Education is a privilege, not a right.

Shadowlands

As for points people brought up earlier, about getting a free education in America. It's impossible. In America, I'm first in my class at school, top marks (97th percentile on my SATs, 4.O GPA, etc). I got into many "top tier" American schools, like New York University and Columbia. Despite the fact that my father earns less than $41,000 after tax, has a mortage, etc (and of these factors are supposed to be taken into account in IS's version of American Uni's) I was still required by NYU and Columbia to pay 30,000 in basic fees, never mind living expenses, textbooks, etc. When I protested this decision I was given a $2,000 grant! So much for the American dream! I thought Trinity was expensive before that, but I made a beeline for Trinity's fees after I saw what I was getting from American schools. A friend of mine who's family consist of single mother with 3 kids earning $400 dollars a month is still required to take out pay $5,000 per year at her school.

Time Magazine

ItalianStallion wrote:

no, the non-protestants among us are taught to rely on the Daury-Reims version. it comes from the latin vulgate of St.Jerome. it was much closer to the times in question and he generally had a better understanding of the translations in a way that is now lost to us.

I'm not a Protestant, but I'd certainly choose to quote from a text that was translated by dozens and dozens and dozens of experts over several years than someone who was closer in time when Latin was commonplace.

Furthermore, if you can post quotes from a different version that have differing meanings I'd like to see them.

using generally

Ah so you've backed down to "generally", not "most" - but yet you've still to give any examples?

using generally irrelevent biblical quotes is a protestant thing to do.

That's hilarious, frankly, and the mod of Christianity board shall have a grand laugh as well.

sola scriptura. anyway, pick one and we can debate the link, you seem to not understand the allegged connection.

I don't understand you here, pick one what? What link? Connection between what? Protestants and irrelevent biblical quotes?

the only thing you "showed up" is that you cant make a valid connection between the passages you quote and the arguments you make.

Really? That's a quite a statement, which I won't even bother to argue against because anyone who reads my posts will blatantly see that the argument that an anarcho-capitalism system and ethic runs anathema to "sell your possessions and follow me".

as for the anti-Catholocism of the president, i disagree.

I did not say anti-. I said non-.

did you see how reacted to the death of the Holy Father?

Yep, but he also only has two kids.

also, his brother Jeb is a Catholic.

My brother is an Evangelistic geek (;)) who works for the Christian Unions in Dublin colleges. Another brother isn't particularly religious, and we were surprised when he said his baby son was being baptised. My sister teaches the Catholic church how to teach religion in primary schools. Do relatives make that much of a difference? When you're resorting to that....

Jenna Bush was convicted on alcohol offences, does that mean that her father was convicted on alco.... wait a minute, never mind .

I would go so far as to say that as clinton called himself the first black president because he "likes jazz and fried chicken",

I don't think a fondness of jazz and fried chicken defines one's race. It might, however, make an integratory humourous statement.

Bush is the first real Catholic president

Well seeing as he's not Catholic and there were Catholic presidents before him, I wouldn't agree with this statement Christopher.

as for the Pope on the war, His Holyness gave a "qualifyied no" as he did on capital punishment (which cannon law sees as the right of a legitimate nation).

So basically I stated "He said no" and you counteract this with "He said no, not NO!" Pope's don't make absolute statements on current affairs.

contrast this with the "abosloute no" he gave to matters such as abortion, women preists, homosexuality, liberalism, communism, modernism and protestantism.

To be pedeantic, not on homosexuality but homosexual acts. And just to take you up on Protestantism, he said c. 2000 that there was room in heaven for non-Catholics. Now which religion do you reckon he meant there? Islam? Judaism? Or the religion that differs with Catholosism maybe 10%?

our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principals, as they were in the hearts and minds of most of the framers.

Your nation was founded on the principle of democracy. Hitler once stated that he was here to "finish off Jesus' work". Cop on.

you must understand that they did not seek to excape from the hermenutical dialectic.

Must I now?

go research my earlier arguments about seperation of Church and State

Haha, "research" is pushing it.

to get a bit of an education as to how the Constution was ment by the framers to be interpreted in that regard.

Is this coming from a team of dozens and dozens of experts who have studied it over several years, or from somebody who studied it 50 years before the assembly of this team of experts? . And even if it was founded under Christian principles, is it a Christian principle to ban prayer from schools? Or the controversy of "under God" in the oath? The Irish Free State and ultimately the Republic of Ireland may have been based on the closest thing possible to an anti-Anglo Catholic SuperState, but that's no longer the case. The old hand of the past is dead, whether or not we like it.

And just to take you up on something, Supreme Court judges decide on whether something is unconstitutional or not. Your statement that the Supreme Court decision on abortion was unconstitutional is actually the act of unconstitutionality, as it decries something that is set out in the constitution - namely the authority of the Supreme Court on interpreting the constitution.

the high poverty rate is due in part to almost 1 million illegal immegrents flowing in a year coupled with other minority groups. the fruits of diversity!

1 million a year with a population of about 290m is an increase of 0.34%. We had about 65,000 immigrants into the country in 2002. With a population of 4m that's 1.625%, nearly 5 times the amount you took in!

but our Hispanics are working out of poverty at a faster rate then your working class, and not even crying to the government for programs.

Have you any evidence of this? And our Hispanics the only immigrants included in National Income statistics? And surely this would mean that your relative poverty rates would be lower than ours.

