Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
FOX News’ Fred Barnes: Working Class = Lower Class
crooksandliars.com — Talk about “elitism.” Last night while discussing “downscale voters,” salt-of-the-earth FOX News contributor (and Weekly Standard editor) Fred Barnes ridiculed and demeaned working class Americans by making the distinction that they aren’t “lower income,” but rather “lower class.”
jaybol- 958 diggs
- digg it
- neognostic, on 05/08/2008, -14/+91Tell Fred what you think: The Weekly Standard
1150 17th Street, NW
Suite 505
Washington, DC 20036
E-mail: editor@weeklystandard.com
202-293-4900- didiman, on 05/08/2008, -21/+4mroe crooks and liars garbage, buried
- tidu, on 05/08/2008, -6/+13Fox News is the semen stain on the bed of television
- temjrpgh, on 05/08/2008, -4/+2You've got to wonder what the thought is behind this poise. I look at all mass media as mass manipulation, and I assume all actions are calculated. If an action is not calculated it is terminated immediately. I can only wonder what response Fox News is counting on from offended viewers. Maybe Fred put the act too far over the top, that happens occasionally.
- shmatt, on 05/08/2008, -1/+3simple, they want to defect potential Obama voters to hillary because they think they can rally the republican base against her, and maybe Mccain has a chance in november. Same as rush limbuagh- he actually hates hillary
- smartass007, on 05/08/2008, -5/+2fox news would be out of business if it weren't for liberals slobbering and obsessing over them...they comprise the biggest viewership of fox news and their 'contemptuous' support just allow dweebs like barnes to earn another paycheck.
bbcnews ftw- scoetrain, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3Source please.
- thirdcoastborn, on 05/08/2008, -1/+0want to see something that was done that's worse than this......it's something McCain did back in 1983....http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/McCain_at_age_47 ...
- andrwrhds21, on 05/08/2008, -0/+0oops what your looking for isn't there
- huertanix, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Perhaps Mr. Barnees would be better informed of his err if he were gift-subscribed to _______.
- Abram730, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Fred Barnes told the truth. Why kill the messanger?
That's how rich people feel. Do you prefer lies?
- quakerorts, on 05/08/2008, -11/+95They are even trying to hide how they really feel any more. They've learned there are no repercussions.
- RealmDown, on 05/08/2008, -4/+19At least I have a category. Fox has NO class.
- p0s3r, on 05/08/2008, -39/+5Fred Barnes is a Democrat. So why is anyone surprised he's an elitist dickface like Obama is?
- beakerwimp, on 05/08/2008, -2/+20p0s3r:
conservative political commentator
executive editor of the news publication The Weekly Standard
regularly appears on Fox's Special Report with Brit Hume
wrote the "Presswatch" media column for the American Spectator
penned a biography of President George W. Bush titled "Rebel in Chief"
Man, he sounds like a real commie pinko for sure:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Barnes_(journali ...
*sigh*- p0s3r, on 05/08/2008, -16/+2Did you not watch the video? He's a snobby dick. Ergo, he's a democrat.
- shmatt, on 05/08/2008, -2/+9"snobby dick?" You are so goddam stupid. If you want elitism, you already have it. bush, cheney, rumsfeld, dana-*****-PERINO. rush limbaugh, glenn beck, FALAFEL OREILLY-- these are the pompous assholes we have to listen to daily. So i think you have it mixed up there. diggtroll.
- p0s3r, on 05/08/2008, -7/+2Did you not hear Obama's comments in San Francisco? What a snobby dick.
- sassip, on 05/08/2008, -1/+5Sorry to all but p0s3 for the double post, but a thick head needs prodding. Hey p(iece) O(sheit) 3r, What the hell are you talking about? The Republicans are sad, sad creatures. They no longer can "Dazzle with brilliance, so they woefully attempt to baffle with BS." Your spume is so dreadfully transparent I know not even a vision-challenged person like you can believe it. Please try to remember that your "classmates" here on Digg, did, unlike you, graduate third-grade! Please engage mind before opening mouth... or don't bother to waste the white space.
BTW, do you hate everyone?- p0s3r, on 05/08/2008, -3/+2teehee, 3rd grade, teehee. Your insults are so fresh and original.
- beakerwimp, on 05/08/2008, -2/+20p0s3r:
- Treoinmypocket, on 05/08/2008, -2/+6"They"?
1 person on the panel made that statement and all the rest on the panel disagreed with him pretty strongly. - sassip, on 05/08/2008, -1/+4Hey p(iece) O(sheit) 3r, What the hell are you talking about? The Republicans are sad, sad creatures. They no longer can "Dazzle with brilliance, so they woefully attempt to baffle with BS." Your spume is so dreadfully transparent I know not even a vision-challenged person like you can believe it. Please try to remember that your "classmates" here on Digg, did, unlike you, graduate third-grade! Please engage mind before opening mouth... or don't bother to waste the white space.
"Frederic W. Barnes (born 1934) is an American journalist, author, and conservative political commentator. He is the executive editor of the news publication The Weekly Standard, co-host with Mort Kondracke of The Beltway Boys on the Fox News Channel, and also regularly appears on Fox's Special Report with Brit Hume."
- mbjl1758, on 05/08/2008, -12/+33time for YOUR taxes to go way up!!! What a jerk.
- tidu, on 05/08/2008, -3/+16Exactly. If Obama is "elitist," this guy is the king of the world.
- IslandDog, on 05/08/2008, -7/+3He isn't running for President.
- dexter411, on 05/08/2008, -8/+5How much more un-American can you get than to say that someone exercising their First Amendment rights should pay more taxes?
Dumbass. - tomasII, on 05/08/2008, -3/+3Oh Taxes will definately go up with Hussein Obama at the helm.
- ArgusDrake, on 05/08/2008, -1/+4Personally, how expensive taxes are doesn't phase me nearly as much as how the tax money is spent.
Also, why do people seem to feel the need to point out that Obama's middle name is Hussein? Is it just me, or is it every time someone mentions his middle name, it's also in the same breath that they criticize him?- dexter411, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1"Personally, how expensive taxes are doesn't phase me nearly as much as how the tax money is spent." (sp)
Of course they don't; it's not your money that's being taken.- ArgusDrake, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1Very cute of you. I'm to assume then that you're fine with the massive amount of the federal budget that is spent on a pointless war, when it could be going to far more useful purposes?
If not, then congratulations on entirely missing my point. - TheRawrs, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1How exactly do you know that ArgusDrake doesn't pay taxes? And why is it that every time I hear a negative comment about Obama it is as ignorant as this: "Oh Taxes will definately go up with Hussein Obama at the helm." Of course taxes will rise our country is in a recession, are you stupid?
- dexter411, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1"I'm to assume then that you're fine with the massive amount of the federal budget that is spent on a pointless war, when it could be going to far more useful purposes?"
A war that it turns out was based on faulty intelligence can't just be ended with the tip of a hat. We made the mess in Iraq, but to leave would only further endanger our allies and interests in the region. Irregardless, what do you propose we could use the massive federal budget for?
"How exactly do you know that ArgusDrake doesn't pay taxes?"
Because the people who aren't fazed by taxes are almost always the ones who don't pay them. Talk to a guy, though, who makes business decisions based just as much on tax liability as growing his company, and you'll find someone who is fazed by taxes.
"Of course taxes will rise our country is in a recession, are you stupid?"
Actually, according to the majority of economists (or so one of those ultra conservative economists at Northwestern University tells me), raising taxes in a recession is a terrible idea. Further, economists have this thing called "definitions" and they all agree that, according to said "definitions," we are not in a recession. Of course, I'm stupid for trusting these economists. I'm sure you have a clear line of reasoning to explain why raising taxes during a recession is a good idea. Please indulge me... - ArgusDrake, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1"A war that it turns out was based on faulty intelligence..."
If that's what you want to call it. Really, I don't think war (or a "conflict" rather, seeing as we're using the fact that we haven't officially declared war as a means to work around the Geneva Convention) should be started if there's any room for doubt about intelligence. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that unless our country is literally being invaded by a hostile army, we should probably abstain from military action altogether.
"... can't just be ended with the tip of a hat. We made the mess in Iraq, but to leave would only further endanger our allies and interests in the region."
Our "interests" you say? Pray tell, what are these interests you speak of? What good is occupying Iraq doing for the average American? As for our allies, I very much doubt they'd choose to stay in the region after our withdrawal. It's not just the majority of Americans who are against the War in Iraq, from where I'm sitting, it looks like that's the majority of the world disagrees with our presence there. That tends to happen when you go against the United Nations.
As for what I propose we do with our tax money... Well, in my mind, spending the money on ANYTHING in our country would probably benefit us more than blowing it on weaponry, which we then waste in a country on the other side of the globe. However, what I specifically had in mind was perhaps education? Maintenance of the roads we use every day? Better pay for those who enforce the laws of our country and keep us safe? Universal health care sounds like a pretty cool use too. - dexter411, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1"Really, I don't think war (or a "conflict" rather, seeing as we're using the fact that we haven't officially declared war as a means to work around the Geneva Convention) should be started if there's any room for doubt about intelligence."
Five years later, I still agree. Your point? Also, which Geneva Convention are you referring to and why does our not declaring war have anything to do with it?
"Our "interests" you say? Pray tell, what are these interests you speak of?"
Israel, for one. If Iraq goes to hell, Iran will have a great excuse to make it a base of operation and that's kinda not what the US wants.
"However, what I specifically had in mind was perhaps education?"
Yep, federally funded education has done really well for us so far. Try again.
"Maintenance of the roads we use every day? "
States' funds. Try again.
"Universal health care sounds like a pretty cool use too."
We couldn't afford that. Ask California. - ArgusDrake, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1America has violated Geneva conventions because torturing, humiliating or abusing prisoners of war is against Geneva convention. Waterboarding has been approved, and this directly conflicts with the rules of war. The "escape" response is, "er, well, this is a different kind of war!"
As for Israel, why is Israel our interest? Why is it America's job to cover Israel and forgive whatever errors in judgment it makes? Israel has the best military in the region (as a lovely gift from American tax payers.) I don't think it's necessary for us to stir up conflict for Israel, or immediately run to Israel's aid if it stirs up conflicts of its own.
"Yep, federally funded education has done really well for us so far. Try again."
Please cite examples of where federal funds for education have been bad? (Aside from No Child Left Behind. One bad idea isn't a good reason to snub at any federal funding for education.)
"States' funds. Try again."
No, some roads, namely Interstate highways, actually are funded (at least in part) by the Federal government. Try again.
"We couldn't afford that. Ask California."
Sure we couldn't, while funding for the Iraq war. We spend 341.4 million per day in Iraq. The estimated cost of the proposed California bill was around 14 billion, to pay for approximately 36,457,549 people. The population of the United States (as estimated in 2006) is around 299,398,484 people. That means a similar plan covering the entire United States population would cost approximately 139.6 billion dollars. We spend an estimated 124.6 billion a year in Iraq alone. While that falls short of the cost I just projected, when you consider the cost of the "War on Terror", as well as the maintenance of American military bases world-wide (Why do we need a military base in France I ask you?), I think our exorbitant military budget could be cut back enough to fund a Universal Health care plan.
Sources:
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN2 ... - dexter411, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1"America has violated Geneva conventions"
Sentences like this prove you have never read any of the conventions nor have you studied their legal and pragmatic applications and limits. Take a course into the history of prisoners of war and then get back to me. It's impossible to have intelligent debate with someone who hasn't done their homework first.
"As for Israel, why is Israel our interest? Why is it America's job to cover Israel and forgive whatever errors in judgment it makes?"
Because it's the only democracy in the Middle East, it's a hotbed for American companies, and it develops a disproportionate amount of fantastic weaponry that the US needs. Oh, and its existence is being challenged by terrorists, so it's a symbolic connection to us, too. Oh, and millions of American citizens visit it every year. Oh, and the vast majority of American citizens support our alliance with Israel. Oh, and it's of strategic importance for the American military (geographically). Still keeping up with me here?
"Aside from No Child Left Behind. One bad idea isn't a good reason to snub at any federal funding for education."
HAHAHAHA... the most far-reaching (and most heavily-funded) federal education program in the history of our country and it's the one you want me to overlook? More of the same is on the way if we keep thinking that a hired teacher in Washington DC knows how to best educate someone in Wyoming.
"No, some roads, namely Interstate highways, actually are funded (at least in part) by the Federal government."
I didn't want to deal with scanning textbooks so here's Wikipedia for you: "While Interstate highways usually receive substantial federal funding and comply with federal standards, they are owned, built, and operated by the states or toll authorities." As a side note, most of their federal funding goes to complying with said federal standards.
"While that falls short of the cost I just projected, when you consider the cost of the "War on Terror", as well as the maintenance of American military bases world-wide (Why do we need a military base in France I ask you?), I think our exorbitant military budget could be cut back enough to fund a Universal Health care plan."
So even with your grossly underfunded example (similar to California's, even if it would bankrupt the state), we're at a loss of billions of dollars. The obvious solution, of course, is to tax the people more. My question, then, is why should the people in this country who pay for their own health insurance pay into another big government spend-all? Amazing how liberals simultaneously fear the government monitoring the emails of terrorists, but feel perfectly comfortably with letting Uncle Sam control your health records.
PS: We don't have active military bases in France. The old air force bases we built up in during the Cold War are used almost exclusively by the French military. Again, take a course on the matter before bringing it up. - ArgusDrake, on 05/10/2008, -1/+1"Sentences like this prove you have never read any of the conventions nor have you studied their legal and pragmatic applications and limits. Take a course into the history of prisoners of war and then get back to me. It's impossible to have intelligent debate with someone who hasn't done their homework first."
Statements like that debunking my comments while presenting no actual argument prove that it is in fact you who should've done their homework. Look up Guantanamo and do a bit of research. You could use the enlightening. The Bush administration is using the excuse that because Al-Queda and the Taliban are not uniformed armed forces, the conventions don't apply.
War has never officially been declared by Congress, and I've heard this used as an excuse by some people who support the war. (Though, to be fair, not reputable persons. Just war supporters looking for an excuse.) Here's an article detailing how America was debating about whether or not Geneva conventions applied to the terrorists being held prisoner. I could find more sources for you, but seeing as you can't be ***** to back up most of your statements, I don't see why I should waste my time looking up multiple sources for you. http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/07/5c0f1 ...
"Because it's the only democracy in the Middle East..."
So, it's America's job to protect every country declared as a democracy? Or just when they're surrounded by countries rich in oil that we hold personal vendetta against?
"...it's a hotbed for American companies..."
It's our job to protect every country our money goes into then? Gee, that means we're protecting nearly everyone but Cuba, doesn't it?
"...its existence is being challenged by terrorists, so it's a symbolic connection to us, too..."
Oh boy. Never fear when the terrorists come near, Captain America is here! It's our job to protect every country from terrorist attacks too? Damn, this is turning into a pretty difficult to maintain job.
"...and millions of American citizens visit it every year..."
So we're protecting every foreign place that Americans may choose to set their feet too, eh? We better go clear the rainforests of dangerous snakes, just in case Dexter decides he wants to go on safari!
"...and the vast majority of American citizens support our alliance with Israel..."
Last I checked, there was a large portion of Americans who can't locate Israel on a map. Just because a lot of people support it doesn't make it right, smart or okay.
"...and it's of strategic importance for the American military..."
I don't worry about whether or not a country is of strategic importance to our military if our military doesn't belong in the region in the first place.
"...Still keeping up with me here?"
Yeah. You're just fine with wasting the dollars of the American tax payer, as long as we use it to control foreign nations rather than use it in our own country.
“HAHAHAHA... the most far-reaching (and most heavily-funded) federal education program in the history of our country and it's the one you want me to overlook? More of the same is on the way if we keep thinking that a hired teacher in Washington DC knows how to best educate someone in Wyoming.”
Your argument as to why No Child Left Behind doesn't work is probably the most ill-informed I've ever heard. The laws of maths and sciences are the same from state to state, last I checked. Unless you're afraid of teachers from other regions coming in and showing your children that there's other ways of thinking than what you've been teaching him/her, there's no reason why the teacher in DC can't teach the kid in Wyoming. The real problem of NCLB is that it encourages schools to be dishonest about their test results, as well as discouraging the teaching of a broad and more useful education in favor of developing very narrow skill sets, “teaching the test”, to improve the grade of the school. The school also encourages forcing children into dropping out of school, in order to improve the results of the school. The school is actually better of letting a falling-behind student drop out than re-mediate him and help him catch up.
When I say I want federal funding of education, I don't mean I want federal regulations imposed on the state. I mean I think it would be a good idea if some of our federal money went to improving the pay scale for teachers, making it a more appealing and sought-after career, which would then lead to greater competition for jobs as a teacher, which should yield a final result of better educated and more qualified teachers.
“So even with your grossly underfunded example (similar to California's, even if it would bankrupt the state), we're at a loss of billions of dollars. The obvious solution, of course, is to tax the people more. My question, then, is why should the people in this country who pay for their own health insurance pay into another big government spend-all? Amazing how liberals simultaneously fear the government monitoring the emails of terrorists, but feel perfectly comfortably with letting Uncle Sam control your health records.”
I never said the California plan was good. I only used the numbers to show that it actually is relatively feasible. Also keep in mind my estimates were based on the idea of not raising any new taxes whatsoever, and funding the health care plan entirely on money that's currently being spent on invading foreign countries...
Also, you're over-looking the benefit of universal health care for people who choose private health care over it. Even if you're paying into a private health care system, your healthcare provider will be competing with the Universal healthcare plan offered by the Federal government, which should lower the cost of your current plan, or if nothing else force your provider to try to offer a superior service. That's how capitalism works, right? Not to mention the fact that if your private coverage drops you for whatever reason, you'll have the Federal healthcare plan to turn to.
“PS: We don't have active military bases in France. The old air force bases we built up in during the Cold War are used almost exclusively by the French military. Again, take a course on the matter before bringing it up.“
Alright, I'll admit, you caught me on that one. The base I'm actually referring to is in Ramstein, Germany! It was a very ignorant mistake of me to have thought it was based in France, seeing as France withdrew from the NATO allied forces in 1967, but this doesn't change the fact that the military base I was referring to exists. Not only is there Ramstein air base (Major Command), but also Sembach Annex air base, also in Germany. We also have air bases in Japan, Korea, and plan to build some in Africa (if we haven't already. I haven't kept updated on the progress with that. They may exist already.) So yeah, you caught me with the French comment, but yet again the actual point eludes you. Look into this, who knows, you may find even more bases that I'm not aware of. Let's play “hunt for the unecessary overseas American military bases”! - dexter411, on 05/10/2008, -1/+1"The Bush administration is using the excuse that because Al-Queda and the Taliban are not uniformed armed forces, the conventions don't apply."
From Article IV of the third Geneva Convention:
"A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
...
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
[!!!] (b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; [!!!]
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. "
Damn, that evil Bush administration sure loves to make stuff up... Honestly, please read up on some of this before just pretending to have knowledge, okie dokie? Or, as I suggested, get into some sort of really inclusive community college and take a course on the history of POWs and legal studies of war.
"So, it's America's job to protect every country declared as a democracy? Or just when they're surrounded by countries rich in oil that we hold personal vendetta against?"
Nope, but we generally like having allies that don't oppress their citizens. Rich in oil or not, we're not averse to paying $120/barrel for oil pumped by our enemies (see: Venezuela), so you're point is moot.
"It's our job to protect every country our money goes into then? Gee, that means we're protecting nearly everyone but Cuba, doesn't it?"
Are you dense? American companies = American citizens. In the future, start with the facts and then come to a conclusion about them rather than working backwards to justify an untenable position (you and a creationist use the same modes of logic).
"It's our job to protect every country from terrorist attacks too? Damn, this is turning into a pretty difficult to maintain job."
Damndest thing about allies; we promise to protect them. Just to be clear, though, are you saying we shouldn't make an effort to protect citizens and historical partners from terrorist attacks? At what point did you let your political biases take precedent over plain logic?
"Just because a lot of people support it doesn't make it right, smart or okay."
Yeah, it's so inconvenient how democracies work (i.e. you only seem to agree with the institution as long as you agree with it)... Also, I'd love your source of Americans not knowing where Israel even is on the map; the only survey reminiscent of this is one done by NG a while back which only tested 18-24 year olds (proving, once again, that the Democratic party's base is uneducated and uninformed while simultaneously activist).
"When I say I want federal funding of education, I don't mean I want federal regulations imposed on the state."
Ah, so you prefer a system where we just toss tons of money at something without any way of knowing if it's working? I'm not surprised that you don't care how high taxes are [on people who aren't you]. There's a reason conservatives want to abolish the Department of Education and it has everything to do with how ineffective it is for the federal government to oversee what is inherently the domain of the states. The laws of physics are identical in Wyoming and Illinois, but the methods of teaching them to students, based on their primary education background, is VERY different. Speaking again to the importance of education, add a class on learning and organizational change to your list of requisite courses to being informed.
"Also keep in mind my estimates were based on the idea of not raising any new taxes whatsoever, and funding the health care plan entirely on money that's currently being spent on invading foreign countries..."
So you first claim that our invading Iraq is making our country go bankrupt (which is a bad thing, yes?) but then say that as long as we went bankrupt while babysitting citizens, that's okay? Where did your train of thought go off the rails?
"Even if you're paying into a private health care system, your healthcare provider will be competing with the Universal healthcare plan offered by the Federal government, which should lower the cost of your current plan, or if nothing else force your provider to try to offer a superior service. That's how capitalism works, right?"
Yes, because, historically, when the government competes with its citizens, it's always a good thing. Are you stupid? If I own a business, how is it fair for my tax dollars to fund my competitors? Oh that's right, again, you don't care about how much other people pay taxes. Because they're successful, they're inherently evil. Alas, your argument of lowering cost doesn't work in socialist systems (e.g. what Khrushchev did to the USSR around 1960); it just leads to higher evasion and less development.
"Alright, I'll admit, you caught me on that one."
You don't have to admit it; I've already shown that you're a dunce. I stopped reading after that sentence because you love writing without actually getting any kind of point across. - ArgusDrake, on 05/10/2008, -1/+1First, I never said the Bush administration “made up” anything. I said it was an excuse. A piss poor one at that; it strips the prisoners of their POW status, making them unlawful combatants. Too bad that just shifts the violation from Article III to Article IV.
From Article 3 of GCIV:
“In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
1.Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed [***]hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely[/***], without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and [***]torture[/***];
taking of hostages;
[***]outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;[/***]
the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.”
Therefore, America violated Geneva conventions. Whether or not the captured count as POW or not makes no difference.
“Damndest thing about allies; we promise to protect them. Just to be clear, though, are you saying we shouldn't make an effort to protect citizens and historical partners from terrorist attacks?”
Do you see any Israeli military sitting in or around America to protect us from terrorist attacks? I get the impression it's not something every country does for its allies.
“Yeah, it's so inconvenient how democracies work (i.e. you only seem to agree with the institution as long as you agree with it)... “
So, I state that I won't simply believe and agree with something just because it's the popular opinion, and now I'm criticizing democracy? Interesting jump.
“I'm not surprised that you don't care how high taxes are [on people who aren't you]”
“...Oh that's right, again, you don't care about how much other people pay taxes.”
I find it interesting how you insist that I don't pay taxes and appear to insinuate that I'm some manner of leech; guilty of harming fine, though terribly conceited Americans such as yourself. This is especially strange when you know nothing of me. Does it somehow make you feel better about yourself? Does it feed your superiority complex? It's not that I don't pay taxes; I do. It's that, assuming my tax money goes into something that benefits my countrymen, especially those who are down on luck or in a tight spot, and also assuming I retain enough money to take care of myself and live with reasonable comfort, I'm fine with the tax. I wouldn't expect you to understand that though.
“the methods of teaching them to students, based on their primary education background, is VERY different “
In what respect? Different people simply teach differently. During my journey through the public education system, I encountered a lot of different teachers, virtually all who practiced different teaching methods, some better than others, and the vast majority of them were born/raised/educated locally. Not to mention the fact that most teachers now are required to participate in a local teaching 'workshop', where they are trained in different teaching methods. Also, if this was true, why can the student in Washington DC enroll in the University of Wyoming and still excel?
“So you first claim that our invading Iraq is making our country go bankrupt (which is a bad thing, yes?) but then say that as long as we went bankrupt while babysitting citizens, that's okay? Where did your train of thought go off the rails?”
Again, you miss the mark. I don't encourage a health care system similar to California's. I made the comparison to show that, with the exorbitant amount of tax we're currently paying to fund the war, we could've funded a health care programme. That was my only point. It's “technically feasible” or “at least as feasible as the War in Iraq.” (though, for the babysitting comment, I believe if we were to go bankrupt, it's better to do it helping people rather than blowing them up. I get the impression you're pretty indifferent about that, though.)
“If I own a business, how is it fair for my tax dollars to fund my competitors?”
I suppose it's not, but I never ruled out the possibility of private insurance companies being exempt from paying whatever amount of tax they would otherwise be paying to the government for the programme.
“Because they're successful, they're inherently evil.”
No, I don't believe that. I don't hate the more successful man just because he's successful, unless his success is the direct result of stomping on other people.
“I stopped reading after that sentence because you love writing without actually getting any kind of point across.”
Just because the point doesn't get across * to you * does not mean the point isn't there. I get the impression you're very quick to assume fault in other people when it may reside in yourself. Anyway, if you're too clever to bother reading my entire comment, that's fine. I just question why you bother responding at all, if you can't even be ***** to read the entire thing.
- ArgusDrake, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1Very cute of you. I'm to assume then that you're fine with the massive amount of the federal budget that is spent on a pointless war, when it could be going to far more useful purposes?
- dexter411, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1"Personally, how expensive taxes are doesn't phase me nearly as much as how the tax money is spent." (sp)
- ArgusDrake, on 05/08/2008, -1/+4Personally, how expensive taxes are doesn't phase me nearly as much as how the tax money is spent.
- tidu, on 05/08/2008, -3/+16Exactly. If Obama is "elitist," this guy is the king of the world.
- ViRaZ, on 05/08/2008, -8/+43I'd like to drop this guy on a deserted island and see if he survives a week.
- didiman, on 05/08/2008, -26/+2It's hilarious how easily you liberals get your panties all twisted up. Go cry to your mommies.
- pushmouse, on 05/08/2008, -0/+11My dad's gonna beat up your dad.
- sassip, on 05/08/2008, -1/+5Hey didman, you're too obtuse to understand that HE WAS TALKING ABOUT YOU!
- didiman, on 05/08/2008, -26/+2It's hilarious how easily you liberals get your panties all twisted up. Go cry to your mommies.
- BFNews, on 05/08/2008, -8/+31Fair and Balanced!
- badassninja, on 05/08/2008, -8/+10I wish Ron Paul would have sued and won. Someone needs to take Fox News off the map. I mean replace it with chimps in suits jumping up and down and making monkey noises. That would be better for the USA people then fox news is.
- MtheoryX, on 05/08/2008, -0/+6It'll get better ratings, that's for sure.
I love watching chimps. Especially when they act like people.
- MtheoryX, on 05/08/2008, -0/+6It'll get better ratings, that's for sure.
- Treoinmypocket, on 05/08/2008, -6/+2Yes it was. Barnes made his point & everyone disagreed. What is YOUR definition of Fair & Balanced?
- dexter411, on 05/08/2008, -5/+2Yeah, I don't see how this clip does anything but bolster FOX's rep. One guy said something stupid and the rest disagreed and voiced their support for American working families. I forgot, though, that news networks are only legitimate if they only hire people who think one way.
- shmatt, on 05/08/2008, -2/+3that one guy is a prominent member of the right wing media elite. like it or not, his opinion reflects on those who share his view.
- Treoinmypocket, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2and no one shared it.....
- shmatt, on 05/08/2008, -2/+3that one guy is a prominent member of the right wing media elite. like it or not, his opinion reflects on those who share his view.
- dexter411, on 05/08/2008, -5/+2Yeah, I don't see how this clip does anything but bolster FOX's rep. One guy said something stupid and the rest disagreed and voiced their support for American working families. I forgot, though, that news networks are only legitimate if they only hire people who think one way.
- KizardLing, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1As much as I dislike Fox news, even they had enough decency to disagree with this crap.
- badassninja, on 05/08/2008, -8/+10I wish Ron Paul would have sued and won. Someone needs to take Fox News off the map. I mean replace it with chimps in suits jumping up and down and making monkey noises. That would be better for the USA people then fox news is.
- MarkusGarvey, on 05/08/2008, -7/+30Barnes needs to experience the lower class, i think...first hand.....and yes, he can have fries with that...
- popfrogs, on 05/08/2008, -0/+5...not if he's buying gas for his old beater.
- americangoy, on 05/08/2008, -12/+26Yeah, this is all over the blogosphere.
What a tool.
In his world view, those of us who work, who have actual SKILLS and TALENT (unlike him) are lower class, somehow lower than him, the guy who blows smoke up people's a**- Duamerthrax, on 05/08/2008, -15/+9buried for using "blogosphere"
- didiman, on 05/08/2008, -16/+5And what's your skill/talent? Posting moronic messages on Digg?
- Sinnic, on 05/08/2008, -1/+7I think you've got that one covered, chief.
- Rizmaster, on 05/08/2008, -2/+4If you qualify for what he calls lower class (not that I agree with him) then it implies you are not skilled or talented. If you're working in a factory or something that's the exact opposite of skilled or talented. People who work labor intensive jobs work those jobs because they don't have the specialties and talents necessary to do something else, they have what other people have, free time. Thus, labor jobs.
- zombies187, on 05/08/2008, -0/+5Many jobs are labor intensive, skill oriented, and lower income.
- Rizmaster, on 05/08/2008, -4/+1Such as?
We're not talking trades here, that's something completely different. But auto workers? Attach part A to part B, repeat. That's not a skill. That takes a few weeks of on the job training. Just because a Doctor doesn't know immediately how to do it doesn't make it a skill.- zombies187, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1If a doctor can't drive, is he lacking a skill?
- Rizmaster, on 05/08/2008, -4/+1Such as?
- sealbeater, on 05/08/2008, -1/+3Class has nothing to do with money. A coal miner can (and probably does) have more class than many rich people who spring to mind. Anyone who equates class with money shows that they have no class themselves.
- Rizmaster, on 05/08/2008, -4/+1Moron. You're equating class as in economic classes to class meaning to be classy. Just stop now so you don't sound even more retarded.
- sealbeater, on 05/08/2008, -0/+4Umm, if you are talking to me, yes I am equating class as in economic classes to class meaning classy. That's what the guy was talking about otherwise he wouldn't have said working class = lower class. Obviously the entire spectrum of working class people can't all be lower class, unless he's equating economic class to classiness. Steal a clue, if you can't grow one.
Oh and a factory job is considered skilled labor. Unskilled labor is like, people in the service industry.
- zombies187, on 05/08/2008, -0/+5Many jobs are labor intensive, skill oriented, and lower income.
- Mattwdj, on 05/08/2008, -2/+3arnt you in the working class or working at a factory becuase you dont have skills or talent?
- theviceroy, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1no. most blue collar jobs involve learning a skill or trade. ever been in a ***** machine shop, loser?
- yellowcakewalk, on 05/08/2008, -15/+66The wealthy and privileged have nothing but contempt for those of us that must work for a living. They seem to consider their position a god-given right.
- colonelbuckshot, on 05/08/2008, -17/+10Workers of the world unite! Smash the bourgeois system!
Idiot. - doctorfungi, on 05/08/2008, -17/+6This guy was the son of an Air Force officer and served in the army. Something tells me he wasn't always wealthy and well off.
- beakerwimp, on 05/08/2008, -0/+10doctorfungi: So you are saying that as long as hard work got you where you are today that you should feel free to call others "low class"? The point he was making is a generalization that is hard to defend no matter what your political viewpoints are. It indicates a lack of respect for other human beings. Even if you think every single poor person on the face of this earth is poor due to laziness, saying so would still be rude at the least. If Barnes is trying to become the male Ann Coulter then I think he's doing a decent job so far.
- jezsik, on 05/08/2008, -0/+5The "male Ann Coulter"? I can't put my finger on it, but that doesn't sound right for some reason. ;-)
- MtheoryX, on 05/08/2008, -0/+8Wait, there's a female Ann Coulter out there somewhere?
head asplode.
- beakerwimp, on 05/08/2008, -0/+10doctorfungi: So you are saying that as long as hard work got you where you are today that you should feel free to call others "low class"? The point he was making is a generalization that is hard to defend no matter what your political viewpoints are. It indicates a lack of respect for other human beings. Even if you think every single poor person on the face of this earth is poor due to laziness, saying so would still be rude at the least. If Barnes is trying to become the male Ann Coulter then I think he's doing a decent job so far.
- dshPls, on 05/08/2008, -4/+16I disagree, the children of the rich are really the ones you're talking about. Most first generation millionaires are laid back, cool people.
- SSCrow, on 05/08/2008, -1/+3Yes and they obviously had to "work" for their money.
- MagMarCat, on 05/08/2008, -7/+6Your statement implies that you don't think wealthy people have to work to get to where they are in life, and that they don't have to continue to work hard to maintain that level of wealth.
You are just as bad as Fred Barnes, making blanket statements about classes of people you obviously know nothing about.- ZenMojo, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2"Wealthy and privileged" are two different adjectives for an extra-specific group of people.
- tomasII, on 05/08/2008, -3/+1More class warfare bull crap. An entire party's platform is built on hating those who have worked hard and done well.
- PlagueOfMorons, on 05/08/2008, -1/+2Would that be the Republican party desiring and allowing cheap illegal labor into the US to take US jobs? The one that exploits blue collar labor? That platform? Why yes, it might be that one hating people.
- colonelbuckshot, on 05/08/2008, -17/+10Workers of the world unite! Smash the bourgeois system!
- immi69, on 05/08/2008, -11/+6these guys are funny. i dont know why they are called analysts
- yellowcakewalk, on 05/08/2008, -9/+11The "anal" part of the name is apropos.
- PlagueOfMorons, on 05/08/2008, -15/+11After leaving the studio that evening, Mr. Barnes was queried as to his ancestry by several scholars wearing hoodies and short pants. Subsequently, when the ambulance picked him up, he was heard to say weakly, "my momma is not a ho nor is she a canine, you lower-class peasants." However, his words were difficult to understand due a massive loss of dental appurtenances.
- ndnspongebob, on 05/08/2008, -6/+29putting on a suit doesn't make him high class either, we can all judge this man by his character and I have to say, all I see in him is low class
- popfrogs, on 05/08/2008, -1/+8My favorite line from Fat Albert: "man, you is like school on Sunday...no class".
- JohnDBandit, on 05/08/2008, -39/+30You people need to go back to college and get an education. Haven't any of you taken a sociology class. Lower class is not a derogatory term, and it encompasses working class.
As explained by Wikipedia: "The parameters which define working class depend on the schema used to define social class. For example, a simple stratum model of class might divide society into a simple hierarchy of lower class, middle class and upper class with working class not specifically designated."
Anyone that gets paid an hourly/weekly wage is lower class. It doesn't matter if they are paid min. wage or $100,000 a year.
I think the real issue is (as again explained by Wikipedia): "As the concept of the working class is important in Marxist, Anarchist and Socialist thought, there is a great deal of political interest in the precise definition of who the working class is."
Go to school, get an education, start your own business, and then maybe you won't have to be lower class anymore.- Rotzooi, on 05/08/2008, -4/+29Sure, people carry their "Middle Class America" badges proudly, so why not "Lower Class America". But that doesn't change the fact that it sounds really douchebaggy to call someone Lower Class.
- ooby, on 05/08/2008, -3/+2Because they can't afford no stinkin badges.
- Funkleft, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1The problem is, that's the way things are. That's what politicians mean. They will not call their voting base lower class, so they just call them working class, as it's assumed the lower class works for a living.
This guy isn't the bad guy, it's the system. Theres not much changing it, but that's the way things, it's just honesty.
- hydroplane, on 05/08/2008, -15/+11Breaking News: Sociology is *****.
- theviceroy, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2lol, as an Anthropologist I agree -- only out of spite though.
- TotalHalibut, on 05/08/2008, -13/+5Since when has sociology been a useful or valid subject to take? Why the hell should I go back to school exactly? We didn't study sociology, we studied real subjects, and got degrees in real subjects. Sociology is worthless.
- ace429k, on 05/08/2008, -7/+7"you people." that sums up your education! great english! what are you? Joe Pesci? you going to start calling the youth Youts?
- barddzen, on 05/08/2008, -2/+5I don't really care how it is "defined", IMO, it's pretty much a common understanding what white and blue collar and upper, middle, and lower class means. I'd love to tell my attorney making $500k+ per year that I consider him lower class because he gets paid an hourly rate and see what he thinks...
- vidaliasweet, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3Not to mention that a little kid running his own lemonaide stand would be upper class by his standards.
- HeDiggMe, on 05/08/2008, -4/+1It's a case of political correctness, especially when a phrase like "low class" is also a euphemism for crass behavior. It sounds insulting to call the working poor "lower class", so we use terms like lower-middle and upper-middle. I dont see a huge problem getting worked up about it.
- Elliuotatar, on 05/08/2008, -0/+6Generally the poor are low class. Putting sofas and refrigerators on your porch and having two or more non working vehicles on your lawn, and eating nothing but TV dinners while drinking canned beer... that's low class.
- yojiffyskippy, on 05/08/2008, -7/+2You have to realize that most diggers grew up in a liberal-politically-correct world. They can't comprehend the dual meaning of lower without crying fowl. However, he did mistakenly lump the entire working class into the lower class which isn't technically correct because part of the working class would actually be considered middle class. Also the upper class or as the liberals would call them "rich and wealthy" are also part of the working class and would also be combined into the upper class. The problem is that these are all vague terms (working, upper, lower, middle) and at least one of them has an alternate (negative) meaning.
- chevyorange, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2FOWL!
- gryphon50, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1crying fowl? is that like using a duck call?
- krellor, on 05/08/2008, -0/+4During his explanation of how the term lower class wasn't used because of its connotations he also described it is uneducated, etc... This would conflict with your definition. I work a salary job, but I have and use my college education. You may be correct in the technical definition, but that definition is different than what was being described in this clip.
- justice7, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1the problem with calling it "Lower, Middle and Upper" class, is that you're ranking people. It isn't the fact that you're pointing out their differences, its that you're saying one is better than another. There are people who would rather be in a lower "tier" than a higher one. Money doesn't buy happiness, but it sure can rent it.
- jimchou, on 05/08/2008, -0/+0It's simpler than saying "lower income", "middle income" and "upper income", not a reflection on the non-monetary worth of a person.
- TheKiah, on 05/08/2008, -1/+2Obvious trolls are obvious.
- mefromafar, on 05/08/2008, -1/+62 points....
First, if you're going to try and prove a point, don't use Wikipedia.
Second.... if you go to school, isn't it implied that you will get an education? Even your road map to life fails. - allocate, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1The middle class may be said to include the middle and upper levels of clerical workers, those engaged in technical and professional occupations, supervisors and managers, and such self-employed workers as small-scale shopkeepers, businessmen, and farmers. At the top—wealthy professionals or managers in large corporations—the middle class merges into the upper class, while at the bottom—routine and poorly paid jobs in sales, distribution, and transport—it merges into the working class.
social class. (2008). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved May 08, 2008, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/550940/s ... - zombies187, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Wikipedia didn't make a distinction between working class and lower class. It seems Barnes was talking about something else.
- Rotzooi, on 05/08/2008, -4/+29Sure, people carry their "Middle Class America" badges proudly, so why not "Lower Class America". But that doesn't change the fact that it sounds really douchebaggy to call someone Lower Class.
- willk281, on 05/08/2008, -16/+8In my time here at Digg, I've dugg 999 stories. This will NOT be my 1000th.
- thorstrongstone, on 05/08/2008, -7/+16Tonight, on Countdown, Fred Barnes: Worst Person In the Worrrrrrrrlllllllllddddd.
- thorstrongstone, on 05/08/2008, -2/+3Digg me down all you like, it's gonna happen. You wait and see.
- thorstrongstone, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1And it did not happen.
- craighoxton, on 05/08/2008, -4/+48Hey America, leave the class snobbery to us British, OK?
- highwebl, on 05/08/2008, -0/+5Hey, we fought a war so we could treat each other just as badly as your lot treated us.
- whataboutdave, on 05/08/2008, -13/+46What's the outrage? "Working class" is often used as a euphemism for "lower class". Recognizing this does not make one classist.
- villageatheist, on 05/08/2008, -6/+25I think the above comment marked the beginning of a shift in this thread toward the realization that Barnes was only saying what everyone was thinking.
- samoan27, on 05/08/2008, -7/+11It took nearly 20 comments to get someone to mention this fact! I've always thought only 10% of Diggers had a clue, maybe it's closer 5%.
- ZeRux, on 05/08/2008, -9/+7You're misslng the point. This has been said on Fox News which is just enough to give it enormous negative attention here on digg, since Fox News is so evil they would put Devil out of job, or so most digg people want you to believe. (if someone like Obama said the same thing as Barnes, nobody here would even lift a finger...actually my guess is that there would be frontpage story titled something like "Obama praises working class" in that case).
Therefore if you don't digg this story you're a neocon (if you're not with us, then you're against us, does that sounds familiar)!- Funkleft, on 05/08/2008, -3/+1What's that word I'm thinking of...
starts with an H..
ends in ypocrisy...
Nothing else inbetween - tomasII, on 05/08/2008, -2/+2Excellent analysis. It seems like most of the more vocal "diggers" are pimply faced adolescent teenaged atheist who hate everything from Clinton to God and don't understand why they are out of the mainstream of society. However they do support anything radically left wing and probably couldn't identify morals or values if their sad little lives depended on it.
- Funkleft, on 05/08/2008, -3/+1What's that word I'm thinking of...
- ZenMojo, on 05/08/2008, -1/+4Let me explain the outrage since it seems to have been missed.
Working class is often used as a euphemism for middle class people, i.e., those who make up to twice the median income in the country. It is an incredibly broad metric and not quite that easily explained, but the attempt is not only to euphemize the description to make people not seem "low" but to also lionize it by implying that they are harder working.
It is the latter part that Fred Barnes and Tucker Carlson and their ilk are offended by, as it implies that the working class are the only ones who work while the upper classes don't have to. Unfortunately, for all of its offense, it just happens to be mostly true.
Where it becomes offensive to the "working class" is that Fred Barnes implies that the working class are exclusively the lower class. That's not true. The working class is generally measured at about 50k/year in polls this season, which means it includes individuals who make 170% of the median income of the country. In other words, it includes the middle class.
The working class should specifically be called "the working classes," but again there is an attempt to lionize the nebulous MIDDLE class by implying that if you make 50k you work for a living and if you make 15k you don't. For all of its offense, it is often true as people who want work can't find it. It is also unfair.
If you as an individual make 100k/year, you are officially rich. This varies widely by state, of course, as New York and California and Connecticut and Washington D.C. have a much higher threshold for wealth and a much higher median income than average, but it is a generally accurate measurement.
Unfortunately, Fred Barnes has done something interesting by throwing in education. Most college students make jack ***** when they leave college, which means this newest generation of "working class" people is probably more educated than his generation's rich.
With that in mind, I can best describe this as Fred Barnes' attempt to take back class distinction in order to justify why so many working class people vote for Hillary Clinton. The answer is pretty simple: tradition. It's the same reason black people went 2:1 for Hillary Clinton as late as December over Barack Obama. Tradition. If she had spent months insulting the working classes in the same way she insulted under 30's and blacks, then MAYBE she'd be getting 10% of THAT vote.- AGHatecraft, on 05/08/2008, -1/+4Your explanation on class distinction save me a whole lot of time. Thank you. Fred Barnes is obviously has no class.
- whataboutdave, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2Funnily enough, your comment would be considered classist by some Marxist academics. Saying that something is "classy" or someone "has class" as a positive derives from - you guessed it - the upper classes.
Classism is just like racism: Everyone both thinks they are both an expert on it and that they are the only one not subconsciously a ruled by it. - ThugThrasher, on 05/08/2008, -2/+2I'm glad it saved you a lot of time, but it was WRONG.
- whataboutdave, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2Funnily enough, your comment would be considered classist by some Marxist academics. Saying that something is "classy" or someone "has class" as a positive derives from - you guessed it - the upper classes.
- whataboutdave, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2Nearly everyone in our society (95.2%) "works", but only a small portion are called "working class" - the poor. The term is is used as a euphemism for those who are in dire financial straights - often even if they are employed. As euphemisms go, "working class" is rather inaccurate. What use is it then oif it only obscures the truth?
Critics aren't necessarily defending the leisure class. Linguistically, the euphemism romanticizes hardship and allows society avoid engaging poverty. - ThugThrasher, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2This is where we disagree.
Although I do think he is an elitist from what I've seen on him, in this case he was right.
I don't think he was arguing about any technical definition of working class (especially because there are so many, talk about working class in a sociological setting and you're usually talking about the 'working poor,' in other settings it's different), I think he was meaning the way that the media and politicians use it. And, like it or not, they often use it as a euphemism for 'lower class' or 'lower income' or 'poor,' all of which have more negative connotations but, when used in these situations, usually mean the same thing.
- AGHatecraft, on 05/08/2008, -1/+4Your explanation on class distinction save me a whole lot of time. Thank you. Fred Barnes is obviously has no class.
- doctorfungi, on 05/08/2008, -11/+37People use the term "upper class". It seems to me that the logical alternatives to that are "middle class" and "lower class".
This political correctness you are trying to enforce is *****.- yojiffyskippy, on 05/08/2008, -3/+6Don't be too harsh on them. They were taught to be political correct by watching MSNBC, Oprah and Dr. Phil.
- mrraven200, on 05/08/2008, -2/+1They were taught to be corporate tools by watching MSNBC, Oprah and Dr. Phil. I corected your post you're welcome.
- mrraven200, on 05/08/2008, -2/+2So says Bertie Wooster:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertie_Wooster
Oh, you are in the self assigned "upper class" and don't read classic British literature like a mere working stiff landscaper such as myself myself? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you. Could it be your vaunted class distinctions are naught but an excuse to steal money from people doing all the work from coding the web browser you use to sweeping the floor? Could be, could be... Hint some of us "lower class" people who are not well to do and who work for a living are in fact well educated. Some of us don't want to part of the upper class because the thought dealing with "upper class" douchbags such as yourself is revolting.
- yojiffyskippy, on 05/08/2008, -3/+6Don't be too harsh on them. They were taught to be political correct by watching MSNBC, Oprah and Dr. Phil.
- bitfreak, on 05/08/2008, -8/+13I wonder where I can get some toilet paper printed up with the the Fox News logo on it? Although, in hindsight, it probably wouldn't actually do anything while being unnaturally abrasive.
- highwebl, on 05/08/2008, -1/+4Dugg for hindsight.
- mrraven200, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1That's an insult to toilet paper which was once part of a beautiful living tree. More appropriate would be a Soviet style concrete monument to reflect the ugliness of those Faux news reports who staring into the void of state collectivism and snarling became evil and soulless themselves. It's fascinating to me how people often resemble what they claim to hate.
- chicofaraby, on 05/08/2008, -4/+19Who gives a ***** what Fred Barnes has to say? He said Iraq was chock full of WMD. Obviously, he's just a liar in an expensive suit.
- empirefalling, on 05/08/2008, -6/+14What more can convince Americans that change is needed? The Rich White Elitists have nothing but contempt for the workers. They tax you, look down upon you, ridicule you for having to live as second or third class citizens. Change is urgently needed in America.
- CiXeL, on 05/08/2008, -1/+6eat the rich!
- yojiffyskippy, on 05/08/2008, -8/+1Maybe if you quit blaming others and took some personal responsibility then you wouldn't consider yourself a second or third class citizen. Take some of that bottled up anger and make something positive of yourself.
- secrity, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1The worst part is that poor Americans vote Republican -- which puts Rich White Elitists into public office, including the presidency.
- GRTWHT, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Sadly, you don't realize that the change you are advocating is not a change in political party.
- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 05/08/2008, -6/+15So there's an upper class, a middle class and a working class? I bet these are the same people who ban sports from elementary schools because they don't want kids to feel like losers when they lose.
- FyreGoddess, on 05/08/2008, -2/+9That's the problem, not with the term "working class", but with the way it's used.
Either there are upper, middle and lower classes (middle being the one that most people can accept, upper being what they try to achieve) or it's owning class and working class without something in the middle.
A lot of people assume that "working class" is a nicer way to say "lower class" or "blue collar workers", but really it's just an ignorance in how to properly apply the terminology.- yojiffyskippy, on 05/08/2008, -1/+2True, and it's further complicated by the fact that some people can't understand that some words have multiple (sometimes incongruent) meanings.
- ssn697, on 05/08/2008, -2/+2Give it time. Before this election is over, someone will call union members "The Working Class Elites".
Remember, you read it here first!
- yojiffyskippy, on 05/08/2008, -4/+3Or they give all the teams in the little league trophies so they don't get their feelings hurt.
- mrraven200, on 05/08/2008, -2/+1The problem isn't with noticing that people have different skills the problem is with condescending to those who do the labor that keeps civilization going and paying them a sub living wage and expecting them to roll over and die when they are sick without health insurance. Europe shows you can have a dynamic market based society without cruelty seen in the U.S. Fox and Rush has made cruel, self centered and condescending the new cool, IMO history will not look kindly on us (U.S. citizen here) for those traits. So in sum yes to excellence and always striving to be better, no to just throwing people overboard whose personality types don't happen to function well in the new pit bulls on speed global society. News flash to net.Libertarians we can have BOTH a market based society that encourages excellence AND a social safety net to rescue those who are struggling. It doesn't have to be either or, we have enough wealth to do both, Europe is the empirical case study that proves this point. It's time for Libertarians to abandon their belief system which is disturbingly fact resistant much like creationism and look at reality. Strong Euro ring a bell? Not only is U.S. laiseze affaire style winner take all capitalism cruel it isn't even working well. Henry Ford had the insight to pay workers enough to buy his cars, sometime in that 80s that vision was lost in a rush to expand markets globally and make a fast non sustainable profit. The consequences of that short term vision have been dire.
- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 05/08/2008, -0/+5"we can have BOTH a market based society that encourages excellence AND a social safety net to rescue those who are struggling. It doesn't have to be either or, we have enough wealth to do both, Europe is the empirical case study that proves this point"
Are you referring to some other Europe that I was not previously aware of?- mrraven200, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1I am referring to the Europe that makes better cars, cell phones and operating systems than the U.S. AND provides health care to all it's citizens and doesn't leave the mentally ill to suffer on the streets like the U.S. Mercedes, Volvo, BMW, Linux and Nokia ring a bell? Which Europe were you referring to? BTW U.S. citizen here I wish we were better, we aren't and I am honest enough to say so.
- mrraven200, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1p.s. I am also referring to the Europe whose Euro has appreciated to be worth $1.50+ after starting out being worth an even buck a couple of years ago. I am also referring to the Europe working on wind farms and high speed rail so they will have a functioning civilization after peak oil.
If the U.S. laiseze affaire social Darwinist capitalist model is so great and efficient how come the dollar has become worthless like toilet paper? Could it be emperor ***** the 1st ran the country into the ground? Yes, could be... And yes I am an angry U.S. citizen I would like to be proud of my country but when it acts like a befuddled creationist believing, bank robbing bully I cannot be proud of the U.S. Unlike like those who shout their "love of America," right or wrong, America's new found status as world laughing stock makes me want to cry because I do care and I am paying attention. It's the flag wavers who aren't planning for the future and who are running the country into the ground who are ruining the U.S. IMO.
- shauncorleone, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1This social safety net you speak of: "Medicaid" ring a bell? "Unemployment"? "Welfare"? Hell, the latter two programs in most instances are not even incentive-based, so there is no motivation for those who ARE physically able to work to even look for a job. For every obscure story of someone who allegedly could not receive proper medical treatment, there are hundreds of cases where people are never refused emergency treatment without insurance.
This is what people don't seem to realize about most Republicans: We're not saying that there aren't problems with the country, and that there are not people at a disadvantage or people in need. We're saying that pumping more money into an organization full of career bureaucrats is not the solution. Sure, free market companies are incentivized by profit. They're regulated by their competition. Know what government officials are incentivized by? Keeping people reliant on the government. And they're regulated by NO ONE.
- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 05/08/2008, -0/+5"we can have BOTH a market based society that encourages excellence AND a social safety net to rescue those who are struggling. It doesn't have to be either or, we have enough wealth to do both, Europe is the empirical case study that proves this point"
- FyreGoddess, on 05/08/2008, -2/+9That's the problem, not with the term "working class", but with the way it's used.
- amoutbound, on 05/08/2008, -3/+17I'm a contractor on Cape Cod and have worked for a lot of rich people. I found 90% are great people high-class class. Unfortunately I have run into people like Fred Barnes who are nothing but high income white trash. I hope his gardeners pee on his roses.
- CiXeL, on 05/08/2008, -0/+4i find many of the ultrawealthy are amoral a-holes especially in places like miami but the movie execs i worked for in california treated IT people like they were cleaning their trashcans- they wouldnt even act like you existed.
- shmatt, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1I have to point out though, that Cape Cod is about the mellowest wealthy population you can find-- not to mention quite liberal most of the time. Not gonna be the same concentration of laid-back rich people in Orange County or Westchester NY. just sayin...
- mochaman, on 05/08/2008, -4/+7If you ever wanted to see what a real "Elitist" SOB looks like.
- NachoBusiness, on 05/08/2008, -2/+7"Working class" has traditionally meant people with blue collar jobs. There should still be a "lower class" since there's a middle and upper class level. But "working class" is more about lifestyle than income level. This might be something more evident in the rust belt and similar parts of America... where I live there is even the "working class" side of town, which is distinctive from the poor and high-end parts of town.
- secrity, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2It used to be that some working class people actually made very good wages.
- internetcoward, on 05/08/2008, -8/+3wait you mean i am lower class... and theres a ruling class in america OMFG lets kill this guy for pointing out something everyone should already know yet we all ignore it
- Hetman, on 05/08/2008, -5/+3Was that not taken out of context a little. I thought he was saying the working class is treated like a lower class. They do not get the social welfare that people of non working lower class gets, but instead get the raw end of the stick when it comes to taxes and healthcare and the lack of jobs. But I could be wrong.
- amightywind, on 05/08/2008, -8/+4There goes Fred Barnes presidential campaign. Its doesn't matter to the electorate that Barnes is out of touch. It does matter that Obama is.
- 140Suffolk, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1What? You mean Fred Barnes is not running? /sarc
- IPublius, on 05/08/2008, -4/+12There is an upper and middle class, why do the lower class get a different name? As for being socially lower class, is this website suggesting that it is not true? That some "working class" Americans would be welcome and invited to the same receptions and parties that their rich counterparts are attending? Yes it was insensitive, but that does not make what he said untrue. Speaking as a lower class citizen who works for a living, I really don't care what I am called.
- SSCrow, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Its Elitist in every sense of the word.
Just because you are a working class does not mean you are a lower class citizen. Most Middle Class people work very hard. By those standards we should call the upper-class insensitive lazy brats.- ThugThrasher, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1working class does NOT mean "the class of people who work"
working class means "the class of people who work for low wages, usually physical labor"
working class does NOT include middle class.
- ThugThrasher, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1working class does NOT mean "the class of people who work"
- dwatson84, on 05/08/2008, -0/+0yeah you dont care bc you've been cowed. Now get back to work.
- SSCrow, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Its Elitist in every sense of the word.
- pimpdad82, on 05/08/2008, -7/+5Sorry guys, he's right. From Dictionary.com:
working class
n. The socioeconomic class consisting of people who work for wages, especially low wages, including unskilled and semiskilled laborers and their families.- Vote2008, on 05/08/2008, -1/+8there is a big difference between calling a group of people "low class" as opposed to "low income"
- osiris99, on 05/08/2008, -1/+2definitely. the former implies something like "caste" in India. You are born to a class and neither you, nor your children can change it.
- Metalcard, on 05/08/2008, -0/+5So a Lawyer that makes 500k+ a year is "working class" because he makes an hourly wage? That logic seems flawed to me.
- huszar02, on 05/08/2008, -1/+0Uh, lawyers don't make low wages, typically, and their work is SKILLED, not semi or unskilled. I'd argue under traditional class distinctions that the possession of certain educational/professional qualifications (e.g. doctor, lawyer) automatically confers a status higher than working-class due to the type of labor they provide.
- 140Suffolk, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1Lawyers don't make an hourly wage. They BILL by the hour.
- Vote2008, on 05/08/2008, -1/+8there is a big difference between calling a group of people "low class" as opposed to "low income"
- kurtwinter, on 05/08/2008, -3/+6Good. Its about time that the moron Republicans of the midwest and south finally started realizing what their power brokers think of them.
- TheInformer, on 05/08/2008, -5/+4Let's make sure we redirect attention away from what Obama said.
- Midtowner, on 05/08/2008, -1/+4Barnes should know that "working class" encompasses far too many groups for him to make silly blanket statements like this. "Working class" can mean anything from people who collect welfare and don't work at all to blue collar workers with six-figure salaries. The phrase is used by politicians to divide America. They want to create the illusion that "working class" are one group of people while anyone with a college degree who works a white-collar job is another kind of person [who must be opposed]. The phrase is a simpler way to say 'proletariat,' nothing more.
- yojiffyskippy, on 05/08/2008, -1/+3Working Class =/= "people who collect welfare and don't work at all"
You must be a die hard liberal if you think collecting welfare means you are in the working class.- Midtowner, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Since my entire argument is that "Working class" is a meaningless term, what I think about the definition shouldn't really matter at all. If I give a speech targeted at "working class" people, don't you think an unemployed person might think I was referring to them? Even people on welfare have to hold down a job every once in awhile. Doesn't that make them "working"?
- secrity, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1There used to be a very large number of working class people who made much more money than white collar workers.
- Midtowner, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1There still are -- just not so many in the U.S. anymore.
- yojiffyskippy, on 05/08/2008, -1/+3Working Class =/= "people who collect welfare and don't work at all"
- DellDrEvil, on 05/08/2008, -3/+4I despise Fox & Friends as much as the next card carrying democrat, but really, all you have to do is watch a solitary episode of "Jerry Springer" or "Cops" to wonder if that commentator isn't absolutely right.
- ZenMojo, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2Yeah, "reality television" isn't real.
- Vote2008, on 05/08/2008, -3/+4Talk about biting the hand that feeds you...
- NelsonR, on 05/08/2008, -3/+4Fred Barnes is not the only contributor on Fox News or Channel. Niel Cavuto is an obnoxious elitist along with his upper gentry who belittle the average citizen with demeaning rhetoric. I been have saying it for over a year but it seems the little guy just doesn't get it, Repugnant Republicans only friends are not even among their ilk, their true friend isn't god, it is money. Once it was the dollar and now that they have destroyed that it's foreign currencies and stocks. Welcome to the upper crust world of America where class distinction is a norm and the upper class having an opinion that the lower class serves only them.
- tauntz, on 05/08/2008, -3/+4I'm sorry but what's wrong with the sentence "they aren’t “lower income,” but rather “lower class."" ? Thats exactly as things are - don't be offended when someone has the nuts to finally tell the truth. I'm in the "lower class" too but I'm not going hysterical because someone dared to say it out loud. Thats just the way our little world works - we have the upper class people who don't have to work - their money works for them - and we have the lower class people - people who have to work to support their family - us. It's sad but it's the truth - you can't change the fact by bashin anyone who mentions it.
- geniuslocimusic, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1Well put
- NelsonR, on 05/08/2008, -2/+1B.S. Louie and Marie found out elitism is not so grand in the end. YOU accept being of a lower caste, wow go for it, not me. I think more of myself and the dollar doesn't determine my status in life nor does it allow someone of privilege the right to belittle me.
- yonisoy, on 05/08/2008, -6/+1True Hurts
- dOOBiEx213, on 05/08/2008, -2/+1Truth*. Wow, you're an idiot... I hope THAT hurts.
- UTKEngineer, on 05/08/2008, -3/+3Talk about making a mountain out of a mole hill. All this guy is doing is using common terminology. Upper class, middle class, lower class denotes where you rank on the income scale as opposed to societies who still adhere to a caste system which is decided by birth.
Really, what's the problem? He's using a common, if not PC, social classification terminology.- BlacklabelSAR, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1I think it was the contempt and laughter from Fred Barnes that is what people are reacting to. Aside from that, I hate political correctness.
- AidenHuntley, on 05/08/2008, -1/+4I think it's great that Fox News puts people like this one the air... watch them dig their own grave. I hope they insult their main demographic more often.
- ashwinmudigonda, on 05/08/2008, -1/+3Repeat after me: Fox News is an oxymoron. Call it Fox. Please. Really, please. Just say FOX's retard or FOX's dude. Not Fox News'. It isn't right. It is opinion, not news.
- SweetDee, on 05/08/2008, -0/+6I think the problem people are having with Barnes's word choice is that the phrase "lower class" has a negative connotation. Just like the phrase "high" or "upper" class has a positive one. My ex-MIL used the phrase "low class" all the time, usually to talk about people who were blue-collar. She was one of those good Americans who believed that if you did a blue-collar job, there was something wrong with the way that you were living your life and that you were lacking, somehow. If you also had the misfortune of being poor, then it was because God didn't love you. She didn't use "lower class" as an economic indicator. For people like my ex-MIL, Fred Barnes, and many other Americans "lower class" is a statement of your human worth. And that is why Barnes is a tool.
- BlacklabelSAR, on 05/08/2008, -1/+6"Lower class" + education = "Upper class"
There's a reason why schools are funded by property taxes.......the rich don't want competition. - RomeyRome, on 05/08/2008, -2/+1I think they both go hand 'n hand.
- kylere, on 05/08/2008, -6/+1Kylere tries to care what Fox thinks and fails
Kylere tries to care what white people on Fox think and fails
Kylere tries to care what old white people on Fox think and fails
Kylere tries to care what old white immigrant people on Fox think and fails- 140Suffolk, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1140suffolk tries to care that Kylere is obsessed with age, color,etc....and fails.
- banderwocky, on 05/08/2008, -1/+4Isn't the majority demographic for FOX the working class?
- secrity, on 05/08/2008, -3/+3Shhhhhhhhh, don't tell them that -- they think that they are better than everybody else.
- LastVisibleDog, on 05/08/2008, -3/+3No - that is the demographic of the Digg Democrat Children like yourself - lower class/lives in your Mom's basement class. Get a clue and try again - you are making fools our of yourselves.
- amightywind, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2The majority of Fox News viewers are the vast silent majority of center/conservative voters that have dominated the electorate (mostly) since the election of Nixon, that is grossly underserved by the traditional liberal left media.
- lowflyer00, on 05/08/2008, -3/+1Was Barnes referring to Obama's "guns and religion" class?
- bunkybrewman, on 05/08/2008, -2/+0Who?
Seriously, who is this guy? Oh, he's reporting on the upper class. Read: He's a working class slob. After viewing his appearance and dress, one could not mistake this individual as anything but as one who belongs to the working class. - jp12380, on 05/08/2008, -3/+1Wait, he can't say that because it's not PC!!!
What a loser he is.
However you do have to wonder what is up with those that think Hillary the liar is a good candidate. Lets hope she sticks to her word and supports the Dem's nominee otherwise Obama might lose out to GWB for a third term. - gyronic, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1yuk, yuk... laugh it up!
LOLZZ poor people are funny! - sndream, on 05/08/2008, -3/+1Yes Fox news sucks, but we are not any better if we only misquote them.
They actually saying blue collar (especially union) working class = middle class, lower class are those who low income with less education.- cryptomystic, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1No dude, the other guy who was debating with him on that point said that working class isn;t lower class not Barnes.
Nice job trying to spin this though, you should go work for Faux News .
- cryptomystic, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1No dude, the other guy who was debating with him on that point said that working class isn;t lower class not Barnes.
-
Show 51 - 80 of 80 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by