If the republicans (you, I presume) don’t vote it will always remain a Democrat controlled environment…why isn’t that an incentive to vote.:)

As tom said in his agree to you; start at the local level. Most people only vote in the presidential elections, that has very little effect on your daily life in your state when compared to your state and local leaders. For example, the federal govt is not doing anything about the issue of illegal immigration. My state is not doing much in the way about it either. But my LOCAL govt is trying to pass legislation which will make an impact. That affects my daily life. If my county rep moves up the ladder, eventually I can see a difference made in the areas I value.

Further, what if all the people who have your political views (republican, I guess) have your same attitude? "Too many liberals, no point in voting" Well if you never put up a fight, of course the liberals will win! But again, if you want to see small changes, start on the local level.

I live in Virginia. We are consistently red. But amazingly, we have a democratic governor. How did it happen? Liberals went and voted.

I do vote,in ALL elections(just to clear that up)

But for the people who don't write(or want to be labeled even in here)I brought the question to light.

My big hang-up is the 'friends'I have whether they be dems,or republicans,are at a loss to explain what their incentive really is to go and vote.

WE ALL KNOW THIS IS NOT JUST A LOCAL THING,ITS VERY MUCH NATIONWIDE!

Do the poor,uneducated people in society really have a reason to vote?Is a change in office really going to impact their lives,YES? Try telling them that.

What they hear is what we all hear,the hype spilled out over the same airwaves(TV etc) as we do,Just the perspective and lack of true education in the 'big picture'

How would Hillery make My LIFE better than Fred?

How did Bill make my business prosper when George Killed it entirely?

This is the big picture,for my world.

Does educating,incarcerating,or belittling the vast majority of the USA's society make the people in office do anything different?HE** NO. They are going to do whatever they feel like doing,regardless of the people that voted them in(OH yeah,we can vote them out,Right?) And then a new revised form of crooked leader arises in their absence.

Again,why do we vote? What's the point? To wait for a state rep. to advance through the ranks till he(or she) is also corrupt?

Even at the local levels it is all too prevalent,News of Money Laundering/Mishandling,, etc

And then the next idea,"If you don't like it,run for office yourself,change the system if its so broken,Quit complaining if you are not going to fix it"

I am ranting I know,too much info B4 dinner,I'll post more later(when I have settled down some)

Ken

I am poor because I grew up in the foster care system. I work 2 jobs to pay my rent. I work over 60 hours every week and am barely scraping by. There are people who are lazy and choose to be poor, but there are many, many more people who work hard to make ends meet, while still below a certain income bracket. Not everyone who is poor is lacking motivation. I am teaching myself spanish while working at one job (where I have a lot of free time) so that someday I can get a job as a translator. I can't afford to go to college. When I turned 18, I was on my own. I lived with a friend until I saved enough for an apartment. Even then, I had to pay by the week because I had no one to co-sign for me. I may be poor, but I am an intellegent, hard working, decent woman with big dreams. I don't care how hard I have to work to get where I want to be, I know I can do it. You should consider volunteering at a local charity for a week, like a homeless shelter, food pantry, etc. If you talk to the people you meet there, I think you will find that most of them are very decent, they are just having a hard time at the moment. It is easy to generalize groups of people. You must remember that every poor person has a story and everyone is different. Not everyone fits inside the "lazy" box. I hope you will consider that not everyone who is struggling financially is a piece of crap. Someone else in history referred to groups of people as an abomination-Hitler.

Now that things have slowed down on this question,I have been a subscriber to this thread since it appeared and wonder if it is appropriate to start threads with such a bold semi-clear sarcasm? I understand the point of trying to add shock value, and boost the discussion with a little unnecessary controversy, but what if someone were to do the same type of opening with other sensitive topics? Example: I hate black people...

Do you believe they are a cancer on our society, bleeding our resources, polluting our urban landscape and threatening our security?
What can be done politically to rid America of this abomination; the poor who are feckless, hopeless, lacking self-worth, motivation and any common levels of decency. We cannot afford to let them breed another generation of their kind.

I'm not trying to start a war, as I have been enjoying this thread and have looked at all of the posts. It is just something that I think could go too far if more people were to do it.

KBC you make some good points about people not voting because they think the system is too corrupt and both parites just makes things worse. I'm not sure there is anything that can be done about that except for MORE people going and voting the sleezy scumbags out of office. I think if the general public knew how important voting is, and the politicians knew that if they screw up they get the boot, maybe things would change. Probably not quickly, and the gubment will never be free of corruption, but it could certainly have a lot less! To me it's all about education. There are so many problems which could be fixed/lessened with proper education to our general public and in particular, our youths. Miss South Carolina was right, we need more maps for the Iraq and South Africa and such as. After watching the View a few weeks ago I think we need more globes too... :)

It would be a category mistake to compare the two questions.

Would you define the poor as a people?

The term 'Black people' is an objective term. The term 'poor people' is a subjective term….a different category of reasoning.

Not realizing that difference could get a person on the 'slippery slope' you allude to.

I'm sorry but GregQuin is correct. Darkcrow, you are not being logical here, but only giving an illusion of logic by purposely misinterpreting what GregQuin has said.

That "black people" can be VIEWED subjectively, just as poor people can be viewed subjectively! So what you wrote above is actually attacking a distorted version of Greg's argument! Now let's take a look at what Greg was saying:

See? Greg Quinn made an excellent point, but you've decided to use a strawman fallacy instead of thanking him. You're choosing to ignore the actual position of Greg's argument by misrepresenting it and distorting the message. Too bad...

Everything can be viewed subjectively, in the sense that our thoughts are our own and therefore subjective. Even though 'Black Race' is a social construct it is one that has been written into the laws of this country, try and tell the NAACP, or argue in a Court of Law in a discrimination case, that being Black is purely subjective.

I could use a thousand sensitive examples that would still be deemed inappropriate used as your topic. Objective, subjective. It doesn't matter. You can pick at straws all you want, it really is just a very simple observation that I thought I would share. I can think of the poor as a social construct, I also think the deaf and hard of hearing are as well. And so you know there are a lot of laws pertaining to the poor as well, I guess they are a social construct. But, that is really just leading it all away from the point, ethics on ask me help desk

Tell the deaf their inability to hear is just a social construction and not a, ‘state of being’…:)... never-mind, they really can’t hear you in spite of what you think.

The students of Gauladet, who tend to be deaf activists, would take exception to your statement, DC. They believe that deafness is indeed a "state of being" imposed on them by society, and that the rest of the world should accommodate them by learning to sign, rather than them learning to speak and read lips. The fact that they have a "disability" is imposed on them by a hearing society, and if society just would cater to them by becoming sign-proficient and stop being so "hearing-centric", they wouldn't be disabled at all.

I happen to think they're nuts, but the point is that "subjectivity" is subjective. The idea that something that you see as an objective situation may be seen by others as subjective.

I have another friend who is deaf who never learned to sign. He reads lips very well and speaks with a distinct slur in his speech, but is generally understandable. He does everything you do, and probably more. He has a black belt in Karate, works as a successful architect, dives, is married with a wife and perfectly normal hearing kids, and doesn't sign. Is he disabled? He doesn't think so. So we have another deaf person who doesn't see things with the same objectivity that you do, but rather sees deafness as a subjective thing. He comes to the same conclusion as the Gauladet activists, but for exactly the opposite reasons. (PS: his sister, who is also deaf, is in the same boat. Married with 5 kids, she's a dental hygenist, graduated from her college suma laud, despite the fact that she's deaf, and she never learned to sign. So his is not an isolated case.)

So you see that what you see as an objective state is not necessarily so. People can interpret it subjectively. Just as "blackness" and "poverty" are subjective issues.

Elliot

Well isn't this a twist of events; you speaking philosophically.:) Yes, color is subjective, and guess what, reality coming to the retina's is upside down and fragmented, so it can be said that reality is completely subjective. But that the Black Caucus in congress has no problem distinguishing Black.

Rep. Clay issued an official statement from his office in reply to Rep. Cohen's complaint about not admitting whites:

"Quite simply, Rep. Cohen will have to accept what the rest of the country will have to accept - there has been an unofficial Congressional White Caucus for over 200 years, and now it's our turn to say who can join 'the club.' He does not, and cannot, meet the membership criteria, unless he can change his skin color. Primarily, we are concerned with the needs and concerns of the black population, and we will not allow white America to infringe on those objectives."

I have shown my friend your thread and the argument, she says that dark crow has taken an economics course and has decided to go berserk. I said " I know" and it is really sad that he can't use his powers for good and not just his only silly defence.

I underlined it for you, I never said just. .

You were obviously born with a silver spoon in your mouth!! Eveyones entitled to their own opinion of course but try looking at it from there point of view before calling them "cancer"!!

>Thread Closed<