I think Republicans have a disconnect on the word "Build" when they talk about Building an Economy. You build from the ground up. You don't build an attic, then put up walls, then floors, and finish with a solid foundation. It starts with that solid foundation. In an economy like ours that rely on people spending, you need people to be able to spend. That means the people at the low end that do more spending than those on the top (per dollar earned anyhow), need to be the ones having disposable income. If they spend 100% or more of their income on living essentials, they can't spend to move the economy. When they finally do spend, then the retailer can hire more people (at least until automation starts taking over low end jobs, which is frighteningly soon), which means more people with income to spend, which feeds into the cycle. Eventually transportation starts picking up, which feeds more money into the economy. Eventually production has to keep up. By punishing those at the bottom, is shooting oneself in the foot. Half the people who work for Walmart qualify for food stamps, though Walmart makes enough to pay everyone a living wage, give them benefits, and still be profitable, but the people conservatives (Christians yet, who Jesus said to help the needy and the poor, and how the rich were going to hell) are mad at, are the poor people working there, rather than the rich owners/operators for not paying living wages. So conservatives seek to punish those workers by taking away something that allows them to spend money on things that actually move the economy forward. 3 people buying a $25k Chevy will do far more for the economy than that rich ass hole who just put $70lk on a Mercedes or Lexus. Their collection of TVs, video game systems and the like, do far more for the economy than that rich guy's super high def, ultra large screen TV. It's such a fucked up world in conservative land... I'm still at a loss how I used to be a part of it.

It gets to what @enoch was talking about above. There are some really good business owners, then there are the winny bitches who say they can't pay living wages... One of the jobs I worked at, complained in a letter to all of us that if Obama won (first time around) he'd have to fire over 350 people if he put his tax plans in place. Come that February, Obama isn't even in office yet, and he fires 350+ people. Then tells the rest of us that the company couldn't afford to give us raises... of course the company at the same time, went out and purchases a private jet for him, and then he purchased a second mansion in the local, Jack Nicklaus, signature golf course gated community... and he already owned the second largest mansion there. But oh, the conservatives are so support him over his employees, and think poorly of his employees for needing help living day to day, and praise him for his business acumen. The problem with conservatives is they LOVE greed. Love it. They worship it more than they do the Christ they say they serve. They just don't want their money going to help others, they give plenty at their church, they give time at the soup kitchen, but God forbid that their taxes help those working for the asshole business owners who chose greed over their employees. Pay your employees living wages, and no, you won't have it on easy street like Enoch's nephew, but I can guarantee you that his son is the far better human... and that's not to say the nephew doesn't give, he very well may, but he chose to take that money for himself than to pay his employees well. It doesn't matter if he gives tons of it away, it was ill gotten, how much could it have helped his employees had he let them keep more of their labor? Sadly, that nephew seems to be the vast majority of businesses in the US.

If you only change 'black person' to 'punk' or 'douche' or even 'thug' (I see no reason to be racist, not all 'knockout game' players are black by far, and he didn't say ''call the white cops") I could agree with all of that...and it would make a better tune than 'black person'. Write it.
As to even good cops being turned into pricks by dealing with shitheads, it sounds reasonable, but as Mom used to say, that's a reason not an excuse. They (you) should be offered counseling as part of your compensation package to help with that...or should spend time each week out of uniform 'serving' the community (like at a soup kitchen, cleaning parks of needles, volunteering somewhere), they'll get to see a much better side of people that way and be reminded we're a single community and no one benefits from 'us VS them', it's better for all if it's just "us".
But yeah, that also probably won't happen.
Progress?

A more realistic scare outcome would have the girls instantly have 3 kids, and everyone standing in a soup kitchen lineup and the beach (sans explosions) was just a fond memory or daydream.

Romney and Ryan were made for each other

http://videosift.com/video/Paul-Ryan-washes-clean-dishes-at-soup-kitchen-Owner-Pissed

>> ^HadouKen24:

>> ^quantumushroom:
Do you mean to say if liberals watched Ryan put on a dirty apron and wash a greasy pan while wearing business attire, THAT would have changed their minds?
Filth Clinton gets $100,000 a speech. Shall we research how much this compassionate, caring liberal gave to charity last year?
>> ^DarkenRahl:
QM, right on schedule with an inane non sequitur.


The Clintons haven't been releasing their tax returns since Hillary took over the Secretary of State position--it's not expected of cabinet members. Bill and Hillary usually file jointly.
In the time that Hillary was in the Senate, they typically donated about 10% of their income to charity. Which is substantially more than the average.
Likewise, Obama donated 25% of his income his first year in office, including most of the proceeds from his Nobel Peace Prize.


The Nobel Peace prize which I actually agree he totally deserves since people who are war criminals seem to get it.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Do you mean to say if liberals watched Ryan put on a dirty apron and wash a greasy pan while wearing business attire, THAT would have changed their minds?
Filth Clinton gets $100,000 a speech. Shall we research how much this compassionate, caring liberal gave to charity last year?
>> ^DarkenRahl:
QM, right on schedule with an inane non sequitur.



The Clintons haven't been releasing their tax returns since Hillary took over the Secretary of State position--it's not expected of cabinet members. Bill and Hillary usually file jointly.

In the time that Hillary was in the Senate, they typically donated about 10% of their income to charity. Which is substantially more than the average.

Likewise, Obama donated 25% of his income his first year in office, including most of the proceeds from his Nobel Peace Prize.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Do you mean to say if liberals watched Ryan put on a dirty apron and wash a greasy pan while wearing business attire, THAT would have changed their minds?
Filth Clinton gets $100,000 a speech. Shall we research how much this compassionate, caring liberal gave to charity last year?
>> ^DarkenRahl:
QM, right on schedule with an inane non sequitur.



Research sounds like something you don't ever fucking do. So please go nuts. Also I hasten to point out, who the fuck cares what Clinton does? You don't give a shit about the Iraqi children he killed, why would you give a fuck how much money he makes or how much he doesn't give to charity.

Every argument you make seems to me to be either off base or just retarded. Not in a conservative way either, you don't like Clinton for the STUPIDEST reason ever. Seriously what are you like in person? Do you just not function? Do you not understand Justice or basic moral principles?

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Do you mean to say if liberals watched Ryan put on a dirty apron and wash a greasy pan while wearing business attire, THAT would have changed their minds?

Filth Clinton gets $100,000 a speech. Shall we research how much this compassionate, caring liberal gave to charity last year?

>> ^DarkenRahl:

QM, right on schedule with an inane non sequitur.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Still more authentic than Filth Clinton saying, "I feel your pain." When he wasn't ordering women to service him or be fired.


Right you are, any rich ass politician is full of it when they pull this crap. The only authentic Politician in the last 30 years was George W. Who I actually BELIEVED he loved working on clearing brush around his farm. Hell even Kerry didn't look like he was having fun wind sailing or whatever that was.

Politicians are fake D-Bags.

Your video, Paul Ryan washes clean dishes at soup kitchen -Charity Upset, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^Edgeman2112:

Ryan wouldn't use his family as political shills.


That didn't stop the last R veep nom, why would it stop this one? In fact when has any politician NOT had their family shilling for them?

>> ^Boise_Lib:

Not the Owner.
St. Vincent De Paul is a charity run by the Catholic Church.


Right you are. Title changed

I don't take recitation of those statistics as being racist in itself. Again, I'm using context. I know people who actually work in poor and ethnic communities that use such stats as a benchmark or as a reason to call folks to positive action.

If he has good at heart, when has Newt actually worked for positive change in this community that he so soundly criticizes? Obama was a community organizer in poor areas of Chicago. As a legislator he sponsored bills that directly helped people in poor areas and people in the black community. So, when he uses such stats--and he actually does have a history of telling all types of crowds to stick to a work ethic--Obama doesn't come off as a ne'er-do-well.

I know people who work at youth outreach centers and soup kitchens in DC. Noone has ever seen ol' Newt drop in to help. I've never heard of him sponsoring a bill to help the poor of DC, though he can rattle off all the problems those people have. As a longtime legislator and one-time speaker of the house and someone who lived in the DC area at least part time, he's had plenty of opportunity to lend a hand, but hasn't chosen to do so.

The guy's a professional speaker, but I've never heard of him browbeating poor whites. Hell, he's in South Carolina; he has plenty of chances to tell white people to get off welfare and food stamps. He could have used the stage in the video to do so. But, no, he has to pick on blacks to play to a white crowd.

Newt has such a well known public, political and legislative history that you don't have to troll youtube to see where he's coming from. The people who gave him a standing ovation certainly know.

>> ^Diogenes:

@longde
you may be right, though i do try my best to see the 'big picture' re looking at things in a broader perspective... you could even say that that's one of my hobbies
forgive me if i don't (probably can't) take up your challenge on providing the asked-for video... though i'll happily buy the rounds myself
i think the media (including youtube, et al) is inherently sensationalist, and as such, gravitates to coverage of what's wrong with the message rather than the basis of the message itself
perhaps this seeming focus on the plight of minorities stems from the basic statistics we have: iirc, there are more whites at or under the poverty level than all minorities combined... yet as a % of total population, they are outnumbered by both hispanics and and african-americans - more sadly (yet perhaps more indicative of newt's focus), is the fact that african-americans outnumber hispanic citizens, yet as a % of total population, the former has more people at or under the poverty line
now, you could take my recitation of those statistics as being 'racist' even though i don't think i am and also don't have a dog in this race
so perhaps newt's message is figuratively loudest where he believes the most help is needed (nation-wise)... but this focus can be skewed to seem a blatant criticism of the race of those affected
here's an 8-year-old quote from gingrich: "It is impossible to maintain civilization with 12-year-olds having babies, 15-year-olds killing each other, 17-year-olds dying of AIDS, and 18-year-olds getting diplomas they can't even read. Yet that is precisely where three generations of Washington-dominated, centralized-government, welfare-state policies have carried us."
taken broadly, many would agree and likely take no offense... but applied to a specific audience of specific ethnicity, would likely seem insensitive
i think newt's been fairly consistent in his views on poverty, which we can trace back to his seminal 'contract with america' in the '80s
but again, i could be wrong...