Sunday, September 25, 2011

Quote Of The Week

“I hear all this, you know, ‘Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever. No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own — nobody,"

Elizabeth Warren (Dummy-Massachusetts)


Often these quotes stand on their own. The liberal mind at work.

28 comments:

Always On Watch said...

Sheesh.

Surrealism has taken over in the political arena. And the push into further socialism in America is growing stronger every day!

We in the blogosphere hear and see these things. But most Americans do not.

Ticker said...

Ain't no cure for STUPID!

Gramma 2 Many said...

Usually, if you ignore idiots, they go away. She was given far to much attention.

NewContinentalArmy said...

I bet the Kennedys and John Kerry would beg to differ.....probably not.

Chuck said...

AOW, And the push into further socialism in America is growing stronger every day!

That said it all

Ticker, unfortunately it's an epidemic too

Gramma, they never seem to go away though

New Army, definitely not Kerry

Z said...

NOBODY GOT RICH ON THEIR OWN?
Sorry, couldn't open the link because it would make me ill; I'm a BIG Elizabeth Warren naysayer.......what a DUD.

This is beyond stupid.
I'll have to introduce her to my grandfather who came here at 9 years old with no English and ended up doing QUITE well thankyouverymuch.
And his son who went to law school and started a HUGE medical company the name of which you'd all know. Doing VERY VERY well, AND RICH, thankyouverymuch.

We ALL could go on and on.......but Warren's thinking is liberal thinking; NOBODY CAN MAKE IT ON THEIR OWN; EVERYONE NEEDS HELP.

RUBBISH....and I'd say more but I have to remember I'm a lady :-)

Kerry married it. and didn't Mrs. Kerry marry it first? :-)

Z said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Chuck said...

Z, yeah Kerry was a kept man which I guess is okay to libs.

Phill Senters said...

Demoncrats...What's theirs is theirs...and what's ours is theirs to give to illegal aliens. LOL

LASunsett said...

She's right. No one got rich on their own. They had customers help them.

Brooke said...

I don't even know how to respond to such idiocy!

Chuck said...

Phil, good summation

LA, very good point

Brooke, even better point

Alligator said...

This kind of socialist drivel really tees me off. I'd like to know what kind of assets Ms. Warren has.

My late uncle lost part of his foot in WW II. Despite this, he built his own business. It was normal for him to work 50 to 60 hours a week at his shop. He bought cheap, worn out houses no one wanted, fixed them up and sold them for a profit. My cousins didn't get everything handed to them, they had to work for it. When my uncle retired, he sold his business and his house and moved into an economy apartment.

Yeah, he had lots of money then and by Obama standards he was "rich" and not paying his "fair share." But throughout his life, he served his country, paid his taxes, gave to his community and church. He gave an ex-con a second chance and hired blacks in an era before the government mandated such things. And my uncle and his family were never a burden or problem to society. Yet,today the Obamabots would have taken all of that away from him if they could.

As far as I'm concerned, Ms. Warren, Obama, Warren Buffett and that ilk wouldn't have been worthy to shine his shoes.

Chuck said...

Alligator, it is often forgotten that by time a person has accumulated enough wealth to become "rich" they have been paying taxes for 20-40 years.

MK said...

The dummy is partly right, i don't know any liberals who got rich on their own without family connections, special favors and such, but that's not the case for those they envy and often hate for their success.

Chuck said...

MK, good point

John Myste said...

Do you always quote out of context to make an argument?

Since you apparently missed most of her quote, what do you think her point was?

Chuck said...

John, are you joking? Give us some context. Enlighten us.

John Myste said...

Chuck,

We work together, as a nation, each of us contributing what he has to contribute. In some cases that is building a road. In others, it is cleaning toilets, and in others, it is paying taxes on high earnings, something the fellow who cleans the toilet can't do and would probably love to be in a position to do if he knew how.

Those who got rich, did it the context of the machinery that is American, and could not have done it without the context. They did not provide the context for wealth. They used it. The American context is not free. Those who use it to get rich should be happy to pay to keep it going. The American context provides service for the rich and for the poor. Neither group can take advantage of all services, nor can either group contribute in the exact same way.

Different people have different skills and also different needs. When you combine the effects of both groups, America works.

I think this was a larger, non-one-line, philosophical point she was trying to make. Her speech was much longer than your quote.

Chuck said...

John, first of all, I know janitors work hard. I work in a hospital and demand that my staff give them the respect they deserve. They do a good job for us and are a part of the team.

With that said, they are an entry level job whereas I went to school for four years to perform as a Registered Nurse.

In your socialistic universe we would be getting the same pay.

Most people who have accumulated wealth did it by going to school (usually) and working long and hard hours. This fantasy that people are given wealth because of a broken system is absurd.

The janitor works his 8 hours, granted 8 hard hours, but still goes home when his shift is done.

The executive works 10 to even 16 hours a day to work their way up and earn their wealth. They went to school, often at least a Masters degree.

Bottom line, there are few wealthy people who did not earn their wealth.

As far as your insistence that her quote was taken out of context, it is equally absurd.

First, the length of her speech is irrelevant. She could have talked for days on end, she still said what she said.

Second, the relevant part of her quote No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own — nobody,"

How do you take that out of context? Did she follow it up with "just joking?" Did she preface it with "some people say"?

For a second time you have said I took it out of context yet have not shown me how. As I said, please enlighten me.

John Myste said...

Chuck,

With that said, they are an entry level job whereas I went to school for four years to perform as a Registered Nurse. In your socialistic universe we would be getting the same pay.

That is a mischaracterization of my opinion. Like most liberals, I don’t think we would should pay college educated people the same as janitors. Like most liberals in America, I am a capitalist. Please don’t ascribe erroneous conservative blather to my righteous ideology.


Most people who have accumulated wealth did it by going to school (usually) and working long and hard hours. This fantasy that people are given wealth because of a broken system is absurd.

Conservatives made that fantasy up and ascribed it to liberal ideology. Like most things conservatives make up, it is nonsense. The argument was that the rich did not DO IT ALONE. They were allowed to do it by the capitalism a functioning American infrastructure provides. You are making up absurd positions and then attempting to refute them. Save a step, and don’t invent them in the first place.


The janitor works his 8 hours, granted 8 hard hours, but still goes home when his shift is done.

The executive works 10 to even 16 hours a day to work their way up and earn their wealth. They went to school, often at least a Masters degree.
I suppose this is but one reason liberals think those who earn Master’s degrees should be rewarded with better higher paying careers. And then they should pay more taxes on their greater earnings, because they can afford to contribute in that way. This concept of equalizing wealth is an un-American concept invented by conservatives as a sneaky tax shelter.


Bottom line, there are few wealthy people who did not earn their wealth. Agreed, so stop making up stories.


As far as your insistence that her quote was taken out of context, it is equally absurd. You are attempting to refute a position I don’t have and she doesn’t have. I believe you are proving my point.


First, the length of her speech is irrelevant. She could have talked for days on end, she still said what she said. I agree that she said what she said. You quoted it out of context to make her opinion look like your representation of her opinion, which would make her an idiot. However, she does not have that opinion. You introduced that opinion for discussion, not her.


Second, the relevant part of her quote No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own — nobody,"

How do you take that out of context? Did she follow it up with "just joking?" Did she preface it with "some people say"?


You are still taking it out of context. I have explained this already. If you do not understand the explanation, then you should not comment it on it. It is very simple, but you pretend not to get it.


For a second time you have said I took it out of context yet have not shown me how. As I said, please enlighten me. That is a tall order. You have decided that she cannot have meant what she meant and instead she must mean what the conservative straw man says.

Chuck said...

John, so the rich have been allowed to get wealthy? Wow.

Then you follow up with the notion that they should get paid more for their hard work so that they can pay more in taxes.

And please do not say I am taking that out of context.

I suppose this is but one reason liberals think those who earn Master’s degrees should be rewarded with better higher paying careers. And then they should pay more taxes on their greater earnings, because they can afford to contribute in that way.

Finally, you can type all night but you still have not explained (throughout three comments) how the quote was taken out of context.

I will post it again for you

There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own — nobody,

John Myste said...

Chuck,

As for your idea of taxing the poor the bulk of the tax, it doesn’t work. They don’t have the bulk of the money and they cannot afford to pay the bulk of the tax.

As for your claim that you don’t understand the full context of the quote, I will humor you. Without giving the context around what she said, which was that without the hard work of the poor, there would not have been a place for the rich to get wealthy, meaning that we all contribute in different ways, you could have some fools reading that, then drawing absurd conclusions like these:

1. In your socialistic universe we would be getting the same pay.

2. This fantasy that people are given wealth because of a broken system is absurd.

We wouldn’t want that, now would we?

Chuck said...

John, your continued insistence that this was taken out of context has become the same childish nonsense I see from other far left posters. Yes, if they were on the planet alone they could not have become rich. Barring that scenario, people become rich from hard work. Your a liberal and are therefore simply not going to understand this.

In God's name when have I said we should have the poor shoulder the burden of taxes?

You said people who have gone to school and worked hard to be successful should be taxed more. I refuted that. How is that advocating taxing the poor more?

This is an interesting insight into the liberal mind. You people whine on and on about being "fair" with our tax system when you want nothing of the sort.

Bottom line is you and Ms Warren share the same old liberal "eat the rich" mentality and I am done with you, thanks for stopping by.

John Myste said...

people become rich from hard work. Your a liberal and are therefore simply not going to understand this. Not only do I understand that merit and hard work is a key component, but I said it. You are so eager to attack that you refuse to hear what people say.

In God's name when have I said we should have the poor shoulder the burden of taxes? More proof that you took your original quote out of context. You literally don’t even know what she was talking about.

You said people who have gone to school and worked hard to be successful should be taxed more. I refuted that. How is that advocating taxing the poor more? I said people who earn more and can afford to pay more taxes should be taxed more.

This is an interesting insight into the liberal mind. You people whine on and on about being "fair" with our tax system when you want nothing of the sort. You don’t understand what fairness means. You see it as dollar for dollar. Fairness is not measured in U.S. dollars. There are real-world concerns. Economists call it opportunity cost. I wrote an explanation here: Grandpa's Coins. You have to understand that when someone pays a tax, there is a recipient, the government, and a payer, a rich person or a poor person. What is actually being paid, i.e. the contribution actually made in the real world, is not an equation that can be determined in coins. Coins are only as good as the things they would have purchased.

Bottom line is you and Ms Warren share the same old liberal "eat the rich" mentality and I am done with you.

I have no interest in “eating the rich.” I don’t want to excessively tax the rich. I want everyone to make the contributions they can afford to make. In fact, liberals often, very often, accuse me of a being a republican in democrat’s clothing. The big difference is this: I do want the rich to contribute what is fair. Many liberals don’t want that, and I acknowledge it. I have yet to meet a republican who wanted it.

Thanks for stopping by. Awe shucks, Chuck. It weren’t nothin’.

Brooke said...

Well, well, Chuck. You've got yourself your very own troll!

Congrats. ;)

John Myste said...

Brook,

Wow! I have been so busy offering sound rebuttal that I forgot to pay attention to the comments of others. A troll, you say?

Where? Where?

Chuck said...

Brooke, what do you do?