Thursday, December 23, 2004

Have it Our Way

'Tis the season! Temper tantrum season, that is.

Did you ever see a 3-year-old being told that he can't have all the cookies because that wouldn't be fair to the other kids? He starts yelling and stomping about because he wants all the cookies. He doesn't want to hear why it's not fair - heck he doesn't CARE that it's not fair. He wants those cookies and nothing his parents say will convince him that he shouldn't have them.

Well, once again, the little boys on the right are stomping their feet and shaking their fists because they have to share.

Share what? Good wishes ...
        ... with others! Oh, the horror!

A small portion of those who call themselves Christians have their knickers in a knot over the phrase "Happy Holidays." Just like a whiny toddler told "no," they rant and scream, unwilling to be fair to others because they're not getting their own way. They want everyone to be told to have a "Merry Christmas," even if that person's holiday is Hanukka, Kwanzaaa, some other winter festival, or even none of the above.

They don't care that there are [gasp!] OTHER holidays at the SAME TIME of year! They don't want to hear a greeting that can cover all the bases. They want to hear what they want to hear, damnit!

No one else matters. Fairness doesn't matter. Basic respect doesn't matter. They, the self-important, self-centered crybabies are all that matter.

One other common behavior among whiny kids is the development of all sorts of unfounded arguments in favor of their viewpoint. They'll say anything that they think might help their cause. "But I NEED all the cookies, 'cuz I have a sniffle and they're chocolate, and chocolate makes you better!"

So our whiny little commentators have pulled out the flimsy "Christian Nation" argument. For example, the ill-informed Bill O'Reilly has an on-going segment implying that the secular boogeyman (aka anyone who disagrees with him) is hiding under the bed, readying to reach up and grab Christianity in a plot to destroy the nation (implying with his twisted logic that Christianity and the US are the same thing):
Now most people, of course, love Christmas and want to keep its traditions, but the secular movement has influence in the media, among some judges and politicians. Americans will lose their country if they don't begin to take action. Any assault on Judeo-Christian philosophy should be fought.

Ahem. [sound of throat clearing]

Just the Facts Ma'am
This nation began with the settlement of the Jamestown (Virginia) colony. It was chartered by the Virginia Company as a profit-making venture for the export of raw materials from the "new world" to England. The people in the colony were religious, which is not a surprise, coming from England at the time they did. They were pretty much guaranteed to hold the beliefs of one or another sect of the Christian church. As a result, it was no big deal when the House of Burgesses - the first legislative assembly allowed in the colonies by the King of England - required church attendance for the colonists.

Similarly, when the Pilgrims, a religious sect, came along, they created local regulations regarding religious behavior. They came to the New World after Lutheranism/Calvinism took a beating in England - with certain of the key tenets (such as predestination) of their sect having been replaced in the Church of England by beliefs derived from the Works of James Arminius.

So with all these Christians running things in the colonies, what the heck happened to the Constitution?
It's true that the various colonies were founded by people with strong backgrounds in one Christian sect or another. But the Constitituion doesn't reflect any particular Christian sect, or any religion for that matter. As a matter of fact, it most explicitly forbids the government from establishing religion. From Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law, establishment in this context means:
a church recognized by law as the official church of a nation or state and supported by civil authority.

Why the Heck Did They Do That?
The founders went WELL out of their way to put a great big divider between the government and religion, because they knew all too well the tyranny that eventually happens once government starts sticking it's grubby little fingers into people's faith. As the pilgrims learned, life was great for them when the government sanctioned their religious beliefs, but when the government decided that it liked other ideas better, things became mighty intolerable.

The people who wrote the US Constitution, one of the most impressive documents in the history of mankind, had learned a very difficult lesson the hard way. They wrote the principles of Separation of Church and State into the Constitution to ensure the rest of us didn't have to repeat that particular lesson.

James Madison, a devout Christian, often pointed out as an example of the so-called Christian foundation of our nation, was a very strong believer in separating religion from government. Here's an illustrative quote from a letter Madison wrote [emphasis added]:
... I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt. will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together. It was the belief of all sects at one time that the establishment of Religion by law, was right & necessary; that the true religion ought to be established in exclusion of every other; And that the only question to be decided was which was the true religion. The example of Holland proved that a toleration of sects, dissenting from the established sect, was safe & even useful. The example of the Colonies, now States, which rejected religious establishments altogether, proved that all Sects might be safely & advantageously put on a footing of equal & entire freedom; and a continuance of their example since the declaration of Independence, has shewn that its success in Colonies was not to be ascribed to their connection with the parent Country. If a further confirmation of the truth could be wanted, it is to be found in the examples furnished by the States, which have abolished their religious establishments. I cannot speak particularly of any of the cases excepting that of Virga. [abbr. for Virginia] where it is impossible to deny that Religion prevails with more zeal, and a more exemplary priesthood than it ever did when established and patronised by Public authority. We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts. do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Govt.

- James Madison

So, yes, this country was founded in part, by Christians (other founders, such as Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were deists). However, they did not found the United States as a Christian nation. They founded it as a nation in which they and all others could freely worship according to their religious beliefs.

So Bill O'Reilly, and his group of frustrated whiners should be treated like any tantrum-throwing child: time-out. Don't watch or listen and let them know you're not. While you're at it, call or write to the advertisers on those shows and let them know you've put them in time-out. After all, as the holders of the purse strings, the advertisers have the power to enforce a time-out...


Blogger CE Petro said...

Just to add: at the time of the American Revolution 8 of the 13 colonies had established an official religion, and all of the colonies had imposed religious tests in order to take public office. To go further, if you did not share the beliefs of the dominant religion in the colony you resided, you were subjected to taxation, forced attendence at a government sponsored church, bannishment, and even death. This was the reality of religious life in the colonies, and one of the compelling reasons why our founders shied away from a government-church incorporation.

Cheers! And thanks for stopping by my blog and posting. I'd like to add you to my blogroll.

11:45 AM  
Blogger rhetoretician said...

Excellent input, thanks! That's exactly the kind of tyranny that eventually crops up. Once a government starts sanctioning one religion, it's not too long before the government starts punishing people of other faiths - even if they are of the same tradition (for example, in Chritianity it would not be unexpected for baptists to be pitted against lutherans, pentecostals, catholics, and others, even though all are Christians).

The degree of punishment varies, but over time, if the religion remains established, the punishments become more and more severe, leading eventually to torture and death for no reason other than a different set of beliefs regarding which prophet one follows.

The lesson of this kind of government tyranny has been learned over and over throughout human history. We were very lucky that the founders took the lesson to heart. We must not give up the laws that protect our religious beliefs from government interference.

I'd be thrilled if you added a link to this blog in your blog roll! Thanks! Can I return the favor?

5:42 PM  
Blogger CE Petro said...

But, it's so easy to disregard the lessons of yesteryear. That old adage comes back to haunt us -- history repeats itself. To think that we keep repeating ourselves is pretty sad, at the very least.

I've added you to my blogroll, and thanks for asking to add me. You might also want to hop over to What She Said! at Morgaine has compiled a list of progressive women bloggers, that you should be added to. Cheers!

9:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you miss the point once again. those on the right do not want to outlaw the phrase "happy hollidays" if you would like to say that more power to you . im sure you actually are just being dishonest with this latest blog and fully understand that it is the left which is seeking to impose its will on the rest of us. this tyranny and intolerance can be seen in the attempts to ban christmas songs in public schools as well as christmas decorations on public squares.not to mention the vitriol expressed by these same people towards mell gibson and his movie .ofcourse the left hates religeon except for their own brand . it is at the very heart of the communism . i have no doubt you are fully aware of carl marx and his communist manifesto.i also have no doubt that you are well aware of the history of communism and its intolerance towards religeon.
as for me , i have no belief in god or gods. but i also do not push that on others and am not offended by anyone who wishes me a "merry chrismas" or a "happy holiday"
one other note.the founders never intended for a secular country. the just never wanted a state sponsored religeon. there is a difference. note too that the founders also mentioned god many times.

12:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

what is all this stuff about "fairness" you claim the right doesn't care what is "fair" . this seems to be a theme of yours over and over again. you also use works like "enough" as if there is a universal agreement on what constitutes enough. another theme you use is "sharing"
What you don't seem to understand is that people have different views on what is enough for them. They also feel differently about what is "fair," you seem to feel that you are the arbiter on all these things and that you and those like you should force your views on the rest of us.
those of us who do not share your views are marginalized. you call them "crybabies" . this is such an easy way to argue a case. i could call you a crybaby or a whiner since you lost this past election. i could call you a coward who is afraid to face life without government guarantees to protect you if you cant make it on your own merits. i could also call you far worse. But I wont. IL leave the nasty name calling to you. let your side marginalize those who do not share your world view. label them all "stupid" "religious zealots" "simple "
"Crybabies" "greedy" "whiny" "ill-informed" and so forth. We need someone like you to tell us how to believe and to explain what's moral, what is enough, and what is fair.
Either that, or your the whiner, and the crybaby. Which is it ?

12:34 PM  
Blogger CE Petro said...

Actually, Anonymous YOU are missing the point. When all religions are represented in the public square for any particular holiday that is fair, as all religions have some sort of celebration during the Christmas season (and it's been called the season as it starts at Thanksgiving -- not a Christian holiday -- and progresses through New Years -- again not a Christian holiday). The progressives would like to see "tolerance" towards all religions, and in this case that means respecting ALL religions, not promoting one over another. I always wondered why some Christians have pushed this holiday when there is evidence that Christ wasn't even born until the spring-time (April?).

Christ taught tolerance. Christ taught acceptance of those different from you. You're not judged by who you exclude, but by who you embrace (stealing from the movie Chocolat). To ignore the Christs' teachings is to be unChristian. Why is it that you, and those that think like you, see that?

When you push the rhetoric of kids not being able to pray in schools and not being able to sing Christmas Carols, etc., you look pretty damn bigoted. Kids may pray in public schools if that is what they desire. What is not allowed is (forced) teacher-led prayers in public schools. That is a HUGE distinction that the religious-right conveniently forgets. As far as the carols, there are plenty of carols that are not religious in nature. Considering a public school generally encompasses an aray of cultures, I find non-religious carols to be more appropriate. When teaching a specific culture, it is appropriate to include that culture's beliefs. This is not being politically correct, it is being tolerant, accepting, and in the process expands your mind, understanding and hopefully your interests.

4:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you jumped top so many conclusions proving that you are the bigoted one. first of all i am an atheist . however, unlike you and your fellows i do not wish to push my beliefs nor do i wish to attack those who have religious leanings. i hardly expect the truth from the left but if you follow what you said to its conclusion than you would be against the many attempts your left wing friends have made to not include formal religions in events. you must be absolutely apauled by the parade of lights in Denver which excluded a Christian and a Jewish group yet promoted a lesbian sunworshipping cult. progressives have no interest in seeing tolerance towards all religions they seek to see
The destruction of formal religions. Again this can be seen in your favorite writings of Marx and engels.
As to your ignorance as to why Christ's birthday is celebrated on DEC 25 I suggest you do some studying on the matter. The most popular theory is that the pagan holiday celebrated on the winter solstice was chosen for a variety of reasons.the truth is no one actually knows when he was born.
As to your typical left wing attitude of preaching I have to laugh. To hear someone like you talk about Christ's teachings is an absolute joke. as far as your reasoning for not singing Christmas carols? That is as silly and as stupid as teaching about the Renaissance while excluding giotto, michelangelo, leonardo and raphael and any painting or sculpture that had religious content.
the effect on our culture from religion is enormous the values we have are a direct result of the Judea - Christian ethic. this is not something we should run from but rather something we should embrace. the lefts desire to shun our past and to try to live it down and to destroy it is a disgrace. also, the American culture is the best and most fair in all the world. despite the lefts hatred for all it embodies, the freedom of individuals to act in the market place. the left hates what it cant use to control people. freedom, capitalism, and religion are all the enemies of the so called progressives. however, Americans are showing more and more that these people are in the minority. we will continue to build on the past elections and take back the country from the haters on the left.

1:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear anonymous,

I see you like to play the right's sleazy "guilt by association" game. You pick some inflamatory name and claim that the person you're talking about is somehow associated with him, like the "Marx and Engels" thing above.

There's such a thing as balance, and there are things people can agree are fair, and all but antisocial people agree that sharing is an important thing. Sharing and fairness and enough are universal things people teach their kids, because it's right.

You don't need to be an extremist (or a Marxist) to want to find balance or fairness.

You might get better replies if you didn't name call people, and instead just describe your own views.

12:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

wrong . people do not agree on what is enough or what is fair.there is no universal agreement or consensus over what constitutes either. learn to read. how much is enough ? tell me exactly. some think i have too much . others think i have about the right amount .while others consider me lacking . this is true of just about everything , looks , brains, and money. only god and a commie like you thinks he can determine what is enough or what is fair.for instance , think of all those such as yourself who consider it "fair" to take a hard working tax payers money to give it to some slob who wont work . ehy , if you own a house and have a nice car people such as you consider that "enough" . but as this last election proved, many people in america feel that it is up to the individual to determine these things and that our capatalist system is the best way to sort that out. thats why this country is so great. on average , you get what you deserve.

5:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with anonymous that these terms are in the eye of the beholder.the other anonymous may teach his or her child the concept of sharing and enough but he is going to put his value on it. As far as name calling goes, the wrst offenders are the author of the blog (which you do not take to task) and many of the other posters who call people names or speak of them in a condsending manner.

5:16 PM  
Blogger rhetoretician said...

Interesting comments given that the post is about Christians wanting to ignore all other religions in public holiday greetings...

Is there a level at which you think someone has "enough"?

I'll give my answer and my thoughts. I'd like to hear other's opinions. Yes, they're subjective, but if people gave up on trying to come to agreement on anything about which people have subjective opinions, there'd be no societies.

Clearly I do believe that there is a concept of "enough." I believe that, until the layoff, I made "enough" for me and my family.

If I had to pick a limit I think just about anyone could agree to, personally, I'd put the limit in the low 10s of millions, say 20 - 30 million. That's a HUGE amount of money, but if you really did something to earn that much money, I can see allowing you to keep it - buy the big house, the boat, a couple of horses, whatever. But 600 Million? That's the LOWEST valuation of the people on the Forbes 400 for 2003. To show how sharply that tax system has changed over the last decade, In 1996 Warren Buffett was worth $15 million. Now he's worth $41 billion - that's billion, with a "b." Some of that is due to excellent luck in investments, but some is because the rules changed drastically, letting him hold onto much, much more. If we stuck with the 1960 tax rate, or had adjusted it slightly to account for some of the global changes that occured in the 1970s, he'd still have in the solid tens of millions and we'd have had more than 30 billion to keep us from creating the crushing national debt.

This country became great because we had a social contract that included a concept of "enough" wealth, requring the extremely wealthy to forfeit some of their enourmous wealth for the benefit of the society as a whole, since their success was partly the result of the hard work of the society.

These people are working very hard to take away from future generations the same kinds of improvements that benefited them. Think about it - in the 1960s, the tax rate for the super rich was more than 90%. Now it's approximately 37%, but only on the income that they're required to report. The rest of the money that funnels into their personal coffers isn't counted.

In the past, that tax money was part of what enabled massive social programs, such as rural electrification and the extension of telephone networks to even the most remote parts of the country.

By choosing to keep the massive shift of the tax burden off of the wealthy onto the middle and lower classes, begun by Reagan in the 80s, we will forfeit similar societal benefits for future generations as a result of the massive shift in tax burden from the super-rich to the rest of us.

Where's the rural internet connectivity program? Where's rural cellular technology program. What kinds of research is being funded to find new energy technology to replace the oil, now that we've passed peak production, to make America the technology leader for the next century? (hint: the movers & shakers in all those fields are not in the US, they're leaving us in the dust, and they're not real interested in sharing the fruits of their labors with us).

In the mean time, while we let the next technological revolution go elsewhere, we allow things like charitable remainder trusts, allowing people to completely hide money from their income, so that they can avoid paying taxes. One of the most egregious recent examples is the now illegal Accellerated Chraitable Remainder Trust. You feed a taxable asset, say 200 million dollars worth of stock into the trust, the trust sells the stock, tax free, then pays you 192 million - also tax free - over 2 years. The trust then folds, providing the 'remainder' (8 million) to the charity that the trust was supposedly set up to benefit. While accelerated trusts are now illegal, non-accelerated trusts are still perfectly legal. An accelerated trust paid you over a couple of years, non-accelerated trusts pay you over a longer period or until your death, whichever comes first.

It's a tax loophole no one posting here could even consider, but the people who need it least, but who benefit most from our government's investments in infrastructure, who benefited from the ridiculous hours of labor provided by people like us, get it.

None of the money that goes through these loopholes has to be reported as income. When you look at their reported income, it look like they're paying the same as you and me in taxes relative to the amount of income reported, but in reality are paying next to nothing percentage-wise, relative to the total sum of money they're collecting - if you count the income that doesn't have to be reported.

9:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tyical socialist thinking.why should that be a surprise though .Lets start with "enough". you mention 90 percent as a tax figure for the 60s. Is that enough for you ? as for me i think that is way out of balance.infact, i think the current rate is obsurd. Think about it. Do i use more police, fire,or other resources than you ? the answer is no. infact i use a whole lot less. My total tax per year far exceeds yours. Yet I sent my son to private schools and currently have 2 others for which i am doing the same. Yet i pay to subsidize your childrens education or atleast those who do go to public schools.But you think I have too much. That kind of class envy is small of you . I did it the old fashion way . Hard work . You mention luck . That is typical of people who think the way you do . Perhaps i am just a whole lot better at analyzing the stock market than you are. Perhaps I spend more of my free time between building houses for a living to study the market. Ofcurse it just may be that i am better capable of competing in the capatalist economy.Whatever the reason it is what makes america great. So we cant agree on what is enough . I dont know what your salary was prior to losing your job but it seems it is nowhere near what I need or what I want.
Personaly I would love to end all tax loopholes.But I would like to go back to the day where the tax burden was in the 10 to 12 percent range.I find the present way of doing things silly.Your side wants higher taxes for the rich and then the other side fights back.
After a hard days work ( 12-14 hrs in most cases) I come home feeling that I have more than paid my fair share. I think my tax burden is certainly more than enough.
As for all the social programs you want done? The country has existed with out them and can continue to do so untill they can be comfortably paid for .I think we have "enough" social programs to keep the country going .
How much is enough for me? I think the answer is best summed up this way. Enough for me is exactly what my ambition and hard work is capable of earning.I beleive in choice and i feel that choice as to how much is enough is up to the individual.As my father learned and as my children are learning, this country offers plenty and "enough" to anyone who is willing to go out and earn it.I dont think people such as you should make that determination.If you feel you have enough than you can go on enjoying your free time and not looking to earn more. Good like finding out what is enough for you but please stop telling us what is good enough and what we should be happy with .

12:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"That's a HUGE amount of money, but if you really did something to earn that much money, I can see allowing you to keep it - buy the big house, the boat, a couple of horses, whatever"

You can see " allowing " me to keep it? how nice of you . I can keep my money ? If i "really did somthing to earn that money "? so now your going to be the arbiter of that as well? who the hell do you think you are ? You think you know what is not only "enough " for the rest of us but you also think we didnt truly earn it ? It is easy to see the truth in what you really want. you want to take peoples money becouse you are envious. What a pathetic and small person you are.poor baby lost his job and cant make it in life and wants to take from those who worked hard . rationalize that we dint earn it. How pathetic. your thinking has brought about all these massive social programs that have been counter productive. Even thinking clinton saw the need to reform the welfare system. People such as you have ruined the lives of those who became dependant on "the system"
I agree with the last poster. America is full of wealth for anyone who wants it.I recently built a house for a young cambodian / american family which came to this country with nothing. 2 handicapped kids and 2 who wwere healthy and they have made the american dream in less than 15 years. Its all there is you want it . But too many just want to complain and ask for a handout.

12:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would like to chime in please. twenty to twenty five percent seems like a fair tax rate .

2:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fair would be somehwere between 20 and 30 percent depending on your earnings.Keep in mind that over 70 percent of every tax dollar goes to a social welfare program.In time on war perhaps an extra 5 or 6 percent would be needed as well.Interesting post here.

2:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Bush Pledges More Aid for Tsunami Victims
Four Nations Form Coalition to Coordinate Relief

By William Branigin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 29, 2004; 11:21 AM

President Bush said today the United States will provide aid to tsunami-devastated countries beyond an "initial" grant of $35 million, and he announced the formation of an international coalition to coordinate immediate humanitarian relief and long-term recovery and reconstruction.

Appearing before reporters at his ranch in Crawford, Tex., Bush expressed indignation when asked about a senior U.N. official's comment Monday that the United States and other wealthy countries were being "stingy" with their disaster relief. U.N. Emergency Relief Coordinator Jan Egeland withdrew the remark yesterday.

In a press conference on Wednesday, President Bush said the U.S. will have multifaceted response to the tsunami in South Asia. "Our prayers go out to those who have lost so much to this series of disasters," he said. (Luke Frazza - AFP)

can you believe it ? and this bum went on to critisize our tax system saying we should pay higher taxes and provide more aid to the world. well thats the left for you both here and all over the world. there is never " ENOUGH" for them

3:02 PM  
Blogger rhetoretician said...

In response to the most recent comment:

For some perspective, the President is going to spend $5 - $15 million MORE for his innauguration party than the $35 million proposed in aid. This follows a couple of weeks after he cut $100 million from promised aid to the world food aid program.

So, in reality, the $35 million he's offering has just reduced his cut in humanitarian aid to a mere $65 million.

And before you launch into some diatribe about the need for a grand innauguration party, there's precedent for a brief speech with no party at all. It's Clinton who first really went overboard on the inaugural partying - and even he spent far less than what Bush is about to spend.

This sends a clear message to the world that our President values partying over the lives of millions. If he had an ounce of moral courage, he'd cancel the party, make a brief speech, and donate the proceeds to help prevent the cholera epidemic that is guaranteed to result from tens of thousands of rotting un-buried bodies.

But in the land of the self-important and avaricious, that's not gonna happen.

Party on!

4:58 PM  
Blogger rhetoretician said...

Back to the other conversation:

It sounds like there are some who feel that there's no such thing as enough. It also sounds like some feel that there's some level of tax that's fair. It's interesting to see that a fair tax rate seems to hover between 25% and 35%, which is right around what most people (except the super-rich) pay.

Does anyone feel that there's an annual income amount that seems like "enough"? What, if anything, do folks think would be a sufficient amount of income, above which there might be agreement that some kind of additional distribution would be acceptable? Is there one?

Right now, social security tax stops at about $82K per year. Anything you earn over that is not taxes for the social security fund. What to people think of this? Should there be such a cap? If so, is it at the right income level?

Are there types of income that should not be taxed? Are there levels of income that should not be taxed? Why?

5:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have to agree with the other anonymous posters. This was taken from your response rhetorician.
"That much money, I can see allowing you to keep it ."
Who are you anyway? You are going to "allow" people to keep a certain amount of money? Are you suggesting you will "take" amounts greater than this? Clearly you are a socialists. What makes you think I should give you part of the results of my efforts and hard work?
You ask some very stupid questions.for example...

