Dem contradiction?

[Cancel 2016.2]

http://townhall.com/Columnists/MichaelMedved/2008/08/28/the_big_contradiction_from_the_denver_dems

I know the disciples of the One will immediately dismiss this entire article because they don't like the author... hell they probably won't even read it.

But it does bring up a good point for discussion for the moderate Dems and the rest of the board.

"Unfortunately, none of these convention speakers took the opportunity to remind their national TV audience that middle class and working class Americans could still replicate such impressive achievements – even after eight years of Bush.

Rather than encouraging the public to pursue timely dreams and apply timeless values with full confidence of success, the Denver Dems seemed to say that we made it, but you can’t --- unless you elect us and we provide government help.

Amazingly enough, in recounting their own stories of advancement and achievement, none of the speakers cited bureaucratic intervention or federal assistance as an element of success. Instead, they repeatedly invoked strong personal values – strong families, self-discipline, tireless effort, sacrifice – as the sole key to economic and educational progress.

If those values worked for the top Democrats themselves, why can’t they work for Americans everywhere? "

More at link....

 

[Topspin]

your joking right, your asking for economic realism from a board full of turbo-libs without 3 economics classes between dozens of them. How about giving them credit for the ten minutes of economics training they got from moveon.com!!!

 

[Onceler]

"Amazingly enough, in recounting their own stories of advancement and achievement, none of the speakers cited bureaucratic intervention or federal assistance as an element of success. Instead, they repeatedly invoked strong personal values – strong families, self-discipline, tireless effort, sacrifice – as the sole key to economic and educational progress. "

Actually, it's not that amazing if you don't buy into the rightie stereotype of most liberals hook, line and sinker.

I never saw gov't programs as a substitute for good values, hard work & sacrifice. I don't think you can succeed without those qualities. I always saw gov't programs as important to helping people when they happen to fall through the cracks, or be down on their luck - but as nothing more than a boost to get them started back on the right path.

The characterization above plays to the misconception that all liberals simply believe in "handouts" and supporting people for life. That's not what the intent of the programs is, though there are surely people who take advanatage of that. For every one of those, I think it would be easy to find someone who just used something like welfare or unemployment benefits for a short time, and then succeeded by their own effort.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

"Amazingly enough, in recounting their own stories of advancement and achievement, none of the speakers cited bureaucratic intervention or federal assistance as an element of success. Instead, they repeatedly invoked strong personal values – strong families, self-discipline, tireless effort, sacrifice – as the sole key to economic and educational progress. "

Actually, it's not that amazing if you don't buy into the rightie stereotype of most liberals hook, line and sinker.

I never saw gov't programs as a substitute for good values, hard work & sacrifice. I don't think you can succeed without those qualities. I always saw gov't programs as important to helping people when they happen to fall through the cracks, or be down on their luck - but as nothing more than a boost to get them started back on the right path.

The characterization above plays to the misconception that all liberals simply believe in "handouts" and supporting people for life. That's not what the intent of the programs is, though there are surely people who take advanatage of that. For every one of those, I think it would be easy to find someone who just used something like welfare or unemployment benefits for a short time, and then succeeded by their own effort.

I would agree that you could certainly find individuals that have used government assistance at some point that have rebounded into a success. I am not advocating eliminating government assistance.

That said, I don't think the article was suggesting that Dems want to support people for life. I think it is suggesting that the Dems through their speeches here in Denver have been implying/suggesting that it isn't possible to succeed anymore unless they get elected to "fix" things. Which is the contradiction that they do appear to be putting forth.

I do appreciate your response rather than simply dismissing the article.

 

[Bonestorm]

I would agree that you could certainly find individuals that have used government assistance at some point that have rebounded into a success. I am not advocating eliminating government assistance.

That said, I don't think the article was suggesting that Dems want to support people for life. I think it is suggesting that the Dems through their speeches here in Denver have been implying/suggesting that it isn't possible to succeed anymore unless they get elected to "fix" things. Which is the contradiction that they do appear to be putting forth.

I do appreciate your response rather than simply dismissing the article.

Sorry, I don't see the contradiction. You're trying too hard.

Oh, and I think its been pointed out the Obama's mother was on food stamps at one point in his childhood.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Sorry, I don't see the contradiction. You're trying too hard.

Oh, and I think its been pointed out the Obama's mother was on food stamps at one point in his childhood.

What part of HERE at the convention did you not comprehend?

 

[Bonestorm]

What part of HERE at the convention did you not comprehend?

Fair enough. I though Michele mentioned it in her speech. I was wrong.

In any event, is John McCain going to mention that he has suckled at the teet of the federal government for his entire adult life?

When he mentions his health care plan and relying on the private sector is he going to mention that the government provides him health insurance and has since the 1980s and that it has worked out just fine?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Fair enough. I though Michele mentioned it in her speech. I was wrong.

In any event, is John McCain going to mention that he has suckled at the teet of the federal government for his entire adult life?

When he mentions his health care plan and relying on the private sector is he going to mention that the government provides him health insurance and has since the 1980s and that it has worked out just fine?

1) Suckled at the teet???? If you mean by serving in the armed forces, then you are an idiot. They earn every dime they get. If you mean his years as a politician, then I agree with you to a good extent.

2) We'll see if Obama brings it up first.... but somehow I doubt either of them will bring their cushy little healthcare plan.

3) You would think that someone would mention an example of the government giving person 'x' (either themselves or someone they know) a hand up and that is what allowed person 'x' to get where they are today.

