 |
|
 PoliticsForum for discussing local and world politics and issues. All views are welcomed. Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics. All standard guidelines apply to this board, No Flaming, No Taunting, No Foul Language,No sexual innuendos,etc.. As politics can be a volatile subject, please consider how you would feel if your comment were directed toward yourself. Any post deemed to be in violation of guidelines will be deleted or edited without warning or notification. Any continued misbehavior will result in a ban or hidden status, so please play nice!!! *"Moderators are here for a reason. If a moderator (or Global Moderator or Fencer) requests that a discussion on a certain subject to cease - for whatever reason - please respect these wishes. Failure to do so may result in being hidden, or banned." You are not allowed to post messages to this board. Minimum level of membership required for posting on this board is Brain Pawn. Mode: Everyone can post
14. February 2009, 04:03:52 Subject: Bill O'Reilly quotes: "Yes, I am part of the 1 percent of Americans that paid an astounding 40 percent of all federal income tax in 2006. According to recently released Internal Revenue Service figures, about 50 percent of my fellow Americans paid no federal income tax at all that year. My fellow 1-percenters and I covered for them. But for some it is still not enough. President Obama and a Democratic Congress will likely dole out entitlements like free health care, child care and cash payments to anyone who falls under a certain income level, no matter their circumstances. That means people who drink gin all day will get some of my hard-earned money. Folks who dropped out of school, who are too lazy to hold a job, who smoke reefers 24/7 all will get some goodies in the mail from Uncle Barack and Aunt Nancy, funded by me and other rich folks." And... "[Y]ou would be taking money away from other people to give them money because they didn't pay tax in the first place. And that's the redistribution of income that many working Americans don't like the Democrats for." Do you agree with him? 14. February 2009, 04:07:15 Subject: Re: Bill O'Reilly quotes: The Usurper: absolutely 14. February 2009, 04:29:22 Subject: Re: Bill O'Reilly quotes: Vikings: Another O'Reilly quote: "It's hard to do it because you have got to look people in the eye and tell them they're irresponsible and lazy. And who's going to want to do that? Because that's what poverty is, ladies and gentlemen. In this country (USA), you can succeed if you get educated and work hard. Period." Is that what poverty is, irresponsibility and laziness? 14. February 2009, 04:31:10 Subject: Is that what poverty is, irresponsibility and laziness?  The Usurper: In many cases, yes. 14. February 2009, 04:33:29 Subject: Re: Is that what poverty is, irresponsibility and laziness? Artful Dodger: O'Reilly said "Period", not "in many cases". It is another of those general, absolute kinds of statements, such as Rush Limbaugh's. 14. February 2009, 04:39:30  The Usurper: my comprehension and understanding is/has/was a lot more successful than your KM & TNP.... I didn't miss the point at all.........the post was denigrating the unter mensch, and I assumed you were one of them because you didnt have a PAID membership. He said ***my fellow 1 percenters and I*** 14. February 2009, 04:43:39 Subject: Re: Bernice: I am one of the poor ones, if that is what you mean. But when you said, "if you that rich...", it sounded to me like you confused O'Reilly's statement with mine. Just as you evidently conflated Artful Dodger's post on the Holocaust with something I said (which I didn't). What does "unter mensch" mean? 14. February 2009, 04:57:05 Subject: Re: The Usurper: "You can succeed if you get educated and work hard, period" and just what part of that statement do you not agree with? 14. February 2009, 04:59:18 Subject: Re: Vikings:  you can also succeed if you are uneducated and work hard. You do NOT need a brilliant mind to succeed....Can somebody please clarify success? 14. February 2009, 05:00:05 Subject: Re: Bernice: Just like Rush Limbaugh 14. February 2009, 05:03:59 Subject: Re: Vikings: In some cases that is true, that "you can succeed if you get educated and work hard," though less and less so lately. O'Reilly said in the same quote: "It's hard to do it because you have got to look people in the eye and tell them they're irresponsible and lazy. And who's going to want to do that? Because that's what poverty is, ladies and gentlemen." Do you agree with this statement? 14. February 2009, 05:10:47 Subject: Re:It's hard to do it because you have got to look people in the eye and tell them they're irresponsible and lazy. And who's going to want to do that? Because that's what poverty is, ladies and gentlemen." The Usurper: It's a generalized statement and it's accurate. 14. February 2009, 05:15:28 Subject: Re:It's hard to do it because you have got to look people in the eye and tell them they're irresponsible and lazy. And who's going to want to do that? Because that's what poverty is, ladies and gentlemen." Artful Dodger: Thank you for stating your opinion clearly. My real intent with these quotes & questions, is to ask: Are not rightwing attitudes towards poverty in general and the poor in particular, overly critical? Do they not heap blame upon the poor for being poor? Do they view the poor with more or less contempt? I believe they do, but I am open to being corrected. 14. February 2009, 05:21:10 Subject: Re:It's hard to do it because you have got to look people in the eye and tell them they're irresponsible and lazy. And who's going to want to do that? Because that's what poverty is, ladies and gentlemen." The Usurper: And much of the blame for the poor is liberalism, putting them on welfare in the first place. You see the founding fathers thought long and hard before writing"..Provide for the common defense and Promote the general welfare". but liberal government wants to downsize the military while expanding welfare. just the opposite of what this country stands for 14. February 2009, 05:34:11 Subject: Re:It's hard to do it because you have got to look people in the eye and tell them they're irresponsible and lazy. And who's going to want to do that? Because that's what poverty is, ladies and gentlemen." Vikings: What does this country stand for? 14. February 2009, 05:41:30 Subject: Re:It's hard to do it because you have got to look people in the eye and tell them they're irresponsible and lazy. And who's going to want to do that? Because that's what poverty is, ladies and gentlemen." The Usurper: The Constitution of the United States of America We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. 14. February 2009, 05:43:32 Subject: Re:It's hard to do it because you have got to look people in the eye and tell them they're irresponsible and lazy. And who's going to want to do that? Because that's what poverty is, ladies and gentlemen." Vikings: Thank you. So what does it mean to "establish justice" and to "promote the general welfare," in terms of the poor? 14. February 2009, 05:47:11 Subject: Re:It's hard to do it because you have got to look people in the eye and tell them they're irresponsible and lazy. And who's going to want to do that? Because that's what poverty is, ladies and gentlemen." The Usurper: It sure doesn't mean 900 billion in pork, Is says promote (make policy that is non intrusive, nor over taxing) not provide or in other words give 14. February 2009, 06:11:19 Subject: Re:It's hard to do it because you have got to look people in the eye and tell them they're irresponsible and lazy. And who's going to want to do that? Because that's what poverty is, ladies and gentlemen." Vikings: It would seem to me that our policies & laws neither "establish justice" nor "promote the general welfare." I would contend that the tax laws, the Federal Reserve, corporate law, the laws of interest on loans, bankruptcy laws, etc., all promote the interests of the rich & tend to make them richer, while making the poor poorer. I do agree that these laws are very intrusive. I would also assert that our foreign policy serves to make the rich richer, which is its design, while making most of the rest of the world's citizens poorer, also by design. And I would argue that the statements below made by Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh & Bill O'Reilly portray an unmasked contempt of the poor. 14. February 2009, 05:54:55 Subject: So what does it mean to "establish justice" and to "promote the general welfare," in terms of the poor? The Usurper:No 14. February 2009, 06:01:00 Subject: Re: So what does it mean to "establish justice" and to "promote the general welfare," in terms of the poor? Artful Dodger: To "establish justice" and "to promote the general welfare" means "No" in regard to the poor? 14. February 2009, 06:06:17 Subject: Re: So what does it mean to "establish justice" and to "promote the general welfare," in terms of the poor? The Usurper:Promoting the general welfare has to do with US citizens and is not specifically referring to the poor. It has to do with Congress providing laws that are consistent with principles of self government. Legislation is made to be in the best interest of the Nation. In no way is there a constitutional right to welfare, if that's what you are getting at. 14. February 2009, 05:53:06 Subject: Re:It's hard to do it because you have got to look people in the eye and tell them they're irresponsible and lazy. And who's going to want to do that? Because that's what poverty is, ladies and gentlemen." The Usurper: Are not rightwing attitudes towards poverty in general and the poor in particular, overly critical? No. They are not. They are right on. What is more important is why anyone on the left would want to perpetuate the myth that people can't pick themselves up by their bootstraps. The government is NOT the answer, it's the problem. Why work when the system allows you to do nothing and get paid? Only very hard cases deserve government help. But most can do somthing for themselves and they do nothing. And they are told not to worry, the government will help them. If you refuse to work, you don't deserve anything but society's contempt. Do they not heap blame upon the poor for being poor? Do they view the poor with more or less contempt? They heap blame on those that offer excuses as to why the poor are helpless to help themselves. This is the lie of the left. 14. February 2009, 06:02:44 Subject: Re:It's hard to do it because you have got to look people in the eye and tell them they're irresponsible and lazy. And who's going to want to do that? Because that's what poverty is, ladies and gentlemen." Artful Dodger: So....most people are poor because they refuse to work? 14. February 2009, 06:13:11 Subject: Re:It's hard to do it because you have got to look people in the eye and tell them they're irresponsible and lazy. And who's going to want to do that? Because that's what poverty is, ladies and gentlemen." The Usurper: I don't know why people are poor. In the US, most areas offer enough opportunities where if people work hard enough, they can lift themselves out of cycles of poverty. I have more than my parents. I started when I was in my twenties. I saved my money. Put myself through college. Held three jobs when necessary. My family never went hungry because I was willing to do what it took to keep employed. When