Login to Change.org
Create an Account
Paul Garrison
Recent Activity
-
Paul commented on the article |Now your just being rude and I will not continue in this discussion until you apologize. I do not deserve the words you wrote.
-
Paul commented on the article |
Oops, no paragraph breaks. Lets try that again.
I am no friend of the Bush administration or the current incarnation of the Republican Party. Had you read my earlier post you'd have realized that. I am simply pointing out that Democrats are not the answer to the mess Republicans have made. In fact, Clinton is just as guilty of creating circumstances conducive to a foreign policy of "spreading democracy" as Bush is. In fact, Bush's failure to "succeed" in Iraq may result in a rethinking of foreign policy in the United States altogether. I certainly hope the era of intervention is over though Mr. Obama's focus on Afghanistan and winning the "War on Terror" appears to be business as usual.
Back to the point though, I posted here because the author of this blog seems to be eschewing the values of hard work and diligence in favor of, well, she doesn't actually say in the article, but I suspect government founded housing programs. As for the soldier, I stand by my what I said. You choose to go to war, you choose to suffer the consequences. I certainly do not approve of the "back door draft" but I do not approve of war as an institution altogether so the point is moot.
Consider this: Let the government close their military bases the world over, stop fighting their wars, and bring the troops home to defend our southern border and bring illegal immigration to a halt. Bringing the wars and illegal immigration to an end would significantly reduce the strain on the welfare system already in place in the United States and reopen labor markets to United States citizens in the south and southwest.
Let us not forget that Presidential nominee John Kerry and leading democratic contender Hilary Clinton both voted to invade Iraq. Joe Bidden favors military intervention as much as any Republican and was chosen by Obama to give his candidacy foreign policy credentials. What's my point? The Democrats are part of the problem, not part of the solution. -
Paul commented on the article |
Oops, no paragraph breaks. Lets try that again.
I am no friend of the Bush administration or the current incarnation of the Republican Party. Had you read my earlier post you'd have realized that. I am simply pointing out that Democrats are not the answer to the mess Republicans have made. In fact, Clinton is just as guilty of creating circumstances conducive to a foreign policy of "spreading democracy" as Bush is. In fact, Bush's failure to "succeed" in Iraq may result in a rethinking of foreign policy in the United States altogether. I certainly hope the era of intervention is over though Mr. Obama's focus on Afghanistan and winning the "War on Terror" appears to be business as usual.
Back to the point though, I posted here because the author of this blog seems to be eschewing the values of hard work and diligence in favor of, well, she doesn't actually say in the article, but I suspect government founded housing programs. As for the soldier, I stand by my what I said. You choose to go to war, you choose to suffer the consequences. I certainly do not approve of the "back door draft" but I do not approve of war as an institution altogether so the point is moot.
Consider this: Let the government close their military bases the world over, stop fighting their wars, and bring the troops home to defend our southern border and bring illegal immigration to a halt. Bringing the wars and illegal immigration to an end would significantly reduce the strain on the welfare system already in place in the United States and reopen labor markets to United States citizens in the south and southwest.
Let us not forget that Presidential nominee John Kerry and leading democratic contender Hilary Clinton both voted to invade Iraq. Joe Bidden favors military intervention as much as any Republican and was chosen by Obama to give his candidacy foreign policy credentials. What's my point? The Democrats are part of the problem, not part of the solution. -
Paul commented on the article |
I am no friend of the Bush administration or the current incarnation of the Republican Party. Had you read my earlier post you'd have realized that. I am simply pointing out that Democrats are not the answer to the mess Republicans have made. In fact, Clinton is just as guilty of creating circumstances conducive to a foreign policy of "spreading democracy" as Bush is. In fact, Bush's failure to "succeed" in Iraq may result in a rethinking of foreign policy in the United States altogether. I certainly hope the era of intervention is over though Mr. Obama's focus on Afghanistan and winning the "War on Terror" appears to be business as usual.
