Is he really that out of touch with reality or is that just a one time flub of idiocy?
Please enlighten me - how does this statement indicate that he's out of touch with reality and/or an idiot?
Aiming to please the smaller part of the population seems like a good way to win the GOP and lose the Presidential race.
It's a thinly veiled statement that only those who have the best footing in life should ever have anything. What happens to that child born with a disfiguring disability? He can't earn his "merits" he doesn't deserve his health care? What about the family that lost their main source of income in a jobless part of the Country? He doesn't deserve help to get back on his feet and feed his family because he's not earing his "merits" anymore.
Let me shoot you in the face and then you can tell me how it was totally fair for that to happen to you, because obviously we live in a fair world where everyone gets what they deserve, so it's your own fault for not working hard enough at avoiding bullets...
Yeah, i'm sure she wasn't taking it in the context of all the other things he said that are in the article she linked...
Hey, stop being so fast dammit...
No problem, I'm glad you can admit to being wrong by being sarcastic.
Thank you for that, I'm glad to know the entire movement was pointless and baseless. The large population of those people feeling wronged I'm sure will vote for Romney. /sarcasm
So tell me Gas, why have you chosen to be so lazy that you're not rich enough that spending time on an internet forum is beneath you???
Yeah, because "You're not rich, you must be lazy"and "Poor people are just envious of the rich" are the same thing as "If you work hard then you should be rewarded"...
Not that that's in any way what he said, but putting it aside, then what are you worrying about? If his views are SOOooo anathema to "the majority of the country" then you've got nothing to fear. Right?
What, are only poor people allowed to post on forums? How lazy I choose to be is none of your concern, so long as I'm not demanding you subsidize my life.
The poor people ARE envious of the rich. And that's understandable, it's human. We've seen envy on parade for the last year. And, as a matter of fact, before 2008, abarring tragic acts of nature or a vengeful god, you pretty much DID have to be lazy (or consciously make REALLY BAD CHOICES like the ones I outlined) to be in poverty. There was under 5% unemployment and the workforce took up a much higher percentage of the populace. Student loans and grants were slung about like money was no object, the only excuse for not bettering yourself was mental or physical handicap. But we went on orgiastic binges of caligulan proportions and graduated with french poetry degrees and no concept of (or desire to learn how) to balance a household budget. Before the recession, we had the highest level of income mobility ever seen in any nation, ever.
I'm not saying he's a shoo-in, but you're fooling yourself if you think republicans won't hold their nose and vote for whoever is on the ballot with an R next to his name this time around. I don't think they have the stomach to stay home anymore, like they did in 08. The race should actually be very close, and I anticipate it will be decided by whatever happens in october. Everything up till then is largely forgettable.
No, it's just that i'm pretty sure that, statistically speaking, the top 1% aren't... and certainly not on what started as a webcomic forum.
Yeah, thought so...
Yeah, because having a job and being poor are mutually exclusive...
I can't take a party seriously who says they want to get everyone off welfare and at the same time wants to get rid of the minimum wage. If anything, you want to convince people to work (if they can find it, remember that unemployment problem?) by raising the minimum wage.
There, all better now...
Raising the minimum wage means employers can afford to hire less people. I mean, hell, by your reasoning we could just set the minimum wage to 20 dollars/hour and every poverty problem is solved.
There, all better now.
That's not what I said. Thanks for dismissing my comment with hyperbole and a ridiculous notion.
Need i even say anything?
Life is not a zero sum game. The fact that I can feed my family of 8 doesn't mean that there are 8 people who can't eat, and that if I stopped feeding my family they would magically be fed.
You're confusing Envy with wanting equality. I'm not sure how you'd make such an easy mistake.
I'm going to completely oblierate this idiocy once and for all, I'll start with you.
Oh and bullshit here again. I've seen poor people living in aluminum roofed housing, falling apart, with next to nothing to eat and no hope for a future without massive government aid. But according to you, it's because they're lazy. My bad.
What you said (the assertion that raising the minimum wage makes people want to work) is directly contributory toward higher unemployment. My "ridiculous hyperbole" was the extension of the thought process behind minimum wage to its logical conclusion.
Sounds like loser talk to me.
And that's how you can tell it's a hypothetical meant to illustrate a point... nothing is really a strict zero sum game irl.
Well of course not, because they'll either sell it to someone else or throw it away, because giving it to poor people would undermine it's value... see throwing away milk during the great depression...
Yeah, anti-intellectualism does seem to go hand in hand with your kind of philosophy in the US, which is kinda weird to me, as you'd think being smart would be something that would help with "education, hard work and risk taking", and thus would be a good thing...
This is why we can't have nice things. You say " by your reasoning we could just set the minimum wage to 20 dollars/hour and every poverty problem is solved.", and I find that a ridiculous notion that I never posited. It's a failure in discussion, and it is your burden to carry.
I find it humorous that your opening statement starts with a huge logical fallacy - implying that if you disprove the bible then you have disproved the existence of a god. But let's continue.
Equality of the kind desired by the less successful - IE, one in which everyone is comfortably well off regardless of skill, talent or effort- is a myth. It has never existed and never will. It is actually a fairly novel concept that the lowest classes of society can actually move into higher brackets at all, and the US has shown the best opportunities for this to happen. Does it always work out for everyone? Of course not. But it's the best that has yet been made.
FTFY.
Uh huh.
Absolutely none of that is what Romney said. You're tilting at windmills, and for that matter, Romney wouldn't know a windmill if it fell on him.
I don't know the individual stories of all these "people" you've "seen." I've seen poor people too, they exist and they will always exist no matter how much money you throw down this rathole. We've spent around 8 trillion dollars in the "war on poverty" with no appreciable results. You'd think 8 trillion dollars would get us somewhere, wouldn't it? Maybe your exemplary "poor people" suffered the exceptional tragedies I spoke of earlier. Maybe not. It doesn't matter, actually. The truth of the matter is you cannot eliminate poverty through government spending no matter how much you want it to.
When did I say that?
