Making Mark Sanford Look Good
[Guest post by DRJ]
Newser quips Mark Sanford is no longer the most embarrassing politician in South Carolina now that his Lt. Gov., Andre Bauer, compared government assistance to the poor to “feeding stray animals:”
“Mark Sanford is no longer the most embarrassing politician in South Carolina: His lieutenant governor, Andre Bauer, is in hot water after comparing government assistance for the poor to “feeding stray animals.” Said Bauer, who is running to succeed Sanford as governor: “You’re facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don’t think too much further than that.”
Bauer subsequently issued an explanation and expressed regret, sort of:
“In a phone interview, Bauer said he regretted the remarks “because now it’s being used as an analogy, not a metaphor.
“Do I regret it? Sure I do. I wouldn’t have to be taking this heat otherwise.”
In a speech at a town hall meeting in the Upstate, Bauer revisited instructions he said his grandmother had given him when he was a small child. Bauer said his grandmother, who was not highly educated, had told him to stop feeding stray animals.
“You know why?” he asked. “Because they breed. You’re facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a human ample food supply.”
Bauer, 40, later said his intent was to explain the government is “breeding a culture of dependency” with its social program, which he said has grown out of control and “amounts to little more than socialism, paid for by hardworking, tax-paying families … against their wishes.”
— DRJ
Open Mouth. Insert Foot. Repeat.
Bored Lawyer (380bc0) — 1/26/2010 @ 2:22 amOther than being more factual than politically correct,
Krusher (ceb4ea) — 1/26/2010 @ 2:41 amwhat the heck is wrong with the comparison?
+1 to Krusher.
the friendly grizzly (cf0393) — 1/26/2010 @ 4:38 amI’m with Krusher. Unwise politically; wise philosophically. Don’t subsidize what you don’t want more of.
Dan S (5ef8be) — 1/26/2010 @ 4:51 amOther than being more factual than politically correct,
what the heck is wrong with the comparison?
Comment by Krusher — 1/26/2010 @ 2:41 am
I agree that we should educate and encourage people (through incentives etc) out of a culture of dependency. But it’s monstrously disrespectful of poor people to speak of them like savage unthinking beasts instead of human beings who need help. And the clear connotation here is the image of vermin who will just steal your food and copulate and leave droppings on your floor and have more vermin who will overrun the place.
You begin to see the problem with his…analogy?
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 1/26/2010 @ 4:55 amNow you know why many South Carolinians weren’t anxious for Sanford to resign
tmitsss (69ae76) — 1/26/2010 @ 5:06 am“Making Mark Sanford Look Good”
Can we predict what the commenters will add?
“#
Other than being more factual than politically correct,
what the heck is wrong with the comparison?
Comment by Krusher — 1/26/2010 @ 2:41 am
#
+1 to Krusher.
Comment by the friendly grizzly — 1/26/2010 @ 4:38 am
#
I’m with Krusher. Unwise politically; wise philosophically. Don’t subsidize what you don’t want more of.
Comment by Dan S — 1/26/2010 @ 4:51 am
”
Yes. we can.
imdw (019cd0) — 1/26/2010 @ 5:07 amCan we predict what the commenters will add?
Comment by imdw — 1/26/2010 @ 5:07 am
No, you can’t.
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 1/26/2010 @ 5:22 amIt strikes me, imdw, that you’re doing exactly the same thing other people find so objectionable in Andre Bauer: writing people off as caricatures instead of treating them as people to be listened to, and spoken with, with the understanding that limited information may not give you everything you need to know about a person (and so are humble enough to keep listening) and if you’re still convinced they’re doing something wrong, believing they’re able to change.
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 1/26/2010 @ 5:32 amAndre Bauer may have been undiplomatic, but there’s nothing wrong with his analysis. Let those who wish feed the stray humans, and give the rest of us a tax holiday.
dchamil (bb7f48) — 1/26/2010 @ 5:35 amSure you were, Andre…
Sure you were…
[Name withheld] (46e187) — 1/26/2010 @ 6:11 amNow, if he was “light skinned and spoke with no ‘negro’ dialect” no one would be talking about this.
Jim (582155) — 1/26/2010 @ 6:34 amI think his comparison is pretty solid, although politically incorrect. Aren’t we conservatives against political correctness?
Andrew (321dd2) — 1/26/2010 @ 6:45 am#13 Andrew:
Not just for the sake of being “against” something.
No matter the intent in Bauer’s analogy, it was a stupid way to say it, and a stupid thing to say.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 1/26/2010 @ 7:24 amBauer would benefit from knowing no one you know.
There is a saying, “People don’t care what you know, until they know that you care”. Bauer’s comments do sound like someone who “doesn’t care if children go to bed hungry”, rather than someone who cares but thinks there is a better way to deal with it.
Now, he may have made a mistake in his wording and really does care, and his emphasis was being on how we treat people rather than what people are worth, and he really does care, but it didn’t come across that way.
MD in Philly (d4668b) — 1/26/2010 @ 7:36 amAs a follow up, I note that most of the posts that seem “supportive” of Bauer’s comments are not from names I have seen here often, if at all. Looking at the links some supply, it does appear they are of conservative bent, but still.
And FWIW, imdw, your purported examples of “typical Patterico reader’s comments” are anything but, and you know it (or should, anyway).
MD in Philly (d4668b) — 1/26/2010 @ 7:46 amPeople just don’t want to hear the truth if it appears to invalidate their feeling.
In our national parks and zoos we have signs that say, “please do not feed the animals” for a very good reason. If you feel it is wrong to call the poor animals, well then, they should stop behaving like animals. It is an analogy, they do, in this context, exhibit characteristics of animals in the very behavior for which we have the signs.
Welfare was instituted with good intent. unfortunately it morphed into something worse. Bauer would have better off if he had stated that welfare needed to get back to its intent, not its current practice.
Thomas (a3c869) — 1/26/2010 @ 7:52 amOpen mouth, insert foot … but his point is correct, however poorly expressed.
LarryD (feb78b) — 1/26/2010 @ 9:32 am“And FWIW, imdw, your purported examples of “typical Patterico reader’s comments” are anything but, and you know it (or should, anyway).”
Who said “typical”? Not me. But they are unsurprising.
imdw (ae4236) — 1/26/2010 @ 9:44 amMy tiny and poor rural church runs a food pantry. On top of food, we have clothing, diapers, Christmas toys, etc. We “care”.
Most of the patrons are welfare people. Most were exported to us some years back by the nearest big city, on the theory that a change of environment might help. Many are addicts and alcoholics. Many of their kids are undernourished, dirty, ragged. Also foul-mouthed and badly behaved.
We know full well that they buy a little something at the store and get cash in change for their food stamps, to spend as they wish. We see them at our little junior college, where they enroll rather than work. No, we don’t have many jobs here, but the city is close enough to go look for work.
Does our “caring” do much good? No, but their kids might not go to bed hungry, if the adults can be bothered to cook. Of course, by providing this free food, we enable them to spend more WIC/food stamp money on something else. It is very discouraging. All this liberal talk about caring and compassion is a crock of ****.
I love animals, and have as many as I can afford to feed and vet. They have many admirable characteristics. Most animals take pretty good care of their young…
jodetoad (7a7b8a) — 1/26/2010 @ 9:48 amHave any of you ever wondered if people on government assistance are really victims of circumstance?
Have any of you ever heard of Lily Burk?
Or Philip Wise?
See above.
Michael Ejercito (b0a575) — 1/26/2010 @ 9:56 am“Have any of you ever wondered if people on government assistance are really victims of circumstance?”
Didn’t joe the plumber go on welfare for part of his life? Maybe as a kid? This happens to people. That’s the point of having a safety net. Specially in a recession.
imdw (05d41e) — 1/26/2010 @ 10:22 am“Have any of you ever wondered if people on government assistance are really victims of circumstance?”
Some are, and some aren’t. That’s why it’s so important to know which is which and to limit the latter so that resources aren’t squandered on the unworthy and will thus be available to the former when actually needed.
ropelight (99bb0b) — 1/26/2010 @ 10:36 amAnd there are other people, like Charlie Samuel, who are parasites on society.
Does welfare differentiate between those who are victims of circumstance and those who are not?
Michael Ejercito (b0a575) — 1/26/2010 @ 10:45 amSandford must be cheering. He now has a brilliant argument for keeping his job: you want this lunatic to take over?
