Right-wing commentator: Poor people voting is ‘un-American’

Originally posted by Twilights-passing



It's not about the poor not voting, it's about the poor voting the way they are being influenced to.

Why don't you have more confidence in the poor being able to make up their own minds without being influenced? I propose that the
poor vote in their best self interest just like everyone else.

Or should only the wealthy and right wing have the option of self determination? But everyone else is "influenced"

Originally posted by illuminatislave
reply to post by Donkey_Dean

 

The GOP appeals to the poor, uneducated white rural voters of the south using their love of Christianity, firearms, and racism/xenophobia to get them to vote against their own self interest. They have turned this group of Americans into shills for the elite's agenda. No different from those poor folks who vote Democrat and become shills for the elites agenda. Just like, as claimed in this thread, the democrats want to keep certain people on welfare to keep their vote, the Republicans want to keep those southerners blind, deaf, and dumb to maintain their vote.

So by the logic of some here, those people should not be allowed to vote.

This entire thread is stupid.

History repeats itself.

In the social revolutions in Europe in the 1800s, the rural peasants would align themselves with the Church, the Nobility and the Conservative bourgeoisie, while the workers and the inner city would align with the Socialists and radicals. Both sides manipulated their supporters to further their cause.

The Republican party has the support of many peasants, not just in the South, but every rural region of the US.

Our future lies within our history.

reply to post by Twilights-passing


ahem...

"Registering them to vote is like handing out burglary tools to criminals," he continues. "It is profoundly antisocial and un-American to empower the nonproductive segments of the population to destroy the country-- which is precisely why Barack Obama zealously supports registering welfare recipients to vote. ... Encouraging those who burden society to participate in elections isn't about helping the poor. It's about helping the poor to help themselves to others' money."

www.rawstory.com...

English can be very confusing sometimes - perhaps we all misunderstood

what is he really saying here?

:-)

I find it quite cathartic to see the Progressives here, who are supposedly the humanitarians, attacking a self-proclaimed TEA Party member for saying poor people should be helped to not be poor anymore. That's like...nectar.

American citizens should be able to vote in America. Yes, people on the dole will vote for more handouts, and the super-rich will vote for more tax breaks. It isn't perfect, but it's a damn sight better than several of the alternatives.

/TOA

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by beezzer

 

OK Beezzer.. You make 900 (well 1100, but 200 dollars a month goes to taxes). You have two kids and no partner. You live in a based on income apartment complex (200 a month). You have a small car payment for a used car (140 a month). Car insurance (120 a month). Gas to work (say 2 tanks a month 20 gl. tank at 3.60 a gl. [144.00])Television and internet and cell ( 100 a month for the "luxuries"). Welfare helps a little with toilet paper, clothes, soap, shampoo, anything you can't buy with food stamps.

That's 704 of your 900.. though I would say I'm forgetting some expenses that would knock off another 100 (like fast food since you don't have much time to cook working 40 hrs a week, flat tire, a million things that could go wrong).

Say you can honestly save about 100 a month.

This is your life every single day you can't get out of it because you can't take a break. You get no vacation.
Then one of your kids breaks his leg, and your car breaks down.

This is how too many people in American live. You act like they should just get out of their situation.. you forget they can't take a break. You are stuck in poverty.

Now President Tea Party McPublican comes in and takes your welfare.

edit on 5-9-2011 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

All this mathematisization

I think you lost people by the first figure.

That is not the real truth, but it does illuminate how conservatives rule.

They rule by trampling on the minutia or simply ignoring the reality of the human condition.

Originally posted by The Old American
I find it quite cathartic to see the Progressives here, who are supposedly the humanitarians, attacking a self-proclaimed TEA Party member for saying poor people should be helped to not be poor anymore. That's like...nectar.

May I ask where you see that happening?
As an aside. May I ask how you define catharsis? Just curious.

reply to post by The Old American

I find it quite cathartic to see the Progressives here, who are supposedly the humanitarians, attacking a self-proclaimed TEA Party member for saying poor people should be helped to not be poor anymore. That's like...nectar.

I gave you a star - for the whole pro-voting thing

But, about the 'supposedly the humanitarians' thing...

C'mon - really? Is that how you see the progressives? They are self-proclaimed humanitarians?

