Cunningham on the poor: "They're poor because they lack values, ethics, and morals"
Echoing his previous attacks on the poor, radio host Bill Cunningham claimed that "poor people were not and are not poor because they lack money. They're poor because they lack values, ethics, and morals."
On the January 4 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Cincinnati-based radio host Bill Cunningham continued his attacks on the poor, stating: "[P]oor people were not and are not poor because they lack money. They're poor because they lack values, ethics, and morals." Cunningham added: "All that the mid-'60s and '70s did to the black community was to pay black fathers money on condition that they not be involved in the lives of their children and that black mothers were told that if you married, it would have a painful consequence. If, on the other hand, you acted irresponsibly by producing children out of wedlock, you would have a positive consequence, because government would fund bad behavior."
As Media Matters for America has documented, Cunningham made similar remarks on his October 23 broadcast, asserting, "The reason people are poor in America is not because they lack money, it's because poor people in America lack values, character, and the ability to work hard." Additionally, Cunningham stated on his October 27 broadcast: "Among the so-called noble poor in America ... [b]irth control is not used so illegitimate children can be brought into the world, so the mom can get more checks in the mail from the government. And then once the child is born, that is the key to financial riches in the poor communities -- white and black -- in America."
Talkers Magazine lists Cunningham on its "Heavy Hundred" list of the "100 most important radio talk show hosts in America." Cunningham's weekend show, Live on Sunday Night, it's Bill Cunningham, is syndicated nationally by Premiere Radio Networks.
From the January 4 broadcast of Clear Channel's The Big Show with Bill Cunningham:
CUNNINGHAM: I cannot say it too often or too many times. Nothing FDR did in the 1930s stopped or alleviated the Great Depression. Almost everything FDR did in the 1930s exacerbated the Great Depression. There's nothing LBJ did in '64, '65, and '66 that helped the plight of African-Americans; in fact, it hurt them. Almost all their actions brought about the law of unintended consequences. The goal of model cities, Section 8 housing, and food stamps was to give the poor people money, not understanding that poor people were not and are not poor because they lack money. They're poor because they lack values, ethics, and morals.
All that the mid-'60s and '70s did to the black community was to pay black fathers money on condition that they not be involved in the lives of their children and that black mothers were told that if you married, it would have a painful consequence. If, on the other hand, you acted irresponsibly by producing children out of wedlock, you would have a positive consequence, because government would fund bad behavior.
So LBJ and the Democrats and Republicans had the best of intentions to solve poverty by giving to poor people money, acting as if that was the resolution of their problem, when just the opposite occurred. By giving poor people money by acting irresponsibly, they incentivized more irresponsible behavior.
Media Matters: Limbaugh's Off the Wall spin on Michael Jackson's death
Howard Kurtz's wasted opportunity
Predudice, discrimination, crime, disease, poor nutrition, poor education, none of these things are the cause of poverty? No, it is because we feed them and provide a roof ove their head. Yeah that's it.
Yes, it takes a rich man to set us straight.
With his "rule of unitended consequenses" this guy could have almost lead a halfway interesting discussion. Too bad he's a weaselly little, pin-headed, racist a$sbag.
That's more or less what I was thinking.
This is the sort of self-comforting pablum that's accepted as gospel on wingnut radio. I just caught some of Dennis Prager's show, and as usual he managed to throw in a matter-of-fact mention of "secularists" as people who don't have any morals or values.
Thank God for rich religious people.
Thank god indeed. What would we do without our betters to show us the way. Where would all the teenage girls of this country be without the upstanding example of say Paris Hilton?
It is a ridiculous assertion. Morals, ethics and values have nothing to do with one's financial situation. For Cunningham to continue to make that connection only illustrates that perhaps he should be more thoughtful with those three attributes where he is concerned, more than some "poor" person.
I thought that Jesus was the most moral and just person ever to live, but now I realize that it was only because he was so wealthy!
The Republican Social Darwinists apparently don't like that part of the Bible. You know, that whole Camel-through-the-eye-of-a-needle section.
Especially considering some chuches teach that God wants you to be rich, if you are righteous. He makes the camel wider for some.
The fact is, neither does the Culture of Death Democrats (the ones who support and promote death to babies, death to the elderly and life for the condemned). That whole camel-through-the-eye-of-a-needle section is very troubling. But, life is good for them, they seem to feel that section does't apply to them.
Non Sequitur much?
Apparantly, as much as you.
Then I'm sure you'll be happy to explain what the Camel has to do with abortion?
Please enlighten...
