Jared Allen rips Detroit

[Delete This Account]

Not wanting to live under the constant threat of violent crime makes one entitled?

 

no, hiding one's head the sand and pretending the suburbs are the answer, and then complaining about how the city is drawing away county money and decrying how the city -- from the schools to poverty -- is getting worse is hypocritical at best. either you're part of the problem or part of the solution, and moving away and then complaining about the rot is pure self-serving superiority.

 

jw

[DaveinElma]

no, hiding one's head the sand and pretending the suburbs are the answer, and then complaining about how the city is drawing away county money and decrying how the city -- from the schools to poverty -- is getting worse is hypocritical at best. either you're part of the problem or part of the solution, and moving away and then complaining about the rot is pure self-serving superiority.

 

jw

 

Not wanting my hard earned money to be redistributed into failed liberal policies isnt "hiding ones head in the sand".

[Alaska Darin]

no, hiding one's head the sand and pretending the suburbs are the answer, and then complaining about how the city is drawing away county money and decrying how the city -- from the schools to poverty -- is getting worse is hypocritical at best. either you're part of the problem or part of the solution, and moving away and then complaining about the rot is pure self-serving superiority.

 

jw

[Delete This Account]

Not wanting my hard earned money to be redistributed into failed liberal policies isnt "hiding ones head in the sand".

so you're supposing to propose a failed conservative policy by suggesting we let urban blighted cities rot. fair enough.

 

jw

[3rdnlng]

so you're supposing to propose a failed conservative policy by suggesting we let urban blighted cities rot. fair enough.

 

jw

 

 

So, you think letting obsolite theories promoted by your leftist union promoting, self serving asswholes are going to help the situation? Let 'em rot until they figure it out.

[IDBillzFan]

so you're supposing to propose a failed conservative policy by suggesting we let urban blighted cities rot. fair enough.

 

jw

It's amazing to me that you genuinely can not have a single discussion here without immediately stating that the reason someone disagrees with you is because of the most horribly extreme reason anyone can imagine.

 

And let me be clear: I think Dave in Elma is something of a repetitive dolt, but all he wrote was that he doesn't want his wealth distributed, and you immediately turn that into his desire to "let urban blighted cities rot." It was kind of like your comment the other day to the effect that there aren't just people who are rich, but rather an entire group of people who happily sit in private rooms rubbing their coins together and telling each other stories how orgasmic it is to leave poor people to die in the streets in their own vomit so they can have just one extra coin to stuff in their pocket.

 

It's gotten to the point that the only thing more predictable than your desperate hyperbole is knowing that any time I sit in a hotel room flipping through channels, I will undoubtedly find someone on Current TV interviewing Janine Garafalo. And you're actually starting to become more predictable than that. A tall task, without question.

[DaveinElma]

so you're supposing to propose a failed conservative policy by suggesting we let urban blighted cities rot. fair enough.

 

jw

 

Why do I need to offer a policy to make people raise their kids correctly so they dont become violent gangsters? If inner citys weren't such violent hellholes maybe people wouldn't be fleeing them.

[Delete This Account]

It's amazing to me that you genuinely can not have a single discussion here without immediately stating that the reason someone disagrees with you is because of the most horribly extreme reason anyone can imagine.

 

And let me be clear: I think Dave in Elma is something of a repetitive dolt, but all he wrote was that he doesn't want his wealth distributed, and you immediately turn that into his desire to "let urban blighted cities rot." It was kind of like your comment the other day to the effect that there aren't just people who are rich, but rather an entire group of people who happily sit in private rooms rubbing their coins together and telling each other stories how orgasmic it is to leave poor people to die in the streets in their own vomit so they can have just one extra coin to stuff in their pocket.

 

It's gotten to the point that the only thing more predictable than your desperate hyperbole is knowing that any time I sit in a hotel room flipping through channels, I will undoubtedly find someone on Current TV interviewing Janine Garafalo. And you're actually starting to become more predictable than that. A tall task, without question.

righto. i'm always the ones who jumps to conclusions and never has to defend myself against some of the more blatant racism and elitism that exists on this portion of the board. it's my fault.

 

dave in elma began by suggesting that Allen will get ripped for his comments. i steered away from the bait and pondered how the suburban flight is one of the reasons why urban centers have been left to rot.

dave retorted that he doesn't want his wealth redistributed.

 

prior to that, dave fondly suggested that it's liberal policies that are the root of this evil. why, lord only knows. people aren't allowed to make a living i guess, because unions are bad. geez, in a free market, people aren't allowed to make money except for those in the positions of power. wow, how fascinating.

 

which leaves us where. urban centers left to rot?

 

for someone seeking to have an adult conversation, please proceed without attaching flip labels to me and my views and suggesting that i'm the only over-reactionary nut job here.

 

jw

 

Why do I need to offer a policy to make people raise their kids correctly so they dont become violent gangsters? If inner citys weren't such violent hellholes maybe people wouldn't be fleeing them.

yes, all inner cities are violent hellholes. this is obtuse. and i'm accused of over-reacting.

you'd rather have your cake and eat it too. keep your money and have the troubles solved as if by magic, when in fact as i've noted the trouble with inner-city poverty is in part because the tax base has been reduced by those wanting to live in the comfort of the suburbs while pooh-poohing what's going on in the city.

 

oh my. how convenient of you.

 

jw

Edited January 12, 2012 by john wawrow

[IDBillzFan]

righto. i'm always the ones who jumps to conclusions and never has to defend myself against some of the more blatant racism and elitism that exists on this portion of the board. it's my fault. jw

Look, the reality is that your oft-used and well-honed writing skills can't help but go the route of hyperbole when you're discussion politics off the clock. You are simply a hard-left guy'; the prototypical Keith Olbermann, DailyKos kinda being. You're open about it, you're proud about it, and the fact that you wear your bleeding heart on your sleeve is inspiring. Especially to a guy like me...one of those back-alley, rancid-smelling fly-cover rat-infested money-grubbing people-hating dirtbag teabagger conservatives you're always complaining about.

[3rdnlng]

Look, the reality is that your oft-used and well-honed writing skills can't help but go the route of hyperbole when you're discussion politics off the clock. You are simply a hard-left guy'; the prototypical Keith Olbermann, DailyKos kinda being. You're open about it, you're proud about it, and the fact that you wear your bleeding heart on your sleeve is inspiring. Especially to a guy like me...one of those back-alley, rancid-smelling fly-cover rat-infested money-grubbing people-hating dirtbag teabagger conservatives you're always complaining about.

 

In your haste to confess, you forgot gay-bashing.

[drinkTHEkoolaid]

righto. i'm always the ones who jumps to conclusions and never has to defend myself against some of the more blatant racism and elitism that exists on this portion of the board. it's my fault.

 

dave in elma began by suggesting that Allen will get ripped for his comments. i steered away from the bait and pondered how the suburban flight is one of the reasons why urban centers have been left to rot.

dave retorted that he doesn't want his wealth redistributed.

 

prior to that, dave fondly suggested that it's liberal policies that are the root of this evil. why, lord only knows. people aren't allowed to make a living i guess, because unions are bad. geez, in a free market, people aren't allowed to make money except for those in the positions of power. wow, how fascinating.

 

which leaves us where. urban centers left to rot?

 

for someone seeking to have an adult conversation, please proceed without attaching flip labels to me and my views and suggesting that i'm the only over-reactionary nut job here.

 

jw

 

 

yes, all inner cities are violent hellholes. this is obtuse. and i'm accused of over-reacting.

you'd rather have your cake and eat it too. keep your money and have the troubles solved as if by magic, when in fact as i've noted the trouble with inner-city poverty is in part because the tax base has been reduced by those wanting to live in the comfort of the suburbs while pooh-poohing what's going on in the city.

 

oh my. how convenient of you.

 

jw

 

A significant cause of the erosion of inner city neighborhoods is

(Noble good intentioned) but ultimatly failed liberal policies. There is now an entire class of people who have 2nd generations living off the welfare state. With the ever reliance on government social programs people no longer try to improve their lives because they keep getting told they are the victims and the government will take care of them.

 

Somewhere along the way without making positive contributions to society and their own lives being ever dependent upon the government while being made to feel like victims they lost their self respect and motivation to make something happen and pull themseleves forward with hardwork effort and education.

 

Then you add another generation where all their role models they see and their social norms just re enforce this entitlement mentality without ever learning how to take care of and better yourself with healthy work habits

[Delete This Account]

A significant cause of the erosion of inner city neighborhoods is

(Noble good intentioned) but ultimatly failed liberal policies. There is now an entire class of people who have 2nd generations living off the welfare state. With the ever reliance on government social programs people no longer try to improve their lives because they keep getting told they are the victims and the government will take care of them.

 

Somewhere along the way without making positive contributions to society and their own lives being ever dependent upon the government while being made to feel like victims they lost their self respect and motivation to make something happen and pull themseleves forward with hardwork effort and education.

