Zeitgeist - The Movie

[RomanClock]

He just explained that it does help them. You're falling back on the 'well that's just my personal belief' defense since you can't come up with any real response to his assertions. Lame.

Ok heres why I think that:
He does all that stuff in Albino post and then what? Hes going to do that every day? Sleep in a Dunkin Donuts? And he's going to eat pastries every day? Albino said that he thinks the bum will eventually "have enough right days to get back up," I think that he needs to get busy right away, not wait a few more months before doing anything. I think its better to try and find something to do than lay around and sleep until the time is right. Numerous times I've noticed Albino comes off as cynical and pessimistic, and I'm nearly the opposite so of course we have different ideas.

[RevolutionaryClock]

If someone is living on the streets they probably aren't in a very happy position. More than likely some stuff has been happening in their life where they could have given up for a while and probably are in no mood to "get busy right away". Getting these people back on their feet is in everyone's best interest. While donating to charities and such are important, giving a bit of pocket change to some guy doesn't hurt either. Giving someone a little bit of money won't spoil them, I doubt these people are doing it because they like sleeping on subway trains and being kicked by cunt teenagers.

[RomanClock]

If someone is living on the streets they probably aren't in a very happy position. More than likely some stuff has been happening in their life where they could have given up for a while and probably are in no mood to "get busy right away". Getting these people back on their feet is in everyone's best interest. While donating to charities and such are important, giving a bit of pocket change to some guy doesn't hurt either. Giving someone a little bit of money won't spoil them, I doubt these people are doing it because they like sleeping on subway trains and being kicked by cunt teenagers.

Thats fine, I'm just trying to explain to you that I don't give to them directly.
I don't even give my friends money, but I also never ask.

[Ti-83Clock]

Ok heres why I think that:
He does all that stuff in Albino post and then what? Hes going to do that every day? Sleep in a Dunkin Donuts? And he's going to eat pastries every day? Albino said that he thinks the bum will eventually "have enough right days to get back up," I think that he needs to get busy right away, not wait a few more months before doing anything. I think its better to try and find something to do than lay around and sleep until the time is right. Numerous times I've noticed Albino comes off as cynical and pessimistic, and I'm nearly the opposite so of course we have different ideas.

they clearly sleep in dunking donuts all day and not look for a job, right?

edit:

""The Gospel of Wealth" was an essay written by Andrew Carnegie in 1889 that described the responsibility of philanthropy by the new upper class of self-made rich. The central thesis of Carnegie's essay was the peril of allowing large sums of money to be passed into the hands of persons or organizations ill-equipped mentally or emotionally to cope with them. As a result, the wealthy entrepreneur must assume the responsibility of distributing his fortune in a way that it will be put to good use, and not wasted on frivolous expenditure. The very existence of poverty in a capitalistic society could be negated by wealthy philanthropic businessmen and women."

also, if the social security > war is true
the subject of poverty > war still remains
right right we've only sent a "few" troops, but we've invested billions of dollars into weapons which instead of killing people could have helped people from starving

[RevolutionaryClock]

Thats fine, I'm just trying to explain to you that I don't give to them directly.
I don't even give my friends money, but I also never ask.

Forget directly, something tells me you don't really give at all. This post tells a lot about you're character. Not in a good way.

[RomanClock]

""The Gospel of Wealth" was an essay written by Andrew Carnegie in 1889 that described the responsibility of philanthropy by the new upper class of self-made rich. The central thesis of Carnegie's essay was the peril of allowing large sums of money to be passed into the hands of persons or organizations ill-equipped mentally or emotionally to cope with them. As a result, the wealthy entrepreneur must assume the responsibility of distributing his fortune in a way that it will be put to good use, and not wasted on frivolous expenditure. The very existence of poverty in a capitalistic society could be negated by wealthy philanthropic businessmen and women."

The Gospel of Wealth side
Im arguing, or trying to argue, the help your fellow man rise along with you side (aka Christian view lol)

Social Darwinism - Rich people are the dominant group of people because they are better than everyone else, through natural selection and that they adapted to the market environment.
Gospel of Wealth - Rich people have money because they can distribute it better than poor people because they wouldn't know how to handle the money.
Individualism - Getting up on your own feet with your own means

So you're telling me you didn't actually read what I wrote? Or are you proving yourself wrong?

also, if the social security > war is true
the subject of poverty > war still remains
right right we've only sent a "few" troops, but we've invested billions of dollars into weapons which instead of killing people could have helped people from starving

Maybe this will clear things up:

Have you heard of welfare? The largest percent of your taxes are going to.

