From Rags To Riches.....Or Not

[PoliticalChic]

This liberal hates big govt. and hates high taxation.....Welfare workers need to be working if capable and the politicians need to be held accountable for their actions...We need to reduce the debt, reduce expenditure and live frugally...

"This liberal hates big govt. and hates high taxation."

Reality is defined by actions, not by words: I've need seen a post of your criticizing Obama.


"Welfare workers need to be working if capable and the politicians need to be held accountable for their actions...We need to reduce the debt, reduce expenditure and live frugally..."

Hallalujah!!!

I don't have to publicly announce my disapproval every day at every moment to think...

Bulletin:
The thread is based on NPR/Liberalism's view that the only way to achieve success is through the efforts of big government.
Not hard work, not an individual's decisions nor efforts.....only through appeasement of the great god, government.



I certainly hope you don't mind discussions of your 'religion.'

From the Amazon review of Godless, by Coulter…

"Though liberalism rejects the idea of God and reviles people of faith, it bears all the attributes of a religion. In Godless, Coulter throws open the doors of the Church of Liberalism, showing us its sacraments (abortion), its holy writ (Roe v. Wade), its martyrs (from Soviet spy Alger Hiss to cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal), its clergy (public school teachers), its churches (government schools, where prayer is prohibited but condoms are free), its doctrine of infallibility (as manifest in the "absolute moral authority" of spokesmen from Cindy Sheehan to Max Cleland), and its cosmology (in which mankind is an inconsequential accident)."

Then, of course, there's the liberal creation myth: Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

For liberals, evolution is the touchstone that separates the enlightened from the benighted.

And....Franklin Delano Roosevelt, "...the Socialist Savior of the Democratic Party."



And...this catechism, which we learn from NPR....
you didn't build that.....any success is just dumb luck!

 

[francoHFW]

This liberal hates big govt. and hates high taxation.....Welfare workers need to be working if capable and the politicians need to be held accountable for their actions...We need to reduce the debt, reduce expenditure and live frugally...

"This liberal hates big govt. and hates high taxation."

Reality is defined by actions, not by words: I've need seen a post of your criticizing Obama.


"Welfare workers need to be working if capable and the politicians need to be held accountable for their actions...We need to reduce the debt, reduce expenditure and live frugally..."

Hallalujah!!!

Welfare workers already are working most places if they're not disabled...

 

[francoHFW]

1. In this thread, an exemplar of the indoctrination that is central to the ascendancy of 'Liberalism, Incorporated.'

Why in 'Politics'? For this For this reason....every political endeavor in our society recognizes, and attempts to confront, poverty.
Some actually desire ending it.
The defining characteristic that divides conservatism and Modern Liberalism is the role played by government in attempting to end poverty.


Two quotes which set the stage:
a. The nine most terrifying words in the English language are "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."
Ronald Reagan

b. "You do not take a man who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race, saying, "you are free to compete with all the others," and still justly believe you have been completely fair... This is the next and more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity—not just legal equity but human ability—not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as a result. "LBJ in the Commencement Address at Howard University on June 4, 1965 on affirmative action

Of course, the difference between the two views is stark...but I contend that a look at the results of the two views makes it impossible not to see the former as the correct one.



2. The impetus for this thread is a new series on NPR radio, "Busted: America's Poverty Myths." Based on the perspective one has come to expect from NPR, and the fact that it dines at the government trough, one would expect a one-sided support for the Liberal perspective.
Nay, nay! An excellent, professional job....sloped toward the Left, but, still, quite even-handed. Listen here: Busted: America's Poverty Myths | WNYC

3. NPR gets right to it; "The upward mobility myth....where everyone has an equal chance to surmount any obstacle..." Well...they may label it a 'myth'...because they have slanted the language to prove their contention. Only a fool expects the CEO position to be given out randomly, sort of like the Dalai Lama position is.
In fact, upward mobility is a attainable.... for all... if one places the goal within a real-world framework that includes hard work, the proper discipline in the choices one makes, and rational expectations. That means, do the right things.



4. The show starts by....'blaming' Ben Franklin for the 'myth.'
I said 'even-handed'....and quote is provided: "... the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.” Ben Franklin

Now...they do point out how exceptional Ben Franklin was....but it's hard to find any errors in that quote.


How does NPR soften the blow to the Liberal perspective?
Next.

The pander to the rich GOP has mad it as difficult as possible to rise in society for many years. People didn't just get lazy.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This liberal hates big govt. and hates high taxation.....Welfare workers need to be working if capable and the politicians need to be held accountable for their actions...We need to reduce the debt, reduce expenditure and live frugally...

"This liberal hates big govt. and hates high taxation."

Reality is defined by actions, not by words: I've need seen a post of your criticizing Obama.


"Welfare workers need to be working if capable and the politicians need to be held accountable for their actions...We need to reduce the debt, reduce expenditure and live frugally..."

Hallalujah!!!

Welfare workers already are working most places if they're not disabled...

Soooo.....who's getting the $22 trillion?

"This week, the U.S. Census Bureau is scheduled to release its annual poverty report. The report will be notable because this year marks the 50th anniversary of the launch of President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty. In his January 1964 State of the Union address, Johnson proclaimed, “This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America.”[1]


Since that time, U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs (in constant 2012 dollars). Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all military wars in U.S. history since the American Revolution. Despite this mountain of spending, progress against poverty, at least as measured by the government, has been minimal."
The War on Poverty After 50 Years



You'd sound far smarter if you'd stop parroting the DNC talking points.

Not smart....just smarter.

 

[francoHFW]

1. In this thread, an exemplar of the indoctrination that is central to the ascendancy of 'Liberalism, Incorporated.'

Why in 'Politics'? For this For this reason....every political endeavor in our society recognizes, and attempts to confront, poverty.
Some actually desire ending it.
The defining characteristic that divides conservatism and Modern Liberalism is the role played by government in attempting to end poverty.


Two quotes which set the stage:
a. The nine most terrifying words in the English language are "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."
Ronald Reagan

b. "You do not take a man who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race, saying, "you are free to compete with all the others," and still justly believe you have been completely fair... This is the next and more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity—not just legal equity but human ability—not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as a result. "LBJ in the Commencement Address at Howard University on June 4, 1965 on affirmative action

Of course, the difference between the two views is stark...but I contend that a look at the results of the two views makes it impossible not to see the former as the correct one.



