The Democrats are pushing this meme, as though it’s somehow a bad thing. Well, yup, he said it, and he told the absolute truth! He won’t ever convince the welfare malingerers and those dependent on government that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. He won’t ever persuade a 30 year old college student, one able to afford an expensive private school like Georgetown University, that she should be expected to buy her own birth control pills, and not depend on someone else to do it for her. He will never persuade those people who think that other people somehow owe them a living that they should take care of themselves. He will never convince the occupiers and the fleabaggers that they are responsible for their own lives and own success, and that they need to grow the [insert slang term for fornicate here] up.
And this is why the TEA Party exists, this is why so many working class people will vote Republican. We do our best to take care of ourselves, we do our best to be responsible for ourselves and our families, and we work damned hard to support ourselves and our families; we don’t have the time or the energy or the money to carry the fornicating malingerers on our backs!
The vast majority of conservatives wouldn’t have any problem at all paying taxes to help people less fortunate, if they were truly just unable to support themselves. But most of us get damned pissed off knowing that the welfare system in this country is loaded up not just with people who can’t work, but with people who won’t work.
_______________________________________
Cross posted on TRUTH BEFORE DISHONOR.
The video:
And Governor Romney stood by his statements on the video:
Absolutely right! He told the truth and should defend the truth, and keep defending the truth, at every campaign stop, in every ad./
Of course, this wasn’t such a big deal almost a year or so ago, was it?
Mitt Romney’s main problem is that he does not know the truth about the American people, because he was, as the expression goes, born with his silver foot in his mouth. Thus, time after time he has demonstrated how disconnected he is from the current reality of America, which is why the only way he can possibly win this election is if the Republican dirty tricks do the job for him.
Moreover, ideology aside, we can hardly have a President who has run such a poorly organized, disheveled, erratic, off-message campaign which we have seen to date. Hell, many Republicans are saying exactly the same thing. And the problem is not only Romney, it is the divided and disgruntled Republican Party which he leads, demonstrating a dearth of cohesive leadership skills so badly needed to confront the issues we face.
The truly amazing thing to me is that middle Americans on this blog, like our Editor, koolo, and Eric, and poor Americans like John H., pontificate so determinedly against their own best interests. (On the other hand, we have DNW and Hoagie propagandizing out of greed, I assume.) In terms of the future of this once great nation, this is alarming to me, because this is a nationwide phenomenon.
For Romney to single out Federal Income Taxes as the determiner wrt his supporters is quite telling of his attitude, that if elected he would not represent all Americans. That right there is a prime reason why we must not elect him to be our 45th President!
And let us be brutally honest, the fact that 47% pay no Federal Taxes reflects how disparate the income distribution has become, that in effect 47% are either declining toward poverty, or are already in poverty, with too many in deep poverty, living on the streets or in cars or in abandoned decrepit houses. And make no mistake, these 47% hard working Americans pay their share of state and local taxes, which make a significant hit on what basics they need to support their families. Why does Romney not recognize these tax burdens on lower income people? Because he has no clue!
If Republicans are returned to power, this trend is exactly what will continue, a slide toward a second class society or worse. In spite of the headwinds of a dysfunctional and corrupt domestic opposition party, of the decline of the Euro nations, of a turbulent Middle East, and of increased competition for jobs, President Obama has managed to keep our heads above water.
We simply must reelect President Obama, and turn Congress into two bodies with a pro-American/pro-Peace tilt, willing to work with our President on the serious problems we face. In the last almost four years, we have not had such a Congress, due to the thirst for power by our Republican plutocrats!!!
When did giving up our heritage of freedoms under law in return for being unconditionally yoked to share the fate of your sniveling and slavish carcass, constitute our best interests?
Better to die alone and shivering in six inches of dirty ditch water than to mate with your sister and live as an automaton, brain and spiritually dead, in the sweltering termite hive you would like to call home.
Fortunately the options of men who remember freedom are broader than that.
“We simply must reelect President Obama, and turn Congress into two bodies with a …”
Your party already had it all their own way with both houses of Congress and the Executive, and they still blamed Republicans for threatening to stop legislation by noting that they wished to debate it on the floor of the Senate.
Of course this “filibuster” “threat” was neither an actual filibuster nor much of a threat since the privilege of time unlimited speech is a tradition of the Senate and not a Constitutional law or principle, and if sufficient votes can be obtained cloture may be invoked even while granting the privilege.
So your blame the Republicans argument fails twice over. Indeed, why should they go along with you anyway as you seek to legally morph us all from man to dog. You have in fact turned the old utilitarian proviso, which they used to express the limits of utilitarianism, on its head, and into: “Better a pig satisfied than Socrates dissatisfied”
Woodward’s new book shreds the notion that Obama “wants to work” with congressional GOPers …. as we’ve noted all along, despite PAP’s alternate reality-based whining to the contrary.
It’s hilarious to watch the members of the Democrat Party client class squeal when someone dares to notice – as we have done for years now – that they are members of the Democrat Party client class.
Wrong, koolo. Woodward’s book had a lot more to say than your comment dishonestly indicates, but what the hell, that is who you are, a small person with a narrow, restrictive, and bullying attitude hardly qualifying to be an educator of our children! No wonder you hide your identity, you coward!
Interesting and telling that koolo selects only the angle which makes his case, thus demonstrating that he is completely adverse to searching for the truth and discussing same.
Any honest and diligent observer knows very well that President Obama had a fully dysfunctional Senate and House with which to work, in an economic crisis no less!!! In fact, Obama supporters were frustrated at President Obama for being too patient and not demanding enough of his disloyal opposition.
Moreover, koolo, do you even take your Senate Leader Mitch McConnell at his word about the top priority being to keep President Obama a one term President? “Top priority” he said, koolo; but I guess it is too much to expect a chronic and selective liar like yourself to admit this. I am talking about you, koolo!
It is noteworthy that DNW here has finally decided to take the high road:
Your way with words, DNW, merely enables you to dig your ethic-less hole deeper, signaling evermore the weaknesses of your positions, obvious to every clairvoyant and discerning individual but yourself!
