Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Media Thelma Harper Kicks Steve Gill's Ass
Posted by Jeff Woods on Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 1:40 PM
Appearing on Bob Mueller's show, Sen. Thelma Harper gives a stinging rebuke to Republicans in the legislature, then turns to Steve Gill and slaps the radio blowhard as a heartless creep on health care issues.
Harper: You know what, if you make money, you should be willing to pay for those who cannot pay for themselves.
Gill: You want to take my money and give it to somebody else. That's exactly what you want. Thelma, that's socialism.
Harper: You all called Dr. King a communist for years and years and years. You cannot label me any way you want ...
Comments (37)
Showing 1-37 of 37
This has to be the worst display of journalism to date. To write that Mr. Gill got his ass kicked because some confused women, who claims to have an education and represents the public, suggested that people should give money away is CRAZY.
What is wrong with you?
like
dislike
Woods,
When you type, does it automatically smell like absolute bullshit, or is that just what I get when I read it? Steve Gill didn't get his ass kicked. He very simply proved that people like Sen. Harper will always want to distribute that which they have no right to distribute.
It's not heartless. It's not that he (or I) lack compassion. It's that people abuse and abuse and abuse the system. You look foolish putting this drivel out for the Scene.
Thelma represents some folks. Gill represents no one. He's just another right-wing blowhard whose god is money.
"if you make money, you should be willing to pay for those who cannot pay for themselves."
I'll be damned Thelma. Wondered when we'd start hearing openly that confession. So now we're privileged to watch the money printers churn out their paper and see our benevelent Gov't play God to the poor and underprivileged. Go for it liberal minded socialist imbeciles. Lets all enjoy seeing the dollar steadily become more worthless as we watch. And now, Barack really ought to latch onto Thelma. She's a real keeper. Would make a hell-of-a Federal Reserve Chairman.
Just exactly who the hell appointed you and your bullshit the arbiter of my intentions and wallet Thelma? Since when are you privileged to presume to tell me what I should do with my money? If I decide to give some of it away I will. If not, I won't. And there is absolutely no intent to conference with your retarded socialist ass in the process.
Name calling and profanity are small-minded responses from anyone in any context. Anyone who doesn't think our government was founded with the general welfare as a goal is simply mistaken. Anyone who doesn't think healthcare is part of the general welfare is also mistaken. Anyone who thinks we can promote a significant improvement in our healthcare system without government intervention is either in denial or uninformed.
Does Woods really claim to be a journalist? Actually, Sen. Harper was quite sensible and articulate until she talked about taking other people's money. And, her dropping Dr. King's name and implying rascism was ridiculous. Further, if one can conclude Sen. Harper kicked anyone's ass, it's only because she wouldn't let Gill talk without interruption.
"Anyone who doesn't think our government was founded with the general welfare as a goal is simply mistaken. Anyone who doesn't think healthcare is part of the general welfare is also mistaken."
LOL
It's funny how so easily you are proven wrong:
James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, elaborated upon this limitation in a letter to James Robertson:
With respect to the two words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. If the words obtained so readily a place in the "Articles of Confederation," and received so little notice in their admission into the present Constitution, and retained for so long a time a silent place in both, the fairest explanation is, that the words, in the alternative of meaning nothing or meaning everything, had the former meaning taken for granted.
"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
--Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Albert Gallatin, 1817
"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,
and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,
they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish
and pay them out of their public treasury;
they may take into their own hands the education of children,
establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
they may assume the provision of the poor;
they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation
down to the most minute object of police,
would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power
of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
of the limited Government established by the people of America." - James Madison
"Does Woods really claim to be a journalist?"
Of course he's not a journalist.
He's a troll.
Put your money where your mouth is, Dru. Send her a check!
And Woodsey, what do you call forced redistribution of wealth?
Clearly a socialaist point of veiw. People that work should pay for people that don't.
Clearly a Socialist point of view. People that work should pay for those that don't. And "using" MLK, (just like a race card), as a safety net to say anything they want.
Gilbert, quoting two founding fathers, does not prove anyone wrong. Those two were vociferously opposed by Alexander Hamilton, who George Washington favored, John Adams, Ben Franklin, and Washington himself. Jefferson had to resort to starting a whisper campaign that Washington was going senile because the President clearly wasn't following the path that Jefferson wanted.
