English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

5 answers

A beautifil ideal. Something to strive for

2006-09-02 19:32:26 · answer #1 · answered by thrag 4 · 2 0

If there weren't enough food to go around, if their weren't enough material for making homes and everything needed to live and thrive, I could see that this would be a good motto. But there is no food shortage. People are starving in Africa and other places because of war and because of governmental, economical repression. Dictators like the North Korean nut, rebel forces in Ethiopia, governmental genocidal programs like the Sudan are the real reasons for famine and disease. Housing material; we can build houses out of bales of straw that you would be proud to call home. There is no reason for a shortage of housing either. Fuel is perhaps the one commodity that is running low around the world and these to are because of economic and governmental controls. In the U.S. environmental groups have prevented development of new oil reserves. In the Middle East, the oil cartel known as OPEC limit how much they will put on the market to drive the price up. We are literally placing ourselves under their thumbs by not developing our own reserves.

The economy of America is why we do so well. More people by boats and SUV's means the more people are employed to build those boats and SUV's. More employment, more wealth, more disposable income, more unnecessary purchases, more employment, etc.,

http://judgeright.blogspot.com

2006-09-02 19:34:25 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

The guiding principle is live and let live. Being tolerant of others is a good motto.

2006-09-02 18:56:45 · answer #3 · answered by rosieC 7 · 0 1

Sounds good to me. I believe it's a saying by the Mennonites.

2006-09-02 19:03:45 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Wonderful idea... -Problem is, people's priorities are such that they "want to have it all"- which ultimately means that someone, somewhere- is forced to go without.

2006-09-02 19:02:09 · answer #5 · answered by Joseph, II 7 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers