Boortz is simply doing his job - offending anyone and everyone who listens to his show ;)

 

... or I should say "tries to". I haven't been offended by him for a long time despite listening to him every day.

 

Besides the broodmare comment, he does make some good points though.

Why does it not suprise me in the least that Dawuss is not offended by Boortz... and listens to him daily to boot!

As for the so-called valid point that you think that Boortz made about single moms as 'welfare broadmares' or 'welfare queens' (from Reagan speak) when many work two jobs to just keep the lights on...... what about the 'welfare whores' of the corporate kind?  What say you about them?

In my opinion, they are more of a strain on our society by a far bigger margin than those that are poor and on welfare are!

Yes, there are some poor people that take advantage of the system... no doubt about it..... but every one of the poor will spend ever penny of welfare the get, so all that money ends up back in the economy in some way.....

Do you believe for a second that the several hundreds of millions to billions in tax-rebates' and 'cuts' to welfare corporate whores end up back in the economy?  If you do.... I have the deed to the moon I'd like to sell you!!

"but every one of the poor will spend ever penny of welfare the get, so all that money ends up back in the economy in some way....."

Where can I get my free money to fuel the economy?, I want to do my share. 

You didn't get your stimulus check?

But I want one every month, I mean to help the economy and all......

Petition the government and see if they'll respond.

Apply for assistance and see if you qualify.

I think there's a guy out there dressed kind of like "the Riddler" who I occasionally see screaming on the tv machine about a book on how to get money from the gov't.  Maybe you could check him out, though I haven't heard from him in a while.  Maybe Batman got him or something...

That would be Mark Lesko.

Matthew Lesko.

Hmmm... maybe this dude goes by two different names then...

http://www.governmentgrant.com/mark-lesko.htm

I saw nearly every episode in the '60's, but I don't remember Batman battling any "Lesko".  Was he Dr. Lesko, or Professor Lesko or something?

The amout of public assistant you could get would be pathetic. So if you are willing to quit your job and cut all income and live in a sh*tbox, then I'm sure we could get you a weekly check so I won't have to step over you on the way to work.

Thanks for summing it up.

I'm so tired of people's jealousy when it comes to this. There is not better word to describe it. Welfare is a small price to pay to keep us from completely losing our dignity as a nation.

Tommy,

Ok.... so you seem to think that the so-called 'welfare queen' are all bad people?

Seriously.... could you hear yourself as you typed that response? Perhaps it is 'free' money, but they will spend it!  Do you think they will save it? Send it to the Cayman Islands? Invest it?

I've been on welfare before and food stamps..... if not for these services being available, my wife and three daughters and I would have been kicked out of the apartment we were in!  Am I a bain to society because I was forced into using these services?

I used them for the time I needed them and got off them as soon as I had my first paycheck..... they are a life saver! And like I said in my other post.... are there those that take advantage of the systems? Yes, there are, and they should be flogged for doing as much!

But if a flogging for abusing a few hundred dollars a month is maybe warranted? ..... Again... I ask you the same as I asked Dawuss.... what say you about the billion dollar corporations that take millions a month and then don't spend them, but put them away in a tax free haven and away from the economy?

As I said..... at least the poor person will spend that welfare check back into the economy.... so answer with an answer that is not so self-righteous and childish!

"Ok.... so you seem to think that the so-called 'welfare queen' are all bad people?"

I will admit, when I read this from you, I stopped.  Since I never said that, you made it up. What I find reprehensible, and shameful, is when people steal money from anyone, the government included.  People that have children so they can up their welfare checks are thieves.  Hard working people that need help and assistance temporarily and are not out to fleece anyone are not part of this discussion, for me. 

Just curious, what % of single mothers on welfare are doing that?

I don't care what the percentage is. Why does the degree of abuse within the system somehow invalidate the concern for accountability?  Ridiculous.  Every single dime the government spends should be held up for accountability and worthiness, at every level, period.

Why does the degree of abuse within the system somehow invalidate the concern for accountability?

Maybe we don't need accountability because the degree of abuse is negligent.

I have no qualms with accountability, but I figured you boned up on the subject to be able to speak to the numbers, as well as supply info on whether that number is decreasing or increasing. Seems like you're just venting.

Call it whatever you'd like, it's called principles.

Principled venting. OK then...

Ok, tommy, let's take it out to the inevitable conclusion that the goverment should abolish welfare and instead have private charity take care of those in need. Do you honestly think there would be less fraud with the private charities?

Tommy,

Fair enough..... and I apologize for claiming that you said that those on welfare are all bad. Your right, you did not say that.

But what about corporate welfare? I realize that Boortz spoke about poor welfare..... but I'm just trying to get a gauge how Boortz can be defended in any way when corporate welfare is a much much bigger and worse thing to our economy? 

When he speaks this way to his listeners, many of them are not going to think about corporate welfare as a comparison, unless he brings it up, which he did not.... and I think it should be... which is why I bring it up to both you and Dawuss....

Boortz is right about the potential for welfare abuse by the less off and I agree that those few should be punished for stealing and regardless of whether they spend it all back into the economy doesnt make it right.... but what about the corporations and the fleecing and stealing and lying they do to get their welfare checks?

Capt, I was very clear - stealing or abusing the system by anyone is wrong, corporations, individuals, everyone.  It's high time the American taxpayer lights their own short fuse on this and demand the waste, fraud and abuse stop in every department, at every level, in every way.  I don't accept some 90% compliance or some arbitrary number to look the other way.  

Capt, I was very clear - stealing or abusing the system by anyone is wrong,

You keep on saying this but you won't give a number.

He gave one in that statement you quoted

I don't think you're following correctly.  He keeps on saying there's abuse in the system but he hasn't put a percentage on it.

Is your point then that since Tommy does not give a number of how many people abuse the system that means there is no abuse? I hate to break it to ya' but there are those who abuse the system. Sorry to burst your "compassion" bubble. Jeez!!!

Tommy,

We are now getting to the meat of the argument that I think we are both in agreement on.... that those that lie, cheat, and steal to get welfare, regardless of whether they are poor or super rich should all be punished.....

But this is the meat of the issue: The poor and less well off will more easily go to jail for their stealing a few hundred and be put in front of the news camera to prove that the 'poor' are not trustworthy, but those that are of the corporate persuasion that steal millions will likely never or very rarely ever go to jail, let alone fined or publically humiliated because they can afford lawyers or pay off politicians to make it easier for them to steal even more....

Boortz brought up a valid argument.... what he failed to do was to mention that corporations do it as well..... only worse, so the only comparison for his listeners was how bad the poor are!

I am in full agreement with you and acknowledge that you mean 'anyone' that steals does include corporations and super rich people..... but the real issue I think is that the less well off are more prone to getting in trouble than those on the opposite end of the spectrum....

"Petty thieves get arrested, great thieves get elected." -Anonymous

 

And that, is a rather sad reality.

They also get radio shows.

And that is the one true sad reality

What I find reprehensible, and shameful, is when people steal money from anyone, the government included.

No one is stealing money here.

When a person takes government money by fraud then they are stealing.

Of course if you want to inflict to most damage become a corporate criminal--do it as a corporation.

Tommy - compared to these welfare queens, how much do you pay for price fixing, bid rigging, stock price manipulation, embezzlement, back-dated stock options, tax cheats, tax avoidance, bribes, nepotism, kickbacks, all the remaining Enrons, and no-bid contracts in Iraq? These costs are in the price of every single thing you buy because too many people voted republican. Have you ever seen a republican ad or speech that addressed any of those crimes? No, they only talk about welfare queens while protecting their own. Think Ma & Pa Gramm's "Enron exception," for one example.

Tommy - everybody knows (or should know) that only children can get "welfare." A single adult with no dependents gets zip. You really didn't know this? And they let you vote in ignorance?

Quit your job and go apply to find out the requirements. Might be educational. Or just use teh Google on "welfare myths.' Easy to learn.

Apparently Capt knows how to create wealth on the backs of those who simply consume. He should definitely get the Nobel Prize in economics.

So is Broodbear Stearns the mother of all coprorate "broodmares?"

Can't say that.  After all, Bear/Stearns did the screwin'...

"Nealz Nuze"

Well, at least he's as literate as he is intelligent.

Call it marketing or sloganizing ;)

That's some bad sloganizing. Nealz Nuze just invites the next alliterative word - Nazi. Not saying that he is one, but that's like wearing one of those funny little moustaches - it just invites for the comparison.  Pair that with discussion of humans as broodmares and you are asking for abuse.  Which I guess is the point after all. You go, angry white man! 

"Nealz Nuze"

Hookt on Fonix Werkt Fer Himm......  :-)

Himmler...

Kinda like Faux Snooze?

Nealz Nuz, goebble's global news. Hmmm, coincidence?

".....that women in Georgia who received public assistance gave birth at more than three times the rate of women who did not receive public assistance"

That is downright shameful, and utterly ridiculous. 

There is logic in that statement, though. If you're on welfare and receiving money for your child, the more children you have the more money you receive. So if you want more children, you go "download some more babies" (to use some Boortzology)

I understand the logic.  If you want to fleece the government out of money and have no regard for the children you bring into this world, then I guess it makes sense.

Tommy - at one time here in Texas another child would get you an extra $2.33 per day. May be more now. Explain how that is a good business proposition someone might opt for.

I hear that's how Bill Gates struck it rich.

No Sex Ed., no birth control, no abortions... but quit having kids!! Is it that hard to not have sex??

So they are having unprotected sex but don't know that a kid may pop out 9 months later?  Especially after the third and fourth kid.  I love that one.

So are you in favor of abortion now?

The looniness of your question does not dignify a response.

Are you in favor of abortion now?

I never have been and I never will be.

That's great for you but who asked you?

You were going to get around to me, weren't you? See, I took care of that for ya ;)

Loonz' question was so asinine that it deserved no answer.  So it's a good thing you responded for his sake, because I won't.

Are you in favor of abortion now?

Another sidestep.

Typical Tommy... cherrypicking which questions are 'worthy' of his response... typical.

There is a black crack baby somewhere with your name on it....get busy.

So are you in favor of abortion now?

Well I don't know about Tommy,  but I think for me to answer that question is way above my pay scale ;-)

Ahh, good one Jeter!  Loonz, There's your answer.

Tommy, you're not qualified to state your own opinion, and Jeter had to help you with that?

The answer is that Big Federal Government is better at making that decision than the mere individual, right?

But how much money does Pope Benny make? ;)

So you don't know whether or not you're in favor of abortion?

Oy. I'm taking that one.

Obama said that scientifically and theologically, when a "baby" gets "human rights" is above his pay grade, an answer that leaves the room for choice. I certainly got it. A thoughtful answer to a very loaded question.

How about this- if you dont believe in abortion, by all means, don't have one.

Capt, I was very clear - stealing or abusing the system by anyone is wrong, corporations, individuals, everyone.

I know what Jeter meant but the comment was silly.  Asking someone when life begins is not the same as asking "Are you in favor of abortion rights?"

But to answer one answers the other, doesn't it?

You either didn't comprehend what I wrote or I wrote it in a f--ked up way.  "When life begins" is a profound question and is something no one truly knows and probably will never know.  On the other hand, "Are you in favor of abortion  rights" is very much answerable.

Loonz [and Watershed too],

Yes I tried to make a funny. Since you found it "silly", I won't leave my day job & hit the road as a standup comedian ;-)

Obviously when Obama said it was above his "pay scale" to the question of when life begins he was saying only God can honestly make that call.

For the record, I believe life begins at conception. However I'm pro-choice.

I simply think that abortions should always be the last option.

I simply think that abortions should always be the last option.- jeter2

Jeter, I know this probably won't surprise you, it's directed more at the nuts who called me an "abortion fanatic" recently;

Your opinion is most likely that of most Pro-Choice people.

Shocking, eh?

Except, DaWuss, you are willingly paying for those children, right?  After all, abortion is murder in your eyes, correct?

I have no problem if someone needs government assistance to raise their child or if a single mother or single father decided to be a stay-at-home parent instead of abandoning their children to day-care. Put please, use the system responsibly and quit exploiting it like it's all about you!

That's a fair statement, but how many do you think are having babies just to get $$?

More than is acceptable.

Prove it. Where are the statistics to support what you're asserting?

Pseudo has none... just like his buddies on righty talk radio. They ALL talk right out their asses.

just like his buddies on righty talk radio. They ALL talk right out their asses.

Well then thank God they're on radio...wouldn't want to see anyone's ass talking on TV. 

Every time Sean Hannity opens his yap on TV it might as well be his asshole talking. What comes out of his mouth is no different than what comes out of his ass.

Dont need numbers - because to me, more than zero is unacceptable. 

Could one of Neal's fans please explain why, in European countries with much higher levels of public subsidy for mothers and children, the birthrates in general and out-of wedlock births in particular are much lower than in the US?

Would you even admit to the possibility that maybe some countries are managing these issues better than we are?  

"There is logic in that statement, though. If you're on welfare and receiving money for your child, the more children you have the more money you receive. So if you want more children, you go "download some more babies" (to use some Boortzology)"

"In Georgia, welfare broodmares -- that is also described as single mothers receiving public assistance -- are having babies at three times the rate, three times the rate of mothers who do not need public assistance. If you're on welfare, 162 births per 1,000 women. If you're not on welfare, 53 births per 1,000 women."

I'm not sure about this.  It doesn't mean that 54 women had three babies each, as opposed to the 53 that had one each.  It could be (theoretically) that 162 separate women on assistance had one baby each, while 18 women without assistance had three babies each.  You really don't know what the overlap would be just from the stats given.

Besides, isn't this a yearly statistic?  So out of that given 1000 women, each one of them could have one child during a six-year period with no overlap.  Again, purely theoretical, but by the end of that cycle there's a whole new group of physically mature but irresponsible young women out there.  And if it's yearly, then obviously it's not too likely that any one woman had more than one child in that period.  That would surely mean that it's a higher proportion of women (%16.2) having babies, not the same proportion of women (%5.3) having three times as many babies. It's been a long day, so if I'm not thinking about this right, someone let me know.

In any event, while I know some women on assistance have too many children, the causation seems unproven here.  All that's shown is that group is generally less educated and/or responsible, which are common factors between women who are on government assistance and women who have unwanted pregnancies.  It doesn't prove anything about monetary motivation at all.

".....that women in Georgia who received public assistance gave birth at more than three times the rate of women who did not receive public assistance"

That statement doesn't mean what one might think it does. That statement, as written, means that every woman in Georgia who received public assistance always gave birth to triplets or quadruplets.

What a hero Boortz is.  All he’s got is blame.  Preying on the short fuse of the American taxpayer, he can tell why the root of all our problems lie with anyone who’s not white, male and wealthy.  Similar to any other right-wing professional liar, Boortz’s only talent is making people angry, either at him or someone else, but he possesses no ability whatsoever to get people thinking.

One of his friends is Herman Cain, who is black.

And Cain is a super idiot. I've heard him on Neal's show a bunch of times.

Playing the race card, Isee. Hmmm...

How was that playing the race card? I refuted his statement that The High Priest of the Church of the Painful Truth only cares about "rich white men".

By saying, "Some of his best friends are black," the reply to racism charges by bigots the world over.

One of his friends is Herman Cain, who is black

Pleaseeee, not the "I got a black friend" stuff.

Seeing as how nobody had mentioned race before this--and seeing as how there are more white folks on welfare than black folks--you've just stepped in a big pile of racist hoohah.

"Preying on the short fuse of the American taxpayer"

Is that what liberals call it now when we, the short fused American taxpayer,  expect and demand that our elected leaders spend our money cautiously,  wisely, appropriately and are held accountable. 

You mean the whole "responsibility" thing Tommy?  Do liberals even know that word?

Making sure those children have a place to live and food to eat is being responsible.

I honestly cannot grasp the lack of empathy for children and families in welfare. It is beyond me. It's somehow, to conservatives, a gigantic scam!

Not to guys like Pseudoscience. Remember, rightwingers quit caring about children once they are born.

After the endless loop of WMDs, Plamegate, Abramoff, Foley and so many other scandals it has lost all meaning.

You mean the whole "responsibility" thing Tommy?  Do liberals even know that word?

LOL

The fact that YOU or ANY conservative would ask THAT questions after 6 years of total Republican control of every branch of government is laughable!

Is that what liberals call it now when we, the short fused American taxpayer, expect and demand that our elected leaders spend our money cautiously, wisely, appropriately and are held accountable.

Apparently, the executive branch and the legislative branch (controlled by the Republicans for the majority of Bush's two terms) are not listening to short-fused American taxpayers such as yourself, because they've done the exact opposite of everything on your grocery list.

They most certainly have.  Total agreement.

So what's worse, bailing out inept yet corrupt corporations, or helping individuals who may be caught up in a web of unfortunate circumstance? Remember, Boortz or you or I don't really know how, what or why people are brought to the desperate precipice that forces them to welfare. However, we DO know why Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, etc. are in the situations their in. Unrestrained greed. No accountability, no oversight.

You're looking at it all wrong.  See, if a corporation is in trouble and goes down, it takes all those innocent taxpaying employees with it, creating jobless over-breeding welfare cheats.  So you try to avoid that by bailing out the corporations with tax dollars.

However, in the event that jobless over-breeding welfare cheats already exist, they need to be made examples of, so the gov't should withhold any assistance.  That way, the children of the jobless welfare cheats that were protected by the anti-abortion laws will live in abject poverty until their parents get a job, teaching them the value of...... owning a big corporation.

Get it?

You fixed your fridge fast! Got any cold cuts? 'cause I heard somewhere that revenge is like cold cuts, only healthier (unless it's Boortz Head)

Agreed, Boortz and his ilk have an almost religious belief that corporations ONLY make good choices, while fellow American citizens don't. Well done.

"Is that what liberals call it"

Wow, I don't know.  Go conduct a poll to get an answer to your stupid question.  And thanks for pigeonholing me.  I'll be sure to return the favor sometime.

Anyway, what you're describing is an example of the short-fused American taxpayer actually thinking.  As I pointed out, Boortz and the rest of the right-wing professional liars don't inspire people to think, just to blame others.

You said it Pete, calling those concerned with the way our money is spent in Washington by those we elect, as reactions from a short-fused taxpayer. In other words, get over it.  Sorry, feel free to let them spend your money recklessly, I don't agree.

The target of my scorn was clearly Boortz and the other right-wing professional liars, yet you insist on picking my post apart and finding ways to pigeonhole me and make false accusations. 

Now you're trying to dress it up as me lashing out at short-fused American taxpayers, of which I proudly am one, simply for being short fused.

After the hundreds of billions that have been squandered and pallet load after pallet load of Ben Franklin's have disappeared into a black hole in Iraq, do you think for one freakin' moment I'm the least bit happy with how my money has been spent?

Pete, 

Some liberals argue this disingenuously all the time.  From hating children, to why not talk about corporate welfare, to not taking care of children after we want abortion outlawed, to how many welfare recipients exactly are cheating, to why are we not concerned with all the money spent on wars, on and on and on.

Anything to keep from addressing the point and the topic specifically.  I have made my opinions clear on this subject. 

As clear as ink.

You're the one doing all the sidestepping.  If you won't give statistics, how do we know it's even going on?

Because, by default, anyone who gets money from the government that's not male, white and wealthy is fleecing the taxpayer.

Halliburton = Good

Struggling Single Mom = Bad 

Yep, that's exactly what I meant.  Typical emotional liberal argument.

And conservatives NEVER make emotional arguments,  EVER,  Especially when it comes to single mothers being welfare broodmares.

And I did say I'd return the favor earlier.

OK.

Not real sure what that has with your pigeonholing and accusations, but good for you. 

"...expect and demand that our elected leaders spend our money cautiously,  wisely, appropriately and are held accountable."

Are you SURE you want to open up THAT can of slimy worms, Tommy? If you do, expect to be destroyed on that topic.

Destroyed by a bombthrower like you?  Ha

You wanna go there or not? Which is it, son?

Oh spare me your blustering childish threats, you aren't worthy of serious discussion, which is why we rarely, if ever, have it. 

Another sidestep. Wow, I'm impressed. Two so far in this thread.

Keep up the good work. Let's shoot for a baker's dozen just in this thread, all right?

Neal is insane.

So are his defenders. Certifiable.

Do you have any credible sources to cite your data?

For starters, you.

So either I'm sane or I'm a credible source. Which will it be?

None of the above.

Oh, DaWuss is a credible source... a credible source on how certifiable Boortz's supporters are.

Boortz is ignorant and proud of it! Around 2000 I caught him on the way to work. Apparently a caller had made fun of him because he claims to be so smart yet could not answer "What is the Second World?" He reveled in his ignorance, saying something like knowing that would make him an elitist, a snob, etc. He and most conservatives and libertarians wear ignorance like a badge of honor while claiming to be the anointed ones. Hilarious. Wish I had a tape of it. Needless to say, being a liberal, I knew what the Second World was and that made it all the funnier. I almost drove off the road laughing at that uninformed dumbass. Looks like things have not changed.

Sounds like the kind of study I'd like to be involved in, in a pant, snort, personal way.

Who called this guy a "moderate" conservative today or yesterday -- I think it was Dawuss -- let's you get a good line on what being an extreme conservative means.

Yep it was me. I called Neal Boortz and Lou Dobbs moderates.

I agree. He not saying anything that isn't true....might not be politically correct, but doesn't make it untrue.

No, what he's saying is not true. He's just spouting what he THINKS is true. Opinion, no matter how closely held, isn't automatically true.

He does have facts to back his point up though (the GA census).

 

It's kinda like that "Why Men Are Republicans" picture. It's an opinion (which may or may not be true), but it's still backed by facts. Another set of facts could refute that opinion made (both the OT and this segue), however.

"Why Men Are Republicans"

That has to be the dumbest thing I've seen in quite a while... Was the emotional development of the avergae Republican male interrupted when he was a teenager?

What I wanna' see is the Democratic response to that photo...

No, I think what you really want to see are naked pictures of Ann Coulter... ;>)

Here she is in a more "pensive" pose:

Here's my response. ALL of those women are fugly. Case closed.

Hey, btw, you righties who wank off to Ann Coulter's pics have got to be the worst of the pathetic.

Wow, Debbie Schlussel is soooo hot!!!  I'm thinking about becoming a Republican for that reason alone, but I'm hesitant because Rachel Dratch is a Democrat, and she's hotter.

Also, I'd like to switch to the Republican party so I can meet Stifler's mom.  She's way hotter than Dennis Kucinich's heinous wife!

I know from reliable sources that if Rachel Maddow was straight, Republicans would be switching parties faster than they can unzip for a lobbyist.

Waitaminnit, Dawuss- is the point of that thing that the republican women are hot? Yikes!

I think what's more telling is that somebody actually had to find some stretch of a reason to explain why being a bedwetting god-fearing republican is manly. Doesn't take a shrink to figure that one out.

That's the point they're trying to make, yes.

I couldn't find the Democratic rebuttal, if there is one (and I would think that in the interest of balance there would be)

NOW wouldn't allow it.

I call them douchebags.

 

Welfare? No vote. Illiterate? Stay home on election day.

Well, then how about...

The purposely or negligently uninformed and misinformed who rely on FOX News and people like Neal Boortz as their lifeline to the world? You don't deserve to vote if you're that stupid.  ;>)

If we could disqualify would-be voters (or even better, candidates) for willful ignorance this country would have been on an entirely different path for the past eight years.