--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk" <shempmcgurk@> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> > > wrote: > > > > > > [snip] > > > Me, I'm waiting for someone -- anyone -- who can > > > cast his political message in terms of a positive > > > message, and who rises above the "easy path" of > > > casting it in a negative light. > > > > Well, I tried to do that here recently with my diatribe about > > eliminating poverty in the U.S. and how the capitalist system along > > with some basic-needs social programs were the solution responsible > > for this enviable success and that it is this model that should be > > both recognized internationally and emulated in other countries. > > > > And if I recall, your reaction was that I was a few notches above > > being certifiable. > > You thought that I rated you *above* the certifiable > line? Interesting. :-) > > Kudos for casting your "solution" in positive terms. > If it were based on reality, it might actually be > a viable solution, but I don't think it is. The US > has poverty out the ying-yang...I think you have > just chosen not to see it. But we can agree to > disagree on this...
Just a thought here. The poverty discussion, like some others, gets hung up on the rocks of semantics. Clearly, to me, people are using the same word, but with quite different meanings. And poverty is a "power words", iMO, -- it has strong emotional stuff attached to it, including a large "shame" and convo-stopper quality. This amplifes the gap of connotations for this word by various parties and through fuel on the emotional fires. I have found that clearly defining a term, and acknowledging that others understand the word in another way, is helful for cordial and productive discussions that bring new insight. For example, -- in broad stokes -- shemp is referring ot poverty as the lack of basic food, water, shelter, medicine. Really bone-crushing stuff. Others are talking about an arbitrary income line used in the US to denote qualification for various social programs. These two definitions of the term ARE widely different. If both parties simply acknowledged that and then spent their energy thinking about how to reduce both types of "poverty", what progress might be made!. Far more than mutal putdowns on how stupid the other party is. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
