• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Charity homes built by Hollywood start to crumble

That actual is pretty much the definition of charity. Giving something for nothing.

Building houses for the poor is much like the PUBLIC housing projects of the past. The main difference I believe was that most of the funds were from private sources. That given, what part of doing the same thing you have always done expecting different results being dumb does anyone here NOT get?

Yes that is charity, giving something for nothing, and it usually results in MORE of the same doesn't it? I am suggesting that perhaps we need to move beyond the "it makes me feel good about myself" mode and look at programs that might ACTUALLY work and spend the money wiser.

Why not have these people help build the houses they will get and earn them by giving something back? Makes them feel better about themselves, teaches them a skill perhaps and teaches them responsibility; something that is lacking in that part of the economic spectrum.

But alas, I wander way off topic so I will let you and Dx have the last words on the issue.
 
This isn't even a liberal policy. It was charity work that happens to be championed more by liberals than by conservatives. Unless your point is, like kandahar said, that conservatives are naturally better builders...


It's funny, but my husband works construction and the vast majority of the guys he works with are hard core republican conservatives.

I would just guess the people who built these houses, whatever political leaning they have, didn't have much actual experience as builders. Does it say if the volunteers had any actual experience as home-builders? It would seem that they didn't, given the houses are falling apart.


But still- for someone who was given a house for free, it wouldn't cost much to fix the repairs, better than actually having to save money, work hard, and buy your own house. It's just funny that way.
 
emdash.
According to the article (which with your words) I am certain you have not bothered to read or digest.
These Habitations were sold at cost of Manufacture.
They were given Interest FREE Mortgages.
Now the simple fact is that they were not given a place to live, they WERE given the opportunity to BUY their places.
If they bought, then they DO have the right to complain if strict building codes were not observed.
Had you been sold a house that you subsequently found to have been built on a Rubbish dump and later discovered the problems inherent with having been built on same.
You too would be threatening Lawsuits.
 
emdash.
According to the article (which with your words) I am certain you have not bothered to read or digest.
These Habitations were sold at cost of Manufacture.
They were given Interest FREE Mortgages.
Now the simple fact is that they were not given a place to live, they WERE given the opportunity to BUY their places.
If they bought, then they DO have the right to complain if strict building codes were not observed.
Had you been sold a house that you subsequently found to have been built on a Rubbish dump and later discovered the problems inherent with having been built on same.
You too would be threatening Lawsuits.


Your observations shoot a big old gaping hole in the criticisms of this project that "Liberals" gave something to someone "for nothing" and "expected something good to come of it".

I can't wait to see if we actually find out how it came about that the homes were built on a rubbish heap, etc. etc. Now, it may be that Habitat for Humanity was nefarious and wanted to only seem to do good here, but I doubt it.

I surmise that we'll get the full story at some point, and it will be far less cut and dried.
 
emdash.
According to the article (which with your words) I am certain you have not bothered to read or digest.
These Habitations were sold at cost of Manufacture.
They were given Interest FREE Mortgages.
Now the simple fact is that they were not given a place to live, they WERE given the opportunity to BUY their places.
If they bought, then they DO have the right to complain if strict building codes were not observed.
Had you been sold a house that you subsequently found to have been built on a Rubbish dump and later discovered the problems inherent with having been built on same.
You too would be threatening Lawsuits.

actually I was trying to find this information on google because I somehow missed it in the article (?!) and my question was not rhetorical, I really didn't know. so, thanks.

however buying at cost of manufacture with interest-free mortgages is not the same as what real people do in the real world when they buy houses. these homes, however poorly constructed, were made available to them, placed within their price range, at someone else's expense.

since you asked, I wouldn't threaten lawsuits. I would work my butt off to make the place livable or I would sell it and move on.
 
Your observations shoot a big old gaping hole in the criticisms of this project that "Liberals" gave something to someone "for nothing" and "expected something good to come of it".

compassion is both the liberal's redeeming quality and his tragic flaw. I'm torn between criticizing them for trying and thanking them for caring.
 
Selling if it were possible, which I very much doubt considering that with these houses in anywhere near the state they are reported to have been in.

But I might say you are not to be commended for thinking of selling trash onto some other poor unsuspecting chump.

Says a lot about your character.
 
Habitat for Humanity International (HFHI) is a world service organization providing affordable homes with interest-free mortgages to families in need. Founded by Millard and Linda Fuller, Habitat's long-term dream is to eradicate housing projects around the world, and to replace them with solid, single-family homes built by HFHI volunteers and the future owners themselves. For the shorter term, however, Habitat will settle for their 200,000th home built by the year 2005, and having housed over 475,000 people internationally. Using their faith and homebuilding skills, the Fullers and a growing list of sponsors and volunteers (including such luminaries as Jimmy Carter, Jerry Falwell, Louis Gossett, Jr., Jack Kemp, Newt Gingrich, and Oprah Winfrey) have transformed the lives of many homeless families into proud homeowners and lifelong Habitat volunteers.
Habitat for Humanity International -- Company History

I wonder how Jerry, Jack and Newt got "suckered" into this den of liberalism!! I am sure that they must not have known that the whole aim of the organization was an evil liberal plot to give people a hand up toward housing security and pride.
 
was this post directed at me?

Selling if it were possible, which I very much doubt considering that with these houses in anywhere near the state they are reported to have been in.

one man's trash is another man's treasure.

But I might say you are not to be commended for thinking of selling trash onto some other poor unsuspecting chump.

