostInTime&surly@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:Naw_b.5580$yZ1.1495@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net... > Dr. Di wrote: > > On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 12:04:36 -0800, Doug Anderson wrote: > > > > > >>>> The gap between the haves and the have nots is growing. > >>> > >>> all the more reason to get on the good side. > >> > >> Not if it involves stealing from the poor to give to the rich. > >> > >> (Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore riding through the woods.) > > > > Please enlighten me, how does one steal from the poor when they have so > > little to steal? > > You guys got it all backwards. What we really need to do is steal from the > rich, and give to the poor, ala Robin Hood Would you steal from the rich and give to the poor alcoholic-who-hasn't-worked-a-day-in-the-last-decade? I presume this is a slam on giving to the less fortunate. Not at all. It is a recognition that some are less fortunate through no fault of their own and unable to do better, and deserve help - and some are less fortunate because they choose to be, and stealing from the rich and giving to them would be just enabling. You do have to exercise judgement. I would - and do - support organizations that provide for the truly needy. I'm also rather more closely acquainted than I would like with some who are poor because they squander what they have. Also, while I only know a few really wealthy people, the few that I do know got that way by doing things like starting companies and working their tails off to make them successful.

There are certainly plenty of wealthy people who do that. Many
wealthy people, however, inherit wealth. And many others become
wealthy through fraud of one sort or another (e.g. the Enron crew), or
by taking advantage of people (CEOs who also chair boards that vote
them huge pay raises and bonuses even when the companies they head
_lose_ money).

Social stratification ensures that those of us who aren't wealthy are
unlikely to meet those who inherit wealth, and are more likely to meet
those from our own class who do well.
I don't think it would be right to "steal" from those hard workers who did well, either. (Note: this is not intended to imply that all rich people are hard working wonderful people, any more than that all poor people are wastrels. It is intended to imply that you shouldn't arbitrarily "steal" from one category and "give" to another.)

So do you think tax is theft?

Dr. Di wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 12:04:36 -0800, Doug Anderson wrote:>The gap between the haves and the have nots is growing.all the more reason to get on the good side.Not if it involves stealing from the poor to give to the rich.(Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore riding through the woods.) Please enlighten me, how does one steal from the poor when they have so little to steal? I'm sorry, but it sounds more like a socialistic agenda rather than any heartfelt compassionate concern. IMHO, of course. Diana

What is the "good side"? I have this sick, twisted need to rebel hard
as I can against "money"......I would give it all away......

amy

Joy wrote:
"Bill in Co." <LostInTime&surly@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:Naw_b.5580$yZ1.1495@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net...Dr. Di wrote:On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 12:04:36 -0800, Doug Anderson wrote:>>>The gap between the haves and the have nots is growing.>>>>all the more reason to get on the good side.>>Not if it involves stealing from the poor to give to the rich.>>(Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore riding through the woods.)Please enlighten me, how does one steal from the poor when they have solittle to steal?You guys got it all backwards. What we really need to do is steal from therich, and give to the poor, ala Robin Hood Would you steal from the rich and give to the poor alcoholic-who-hasn't-worked-a-day-in-the-last-decade?

I wouldn't "steal" but would absolutely feed him or give him a beer.

amy

"Joy" <joydoesntlikespam@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:103nsf1bk3jdtff@corp.supernews.com... "urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message news:BLM_b.2299$ax2.2226@nwrdny03.gnilink.net... "Joy" <joydoesntlikespam@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message news:103l7qptc91s107@corp.supernews.com... "Bill in Co." <LostInTime&surly@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:Naw_b.5580$yZ1.1495@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net... > Dr. Di wrote: > > On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 12:04:36 -0800, Doug Anderson wrote: > > > > > >>>> The gap between the haves and the have nots is growing. > >>> > >>> all the more reason to get on the good side. > >> > >> Not if it involves stealing from the poor to give to the rich. > >> > >> (Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore riding through the woods.) > > > > Please enlighten me, how does one steal from the poor when they
have so > > little to steal? > > You guys got it all backwards. What we really need to do is steal from the > rich, and give to the poor, ala Robin Hood Would you steal from the rich and give to the poor alcoholic-who-hasn't-worked-a-day-in-the-last-decade? I presume this is a slam on giving to the less fortunate. Not at all. It is a recognition that some are less fortunate through no fault of their own and unable to do better, and deserve help - and some
are less fortunate because they choose to be, and stealing from the rich and giving to them would be just enabling. You do have to exercise judgement. I would - and do - support organizations that provide for the truly needy. I'm also rather more closely acquainted than I would like with some who
are poor because they squander what they have. Also, while I only know a few really wealthy people, the few that I do know got that way by doing things like starting companies and working their tails off to make them
successful. I don't think it would be right to "steal" from those hard workers who did well, either. (Note: this is not intended to imply that all rich people
are hard working wonderful people, any more than that all poor people are wastrels. It is intended to imply that you shouldn't arbitrarily "steal" from one category and "give" to another.)

Do you really think that some people "choose" to be less fortunate?

"Amy D" <amykae@joimail.com> wrote in message
news:103o9ut8vbum4ad@corp.supernews.com... Dr. Di wrote: On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 12:04:36 -0800, Doug Anderson wrote:>>The gap between the haves and the have nots is growing.>>all the more reason to get on the good side.Not if it involves stealing from the poor to give to the rich.(Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore riding through the woods.) Please enlighten me, how does one steal from the poor when they have so little to steal? I'm sorry, but it sounds more like a socialistic agenda rather than any heartfelt compassionate concern. IMHO, of course. Diana What is the "good side"? I have this sick, twisted need to rebel hard as I can against "money"......I would give it all away...... amy

H.F. "Gerry" Lenfest is giving away his entire fortune, over a billion
dollars.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Northeast/02/22/lenfest.fortune.ap/

"urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:762%b.4501$f61.3605@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
> > Would you steal from the rich and give to the poor > alcoholic-who-hasn't-worked-a-day-in-the-last-decade? I presume this is a slam on giving to the less fortunate. Not at all. It is a recognition that some are less fortunate through no fault of their own and unable to do better, and deserve help - and some are less fortunate because they choose to be, and stealing from the rich and giving to them would be just enabling. You do have to exercise
judgement. I would - and do - support organizations that provide for the truly
needy. I'm also rather more closely acquainted than I would like with some who are poor because they squander what they have. Also, while I only know a
few really wealthy people, the few that I do know got that way by doing
things like starting companies and working their tails off to make them successful. I don't think it would be right to "steal" from those hard workers who
did well, either. (Note: this is not intended to imply that all rich people are hard working wonderful people, any more than that all poor people are wastrels. It is intended to imply that you shouldn't arbitrarily
"steal" from one category and "give" to another.) Do you really think that some people "choose" to be less fortunate?

I guess it depends on how you define "choose" and "less fortunate". I think
it is correct to state that for some people the choices they have made have
resulted in them being less fortunate.

"Joy" <joydoesntlikespam@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:103qg3vc3ec0r41@corp.supernews.com... "urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message news:762%b.4501$f61.3605@nwrdny02.gnilink.net... > > > > Would you steal from the rich and give to the poor > > alcoholic-who-hasn't-worked-a-day-in-the-last-decade? > > I presume this is a slam on giving to the less fortunate. Not at all. It is a recognition that some are less fortunate through
no fault of their own and unable to do better, and deserve help - and
some are less fortunate because they choose to be, and stealing from the rich
and giving to them would be just enabling. You do have to exercise judgement. I would - and do - support organizations that provide for the truly needy. I'm also rather more closely acquainted than I would like with some
who are poor because they squander what they have. Also, while I only know a few really wealthy people, the few that I do know got that way by doing things like starting companies and working their tails off to make them successful. I don't think it would be right to "steal" from those hard workers who did well, either. (Note: this is not intended to imply that all rich
people are hard working wonderful people, any more than that all poor people are wastrels. It is intended to imply that you shouldn't arbitrarily "steal" from one category and "give" to another.) Do you really think that some people "choose" to be less fortunate? I guess it depends on how you define "choose" and "less fortunate". I
think it is correct to state that for some people the choices they have made
have resulted in them being less fortunate.

I'm of the firm belief that in the US, most people are prettymuch where they
want to (or believe they should) be in life.

