Callous Conservatism and bigotry on steroids

[TNHarley]

arent you in your 70s? How do lack such basic amounts of awareness?
For all you know, those guys could be fucking crackheads. Get off your high horse.

Nope...a crack head would sell the phone for a high. And even if they were, my high horse would encourage treatment not derision.

There you go assuming but no one else can. You are just as stupid as Wry

Though almost anything is possible, few things are. We don't have enough information about the homeless man to know what is extant about him and his situation.

That is exactly my point. The people screaming from both sides are just trying to politicize it for points.

Well, as he's no longer a Congressman, there's little point in making Chafetz the object of a politicization attempt; however, Chafetz's comment about the homeless guy is caddishly reprehensible. Chafetz thus deserves to be rebuked for having made it. That has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with basic human decency.

FWIW, had Chafetz constrained his remarks to the abstract pronouncement about some destitute individuals' proclivity for making imprudent expenditures, he'd deserve no chiding, but Chafetz exercised no such restraint. On the contrary, Chafetz impertinently singled out a specific individual, with a photo no less. Furthermore, Chafetz added insult to injury as he attempted to bolster his earlier admonition's (the condign one that had Chafetz stopped there, there'd be no basis for rebuking him) legitimacy by atomistically implying that one can soundly extrapolate the incidence of homeless man he pictured indicates the phenomenon of destitute and ostensibly mendicant vagrants spending hundreds on iPhones (smartphones) is pervasive enough to be material.

Can any of us happen upon a vagabond who has a "fancy" trinket or two? I'm sure we can. Be that as it may, one visit to a homeless shelter will to anyone reveal that homeless people are not awash in dear geegaws and gizmos they purchased.

Lastly, its unconscionable in my mind that one such as Chafetz would of the simple pleasure of base entertainment begrudge and make example of an unshod man who clearly also has neither roof o'er his head nor shirt on his back.

Bush still gets used to this day...
Those people could have been in the streets because they failed to pay rent by going out on a drunk binder. They would deserve EVERY mockery America can dish out.
Also, they could be ill, got thrown out of their home for some outlandish reasons or whatever. All judgement should cease. We have no idea of their story.
I understand he shouldnt have said it, but the whole premise of the OP shouldnt have been stated either. Especially the way that hack put it.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Nope...a crack head would sell the phone for a high. And even if they were, my high horse would encourage treatment not derision.

There you go assuming but no one else can. You are just as stupid as Wry

Though almost anything is possible, few things are. We don't have enough information about the homeless man to know what is extant about him and his situation.

That is exactly my point. The people screaming from both sides are just trying to politicize it for points.

Well, as he's no longer a Congressman, there's little point in making Chafetz the object of a politicization attempt; however, Chafetz's comment about the homeless guy is caddishly reprehensible. Chafetz thus deserves to be rebuked for having made it. That has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with basic human decency.

FWIW, had Chafetz constrained his remarks to the abstract pronouncement about some destitute individuals' proclivity for making imprudent expenditures, he'd deserve no chiding, but Chafetz exercised no such restraint. On the contrary, Chafetz impertinently singled out a specific individual, with a photo no less. Furthermore, Chafetz added insult to injury as he attempted to bolster his earlier admonition's (the condign one that had Chafetz stopped there, there'd be no basis for rebuking him) legitimacy by atomistically implying that one can soundly extrapolate the incidence of homeless man he pictured indicates the phenomenon of destitute and ostensibly mendicant vagrants spending hundreds on iPhones (smartphones) is pervasive enough to be material.

Can any of us happen upon a vagabond who has a "fancy" trinket or two? I'm sure we can. Be that as it may, one visit to a homeless shelter will to anyone reveal that homeless people are not awash in dear geegaws and gizmos they purchased.

Lastly, its unconscionable in my mind that one such as Chafetz would of the simple pleasure of base entertainment begrudge and make example of an unshod man who clearly also has neither roof o'er his head nor shirt on his back.

Bush still gets used to this day...
Those people could have been in the streets because they failed to pay rent by going out on a drunk binder. They would deserve EVERY mockery America can dish out.
Also, they could be ill, got thrown out of their home for some outlandish reasons or whatever. All judgement should cease. We have no idea of their story.
I understand he shouldnt have said it, but the whole premise of the OP shouldnt have been stated either. Especially the way that hack put it.

Bush still gets used to this day...

What? Why have you mentioned Bush? I didn't say anything about Bush. The OP or nothing else about the thread theme is about Bush. I realize that to many USMB members it's seemingly anathema to post direct and on-topic remarks. I'm not among them.

I understand he shouldnt have said it

Yes. I understood from your earlier remarks that we agree on this point.

the whole premise of the OP shouldnt have been stated either.

Perhaps...I'd have to review the OP to know whether I concur with you on this point. To the extent the OP-er applied ecological reasoning in forming the OP's conclusions/inferences, I'll readily grant that s/he overextended her-/himself.

The problem, however, and thus what gives a modicum of legitimacy to the OP's theme, is that the current leader of the conservative faction in the U.S., like Chafetz with his remark about the homeless guy, is given to belittling of and presumptuousness without regard to whether the object of his derision is a "lesser" mortal. That is a problem insofar as many, many people follow the example of and/or take their imprimatur from their political and cultural leaders; where goeth the leader, so goeth the flock. Whether be Chafetz following or leading, I don't know, but I doubt it matters as the supreme leader of conservatives behaves as he does.

 

[Nosmo King]

It seems that the callous Conservatives see the world in a binary state. If you're destitute, it's your fault. If you're Muslim, you're dangerous. If you're a woman, you should not have reproductive rights. If you're Gay, you're mentally ill. If you criticize the huckster buffoon in the White House, you're a traitor.

 

[TNHarley]

There you go assuming but no one else can. You are just as stupid as Wry

Though almost anything is possible, few things are. We don't have enough information about the homeless man to know what is extant about him and his situation.

That is exactly my point. The people screaming from both sides are just trying to politicize it for points.

Well, as he's no longer a Congressman, there's little point in making Chafetz the object of a politicization attempt; however, Chafetz's comment about the homeless guy is caddishly reprehensible. Chafetz thus deserves to be rebuked for having made it. That has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with basic human decency.

FWIW, had Chafetz constrained his remarks to the abstract pronouncement about some destitute individuals' proclivity for making imprudent expenditures, he'd deserve no chiding, but Chafetz exercised no such restraint. On the contrary, Chafetz impertinently singled out a specific individual, with a photo no less. Furthermore, Chafetz added insult to injury as he attempted to bolster his earlier admonition's (the condign one that had Chafetz stopped there, there'd be no basis for rebuking him) legitimacy by atomistically implying that one can soundly extrapolate the incidence of homeless man he pictured indicates the phenomenon of destitute and ostensibly mendicant vagrants spending hundreds on iPhones (smartphones) is pervasive enough to be material.

Can any of us happen upon a vagabond who has a "fancy" trinket or two? I'm sure we can. Be that as it may, one visit to a homeless shelter will to anyone reveal that homeless people are not awash in dear geegaws and gizmos they purchased.

Lastly, its unconscionable in my mind that one such as Chafetz would of the simple pleasure of base entertainment begrudge and make example of an unshod man who clearly also has neither roof o'er his head nor shirt on his back.

Bush still gets used to this day...
Those people could have been in the streets because they failed to pay rent by going out on a drunk binder. They would deserve EVERY mockery America can dish out.
Also, they could be ill, got thrown out of their home for some outlandish reasons or whatever. All judgement should cease. We have no idea of their story.
I understand he shouldnt have said it, but the whole premise of the OP shouldnt have been stated either. Especially the way that hack put it.

Bush still gets used to this day...

What? Why have you mentioned Bush? I didn't say anything about Bush. The OP or nothing else about the thread theme is about Bush. I realize that to many USMB members it's seemingly anathema to post direct and on-topic remarks. I'm not among them.

I understand he shouldnt have said it

Yes. I understood from your earlier remarks that we agree on this point.

the whole premise of the OP shouldnt have been stated either.

Perhaps...I'd have to review the OP to know whether I concur with you on this point. To the extent the OP-er applied ecological reasoning in forming the OP's conclusions/inferences, I'll readily grant that s/he overextended her-/himself.

The problem, however, and thus what gives a modicum of legitimacy to the OP's theme, is that the current leader of the conservative faction in the U.S., like Chafetz with his remark about the homeless guy, is given to belittling of and presumptuousness without regard to whether the object of his derision is a "lesser" mortal. That is a problem insofar as many, many people follow the example of and/or take their imprimatur from their political and cultural leaders; where goeth the leader, so goeth the flock. Whether be Chafetz following or leading, I don't know, but I doubt it matters as the supreme leader of conservatives behaves as he does.

I mentioned bush because you said Chafetz wasnt in politics anymore.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Though almost anything is possible, few things are. We don't have enough information about the homeless man to know what is extant about him and his situation.

That is exactly my point. The people screaming from both sides are just trying to politicize it for points.

Well, as he's no longer a Congressman, there's little point in making Chafetz the object of a politicization attempt; however, Chafetz's comment about the homeless guy is caddishly reprehensible. Chafetz thus deserves to be rebuked for having made it. That has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with basic human decency.

FWIW, had Chafetz constrained his remarks to the abstract pronouncement about some destitute individuals' proclivity for making imprudent expenditures, he'd deserve no chiding, but Chafetz exercised no such restraint. On the contrary, Chafetz impertinently singled out a specific individual, with a photo no less. Furthermore, Chafetz added insult to injury as he attempted to bolster his earlier admonition's (the condign one that had Chafetz stopped there, there'd be no basis for rebuking him) legitimacy by atomistically implying that one can soundly extrapolate the incidence of homeless man he pictured indicates the phenomenon of destitute and ostensibly mendicant vagrants spending hundreds on iPhones (smartphones) is pervasive enough to be material.

Can any of us happen upon a vagabond who has a "fancy" trinket or two? I'm sure we can. Be that as it may, one visit to a homeless shelter will to anyone reveal that homeless people are not awash in dear geegaws and gizmos they purchased.

Lastly, its unconscionable in my mind that one such as Chafetz would of the simple pleasure of base entertainment begrudge and make example of an unshod man who clearly also has neither roof o'er his head nor shirt on his back.

Bush still gets used to this day...
Those people could have been in the streets because they failed to pay rent by going out on a drunk binder. They would deserve EVERY mockery America can dish out.
Also, they could be ill, got thrown out of their home for some outlandish reasons or whatever. All judgement should cease. We have no idea of their story.
I understand he shouldnt have said it, but the whole premise of the OP shouldnt have been stated either. Especially the way that hack put it.

Bush still gets used to this day...

What? Why have you mentioned Bush? I didn't say anything about Bush. The OP or nothing else about the thread theme is about Bush. I realize that to many USMB members it's seemingly anathema to post direct and on-topic remarks. I'm not among them.

I understand he shouldnt have said it

Yes. I understood from your earlier remarks that we agree on this point.

the whole premise of the OP shouldnt have been stated either.

Perhaps...I'd have to review the OP to know whether I concur with you on this point. To the extent the OP-er applied ecological reasoning in forming the OP's conclusions/inferences, I'll readily grant that s/he overextended her-/himself.

The problem, however, and thus what gives a modicum of legitimacy to the OP's theme, is that the current leader of the conservative faction in the U.S., like Chafetz with his remark about the homeless guy, is given to belittling of and presumptuousness without regard to whether the object of his derision is a "lesser" mortal. That is a problem insofar as many, many people follow the example of and/or take their imprimatur from their political and cultural leaders; where goeth the leader, so goeth the flock. Whether be Chafetz following or leading, I don't know, but I doubt it matters as the supreme leader of conservatives behaves as he does.

I mentioned bush because you said Chafetz wasnt in politics anymore.

LOL Ookey Dokey.....I guess everyone's entitled to a tangential moment from time to time....

TY for the clarification. I at least now know what you had in mind....

 

[Wry Catcher]

Another example of ignorance, bigotry and froideur (i.e. haughty aloofness and cold superiority).

you are doing it too! Fucking idiot

Wrong, I do find a-holes and sociopaths intolerable, but not because I'm ignorant, because I'm educated and experienced and intelligent.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Here's the problem, Martybegin injected his usual dishonesty in post #2 and the willfully ignorant failed to read the link and understand his lie!

"Americans have choices, and they've gotta make a choice," Chaffetz said, "And so maybe rather than getting that new iPhone that they just love and they want to go spend hundreds of dollars on that, maybe they should invest in their own health care. They've gotta make those decisions themselves." The statement would later require a walkback, but it should go without saying that people spending irresponsibly on expensive gadgets instead of their health is not the problem; only 25 percent of Americans have an iPhone at all, and the majority of those who do are more affluent.

Nowhere is there evidence that his post #8 ("Again, HE HAS A FUCKING CELL PHONE!!!!") is true.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Leave it to a Republican to provide a perfect example of the coldness of callous conservatives, that set who lack the basic human attributes of humanity and benevolence.

Jason Chaffetz Hits a New Low by Shaming a Homeless NYC Resident on Instagram

Hence the reprehensible right.