And it has nothing to do with laughable minimum wages, no? $5.15! Our minimum wage, about $9.50, was the main thing that stopped our recent boom purely benefitting the better off. I'd also like to point you here

Time Magazine

ItalianStallion wrote:

you miss the point.

I don't think I do, as I spent three paragraphs discussing its "fairness" and mentioned it in another.

yes, it will be easier

Negligably so. 8 year olds are taught composite tax rates in this country with no problem

but also more fair.

You completely missed my point! It will not be.

that is the goal, fair taxation.

:rolleyes: It might be the goal, but it will not be the result.

it is still relative to the income of the individual, but now more fair.

How so? Tell me how raising the tax rates of the poor and lowering them for the rich is more fair?!

exempting the poor is good, because it reduces the amount you have to spend on funding other social programs that benefit them.

Ok, you can put it that way, or you can say that it's fair for the real reasons.

in fact, it helps to empower them by letting them decide the fate of their money as opposed to the government.

You mean by Tax Free Allowances, that are just as easily (and more effectively because of the higher tax yield) installed with non-flat tax rates?

do you not think their capable?

WTF is that supposed to mean?! Of course they're capable! I'm calling on them to be taxed less, if at all! Do you not think that high-earners are capable of calculating some amount of their tax at one rate and the rest at another?

as for the shopping over the border argument, canada is already substantially more expensive.

And guess what, a higher sales tax will remove that. And the additional "American" market will provide greater economies of scale and hence lower prices.

ill admit though that the idea needs some work, but the idea of a flat rate for all does not.

How can you accept the problems with funding all revenue via flat indirect taxation and not via flat direct taxation?

you see

I do, as do you, but sometimes I think you're quite blind to complex socio-economic schemas

there is a tradeoff between liberal and conservative ideas. liberals want equality, but in reality, that only comes at the cost of freedom. remember what churchill said about that? "equil distribution of misery?"

Yes, but Churchill also wanted Ireland to remain in the Commonwealth . There is indeed a tradeoff between equality and freedom. But firstly it's not fully correlated, and secondly I'd rather see someone's (read 12%, on a completely distorted and underestimated index) "equality" increased to lower the number of those living in poverty than removing the >1% of Americans who are millionaires' "freedom".

Frankly if you do not agree with the argument that ensuring people live in a respectable manner is a greater cause than the economic freedom of the upper-classes you cannot claim your country lives on Christian principles.

Time Magazine

snorlax wrote:

*Snorlax gives Gambino and Angry Banana hugs and directs them, and everyone else to "the hug other tcd boards members campaign"

*Duly hugs Snorlax and Gambino*

punka

ItalianStallion wrote:

no, the non-protestants among us are taught to rely on the Daury-Reims version. it comes from the latin vulgate of St.Jerome. it was much closer to the times in question and he generally had a better understanding of the translations in a way that is now lost to us. this is not the point though. using generally irrelevent biblical quotes is a protestant thing to do. sola scriptura. anyway, pick one and we can debate the link, you seem to not understand the allegged connection.

I don't want to get into the nitty-gritty here, but Jerome's vulgate is flawed in many ways. And Chris, you should remember from your classical training that old principle of textual criticism - recentior non deterior, "the more recent [reading] is not worse." In other words just because Jerome's translation is older doesn't make it more reliable. For one of the most famous examples of Jerome's errors you should click here.

But anyway. Group hug, everybody.

DrIndy

Angry Banana wrote:

That's a very capitalistic view for a Sinn Féiner!!! Don't you know that SF want 69% income tax, 50+% corporation tax and, (supposedly) the ultimate seizure of all land by the State.

I'm not a Sinn Feiner! They are the party however that I at the time we conversed, I agreed the most with, but do not support directly or am a member of. I am more open minded than someone who wishes to lock themselves and their views into a single political party such as Fine Gael.

snorlax

ya know if we keep on debating like this we might end up like father jack...

DrIndy

snorlax wrote:

ya know if we keep on debating like this we might end up like father jack...

LOL its true - but these threads are a good read and they certainly collect the post count quick......

Carpenter

Where did you get the 30,000 euro from

RagShagBill

To be honest, I just read the first few posts and scanned a few others. I can see the point, that society needs people to fill jobs that don't require a degree, but to suggest fees are the answer is ludicrious. We have moved, thankfully, into a slightly more meritocratic society. If we really do need people to fill these jobs, we should lessen the amount of places in university so that points shoot up causing only the best get in, not only the richest.

That said, I don't believe it's necessary at this moment in time.

RagShagBill

RagShagBill wrote:

If we really do need people to fill these jobs, we should lessen the amount of places in university so that points shoot up causing only the best get in, not only the richest.

That's a whole other debate...

ItalianStallion

[I'm not a Protestant, but I'd certainly choose to quote from a text that was translated by dozens and dozens and dozens of experts over several years than someone who was closer in time when Latin was commonplace.]

if it looks like a dog and smells like a dog.... attacking the vulgate and quoting scripture that you dont seem to ba able to correctly apply/defend is very protestant. granted Jerome miss translatesd the odd word or two, he got the main themes better then anyone since. being closer in time meant that he understood phrases and their translations better then we can possibly hope as they were still in use. we can only speculate on the meanings and ideas and project our own theories of translation while he simply didnt.
yes, the versions are generally the same, but often the footnotes in protestant bibles differ, which are the result of a miss reading that is only enhansed by poor scholarship regarding the implications of the text.
all of this is moot though, as Tradition trumps scripture.

[Ah so you've backed down to "generally", not "most" - but yet you've still to give any examples?]
just trying to be fair in regards to integrety and politeness.

[That's hilarious, frankly, and the mod of Christianity board shall have a grand laugh as well.]
trying to apply irrelevent passages to support your argument is comical, but also sad as it hints at a deep misunderstanding of the implications of the gospels.
[I don't understand you here, pick one what? What link? Connection between what? Protestants and irrelevent biblical quotes?]
i want you to try and link your (weak)arguments to the biblical pasasages you quote.

[Really? That's a quite a statement, which I won't even bother to argue against because anyone who reads my posts will blatantly see that the argument that an anarcho-capitalism system and ethic runs anathema to "sell your possessions and follow me".]
anarcho capitalist? no, i want a corporate state that supports buisness, but with a small governmental ideal and privitization of almost everything, as its more efficient. yes, we are implied to sell our possesions to follow Christ. the clergy generally lives along those lines and its great. but any government that did that would be letting its citizens down by not creating or protecting that very system that would allow them to do so on an individual level. giving to the poor has to be of your own free will, not state led coersion.

i know bush is not really a Catholic, but he has a very Catholic-friendly aggenda, and a great respect for the faith.
by mentioning his brother, i was pointing to the deep place religion has played in the bush family.

[So basically I stated "He said no" and you counteract this with "He said no, not NO!" Pope's don't make absolute statements on current affairs.]
he was personally against it, but did not think it was nessesarly immoral per se. like capital punishment, you can be for it and in perfect harmony with Rome. besides, the Church has a noble history fighting the islamic infidels. as for not commenting on polotics, it one of his jobs. he condemnedso many things with the weight of his athority, such as abortion, homosexuality, women preists, liberalism/modernism, feminism and the like. in regards to those, he gave an "abosolute no" as opposed to a "qualifyied no." read cannon law mate!

[To be pedeantic, not on homosexuality but homosexual acts. And just to take you up on Protestantism, he said c. 2000 that there was room in heaven for non-Catholics. Now which religion do you reckon he meant there? Islam? Judaism? Or the religion that differs with Catholosism maybe 10%?]
fine, but he still said they was wrong/flawed/in err. as for protestants, their not a religion, but heretical sects not in communion with the universal Church.

[Your nation was founded on the principle of democracy. Hitler once stated that he was here to "finish off Jesus' work". Cop on.]
my nation was founded on the idea of creating a country that was accountable and not despotic. it is not a democracy, but a republic. do you know the diffrence? it was Christian from the start, and its unfortunate that the founding fathers took the idea of their unchallanged ideas for granted.

[Is this coming from a team of dozens and dozens of experts who have studied it over several years, or from somebody who studied it 50 years before the assembly of this team of experts? . And even if it was founded under Christian principles, is it a Christian principle to ban prayer from schools? Or the controversy of "under God" in the oath? The Irish Free State and ultimately the Republic of Ireland may have been based on the closest thing possible to an anti-Anglo Catholic SuperState, but that's no longer the case. The old hand of the past is dead, whether or not we like it.]
unfortunatly, liberal activist judges have gotten in that dont care about the implications of the constution in regards to abortion and religion. it is split 4-5 on most issues regarding those. fortunatly, a the wicked ginsburg is on the way out and Bush will replace her with a conservative and hopefully overturn abortion.
[And just to take you up on something, Supreme Court judges decide on whether something is unconstitutional or not. Your statement that the Supreme Court decision on abortion was unconstitutional is actually the act of unconstitutionality, as it decries something that is set out in the constitution - namely the authority of the Supreme Court on interpreting the constitution.]
fine, but when they inforce somthing against the original intentions of the framers/constution, they are committing an unconstutional act. like affirmative action, abortion goes against the grain of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness enshrined in it. four of the justices would agree, but dont have the nessesary majority, so are they being unconstutional in dissenting?

[1 million a year with a population of about 290m is an increase of 0.34%. We had about 65,000 immigrants into the country in 2002. With a population of 4m that's 1.625%, nearly 5 times the amount you took in!]
ok, but almost %40 of my country is of minority status. mexicans are almost %20 while blacks are slightly less. they are established, while Ireland doesnt have a history of large minority populations. many who do come are professionals like the pillipina nurses, while ours are mostly unskilled labourers. the point is that they are the ones who inflate our poverty figures.


[Have you any evidence of this? And our Hispanics the only immigrants included in National Income statistics? And surely this would mean that your relative poverty rates would be lower than ours.]
the more governmental programs you introduce, the more estates you build, the less insentiive your poor have to take the inititive. they're an un-dymanic group that survives on governmental and tax-payer handouts (much like many of our blacks) while the hispanics have a praise-worthy work ethic and are very upwardly mobile.

[And it has nothing to do with laughable minimum wages, no? $5.15! Our minimum wage, about $9.50, was the main thing that stopped our recent boom purely benefitting the better off.]

the dollar in America goes much farther then tthe euro in Ireland! ask Dr.Indy what he thinks. our minimum wage erners have much greater purchasing power then yours do. but a high minimum wage is bad. it increases the cost of production while sending jobs over seas. my father has to work in mexico as the spoiled unions of America keep costs so high that its not economically fesable.