Our editor concluded:
You keep saying this, Mr Editor, without evidence; so my conclusion is that you are making this up. Not impressive.
But here is something which is both true and impressive:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/reasons-behind-people-pay-no-125604101.html
You’ve demonstrated quite amply why people need to hide their IDs around you, PAP. Threats. False accusations. All based on info freely given in good faith — an attribute you possess not at all. Oh, and if you’re such a big “man,” why do you insist your last name now be hidden? Wimp.
Citation please! Without such, you’re proving yourself to the alternate reality-believing milksop you’ve always been!
Correction: Cancel the repeat blockquote. Go to the cite for the info I intended to pass on.
WW wrote:
You apparently have no flaming idea what our interests are. Our interests are paying for ourselves, and not having to work to pay for others. This isn’t an issue of circumstance, but an issue of attitude: we have the attitude that people should take care of themselves, while your ‘coalition” is based on the attitude that someone else owes them a living.
No, it reflects the fact that the Bush tax cuts of 2001/2003 lowered rates dramatically, and actually made our tax structure too “progressive.” In addition, it expanded tax breaks that many people use:
Where Mitt Romney erred was in using the 47% figure; that tied it to the income tax rates. But he was really speaking about an entitlement class, about a huge group of people who think that they are somehow owed a living. Even you would admit — I think! — that we simply cannot support an entitlement class this large.
Koolo, if you had nothing to hide, if your behavior were what one would expect of a school teacher, then you would have no problem and wouldn’t hide under the covers. It is one thing to have political differences, but quite different to behave the way you do on this blog. You are paranoic and you are a coward, character flaws that you ought to be working on, but haven’t the sense to understand nor address, a pitiful resume for an alleged educator.
Moreover, your request for a citation for information you already know is ridiculous, a retreat from facing up to a decent debate on the facts.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57345828/schieffer-dysfunctional-congress-does-nothing-again/
Being lectured by one who possesses the very same flaws I supposedly do — and a lot more — means magnitudes less than nothing, PAP. You merely waste your gnarled fingers at your keyboard typing such pablum.
And your citation is an opinion piece — less than nothing. It has been demonstrated way more than once that Obama is the one who refuses to work with others, and now Woodward confirms it. Which also means — again — you’re nothing but an ostrich-like whining crybaby.
Our Editor continues to refuse to face the facts:
If a citizen who has lost his/her job, who is in need because he/she cannot find a job,who cannot take care of himself/herself and the rest of his/her family, does he/she become a member of some entitlement class? Do we ignore such citizens? Is this person a member of an entitlement class?
How about a hard working person who has had to take a lower paying job on which he/she or he and she cannot meet basic family needs, all because Mitt Romney moved his job overseas and closed down his company, losing his pension and health care benefits.
As far as I can tell, these are common stories.
Do we ignore these people while we continue to cut taxes again for the wealthy 1-2% and add billions to the DoD.
This appears to be the policy of Mitt Romney and his Party, of which you are a member and fully support, Mr Editor.
I don’t call this an entitlement class, I call it a segment of our population which either cannot afford the basics, or cannot take care of unexpected emergencies when they arise.
We have the means to take care of these needy people without spending ourselves into oblivion. It is all a matter of priorities, priorities like tax cuts for the wealthy and supporting an overly expansive DoD, which you put over and above the needs of people who are working hard and doing the best that they can do.
What has happened to your values, to your sense of priorities? Mr Editor. What has happened to the basic principles that your own church teaches? You have thrown them all to the curb while you throw needy fellow Americans under the bus, because you are a hard-hearted wingnut at heart!!!
Says the coward hiding under his covers, in contrast to myself whose identity is well known, who has no problem speaking out on the values which I have. Quite a contrast! You know very well that your job would be in jeopardy were your behavior on here known, and I, for the sake of your students, would be the first to make it known, you shriveling incompetent miscreant!
WW wrote:
Let’s see, you had huge Democratic majorities in both Houses of Congress for the first two years of President Obama’s term. The only weapon that the Republicans had to try to stop the President’s agenda was the filibuster, and even that didn’t work. President Obama proposed the stimulus bill; we tried to stop it, but it was passed by March of 2009. Not only didn’t we stop it, we only barely delayed it. ObaminableCare? We tried to stop that, too, but we couldn’t. Dudd-Frank? Nope, couldn’t stop that one.
Then the voters had their say, and they said that they didn’t like President Obama’s agenda very much, and gave us the majority in the House of Representatives and significantly cut the Democrats’ majority in the Senate.
You see, what you say you want and what you actually want are two different things. What you really want is a Congress that will give President Obama whatever fool thing he proposes. In Venezuela the Congress simply gave Hugo Chavez the authority to rule by decree; you’d never admit it, but that’s pretty much what you are arguing for here. Resistance to President Obama’s proposals? Why, to you, that’s raaaaacism! Actually challenging him for re=election? Why, how could we; that means we are anti-American!
Wagonwheel continues to misunderstand:
That, you see, is really your problem. You see laid off workers as the story, and they certainly exist, but laid off workers were once actually employed workers. Most of us don’t have any problem with temporary help for people who did take care of themselves, who did meet their responsibilities, when they could.
What I, at the very least, have a problem with is the poor in attitude, the people who never really try to take care of themselves, the people who think that they are owed a living, the permanent welfare class.
We can — probably — afford to help those who are down on their luck temporarily. It is the permanent class of malingerers we cannot afford to help. It is the permanent class of malingerers which have driven entitlement spending through the roof, it is the ever-growing cost of entitlements for those who think we owe them a living that has destroyed our budgets and ruined our economy.
We all know you would. You’ve done it before, to me and others, and have accused another of a felony. This is the sort of “man” you are — you can dish it out but cannot take it. This is very epitome of cowardice. And since you have nothing to lose in your advanced age, after all, you would threaten others’ livelihoods out of them acting precisely as you do.
WW continued:
If they cannot afford the basics, it is mostly because they won’t work when work is available.
We do? Well, we sure haven’t been successful in doing that, have we? We have spent ourselves very close to oblivion, and we were doing that even before the recession.
