Re: Denkverbot

by **kic** 5/1/2017, 22:43

da tuđe neće biti tvoje, lijepo si rekla, samo je pitanje što je tuđe-

by Guest 5/1/2017, 22:45

kic wrote:
da tuđe neće biti tvoje, lijepo si rekla, samo je pitanje što je tuđe-

Nisam to rekla.
Rekla sam nikada u potpunosti neće biti tvoje, a to je velika razlika.

Tvoj članak počinje s duhovima prošlosti....i sve ostalo je nebitno....

by Guest 5/1/2017, 22:46

No, opet pitanje: što da kažem sebi, kad već ono što znam sam i iznijela...

by **kic** 5/1/2017, 22:52

jedna riječ je velika razlika, cijeli komad govora i utrošen trud, znoj, krv i ideja bijele europske rase je nebitna, e pa fino.

pa svak sebi govori prije sveg, ti uglavnom krive stvari kao što vidim, meni nije bitna jedna riječ, kontekst i žrtva rase koju vidim svojom mi je bliža nego pretvaranje naroda u rulju bez korijena..

by Guest 5/1/2017, 22:53

Pa, bolje ti ide citiranje...Ili, odi za političara...
Vidim, imaš predispozicije...

by Guest 5/1/2017, 22:54

kic wrote:
j pretvaranje naroda u rulju bez korijena..

Ta rulja ima svoje korijenje, samo su puno dalje zasađeni...

by **kic** 5/1/2017, 23:06

procitaj cijeli govor..

by Guest 5/1/2017, 23:21

Ne pravi se pametan!

Čitaj između redova...

by Guest 5/1/2017, 23:22

Uostalom, što ti je to trebalo?

by **kic** 5/1/2017, 23:39

koje? šta ti pričaš, ko da si mi žena se naljutila-

by Guest 5/1/2017, 23:41

kic wrote:
koje? šta ti pričaš, ko da si mi žena se naljutila-

Kao da me poznaješ do sada!?
Naljutim se na gluposti. Ljudsku niskost!

by **kic** 5/1/2017, 23:44

opet se vraćamo na isto, kad god se žensko naljuti, maše zastavom nerazumijevanja..

ako si ne daš ništa reći, onda ću u svojoj niskosti prestati ti i govoriti, preživjet ćemo

by Guest 5/1/2017, 23:46

Najpametnije :)
No, za noć koja slijedi bez previše buke, želim laku noć uz ovaj link :) (ajd daj mali prst i mir, mir:)) :

by **kic** 5/1/2017, 23:49

by L'âme 5/1/2017, 23:55

kic wrote:
opet se vraćamo na isto, kad god se žensko naljuti, maše zastavom nerazumijevanja..

ako si ne daš ništa reći, onda ću u svojoj niskosti prestati ti i govoriti, preživjet ćemo

ne skrivaj se iza uopcavanja..zvucis kao ja..skoro..B-) ;~~

by Guest 6/1/2017, 05:01

ne trebate se svađati oko amerike.. ima u Hrvatskoj dosta onih kojima je potrebna pomoć, konkretna, ne ideološka.. odvojite malo vremena, koju kunu, koji paket s namirnicama i ovoj obitelji ćete uljepšati život:

http://www.jutarnji.hr/life/zivotne-price/dirljiva-prica-o-samohranom-ocu-osmero-djece-zeljko-je-prije-dva-mjeseca-ostao-bez-supruge-a-djeca-bez-majke-zive-skromno-ali-vjeruju-u-bolje-sutra/5474119/

U tekstu je i njihova adresa.. osjećat ćete se bolje nego nakon ovih jalovih rasprava

by aben 6/1/2017, 10:03

maggie13 wrote:
kic wrote:
opet se vraćamo na isto, kad god se žensko naljuti, maše zastavom nerazumijevanja..

ako si ne daš ništa reći, onda ću u svojoj niskosti prestati ti i govoriti, preživjet ćemo
ne skrivaj se iza uopcavanja..zvucis kao ja..skoro..B-) ;~~

a kakove veze imoš ti is uopćavanjen?

by aben 6/1/2017, 10:04

metilda wrote:ne trebate se svađati oko amerike.. ima u Hrvatskoj dosta onih kojima je potrebna pomoć, konkretna, ne ideološka.. odvojite malo vremena, koju kunu, koji paket s namirnicama i ovoj obitelji ćete uljepšati život:

http://www.jutarnji.hr/life/zivotne-price/dirljiva-prica-o-samohranom-ocu-osmero-djece-zeljko-je-prije-dva-mjeseca-ostao-bez-supruge-a-djeca-bez-majke-zive-skromno-ali-vjeruju-u-bolje-sutra/5474119/

U tekstu je i njihova adresa.. osjećat ćete se bolje nego nakon ovih jalovih rasprava

neka in država pomogne.

by **kic** 6/1/2017, 10:06

dont think, just act

by aben 6/1/2017, 10:17

[url=https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Freut.rs%2FZO5IsP&t=More charity%2C less bureaucracy][/url]
[url=http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?mini=true&url=http%3A%2F%2Freut.rs%2FZO5IsP&title=More charity%2C less bureaucracy&summary=The growth in prosperity over the last century has been a boon to the poor%2C but the welfare state has not done them many favours. It%27s time for the state to retreat from poverty relief. More charity and less bureaucracy would ultimately be better for the whole society. &source=Reuters][/url]
[url=http://www.reddit.com/submit?url=http%3A%2F%2Freut.rs%2FZO5IsP&title=More charity%2C less bureaucracy][/url]

“Charity is a cold, grey, loveless thing. If a rich man wants to help the poor, he should pay his taxes gladly, not dole out money at whim.” Clement Attlee wrotethat in 1920. As British prime minister after World War Two, Attlee turned thought into policy. The welfare state that he helped create has decimated private charities for the poor.
It’s much the same in all rich countries. Governments now take the prime responsibility for the care of the poor. Even in the United States, where the charitable (voluntary) sector is relatively large – twice as high a share of GDP as in the UK, according to the charity Philanthropy UK – the share of GDP taken by federal and state welfare programmes, as measured by the OECD, is 10 times higher.
But Attlee’s judgment has been proved wrong. If organised charity was cold, the carefully calibrated payments and entitlements of the welfare state are icy. The welfare state has many aspects but in terms of the alleviation of misery it has not worked as intended. The decline of hunger and voluntary homelessness – and the spread of electricity, telephones and the like – might suggest otherwise. But the increase in overall prosperity and the establishment of the principle of a “living wage”, rather than the mechanisms of government entitlements, have wrought these changes.
In any case, Attlee and his allies thought the welfare state could do much more than merely keep wolves from doors. They thought it could destroy what Oscar Lewis would later [url=http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=02rTTkZxu8YC&oi=fnd&pg=PA20&dq=culture+of+poverty&ots=XW2AKS-KsM&sig=1bxf_B7D9lv5DESJq8CIB-KAYbc#v=onepage&q=culture of poverty&f=false]call[/url] the “culture of poverty”. The anthropologist talked of “a strong feeling of marginality, of helplessness, of dependency, of not belonging”.
But while the decline of proletariat and peasantry has reduced the proportion of the population of rich countries who live in that culture of poverty, the welfare state has tended to increase both the marginality and the dependency of those who do. They live in their own world, dependent on the government programmes and rewarded for irresponsibility.
I have heard the children in a welfare-dependent family talk about “getting paid”, as if their mother’s indolence were a sort of job. That family, like so many in the system of poverty-relief, had no father. The rise of such single-parent families cannot be attributed entirely to the availability of welfare, but such payments make antisocial behaviour that much easier.
Attlee accused charity of being loveless, but the recipient of government money experiences a profound alienation amid the welfare state’s bureaucratic structures. Care professionals have forms to fill, quotas to meet and regulations to obey. However good their intentions, they cannot avoid treating their clients as administrative ciphers. The two sides are not tied by charity, but separated by a cold wall of impersonality.
For society, the result is disastrous. Too many children of welfare families end up as welfare-dependent adults, or in prison. Too many people on benefits cannot emerge from semi-permanent unemployment, or from substance abuse.
It’s time to give voluntary help, the free spirit of charity, a new chance. If the state would withdraw, there would be fewer rules; more opportunities to develop personal relationships with the needy; and more space for organisations motivated by a higher calling, be it religious or philanthropic.
It won’t be easy to reduce the government’s role in what has been an age of expansion. But the collapse of state economic control after the fall of Communism can serve as a helpful precedent. The trauma and corruption of that transition need not be repeated. What is required is a slow and carefully planned privatisation of anti-poverty programmes.
The first step would be to make the various government agencies more like state-funded not-for-profit companies. A new legal and administrative status would make a full separation from the government easier.
A gradual withdrawal would follow. Donations would replace taxation over a decade or so. People would be generous; they would be paying less in taxes and could be persuaded that their gifts would help those in need. That is a much more attractive prospect than feeding a bureaucratic system. On the allocation side, the rules could be loosened in proportion with the advent of private funding. Competition should also play a role. As the state’s flow of money dwindled, outsiders might well take over from the former state agencies.
In the end, charitable arrangements might offer less money and less certainty than the State’s blanket coverage. But that would not necessarily be a bad thing. The culture of poverty will be less appealing if it is less comfortable. And while a modestly funded culture of charity will not be able to afford the carefully calibrated assistance of Attlee’s dreams, it can offer the poor more of what they really need: the burning fire of charity. And charity, after all, is another word for love.

by aben 6/1/2017, 10:25

[size=31]Texas is going to be a wonderful place to live. It’s going to be a great place to live. "[/size]

[size=31]osim san antonia i dallasa.[/size]

by Sponsored content