Forum 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."
Liste over diskussionsborde
Du har ikke rettigheder til at skrive meddelelser til dette bord, Mindste medlemsskabsniveau nødvendigt for at skrive til dette bord er BrainBonde.
Emne: 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
Emne: 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?
Emne: 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.
Emne: 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."
Emne: 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
Emne: 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.
Emne: 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.
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."
Emne: 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".
"You know one of my favorite quotes on poverty comes from Benjamin Franklin. I love this quote: "We should make the poor uncomfortable and kick them out of poverty." I love that!"
The problem, Franklin didn't say that. He DID say:
"But poverty often deprives a man of all spirit and virtue: 'tis hard for an empty bag to stand upright."
And...
"The Poor have little, Beggars none; the Rich too much, enough not one."
And...
"The church the state, and the poor, are 3 daughters which we should maintain, but not portion off."
Should we maintain the poor, as Franklin suggests? Or should we kick them out of poverty, as Beck recommends?
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).
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.
Artful Dodger: Bernice DOES need to work on her reading comprehension. This isn't the first post where she has missed the point or gotten confused over who said what, etc. Perhaps it is deliberate. But perhaps not. If not, maybe my post is too harsh, even if true. For that, I apologize.
"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?
"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."
The Usurper: It sounds like a statement taken completely out of context, just as Obama took a quote of him explaining the Mexican governments policy on immigration and made an out of context ad making is sound like that was him saying it about mexicans. I'm sure that if you were to print (or even better actually listen) to the whole paragraph, you would find that he's proving that republicans have more compassion for the poor than the dems
Emne: Re:everyone knows the dems have been itching to rob us all blind for many years now,
Vikings: I can't stand Chris Matthews. But I don't many Chris Matthews fans posting on here regularly, mostly Republicans who, I am assuming (yes, it is an assumption...am I wrong?) watch Fox News.
The Usurper: You're wrong. They are both insulting and ad hominem. Whenever you argue "to the man" that's an ad hominem. Saying one's brain is under the influence of Fox is another way of saying one doesn't think for him or herself. You didn't address the issues, addressed the person.
And perhaps you can explain to everyone here how the first insult is "strictly accurate." How can you possibly know? To whom are you addressing this insult (since you seem to be generalizing it to all repubs)? You can't have your cake and eat it too Greg. Ad hominem is to the man. That is what you did in both cases. Man up.
Tilpasset af Papa Zoom (14. Februar 2009, 03:06:16)
The Usurper: don't expect most of you to be able assimilate this fact in brains under the influence of Fox News.
Yes, old politics. From both parties. And they've sure got you boys trained like pet puppies.
And here I thought you said you were above throwing insults? Guess not. I'll bet you get a pass tho. So much for: "........my (your) attempt to keep this debate civil. In my (your) opinion, it is too important to be approached in any other way."
Approached any other way except in some cases you mean.
Rushed through and Congress didn't read final draft. Sure, that's what happened. Giveaway? You bet. Do we have representation in Congress? Surely not.
Yet, you guys are still in the Matrix. For example, same way with the Patriot Act, a far more damaging bill to our Constitution and the "freedom" you all seem to think the Repugs support. Draft was hot off the press, no one had time to read it.
And since when did the Repugs not take your money? They rob from the poor and give to the rich. I don't expect most of you to be able assimilate this fact in brains under the influence of Fox News.
Yes, old politics. From both parties. And they've sure got you boys trained like pet puppies.