I thought I did explain when I said: "But, life is good for them, they seem to feel that section does't apply to them." What more explanation do you need?
The "camel through the eye of the needle" quote addresses wealth. The point would be that people who believe in the Bible and believe great wealth is something desirable have a conflict. The "camel" quote doesn't apply to abortion at all.
When does the Bible say that life begins, by the way?
I always heard it was "at forty."
At conception. I thought you told me you've read the Bible? It's certainly mentioned in Job 3:3, and Jeremiah 20:17 infers that Jeremiah was a person while in the womb.
1 After this, Job opened his mouth and cursed the day of his birth. 2 He said:
3 "May the day of my birth perish,
and the night it was said, 'A boy is born!'
How does cursing the day of his birth show that life begins at conception?
As for Jeremiah 20:17, it says "her womb enlarged forever". That's late in the pregnancy, obviously, so that's nothing against early abortion.
I guess we have a difference of interpretations. The NKJV that I use says; 3: May the day perish on which I was born, And the night in which it was said, A male child is concieved.
Certainly, this talks about his sorrow for being concieved. Which infers that his life began at conception.
As for Jeremiah, where did I say it had anything to do with abortion?
Also, in your version of Job, how can he be born in the day AND in the night?
If you're born at ten o'clock at night on January 6th, January 6th is the day of your birth. That phrase doesn't suggest it was daytime when you were born.
How did Job's parents know when he was conceived, and that it was going to be a boy? That suggests some divine involvement, don't you think?
As for Jeremiah, what do you think we're talking about?
We are talking about what the Bible says when life begins. Isn't that what you ASKED me? Since you can't follow your own train of thought, I will assume we are done talking.
You were the one talking about abortion. I asked when the Bible says that life begins. The two are connected.
I never mentioned abortion, nerzog did. I did mention the "Culture of Death Democrats (the ones who support and promote death to babies", but where did I say ziagots or fetus or any of the other words you use for pre-born babies? NEVER did I mention pre-born babies being killed. YOU and nerdzog have and continue to do so!
Since you have a operative Bible search, why don't you do a search on conception and life. Although, I don't think you'll like the results. You'll either deny them or need to rethink your liberal stance on the beginning of human life.
Oh, so you were talking about 6 month-old babies being killed? Give me a break. When you were asked about abortion, you did not clarify. And why would we expect you to use the terms we use? Pro-lifers just say "baby", not "zygote" or "fetus". That's consistent with your viewpoint, so of course you were talking about abortion.
Since you're the Bible expert, why don't you answer the question. And a book that supports slavery and domination of women isn't going to change my views even if it does say life begins at conception. It doesn't have any crediibility.
"And a book that supports slavery and domination of women isn't going to change my views"
I suspected as much. Why are you using the Bible to argue against me, then? But, since you are changing the subject ... again ... where does the Bible say "domination of women" is supported?
I did so clarify. You chose not to accept my clarification because it interferes with your belief standards. I don't really care what you believe, I stated my opinion and you say it has no validity. You are the typical liberal!! You change subjects when you can't argue, you call names when you can't argue and you expect me to 'believe according to you' when you argue. Accept the fact that others have different opinions and unless I now live in Cuba I am allowed to proclaim them.
Because you believe in the Bible. I don't have to believe in it to use it against you.
Where did you clarify you weren't talking about abortion? Nerzog asked you about it, and you didn't say a word to that effect. If you were really talking about killing infants, you should have said so. You have the right to express your opinion, and I have the right to tell you when your opinions are nonsense and when you're being dishonest in your support for them.
16 To the woman He said:
“I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception;
In pain you shall bring forth children;
Your desire shall be for your husband,
And he shall rule over you.” (Genesis 3)
I was obviously refering to your liberal-given right to kill 'live-born' babies. Do you have a problem with that? What part of killing live-born babies is considered abortion? Since most of you liberals think late term abortions are not performed, anyway.
Your quote was Gen 3:16 (for those who are following along). This is the judgment upon woman. She cannot bring a child into the world without sorrow. Isn't it interesting that that should be true? The very thing that brings joy into the life and continues the human family has to come through sorrow.
I don't know of anyone who wants to kill "live-born" babies. But again, if that was your point, you should have clarified it.
Yes, I know the quote was Genesis 3:16. I said it was the third chapter of Genesis, and "16" preceded the quote. Did you see the part about the husband ruling over the woman?
I misphrased that, it's getting late. I made it clear it was Genesis 3:16.
Yeah, I saw that. I didn't think you were actually needing a clarification. Must be pretty foggy where you're at.
The police rule over me. The police do not 'dominate' me. Someone has to lead in the family structure. Earlier in Genesis, mankind is given dominion over animals. Are you saying that God is telling man is to dominate over the woman in similar fashion? I really can't believe you would think that. But, not knowing whether you're still in grade school or not, I can't put it past you.
I've got to work today, so I doubt I'll be able to reply to any more of your silly off-topic questions. But, I look forward to reading your replies when I get home.
The police comparison bolsters my point. If you have authority over someone else, that is dominance. You have to do what they say. Any disputes are won by the male as a rule.
January 6th would be the "date" of your birth. Not day, if you are born at night. For instance; I was born at 1 am (night) I was not born at 1 pm (day). But the date of my birth is the same no matter what.
I just didn't read it as being particularly inconsistent. It could also be that an announcement of birth doesn't have to be at the exact time of birth. If it's really inconsistent, then I'll go with your version. But in that case I'll ask again:how did Job's parents know anything the night of conception, and doesn't that suggest some extraordinary divine involvement in his conception?
I should add, I don't remember the word "date" appearing in the Bible very often, so I considered the words interchangeable. I did a search in the NKJV for the word, and this is what I found:
"Sorry. No results found for "date" in Keyword Search."
I'm not interpretting your Bible passages the same way you are. To me, this implies a loss of innocense, having more to do with the concept of original sin than abortion - that's a real stretch to make it apply to abortion. It kinda reminds me of Wordsworth's, 'Ode, Intimations of Immortality', where he writes, "Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting". His reference, and I believe your reference to Job, is in regard to a loss of innocense and has nothing to do with actual birth and/or conception.
That's my 2 cents.
I appreciate your 2-cents, however I am not talking about abortion. I was asked when I thought life begins according to the Bible, so I brought up the quickest 2 verses I could find. The Job reference, to me, indicates he was going to be a viable living human at conception. And, the Jeremiah reference does also. That indicates TO ME that the Bible says life begins at conception. You guys can twist that into an abortion arguement all you want, I was just answering a question that was directed to ME.
Life certainly begins by the time a living newborn is tossed in a hospital laundry bin or other handy location to "fulfill the intent" of the mother.
Why anyone would accuse the Looney Left of being a Culture of Death is beyond me. I prefer to think of the Left as just simply a buncha people who flunked math-- if they even attended class...
To illustrate: who in their sane mind would dream up a ponzi scheme like Social Security, and then eliminate 40 million potential slaves who coulda kept the scam going for a coupla more generations?
Is any of that supposed to be relevant to my post?
...meant for it to reply to Easy's "when does the Bible say Life begins?".
What are you talking about?
I would submit that on a certain level, morals, ethics, and values do have a bearing on ones financial situation. While I do recognize and accept certain systemic contributions to the cycle of poverty, I think it is also important to recognize that a "breakdown" in M,E, and V's certainly can provide rich soil for poverty and in some cases it has done just that. I would submit that the neverending fantasizing of fast money, gangster lifestyle, lack of respect for women, flagrant misuse of the english language, lack of respect for human life, poor work ethic, and countless other issues along these lines do in fact cause or set up people for a life of poverty.
A certain lack of morals, ethics and values certainly can have quite an impact on one's financial circumstances. It turns out that if you have none of those and nothing but an unquenchable thirst for money and power that you can accumulate millions of dollars through shady and/or illegal business practices and get off scott free if you throw some of that cheese around to similarly minded folks in the legislature.
Money does not equal virtue. There are bastards both rich and poor and saints in poverty and plenty. Birth status, quality of education, social connections, drive and ability are far better predictors of financial fortune than some sort of unmeasurable innate "goodness" of a person's soul.
"There are bastards both rich and poor and saints in poverty and plenty."
I agree with you absolutely on that one. It's obvious Cunningham is just taking a stab at democrats and their liberal ideology. He listed virtually all of their main programs as the reason for his statement. He probably needed more free advertisement, so he knows if he says something stupid, then mmfa will headline him for weeks. I think, by now, all the conservative pundits, that you all hate so much, know that mmfa can be played like a fiddle with just a little tug on the strings.
Right, Phlibber...... I'm sure you preferred the days when Douchebag Liars like Cunningham could spout their nonsense to drooling, sycophantic audiences and go happily unchallenged. Yeah, those were the golden years of Troglodyte Radio.
You mean the 25 people who listened to them BEFORE mmfa gives them free advertisement and turns it into 2500... then 250,000?