 

Then you add another generation where all their role models they see and their social norms just re enforce this entitlement mentality without ever learning how to take care of and better yourself with healthy work habits

yes, let's suggest that the under-privileged are victims, because that's the way people want to see it, because how else can we go on with our lives other than thinking "we" can't make a difference, it's out of our hands, oh pooh-pooh. what a buncha elitist baloney.

 

"they're no longer trying," you say.

 

why not just stop attempting to be politically correct and come out with it and say "you're better than `them'" and feel good about getting that off your chest other than this piddle-paddling dalliance around it.

 

for gawd's sake, if you're going to be a "classist" about it, go out and say it. i'm sure you won't hurt "their" feelings, because after all what's it matter. they are the "entitled" ones, and it's you that we must have sympathy for for your dear feelings of empathy. poor them.

 

and it's those danged liberal policies that are backwards. perhaps we should re-introduce debtors jail, and get "them" off the streets so we won't have to put up with "them" anymore, and be forced to confront such blight, because it really is unsightly.

 

sonofa ... just listen to yourself for a second, will ya.

 

jw

[Rob's House]

yes, let's suggest that the under-privileged are victims, because that's the way people want to see it, because how else can we go on with our lives other than thinking "we" can't make a difference, it's out of our hands, oh pooh-pooh. what a buncha elitist baloney.

 

"they're no longer trying," you say.

 

why not just stop attempting to be politically correct and come out with it and say "you're better than `them'" and feel good about getting that off your chest other than this piddle-paddling dalliance around it.

 

for gawd's sake, if you're going to be a "classist" about it, go out and say it. i'm sure you won't hurt "their" feelings, because after all what's it matter. they are the "entitled" ones, and it's you that we must have sympathy for for your dear feelings of empathy. poor them.

 

and it's those danged liberal policies that are backwards. perhaps we should re-introduce debtors jail, and get "them" off the streets so we won't have to put up with "them" anymore, and be forced to confront such blight, because it really is unsightly.

 

sonofa ... just listen to yourself for a second, will ya.

 

jw

You should stick to writing about topics on which you're at least minimally knowledgeable, whatever that might be.

[Delete This Account]

Look, the reality is that your oft-used and well-honed writing skills can't help but go the route of hyperbole when you're discussion politics off the clock. You are simply a hard-left guy'; the prototypical Keith Olbermann, DailyKos kinda being. You're open about it, you're proud about it, and the fact that you wear your bleeding heart on your sleeve is inspiring. Especially to a guy like me...one of those back-alley, rancid-smelling fly-cover rat-infested money-grubbing people-hating dirtbag teabagger conservatives you're always complaining about.

with all due respect. i don't see myself as a hard-left guy, and don't encourage comparisons with Keith Olbermann, whom i watched ocassionally, and thought was a good ranter, but ultimately a blow-hard. as for the DailyKos, don't think i've ever read it. i take no offense though.

 

as for this money-grubbing stuff, let me explain.

i take no issue with people making money, especially when they come by it honestly. it's to be encouraged.

what's difficult to understand is how those in positions of power are capable of rigging the system in their favor -- whether its in banking, medicine, real estate, insurance racketeers what have you -- to make a buck for the pure necessity of making a buck, without delivering any service of value, treating it all like some kind of ponzi scheme at the expense of people who could full well use the money, whether its the poor and helpless, the elderly and sick or simply the

corporations who take out policies on their employees in order to make a fast buck.

 

and i'm not talking about the doctor down the street, or the real estate broker or the local teller. it's the money-changers and the greedhounds, who

 

there is no nobility in this, or liberal vs. conservative ideology. it's plain wrong and part of a corrupt system which has made us so accustomed to this crime that we are simply led to shrug our shoulders, look the other way and say, "it's the poor people's fault. they're the ones who are ripping us off."

 

jw

 

You should stick to writing about topics on which you're at least minimally knowledgeable, whatever that might be.

care to come up with at least a half-thought out reply, or is that the extent of your debating prowess? or have the conservatives outlawed free speech already ...

 

jw

[Rob's House]

with all due respect. i don't see myself as a hard-left guy, and don't encourage comparisons with Keith Olbermann, whom i watched ocassionally, and thought was a good ranter, but ultimately a blow-hard. as for the DailyKos, don't think i've ever read it. i take no offense though.

 

as for this money-grubbing stuff, let me explain.

i take no issue with people making money, especially when they come by it honestly. it's to be encouraged.

what's difficult to understand is how those in positions of power are capable of rigging the system in their favor -- whether its in banking, medicine, real estate, insurance racketeers what have you -- to make a buck for the pure necessity of making a buck, without delivering any service of value, treating it all like some kind of ponzi scheme at the expense of people who could full well use the money, whether its the poor and helpless, the elderly and sick or simply the

corporations who take out policies on their employees in order to make a fast buck.

 

and i'm not talking about the doctor down the street, or the real estate broker or the local teller. it's the money-changers and the greedhounds, who

 

there is no nobility in this, or liberal vs. conservative ideology. it's plain wrong and part of a corrupt system which has made us so accustomed to this crime that we are simply led to shrug our shoulders, look the other way and say, "it's the poor people's fault. they're the ones who are ripping us off."

 

jw

 

 

care to come up with at least a half-thought out reply, or is that the extent of your debating prowess? or have the conservatives outlawed free speech already ...

 

jw

Maybe tomorrow; I'm on my phone & this could take a few paragraphs.

[drinkTHEkoolaid]

yes, let's suggest that the under-privileged are victims, because that's the way people want to see it, because how else can we go on with our lives other than thinking "we" can't make a difference, it's out of our hands, oh pooh-pooh. what a buncha elitist baloney.

 

"they're no longer trying," you say.

 

why not just stop attempting to be politically correct and come out with it and say "you're better than `them'" and feel good about getting that off your chest other than this piddle-paddling dalliance around it.

 

for gawd's sake, if you're going to be a "classist" about it, go out and say it. i'm sure you won't hurt "their" feelings, because after all what's it matter. they are the "entitled" ones, and it's you that we must have sympathy for for your dear feelings of empathy. poor them.

 

and it's those danged liberal policies that are backwards. perhaps we should re-introduce debtors jail, and get "them" off the streets so we won't have to put up with "them" anymore, and be forced to confront such blight, because it really is unsightly.

 

sonofa ... just listen to yourself for a second, will ya.

 

jw

 

A bit of a touchy subjet Eh?

 

See here's the problem...you feel that if someone doesn't identify as a left leaning liberal they must be a smug cold hearted elitist because they don't think the same as you and only bleeding hearts are capable of such emotions.

 

I am very compassionate for others. I want people to be able to support themselves and have a sense of self worth and self respect with family support and a brighter future. Living in a continous welfare cycle will not accomplish that.

 

You and your anger are misdirected.

[Delete This Account]

A bit of a touchy subjet Eh?

 

See here's the problem...you feel that if someone doesn't identify as a left leaning liberal they must be a smug cold hearted elitist because they don't think the same as you and only bleeding hearts are capable of such emotions.

 

I am very compassionate for others. I want people to be able to support themselves and have a sense of self worth and self respect with family support and a brighter future. Living in a continous welfare cycle will not accomplish that.

 

You and your anger are misdirected.

it's not anger. it's simply poking holes at the hypocrisy of those who say they have compassion -- well then it must be so -- and then proceed to show they don't understand the meaning of the word by dictating terms without any direction or regard.

 

"i want people to be able to support themselves and have a sense of self worth and self respect."

well, who doesn't. mere words won't make it so.

 

and who's to say some of the people you target don't have a sense of self worth or self respect. is it up to you to determine this? and you're right, no one in poverty is attempting to improve their lives. that's a generalization that really shouldn't dignify a response. so sorry for that.

 

jw

 

Maybe tomorrow; I'm on my phone & this could take a few paragraphs.

oh, the world awaits ye.

 

jw

Edited January 13, 2012 by john wawrow

[IDBillzFan]

mere words won't make it so.

Neither do handouts without full accountability. Which comes back to a truth that many conservatives believe (to paraphrase Dennis Miller): We are always happy to help the helpless (which is why conservatives give more to charities than, you know, the bleeding hearts). The problem is being forced to help the clueless. You will undoubtedly find some grey area between the helpless and clueless, but it's not near as grey as you would think if you just set some very simple guidelines to receive aid. I don't have all the answers, but I think we can all agree on a few.

 

For example, having more children should not increase the amount of money you get from the government. Anyone receiving state or federal funds must test clean of drugs. They must turn in itemized receipts for everything they purchased, easily done with a system that verifies and prints the EBT number on the receipt. They should be put to work in various volunteer locations; soup kitchens, pet shelters, libraries, schools. There are plenty of federal and state needs for volunteers. Let's fill those needs with people who can't find work.Won't that help give them a sense of worth and self respect?

 

And these are nothing more than simple, common sense suggestions. The country gives you help, you give help and accountability in return.

 

But no. We must not question those in need. We must give them what they need, and not question why they need it, and not hold them accountable. Surely if we keep giving them unlimited support without asking questions, they'll all get on their feet one day, right? Right?

[GG]

You start with this

 

i take no issue with people making money, especially when they come by it honestly. it's to be encouraged.

