Michele Bachmann Says If You Are Unemployed...

lukin2006

You should starve!!!

November 8, 2011

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/11/08 ... ld-starve/

brianlux

Self edit: delete nasty comment but read my lips. :(

arq

Thanks, Michele I know the Jesus you love so much would've said the same, anyway I needed to lose a few pounds anyway...

Newch91

Thanks Michelle. Getting ready to starve after I graduate college if I can't find a job.

EdsonNascimento

In other words, we can interpret what Eddie sings, but must take our opponents literally. It's a wonder to me that we can't get anything done in dc. Our populace is so brilliant. Why aren't the leaders our brilliant electorate send as smart?

Smellyman

EdsonNascimento wrote:

In other words, we can interpret what Eddie sings, but must take our opponents literally. It's a wonder to me that we can't get anything done in dc. Our populace is so brilliant. Why aren't the leaders our brilliant electorate send as smart?

and others, including me, interepreted Ed.

How do you interpret Michelle?

EdsonNascimento

Smellyman wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

In other words, we can interpret what Eddie sings, but must take our opponents literally. It's a wonder to me that we can't get anything done in dc. Our populace is so brilliant. Why aren't the leaders our brilliant electorate send as smart?

and others, including me, interepreted Ed.

How do you interpret Michelle?

Like Rudy Giuliani interpreted dinkins NYC in this instance. Give a fish.....

Go Beavers

EdsonNascimento wrote:

In other words, we can interpret what Eddie sings, but must take our opponents literally. It's a wonder to me that we can't get anything done in dc. Our populace is so brilliant. Why aren't the leaders our brilliant electorate send as smart?

So how can we interpret what she's saying into policy if she was president? It's probably safe to say that she would cut back on public assistance to those who are unemployed, and therefore this would inspire them to go out and get a job, because all of these government handouts have created a sense of entitlement and/or made people just plain lose motivation to work. Not only is her theory based on myths, but I guess she is also saying that there are all these jobs out there just waiting to be filled. Now I'm confused, because Obama has been so horrible with the economy that there aren't any jobs and we need to vote for her so she can get her "American jobs, right now" plan into place. So are there jobs to be had, or are there no jobs to be had?

SVRDhand13

I graduated from college and law school, recently passed the bar exam on my first attempt, and can't find a job because of the state of the economy. Yet I should starve .

Byrnzie

EdsonNascimento wrote:

In other words, we can interpret what Eddie sings, but must take our opponents literally. It's a wonder to me that we can't get anything done in dc. Our populace is so brilliant. Why aren't the leaders our brilliant electorate send as smart?

Here's what she said:

“Our nation needs to stop doing for people what they can and should do for themselves. Self reliance means, if anyone will not work, neither should he eat.”


It's in quotation marks. Now can you please explain how what she said has been misinterpreted?

Thanks.

Byrnzie

I like this comment from the OP's article:

'Huh.. so does that mean the wives of her colleagues, new york socialites,hollywood wives,you know those women who spend their days shopping,getting hair and beauty treatments, ordering around servants, lying on their backs and down on their knees, occasionally pumping one out for the team shouldn’t get to eat either? Or do those things qualify as a job?'
- Hannibal Smith on November 12, 2011 at 2:38 PM

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Byrnzie wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

In other words, we can interpret what Eddie sings, but must take our opponents literally. It's a wonder to me that we can't get anything done in dc. Our populace is so brilliant. Why aren't the leaders our brilliant electorate send as smart?

Here's what she said:

“Our nation needs to stop doing for people what they can and should do for themselves. Self reliance means, if anyone will not work, neither should he eat.”


It's in quotation marks. Now can you please explain how what she said has been misinterpreted?

Thanks.

she's a nut, to be sure, but to be fair, the difference in saying what the OP stated she said, that "if you are unemployed you should starve" is quite different from your quote that states "if anyone WILL NOT work, neither should he eat". Depending on the actual meaning and context of this, I can't say I disagree. If someone can work, and refuses to, then yeah, fuck em.

Most people who don't have work want to. But there are those that take advantage of the system. Maybe I'm giving her way too much latitude, but isn't that what she is really referring to?

If a normal level-headed democrat said this, don't you think people would applaud this statement as being pro-working-class-american value-based?

Hugh Freaking Dillon

lukin2006 wrote:

You should starve!!!

November 8, 2011

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/11/08 ... ld-starve/

no, that's what the headline says in the article. that's not what she said.

Byrnzie

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

she's a nut, to be sure, but to be fair, the difference in saying what the OP stated she said, that "if you are unemployed you should starve" is quite different from your quote that states "if anyone WILL NOT work, neither should he eat". Depending on the actual meaning and context of this, I can't say I disagree. If someone can work, and refuses to, then yeah, fuck em.

Fair point.

Then again, 'm sure there are plenty of people who can work but simply can't find a job.

I'm not sure how many people there are out there who can work but simply choose not to due to laziness or being satisfied with the amount they get welfare. As for these people, you're right, fuck 'em.

Though there are also probably some who can work and who want to work, but refuse to work for peanuts - the minimum wage - as they feel that to work for such a meager return is degrading and insulting.

I suppose the bottom line is that it's not really possible to generalize on this issue and that Michelle Bachmann is a nut.

blueandwhite

SVRDhand13 wrote:

I graduated from college and law school, recently passed the bar exam on my first attempt, and can't find a job because of the state of the economy. Yet I should starve .

Been there, done that.

I actually ended up going back to school and becoming a teacher after I couldn't find a job in law. In all seriousness, good luck with your job hunt.

Jason P

Not to defend Bachmann, but there is a huge difference between "cannot" and "will not".

