Lily Mesa: Immigrant's Right Force

[Solaris]

OH NOES, a defence of the only successful economic system in history. The world is coming to an end!
Either way, congratulations on missing the point - and in ignoring the irony behind making your previous comment when you constantly preach about how great communism is without ever having experienced it.

No-one has experienced communism.

 

[repiV]

No-one has experienced communism.

If you only support this mythical "true communism" that doesn't exist, and thank ****, never will exist, why do you spend so much time idolising morons like George Galloway and Ken Livingstone and tyrants like Chavez and Castro?

 

[No Limit]

No, actually, I didn't say that, Mr. Hysterical.

From a post by you above:

Obviously it's harder to climb the ladder in a poor country but name me one successful person that had a negative attitude like that. Particularly in countries like China and India which in places share much in common with developed nations, the opportunities are certainly there to be had.

You said it was harder, I am telling you it is virtually impossible. Sure, exceptions will be there but 99% of the time these people can not get out of their shitty situation.

Lets take south africa for example. Population of about 50 million. 25 million of them live under their poverty line which means they make hardly enough to survive. Another 10 million live with aids. That means that if the average family has 4 members 1 in 2 families will have aids. You are going to tell me that in that kind of enviroment those 25 - 30 million people have any real opportunities available to them? How can you possibly compare that to what is happening in London? Are there people in London dying of starvation? Are there people in London dying of mass disease?

Aside from that Im glad you said you never said that. So you do believe that people working in Indian sweatshops don't have any real opportunities available to them, correct?

 

[repiV]

From a post by you above:



You said it was harder, I am telling you it is virtually impossible. Sure, exceptions will be there but 99% of the time these people can not get out of their shitty situation.

Lets take south africa for example. Population of about 50 million. 25 million of them live under their poverty line which means they make hardly enough to survive. Another 10 million live with aids. That means that if the average family has 4 members 1 in 2 families will have aids. You are going to tell me that in that kind of enviroment those 25 - 30 million people have any real opportunities available to them? How can you possibly compare that to what is happening in London? Are there people in London dying of starvation? Are there people in London dying of mass disease?

So what do you want me to do about it exactly?

Aside from that Im glad you said you never said that. So you do believe that people working in Indian sweatshops don't have any real opportunities available to them, correct?

That's a bit of a loaded question. It really depends on how intelligent and driven they are, or what talents they have. If they can speak, or learn to speak, superb English and can get to Bangalore then I'm sure they have a relatively decent job in a callcentre just waiting for them. And they could save some of the money to study IT and ride on the back of the country's main economic boom.
If they don't have any real skills that are in demand or the means to gain access to those skills, then no, probably not.

Like I said earlier, in the booming Asian economies, it's not so cut and dry. My rudimentary calculations determine that a recent Chinese graduate in one of the major East coast cities - Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen etc. will have a better lifestyle (average monthly wage ?250) than a recent graduate in London (average monthly wage about ?1000). The population of Shanghai alone far exceeds the population of London.

 

[No Limit]

So what do you want me to do about it exactly?

There are many things I can think of but that's not really my question. My question was do you believe they have opportunities to get out of that life style, if you do what percentage of that 50% do you believe has those opportunities. In addition, how do you justify comparing that kind of situation to that of London or any other industialized nation?

It really depends on how intelligent and driven they are, or what talents they have. If they can speak, or learn to speak, superb English and can get to Bangalore then I'm sure they have a relatively decent job in a callcentre just waiting for them.

Bingo. If they have a good education and can learn to speak english they will have decent opportunities to still not have a great living but have a decent living. I am not disputing this.

But the question again is how many of those people have the opportunity to gain that kind of education? When you are forced to work at 10 years old you really don't have a chance to get an education, do you?

Once you address the above we can discuss what can be done about it aside from saying "**** it, why should I care".

 

[Absinthe]

The United States is not a charity organization.

Sorry if your third-world life sucks, but it's not my problem and I don't have any responsibility to help you. If you want to immigrate, do so through the proper channels.

(And yes, I do realize that American corporations contribute immeasurably to this problem due to their willful reliance on the cheap labor of illegal immigrants.)

 

[Solaris]

The United States is not a charity organization.

Sorry if your third-world life sucks, but it's not my problem and I don't have any responsibility to help you. If you want to immigrate, do so through the proper channels.

(And yes, I do realize that American corporations contribute immeasurably to this problem due to their willful reliance on the cheap labor of illegal immigrants.)

This is the fundamental difference between left-wing people and rightwing ones.

I believe the welfare of my common man is my responsibility when I am empowered to help him/her. I help such people by donating money to charities such as Oxfam, speaking out in favor and defense of immigrants and Asylum seekers. Supporting an alternative social-economic system which would remove world poverty.

You however are happy to walk around in your Rebok trainers which were made by a little girl in a sweatshop working unforgivably long hours for barely enough to sustain her miserable and impoverished life with very little future. If you do not help out such people, if you refuse to speak out and to act to prevent such inhumane treatment of our fellow mankind, in my opinion you are responsible their poverty.

The fact is, Absinthe, your economy is built upon sweatshop Labor, once in the UK, now in places such as India, China, Taiwan and Pakistan.Third world poverty is necessary to sustain yours and my way of life under the current system. Poverty is your problem and you are responsible for it, we all are if we refuse to act to prevent it.

 

[Solaris]

To further my Previous post, this Poem by John Donne sums up my position perfectly:

"No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were. Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."

 

[No Limit]

The United States is not a charity organization.

Sorry if your third-world life sucks, but it's not my problem and I don't have any responsibility to help you. If you want to immigrate, do so through the proper channels.

(And yes, I do realize that American corporations contribute immeasurably to this problem due to their willful reliance on the cheap labor of illegal immigrants.)

And how do you sleep at night with that kind of mindset? All that suffering really doesn't bother you?

Would it really hurt you to give up an extra 1% of your annual income to help combat that poverty? How about 2% or 3%? But I guess in your eyes that money is better spent on starbucks coffee than saving a human life.

Really, how could anyone be that selfish. You people fail to realize how blessed you are.

Whats funny is my first reaction to your post was anger, a few seconds later that anger turned in to depression. Its unbelievable that anyone would say such a thing yet its depressing when you realize you are not the only one, far from it in fact.

 

[Absinthe]

And how do you sleep at night with that kind of mindset? All that suffering really doesn't bother you?

Would it really hurt you to give up an extra 1% of your annual income to help combat that poverty? How about 2% or 3%? But I guess in your eyes that money is better spent on starbucks coffee than saving a human life.

Really, how could anyone be that selfish. You people fail to realize how blessed you are.

Whats funny is my first reaction to your post was anger, a few seconds later that anger turned in to depression. Its unbelievable that anyone would say such a thing yet its depressing when you realize you are not the only one, far from it in fact.

What's ironic about this is that you would decry this kind of mindset if it went into, say, "liberating" the Middle East. You can't have it both ways, No Limit. Either the United States has a sacred duty to combat the rest of the world's problems or it's left up to the volition of its own, individual citizens.

Also, Solaris seems to think I'm right-wing. What with both of you throwing out words like Starbucks and Rebok as if I'm some fat cat millionaire sitting upon the broken backs of the poor. Get a reality check. You donate? Great. And I mean that in all sincerity. I went to Africa and helped communities build shelters through physical labor and spent my personal time raising and donating money for charity organizations. Just because it's not my responsibility doesn't mean I don't care. So why don't you two quiet down before you even dare to comment on where you think my values lie. I don't even know why I'm defending myself since I stated that American corporations are just as guilty a party as any other, and any attempt to combat illegal immigration and generally produce a better quality of life for foreign workers will require drastic reform on their end.

The USA has no official obligation to help people outside of its country live better lives. That may be cold, but that is the truth. Again, if people wish to immigrate here, they should do so legally.

 

[repiV]

There are many things I can think of but that's not really my question. My question was do you believe they have opportunities to get out of that life style, if you do what percentage of that 50% do you believe has those opportunities.

Well I answered your question, I'm not sure what 50% you're talking about.

In addition, how do you justify comparing that kind of situation to that of London or any other industialized nation?

Poverty doesn't only exist in third world countries, you know.

Bingo. If they have a good education and can learn to speak english they will have decent opportunities to still not have a great living but have a decent living. I am not disputing this.

But the question again is how many of those people have the opportunity to gain that kind of education? When you are forced to work at 10 years old you really don't have a chance to get an education, do you?

These countries need to sort themselves out then, don't they?

Once you address the above we can discuss what can be done about it aside from saying "**** it, why should I care".

Well that's exactly it, isn't it. I don't care.

 

[repiV]

This is the fundamental difference between left-wing people and rightwing ones.

I believe the welfare of my common man is my responsibility when I am empowered to help him/her. I help such people by donating money to charities such as Oxfam, speaking out in favor and defense of immigrants and Asylum seekers. Supporting an alternative social-economic system which would remove world poverty.

You however are happy to walk around in your Rebok trainers which were made by a little girl in a sweatshop working unforgivably long hours for barely enough to sustain her miserable and impoverished life with very little future. If you do not help out such people, if you refuse to speak out and to act to prevent such inhumane treatment of our fellow mankind, in my opinion you are responsible their poverty.

You can believe in whatever the hell you want, the difference is that unlike me you also want to force your beliefs on everyone else.
There is no alternative socio-economic system that would remove world poverty, you clearly live in a fairytale nuthouse.

The fact is, Absinthe, your economy is built upon sweatshop Labor, once in the UK, now in places such as India, China, Taiwan and Pakistan.Third world poverty is necessary to sustain yours and my way of life under the current system. Poverty is your problem and you are responsible for it, we all are if we refuse to act to prevent it.

The West is responsible for third world poverty?
That's the biggest load of bollocks I've ever heard. By outsourcing labour to the third world, we are helping their economy, not hindering it. If the sweatshops weren't there, guess what? They'd have no jobs at all! Or worse jobs! And then they really would be starving to death.
If the opportunities in "sweatshops" weren't superior to the other opportunities available to them, they wouldn't stay in business. Noone is forcing people to work there. Maybe you should learn the basic fundamentals of market economics before you talk out of your arse. Or you can explain, if you like, how the third world would magically become rich and prosperous if we stopped outsourcing our labour there. That ought to be entertaining.

 

[No Limit]

Absinthe, why do we not have any obligation to help those people? Immigration is certainly debatable, if you don't think they should not be allowed to immigrate here for free to simply improve their lives I'm not necessarily going to argue with you.

But that has little to do with what I understood regarding your post about we have no obligation to helping them. You are trying to compare this to Iraq and the middle east but the comparison is flawed. I am not talking about killing thousands of people to force them to live the way we want them to live in a pipe dream that this will somehow help them. I am talking about making sure people in poor parts of the world get the financial aid they need to survive. Would it really kill you to be forced to contribute a small portion of your wealth to such a cause if it was effective? I used the term starbucks as an example. Maybe I'm making the wrong assumption about you but can you really tell me you never paid $4- $5 for a cup of coffee? I'll be honest, I have, more than once. I also bought a bunch of other shit that I could certainly live without. I'm weak in this regard like almost every other westerner, so there is something the government could do to force me to help out a little bit. If it means I have to buy less bullshit then so be it.

Maybe this is better served for a PM but thank you for going over there and helping out, what part of Africa did you go to and what organization was it with? You certainly have a lot more credibility in that regard than I do. I regret not doing something like this when I was younger, instead I was too busy getting drunk and doing other stupid useless shit. I would like to think I can do something like that later on in my life but unfortuneately at this point I don't see that happening.

 

[No Limit]

Well I answered your question, I'm not sure what 50% you're talking about.

Do you really have such a hard time understanding me? I know I rush through some of these posts but shit dude, come on. I was clearly talking about the 50% of South African people that live under the poverty line, I was talking about them here which you quoted here.

So no, you did not answer my question. Let me repeat it.

Do you believe those people, the 50% living under South Africa's poverty line, 20% of them with aids, have any real opportunities to "climb the latter" as you put it. If you believe they do can you explain how they should do that.

Poverty doesn't only exist in third world countries, you know.

Holy shit, everything that is said to you goes in one ear and out the other.

Poverty is defined completely different based on where in the world you live. In the western poverty means you have a pretty shitty life but you don't die from starvation or dehydrate because you didn't have access to clean water. Western poverty also doesn't mean that 1 in 10 people in your country has a disease that will kill them in around 10 years and make their life total hell during that time since they don't have any access to healthcare.

How can you not understand this? Its such a simple concept.

