--- In [email protected], new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> 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. >
Yes. And your last paragraph is precisely the point I've been trying to make. 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/