"Joy" <joydoesntlikespam@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:103qg3vc3ec0r41@corp.supernews.com... "urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message news:762%b.4501$f61.3605@nwrdny02.gnilink.net... > > > > Would you steal from the rich and give to the poor > > alcoholic-who-hasn't-worked-a-day-in-the-last-decade? > > I presume this is a slam on giving to the less fortunate. Not at all. It is a recognition that some are less fortunate through
no fault of their own and unable to do better, and deserve help - and
some are less fortunate because they choose to be, and stealing from the rich
and giving to them would be just enabling. You do have to exercise judgement. I would - and do - support organizations that provide for the truly needy. I'm also rather more closely acquainted than I would like with some
who are poor because they squander what they have. Also, while I only know a few really wealthy people, the few that I do know got that way by doing things like starting companies and working their tails off to make them successful. I don't think it would be right to "steal" from those hard workers who did well, either. (Note: this is not intended to imply that all rich
people are hard working wonderful people, any more than that all poor people are wastrels. It is intended to imply that you shouldn't arbitrarily "steal" from one category and "give" to another.) Do you really think that some people "choose" to be less fortunate? I guess it depends on how you define "choose" and "less fortunate". I
think it is correct to state that for some people the choices they have made
have resulted in them being less fortunate.

You are correct in stating that our choices are to some extent responsible
for the outcome. The question I asked was different. I asked.....

Do you really think that some people "choose" to be less fortunate?

I can't imagine circumstances (with rare exceptions) that would cause
people to rationally choose to be "less fortunate". But that is the I think.
Perhaps you see it differently. Then again maybe it's semantics here.

"JWB" <awayspam00973@noplace.com> wrote in message
news:eGb%b.434$1e3.625533@twister.nyc.rr.com... "Joy" <joydoesntlikespam@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message news:103qg3vc3ec0r41@corp.supernews.com... "urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message news:762%b.4501$f61.3605@nwrdny02.gnilink.net... > > > > > > Would you steal from the rich and give to the poor > > > alcoholic-who-hasn't-worked-a-day-in-the-last-decade? > > > > I presume this is a slam on giving to the less fortunate. > > Not at all. It is a recognition that some are less fortunate
through no > fault of their own and unable to do better, and deserve help - and some are > less fortunate because they choose to be, and stealing from the rich and > giving to them would be just enabling. You do have to exercise judgement. > I would - and do - support organizations that provide for the truly needy. > I'm also rather more closely acquainted than I would like with some who are > poor because they squander what they have. Also, while I only know
a few > really wealthy people, the few that I do know got that way by doing things > like starting companies and working their tails off to make them successful. > I don't think it would be right to "steal" from those hard workers
who did > well, either. (Note: this is not intended to imply that all rich people are > hard working wonderful people, any more than that all poor people
are > wastrels. It is intended to imply that you shouldn't arbitrarily "steal" > from one category and "give" to another.) Do you really think that some people "choose" to be less fortunate? I guess it depends on how you define "choose" and "less fortunate". I think it is correct to state that for some people the choices they have made have resulted in them being less fortunate. I'm of the firm belief that in the US, most people are prettymuch where
they want to (or believe they should) be in life.

Visit a cancer hospital.

"urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Uan%b.8641$ax2.913@nwrdny03.gnilink.net... "JWB" <awayspam00973@noplace.com> wrote in message news:eGb%b.434$1e3.625533@twister.nyc.rr.com... "Joy" <joydoesntlikespam@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message news:103qg3vc3ec0r41@corp.supernews.com... "urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message news:762%b.4501$f61.3605@nwrdny02.gnilink.net... > > > > > > > > > Would you steal from the rich and give to the poor > > > > alcoholic-who-hasn't-worked-a-day-in-the-last-decade? > > > > > > I presume this is a slam on giving to the less fortunate. > > > > Not at all. It is a recognition that some are less fortunate through no > > fault of their own and unable to do better, and deserve help - and some > are > > less fortunate because they choose to be, and stealing from the
rich and > > giving to them would be just enabling. You do have to exercise judgement. > > I would - and do - support organizations that provide for the
truly needy. > > I'm also rather more closely acquainted than I would like with
some who > are > > poor because they squander what they have. Also, while I only
know a few > > really wealthy people, the few that I do know got that way by
doing things > > like starting companies and working their tails off to make them > successful. > > I don't think it would be right to "steal" from those hard workers who did > > well, either. (Note: this is not intended to imply that all rich people > are > > hard working wonderful people, any more than that all poor people are > > wastrels. It is intended to imply that you shouldn't arbitrarily "steal" > > from one category and "give" to another.) > > Do you really think that some people "choose" to be less fortunate?
I guess it depends on how you define "choose" and "less fortunate". I think it is correct to state that for some people the choices they have made have resulted in them being less fortunate. I'm of the firm belief that in the US, most people are prettymuch where they want to (or believe they should) be in life. Visit a cancer hospital.

The conversation was in the context of money.

I'm very familiar with cancer.

JWB <awayspam00973@noplace.com> wrote:
I'm of the firm belief that in the US, most people are prettymuch where they want to (or believe they should) be in life.

I've got to disagree with this one. For people who are reasonably
intelligent, well balanced, and educated, maybe that's true. But that's
not everyone.

"Emma Anne" <mbjq@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1g9rcfz.16r7lhl13tse4dN%mbjq@earthlink.net... JWB <awayspam00973@noplace.com> wrote: I'm of the firm belief that in the US, most people are prettymuch where
they want to (or believe they should) be in life. I've got to disagree with this one. For people who are reasonably intelligent, well balanced, and educated, maybe that's true. But that's not everyone.

That's why I added "or believe" in there. What I mean by that is, some
ghetto kid who drops out of school at 14... well, he doesn't believe he has
a shot. The self fulfilling prophecy.

I did a lot of reading when I was younger on success and the like - while I
never liked a lot of the advice, I did notice one common thread that made
sense - you *must* believe. In yourself. In where you're going. In your
success. If you do not truly believe, it will not happen.

"urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:5an%b.8638$ax2.2471@nwrdny03.gnilink.net... "Joy" <joydoesntlikespam@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message news:103qg3vc3ec0r41@corp.supernews.com... "urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message news:762%b.4501$f61.3605@nwrdny02.gnilink.net... > > > > > > Would you steal from the rich and give to the poor > > > alcoholic-who-hasn't-worked-a-day-in-the-last-decade? > > > > I presume this is a slam on giving to the less fortunate. > > Not at all. It is a recognition that some are less fortunate
through no > fault of their own and unable to do better, and deserve help - and some are > less fortunate because they choose to be, and stealing from the rich and > giving to them would be just enabling. You do have to exercise judgement. > I would - and do - support organizations that provide for the truly needy. > I'm also rather more closely acquainted than I would like with some who are > poor because they squander what they have. Also, while I only know
a few > really wealthy people, the few that I do know got that way by doing things > like starting companies and working their tails off to make them successful. > I don't think it would be right to "steal" from those hard workers
who did > well, either. (Note: this is not intended to imply that all rich people are > hard working wonderful people, any more than that all poor people
are > wastrels. It is intended to imply that you shouldn't arbitrarily "steal" > from one category and "give" to another.) Do you really think that some people "choose" to be less fortunate? I guess it depends on how you define "choose" and "less fortunate". I think it is correct to state that for some people the choices they have made have resulted in them being less fortunate. You are correct in stating that our choices are to some extent responsible for the outcome. The question I asked was different. I asked..... Do you really think that some people "choose" to be less fortunate? I can't imagine circumstances (with rare exceptions) that would cause people to rationally choose to be "less fortunate". But that is the I
think. Perhaps you see it differently. Then again maybe it's semantics here.

A lot of it is semantics, I think. The semantics part really comes from how
we are defining "choose". Generally speaking, people don't start out in
their youth deciding to be poor. On the other hand, many people choose not
to get an education, or choose a line of work that pays less well, or choose
a marriage partner unwisely. Is this choosing to be "less fortunate"?
Indirectly, perhaps. I suspect that you were thinking in terms of choosing
directly, and I was thinking in terms of choosing indirectly. Would that be
the case?

There are, of course, people with health problems that prevent them from
doing as well in life as they otherwise could, and this is not something
anyone would choose, of course - more like it is inflicted upon people.
(Although I suppose in the case of people who smoke, or eat grossly bad
diets, don't exercise, drink too much, etc you could say they are indirectly
choosing health problems.)

"urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Uan%b.8641$ax2.913@nwrdny03.gnilink.net... "JWB" <awayspam00973@noplace.com> wrote in message news:eGb%b.434$1e3.625533@twister.nyc.rr.com... "Joy" <joydoesntlikespam@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message news:103qg3vc3ec0r41@corp.supernews.com... "urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message news:762%b.4501$f61.3605@nwrdny02.gnilink.net... > > > > > > > > > Would you steal from the rich and give to the poor > > > > alcoholic-who-hasn't-worked-a-day-in-the-last-decade? > > > > > > I presume this is a slam on giving to the less fortunate. > > > > Not at all. It is a recognition that some are less fortunate through no > > fault of their own and unable to do better, and deserve help - and some > are > > less fortunate because they choose to be, and stealing from the
rich and > > giving to them would be just enabling. You do have to exercise judgement. > > I would - and do - support organizations that provide for the
truly needy. > > I'm also rather more closely acquainted than I would like with
some who > are > > poor because they squander what they have. Also, while I only
know a few > > really wealthy people, the few that I do know got that way by
doing things > > like starting companies and working their tails off to make them > successful. > > I don't think it would be right to "steal" from those hard workers who did > > well, either. (Note: this is not intended to imply that all rich people > are > > hard working wonderful people, any more than that all poor people are > > wastrels. It is intended to imply that you shouldn't arbitrarily "steal" > > from one category and "give" to another.) > > Do you really think that some people "choose" to be less fortunate? I guess it depends on how you define "choose" and "less fortunate". I think it is correct to state that for some people the choices they have made have resulted in them being less fortunate. I'm of the firm belief that in the US, most people are prettymuch where they want to (or believe they should) be in life. Visit a cancer hospital.

I thought we were talking finances, not health?

"urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:5an%b.8638$ax2.2471@nwrdny03.gnilink.net... Do you really think that some people "choose" to be less fortunate? I guess it depends on how you define "choose" and "less fortunate". I think it is correct to state that for some people the choices they have made have resulted in them being less fortunate. You are correct in stating that our choices are to some extent responsible for the outcome. The question I asked was different. I asked..... Do you really think that some people "choose" to be less fortunate? I can't imagine circumstances (with rare exceptions) that would cause people to rationally choose to be "less fortunate". But that is the I
think. Perhaps you see it differently. Then again maybe it's semantics here.

As mentioned in another post, there is a strong element of semantics here.
There are also some observations I've made over the years that color how I
see it. Take my ex, for example. His annual income puts him well above the
poverty level for a single person. He lives very poor, however, in a little
cinderblock shack in a neighborhood of houses that look like the next good
gust of wind will blow them down - and they look like that would be a good
thing. He complains all the time of having trouble paying his bills, doing
without medication because he can't afford it, has trouble buying groceries,
etc. Why does he live like this? To be blunt, it is because it is more
important to him to spend his money drinking in bars than on living
decently. So would you say that he is choosing to be less fortunate?

His last girlfriend held a job that was way beneath the level she was
capable of working at. She was earning just a little above minimum wage,
and refused to go look for a better job. She said she liked that job. Was
she choosing to be less fortunate?

My ex started college a semester before I did, but dropped out shortly
thereafter. He said it was too hard to work and go to school at the same
time. I subsequently graduated with an A.A.S and then a B.S., during part
of which I worked full-time and went to school full-time simultaneously. As
a direct result, I got a much better job than he did. He could have
continued his education - I even offered to support the family so he could
quit work and just go to school. He refused. Was he making a choice to be
less fortunate there?

Just a few examples off the top of my head. Just curious - if you don't see
these as "choosing", how would you describe them?

Joy

Joy wrote: "urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message news:5an%b.8638$ax2.2471@nwrdny03.gnilink.net...>> Do you really think that some people "choose" to be less fortunate? I guess it depends on how you define "choose" and "less fortunate". I
think it is correct to state that for some people the choices they have made have resulted in them being less fortunate. You are correct in stating that our choices are to some extent responsible for the outcome. The question I asked was different. I asked..... Do you really think that some people "choose" to be less fortunate? I can't imagine circumstances (with rare exceptions) that would cause people to rationally choose to be "less fortunate". But that is the I think. Perhaps you see it differently. Then again maybe it's semantics here. As mentioned in another post, there is a strong element of semantics here. There are also some observations I've made over the years that color how I see it. Take my ex, for example. His annual income puts him well above the poverty level for a single person. He lives very poor, however, in a little cinderblock shack in a neighborhood of houses that look like the next good gust of wind will blow them down - and they look like that would be a good thing. He complains all the time of having trouble paying his bills, doing without medication because he can't afford it, has trouble buying groceries, etc. Why does he live like this? To be blunt, it is because it is more important to him to spend his money drinking in bars than on living decently. So would you say that he is choosing to be less fortunate? His last girlfriend held a job that was way beneath the level she was capable of working at. She was earning just a little above minimum wage, and refused to go look for a better job. She said she liked that job. Was she choosing to be less fortunate? My ex started college a semester before I did, but dropped out shortly thereafter. He said it was too hard to work and go to school at the same time. I subsequently graduated with an A.A.S and then a B.S., during part of which I worked full-time and went to school full-time simultaneously. As a direct result, I got a much better job than he did. He could have continued his education - I even offered to support the family so he could quit work and just go to school. He refused. Was he making a choice to be less fortunate there? Just a few examples off the top of my head. Just curious - if you don't see these as "choosing", how would you describe them? Joy

What if these people don't really know what they are doing, or think there is
no other way (due to poor modeling or whatever), and lack the necessary
self-confidence and self esteem. Are they "choosing" to be that way? I
guess it all depends on how you define "choosing".

"Bill in Co." <Lost In Time, but surly@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:SEu%b.9590 What if these people don't really know what they are doing, or think there
is no other way (due to poor modeling or whatever), and lack the necessary self-confidence and self esteem. Are they "choosing" to be that way?
I guess it all depends on how you define "choosing".

Yep. Which was my original point a few posts back.

"Bill in Co." <Lost In Time, but surly@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:SEu%b.9590$yZ1.2330@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net... Joy wrote: "urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message news:5an%b.8638$ax2.2471@nwrdny03.gnilink.net...>>>> Do you really think that some people "choose" to be less fortunate?>> I guess it depends on how you define "choose" and "less fortunate". I think> it is correct to state that for some people the choices they have made
have> resulted in them being less fortunate. You are correct in stating that our choices are to some extent
responsible for the outcome. The question I asked was different. I asked..... Do you really think that some people "choose" to be less fortunate? I can't imagine circumstances (with rare exceptions) that would cause people to rationally choose to be "less fortunate". But that is the I
think. Perhaps you see it differently. Then again maybe it's semantics here. As mentioned in another post, there is a strong element of semantics
here. There are also some observations I've made over the years that color how
I see it. Take my ex, for example. His annual income puts him well above
the poverty level for a single person. He lives very poor, however, in a
little cinderblock shack in a neighborhood of houses that look like the next
good gust of wind will blow them down - and they look like that would be a
good thing. He complains all the time of having trouble paying his bills,
doing without medication because he can't afford it, has trouble buying
groceries, etc. Why does he live like this? To be blunt, it is because it is more important to him to spend his money drinking in bars than on living decently. So would you say that he is choosing to be less fortunate? His last girlfriend held a job that was way beneath the level she was capable of working at. She was earning just a little above minimum
wage, and refused to go look for a better job. She said she liked that job.
Was she choosing to be less fortunate? My ex started college a semester before I did, but dropped out shortly thereafter. He said it was too hard to work and go to school at the
same time. I subsequently graduated with an A.A.S and then a B.S., during
part of which I worked full-time and went to school full-time simultaneously.
As a direct result, I got a much better job than he did. He could have continued his education - I even offered to support the family so he
could quit work and just go to school. He refused. Was he making a choice to
be less fortunate there? Just a few examples off the top of my head. Just curious - if you don't
see these as "choosing", how would you describe them? Joy What if these people don't really know what they are doing, or think there
is no other way (due to poor modeling or whatever), and lack the necessary self-confidence and self esteem. Are they "choosing" to be that way?