Absinthe, you want to comment on this? You seem to have first hand experiance, so maybe he will listen to you if he won't register anything I say(though I doubt it). Can you compare London poverty or US poverty to the poverty in large parts of Africa?

These countries need to sort themselves out then, don't they?

Sure, while millions die in the process. But as you said, you don't give a shit. Oh well it is then.

 

[repiV]

Absinthe, why do we not have any obligation to help those people? Immigration is certainly debatable, if you don't think they should not be allowed to immigrate here for free to simply improve their lives I'm not necessarily going to argue with you.

But that has little to do with what I understood regarding your post about we have no obligation to helping them. You are trying to compare this to Iraq and the middle east but the comparison is flawed. I am not talking about killing thousands of people to force them to live the way we want them to live in a pipe dream that this will somehow help them. I am talking about making sure people in poor parts of the world get the financial aid they need to survive. Would it really kill you to be forced to contribute a small portion of your wealth to such a cause if it was effective? I used the term starbucks as an example. Maybe I'm making the wrong assumption about you but can you really tell me you never paid $4- $5 for a cup of coffee? I'll be honest, I have, more than once. I also bought a bunch of other shit that I could certainly live without. I'm weak in this regard like almost every other westerner, so there is something the government could do to force me to help out a little bit. If it means I have to buy less bullshit then so be it.

Sounds great in theory, but as you should probably realise by now, giving financial aid to despotic regimes (the majority of Africa and a significant chunk of Asia) doesn't work. It gets spent on war, genocide and ultimately creates even more poverty and suffering. The change you seek can only occur from within. We can't fix it - unless you're advocating regime change all of a sudden. Even then, it probably wouldn't work.

 

[No Limit]

Sounds great in theory, but as you should probably realise by now, giving financial aid to despotic regimes (the majority of Africa and a significant chunk of Asia) doesn't work. It gets spent on war, genocide and ultimately creates even more poverty and suffering. The change you seek can only occur from within. We can't fix it - unless you're advocating regime change all of a sudden. Even then, it probably wouldn't work.

From my understanding most of these poor countries have a way for us to get them aid directly. There simply isn't enough of that aid to go around because we don't contribute enough of it.

 

[repiV]

Do you really have such a hard time understanding me? I know I rush through some of these posts but shit dude, come on. I was clearly talking about the 50% of South African people that live under the poverty line, I was talking about them here which you quoted here.

So no, you did not answer my question. Let me repeat it.

Do you believe those people, the 50% living under South Africa's poverty line, 20% of them with aids, have any real opportunities to "climb the latter" as you put it. If you believe they do can you explain how they should do that.

No, not really. You can thank apartheid for that, mostly.

Holy shit, everything that is said to you goes in one ear and out the other.

Poverty is defined completely different based on where in the world you live. In the western poverty means you have a pretty shitty life but you don't die from starvation or dehydrate because you didn't have access to clean water. Western poverty also doesn't mean that 1 in 10 people in your country has a disease that will kill them in around 10 years and make their life total hell during that time since they don't have any access to healthcare.

How can you not understand this? Its such a simple concept.

I'm sure the homeless in London would disagree with you there. I spent the night with a homeless guy in Camden when I missed the night bus some months ago. It was an...interesting experience.

Sure, while millions die in the process.

Like I already told you, we can't fix it.

But as you said, you don't give a shit. Oh well it is then.

Look, I've been through hell so many times that nothing bothers me anymore. Least of all the suffering of some people I've never met 10,000 miles away.

 

[repiV]

From my understanding most of these poor countries have a way for us to get them aid directly. There simply isn't enough of that aid to go around because we don't contribute enough of it.

What is that aid ever going to accomplish in the long run? It's a total false economy. How can you possibly solve poverty by making poor countries entirely dependent upon us to survive? If anything, that's a tool of tyranny.
The same way handing out welfare benefits for life doesn't pull people out of poverty, it allows them to remain in it. And what happens when our economies take a plunge or we face a national crisis and can't afford to give them that aid anymore?
The only way to fix third world poverty is for these countries to build up strong, self-sufficient economies of their own. That's not something we can do for them.

 

[delusional]

I would rather have our government deal with the problems we have here fist then deal with the rest of the worlds problem. But, that doesn't mean individual people can't donate money to Africa or whatever. I just don't think it's the US responsibility.