The problem Brauer has is when he talks about breeding he frankly sounds like a final solution kind of guy. Mind you, a lot of liberals have suggested weeding out the poor, too. But this idiot Lt. Gov. has prominently verified every bad thing liberals say about things like welfare reform. Hecuvajob, Andre.
I’MDumbWeight (imdw)
> Didn’t joe the plumber go on welfare for part of his life? Maybe as a kid?
I am guessing that since even you are uncertain, the answer is no. after all, normally when you are merely uncertain, you answer definitely in a manner that helps your argument. I suppose next you will ask me to prove he didn’t receive welfare.
> That’s the point of having a safety net. Specially in a recession.
Right. So we take money from the most productive, and then spend hundreds of thousands of dollars per person to give away tens of thousands. *rolls eyes* Apparently the left has flunked math.
For instance, as of October 30, 2009, the White House claimed to have “saved or created” 640,329 jobs. Never mind that this number has been shown repeatedly to be as accurate as grain production estimates during the Great Leap Forward, let’s take that as true. The WH also claims to have spent $159 Billion to get there. So that is 159,000,000,000/640,329 or $248,309.85 per job. Don’t you think that money would have been better off staying in taxpayer hands?
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/10/160000-per-stimulus-job-white-house-calls-that-calculator-abuse.html
Yeah, they don’t like it very much when ABC news does the math, calling it calculator abuse. Which I think is code for “accurate calculations that reach really embarrassing results.”
One other thing, anyone else notice the bizarre contradiction between that and the dems on Afghan and Iraqi policy. In those countries, when we help them out, we are fostering dependency that isn’t good, and we should cut them off so that they figure out how to stand on their own two feet. Meanwhile, in America, its “dependency, shependency, let’s create life-long entitlements.”
A.W. (e7d72e) — 1/26/2010 @ 10:50 am“I am guessing that since even you are uncertain, the answer is no. ”
Yeah a google search here would be harder than just going ahead and saying this.
“I suppose next you will ask me to prove he didn’t receive welfare.”
Nah. Why bother even googling this?
“For instance, as of October 30, 2009, the White House claimed to have “saved or created” 640,329 jobs. Never mind that this number has been shown repeatedly to be as accurate as grain production estimates during the Great Leap Forward, let’s take that as true. The WH also claims to have spent $159 Billion to get there. So that is 159,000,000,000/640,329 or $248,309.85 per job. Don’t you think that money would have been better off staying in taxpayer hands?”
Yeah I think that number is BS. Specially since it doesn’t include what would obviously be the multiplier effects of 150 billion being spent, or jobs that weren’t counted. It’s at least 150 billion more GDP.
Though fwiw, welfare policies like unemployment and food stamps have some of higher multipler effects. For the obvious reasons.
imdw (4c2ec9) — 1/26/2010 @ 11:19 amimdw will continue to toss out bait as long as fish keep biting. Just sayin’.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 1/26/2010 @ 11:30 amCan we predict what the commenters will add? …
Yes. we can.
Comment by imdw — 1/26/2010 @ 5:07 am
Who said “typical”? Not me. But they are unsurprising.
Comment by imdw
If you think you can predict a behavior, then you are communicating the idea that there is a behavior that is “typical” or “expectable”, whether you use those words or not.
Now, if you want to split hairs and claim you only meant that some comments would show up as you expected, but those were not “typical” for those who leave comments here, you could claim being correct, but it would confirm you worded your original comment poorly on accident or were intentionally misleading.
Whichever, your work is reminiscent of those who wrote the statements by the CIA concerning Valerie Plame, or anyone else more interested in obscuring truth than revealing it.
With that I will follow Stashiu3’s hint, along with the subject of this thread, and will stop feeding the troll.
MD in Philly (d4668b) — 1/26/2010 @ 11:48 am“…The problem Brauer has is when he talks about breeding he frankly sounds like a final solution kind of guy…”
Perhaps we should require sterilization as a prerequisite for college assistance since so many college graduates suffer from Liberal Disorder Syndrome, and the last thing we need is for them to multiply.
AD - RtR/OS! (6c8faf) — 1/26/2010 @ 11:49 amI’M Dead Weight
Let’s see here I wrote:
“I suppose next you will ask me to prove he didn’t receive welfare.”