"Does anyone feel that there's an annual income amount that seems like 'enough"?"
What is enough for you or someone else may not be "enough" for me? When I was 20 years old I had a very different impression of what was enough. My lifestyle today is far different from it was back then. For instance, I own a private jet. The cost of running that piece of equipment is quite high. I also have several homes which I enjoy. Have you priced property in aspen? Do you have any idea what it takes to purchase and maintain such a home? Now perhaps you feel someone only needs one or two houses and that five is "too much ,"For you it might be. However, I enjoy them all for different reasons. This is part of the pleasure I and my family get from life.
You need to learn more about people and their habits. Although you might have an annual income which you find "enough" it might not be for everyone. The best earners would stop creating wealth and jobs once they hit your imposed amount. You would cause suffering and unemployment. Look at any sales organization. The top producers far out perform the average. In general the top 20 provide 80 percent of the total sales. If you tried to compete in private enterprise you would fail. One must understand certain principles in order to succeed in the market place.
Many people such as yourself have tried to live a life where everyone gets together and shares. You can still find some of these misguided people clinging desperately to the hope of utopia in small communal situations in Vermont. Most have left, grown up and disillusioned by the dreams they once had. What they found was that you would always have some slackers, people who put in less effort. then others would be less inclined to work hard and share equally. The problem with people such as yourself is that you want badly for everyone to agree on what is enough, or plenty. That us not nor will it ever be the case.

12:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To ALL The Anonymous Posters ! Just CHILL !
People like this will always complain no matter what President Bush does. they are crying as usual with the latest being this lame attack on theinnauguration party.hey just hate it. but here are a few tips. remind them .
THEY LOST ! advise them to stop crying like infants and get on with living.
Give them the good news. THE RECOUNT IS OVER> You lost AGAIN ! pause to give them time to cry a little.
pat them on the back and let them know you have to get back to work

12:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

how about this for persepctive
The united states gives more aid than any other country in the world.DESPITE a year with several natural disasters in our own country we continue to provide billions in aid to the world.
We do not stop celebrating life becouse a disaster happened half way across the world nor should we act based on how the world percieves us.
Every evnt which occurs in the world is used by some people to attack President Bush. In time they will blame this act of nature on him as well. this is how unglued they have become.Only "they" are "moral"
Tonight I plan to take my family out to dinner to celebrate my daughters recent achievment .Although I was saddened by the loss of life and calamity which occured I plan to enjoy life to the fullest.adults understand that natual disasters , wars , and other distastful things occur in life.We dont stop living our lives as a response.
The hate speach such as this ...
If he had an ounce of moral courage, he'd cancel the party, make a brief speech, and donate the proceeds to help prevent the cholera epidemic that is guaranteed to result from tens of thousands of rotting un-buried bodies.
is just a perfect example.
I wonder what the writer of this is planning to do . Is he going to send all his money to help the victims. Will he quit his job and travel half way round the world and get his hands dirty? No ! he will sit in his comfortable home and point fingers. He will lecture people on morality.( start laughing now )and he will detail how little everyone else is doing.

12:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

But in the land of the self-important and avaricious, that's not gonna happen.

which land is that ? America? Let us know which land you favor over this country and why .how do you know someone is self-important ? have you ever thought that perhaps we are not avaricious just becouse we want nice things? I dont want your land or your money . I want the fruits of my labor .

perhaps it is not we who are self - important but rather you . you seem to know how we should all live and what constitutes good really think highly of yourself.I wonder if many people agree with you

12:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

when i saw this link in an aol chat room i thought i was a joke at first. what a hoot to find out people like you still exist. the 60s live on LMAO

1:09 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Progressive Women's Blog Ring

Join | List | Prev | Next | Random | Prev 5 | Next 5 | Skip Prev | Skip Next

Powered by RingSurf