:-)

You only give the title so you can take it away

It's always assumed that the farther-left stubbornly refuses to see or understand the problem in any given situation when in reality we usually just disagree with the farther-right on how to address the problem

Your TEA Party member may have his heart in the right place - who knows...I don't think anybody here is really opposing a little tough love - we all could use a little tough love from time to time - rich or poor

Registering them to vote is like handing out burglary tools to criminals," he continues. "It is profoundly antisocial and un-American to empower the nonproductive segments of the population to destroy the country

I think when we hear something like this - we humanitarians are just not feeling the love

Where's the love Old American? Poverty is not a crime. If you don't care, you don't care - no one is asking you to do something you can't do. But who is really attacking who here? At least be honest about that

And congrats on that whole catharsis thing - I could use a little of that myself

:-)

reply to post by Janky Red


I might have missed what you were referring to, but what did you mean by it's not the real truth?

reply to post by Janky Red


I did notice that none of the republican tea partiers touched that post.

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by The Old American
I find it quite cathartic to see the Progressives here, who are supposedly the humanitarians, attacking a self-proclaimed TEA Party member for saying poor people should be helped to not be poor anymore. That's like...nectar.

May I ask where you see that happening?
As an aside. May I ask how you define catharsis? Just curious.

Read every response to beezer's first couple of posts. He said that the solution is to help the poor not be so poor anymore. Then he was attacked by people that have historically held progressive views.

Cathartic: emotionally cleansed, refreshed.

/TOA

Originally posted by The Old American
Read every response to beezer's first couple of posts. He said that the solution is to help the poor not be so poor anymore. Then he was attacked by people that have historically held progressive views.

I have read them. I do not see it quite the way you do and that is why I asked for something specific.

Cathartic: emotionally cleansed, refreshed.

/TOA

Get a dictionary.

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis

But, about the 'supposedly the humanitarians' thing...

C'mon - really? Is that how you see the progressives? They are self-proclaimed humanitarians?

:-)

BWAHAHAHA!!! Oh, tears. Real tears. No, brother, I don't see them as humanitarians in the least. That's how they see themselves.

The Progressive movement started in the early 20th century with great, humanitarian intentions. It has mutated into something horrible and twisted, something to keep the poor and disenfranchised in that state of being.

/TOA

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by The Old American
Read every response to beezer's first couple of posts. He said that the solution is to help the poor not be so poor anymore. Then he was attacked by people that have historically held progressive views.

I have read them. I do not see it quite the way you do and that is why I asked for something specific.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

That's a good start. Every time beezer says "let's get them off welfare and get them not poor anymore" he's attacked. If you want more examples, you'll have to do your own searching.

Originally posted by Kitilani

Cathartic: emotionally cleansed, refreshed.

/TOA

Get a dictionary.

I have several, in several languages. Which one did you want me to use? The one that defines this Greek word as emotionally cleansed? How about the dictionary that defines it as a purification, an expelling of pity or remorse?

/TOA

reply to post by The Old American

No, brother, I don't see them as humanitarians in the least.

Yes, I know

:-)

Now, about your friend - he wasn't attacked - he was asked some pretty reasonable questions. Sometimes he answers them. Lets just use the word confronted - how about that? He wants the poor to be less poor. Who doesn't want the poor to be less poor? He was confronted because he supported the not-really-all-that-progressive fellow quoted in the OP.

Simple. Did you read the OP? Care to comment on it?

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
reply to post by The Old American

 

No, brother, I don't see them as humanitarians in the least.

Yes, I know

:-)

Now, about your friend - he wasn't attacked - he was asked some pretty reasonable questions. Sometimes he answers them. Lets just use the word confronted - how about that? He wants the poor to be less poor. Who doesn't want the poor to be less poor? He was confronted because he supported the not-really-all-that-progressive fellow quoted in the OP.

Simple. Did you read the OP? Care to comment on it?

edit on 9/6/2011 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)

I think I gave my view on who should vote in my first post in this thread. As to the fellow in the article, he sounds like he's pretty extreme. However, I can sympathize with him in a way. I could be considered poor ($41,200 as head of household, 3 people), but I'm not poor enough to benefit from government programs. So if they vote for more programs that benefit them, they're voting to give more of my money to them. I kind of need my money more than they need it.

But it's unlikely I would support his ideas.

/TOA

reply to post by The Old American


now that was a real reply - thank you

You know OA, right now - the times being the way they are - we are all feeling it one way or another. Those that haven't been hit already are looking at their futures - as I said before - there is panic in the air

Picking on the poor is not going to fix this problem - and it's not going to put more Cheerios on anyone's table

I know you know that - most reasonable people see it and know it

This is bigger than both of us - left or right. I have my suspicions about anyone that's not working for everybody right now. And anyone who is wasting their breath attacking the other side is not working for everybody. Unfortunately - there's no three-legged race in this country - and we're not getting very far with just the two

Time to unite - not divide

reply to post by The Old American


Actually
The poor being who they are (poor) generally means they are in need of the collective American people's money more than you are in need of the few dollars of your taxes that will go to them.

Should the poor people not be allowed to vote, they should also no longer be taxed. There should not be taxation without representation, you know.

And then when the bottom 50% who can not vote also are not taxed, who do you think will have to step up and pay more?
The middle class, clearly, because the rich can afford to buy out politicians who will make sure their taxes stay exactly how they are.

And should we continue to be the imperialist state that we are, your bank account will certainly not be better off than it is now. You'll have to fund the wars!

Originally posted by cetaphobic




And should we continue to be the imperialist state that we are, your bank account will certainly not be better off than it is now. You'll have to fund the wars!

He already funds the wars, but like most conservatives; needs a scapegoat to place the blame on. Simply parroting back the talking points given to him by the AM radio conservatives like Rush, Sean, Ingraham, OReilly, Levin, Hewitt, Authur, Beck and Savage. These men thrive on hate and division and care more about their egos than actually bringing the country together and solving problems. Just like the guy in the OP that wants to take away the voting rights of the poor. I make a whole lot more than $41k and don't begrudge one nickle going to help the poor...And thru my businesses I provide employment to help some raise themselves from poverty.

But I despise my tax dollars going to subsidize oil companies that are showing record profits and hide their income in off shore accounts to avoid paying their fair share. A fact that conservatives conveniently ignore in favor of scapegoating the poor.

www.nytimes.com...

I also resent my tax dollars going to fund the profits of the corporations that profit in blood; another drain on our economy that conservatives conveniently ignore; but prefer to place the blame on the poor, social security and medicare.

costofwar.com...

And I actually support beezzer..........

What needs to be done is to get people to the point where they don't need entitlement programs, NOT perpetuating their conditions.

Unless progressives like yourselves and the other posters here WANT to keep the poor, "poor".

But I resent the idea that as a progressive "I WANT to keep the poor, "poor" I actually hire the poor, women and minorities with gainful employment, education and more than fair wages. These types of Limbaugh insults are growing so tiresome. I wonder how many people beezzer and The Old American employ?

reply to post by whaaa


Another point to consider is that Conservatives like to tout their religious connections... Now what was it that Jesus said about the poor???

Originally posted by The Old American
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

That's a good start. Every time beezer says "let's get them off welfare and get them not poor anymore" he's attacked. If you want more examples, you'll have to do your own searching.

I READ ALL OF THOSE.

What are you missing? Telling poor people to stop being poor is not a help. Do you think Beezzer is a humanitarian if he tells dying people to stop being sick? He is attacked because all he says is poor people need to quit it.

I have several, in several languages. Which one did you want me to use?

We are writing in English here are we not?

The one that defines this Greek word as emotionally cleansed? How about the dictionary that defines it as a purification, an expelling of pity or remorse?

/TOA

edit on 6-9-2011 by The Old American because: (no reason given)

Just the one that defines the word correctly. Like I said, you were close.


ca·thar·sis   /kəˈθɑrsɪs/ Show Spelled[kuh-thahr-sis] Show IPA
noun, plural -ses  /-siz/ Show Spelled[-seez] Show IPA.
1. the purging of the emotions or relieving of emotional tensions, especially through certain kinds of art, as tragedy or music.
2. Medicine/Medical . purgation.
3. Psychiatry .
a. psychotherapy that encourages or permits the discharge of pent-up, socially unacceptable affects.
b. discharge of pent-up emotions so as to result in the alleviation of symptoms or the permanent relief of the condition.
See it is not just a release or a cleansing, the word also connotes a means, method, or way especially that being one of purging. How you used it makes no sense and that is why I asked.