Says a lot about your character.

is it still a secret that the house is built on a pile of garbage? I was under the impression that the cat was out of the bag.
 
Yes that is charity, giving something for nothing, and it usually results in MORE of the same doesn't it?

How so? Does donating blood usually result in more of the same? Does donating free time to tutor kids result in more of the same? Does giving school supplies/money to kids who can't afford them result in more of the same? What exactly are you basing this notion that giving something for nothing 'usually' results in more of the same? I'm interested in your methodology. Or are you saying that charity usually results in more of the same? Either way I'm still interested in how you came to this conclusion that being charitable always results in more of the same.
 
Last edited:
This smug hatred of charity is just a way for assholes to rationalize their own selfishness.
 
This smug hatred of charity is just a way for assholes to rationalize their own selfishness.

I really wonder how 'usually' charity results in more of the same when millions of people are 'saved' in one way or another every year because of it. From kids who get free school supplies or money to buy them to people who get organs from other who are selfless enough to allow others to make use of them. Seriously it's a funny concept because saying or somehow suggesting that charity and doing things to feel good usually results in more of the same suggests that this happens more often then not. I really want to see the methodology used to arrive at such a conclusion.
 
I'm wondering how Habitat for Humanity manages to avoid all the building codes that must be followed when building a house.

If these buildings are falling apart it must be from neglect.
 
I wonder if these places falling apart is a result of poor construction or poor maintenence and upkeep.


face it, people who are given something tend not to take care of it as thier own.... some poor people especially choose not to take care of thier crap.



And no i would not want a house built by mat damon.
 
I would take one built by Harrison Ford, though. He was a carpenter before he struck it big. Got the part of Han Solo while doing carpentry for George Lucas actually.

Geek.

(I know, it takes one to know one. I'm a member of Geeks Local 385. :mrgreen:)
 
Geek.

(I know, it takes one to know one. I'm a member of Geeks Local 385. :mrgreen:)

I'm president of local 422.

I know a crapload about Harrison Ford becasue he went to the same highschool I did. And I was a carpenter as well, so that little nugget always made me like Ford even more.
 
I'm president of local 422.

I know a crapload about Harrison Ford becasue he went to the same highschool I did. And I was a carpenter as well, so that little nugget always made me like Ford even more.

Yeah, he is one of my favorite actors. I blame Star Wars. :mrgreen:
 
Mildew: poor vapor seals and poor materials.
Rotting door frames: probably the use of untreated (cheap) wood.


They may have cared desperately, which says good things about their character. They were unqualified, inexperienced, and dare I say, "unvetted." (Can you spot the hidden political lesson?)

You have heard of the surface construction qualities of the road to Hell, yes?


Now?!
Good grief no. Ive been certain of my superiority for a very long time, and hardly needed this latest fiasco to reinforce my opinion. If you were more intellectually gifted, you would realize that this your so-called superiority is the problem.

I am mildly amused that the people in question appear to be incapable of even minor home repair. Here I fully agree I also have a bit of trouble getting worked up over the fact that they must deal with intrusive rodents and insects, when I must consider what to do if a bear decides to investigate my house-- a not uncommon occurrence here.

Jimmy Carter may well blame in all on a Zionist Conspiracy.

The opposite of "thanks" for this post.
 
The Indiana Jones trilogy* was a factor as well.








* I don't care if there is an apparent "fouth" one in the series, I refuse to acknowledge that one after watching it.

I agree.

I haven't seen the "fourth" one. I know I haven't heard anything good about it though. That's too bad.
 
How so? Does donating blood usually result in more of the same? Does donating free time to tutor kids result in more of the same? Does giving school supplies/money to kids who can't afford them result in more of the same? What exactly are you basing this notion that giving something for nothing 'usually' results in more of the same? I'm interested in your methodology. Or are you saying that charity usually results in more of the same? Either way I'm still interested in how you came to this conclusion that being charitable always results in more of the same.

I can't speak for Truth Detector, but I think I know where he is coming from. There is a stark difference between (1) acts of kindness that attempt to provide relief when people experience extraordinary circumstances (a massive sunami, a hurricane, hunger and disease of ignorant cultures who cannot handle unforeseen disasters, debilitating handicaps, etc.) and (2) the charity involved in building a house for an able bodied person (or family) who did not have the ambition or forethought to work for a living and save for a rainy day! Rare is the person who will treasure that which is given to him with no strings attached, however, most who work hard for their possessions tend to take better care of their stuff!

The worst case of "charity gone wrong" that I can think of is when private individuals or the government go above and beyond to take care of people and those people have such a feeling of entitlement that they don't even realize that a good deed was done for them. There is zero appreciation as they feel that they deserve such treatment. A good example of this occurred in 1998 (7 years before hurricane Katrina) during the first hurricane evacuation of the greater New Orleans area. The mayor of New Orleans decided to open the Superdome for those New Orleanians who did not have the means to evacuate as hurricane Georges approached. Unlike Katrina, which turned into a tragedy, Georges missed New Orleans on the eastern side and the city had very little damage. The mayor had stressed that those evacuating to the Superdome must bring water and food for several days as the city was not in a position to stock supplies prior to the storm. Of course, most ignored this plea! After Georges passed, officials charitably decided to feed the many evacuees hot dogs as they were becoming restless and hungry. Few had brought supplies. Later, local TV reporters interviewed evacuees as they headed home from the Superdome. Many evacuees' comments included statements similar to the following: "All they could feed us was hot dogs!". That is truly "charity gone wrong"!
 
Last edited:
I like hot dogs.
 
Back
Top Bottom