Time Magazine

RagShagBill wrote:

To be honest, I just read the first few posts and scanned a few others. I can see the point, that society needs people to fill jobs that don't require a degree, but to suggest fees are the answer is ludicrious. We have moved, thankfully, into a slightly more meritocratic society. If we really do need people to fill these jobs, we should lessen the amount of places in university so that points shoot up causing only the best get in, not only the richest.

That said, I don't believe it's necessary at this moment in time.

You know absolutely nothing about economics :P.

Yes, in the early 1900's economy you needed people to push coal up a hill etc. However the low-cost economy is dead! In 20 years (or less), we will need 30% of our workforce to work non-skilled jobs, and the bulk of the rest will have to be knowledge-based. Knowledge-based, the highest rung of the value-chain ladder. You get that with university education. Contrary to needing less people attending university, we need and we will see thousands more people getting postgrads.

And, if nothing else, university education is as much a social investment as an economic one.

Time Magazine

ItalianStallion wrote:

if it looks like a dog and smells like a dog.... attacking the vulgate and quoting scripture that you dont seem to ba able to correctly apply/defend is very protestant.

I'm sure that contravenes some law! Okay that is the third time you've criticised that post, without any reference. To be honest I'm getting tired of this. Please show some bloody evidence.

[QUOTE[granted Jerome miss translatesd the odd word or two,[/QUOTE]Was he Protestant?

he got the main themes better then anyone since. being closer in time meant that he understood phrases and their translations better then we can possibly hope as they were still in use. we can only speculate on the meanings and ideas and project our own theories of translation while he simply didnt.

If we do not understand the original themes anymore how can you possibly make a qualified statement about the quality of his work? If we do not understand the original themes, surely his could be completely unrelated?

yes, the versions are generally the same, but often the footnotes in protestant bibles differ

I quoted no footnotes. None.

which are the result of a miss reading that is only enhansed by poor scholarship regarding the implications of the text.

Poor scholarship such as somebody who mis-translates some things? Cop on, the quotes I used were perfectly applicable. Simply because they were written by people who disagree on the interpretation does not mean their translation is wrong.

all of this is moot though, as Tradition trumps scripture.

I cannot believe you just said that. You just said that human action "trumps" divine scriptures! So if I start a tradition of considering the Last Supper as "the last summer" it will eventually exceed the Text in importance? Cop on. Not even Crash_000 would say that!

trying to apply irrelevent passages to support your argument is comical, but also sad as it hints at a deep misunderstanding of the implications of the gospels.

Unsubstaniated reference number 4, coming from the guy who just stated that tradition trumps scripture.

[I don't understand you here, pick one what? What link? Connection between what? Protestants and irrelevent biblical quotes?]
i want you to try and link your (weak)arguments to the biblical pasasages you quote.

Okay, let me take one. You said that America bases itself on Christian principles. You then said, with smugness befitting Minister McDowell, that you'll buy a Merc or a Porsche with your wages. This is the capitalist ethic, the "American Dream". Which is anathema to the Christian dictat of selling your possessions, and enforced with the quote from John "Woe unto you that are rich".

anarcho capitalist? no

America are absolutely borderline anarcho capitalist.

no, i want a corporate state that supports buisness, but with a small governmental ideal and privitization of almost everything

Which is a borderline anaracho capitalist state.

yes, we are implied to sell our possesions to follow Christ.

See the above "irrelevent" quote.

the clergy generally lives along those lines and its great. but any government that did that would be letting its citizens down by not creating or protecting that very system that would allow them to do so on an individual level.

I agree. It's what Francis Fukuyama (a devoted Republican) calls the triumphant dogma of liberal democracy. And I agree that this is the best form of government available. But it ain't no Christian state buddy.

Although giving to the poor has to be of your own free will, not state led coersion.

I disagree. Ever heard of State aid? America seemed pretty willing to cancel $30bn of debt there last week. And George Bush's $15bn AIDS plan?

What about contributions to military activities? If somebody did not agree with the war in Iraq should they not have to pay the proportion of taxes that are paid to it?

i know bush is not really a Catholic

That's a bit of a difference from "Bush is America's first Catholic president"

but he has a very Catholic-friendly aggenda, and a great respect for the faith.

He's "Catholic-friendly", as long as he doesn't quote from the New International Version of the Bible, I take it.

by mentioning his brother, i was pointing to the deep place religion has played in the bush family.

You really wanna bring up the influences on the Bush family?

[So basically I stated "He said no" and you counteract this with "He said no, not NO!" Pope's don't make absolute statements on current affairs.]

he was personally against it, but did not think it was nessesarly immoral per se.

I know. I didn't say that. Your words.

the Church has a noble history fighting the islamic infidels.

If that's what you want to call it.

as for not commenting on polotics, it one of his jobs. he condemnedso many things with the weight of his athority, such as abortion, homosexuality, women preists, liberalism/modernism, feminism and the like. in regards to those, he gave an "abosolute no" as opposed to a "qualifyied no." read cannon law mate!

This, sir, is the irrelevent quotation of religious relevence. I did NOT mention ANYTHING about Canon Law. I simply pointed out that you're wedded to the notion of the St. Jerome Bible - debasing other texts, while you disagree with the Pope on a matter of great importance. And please do not reply with another reference to Canon Law.

[To be pedeantic, not on homosexuality but homosexual acts. And just to take you up on Protestantism, he said c. 2000 that there was room in heaven for non-Catholics. Now which religion do you reckon he meant there? Islam? Judaism? Or the religion that differs with Catholosism maybe 10%?]

fine, but he still said they was wrong/flawed/in err. as for protestants, their not a religion, but heretical sects not in communion with the universal Church.