You see, you see them as “people who are working hard and doing the best that they can do,” but far, far, far too many of them are not working hard, but are doing everything that they can to milk the system.
For my values, see 2 Thessalonians 3:10.
If it weren’t for the malingerers, we really could take care of the truly needy, those who are really just unable, due to handicap, to work for themselves. But the system is top heavy with those who could work but will not work, not if there is any way they can live without working.
You, very honestly, I’m sure, don’t even see such people. To you, if they exist at all, they are just a tiny fraction, a small number we can deal with without risking benefits for the truly needy. Me, I have seen them, I have seen how construction companies had to import Mexicans because good American citizens wouldn’t set wall panels or pour concrete or roof houses. I have seen the guys show up, ostensibly to look for a job but deliberately dressed so that they’d never be offered one, because all they really needed was a name to turn into welfare to say that they spoke to X about a job, so that they could continue to receive benefits.
Heck, one of your heroes is a 30-year-old college student, at a very expensive private school, trying to tell us how other people ought to be responsible for buying her birth control pills! The notion that the public should somehow have to subsidize that, for someone like her, seems perfectly reasonable to you, but, to me, that’s welfare for the well-to-do. Good Lord, it’s one thing to want welfare for people who are truly poor, but you even want to socialize payments and benefits for people who are well off.
The problem, Perry, is you see “Our best interests” as being dependent on government. In contrast, we believe in core American principles like freedom.
And all of this under Obama. Romney believes in restoring prosperity, Obama just believes in more government dependence.
What a load of crap. Why do you lie like this, Perry? Obama had nothing but Democrats in Congress his first two years, and got everything he wanted passed. Then the country was disgusted and we had the Tea Party election of 2010. When that happened to Clinton, he moved to the center and became an effective president, but Obama is either too stupid or too pigheaded to make such a move.
DNW has much better ethics than you do. He believes in freedom, you believe in government dependency.
Another pack of Perry lies. Do you have any EVIDENCE that Romney killed people’s jobs or moved them overseas? Of course you don’t. We do know that, through Bain, he helped create tens of thousands of jobs. If Obama wins, it will be through sleazy lies like your above. is that how you want to win, with sleazy lies?
So, he’s a “coward”, eh Perry? You would be glad to report him eh? Just another attempted threat from someone who blandly talks of collegiality, and the obligations of his “fellow” Americans toward him and his on the one hand, while publicly practicing a Stalinist ethos on the other.
You presumed Perry, to know what our interests are? Let me inform you what they really are: Freedom from your grubby claims and incessantly probing fingers. Freedom from your clingy emotional neediness, and your slavish devotion to government. Freedom to make lives for ourselves without you climbing on our backs every chance you get. These are the freedoms all Americans worthy of the name “American” once had and the freedoms which are still valued by any human worth the status of political peer. But these are the freedoms which you seek to destroy for the sake of satisfying that mindless, admittedly soulless, morally deconstructed, mere locus of fleeting appetition, which you refer to as yourself.
What we confront with your kind, and what too many conservatives are loathe to face because of their metaphysical commitment to the idea of a shared humanity, is an environment and population shaping project by your kind which seeks to take over and exploit to its own satisfaction what the productive kind have built and continue to build.
The reason that that article decrying the notion of citizen as stakeholder so resonated with you, is because the idea of having to stand on your own stake, rather than presuming to appropriate another’s on the basis of a specious commonality of some kind, terrifies you.
Better life as a social insect from your perspective, than a morally responsible, self-directing human stakeholder.
After all, since you exist as you have said, through no fault of your own, you naturally “reason” as to why you should bear the burden for a life – your own – which exists through no fault of your own. Or, so run the gears swirling in the directory module of those appetite machines we typically encounter as political progressives.
You pretend to speak mainly of efficiencies and efficacies, of pragmatics and of optimizing; but what you really seek is a fundamental reordering of the notion of moral responsibility, and the concept of human life. A reordering based on nothing more than the emotional satisfaction you feel you would derive from the realization of that altered state of affairs.
The first political problem for you is, that you cannot make a reasoned case why catering to your satisfactions rather than their own should be a priority to anyone else; especially given the fact that the very idea of a “human being” becomes a meaninglessness concept in light of your insane subjectivity and mind wracking relativism. Hence – because you realize this – your resort to rhetorical emoting about religious values and your subsequent vituperation toward those who are not deceived by your use of this obvious stalking horse.
The second is that your kind cannot exist in pure form and you know it, since your form is based on the exploitation of significantly differently arranged others, and cannot exist as a self-supporting community on its own. What in the world could a community of pure dependents do to support or maintain itself?
Socialism collapsed when it had sway over half the earth because it could not leech off the other half when those within the socialist world became enervated and demoralized by their own “value system”. In another example, the American Democrat party composed of 30 to 40 millions (of canting adult hypocrites), did not dare to try and do for its members in the way of voluntary heath care cost sharing what nations of 30 millions or fewer, including juveniles and noncontributors, supposedly managed to do for their populations – to the great acclaim of those self-same American Democrats.
You, yourself, have admitted as much. You unapologetically demand the life energies of the young be directed toward your benefit, in a way yours were not directed to those who preceded you.
Nonetheless, the facts on the ground reveal that you have managed to worm your destructive way as a peer into this democratic republic, and deal with you and your gibbering incoherence and sticky fingers, one way or another, we must.
That’s why no one here will give you personal information, because of threats like the above. BTW, if you’re so brave, why do you hide under the anonymous tag of Wagonwheel?
In a free country, people in need of temporary help should turn to, in the following order:
1. Family
2. Friends and neighbors
3. Church
4. Other civic groups they might be a member of
5. Charity
6. Local government
7. State government
And, last and very least;
8. The Federal government.
He also apparently believes in clairvoyance …
Next he’ll be demanding to chart your horoscope.
Remember this DIMS? Read it before you have an orgasm over the Romney Tape. I’m sure everyone will be reminded of BO picking winners and losers.