 

[Bonestorm]

1) Suckled at the teet???? If you mean by serving in the armed forces, then you are an idiot. They earn every dime they get. If you mean his years as a politician, then I agree with you to a good extent.

2) We'll see if Obama brings it up first.... but somehow I doubt either of them will bring their cushy little healthcare plan.

3) You would think that someone would mention an example of the government giving person 'x' (either themselves or someone they know) a hand up and that is what allowed person 'x' to get where they are today.

1) Yes, I know that John McCain, a former prisoner of war, served in the armed forces. You don't need to bring it up all the time. I was simply referring to the fact that John McCain has never held a private sector job in his lifetime. After retiring from the Navy he ran for Congress, got elected in 1982 and has served in the Congress from 1983 onwards. He has suckled from the teet of the government for his entire adult life. If his entire adult life ended in 1981, I suppose you could construe my comment as referring only to his military service.

2) The issue isn't whether the candidates bring up their healthcare plan. The issue is that you want to claim that the Democrats are being contradictory. I'm merely putting the shoe on the other foot. Of particular relevance is John McCain's contradiction that the government isn't suitable to run healthcare all while he has received government provided healthcare his entire adult life.

 

[Epicurus]

As far as real world experience goes, both are fairly worthless.

They have two years combined private work experience, for the rest of that time they have suckled the government teat.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

1) Yes, I know that John McCain, a former prisoner of war, served in the armed forces. You don't need to bring it up all the time. I was simply referring to the fact that John McCain has never held a private sector job in his lifetime. After retiring from the Navy he ran for Congress, got elected in 1982 and has served in the Congress from 1983 onwards. He has suckled from the teet of the government for his entire adult life. If his entire adult life ended in 1981, I suppose you could construe my comment as referring only to his military service.

2) The issue isn't whether the candidates bring up their healthcare plan. The issue is that you want to claim that the Democrats are being contradictory. I'm merely putting the shoe on the other foot. Of particular relevance is John McCain's contradiction that the government isn't suitable to run healthcare all while he has received government provided healthcare his entire adult life.

1) I brought it up because acting like anyone in the military is sucking at the government teet is not only disingenious it is rather insulting to those that serve. Because unlike many who DO suck at the government teet their whole lives... the military men and women earn every damn cent. The government sucks from them, not the other way around.

2) A valid point. I was not looking at it from that perspective. I would agree that it is contradictory.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

As far as real world experience goes, both are fairly worthless.

They have two years combined private work experience, for the rest of that time they have suckled the government teat.

LMAO... you think serving in the military for 20 plus years is "sucking at the government teet"????

If so, then you are a idiot for thinking that way.

I agree to a good extent on his time after serving though.

 

[Epicurus]

It's public service rather than private enterprise, no matter how you try to spin it.

Each have their advantages, but I would be more comfortable if they were better balanced.

 

[Bonestorm]

It's public service rather than private enterprise, no matter how you try to spin it.

Each have their advantages, but I would be more comfortable if they were better balanced.

Obama had private sector experience prior to law school and after law school worked as an attorney. As is the case in most states and for most state senators, being an Illinois state senator is not a full time job.

 

[Epicurus]

I think Obama's better experienced in the workforce between the two, but neither of them are a Mark Warner or a Mitt Romney.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

It's public service rather than private enterprise, no matter how you try to spin it.

Each have their advantages, but I would be more comfortable if they were better balanced.

I understand it is public service, but again, to act as though the military personell are "sucking at the government teet" is demeaning and unjustified. Just as it is for most government workers. IF they are working, then they EARN what they get. Unlike those that DO suck at the government teet and do little if anything in return. Like politicians.

 

[Epicurus]

I understand it is public service, but again, to act as though the military personell are "sucking at the government teet" is demeaning and unjustified. Just as it is for most government workers. IF they are working, then they EARN what they get. Unlike those that DO suck at the government teet and do little if anything in return. Like politicians.

SF do everyone a favor and please chill the fuck out.

Both candidates have spent most of their life in the public sector. This is all I mean.

Now take your medicine.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

SF do everyone a favor and please chill the fuck out.

Both candidates have spent most of their life in the public sector. This is all I mean.

Now take your medicine.

Ok emo boy...

If you don't want to be corrected, then don't spit out ignorant little demeaning statements. Had you stated that they both worked primarily/entirely in the public sector then the worst you would have received is a captain obvious award.

 

[Epicurus]

Ok emo boy...

If you don't want to be corrected, then don't spit out ignorant little demeaning statements. Had you stated that they both worked primarily/entirely in the public sector then the worst you would have received is a captain obvious award.

Listen bitch, unless you are going to try and convince me that the military or the Congress are private sector work experience, I think we are done here.

You made this a lot worse on yourself than you needed to.

P.S. WM is the Emo-Boy. I'm the boy who would rob you blind if I saw you in an alley at night. So let's manage our insults appropriately.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Listen bitch, unless you are going to try and convince me that the military or the Congress are private sector work experience, I think we are done here.

You made this a lot worse on yourself than you needed to.

P.S. WM is the Emo-Boy. I'm the boy who would rob you blind if I saw you in an alley at night. So let's manage our insults appropriately.

Ok emo girl...

your first statement, the one I corrected... stated that both sucked off the government teet their entire lives. As I stated, but your poor little emo spooging kept you from comprehending... it is insulting to suggest that military service is equitable to sucking at the government teet.

The phrase idicates that you are taking money from government programs or taking from the government without giving anything in return.

you comprehend that now you poor little emo dumbass???