-the largest percent of taxes are going to the war

To further this point, Americans in total have given nearly $300 BILLION each year to charities for at least the past 2 years.
America spends TRILLIONS AROUND THE WORLD to fight poverty and starvation and millions of people have volunteered to help.
Seriously, the cost of the Iraq war is PENNIES compared to spending on these issues.

Forget directly, something tells me you don't really give at all. This post tells a lot about you're character. Not in a good way.

So you want me to brag about giving to charity now? Or that I'm consistent about my principles?

And I'm telling you it does. I'm not saying that people should exclusively donate directly to individuals, it's important to make organized change as well, but it does help, and to deny that is naive.

Ok, and what I said is what you do with your money is your decision.

[AlbinoClock]

I just don't believe it actually helps them and there is our difference.

And I'm telling you it does. I'm not saying that people should exclusively donate directly to individuals, it's important to make organized change as well, but it does help, and to deny that is naive.

[Ti-83Clock]

So you're telling me you didn't actually read what I wrote? Or are you proving yourself wrong?


Maybe this will clear things up:


To further this point, Americans in total have given nearly $300 BILLION each year to charities for at least the past 2 years.
America spends TRILLIONS AROUND THE WORLD to fight poverty and starvation and millions of people have volunteered to help.
Seriously, the cost of the Iraq war is PENNIES compared to spending on these issues.


So you want me to brag about giving to charity now? Or that I'm consistent about my principles?

no i was saying that i was arguing the Christian side while you were arguing the gospel of wealth (it seems to have been a big misunderstanding lol. i should have put a bigger space there)

also, where is this data coming from? the charity thing, because if thats true, lots of intelligent people have been lying to me

i got this site which has sources
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/interactive-tax-chart/2.html
27% doesnt seem pennies to me

(lol Military ($558 billion) > 300 billion)

[RomanClock]

no i was saying that i was arguing the Christian side while you were arguing the gospel of wealth (it seems to have been a big misunderstanding lol. i should have put a bigger space there)

also, where is this data coming from? the charity thing, because if thats true, lots of intelligent people have been lying to me

i got this site which has sources
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/interactive-tax-chart/2.html
27% doesnt seem pennies to me

(lol Military ($558 billion) > 300 billion)

I'll just let you go on this Gospel of Wealth thing for now because it can't be explained any better. However, here is the TRUTH:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-06-25-charitable_N.htm
Thats USA Today, not some random website. And this only accounts for American donations, government aid is not included.
You also realize that nationalpriorities.org is a bias anti-war website?
I hope this satisfies you and we can get on track

[Ti-83Clock]

I'll just let you go on this Gospel of Wealth thing for now because it can't be explained any better. However, here is the TRUTH:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-06-25-charitable_N.htm
Thats USA Today, not some random website. And this only accounts for American donations, government aid is not included.
You also realize that nationalpriorities.org is a bias anti-war website?
I hope this satisfies you and we can get on track

lol gospel of wealth should have never been gone over, big misunderstanding

i also understand that it must be biased, but they do have sources

::reading::

edit:
thats all fine and dandy but...
""What people find especially interesting about this, and it's true year after year, that such a high percentage comes from individual donors," Giving USA Chairman Richard Jolly said."
this is not tax payer's money

[RomanClock]

lol gospel of wealth should have never been gone over, big misunderstanding

i also understand that it must be biased, but they do have sources

::reading::

edit:
thats all fine and dandy but...
""What people find especially interesting about this, and it's true year after year, that such a high percentage comes from individual donors," Giving USA Chairman Richard Jolly said."
this is not tax payer's money

And this only accounts for American donations, government aid is not included.

I said that :/

Note in on Nationalpriorities.org, the military spending they are talking about includes people working in Department of Defense, which is active whether there is a war or not. (I'm not sure but I think this includes FBI, CIA, and those various organizations)
Not only that, but the same source they are using also says the debt is being substantially lowered and the the trade deficit is going well too.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/outlook.html
Not everything is as it seems.