Obama campaign abandons white working-class voters in favor of minorities and the educated
By Daily Mail Reporter
UPDATED:12:04 EST, 28 November 2011
President Barack Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign will be the first in modern political history to abandon white working-class voters, strategists claim.
For decades, Democrats have been losing more and more blue collar whites. Their alienation helped lead to the massive Republican wave in 2010, when the GOP wooed 30 percent more of them than the Democrats could.
Democratic strategists say President Obama is focusing his attention, instead, on poor black and Hispanic voters and educated white professionals.
‘All pretense of trying to win a majority of the white working class has been effectively jettisoned in favor of cementing a center-left coalition made up, on the one hand, of voters who have gotten ahead on the basis of educational attainment… and a second, substantial constituency of lower-income voters who are disproportionately African-American and Hispanic,’ longtime political reporter Thomas B. Edsall wrote in an opinion piece in the New York Times.
‘The 2012 approach treats white voters without college degrees as an unattainable cohort,’ he writes later.
The Obama campaign has not explicitly announced this strategy. However, strategists point to it as the likely path of the president’s victory, given demographic data from previous elections.
Since Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Democrats have relied on white working-class voters as a key part of the population that carried them to victory.
In the era of President Bill Clinton, Democratic strategists focused ravenously on winning over white industrial workers.
Ruy Teixeira, a strategist at the liberal Center for American Progress, wrote in 1995 that if President Clinton couldn’t win white blue collar workers, his re-election bid would be doomed.
Fast forward 15 years and Tiexeria has made an about-face: ‘The Republican Party has become the party of the white working class,’ he told the New York Times recently.
However, he warns that losing whites without college degrees altogether would be disastrous. There simply are not enough college-educated whites, Hispanics and blacks who will make a Democratic majority.
President Obama can still get away with losing white Americans by 17 percent, as Senator John Kerry did in his 2004 defeat against President George W. Bush, Tiexeria says.
The new coalition President Obama is putting together potentially relies less on middle Americans than either Sen Kerry or Vice President Al Gore in 2000.
Instead, as two Democratic strategists lay out, the president’s 2012 re-election campaign will likely rely on winning over new ‘young people, Hispanics, unmarried women and affluent suburbanites.’
This means President Obama is leaving aside industrial states like Ohio and Indiana, both of which he won in 2008. Instead, he is courting states like North Carolina, Virginia, New Hampshire and Colorado.
All of the states have large populations of well-educated, white collar white professionals.
States like Ohio and Indiana, which President Obama claimed in 2008, are likely out of the question in 2012, strategists say, because they have fewer minorities and more blue collar white workers.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2067223/President-Obamas-2012-campaign-abandons-white-working-class-voters-favor-minorities-educated.html#ixzz26qoLSEzO
Oh, and speaking of charity, did you know Obama has a half-brother rotting away in a shack in a Kenyan slum? And Obama hasn’t lifted a finger to help him, despite being quite rich himself? Obama likes to use the phrase “We are our brother’s keeper”, sounding all holy and sanctimonious, but when it comes to helping his actual brother, he turns into Scrooge. Are THOSE the kind of values you want to vote for?
I wonder why the Democrat party doesn’t have a jobs program and a welfare bureau for its membership – seeing as how caring and committed to the welfare of each other they supposedly are.
For example, small business associations and other kinds of mutualist organizations have effectively offered their members group rates on various services including insurance of multiple kinds. If I can save 500 a year by buying car insurance through a program affiliated with my alma mater, or get a cheaper vehicle by buying through Costco, think what all those millions of Democrats should be theoretically capable of doing for themselves and each other in a voluntary way.
Why not a Democrats of America Health Insurance Corporation open to all Democrat Party members?
Gee, think of the millions already signed up in the party and the many more millions who would be just clamoring to should such a program be implemented. And all those trim, non-smoking vegetarians … why their insurance costs would be nil!
And we all know how many wealthy Demos inhabit Hollywood, or the communications industry. Why don’t they spread the wealth around their own voters instead of building palaces off Malibu or shipping the production of I-phones to China?
I wonder why they don’t and never have … they seem to CARE so much …
It’s not like every last one of them is too f**ked up and irresponsible for such an alliance to pay dividends, is it?
Romney’s statement is problematic on several levels. He’s wrong to conflate the 47% who don’t pay federal income taxes with dependent populations and entitlement parasites. Many of them, I prefer to assume that most of them, are patriotic Americans who’re willing to pay their fair share but who earn incomes below the current taxable threshold which is an artifact of an overly progressive tax structure and not a reflection of either greed or callous disregard of their civic responsibilities.
Most Americans can certainly afford to pay their fair share in federal taxes and they’re willing to do so, but the taxing requirements have been so skewed by ideologically motivated Democrats in their zeal to punish high income earners that the result has been to systematically exclude low income earners from the tax codes.
And, if Mitt Romney is to become President he better start worrying about those people. They aren’t all the greedy self-interested dependent louts Democrats have conditioned to vote for so-called entitlement programs. Most of those people know full well they aren’t entitled to anything more than a fair chance to work hard and succeed. They’re just like the rest of us who want the government off our backs and out of the way so we can get on with the job of making our nation safe and prosperous.
Here it is again, for our Editor to see — yet another threat by Perry because he dislikes it when people play as he does:
PolitiFact agrees with Romney, by the way.
“Conflation” is an apt summation of the problem with his admittedly offhand remark.
No doubt there are numerous social security recipients for example, who pay no income taxes, yet who are not part of a willing client class whose very existence is contingent on the redistributive work of government.
Oddly though, it’s not what is implied as a scatter gun description which the media seems to object to as problematic. Instead it is as if in granting the constructive premise they grant the social implication as well, but object to the calculation of probabilities as offensive and unfeeling.
In narrowing the matter to a mere question of Federal income tax payers as a proportion of the electorate, and their susceptibility to being persuaded to join his cause on the basis of realizing a more favorable tax position, it looks less awkward.
The WSJ: “Our translation: If you don’t pay federal income taxes, you may not be swayed by a candidate that wants to cut them.”
And, “15.8% lived in a household receiving food stamps”
However you slice the dependency analysis though, the fact is that there is a large and growing segment of the voting public that sees government provided security and dispensed opportunity through state managed redistribution, as a social model they are willing to embrace.
Well stated.
Our Editor does it again!
You keep on keeping on making this claim, based on an assumption, never ever providing any documentation.
You are almost as bad as your Party’s presidential candidate, Mr Editor!
What about Obama not taking care of his brother in Kenya, Perry? Doesn’t charity begin at home? Or do you approve of a scrooge like Obama, who is rich enough no help his brother but lets him rot instead?
Do you claim that such people do not exist? And that continued government benefits (of whatever scope) do not thwart a work ethic?
DNW falsely claims:
We already have state managed redistribution…upwards. How else can you account for the fact that Romney paid 13.9% federal income taxes in 2010? How else can you account for the fact that Warren Buffet pays a lower percentage of his income in taxes compared to his secretary?
And by the way, why is Romney unwilling to produce 10 years of tax returns, like he required from his vp pick?
DNW, as usual, only wishes to deal with the facts he selects, on the rare occasion he deals with the facts at all!
Pay attention koolo. PolitiFact is addressing Fred Thompson’s statement, not Romney’s.
Thompson saya:
This number reveals how skewed our income distribution has become! I attribute this to Wall Street and Corporate greed, as well as tax cut policy under the Republicans.
Again, Republicans love to talk about federal income taxes, while ignoring all the taxes which do in fact heavily impact a major portion of the 40%, even the 15% who are in poverty. This I call selectivity in order to propagandize to make a political point which is utterly false due to the aforementioned selectivity.
As further proof of my point, we have ropelight here selecting to talk only of federal income taxes, without a word about social security tax, which the wealthy pay a much lower percentage than the middle class, and medicare tax, and the multitude of state and local taxes, all of which hit the middle and poor with more impact than they hit the wealthy. I don’t understand why I must keep repeating these facts. On second thought, I do, because the Righties on here insist on being selective, for ideological purposes. That stinks!!!
WW wrote:
I have to document my opinions now? OK, I just checked with myself, and yes, I hereby certify my comment.
But, of course, you know that the malingerers are there. You’ve been around Wilmington and you’ve been around Philadelphia, and you’ve seen whole neighborhoods of them. You don’t want to admit that they exist, but you know that they’re there. They’re the ones who drop out of high school, and drop out of any future, they’re the ones who knock up girls all over town, and let those women take care of the kids themselves, with the help of Uncle Sam, of course. They’re the ones at the Occupy rallies, who haven’t quite made the welfare roles yet, but still leech of mommy and daddy, all the while protesting against the capitalist company which employs daddy. They’re the ones demanding that people who never went to college pony up more taxes so that they can pay less tuition in college. They’re the ones complaining in the line at McDonald’s that there are no jobs, when McDonald’s is hiring every day. And they’re the ones who get their masters in 18th century French literature, and then cry the loudest when nobody has an upper management job or collegiate tenure-track professorship for them.
No shit, Sherlock. But I figured a really smart radical moonbat like you could figure out that the two comments are hardly dissimilar.
Ah yes, the Democrats had/have absolutely nothing to do with Wall Street and corporate greed, not to mention tax policy. Cripes, Hoagie could school you about all this until he keels over, but as long as you have your hand over your ears and scream “YAYAYAYAYAYA” it’s futile.
Here we have another undocumented assumption out of our Editor in the same thread:
Where do you get this stuff, Mr Editor? Oh I know, you assume it to be true, i.e., you make it up.
This is not credible, and is beneath your usual standard.
How about if we listen to someone who grew up in poverty:
The entire article is well worth the read!
Where do you get this stuff, Perry? Oh I know, you deny reality, i.e., you put your head in the sand and ignore it.
The burden of proof is on the poster, koolo! So give me some credible reality.
Did you read the cite I gave? That’s credible reality for ya!
WW, you’ve already listened to someone who grew up in poverty, me! You already knew that my beliefs about poverty, and the way out of poverty, came from my own experiences.
Unless a person is actually handicapped, poverty is really a choice: you can do what it takes to get out of poverty, or you can make excuses for yourself, and stay poor.
Eric and York and I know a woman, who lives in Mississippi. Her husband was a police officer, but she wasn’t working, and she had no education beyond high school. Well, she decided that she wanted a new car, but they couldn’t afford one, so she went out and got a job at McDonald’s. Naturally, it was a minimum wage job, but she stuck with it, and she did something really, really radical: she went to work, on time, every day, and did her job. Pretty soon her reliability was noticed, and they started giving her more and more responsibility, and she wound up, with no education beyond high school, as a regional manager for McD. And it was all because she was actually willing to work.
I’ve told you my mother’s story before, and it was pretty much the same thing: no education beyond high school, an ex-husband who found child support more of an option than an obligation, and three kids to feed. She did the same thing, albeit not with McDonald’s. She got the only job she could, earned a reputation as reliable, and wound up getting better and better jobs, all because people saw that they could count on her, all because she went to work, on time, every day, and did her job.
That really is all that it takes. So what if you don’t get the best job, so what if the only job you can get is working on the garbage truck or cleaning out porta-johns on construction sites, it’s still honest work. Just do your job, every day, and rewards and promotions will come to you.
Except Democraps don’t believe this. They see a country full of victims who can be persuaded to vote Democrap in exchange for a handout.
You know why I always win arguments with you, Perry? It’s because you chicken out of answering my posts. Here is one example:
President Lincoln grew up in Poverty.
Perry previously got suspended for accusing one person of felonious activity and threatening another. Perry has never admitted it nor has he ever learned from it. The proof is in this thread, where Perry is once again threatening people’s jobs.
Perry really needs to be persona non grata here, since he has Zero ability to control himself, Zero ability to stop threatening people, Zero Personal Responsibility. Perry is a cancerous growth on the arse of the body politic, making it very painful for the body politic to take a shite, and needs to be cut out for the health and well-being of everyone concerned.
Your allegation is totally false, John!