And then you whine that I haven’t googled. In other words, you behaved exactly as predicted, shifting the burden to me. But its your assertion, so its your duty to do the work. So you google it yourself and provide a trustworthy link.
And I said a trustworthy link. That doesn’t include some liberal crank on the web, or cbs news for that matter.
> Yeah I think that number is BS
Well, if you had followed the link, you would have seen that this is the white house’s own numbers. Therefore, I agree. The saved or created number is BS, way too high. Nice to see we agree on something. /sarc
> Specially since it doesn’t include what would obviously be the multiplier effects of 150 billion being spent
First, you idiot, “specially” is not proper English. Say especially, sheesh.
Second, you have once again demonstrated the liberals’ mastery of economics. That multiplier is reduced by the effect of $159 billion being taken from hardworking Americans to fund this stimulus boondoggle, not to mention the uncertainty bred by Obama’s radical agenda and exploding deficits. The fact is the economic illiterate in chief claimed that if we passed the stimulus, unemployment would top at 8%. He said without the stimulus, it would peak at 9%. Well, we are at 10%, which means that the situation is worse than the worst case scenario. Which can only be explained one of two ways. Either:
1) they suck at predictions, or
2) they are making it worse.
Either way, they need to stop. Whatever stimulus is unspent, give it back to Americans, or pay down the deficit. Even if you believe more benignly that they suck at predictions, then that tells us that they do not know what the effects of their policies are truly going to be, and they should follow the old medical admonition: first do no harm.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 1/26/2010 @ 11:50 amMultiplier effect !!!!! They have really created or saved 9,631,864,847,129 jobs !!! Iamadickwad said we should multiply, so I did.
JD (5acd54) — 1/26/2010 @ 11:53 am“If you think you can predict a behavior, then you are communicating the idea that there is a behavior that is “typical” or “expectable”, whether you use those words or not.”
If you have a large gathering such as a state fair, we can expect that a child will be lost while the ‘typical’ child will not be lost. Saying that an event can be expected does not mean it is typical. An even more extreme example: we can expect there to be a lottery winner, but winning the lottery is not ‘typical.’
“Now, if you want to split hairs and claim you only meant that some comments would show up as you expected, but those were not “typical” for those who leave comments here, you could claim being correct, but it would confirm you worded your original comment poorly on accident or were intentionally misleading.”
What’s poorly? We can expect something. Why does your innumeracy makes this poor wording?
imdw (05d41e) — 1/26/2010 @ 11:54 amComment by A.W. — 1/26/2010 @ 10:50 am
You’re confusing the Collectivization of the CCCP (which used grain production as a metric), with the Great Leap Forward of the PRC (which used as a growth metric the production of pig-iron in back-yard furnaces).
AD - RtR/OS! (6c8faf) — 1/26/2010 @ 11:55 amIf the USA could just go back in time to the day before Obama took national office and the dems took congress.
That’s all the GOP needs to express. All this bullshit… this democrat propaganda of promises that things would be so much worse without their disasters, and will be so much better if we let them do even more… that is not going to win many votes.
Obama’s already talking about how he is OK with being a 1 term president this week. Why do you think that is? He thinks it’s OK to have enormous power grabs that anger the voters and have him thrown out of office, because he is fundamentally undemocratic in philosophy.
imdw is not unusual for liberals, and they will have a message of “blame the GOP, blame Bush” in November. The voters know that isn’t possible right now. Getting the government out of the way of the market is the way to get some damn jobs out there. Getting the deficit down, forcing Obama to keep that promise he has broken, is the way to keep the poor fed, sheltered, and clothed by slowing inflation.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/26/2010 @ 12:15 pmAD
Actually, no i am not. they also had inflated agricultural production claims in the Great Leap Forward, too, as well as many other exaggerated claims. i jokingly call the period “The Great Leap Forward off of a Cliff.”
But i admit i am just happy to find someone who knows something about the murderous history of communism.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 1/26/2010 @ 12:19 pmJD
to obama’s credit, even he seemed to understand what BS the saved or created number was. when he pardoned 2 turkeys on thanksgiving, obama said that he had “saved or created 4 turkeys.”
i mean i don’t care much for him, but that is a funny line.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 1/26/2010 @ 12:23 pm“And then you whine that I haven’t googled. In other words, you behaved exactly as predicted, shifting the burden to me. But its your assertion, so its your duty to do the work. So you google it yourself and provide a trustworthy link.”