Why would anyone here listen to people like Cunningham after his nonsense is documented? They don't grant them any credibility.
Not credibility, free advertisement. I'm not saying you people listen to him, although, I'll bet a lot of you do just to hear inacuracies that you can whine about. But, someone who simply comes to the site or hears of the complaints may listen to him to find out what all the hoola-baloo is about.
You do know that advertising relies on the idea that something is desirable in some way, right? You don't sell something by saying "We dare you to find out how bad this tastes!" And if some people listen just to laugh at him or hear misinformation, that doesn't help him anyway. It's not going to be some hundred-fold increase of listenership in any event.
Not all advertisement is cute puppy dogs and horses playing football. Name recognition is the same as free advertisement. Just like mmfa lives off of advertisement/donations, not all who attend, here, are in favor of their mission.
Do you donate money to MMfA?
Of course not. I donate to worthy causes.
So what does MMfA gain from your presence?
Nothing financially. Are finances all that mmfa is concerned about?
You contribute nothing at all to them. So what does anyone like Cunningham gain from "advertisement" here?
I guess, since you think only finances matter to mmfa, then they will apply to the camel-through-the-eye-of-a-needle analogy that was talked about earlier. Too bad for them
You can't address the argument, so you wallow in this "only finances matter" nonsense. I didn't say that, and you know it. Thou shalt not bear false witness.
THIS: "You contribute nothing at all to them" THEN: "Thou shalt not bear false witness"
What is it you are claiming of me, again? I said I offer no financial assistance and you claim I offer nothing. I addressed the arguement first, you changed it to 'what does mmfa gain from my presence'. Now, you're calling me a liar. What does mmfa gain from your presence? What I see is trolling (changing subject) and name-calling.
You didn't address the point, you said "Are finances all that mmfa is concerned about?" That has nothing to do with anything. People like Cunningham gain nothing from "advertisement" here. Asking you what MMfA gains from your presence is directly related to that, since you set yourself up as an example for your argument. I didn't change anything. And I defend valid items here from people who dishonestly attack them. That is a contribution. What do you contribute?
I called you a liar because you lied. I kept my point very clear, I ignored your distraction, and you continued to claim I said or implied something that I didn't. If you don't like it, try being honest.
I question the validity of items brought forth in an honest open fashion. THAT is a contribution! Whether you choose to accept it or not is not of my concern. I bring something and you call me a liar. YOU are breaking the 'terms of use' agreement you signed while joining mmfa. NOT ME!
People like Cunningham DO gain something from this free advertisement. I had never heard of him before. Just like I had never heard of Imus before mmfa baselessly attacked him. Lou Dobbs I had never heard of before reading of him, here. Now, I listen to him every day. I had not listened to Laura Ingraham before reading of her, here. Now I listen to her quite often. You are wrong to think this free advertisement doesn't work. It may not succeed to your standards, but those appear to be so high nobody could attain that level.
I might add; I was having a friendly discussion with nerzog about free advertisement from mmfa when you butt-ed in and changed the subject to; 'why would anyone, here, listen to him', then; 'what do I money do I contribute to mmfa', then to name-calling. I guess I should have ignored your dishonest distraction. But, I didn't. I'll try to not let that happen again.
An honest open fashion? Holy cow. Your imagination has no bearing on this discussion, but thanks anyway. You go off-topic constantly, and calling people liars when they lie isn't against the rules as far as I know.
You'd never heard of Imus, Ingraham or Dobbs before reading about them here? That's remarkable. I don't think there are very many people who are that ignorant of media figures. You would be part of the wingnut's typical audience anyway. That's not anything like the average visitor here.
How is asking why people at MMfA would listen to Cunningham a change in topic from free advertisement from MMfA? That makes exactly zero sense. You're the one who set yourself up as an example, so I questioned you. It's not that difficult to understand.
"You would be part of the wingnut's typical audience anyway. That's not anything like the average visitor here."
I take it you refer to the 'form ID-10-T' as being the average visitor for here?
Show me where I went off topic during my replies to others who are off-topic? Isn't the subject of a post fair game for a reply? While you took it off topic by asking un-related questions to un-related subjects, without answer any of the subject matter. As if you expect others to follow down your train of thought while you vainly try to make a point.
Want an example? I asked; 'the 25 people listening to them before mmfa gives them free advertisement becomes 2500-250000' while replying to nerzog's statement about listeners consisting of "drooling, sycophantic audiences". You replied with 'why would anyone at mmfa listen to Cunningham' (which is funny because you insinuate that mmfa members are those type of listeners). Where did I say mmfa posters listen to him? Then you followed with your free advertisement rantings. Then you took it off-topic again to 'what does mmfa gain from me being here'. Then whined continueously about me not being worthy to post and called me a liar.