You are the chief of chickensh*t on here. If you can’t stand the heat, then you get out of the kitchen, and let the rest of the choir sing on here! Unfortunately for you, this is not your blog, therefore you have no control, which must really pain you. Good, you deserve some pain!!! If this were your blog, then I would be the first one out of the door. In the meantime, try harder to adjust to the free speech arena on this blog, without your constant squealing like a stuffed pig!
And now we have another whiner on here:
Eric, I’ve decided that your comments are not worth my time and effort, therefore say what you wish, talking to yourself!
Regarding Mitt Romney telling the truth, the important Independent voters don’t think so!
And lookee here too:
With women, blacks, hispanics, younger voters and independents against him, Romney’s only hope is significant voter suppression. Even many Republicans are very worried.
The cowering coward now plays a game of tattle-tale:
You’re damn right I would, koolo, for the sake of our children. With an attitude and behavior like yours, there is no place in the education of our children for a miscreant like you. Unfortunately, there is no way that I can follow through with such an intent. And I said exactly the same thing about Hube; but if you read his blog lately, he has toned down considerably. Good for him! You should join in with his attitude rejuvenation. You are a disgrace, behaving like you do while hiding behind your moniker!!!
Back on topic, Mr Editor,here is the demographic on the 47% of which you have been unaware all this time:
This demonstrates clearly that your assumptions that the 47% are lazy, don’t work, and are living off of govenmental largasse, is total BS. Better bookmark this post.
And note well the sentence I emboldened, indicating how the wealthy and very wealthy are either avoiding federal taxes or paying the same rates as the working poor pay who are just above the poverty level.
You better bookmark this page, Mr Editor!
Wow Wagonwheel. You supprise me. You made twi statements:
” You know very well that your job would be in jeopardy were your behavior on here known, and I, for the sake of your students, would be the first to make it known, you shriveling incompetent miscreant!”
Followed by:
“With an attitude and behavior like yours, there is no place in the education of our children for a miscreant like you.”
In both of those statements (threats?) you convoluted koolo’s political statements made in a Free Speech forum into “behavior”. Are his statements “behavior”? I would say they are the excercise of free speach since they are only words. Pooping on police cars is behavior so is murdering an ambassador or occupying Wall Street, but
saying things you don’t like is not “behavior”. Really what you’re saying is you don’t like his attitude or his political philosophy and therefore, if you could you would have him stopped from being able to earn a living at his profession. Very progressive, indeed. And you make that statement to protect “our students” and “our children”, no less. I would submit that our students and children should hear all sides and decide on their own. Especially since it seems perfectly acceptable to force “our children” to sing: Barrack Hussein Obama…mmm….mmm…mmm”. in school. Which, BTW, is “behavoir” on the part of that partisan teacher. Worse, it’s brain washing.
You know, sometimes we say some crappy things on this Free Speach forum, but to suggest that anyone here should have his livelihood harmed because you don’t like what he says or don’t like his attitude is really out there. But in the end isn’t that what Free Speach is all about? Hearing shit you may dislike, find offensive or even hate at its root. But to suggest that you believe your opponants should be subject to financial, social or legal retribution begins to sound like a KGB threat.
You seem to have changed Wagonwheel. Now your extremist leftism is morphing into something very ugly and very dangerous. You seem to think we should live under a One Party system and all dissent and all opposition must be eliminated. That ain’t healthy for a republic. You continuously paint all Republicans as some sort of greedy, hateful, racist animals in need of either reeducation or elimination. Now, it seems, you even think those who don’t agree are not worthy to have a job. Oh, just to protect “the children”, of course.
Regarding the previous post, Ezra Klein of WaPo has documented this 47% demographic very well indeed. Check it out!
Hoagie, if you are unable to detect behaviors/attitudes that would be harmful to school children, that’s on you. I don’t care what you say or think, I am calling koolo out on it. And note how brazen he his when hiding behind is moniker.
No, I haven’t changed at all, Hoagie; you are the one who has, moving further to the right. And I do not paint all Republicans that way, but there are certainly an increasingly larger number of them who think like McConnell, Cantor, Ryan, Romney, and Limbaugh. These people are the “one party” people, Hoagie. I have always believed in working across the aisle to generate compromise solutions, whereas your Republican hierarchy have taken the word “compromise” out of the dictionary!
And yes, our children do not need the influence/attitude of a person like koolo as their educator, unless he finally comes to his senses. You have become insensitive to these extreme behaviors, Hoagie, because you have permitted yourself to become one of these extremists yourself!
Now Hoagie, go read about the demographics of Romney’s 47%. You need to become more aware!
What that demonstrates Wagonwheel, is that when Bruce Bartlett blows smoke up your ass you like it. There is no way for you, me or Bartlett to know the taxes paid or the tax rates of hundreds of thousands of people. There is also no way to know how that income was derived. Was it tax free bonds? Were previous losses brought forward? That’s why stats are BS, we don’t know their basis. I’d also like to point out that if you’re going to include payroll taxes, social security taxes, state and local taxes for those NOT paying federal taxes, then it is only FAIR to include property taxes, corporate taxes, business taxes and regulation compliance costs for those higher earners. You may even include estate taxes, death taxes, tranfer taxes and international trade taxes. If you’d like I’m sure I could come up with another dozen or two of taxes that affect higher earners which that 47% never even heard of. You may even include $200,000 in taxes saved by John Kerry by mooring his yaght in one state rather than another.
So you say that just because that 47% don’t pay federal income tax, they still pay plenty of taxes. I say just because a high earner pays a net of only 20% in federal income tax he still pays a shit load of other taxes too. Guess what? We’re both right but we were specifically talking about federal income taxes, not the taxes on your cell phone bill and not mercantile business taxes, just federal. So the truth remains: 47% don’t pay federal income tax.
“Hoagie, if you are unable to detect behaviors/attitudes that would be harmful to school children, that’s on you.”
As I’ve explained Wagonwheel, there is no “behavior”, only words and attitude. And as far as you or I know they are only on this forum. And if you believe hearing diverse points of view is “harmful to school children”, then I submit youre attitude is very much like that other Great Educator: Pol Pot. He managed to murder three million people so the children weren’t harmed by bad attitudes.
