Progressive Hate, MSNBC Style

[Jccarlton]

I don't think that there is any way to say it. This is pure bigoted hate:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11 ... e-headline
This may be a bad case of hate from MSNBC. But it's hardly the only one. I have to wonder the depth of hate inside the "news station" that they dig up an obscure Diary of a Jamaican planter with it's sick detail just to make their point. They seemed to miss the fact that Palin was talking about people like her and us being enslaved by the action of people of Mr. Bashir's political persuasion. From the sick way he was talking we are right to be concerned.

[Stubby]

And you are not going to provide what Palin said that prompted these comments? Just to see if they were perhaps warranted?

I believe she prefaced her comments that day with 'this isn't racist, but...'which always such a good start to a comment.

[Jccarlton]

And you are not going to provide what Palin said that prompted these comments? Just to see if they were perhaps warranted?

I believe she prefaced her comments that day with 'this isn't racist, but...'which always such a good start to a comment.

Here is the full speech:
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/articl ... alin-spews
She was talking about how the debt places a tremendous burden on the future and creates a kind of slavery on the citizens of the future.

[Stubby]

ah there ya go

'a kind of slavery'
it is not racist, but

obviously she has no concept of what slavery could be, or else she would not have compared contractual indebtedness to actual slavery.

I know what she is trying to say but she demeans the actual victims of slavery.

[choff]

The term 'debt slavery' has been used by monetary reformers for over 100 years in describing the current financial system, nothing new there.

[hanelyp]

Walter Williams defines slavery as forcing one man to work for the benefit of another. Racking up endless debt indeed compels our children to work for the creditors to pay back us living beyond our means.

But I suppose a leftie like Stubby prefers a narrow definition of slavery that misses the broader evil and lets him portray people with clear vision as liars.

[Jccarlton]

I will not that it's not just Walter Williams and Sarah Palin who are talking about the debt problem:
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/ ... its-young/

[GIThruster]

ah there ya go

'a kind of slavery'
it is not racist, but

obviously she has no concept of what slavery could be, or else she would not have compared contractual indebtedness to actual slavery.

I know what she is trying to say but she demeans the actual victims of slavery.

Actually she is correct to use the term in the way she did, Placing our children into such severe debt is indeed placing them into one form of slavery. It is not the form the squid at MSNBC chose to describe so graphically and inappropriately. However it is slavery nonetheless. The form of slavery Palin was referring to is also known as "indentured servitude" described here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servant

Anyone who wanted to provide a fair handling of the issue would find this in 20 seconds search. Obviously neither the squid at MSNBC nor you, Stubby; wanted to be fair. Why am I not surprised?

To return to Palin's point however, the one noted by others above--when we borrow, print money, etc. in order to fuel a lifestyle we cannot afford and hand that debt to our children (which is what we are doing) we devalue the dollar through inflation. This means that all incomes that do not rise at the rate of inflation or better become worse and therefore what we are doing, is creating a permanent lower-class and increasing its size. Much of our tax money is spent just to pay the debts we already owe. The increasing lack of concern about debt will indeed place huge numbers of Americans into debt bondage in the future unless we can get some common sense out of those who want to always been spending more than they collect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_bondage

[williatw]

Walter Williams defines slavery as forcing one man to work for the benefit of another. Racking up endless debt indeed compels our children to work for the creditors to pay back us living beyond our means.

But I suppose a leftie like Stubby prefers a narrow definition of slavery that misses the broader evil and lets him portray people with clear vision as liars.

Thought it used to be a common custom in Europe that one inherited the obligation of your father's debts when he died. And as recently as the share-cropper system in the American South, it was set up so you could only buy goods in the company owned stores, under "credit". The consequence was that over time a share cropper family fell more and more into debt...even if they could somehow find better employment and/or move, then of course they would owe the company their accumulated debt. A kind of economic slavery where you couldn't quit, and the longer you stayed the more in debt you got.

[Stubby]

As I said, I understand what she was trying to say. You all provided wonderful definitions and yet missed the point.

However as an example, how many of these children will be forced to pee on or defecate on each other to please their financial masters? How many of these financial masters will be allowed to rape them or force them to have their children? How many of these financial masters will be able to beat you to death without repercussion?

If Mrs Palin was suggesting that the above examples were possible, the MSNBC is wrong and she has my apologies.

[GIThruster]

What an asinine response, Stubby. Truly, you stoop to a new low.

AGAIN: there is more than one form of slavery. To presume that the slavery Palin is speaking of includes such unsavory elements as you and the squid at MSNBC have, only shows you are a dishonest person, trying to win some cheesy rhetorical point.

How many times do we need to suffer your lack of integrity, Stubby; and doesn't it bother you that you're the sick voice of atheism here, and constantly proving you have no conscience? You want us to believe you need no restraint to be an man of integrity and yet always prove you have no integrity.

You're an embarrassment to the atheist community.

[williatw]

As I said, I understand what she was trying to say. You all provided wonderful definitions and yet missed the point.

However as an example, how many of these children will be forced to pee on or defecate on each other to please their financial masters? How many of these financial masters will be allowed to rape them or force them to have their children? How many of these financial masters will be able to beat you to death without repercussion?

If Mrs Palin was suggesting that the above examples were possible, the MSNBC is wrong and she has my apologies.

Tell that to the people who tried to organize workers into unions to get better wages/benefits. Companies hired Pinkertons or some such thugs to use violence to stop said organizing. Don't know about peeing & defecating but what about the straight up criminals hired by head of "security" Harvey Bennett under Henry Ford in Detroit to stop the workers from unionizing? They would beat up the offending worker, than fire him (& probably blacklist him so he couldn't find other employment) for fighting. Sure similar things happened to people in the South who tried to work to improve the lot of the sharecroppers. If one can’t quit, can’t organize to get better wages….your bosses can have you beaten up at will if you offend, pretty close to slavery in a practical if not theoretical sense. If you want to say it wasn't as bad as slavery in the South back in the day, I would agree..at least a white factory worker could vote...and of course push them too hard there is the fact that were armed, and greatly out-numbered the boss and his thugs.

[Teahive]

To return to Palin's point however, the one noted by others above--when we borrow, print money, etc. in order to fuel a lifestyle we cannot afford and hand that debt to our children (which is what we are doing) we devalue the dollar through inflation. This means that all incomes that do not rise at the rate of inflation or better become worse and therefore what we are doing, is creating a permanent lower-class and increasing its size.

If the relative value of a job drops it's because of increased supply or reduced demand. Jobs don't stop losing value relative to others in the absence of inflation.

[GIThruster]

Jobs don't stop losing value relative to others in the absence of inflation.

I'm not sure what "relative to others" means, but relative to actual buying power is what matters. The cost of a loaf of bread as compared to the average wage is the issue. Both the middle and lower class have vastly reduced buying power the last few decades and the reason is the spending in Washington. Every time USG prints money to cover their deficit spending, they devalue all wages, and every time they sell loans they place our children in indenture.

Sound fiscal policy permits neither of these behaviors except on temporary basis for specific reasons.

[Stubby]

What an asinine response, Stubby. Truly, you stoop to a new low.

AGAIN: there is more than one form of slavery. To presume that the slavery Palin is speaking of includes such unsavory elements as you and the squid at MSNBC have, only shows you are a dishonest person, trying to win some cheesy rhetorical point.

How many times do we need to suffer your lack of integrity, Stubby; and doesn't it bother you that you're the sick voice of atheism here, and constantly proving you have no conscience? You want us to believe you need no restraint to be an man of integrity and yet always prove you have no integrity.

You're an embarrassment to the atheist community.

AGAIN I said I got what she was saying.

Palin chose the word when she had alternatives like indentured servitude. She wanted the sensationalism of the word slavery. Slavery in the US is synonymous with chattel slavery pre-emancipation.
If you want to split hairs and say she meant indentured servitude or one of the other lesser versions, you are the one being naive or dishonest.

I am pleased my lack of belief in your invisible friend disturbs you so much, Ron. I rather enjoy your invective comments and to answer your question: as always you will need to suffer at least one more time.

iirc I have never said I need no restraint but that only that my restraint no longer comes from interpreting a book of fairy tales or from some magic man in the sky.

Are you saying I am sick, atheism is sick or both? Just for clarification.
Are you saying atheists have no conscience? Again for clarification.