 

[Asknoone]

Come on, it was obviously a defense of Capitalism.

A bad thing how? You know my thoughts on your ridiculous, lunatic and naive communist standing Danny.

Like I already told you, we can't fix it.

No, perhaps not in our lifetime, but we can start paving the way.

 

[No Limit]

No, not really. You can thank apartheid for that, mostly.

And who created apartheid? But I guess your logic is we started it but we have no obligation to do anything about its terrible after effects.

I'm sure the homeless in London would disagree with you there.

Thank you for pointing out the homeless to me, I wasn't aware there were homeless people out here in the west.

But yet again you refuse to address anything I said, in one ear out the other.

How many people in your country die from starvation each day?

How many people in your country die from dehydration because of lack of clean water each day?

How many people in your country die from not having a shelter each day?

Like I already told you, we can't fix it.

Why not?

We can't we pay a few extra dollars to all the people we hire to work in sweatshops for us? Before you use the talking point that all our goods would then cost too much this is absolutely false. When they wanted to move all these jobs there in the first place they said it would make all our goods cheaper, it hasn't. All its done is give them more profits.

What is that aid ever going to accomplish in the long run? It's a total false economy. How can you possibly solve poverty by making poor countries entirely dependent upon us to survive? If anything, that's a tool of tyranny.
The same way handing out welfare benefits for life doesn't pull people out of poverty, it allows them to remain in it. And what happens when our economies take a plunge or we face a national crisis and can't afford to give them that aid anymore?
The only way to fix third world poverty is for these countries to build up strong, self-sufficient economies of their own. That's not something we can do for them.

And how in the hell are they going to establish those economies without any money to start off with? We can do plenty of things to help them build economies while ensuring none of them starve to death. Do you honestly believe 400 billion dollars that we wasted on that stupid war that has only made things worse would have done nothing to help these poor people? Didn't you say yourself education is key. That kind of money would have educated millions of people.

 

[Geogaddi]

ummm how do illegal immigrants use up state healthcare when american citizens have no access to state healthcare?

..oh I get it ...you mean like if a tractor falls on top of a illgal worker instead of leaving him to die they send him to the hospital and since he's uninsured they have no choice but to honour their hippopotamus oath and treat their patient

I chuckled.

 

[HunterSeeker]

The only way to fix third world poverty is for these countries to build up strong, self-sufficient economies of their own. That's not something we can do for them.

First point in this is true, the second is only halftrue. Ofcource most of the work has to be done by the people of the nations in question, but we can definatly help them. We can build schools and the like, put pressure on their goverments to impose strike laws and provide food and the like for them so they can go on strike without starving to death. We can also put pressure on the companies based in first world nations that exploits cheap labour in third world nations to drastically improve working conditions (by not buying their products their products for example). Heck, a goverment could defiantly found corporations that had their production centers located in third world countries that paid significantly better wages to their workers then other corporations.

Of cource, goverments, civil war and crime could definatly get in the way of this. It is an obstacle but not every third world nation is affected by it.

There is plenty we can do for them.

 

[repiV]

And who created apartheid? But I guess your logic is we started it but we have no obligation to do anything about its terrible after effects.

Actually, apartheid is South Africa's problem. The British Empire ceased to exist many years ago.

Why not?

We can't we pay a few extra dollars to all the people we hire to work in sweatshops for us? Before you use the talking point that all our goods would then cost too much this is absolutely false. When they wanted to move all these jobs there in the first place they said it would make all our goods cheaper, it hasn't. All its done is give them more profits.

"We"? Who is "we"?
Global corporations are not you and me and the West. They are independent organisations that make their own decisions, and they outsource the labour to the countries they do precisely so that they can pay those wages.
Why would they bother outsourcing the work if it wasn't cost effective? Net result is that the people would be no better off as the jobs wouldn't be there at all. Their labour is not worth a few extra dollars.
The biggest losers in all this are we, the consumers, who put up with reduced quality goods and services and the people out of work because their jobs were moved overseas.
Artificially inflated wages = higher unemployment.