2. The impetus for this thread is a new series on NPR radio, "Busted: America's Poverty Myths." Based on the perspective one has come to expect from NPR, and the fact that it dines at the government trough, one would expect a one-sided support for the Liberal perspective.
Nay, nay! An excellent, professional job....sloped toward the Left, but, still, quite even-handed. Listen here: Busted: America's Poverty Myths | WNYC

3. NPR gets right to it; "The upward mobility myth....where everyone has an equal chance to surmount any obstacle..." Well...they may label it a 'myth'...because they have slanted the language to prove their contention. Only a fool expects the CEO position to be given out randomly, sort of like the Dalai Lama position is.
In fact, upward mobility is a attainable.... for all... if one places the goal within a real-world framework that includes hard work, the proper discipline in the choices one makes, and rational expectations. That means, do the right things.



4. The show starts by....'blaming' Ben Franklin for the 'myth.'
I said 'even-handed'....and quote is provided: "... the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.” Ben Franklin

Now...they do point out how exceptional Ben Franklin was....but it's hard to find any errors in that quote.


How does NPR soften the blow to the Liberal perspective?
Next.

The pander to the rich GOP has mad it as difficult as possible to rise in society for many years. People didn't just get lazy.

After 30 years of Voodoo: worst min. wage, work conditions, illegal work safeguards, vacations, work week, college costs, rich/poor gap, upward social mobility, % homeless and in prison EVAH, and in the modern world!! And you complain about the victims? Are you an idiot or an A-hole?

 

[Moonglow]

1. In this thread, an exemplar of the indoctrination that is central to the ascendancy of 'Liberalism, Incorporated.'

Why in 'Politics'? For this For this reason....every political endeavor in our society recognizes, and attempts to confront, poverty.
Some actually desire ending it.
The defining characteristic that divides conservatism and Modern Liberalism is the role played by government in attempting to end poverty.


Two quotes which set the stage:
a. The nine most terrifying words in the English language are "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."
Ronald Reagan

b. "You do not take a man who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race, saying, "you are free to compete with all the others," and still justly believe you have been completely fair... This is the next and more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity—not just legal equity but human ability—not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as a result. "LBJ in the Commencement Address at Howard University on June 4, 1965 on affirmative action

Of course, the difference between the two views is stark...but I contend that a look at the results of the two views makes it impossible not to see the former as the correct one.



2. The impetus for this thread is a new series on NPR radio, "Busted: America's Poverty Myths." Based on the perspective one has come to expect from NPR, and the fact that it dines at the government trough, one would expect a one-sided support for the Liberal perspective.
Nay, nay! An excellent, professional job....sloped toward the Left, but, still, quite even-handed. Listen here: Busted: America's Poverty Myths | WNYC

3. NPR gets right to it; "The upward mobility myth....where everyone has an equal chance to surmount any obstacle..." Well...they may label it a 'myth'...because they have slanted the language to prove their contention. Only a fool expects the CEO position to be given out randomly, sort of like the Dalai Lama position is.
In fact, upward mobility is a attainable.... for all... if one places the goal within a real-world framework that includes hard work, the proper discipline in the choices one makes, and rational expectations. That means, do the right things.



4. The show starts by....'blaming' Ben Franklin for the 'myth.'
I said 'even-handed'....and quote is provided: "... the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.” Ben Franklin

Now...they do point out how exceptional Ben Franklin was....but it's hard to find any errors in that quote.


How does NPR soften the blow to the Liberal perspective?
Next.

The pander to the rich GOP has mad it as difficult as possible to rise in society for many years. People didn't just get lazy.

The proper term is social mobility...

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. In this thread, an exemplar of the indoctrination that is central to the ascendancy of 'Liberalism, Incorporated.'

Why in 'Politics'? For this For this reason....every political endeavor in our society recognizes, and attempts to confront, poverty.
Some actually desire ending it.
The defining characteristic that divides conservatism and Modern Liberalism is the role played by government in attempting to end poverty.


Two quotes which set the stage:
a. The nine most terrifying words in the English language are "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."
Ronald Reagan

b. "You do not take a man who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race, saying, "you are free to compete with all the others," and still justly believe you have been completely fair... This is the next and more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity—not just legal equity but human ability—not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as a result. "LBJ in the Commencement Address at Howard University on June 4, 1965 on affirmative action

Of course, the difference between the two views is stark...but I contend that a look at the results of the two views makes it impossible not to see the former as the correct one.



2. The impetus for this thread is a new series on NPR radio, "Busted: America's Poverty Myths." Based on the perspective one has come to expect from NPR, and the fact that it dines at the government trough, one would expect a one-sided support for the Liberal perspective.
Nay, nay! An excellent, professional job....sloped toward the Left, but, still, quite even-handed. Listen here: Busted: America's Poverty Myths | WNYC

3. NPR gets right to it; "The upward mobility myth....where everyone has an equal chance to surmount any obstacle..." Well...they may label it a 'myth'...because they have slanted the language to prove their contention. Only a fool expects the CEO position to be given out randomly, sort of like the Dalai Lama position is.
In fact, upward mobility is a attainable.... for all... if one places the goal within a real-world framework that includes hard work, the proper discipline in the choices one makes, and rational expectations. That means, do the right things.



4. The show starts by....'blaming' Ben Franklin for the 'myth.'
I said 'even-handed'....and quote is provided: "... the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.” Ben Franklin

Now...they do point out how exceptional Ben Franklin was....but it's hard to find any errors in that quote.


How does NPR soften the blow to the Liberal perspective?
Next.

The pander to the rich GOP has mad it as difficult as possible to rise in society for many years. People didn't just get lazy.

"The pander to the rich GOP..."

Now watch me smash another custard pie in your kisser: it is the Left with all the money,...you're just too stupid to do any research.


Ready?

1. As of 2009, the financial assets of the 115 major tax-exempt foundations of the Left add up to $104.56 billlion. Not only is this total not less than the financial assets of the 75 foundations of the Right, it was more than ten times greater! [p. 8]
a. Bradley, Olin, Scaife, the “Big Three” conservative foundations, not one has assets exceeding $1 billion. (Olin has been defunct since 2005).
i. Scaife Foundation has assets totaling $244 million.
ii. Bradley Foundation, $623 million.
b. Fourteen progressive foundations do, including Gates, Ford, Robert Wood Johnson, Hewlett, Kellogg, Packard, MacArthur, Mellon, Rockefeller, Casey, Carnegie, Simons, Heinz, and the Open Society Institute.
i. Ford alone has 16 times what Bradley has.
ii. Soros has claimed that he has donated over $7 billion to his Open Society organizations.
iii. The leading Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, $33 billion.


2. With over $100 billion in tax-exempt assets at their disposal, left-wing foundations have been able to invest massively greater amounts in their beneficiary groups. Ford gave more in one year than Scaife in 40!
a. “By compiling a computerized record of nearly all his contributions over the last four decades, The Washington Post found that Scaife and his family's charitable entities have given at least $340 million to conservative causes and institutions… The Ford Foundation gave away $491 million in 1998 alone.” Washingtonpost.com: Scaife: Funding Father of the Right

Check out “The New Leviathan,” David Horowitz and Jacob Laksin



So....we agree that you're a moron?

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. In this thread, an exemplar of the indoctrination that is central to the ascendancy of 'Liberalism, Incorporated.'

Why in 'Politics'? For this For this reason....every political endeavor in our society recognizes, and attempts to confront, poverty.
Some actually desire ending it.
The defining characteristic that divides conservatism and Modern Liberalism is the role played by government in attempting to end poverty.


Two quotes which set the stage:
a. The nine most terrifying words in the English language are "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."
Ronald Reagan

b. "You do not take a man who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race, saying, "you are free to compete with all the others," and still justly believe you have been completely fair... This is the next and more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity—not just legal equity but human ability—not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as a result. "LBJ in the Commencement Address at Howard University on June 4, 1965 on affirmative action

Of course, the difference between the two views is stark...but I contend that a look at the results of the two views makes it impossible not to see the former as the correct one.



2. The impetus for this thread is a new series on NPR radio, "Busted: America's Poverty Myths." Based on the perspective one has come to expect from NPR, and the fact that it dines at the government trough, one would expect a one-sided support for the Liberal perspective.
Nay, nay! An excellent, professional job....sloped toward the Left, but, still, quite even-handed. Listen here: Busted: America's Poverty Myths | WNYC

3. NPR gets right to it; "The upward mobility myth....where everyone has an equal chance to surmount any obstacle..." Well...they may label it a 'myth'...because they have slanted the language to prove their contention. Only a fool expects the CEO position to be given out randomly, sort of like the Dalai Lama position is.
In fact, upward mobility is a attainable.... for all... if one places the goal within a real-world framework that includes hard work, the proper discipline in the choices one makes, and rational expectations. That means, do the right things.



4. The show starts by....'blaming' Ben Franklin for the 'myth.'
I said 'even-handed'....and quote is provided: "... the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.” Ben Franklin

Now...they do point out how exceptional Ben Franklin was....but it's hard to find any errors in that quote.


How does NPR soften the blow to the Liberal perspective?
Next.

The pander to the rich GOP has mad it as difficult as possible to rise in society for many years. People didn't just get lazy.

After 30 years of Voodoo: worst min. wage, work conditions, illegal work safeguards, vacations, work week, college costs, rich/poor gap, upward social mobility, % homeless and in prison EVAH, and in the modern world!! And you complain about the victims? Are you an idiot or an A-hole?

Watch me pin the tail on this donkey:

Sooooo......I fergit.....who's been the President for nigh on eight years????

 

[francoHFW]

This liberal hates big govt. and hates high taxation.....Welfare workers need to be working if capable and the politicians need to be held accountable for their actions...We need to reduce the debt, reduce expenditure and live frugally...

"This liberal hates big govt. and hates high taxation."

Reality is defined by actions, not by words: I've need seen a post of your criticizing Obama.


"Welfare workers need to be working if capable and the politicians need to be held accountable for their actions...We need to reduce the debt, reduce expenditure and live frugally..."

Hallalujah!!!

Welfare workers already are working most places if they're not disabled...

Soooo.....who's getting the $22 trillion?

"This week, the U.S. Census Bureau is scheduled to release its annual poverty report. The report will be notable because this year marks the 50th anniversary of the launch of President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty. In his January 1964 State of the Union address, Johnson proclaimed, “This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America.”[1]


Since that time, U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs (in constant 2012 dollars). Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all military wars in U.S. history since the American Revolution. Despite this mountain of spending, progress against poverty, at least as measured by the government, has been minimal."
The War on Poverty After 50 Years



You'd sound far smarter if you'd stop parroting the DNC talking points.

Not smart....just smarter.

Victims of GOP policy and pander to the rich thievery.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. In this thread, an exemplar of the indoctrination that is central to the ascendancy of 'Liberalism, Incorporated.'

Why in 'Politics'? For this For this reason....every political endeavor in our society recognizes, and attempts to confront, poverty.
Some actually desire ending it.
The defining characteristic that divides conservatism and Modern Liberalism is the role played by government in attempting to end poverty.


Two quotes which set the stage:
a. The nine most terrifying words in the English language are "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."
Ronald Reagan

b. "You do not take a man who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race, saying, "you are free to compete with all the others," and still justly believe you have been completely fair... This is the next and more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity—not just legal equity but human ability—not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as a result. "LBJ in the Commencement Address at Howard University on June 4, 1965 on affirmative action

Of course, the difference between the two views is stark...but I contend that a look at the results of the two views makes it impossible not to see the former as the correct one.



2. The impetus for this thread is a new series on NPR radio, "Busted: America's Poverty Myths." Based on the perspective one has come to expect from NPR, and the fact that it dines at the government trough, one would expect a one-sided support for the Liberal perspective.
Nay, nay! An excellent, professional job....sloped toward the Left, but, still, quite even-handed. Listen here: Busted: America's Poverty Myths | WNYC

3. NPR gets right to it; "The upward mobility myth....where everyone has an equal chance to surmount any obstacle..." Well...they may label it a 'myth'...because they have slanted the language to prove their contention. Only a fool expects the CEO position to be given out randomly, sort of like the Dalai Lama position is.
In fact, upward mobility is a attainable.... for all... if one places the goal within a real-world framework that includes hard work, the proper discipline in the choices one makes, and rational expectations. That means, do the right things.



4. The show starts by....'blaming' Ben Franklin for the 'myth.'
I said 'even-handed'....and quote is provided: "... the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.” Ben Franklin

Now...they do point out how exceptional Ben Franklin was....but it's hard to find any errors in that quote.


How does NPR soften the blow to the Liberal perspective?
Next.

The pander to the rich GOP has mad it as difficult as possible to rise in society for many years. People didn't just get lazy.

After 30 years of Voodoo: worst min. wage, work conditions, illegal work safeguards, vacations, work week, college costs, rich/poor gap, upward social mobility, % homeless and in prison EVAH, and in the modern world!! And you complain about the victims? Are you an idiot or an A-hole?

I almost got you upset enough to default to profanity, huh?

Excellent.

 

[francoHFW]

1. In this thread, an exemplar of the indoctrination that is central to the ascendancy of 'Liberalism, Incorporated.'

Why in 'Politics'? For this For this reason....every political endeavor in our society recognizes, and attempts to confront, poverty.
Some actually desire ending it.
The defining characteristic that divides conservatism and Modern Liberalism is the role played by government in attempting to end poverty.


Two quotes which set the stage:
a. The nine most terrifying words in the English language are "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."
Ronald Reagan

b. "You do not take a man who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race, saying, "you are free to compete with all the others," and still justly believe you have been completely fair... This is the next and more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity—not just legal equity but human ability—not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as a result. "LBJ in the Commencement Address at Howard University on June 4, 1965 on affirmative action

Of course, the difference between the two views is stark...but I contend that a look at the results of the two views makes it impossible not to see the former as the correct one.



2. The impetus for this thread is a new series on NPR radio, "Busted: America's Poverty Myths." Based on the perspective one has come to expect from NPR, and the fact that it dines at the government trough, one would expect a one-sided support for the Liberal perspective.
Nay, nay! An excellent, professional job....sloped toward the Left, but, still, quite even-handed. Listen here: Busted: America's Poverty Myths | WNYC

3. NPR gets right to it; "The upward mobility myth....where everyone has an equal chance to surmount any obstacle..." Well...they may label it a 'myth'...because they have slanted the language to prove their contention. Only a fool expects the CEO position to be given out randomly, sort of like the Dalai Lama position is.
In fact, upward mobility is a attainable.... for all... if one places the goal within a real-world framework that includes hard work, the proper discipline in the choices one makes, and rational expectations. That means, do the right things.



4. The show starts by....'blaming' Ben Franklin for the 'myth.'
I said 'even-handed'....and quote is provided: "... the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.” Ben Franklin

Now...they do point out how exceptional Ben Franklin was....but it's hard to find any errors in that quote.


How does NPR soften the blow to the Liberal perspective?
Next.

The pander to the rich GOP has mad it as difficult as possible to rise in society for many years. People didn't just get lazy.

"The pander to the rich GOP..."

Now watch me smash another custard pie in your kisser: it is the Left with all the money,...you're just too stupid to do any research.


Ready?

1. As of 2009, the financial assets of the 115 major tax-exempt foundations of the Left add up to $104.56 billlion. Not only is this total not less than the financial assets of the 75 foundations of the Right, it was more than ten times greater! [p. 8]
a. Bradley, Olin, Scaife, the “Big Three” conservative foundations, not one has assets exceeding $1 billion. (Olin has been defunct since 2005).
i. Scaife Foundation has assets totaling $244 million.
ii. Bradley Foundation, $623 million.
b. Fourteen progressive foundations do, including Gates, Ford, Robert Wood Johnson, Hewlett, Kellogg, Packard, MacArthur, Mellon, Rockefeller, Casey, Carnegie, Simons, Heinz, and the Open Society Institute.
i. Ford alone has 16 times what Bradley has.
ii. Soros has claimed that he has donated over $7 billion to his Open Society organizations.
iii. The leading Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, $33 billion.


2. With over $100 billion in tax-exempt assets at their disposal, left-wing foundations have been able to invest massively greater amounts in their beneficiary groups. Ford gave more in one year than Scaife in 40!
a. “By compiling a computerized record of nearly all his contributions over the last four decades, The Washington Post found that Scaife and his family's charitable entities have given at least $340 million to conservative causes and institutions… The Ford Foundation gave away $491 million in 1998 alone.” Washingtonpost.com: Scaife: Funding Father of the Right

Check out “The New Leviathan,” David Horowitz and Jacob Laksin



So....we agree that you're a moron?

What about Murdoch, the Kochs, Adelson, and Mercer, fool?

 

[francoHFW]

1. In this thread, an exemplar of the indoctrination that is central to the ascendancy of 'Liberalism, Incorporated.'

Why in 'Politics'? For this For this reason....every political endeavor in our society recognizes, and attempts to confront, poverty.
Some actually desire ending it.
The defining characteristic that divides conservatism and Modern Liberalism is the role played by government in attempting to end poverty.


Two quotes which set the stage:
a. The nine most terrifying words in the English language are "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."
Ronald Reagan

b. "You do not take a man who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race, saying, "you are free to compete with all the others," and still justly believe you have been completely fair... This is the next and more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity—not just legal equity but human ability—not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as a result. "LBJ in the Commencement Address at Howard University on June 4, 1965 on affirmative action

Of course, the difference between the two views is stark...but I contend that a look at the results of the two views makes it impossible not to see the former as the correct one.



2. The impetus for this thread is a new series on NPR radio, "Busted: America's Poverty Myths." Based on the perspective one has come to expect from NPR, and the fact that it dines at the government trough, one would expect a one-sided support for the Liberal perspective.
Nay, nay! An excellent, professional job....sloped toward the Left, but, still, quite even-handed. Listen here: Busted: America's Poverty Myths | WNYC

3. NPR gets right to it; "The upward mobility myth....where everyone has an equal chance to surmount any obstacle..." Well...they may label it a 'myth'...because they have slanted the language to prove their contention. Only a fool expects the CEO position to be given out randomly, sort of like the Dalai Lama position is.
In fact, upward mobility is a attainable.... for all... if one places the goal within a real-world framework that includes hard work, the proper discipline in the choices one makes, and rational expectations. That means, do the right things.



4. The show starts by....'blaming' Ben Franklin for the 'myth.'
I said 'even-handed'....and quote is provided: "... the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.” Ben Franklin

Now...they do point out how exceptional Ben Franklin was....but it's hard to find any errors in that quote.


How does NPR soften the blow to the Liberal perspective?
Next.

The pander to the rich GOP has mad it as difficult as possible to rise in society for many years. People didn't just get lazy.

After 30 years of Voodoo: worst min. wage, work conditions, illegal work safeguards, vacations, work week, college costs, rich/poor gap, upward social mobility, % homeless and in prison EVAH, and in the modern world!! And you complain about the victims? Are you an idiot or an A-hole?

I almost got you upset enough to default to profanity, huh?

Excellent.

Copied from sig duh...

 

[PoliticalChic]

This liberal hates big govt. and hates high taxation.....Welfare workers need to be working if capable and the politicians need to be held accountable for their actions...We need to reduce the debt, reduce expenditure and live frugally...

"This liberal hates big govt. and hates high taxation."

Reality is defined by actions, not by words: I've need seen a post of your criticizing Obama.


"Welfare workers need to be working if capable and the politicians need to be held accountable for their actions...We need to reduce the debt, reduce expenditure and live frugally..."

Hallalujah!!!

Welfare workers already are working most places if they're not disabled...

Soooo.....who's getting the $22 trillion?

"This week, the U.S. Census Bureau is scheduled to release its annual poverty report. The report will be notable because this year marks the 50th anniversary of the launch of President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty. In his January 1964 State of the Union address, Johnson proclaimed, “This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America.”[1]


Since that time, U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs (in constant 2012 dollars). Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all military wars in U.S. history since the American Revolution. Despite this mountain of spending, progress against poverty, at least as measured by the government, has been minimal."
The War on Poverty After 50 Years



You'd sound far smarter if you'd stop parroting the DNC talking points.

Not smart....just smarter.

Victims of GOP policy and pander to the rich thievery.

Whose policies has Barack Hussein Obama (peace be on him) followed?????


You should only open your mouth to change feet.

 

[WaitingFor2020]

This liberal hates big govt. and hates high taxation.....Welfare workers need to be working if capable and the politicians need to be held accountable for their actions...We need to reduce the debt, reduce expenditure and live frugally...

"This liberal hates big govt. and hates high taxation."

Reality is defined by actions, not by words: I've need seen a post of your criticizing Obama.


"Welfare workers need to be working if capable and the politicians need to be held accountable for their actions...We need to reduce the debt, reduce expenditure and live frugally..."

Hallalujah!!!

I don't have to publicly announce my disapproval every day at every moment to think...

Bulletin:
The thread is based on NPR/Liberalism's view that the only way to achieve success is through the efforts of big government.
Not hard work, not an individual's decisions nor efforts.....only through appeasement of the great god, government.



I certainly hope you don't mind discussions of your 'religion.'

From the Amazon review of Godless, by Coulter…

"Though liberalism rejects the idea of God and reviles people of faith, it bears all the attributes of a religion. In Godless, Coulter throws open the doors of the Church of Liberalism, showing us its sacraments (abortion), its holy writ (Roe v. Wade), its martyrs (from Soviet spy Alger Hiss to cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal), its clergy (public school teachers), its churches (government schools, where prayer is prohibited but condoms are free), its doctrine of infallibility (as manifest in the "absolute moral authority" of spokesmen from Cindy Sheehan to Max Cleland), and its cosmology (in which mankind is an inconsequential accident)."

Then, of course, there's the liberal creation myth: Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

For liberals, evolution is the touchstone that separates the enlightened from the benighted.

And....Franklin Delano Roosevelt, "...the Socialist Savior of the Democratic Party."



And...this catechism, which we learn from NPR....
you didn't build that.....any success is just dumb luck!

She also just published a book about how great Trump is. Glad it is out in print as we learn about the real Donald Trump, who will go down harder than Bill Cosby.

But of course she's been trolling the dregs of the semi-illiterate mindset for years now, putting into print what the ignorant mouth-breathers speak and serving the lowest common denominator.

 

[Moonglow]

The economist are now proclaiming the US needs to follow a tight policy on debt, higher interest rates with less govt. expenditure..even at the cost of higher inflation...

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. In this thread, an exemplar of the indoctrination that is central to the ascendancy of 'Liberalism, Incorporated.'

Why in 'Politics'? For this For this reason....every political endeavor in our society recognizes, and attempts to confront, poverty.
Some actually desire ending it.
The defining characteristic that divides conservatism and Modern Liberalism is the role played by government in attempting to end poverty.


Two quotes which set the stage:
a. The nine most terrifying words in the English language are "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."
Ronald Reagan

b. "You do not take a man who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race, saying, "you are free to compete with all the others," and still justly believe you have been completely fair... This is the next and more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity—not just legal equity but human ability—not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as a result. "LBJ in the Commencement Address at Howard University on June 4, 1965 on affirmative action

Of course, the difference between the two views is stark...but I contend that a look at the results of the two views makes it impossible not to see the former as the correct one.



2. The impetus for this thread is a new series on NPR radio, "Busted: America's Poverty Myths." Based on the perspective one has come to expect from NPR, and the fact that it dines at the government trough, one would expect a one-sided support for the Liberal perspective.
Nay, nay! An excellent, professional job....sloped toward the Left, but, still, quite even-handed. Listen here: Busted: America's Poverty Myths | WNYC

3. NPR gets right to it; "The upward mobility myth....where everyone has an equal chance to surmount any obstacle..." Well...they may label it a 'myth'...because they have slanted the language to prove their contention. Only a fool expects the CEO position to be given out randomly, sort of like the Dalai Lama position is.
In fact, upward mobility is a attainable.... for all... if one places the goal within a real-world framework that includes hard work, the proper discipline in the choices one makes, and rational expectations. That means, do the right things.



4. The show starts by....'blaming' Ben Franklin for the 'myth.'
I said 'even-handed'....and quote is provided: "... the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.” Ben Franklin

Now...they do point out how exceptional Ben Franklin was....but it's hard to find any errors in that quote.


How does NPR soften the blow to the Liberal perspective?
Next.

The pander to the rich GOP has mad it as difficult as possible to rise in society for many years. People didn't just get lazy.

"The pander to the rich GOP..."

Now watch me smash another custard pie in your kisser: it is the Left with all the money,...you're just too stupid to do any research.


Ready?

1. As of 2009, the financial assets of the 115 major tax-exempt foundations of the Left add up to $104.56 billlion. Not only is this total not less than the financial assets of the 75 foundations of the Right, it was more than ten times greater! [p. 8]
a. Bradley, Olin, Scaife, the “Big Three” conservative foundations, not one has assets exceeding $1 billion. (Olin has been defunct since 2005).
i. Scaife Foundation has assets totaling $244 million.
ii. Bradley Foundation, $623 million.
b. Fourteen progressive foundations do, including Gates, Ford, Robert Wood Johnson, Hewlett, Kellogg, Packard, MacArthur, Mellon, Rockefeller, Casey, Carnegie, Simons, Heinz, and the Open Society Institute.
i. Ford alone has 16 times what Bradley has.
ii. Soros has claimed that he has donated over $7 billion to his Open Society organizations.
iii. The leading Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, $33 billion.


2. With over $100 billion in tax-exempt assets at their disposal, left-wing foundations have been able to invest massively greater amounts in their beneficiary groups. Ford gave more in one year than Scaife in 40!
a. “By compiling a computerized record of nearly all his contributions over the last four decades, The Washington Post found that Scaife and his family's charitable entities have given at least $340 million to conservative causes and institutions… The Ford Foundation gave away $491 million in 1998 alone.” Washingtonpost.com: Scaife: Funding Father of the Right

Check out “The New Leviathan,” David Horowitz and Jacob Laksin



So....we agree that you're a moron?

What about Murdoch, the Kochs, Adelson, and Mercer, fool?

1. As of 2009, the financial assets of the 115 major tax-exempt foundations of the Left add up to $104.56 billlion. Not only is this total not less than the financial assets of the 75 foundations of the Right, it was more than ten times greater! [p. 8]
a. Bradley, Olin, Scaife, the “Big Three” conservative foundations, not one has assets exceeding $1 billion. (Olin has been defunct since 2005).
i. Scaife Foundation has assets totaling $244 million.
ii. Bradley Foundation, $623 million.
b. Fourteen progressive foundations do, including Gates, Ford, Robert Wood Johnson, Hewlett, Kellogg, Packard, MacArthur, Mellon, Rockefeller, Casey, Carnegie, Simons, Heinz, and the Open Society Institute.
i. Ford alone has 16 times what Bradley has.
ii. Soros has claimed that he has donated over $7 billion to his Open Society organizations.
iii. The leading Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, $33 billion.


2. With over $100 billion in tax-exempt assets at their disposal, left-wing foundations have been able to invest massively greater amounts in their beneficiary groups. Ford gave more in one year than Scaife in 40!
a. “By compiling a computerized record of nearly all his contributions over the last four decades, The Washington Post found that Scaife and his family's charitable entities have given at least $340 million to conservative causes and institutions… The Ford Foundation gave away $491 million in 1998 alone.” Washingtonpost.com: Scaife: Funding Father of the Right

Check out “The New Leviathan,” David Horowitz and Jacob Laksin



Koch Brothers????
Really?

3. " The brothers that liberals like to hate are often trotted out as prime examples of why campaign finance reform is necessary. They are often portrayed as one of the biggest contributors to political candidates, their evil money financing evil Republicans...... OpenSecrets.org tallied the top donors in federal elections between 1989 and 2014. Koch Industries ;;;; doesn't appear until the 59th slot,...

a. Six ofthe top 10 are ... wait for it ... unions. They gave more than $278 million, with most of it going to Democrats. These are familiar names: AFSCME ($60.6 million), NEA ($53.5 million), IBEW ($44.4 million), UAW ($41.6 million), Carpenters & Joiners ($39.2 million) and SEIU ($38.3 million).

4. ....the Koch brothers also contribute tens of millions of dolalrs to the GOP cause indirectly through their indpendent committees Americans for Prosperity and others. Also to be fair, I should point out that unions spent a half a billion dollars in such indirect spending in the 2012 election cycle.

5. So, if money is the measure of evil in American politics and the Evil Koch Bros only come in 59th, who is really the most evil donor ever?

Turns out it's Act Blue, with just short of $100 million in contributions during its lifetime, which only started in 2004, 15 years after the Evil Koch Bros in the OpenSecrets.org compilation." Blog: 'Evil' Koch brothers just 59th on top political donation list

 

[PoliticalChic]

View attachment 93907

This liberal hates big govt. and hates high taxation.....Welfare workers need to be working if capable and the politicians need to be held accountable for their actions...We need to reduce the debt, reduce expenditure and live frugally...

"This liberal hates big govt. and hates high taxation."

Reality is defined by actions, not by words: I've need seen a post of your criticizing Obama.


"Welfare workers need to be working if capable and the politicians need to be held accountable for their actions...We need to reduce the debt, reduce expenditure and live frugally..."

Hallalujah!!!

I don't have to publicly announce my disapproval every day at every moment to think...

Bulletin:
The thread is based on NPR/Liberalism's view that the only way to achieve success is through the efforts of big government.
Not hard work, not an individual's decisions nor efforts.....only through appeasement of the great god, government.



I certainly hope you don't mind discussions of your 'religion.'

From the Amazon review of Godless, by Coulter…

"Though liberalism rejects the idea of God and reviles people of faith, it bears all the attributes of a religion. In Godless, Coulter throws open the doors of the Church of Liberalism, showing us its sacraments (abortion), its holy writ (Roe v. Wade), its martyrs (from Soviet spy Alger Hiss to cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal), its clergy (public school teachers), its churches (government schools, where prayer is prohibited but condoms are free), its doctrine of infallibility (as manifest in the "absolute moral authority" of spokesmen from Cindy Sheehan to Max Cleland), and its cosmology (in which mankind is an inconsequential accident)."

Then, of course, there's the liberal creation myth: Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

For liberals, evolution is the touchstone that separates the enlightened from the benighted.

And....Franklin Delano Roosevelt, "...the Socialist Savior of the Democratic Party."



And...this catechism, which we learn from NPR....
you didn't build that.....any success is just dumb luck!

She also just published a book about how great Trump is. Glad it is out in print as we learn about the real Donald Trump, who will go down harder than Bill Cosby.

But of course she's been trolling the dregs of the semi-illiterate mindset for years now, putting into print what the ignorant mouth-breathers speak and serving the lowest common denominator.