Yes, they are. The only ones in the above I'd cut any slack are the ones who
don't know what they are doing (like retarded people or whatnot)

Joy wrote: "Bill in Co." <Lost In Time, but surly@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:SEu%b.9590 What if these people don't really know what they are doing, or think there
is no other way (due to poor modeling or whatever), and lack the necessary self-confidence and self esteem. Are they "choosing" to be that way? I guess it all depends on how you define "choosing". Yep. Which was my original point a few posts back.

BUT - choosing (to me) seems to imply - or should imply - a conscious (i.e.
aware) choice, shouldn't it? Otherwise, you can just say an alcoholic
CHOOSES to be an alcoholic. I'm not sure that's quite accurate - or fair.

"Bill in Co." <Lost In Time, but surly@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:M7v%b.9639$yZ1.4515@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net... Joy wrote: "Bill in Co." <Lost In Time, but surly@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:SEu%b.9590 What if these people don't really know what they are doing, or think
there is no other way (due to poor modeling or whatever), and lack the necessary self-confidence and self esteem. Are they "choosing" to be that way? I guess it all depends on how you define "choosing". Yep. Which was my original point a few posts back. BUT - choosing (to me) seems to imply - or should imply - a conscious
(i.e. aware) choice, shouldn't it? Otherwise, you can just say an alcoholic CHOOSES to be an alcoholic. I'm not sure that's quite accurate - or
fair.

Then according to you, a smoker doesn't choose to smoke, an unemployed
person watching oprah all day doesn't choose unemployment.

Whatever happened to personal responsibility, Bill?

"JWB" <awayspam07973@no.com> wrote in message
news:YZn%b.23430$H17.16744@twister.nyc.rr.com... "urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Uan%b.8641$ax2.913@nwrdny03.gnilink.net... "JWB" <awayspam00973@noplace.com> wrote in message news:eGb%b.434$1e3.625533@twister.nyc.rr.com... "Joy" <joydoesntlikespam@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message news:103qg3vc3ec0r41@corp.supernews.com... > > "urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:762%b.4501$f61.3605@nwrdny02.gnilink.net... > > > > > > > > > > > > > Would you steal from the rich and give to the poor > > > > > alcoholic-who-hasn't-worked-a-day-in-the-last-decade? > > > > > > > > I presume this is a slam on giving to the less fortunate. > > > > > > Not at all. It is a recognition that some are less fortunate through no > > > fault of their own and unable to do better, and deserve help -
and some > > are > > > less fortunate because they choose to be, and stealing from the rich and > > > giving to them would be just enabling. You do have to exercise > judgement. > > > I would - and do - support organizations that provide for the truly > needy. > > > I'm also rather more closely acquainted than I would like with some who > > are > > > poor because they squander what they have. Also, while I only know a > few > > > really wealthy people, the few that I do know got that way by doing > things > > > like starting companies and working their tails off to make them > > successful. > > > I don't think it would be right to "steal" from those hard
workers who > did > > > well, either. (Note: this is not intended to imply that all
rich people > > are > > > hard working wonderful people, any more than that all poor
people are > > > wastrels. It is intended to imply that you shouldn't
arbitrarily > "steal" > > > from one category and "give" to another.) > > > > Do you really think that some people "choose" to be less
fortunate? > > I guess it depends on how you define "choose" and "less fortunate".
I think > it is correct to state that for some people the choices they have
made have > resulted in them being less fortunate. I'm of the firm belief that in the US, most people are prettymuch
where they want to (or believe they should) be in life. Visit a cancer hospital. The conversation was in the context of money. I'm very familiar with cancer.

My point is that people are not necessarily where they want to be by choice.
Be it medical catastrophy
or accident of birth.

I work in areas filled with huge numbers of very poor people and in areas of
great wealth on the
very same day. The thing that the people in both areas have most in common
is the accident
of their birth. I recognized they many rise from lowly beginnings and that
others waste the
opportunities they have set before them. I believe that most people are
where they are by virtue
of the accident of birth.

"urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ga2dnTIaVvwHDqPdRVn-hA@comcast.com... "JWB" <awayspam07973@no.com> wrote in message news:YZn%b.23430$H17.16744@twister.nyc.rr.com... "urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Uan%b.8641$ax2.913@nwrdny03.gnilink.net... "JWB" <awayspam00973@noplace.com> wrote in message news:eGb%b.434$1e3.625533@twister.nyc.rr.com... > "Joy" <joydoesntlikespam@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:103qg3vc3ec0r41@corp.supernews.com... > > > > "urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message > > news:762%b.4501$f61.3605@nwrdny02.gnilink.net... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Would you steal from the rich and give to the poor > > > > > > alcoholic-who-hasn't-worked-a-day-in-the-last-decade? > > > > > > > > > > I presume this is a slam on giving to the less fortunate. > > > > > > > > Not at all. It is a recognition that some are less fortunate through > no > > > > fault of their own and unable to do better, and deserve help - and > some > > > are > > > > less fortunate because they choose to be, and stealing from
the rich > and > > > > giving to them would be just enabling. You do have to
exercise > > judgement. > > > > I would - and do - support organizations that provide for the truly > > needy. > > > > I'm also rather more closely acquainted than I would like with some > who > > > are > > > > poor because they squander what they have. Also, while I only know a > > few > > > > really wealthy people, the few that I do know got that way by doing > > things > > > > like starting companies and working their tails off to make
them > > > successful. > > > > I don't think it would be right to "steal" from those hard workers who > > did > > > > well, either. (Note: this is not intended to imply that all rich > people > > > are > > > > hard working wonderful people, any more than that all poor people are > > > > wastrels. It is intended to imply that you shouldn't arbitrarily > > "steal" > > > > from one category and "give" to another.) > > > > > > Do you really think that some people "choose" to be less fortunate? > > > > I guess it depends on how you define "choose" and "less
fortunate". I > think > > it is correct to state that for some people the choices they have made > have > > resulted in them being less fortunate. > > I'm of the firm belief that in the US, most people are prettymuch where they > want to (or believe they should) be in life. Visit a cancer hospital. The conversation was in the context of money. I'm very familiar with cancer. My point is that people are not necessarily where they want to be by
choice. Be it medical catastrophy or accident of birth.


Yes, but you took the conversation out of its context. In other words, I
agree with your point, but it has no relevence to the conversation at hand.


I work in areas filled with huge numbers of very poor people and in areas
of great wealth on the very same day. The thing that the people in both areas have most in common is the accident of their birth. I recognized they many rise from lowly beginnings and that others waste the opportunities they have set before them. I believe that most people are where they are by virtue of the accident of birth.

If nobody ever made it out of the ghetto, I'd agree. But they do. The ones
that make it decided they were *not* going to live that way.

JWB wrote:
"Emma Anne" <mbjq@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:1g9rcfz.16r7lhl13tse4dN%mbjq@earthlink.net... JWB <awayspam00973@noplace.com> wrote:I'm of the firm belief that in the US, most people are prettymuch where theywant to (or believe they should) be in life.I've got to disagree with this one. For people who are reasonablyintelligent, well balanced, and educated, maybe that's true. But that'snot everyone. That's why I added "or believe" in there. What I mean by that is, some ghetto kid who drops out of school at 14... well, he doesn't believe he has a shot. The self fulfilling prophecy. I did a lot of reading when I was younger on success and the like - while I never liked a lot of the advice, I did notice one common thread that made sense - you *must* believe. In yourself. In where you're going. In your success. If you do not truly believe, it will not happen.

Believe in what? The disgusting American way? Listen honey, you tell
me how to get a passport out of here and I'm gone......there are some
complications. :)

amy

"Amy D" <amykae@joimail.com> wrote in message
news:103tlat4r5n12b1@corp.supernews.com... JWB wrote: "Emma Anne" <mbjq@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:1g9rcfz.16r7lhl13tse4dN%mbjq@earthlink.net... JWB <awayspam00973@noplace.com> wrote:>I'm of the firm belief that in the US, most people are prettymuch where they>want to (or believe they should) be in life.I've got to disagree with this one. For people who are reasonablyintelligent, well balanced, and educated, maybe that's true. But that'snot everyone. That's why I added "or believe" in there. What I mean by that is, some ghetto kid who drops out of school at 14... well, he doesn't believe he
has a shot. The self fulfilling prophecy. I did a lot of reading when I was younger on success and the like -
while I never liked a lot of the advice, I did notice one common thread that
made sense - you *must* believe. In yourself. In where you're going. In your success. If you do not truly believe, it will not happen. Believe in what? The disgusting American way? Listen honey, you tell me how to get a passport out of here and I'm gone......there are some complications. :)

what do you mean "the American way"? I mean believe in yourself, and have
enough confidence (and balls) to make actual decisions.

You can get a passport quite easily. That's kinda what I'm talking about -
people "say" all kinds of things are wrong. But they actually "do" very
little about them.

"Amy D" <amykae@joimail.com> wrote in message
news:103tlmgilehre1a@corp.supernews.com...
I could have been a doctor....they aren't "rich"....most RICH people rip off the hard working public

That isn't true.

JWB wrote:
"Amy D" <amykae@joimail.com> wrote in message news:103tlat4r5n12b1@corp.supernews.com...JWB wrote:"Emma Anne" <mbjq@earthlink.net> wrote in messagenews:1g9rcfz.16r7lhl13tse4dN%mbjq@earthlink .net...>JWB <awayspam00973@noplace.com> wrote:>>>>>I'm of the firm belief that in the US, most people are prettymuch wherethey>>want to (or believe they should) be in life.>>I've got to disagree with this one. For people who are reasonably>intelligent, well balanced, and educated, maybe that's true. But that's>not everyone.That's why I added "or believe" in there. What I mean by that is, someghetto kid who drops out of school at 14... well, he doesn't believe he hasa shot. The self fulfilling prophecy.I did a lot of reading when I was younger on success and the like - while Inever liked a lot of the advice, I did notice one common thread that madesense - you *must* believe. In yourself. In where you're going. In yoursuccess. If you do not truly believe, it will not happen.Believe in what? The disgusting American way? Listen honey, you tellme how to get a passport out of here and I'm gone......there are somecomplications. :) what do you mean "the American way"? I mean believe in yourself, and have enough confidence (and balls) to make actual decisions. You can get a passport quite easily. That's kinda what I'm talking about - people "say" all kinds of things are wrong. But they actually "do" very little about them.

You want me to do something "illegal" to get a passport?? :)

amy

JWB wrote:
"Amy D" <amykae@joimail.com> wrote in message news:103tlmgilehre1a@corp.supernews.com...I could have been a doctor....theyaren't "rich"....most RICH people rip off the hard working public That isn't true.

Oh really.....

amy

"Amy D" <amykae@joimail.com> wrote in message
news:103tplh4ngdqcd1@corp.supernews.com... JWB wrote: "Amy D" <amykae@joimail.com> wrote in message news:103tlat4r5n12b1@corp.supernews.com...JWB wrote:>"Emma Anne" <mbjq@earthlink.net> wrote in message>news:1g9rcfz.16r7lhl13tse4dN%mbjq@earthlink.net...>>>>JWB <awayspam00973@noplace.com> wrote:>>>>>>>>>I'm of the firm belief that in the US, most people are prettymuch
where>>they>>>>>want to (or believe they should) be in life.>>>>I've got to disagree with this one. For people who are reasonably>>intelligent, well balanced, and educated, maybe that's true. But
that's>>not everyone.>>>That's why I added "or believe" in there. What I mean by that is, some>ghetto kid who drops out of school at 14... well, he doesn't believe he has>a shot. The self fulfilling prophecy.>>I did a lot of reading when I was younger on success and the like - while I>never liked a lot of the advice, I did notice one common thread that made>sense - you *must* believe. In yourself. In where you're going. In your>success. If you do not truly believe, it will not happen.>>Believe in what? The disgusting American way? Listen honey, you tellme how to get a passport out of here and I'm gone......there are somecomplications. :) what do you mean "the American way"? I mean believe in yourself, and
have enough confidence (and balls) to make actual decisions. You can get a passport quite easily. That's kinda what I'm talking
about - people "say" all kinds of things are wrong. But they actually "do" very little about them. You want me to do something "illegal" to get a passport?? :)

ok, you're dying to say so, so I'll ask... why can't you get a passport? You
didn't kill some anti-trucker type person, did you? :)

"Amy D" <amykae@joimail.com> wrote in message
news:103tpnqgna5o919@corp.supernews.com... JWB wrote: "Amy D" <amykae@joimail.com> wrote in message news:103tlmgilehre1a@corp.supernews.com...I could have been a doctor....theyaren't "rich"....most RICH people rip off the hard working public That isn't true. Oh really.....

No, it isn't. Yea, there's corruption, but I'd wager that poor people are
just as, if not *more*, dishonest. Most "rich" people (let's say 200k plus
annually) don't make the news, are people you never hear of, usually work
damn hard, and live quiet lives.

JWB wrote:
"Amy D" <amykae@joimail.com> wrote in message news:103tplh4ngdqcd1@corp.supernews.com...JWB wrote:"Amy D" <amykae@joimail.com> wrote in messagenews:103tlat4r5n12b1@corp.supernews.com...>JWB wrote:>>>>>"Emma Anne" <mbjq@earthlink.net> wrote in message>>news:1g9rcfz.16r7lhl13tse4dN%mbjq@earthlink.net...>>>>>>>>>JWB <awayspam00973@noplace.com> wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I'm of the firm belief that in the US, most people are prettymuch where>>they>>>>>>>>>>want to (or believe they should) be in life.>>>>>>I've got to disagree with this one. For people who are reasonably>>>intelligent, well balanced, and educated, maybe that's true. But that's>>>not everyone.>>>>>>That's why I added "or believe" in there. What I mean by that is, some>>ghetto kid who drops out of school at 14... well, he doesn't believe hehas>>a shot. The self fulfilling prophecy.>>>>I did a lot of reading when I was younger on success and the like -while I>>never liked a lot of the advice, I did notice one common thread thatmade>>sense - you *must* believe. In yourself. In where you're going. In your>>success. If you do not truly believe, it will not happen.>>>>>>Believe in what? The disgusting American way? Listen honey, you tell>me how to get a passport out of here and I'm gone......there are some>complications. :)what do you mean "the American way"? I mean believe in yourself, and haveenough confidence (and balls) to make actual decisions.You can get a passport quite easily. That's kinda what I'm talking about -people "say" all kinds of things are wrong. But they actually "do" verylittle about them.You want me to do something "illegal" to get a passport?? :) ok, you're dying to say so, so I'll ask... why can't you get a passport? You didn't kill some anti-trucker type person, did you? :)
No, and I'm not "dying to say so" other than I'm being held hostage by
the "land of the free"....

amy

JWB wrote:
"Amy D" <amykae@joimail.com> wrote in message news:103tpnqgna5o919@corp.supernews.com...JWB wrote:"Amy D" <amykae@joimail.com> wrote in messagenews:103tlmgilehre1a@corp.supernews.com...>I could have been a doctor....they>aren't "rich"....most RICH people rip off the hard working publicThat isn't true.Oh really..... No, it isn't. Yea, there's corruption, but I'd wager that poor people are just as, if not *more*, dishonest. Most "rich" people (let's say 200k plus annually) don't make the news, are people you never hear of, usually work damn hard, and live quiet lives.
So you are ignoring the fact that doctors CAN NOT affort malpractice
insurance.....I'd encourage my kid to drive a truck before going to
medical school....although my husband would pitch an absolute fit....

amy

Amy D wrote: ...most RICH people rip off the hard working public......

Especially the lawyers. You know, $300 an hour, plus a $10,000 retainer??
What a bunch of bull****. They are the leeches of society, taking full
advantage of those at their most "down and out" (destitute) moments, and
leaving many bankrupt in the process. And all for what? So they can drive
their Audis and BMWs.

And yes, I know there are a few exceptions.

end rant...

Amy D wrote: JWB wrote: "Amy D" <amykae@joimail.com> wrote in message news:103tpnqgna5o919@corp.supernews.com... JWB wrote:> "Amy D" <amykae@joimail.com> wrote in message> news:103tlmgilehre1a@corp.supernews.com...>>>>> I could have been a doctor....they>> aren't "rich"....most RICH people rip off the hard working public>>> That isn't true.>> Oh really..... No, it isn't. Yea, there's corruption, but I'd wager that poor people are just as, if not *more*, dishonest. Most "rich" people (let's say 200k plus annually) don't make the news, are people you never hear of, usually work damn hard, and live quiet lives. So you are ignoring the fact that doctors CAN NOT affort malpractice insurance.....I'd encourage my kid to drive a truck before going to medical school....although my husband would pitch an absolute fit.... amy

The reason the doctors can't afford it comes down to the same thing once again:
our outstanding legal "profession" ("serving" their clients).

Amy D wrote:
ok, you're dying to say so, so I'll ask... why can't you get a passport? You didn't kill some anti-trucker type person, did you? :) No, and I'm not "dying to say so" other than I'm being held hostage by the "land of the free"....

Oh go on... now you're just teasing us! :)

I'm thinking bankruptcy but that may not be a reason to have your passport
withheld in the USA.

Then there're drug convictions but does that prevent one from getting a
passport or just visas to get into other countries?

Tai






Tai

"Joy" <joydoesntlikespam@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:103sl1tmsaiic4c@corp.supernews.com... "urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message news:5an%b.8638$ax2.2471@nwrdny03.gnilink.net... "Joy" <joydoesntlikespam@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message news:103qg3vc3ec0r41@corp.supernews.com... "urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message news:762%b.4501$f61.3605@nwrdny02.gnilink.net... > > > > > > > > > Would you steal from the rich and give to the poor > > > > alcoholic-who-hasn't-worked-a-day-in-the-last-decade? > > > > > > I presume this is a slam on giving to the less fortunate. > > > > Not at all. It is a recognition that some are less fortunate through no > > fault of their own and unable to do better, and deserve help - and some > are > > less fortunate because they choose to be, and stealing from the
rich and > > giving to them would be just enabling. You do have to exercise judgement. > > I would - and do - support organizations that provide for the
truly needy. > > I'm also rather more closely acquainted than I would like with
some who > are > > poor because they squander what they have. Also, while I only
know a few > > really wealthy people, the few that I do know got that way by
doing things > > like starting companies and working their tails off to make them > successful. > > I don't think it would be right to "steal" from those hard workers who did > > well, either. (Note: this is not intended to imply that all rich people > are > > hard working wonderful people, any more than that all poor people are > > wastrels. It is intended to imply that you shouldn't arbitrarily "steal" > > from one category and "give" to another.) > > Do you really think that some people "choose" to be less fortunate? I guess it depends on how you define "choose" and "less fortunate". I think it is correct to state that for some people the choices they have made have resulted in them being less fortunate. You are correct in stating that our choices are to some extent
responsible for the outcome. The question I asked was different. I asked..... Do you really think that some people "choose" to be less fortunate? I can't imagine circumstances (with rare exceptions) that would cause people to rationally choose to be "less fortunate". But that is the I think. Perhaps you see it differently. Then again maybe it's semantics here. A lot of it is semantics, I think. The semantics part really comes from
how we are defining "choose". Generally speaking, people don't start out in their youth deciding to be poor. On the other hand, many people choose
not to get an education, or choose a line of work that pays less well, or
choose a marriage partner unwisely. Is this choosing to be "less fortunate"? Indirectly, perhaps. I suspect that you were thinking in terms of
choosing directly, and I was thinking in terms of choosing indirectly. Would that
be the case? There are, of course, people with health problems that prevent them from doing as well in life as they otherwise could, and this is not something anyone would choose, of course - more like it is inflicted upon people. (Although I suppose in the case of people who smoke, or eat grossly bad diets, don't exercise, drink too much, etc you could say they are
indirectly choosing health problems.)
We are starting to come together in our thinking now.

The problem with the original premise in my opinion is that humans
are not monolithic. The are not one way or the other in any area of
behavior. There are extremes and every shading in between.

"Amy D" <amykae@joimail.com> wrote in message
news:103tqcsadctcka1@corp.supernews.com... JWB wrote: "Amy D" <amykae@joimail.com> wrote in message news:103tpnqgna5o919@corp.supernews.com...JWB wrote:>"Amy D" <amykae@joimail.com> wrote in message>news:103tlmgilehre1a@corp.supernews.com...>>>>>I could have been a doctor....they>>aren't "rich"....most RICH people rip off the hard working public>>>That isn't true.>>Oh really..... No, it isn't. Yea, there's corruption, but I'd wager that poor people
are just as, if not *more*, dishonest. Most "rich" people (let's say 200k
plus annually) don't make the news, are people you never hear of, usually
work damn hard, and live quiet lives. So you are ignoring the fact that doctors CAN NOT affort malpractice insurance.....I'd encourage my kid to drive a truck before going to medical school....although my husband would pitch an absolute fit.... amy

I would avoid sweeping generalizations if I could.

"Bill in Co." <Lost In Time, but surly@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:PeC%b.10270$yZ1.7763@newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net... Amy D wrote: JWB wrote: "Amy D" <amykae@joimail.com> wrote in message news:103tpnqgna5o919@corp.supernews.com...>> JWB wrote:>>>> "Amy D" <amykae@joimail.com> wrote in message>> news:103tlmgilehre1a@corp.supernews.com...>>>>>>>>> I could have been a doctor....they>>> aren't "rich"....most RICH people rip off the hard working public>>>>>> That isn't true.>>>>>> Oh really..... No, it isn't. Yea, there's corruption, but I'd wager that poor people
are just as, if not *more*, dishonest. Most "rich" people (let's say 200k
plus annually) don't make the news, are people you never hear of, usually
work damn hard, and live quiet lives. So you are ignoring the fact that doctors CAN NOT affort malpractice insurance.....I'd encourage my kid to drive a truck before going to medical school....although my husband would pitch an absolute fit.... amy The reason the doctors can't afford it comes down to the same thing once
again: our outstanding legal "profession" ("serving" their clients).

I have several personal friends that are MD's as well as both of my next
door neighbors.

They can afford insurance and a lot more.

They all have been sued at various times. They all complain about
the cost of insurance. They all drive laye model expensive cars, they
all have big houses, they all have summer homes and they all paid
to put their kids through colleges. They are all really good people
who work hard and pay their bills just like me.

BTW, I also have several friends who are lawyers.

"Bill in Co." <Lost In Time, but surly@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:bTB%b.10238$yZ1.754@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net... Amy D wrote: ...most RICH people rip off the hard working public...... Especially the lawyers. You know, $300 an hour, plus a $10,000
retainer?? What a bunch of bull****. They are the leeches of society, taking full advantage of those at their most "down and out" (destitute) moments, and leaving many bankrupt in the process. And all for what? So they can
drive their Audis and BMWs. And yes, I know there are a few exceptions. end rant...

Glad that put "rant" in there. You statement is a gross generalization
though.
I don't like it that we need lawyers either but that is a reflection of how
complicated
the world we live in is.

"Amy D" <amykae@joimail.com> wrote in message
news:103tqcsadctcka1@corp.supernews.com... JWB wrote: "Amy D" <amykae@joimail.com> wrote in message news:103tpnqgna5o919@corp.supernews.com...JWB wrote:>"Amy D" <amykae@joimail.com> wrote in message>news:103tlmgilehre1a@corp.supernews.com...>>>>>I could have been a doctor....they>>aren't "rich"....most RICH people rip off the hard working public>>>That isn't true.>>Oh really..... No, it isn't. Yea, there's corruption, but I'd wager that poor people
are just as, if not *more*, dishonest. Most "rich" people (let's say 200k
plus annually) don't make the news, are people you never hear of, usually
work damn hard, and live quiet lives. So you are ignoring the fact that doctors CAN NOT affort malpractice insurance.....I'd encourage my kid to drive a truck before going to medical school....although my husband would pitch an absolute fit....

*some* doctors cannot afford it. Just like *some* millionaires go broke.
Don't take your small-town doctor's experience and project it nationwide -
the doctors in my city are doing just fine, thank you.

"Amy D" <amykae@joimail.com> wrote in message
news:103tq8hktuslh17@corp.supernews.com... JWB wrote:
ok, you're dying to say so, so I'll ask... why can't you get a passport?
You didn't kill some anti-trucker type person, did you? :) No, and I'm not "dying to say so" other than I'm being held hostage by the "land of the free"....

Then just say "I can't legally get a passport". Alluding to being "held
hostage" and the like adds nothing to the argument.

