Whiny Poor People

[maple_leafs182]

No, nor morons who bring Hitler into unrelated discussions.

Absolutely. What they don't have the right to is violently insisting I subsidize their laziness and uselessness and ignorance. I'm perfectly willing to let them not work, and to starve to death in peace as long as they don't attack anything with clubs.

If you want street violence to dramatically decrease, legalize drugs.

And if you really want it to disappear, lets work on solving poverty. Poverty is the mother of crime.

It shouldn't take us thousands of years to solve poverty.

[bloodyminded]

I don't think there are enough smiley LOLs on this web site for me to properly express my opinion of someone who defends themselves by sputtering about my improper use of a semi-colon.

Not sputtering. Pointing out the laughable. You brought up the issue of coherent writing. Improper use of punctuation is your problem.

If you don't like topics that expose your ignorance, don't bring them up. Simple.

Edited February 15, 2010 by bloodyminded

[eyeball]

Agreeing with Argus?? Come on, what does a government employee insulated by his union knows what reality is? I was merely saying any new laws created would not make it through the senate. If the law did it would be thrown out for violating the charter. Changing the charter to accomplish what argus would like to happen, won't happen anytime soon.

I certainly don't agree with him and while I realize what he's espousing is far-fetched I think there are enough people who lean that way to facilitate a trend towards a harsher Canada. I see no reason not to believe the near demagogic use of fear and loathing for crime, like some eternal galvanizing event, hasn't had a similar effect on many people in society. I recall the advert I received from my MP last election, in it he maintained that addicts shouldn't have rights.

I rest my case regarding the path I think our country has been on for some time now. As for our destination...the right wing is not a place, it's a journey that is forever just getting started and it has no end in sight. While some believe the advances in society that Argus would reverse don't need to be fought for or over anymore all I can say is, rust never sleeps.

[capricorn]

Poverty is the mother of crime.

In the context you present, I would prefer the use of "root" rather than "mother". "Poverty is the root of crime" seems more appropriate. For the politically correct, it's also gender neutral.

[bush_cheney2004]

In the context you present, I would prefer the use of "root" rather than "mother". "Poverty is the root of crime" seems more appropriate. For the politically correct, it's also gender neutral.

Poverty is the root of some crime....not all crime. For instance, Conrad Black was not living in poverty.

[capricorn]

Call me lazy for not taking issue with the poster's statement, which I don't agree with. Sweeping generalities are so easy to make. True about Black as with the Menendez brothers murdering their parents for inheritance money and Winona Ryder the kleptomaniac.

[bloodyminded]

Poverty is the root of crime as crime is normally discussed.

But yes, lots of criminality occurs outside of poverty, and even at its opposite end. But there is a difference:

In my view, there are Criminals and then there are "criminals."

A "criminal" is a person who happens to commit a crime or crimes, and the reasons can be traced, at least to a large degree, on circumstances.

Whereas a Criminal is a person in whom criminality is part of their essence. Perhaps they are sociopaths, whereas most "criminals" are not.

Some ordianry guy who steals a car is a "criminal." A white-collar thief is a Criminal.

A lot of it has to do with class issues, even though many of us hilariously contend that North American society is "classless." (Damn, that's amusing!)

For a quick example: I was listening to the CBC, and they were talking about the rising number of young professionals developing addictions to illegal drugs, notably cocaine and meth. This was being discussed as (and ONLY as) a Health Problem, and a societal problem, and enhanced by difficult and stressful personal circumstances.

Now, I happen to agree with this take on the matter of drug addictions.

However, prisons are brimming with addicts, mostly voiceless "criminals" from the lower socio-economic echelons...and we aren't as quick to exonerate these people on matters of "health," "societal problems," and "stressful personal circumstances."

Because we hold the poorer members of society to a HIGHER level of personal responsibility than we do the upper tiers.

Edited February 16, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Michael Hardner]

I don't need liberals to protect my job. And the public service could stand a fair bit of pruning if it was done properly. The Liberals haven't been any kinder to the public service than the Conservatives.

Not anymore you don't, because they did all the work for you in the 20th century. Are you in a union ? Do you work for a Crown Corp or the Canadian Government itself ? It's quite something for you to stand on top of a solid rock fortress that Trudeau built and proclaim "I don't need liberals to protect my job !."

Sure you don't. You just inherited that fortress...

[Argus]

If you want street violence to dramatically decrease, legalize drugs.

And if you really want it to disappear, lets work on solving poverty. Poverty is the mother of crime.

