RE: Liberal Talk Show Host Mocks Tornado Victims

RE: Liberal Talk Show Host Mocks Tornado Victims (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Owner59 -> RE: Liberal Talk Show Host Mocks Tornado Victims (3/6/2012 9:45:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 Mike Malloy was on WLS in Chicago, and on the complete failure Air America... It's no wonder progressive talk radio is such an utter failure. I love the guy, his rants are so vehement, I expected him to have an aneurysm on air. Strange how AA keeps "failing" year after year yet seems to continue year after year.......[:D] Must be that con-alt-reality thing again.....

SternSkipper -> RE: In response to Pat Robertson's comments, Liberal Talk Show Host Mocks Tornado Victims (3/6/2012 10:18:49 PM)
quote: quote: ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto What radio station is "Liberal Talk Show Host Matt Malloy" on? There is a Mike Malloy. Yep there is and For the record, I pinged a few liberal friends around and basically this guy Malloy is a nobody and doesn't air of their markets he's equivalent to Jon Dipietro who keeps getting his ass fired all over the place and is now doing a stretch on BlogTalk Radio (yeah, that's right, hard time). Anyway, the guy is of course a Kook. And since the context had the dipshit that created the 'video' had the whole segment in playback, the tenor of the whole piece would have been apparent. And The dear 'caring' cons in this thread (who actually just have their diapers on cause their BIG GUN got caught with his dick out again near the kid's play ground in a manner of speaking). It isn't a matter of our having demanded every barbarous comment by every nobody Limbaugh impersonator (and anybody with ears and a radio knows there's more of them than show biz TVs in this country...). Course they're determined to demonstrate that they just can't understand the difference between people demanding a pattern of behavior on the part of a Conservative with a great deal of public influence stop and stop NOW, and some kind of weird messed up transference of the concept of apology. And Once again ... Ya SHOULDA listened to Lucy, she's not just a pretty heh ... face... http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/dpp/news/local_news/robertson-tornado-comments-20120306-es And to the newly out of the closet Libertarian... Is this the guy you keep sayin we don't understand? [image]local://upfiles/18637/2ED598E152DE46D899F4B78839D25906.jpg[/image]

SternSkipper -> RE: Liberal Talk Show Host Mocks Tornado Victims (3/6/2012 10:20:48 PM)
quote: Strange how AA keeps "failing" year after year yet seems to continue year after year....... I said almost the same thing about my ex at a custody hearing last fall. Cept I wasn't referring to airlines, excuse me radio networks[:D]

Yachtie -> RE: In response to Pat Robertson's comments, Liberal Talk Show Host Mocks Tornado Victims (3/7/2012 4:40:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SternSkipper And to the newly out of the closet Libertarian... Is this the guy you keep sayin we don't understand? [image]local://upfiles/18637/2ED598E152DE46D899F4B78839D25906.jpg[/image] Cute. I note the alien picked Bill and W too. Bill was your guy, right? Or am I mistaking your slight simply because that's the only pic you could find of Ron? I'm not a newly out of the closet libertarian. I was posting here for a while and changed my name so had to begin again. I stated such in another thread a while back.

kalikshama -> RE: In response to Pat Robertson's comments, Liberal Talk Show Host Mocks Tornado Victims (3/7/2012 4:53:33 AM)
quote: I'm not a newly out of the closet libertarian. I was posting here for a while and changed my name so had to begin again. I stated such in another thread a while back. I missed that thread. What was your old username? Note: most people will add their old name in their signature line for a while to end these repetitive questions.

Yachtie -> RE: In response to Pat Robertson's comments, Liberal Talk Show Host Mocks Tornado Victims (3/7/2012 4:56:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess We can have debates about what things government will provide assistance for and what it won't That debate has not actually happened yet. It will begin soon though when economic reality begins to set in. Why don't we go back through all of the tax returns of these conservatives and restrict their "handouts" to ONLY the portion of their taxes that are attributable to tornado disaster redistributive policy with interest. Guess what? That amount won't come close to covering their losses. Not even close. Any conservative who takes MORE than they've put into the system has no right to complain about the basic concept of redistribution. They didn't pay for all of it. No one did, for any of it; it being the totality of government redistribution. That is the rooster coming home to roost. That will become the debate that needs to happen. You are missing the point. People who pay in and who BELIEVE that redistribution is a worthwhile goal, are entitled to be paid more than their fair share if they find themselves in a position where they need it. But why should people who pay in and who do NOT BELIEVE in redistribution get any more back than exactly what they paid in. I'm saying fine. I'll return the portion of their tax dollar that went to tornado relief. But why should they get more back than they paid if they don't believe in redistribution. Then they should be fine with not collecting more than they put in. No, I get your point. I was commenting on the statement I quoted. Nothing more. So lets see. You believe in discrimination based on belief. You also believe that believing people are entitled to receive more than their fair share. How nice of you! You're so compassionate with other peoples money. Especially to those whom agree with you. Typical[:'(]

Yachtie -> RE: In response to Pat Robertson's comments, Liberal Talk Show Host Mocks Tornado Victims (3/7/2012 5:02:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kalikshama quote: I'm not a newly out of the closet libertarian. I was posting here for a while and changed my name so had to begin again. I stated such in another thread a while back. I missed that thread. What was your old username? Note: most people will add their old name in their signature line for a while to end these repetitive questions. That never occurred to me. I was slutpleaser in my previous incarnation.

kalikshama -> RE: In response to Pat Robertson's comments, Liberal Talk Show Host Mocks Tornado Victims (3/7/2012 5:07:40 AM)
quote: And since the context had the dipshit that created the 'video' had the whole segment in playback, the tenor of the whole piece would have been apparent. I STILL can't find the full transcript. It's obvious to me that Malloy is referring to Robertson's "didn't pray hard enough" comments, but I'd like to hear the whole thing.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Liberal Talk Show Host Mocks Tornado Victims (3/7/2012 5:24:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 I love the guy, his rants are so vehement, I expected him to have an aneurysm on air. That might finally get him some ratings LOL

Moonhead -> RE: Liberal Talk Show Host Mocks Tornado Victims (3/7/2012 5:30:06 AM)
That would look a lot better on film, though. It'd just be a sound effect and some strangling noises on the radio...

DaddySatyr -> RE: Liberal Talk Show Host Mocks Tornado Victims (3/7/2012 5:37:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 I love the guy, his rants are so vehement, I expected him to have an aneurysm on air. That might finally get him some ratings LOL Or, perhaps if his kidneys failed? (Thank you, Wanda Sykes) Peace and comfort, Michael

fucktoyprincess -> RE: In response to Pat Robertson's comments, Liberal Talk Show Host Mocks Tornado Victims (3/7/2012 5:49:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess We can have debates about what things government will provide assistance for and what it won't That debate has not actually happened yet. It will begin soon though when economic reality begins to set in. Why don't we go back through all of the tax returns of these conservatives and restrict their "handouts" to ONLY the portion of their taxes that are attributable to tornado disaster redistributive policy with interest. Guess what? That amount won't come close to covering their losses. Not even close. Any conservative who takes MORE than they've put into the system has no right to complain about the basic concept of redistribution. They didn't pay for all of it. No one did, for any of it; it being the totality of government redistribution. That is the rooster coming home to roost. That will become the debate that needs to happen. You are missing the point. People who pay in and who BELIEVE that redistribution is a worthwhile goal, are entitled to be paid more than their fair share if they find themselves in a position where they need it. But why should people who pay in and who do NOT BELIEVE in redistribution get any more back than exactly what they paid in. I'm saying fine. I'll return the portion of their tax dollar that went to tornado relief. But why should they get more back than they paid if they don't believe in redistribution. Then they should be fine with not collecting more than they put in. No, I get your point. I was commenting on the statement I quoted. Nothing more. So lets see. You believe in discrimination based on belief. You also believe that believing people are entitled to receive more than their fair share. How nice of you! You're so compassionate with other peoples money. Especially to those whom agree with you. Typical[:'(] I'm not asking for a system like that. I support the current system. I'm saying people who don't believe in redistribution should, in fact, support a system that gives them back only what they put in. You should support the system I've outlined because it matches your feelings about redistribution. I'm not asking for a system change. I'm asking people who don't believe in redistribution to stop taking handouts - it's hypocritical. But's that generally how people like that are. They complain about others, but think it's perfectly fine when they need help to do exactly the same thing. So why not just be supportive of the concept of redistribution. It helps people when they are in trouble. Why fight that?

Iamsemisweet -> RE: Liberal Talk Show Host Mocks Tornado Victims (3/7/2012 6:03:15 AM)
I have often wondered why people live in tornado prone areas, and keep rebuilding. And why people rebuild their houses on the South Carolina coast, knowing that they are going to get wiped out by a hurricane again in a few years. For that matter, why even bother to rebuild New Orleans, it is just going to get flooded again. And I saw the damnedest thing when I was in Hawaii last week. People were rebuilding their homes that had been wiped out by lava from the volcano, even though the volcano is still erupting. Hell, for that matter, I have lived in a forest for years, and could have easily lost my home to a forest fire. The fact is, people want to live where their roots are, and natural disasters can occur anywhere. Washington state is not exactly tornado alley, but both tornadoes and a volcanic eruption have happened since I have lived here, as well as the random earthquake or two. If some of my tax money goes to helping victims of random events like that, then I still consider it better spent than money handed to banks or agribusiness. quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: If enough people were praying [God] would’ve intervened, you could pray, Jesus stilled the storm, you can still storms,” Robertson said on the show. Robertson also blamed people for living in tornado-prone areas. "Why did you build houses where tornadoes were apt to happen?” he asked. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=rSp7fzgCuqI Man, this is a strange night. I sided with servant on a another thread, and now I find Pat Robertson (partially) talking sense. checks brow for fever I think Robertson is right in saying--a bit surprisingly to me, but then I don't really follow him--that tornadoes and hurricanes and the like are natural disasters rather than "acts of God." And while it may be cold to say in the wake of tragedy, it is indeed true that living in disaster-prone areas increases one's risk of an unhappy ending. I do balk at his notion that the tornado victims were somehow at fault for not praying enough. It's hard for me to believe in, much less worship, a God who says, "Sorry folks, you're two Our Fathers short." Then again, my sense of prayer is pretty murky overall. Maybe it's time for another stab at sleep.

kalikshama -> RE: Liberal Talk Show Host Mocks Tornado Victims (3/7/2012 6:43:46 AM)
quote: I have often wondered why people live in tornado prone areas, and keep rebuilding. And why people rebuild their houses on the South Carolina coast, knowing that they are going to get wiped out by a hurricane again in a few years. In 2005, after Hurricane Rita, I was hauling water from the pool so as to be able to flush toilets, and met A. We agreed that our sturdy apartment complex four miles inland was a relatively safe place to be during a hurricane, if one lived in South Florida. A few years later, she moved to a high rise on the beach, despite seeing in 2005 the far greater damage to H and D's beach front condos. A few years without direct hurricane hits, and most people forget.

fucktoyprincess -> RE: Liberal Talk Show Host Mocks Tornado Victims (3/7/2012 6:54:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet The fact is, people want to live where their roots are, and natural disasters can occur anywhere. Washington state is not exactly tornado alley, but both tornadoes and a volcanic eruption have happened since I have lived here, as well as the random earthquake or two. If some of my tax money goes to helping victims of random events like that, then I still consider it better spent than money handed to banks or agribusiness. I think the thing with redistribution is that one either supports it as a concept or not. I support it as a concept. And that means that sometimes my money will go towards things that I agree with. But sometimes it will go towards things I don't agree with. But this is the way the system works. And I would rather have redistributive policies than not have any social safety net for people. We are a better society for supporting redistribution. In fact, most people who are looking at the economy and how it is going to evolve in the future think that wealth concentration will continue. In other words, redistributive policies are going to become more and more critical for societies to survive. I think the era of fighting against redistributive policies was over a long time ago. People who still complain about paying taxes really don't understand how society functions. There are many places in the world that have low taxes OR where people simply don't pay their taxes (e.g. Greece - and witness what is going on there right now). And none of them are places I would want to live. A strong tax base keeps an entire society healthy. We really are all in this together.

Yachtie -> RE: In response to Pat Robertson's comments, Liberal Talk Show Host Mocks Tornado Victims (3/7/2012 6:56:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess I'm not asking for a system like that. I support the current system. I'm saying people who don't believe in redistribution should, in fact, support a system that gives them back only what they put in. You should support the system I've outlined because it matches your feelings about redistribution. I'm not asking for a system change. I'm asking people who don't believe in redistribution to stop taking handouts - it's hypocritical. But's that generally how people like that are. They complain about others, but think it's perfectly fine when they need help to do exactly the same thing. So why not just be supportive of the concept of redistribution. It helps people when they are in trouble. Why fight that? first bolded- So people who do not believe in redistribution should only receive back what they paid in. Understood. Lets go to the next. second bolded- So you believe those who do not believe in redistribution should not demand even to what they paid in because, in your own words... it's hypocritical. Understood. Your position is clear. First, spparently you do not comprehend that one can be absolutely against something, yet where forced to participate, have no problem in demanding the receipt back of the forced taken largess. I cannot help you in that. Second, I note that you have no problem robbing Peter to pay Paul and believe Peter should not even demand back from Paul's redistributive largess even what Paul stole from Peter by force in the first place. To do so, in your own words, is hypocritical. If that be hypocritical I'm all for hypocrisy. So why not just be supportive of the concept of redistribution. It helps people when they are in trouble. Why fight that? Simple. Because the redistribution you desire allows for (believers?) receiving greater than they paid in, targeted redistribution to preferred recipients (government choosing winners and losers), and government devised social engineering. Do you believe that can actually work? Has it ever been tried elsewhere and succeeded? (note: the old soviet union basically tried it. It failed. Pravda warned of not going down that road. The results of the EU / UK are not in yet. The numbers do not look promising.) I have a question for you, between 1) receiving only what was paid in and 2) receiving greater than what was paid in. Where does the greater portion, being that above which was paid in, come from? As to italicized - No! What you state does not match my beliefs (not feelings; denotes emotion) on redistribution. I don't believe in redistribution at all.

fucktoyprincess -> RE: In response to Pat Robertson's comments, Liberal Talk Show Host Mocks Tornado Victims (3/7/2012 7:09:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie No! What you state does not match my beliefs (not feelings; denotes emotion) on redistribution. I don't believe in redistribution at all. Then you are perfectly free to move somewhere in the world where the tax base and tax rates are low and change your citizenship. No one is asking you to partake in the benefits of living in America. You are free to take your money and leave. But isn't it funny how even though you are perfectly free to do that - you won't. How interesting. I said it in an earlier post. Most of the countries that have a low tax base or low tax rates or where people simply refuse to pay tax are not places and societies that I would ever want to live in. But if keeping your money intact is what matters most to you, then please, take the money and run....

Yachtie -> RE: In response to Pat Robertson's comments, Liberal Talk Show Host Mocks Tornado Victims (3/7/2012 7:15:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie No! What you state does not match my beliefs (not feelings; denotes emotion) on redistribution. I don't believe in redistribution at all. Then you are perfectly free to move somewhere in the world where the tax base and tax rates are low and change your citizenship. No one is asking you to partake in the benefits of living in America. You are free to take your money and leave. But isn't it funny how even though you are perfectly free to do that - you won't. How interesting. I said it in an earlier post. Most of the countries that have a low tax base or low tax rates or where people simply refuse to pay tax are not places and societies that I would ever want to live in. But if keeping your money intact is what matters most to you, then please, take the money and run.... No! Take your failed utopian socialist/communist progressive ideology and get the hell out of my country[>:]

Musicmystery -> RE: In response to Pat Robertson's comments, Liberal Talk Show Host Mocks Tornado Victims (3/7/2012 7:20:10 AM)
quote: get the hell out of my country Got a deed?

fucktoyprincess -> RE: In response to Pat Robertson's comments, Liberal Talk Show Host Mocks Tornado Victims (3/7/2012 7:22:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: get the hell out of my country Got a deed? [sm=applause.gif]

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625