"Trumped-Up Outrage
The Left condemns the GOP candidate even as it celebrates crudity and sexual exhibitionism throughout the culture.
The Left condemns the GOP candidate even as it celebrates crudity and sexual exhibitionism throughout the culture.
But Democrats are the most shameless in their outrage over the Trump braggadocio, having dismissed Bill Clinton’s White House and gubernatorial escapades for years, and standing as the party of maximal sexual liberation, unlike the Republicans. The New York Times rejects the relevance of Clinton’s predatory White House behavior on the ground that “Mr. Clinton is not running for president.” But the Times did not find Clinton’s behavior significant when Clinton was in office, either."

Trumped-Up Outrage



In your face, you dunce.

 

[WaitingFor2020]

1. In this thread, an exemplar of the indoctrination that is central to the ascendancy of 'Liberalism, Incorporated.'

Why in 'Politics'? For this For this reason....every political endeavor in our society recognizes, and attempts to confront, poverty.
Some actually desire ending it.
The defining characteristic that divides conservatism and Modern Liberalism is the role played by government in attempting to end poverty.


Two quotes which set the stage:
a. The nine most terrifying words in the English language are "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."
Ronald Reagan

b. "You do not take a man who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race, saying, "you are free to compete with all the others," and still justly believe you have been completely fair... This is the next and more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity—not just legal equity but human ability—not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as a result. "LBJ in the Commencement Address at Howard University on June 4, 1965 on affirmative action

Of course, the difference between the two views is stark...but I contend that a look at the results of the two views makes it impossible not to see the former as the correct one.



2. The impetus for this thread is a new series on NPR radio, "Busted: America's Poverty Myths." Based on the perspective one has come to expect from NPR, and the fact that it dines at the government trough, one would expect a one-sided support for the Liberal perspective.
Nay, nay! An excellent, professional job....sloped toward the Left, but, still, quite even-handed. Listen here: Busted: America's Poverty Myths | WNYC

3. NPR gets right to it; "The upward mobility myth....where everyone has an equal chance to surmount any obstacle..." Well...they may label it a 'myth'...because they have slanted the language to prove their contention. Only a fool expects the CEO position to be given out randomly, sort of like the Dalai Lama position is.
In fact, upward mobility is a attainable.... for all... if one places the goal within a real-world framework that includes hard work, the proper discipline in the choices one makes, and rational expectations. That means, do the right things.



4. The show starts by....'blaming' Ben Franklin for the 'myth.'
I said 'even-handed'....and quote is provided: "... the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.” Ben Franklin

Now...they do point out how exceptional Ben Franklin was....but it's hard to find any errors in that quote.


How does NPR soften the blow to the Liberal perspective?
Next.

The pander to the rich GOP has mad it as difficult as possible to rise in society for many years. People didn't just get lazy.

"The pander to the rich GOP..."

Now watch me smash another custard pie in your kisser: it is the Left with all the money,...you're just too stupid to do any research.


Ready?

1. As of 2009, the financial assets of the 115 major tax-exempt foundations of the Left add up to $104.56 billlion. Not only is this total not less than the financial assets of the 75 foundations of the Right, it was more than ten times greater! [p. 8]
a. Bradley, Olin, Scaife, the “Big Three” conservative foundations, not one has assets exceeding $1 billion. (Olin has been defunct since 2005).
i. Scaife Foundation has assets totaling $244 million.
ii. Bradley Foundation, $623 million.
b. Fourteen progressive foundations do, including Gates, Ford, Robert Wood Johnson, Hewlett, Kellogg, Packard, MacArthur, Mellon, Rockefeller, Casey, Carnegie, Simons, Heinz, and the Open Society Institute.
i. Ford alone has 16 times what Bradley has.
ii. Soros has claimed that he has donated over $7 billion to his Open Society organizations.
iii. The leading Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, $33 billion.


2. With over $100 billion in tax-exempt assets at their disposal, left-wing foundations have been able to invest massively greater amounts in their beneficiary groups. Ford gave more in one year than Scaife in 40!
a. “By compiling a computerized record of nearly all his contributions over the last four decades, The Washington Post found that Scaife and his family's charitable entities have given at least $340 million to conservative causes and institutions… The Ford Foundation gave away $491 million in 1998 alone.” Washingtonpost.com: Scaife: Funding Father of the Right

Check out “The New Leviathan,” David Horowitz and Jacob Laksin



So....we agree that you're a moron?

What about Murdoch, the Kochs, Adelson, and Mercer, fool?

1. As of 2009, the financial assets of the 115 major tax-exempt foundations of the Left add up to $104.56 billlion. Not only is this total not less than the financial assets of the 75 foundations of the Right, it was more than ten times greater! [p. 8]
a. Bradley, Olin, Scaife, the “Big Three” conservative foundations, not one has assets exceeding $1 billion. (Olin has been defunct since 2005).
i. Scaife Foundation has assets totaling $244 million.
ii. Bradley Foundation, $623 million.
b. Fourteen progressive foundations do, including Gates, Ford, Robert Wood Johnson, Hewlett, Kellogg, Packard, MacArthur, Mellon, Rockefeller, Casey, Carnegie, Simons, Heinz, and the Open Society Institute.
i. Ford alone has 16 times what Bradley has.
ii. Soros has claimed that he has donated over $7 billion to his Open Society organizations.
iii. The leading Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, $33 billion.


2. With over $100 billion in tax-exempt assets at their disposal, left-wing foundations have been able to invest massively greater amounts in their beneficiary groups. Ford gave more in one year than Scaife in 40!
a. “By compiling a computerized record of nearly all his contributions over the last four decades, The Washington Post found that Scaife and his family's charitable entities have given at least $340 million to conservative causes and institutions… The Ford Foundation gave away $491 million in 1998 alone.” Washingtonpost.com: Scaife: Funding Father of the Right

Check out “The New Leviathan,” David Horowitz and Jacob Laksin



Koch Brothers????
Really?

3. " The brothers that liberals like to hate are often trotted out as prime examples of why campaign finance reform is necessary. They are often portrayed as one of the biggest contributors to political candidates, their evil money financing evil Republicans...... OpenSecrets.org tallied the top donors in federal elections between 1989 and 2014. Koch Industries ;;;; doesn't appear until the 59th slot,...

a. Six ofthe top 10 are ... wait for it ... unions. They gave more than $278 million, with most of it going to Democrats. These are familiar names: AFSCME ($60.6 million), NEA ($53.5 million), IBEW ($44.4 million), UAW ($41.6 million), Carpenters & Joiners ($39.2 million) and SEIU ($38.3 million).