As for you not thinking calling someone a liar is name-calling. I could call you a crap-head and it would be name-calling. It may be true, but it would still be name-calling.
You go off-topic all the time. You go off on rants about your imaginary "typical" liberal supporting this and that, no matter how far removed from the topic your "point" may be.
You said 25 people turns into 2500-25000 because of advertisement on MMfA. You say yourself "gives them free advertisement", then you suggest that my talking about "free advertisement" is off-topic. My question about why anyone here would listen to him is the opposite of suggesting that MMfA members are those types of listeners. I'm saying they're not, which is why the "advertisement" is meaningless. The fact that MMfA gains nothing from you is part of the same point.
"Crap-head" doesn't really mean anything. You are a liar. I suppose that if someone cheats on their wife that it's "name-calling" to call them an adulterer. You should also remember that a few days ago you called me a liar for saying that a voluntary FOX poll showed McCain winning a debate with 80+%. I backed that up, by the way, so your "name-calling" was unfair. Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Amen, Bro. Well said.
Chris, I hear what you are saying, but I just don't see where morality, honesty, integrity or a strong value system contributes to, or distracts from, one's monetary health. People who don't have much money could mean they value other things besides money and are perfectly content with their lifestyle. I don't mean looking to others for financial assistance, but being able to sustain their lifestyle and meet their needs with the small amount of money they have, independently.
I am just not comfortable making the connection that Cunningham makes, there is far too much evidence in conflict.
"flagrant misuse of the english language"
Huh? I can see how this could impact ones ability to get a decent job but I don't see what it has to do with morals, ethics or values.
oh come on. It's very obvious he's saying "they listen to that rap music and that makes them immoral". Now not to cast aspersions on strangers, but people who use this reasoning often mean - "black people and their music make me nervous so it must be that they're immoral criminals"
If I remember correctly, people said pretty much the same thing about Elvis and The Beatles...
Well, if you can't differentiate between Elvis, the Beatles, and the glorifying of murder, drugs, the victimization of women, etc then your view is understood by me at least.
"oh come on. It's very obvious he's saying "they listen to that rap music and that makes them immoral". Now not to cast aspersions on strangers, but people who use this reasoning often mean - "black people and their music make me nervous so it must be that they're immoral criminals"
Quite a leap there slugger. I had no doubt there would be someone who tried to make my comments about race. Obviously, that is a cozy little shelter you retire to each time you exhibit the inability to discuss the heart of the matter. That being said, not to cast aspersions on you but, people who insert race often are simply race baiters.
Oh, by the way, perhaps you can enlighten me; what intrinsic value, if any, does"gangsta" rap offers to society?
You say your comment wasn't about race, then you ask what value "gangsta" rap has. Do you see how it might seem you have a problem with black people? You've already bolstered the suggestion that you're talking about black people, anyway:
Shaggles:"I can see how this could impact ones ability to get a decent job but I don't see what it has to do with morals, ethics or values." (regarding misuse of the English language)
You:Calling a woman a "ho" and using the "n" word as if it is o.k., seems to be evidence of lacking in "values" in my book. But each to his own, I guess.
"As if it is o.k." is the key phrase, since you've complained about black people using that word while white people can't.
If you're not talking about black people, wonderful. It's pretty easy to understand how one would think otherwise, though.
I don't know if you are aware of this or not but, it just isn't black youth who are enamored by the "gangsta" lifestyle. Nor is it black youth who are the only ones who use such words. Perhaps you were simply unaware that "gangsta" rap sales owe much of their numbers to youth not of African American descent. Or, perhaps you just are totally ignorant of the reality that the romanticizing of the content of many "gangsta" rap songs by our youth (which includes the butchering of the English language) has no intrinsic value whatsoever. Perhaps you would like to address that instead of trying to show me how I have unwittingly inserted race into this discussion?
As for me complaining about black people using the word while white people can't I assume you are referring to some thread some time ago. Unfortunately you have a bad memory (which certaily doesn't help you here in this instance) I have never complained about black people being able to use the word while white people can't sir. I have always held that the word is unacceptable no matter who is using it. Anyway, I really don't owe you any kind of explanation regarding this. My comments were not about race whether you feel I "bolstered the suggestion" or not. It's pretty easy to understand why one would think I am talking about race only because you are obviously mistaken about me "complaining about whites not being able to use the "n" word. Shouldn't you be more careful about slapping the wrists of others?
I didn't say gangsta rap was exclusive to black youth, nor did I say that it had any value. I'm simply pointing out how it comes across.
Me:"...since you've complained about black people using that word while white people can't."
You:"I have always held that the word is unacceptable no matter who is using it."
Exactly. You complained about black people using the word because you felt it was unacceptable no matter who is using it.
I didn't comment on your original post because I wanted to see what you had to say about it, and it only made appearances worse. Again, I'm just letting you know how you're coming across.
Calling a woman a "ho" and using the "n" word as if it is o.k., seems to be evidence of lacking in "values" in my book. But each to his own, I guess.
The people who use those words say they use them as terms of endearment. I have my doubts about the wisdom of this, but I'm not going to tell people what words they can and cannot use.
I will condemn people using foul language to denigrate others, like Dick Cheney and George Bush have done. Come to think of it, they have also embraced a gangster lifestyle and shown a lack of respect for both women and human life.
They're not poor, though.
Well, you are way different than mmfa and other liberals then. There was certainly no problem (here) telling Imus what he could and could not say a couple years ago!
And I would submit that the lack of ethics comes mostly in the form of accounting and investment fraud, labor exploitation, predatory lending, gutting education and job training, corporate bailouts while hosing Mom and Pop, etc.
Sure. You can submit whatever you like. I certainly won't disagree that the examples you gave certainly fall under the catagory of "lacking in ethics." My point here is that...well, try this. Go to any inner city ghetto, reservation, or drug infested community in America and you will undoubtedly notice one thing they all have in common. Many of the children, do not have morals, ethics, or values instilled in them as part of their upbringing. As a result, once they become adults, the certainly lack in those attributes. Now, of course this isn't the rule, but people from those environments who are void of morals, ehtics, and values tend to be unsuccesful in life. It seems to me, and this is anectdotal, but in my experience (through years of volunteeer work on Indian reservations and inner cities) kids in poor families, who had a stable mother and father which instilled values in the home, had much more success in having their children do better in life than themselves. So we can certainly debate the specific CAUSES of why some in poor environments have a lack of morals, ethics, and values, but it seems clear to me that there is validity to the notion that lacking in those attrributes contribute to being poor.
On the other hand, take for example a wealthy person (excluding trust fund babies and lottery winners) who has become wealthy through their own work. The examples you gave are certainly not the norm. I would submit that once a certain degree of success is obtained it is the hunger for more power, wealth, etc which contirbutes to the disassociation from morals, ethics, and values. We can surely assume that white collar criminals were simply brought up in homes where such attribues were not taught and they essentially came to their position in life by either by pure luck or simply because of more opportunity. My guess is that in the cases you refer to it is much different. We know one thing for certain; self made wealth is the result of one primary attrribute....a strong work ethic. You don't become a CEO of a major corporation or the owner of a successful business by working 40 hour work weeks. Those guys all have or had certain things in common coming up....ambition, desire, and work ethic. Now to me, such attributes normally come from an upbringing where morals, ethics, and values were at least introduced in the home if not taught. Of course, this all is just my opinion and I could be completely off base. If that is the case, so be it. But, I guess I am just "old school" when it comes to this issue.
You could say that people are unsuccessful because they have a poor work ethic, and you could also say that people are unmotivated and discouraged from being born and raised in poor and/or broken homes. There does seem to be a cyclical nature to this sort of dynamic that suggests it's not entirely about moral character.
Well, exactly. If the Universe operates on that premise, people who amass obscene fortunes must be perfect angels.... and we know that ain't the case.
In other words, Troglodyte Cunningham is full of crap.
Democrat definition of "obscene fortune": somebody that has more than somebody else.
In other words, I have a Ford Escort and you have a Pontiac. That's unjust--you are flaunting it, and it's distressing me. Think I'll hire a politician to set you straight.
Again, the capitalist system dictates that some people are going to be poor. If one says people are poor because of some moral deficit, then it stands to reason that a correction of that deficit would mean they wouldn't be poor. But there are only so many good-paying jobs to go around. Even if everyone was a genius and a saint, someone's going to be pushing a broom, and someone else is going to be vacationing on their yacht. All this is is a way for someone to avoid feeling empathy for someone else. "I don't have to care that you're poor, because it's because of your own moral failings". What would Jesus say?
All this is is a way for someone to avoid feeling empathy for someone else.
YES! YES! Beautifully said. While we're on the tpion check out the "Prosperity Gospel." (Basically God is reqrding your virtue with material weath and success.) It's vile, disgusting and DANGEROUS theology (whether you believe in God and Heaven or not!) and this guy [Cunningham] seems to lap it all up.
Thanks! I have some familiarity with this mindset, having once had a girlfriend who made similar sorts of remarks. The most memorable was her assertion that everyone in prison - everyone - is and was actually, truly guilty of whatever crime they were convicted of. Now, then, whenever, wherever. The mind simply reels while trying to comprehend the absurdity of that empathy-killing belief.
I will check out "prosperity gospel", for certain.
Also, if you are financially well off, you must therefor be a good person. Seeing as far more people believe themselves to be middle class than actually are, it isn't surprising that many people are willing to subscribe to a value system that says that they on the side of the angels just because they own nice things.
And it is just as unfair to make the leap that if you are financially well-off that somehow you are a bad person, or a fleecer, or a crook. Many here make that blanket assertion, not so subtly, quite often.
That's probably more your imagination than anything else. Some rich people are greedy, and talking about that doesn't mean that every rich person is immoral.
My imagination. Did I say "every rich person"? You've been here long enough to know the default thrashing rich people take around here on a regular basis. Don't act coy, you can't pull that off.
"And it is just as unfair to make the leap that if you are financially well-off that somehow you are a bad person, or a fleecer, or a crook. Many here make that blanket assertion, not so subtly, quite often."
Yes, you did say it was every rich person. If you are financially well-off, you're somehow a bad person. Would you like to amend your quote above?
Stop acting like a child provoking an argument on the most ridiculous word parsing silliness you can think up. I stand by what I said.
Grow up. :)
Then I stand by the assertion that it's all in your imagination. People here haven't made "blanket assertions" that all rich people are somehow bad people.
-- Don't act coy, you can't pull that off. -- tommy
You're right, tommy...blanket statements are made and argued here on every topic and every thread...from all points of the spectrum of ideas. They're inane beggars...berift of original thought.
They're here by the dozens...expressing their discomfort and looking for like minded lemmings...you know, I know...heck we all know who they are. They merit nothing more than a touch of the down arrow.
Their passions, however, deserve more respect than the pedantic posts of those that are only here to amuse themselves...somehow trying to validate their vacuous lives.
"All empty souls tend toward extreme opinions" - William Butler Yeats
It's a shame that Tommy ran off without attempting to support his point. You look a bit of a fool trying to make an argument that even Tommy wouldn't pursue, considering the lack of standards he requires to do so.
Did you feel sorry for him?
Wes, 'aoul son,
You just attacked the "blanket statements" that show up on this site with a post that contained nothing but blanket statements and projections, including your quote from the great Willie B.
Your statement could appear "anti-capitalistic" to some, but I don't think that's what you were aiming for (correct me if I'm wrong). It's just an inherent flaw of the system, just like any "pure" economic has its strengths and weaknesses. Not everyone can become affluent/millionaires purely through hard work and diligence alone, There are many outside factors, including dumb luck, that determine whether someone succeeds.
Furthermore, you cannot always blame someone's failure to "climb up the ladder" on a profound character flaw like slothfullness. Sometimes people overestimate social mobility in capitalistic society's like America (i.e. Cunningham). That's why I support social democracy, a combination of capitalism AND a welfare state to be there when people do fall through the cracks. Well said.
Oops. I meant to reply to Brab's comment that starts with "Again, the capitalist system dictates..." Sorry.
You're right, I wasn't aiming for "anti-capitalistic". I'm a little surprised that nobody's accused me of that, personally. You're exactly right that despite some people's belief that "everyone is born a millionaire", it's really not that simple.
Thanks very much, and well said yourself! You replied to the correct comment, by the way, so there's no "oops" as far as I see.
I'm just glad that someone finally had the guts to tell the truth about Bill O'Reilly's parents. We often hear about his hardscrabble Levittown upbringing. Clearly, he grew up in such tough circumstances because his parents lacked "values, ethics, and morals."
old osama came from super big wealth. he must be some kinda' saint yea?
Hey Bill.....
I have more morals, ethics, and values in my left pinky than you do in your entire body!!
Grow up!
Of course, we all know that he's not talking about the mullet-wearing bubbas who tend to vote Republican.... he's only talking about those OTHER poor people. You know, the ones who live in ghettos and drive Cadillacs (wink wink).
he's only talking about those OTHER poor people. You know, the ones who live in ghettos and drive Cadillacs (wink wink). - nerzsog
Just as a certain poster just did in this thread...