I suppose that depends on your definition of a religion. As an organised group with shared views on issues divine which the Pope has said can enter heaven, I'd certainly not decry your elected President's religion as a heretical sect.

my nation was founded on the idea of creating a country that was accountable and not despotic.

Congraulations! You've hit the nail on the head there. England, the most non-religious State in the world has a government that is accountable and not despotic either. If Iran or North Korea suddenly install an accountable democracy will it be Christian?

it is not a democracy, but a republic. do you know the diffrence?

Yes I do, but I used the generic term for a participatory democracy encompassing all variations where major figures are elected with a genuine mandate as "democratic". If you want we can refer to it as a federal constitution-based republic but it makes no difference.

it was Christian from the start, and its unfortunate that the founding fathers took the idea of their unchallanged ideas for granted.

I've already been through this. Please stop making general statements with no substanstive explanation or without responding adequately to my points raised.

unfortunatly, liberal activist judges have gotten in that dont care about the implications of the constution in regards to abortion and religion.

Although I agree with you in principle on these points, stating frankly that they don't care is, well, ignorant.

it is split 4-5 on most issues regarding those. fortunatly, a the wicked ginsburg is on the way out and Bush will replace her with a conservative and hopefully overturn abortion.

I'd agree with you here too, but so what? Are you just ranting?

[And just to take you up on something, Supreme Court judges decide on whether something is unconstitutional or not. Your statement that the Supreme Court decision on abortion was unconstitutional is actually the act of unconstitutionality, as it decries something that is set out in the constitution - namely the authority of the Supreme Court on interpreting the constitution.]

fine, but when they inforce somthing against the original intentions of the framers/constution, they are committing an unconstutional act.

Who decides the original intentions, Christopher?

Continued in next post because of boards' character limit to posts.

Time Magazine

like affirmative action, abortion goes against the grain of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness enshrined in it. four of the justices would agree, but dont have the nessesary majority, so are they being unconstutional in dissenting?

Of course they're not, as they are members of the Supreme Court and it is their collective decision to interpret the constitution. But it was the view of the majority of them, like it or not, that it was indeed constitutional.

[1 million a year with a population of about 290m is an increase of 0.34%. We had about 65,000 immigrants into the country in 2002. With a population of 4m that's 1.625%, nearly 5 times the amount you took in!]

ok, but almost %40 of my country is of minority status.
mexicans are almost %20 while blacks are slightly less. they are established, while Ireland doesnt have a history of large minority populations. many who do come are professionals like the pillipina nurses, while ours are mostly unskilled labourers. the point is that they are the ones who inflate our poverty figures.

What's your definition of minority? Are third generation Irish minorities? There is practially no ethnic majority in America. If you are quoting "minority" figures, you must only quote recent immigrants as immigrants make as much money eventually. Look at your father.

And acutally the majority of our workers are low-earners also, working in supermarkets and the like. And nurses do not earn substantially more than an unskilled working in a factory. I do not accept your hypothesis. The reason why you have the highest inequality in the developed world is because of your upper-classes' freedom to earn with little taxation. Fact.

the more governmental programs you introduce, the more estates you build, the less insentiive your poor have to take the inititive.

Jesus, in Detroit, 2005 wrote:

Do not cure this leper, because if you help him he'll become a sponger on the State

they're an un-dymanic group that survives on governmental and tax-payer handouts (much like many of our blacks)

:mad::mad::mad: That's an outrageous and disgusting statement. Don't you ever dare make such an ignorant comment to me again because that was utterly disgusting. How can you POSSIBLY disregard the poor and place their plight to their dynamics? Have you never read what happened to America in 1929? What about the Irish Famine? How about the fact that capitalism is cyclical and depressions will inevitably arise from times of growth? And if that's the case, why do states with proper social welfare mechanisms have lower poverty rates and more numbers in employment than America? Do you not realise that America thrives on people being forced to break their backs working for **** money and this inevitably requires "examples"?

while the hispanics have a praise-worthy work ethic and are very upwardly mobile.

As opposed to the greasy Italians? Grow the hell up.

the dollar in America goes much farther then tthe euro in Ireland!

The main reasosn for price inflation in Ireland are the price of oil and the cost of land. Our inflation rate, excluding these, clocks in at about 0.89%. The only reasons that America's purchasing power parity is stronger than ours is this fact, and the fact that you're going through a recession which is depressing your inflation.

ask Dr.Indy what he thinks. our minimum wage erners have much greater purchasing power then yours do.

Absolute bulls*it. Absolute bullsh*t.

but a high minimum wage is bad. it increases the cost of production while sending jobs over seas.

And it also increases the poverty level and several consecutive economic studies have concluded that there is minimal employment loss to an increase in minimum wages while ensures social justice.

my father has to work in mexico

I'd say that's because he's "un-dynamic".

as the spoiled unions of America keep costs so high that its not economically fesable.

As pointed out in my previous post, people will have to lose this notion of low wages. It's just not going to happen. Read some books or ESRI reports or something to give you a notion of what you're talking about.

Time Magazine

DrIndy wrote:

I'm not a Sinn Feiner! They are the party however that I at the time we conversed, I agreed the most with, but do not support directly or am a member of. I am more open minded than someone who wishes to lock themselves and their views into a single political party such as Fine Gael.

You said you were a "Shinner and proud"! I do not lock my views into a single party, I am not obliged to vote for the party I am a member of. My membership of a political party, such as Fine Gael, does not mean I am not open-minded.

DrIndy

In fairness AB - due to the intense competition between companies in america notably Walmart and HEB (in texas) - cost of food and household equipment is not only cheap, but dirt cheap. Everyone in america wears Levi's and Wrangler jeans that are high end goods in ireland because they are the cheapest because walmart sells them so. People on minimum wage in america DO get so much more bang for their buck in america than here.

The closest to Walmart for price in ireland is Lidl or Aldi - they don't sell high end quality clothing (as an example).

This certainly is NOT "absolute bull****" - if you live in or even visit america, you realise.

Neither America or EU is perfect, but people in america can live on much less than they can here due to the low cost of living.

Attol

DrIndy wrote:

Neither America or EU is perfect, but people in america can live on much less than they can here due to the low cost of living.

But the poorer section of society in the US also earns a lot less.

rsynnott

ItalianStallion wrote:

I know it will be extremely unpopular, but I am against free fees. I think ungreatfull students should be happy to only have to pay around 5K a year for a good education. i have to pay almost 30k a year for lawschool, but you dont see me marching in the streets! the fees keep riff-raff and those who have nothing better to do out. any qualifyied person can get a scholarship over here too, thats why we have a lower percentage of dropouts.
if everyone had an education, who would work in the factories? we would be screwed like Spain where everyone is underemployed. production costs go up and the economy is stiffled. not everyone on a ship can be the captain!
Pithy, but true!
Christopher Gambino

Good lord, this cretin is back! Just as well we saw sense and didn't elect you.

Why, precisely, should a person qualify for university because their parents can pay for it? The current system at least tries to be vaguely fair; are you saying we should make it LESS so?

Pity more of your 30,000 didn't go towards spelling and grammar

America's great, if you happen to be well-off, majority-race, male and heterosexual. Otherwise, erm, not so much.

ApeXaviour

rsynnott wrote:

Good lord, this cretin is back!

Please watch yourself. As stated already personal defamation will not be tolerated here..

DrIndy

rsynnott wrote:

America's great, if you happen to be well-off, majority-race, male and heterosexual. Otherwise, erm, not so much.

Not really, anyone can become well-off (its the true meritocracy), most people are majority race - but every creed, nationality and race are represented in the USA. Equal opportunities and PC is much more endemic in american culture now than ever it is here. Racism and sexism is a very serious topic and once it hits the news results in ruination of character.

Heterosexual? California?

There are many stereotypes in america, but remember its a phenomenally huge country and every state is different in attitudes from another. Even texas is massively different across its bounds.

Visit there or ideally live there - and you realise.

Its nice to have a debate where you have polar opposite views.....

rsynnott

RE: Personal defamation above: yep, sorry about that; that guy just gets on my nerves.

Yes, some places are moderately tolerant of minority races, yes, some places are moderately tolerant of homosexuals. It's not enforced, tho (except in one or two states). Don't get me wrong, Ireland's a long, long way from perfect in this respect; at least we have (weak) protective laws tho. There was a fast-food franchise in the US who until very recently had a policy of firing all homosexual workers. The military has the same policy.

And, anyone can become well-off? Really? Even those who have no workers rights 'cause they happen to be agricultural workers? Even those who are on the slavery-esqe privatised welfare systems, where the body in charge has no incentive to EVER get them back on their own two feet again; after all, they're cheap labour? Even those crippled by huge bills for basic hospital treatment? Even those who DIE for lack of basic hospital treatment?

The culture seems to worship material excess for the sake of it, even moreso than our one does. The SUVs, the overeating... all on credit, of course.

And then, of course, there's the legal torture, though they've been kind enough to mostly refrain from practicing that on their own citizens, for the moment.

Nietzschean

Right enough of this anyway, this sort of stuff really belongs on the politics board, locked.

ItalianStallion

thats too bad. i didnt get the chance to answer angry bannana's posts. i didnt get to laugh at the fact that he thinks we are in recession as we have a 4% growth rate, which is double that of western europe's 2%. also, the reason for the low dollar value in comparison to the euro is economic policy. we are pushing a "weak dollar" policy that keeps our currency low to encourage domestic consumption and make our products more attractive on the international market. this policy is partly resopnsiable for our continued strong growth.
as for the scripture v. Tradition argument, you make it too easy! answer me this: where in the Bible does it say that it is the athority on spritual matters? where did Jesus say "go and write" instead of "go and teach?". what did the early Christians do before there were Christian scriptures? No my friend, we believe in a God who is active in creation and that revelation continues to this day, and did not stop in the second century when the Bible was finished.

Time Magazine

ItalianStallion wrote:

thats too bad. i didnt get the chance to answer angry bannana's posts. i didnt get to laugh at the fact that he thinks we are in recession as we have a 4% growth rate, which is double that of western europe's 2%.

RTE News wrote:

The US current account deficit widened in the first quarter to a record $195.1 billion, the Commerce Department said today.

The report, representing the broadest measure of trade and capital flows, was bigger than the $190 billion expected on Wall Street and represented 6.4% of US gross domestic product.

Sure you're not really in recession there pal? False growth, unsustainable.

Ireland, on the other hand, have a budget surplus and expected growth of 5%!

also, the reason for the low dollar value in comparison to the euro is economic policy. we are pushing a "weak dollar" policy that keeps our currency low to encourage domestic consumption and make our products more attractive on the international market. this policy is partly resopnsiable for our continued strong growth.

By starving your consumers of choice and making the importation of raw materials more expensive. Nice policies .

as for the scripture v. Tradition argument, you make it too easy! answer me this: where in the Bible does it say that it is the athority on spritual matters? where did Jesus say "go and write" instead of "go and teach?". what did the early Christians do before there were Christian scriptures?

I leave this one up to the wonderful and beautiful JustHalf: Jesus claimed that He had authority in the things He said; the Bible records some of these, and is the only real source of such information.

Of course early Christians were converted by people who knew Jesus intimately and would go on to write the Bible. They needed no scriptures. And please don't turn this into questioning the need for written, not spoken, word.

No my friend, we believe in a God who is active in creation and that revelation continues to this day, and did not stop in the second century when the Bible was finished.

I agree. The Bible does not mention liberalism. But it is the definitive source imo. It's Catholic dogma that tradition can only ever at a maximum reach a par with scripture, not "trump" it, iirc.

ItalianStallion

Angry Banana wrote:

Sure you're not really in recession there pal? False growth, unsustainable.

Ireland, on the other hand, have a budget surplus and expected growth of 5%!

i dont think you have a real grasp of economics since you didnt know that
defecit has NOTHING TO DO WITH GROWTH! It is simply an excuse that liberals try to attack us with. much of the defecit comes from a tax break which actually helped to pull us out of the clinton era recession. but then again, you've probably never heard of men like milton freedman or alan greenspan. Unsustainable? i dont think you used that word correctly. china's 10% growth is unsubstainable, ours if predicted to continue to grow throught the next two quarters. but hey, the best economist in the country could be wrong.

By starving your consumers of choice and making the importation of raw materials more expensive. Nice policies .
ive never heard of someone complaining about lack of choices here. ever been in an American super market? the one by my dallas house has 100 kinds of apples and thats only the apples! your stores have really poor selection and quality control as well as being extremely expensive.

I leave this one up to the wonderful and beautiful JustHalf: Jesus claimed that He had authority in the things He said; the Bible records some of these, and is the only real source of such information.


no, tradition is a living voice to the past, while the Bible is frozen in time. You know that Sola Scriptura says that we should be only upon what the bible says, not tradition. Well where does that teaching come from in the bible?" ...... you can't answer it because for a long time, the bible didn't exist. So for years we followed tradition, because a bible was not in place yet. John 3:16 wasn't in existance on paper! No one knew what you were talking about if you said "Exodus 3:14". Because our faith wasn't designed to be based on word alone, but the word was made flesh and was Jesus. In a way, Jesus is a living tradition.

Thessalonians 2:15
"Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours."

Also, it is always interesting to understand by which means the Church formed the canon of scripture. Basically, the standard by which books were accepted into the canon, was of course Tradition. Without Tradition, they would not have known which books to place in the Bible, nor would we know how to interpret scripture.
The Bible is a man made Tradition whereas the the Tradition of the Church was given to us by OLJC. If protestants believe in the bible alone and that is sufficient for them then why do they need someone else to teach them the bible? By reading the bible themselves the teachings should be jumping off the page and would be so easy. Their interpretations would be right on. Yet we know that is not the case since that is why there are more than 30,000 protestant denominations all saying their private interpretations is right. Also most need to read books and follow their pastors interpretation to know what the bible teaches.

They also follow some Tradition but they will deny it or say it is obvious from the Bible. Like the Trinity no where mentioned in the Bible yet protestants use that word which comes from Tradition also the teaching that goes behind it, just that they deny it is Tradition.They take some Teachings for granted.
Scripture is interpreted in different ways by protestants and they can all say there way is backed up by scripture. Case in point those who believe in the predistination of the elect and those who view faith alone. The debates between protestants that would be good. Protestants writing books teaching what is in scripture means that the Bible can't be the sole and final authority since they need to be taught what teachings are in the Bible. Like I said the Trinity. you were taught by someone about the Trinity, looked it up in the Bible and it makes sense. Yet if no one ever told you about the Trinity and you just read the Bible will you come to the same conclusion?

No where in Scripture does it say it is the sole and final authority, no where.

I agree. The Bible does not mention liberalism. But it is the definitive source imo. It's Catholic dogma that tradition can only ever at a maximum reach a par with scripture, not "trump" it, iirc.]
actually, the Church holds that when scripture and Tradition clash, we are to follow Tradition. its cannon law, your just making things up. I hope you want to try and debate that.

DrIndy

AB - remember you are debating a theology graduate!

AS - being nice is nice and although your style of debating is blunt - which attracts considerable comment and makes the threads you started fascinating to read - you are sometimes too blunt.

AB - Regarding america - you have phenomenal choice in the supermarkets, with cut-throat competition which ensures the best value for money to the consumer. In ireland, dairy products available for purchase are only irish origin - remember the dairy riots/boycotts when Aldi had the GALL to purchase milk for 1/3 cheaper from a dairy in northern ireland and undercut the irish ones who were ripping off consumers here?

I cannot buy Lurpak butter here - by far the best butter in europe - why? because despite the EU - the irish dairies have a monopoly. This is wrong, anticompetitive and restricting my choice - which would never happen in america.

You forget that ireland has a population of 4.5 milllion living on a tiny island - america is a continent, not a country with phenomenal resources - does the EU trade with other continents for consumer choice? It costs a lot to ship goods across a big ocean - can it compete with locally produced goods?

Time Magazine

I only have a few minutes..

ItalianStallion wrote:

i dont think you have a real grasp of economics since you didnt know that defecit has NOTHING TO DO WITH GROWTH! It is simply an excuse that liberals try to attack us with.

That's just not true again. The textbook equation:

N.I. = C + I + G + X - M
National Income = Consumption + Investment + Govt. Spending + Exports - Imports.

Growth is the rate of change in National Income. Govt. Spending alters National Income, so obviously a defecit affects growth. In the first three months of this year the American Govt spent $191bn MORE than it received. That's 6.4% of your GDP, so $1 out of 16 essentially coming out of reserves or loans which is not increased production or productivity.

You claim your growth rate is $1 out of every 25. Your Government overspending is $1 out of every 16 throughout the economy. Fiscal policy buddy, it's pretty important.

Your inflation rate is also quite low, 2.9% including oil (which is an exagerrated factor, as it has a pretty standard market price). Allow me to quote Milton Friedman "Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon". So your monetary policy is pretty in-line and not pushing growth. That must mean that fiscal policy is. Hey presto .

much of the defecit comes from a tax break which actually helped to pull us out of the clinton era recession.

Firstly I don't accept it was a "Clinton Era recession". I quote Business Weekly Magazine "The CEA's Economic Report of the President, released Feb. 9, unilaterally changed the start date of the last recession". So, in an election year, the Bush administration said "Hang on, we were in recession before Dubya came in". That was handy. Wait until those loans come kicking back. That will be a recession.

but then again, you've probably never heard of men like milton freedman or alan greenspan.

I just quoted one and Alan Greenspan is chair of the Fed. And as a subscriber to The Economist, I often make the mistake of visiting him and not The Economist's website .

Unsustainable? i dont think you used that word correctly.

I do.

china's 10% growth is unsubstainable, ours if predicted to continue to grow throught the next two quarters.

I'm very sorry, but when I say sustainable I'm not talking about six months' time buddy. And if you think 10% growth is unsustainable I suggest you have a look at The Asian Tiger economies. Amazingly, they've held growth rates of 10% for decades! And guess what, as Kealy's good friend Conor's thesis revealed (or so he told me) it was due to Government intervention .

but hey, the best economist in the country could be wrong.

Greenspan has nothing to do with George Bush's tax reforms. Just like I have nothing to do with the SSIA's .

ive never heard of someone complaining about lack of choices here.

Of course not, because they don't know that George Bush's policies of putting tarrifs on steal hits them hardest. The physical good might be there, but I guarantee that international trade would offer them at better prices - which a policy of devaluation hurts.

ever been in an American super market? the one by my dallas house has 100 kinds of apples and thats only the apples!

Yes I have. But I'd rather have a choice of only 3 types of apple at lower prices. Your economies of scale will be hit by your foreign exchange policy as it harmful to free trade - something which your captialist ideals should aspire to.

your stores have really poor selection

Correction, our demand does not cater for such selection

and quality control

Disagreed. We are a total nanny-state when it comes to food-production.

as well as being extremely expensive.

Agreed, but that's simply got to do with your size. Not much to boast about.


I have to skip the theology debate as I simply don't have time. Will try take you up on it tomorrow night, but might have to wait until Tuesday.

ItalianStallion

Angry Banana wrote:

I only have a few minutes..

[That's just not true again. The textbook equation:

N.I. = C + I + G + X - M
National Income = Consumption + Investment + Govt. Spending + Exports - Imports.

Growth is the rate of change in National Income. Govt. Spending alters National Income, so obviously a defecit affects growth. In the first three months of this year the American Govt spent $191bn MORE than it received. That's 6.4% of your GDP, so $1 out of 16 essentially coming out of reserves or loans which is not increased production or productivity.]
well, no. europe's real growth rate is 2.4% while the US boasts of 4.4% according to the world fact book online. Im glad you knew who those people are, but greenspan was appointed by reagan, but REAPPOINTED under bush. hmmm...that would tend to mean that he is part of the administration. oh, and he also heavily supported the tax cuts and calimed that they were key. in regards to a recession, market indicatiors showed a slowing of the economy in clintons final six months in office. bush inherited that slump, but has succesfully turned it around. if you want to see inflation, Ireland is a wonderfull example. would you deny that?



there will be a correction in china's economy. they dont have the infrastructure and arnt investing in it heavily enough so the idea of deminishing returns comes to mind.


[Of course not, because they don't know that George Bush's policies of putting tarrifs on steal hits them hardest. The physical good might be there, but I guarantee that international trade would offer them at better prices - which a policy of devaluation hurts.]
it was to protect American industry. its an alternative to subusidies. i thought you socialists liked taxes?

[Yes I have. But I'd rather have a choice of only 3 types of apple at lower prices. Your economies of scale will be hit by your foreign exchange policy as it harmful to free trade - something which your captialist ideals should aspire to.]right, but your country doesnt sell apples or just about anything for lower prices.

[Disagreed. We are a total nanny-state when it comes to food-production.]

but the quality of the goods sold in your supermarkets is generally of lower grade. there is not much selection but i agree about the demand thing. The Irish dont seem to have that highly of a developed culinary culture as we do in America.


I have to skip the theology debate as I simply don't have time. Will try take you up on it tomorrow night, but might have to wait until Tuesday.ill be waiting.

joe.

I'm not even going to attempt to read that.