BTW, what makes you think you can “detect” things in other people which should give you the right to unemploy them? What are you, the Wizard of freekin’ Oz? You leftist’s really have an overblown sense of self don’t you? You are better, smarter, more knowing than everyone else and you’ll force the rest of us to see it or kill us trying.
Hoagie opines:
Hoagie, you have forgotten the issue being addressed, which was Romney’s assertion:
This is basically what our Editor assumes as well. They are both wrong, as given in detail, with credible documentation, in the Ezra Klein piece which I cited here.
For as “smart” as Perry claims to be, he somehow cannot distingush between an adult commenting in a political forum on his own time, and same adult doing a job which has nothing to do at all with the former.
But make no mistake — this isn’t about Perry being concerned for any kid’s well being; what it is is yet another attempt at squelching someone from speaking out b/c he dares to call out Perry’s brazen idiocy. Plain and simple. As I noted previously, Perry might have a case if he didn’t engage in the supposed offensive behaviors that he supposedly disdains in others. But that’s just it — he does engage in them, arguably moreso than those he dislikes in here. Yet, somehow, by engaging Perry in a like manner, you deserve to have your very livelihood destroyed. Because Perry “knows” what you’re really like.
As I’ve also stated here, when I began commenting here, I was quite civil. Yet even then — b/c I continually challenged Perry — I was a “bully” and “stalking” him. Not uncivil, mind you …. but b/c I challenged him (just like he does in here with everyone on a daily basis!) I was a “bully” and a “stalker.”
There’s no “winning” w/such a mentality, because there’s no inherent consistency and logic. Threats and anger are all that manifest. It’d be best for all concerned that Editor ban this specimen from his pages altogether before he threatens anyone else merely for, as Perry would say, “pushing back.”
Perry, you’re totally out of control, and the thing is you have never cared to be in control of yourself. And that’s very much a trait of the radical Left, as is evidenced by all their “protests” where they violate practically every law in the books.
Come on, smart guy, why do you think you got suspended for fifteen days? We all know you’ll lie about the reasons why, if you even bother to answer the question. But the fact remains you threatened a school teacher’s livelihood on this site and the Editor quickly warned you that threatening behavior is not allowed here, and very clearly declared you were threatening him. Then you turned right around and accused Hoagie of felonious activity and BOOM!!! You got suspended for 15 days, and the Editor very clearly declared your accusations were very far out of line on this site, and that he’ll have none of that here.
You can call me a liar all you want, but the truth is, I am speaking the truth and you are continuing to lie about it. Because that’s what you and your Leftist idols do. You lie. And the Truth is not in you.
“No, I haven’t changed at all, Hoagie; you are the one who has, moving further to the right.”
Sorry Charlie, but that just ain’t so. I’ve moved nowhere. I’ve always choosen Liberty over conformity, Freedom to choose one’s path in life and the Freedom to be as productive and successful as one can be. I’ve never divided Americans into classes depending on income, wealth, birth, color, religion or sex. I’ve always stood for the individual against the collective and the weak against the oppressor. I’ve always believed that these were The American Way. I fought for these ideals in Nam, ran my businesses according to them and interacted with friends, family and my wives according to the principles. I’ve always believed in working hard, paying your taxes, treating others they way you want to be treated, being generous and charitable and being honest in your dealings. But what would one expect from an American Christian?
So no Wagonwheel, I have not moved to the right. The entire country moved to the left! It would never even dawn on me to “force” you to buy a certain light bulb or health insurance or to pay for someone’s contaception than it would for me to “force” you to buy a gun or be a Christian. That’s not how real Americans operate. We can talk, argure even fight with each other but in the end we need to agree we all can make Free choices in our lives as long as we, and we alone, are willing to pay the price and live with the results of our choices without blaming everyone else.
I’ve said things in life I wish I could take back and done things in life I regret, but I said and did them and I hold others blameless. I don’t blame someone’s race, or wealth or sex for the things they do. I blame their bad decisions. It should be they and not I who lives with the result of their bad decisions. And if they make great decisions, and achieve great wealth and success it is they who earned that too, not I.
I’m going to be taking a break from commenting, as I have been busy anyway.
But this business of Perry’s constantly attempting to personally menace or intimidate other commentators with information he has, or thinks he has gleaned about them, is wearying.
I suppose that he is himself the recipient of a share of invective and tit-for-tat sneering. But I do not recall on the part of others, the kind of continuous flow of personal menace Perry puts out. Even in the many cases when the conservative comment addresses the left’s behavior or competence abstractly, and strictly politically, rather than socially, we see the same thing.
Perry’s regular personal attacks on the validity of Hoagie’s academic credentials, his business and personal ethics, and his patriotism and physical courage, serve as one of the more astounding examples.
But that is just part of a long pattern of behavior, dating back to false personal accusations leveled against Ropelight, and suggestions that he (Perry) would be engaging in IRS “informing” on another.
I would hate in principle to see Perry banned, because he is such a perfect exemplar of the progressive mentality and moral sensibility, and because he often does (like a comic buffoon) serve as an effective and reliable foil. But on the other hand, there’s no real reasoning with him, and his implied threats are examples of tortious wrongs, and an intolerable petty Stalinism verging on, if not crossing over into, criminality.
While I’ll be looking in as often as ever, I think a commenting break is in order.
Perry raises the White Flag and chickens out:
I asked a few, simple, direct questions about Rev. Wright and Obama’s brother. You could answer them easily if you had any guts. The fact that you refuse to is because you can’t admit their are any flaws in the Alien’s character. Rather than think rationally, you worship your idol mindlessly, then chicken out when he is challenged.
Looks like I win this argument, too, like I always do.
Oh? Which parts? Everything John said was true, which is why you threw a temper tantrum.
You’re talking about two of the most left wing media outlets out there. I wouldn’t trust them to give me the right time if they worked in a clock factory.
