If Golgo 13 was in charge of anything it would be a disaster because every press meeting would be him going ". . . ." and then leaving to fuck a badly drawn 80's woman.
"Of course I was being humorous when I said that. It would be absurd to think it was anything else," Bachmann said Monday...
I think she should just start using that line constantly.
Conservative types do this often when they are challenged on some outrageous statement. They say "Oh, I was trying to be humorous", or "Oh, I was trying to be satirical".
This is Limbaugh's main argument to defend any statement he makes.
Conservative types do this often when they are challenged on some outrageous statement. They say "Oh, I was trying to be humorous", or "Oh, I was trying to be satirical".
This is Limbaugh's main argument to defend any statement he makes.
Interestingly, I think it's something they've picked up from their interpretation of the Left. Humor from the Left, such as the Daily show and the like, they will see as a personal attack. But it always gets excused because it's "Just Satire" or "Just a joke" - so why not try it themselves to get out trouble when they do something people don't like?
Conservative types do this often when they are challenged on some outrageous statement. They say "Oh, I was trying to be humorous", or "Oh, I was trying to be satirical".
I will admit I kind of raged when I saw her on TV.
Yes, Bachmann... instead of minutely raising taxes on the population that can afford it, we should let disaster victims fend for themselves. If it weren't for your kids, I'd be wishing for you to lose everything in a natural disaster. NO GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE FOR YOU!
Yes, Bachmann... instead of minutely raising taxes on the population that can afford it, we should let disaster victims fend for themselves. If it weren't for your kids, I'd be wishing for you to lose everything in a natural disaster. NO GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE FOR YOU!
Some of my friends and I were talking about hurricanes and such, and brought up how people reacted when Hugo hit Charleston really hard (a friend was living downtown in a very heavily hit area when that happened). Before the storm - small government less taxes blah blah blah. After the storm - Where the hell is FEMA? When is the National Guard getting here? etc.
Some of my friends and I were talking about hurricanes and such, and brought up how people reacted when Hugo hit Charleston really hard (a friend was living downtown in a very heavily hit area when that happened). Before the storm - small government less taxes blah blah blah. After the storm - Where the hell is FEMA? When is the National Guard getting here? etc.
Yeap, no one cares about preventative maintenance, think about this. We only care about the people who save the people after the disaster, we don't give any respect to the regulators and engineers that probably lessened the impact and saved more lives then the first responders in total.
I mean when does an engineer get tail at a bar bragging his new fitting saved thousands of lives.
Yes, Bachmann... instead of minutely raising taxes on the population that can afford it, we should let disaster victims fend for themselves. If it weren't for your kids, I'd be wishing for you to lose everything in a natural disaster. NO GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE FOR YOU!
Some of my friends and I were talking about hurricanes and such, and brought up how people reacted when Hugo hit Charleston really hard (a friend was living downtown in a very heavily hit area when that happened). Before the storm - small government less taxes blah blah blah. After the storm - Where the hell is FEMA? When is the National Guard getting here? etc.
Well, that's the sort of thing they've been selling for a couple of decades - self-reliance and self-responsibility. This sounds great in a good economy when unemployment is relatively low, everyone is pretty well satisfied, and there are no major crises - "Yeah, why should I pay to help someone on the other side of the country? They should have made better choices about where to live, what job to get, what house to buy, etc. I made all the right choices. Why can't everyone be more self-reliant and self-sufficient like me, a person definitely destined to be a Randian hero?" I think that this might have been intensified by the self-esteem crowd telling people that they were unconditionally great all the time. I never, ever, even imagined in my wildest dreams that I could be a Randian hero, because we weren't brought up that way. We were brought up more along the lines of "Shut up, kid. No one wants to listen to you. Know your place.", i.e. with a markedly non-self-esteem awareness.
I think the attraction of government safety nets are all the more appealing to a preparedness-minded person who thinks more along the lines of, "I might be doing okay right now, but I can't predict the future, so I never know when I might have to face a natural disaster, a bad economy that lays me off my job, an expensive, unpredictable medical ailment/emergency that might lead to unemployment, or half a dozen other things, so I'm glad I can count on the government to help when I need it."
I mean when does an engineer get tail at a bar bragging his new fitting saved thousands of lives.
I'd like to think always.
I think the attraction of government safety nets are all the more appealing to a preparedness-minded person who thinks more along the lines of, "I might be doing okay right now, but I can't predict the future, so I never know when I might have to face a natural disaster, a bad economy that lays me off my job, an expensive, unpredictable medical ailment/emergency that might lead to unemployment, or half a dozen other things, so I'm glad I can count on the government to help when I need it."
To me, this speaks to the need to critically analyze your situation and the role of government. Many people seem to not think outside of their current situation, so to them the biggest complaints are that they see income tax and social security withheld from their paychecks. Therefore, this is the problem and if they had that money things would be better spent by them (ideally on a flat screen TV or bucket of KFC). They don't think that if their circumstances change, they'll want the sort of programs that only government can effectively provide (wide-scale disaster relief and rebuilding, security, assistance with unemployment).
There also seems to be this prevailing thought that welfare is simply abused or that having a "safety net" provided by the government encourages laziness. Granted, I don't see the dregs of society on a daily basis but I'm wondering if this is actually true. If so, wouldn't the answer be more effective oversight of these programs? Not less programs?
The welfare queen myth is just that, a myth, caused by prevailed assholes who think that owning a cell phone or a computer (aka, thing basically necessary for navigating the modern world or holding a job) means you are well-off enough to not worry about food or shelter.
The welfare queen myth is just that, a myth, caused by prevailed assholes who think that owning a cell phone or a computer (aka, thing basically necessary for navigating the modern world or holding a job) means you are well-off enough to not worry about food or shelter.