It shouldn't take us thousands of years to solve poverty.

About the only poverty in Canada is on reserves,and it's because of the Natives and their corrupt local governments. There is no real poverty elsewhere by world standards. What you call poverty most nations call wealth. Most of the people on this planet would crawl on their belly through valleys of broken glass for a chance to live in one of our welfare housing complexes because the life would be so much better than what they have now.

[bloodyminded]

About the only poverty in Canada is on reserves,and it's because of the Natives and their corrupt local governments. There is no real poverty elsewhere by world standards. What you call poverty most nations call wealth. Most of the people on this planet would crawl on their belly through valleys of broken glass for a chance to live in one of our welfare housing complexes because the life would be so much better than what they have now.

Except for yourself. YOU, unlike all the other "whiners," were genuinely "poor," as you stated in your op.

Without any qualifications about relative poverty elsewhere.

[Argus]

While some believe the advances in society that Argus would reverse don't need to be fought for or over anymore all I can say is, rust never sleeps.

Could you expand upon these advances I wish to reverse, and their benign affect on society? For example, bearing in mind the topic of this er, topic. Please explain why allowing violent individuals to fill our streets is a sign of advancement, while my desire to incarcerate such individuals is regressive.

[Argus]

In the context you present, I would prefer the use of "root" rather than "mother". "Poverty is the root of crime" seems more appropriate. For the politically correct, it's also gender neutral.

Please explain how Paul Berardo's poverty, or for that matter, Colonel Russel Williams' poverty, led them to commit their violent crimes. Also, could we get your insight into the poverty of Earl Jones, and how it was responsible for his crimes?

Poverty does not cause crimes, not the kind of poverty we have in Canada. No one is starving here.

[Argus]

Not anymore you don't, because they did all the work for you in the 20th century. Are you in a union ? Do you work for a Crown Corp or the Canadian Government itself ? It's quite something for you to stand on top of a solid rock fortress that Trudeau built and proclaim "I don't need liberals to protect my job !."

Sure you don't. You just inherited that fortress...

I don't need them because what I do needs to be done, and it can't be contracted out for security reasons.

There is a mythos about the public service which says that the gross inefficiency of government departments and agencies is because public servants are generally lazy or incompetent or both, but can't be fired. In point of fact, there is enormous competition to get into the lower levels of the public service because the pay rates and benefits are generally higher than in the private sector. You can far more easily join almost any other organization. The only reason why a lot of idiots get in is because of the predeliction for demanding high rates of bilingualism (such people are not as abundantly available). But the assumption is you could simply eliminate scads of jobs and send people packing without affecting services because those people aren't working hard anyway and the remainder could just work a bit harder to make up for their loss.

The thing is, the higher you get in the public service, the lower your renumeration is in comparison to the private sector. Once you get into the ranks of EX's or ECs, ie, director, director general level, you are probably responsible for a budget in the tens or hundreds of millions, and for national programs and services which process billions of dollars, if not tens of billions worth of services. Yet the pay rate is not very deep into six figures, generally $100k-$150k. In comparison to similar levels of responsibility in the private sector, that's chicken feed.

Which is why most of the mid to high level leaders in the government are incompetent morons. The good ones can easily earn two to ten times their government rate in the private sector - and leave. And THAT is why the bureacracy is so grossly inefficient. Not because of lazy workers.

So it isn't a union which protects all those civil servants from being laid off in their thousands. They are working ineffectively and inefficiently due to procedures and policies put in place by management which are grossly inefficient and ineffective. In order to lay off a lot of workers, you would need to reform the system, change the policies, streamline the approval processes, which isn't going to happen, because senior management are morons only concerned with butt-covering.

[Argus]

Except for yourself. YOU, unlike all the other "whiners," were genuinely "poor," as you stated in your op.

Without any qualifications about relative poverty elsewhere.

No, if used in comparison to the rest of the world I was never poor. I was certainly "poor" in a Canadian context. In other words, as poor as those morons with masks smashing windows.

[bloodyminded]

No, if used in comparison to the rest of the world I was never poor. I was certainly "poor" in a Canadian context. In other words, as poor as those morons with masks smashing windows.

About whom, as we've already established, you have zero clue when it comes to their relative level (or lack) of poverty.

Oh, yeah, it's your "opinion."

Ie. useless and dripping with hate.

[Argus]

About whom, as we've already established, you have zero clue when it comes to their relative level (or lack) of poverty.

Do you think they, for the most part, consisted of hard-working, salaried individuals with homes and mortgages?