[Ti-83Clock]

I said that :/

Note in on Nationalpriorities.org, the military spending they are talking about includes people working in Department of Defense, which is active whether there is a war or not. (I'm not sure but I think this includes FBI, CIA, and those various organizations)
Not only that, but the same source they are using also says the debt is being substantially lowered and the the trade deficit is going well too.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/outlook.html
Not everything is as it seems.

sorry i didnt noticed that you said that, but originally i was discussing how the government was funding war instead of poverty. again, possibly another misunderstanding.

mmm wow you do like to do your research. /agreement.  Even though that i know now that the war cost is less than what i thought, it still somewhat bothers me that people still are making more sophisticated killing machines, instead of helping.  

lol i somewhat drifted off in my mind during class about this thread, and was thinking, maybe roman means that the 300 billion are already helping poverty and that its a huge chunk, even though that its not government funds.
This made me question, if there is so much money put into charities, how come people are "choosing" to be left in the cold (during the winter), instead of going to shelters?  Is it that the 300 billion is not enough, or that its not being put into good use? thoughts about this?

[RomanClock]

sorry i didnt noticed that you said that, but originally i was discussing how the government was funding war instead of poverty. again, possibly another misunderstanding.

mmm wow you do like to do your research. /agreement.  Even though that i know now that the war cost is less than what i thought, it still somewhat bothers me that people still are making more sophisticated killing machines, instead of helping.

The reason for making more killing machines is to prevent unnecessary killing in the future. If we didn't have precise missiles in Iraq we would be destroying more than we needed too, thus costing more in the long run.

lol i somewhat drifted off in my mind during class about this thread, and was thinking, maybe roman means that the 300 billion are already helping poverty and that its a huge chunk, even though that its not government funds.
This made me question, if there is so much money put into charities, how come people are "choosing" to be left in the cold (during the winter), instead of going to shelters?  Is it that the 300 billion is not enough, or that its not being put into good use? thoughts about this?

That because its spent in other countries as well, there a whole world of poverty worse than America. If I were poor and homeless, I'd rather live in America than Asia, South America or Africa.

[Loki Clock]

The reason for making more killing machines is to prevent unnecessary killing in the future. If we didn't have precise missiles in Iraq we would be destroying more than we needed too, thus costing more in the long run.

Hey, here's an idea! What if we didn't go to war at all? I know this may sound crazy, but what if we spent the money going to war for no good reason on some sort of... I don't know... way to help people? Perhaps taking care of our own instead of forsaking them for degenerates and letting them die in the streets? After all, we wouldn't really need so many of those sophisticated killing machines if we didn't need to use them.

[RomanClock]

Hey, here's an idea! What if we didn't go to war at all? I know this may sound crazy, but what if we spent the money going to war for no good reason on some sort of... I don't know... way to help people? Perhaps taking care of our own instead of forsaking them for degenerates and letting them die in the streets? After all, we wouldn't really need so many of those sophisticated killing machines if we didn't need to use them.

9/11
Pearl Harbor
I win

[Loki Clock]

9/11
Pearl Harbor
I win

You forgot "terrorist" and "un-American".

[Ti-83Clock]

9/11
Pearl Harbor
I win

not sure if its a conspiracy or something but didnt the government konw about these things prior to them occuring?

[Loki Clock]

not sure if its a conspiracy or something but didnt the government konw about these things prior to them occuring?

Yeah. Pearl Harbor was our excuse to enter WW2, remember? 9/11 was just a poorly planned imitation. He could have at least gotten some people who are ACTUALLY FROM IRAQ to fly planes into the building. Even worse if they didn't actually do it (hey, look, I got us back to the original subject of this thread!), because then it's just plain faulty logic. The guy who came up with that one should be fired.

[RomanClock]

You forgot "terrorist" and "un-American".

Yeah. Pearl Harbor was our excuse to enter WW2, remember? 9/11 was just a poorly planned imitation. He could have at least gotten some people who are ACTUALLY FROM IRAQ to fly planes into the building. Even worse if they didn't actually do it (hey, look, I got us back to the original subject of this thread!), because then it's just plain faulty logic. The guy who came up with that one should be fired.

Wow you're I'm a edgy teen. No wonder you fall for all this conspiracy stuff and magical unicorns grazing on purple grass.

[Marlin Clock]

Yeah. Pearl Harbor was our excuse to enter WW2, remember? 9/11 was just a poorly planned imitation. He could have at least gotten some people who are ACTUALLY FROM IRAQ to fly planes into the building. Even worse if they didn't actually do it (hey, look, I got us back to the original subject of this thread!), because then it's just plain faulty logic. The guy who came up with that one should be fired.

Please don't tell me that you think Pearl Harbor was a conspiracy, too.
I'll tear you a goatse-sized new one.