Well, actually... The welfare queen is not a complete myth. When I was young, there was a house on my block where some of our neighbors lived. They moved. Then some people on welfare moved into the house that nobody talked to. They installed an above-ground pool, had fancy cars, etc. But I guess the welfare enforcement worked because they weren't there for very long.
The welfare queen myth is just that, a myth, caused by prevailed assholes who think that owning a cell phone or a computer (aka, thing basically necessary for navigating the modern world or holding a job) means you are well-off enough to not worry about food or shelter.
Well, actually... The welfare queen is not a complete myth. When I was young, there was a house on my block where some of our neighbors lived. They moved. Then some people on welfare moved into the house that nobody talked to. They installed an above-ground pool, had fancy cars, etc. But I guess the welfare enforcement worked because they weren't there for very long.
Let's punish 6 million people because 200 abuse the system.
There are people who will abuse any system you make. But they are for the most part a small group.
Let's punish 6 million people because 200 abuse the system. There are people who will abuse any system you make. But they are for the most part a small group.
Do you have research to back up these statements? I understand that these are likely out-the-ass numbers, but I'd really like to see real ones. How do we know that 40 percent of welfare recipients aren't somehow abusing the system? How do we know the number isn't 10 percent or 80 percent?
I can tell you from personal experience that I tend to pay attention at the grocery store whenever someone uses their welfare card. From my admitted flawed observations, I usually see great amounts of waste in their carts -- a much, much higher proportion of wasteful spending than I allow in my household.
I am not arguing against welfare. My own family struggled when I was a young child, and I'm not ashamed to admit we used the system to get by. However, shouldn't the point of welfare be habilitation? Personally, I would like to see some element of counseling come into play.
If Golgo 13 was in charge of anything it would be a disaster because every press meeting would be him going ". . . ." and then leaving to fuck a badly drawn 80's woman.
I'd vote for him. At least I know exactly what I'll be getting.
I am not arguing against welfare. My own family struggled when I was a young child, and I'm not ashamed to admit we used the system to get by. However, shouldn't the point of welfare be habilitation? Personally, I would like to see some element of counseling come into play.
Awesome! No one should be ashamed of having to use social programs responsibly, no more than you'd be ashamed to call the Fire Department because you can't put out a structural fire yourself, or have to buy insurance because you can't afford to rebuild your house if a tree falls on it in a hurricane (I can just hear the pundits... "If you can't afford to rebuild your house in case of a natural disaster, DON'T LIVE IN A STATE THAT HAS DISASTERS or... DON'T BUY A HOUSE!").
Also, I think there is some form of counseling that is supposed to come into play. But like a lot of social works programs (the only experience I have is in interacting with social workers from the Department of Social Services), the social workers are incredibly overworked and under payed, so they burn out quickly and can never give people the attention they need.
Let's punish 6 million people because 200 abuse the system. There are people who will abuse any system you make. But they are for the most part a small group.
Do you have research to back up these statements? I understand that these are likely out-the-ass numbers, but I'd really like to see real ones. How do we know that 40 percent of welfare recipients aren't somehow abusing the system? How do we know the number isn't 10 percent or 80 percent?
I can tell you from personal experience that I tend to pay attention at the grocery store whenever someone uses their welfare card. From my admitted flawed observations, I usually see great amounts of waste in their carts -- a much, much higher proportion of wasteful spending than I allow in my household.
I am not arguing against welfare. My own family struggled when I was a young child, and I'm not ashamed to admit we used the system to get by. However, shouldn't the point of welfare be habilitation? Personally, I would like to see some element of counseling come into play.
I don't know, but until I see some numbers I will vote to err on the side of compassion.
Comments
Also Secretary of Intelligence, Foreign Relations, and "Foreign Relations."
She is full of love for lolz.
My favorite line from the entire article is this:
"Of course I was being humorous when I said that. It would be absurd to think it was anything else," Bachmann said Monday...
I think she should just start using that line constantly.
This is Limbaugh's main argument to defend any statement he makes.
Yes, Bachmann... instead of minutely raising taxes on the population that can afford it, we should let disaster victims fend for themselves. If it weren't for your kids, I'd be wishing for you to lose everything in a natural disaster. NO GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE FOR YOU!
I mean when does an engineer get tail at a bar bragging his new fitting saved thousands of lives.
I think the attraction of government safety nets are all the more appealing to a preparedness-minded person who thinks more along the lines of, "I might be doing okay right now, but I can't predict the future, so I never know when I might have to face a natural disaster, a bad economy that lays me off my job, an expensive, unpredictable medical ailment/emergency that might lead to unemployment, or half a dozen other things, so I'm glad I can count on the government to help when I need it."
Interesting article somewhat related to this very thing.
There also seems to be this prevailing thought that welfare is simply abused or that having a "safety net" provided by the government encourages laziness. Granted, I don't see the dregs of society on a daily basis but I'm wondering if this is actually true. If so, wouldn't the answer be more effective oversight of these programs? Not less programs?
There are people who will abuse any system you make. But they are for the most part a small group.
I can tell you from personal experience that I tend to pay attention at the grocery store whenever someone uses their welfare card. From my admitted flawed observations, I usually see great amounts of waste in their carts -- a much, much higher proportion of wasteful spending than I allow in my household.
I am not arguing against welfare. My own family struggled when I was a young child, and I'm not ashamed to admit we used the system to get by. However, shouldn't the point of welfare be habilitation? Personally, I would like to see some element of counseling come into play.
Also, I think there is some form of counseling that is supposed to come into play. But like a lot of social works programs (the only experience I have is in interacting with social workers from the Department of Social Services), the social workers are incredibly overworked and under payed, so they burn out quickly and can never give people the attention they need.