No clue? No, I'm afraid there are plenties of clues for me to go on.

It's you who appears to be pretty much clueless.

[eyeball]

Could you expand upon these advances I wish to reverse, and their benign affect on society? For example, bearing in mind the topic of this er, topic. Please explain why allowing violent individuals to fill our streets is a sign of advancement, while my desire to incarcerate such individuals is regressive.

A government bureaucracy that regards people as poor and whiny would reverse the progress we've made in moving away from the Dickensian world of your fantasies.

Could you please show me evidence that the streets are filling with violent individuals? I was just outside and there isn't a single violent soul out on my street. I seem to recall you telling me to beware of hordes of bloodthirsty Islamo-fascists too and I've yet to see a single one never mind a horde.

[bloodyminded]

Do you think they, for the most part, consisted of hard-working, salaried individuals with homes and mortgages?

No clue? No, I'm afraid there are plenties of clues for me to go on.

It's you who appears to be pretty much clueless.

No, yours is rank speculation. I, on the other hand, am purely agnostic on the issue of the protesters' socioeconomic status.

At any rate, unlike yourself, I don't despise people for being poor. Not even for being addicts and criminals.

Your lack of compassion betrays a commensurate lack of imagination and understanding.

[Topaz]

Did any of you hear on the news that they thought the violent protesters came from the US and Alberta? I was surprised when I heard that and wondered how the media knew that?

[M.Dancer]

Did any of you hear on the news that they thought the violent protesters came from the US and Alberta? I was surprised when I heard that and wondered how the media knew that?

The usual way for the media to find these things out is to ask someone where they are from.

It's covered in the first year journalism course at Ryerson and Carlton.

Asking Questions J101-1

Course covers the nature of the interogative form and the Socratic methods with special emphasis on question marks, inflective endings, upspeak, loaded questions and getting exact directions to the courtesy tent. T. Falconer

[Guest American Woman]

Did any of you hear on the news that they thought the violent protesters came from the US and Alberta? I was surprised when I heard that and wondered how the media knew that?

The violent protesters weren't just from Alberta and the U.S.

Police in Vancouver, B.C., have now charged three people in connection with a violent protest that saw windows smashed at downtown businesses and traffic tied up for hours on the second day of the 2010 Games.

On Sunday, police announced charges against a 22-year-old from Shoreline, Washington. Daniel Frederick Myers is charged with possession of a dangerous weapon and possession of a prohibited weapon. He is being detained in connection to an unspecified immigration matter.

Vancouver resident Charlotte Christine Hannah, 23, is charged with assaulting a peace officer. Willow Violet Riley, 18, faces the same charge.

Police Chief Jim Chu said the group included a loosely organized group of "thugs" from central Canada and the U.S. who are known to travel great distances to events that attract media coverage to promote a message of anarchy. link

[Argus]

A government bureaucracy that regards people as poor and whiny would reverse the progress we've made in moving away from the Dickensian world of your fantasies.

I think it's more than a little inexact to suggest I regard "people" as poor and whiny. Rather, I regard THESE particular people, those protesting the Olympics, as poor and whiny.

Could you please show me evidence that the streets are filling with violent individuals?

Wander around Vancouver's lower east side. I'm sure you'll run into them.

[Argus]

No, yours is rank speculation. I, on the other hand, am purely agnostic on the issue of the protesters' socioeconomic status.

In other words, I consider the likelyhood of something happening, and you don't, because constructing a plausible opinion, even with evidence, is beyond your simple mental abilities.

At any rate, unlike yourself, I don't despise people for being poor. Not even for being addicts and criminals.

I don't despise people for being poor. I despise people for being poor without putting any effort into an alternative economic status and then whining about my not giving them enough money.

I do despise addicts and criminals, however. Your affection for them is noted.

Your lack of compassion betrays a commensurate lack of imagination and understanding.

No, it betrays experience, wisdom and judgement. None of which any of your posts ever display.

[capricorn]

Please explain how Paul Berardo's poverty, or for that matter, Colonel Russel Williams' poverty, led them to commit their violent crimes. Also, could we get your insight into the poverty of Earl Jones, and how it was responsible for his crimes?

See posts 55 and 56. I never took the position that social economic status is a predictor of criminality. There are criminals who are poor and there are criminals that have money.

Edited February 17, 2010 by capricorn

[Oleg Bach]

Mark the day... You make sense.

YOU are unexperienced...............FOR YOU to get it you will have to live it.