 

and immediately follow with this

 

what's difficult to understand is how those in positions of power are capable of rigging the system in their favor -- whether its in banking, medicine, real estate, insurance racketeers what have you -- to make a buck for the pure necessity of making a buck, without delivering any service of value, treating it all like some kind of ponzi scheme at the expense of people who could full well use the money, whether its the poor and helpless, the elderly and sick or simply the corporations who take out policies on their employees in order to make a fast buck.

 

And then you wonder why everyone has you pegged as a loony left nut.

 

Since you still value the connection to the commonwealth, you may appreciate this opinion from a rightist rag:

 

It's always the moneychangers, eh?

 

 

..Scorn for moneymen has a long pedigree. Jesus expelled the moneychangers from the Temple. Timothy tells us that “the love of money is the root of all evil.” Muhammad banned usury. The Jews referred to interest as neshek—a bite. The Catholic church banned it in 1311. Dante consigned moneylenders to the seventh circle of hell—the one also populated by the inhabitants of Sodom and “other practisers of unnatural vice”.For centuries the hatred of moneylending—of money begetting more money—went hand in hand with a hatred of rootlessness. Cosmopolitan moneylenders were harder to tax than immobile landowners, governments grumbled. In a diatribe against the Rothschilds, Heinrich Heine, a German poet, fumed that money “is more fluid than water and less steady than air.”

 

This prejudice has proven dangerous. Without money to grease them, the wheels of commerce turn slowly or not at all. Civilisations that have eased the ban on moneylending have grown rich. Those that have retained it have stagnated. Northern Italy boomed in the 15th century when the Medicis and other banking families found ways to bend the rules. Economic leadership passed to Protestant Europe when Luther and Calvin made moneylending acceptable. As Europe pulled ahead, the usury-banning Islamic world remained mired in poverty. In 1000 western Europe’s share of global GDP was 11.1% compared with the Middle East’s 8.6%. By 1700 western Europe had a 13.5% share compared with the Middle East’s 3.4%.

 

The rise of banking has often been accompanied by a flowering of civilisation. Artists and academics railing against the “agents of the Apocalypse” might also learn from history. Great financial centres have often been great artistic centres—from Florence in the Renaissance to Amsterdam in the 17th century to London and New York today. Countries that have chased away the moneylenders have been artistic deserts. Where would New York’s SoHo be without Wall Street? Or the great American universities without the flow of gold into their coffers?..

 

 

 

there is no nobility in this, or liberal vs. conservative ideology. it's plain wrong and part of a corrupt system which has made us so accustomed to this crime that we are simply led to shrug our shoulders, look the other way and say, "it's the poor people's fault. they're the ones who are ripping us off."

 

jw

 

You may want to read up on that correlation causation thingy. Which rich guy is saying that the poor are ripping him off?

[Delete This Account]

Neither do handouts without full accountability. Which comes back to a truth that many conservatives believe (to paraphrase Dennis Miller): We are always happy to help the helpless (which is why conservatives give more to charities than, you know, the bleeding hearts). The problem is being forced to help the clueless. You will undoubtedly find some grey area between the helpless and clueless, but it's not near as grey as you would think if you just set some very simple guidelines to receive aid. I don't have all the answers, but I think we can all agree on a few.

 

For example, having more children should not increase the amount of money you get from the government. Anyone receiving state or federal funds must test clean of drugs. They must turn in itemized receipts for everything they purchased, easily done with a system that verifies and prints the EBT number on the receipt. They should be put to work in various volunteer locations; soup kitchens, pet shelters, libraries, schools. There are plenty of federal and state needs for volunteers. Let's fill those needs with people who can't find work.Won't that help give them a sense of worth and self respect?

 

And these are nothing more than simple, common sense suggestions. The country gives you help, you give help and accountability in return.

 

But no. We must not question those in need. We must give them what they need, and not question why they need it, and not hold them accountable. Surely if we keep giving them unlimited support without asking questions, they'll all get on their feet one day, right? Right?

i hope you're not suggesting we replace one government program with another in legislating how people should live, is it? and why not take it one step further, anyone applying for a job be subject to drug-testing since drugs, in fact, are illegal. because, after all, taking away one person's rights shouldn't prevent us from taking away another's, because liberty and freedom are mere catch-phrases used to fulfill the void of what's left of a national myth.

 

and i like the logic of your volunteer suggesting. since these people have no money, except that what the government provides them, why not take away the opportunity to do any work and the chance to advance themselves by making them full-time volunteers. this way, we can keep them under thumb for eternity.

 

jw