I would submit that the neverending fantasizing of fast money, gangster lifestyle, lack of respect for women, flagrant misuse of the english language, lack of respect for human life, poor work ethic, and countless other issues along these lines do in fact cause or set up people for a life of poverty. -achrispage
By the grace of God,
and those "other" poor people,
democrats toppled
the republican steeple!
You could submit that "neverending fantasizing of fast money, gangster lifestyle, lack of respect for women, flagrant misuse of the english language, lack of respect for human life, poor work ethic, and countless other issues along these lines do in fact cause or set up people for a life of poverty." But that would just prove your ignorance about the situation.
Don't mean to confuse - that was a quote from achrispage from earlier in the thread. I attributed it as such, but perhaps not clearly enough. Just supporting Nerzog's contention
The words of Barbara Bush are still ringing in my ears when she talked about the mass of people crammed into the Super Dome in New Orleans after Katrina.
Unfortunately, i'm going to have to agree with some of his premise: FDR and LBJ had very "poor" track records with alliviating the numbers of poor in this country, to wit; http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx?RelNum=5409 LBJ gave us food stamps, medicare and medicaid; have these not become bloated beuracracies where once there were simple needs? sorry to say i have enough "white trash" around my family tree to know that you can give some folks every opportunity and every helping hand, but they will find a way to waste everything and bite that hand. of course, some folks out there don't need any help at all, they seem rise from poverty as effortlessly as helium balloons to the sky... it has really nothing to do with money in the end.
This isn't "News". It is merely the mantra of the conservative ideology.
ok, so following this "logic", if i have values, ethics and morals, but still lack cash, would i be considered rich? hey, i can do that!
Hmmm... So, "They're poor because they lack values, ethics, and morals."
Such insight. Such depth. Such a beacon of light in the darkness. Now I understand why it is that so many people all over the world are fighting just to scrape by. Silly me. I thought it was due to things like poor education, lack of decent jobs with decent pay, crime, geography, catastrophic illnesses, discrimination, predatory lending, ARMs, inability to get health insurance and health care, business failures, job loss, the stock market crash.... Nope. Those are all bogus excuses. Those sneaky poor folks are just running an elaborate and sophisticated scam on the rest of us and, according to this sage, they have being doing it for centuries.
Gee, Mr. Cunningham, if being valueless, unethical, and immoral creates poverty, you are so totally screwed.
If you look closely at Bill Cunningham's face you can see that he is actually a reptile which helps explain his point of view.
I guess things like institutional wealth and generational poverty have no relevance, because obviously Paris Hitlon is among the most moral Americans, and say, Mother Theresa (though obviously not an American) is among those lacking morals, values and ethics.
You said "our poor are doing well in this country" and that "there are some who take advantage of the system (welfare, etc.) and they give a black eye to the majority of poor that want to do well and work hard...."
So you are saying that America's poor are privileged. And that applying for food stamps and welfare is ignoble when the 'right' thing to do would be to go without food, medicine, housing....?
You've also said, "Our poor have flat screen TVs that they have bought at Walmart connected to satellite. Our poor drive cars and are obese." It shows that you have no concept of what the poor in this country actually go through.
This is the most basic foundation to Rightwing "morality", that MONEY = VIRTUE.
The poor lack morality.
Those with money HAVE the "proper" morality.
The RICH are, by this definition, the MOST MORAL OF ALL. Thus, their "VALUES" are the proper, correct, and Godly ones, and they have the POLICIES which should rule the nation.
Problem is, there is no basis for this "logic" in any Christian teaching (and the rightwingers all loudly CLAIM to be "Christians") ... in fact, the Bible universally condemns the love of money as being sinful and evil. Yet, the "Christian right" see no problem promoting their self-serving propaganda which demonizes everyone but the very wealthy.
Bottom line, the rightwingers are NOT moral, are NOT ethical, do NOT have the proper values, and are in fact LIARS, ELITISTS, and GREEDHEADS.
That they attempt to justify their horrendous and harmful ideology by cloaking it in claims of Virtue only cements their place in hell.
TEX,You said it better than I could have.
Tex, when you go to paint somethin', you don't mess around. Guess you probably painted your pickemup truck wit a broom!
Do y'all do yur fishin' wit DuPont, too?
Your generalities are laughable; you show a pathetic shortfall of life experience. On the other hand, you DO have some real winners on your side--Ted Kennedy, Bernie Madoff (why didn't you know Madoff is a Democrat?).
This is typical REPUBLICAN mindset. Losing a job or a catastrophic medical problem dosent figure into their way of thinking.