Pages

26 comments

Jump to bottom
1 terraincognita  Thu, Jan 10, 2013 4:39:54pm

Also, he now writes for WorldNutDaily. I guess that sums it all up.

2 EPR-radar  Thu, Jan 10, 2013 5:23:11pm

Go ahead, Rick Santorum, make my day.

Go forth and conquer with full-throated, no apology, sermons on the blessings of income inequality.

The blowback from that might let me live to see laws put in place to limit the ratio between maximum and minimum compensation for all private enterprises.

3 bratwurst  Thu, Jan 10, 2013 5:33:38pm

Ladies and gentlemen…your GOP presidential nominee runner-up and (per party tradition) officially next in line!

4 Howl  Thu, Jan 10, 2013 6:38:09pm

I can’t believe this moron managed to get into the senate.

5 Dark_Falcon  Thu, Jan 10, 2013 6:42:38pm

re: #1 terraincognita

Also, he now writes for WorldNutDaily. I guess that sums it all up.

It does indeed. The good news is that by joining Farrah’s team he may have made himself radioactive enough as to not be able to run for president again.

6 calochortus  Thu, Jan 10, 2013 6:55:57pm

Once again a RWNJ fails to consider the value of nuance. Of course income inequality is a good thing at a certain level. It provides incentive, etc., etc. Massive income inequality can destroy the fabric of a society.

7 stabby  Thu, Jan 10, 2013 6:58:35pm

Meh, this is too abstract to count.

His being a theocrat with all that baggage is a serious minus.

His being against education is a serious minus.

The fact that he says here that he’s against socialist ideals is meaningless pablum for the indoctrinated right wing types, and it’s a rope-a-dope trap for the rest of you.

Don’t fall for this, don’t bother responding to it, you won’t make a single friend, you won’t make a single vote and you’ll lose the vote of every right of center person around.

Shut up about this. Delete the damn thread. Actually be useful here.

8 EPR-radar  Thu, Jan 10, 2013 6:59:59pm

re: #6 calochortus

Once again a RWNJ fails to consider the value of nuance. Of course income inequality is a good thing at a certain level. It provides incentive, etc., etc. Massive income inequality can destroy the fabric of a society.

Hopefully, they let it all hang out in the next cycle. It might even eclipse Romney’s immortal 47% comments.

Imagine how well something like “Of course a 1000:1 income ratio is desirable. How else are the rabble to know who has God’s favor, or be motivated to improve their sorry lot?” would play.

9 EPR-radar  Thu, Jan 10, 2013 7:05:03pm

re: #7 stabby

Actually, I think it’s mainly the other way around. A strong case can be made that theocracy and education are the peripheral issues, and maldistribution of income is the central issue.

I’m certainly not interested in some socialist ideal of perfectly equal income. However, the inequality we have now in the US is insane and unconscionable, and will have dire consequences if not alleviated in some reasonable fashion.

10 stabby  Thu, Jan 10, 2013 7:29:07pm

re: #9 EPR-radar

You have the issue the wrong way around.

It’s not the government’s business to make rich people poorer, and you sound like a fucking communist if you say it is.

It IS our business to keep social security running, medicare, to give the poor health insurance, to keep our infrastructure in good shape, and the fact that the Republicans are doing their best to kill granny, take away her retirement, take away her medicine, and plow the poor under is the legitimate side of the issue. The fact that they, in reality, try to make the government go broke because making the extreme rich 5% richer is more important to them than our country is a real issue.

But income inequality is not the issue, the results on the rest of us are the issue. We’re only against income inequality to the extent that making the rich a couple percent richer means that the poor half of the country will die early, without medicine , without homes, without dignity.

If you’re actually upset that CEOs pay themselves 10000 times more than their employees, then that’s something to take up with the stock holders of the companies, it’s not politically useful to harp on that - it just reeks of spite and leftist indoctrination.

11 calochortus  Thu, Jan 10, 2013 8:09:25pm

re: #8 EPR-radar

Hopefully, they let it all hang out in the next cycle. It might even eclipse Romney’s immortal 47% comments.

Imagine how well something like “Of course a 1000:1 income ratio is desirable. How else are the rabble to know who has God’s favor, or be motivated to improve their sorry lot?” would play.

Lacking a good truth serum, I’m afraid we won’t be hearing that kind of honesty.

12 calochortus  Thu, Jan 10, 2013 8:20:36pm

re: #10 stabby

That all sounds good, and I don’t imagine the salaries of entertainers, sports stars, and other people of that nature makes any difference to the economy. However, until the majority of stock shares in companies are not owned (or at least controlled) by other corporate entities whose top officers are paying themselves in the same fashion as the companies whose stock they own, there won’t be much change.
Furthermore, as long as money concentrates in a smaller and smaller pool of ultra wealthy, they are able to influence legislation to see that the playing field becomes less and less even.

Neither spite nor communism are issues here.

13 stabby  Thu, Jan 10, 2013 8:38:42pm

re: #12 calochortus

That all sounds good, and I don’t imagine the salaries of entertainers, sports stars, and other people of that nature makes any difference to the economy. However, until the majority of stock shares in companies are not owned (or at least controlled) by other corporate entities whose top officers are paying themselves in the same fashion as the companies whose stock they own, there won’t be much change.
Furthermore, as long as money concentrates in a smaller and smaller pool of ultra wealthy, they are able to influence legislation to see that the playing field becomes less and less even.

Neither spite nor communism are issues here.

The political case has not been made, and in any event it’s not as important as the points I mentioned.

If you’re gonna run on “the rich are too rich” then you’re going to lose to the Republicans with all of the horrible results of letting our far right, totally treasonous ruined Republican party win.

14 stabby  Thu, Jan 10, 2013 8:42:06pm

The tea party loses nationally, thank God, because they’re radicals who can’t imagine that the country doesn’t want to vote for social darwinism, fraudulent economics that would doom our economy and oppressive theocracy.

But if the Democrats also turn into radicals who are too fucking stupid to realize that the public doesn’t want to hear “eat the rich! burn down the mansions” then we’re gonna lose because of stupid radicals on our side.

Tone it down, lover.

15 stabby  Thu, Jan 10, 2013 8:47:38pm

Running on “the rich aren’t doing their fair share and a few of the super rich pay lobbyists and propagandists to keep their taxes lower than every before in modern history” you can make a case.

if you run on “the rich are TOOOO rich” you sound spiteful, you’re playing into the far right’s propaganda and strength, you’re going to lose lose lose lose lose lose lose, and you’re a moron.

16 calochortus  Thu, Jan 10, 2013 9:51:41pm

re: #13 stabby

re: #14 stabby

re: #15 stabby

I think you could do with a bit of nuance yourself. Practically no one is running for office on the slogan “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” The argument isn’t that we should all have the same outcome from our differing efforts, it’s that a grossly unequal, and therefore, likely unfair society tends to be unstable. There is a middle ground and I recommend it.

(Am out for the night so if you respond, I’ll try to catch up in the morning)

17 stabby  Thu, Jan 10, 2013 10:14:44pm

re: #16 calochortus

We shouldn’t use weak arguments that offend a large part of the electorate at all when we have much stronger arguments on the same issue.

18 Vicious Babushka  Fri, Jan 11, 2013 6:19:13am
Because people rise to different levels of success based on what they contribute to society and to the marketplace

I’ll bet Matty Moroun was in the audience as Rick said this. What has the Bridge Troll contributed to society?

19 Bulworth  Fri, Jan 11, 2013 6:37:50am

And Ricky is leading a chorus of boos against Chuck Hagel’s nomination. Hopefully he’ll be as, um, successful at that as he was in his run for prez.

20 calochortus  Fri, Jan 11, 2013 8:10:00am

re: #17 stabby

I don’t think my arguments are weak. It is easier to make discussion points black and white, but in reality the world isn’t like that. The truth is rarely absolute.

21 jamesfirecat  Fri, Jan 11, 2013 8:11:09am

re: #14 stabby

The tea party loses nationally, thank God, because they’re radicals who can’t imagine that the country doesn’t want to vote for social darwinism, fraudulent economics that would doom our economy and oppressive theocracy.

But if the Democrats also turn into radicals who are too fucking stupid to realize that the public doesn’t want to hear “eat the rich! burn down the mansions” then we’re gonna lose because of stupid radicals on our side.

Tone it down, lover.

Wow a preemptive MBF have not seen one of those in a long time!

22 Romantic Heretic  Fri, Jan 11, 2013 9:39:45am

An interesting picture I ran across yesterday. I believe it has something to add. In my opinion, if you want to understand the GOP’s stance, reverse the boxes in the right hand picture.

Justice vs. Equality

23 Destro  Fri, Jan 11, 2013 9:41:41am
“Why? Because people rise to different levels of success based on what they contribute to society and to the marketplace, and that’s as it should be,”

Then how the fuck can Santorum claim the USA is a Christian nation when Jesus H, Christ himself said we should not work and give away our worldly possession and follow him?

Luke 12:27

“Consider how the lilies grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you, not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these.

Matthew 6:28

“And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin.”

24 Destro  Fri, Jan 11, 2013 9:46:18am

re: #14 stabby

The tea party loses nationally, thank God, because they’re radicals who can’t imagine that the country doesn’t want to vote for social darwinism, fraudulent economics that would doom our economy and oppressive theocracy.

But if the Democrats also turn into radicals who are too fucking stupid to realize that the public doesn’t want to hear “eat the rich! burn down the mansions” then we’re gonna lose because of stupid radicals on our side.

Tone it down, lover.

I think deep down the social darwinism of the Tea Party is based on a racist conception they have that their tax dollars are used to pay for colored people’s welfare programs. Universally, most Tea Partiers are on some form of govt assistance but don’t see it as welfare or socialism because they “earned it” (see various videos on that on Youtube). So if they are on disability or SS or Medicare and are for it then the only thing left that makes sense is their whole limited govt ideology is based on something they can’t actually say in mixed open company and have to use dog whistle code words.

In the end the Tea Party is a movement largely composed of racist white people who - using code words like limited govt - mean to say they want to stop supporting lazy coloreds with their hard earned white people dollars.

They will deny this of course but it is the translation of their ideology in a nutshell. And it is of course not reality (most welfare goes to whites).

25 EPR-radar  Fri, Jan 11, 2013 10:33:58am

re: #10 stabby

You have the issue the wrong way around.

It’s not the government’s business to make rich people poorer, and you sound like a fucking communist if you say it is.

It IS our business to keep social security running, medicare, to give the poor health insurance, to keep our infrastructure in good shape, and the fact that the Republicans are doing their best to kill granny, take away her retirement, take away her medicine, and plow the poor under is the legitimate side of the issue. The fact that they, in reality, try to make the government go broke because making the extreme rich 5% richer is more important to them than our country is a real issue.

But income inequality is not the issue, the results on the rest of us are the issue. We’re only against income inequality to the extent that making the rich a couple percent richer means that the poor half of the country will die early, without medicine , without homes, without dignity.

If you’re actually upset that CEOs pay themselves 10000 times more than their employees, then that’s something to take up with the stock holders of the companies, it’s not politically useful to harp on that - it just reeks of spite and leftist indoctrination.

I don’t think your two points here are separable. Extreme income inequality necessarily leads to the results on the rest of us that you describe above.

We have had 30+ years where the entirety of the productivity gains from technology etc. have been pocketed by the top fraction of a percent. This is a big problem, and the private sector is manifestly incapable of addressing it.

BTW, I mostly agree with you on the short term politics. Obama has gone about as far as possible along these lines as is presently possible. However, I am not running for office.

Finally, it is right wing BS to dismiss any left of center viewpoints on economics as “communism”. We can do better here.

