Originally Posted By Mr X ***Equality of burden...just what is that?*** It should be obvious, but I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you over it (I can see that's where you're trying to go with your "acorn" comments and such). Simply put, talking about "equal rights" meaning that everyone must pay an equal percentage of their income is NOT equality, since while for the most part it's simply an inconvenience to pay 20 or 30 percent of your income to the government in taxes, for truly destitute people it can be life threatening. Some equality, huh? And yet Doug couldn't accept my answer which BASICALLY agreed with him with a couple of important exceptions (note he was careful to say "income tax" even though the majority of taxes paid by the wealthy are based on capital gains). But whatever. It's nothing worth arguing about, since as I mentioned it's just a conversation that's going to go down a stupid road at this point. Doug is right, the idea of equal rights is stupid. He wins.
Originally Posted By DVC_Pongo >>>a pissing match<<< Aww man, you're no fun today. :*( With my prostate acting up, you would surely win anyway.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***when I was borrowing money*** How fortunate for you that you qualified for loans as a college student. Very impressive. Did you have a co-signer? Or did some friend or family member loan you the money? Some people can't qualify for loans, Chris. (just food for thought...and by the way, I worked my way through school too...but my Dad helped by co-signing my student loans for me or else I couldn't have gone)
Originally Posted By DVC_Pongo EVERYONE can qualify for a student loan. EVERYONE. It's underwritten by the good ol US government.
Originally Posted By DVC_Pongo And not only that (yay you did jump in on this) but in many states you can go to college for FREE. Yes free. In Georgia, if you have a B average, (that's only a 3.0 ) you qualify for the Hope Scholarship. If you attend a state operated college, such at the University of Georgia, you go to school for free. The state pays. The whole "I didn't have that opportuinty" is a valid argument, but it is getting increasingly more difficult to truly truly qualify under that umbrella.
Originally Posted By Mr X Wow. If "everyone" can qualify, I wonder why there are so many janitors in the world. And by the way, even IF that's true, it doesn't necessarily mean it is feasible for everyone to be lucky enough to enjoy higher education. For some, they need to go to work at an early age to help take care of their family, a family that might otherwise starve. It's not possible, in some cases, to say "hey guys, I'm off to school for 4 years, good luck!". In other words, it's NEVER all that simple.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***in many states you can go to college for FREE. Yes free.*** And again, even in THAT case it's not always an option, particularly for a young person coming from a family that needs desperate and immediate help (and that might include some of our "salt of the earth" farming families as well, lest we keep this discussion focused on the inner city types).
Originally Posted By DVC_Pongo Okay so take out the student loan. I know people who simply went to college part time, worked full time to pay. I know one guy who it took him 8 years to get a 4 year degree. Of course there are people who CAN'T do this I know. There are certain circumstances that some people cannot escape, teen pregnancy, abusive family situations, the homeless no one seems to really try to help in any permanant ways. But I have a friend who lives alone, works, has a car, has an apartment, and complains all the time that if he had his "piece of paper" he could move up in the company. He complains about other stuff too, but anyway, I ask him why don't he go to college. He says he is too old (38 yrs old). I think he just doesn't believe that he can move the mountain and do it. College doesn't give you any sort of magical key or anything. This isn't about college. It's about just trying to accomplish, something, anything. I had a professor once, he said something that has stuck with me many years. It was the first day of his class, and he said, "I have a bit of advice for you all, that you can apply in any given situation in this life." He had everyone's attention. He said, "If you don't remember anything else this entire quarter, remember this: Do what you can, with what you have, wherever you are." He turned, walked out of the room, and it was supposed to be a 3 hour session that day. Needless to say, we were all freshmen in that class. I don't know any of the people in that class, that was in the late 80's, but I bet you money, most of them remember that statement. I think if more people did that, well more people would accomplish more, with what they have, wherever they are. I made my 14 year old watch the movie, "Pursuit of Happyness" Of course not everyone is going to go from homeless to stockbrokers, in fact in this time, its probably going the other way. But the message I wanted him to get, he got. And that message is "Do what you can, with what you have, wherever you are." I know Doug feels me, but I can't wait to get shot down on this. I'm sure there will be someone who disagrees.
Originally Posted By DVC_Pongo But you are right Mr X, there are many who cannot escape the trap that life has dealt them. I totally agree. But I also think there are a lot of people who would surprise themselves if they really tried. Of course these tough economic times it's even exponentially more difficult.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Do what you can, with what you have, wherever you are.*** Excellent advice. Thanks for sharing!