I lost a job, I was back out looking right away. Sure I got unemployment and for a very short time (weeks) I benefited from food stamps. But the point is, I kept trying. I didn't rely on the government, I relied on myself. And 30 years later I am debt free. O'Reilly's point is that it can be done and many people have done it. And many who haven't "done it" are just plain lazy or unmotivated. They have no one to blame but themselves. If you waste your youth, then when you are older, you'll have nothing to show for your years. Who is at fault for that? 14. February 2009, 06:23:46 Subject: Re:It's hard to do it because you have got to look people in the eye and tell them they're irresponsible and lazy. And who's going to want to do that? Because that's what poverty is, ladies and gentlemen." Artful Dodger: Some of the reasons people are poor is because the laws of our land are written by the rich and favor the rich, to the detriment of the poor. Do you disagree with this? 14. February 2009, 06:28:41 Subject: Some of the reasons people are poor is because the laws of our land are written by the rich and favor the rich, to the detriment of the poor. Do you disagree with this? The Usurper:It's an ad hominem argument. Just because a law is written by someone with money doesn't make the law a bad law. So define the law and argue the merits of your case. A person's financial situation isn't an argument. 14. February 2009, 06:36:40 Subject: Re: Some of the reasons people are poor is because the laws of our land are written by the rich and favor the rich, to the detriment of the poor. Do you disagree with this? Artful Dodger: I agree that the author of any given law does not necessarily favor its author. But my argument is that, in the case of most laws in the United States, they do. My point is a general one, that tax laws, bankruptcy laws, the Federal Reserve, laws on interest, corporate laws, tend by their nature to increase the wealth of the the wealthy and decrease the wealth of the poor. I am simply asking if you disagree with this generalized statement. 14. February 2009, 06:48:30 Subject: Re: Some of the reasons people are poor is because the laws of our land are written by the rich and favor the rich, to the detriment of the poor. Do you disagree with this? The Usurper: It doesn't matter what I think since I am not familar with the laws. Off the top of my head I'd say I don't agree with such a generalized statement. 14. February 2009, 06:51:58 Subject: Re: Some of the reasons people are poor is because the laws of our land are written by the rich and favor the rich, to the detriment of the poor. Do you disagree with this? Artful Dodger: Ok, thanks. 14. February 2009, 06:36:43 The Usurper: Some of the reasons people are poor is because the laws of our land are written by the rich and favor the rich, to the detriment of the poor written by the rich?.....I don't know about US of A but that sounds like crap to me......laws are written to cover all races and credes regardless of standing in the community....well they are in Australia....there isn't one law for the rich and another for the poor. Do I disagree.........YES 14. February 2009, 06:40:15 Subject: Re: Bernice: Thank you for your opinion. However, even if "laws are written to cover all races and creeds regardless of standing in the community," it doesn't necessarily follow that those laws are written by the rich. But I understand your point...that in Australia the laws do not favor the wealthy. 14. February 2009, 06:42:13 Subject: Re: Bernice: I meant to say, "it doesn't necessarily follow that those laws are NOT written by the rich." As a pawn, apparently I can't modify my posts. 14. February 2009, 05:15:56 Subject: Re: Modified by Vikings (14. February 2009, 05:24:20) The Usurper: but he did not say period to that sentence. It's just like you trying to take Limbaugh's statement out of context, 14. February 2009, 05:33:11 Subject: Re: Vikings: Do you agree with the sentence as it stands? 14. February 2009, 04:49:02 Subject: O'Reilly said "Period", not "in many cases". It is another of those general, absolute kinds of statements The Usurper: I don't see your point 14. February 2009, 04:52:14 Subject: Re: O'Reilly said "Period", not "in many cases". It is another of those general, absolute kinds of statements Artful Dodger: The point is that O'Reilly defines poverty as laziness & irresponsibility, whereas your position is softer...that poverty is a result of laziness & irresponsibility only "in many cases". 14. February 2009, 04:57:51 Subject: Re: O'Reilly said "Period", not "in many cases". It is another of those general, absolute kinds of statements The Usurper: there is no way I would confuse (conflate) you with AD...  "unter mensch" = the under priveledged, it is German (I think) and is the lower classes...the poor, the unwashed etc etc....you get my meaning  14. February 2009, 05:01:05 Subject: Re: O'Reilly said "Period", not "in many cases". It is another of those general, absolute kinds of statements Bernice: Yes I do. :o) So is it okay to denigrate the unter mensch? 14. February 2009, 04:12:47 Subject: Re: Bill O'Reilly quotes: Modified by Bernice (14. February 2009, 04:14:02) The Usurper: boy if you are that rich why don't you support Fencer and pay for a membership?? or are you one of the ones with your hand out......a dope smoker or perhaps a highschool dropout ROFLMBO  14. February 2009, 04:16:17 Subject: Re: Bill O'Reilly quotes: Bernice: I really enjoy reading your posts but you really ought to work on your reading comprehension. :o) |
Date and time
Friends online
Favourite boards
Fellowships
Tip of the day
|
|
Copyright © 2002 - 2024 Filip Rachunek, all rights reserved. Back to the top |