"Bill in Co." <Lost In Time, but surly@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:bTB%b.10238$yZ1.754@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net... Amy D wrote: ...most RICH people rip off the hard working public...... Especially the lawyers. You know, $300 an hour, plus a $10,000
retainer?? What a bunch of bull****. They are the leeches of society, taking full advantage of those at their most "down and out" (destitute) moments, and leaving many bankrupt in the process. And all for what? So they can
drive their Audis and BMWs. And yes, I know there are a few exceptions.

actually, tenured college professors showing up for work three days a week
are bigger leeches.

in article iSJ%b.5588$1e3.1282224@twister.nyc.rr.com, JWB at
00973@noplace.com wrote on 2/27/04 9:02 AM:
"Bill in Co." <Lost In Time, but surly@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:bTB%b.10238$yZ1.754@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net... Amy D wrote: ...most RICH people rip off the hard working public...... Especially the lawyers. You know, $300 an hour, plus a $10,000 retainer?? What a bunch of bull****. They are the leeches of society, taking full advantage of those at their most "down and out" (destitute) moments, and leaving many bankrupt in the process. And all for what? So they can drive their Audis and BMWs. And yes, I know there are a few exceptions. actually, tenured college professors showing up for work three days a week are bigger leeches.

I'll trump you with one of mine, who taught three classes, scheduled over
two days, and provided exactly 2 hours of office hours a week.

Course, then there was my dad, who was a tenured professor, who could be
found on campus seven days a week, taught his classes, and supervised an
outandish number of grad students.

M.

"JWB" <00973@noplace.com> writes:
"Bill in Co." <Lost In Time, but surly@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:bTB%b.10238$yZ1.754@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net... Amy D wrote: ...most RICH people rip off the hard working public...... Especially the lawyers. You know, $300 an hour, plus a $10,000 retainer?? What a bunch of bull****. They are the leeches of society, taking full advantage of those at their most "down and out" (destitute) moments, and leaving many bankrupt in the process. And all for what? So they can drive their Audis and BMWs. And yes, I know there are a few exceptions. actually, tenured college professors showing up for work three days a week are bigger leeches.

Though none of these people are rich. And I think they might be an
urban myth caused by the fact that people mistakenly think teaching is
100% of a typical college professors job.

I know a lot of college professors. Most of them work well over 40
hours a week, including summer (for which they are usually not paid).
Very few of them spend 40 hours a week (or anything close to it)
directly on teaching however.

urf wrote: "Bill in Co." <Lost In Time, but surly@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:bTB%b.10238$yZ1.754@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net... Amy D wrote: ...most RICH people rip off the hard working public...... Especially the lawyers. You know, $300 an hour, plus a $10,000 retainer?? What a bunch of bull****. They are the leeches of society, taking full advantage of those at their most "down and out" (destitute) moments, and leaving many bankrupt in the process. And all for what? So they can drive their Audis and BMWs. And yes, I know there are a few exceptions. end rant... Glad that put "rant" in there. You statement is a gross generalization though.

I don't see it as a gross generalization at all. Convince me I'm wrong, with
typical lawyer rates of $300 an hour, and $60 a phone call, (etc). Are you
going to tell me they are truly charging "affordable rates" for the *common
man*? Or that they are somehow entitled to make $300 an hour, when many of
their clients probably make that in a week? Note: other professions have
similar education requirements, and charge nowhere near those rates (esp for
any long period of time). And some of them (like teaching) actually serve to
BUILD people up, not tear them down - and not to encourage - and sustain -
extended litigation (often at each others throats), to make larger profits for
themselves - totally off of their client's backs.

You must be thinking of the 1% pro bonos, or a couple of lawyers that charge a
reasonable $50 an hour, or something. Big deal.
I don't like it that we need lawyers either but that is a reflection of how complicated the world we live in is.

Bill in Co. wrote: urf wrote: "Bill in Co." <Lost In Time, but surly@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:bTB%b.10238$yZ1.754@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net... Amy D wrote:> ...most RICH people rip off the hard working public...... Especially the lawyers. You know, $300 an hour, plus a $10,000
retainer?? What a bunch of bull****. They are the leeches of society, taking full advantage of those at their most "down and out" (destitute) moments, and leaving many bankrupt in the process. And all for what? So they can drive their Audis and BMWs. And yes, I know there are a few exceptions. end rant... Glad that put "rant" in there. You statement is a gross generalization though. I don't see it as a gross generalization at all. Convince me I'm wrong,
with typical lawyer rates of $300 an hour, and $60 a phone call, (etc). Are you going to tell me they are truly charging "affordable rates" for the *common man*? Or that they are somehow entitled to make $300 an hour, when many of their clients probably make that in a week? Note: other professions have similar education requirements, and charge nowhere near those rates (esp for any long period of time). And some of them (like teaching) actually serve
to BUILD people up, not tear them down - and not to encourage - and sustain - extended litigation (often at each others throats), to make larger profits
for themselves - totally off of their client's backs. You must be thinking of the 1% pro bonos, or a couple of lawyers that charge
a reasonable $50 an hour, or something. Big deal. I don't like it that we need lawyers either but that is a reflection of how complicated the world we live in is.

Forgot to add: doctors SAVE lives (not destroy them), and require many, many
years of a REAL (scientific) education - so don't compare them to lawyers -
it's an insult to the medical profession.

"Michael" <erosewater@ziplip.com> wrote in message
news:BC64BBEC.25856%erosewater@ziplip.com... in article iSJ%b.5588$1e3.1282224@twister.nyc.rr.com, JWB at 00973@noplace.com wrote on 2/27/04 9:02 AM: "Bill in Co." <Lost In Time, but surly@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:bTB%b.10238$yZ1.754@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net... Amy D wrote:> ...most RICH people rip off the hard working public...... Especially the lawyers. You know, $300 an hour, plus a $10,000 retainer?? What a bunch of bull****. They are the leeches of society, taking
full advantage of those at their most "down and out" (destitute) moments,
and leaving many bankrupt in the process. And all for what? So they
can drive their Audis and BMWs. And yes, I know there are a few exceptions. actually, tenured college professors showing up for work three days a
week are bigger leeches. I'll trump you with one of mine, who taught three classes, scheduled over two days, and provided exactly 2 hours of office hours a week. Course, then there was my dad, who was a tenured professor, who could be found on campus seven days a week, taught his classes, and supervised an outandish number of grad students.

I agree - there are good and bad. I'm really just teasing Bill, because he's
a college professor. Although most professors I have known seem to have
*very* cushy jobs.

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0vllmoqyn7.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... "JWB" <00973@noplace.com> writes: "Bill in Co." <Lost In Time, but surly@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:bTB%b.10238$yZ1.754@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net... Amy D wrote: > ...most RICH people rip off the hard working public...... Especially the lawyers. You know, $300 an hour, plus a $10,000 retainer?? What a bunch of bull****. They are the leeches of society, taking
full advantage of those at their most "down and out" (destitute) moments,
and leaving many bankrupt in the process. And all for what? So they
can drive their Audis and BMWs. And yes, I know there are a few exceptions. actually, tenured college professors showing up for work three days a
week are bigger leeches. Though none of these people are rich. And I think they might be an urban myth caused by the fact that people mistakenly think teaching is 100% of a typical college professors job. I know a lot of college professors. Most of them work well over 40 hours a week, including summer (for which they are usually not paid). Very few of them spend 40 hours a week (or anything close to it) directly on teaching however.

I agree. I'm just needling Bill.

"Bill in Co." <Lost In Time, but surly@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:A5L%b.11738$aT1.10213@newsread1.news.pas.eart hlink.net... urf wrote: "Bill in Co." <Lost In Time, but surly@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:bTB%b.10238$yZ1.754@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net... Amy D wrote:> ...most RICH people rip off the hard working public...... Especially the lawyers. You know, $300 an hour, plus a $10,000
retainer?? What a bunch of bull****. They are the leeches of society, taking
full advantage of those at their most "down and out" (destitute) moments,
and leaving many bankrupt in the process. And all for what? So they
can drive their Audis and BMWs. And yes, I know there are a few exceptions. end rant... Glad that put "rant" in there. You statement is a gross generalization though. I don't see it as a gross generalization at all. Convince me I'm wrong,
with typical lawyer rates of $300 an hour, and $60 a phone call, (etc). Are
you going to tell me they are truly charging "affordable rates" for the
*common man*? Or that they are somehow entitled to make $300 an hour, when many
of their clients probably make that in a week? Note: other professions have similar education requirements, and charge nowhere near those rates (esp
for any long period of time). And some of them (like teaching) actually
serve to BUILD people up, not tear them down - and not to encourage - and sustain - extended litigation (often at each others throats), to make larger profits
for themselves - totally off of their client's backs.

I really don't feel a need to convince you of anything at all.

I guess you use lawyers often. Lawyers (or anybody else) are not required to
set their rates based on what the common man (or anybody else) can afford.
This is a capitalist nation and a free market economy. If they are charging
too
much then no one will use them. Maybe they raise the rates when they
see you walk through the door? Maybe they have to do more to suit your
needs?
The last time I used a lawyer it cost me an expensive dinner and two bottles
of
expensive wine. I got to eat half the dinner though. The lawyer (my neighbor
at
the time) save me several thousand dollars in a real estate transaction by
picking
up on details I was unaware of. I think I got the better part of that deal.

"Bill in Co." <Lost In Time, but surly@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1aL%b.11744$aT1.7391@newsread1.news.pas.earth link.net... Bill in Co. wrote: urf wrote: "Bill in Co." <Lost In Time, but surly@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:bTB%b.10238$yZ1.754@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net...> Amy D wrote:>> ...most RICH people rip off the hard working public......>> Especially the lawyers. You know, $300 an hour, plus a $10,000 retainer??> What a bunch of bull****. They are the leeches of society, taking
full> advantage of those at their most "down and out" (destitute) moments,
and> leaving many bankrupt in the process. And all for what? So they
can> drive their Audis and BMWs.>> And yes, I know there are a few exceptions.>> end rant... Glad that put "rant" in there. You statement is a gross generalization though. I don't see it as a gross generalization at all. Convince me I'm
wrong, with typical lawyer rates of $300 an hour, and $60 a phone call, (etc). Are
you going to tell me they are truly charging "affordable rates" for the
*common man*? Or that they are somehow entitled to make $300 an hour, when
many of their clients probably make that in a week? Note: other professions
have similar education requirements, and charge nowhere near those rates (esp
for any long period of time). And some of them (like teaching) actually
serve to BUILD people up, not tear them down - and not to encourage - and
sustain - extended litigation (often at each others throats), to make larger
profits for themselves - totally off of their client's backs. You must be thinking of the 1% pro bonos, or a couple of lawyers that
charge a reasonable $50 an hour, or something. Big deal. I don't like it that we need lawyers either but that is a reflection of
how complicated the world we live in is. Forgot to add: doctors SAVE lives (not destroy them), and require many,
many years of a REAL (scientific) education - so don't compare them to
lawyers - it's an insult to the medical profession.

Doctors do NOT SAVE LIVES!!! They may prolong a life but every patient dies
in the end. Most of my Doc friends tell me that their patients would, by and
large,
get better without any intervention. I even know some that will tell you it
was their
mistakes that caused a patients death.

urf wrote: "Bill in Co." <Lost In Time, but surly@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:A5L%b.11738$aT1.10213@newsread1.news.pas.eart hlink.net... urf wrote: "Bill in Co." <Lost In Time, but surly@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:bTB%b.10238$yZ1.754@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net...> Amy D wrote:>> ...most RICH people rip off the hard working public......>> Especially the lawyers. You know, $300 an hour, plus a $10,000> retainer?? What a bunch of bull****. They are the leeches of society,> taking full advantage of those at their most "down and out" (destitute)> moments, and leaving many bankrupt in the process. And all for what?> So they can drive their Audis and BMWs.>> And yes, I know there are a few exceptions.>> end rant... Glad that put "rant" in there. You statement is a gross generalization though. I don't see it as a gross generalization at all. Convince me I'm wrong, with typical lawyer rates of $300 an hour, and $60 a phone call, (etc). Are you going to tell me they are truly charging "affordable rates" for the *common man*? Or that they are somehow entitled to make $300 an hour, when many of their clients probably make that in a week? Note: other professions have similar education requirements, and charge nowhere near those rates (esp for any long period of time). And some of them (like teaching) actually serve to BUILD people up, not tear them down - and not to encourage - and sustain - extended litigation (often at each others throats), to make larger profits for themselves - totally off of their client's backs. I really don't feel a need to convince you of anything at all. I guess you use lawyers often. Lawyers (or anybody else) are not required to set their rates based on what the common man (or anybody else) can afford. This is a capitalist nation and a free market economy.

I guess that makes it right, and justifies it.

"Bill in Co." <Lost In Time, but surly@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:mNP%b.10855$yZ1.1908@newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net... urf wrote: "Bill in Co." <Lost In Time, but surly@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:A5L%b.11738$aT1.10213@newsread1.news.pas.eart hlink.net... urf wrote:> "Bill in Co." <Lost In Time, but surly@earthlink.net> wrote in message> news:bTB%b.10238$yZ1.754@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net...>> Amy D wrote:>>> ...most RICH people rip off the hard working public......>>>> Especially the lawyers. You know, $300 an hour, plus a $10,000>> retainer?? What a bunch of bull****. They are the leeches of
society,>> taking full advantage of those at their most "down and out"
(destitute)>> moments, and leaving many bankrupt in the process. And all for
what?>> So they can drive their Audis and BMWs.>>>> And yes, I know there are a few exceptions.>>>> end rant...>> Glad that put "rant" in there. You statement is a gross generalization> though. I don't see it as a gross generalization at all. Convince me I'm
wrong, with typical lawyer rates of $300 an hour, and $60 a phone call, (etc). Are you going to tell me they are truly charging "affordable rates" for
the *common man*? Or that they are somehow entitled to make $300 an
hour, when many of their clients probably make that in a week? Note: other professions have similar education requirements, and charge nowhere
near those rates (esp for any long period of time). And some of them (like teaching) actually serve to BUILD people up, not tear them down - and
not to encourage - and sustain - extended litigation (often at each others throats), to make larger profits for themselves - totally off of their client's backs. I really don't feel a need to convince you of anything at all. I guess you use lawyers often. Lawyers (or anybody else) are not
required to set their rates based on what the common man (or anybody else) can
afford. This is a capitalist nation and a free market economy. I guess that makes it right, and justifies it.

There is a lot about this world that is not right or justified. It is what
it is.

>A lot of it is semantics, I think. The semantics part really comes from howwe are defining "choose". Generally speaking, people don't start out intheir youth deciding to be poor. On the other hand, many people choose notto get an education, or choose a line of work that pays less well, or choosea marriage partner unwisely. Is this choosing to be "less fortunate"?

Who is it that says "If you choose the action, you choose the consequences?"
Whoever it is, I like the idea.

Sheila

>I'm thinking bankruptcy but that may not be a reason to have your passportwithheld in the USA.Then there're drug convictions but does that prevent one from getting apassport or just visas to get into other countries?TaiTai

I'm thinking owing back income taxes.

Sheila

"WhansaMi" <whansami@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040228102038.22662.00000544@mb-m10.aol.com...I'm thinking bankruptcy but that may not be a reason to have your
passportwithheld in the USA.Then there're drug convictions but does that prevent one from getting apassport or just visas to get into other countries?TaiTai I'm thinking owing back income taxes.

Yup, probably right. That's one of the main things.

"JWB" <00973@noplace.com> wrote in message
news:LK20c.25639$Im5.1781801@twister.nyc.rr.com... "WhansaMi" <whansami@aol.com> wrote in message news:20040228102038.22662.00000544@mb-m10.aol.com...I'm thinking bankruptcy but that may not be a reason to have your passportwithheld in the USA.Then there're drug convictions but does that prevent one from getting apassport or just visas to get into other countries?TaiTai I'm thinking owing back income taxes. Yup, probably right. That's one of the main things.

http://travel.state.gov/passportinfo_lawenforcement.html

A federal or state law enforcement agency may request the denial of a
passport on several regulatory grounds under 22 CFR 51.70 and 51.72. While
the principal regulatory reason to deny a passport is a federal warrant of
arrest, other reasons include a federal or state criminal court order of
parole or probation prohibiting departure from the United States (or the
jurisdiction of the court), a court order establishing incompetence, or a
request for extradition. A passport is automatically denied for certified
child support arrears and non-U.S. citizenship. Please note that denial of a
passport does not of itself prevent the use of currently valid passports.

> A passport is automatically denied for certifiedchild support arrears and non-U.S. citizenship.


Ahhhh.. that was my second thought... child support arrears.

Sheila