Tales from Liberal-land: greedy pork-rind eaters


September 22, 2013 by Julia

HuffPo posted this op-ed from a veteran who is on food stamps.  While Mr. Kirell deserves all of our respect as a veteran who fought to defend us, his piece deserves very little respect, as it is poorly thought-out and argued (although he is correct that the salaries paid to the members of our military are shameful–stop giving my money to Egypt and give it to servicemen and -women).

The comments section, though, is hilarious.  A bunch of self-righteous liberals crowing that anyone who doesn’t want the government to be in charge of helping people is “greedy” . . . classic.  Nevermind that the government is fabulously inefficient and ineffective at actually helping people–it’s the thought that counts, right?

This comment stood out to me as one of the silliest that was not just a two-sentence insult.  HuffPo is broken and won’t let me comment (ironic?), so here you go.

I’m disappointed by the attitude displayed by some of the Teabagger party postings here that seem to think the author hasn’t done enough to make more money.

If unemployment were at a record low and you saw lots of job listings in the paper, their viewpoint might be valid in some way. But that is clearly not the case. Many fully employed persons also can’t make ends meet due to low wage jobs, that many people posting here take advantage of every day (food and restaurant workers, custodians, and many other jobs).

It seems the attitude of these people is one of distrust of their fellow American, especially a veteran who voluntarily put himself in harms way to serve the country.

People like those who have posted here against foodstamps are inherently selfish and distrustful, wanting to save every penny for themselves. They would rather have the extra $ 5 per month in their paychecks, which they wouldn’t miss anyway, than feed starving Americans. They don’t support a raise in the minimum wage because it might make their bread or pork rinds cause 50 cents more. They don’t realize that such a raise would lower dependency on foodstamps — they are that blinded by greed.

They must all be some religion other than a Christian one, because it is a completely un-Christian thing to deny the hungry the bare minimum sustenance they need to survive.

And Julia says:

You have failed the ideological Turing test, because that is NOT what conservatives (what in the world is a “Teabagger party?”) think, believe, or want. Fiscal conservatives do not oppose increasing the minimum wage “because it might make their bread or pork rinds cause [sic] 50 cents more.” Rather, we oppose it because more people would end up unemployed as a result, and we want people to have jobs.

Conservatives want to help people with their own money. Liberals want to help people with tax money collected by the government, or through government diktat. Okay, fine, we have different methods to achieve the same goal (helping people). The debate should be about which is the best method to get the most help to the most people. Inasmuch as Christianity can be defined by humans and has anything to do with government policy, both people in that debate can exhibit Christian traits. It is disingenuous to say people don’t want to “feed starving Americans” when they just disagree with you about the best method through which to feed the most starving Americans. Anyone honestly making an attempt to help people, whether with their own money or by advocating for a government program, could be obeying Christ’s commandment to love their neighbor (or they could have a different religion, or no religion at all).  But no, no, it’s much easier to just call the people who disagree with you greedy, right?

I love how the commenter also just assumes that all conservatives can afford to have more money taken out of their paychecks (I think maybe I’m doing something wrong), but all they buy with their vast wealth is bread and pork rinds.  Naturally.  I have a house full of bread and pork rinds RIGHT NOW, not diapers and baby food.  It’s because I’m super greedy, you see, and I just can’t STAND the idea of my baby getting free hand-outs from me.  Why doesn’t she just get a job, amirite?

. . .

Oh, sorry, I thought I was commenting at HuffPo and I was supposed to wittily mock conservatives by lying about their motivations.  My bad.

3 thoughts on “Tales from Liberal-land: greedy pork-rind eaters

  1. Jake says:

    The best takedown I’ve heard, seen, or read of the “you don’t like welfare expansion? Why do you hate poor people and charity, you monster?” came, I think, from Thomas Sowell. The basic scenario was that it was clearly wrong to mug you on the street at gunpoint. It’s even worse if a bunch of people gang up and demand your money with threats. It changes nothing if the threat changes from physical violence to threat of lawsuit, since you’re being threatened into emptying your wallet either way. The fact that the mugger immediately turned (most of) the proceeds from the mugging over to a little old beggar woman doesn’t change the fact that he still committed a crime by mugging you in the first place, either. Nor does it address the fact that you might well have planned to give your cash to the beggar anyway, either; you still got mugged, and that’s wrong.

    Changing the terms from “a charitable vigilante” to “a government” does not change the fact that you still got mugged, either. It might be legal, under those circumstances, but there are far too many examples of things that are or were legal and still hilariously wrong and unjust.

  2. Stuart the Viking says:

    When i was a kid, my father was a coal miner. He worked in a union mine, so that meant that he was often on strike. I grew to hate a man that I knew only by the name of “Fat Jack”, because more often than not (it seemed), when my father would come home early and said the dreaded word “Strike”, he would explain that “Fat Jack” got pissed off about this or that. Just a kids perspective, so who knows if this “Fat Jack” person really had anything to do with anything.

    Anyway… One of the many times the mine was on an extended strike, my mother went and got food stamps. I believe a friend of hers took her and showed her how to go and apply.

    I remember a trip with my father into the city (we lived very rural) where he gave the food stamps back to a very confused and astonished government worker. When I asked him why, he merely said “Charity is a poison to a man’s soul”.


  3. Ish says:

    I have always, always loved the casual manner in which liberals — the party of tolerance and acceptance — toss the word “Teabagger” at their ideological opponents. Teabagger is a homophobic slur, which originates as a slang term for a particular sexual act that gay or bisexual men sometimes engage in. Because labeling your political opponents “pansy, limp-wristed faggots” is uncouth, but calling them “Teabaggers” with a wink and a nudge is kosher.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

The Ministry of Nerds

We're nerds . . . who talk politics.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

%d bloggers like this: