If we are faced with disaster in this country -- let me ask you this, OK? You just be logical. Get all of the emotion out of this. Get all of the emotion out of this. But if we are faced with a disaster in this country, which group do we want to save? The rich or the poor? Now, if you have time, save as many people as you can. But if you have to set some priorities, where do you go? The rich or the poor? OK? Who is a drag on society? The rich or the poor? Who provide the jobs out there? The rich or the poor? Who fuels -- you know, which group fuels our economy? Drives industry? The rich or the poor? Now if you -- all of a sudden, somebody walks up to you and says, "Hey, Boortz listener. You're gonna have a -- you have to make a choice. You're going to -- we're gonna move you to another country. And you're just gonna have to make your way in this other country. We have a choice of two countries for you. In this country, people achieve a lot and they are wealthy because of their hard work. In this country, people don't achieve squat. They sit around all the time waiting for somebody else to take care of them. They have children they can't afford. They're uneducated. They can barely read. And the high point of their day is Entertainment Tonight on TV. Which country do you want to live in? The country of the high achievers, or the country of sheep, the country of followers?" You know what you're gonna do. I don't see what the big problem is. I just don't. I mean, if you -- who do I want to save first? The rich.
. . .
I'm serious about that, folks. You see, that's the kind of thing that's going to end up in news stories: "Neal Boortz said that in times of disaster we should save the rich people first." Well, hell, yes, we should save the rich people first. You know, they're the ones that are responsible for this prosperity.
This was professional ass clown Neal Boortz, so-called libertarian, on his radio show that (sadly) is based out of Atlanta. I don't know if this is just him trying to out-libertarian everyone else in an effort to atone for having his nose buried in George W. Bush's government-expandin', big-spendin', civil-liberty-erodin' ass for the better part of four years, but either way, Boortz is a jackass, and it's getting easier and easier for me to say the same about anyone who'd call themselves a "fan" of crap like this.
"...having his nose buried in George W. Bush's government-expandin', big-spendin', civil-liberty-erodin' ass for the better part of four years."
Have you ever actually listened to Boortz? He has always been a critic of Bush. Hell, he didn't even vote for him.
Seriously, though, taking the emotion out of it like he said, what did he say that was wrong? While its obviously insensitive and politically incorrect - and I'm not sure why he's even making the petty argument - his logic is sound.
With Josh on this one (don't think you'd be shocked). Not politically correct and overly simplistic. The argument should have defined what rich is but you should have defined how this argument is in any way tied to George Bush. You've spend quite a few posts digging peoples noses in GWB's hiney hole. How does this one get there. And what exactly is your plan besides this guy's is shit?
There are so many things wrong with this that I just don't know where to start. How about, the rich not being responsible for the economy, the consumers are. Then the notion that someone born into wealth is considered an acheiver while someone born to poverty is expendable. As to who is a drag on society, my guess is it is the guy goofing off at work listening to ass clowns like Boortz instead of doing thier jobs. Folks that goof off listening to talk radio when they are supposed to be working are making the rest of us work that much harder. Fuckin' lazy ass bastards.
My question would have to be, exactly how successful would our country be if all of the people in it were George Bush? And I don't mean George Bush with Karl to tell him what to do and George Senior to bail him out - I mean just George. Rich doesn't imply hardworking or intelligent or even lucky; rich just implies rich.
If Boortz wanted to rescue only the hardworking, clever people with entreprenurial spirit, then I'd be all for it. But those people aren't always the ones who are making millions, and when they are making millions they aren't doing it alone. Bill Gates is successful because of his own hard work, but he couldn't have been a millionaire without all of the middle-classers writing code and doing his marketing, or the lower-income workers assembling his products.
Wow. It's amazing to think that after WWII we still have people in this country who think this way. I mean you always hear about the tyrant in another country practicing genocide against those people who "drag society down".
It's just sad. Take all the emotion out of it and you still have a guy who wants to criminalize the poor for being born poor or for having babies or for watching entertainment tonight.
It's not a logically sound argument. It's a pathetic attempt to make the poor of this country bad people because they're poor. It's an attempt to make the poor all fall under that ominous cloud of "laziness" despite that some are probably working 2 or 3 jobs to keep their families fed and off welfare.
Whether or not the guy has his nose up GWB's ass is irrelevant. The guy is just an ass.
Which country do you want to live in? The country of the high achievers, or the country of sheep, the country of followers?"
Do they have Cheez-its in the country of sheep? Because I like Cheez-its.
I have listened to Boortz, Josh, enough to know that Boortz broke very publicly with the U.S. Libertarian Party over the war and the PATRIOT Act (which Boortz supports but the party did not), to the degree that a group of Libertarians actually started a petition to bar Boortz from the party's national convention. I also listened to him enough to know that he characterized Bush as the only presidential candidate willing to defend the country -- a very pointed jab at Michael Badnarik's opposition to the war -- and in the last few days before the election was all but exhorting listeners to his radio show to go out and vote for Bush.
Yes, Boortz has been critical of Bush since then over the rampant spending and similar such issues, but I'd call this an acute case of buyer's remorse. Boortz knew Bush was a huge spender and curtailer of our civil liberties, yet shilled for him anyway; for him to now get all huffy about what Bush is doing reminds of the people who go out and buy Hummer H2s and then complain about the gas mileage. Or the people who send their kids to Michael Jackson's for sleepovers and are then shocked when those kids come back telling stories about how Michael tried to touch them in their special place. Boortz made his bed, now it's time for him to lie in it, and if he now wants to complain about all the stuff Bush is (or isn't) doing, that makes him either disingenuous or a total fool. You know Boortz better than I do, I'll let you decide which.
Anyway, back on the subject at hand. What Boortz said was wrong was that rich people should be given higher priority over the poor. That's not only anti-common sense but anti-American. This country was founded on the principle of "all men are created equal," but Boortz wants to Animal Farm it into "...but some are more equal than others." So that's why I can call him an elitist jackass and sleep perfectly soundly at night.
That why I pointed out one of the flaws in his argument. Not pointing out what rich means. I agree, you don't want a bunch of super-rich pampered people to try to restore a country. If you could only save 10%, my guess is that you want to save the group in the 80-90 percentile first based upon the assumption (that is probably flawed) that that group would include the best educated, hard-working and diverse skill-set people. The thing is that a bunch of smart people could probably get together and come up with a real answer to the question based on data, but the whole idea is so repugnant, that it will never happen and thankfully so.
I only want me and Asian women to survive.
While not passing judgement on Josh's plan, we could follow President Morgan Freeman's plan from that movie Deep Impact. Pre-select like 20% smart people and the other 80% by lottery.
Hell yeah, what he said was wrong. The REAL George W. and his boys put a stop to that kind of elitist horseshit back in 1776.
Not sure the slaves George and his boys owned would agree with you Tony.
Post a Comment