Ron Rosenbaum, Writer

January 28, 2010

Is This the True Spirit of the Republican Party?

Filed under: Uncategorized — ronrosenbaumwriter @ 3:17 pm

I’m not accusing all Republicans of holding these views, but I haven’t heard many cries of outrage or calls for disavowal.

I guess being brought up by liberal Democratic parents, I was predisposed to believe this is how Republicans really think of the poor. But I know that’s not true of all of them.

On the other hand, why the silence? Here, I’ll give Republicans a chance to say that isn’t how they think. and please don’t waste your breath telling me Democrats think bad things. It will indicate to me you are avoiding the question because you can’t answer it or the answer is damning. The question about your party’s soul.

Wouldn’t you be ashamed to be in the same party that encourages the likes of this repulsive pol? I’m talking about South Carolina Republican gubernatorial candidate, Lieutenant Governor Andre Bauer, who delivered himself of this wisdom:

(CNN) – South Carolina Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer, under fire for drawing a comparison between needy people and “stray animals,” said Monday that he regrets his choice of words.

In a phone interview with CNN, Bauer, a Republican candidate for governor, said, “I wish I had used a different metaphor.” Bauer told an audience Friday that people receiving government assistance are like “stray animals” because “they breed” and “don’t know any better.”

No Andre, you’re the one who doesn’t know any better. Thousands of years of moral evolution that have placed a high value on helping the unfortunate passed you by, you amoral ignoramus. And don’t compound it by lying, you heartless creep. You don’t regret it; you only regret the momentary media revelation of your repugnant true nature.

Advertisements

177 Comments »

  1. It’s also an insult to stray animals. Watching the birds and squirrels dreal with today’s blizzard here in the woods, in the high winds and snow, reminds us that we are all strays. It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle these days than for some Republicans to get into the kingdom of heaven, but why serve Obama in heaven when you can do Sarah Palin in hell?

    Comment by charlie finch — January 28, 2010 @ 3:42 pm | Reply

  2. Yes, Jesus would puke, and yes he should drop out. He mentions wanting a “mature discussion” on the subject of welfare. Not exactly the most mature way to go about it.
    No, most Republicans do not think this way. I certainly don’t.. however I probably agree with his stance on welfare reform. If that makes me a terrible person, so be it.

    Comment by bryan — January 28, 2010 @ 3:42 pm | Reply

  3. and by the way.. your parents suck for trying to raise someone with such a narrow and hateful view of the those who don’t agree with them…

    Comment by bryan — January 28, 2010 @ 3:45 pm | Reply

  4. JD Salinger was probably a Republican

    Comment by charlie finch — January 28, 2010 @ 3:45 pm | Reply

  5. John Boehner looks like Beelzebub, but at least he doesn’t mug for the camera like Biden the puppet

    Comment by charlie finch — January 28, 2010 @ 3:48 pm | Reply

  6. All the Republicans have to say is two words, “John Edwards”. Ron doesn’t hang out with alot of politicians, so doesn’t realize how rotten they are as a group. I like watching the sartorially challenged Dems in the House chamber though: they look like the Harper Valley PTA!!

    Comment by charlie finch — January 28, 2010 @ 4:00 pm | Reply

  7. Interesting that Harry Blackmun biographer, ex Times Supreme Court reporter and very liberal prof Linda Greenhouse chastized Obama on her NY Times blog for disrespecting the Supreme Court last night

    Comment by charlie finch — January 28, 2010 @ 4:09 pm | Reply

  8. “I’m not accusing all Republicans of holding these views, but I haven’t heard many cries of outrage or calls for disavowal.”

    No but you are demanding proof of outrage from your readers.

    “This one’s your responsibility, Republicans. What are you going to do? It would be great if you demanded his resignation. Cc me on the emails you send demanding it. Are you too busy e-mailing to prevent the poor from getting health insurance? (bet I ‘ get a single one).”

    How do you square this with your previous statements about anonymous commenting? Email is just as anonymous. Sure an address can say John.Smith @ mail com but how do you know who it really is? Why is email acceptable to your but not comments?

    Though Mr. Rosenbaum I must complement you on finding something new and unknown

    A Google search of: Andre Bauer “breed like animals” yields only 18 results (or 89 depending on how duplicates are handled). And as of this moment, the ONLY blog, right or left, that Google has on it is ThinkProgress.

    A simple search true, but you have found a real sleeper of a story. Which is a shame as it is incendiary and explosive.

    Also Ron, so… civil of you to accuse the Republicans of specifically plotting to harm the poor. I guess you’re not accusing all Republicans of thinking that people on welfare “breed like animals” just that they want to hurt the poor get health insurance.

    And of course you end with the tedious boilerplate of how nobly you were raised and an argumentum-ad-Jesus. At least you didn’t accuse people using web handles of being paranoid, cowardly ignoramuses, this time.

    Oh by the way, have you meet Pajama’s newest Xpress Blogger?
    http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/

    Comment by Jack — January 28, 2010 @ 4:56 pm | Reply

  9. Mr Rosenbaum,

    To put Bauer’s outburst into perspective, I would suggest reading “Who Really Cares” By Arthur Brooks. That book, an academic study based on broadly-sampled statistics, rather than one horrific example, will give you an idea about how average Republicans care for the poor in this country.

    Comment by Anjika — January 28, 2010 @ 5:03 pm | Reply

  10. The speaker was a dolt, but here’s a question; is his thrust more or less damaging than is that of Obama, who left behind him in Chicago a culture of fatherless sons who are likely to kill and die on the street?

    Which is worse, stupid words or stupid actions?

    Comment by Ragspierre — January 28, 2010 @ 5:09 pm | Reply

  11. Might I suggest that Ron read the excerpt from “The Politician” in today’s Times? Even the worst Republican is not as crazy as Edwards!!

    Comment by charlie finch — January 28, 2010 @ 5:09 pm | Reply

  12. Ah my mistake. Apologies.

    Searching under Andre Bauer “stray animals” yields a respectable 49,800

    For conservative outlets let’s see

    And yes seems to not be getting much play on the Right side, at all.

    http://www.examiner.com/x-5738-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2010m1d24-South-Carolina-Lt-Governor-Andre-Bauer-compares-the-poor-to-stray-animals

    http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=28613

    And this fellow that things that Bauer is right. An… interesting contra-view.
    http://www.carolinapoliticsonline.com/category/election-2010/andre-bauer-election-2010/

    And another contra
    http://libertarianrepublican.blogspot.com/2010/01/sociali-darwinist-republican-sc-lt-gov.html

    http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2010/01/25/sc-lt-gov-makes-a-good-point-but-says-it-like-a-jerk/

    Here’s Drudge on it
    http://www.drudge.com/news/129351/repub-compares-needy-stray-animals

    And that’s just the first 30 pages.

    Comment by Jack — January 28, 2010 @ 5:11 pm | Reply

  13. Ah my mistake. Apologies.

    Searching under Andre Bauer “stray animals” yields a respectable 49,800

    For conservative outlets let’s see

    And yes seems to not be getting much play on the Right side, at all.

    Seems earlier message with links got eaten and won’t be reposted and didn’t like the urls.

    Unfortuantly just have to give the titles Examiner and informationliberation carolinapoliticsonline libertarianrepublican and hotair

    And there’s also Drudge.

    Comment by Jack — January 28, 2010 @ 5:13 pm | Reply

  14. Hmmm “Where’s the outrage?”

    http://pajamasmedia.com/vodkapundit/2010/01/28/obama-to-nyc-drop-dead-slowly/

    Hmm… using Rosenbaum’s metrics what can we say about this?

    Comment by Jack — January 28, 2010 @ 5:15 pm | Reply

  15. he can be a cold SOB Obama re 9/11, could turn out, when all is revealed, to be worse than Edwards

    Comment by charlie finch — January 28, 2010 @ 5:32 pm | Reply

  16. A question, Mr. Rosenbaum: how much of your income is devoted to charity for the poor? Is it enough to materially diminish YOUR standard of living but for that charity? I doubt it. But you, and others like you, seemingly have no problem about forcing others to pay out government enforced “charity” that does diminish the “givers” standard of living.

    “Compassion” is easy when it costs you nothing.

    Comment by Tcobb — January 28, 2010 @ 6:31 pm | Reply

  17. To 11. Jack

    I hope your not expecting ron to respond… he is very scare of everyone who cmments on his pieces because he has no leg to stand on in trying to support his views.

    Comment by robotech master — January 28, 2010 @ 7:34 pm | Reply

  18. When the impoverished breed ask what Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood want to do with them.

    Actions speak louder than ‘words’.

    I grew up poor and my mother was a Liberal who had kids and went on welfare while she whored around and hung out with other drug-using mothers with welfare broods. Once you’ve been and lived among the impoverished you get a REAL perspective of what goes on. For many, there are NO excuses.

    Get the log out of your eye, Ron.

    Comment by Delia — January 28, 2010 @ 7:50 pm | Reply

  19. Robotech, I have no expectations. I’m mostly just amused at how bitter and haughty Mr. Rosenbaum is.

    As many other commentators have said, compare the posting quality and commenter interaction of the other Pajamas Xpress bloggers and their communities, particularly VDH and the Belmont Club.

    And I’ll leave with two internet terms that seems to fit Mr. Rosenbaum’s tenor and aggressiveness, especially in his challenges towards conservatives.

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=internet+tough+guy

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=troll

    Comment by Jack — January 28, 2010 @ 7:53 pm | Reply

  20. FYI don’t put more than two links in a comment.
    If you do you, you’ll end up in mod-limbo.

    In brief Robotech, I expect very little. Given I think these two terms apply to Ron: Internet Tough Guy and Troll.

    Comment by Jack — January 28, 2010 @ 8:01 pm | Reply

  21. To 15. Jack

    lol I think internet tough guy is way to intimidating to describe old ron.

    Comment by robotech master — January 28, 2010 @ 8:26 pm | Reply

  22. Oh, bullshit. As someone who spent most of his life as a marxist and now votes, mostly, Republican, I have found the Republicans I have met much nicer (and more compassionate) people than most of the leftists who I spent my life with. THe Hollywood variety were particularly contemptible, but the union organizers were slime as well. You are living in a dreamland. Haven’t you read the statistics that show Republicans give vastly more to charity than so-called liberals? Let me tell you how Barbra Streisand treats her help. Whoever this bozo is – reported by CNN, the same folks that white washed Saddam – I assure he’s a lot more compassionate than LaBarbra. Enough of these cliches.

    Comment by Roger L Simon — January 28, 2010 @ 10:57 pm | Reply

  23. Charlie, though you don’t need the recognition, I have to say I have read your Edwards comments a half dozen times and still laugh. subtle, funny attack on something, whether its Ron or us, its still very funny.

    Comment by bryan — January 28, 2010 @ 11:06 pm | Reply

  24. I agree with Roger. I have seen the compassionate liberals up close and for the most part they are terrible people. Try working in the service industry in NYC and LA and at the same time be an actor and you will see how these “compassionate” people really operate. And no, I am not talking about under-tipping. bad service = bad tip. over tipping equals hero complex or plain stupidity.

    Comment by bryan — January 28, 2010 @ 11:15 pm | Reply

  25. […] Click here to read. […]

    Pingback by Pajamas Media » Is This the True Spirit of the Republican Party? — January 29, 2010 @ 1:03 am | Reply

  26. So, in total, how many gift cards meant for the poor did he use on himself?

    Comment by jd — January 29, 2010 @ 1:20 am | Reply

  27. This article is very silly — who the hell watches CNN?

    Ruddy good work though, Ron. Nobody ever would have heard about this heinous atrocity if not for your sleuthing. It’s enough to make someone turn absolutely red with rage. Oh wait… someone already did!

    Comment by Morton Doodslag — January 29, 2010 @ 1:46 am | Reply

  28. Why is it that Republicans are expected to disavow, condemn, scorn, etc. every remark that offends a “progressive” in order to prove that he or she is not like-minded — yet nothing of the sort is ever demanded of liberals when someone from THEIR camp says / does something inane?

    Most often, liberals circle the wagons and speak of “forgiveness” and “tolerance” when stupidity spews — as it so often does — from the left.

    The issue is a red herring, and liberals know it. When they insist that Republicans rebuke one of their “own kind,” they simply seek to make hay out of an issue.

    It’s par for the course. A smarmy tactic right out of the political playbook. And it’s getting old.

    By the way, there’s a term for people who ascribe traits of entire groups based upon the actions of a few: “stereotyping.” And, as American history with respect to race relations demonstrates, few do it better than Democrats.

    Comment by Mike Murray — January 29, 2010 @ 1:55 am | Reply

  29. I don’t know anything significant about this story, not now even having just finished the post above. What I do know is that the writer above, Rosenbaum, is on par with Jazz Shaw. It’s not too difficult to find intelligent writers’ work on a daily basis; and to showcase here such as this fellow makes me wonder what the game is. My time is valuable, at least to me, and to waste it showing me that fools are fools isn’t particularly smart on your part. If I thought I care about this story, I’d now have to find something intelligent written by someone else, maybe somewhere else. Please don’t waste my time any more with this kind of juvenile copy.

    Comment by Dag — January 29, 2010 @ 2:09 am | Reply

  30. Must I really condemn every Republican who says something idiotic? The man himself seems to realize what he said was stupid. What more needs to be said about it?

    Comment by jvon — January 29, 2010 @ 2:12 am | Reply

  31. Ok, so there’s a Republican who said something obnoxious and stupid, and is now backpedaling furiously. The best line I heard with regards to this whole mess is that *this* is why South Carolina didn’t throw out Mark Sanford (he of the Argentine paramour who wasn’t on the Appalachian Trail). If they *did* throw Sanford out, they’d wind up with this nimrod running things.

    The few times I’ve worked with or for doctrinaire liberals, they had a weird attitude towards business that I think served them very poorly. They seemed to think, subconsciously perhaps, that they were at a disadvantage vis a vis conservative businessmen, who presumably are ruthless and care nothing for the workers they exploit. As a result, the liberal erratically tends to try to be ruthless also, in a lame attempt to save money. The result is not a pretty picture.

    In fact, the thing I felt made headlines, and which was more objectionable, if less offensive, was the President reading off the Supreme Court to their faces during the State of the Union address. I’m sorry, but I don’t see the point of doing that. Is he implying that he doesn’t think they’re doing what they think is best for the country? Does he think he can somehow intimidate or influence their future decisions? Was he perhaps just pandering to his base, spanking the justices in public for a decision the left finds objectionable? I don’t know, but none of the possibilities have any positive aspects to them, as far as I’m concerned.

    Comment by DavidN — January 29, 2010 @ 3:26 am | Reply

  32. The question I have for you, Ron, has to do with your upbringing as well. Did your parents only indoctrinate you, or did they pose a more important question to you about state power and personal action?

    Here is the true issue, one I’ll bet your parents never discussed: When does the state have a right to pick up a gun and FORCE you to “give” your property to support the personal decisions of the “poor”?

    In practice it is Democrats who know no limits on the authoritarian urges to use “the poor” as emotional levers wresting power from all voters, heartless or not. In practice, it is society’s producers who sacrifice of themselves to help others personally, usually republicans in statistical excess over democrats. But there are a few Republicans brave enough to risk ridicule by confused liberals and corrupted media to actually focus the issue on STATE POWER over individuals (more artfully than the candidate you singled out), whereas democrats NEVER do.

    Comment by Tommytruffle — January 29, 2010 @ 4:09 am | Reply

  33. Very few conservatives or Republicans (the two are not identical) have anything but compassion for the poor. Unlike liberals they don’t want the poor to be what they are now; a permanent dependent class beholden to the government in the same way serfs were beholden to their liege lord. Unfortunately in some (many) cases the best way to help the poor is to kick them the hell off of welfare and force them into the workplace, where they can regain their independence and self-respect.

    Comment by Numerian — January 29, 2010 @ 4:52 am | Reply

  34. “more than one religion built around teaching its believers to help the poor”

    But only one that teaches its believers they ought to be in charge of everything and God ought to dictate laws for the citizens to follow.

    and guess what? it ISN’T Christianity. It’s Islam.

    Christians understand its about personal behavior and character, and that the homeless and needy also have responsibilities, not just rights.

    However unforgivably clunky and awkward this guy’s metaphor was, his point in comparing people to animals is that people have choices and many make the wrong choices and ought to have responsibility for the consequences.

    Bauer, whoever he is, might not be someone in whom govt. responsibility should be vested.. time will tell.. but his metaphor is sound and representative of what the Bible teaches. We should all be giving, but also ‘he who does not work, neither shall he eat’, said St. Paul.

    RESPONSIBILITIES. As opposed to stray animals, who don’t know how to care for themselves and who deserve our good treatment as a mark of our own character and choices and giving nature.

    Comment by Dave — January 29, 2010 @ 4:56 am | Reply

  35. Your liberal traits of anal-retentiveness and self righteous indignation are in full bloom here. Is Bauer’s analogy as outrageous as you make it out to be? Not really. Jesus said, “the poor you will always have”. If Bauer had said that, would you be any less outrage? I doubt it.

    Comment by Patrick Of Atlantis — January 29, 2010 @ 5:00 am | Reply

  36. One of the big problems with the Pajamas Commenting system is that we don’t know if comment 19. Roger L Simon is Roger L Simon CEO of Pajamas Media.

    If anyone knows a way to contact Mr. Simon to confirm that would be very interesting. It sounds enough like Simon that it may be the real him. Especially if you watch the video of him going shooting with Gov. Perry.

    As for Mr. Rosenbaum using an outlet that deliberately whitewashes genocidal thugs, consider that he’s an avid Times reader.

    Remember the Holodomor? Liquidation of millions because they were Ukrainian? Deliberate “collectivization” of food as a population control measure? Pulitzer Prize winning Times reporters aiding in the coverup?

    There’s also the Time’s considerably less horrific and much more recent whitewashing of the Global Warming scam. We know where Mr. Simon falls on media collusion on that scam.

    Comment by Jack — January 29, 2010 @ 5:01 am | Reply

  37. The comment was very “progressive” in nature. I’m sure Margaret Sanger would be proud of his comments since her movement was created to increase the overall genetic quality of the populace by preening the “strays” from the genetic tree.

    If you think of it that is the unstated goal of progressives now. With the UK now mandating the “recommendation” of abortion to women who’s unborn children have one (or more) of a laundry list of “possible” genetic abnormalities we see the concept made real. Now when is Planned Parenthood going to get into that act as well.

    Comment by Don — January 29, 2010 @ 5:02 am | Reply

  38. I heard Bauer on the radio discuss this whole lot of BS. Much ado about nothing and a typical over reaction by hyper sensitive bloggers. Yes he used poor wording. Have you noticed the trend here? Poor wording and send the man to the stockyards! Resign from office! Ruin his life and carreer! Burn down his house! Shoot his dog!! Give us a break-will ya please!! Tempest in teapot. Get over it!!

    Comment by tommy gunn — January 29, 2010 @ 5:32 am | Reply

  39. Never heard of the guy. I’ll put it in my outrage queue.

    As soon as Charlie Rangel is prosecuted for his tax evasion and Harry Reid stripped of his position for his racial insensitivity, we’ll get this guy kicked out too.

    BTW – Liberal Jewish columnists really should avoid the Jesus talk. Makes you look particularly stupid and lazy. I have actually read the Bible – He didn’t waste time on politicians.

    Comment by Old Soldier — January 29, 2010 @ 5:40 am | Reply

  40. OK I grant you I would not have used that metaphor nor would I have thought it a great idea to issue such a blanket declaration. Blanket statements are usually not too bright. And an apology for the ineptness is certainly required, if only to prove that the ability to not put one’s foot in one’s mouth is truly there. And being poor is not a crime. It’s a condition in which as others have said we could all find ourselves, through no fault of our own.
    BUT (and there is always a BUT)—

    I note that you completely fail to address the foundation of the statement, which is NOT that the poor are like stray animals, but that a segment of the permanently poor breed like stray animals. So I ask —
    A. Is the statement true at all ? And if so.
    B. What percentage of the permanently poor fall into this category ? And
    C. Is the behavior acceptable to the system and does it lead to BAD social results ?And,
    D. Is it ‘moral’ to pretend that such behavior does not occur and simply ignore the results it produces ?And,
    E. Does the State have any ‘rights’ or ‘duties’ in this area, and if so what are they?

    I’m sick of pretense. A thing IS or it IS NOT. A rose remains a rose whether or not we call it a pomegranate or worse refuse to call it anything at all and pretend that it is not really there. It IS there.
    With the good times clearly coming to an end in the near future(and you ALL know they are) reality must be discussed in an open manner. If only because to be frank there won’t be any ready cash to throw around to bury the problems under a veneer of ‘caring’.

    So bottom line whether this guy is a complete fool for expressing a thought so BADLY is not especially important.
    What is important is whether what he said is TRUE or NOT TRUE.

    Which is it ?

    Comment by Dougf — January 29, 2010 @ 5:48 am | Reply

  41. I think ppl need to understand why ron is upset by this.

    Its not so much that the comment is poorly worded or wrong its thats its far to close to being truthful. As a closest racist(aka collectivist/leftwing) ron needs to pretend he cares about well “those people”.

    Its a well proven scientific fact that more food tends to lead to more population. Ron of course can’t counter this… nor can he counter the stats that back this up through the welfare system…

    So instead ron attacks the guy as being racist… a sure fire higher moral ground that he stands a chance to win on…

    His attack would be alot more believable if he wasn’t just recently lying about history to try to argue someone else was racist.

    No the end run for ron here isn’t so much that the comment was bad or that it was even racist its simply that ron doesn’t like the truth or science and thats why he’s angry about it. More importantly ron needs to shut down debate about the topic because he knows he has nothing but the battle cry of “RACIST!!!!” to defend his position.

    Comment by robotech master — January 29, 2010 @ 5:50 am | Reply

  42. Living in a urban area with lots of Section 8 housings scattered around the neighborhood, the perspective of the author might change a little bit: You see generation after generation of people who don’t go to work, are a neighborhood nuisance (late night fights, drinking, drugging, theft, and ill-mannered pitbulls that are often allowed to roam free), and are at their best parasites on those who work, pay taxes, etc.

    After a few years, you have no pity left, only contempt. Society needs a certain amount of social Darwinism to prevent a pathos such as this from breeding and spreading. Humanity was imbued with free will. Which often is the freedom to chose sloth and evil without a severe social check. Welfare enables sloth and evil.

    Comment by hell_is_like_newark — January 29, 2010 @ 5:52 am | Reply

  43. Thanks, Bryan. Let’s just say (from my days working in New York politics) that there was a certain very liberal NY congressman, who is still around, who used to get chauffered around after midnight in his district, wearing a white mink coat, taking cash in enevelopes from the dealers on the street as protection and every New York pol knew it. He isn’t a Republican. But you know Bob Dole and David Brinkley has those condos in Florida paid for by Archer Daniels Midland. Getting your piece, while the majority struggles, the Republicrat way

    Comment by charlie finch — January 29, 2010 @ 6:12 am | Reply

  44. This is the first I’ve read or heard of Andre Bauer. It’s no excuse, of course, but I live in Syracuse, NY and I have a job, so I don’t spend enough time scrutinizing all Republican candidates for purity. Please post the link to the official Republican “I denounce him” website.

    Would it be wrong to care a little more about folks like Obama, Rangel, Pelosi, Murtha, et al who are actively destroying the economy and putting millions out of work? Didn’t I read that the minority youth unemployment rate is about 50%?

    All of you who vote Democrat are racist and hate the poor. Blame is easy, even I can do it. Solutions are the hard part.

    Comment by MarkD — January 29, 2010 @ 6:23 am | Reply

  45. Amid all of the outrage, one thing is missing, any proof that the metaphor was not correct. I see look at it in this manner, while the left is continually pushing the welfare state, it becomes popular because it is easy. Feed a stray and they keep coming back for more, give people entitlements and they keep coming back for more, become dependent on the handout.

    One need only examine the generational welfare families to see the truth of it. They never achieve the realization of what they can accomplish on their own and so depend upon that perpetual handout for their existence. Not knowing that they can stand on their own, they become fearful of the cessation of the entitlement and thus support anyone that would guarantee its continuance. In this country we tend to recognize, that the enabler is just as responsible as the addict.

    If you had a child addicted to a drug, would you encourage them to free themselves of those shackles, or would you buy them the drug and shield them from the consequences?

    Comment by Rob — January 29, 2010 @ 6:23 am | Reply

  46. I feel like the clown at the rodeo, distracting the bull, while Rough Rider Ron escapes

    Comment by charlie finch — January 29, 2010 @ 6:50 am | Reply

  47. The guy made a great point with a horrible metaphor. The basis is sound. Why don’t you attack that instead of making some weak attack on republicans and a disgusting personal insult rant on this man in particular?

    Comment by Phranc — January 29, 2010 @ 6:55 am | Reply

  48. Ron …I do not know enough about the man, the comment or the context.

    BUT I do know liberals care less about the poor then the strays.

    they do not walk the talk. as Ann Coulter said ..”yell a lot and carry a small victim”

    liberals hijack the language and pundits like you allow them to. there are compassionate people of every political strip. but as a rule the conservatives do more then any other group to fight poverty.

    fighting poverty and helping poor is not achieved by forcing ones neighbor to pay for a liberal program.

    Comment by Supreme Allied Comander — January 29, 2010 @ 6:59 am | Reply

  49. I forgot to mention the “Breeder” comment. Strays when sustained artificially by handouts do multiply, likewise individuals on the dole are not working and struggling to feed their families, in fact, the system rewards procreation with increased benefits. Humans tend, when left with little else to concern themselves with, to find ways of entertaining themselves which result in offspring. It is a self perpetuating cycle.

    Comment by Rob — January 29, 2010 @ 7:06 am | Reply

  50. Where’ Ron’s outrage with the global warming scam? Its an effort by wealthy liberals to liberate the poor and impoverished from more of their precious money, under false pretenses and in the very name of compassion!

    When Ronnie(or should that be Nancy) decides to “man-up” and take on those “compassionate” thugs and liberal phonies for who they really are
    (money-grubbing greedheads with a shiny veneer of “I care for the Little guy”) then I’ll drift over and condemn the likes of Bauer, IF warranted!

    Comment by Earl T — January 29, 2010 @ 7:06 am | Reply

  51. And Orwell’s ANIMAL FARM?
    Jeeeeez! You’ve got a helluva short fuse for BS, Ron.

    Comment by pelaut — January 29, 2010 @ 7:11 am | Reply

  52. Step down? Give him a medal…Truth hurts, thats why the soft headed “raised by liberal parents” fool is “outraged” Go to ANY DEMOCRATICALLY CONTROLLED CITY and see the truth of this stray animal syndrome. The product of his parents (and now his) fatally misguided voting habits

    Comment by The Root '83 — January 29, 2010 @ 7:14 am | Reply

  53. It was clear to me that Bauer was opposed to giving hand outs that help create dependency for the reciepient. Providing a helping hand hopefully helps people through a tough spot, and enables them to become independant and productive folks. However I am sick to death of butt heads questioning peoples humanity simply because they don’t want people on the dole thier whole life. I for one think that if you are on government assistence and have additional children your support should not go up one red cent! Quit incentivising people to have kids and to not work. If the parent refuses to support thier children put them in an orphanage were they at least get three squares a day and some disipline. You don’t need to respond to my comments I already know I’m a heartles schmuck.

    Comment by chicken thief — January 29, 2010 @ 7:17 am | Reply

  54. Commenters, if you want more of this elitist hot air go to Commentary.com

    Comment by mike licavoli — January 29, 2010 @ 7:26 am | Reply

  55. This is a standard item in the Left/Liberal/Democrat playbook. Comb through everything any Republican has said looking for things to get outraged about. A simple tactic to keep us on the defensive and hopefully damage a few candidates each year.

    I refuse to play the game. I don’t see much repudiation of the idiots in the Democrat party by fellow Democrats. When that starts to happen, I’ll consider repudiating a few of our bozos.

    I do have to admit that as a tactic, it works. They have been doing this for years without taking any return fire. The Republicans need to start ginning up demands that Democrats repudiate their idiots and crooks.

    Politically Incorrect and Proud of It

    Comment by Another Typical Racist Republican — January 29, 2010 @ 7:32 am | Reply

  56. What’s the problem with what he said? People on welfare have an average of 3.5 kids, vs 2.1 for the pop as a whole. We do need to stop the hand-outs and the cycle of multigenerational fatherless poverty. PCness is keeping people poor.

    Comment by momof4 — January 29, 2010 @ 7:37 am | Reply

  57. It would be nice if the Jew, Rosenbaum, would leave Jesus out of it. Tolerance Ron,please, your jewish bigotry is showing.
    In any case; Ron, the problem is that morons, and hateful savages think that they are more moral if government does seemingly nice things.
    They will not grasp the fact that whatever government does is not an individual act that accrues to the person. It is morality on the cheap, government as alter ego.

    Ron, the dishonest gambit and childish whine about not bringing up the other side, Democrats,doesn’t work with me. If you extend to the entire Republican party I therefore have the right to do likewise.

    SO, as Bill Clinton raped a woman in a hotel room in 1979, I conclude that all Democrats are rapists. Bill never denied it and his lawyer skipped around it, so spare me the non-answer.
    Are you married Ron ?

    Comment by johnt — January 29, 2010 @ 7:49 am | Reply

  58. What Andre meant to say, I am sure upon his reflection, would be: two generations of liberalism/statism has created an entire class of people completely dependent upon the government for all of their needs. They are tragically reduced to conducting themselves in a way that is common amongst all animals great and small(including the human animal) – instinctive perpetuation of the species (ie, breeding). The Cliff Notes version – after cashing their welfare checks and blowing it on smokes and Orange Jubilee, they ain’t got nothin’ to do but lay around and f@#k. Ron, you may take your fake, hypocritical outrage to a forum that gives a crap…

    Comment by donttreadonme — January 29, 2010 @ 7:51 am | Reply

  59. A liberal writer expressing moral outrage and a violation of political correctness. Wow, that’s some pathbreaking journalism.

    While some poor are truly victims of tragic circumstances, plenty of others do choose to live like animals. Tempest in a teapot when a politican states the obvious about those designated with victim status by liberals.

    Comment by P T Bull — January 29, 2010 @ 7:56 am | Reply

  60. “If I had a hammer, I’d a’hammer in the morning, I’d a hammer in the evening, all over this land, I’d a’hammer out justice, I’d a’hammer out freedom, I’d a hammer out love between my brother and my sisters all over this land. If I had a bell, I’d a ring it in the morning. I’d a ring it in the evening, all over this land, I’d a ring out justice, I’d a ring out freedom, I’d a ring out love between my brothers and my sisters all over this land. If I had a song, I’d a sing it in the morning, I’d a sing it in the evening, all over this land, I’d a sing out justice, I’d a sing out freedom, I’d a sing out love between my brothers and my sisters all over this land. Now I’ve got a hammer and I’ve got a bell and I’ve got a song to sing all over this land. It’s the HAMMER of justice, it’s the BELL of freedom, it’s the SONG about the love between my brothers and my sisters all over this land!!!!!”

    Comment by charlie finch — January 29, 2010 @ 8:06 am | Reply

  61. Consider the following hypothetical bill introduced into the House of Representatives:

    WHEREAS, it is the finding of Congress that the burdens on this Republic created by an indefinitely expanding welfare clientele have become unsustainable; and:

    WHEREAS, the progeny of long-term welfare recipients are a principal component of the increase in that burden, and have a very high probability of becoming long-term welfare recipients as adults;

    THEREFORE, it shall henceforward be the policy of the Federal Government not to disburse welfare payments to any person who cannot present, to his welfare case officer before receiving a federal welfare payment, a Certificate of Temporary or Permanent Sterilization, valid and accurate at the time of disbursement.

    NOTHING in this Bill shall be construed to affect persons paid by the Federal Government for specified services rendered, in accordance with the regulations set forth by the Government Accounting Office and the General Services Administration; nor shall it be construed to pertain to tax refunds, tort payments, compensation for takings ordered by a federal court holding proper jurisdiction, or any other disbursement of monies by the Federal Government except for welfare payments.

    THE PENALTY for an act of fraud under this Statute, or for assistance rendered to one who commits such a fraud, shall be fixed at two years’ imprisonment in a federal correctional facility.

    Are you for or against it? If so, why? If not, why not. Please be specific.

    Comment by Francis W. Porretto — January 29, 2010 @ 8:08 am | Reply

  62. Ha, ha, ha, I grew up in exactly the same milieu as you, Mr. Rosenbaum, and behind the patina of righteousness and social responsibility I saw the same attitudes towards the “less fortunate” and particular racial minorities as was found in the white Christian community at large. It was, and remains, all one large act of posturing as morally elevated.

    Comment by gaot_321@yahoo.com — January 29, 2010 @ 8:13 am | Reply

  63. I did the tax returns of the rich and famous for two decades. The Republicans were not only more generous with their total contributions, but they tended to prefer charities that served people such as religious groups, the Red Cross and various medical research organization. The Democrats preferred the Museum of Contemporary Art, the Orchestra and the Film Institute where their $5,000-$10,000 contribution got them invited to all the best parties. Then there are those contribution to the various environmental organizations that pursue policies that actively hurt people in the third world.

    Comment by NC Mountain Girl — January 29, 2010 @ 8:18 am | Reply

  64. The guy is a state official and the people of SC will deal with him as they see fit. Were he on the national scene, such as Sanford was before the Argentina trip, then he would be getting hounded with calls for resignation, but he is not. So put your “indignation” away and move on.

    Comment by Kevin_S — January 29, 2010 @ 8:22 am | Reply

  65. Oh please.

    Again we have a leftist ideologue thinking he can apply collectivist rules to anyone other than his own, morally adolescent ilk.

    As neo-neocon’s comment gallery notes: “In Germany it was called ‘right thinking,’ in Russia it was ‘having a party mind,’ in the US it is being ‘politically correct.'” Woe be unto those who don’t hew to that line or, worse, fail to denounce such failures.

    Ron, forget about your conditioned response to “Republicans” for five minutes.

    Try to imagine a world where everyone is NOT part of the Borg, hive mind your parents saddled you with. Try to imagine a world where individuals are individually responsible for their own statements and actions, where no one else is required to denounce or attack them, for fear that someone else’s choice of words will reflect badly on them. If you can muster this kind of imagination – to see, if just for an instant, a world of individual liberty and individual responsibility – you’ll “get” why hardly anyone cares about Bauer’s un-PC comments. It’s the same process that’s at work regarding relative disinterest in James O’Keefe’s arrest – until all the facts are known. No one feels compelled to take moral, collective responsibility for his actions, despite loud, empty admonitions by the left, who aren’t capable of functioning outside the bounds of politicized groupthink and nebulous, guilt-driven fantasies of “social justice”.

    Meanwhile, someone please send me an email when the left collectively, or in ANY way whatsoever, denounces BHO’s close, twenty-year association with Rev. Wright, his taxpayer-funded campaign jaunt to Kenya on behalf of communist thug Raila Odinga, his fraudulent campaign donation scheme or his lie about accepting public campaign financing. The left wanted to collectively own BHO’s media-conjured “victory”, let them own his lies and his manifestly anti-American errors in judgment – collectively – as well.

    Comment by goy — January 29, 2010 @ 8:23 am | Reply

  66. Ron: This is just dopey.

    Comment by ahem — January 29, 2010 @ 8:31 am | Reply

  67. This is downright ridiculous. I equate your question with the people who blame me for slavery just because my skin is white. I never had a slave, nor do I know anyone else who ever has.

    Explain to me why I should feel defensive because some guy I never met, who happens to be a Republican, says something stupid? That’s like assuming that all Democrats think like Chris Matthews, as illustrated by the assinine remark he made about Obama’s skin color after the SOTU speech.

    Or should I blame you for that?

    Comment by Nancy — January 29, 2010 @ 8:49 am | Reply

  68. Darwin vs Malthus

    “A litle kindness
    is the beginning
    of great cruelty”
    – Frank Herbert

    And on the Gripping Hand, when the Welfare
    goes away, and the Underclass is looking
    for someone to blame, and punish, will they
    choose their enemies, or their “friends” ?

    Comment by M. Report — January 29, 2010 @ 8:51 am | Reply

  69. 19. Roger L Simon:
    I have found the Republicans I have met much nicer (and more compassionate) people than most of the leftists who I spent my life with.

    Funny, I have found the opposite to be true And so, I now loudly proclaim, I am right! TA DAAAAA!

    As for the details, you clearly got spanked by Streisand at some time in the past and can’t let it go. You should, I’m sure she has.

    As for Bauer, he’s a self-avowed idiot, proved multiple times over the course of a mere 24 hours. They this on for size, “If a Democrats had said that . . . whine, wimper, sniffle, snork, boo the frik hoo!”

    You people are children. You remind me of my granddaughter who yesterday got caught feeding chocolate to Kyber our dog. She knows she’s not supposed to do that. She said, “You don’t know what Kyber likes, only Kyber does.”

    Man up and take your righteous lumps, for god’s sake. I am so sick of weak-kneed conservative half-men whining about being misunderstood. Geez, grow a pair! If you’re gonna act like women, I suggest you go the whole way and strap on a pair of nice pastel slingbacks and give us a little spin.

    Now, Google Congressman Buyer.

    Comment by skeeziks — January 29, 2010 @ 9:05 am | Reply

  70. 57. goy:

    Meanwhile, someone please send me an email when the right collectively, or in ANY way whatsoever, denounces their close, twenty-year association with Pat Robertson.

    . . . individual liberty and individual responsibility? You have no idea what they mean. To you they’re nothing more than hammers to use in beating down the people who hold those very values in people yet don’t agree with you.

    You’re a fascist at heart. You would repeal liberty if you had the chance. You would demand conformity if you could. You would install a world order based not on what can be dreamed but what can be forbidden. You’re the spiritual blight the righteousness are burdened with destroying.

    Shame on you.

    Comment by skeeziks — January 29, 2010 @ 9:11 am | Reply

  71. My questions to you Mr. Rosenbaum, and here I challenge you to belly up to the intellectual bar, is: Why do you care?

    From what I have read of your previous post you consider yourself a progressive and you do not have much love for the church or its teaching. As a progressive and a secularist you have to believe that man evolved from simpler life forms. He was not created by God in the image of God. He, according to your worldview, simply another animal and a part of nature. So, once again, what is you problem with what Mr. Bauer said?

    “Thousands of years of moral evolution” has taught us nothing except how to kill each other more effectively. According to your theory of moral evolution the 20th century should have been a golden age of morality. Yet, it proved a bloodbath as literally the whole world went to war and man slaughtered man on every side. Welcome to the world you progressive created. When the Biblical standard of morality is rejected and the knowledge of God is abandoned, we have the progressive paradise of Nazism, Communism, and statism.

    Now, as to your question, yes I think it is a poor comparison and fails to recognize the uniqueness of man created in the image of God. I have a right to say so because my worldview gives man dignity. Yours does not.

    P.S. I have my doubts that you will actually post this response. Several of my other responses to your posts over the past few months have disappeared. Nonetheless, you claim to want open debate and you issued the challenge. Now let us see if you will pick it up.

    Comment by Kipling — January 29, 2010 @ 9:29 am | Reply

  72. “You’re a fascist at heart. You would repeal liberty if you had the chance. You would demand conformity if you could. You would install a world order based not on what can be dreamed but what can be forbidden. You’re the spiritual blight the righteousness are burdened with destroying. ”

    Hmm what do we call it when someone gives a blanket of ad hominim attacks with no factual basis? I somehow doubt Skeeziks knows Goy well enough to make these claims.

    But let’s just ponder the glory of someone screaming at a person for hammering people that don’t agree with them who then procedes to hammer someone that doesn’t agree with them. And does the hammering on the stock-evil-con points.

    Classy.

    Comment by Jack — January 29, 2010 @ 9:32 am | Reply

  73. “I am so sick of weak-kneed conservative half-men whining about being misunderstood.”-Sk

    Did I say anything about being misunderstood ? Did many others here ? I expect an apology from you for the false accusation.
    By the way — I loathe Robertson and everyone like him. Always have. Always will. There are many people who are ‘conservative'(or at least are NOT-liberal) who are not huge fans of any portion of the social conservatives. Who believe in fact that they are a detriment to the future of any true ‘conservative’ movement.

    Frankly at this point I would be more than happy if the nut-bars from one side would make common cause with their equivalents from the other and they ALL just hied themselves off to a secluded location.
    And fought it out to the last person standing.
    Then the sane people could run the asylum for a change.

    Comment by Dougf — January 29, 2010 @ 9:33 am | Reply

  74. @70. “skeeziks”: – You’re a fascist at heart.

    It’s always vindicating to see such blatant, desperate, hysterical projection from a leftist, totalitarian lemming.

    It’s almost noon. Time for your Xanax. Run along now.

    Comment by goy — January 29, 2010 @ 9:37 am | Reply

  75. Dear skeeziks

    You said, “Man up and take your righteous lumps, for god’s sake. I am so sick of weak-kneed conservative half-men whining about being misunderstood. Geez, grow a pair! If you’re gonna act like women, I suggest you go the whole way and strap on a pair of nice pastel slingbacks and give us a little spin.”

    You First.

    When you take responsibility for Sheila Dixon and her Stealing From The Poor.

    Which is worse?

    Talking in a manner that casts the poor in a bad light, while expressing what is statistically true, or Actually Stealing From the poor?

    Personally I think Actions are more repersentitive of ones attitude toward the poor than words, so it is clear that liberal contempt for the poor is greater than anything the conservatives bear.

    So skeeziks, Man up and take your righteous lumps, for god’s sake. I am so sick of weak-kneed liberal girly-men whining about being unfariness. Geez, grow a pair! If you’re gonna act like women, I suggest you go the whole way and strap on a pair of nice pastel slingbacks and give us a little spin. (Oh, I forgot, you already do the second part.)

    Comment by jd — January 29, 2010 @ 9:43 am | Reply

  76. After reading many of the comments above, I am starting to get encouraged that there may still be hope for this country. People are beginning to wake up, and not be gulled by the leftist tactics that have worked so well in the past, such as trying to rebut the charge of racism that automatically shuts down any rational discourse.

    As per the posts above, Conservatives now see that to take a progressive’s attack at face value is to be entrapped in its false premises. Instead, attack those assumptions at their root, and expose them for the falsehoods they represent.

    I believe this sea change has come about because of Obama. With his arrogant conceit fully exposed, the mask is now off of all progressives, and we can finally begin to see them as the lying, deceitful, sanctimonious sociofascist tyrants that they really are. And so I say, thank you Obama… keep up the great work. Someday soon, you and all the other petty tyrants will be sent scurrying back into the woodwork, hopefully never to reappear.

    Comment by Charles Stevens — January 29, 2010 @ 9:48 am | Reply

  77. I love when people misuse the term fascist. More so when its a liberal.

    Comment by Phranc — January 29, 2010 @ 10:01 am | Reply

  78. So everyone on the public dole is deserving of the fruit of someone else’s labor? Not a single slacker or parasite among them? How about my loser cousin who proudly brags about living on unemployment for a year, a few years back, because it provided enough drinking money and he didn’t feel like working? And I’m supposed to be outraged at the slave who got a little angry at his slavemasters? When you give away YOUR money that is charity. When you give away MY money that is tyranny. And you don’t pick the truly deserving people very well — if you’re even trying.

    Comment by TL — January 29, 2010 @ 10:03 am | Reply

  79. 75. jd:

    Representative just announced he wont’ seek re-election. know why?

    http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/cspanjunkie/meet-congressman-buyer-his-phony-schol

    What’s worse than stealing from the poor? How about stealing from children.

    By the way, try thinking for yourself. I know conservatives aren’t too skilled in the whole creativity thing, but does EVERYTHING have to be so derivative with you? Are you so brainwashed that all you have left is mindless repeating of other people’s thoughts? I guess so.

    Now, take your lumps like a good little conservative, and stop swearing your mom’s hats. It upsets dad.

    Comment by skeeziks — January 29, 2010 @ 10:08 am | Reply

  80. Scot Roeder – guilty – DUH!

    Proceed with defending the indefensible.

    Comment by skeeziks — January 29, 2010 @ 10:14 am | Reply

  81. As “Freakonomics” points out, the ones who are getting abortions these days are poor people (as family planning), so I guess all the nutters on the right are now pro-abortion, capiche?

    Comment by charlie finch — January 29, 2010 @ 10:16 am | Reply

  82. Skyzik: “What’s worse than stealing from the poor? How about stealing from children.”

    This reminds me about one very progressive radio network, which stole money from children and used it to fund its programming. It took years before they finally manned up and paid back the money. The name of the network? You won’t know, it’s been closed – no one was listening to it. But if you insist, it’s “Air America”.

    Comment by Hyphenated American — January 29, 2010 @ 10:20 am | Reply

  83. 72. Jack:
    But let’s just ponder the glory of someone screaming at a person for hammering people that don’t agree with them who then procedes to hammer someone that doesn’t agree with them.

    Yes, Jack, let’s do ponder that. While we’re at it, let’s ponder why you point out such an issue only when you perceive it in some you disagree with.

    Step up or step off, Jack. I don’t have time for your mindless hypocrisy.

    Comment by skeeziks — January 29, 2010 @ 10:22 am | Reply

  84. Oh, Ron, do come down off your high horse. How many of these “unfortunates” do you interact with daily? For this criminal lawyer- they are the bulk of my clients, their friends and relations. I know them pretty darn well (I also used to enjoy the dubious pleasure of living on the edge of an “urban reclamation zone”- i.e. across the street from the ghetto.)

    There is a very considerable subculture, Ron, who are not “unfortunate”- they’re spongers. Professional deadbeats, welfare careerists (often with sidelines in petty criminality). The practice the habits of poverty, and are encouraged to do so- subsidized, even. And, yes, ever-more generous benefits and looser eligibility standards *do* attract or encourage them- this is why California has 1/3 of the entire nation’s welfare caseload, and San Francisco has the highest homeless population per capita of all US cities.

    Try to understand: the Great Society has not reduced poverty: it has created it. As Sowell sagely said, “when you subsidize poverty and failure, you’ll never lack for either.”

    Comment by Bohemond — January 29, 2010 @ 10:23 am | Reply

  85. skeeziks is also an example of “internet tough guy”

    Note the bravado, agression, use of all caps, and demands of submision to voilence (take your lumps).

    The mysoginy/homophobia is of special consideration. There’s repeated use of being female as a poing of insult, as if being female is a point of shame.

    Truely the level-headed defender of people being hammered for disagreement of opinion.

    Comment by Jack — January 29, 2010 @ 10:28 am | Reply

  86. “Meanwhile, someone please send me an email when the right collectively, or in ANY way whatsoever, denounces their close, twenty-year association with Pat Robertson.”

    To 70. skeeziks

    Wow are you completely retarded?… first the rightwing is individualists… THEY DON’T ACT AS A COLLECTIVE…

    2nd Pat Robertson is centrist to leftwing… why would the right have anything to do with him…?

    Comment by robotech master — January 29, 2010 @ 10:29 am | Reply

  87. Intentional sterilization is a gross violation of bodily integrity and it is evil in every case it is perform except as medically necessary to save the patient’s life, as in the case of removing a cancerous or hemorrhaging sex organ. I would, however, support a termination of all welfare benefits, on the basis that it is not the government’s job to support the poor. That mission belongs to the Church; the government taking it up is a usurpation. That said, I do not object to short term unemployment insurance, though I do believe it should be optional. After all, you pay into the system when you’re working in order to buy protection from involuntary loss of income.

    Comment by myth buster — January 29, 2010 @ 10:29 am | Reply

  88. Are you saying that he is wrong? Have you not seen government money recipients’ that were pregnant with multiple children yet continue to live off the general public? I have. Animals have an excuse, people don’t.

    There are legitimate people scraping buy and need help but there is also a culture that continues to abuse the system. That was all that was pointed out that I could see. Conservatives in general actually try to help these people with little or no fanfare.

    Sorry, but I feel for people who bust their A**es trying to make something of themselves without whining and using others.

    I may not be the Republican you’re looking for though as I lean way way libertarian and dislike nearly all politicians and this one has probably done much worse than that statement.

    Comment by jbrookins — January 29, 2010 @ 10:29 am | Reply

  89. (Mmmmm, my first post was purged, I’ll try again.)

    After reading many of the comments above, I am starting to get encouraged that there may still be hope for this country. People are beginning to wake up, and not be gulled by the leftist tactics that have worked so well in the past, such as trying to rebut the charge of racism that automatically shuts down any rational discourse.

    As per the posts above, Conservatives now see that to take a progressive’s attack at face value is to be entrapped in its false premises. Instead, attack those assumptions at their root, and expose them for the falsehoods they represent.

    I believe this sea change has come about because of Obama. With his arrogant conceit fully exposed, the mask is now off of all progressives, and we can finally begin to see them as the lying, deceitful, sanctimonious, petty tyrants that they really are. And so I say, thank you Obama… keep up the great work. Someday soon, you and all the other progressives will be sent scurrying back into the woodwork, hopefully never to show your faces again.

    Comment by Charles Stevens — January 29, 2010 @ 10:32 am | Reply

  90. 79. Well that’s a non-sequiter. What’s the connection? Welfare isn’t compassion; it just creates dependency.

    Comment by myth buster — January 29, 2010 @ 10:32 am | Reply

  91. stop feeding the trolls.

    your responding to them makes them happy. and it is possible that Soros pays them commission.

    Comment by George S. — January 29, 2010 @ 10:33 am | Reply

  92. 83. robotech master:
    Pat Robertson is centrist to leftwing

    Do you know who Pat Robertson is?

    Comment by skeeziks — January 29, 2010 @ 10:33 am | Reply

  93. “Yes, Jack, let’s do ponder that. While we’re at it, let’s ponder why you point out such an issue only when you perceive it in some you disagree with.

    Step up or step off, Jack. I don’t have time for your mindless hypocrisy.”

    Mindless hypocrisy = = Pointing out when a guy who decried “hammering people that disagree” immediately followed by calling someone a spiritual blight of a conformist fascist despite having no information to back up such a claim.

    Also note more of the ITG, with the demands of “step up or step off” and the assertion of how busy and important he is.

    Comment by Jack — January 29, 2010 @ 10:36 am | Reply

  94. @Skeeze, you are right, stealing from children is more deplorable, please tell Obama to stop.

    Comment by Rob — January 29, 2010 @ 10:36 am | Reply

  95. To George S:

    Good point. One wonders if we should even be replying to Mr. Rosenbaum in the first place.

    Comment by Jack — January 29, 2010 @ 10:37 am | Reply

  96. 84. myth buster:
    I would, however, support a termination of all welfare benefits, on the basis that it is not the government’s job to support the poor. That mission belongs to the Church

    Then why are so many people still in such dire need? Sounds like the church is failing in its mission. Or do you believe, as the raging lunatic Bill Cunningham has said, “There are no dirt poor people in America.”

    Comment by skeeziks — January 29, 2010 @ 10:38 am | Reply

  97. Compare and contrast – Ron discussing Clinton’s remarks – former president compares republicans with yard dogs. Notice that Ron is not upset about the comparison with dogs – he just feels bad for the dog.

    And btw, Ron himself goes and compares Clinton with a yard dog (spoiler – Ron thinks Clinton is lower than a yard dog).

    http://pajamasmedia.com/ronrosenbaum/2009/12/18/bill-clinton-lower-than-a-yard-dog/

    So, Ron, why the outrage? Stray animals, yard dogs – what’s the difference?

    Comment by Hyphenated American — January 29, 2010 @ 10:41 am | Reply

  98. 89. Rob:
    @Skeeze, you are right, stealing from children is more deplorable, please tell Obama to stop.

    They had nothing to steal by the time Bush got done with them.

    Comment by skeeziks — January 29, 2010 @ 10:46 am | Reply

  99. I couldn’t agree more with this article. There is little outrage about Bauer’s comments. The media questions whether his statements will hurt him politically, but ultimately, most analysts believe his words will “resonate” with voters. People are translating these untactful comments into promising messages of welfare reform and entitlement: http://tinyurl.com/yc9hcdh

    Comment by Eliza — January 29, 2010 @ 10:47 am | Reply

  100. To 87. skeeziks

    Do you know what collectivism is or what leftwingers are? You understand that religion is collectivist right?.., and thus can’t be rightwing….

    Comment by robotech master — January 29, 2010 @ 10:50 am | Reply

  101. See, you are wrong about that Skeeze, Obama is stealing from the grandchildren, you know, the ones he wants left for dead in a sink if they manage to survive planned parenthood…

    Comment by Rob — January 29, 2010 @ 10:51 am | Reply

  102. 88. Jack:

    Take your lumps, Jack. It hurts, but it’s what’s right. Don’t wuss out or people will start calling you a Beck fan.

    Comment by skeeziks — January 29, 2010 @ 10:52 am | Reply

  103. Maybe conservatives have finally just pushed away from table, having had to endure 2-3 years of the most hypocritical and duplicitous media coverage of comments made on the left and on the right. There is nowhere a more vivid display of the current double standard than in the coverage of what Republican officials have said, and what Democrat officials have said. Under normal circumstances, this sort of things would be very bothersome. But I find it hard to articulate any outrage given the filter all Democrat pols get to use. Your outrage here MAY be founded on proper grounds, but I for one am sick of the double standard. My response to your outrage: Ho-Hum.

    Comment by bob — January 29, 2010 @ 10:54 am | Reply

  104. Gosh skeeziks

    Perhaps it is you who needs to learn to think objectively for yourself. (How much does Soros pay you anyway?)

    Fist off, seems like theft is not quite as assured as the Biased Media is making it look. There seems to be a dispute as to how much needed to be accumulated before disbusments began. So the Theft is not quite assured. Why not lets wait for a conviction (Like Shiela Dixon) before using this as an example.

    Of course he may be seeing how the media can twist this whole thing before his re-election (macaca anyone) and is pulling out.

    Now, unlike you, I think for myself and not like Barbara Boxer so I do not consider 23 year olds to be children. And College students are not children in my estemation either. So your argument of stealing from “Children” is bogus by your own standards.

    Again, How much does Soros pay you to rant and make personal attacks when you haven’t the arguments to back your viewpoint?

    Comment by jd — January 29, 2010 @ 10:55 am | Reply

  105. I’m not accusing Ron Rosenbaum of being competent in ethical matters, or even being able to reason his way out of a wet & torn paper bag.

    I just know not to bother reading his manipulative drivel in the future.

    What kind of idiot feels the need to condemn every person who makes a stupid word choice?
    – Ron apparently does, unless it’s a liberal…

    Comment by Attila — January 29, 2010 @ 11:06 am | Reply

  106. 92. robotech master:

    It’s official. Religious zealots are left wingers. Robotech says so. Next time Palin says, “Its god’s plan” for her to run for vice president, know that she’s a leftist trying to sneak her way into your right wing graces. Or when Pat Robertson says we should assassinate Hugo Chavez, he’s just being a liberal. Or when he blames Haiti ‘s earthquake on a pact they made with the devil, he’s just doing what Democrats do. (Hey, maybe that’s why conservatives are sitting on their hands instead of helping gout those poor people.)

    Your delusion is unlimited.

    Comment by skeeziks — January 29, 2010 @ 11:08 am | Reply

  107. To Ron Radosh,

    Come on, man, that dictator rant to goy was absolute gold. Nothing in there that was objectionable. Why’d you block it?

    Comment by skeeziks — January 29, 2010 @ 11:10 am | Reply

  108. Oh Mr. Rosenbaum the progressives in America on the left in your party throughout history have been advocating for this eugenics like language for the longest time. Get a grip.

    Comment by johnmaylives — January 29, 2010 @ 11:12 am | Reply

  109. 82. Jack:

    Don’t try so hard to appear what you are not. Know your audience, Jack. And if you’re such an activist for gays and women, can I assume you support gay marriage and a woman’s right to choose? If you do, great. If you don’t . . .

    You have no standing.

    Comment by skeeziks — January 29, 2010 @ 11:13 am | Reply

  110. Ron, why don’t you surf over to http://www.time.com and put in Mortimer Adler as a search term, and enlighten yourself with an article about him as a teacher just months short of being an octogenarian , amidst students in their teens. This one: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,950523,00.html

    All of us are equal in accountability, but not all of us are the same in handling responsbilities.

    Like it or not, some have more to work with in handling responsibilities.

    Comment by David W. Lincoln — January 29, 2010 @ 11:16 am | Reply

  111. 55. Another Typical Racist Republican:
    I don’t see much repudiation of the idiots in the Democrat party by fellow Democrats. When that starts to happen, I’ll consider repudiating a few of our bozos

    Setting your standards and defining your principles by virtue of the lowest common denominator of your enemy – it’s the conservative way.

    Hail Rush. Go Sarah!

    Comment by skeeziks — January 29, 2010 @ 11:16 am | Reply

  112. To 97. skeeziks

    Do you understand basic science? Do you deny that religion at least what pat robertsons brand of religion is collectivist? You have no science and no facts to back up your pitifully ill informed arguments…

    What next small pox blankets?

    Also…I highly doubt your comment was rejected either resubmit with less links or just plain resubmit… I have only had 1 comment ever rejected on this board… and it was close to 50% curse words… my 25% curse word rants always get posted…

    Comment by robotech master — January 29, 2010 @ 11:23 am | Reply

  113. Response to skeeziks @ 97:

    First, I’m not defending Robertson here but let us keep the debate honest. He never said that a pact with the devil directly caused the earthquake, that the earthquake was a judgement from God, or any of the other things he is accused of by the left. Don’t believe me. Check out the footage on youtube.

    Second, two groups of people are assisting the Haitians right now – the U.S. military and Christian compassion groups – and both are composed of liberal and conservatives alike. Great job trying to use a natural disaster to score political points.

    Response to robotech master @ 92: It all depends on what you mean by collectivist.

    Comment by Kipling — January 29, 2010 @ 11:23 am | Reply

  114. To 102. Kipling

    Basic sociology meaning nothing complex in it… I personally don’t know much about pat robertson but I heard him compared to hannity and of course anyone who knows who hannity is knows he’s a centrist/center left guy.

    Comment by robotech master — January 29, 2010 @ 11:27 am | Reply

  115. I love the way Rosenbaum calls the poor “the unfortunate.” Young women who know very well that out of wedlock children are the ticket to government checks, food stamps and most important, apartments, are “unfortunate?” No they”re not. They are hustlers gaming the system. Go lay your guilt trip somewhere else, Ronnie.

    Comment by ricpic — January 29, 2010 @ 11:28 am | Reply

  116. 101. robotech master:

    jesus was a liberal. You should follow his example. (If only I had some science to back up that whole messiah thing.)

    Comment by skeeziks — January 29, 2010 @ 11:29 am | Reply

  117. Ron, Ron, Ron, Duh help, help me Ron..Duh…what crapola, crayola, doth thee spew, dear boy. Mommy and Daddy are proud of you
    and thats the truth. That’s all the truth you can handle. Rant on dear.

    Comment by john m e — January 29, 2010 @ 11:31 am | Reply

  118. To 104. skeeziks

    Maybe I don’t know… but you can keep your collectivism to yourself and so can jesus….

    Comment by robotech master — January 29, 2010 @ 11:32 am | Reply

  119. I always enjoy the righteous indignation of anti-Americans and leftists when some one they fear uses a word or phrase that wouldn’t raise an eyebrow if used by one of their own ilk.

    Comment by NCBob — January 29, 2010 @ 11:41 am | Reply

  120. 105. robotech master:

    Blasphemer!

    “Something happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it. They were under the heel of the French. You know, Napoleon III, or whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, we will serve you if you’ll get us free from the French. True story. And so, the devil said, okay it’s a deal. Ever since, they have been cursed by one thing after the other”

    Comment by skeeziks — January 29, 2010 @ 11:43 am | Reply

  121. Let us recall his words when comparing govt help for poor and stray animals at a townhall meeting:

    —“You know why? Because they breed. You’re facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don’t think too much further than that. And so what you’ve got to do is you’ve got to curtail that type of behavior. They don’t know any better.”—

    The problem with the image of Republicans is that the are not as concerned about social welfare as Democrats. Enter Lt. Gov. Bauer who told this story of what his grandma told him.

    Add that it doesn’t look good when 1/2 of SC school children get assistance for school lunches (reduced cost or free) and the Lt. Gov. of SC says this.

    Probably also isn’t the best move since an amended financial report of the Lt. Gov. was sent to the S.C. Ethics Commission that showed he had received thousands of dollars in free meals from restaurants and caterers in late 2009. “Pot, it’s kettle. You black.”

    But then I remind myself that SC is the state whose govt decided not to impeach Sanford for being derilect in his duties as the Governor.

    Comment by avoidswork — January 29, 2010 @ 11:44 am | Reply

  122. To 106. skeeziks

    Maybe but your still a leftwing religious douche-bag who is so poorly educated in anything that you don’t even know what fascism is… go back to under your bridge from which you came.

    Comment by robotech master — January 29, 2010 @ 11:51 am | Reply

  123. “NOTHING in this Bill shall be construed to affect persons paid by the Federal Government for specified services rendered . . . ”
    – – – – –

    Did you intend to exempt government employees?

    See, I’d probably leave it in, and if we needed to make some concession or lower our demands down the road, well, that’s down the road, but in the meantime, it has a nice ring to it.

    Comment by bobby b — January 29, 2010 @ 11:51 am | Reply

  124. Question for you, Mr. Rosenbaum.

    When someone on the Left makes a hateful, ignorant statement, how many times have you emailed them demanding their resignation? Don’t tell me you’ve never heard anything from your side that sounds racist, sexist or uncaring.

    Or are you not responding to these comments because you’re too busy e-mailing all the Dems in the Senate demanding Harry Reid’s resignation over his racist comments about our President?

    Surely, if you demand reactionary anger from us when one of our own says something stupid, you would hold yourself and your party to the same standards?

    Comment by Josh — January 29, 2010 @ 11:53 am | Reply

  125. stop playing with the troll.

    they enjoy there idiotic non helpful game. there are morally dishonest so just leave them to themselves.

    Comment by George S. — January 29, 2010 @ 11:59 am | Reply

  126. Response to robotech master @103 and skeeziks @ 104: Jesus was not an economic or political collectivists as some like skeeziks would like to claim. Nor did Christianity call for an economically communial form of socialism like Mr. Obama has claimed. Instead, Jesus came to bring men into the Kingdom of Heaven and to unite them in one holy nation – the church. They were collectivists in the sense that they joined together in worship, in prayer, and in fellowship with one another. The rich were asked to help the poor and the poor were commanded to work – otherwise you do not eat as Paul said. At no time did Jesus call for the government to enforce these Christian principles.

    Response to sheeziks @106: Earthquakes, floods, and other natural disasters as well as crime, greed, strife, etc. are a direct result of the fall of man in Genesis 3. Bad things happen to both good people and bad people as a result. Not in a direct causal relationship but more as a condition of a fallen world.

    Comment by Kipling — January 29, 2010 @ 12:00 pm | Reply

  127. 107. robotech master:

    You have a colorful way of licking your wounds.

    109 Kipling

    Thanks for clearing that up. We’re all to blame, We’re all to suffer. Great system you got there. I’ll stick with a god of mercy and fairness and good harvest. You can keep the rest. (And don’t ask me for any money.)

    Comment by skeeziks — January 29, 2010 @ 12:12 pm | Reply

  128. To 109. Kipling

    “the church.” is a form of government and was a very oppressive leftist government for a long time… Last I heard about jesus is that he hated the church… for very much that reason.

    To 110. skeeziks

    Maybe however you still have yet to show any logic, reasoning or ability to explain why you believe the things you do… are why you seem to think that clearly centrist/leftwings are somehow rightwing…

    Comment by robotech master — January 29, 2010 @ 12:19 pm | Reply

  129. I had to see this.
    Those who support murdering babies (mainly of poor distressed mothers) come and give lessons of morality and compassion.

    What a world.

    To subvert= to put upside down.

    Comment by Sherab Zangpo — January 29, 2010 @ 12:28 pm | Reply

  130. This is fun… twice now my posts have been purged, and I’m trying to figure out what progressive shibboleth I have stepped on to deserve such treatment. Ah, now I know, I had the temerity to denigrate the great savior of our country, the One, the Obama (Peace Be Upon Him). (BTW, I accused him of being a progressive, with all that that entails).

    Comment by Charles Stevens — January 29, 2010 @ 12:29 pm | Reply

  131. Yes, because we’re all responsible collectively for what one person says.

    Grow up. The person who is culpable for what is said is the same person who said it.

    Now I want you to distance yourself from Harry “Negro Dialect” Reid and Chris “What? He’s a Black?” Matthews and their statements.

    Comment by Chris Bolts Sr. — January 29, 2010 @ 12:30 pm | Reply

  132. Well thats interesting Ron, “silence equals complicity”.

    So I’m sure you will agree with me that when muslims attack unarmed Christians and there is no outcry from the so-called “moderate” muslims they are complicite with the agenda of the terrorist.

    Libs are such fools….

    Comment by whosebone — January 29, 2010 @ 12:36 pm | Reply

  133. As a lifetime South Carolinian, let me just say this… Andre Bauer isn’t particularly our favorite Republican politician here, but he’s harmless enough as Lt. Governor, a post akin to State Capital doorman. We never thought he might actually end up as governor. That said, if we’d known about Gov. Sanford’s proclivities up front, he’d probably be working elsewhere, but he never let on to the people of this state when he was running for the office that he might be inclined to go on a booty call during his term as governor. In our defense, you should have seen the candidates the Dems were offering as alternatives…

    Comment by Carl D. — January 29, 2010 @ 12:39 pm | Reply

  134. To 112. Chris Bolts Sr.

    Its not really ron’s fault in that… he is after all a collectivist but a mere slave to his ideology free thought is something that confuses and scares him. A collectivist can only think of the collective and as such he demands that what he deems the repub “collective” bow down to his racial superior collective.

    Comment by robotech master — January 29, 2010 @ 12:44 pm | Reply

  135. No, Im sorry. The left has no standards for its own. All bets are off.

    Comment by mnewman — January 29, 2010 @ 12:46 pm | Reply

  136. Skeezics, thanks for making liberals look stupid. Please keep posting as often as possible.

    Comment by P T Bull — January 29, 2010 @ 1:05 pm | Reply

  137. Response to skeeziks @111: I never said that God was not merciful or fair. Nor did I say anything about a harvest. No matter what you claim to believe, you cannot discount the point that we all suffer at some point in our lives. How does your system explain that suffering? What comfort does it provide to those who are suffering? What hope?

    Response to robotech master @112: Jesus never condemned or expressed hatred toward the church. In fact no church existed until after His death. He did however criticize those who would use religion to oppress the people with manmade regulations and to make themselves rich.

    Comment by Kipling — January 29, 2010 @ 1:07 pm | Reply

  138. Jeez, what a whiner. If a Lt Governor saying something stupid kicks this clown off like this, maybe he should quit newswatching and take up cartoons. This is a perfect example of the over emotional, ultra-feminized mindset that makes liberals virtually worthless to any concrete effort to change what truly needs to be changed. This rant is about wanting to catch a conservative doing or saying a dumb thing. Well he found one. I could point out hundreds. Not to him, though. He would die from hyperventilation or a vein would burst in his head. Send the dude some Valium before he whines himself to death.

    Comment by ddavis — January 29, 2010 @ 1:08 pm | Reply

  139. I am a 9/11 Republican, because, Liberals are Idiots.
    The man is a moron.
    The whole, culture of dependency shtick, is a diversion from solid management principles.
    As of yet to be discovered, it turns out… :: ))

    Comment by Don — January 29, 2010 @ 1:12 pm | Reply

  140. Mr Rosenbaum:
    You of course know perfectly well that these sentiments are not what ‘republicans’ think. These are the sentiments of a certain type of person which have nothing to do with republicanism or any other commonplace grouping of like-minded individuals. By asking a stupid question like this you are trying not say what it is that you yourself believe, which is that this is what republicans think. Do you think this is a new tactic?
    As for pre-empting an answer about ‘what democrats believe,’ that too is an ancient tactic, very much in vogue today. ‘The science is settled.’ ‘Anti-Obamaism’ is closet racism.’ ‘Global warming deniers are flat-earthers.’ ‘Being against SCHIP means you want children to die.’
    And so forth.
    We ain’t buying it any more. So please don’t tell us to sit down and shut up after asking us an imbecile question like this.

    Comment by james — January 29, 2010 @ 1:21 pm | Reply

  141. I’m a criminal defense attorney, and thus have some intimate knowledge of, for lack of a better description, the welfare underclass. First, though, Bauer is an idiot, that goes without question. #3 Bryan is right on — Ron is a deeply hateful person, and his parents seem to have encouraged that.

    However, I do see a lot of people with no education, no jobs, living on public assistance (including Section 8), who seem to do little more than get high, do dumb / criminal things, and have lots of kids they can’t take care of, frequently with multiple partners and without marriage. This cuts across racial / ethnic lines, by the way — Ron would know that were he not so close-minded.

    Ron, Mr. Compassion, if you leave aside Bauer’s stupidity and actually control your self-important and selective moral outrage for a moment, you might consider the question: assuming anything can be done for the welfare underclass, how does a refusal to acknowledge the ugly truth help those folks? I’ve done more to help people at the bottom than most, so Ron’s preaching is laughable.

    Comment by Verry Mason — January 29, 2010 @ 1:26 pm | Reply

  142. Note to self: must send off campaign contribution to Bauer by end of today.

    Comment by Tish — January 29, 2010 @ 2:17 pm | Reply

  143. wow ron, are you so afraid of my point that you refused to post it?
    Let me try again.

    Under your assertion that “silence equals complicity”, you would then agree with me that when muslim terrorists gun down unarmed Americans while shouting “allah ackbar” and the so-called “moderate muslims” say nothing, it can then be assumed they are complicit with the actions of the terrorist……..right?

    Have the guts to post this, then have the guts to respond,,,,,,,we await you answer.

    Im betting you are a typical liberal that cant answer.

    Comment by whosebone — January 29, 2010 @ 2:28 pm | Reply

  144. wow, evidently i have been banned from commenting by ronnie the coward.

    Comment by whosebone — January 29, 2010 @ 2:34 pm | Reply

  145. Do you actually KNOW any Republicans or are you like Norah Ephron who “barely knows any republicans” but proclaims the worst based on political party affiliation? Or perhaps you’re content to judge based on dreams of your father and mother and not think for yourself?

    Too bad for you. Can’t know what you’re missing.

    Comment by MrsB — January 29, 2010 @ 2:40 pm | Reply

  146. High, unsustainable birth rates in the welfare states Haiti and Palestinian territories seem to bear Andre out.

    Comment by DrBukk — January 29, 2010 @ 2:48 pm | Reply

  147. follow-up on 9:

    The author of the book “Who Really Cares” self-identifies as a left-leaning intellectual, I’d like to point out. He admits the results of his own study surprised him, and he thinks that the Left has much to learn from the Right’s charitable habits.

    Also, as many have pointed out, while unkind words usually don’t help matters, unkind incentives do much more harm to the poor than unkind words do.

    The “compassionate class” may talk the talk, but how is an incentive structure that punishes well-behaved poor people (by making it more rewarding to be a badly-behaved poor person) loving the poor? It’s not.

    The poor have far worse problems to contend with than one man’s inconsiderate remark. I think fixing those problems is a better use of our time and money than denouncing people is. I understand, though, that denouncing people is more emotionally satisfying.

    Comment by Anjika — January 29, 2010 @ 3:07 pm | Reply

  148. I’m not a Republican, but if I was I would write that was not a nice thing to say, and he should be sorry for his statement.

    There appears to me to be a lot of people on welfare with two good arms, and legs. Why is that? Do they all have a mental problem? I do not think so. Why are so many of the welfare folks having children while on drugs? Then the children get their legs in the air. Not a good situation. But, good for votes.

    If there are people who need help fine. The lazy good for nothing Marxists eating their noodles, and watching TV can get off their arse, and get a JOB!

    Don’t get me started on the illegal aliens.

    Comment by Leatherneck — January 29, 2010 @ 3:13 pm | Reply

  149. It took two posts to get ronnie baby to post my comments, good job ronnie,……now…..

    wheres the answer to post #143 ronnie?

    libs are soooooooo predictable

    Comment by whosebone — January 29, 2010 @ 3:40 pm | Reply

  150. First, lets put out the trash. Please don’t feed the animal skeez. He never responds with any thought just venom. second, just like Tommy Lasorda and Jimmy the Greek this guy has said something that is true but not sayable. He was trying to come up with an analogy that would describe the plight of the ultra poor, not the people who are out of work through no fault of their own. His choice of metaphors was poor but his aim was dead on. Libs will not stand for straight talk and we all know it. But we didn’t cringe from the message but from the delivery. People like the idiot who wrote this piece always talk about the poor but never remember the saying “Give a man a fish and he will be back tomorrow. Teach a man to fish and he will be on his own”.

    Comment by inspectorudy — January 29, 2010 @ 4:44 pm | Reply

  151. 150. inspectorudy:

    Inspector inspector Inspector, may I call you Rudy? Why so cryptic? Why so obtuse? Why so . . . anti straight talk? And why so intent on feeding me? Please, for the sake of America’s future, for the sake of all that is just and true and worthy in this world, learn to lead by example.

    You have no standing.

    Comment by skeeziks — January 29, 2010 @ 4:53 pm | Reply

  152. Baltimore= Waterloo for you . . . toodle doo

    Comment by skeeziks — January 29, 2010 @ 6:04 pm | Reply

  153. “I’m not accusing all Republicans of holding these views, but I haven’t heard many cries of outrage or calls for disavowal.”

    You are implying that in order to get your approval as a moral being I need to express outrage or some sort of disavowal of it. I don’t need your approval. I am not going to jump through hoops for you.

    I have run through this gamut with sneering self-righteous liberals before. So sayeth the self-righteous liberal: “You must believe a,b,c,…take a stand I approve of on d,e,f….before I consider you a worthy, moral being.”

    Which is at least one reason why I am no longer a liberal.

    Comment by Gringo — January 29, 2010 @ 10:36 pm | Reply

  154. Mr. Rosenbaum – I stand behind his metaphor. It is entirely valid. The problem is, it is founded on some underlying principles which you do not apprehend.

    You find it offensive for three reasons: You object to people being likened to strays, even if such a likening is valid; You misunderstand terms in the English language, because of the Leftist twisting of the meanings of words; You assume that it applies only to minorities, and is, therefore, racist.

    A stray animal is one of a breed which is normally domesticated, and therefore, housebroken. A feral animal is one so far removed from domesticated that it will no longer approach Man, or will attack in fear. A domesticated animal abides by the rules of the house. It may be a pampered pet, even, but it earns its keep through companionship and love.

    Liberals hate to think of “the poor” as ignoble. They hate to think that, perhaps, such people deserve their poverty and misery. They do not ken human nature very well.

    Many of these poor are, indeed, stray animals, to continue the metaphor. Once you feed them, you almost CAN’T get rid of them. They do, however, come to expect the gratuity. They feel entitled. If you fail to feed them, they then howl through the night, or try to even claw their way to the food. (Never feed squirrels. They’re very destructive.) These strays do not reciprocate with love and companionship. In fact, in unexpected fashion, they may lash out at you, completely unexpectedly, especially if they were nearly feral in the first place. They do not appreciate rules of any kind. They are not housebroken.

    Now, tell me if the comparison of many poor to strays is not entirely apt. How hateful of Republicans to consider them to be stray animals, when they, in fact, act just like stray animals.

    The problem with Pubs using short-hand metaphors is that, Libs have to have it spelled out completely to them, like children. Even then, they probably will not understand. Being completely lacking in experience in such matters, they CANNOT understand.

    The Right is simply more worldly than the Left, more mature. Such deeper wisdom cannot be explained to children. Still we try, so that, should such a child attain sufficient experience, he can then say, “Oh! That’s what they meant.”

    “A Conservative is a Liberal who was mugged yesterday.”

    So, good for whoever it was (I forgot) who made that metaphor. It shows he is actually wise enough to lead. Elect him! I shall not decry him. Indeed, I shall endorse him!

    Comment by Marc Malone — January 29, 2010 @ 11:38 pm | Reply

  155. I am assuredly a stray.

    I feel it in my bones. I long to role in the dirt and leave the penchance behind. So certain are those I might bow. If I had fangs, I would not be Human.

    But are we not all strays? Surely one begets/equals one. When I pass by one in need each day do I not forsake him? Will I find peace with the dime of labor?

    Did He take from one to give to another? No, I think not. Quite the opposite.

    He is neither Liberal nor Otherwise but gives Everything. Everything He could to all. Yet he asks for NOTHING. Even of those who would smote Him.

    nothing.

    nothing from us but an offer of Love for love.

    Yet from you is owed Nothing. He demands Nothing. But gives Everything.

    Asks nothing, offers everything. Copish? Very simple if you ask me.

    Even children know this.

    The itty bitty children know this more then you or I will ever. For they are Humble.

    They are Humble until Bastards spite them and show them what is Shame (and it is from that “joy” sprouts original sin and within the damning is the Salvation for He has disallowed Them of being forsaken by theirs).

    Comment by Distraught — January 30, 2010 @ 6:50 am | Reply

  156. 154. Marc Malone:

    My favorite Steely Dan album? Pretzel Logic. Or maybe Katie Lied.

    Yours?

    Comment by skeeziks — January 30, 2010 @ 10:01 am | Reply

  157. 148. Leatherneck:

    Did you see that catch Willie Mays made yesterday? Wow!

    Comment by skeeziks — January 30, 2010 @ 10:03 am | Reply

  158. A liberal is a conservative who got laid yesterday.

    Comment by skeeziks — January 30, 2010 @ 10:33 am | Reply

  159. “Education Secretary Arne Duncan called Hurricane Katrina “the best thing that happened to the education system in New Orleans”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012903259.html

    Where are you ron…?

    Now I’m not accusing all democrats of holding these views, but I haven’t heard many cries of outrage or calls for disavowal. Disavowal it ron… wheres the piece I demand it NOW NOW NOW…. you clearly support his position because your a racist, blah, blah, blah, blah, more ron talk.

    Comment by robotech master — January 30, 2010 @ 11:03 am | Reply

  160. I see Skeez is unable to respond to the fact that the Liberal was actually convicted, while his example is only an accusation, and his interpretation is wrong.

    Ooooops.

    Crickets Chirping.

    Cherry picking it seems.

    jd

    Comment by jd — January 30, 2010 @ 12:02 pm | Reply

  161. What would Jesus do? He would slay you with the breath of His mouth and the brightness of His coming. I suggest you repent while there is still time, you’ll find Him compassionate, forgiving and the source of all love. He will hate your sin and wash you of it, like He does for all who receive Him, finally you will be transformed into His likeness and He will be admired in you by all who believe. The Father will recognise His Son when He sees you and not judge you according to your works because His Son already paid your debt when He was nailed to the cross. How can you resist so great a salvation Ron?

    Comment by Jeffrey — January 30, 2010 @ 1:15 pm | Reply

  162. A Liberal is a conservative, that got caught…

    Comment by Poor Citizen — January 30, 2010 @ 1:15 pm | Reply

  163. 160. jd:

    You try so hard to be so righteous and yet, somehow, you mange to come off as merely petty and arbitrary. Thanks for proving that, yes, this is indeed the spirit of the Republican party. How generous of you Duke . . . sorry, I was thinking of Inmate Cunningham who’s rotting away in some prison . . . thanks, JD.

    Comment by skeeziks — January 30, 2010 @ 1:53 pm | Reply

  164. The Church has failed only in what it has tried to foist onto the government. That is dereliction, and I make no excuse for it. The Church needs to step up a lot more than it is doing, though what it is doing it is doing well. The government needs to step off; the government has no business telling churches that they can’t double as homeless shelters.

    Comment by myth buster — January 30, 2010 @ 2:28 pm | Reply

  165. To 163. skeeziks

    Still waiting on you and ron to disavow Arne Duncan…. or being your writing styles and thought patterns are so similar maybe one will cover the other….

    Comment by robotech master — January 30, 2010 @ 3:10 pm | Reply

  166. How many Democrats have spent any time denouncing the extremists in their party? As far as I know absolutely none. Every Republican is expected to jump up and announce that they disagree with every stupid statement by some obscure official while Democrats are, as always, given a pass. Sorry Ron, double standard. As usual.

    Are you willing to stand by the comments of every elected Democrat in the country? Oh, I forgot, if it embarrasses them, you’d never see it reported. You’re willing to use guilt by association to smear all Republicans who do spend their time combing for statements by fellow GOPers to denounce while claiming the moral high ground with Richard Daley, Rahm Emmanuel, John Edwards and William Jefferson. Go back to issues. You raise the debate there, you debase it here.

    Comment by Ken Hahn — January 30, 2010 @ 3:27 pm | Reply

  167. 165 robotech master:

    Who’s Arne Duncan?

    166. Ken Hahn:

    You lie!

    Comment by skeeziks — January 30, 2010 @ 6:08 pm | Reply

  168. Maybe I’m wrong but the way I read the quote is that he did not mean it literally that poor people breed because they don’t know any better.

    His point, as I read it, is that if you give free stuff to poor people, it reinforces the behavior that led them to become poor in the first place. So by giving them free stuff you are actually doing them harm and are increasing the problem, because you make sure they stay poor and encourage others to repeat the behavior. It is bad behavior they are breeding not children. It’s a metaphor.

    If he meant it literally he’s an idiot. I don’t think he did. I think he is stupid in his choice of words. When he use metaphors he should be more clear about how it is supposed to be understood. It’s a sign that he’s not that bright and would be a bad choice for office.

    I also think that his intended point is correct, although there will be situations where charity is appropriate. The systematic government kind of charity is wrong for the reasons stated above.

    Ron Rosenbaum is an evil person, because he wants to keep the poor in a permanent state of poverty and encourage others to also become poor. He does it, not out of sympathy for poor people, but out of vanity and a need to feel morally superior. He identifies with a policy that looks good on the surface but in reality crates misery. And that’s the truth.

    Comment by JL — January 31, 2010 @ 6:52 am | Reply

  169. 158. skeeziks:
    A liberal is a conservative who got laid yesterday.

    The facts do not agree with you. But why is that a surprise?Primetime Live Poll: More Republicans Satisfied With Sex Lives Than Democrats(2004).

    The poll analysis includes a breakdown by many subgroups, including region, age and even political party affiliation, which is the topic of results released today:

    Of those involved in a committed relationship, who is very satisfied with their relationship?

    Republicans — 87 percent; Democrats — 76 percent

    Who is very satisfied with their sex life?

    Republicans — 56 percent; Democrats — 47 percent. The poll analysis also reveals who has worn something sexy to enhance their sex life:
    Republicans — 72 percent; Democrats — 62 percent

    When asked whether they had ever faked an orgasm, more Democrats (33 percent) than Republicans (26 percent) said they had.

    Fromanother source:

    As for sex–well, it turns out that it’s Republican (and especially Republican women) who have it more often and better. The two strongest predictors of Republican affiliation in America are (1) marriage and (2) church attendance. These are also the strongest predictors of female sexual satisfaction. The authoritative 1995 University of Chicago survey Sex in America found that conservative Protestant married women were the group most likely to report that they “nearly always” orgasmed during sex. Married women of all religions were almost twice as likely as unmarried women to describe their sex lives as “extremely satisfying.”

    Keep sneering, skeeziks. If you actually knew something about what you were talking about,you would be able post more than one-liners.

    Comment by Gringo — January 31, 2010 @ 11:22 am | Reply

  170. 169. Gringo:

    That’s because most Republicans consider watching porn the same as having sex.

    “Those states that do consume the most porn tend to be more conservative and religious than states with lower levels of consumption, the study finds. … Eight of the top 10 pornography consuming states gave their electoral votes to John McCain in last year’s presidential election – Florida and Hawaii were the exceptions. While six out of the lowest 10 favoured Barack Obama.” New Scientist

    Keep leering, Gringo. As soon as Republican sex starts involving TWO people you can get back to me.

    Comment by skeeziks — January 31, 2010 @ 4:44 pm | Reply

  171. “I’m not accusing all Republicans of holding these views”

    Yes you are, you hate-addled liar.

    Comment by chrisa798 — February 1, 2010 @ 1:38 am | Reply

  172. Ron Rosenbaum: I’m very late to post, but will on the off-chance someone is still listening. Exactly what experience do you have with poor people to say this metaphor is not true? To me, it is an indictment on our educational and political system that has entrapped these people in a life of squalor and misery. Many live in a violent world much different from yours or mine. If you have not worked around such people for the last 40 or so years as I have, you have little to base your criticism on. I have worked with women who have multiple children from multiple men, have had employees whose children were shot, who have witnessed murders outside their home, or like one, whose niece was killed and another whose niece was violently assaulted and murdered. I have had jealous boyfriends walk into my workplace looking for the person who jilted them. The saddest incident was the death or a young man who was killed when he was moving to an upscale neighborhood after getting promoted. He was carrying a gun in his car and it accidently discharged, hit him in the leg and he bled to death. I always thought how sad it was that he probably needed to carry a gun to protect himself. Friends of mine who lived in or near the areas were in constant danger and told me of how they had to act tough, and behave differently than they normally did to give the impression they were street savvy. You want things to be “warm and fuzzy” when they are not. Welfare doesn’t remove them from these neighborhoods-it perpetuates the problem. There is little that is “normal” in that world, and while I wouldn’t characterize these people as stray animals, it is hard to fault someone who feels this way if it’s not said in a mean-spirited way. There have been three generations of poverty spewed from the Great Society programs of Johnson. What a terrible injustice to our country’s people that has been. That is the travesty that has hurt these people, not a few mis-spoken words from a politician.

    Comment by KJB — February 1, 2010 @ 4:51 am | Reply

  173. I will explain it to you. First, reublicans have not been in favor of welfare because they know what effect it can have on people reducing their dignity, destroying their sense of self reliance, and destroying the structure of their families to the point of reducing them to stray animals. The war on poverty was a complete failure and nearly destroyed the black family..read a few books on the subject and perhaps you will understand a little better what the candidate was trying to convey. Yes, he used very poor language and miscommunicated his position on this issue. He should be confronted about it…and No, republicans do not think ill of the poor. Give it a rest..this is an old maipulative left wing trick and smear on anyone who disagrees with your left wing agendas. Its old as the hills. Conservatives give more to charity than liberals..conservatives would rather give life a chance and a job rather than an abortion nad a welfare check.

    Comment by Simon Templar — February 1, 2010 @ 10:06 am | Reply

  174. #150

    You may have missed Gov. Bauer’s follow-up: “That is way we have an immigration problem in this country, because we have so many people that are unwilling to do manual labor”. So not only does he make an ass-clown statement in re stray animals, but also ascribes to some RINO-ey open borders untruths. Nor does he add the term “illegal” in front of immigration, so yeah, way to go pissing off the legal immigrants and newly naturalized citizens.

    Comment by urbanleftbehind — February 1, 2010 @ 1:38 pm | Reply

  175. Thank you 166. Ken Hahn!
    My sentiments exactly.

    Comment by Jason — February 1, 2010 @ 1:53 pm | Reply

  176. I think he meant: If a person cannot support themselves, it would be better to put off having kids, that they can’t support.

    Comment by Rasputan — February 1, 2010 @ 7:53 pm | Reply

  177. I cannot speak for others only me.Theres a distinct difference between the way i see the world now and the way some Republicans do.Im not afraid to critisize my own and pursue a different course of action ,solo if necessary.Im not afraid to tell Rush Limbaugh to stick it where the sun dont shine if i find his views repulsive instead of being a “yes” man.I didnt grow up with racism thanks to my parents raising me correctly.Thats liberal thinking parents btw.Although nowadays they are more conservative as they have aged.
    However i also know there are others like me who are not so rigid in their thinking and enjoy their liberty and freedom.And that is comforting.

    Comment by Brain — February 2, 2010 @ 5:32 pm | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: