Hell Is Officially Frozen: RUSH: "Kudos" to Ashton Kutcher

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/08/14/ashton_kutcher_s_profound_speech_to_kids

RUSH: I want to get to these Ashton Kutcher sound bites.

[EVT1]

Hard work leads to success-and?  I guess in Rush's world the democrats preach against hard work

And then the douche insulted the entire audience of the show calling them low-information.  Stay classy Rush.  I think he is just sweet on him- probably saw some of those underwear modeling pics.

www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/rush-limbaughs-new-bff-ashton-606513

     “No, don’t ho-hum this, folks. This is a message that young kids today are not hearing … They’re not hearing this from presidential or political leadership … They have been told that evil corporations and evil Republicans and the rich have taken it all from them. Do not laugh. The vast majority of even college graduates are taught this. So when Kutcher, at the Teen Choice Awards, stands up and offers a traditional, uplifting, motivational and inspirational speech on how he became successful, it's remarkable.”

Yeah yeah yeah.....

[Opti]

Umm don't get it. I don't ever think about Ashton Kutcher and politics until today.
Is he a mortal enemy of Rush or something?

They have been told that evil corporations and evil Republicans and the rich have taken it all from them. Do not laugh. The vast majority of even college graduates are taught this.

And holy crap. Too exaggerated to believe.

[EVT1]

The oppressed rich and corporations- if they only had some sort of group to fight for them in congress 

I remember those classes- the evil rich and corporate entities- was right after math.

[Opti]

The oppressed rich and corporations- if they only had some sort of group to fight for them in congress

In addition to Congress?

[Deleted]

 Put two and two together. Think: what does Rush Limbaugh respect ? (perhaps the only thing Rush respects?)

 linkhttp://www.contactmusic.com/news/24-million-salary-ashton-kutcher-tops-forbes-actors-rich-list_3332224
 

Ashton Kutcher - $24 Million Salary: Ashton Kutcher Tops Forbes' Actors Rich List
by Hayley Avron | 18 October 2012

  Kutcher allegedly has a current net worth of approximately $140,000,000.
 That's quite a bit of respect.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 14, 2013 19:12:59 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Hard work leads to success-and?  I guess in Rush's world the democrats preach against hard work

And then the douche insulted the entire audience of the show calling them low-information.  Stay classy Rush.  I think he is just sweet on him- probably saw some of those underwear modeling pics.

www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/rush-limbaughs-new-bff-ashton-606513

     “No, don’t ho-hum this, folks. This is a message that young kids today are not hearing … They’re not hearing this from presidential or political leadership … They have been told that evil corporations and evil Republicans and the rich have taken it all from them. Do not laugh. The vast majority of even college graduates are taught this. So when Kutcher, at the Teen Choice Awards, stands up and offers a traditional, uplifting, motivational and inspirational speech on how he became successful, it's remarkable.”

Yeah yeah yeah......

You might get this by some people, but I hope you're not trying to get the false claim that Rush insulted the audience by calling them 'low-information' voters.  He has acknowledged efforts to reach out to the low information crowd- but you can't insult them because they're like ugly people:  nobody thinks it's them.  

Democrats constantly denigrate the conservative idea that if you work hard you can make it.  They have a very clear message that the game is rigged, the deck is stacked against you, and you can't make it without government.  I realize Kutcher is a liberal Democrat- that's what makes this speech so remarkable.  He did not offer any praise and glory to the liberal god of government.

[Deleted]

Aug 15, 2013 14:58:44 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

How many is "many people incapable of working hard or smart"---10% of the population?  20%?  40%?  50%?  I'm curious....

[jkapp]

>>People who disagree with that premise can be only of two mindsets that I can see. One is that they are so blinded by their absolute conviction that if you work hard you can make it that they really think that everyone can. The other is if they don't give a damn if those that can't fall right through the floor. What am I missing here?<<

The fact that the liberals seem to think if you can't, or let's face it WON'T, do the hard work, that the benefits of that work should just be given to you...and that repsonsibility for oneself should be eliminated and placed on government.

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

Rush and Ashton are both douches.

[Opti]

<BR>
<DIV class="quote no_header">
<DIV class=quote_body>The fact that the liberals seem to think if you can't, or let's face it WON'T, do the hard work, that the benefits of that work should just be given to you...and that repsonsibility for oneself should be eliminated and placed on government.</DIV></DIV><BR>I'm not sure many liberals actually believe that as how you stated it. Some of us think there should be a safety net and frankly there are probably as many different versions of a perfect safety net as there are believers in having one. In other words, the monolithic belief some conservatives want to pretend *all* liberals have - doesn't exist. Its just one of many meme laced unicorns they launch into the thought sphere.<BR><BR>If you are born with Down's syndrome some people think there should be programs to help you. There isn't a lot of demand for Down's, mentally-challenged, or workers with certain physical disabilites. So some of us do think a safety net of some sort should exist for these people. The federal government composed of legislators on both sides of the aisle created and refined the package of government programs people call welfare: WIC, SNAP, EITC, various daycare credits, the growing childcare tax credit, etc.<BR><BR><BR>Despite what you said in that paragraph, there really are few programs for able-bodied people not supporting children unless they are retirement age. Most programs to fund childrens welfare have the side effect of supporting one or more of their parents or caretakers as well. Some liberals are OK with that, some are not. Probably true of folks of other political persuasions as well.

[Opti]

I think I'm just going to fix my tag line to say something like curse you PB v5 for
messing up my posts....


I quoted a paragraph up there.

Here's my copied reply, since edit almost never works for me anymore.
(Curse the Cloudflare or whatever it is...)

I'm not sure many liberals actually believe that as how you stated it. Some of us think there should be a safety net and frankly there are probably as many different versions of a perfect safety net as there are believers in having one. In other words, the monolithic belief some conservatives want to pretend *all* liberals have - doesn't exist. Its just one of many meme laced unicorns they launch into the thought sphere.

If you are born with Down's syndrome some people think there should be programs to help you. There isn't a lot of demand for Down's, mentally-challenged, or workers with certain physical disabilites. So some of us do think a safety net of some sort should exist for these people. The federal government composed of legislators on both sides of the aisle created and refined the package of government programs people call welfare: WIC, SNAP, EITC, various daycare credits, the growing childcare tax credit, etc.


Despite what you said in that paragraph, there really are few programs for able-bodied people not supporting children unless they are retirement age. Most programs to fund childrens welfare have the side effect of supporting one or more of their parents or caretakers as well. Some liberals are OK with that, some are not. Probably true of folks of other political persuasions as well.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 15, 2013 16:33:13 GMT -5 jkapp said:

>>People who disagree with that premise can be only of two mindsets that I can see. One is that they are so blinded by their absolute conviction that if you work hard you can make it that they really think that everyone can. The other is if they don't give a damn if those that can't fall right through the floor. What am I missing here?<<

The fact that the liberals seem to think if you can't, or let's face it WON'T, do the hard work, that the benefits of that work should just be given to you...and that repsonsibility for oneself should be eliminated and placed on government.

This is nuts.  We are seriously NOT having this conversation, are we?  Really?  Liberals are MARRIED to the idea that there's a finite pie of wealth and resources out there, that by some cosmic accident, some people ended up with too big a slice (I believe it was Clinton who coined the phrase "Winners of life's lottery") thereby meaning others unfairly got too small a slice- or no slice at all, and it is government's job to right this terrible wrong.

Conservatives believe (CONSERVATIVES- not Republicans) that government's job is to defend the country, print the money, and deliver the mail.  They believe that hard work, honesty, virtue are your best shot at wealth, but that there are NO GUARANTEES, nor should there be.  Conservatives know that we will never have a Utopia, but that the free market provides the most people with the best life possible.  Conservatives know that when winners win, it DOES ACTUALLY 'trickle down', or as Kennedy put it- a rising tide lifts all boats.  We know that for the truly down and out, there are three 'saftey nets'- there is the safety net of family who should help their own, there is the safety net of friends, and other individuals you may know, or who know you; and finally there is the safety net of private charitable organizations.  The know that the government is the only real monopoly, and when it monopolizes aid, it crowds out family, friends, local community, and other charitable organizations.  Conservatives understand that a 'guaranteed' safety net isn't guaranteed, and doesn't take long to evolve into a hammock.  Conservatives also know that while there will always be need, that we live in an abundant universe, and the best way to unlock resources to serve the most people, you have to first unshackle human beings.

Liberals will always present a false choice- because they have no real argument.  The false choice they always present is, "Do you want a government safety net, or would you rather people starve?  Do you want a government guaranteed whatever it is- retirement, disability, income, or health care-- or do you want people homeless, and dying when they get sick?"  But the more government guarantees there are- the more subsidies there are for life's losers- the more losers magically appear.  

Liberals REQUIRE a permanent underclass to justify their existence.  They talk good game about hard work, but they don't really believe in it, because if they did, they wouldn't want to take a whack at every Joe the Plumber that somehow made good.  The IRS- a now defunct, totally illegitimate organization that has been corrupted and made the political tool of the left, wouldn't be terrorizing and attempting to shake down small businesses as I write this.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 15, 2013 15:58:00 GMT -5 @robbase2012 said:

Aug 15, 2013 14:58:44 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

How many is "many people incapable of working hard or smart"---10% of the population?  20%?  40%?  50%?  I'm curious....

A big enough number so that there is a large enough group of government-aid-addled dependents to vote Democrat every election.

[Deleted]

Aug 15, 2013 21:34:58 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Aug 15, 2013 16:33:13 GMT -5 jkapp said:

>>People who disagree with that premise can be only of two mindsets that I can see. One is that they are so blinded by their absolute conviction that if you work hard you can make it that they really think that everyone can. The other is if they don't give a damn if those that can't fall right through the floor. What am I missing here?<<

The fact that the liberals seem to think if you can't, or let's face it WON'T, do the hard work, that the benefits of that work should just be given to you...and that repsonsibility for oneself should be eliminated and placed on government.

This is nuts.  We are seriously NOT having this conversation, are we?  Really?  Liberals are MARRIED to the idea that there's a finite pie of wealth and resources out there, that by some cosmic accident, some people ended up with too big a slice (I believe it was Clinton who coined the phrase "Winners of life's lottery") thereby meaning others unfairly got too small a slice- or no slice at all, and it is government's job to right this terrible wrong.

Conservatives believe (CONSERVATIVES- not Republicans) that government's job is to defend the country, print the money, and deliver the mail.  They believe that hard work, honesty, virtue are your best shot at wealth, but that there are NO GUARANTEES, nor should there be.  Conservatives know that we will never have a Utopia, but that the free market provides the most people with the best life possible.  Conservatives know that when winners win, it DOES ACTUALLY 'trickle down', or as Kennedy put it- a rising tide lifts all boats.  We know that for the truly down and out, there are three 'saftey nets'- there is the safety net of family who should help their own, there is the safety net of friends, and other individuals you may know, or who know you; and finally there is the safety net of private charitable organizations.  The know that the government is the only real monopoly, and when it monopolizes aid, it crowds out family, friends, local community, and other charitable organizations.  Conservatives understand that a 'guaranteed' safety net isn't guaranteed, and doesn't take long to evolve into a hammock.  Conservatives also know that while there will always be need, that we live in an abundant universe, and the best way to unlock resources to serve the most people, you have to first unshackle human beings.

Liberals will always present a false choice- because they have no real argument.  The false choice they always present is, "Do you want a government safety net, or would you rather people starve?  Do you want a government guaranteed whatever it is- retirement, disability, income, or health care-- or do you want people homeless, and dying when they get sick?"  But the more government guarantees there are- the more subsidies there are for life's losers- the more losers magically appear.  

Liberals REQUIRE a permanent underclass to justify their existence.  They talk good game about hard work, but they don't really believe in it, because if they did, they wouldn't want to take a whack at every Joe the Plumber that somehow made good.  The IRS- a now defunct, totally illegitimate organization that has been corrupted and made the political tool of the left, wouldn't be terrorizing and attempting to shake down small businesses as I write this.

  It appears to me that Paul endorses the "Arbeit Macht Frei" philosophy.

 Any underlings that get ground into the dust... it's always only because they failed to work hard enough. 

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 16, 2013 6:57:08 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

People who disagree with that premise can be only of two mindsets that I can see. One is that they are so blinded by their absolute conviction that if you work hard you can make it that they really think that everyone can. The other is if they don't give a damn if those that can't fall right through the floor.

Do you want a government guaranteed whatever it is- retirement, disability, income, or health care-- or do you want people homeless, and dying when they get sick?" But the more government guarantees there are- the more subsidies there are for life's losers- the more losers magically appear.



OK, so you answered the question in a round about way by saying that you don't give a damn if they all die in the streets, thank you very much.

 

Ridiculous, and beneath you.

[cereb]

"I'm not sure many liberals actually believe that as how you stated it. Some of us think there should be a safety net and frankly there are probably as many different versions of a perfect safety net as there are believers in having one. In other words, the monolithic belief some conservatives want to pretend *all* liberals have - doesn't exist."


Correct. I'm really fucking tired of these assholes telling me what I think. Fuck em.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 16, 2013 13:51:33 GMT -5 cereb said:

"I'm not sure many liberals actually believe that as how you stated it. Some of us think there should be a safety net and frankly there are probably as many different versions of a perfect safety net as there are believers in having one. In other words, the monolithic belief some conservatives want to pretend *all* liberals have - doesn't exist."


Correct. I'm really fucking tired of these assholes telling me what I think. Fuck em.

I think there should be a safety net, too.  I just don't think the federal government ought to provide it, because I don't think the federal government is capable of providing it- clearly, that's true. And the federal government has far to great a conflict of interest in creating a situation where people are dependent upon government for their safety net.  It's really pretty simple.

But once again, the false choice has been presented:  you believe in government, or you believe people should starve, get sick, and die.  I don't believe in government because trusting in government is a guarantee that people will starve, get sick, and die.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 16, 2013 13:44:31 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Paul it is certainly no more ridiculous than this statement:

Liberals REQUIRE a permanent underclass to justify their existence.

And in any event, your prescription as written in post #16 does most certainly consign some people to death.  You're not alleging that you are unaware of that are you?

Of course it 'consigns some people to death'.  Nature consigns us all to death.  100% of people currently living will die.  If you mean "premature death" - nothing kills like government.  Capitalism has saved untold millions, government has killed untold millions.

[Opti]

Liberals REQUIRE a permanent underclass to justify their existence.

BS. Can you even keep straight the difference between liberals, registered Democrats, and the federal government? I don't require that, maybe you do, but I don't. I'm a liberal
and you just lied about what I believe to be true.



In countries that don't use the government as part of the safety net, many more people starve or die early compared to this country. Its good to have various non profits and other organizations help creating a safety net, but its too uneven IMO for it to be a useful strategy without any government programs. In HCOL areas there isn't much financial incentive to serve the low end of the market housing wise and consequently the waiting lists for affordable housing is years long. Some are closed because the list is too long. Does this inspire builders to create low income housing? Way less often than they are inspired to build the newest, most expensive luxury rental units they think will sell. The latter have been opening a lot in the last few years. I can only think one of the former, just literally a few units, in Morristown.



I know some market conservatives are stuck on the belief that market will provide everything just because *THE THEORY* says so. Its bunk. Hasn't happened in the past and will continue to be uneven and missing great swaths in the future.

[EVT1]

Aug 17, 2013 14:28:21 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Aug 16, 2013 13:51:33 GMT -5 cereb said:

"I'm not sure many liberals actually believe that as how you stated it. Some of us think there should be a safety net and frankly there are probably as many different versions of a perfect safety net as there are believers in having one. In other words, the monolithic belief some conservatives want to pretend *all* liberals have - doesn't exist."


Correct. I'm really fucking tired of these assholes telling me what I think. Fuck em.

I think there should be a safety net, too.  I just don't think the federal government ought to provide it, because I don't think the federal government is capable of providing it- clearly, that's true. And the federal government has far to great a conflict of interest in creating a situation where people are dependent upon government for their safety net.  It's really pretty simple.

But once again, the false choice has been presented:  you believe in government, or you believe people should starve, get sick, and die.  I don't believe in government because trusting in government is a guarantee that people will starve, get sick, and die.

Tell that to all of the people on SS, disability, Medicaid, Medicare that are doing just fine only because of those programs.

It is not a false choice at all- the programs were in response to people starving, getting sick, dying, winding up homeless and destitute.  We tried it your way- so the burden is on you now to show that government intervention is no longer needed.

It's not a belief in government as the best solution- it is a realization that the private sector and charity is not one.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

You don't seem to understand Econ 101: incentives matter. Many people that depend solely on these programs were made dependents by the programs. This is what I said earlier about the dangerous conflict of interest when government is the safety net. The private sector is much more reliable than government UNLESS CORRUPTED BY GOVERNMENT which I include because every example you're about to give from Bernie Madoff, to Enron, to You name it is covered by it.

Say what you will abou the private sector, if SS were run by anyone other than government, everyone that ever Touched the administration of it would be in jail.

The programs have failed. People that depend on them now and in the future WILL actually have to be told. That's pretty much the point of every post I make that includes SS, Medicare, and Medicaid- they are an illusion, they do not exist.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

AND WE HAVE NEVER TRIED IT MY WAY. that was ALL your way. It's not theory that your way, the central planning solution doesn't work. I vote we try full free market to the extent we've tried statism. Well never look back.

[Opti]

AND WE HAVE NEVER TRIED IT MY WAY. that was ALL your way. It's not theory that your way, the central planning solution doesn't work. I vote we try full free market to the extent we've tried statism. Well never look back.

Really? In 1776 and other early years we had these programs?


I'm with Evt on this. Its not perfect but it works better overall than not having them.

[EVT1]

Incentivized by what?  Why does anyone bother to work at all then?  You think $900 a month is paradise?  Have at it.

First- though- you can leave SS alone- it is a good program and well worth the costs- and should be funded properly.  There is no private sector solution for what it does- and never will be.

And you know as well as I do that 'full free market' = disaster.   At that point there is no difference between big government and big corporations.  The only hope is that the two remain in opposition- all government=bad, all corporations=bad.

And again- SS, Medicare and Medicaid will exist as long as people work- it cannot go broke- impossible- it can only reduce benefits.  How have they failed?  Tell my relatives, one who had a successful cancer laproscopy- AFTER his company had decided to jettison retiree health-care benefits and pension payments, another with cancer in the shoulder, and I can go on. 

Tell you something else- another relative was born with downs- had major kidney problems and others from day one and spent freaking months in the hospital before he died- lived to 8 years old.  The mother was advised and could have aborted but did not- if not for SS that would have been the end of it- because the father's health insurance hit the cap in the first two years.

I know you conservatives operate under the illusion that everyone is capable and able of working and all of the welfare people are scumbags stealing from you- but that is what it is - an illusion- which is why you always conjure up these fantasies about liberals wanting a captive base- no-  they want everyone to have a fair shot and help those that need it- common decency- and some of us frown when assholes on your side of the fence have multi-million dollar incomes and waste their time bashing the poor and voting to make their lives worse.  So have a nice $100 glass of whine and complain about the audacity of someone making 7.50 an hour wanting a better deal. 

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Incentivized by what? Why does anyone bother to work at all then? You think $900 a month is paradise? Have at it.

Are you denying that for decades financial planners used to talk about SS as one of the three legs on the 'stool' of financial planning? Are you saying that what was initially sold to Americans as 'old age insurance' evolved into the deceptive notion of a 'pension' with payroll taxes improperly described as 'contributions' and became part of people's retirement planning?

First- though- you can leave SS alone- it is a good program and well worth the costs- and should be funded properly. There is no private sector solution for what it does- and never will be.

Too late. The money is gone. All that's left is a big I.O.U. and current taxpayers aren't going to be inclined to bail out a generation of baby boomers who decided it wasn't important to reign in government for four decades.

And you know as well as I do that 'full free market' = disaster. At that point there is no difference between big government and big corporations. The only hope is that the two remain in opposition- all government=bad, all corporations=bad.

All we know for certain is government = disaster. Full free market = disaster is only a theory. We haven't tried it.

And again- SS, Medicare and Medicaid will exist as long as people work- it cannot go broke- impossible- it can only reduce benefits. How have they failed? Tell my relatives, one who had a successful cancer laproscopy- AFTER his company had decided to jettison retiree health-care benefits and pension payments, another with cancer in the shoulder, and I can go on.

They don't exist now. They are only fully funded because of the government's ability to borrow. As I've said, and it is not in dispute- the money is gone. Current retirees are paid with money from current payroll taxpayers. It is the very definition of a Ponzi Scheme- old "investors" are paid "returns" on their money with the proceeds of the "contributions" of new investors. Of course, there is no "investment" or "trust fund". The government simply created a benefit to be paid for with tax dollars, and it can be canceled at will. Nobody is "owed" anything.

Tell you something else- another relative was born with downs- had major kidney problems and others from day one and spent freaking months in the hospital before he died- lived to 8 years old. The mother was advised and could have aborted but did not- if not for SS that would have been the end of it- because the father's health insurance hit the cap in the first two years.

That's good, but there are other ways- and you should be thankful for the fact that the private sector still thrives and willing, generous private sector benefactors will continue to support the needy in this country- because the government money has run out.

I know you conservatives operate under the illusion that everyone is capable and able of working

Far more people are capable of working than currently do.

and all of the welfare people are scumbags stealing from you- but that is what it is - an illusion-

Not everyone that trusted Bernie Madoff was a "scumbag". Welfare recipients have been indoctrinated / conditioned to accept these programs as not only legal- but morally acceptable. Theft is still theft- even if the proceeds of the armed robbery go to benefit worthy objects of benevolence.

which is why you always conjure up these fantasies about liberals wanting a captive base- no- they want everyone to have a fair shot and help those that need it- common decency- and some of us frown when assholes on your side of the fence have multi-million dollar incomes and waste their time bashing the poor and voting to make their lives worse.

That's how they sell it, but the reality is that the object of welfare should be that it is no longer necessary. The truly compassionate don't view the ever-expanding welfare state as compassionate.

So have a nice $100 glass of whine and complain about the audacity of someone making 7.50 an hour wanting a better deal.

Better than $7.50 an hour is available to anyone willing to work.