Romney: 'I'm not concerned about the very poor'

[Politico]

There are a lot of bleeding hearts on here. I suspect age has a lot to do with it. As a wise man once put it:

If you're not a liberal at 20, you have no heart.
If you're not a conservative at 30, you have no brain.

[TheGlobalizer]

You really do have an amusing level of self regard for someone who's never shown any sign of intellectual depth or even basic critical faculties. You're what Gramsci would have called an organic intellectual. That's not really a complement, by the way.

Interesting, coming from someone who has made a small cottage industry out of exactly what I'm complaining about.  I seriously do not remember a single time you've posted anything of substance on this forum.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Interesting, coming from someone who has made a small cottage industry out of exactly what I'm complaining about.  I seriously do not remember a single time you've posted anything of substance on this forum.

That's because you define 'substance' in a fundamentally inaccurate manner, mon.

[tpfkaw]

You really do have an amusing level of self regard for someone who's never shown any sign of intellectual depth or even basic critical faculties. You're what Gramsci would have called an organic intellectual. That's not really a complement, by the way.

Interesting, coming from someone who has made a small cottage industry out of exactly what I'm complaining about.  I seriously do not remember a single time you've posted anything of substance on this forum.

He makes maps of Wales, silly!

[TheGlobalizer]

There are a lot of bleeding hearts on here. I suspect age has a lot to do with it. As a wise man once put it:

If you're not a liberal at 20, you have no heart.
If you're not a conservative at 30, you have no brain.

I don't even care if they're bleeding hearts - I expect it, it comes with the territory, talking about politics.  The least some of these folks could do, however, is show some intellectual integrity and argue the issues on the merits, rather than devolving into this showy, cloying, left-wing demogoguery.

[Politico]

You really do have an amusing level of self regard for someone who's never shown any sign of intellectual depth or even basic critical faculties. You're what Gramsci would have called an organic intellectual. That's not really a complement, by the way.

Interesting, coming from someone who has made a small cottage industry out of exactly what I'm complaining about.  I seriously do not remember a single time you've posted anything of substance on this forum.

Yeah, but he is the obligatory British socialist of the forum. The young ones look up to his rhetoric about how grand all things socialist are, and how rotten all things free enterprise are.

[tpfkaw]

And FTR before anyone gets too pissy I think TheGlobalizer is being a bit Randroidish here.  By far the biggest scumbags are at the top, not the bottom.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The least some of these folks could do, however, is show some intellectual integrity and argue the issues on the merits, rather than devolving into this showy, cloying, left-wing demogoguery.

But your positions have no merits. Don't you see? Your positions in this thread (by way of convenient example) are worse than immoral, they actually violate something a bit deeper and more universal than that. They are objectively despicable. Most sane conservatives would agree, so this isn't really a lefty thing. Understand?

[Oakvale]

TheGlobalizer's also making the mistake of thinking that those kind of comments actually merit sober discussion as if they were acceptable discourse.

e: Didn't see Al's post, my post was supposed to be after wormy's.

[Politico]

There are a lot of bleeding hearts on here. I suspect age has a lot to do with it. As a wise man once put it:

If you're not a liberal at 20, you have no heart.
If you're not a conservative at 30, you have no brain.

I don't even care if they're bleeding hearts - I expect it, it comes with the territory, talking about politics.  The least some of these folks could do, however, is show some intellectual integrity and argue the issues on the merits, rather than devolving into this showy, cloying, left-wing demogoguery.

True, but you were kind of asking for it with your powerful language. It probably would have been better to simply say something such as "there are poor people who are poor because they have no desire, let alone motivation, to not be poor. You either know what I am talking about, or you are sheltered. Unless these kind of poor people are part of your family, they are not your problem."

[TheGlobalizer]

And FTR before anyone gets too pissy I think TheGlobalizer is being a bit Randroidish here.  By far the biggest scumbags are at the top, not the bottom.

