A Note Of Appreciation To My U.k. Friends...

[j2k4]

I must also confess to being somewhat disconnected of late; busier with "stuff" than usual, then Reagan's death (sorry, he was a hero of mine), the D-Day remembrances, the board's difficulties (just when I had gotten back into my "rut", so to speak)-I have spent much time mulling the events of the last several decades, and come to the conclusion that, while we share much, we don't share all.

While this has actually cost me some sleep lately, I have also concluded that it matters not at all-I have significant areas of empathy with everyone here, and none of us is diminished in the least by our ongoing failure to convince the other(s) of the rightness of our positions or the wrongness of others'.

There are wires that will remain crossed, shorted, or missing altogether, but it doesn't matter, because just as repairs and arguments are made or accepted, other things arise to replace them.

I believe this is indicative of the human condition, rather than any special thick-headedness on anyone's part.

Liken it, if you will, to a gender conflict; the only solution ever to be found is the rare (very rare) and special connections formed by the luck or happenstance of a chance pairing or timely point.

I feel incredibly blessed to have had rather more than my share of such luck on this board, and, unless I totally miss my guess, a few others may feel the same way.

I think I prefer this latest brand of interplay; there is a tone of acceptance and acknowledgement that doesn't often show itself, and I think that is a good thing.

[J'Pol]

j2

Points taken and well made as usual.

The interesting thing to me is that our politics are so far apart, you are a supporter of Thatcherism, or it's American equivalent. I on the other hand find it despicable. I feel it is as far from Christianity as one can be.

I am and ever have been convinced that Jesus was a socialist. All of his teachings were that we should provide for others and that we should look after the weak and the needy (I don't remember him ever specifically mentioning the huddled masses (pardon the pun)). To our own detriment if need be.

To each according to his needs from each according to his means, I can almost hear Him saying it, in fact ....

Thatcherism is more of a look after your own kind, the people who matter and "to the devil the hindmost" sort of way of thinking. However the most important thing is that we can respect each others views and our right to express them.

[j2k4]

Thank you, JP.

Actually, I think more along the lines of "Teach a man to fish...", instead of giving him a government voucher entitling him to free fish.

I think where we differ is a function of our understanding of the human condition and it's nature, and whether or not it can be influenced:

Can/should a man be "taught to fish"?

What religious caveat is flouted by policies promoting self-sufficiency wherever possible?

Should we default to a "government-first" option?

As to the rest (Ex: the inherent greed of "bureaucracy" and inherent inefficiency of government-as opposed to private-enterprise), I think we also agree in principle; again, though, we are confronted by the "human" problem, and what to do about it.

[Skweeky]

Wasnt there something about the eye of a needle and Rich man going to heaven in that lot somewhere too?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Skweeky@12 June 2004 - 14:19
Wasnt there something about the eye of a needle and Rich man going to heaven in that lot somewhere too?

'splain that, Skweeky?

[J'Pol]

I have made my position clear on this a few times. I do not believe that the welfare state should be an excuse for the abrogation of personal responsibility.

I will happily help someone in need of help, in genuine need. However anyone who is not willing to work, because he is just as well off on benefits would get squat from me.

I will also, if someone needs it buy him the necessities of life, however not his cigarettes.

I would prefer a system where all able bodied people worked, including those on "benefit". If they are getting money from the state, then let them do some work for it I say. There are plenty of railings which could do with a lick of paint.

I am all for self sufficiency in fact have often worked 2 jobs when required. I never took a holiday in our first four years of marriage. I don't mean going away I mean taking a week off work. I always arranged another job when holidays were due. I remember once taking a fortnights leave to work in a shop, that bought number one son's first buggy.

(Your fish thing was very good and I liked the allusions, totally irrelevant of course given the context, but it was nice.)

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by j2k4+12 June 2004 - 20:26--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 &#064; 12 June 2004 - 20:26)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Skweeky@12 June 2004 - 14:19
Wasnt there something about the eye of a needle and Rich man going to heaven in that lot somewhere too?

&#39;splain that, Skweeky? [/b][/quote]
It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven...


I believe Jesus was refering to a small gate in a city wall, known as an eye of the needle...

It was hard, but possible for a camel to go through one.... It had to virtually do the Limber to manage it


Not being a Christian, i&#39;ll let those argue the exact quote...that was from memory, and school was a long time ago

[Biggles]

One can give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, but if you drown him in the river he will never be hungry again


I don&#39;t think that was one of Jesus&#39; though.

RF: That is as close as damn it. The gate in question was low and traders avoided it because they could only get the camel in if they unloaded all their goods first. The inference being that worldy goods will prevent one from entering heaven.

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by Biggles@12 June 2004 - 20:44
One can give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, but if you drown him in the river he will never be hungry again


I don&#39;t think that was one of Jesus&#39; though.

I think that ones the Bush family motto

[j2k4]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@12 June 2004 - 14:27
I have made my position clear on this a few times. I do not believe that the welfare state should be an excuse for the abrogation of personal responsibility.

I will happily help someone in need of help, in genuine need. However anyone who is not willing to work, because he is just as well off on benefits would get squat from me.

I will also, if someone needs it buy him the necessities of life, however not his cigarettes.

I would prefer a system where all able bodied people worked, including those on "benefit". If they are getting money from the state, then let them do some work for it I say. There are plenty of railings which could do with a lick of paint.

I am all for self sufficiency in fact have often worked 2 jobs when required. I never took a holiday in our first four years of marriage. I don&#39;t mean going away I mean taking a week off work. I always arranged another job when holidays were due. I remember once taking a fortnights leave to work in a shop, that bought number one son&#39;s first buggy.

(Your fish thing was very good and I liked the allusions, totally irrelevant of course given the context, but it was nice.)

I am well-aware of your positions and thoughts on this, J&#39;Pol (they mirror mine exactly); question being, how does your government feel about things?

What should a government do, as a matter of course, apart from providing for the common defense and protecting the borders (I mention this last facetiously, of course )?

BTW: My fish "thing" was excellently rendered as well as being supremely appropriate, so blow it out your ass, OK?

Biggles-

Point well-made; riddled with logic.

Rat-

You may follow such direction as I provided J&#39;Pol.