This, at heaart, is what’s wrong with left wingers. Despite their claims to “Kompassion”, they are basically bullies and thugs at heart. You, in essense, want to ruin Koolo’s life just because you disagree with him. And it’s the same with politics. You want to control everyone’s life, whether ordering them to buy health insurance or telling a company where it can do business. It is possible that, if you follow Dana and Hoagie and my lead, you can learn to be a decent person, but first you have to reject your poisonous left wing ideology.
That is simply because you are neither a reliable nor ethical critic. You are politically biased, therefore turn a blind eye to the carrying on of your compatriots. If you accuse me of threatening anyone, then produce the quote, DNW. You are nothing more than an articulate, partisan buffoon who on rare occasion conducts a reasonable debate, but who most of the time spins paragraph after paragraph of character assassination with little to no substance other than the fact that we have political differences.
DNW, you make allegations as you go on your “break from commenting”, without producing even one quote of a credible threat. A threat is not one if it cannot be consumated! In fact, you were the one who threatened a physical attack on me if you could meet me face to face a while back, didn’t you? You are a fine one to make allegations crossing over into criminality, one more example of the typical hyperbole in which you engage consistently, singling out the one political opponent you people encounter on this blog. You people are mighty brave when you are in your own crowd of miscreants. Good riddance!
Perry, you weaselly little liar, the quote came from one of your posts above. Here it is:
You know very well that your job would be in jeopardy were your behavior on here known, and I, for the sake of your students, would be the first to make it known, you shriveling incompetent miscreant!
You openly admitted you would try to put Koolo’s job in jeopardy if you could do so. In short, were he foolish enough to report his full name and where he lived, you claim that you would report him to his supervisors with the intent of getting him fired. That is the actions of a bully, not one who believes in free and fair debate.
Eric, as I said earlier today:
I’d add “sanity” to the bold text. Perry is so far gone he actually denies the threats (and accusations) he’s made — even when provided the proof in black and white. This is the sort of nutjob specimen we’re dealing with. He belongs in a straitjacket and/or a padded cell.
Let’s break this PerryRant down.
“Your allegation is totally false, John(exclamation mark)”
As Eric said, everything I said was true. DNW has concurred, ropelight has concurred, Yorkshire has concurred, the Editor has concurred, Koolo has concurred, Hoagie has concurred. It is very clearly and very blatantly evident to anyone who knows anything that you are absolutely lying.
“You are the chief of chickensh*t on here.”
Says the person who used his full name online, and goes into a hissy fit if someone else does so; the person who demands his anonymity but hurls hate-filled attacks at those of us who likewise prefer our anonymity; the person who demands citations and then ignores them while refusing to give citations himself; the person who refuses to answer direct questions, knowing he has no answer to those direct questions.
“If you can’t stand the heat, then you get out of the kitchen, and let the rest of the choir sing on here(exclamation mark)”
So says the person who has hundreds of times demanded citations, including demanding citations already given — sometimes given in the article itself — and then runs away and hides when those citations prove him very much wrong and us very much right; the person who cannot handle having his past comments and actions aired out for the world to see because it shows him for the dishonest, dishonorable person he is.
“Unfortunately for you, this is not your blog, therefore you have no control, which must really pain you.”
I have no control? Are you serious? I’m one of three Administrators here; therefore, I have a very large amount of “control” here. And it’s unfortunate for me that this isn’t my blog? Are you serious? This blog is owned by an internet friend, someone whom I trust and respect very much, someone who knows more about me than you ever will — and it’s not only because you, like the evil hateful person you are, seek out as much personal detail you can get about your enemies so you can hatefully use that information to attack them. Unlike you, I did not seek out to have any “control” here. You did, and were immediately spurned, which burns your butt. I did not even seek out to have authority to be an author here. Unlike the previous site, where I was a very prolific contributor, I haven’t even posted many articles here at all. The Editor even linked an article of mine in case I was going to republish it here because he wanted you to be able to comment. That means, very clearly, that the Editor has granted me the “control” to say who can or cannot comment on my articles on his site. But we Conservatives, who are authoritative instead of authoritarian like you radical Leftists, do not think in terms of “control”. We don’t want to “control” people, like your ilk do.
“Good, you deserve some pain(exclamation mark, exclamation mark, exclamation mark)”
Hateful much? Desirous to have your enemies reeling in pain much? Uncivil much? That is a perfect example of the diseased radical Leftist mind, and one of the reasons they commit so much violence and property destruction when they mob together. It isn’t found among Conservatives like it is found inside your own sinfully black heart.
“If this were your blog, then I would be the first one out of the door.”
Yup. You see, I don’t take kindly to hate-filled, lying, threatening behavior like yours. I also don’t take kindly to empty accusations of felonious activity like you pump out. You are a cancer, a disease, a festering, puss-filled boil on the arse of society. And cutting you out would be a great societal benefit.
“In the meantime, try harder to adjust to the free speech arena on this blog, without your constant squealing like a stuffed pig(exclamation mark)”\
Since you have absolutely no idea what the First Amendment says or means, as proven repeatedly here and elsewhere, your talk about “free speech” — and you were suspended for 15 days for what you said here, on this site — is meaningless. And that squealing like a stuck pig? That’s persactly what you do here multiple times a day. I provide researchable facts and histo-facts, as do Yorkshire, Eric, Koolo, ropelight, the Editor, DNW. You, on the other hand, provide Socialist misinformation, flat out lies, and fairy tales you claim to be history (but has no resemblance at all to the true history). And you squeal in pain when people prevent you from getting away with your threats and hate-filled, fact-free accusations. You squeal in pain when people exercise their Constitutional rights to Freedom of Association. You squeal in pain when people accurately describe the type of person you are. And that is the type of person who would destroy everything the Founders and Framers bled and died for.
Oh, I do have a gift for you, since you use them up far more quickly than anyone I’ve seen online before.
!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There you go. Don’t use them all in the same place.
Perry is what happens when you take a person and poison them with decades of left wing ideology. He really does believe he has the right to force his views on others, and to shut up all who oppose him. His threats against you are a clear effort to drive you off this blog, ditto his efforts to intimidate Hoagie. Left wingers are, at heart, bullies, it’s part of their politics and part of their personal behavior as well.
Agreed, and agreed.