I didn't say the people at the bottom are worse - I resent government charity for the rich FAR more than I resent government charity for the poor.  But what I resent most of all is a governmental system, and an economic system perpetuated by that governmental system, that picks winners and losers at both ends and screws the people in the middle.  People in the middle who work hard and encounter all possible obstacles in their attempts to build a family and pass their legacy on to their children.

I don't care much for Romney, but he's absolutely right here (if you bother to read the whole quote).

[Politico]

And FTR before anyone gets too pissy I think TheGlobalizer is being a bit Randroidish here.  By far the biggest scumbags are at the top, not the bottom.

I strongly disagree. The biggest scumbags are child molesters followed by murderers and then rapists. You can find these people among all levels of the economic spectrum.

[TheGlobalizer]

There are a lot of bleeding hearts on here. I suspect age has a lot to do with it. As a wise man once put it:

If you're not a liberal at 20, you have no heart.
If you're not a conservative at 30, you have no brain.

I don't even care if they're bleeding hearts - I expect it, it comes with the territory, talking about politics.  The least some of these folks could do, however, is show some intellectual integrity and argue the issues on the merits, rather than devolving into this showy, cloying, left-wing demogoguery.

True, but you were kind of asking for it with your powerful language. It probably would have been better to simply say something such as "there are poor people who are poor because they have no desire, let alone motivation, to not be poor. You either know what I am talking about, or you are sheltered. Unless these kind of poor people are part of your family, they are not your problem."

I wasn't asking for ad hominems.  I was asking for reactions, to be sure, but look at the words:

I'm not concerned about the very poor, and neither are most Americans.  They give money to charities, in the hope that it helps the few who have encountered tragedy in their lives.  The rest?  Largely responsible for their own situation.

Americans are for lifting up the deserving and helping those who face difficulties.  People who suck at life?  They can drown.

What in there warrants personal attacks?  I'm advocating for personal responsibility, to include consequences of failure.  Failure is itself a stimulus for individual behavior, and creates much of the learning we go through in our lives.  People who fail consistently?  No amount of big-heartedness can help people who can't get their sh** straight.  Let them hit rock bottom and figure out their next steps.  I'm tired of a society that rewards people who suck at life by allowing them to float gently to the bottom and reap a minimal existence on my dime without a modicum of effort.

If that's a heartless position - say so.  If you disagree with that point of view, and advocate a different way to a better end - advocate for it.  But don't go through the motions of selling some sham of intellectual discourse when it's nothing more than internet trolling with better grammar.

[Politico]

I cannot disagree. Well said, Fred. The only thing I would add is personal support for charitable organizations that help the truly needy in an efficient, pro-responsibility manner. There are definitely people who are down on their luck that need assistance. However, it is not the government's job to take from one group of people to give to another in the name of "helping" them, especially if what the government initative is really going to do is make them indefinitely dependent upon said initiative. It ought to be up to the people to decide whether or not to help people, and in what form via choosing which organizations to support (or not support) via charity. The helpful charities would thrive, and the worthless ones would die.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

You're not helping your case.

I'm explaining my position further, in response to ad hominem attacks.  F*** my "case", it's my point of view.  You have yours, I don't go around calling you a "commie thief who supports the denigration of American culture" or somesuch, or treating your views as illegitimate, or disrespecting you personally.

I know my expectations are too high here, but I get really tired of the douchebag peanut gallery who exists on this board for no other reason than to engage in lame personal attacks of people they philosophically disagree with.

And I don't understand what I said that warranted this. Your first post pissed a lot of us off because we felt it was repugnant and your second post, while helpful in clarifying what you meant, didn't really make it better. As oakvale (who as you might see is on economic issues quite middle of the road) pointed out, it's an issue of acceptable level of public discourse. Sorry.

If you in fact think I am a commie thief, I suppose it's only fair that after this little dust-up I should say I won't complain if you say so in the future. I don't understand how on Earth I support the denigration of American culture, though, considering that I spend most of my free time producing American culture.

