Does the author have any sources to back up this assumption?
I submit that Union members will strike for higher paychecks, without regard to the fiscal stability of the factory/industry. I offer the US Textile, US Steel and US Automotive unions - and the subsequent failure of each of these industries in the US as evidence.
I submit that illegal aliens will vote Democratic, because the Democrats will promise them amnesty - despite the recession, unemployment and other issues that are facing the country.
“By focusing on income not ideas, Romney insulted almost half of Americans,...”
What nonsense. Romney’s comment was about dependence, entitlement and buying votes with our tax dollars...ANTI-Marxism.
LLS
This writer is simply wrong
It has been proven time and time again that American voters vote their pocket books. “It’s the economy stupid.”
This writer should talk to Bill Clinton for a while before he writes such an absurd article.
Lib projection ^ (n + 1)
I don’t think anyone missed this point
One issue about this that continue to trouble me is the fact that we do have a Christian/moral obligation to help those who truly cannot fend for themselves.
What separates the two parties are two things:
1)Where does the help come from? - State dictated and directed, or Christian and other charitable groups.
2) By whom and how the "truly needy' are defined
Not surprising. Its easy to miss "Nothing".
“That insult reflects a Marxist view of man: the absurd notion that men’s ideas count for nothing and that their actions are determinstically governed by their economic class.”
Does this Binswanger really think that the average entitlement recipient ponders the worth of the ideas of men, and ponder the plight of nature vs. nurture with regard to their placement in an economic context?
No, it’s “Where’s my check at”.
They couldn’t care less as long as they get their check, as long as their EBT gets refilled at midnight on the first of the month.
There are those who actually give no thought whatsoever towards trite philosophical ramblings and simply are rabid consumers of stuff that they want.
This didn’t used to be in conflict with even the most lofty ideals of America. It wasn’t until Marxists like our President, and this author started rewarding the non-productive with the fruits of the productive that this even became an issue.
When “the pursuit of happiness” becomes entwined with doing so with other peoples money it certainly does become complicated. When laziness and sloth meant you went to bed hungry, the issue becomes much less complex.
I still can’t figure out why anyone on our side is even remotely upset about Romney’s correct comment.
47% of the country will vote for Obama, no matter what.
47% of the country will vote for Romney, no matter what.
The remaining 6% is up for grabs. It’s that simple.
” - - - the majority vote according to what they think is right.”
Really?
In the past, “It’s the morality, stupid!” has not won many elections.
What Romney should now explain are the reasons why those on fixed incomes must go on food stamps and apply for other “benefits” such as energy assistance etc.
The price of ; goods, services ,food, as well as the cost, use, and type of of energy resources, particularly coal,and oil, have all been driven up by Obama through his endless edicts, use of regulations and prohibitions all designed to change the systems of distribution and use of pleantiful resources to conform to his socialist scheme or ideal. Without any regard to the consequences. After all let US remember “to make an omlet ..”one must break a few eggs” and the one who made that remark and the followers of that ism who repeat it.”
No one likes to think that they are part of the 47%. In 2008, people voted for Obama because they didn’t want to be seen as racist. Now they will vote for Romney because they don’t want to be seen as one of the 47%.
As I heard Romney, his 47% number may be incorrect, but he was talking about the people who consider themselves victims to whom the government OWES free housing, food, etc. as their self-perceived “rights”. Think the NAALCP.
He was not talking about Social Security recipients.
Presidential elections are always about which candidate people like more. That, combined with the stupification of America through union schools, is why Obama isn’t 20 points behind in the polls.
also:
1) man exists for his own sake and not as a sacrificial animal that exists for the sake of others
2) a man is the proper beneficiary of his own action.
Indeed, absurd.
However, the reverse is true: ideas have pervasive consequences, and economic class is near unto a deterministic outcome of their actions.
And THAT is what Romney was getting at.
Whoever Harry Binswanger is, he is also a fool and a liar.
He must be a Democrat.