by Jack
From Media matters in America: On the April 8 edition of Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor, O’Reilly condemned the South Carolina shooting, but used the opportunity to claim that “police shootings of black Americans” have fallen “70 percent in the last 40, 50 years,” concluding that the statistics show “they’re way, way down.” O’Reilly cited the statistic to assert that “there doesn’t seem to be, as some people would have you believe, that police are trying to hunt down young black men and take their lives.”
The left-wing site “Media Matters in America” claims this narrative was debunked months ago and cited the following statistics as proof that O’Reilly was lying:
“In 2014 and March of 2015, Mapping Police Violence counted 297 people killed by police around the country who were unarmed. Of those people, 117 were African-American, 167 were not, and the project couldn’t identify race for 13. That means 41 percent of unarmed people killed by police during that time in the database (with an identified race) were African-American, far out of proportion in a country that was 14 percent African-American in 2013.”
Well, this looks pretty bad for Mr. O’Reilly doesn’t it? And if you stopped your research right there an injustice would be done. However, if you look a bit further and compare the shooting stats in the context of violent crime statistics by race, you discover blacks are three to four times over-represented than any other races, depending on which crimes and which years are researched. The point is, the use of lethal force by police is well within the norm when compared to the percentage of black representation. That’s more telling of problem in the black community than anything related to excessive force within law enforcement.
Let me underscore this noting blacks account for about 39.4% of the prison population, but only about 100 blacks are shot and killed on average annually by police. Consider there are over 841,000 black males in prison, that shooting number is a tiny fraction of the total of all Blacks in prison. That means blacks are not being killed in greater numbers than any other race. Actually they score lower when compared to per capita arrests.
O’Reilly’s comments were spot on and in the final analysis, he was unfairly maligned by the far left again.
So, we can conclude that black crime statistics are absolutely within proportion to the percentage of police shootings and then some. The honest numbers show police use great restraint when it comes to lethal force.
Media Matters in America is a classic example of far-left liberals accusing someone of lying, when in fact they are the liars.
As we head into the presidential election cycle, be prepared to see a lot more of this.
If I have to choose between Media Matters and O’Reilly, the latter wins in a walk.
Expect Bill will respond succinctly on tonight’s program.
And – since MM is a tax exempt organization that is prohibited from political activity, how come the IRS isn’t taking a look at THEM?
A good question J. They sure seem to have a political bias.
Wait, let’s slow down a bit–it’s not clear to me that you’ve proven what you set out to prove here.
First, I read the article and I don’t see where Media Matters said that O’Reilly “lied.” They did accuse him of “cherry-picking data,” which I’ll get to in a moment. But to be fair, MM has accused O’Reilly of lying a lot (and his claims about being in certain warzones do seem to put him in Brian William territory), so I’ll let that one go.
Second, this is what you quote O’Reilly as having said:
“On the April 8 edition of Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor, O’Reilly condemned the South Carolina shooting, but used the opportunity to claim that “police shootings of black Americans” have fallen “70 percent in the last 40, 50 years,” concluding that the statistics show “they’re way, way down.””
Is that true? Have police shootings of black Americans fallen by that much?
The Media Matters article did not conclusively show that this particular claim was false; instead they pivot to talking about other statistics related to police shootings of blacks that are eye-opening, but not entirely relevant to this particular claim of O’Reilly’s. This is a classic diversion tactic and I have to admit that while I generally find Media Matters to be a reliable source, this is a tactic they use a lot and it detracts from their credibility.
But then in this article you kind of used the same tactic, possibly without meaning to. You didn’t really defend O’Reilly’s claim that police shootings have fallen by that much; instead, you pivoted to discussing other statistics about police shootings of blacks and the black crime rate, which were eye-opening but don’t tell us much about O’Reilly’s particular claim. So we’re left no closer to the truth than before.
Media Matters did link to Politifact, which had some interesting points about O’Reilly’s statistics:
But experts told us the data is likely incomplete because coroners and physicians are under no obligation to detail police involvement in the deaths that they encounter.
“It is not known or certain that every death certificate indicates that the death was caused by law enforcement officer in every jurisdiction,” said Samuel Walker, retired professor of criminal justice at the University of Nebraska-Omaha.
Another database, this one maintained by the FBI, attempts to get at the same figure. But it’s no more solid. The FBI reports rely on self-reported data from a small chunk of the nation’s more than 17,000 law enforcement agencies.