Back to the point though, I posted here because the author of this blog seems to be eschewing the values of hard work and diligence in favor of, well, she doesn't actually say in the article, but I suspect government founded housing programs. As for the soldier, I stand by my what I said. You choose to go to war, you choose to suffer the consequences. I certainly do not approve of the "back door draft" but I do not approve of war as an institution altogether so the point is moot.
Consider this: Let the government close their military bases the world over, stop fighting their wars, and bring the troops home to defend our southern border and bring illegal immigration to a halt. Bringing the wars and illegal immigration to an end would significantly reduce the strain on the welfare system already in place in the United States and reopen labor markets to United States citizens in the south and southwest.
Let us not forget that Presidential nominee John Kerry and leading democratic contender Hilary Clinton both voted to invade Iraq. Joe Bidden favors military intervention as much as any Republican and was chosen by Obama to give his candidacy foreign policy credentials. What's my point? The Democrats are part of the problem, not part of the solution. -
Paul commented on the article |
I did misunderstand the 1%/40% split and I thank you for pointing me in the right direction. While I certainly feel for you, your partner, and the soldier in the story above I do not think bigger government and higher taxes is the answer to the probems of poverty and homelessness. Perhaps you are not an advocate of either big government or high taxes, but most people subscribing to the change mantra are.
The government, Democrats and Republicans alike advocate warfare, and mislead the population about their motives, and subsidize industries in order to solidify their power and control over natural resources and human capital and therefore are not worthy of the trust and support of honest hardworking people. Yet honest hardworking people bare the burden of paying for Governments bad ideas.
The soldier you mentioned is an unfortunate victim of our political system. He chose believe the lie and go to war so he deserves to suffer the consequences of his choice to "kill for oil", whatever they may be. While my sentiment may seem uncaring and unpopular it is still accurate.
Your belief that %83 of corporations have not payed any taxes may or may not be true. You need to provide some sort of evidence for that claim. Consider though the differences in wages. Exxon's CEO's have superior management skills while the guy pumping gas has virtually none. If the guy pumping gas does have management skills, some brains to back them up, and is willing to make the effort then he can advance within the ranks of Exxon or seek out another, higher paying, job with more responsibility. -
Paul commented on the article |
I do not want more statistices. I want you to present the statistics and studies that prove what you say is true. As the author you are responsible for making the evidence which supports your article readily available. If you make your reader did for evidence to validate your claims you loose credibility. Specifically, I want to see the study which demonstrates that the wealthiest one percent of Americans make the same as pizza delivery guys like myself. I know this claim is BS already, but if you have a study proving me wrong post the link.
Secondly, you need to be able to prove that most of homelessness in America is the result of a "perfect storm of circumstances" and not the result of ineptitude on the part of individuals. While you will certainly be able to identify societal causes for poverty, expunging individuals of responsability is an attempt to describe a world that does not, and cannot exist.
You say the only solution to poverty and homelessness is housing. Fair enough, but who is going to pay for it and where are they going to get the money if hardworking individuals are not responsible for arranging their own living conditions? The government? Where will the government get the money? Hardworking individuals? How exactly is it fair for a government to take from a hardworking person?
Furthermore if given the choice between government housing or your current living situation which would you choose. I know I'd rather bust my ass to make rent than live in the projects. For the record, I am not defending the current incarnation of conservativism in America, or rejecting the notion that political and economic circumstances influence poverty and homelessness levels. I must, however, insist you present facts to support your claims. -
Paul commented on the article |
Helping the homeless help themselves through job training, education, and rehabilitation is the only remedy for homelessness though you failed to point that (or any other remedy) out.
I also suggest you provide statistics and studies to back up your post. "Most people who find themselves homeless experience the perfect storm of circumstances that push them into the ultimate rock-bottom" is a statement that definitely needs to be backed up with factual evidence. The notion that the wealthiest 1% of society (investment bankers, lawyers, politicians) earn the same as the rest of us wage slaves (construction workers, waiters, baristas) is utterly absurd. The professor whose page you link to as a source does not even provide a study validating what he says.
Impact
0 Actions
0 Recruits