Originally Posted By Mr X ***But you are right Mr X, there are many who cannot escape the trap that life has dealt them. I totally agree.*** I'm sorry for seeming stuborn on this point, but I guess the gist of what I'm driving at is that it's not ALWAYS possible for ALL people, depending on circumstances (not to mention, perhaps, difficulties in learning or adjusting or downright handicaps that can set people back). I've been extremely fortunate in life, and I've worked hard for what I've achieved, but I also realize that under different circumstances I could've had a much rougher time of things (for example, my Dad being able to co-sign my loans was the *only* option for me at that time, short of working a menial job for next to no pay, assuming I could find one). It's easy, I think, for those of us more fortunate (and let's face it, we're all sitting in front of $1,000+ computers having this discussion lol), to assume that "anyone can do it". But sometimes life deals us difficult blows and I appreciate that as well (even among the best and brightest who are simply unlucky...and YES I know there are plenty of "entitlement freaks" out there who go on welfare and feel good about doing it too).
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <And yet Doug couldn't accept my answer which BASICALLY agreed with him> Yes. I should have been more gracious. I apologize.
Originally Posted By mele <<Elton John, gay man, does not believe gay folks should be able to "marry" but he does believe they should be able to join in civil unions. I have gay friends who feel the same way.>> Really? Does his husband know he feels this way? Do you think Elton was showing his disapproval by doing it on the very first day gay marriages became legal in his country?
Originally Posted By mele Ah, I found an article where he says he's "not married". I'm thinking he has some issues with "marriages" in general, not just gay marriages. LOL And England has civil unions, not same sex marriages...even though, it seems, everyone calls them that anyway. But why does it matter if some gay people feel that they do not want gay marriages? There are lots and lots of straight people who do not believe in hetero marriage. Do you let them decide for you? Does their dislike of marriage somehow give them more clout to decide over your life?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Great point, mele. And what Elton John said was "The word 'marriage,' I think, puts a lot of people off." So it sounds like he's one of those folks who, as a tactical matter, thinks we ought to be pressing for "civil unions" rather than "marriage," because the M-word sets some people off.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>>That's what's happening here. Sorry, Doug, but it is.<<< <Uh huh. Well your example Mr X, equates racial discrimination with Gay discrimination. As much as we all want them both to get the same attention and action, they just don't, not even by President Obama. I'd say there is quite a ways to go yet, as the vote in CA proved.> Actually, that was me. And I didn't equate racial discrimination with gay discrimination, though obviously there are parallels. What I did was compare the arcs of the public support for an end to such discrimination, and there the similarity is unmistakable. In the 50's and 60's you had literally millions of people who once opposed ending Jim Crow change their minds and start favoring it. But you had very few people indeed who had ever opposed segregation to begin with turn around and start favoring it. The movement was pretty much all in one direction. So it is with gay marriage. The numbers for keep growing. Millions of people who once opposed it now favor it. Very few indeed who once favored it now oppose it. The movement is nearly all in one direction. <As for me, I don't mind if gays marry. But I think it's a bit more uphill than you claim.> Oh, I think it's very uphill, especially in certain parts of the country. But I'm encouraged by a poll out just yesterday that showed NY State now favoring full marriage equality by 53 to 39. It's the first time I remember seeing NY State with a majority in favor of full equality. VT just went for full equality via their legislature. In Iowa it was a court decision, but hey - it was Iowa! As with interracial marriage, we'll have a period where some states allow it and some don't (indeed, we've already entered that period). Eventually, SCOTUS will probably have to make it legal everywhere and, as with interracial marriage, some people will bemoan the end of society as we knew it. But a generation later, everyone will wonder what the big deal was.
Originally Posted By tiggertoo <<So it sounds like he's one of those folks who, as a tactical matter, thinks we ought to be pressing for "civil unions" rather than "marriage," because the M-word sets some people off.>> I'm all for letting religionists keep the darn word as long as there are no inequities in its civil application—the State can see no difference between them. Just like temple marriage, the State sees no difference between one performed in the LA temple and one performed at Elvis Presley’s House of Love.
Originally Posted By Mr X Why not go the opposite direction? Make all the state issued licenses "permission for civil union", and include in the small print something about the "marriage" part being a religious or personal issue, not a state one.
Originally Posted By imadisneygal ^^^Personally I think this is perfect. Let "marriage" be something that happens in one's personal religious or spiritual institution. Where the state is concerned it should be a contract between two adults.