4. ....the Koch brothers also contribute tens of millions of dolalrs to the GOP cause indirectly through their indpendent committees Americans for Prosperity and others. Also to be fair, I should point out that unions spent a half a billion dollars in such indirect spending in the 2012 election cycle.

5. So, if money is the measure of evil in American politics and the Evil Koch Bros only come in 59th, who is really the most evil donor ever?

Turns out it's Act Blue, with just short of $100 million in contributions during its lifetime, which only started in 2004, 15 years after the Evil Koch Bros in the OpenSecrets.org compilation." Blog: 'Evil' Koch brothers just 59th on top political donation list

The Kochs announced early last year that they had $889,000,000 between the two of them, two individuals, to play with for this election. Why don't you state ALL the facts?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/27/u...-spend-900-million-on-2016-campaign.html?_r=0

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. In this thread, an exemplar of the indoctrination that is central to the ascendancy of 'Liberalism, Incorporated.'

Why in 'Politics'? For this For this reason....every political endeavor in our society recognizes, and attempts to confront, poverty.
Some actually desire ending it.
The defining characteristic that divides conservatism and Modern Liberalism is the role played by government in attempting to end poverty.


Two quotes which set the stage:
a. The nine most terrifying words in the English language are "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."
Ronald Reagan

b. "You do not take a man who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race, saying, "you are free to compete with all the others," and still justly believe you have been completely fair... This is the next and more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity—not just legal equity but human ability—not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as a result. "LBJ in the Commencement Address at Howard University on June 4, 1965 on affirmative action

Of course, the difference between the two views is stark...but I contend that a look at the results of the two views makes it impossible not to see the former as the correct one.



2. The impetus for this thread is a new series on NPR radio, "Busted: America's Poverty Myths." Based on the perspective one has come to expect from NPR, and the fact that it dines at the government trough, one would expect a one-sided support for the Liberal perspective.
Nay, nay! An excellent, professional job....sloped toward the Left, but, still, quite even-handed. Listen here: Busted: America's Poverty Myths | WNYC

3. NPR gets right to it; "The upward mobility myth....where everyone has an equal chance to surmount any obstacle..." Well...they may label it a 'myth'...because they have slanted the language to prove their contention. Only a fool expects the CEO position to be given out randomly, sort of like the Dalai Lama position is.
In fact, upward mobility is a attainable.... for all... if one places the goal within a real-world framework that includes hard work, the proper discipline in the choices one makes, and rational expectations. That means, do the right things.



4. The show starts by....'blaming' Ben Franklin for the 'myth.'
I said 'even-handed'....and quote is provided: "... the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.” Ben Franklin

Now...they do point out how exceptional Ben Franklin was....but it's hard to find any errors in that quote.


How does NPR soften the blow to the Liberal perspective?
Next.

The pander to the rich GOP has mad it as difficult as possible to rise in society for many years. People didn't just get lazy.

After 30 years of Voodoo: worst min. wage, work conditions, illegal work safeguards, vacations, work week, college costs, rich/poor gap, upward social mobility, % homeless and in prison EVAH, and in the modern world!! And you complain about the victims? Are you an idiot or an A-hole?

I almost got you upset enough to default to profanity, huh?

Excellent.

Copied from sig duh...

Hey....don't stop now.....I'm havin' too much fun!


Post more of the Left's lies so I can rip it to shreds!
After all......That's what you're here for.

 

[WaitingFor2020]

View attachment 93907

This liberal hates big govt. and hates high taxation.....Welfare workers need to be working if capable and the politicians need to be held accountable for their actions...We need to reduce the debt, reduce expenditure and live frugally...

"This liberal hates big govt. and hates high taxation."

Reality is defined by actions, not by words: I've need seen a post of your criticizing Obama.


"Welfare workers need to be working if capable and the politicians need to be held accountable for their actions...We need to reduce the debt, reduce expenditure and live frugally..."

Hallalujah!!!

I don't have to publicly announce my disapproval every day at every moment to think...

Bulletin:
The thread is based on NPR/Liberalism's view that the only way to achieve success is through the efforts of big government.
Not hard work, not an individual's decisions nor efforts.....only through appeasement of the great god, government.



I certainly hope you don't mind discussions of your 'religion.'

From the Amazon review of Godless, by Coulter…

"Though liberalism rejects the idea of God and reviles people of faith, it bears all the attributes of a religion. In Godless, Coulter throws open the doors of the Church of Liberalism, showing us its sacraments (abortion), its holy writ (Roe v. Wade), its martyrs (from Soviet spy Alger Hiss to cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal), its clergy (public school teachers), its churches (government schools, where prayer is prohibited but condoms are free), its doctrine of infallibility (as manifest in the "absolute moral authority" of spokesmen from Cindy Sheehan to Max Cleland), and its cosmology (in which mankind is an inconsequential accident)."

Then, of course, there's the liberal creation myth: Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

For liberals, evolution is the touchstone that separates the enlightened from the benighted.

And....Franklin Delano Roosevelt, "...the Socialist Savior of the Democratic Party."



And...this catechism, which we learn from NPR....
you didn't build that.....any success is just dumb luck!

She also just published a book about how great Trump is. Glad it is out in print as we learn about the real Donald Trump, who will go down harder than Bill Cosby.

But of course she's been trolling the dregs of the semi-illiterate mindset for years now, putting into print what the ignorant mouth-breathers speak and serving the lowest common denominator.

"Trumped-Up Outrage
The Left condemns the GOP candidate even as it celebrates crudity and sexual exhibitionism throughout the culture.
The Left condemns the GOP candidate even as it celebrates crudity and sexual exhibitionism throughout the culture.
But Democrats are the most shameless in their outrage over the Trump braggadocio, having dismissed Bill Clinton’s White House and gubernatorial escapades for years, and standing as the party of maximal sexual liberation, unlike the Republicans. The New York Times rejects the relevance of Clinton’s predatory White House behavior on the ground that “Mr. Clinton is not running for president.” But the Times did not find Clinton’s behavior significant when Clinton was in office, either."

Trumped-Up Outrage



In your face, you dunce.

Are you "bleeding from your...whatever" today? So this op-ed by some newspaper reporter at the some paper called the City Journal dismisses Trump's own comments to Billy Bush on the A.H. bus? Such a sore loser.