If someone will not work, I agree they should starve. If someone cannot work, they should be helped.

brianlux

Am I the only one who believes no one should starve?

BinauralJam

brianlux wrote:

Am I the only one who believes no one should starve?

Nope

Newch91

brianlux wrote:

Am I the only one who believes no one should starve?

A lot of people agree with you. I'm one of them.

Jason P

brianlux wrote:

Am I the only one who believes no one should starve?

Starvation is a heck of a motivational tool. And there are different levels of starvation. There is the Somalia version, the weak and needy version, and the "I spent all day skateboarding and need to bum chalupa money" starving.

There first two groups are powerless to change their situation and should be helped. The third group will seek employment once the chalupa fund dries up, whether that fund be provided by the government, relatives, or a 30 year old guy trying to avoid being solicited in front of a Taco Bell.

nospokenwords

brianlux wrote:

Am I the only one who believes no one should starve?

I agree with you, I don't care if you've never worked a day in your life.

Go Beavers

Jason P wrote:

brianlux wrote:

Am I the only one who believes no one should starve?

Starvation is a heck of a motivational tool. And there are different levels of starvation. There is the Somalia version, the weak and needy version, and the "I spent all day skateboarding and need to bum chalupa money" starving.

There first two groups are powerless to change their situation and should be helped. The third group will seek employment once the chalupa fund dries up, whether that fund be provided by the government, relatives, or a 30 year old guy trying to avoid being solicited in front of a Taco Bell.

So there's jobs available for everyone in the third group?

Jason P

Go Beavers wrote:

Jason P wrote:

brianlux wrote:

Am I the only one who believes no one should starve?

Starvation is a heck of a motivational tool. And there are different levels of starvation. There is the Somalia version, the weak and needy version, and the "I spent all day skateboarding and need to bum chalupa money" starving.

There first two groups are powerless to change their situation and should be helped. The third group will seek employment once the chalupa fund dries up, whether that fund be provided by the government, relatives, or a 30 year old guy trying to avoid being solicited in front of a Taco Bell.

So there's jobs available for everyone in the third group?

Again, I'm making the distinction between 'Cannot" and "Will Not".

Cosmo

brianlux wrote:

Am I the only one who believes no one should starve?

...
You are not alone. As well as the notion that the strong should protect the weak.
Seems like the ones who think the poor or downtrodden or the ones who just happen to hit a bad patch on road should be neglected are the ones who say they read and follow the teachings of Jesus in the Bible.

BinauralJam

Cosmo wrote:

brianlux wrote:

Am I the only one who believes no one should starve?

...
You are not alone. As well as the notion that the strong should protect the weak.
Seems like the ones who think the poor or downtrodden or the ones who just happen to hit a bad patch on road should be neglected are the ones who say they read and follow the teachings of Jesus in the Bible.

Jesus has a suprise waiting for them.

Go Beavers

Jason P wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

Jason P wrote:

[
Starvation is a heck of a motivational tool. And there are different levels of starvation. There is the Somalia version, the weak and needy version, and the "I spent all day skateboarding and need to bum chalupa money" starving.

There first two groups are powerless to change their situation and should be helped. The third group will seek employment once the chalupa fund dries up, whether that fund be provided by the government, relatives, or a 30 year old guy trying to avoid being solicited in front of a Taco Bell.

So there's jobs available for everyone in the third group?

Again, I'm making the distinction between 'Cannot" and "Will Not".

How would you decide who fits in the 'cannot' work group and the 'will not' work group?

chadwick

Byrnzie wrote:

I like this comment from the OP's article:

'Huh.. so does that mean the wives of her colleagues, new york socialites,hollywood wives,you know those women who spend their days shopping,getting hair and beauty treatments, ordering around servants, lying on their backs and down on their knees, occasionally pumping one out for the team shouldn’t get to eat either? Or do those things qualify as a job?'
- Hannibal Smith on November 12, 2011 at 2:38 PM

now this is fantastic. the best thing ive read in awhile.

Newch91

chadwick wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

I like this comment from the OP's article:

'Huh.. so does that mean the wives of her colleagues, new york socialites,hollywood wives,you know those women who spend their days shopping,getting hair and beauty treatments, ordering around servants, lying on their backs and down on their knees, occasionally pumping one out for the team shouldn’t get to eat either? Or do those things qualify as a job?'
- Hannibal Smith on November 12, 2011 at 2:38 PM

now this is fantastic. the best thing ive read in awhile.

+1

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Byrnzie wrote:

Though there are also probably some who can work and who want to work, but refuse to work for peanuts - the minimum wage - as they feel that to work for such a meager return is degrading and insulting.

I have no sympathy for such a person. pride does not put food on the table. if pride keeps someone from working, that someone should also feel that social assistance is degarding and insulting. I have worked minimum wage many times, and right now my return is meager, and yet I go every day.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

brianlux wrote:

Am I the only one who believes no one should starve?

obviously no one should starve.

ONCE DEVIDED

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

Though there are also probably some who can work and who want to work, but refuse to work for peanuts - the minimum wage - as they feel that to work for such a meager return is degrading and insulting.

I have no sympathy for such a person. pride does not put food on the table. if pride keeps someone from working, that someone should also feel that social assistance is degarding and insulting. I have worked minimum wage many times, and right now my return is meager, and yet I go every day.[/quote"]


from my exxperience I have found that employers seem to prefer people who are already in the workforce over those on welfare. so taking a degrading job to me makes someone more atractive to employ. shows that they have ticker.
but this womens opinions are very narrow minded
there are a lack of jobs in The USA at the moment, people who want to work cannot get any and this is the time the community should help those people.
when you have good solid employment possabilities and people refuse work well thats a different story