I know the answer. If you’re so curious, you can find it yourself and satisfy yourself. Or you can just believe what you said: “I am guessing that since even you are uncertain, the answer is no.” It really doesn’t matter to me.
“That multiplier is reduced by the effect of $159 billion being taken from hardworking Americans to fund this stimulus boondoggle”
If you borrow it the multiplier effect is reduced in the future, when it is payed for. A future when we have a recovery. That is, if debt is payed, rather than given away as a tax cut.
“Which can only be explained one of two ways. Either:
1) they suck at predictions, or
2) they are making it worse.”
I think one can make incorrect predictions without sucking at them. But yeah clearly
imdw (ca68c8) — 1/26/2010 @ 12:33 pm… got cut off:
clearly their predictions of how bad it would get were off. For whatever reason. What’s fantastic is the cause and effect some people are proposing here.
imdw (017d51) — 1/26/2010 @ 12:35 pmI would not let a leftist like iamadickwad within a mile of our family’s checkbook.
JD (7cdb18) — 1/26/2010 @ 12:51 pmI’M Dead Weight
> I know the answer.
Yeah, you know its BS which is why you don’t cite anything.
> If you borrow it the multiplier effect is reduced in the future
Right, like as if massive crushing deficits have no effect on the gdp. By the way, that will have to be one hell of a recovery just to pay off what Obama has already spent. If this doesn’t stop and soon, I see a massive default in our future. So we will hand to the next generation an economic disaster.
> I think one can make incorrect predictions without sucking at them.
Either way, at best they don’t know what they are doing and therefore need to stop. I mean hell, they didn’t even know there was this much uncertain. They not only didn’t know what would happen, but they didn’t realize that they didn’t know what would happen. Its one thing to say, “hey, look guys, there are a lot of unknowns here, but this is our best guess.” But that was never how it was presented. They pump out all of these unknowable numbers with absolute certainty and then get all snippy when we point out that they have been wrong.
> What’s fantastic is the cause and effect some people are proposing here.
No, what is a fantasy is the belief that it is a good idea to tinker with the economy when as you admit they don’t know what the effects of their policies will be.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 1/26/2010 @ 12:52 pmGentlemen: Please don’t feed the troll (and I am as guilty of this as you, but I just got back from a meeting of Troll-feeder’s Anonymous, and thought I should try to help you).
AD - RtR/OS! (6c8faf) — 1/26/2010 @ 1:02 pmIndeed, when you’re talking about spending trillions upon trillions, taking over so many vital areas of our lives, and even your most retarded liberal defender admits that they have no idea how to accurately analyze economic impact, the people saying “let’s not do these huge things” wins the debate.
Spending ridiculous sums of money on things that clearly are not fixing the economy to the point where we will be able to pay for that sum is simply a recipe for disaster. No matter if you think it helped some or made things worse (it made things worse), it obviously didn’t do trillions of dollars of good.
When you’re endorsing an incredibly risky and massive effort and you admit you have no idea what the effect is, you should just stop.
A tax holiday on small business with a fifth of the cost of this retarded stimulus would have done a hell of a lot more good.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/26/2010 @ 1:05 pmI’d be a flaming hypocrite to say the same. I think they’ve given up on me to this end. if it’s any consolation, imdw is kinda like Alan Colmes, a ridiculous paroday of the dumb liberal, and a punching bag whose effect is to make people more conservative if they read threads he participates in.
Since this isn’t a propaganda blog, I guess that isn’t a very strong argument for feeding his trolling. I’ve tried to engage him seriously, and call him to account for his radical excesses, and I guess it’s probably very tiresome. I was actually hoping he’d just admit he went too far and apologize, without me prompting it. That’s not going to occur.
one day at a time?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/26/2010 @ 1:12 pm“Yeah, you know its BS which is why you don’t cite anything.”
It’s not like the dude talked to Alan Colmes about being on welfare or anything.
“A tax holiday on small business with a fifth of the cost of this retarded stimulus would have done a hell of a lot more good.”
Why just small business?
“No, what is a fantasy is the belief that it is a good idea to tinker with the economy when as you admit they don’t know what the effects of their policies will be.”
We know the effects of keynesian stimulus. What they didn’t know — or publish — was what the future held.
imdw (8f8ead) — 1/26/2010 @ 1:20 pmIt is just easier to mock and scorn. Iamadickwad has about as much functioning grey matter as a dead water buffalo.
JD (7cdb18) — 1/26/2010 @ 1:21 pmSome horses can be lead to water, but still refuse to drink.
AD - RtR/OS! (6c8faf) — 1/26/2010 @ 1:21 pmOr,
None is so blind as the seeing who refuse to open their eyes.
Imdw is only slightly less of a douchenozzle than Gibbs, Plouffe, and Chad Rogers, el gran dame of douchenozzles.
JD (7cdb18) — 1/26/2010 @ 1:24 pmThis idea of comparing poverty-stricken people to vermin is view that has found great appeal in liberal circles, far more so than conservative circles.
Forced sterilizations, involuntary abortions, death panels via public health care, eugenics, and more are all found in the current administration’s policy-proposals and objectives. For example, Special Advisor for Health Policy Ezekiel J Emanuel justifies these positions here (pdf file).
In conservative circles, human life is sacred. In the case of Mr. Bauer, his choice for analogy can suggest something other than the worthlessness of human beings. More likely he is condemning the culture-of-dependency which encourages long-term poverty. Such notions are more in-line with conservative thought and makes more sense from that context.
His choice of analogy was poor, as it introduced the specter of current liberal thought.
Pons Asinorum (1f16cc) — 1/26/2010 @ 1:50 pm@31 JD — Multiplier effect !!!!! They have really created or saved 9,631,864,847,129 jobs !!! Iamadickwad said we should multiply, so I did.
Yeah, but JD, we need 500,000,000 jobs every month, or did you forget 😉
Pons Asinorum (1f16cc) — 1/26/2010 @ 1:55 pmThat was not in iamadickwad’s mendoucheous talking points and asspulls, Pons. That is why I always say, more Pons, and less asshattery is always a good thing.
JD (70462c) — 1/26/2010 @ 2:00 pm#32 What’s poorly? We can expect something. Why does your innumeracy makes this poor wording?
Comment by imdw
When I read your post at #7 I understood the following meaning:
“I predict that commenters on this site will agree with what Bauer said, showing they are the kind of people who do not care about those who have needs. Howard Dean was right, they don’t care when children go to bed hungry.”
Was that your intended meaning, or did I misunderstand?
(I’m trying to wean myself, AD – RtR/OS. I’d be willing to sign an “Ignore the Troll Pact”)
MD in Philly (d4668b) — 1/26/2010 @ 2:31 pmI read his comments at least twice. The first to make sure there is nothing against blog policy. The second is to visualize it as, “Here fishy, fishy, fishy…”. A third reading might involve treating it as a serious comment, but that hardly ever happens. Ignore him.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 1/26/2010 @ 2:45 pm“When I read your post at #7 I understood the following meaning:”
I get it. What I’m pointing is that this is your problem. That Howard Dean haunts your mind. Not mine.
“Was that your intended meaning, or did I misunderstand?”
Did this not explain it for you?
“If you have a large gathering such as a state fair, we can expect that a child will be lost while the ‘typical’ child will not be lost. Saying that an event can be expected does not mean it is typical. An even more extreme example: we can expect there to be a lottery winner, but winning the lottery is not ‘typical.’”
imdw (00bfab) — 1/26/2010 @ 2:47 pm100% douchenozzle 100% of the time.
JD (e68c1a) — 1/26/2010 @ 2:53 pmMaybe not safe for a politician to say but he is 100% correct. Welare by number of kids breeds more kids, the same as more food available for animals will breed more animals.
Scrapiron (996c34) — 1/26/2010 @ 3:49 pmIn the past Earned income ended at 2 children, now it’s up to 3 with a refund (of money not paid in) of over $11,000. I’ve already read on some of the pages that welfare riders are screaming, here comed my truck. No food, no clothing or better place to live but a truck. Expect a boom in welfare kids this year. Stop biting into the PC apple and wake up, it’s fact.
I will take your advice, Stashiu3. He did have the good sense to not take enough rope to hang himself with, either that or just so entrenched in evasive annoyance that he/she couldn’t answer a straight question even if she/he wanted to.