26 EPR-radar  Fri, Jan 11, 2013 2:03:31pm

re: #10 stabby

If you’re actually upset that CEOs pay themselves 10000 times more than their employees, then that’s something to take up with the stock holders of the companies, it’s not politically useful to harp on that - it just reeks of spite and leftist indoctrination.

Incidentally, belief in the ability of corporate governance to reign in excessive executive compensation is extremely naive.

It is the corporate version of belief in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Great Pumpkin taken together.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

^ back to top ^

TwitterFacebook

Turn off all ads for a full year by subscribing!
For about 33 cents a day (per month) or 22 cents a day (per year), our subscription option turns off all advertisements at LGF!
Read more...

► LGF Headlines

  • Loading...

► Tweeted Articles

  • Loading...

► Tweeted Pages

  • Loading...

► Top 10 Comments

  • Loading...

► Bottom Comments

  • Loading...

► Recent Comments

  • Loading...

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud

► Contact

You must have Javascript enabled to use the contact form.
Your email:

Subject:

Message:


Messages may be published unless you request otherwise.
Tech Note:
Using the Contact Form
LGF Pages

This button leads to the main index of LGF Pages, our user-submitted articles. You can post your own LGF Pages simply by registering a free account with us.

Create a Page

This is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.

Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.

Last updated: 2014-03-07 2:19 pm PST

LGF User's Guide
Recent Pages
Randall Gross
Galia Social - Warning Signs
facebook.comgaliasocial.bandcamp.comreverbnation.comOur previous In-Studio video:

6 hours, 57 minutes ago
Views: 71 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 0
The Vicious Fergushka
The Scientific Explanation of Why People Kill Each Other Over TVs on Black Friday
More: The Scientific Explanation of Why People Kill Each Other Over TVs on Black Friday What causes people to kick, shove and even stab each other on Black Friday? Each year there are reports of violence during the Black Friday ...

3 days, 14 hours ago
Views: 439 • Comments: 3
Tweets: 6 • Rating: 1
Skip Intro
Anti-Gay Hate Preacher Accidentally Tweets 4,000 Followers Cartoon Clip of Him ‘Confessing’ to Be a ‘Homosexual Sodomite’
Adam Reakes Promotes Truth That Starbucks Markets Semen Laced Lattes http://t.co/RY06dEEb0I— James David Manning (@DrJamesDManning) November 20, 2014

3 days, 16 hours ago
Views: 661 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 1
Lumberhead
One Man Should Not Dictate Immigration Policy
Well played. You know, the more I mull over the Republican complaint about how immigration reform is being implemented, the more I sympathize with them. Public policy, especially on big, hot button issues like immigration shouldn't be made by one ...

4 days, 9 hours ago
Views: 451 • Comments: 6
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 7
teleskiguy
“Chelsea Hotel” performed by Tal Wilkenfeld
I first saw Austrailian bass player Tal Wilkenfeld play with Jeff Beck (not live, mind you. On YouTube) and was amazed at her skills and chops. She was only 20 when she scored that gig. She's coming into her own ...

6 days, 6 hours ago
Views: 315 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 5
FemNaziBitch
History of Laws Concerning Immigration and Naturalization in the United States -WIKI
The United States Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787. Article I, section 8, clause 4 of the Constitution expressly gives the United States Congress the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.[1] Pursuant to this power, Congress ...

6 days, 15 hours ago
Views: 434 • Comments: 1
Tweets: 1 • Rating: 3
MichaelJ
COMFORTABLY NUMB - Peahi Nov 12 on Vimeo
Channel angle of the Nov 12th swell at Peahi.

1 week, 3 days ago
Views: 577 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 1 • Rating: 2
Romantic Heretic
Money Makes Us Less Rational
Here's an interesting article on scientific studies that demonstrate how rationality and empathy break down is the presence of large amounts of money.

1 week, 5 days ago
Views: 785 • Comments: 2
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 2
 Frank says:

Rain is good for you...
Rain is bad for electrical equipment... -- Outdoor concert, Jones Beach, NY, Circa 1984