The lack of a national clearinghouse for fatal police killings “is a national embarrassment,” said Geoffrey Alpert, a University of South Carolina criminology professor who specializes in high-risk police activities.
“I’m sure one of (O’Reilly’s) researchers pulled a number from that database, but it’s just a convenient fact, as someone used to say,” he said.
I have to agree that the lack of reporting regarding fatal police shootings is ridiculous; we need to know this information. It seems that O’Reilly got his data from a reliable source, but there simply is no source for how many fatal police shootings are really occurring; the data just isn’t accurately recorded, by anybody.
I think it’s a stretch to accuse O’Reilly of lying on this particular point, since he got his stats from a trustworthy source. But the fact is we have no real way of knowing whether his claim was true or not.
J. Soden: “And – since MM is a tax exempt organization that is prohibited from political activity, how come the IRS isn’t taking a look at THEM?”
Good question. Media Matters is classified as a 501(c)(3) educational non-profit. According to the IRS, such groups “may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.”
It would be absurd to argue that Media Matters doesn’t do exactly the above. But many conservative organizations, such as Brent Bozell’s Media Research Center, are classified as the same type of non-profit despite the fact that they clearly engage in the same type of activity.
As I recall, some Tea Party groups were delayed in their requests for non-profit status, but so were some progressive groups, and the only group that was actually denied tax exempt status during the time of the controversy was a progressive group.
If you ask me none of them should be tax exempt. I don’t understand whatever loophole is allowing such overtly partisan organizations to claim tax exempt status, but it needs to be closed. The left-wing Media Matters, the right-wing Media Research Center, and numerous other groups on the left and right are clearly campaigning for certain politicians and attempting to influence legislation; no rational person could argue otherwise. The real IRS scandal is that all of these organizations are clearly violating the intent of the 501(c)(3) classification.
Apparently the Heritage Foundation is considered 501(c)(3) as well. Gah.
I guess it makes sense that these organizations on both the left and right would use whatever tax advantages there are out there for them. But at the same time it strikes me as very unprincipled for these partisan groups, all of which spend a lot of time condemning people who don’t pay taxes (for the left it’s the rich, for the right it’s the poor) and asking for the elimination of loopholes, while at the same taking advantage of those very same loopholes! I don’t see any of them asking for more stringent and universal application of the law to eliminate political orgs from being tax exempt, but they’re always the first to call for the eliminations of tax benefits to groups that are unpopular among their own parties.
Hypocrisy seems to be the one principle uniting both parties!
Chris, so are we saying that free speech now a taxable event?
There’s a multitude of organizations that enjoy tax exempt status, but they operate under varying rules.
“It would be absurd to argue that Media Matters doesn’t do exactly the above. But many conservative organizations, such as Brent Bozell’s Media Research Center, are classified as the same type of non-profit despite the fact that they clearly engage in the same type of activity.”
Actually, they can do this legally, but there’s a fine line they must not cross. If they do they are at risk of losing their tax exempt status. You might want to look into what constitutes violating their status. I know them, but you need to due your own homework.
Chris, the reporting of deaths by officers is fairly complete, so I am at a loss to account for why anyone would say they are not.
Police are required fill out uniform crime reports that go to FBI/DOJ statistical analysis. This has been the case since 1972, maybe even longer.
Chris: “…all of which spend a lot of time condemning people who don’t pay taxes (for the left it’s the rich, for the right it’s the poor) and asking for the elimination of loopholes, while at the same taking advantage of those very same loopholes!
1. The right DO NOT condemn the poor…the right condemns the code which has become too complex, too progressive and too punishing for those who create opportunity, jobs, and overall prosperity!
2. Loop hole is a political word. The code is the law. It would be stupid for anyone not to follow the law when doing their taxes…YOU WOULD!!!
3. If you don’t like the situation then join the right in calling for a simpler tax code.
Re #8 Tina:
1) So nice to see you back.
2) Chris is the same ass he has always been. Nothing has changed. He will soon be back to calling you and Jack and Republicans and the Tea party, and conservatives bigots and racists and maligning your characters. His abuse will never end.
Dittos, glad to see Tina is back in the ring too, but Tina, please don’t over do it. You just keep healing up… ok? We’ll still be here when you are feeling well enough to post.
First, Tina, glad to see you’re doing better.
“The right DO NOT condemn the poor”
Ridiculous.
Mitt Romney’s remarks, again:
“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it — that that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. … These are people who pay no income tax. … [M]y job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”
If calling people entitled, hopelessly irresponsible, and dependent is not a condemnation, than the word has lost all meaning.
And Romney’s comments were mild compared to much of what is said about the poor by Fox News and Rush Limbaugh.
“2. Loop hole is a political word.”
No, it really isn’t.
“3. If you don’t like the situation then join the right in calling for a simpler tax code”
I would, except that when the right calls for a “simpler tax code,” what you usually mean is more advantages for the wealthy and less for the poor. I’ve asked you many times what specific loopholes you would close, and you always refuse to answer.
One simplification I’ve proposed here is taxing investment at the same rate as earned income, like Reagan did. I couldn’t get a single conservative here to agree to that proposition, despite the fact that Reagan supported it and it would actually prove that your party is actually interested in rewarding people for work.
Jack, the IRS says that organizations like Heritage and Media Matters may not “Good question. Media Matters is classified as a 501(c)(3) educational non-profit. According to the IRS, such groups “may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.” Yet this is exactly what they do. They may not be directly lobbying or robo-calling or spending money on campaigns, but they are still clearly attempting to influence legislation and election campaigns. I just think it’s silly that the clear text of a law can be violated like this with no real repercussions. Either let all political prgs be tax free or tax all of them, but right now the line seems so fine that it might as well not even exist.
As for the claims about lack of proper reporting for police shootings, those come from Politifact. O’Reilly’s data came from coroners who are under no obligation to detail police involvement in a shooting. The FBI stats according to Politifact only come from “from a small chunk of the nation’s more than 17,000 law enforcement agencies.”
Chris I think what we’re looking at here is a candidate can’t use soft money to buy their rhetoric or have any direct influence on what they write. They can write what they want so long as they remain independent. They can’t lobby for legislation, but they can talk about it or write about as long as they are not doing it at the direction of a special interest. The bottom line is such organizations must remain free from direct party/candidate influence. We know they are influenced by their biased and pick up on what’s being written by their side, so it does affect what they write. But, if it doesn’t get any more connected than that, the law says its legal.
“If calling people entitled, hopelessly irresponsible, and dependent is not a condemnation, than the word has lost all meaning”
The word Condemnation as Chris would have us apply it would not apply to Romney’s statement in my opinion unless you your intent is to misdirect our thinking in that direction
I believe that Romney’s statement was one of reminding us of the misuse of Government entitlements.
To me Romney’s comment meant he was expressing fault and took a stance of strong disapproved of said acts of misuse and not a condescending nature of political censure toward people.
Re #12: Ditto.
Re #13: Yep.
#3 Chris: “But to be fair, MM has accused O’Reilly of lying a lot (and his claims about being in certain warzones do seem to put him in Brian William territory), so I’ll let that one go.”
I’m not an O’Reilly fan, but I think he did prove he told the truth about his coverage of the Falklands.
Since I’m pretty sure the media did not cover O’Reilly’s response I’m providing it here for you to decide for yourself.
Bill O’Reilly Defends His Falklands War Coverage; Slams …:
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=bill+o'reilly+defends+falkland&FORM=VIRE1#view=detail&mid=A03FC0DE19FF5BDD22D1A03FC0DE19FF5BDD22D1
Video:
https://youtu.be/smp-v_gbJbY
Chris, here is one more video.
http://www.billoreilly.com/b/TRANSCRIPT:-Bill-DEFENDS-his-war-reporting-with-Howie-Kurtz/-383362269824416867.html
Harold: “To me Romney’s comment meant he was expressing fault and took a stance of strong disapproved of said acts of misuse”
That’s what a condemnation is, dude.
Let’s try this:
Harold, I think you are entitled. You believe you are a victim, you are dependent on the government, and I will never be able to convince you to take responsibility for your life.
But I’m not condemning you!
Does that make any sense? Does telling you that I am not condemning you at all change your impression of the first part of my statement?
That’s what Romney said about nearly half the country.
(To be clear, Harold, I don’t really think this about you, Harold. I’m making a point.)
Peggy: “Since I’m pretty sure the media did not cover O’Reilly’s response I’m providing it here for you to decide for yourself.”
The YouTube link you shared is literally from the New York Times YouTube page. Are they no longer considered part of the mainstream media?
O’Reilly did not really address the central complaints in his defense. For example:
“Mr. Engberg, the former CBS News correspondent, also strongly disputed Mr. O’Reilly’s claim that he had rescued an injured cameraman while being chased by the Argentine army. “Nobody reported a cameraman being shot or injured,” he said. His account was supported by a senior member of the CBS News management team, with close knowledge of the events that night, who said that nobody was reported injured, and no request for medical attention was made to CBS News’s local medical team.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/24/business/media/bill-oreilly-and-fox-news-redouble-defense-of-his-falklands-reporting.html?_r=0
Oh but Chris he did address Engberg’s claims. Watch the video with Kurtz where he says Engberg was in the hotel when he left and was still there when he got back. Engberg was known for ordering room service and putting his name on news reports written by others.
Here is the transcript from the Kurtz video.
“OREILLY: He’s running over to CNN but he can’t come on to my program. See I don’t know if Eric Engberg was there. And by the way, all the CBS correspondents that were there, five, were sent to cover the Falklands war. That’s what we were told: “your going to Argentina to cover the Falklands War”. Ok, so that’s what everybody should know. That was the description of what our job was to be. All right to Eric Engberg, he’s calling the riot that happened at the Argentines surrender to the British a quote “relatively tame riot”. All right, this is the article written by Richard Maslen on June 15th 1982, and I’m quoting, “policemen firing tear gas tonight dispersed thousands of angry Argentines who had massed in front of the presidential palace to condemn the government surrendering to the British on the Falkland Islands. As the crowed chanted increasingly bitter invectives at the government before the speech, reflecting sorrow, anger, and disbelief for the public here over the loss, police in riot gear moved in, firing tear gas canisters and roaring through the plaza on motorcycles. Hundreds fled to the side streets shouting obscenities, as the police fired gas. Others ripped down wooden street signs and set them on fire in the plaza. Fires appeared in several nearby intersections as demonstrators through wastebaskets into them and set them ablaze to slow the police. One large grey van pulled into an intersection a block from the plaza. Policemen emerged, seizing anyone they could. One policeman pulled a pistol firing five shots. The leaders of the ten political parties, in a statement tonight, denounced the police’s brutal repressors in a flagrant violation of the public faith. Several demonstrators reported to have been injured, along with two reporters at least. Local news ABC said three buses had been set ablaze by demonstrators. Another one fired upon. The demonstration of national outrage was the type seldom seen since the military took power in 1976”. That’s the New York Times.
KURTZ: Right, exactly. But now Engberg says he’s suspicious that there was actually gunfire. You obviously …
OREILLY: Wait, wait, wait. He’s suspicious of the New York Times then. Ok? Not me. He’s suspicious of the New York Times, they reported that.
KURTZ: Now you have said, in describing the episode in Buenos Aires, that your photographer was run down, hit in the head, he was bleeding, the army was chasing you. Engberg says “I never heard of any injury to the photographer.”
OREILLY: well because I don’t think he was there. I don’t think he knows what happened. And I’ll tell you why. I left the hotel; Engberg was still in the hotel, the Sheraton. I came back, running back. With video for the Rather broadcast that night, Engberg was in the hotel. So if he were in the plaza De Mayo, where was the video? Why did I have to run it up to the feed point and send it to New York? So I don’t know if he was even there. And I’d like everybody to ask him “where you there” because his reputation, his nickname, was room service Eric, because he never left the hotel.”
It was nice of CBS to provide O’Reilly with the actual newscast with video coverage of the riots in the streets and mentioning that reporters were knocked down.
I wonder how Engberg missed that important bit of news? Must have had a bottle or two delivered with those room service orders.
The word can and does have multiple facets of use, either to describe an expression of disapproval(as I believe to be Romney’s point of misuse) or the act of condemning ones position,(as you are proposing) even as U.S. Law, as in seizure of property for public use.
Politically, I understand why you choose to believe Romney was directing it in the negative manor.
More great news about Fox News. My favorite shows are Special Report with Bret Baier and The Kelly File. Fox should repeat Special Report since it comes on at 3pm on the west coast.
Fox News Is Crushing Their Cable Competition All Day Long…And Beating Networks In Major TV Markets:
“Fox News, which has been the #1 cable news channel for the last 13 years running, not only beats their competitors in the primetime, but during the daytime as well.
Two shows specifically, the morning news/talk show “Fox and Friends,” and the evening news program “Special Report with Bret Baier,” are beating their competition in top markets across the country.”
http://www.ijreview.com/2015/04/293570-fox-news-beats-competition-primetime-day/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=organic&utm_content=conservativedaily&utm_campaign=Media
Harold: “Politically, I understand why you choose to believe Romney was directing it in the negative manor.”
And politically, I can understand why you are refusing to allow yourself to understand what words mean in plain English. You are emotionally invested in defending Romney, so you ignore the fact that he insulted half the country–specifically the poorer half–in order to get other rich people to give him more money. And no matter how clearly this is explained to you, you will never accept it.
Redefining words to fit your convenience is a mark of political correctness.
Although this has turned into another Ad nauseam discussion about who’s correct,(in this case about the intent of a word) and how you apply its meaning and how someone else reads it. Also you continue on I would wager because you seem to believe only your opinion has merit. Not so,at least not here!
I am quite emotional about the decline of America under current leadership such as the progressive Liberals are underwriting, I will always champion a statement such as Romney’s, and I would state I am no less emotional than you in taking my stance.
Romney’s take about misdirected and misuse of Government funds points out how political the pervasive ‘Sense of Entitlement ‘it was more of identifying a problem than to assign blame to the end users. Taxes PAID by the working class helps further the enrollment of a class of people who are then becoming totally Government dependent.
A lot of the poorer half of this country can always do better for themselves, and I recognize that a portion of our society will always need our compassion and help. that is a premise on which I choose to follow, and when offered the correct incentives those that can will, but only if one accepts the help as a start up the ladder of self reliance. Only then will aid be a benefit to them and Country alike. They do not need to be kept dependent of Government largest for life, unless of course that is the purpose of the Liberal side of politics, to maintain them as pawns of a core voting base with pay, and assuring their loyalty of vote with said entitlements
A hand up verse a hand out in my view is an answer, not the current cultivation of increasing joblessness that is only growing a body of people who are being swept into this abyss of no return, which is fueled by the current direction of meaningless employment.
Your chiding scenario of: “Harold I think you are entitled. You believe you are a victim, you are dependent on the government, and I will never be able to convince you to take responsibility for your life” followed by “Does that make any sense? Does telling you that I am not condemning you at all change your impression of the first part of my statement?” … No, as you were using falsehoods to make your case, Romney was not!
I am sure other readers could see through your skilled diversion of the original post, as I, it seems as with all political rhetoric, one party or the other points blame or switches the direction of a discussion to serve their purpose, you do so frequently, but of late your more civil, if you can maintain that maturity, then we contributors of PS thank you.
OH yes ,in getting in a comment about the original post, I had no pertinent input about O’Reilly, However I expect sometimes it is his intent to cause such outcry, which is intentional for viewer ratings.
Often I see that it was not so much the content of his stories, but in his presentation that evokes such negative reactions.
Well said Harold. Thank you!
Another example of a intolerant progressive Liberal who just got served a taste of his own actions.
To Dave Mulligan – Hope This Satisfies Your Need For Attention. Love, The Stockholm Syndrome Bimbos With Husband-Bought Boob Jobs.:
http://chicksontheright.com/blog/item/28309-to-dave-mulligan-hope-this-satisfies-your-need-for-attention-love-the-stockholm-syndrome-bimbos-with-husband-bought-boob-jobs
Yikes Peggy, this guy was a total nutcase, but good come-backs from the ladies.
Harold gets it. Chris is, as always, Chris. A contemptible self-aggrandizing jerk who thinks his defecation smells like roses. That is his emotional investment and “political correctness.”
Someday Chris might try and make an argument sans his idiotic and tiresome personal abuse.
And hell might freeze over.
Harold: “Your chiding scenario of: “Harold I think you are entitled. You believe you are a victim, you are dependent on the government, and I will never be able to convince you to take responsibility for your life” followed by “Does that make any sense? Does telling you that I am not condemning you at all change your impression of the first part of my statement?” … No, as you were using falsehoods to make your case, Romney was not!”
Harold, that you agree with Romney’s condemnation of poor people does not make it any less of a condemnation of poor people. I just means that you agree with his condemnation of poor people. A condemnation can be based in truth. I don’t agree with Romney’s remarks about the half of the country that is too poor to pay income taxes; you clearly do. That doesn’t change the fact that Romney did condemn them, and that Tina’s statement that the right do not condemn the poor is false. You may believe that the poor deserve to be condemned; that’s irrelevant to the point I was making.
Pie: “Someday Chris might try and make an argument sans his idiotic and tiresome personal abuse.”
There has been no “personal abuse” from me. Take the log out of your own eye.
Peggy, I don’t like “Chicks on the Right” but a sexist attack against any woman is a sexist attack on all women. I hope that jerk loses his job. As a public figure he should at least know better than to do this in public. I have never said liberals can’t also be bigoted, and this guy proves that intolerance is unfortunately alive and well on the left.
Chris writes, wait, strike that, misdirects is a better choice of words “You may believe that the poor deserve to be condemned; that’s irrelevant to the point I was making.”
No the point you are trying to make is clear, you are the only one who’s opinion is correct, as always and I need to change my perspective about how I perceived Romney’s remarks. Not gonna happen!
Actually, Romney’s comment is on the mark about how the Liberal party uses people as a paid voting base, and that he expects those voters not to vote for him, in fear he might change policies of Government aid to those not entitled, and the Politicians that abuse that money to protect their seat in Government.
And as dishonest as your attempt to slur Romney about him being uncaring about the poor, using your creative guile once more to bolster your point of contention in a misdirecting manner, I stand by my belief Romney was taking the stance that he pointed out he will never be a candidate of choice to people that expect entitlements as a way of life, and those people are willing to vote accordingly for ANYONE that will maintain that lifestyle for them.
Never was he trying to condemn the poor about being poor as much as he was pointing out the habit of Liberal verse Conservative politicians who wrongly manipulate Government entitlements and working it for their own core voting base.
His statement about who does not pay taxes could be better explained by Romney, not by you, you could point out this was in error, unlike your Harry Reid’s statement about Romney not having paid taxes for a 10 year span, which was proven was an outright lie by Reid, but timed ever so well to cause disruption in exchange for favorable votes to his party. Like an ACORN that nut didn’t roll far from the tree that spawned it.
Why he didn’t mention people like Sharpton and many employees of the Obama government who have been noted as not paying taxes, that irony didn’t escape well informed voters, just those that lap up 30 second sound bites, and entitlements much like a stray cat and free milk, and then they defecate in your flower bed as a reminder you are their mark.
Ah Politics, we got what we got, and sadly we had nothing of substance, at least in 60% of the senate before last election
100% of whatever current entitlement recipients there are is just BS. And trying to represent Romney’s valid comment about misuse of Government aid about those numbers that are capable of self-support is just facilitating their ability to continue a lifetime of entitlement largest, paid for by others.
As Romney clearly points out; “There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it — that that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. … These are people who pay no income tax. … My job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.” –
Well if we did a better job of electing leadership, we could be the ones who can make a difference in a large number of entitlements recipients life’s, and get them off welfare roles and working, they would feel better about themselves and we could feel good having helped correct a MISUSE of Government (actually tax payers) money, and pay down the debt with the surplus to help future generations as well.
Oh one last thing:
Giddy up horse!…. nope you cant get a dead horse to run, and for me this horse is ALPO!
Harold: “No the point you are trying to make is clear, you are the only one who’s opinion”
Except we’re not debating a matter of opinion, we’re debating the definition of a word. Sometimes that’s valid and useful, but in this case I feel the definition of “condenm” is fairly unambiguous, and that Romney’s words clearly fit that definition.
“I stand by my belief Romney was taking the stance that he pointed out he will never be a candidate of choice to people that expect entitlements as a way of life, and those people are willing to vote accordingly for ANYONE that will maintain that lifestyle for them”
Yes, you’re right that that was Romney’s stance. We can agree to disagree over whether his stance was correct or not. What I still can’t understand is why you disagree that this was a condemnation. You’re writing a lot, but not all of it is clear to me.
“100% of whatever current entitlement recipients there are is just BS. And trying to represent Romney’s valid comment about misuse of Government aid about those numbers that are capable of self-support is just facilitating their ability to continue a lifetime of entitlement largest, paid for by others.”
Do you really believe that this description applies to everyone in the 47% Romney was describing? Note that Romney was conflating three separate categories here:
1) People who will vote for Obama
2) People who pay no income taxes
3) People who feel entitled, victimized and owed by the government, and who will “never take responsibility for their lives”
Obviously, these three categories don’t overlap perfectly. Some Obama voters don’t pay income taxes: many do. Some Romney voters don’t pay income taxes; many do. Some who don’t pay income taxes and get welfare are entitled and abuse the system; some are on welfare and don’t pay income taxes for valid reasons. So even if you agree with Romney’s overall sentiment about entitlements, it still seems hard to defend his statement as accurate.