MD in Philly (d4668b) — 1/26/2010 @ 4:45 pmsounds right to me. I dont see what the hubub is about, but then, I still call “homeless people” BUMS.
rumcrook¾ (4a9bee) — 1/26/2010 @ 5:00 pmI’m Dead Weight
> It’s not like
No citation, liar.
> We know the effects of keynesian stimulus.
Yes, an economy in even worse shape than the worst case scenario…
A.W. (f97997) — 1/26/2010 @ 5:01 pm“No citation, liar.”
See, that’s how easy I make life for you. You could google something, or you could call me a liar.Why would I want to ruin this world of yours?
imdw (017d51) — 1/26/2010 @ 5:16 pmAW, not that you need anyone to let you know, but you explained yourself well. You gave an argument, backed it up, and when you attempted to engage fairly, were snorted at by someone who refuses to compose an argument or answer any challenges for justification.
Obama explained that electing him was the prescription for fixing all this stuff that his crack team of geniuses understood. As you say, they got what they wanted and the results are worse than their worst case scenario.
And we’d need a massive recovery and the greatest boom in our history, just to pay half of the cost of this plan. Looking at the details, and it’s a bunch of great society crap, mostly not making lasting jobs.
You can convince everyone, because some people think it’s fun to be dicks.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/26/2010 @ 5:26 pmThey don’t think it is fun to be dicks, Dustin, they simply are.
JD (0ef0e1) — 1/26/2010 @ 5:33 pmI think it is compensation, JD. Don’t you think?
Eric Blair (0b61b2) — 1/26/2010 @ 5:41 pmJD, you’re probably right. I don’t see how that behavior makes sense in a happy, fun life.
It’s kinda like that person who talked about hobos not getting food because then they breed. There’s obviously some truth in that… if they die or starve or go away, they won’t breed or persist. But that’s not exactly a fun attitude. It’s an ugly attitude.
A more fun, happy person would talk about how to help people, educate people, get people off drugs and off the street. They might not want to handout goodies, but they would deal with the problem in a way that is proactive and not so base.
It’s easy to understand why, even though Bauer’s got a point (as Krusher notes… this breeding comment is the truth), people don’t like this attitude. They don’t want a government that thinks like that. There are better ways to express and think about hobos than ‘if you feed them, they breed’. Even for the hardest core. Many of the liberals here are thoughtful, even if mistaken. Some, however, clearly want to goad the discussion into ugliness. I have guessed as to why a few times, and it never feels right, so maybe JD’s guess, that these people just are what they are is the sad reality.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/26/2010 @ 6:07 pmThat guy was just asking for trouble and, being a politician, should have known better. Eisenhower’s Secretary of Defense, Charlie Wilson got into trouble with a similar comment and that was 50 years ago. Wikipedia has his famous comment about What’s good for General Motors but not the other comment that compared poor people to his hunting dog that would keep coming back for more handouts. Same idea.
Of course, nobody will ever top Early Butz’ classic faux pas joke that drove him out of the cabinet. He told it privately to a couple of reporters but somebody had to really be stupid, like this lt gov, to tell jokes like that. The link says 1976 but I’m sure it was well before that in the 50s.
Somebody even made an album title of it.
Mike K (2cf494) — 1/26/2010 @ 6:10 pmMike, I love the Lubbock AJ’s handling of the Butz joke. It’s a dumb joke, though. Not just because it’s racist, but it’s just being ugly for ugliness’s sake.
Not surprised that fella wound up working for Uncle Sugar.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/26/2010 @ 6:23 pmDustin
> You can[‘t] convince everyone, because some people think it’s fun to be dicks.
Its a good thing i am dyslexic and therefore fluent in typo. i would have gotten completely the wrong message. 😉
A.W. (f97997) — 1/26/2010 @ 8:03 pmLOL, exactly. I actually thought I submitted a comment pointing out this typo, but I don’t see it.
I am not a very good self-editor.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/26/2010 @ 8:11 pm[…] Killer Chic, Hollywood’s Sick Love Affair with Che Guevara Patterico’s Pontifications: Making Mark Sanford Look Good Arlenearmy’s Blog: Who are the Members of the Congressional Black Caucus? Fire Andrea […]
Bill O’Reilly: Is Barack Obama a Socialist? (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 2/23/2010 @ 8:34 am