And how in the hell are they going to establish those economies without any money to start off with? We can do plenty of things to help them build economies while ensuring none of them starve to death. Do you honestly believe 400 billion dollars that we wasted on that stupid war that has only made things worse would have done nothing to help these poor people? Didn't you say yourself education is key. That kind of money would have educated millions of people.

But we don't do anything at all to help them build economies. Aid money isn't about helping people to help themselves, it's about handouts.
Plus, I don't think it's quite that simple. See "IQ and the wealth of nations"...
And since you used the Middle East as an example, they're a lost cause. Prosperity and institutionalised religious fundamentalism aren't good bedfellows. So long as Islam as we know it today remains, the Middle East will always be a shithole.
How do you propose we go about "educating" whole societies that are centuries if not millenia behind us in terms of culture and understanding? It took us hundreds, if not thousands of years to evolve from the state that most of the Middle East and Africa is in today to the society we have today. You can't simply throw money at this problem and cure it, it's rooted in much deeper things.

 

[repiV]

First point in this is true, the second is only halftrue. Ofcource most of the work has to be done by the people of the nations in question, but we can definatly help them. We can build schools and the like, put pressure on their goverments to impose strike laws and provide food and the like for them so they can go on strike without starving to death. We can also put pressure on the companies based in first world nations that exploits cheap labour in third world nations to drastically improve working conditions (by not buying their products their products for example). Heck, a goverment could defiantly found corporations that had their production centers located in third world countries that paid significantly better wages to their workers then other corporations.

Of cource, goverments, civil war and crime could definatly get in the way of this. It is an obstacle but not every third world nation is affected by it.

There is plenty we can do for them.

I maintain that it's about culture first and foremost. As far as I can tell, Africa will remain poor forever. Or at least for many hundreds of years after I die. With their current level of sophistication, there just doesn't seem to be any way out for them.
On the other hand, look at a country like China. They've been desperately poor for a long time, but now they've taken off the gloves as it were and they're skyrocketing up the ladder. The same shit that goes on in Pakistan and so forth happens in China every bit as much, if not more, but China is using the sweatshops to propel itself to the top of the world economy.
Give it a few decades and China will be one of the richest countries in the world, per capita.
Why is China becoming so rich so quickly, while other countries seem destined to remain poor forever?

It's one thing, and one thing only. Culture. Despite the legacy of communism, China is essentially a sophisticated country with sophisticated people, sophisticated ethics and a sophisticated understanding of the world. Now they are free to make their own way, nothing can stop them.
Are we helping China? Are we ****. They're doing it all of their own backs.
Because their culture allows and promotes it.

 

[Absinthe]

Absinthe, why do we not have any obligation to help those people? Immigration is certainly debatable, if you don't think they should not be allowed to immigrate here for free to simply improve their lives I'm not necessarily going to argue with you.

But that has little to do with what I understood regarding your post about we have no obligation to helping them. You are trying to compare this to Iraq and the middle east but the comparison is flawed. I am not talking about killing thousands of people to force them to live the way we want them to live in a pipe dream that this will somehow help them. I am talking about making sure people in poor parts of the world get the financial aid they need to survive. Would it really kill you to be forced to contribute a small portion of your wealth to such a cause if it was effective? I used the term starbucks as an example. Maybe I'm making the wrong assumption about you but can you really tell me you never paid $4- $5 for a cup of coffee? I'll be honest, I have, more than once. I also bought a bunch of other shit that I could certainly live without. I'm weak in this regard like almost every other westerner, so there is something the government could do to force me to help out a little bit. If it means I have to buy less bullshit then so be it.

I certainly can do without a lot of the stuff I use. But if it's my money, isn't it mine to do whatever I wish with it? Outside of taxes, I don't see why I should be obligated to pay money for other countries' affairs.

This isn't entirely a matter of principle. While I do think that reform in third world countries needs to come primarily from within, I know that external assistance can be very valuable and sometimes required for a nation to get off its feet. If there was a clean, efficient, practical way of getting aid to the right people for the right uses, I'd be very receptive to the idea.
Unfortunately, I just see a lot of squandering at the moment. So much financial aid disappears into the hands of corrupt leaders and is subject to thievery while the rest of the population starves and dies. And part of me asks what the point is if the residents of these impoverished areas are all too eager fight and even kill each other in their feudal societies. If the aid isn't doing enough good, then it just strikes me as a wasted expenditure. The United States is heavily in debt any way, no thanks to the billions of dollars we pump into failed foreign policy.

I think the only time aid is going to be of real good use is if there are some drastic changes in the mindsets of some of these regions and the construction of a working economy that can invest money into a system producing quality life for the people in the long-run. I agree with repiV in that the biggest obstacle here is a cultural one, and I don't believe that's entirely a product of wealth and education. In the meantime, I try to do what I can as an individual. But the current state of affairs regarding international aid aren't tenable for long either for those donating and those receiving. At the very least, the international community would have to grow some teeth and put heavy pressure on the governments heading these nations to straighten out, and I have mixed feelings about that.

Maybe this is better served for a PM but thank you for going over there and helping out, what part of Africa did you go to and what organization was it with? You certainly have a lot more credibility in that regard than I do. I regret not doing something like this when I was younger, instead I was too busy getting drunk and doing other stupid useless shit. I would like to think I can do something like that later on in my life but unfortuneately at this point I don't see that happening.

I worked with Habitat For Humanity and spent most of my time in South Africa. Soweto, Johannesburg to be precise. I and a group of peers spent a lot of time in the really poor areas and informal settlements. We also spent a lot of time with children at a local school, supplying food and clothing. I felt really unprepared when we first started working. Just walking around in the bare basics of clothing made me feel like an ass when you see the living conditions that many of these people have.
That said, I'd certainly like to return. My younger brother is heading off later this year to do the same.

 

[15357]

My say on illegal immigrants: Work harder for less than bare minimum wages for the good of our corporations or get deported. Your call.

 

[CptStern]

yes slave labour for our honourable corporations, may god bless their benelovent souls, oh purveyors of charitable works and noble acts ...the corporation's sole raison d'etre is to bring peace and harmony to the glorious nation, citizens should honour their glorious deeds as they owe them a debt which can never be repaid






:upstare:


some of you people need a healthy dose of reality (administered by my booted heel in some cases) ..do yourselves a favour: cut ties to mommy and daddy and try fending for yourself in every single aspect of your lives ...lets see how far you fall down the economical ladder without any sort of support ..you most of all Numbers: you desparately need a reality check

 

[Asknoone]

Charter a ship Stern, sail the sea's and deliver the check yourself. In person. Verbal and physical. This is what you were born to do. Let no retard or idiot stand in your way; you have a message to deliver and people to heal. Waste no time, for time itself is short and the fabricated god is working swiftly against you! I shall hold back the forces of the Church as best I can! Go, go now!

 

[CptStern]

ya I just chartered a boat and have bought a pair of these ...for reality check enforcement. This is a mission for doling out pain, not healing

 

[Asknoone]

I'm pretty sure it depends on how you interpret 'healing'. Certainly people who receive pain and think differently for it have been 'healed'. Would you not say so? Healing is, therefore, an appropriate term.

 

[CptStern]

yes...unless the "healing" precedes the "dying"

 

[Asknoone]

In which case the world is still a much, much better place for it. Accidents happen kids.

 

[CptStern]

I've been looking for a Public Relations man/spin doctor of bad deeds into good deeds ....you're hired!

 

[Asknoone]

I'll do my utmost sneakiest.

 

[CptStern]

good, agenda for today: cover up Number's severe beating ..just say he was wearing communist red or said bad things about the fatherland

 

[Tyguy]

Although the US may not meet its quota for foreign aid, it shares the same boat with many other countries. Take Canada for instance....

Why cant the collective powers of the world lend a hand in helping these poor people in Mexico and other less fortunate countries? Why is it only the United States' problem?

 

[Solaris]

Let's declare war on poverty.

 

[CptStern]

Although the US may not meet its quota for foreign aid, it shares the same boat with many other countries. Take Canada for instance....

ya well that article is old: we've fallen even further behind thanks to our idiot of a leader

Why cant the collective powers of the world lend a hand in helping these poor people in Mexico and other less fortunate countries? Why is it only the United States' problem?

why dont pharaceutical companies provide cheap meds for the world's poor? because they dont have to; there's profit to be made ...same goes with international aid: it's profit driven, banks make shitloads of money from foreign aid/foreign debt

 

[Tyguy]

well thats my point really, the US isnt any exception to the rule. The world is a money-driven whore house....