[The Mikado]

There are a lot of bleeding hearts on here. I suspect age has a lot to do with it. As a wise man once put it:

If you're not a liberal at 20, you have no heart.
If you're not a conservative at 30, you have no brain.

Who is this wise man?

[Politico]

There are a lot of bleeding hearts on here. I suspect age has a lot to do with it. As a wise man once put it:

If you're not a liberal at 20, you have no heart.
If you're not a conservative at 30, you have no brain.

Who is this wise man?

I've heard it attributed to both Churchill and Buckley, but I have never investigated.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

There are a lot of bleeding hearts on here. I suspect age has a lot to do with it. As a wise man once put it:

If you're not a liberal at 20, you have no heart.
If you're not a conservative at 30, you have no brain.

Who is this wise man?

I've heard it attributed to both Churchill and Buckley, but I have never investigated.

It may well be Buckley. Churchill's attribution is apocryphal particularly considering the actual course of his political career (he switched parties to the Liberals when he was thirty and back to the Conservatives when he was fifty).

[The Mikado]

There are a lot of bleeding hearts on here. I suspect age has a lot to do with it. As a wise man once put it:

If you're not a liberal at 20, you have no heart.
If you're not a conservative at 30, you have no brain.

Who is this wise man?

I've heard it attributed to both Churchill and Buckley, but I have never investigated.

It may well be Buckley. Churchill's attribution is apocryphal particularly considering the actual course of his political career (he switched parties when he was fifty).

A cursory Google search suggests that it was adapted from a quote by Francois Guizot on the monarchy vs. republic question: "Not to be a republican at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head."

It's not really a fortuitous origin, and it's kind of proof that that quote can be used to justify positions that seem pretty horrible in retrospect (monarchism).

[Minnesota Mike]

There are a lot of bleeding hearts on here. I suspect age has a lot to do with it. As a wise man once put it:

If you're not a liberal at 20, you have no heart.
If you're not a conservative at 30, you have no brain.

I must be a combination of the Tin Man and the Scarecrow then because the first president I ever voted for was Reagan and the last one I voted for was Obama. FWIW I don't think my politics have changed that much, it's just that the Republican party has moved so far to the fringe I can't even consider voting for them.

[Lief 🗽]

Anyone who would vote for Mitt "Austerity" Romney "has no brain."

[Politico]

Anyone who would vote for Mitt "Austerity" Romney "has no brain."

Anybody who thinks Obama can draw a simple supply and demand graph, let alone understand anything related to macroeconomics, "has no brain." Obama knows nothing about economics and business. He basically has the neanderthal attitude, "GOVERNMENT GOOD. MORE GOVERNMENT BETTER."

[Averroës Nix]

Anybody who thinks Obama can draw a simple supply and demand graph, let alone understand anything related to macroeconomics, "has no brain." Obama knows nothing about economics and business. He basically has the neanderthal attitude, "GOVERNMENT GOOD. MORE GOVERNMENT BETTER."

[Politico]

Anybody who thinks Obama can draw a simple supply and demand graph, let alone understand anything related to macroeconomics, "has no brain." Obama knows nothing about economics and business. He basically has the neanderthal attitude, "GOVERNMENT GOOD. MORE GOVERNMENT BETTER."

[BigSkyBob]

And FTR before anyone gets too pissy I think TheGlobalizer is being a bit Randroidish here.  By far the biggest scumbags are at the top, not the bottom.

I strongly disagree. The biggest scumbags are child molesters followed by murderers and then rapists. You can find these people among all levels of the economic spectrum.

I once read an article by a sociologist whom stated the best place to find sociopaths for study was in prison, and, after that, corporate board rooms. He used the example of Al "Chainsaw" Dunlap whom would take over corporations and systematically fire people. His alleged basic inability to empathize with the disruption in the lives of the people whom he fired allowed him to act in a completely ruthless fashion to make a buck.

You see the same dynamic at work at Bain capital. The same indifference that permitted Romney to strap his dog to the roof of his car for twelve-hour highway drive served him well at Bain Capital.

The question is whether, or not, it is a good attribute for a President?