The quotes that you have employed were utilized as part of a public debate that was raging, and was lost by Madison and Jefferson, as the ideas of the Federalists led by Hamilton ultimately won the debate.
Thelma says it is a "sin" to not pay for those who cannot help themselves. Wonder how she feels about the "sin" of abortion! Um, Thelma, a healthy 26 year old "dependent" is not someone who cannot help him/herself! Don't ever expect a Dem-wit to be consistent... and never ever expect them to be responsible with other people's money. This is why we must get rid of every Dem-wit in office!
Thelma says it is a "sin" to not pay for those who cannot help themselves. Wonder how she feels about the "sin" of abortion! Um, Thelma, a healthy 26 year old "dependent" is not someone who cannot help him/herself! Don't ever expect a Dem-wit to be consistent... and never ever expect them to be responsible with other people's money. This is why we must get rid of every Dem-wit in office!
"The quotes that you have employed were utilized as part of a public debate that was raging, and was lost by Madison and Jefferson, as the ideas of the Federalists led by Hamilton ultimately won the debate."
Wrong Chris.
Madison WAS one the Federalists. He contributed to the Federalist papers. The Federalists wanted the central government to have more power than the anti-federalists did but only RELATIVELY so.
Neither side believed in the anything goes notion of federal power that modern liberals try to claim resides in the Constitution.
And the Federalist's views did not "win" the debate for the Constitution's ratification - the anti-federalists did. That's why the Bill of Rights - including the 10th Amemdent - was added to the Constitution. Madison originally did not think that was necessary.
Gilbert,
The preamble stands as written. Neither Madison's "piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line. Nor all your tears wash out a word of it."
No one said the federal government was the "sole or supreme judge of the general welfare";just, that the general welfare is a goal our founders specified in the preamble to the Constitution. That is simply a fact.
Folks like Nashpirate absolutely slay me. Mofo, do you even know what socialism is? If you did, then you would be unwilling to pay for police and fire protection, emergency ambulance service, or public works. I think you would feel differently if you had to pay for personal security services and constant tolls (to drive on private roads) on your crappy budget constraint. Get more knowledge of the economic systems that you claim to hate and learn some history.
It is NOT a fact, and nothing YOU say makes it so!
And let me say again that the radio show Thistle & Shamrock is NOT primarily about music from Scotland and Ireland, and nothing YOU say makes it so!
Gilbert, Madison was NOT one of the Federalists, at least in the way that the Federalists became the party of strong central government. He was a Democratic Republican, along with Jefferson. He contributed to the Federalist Papers but Hamilton was the major source. You're not even arguing with me, you're arguing against history. This notion that Fox News and the National Review promote that the founders were all for small government is revisionist to the core. Up until recently, it was common knowledge that there was strong internal debate that was dividing the nation- not just philosophy, but the meaning of the Constitution itself. Read was Teddy Roosevelt thought about Madison and Jefferson. He detested them. He flat out blamed Jefferson for the Civil War that would come 60 years later.
If you think the partisanship that is dividing America now is strong, it is nothing compared to what was going on in the days of Jefferson, Washington, et al.
It is also a fact that when it gets down to specifics as to what the federal government has authority to do, "general welfare" includes absolutely nothing other than the specifically detailed powers elsewhere enumerated.
Just as Madison said
AND it is also an absolute economic fact that forced transfer payments between individual citizens as is involved in forcing one person to pay for another's healthcare (or anything else) does absolutely nothing to enhance any "general welfare".
The benefits to the transferees is completely cancelled out by exactly equal detriments to the transferors.
You're right Gilbert. I just made all that up.
Look, I'm not arguing that Jefferson and Madison said any of that and that that was their philosophy. It was. They were also opposed to a professional military. But that wasn't my point. You tried to assert that ALL of the founders had the same philosophy by quotes by only two of them, and probably the two most libertarian of the founders. It is a fact that Hamilton detested Jefferson and vice versa. And not because Jefferson tried to make a pass at Hamilton's wife or something. It was because of deep personal enmity based on differing views of the meaning of the Constitution.
But whatever, the argument is old and will never be settled.
I never said that ALL the founders had the "same philosophy".
What I am saying is that the understanding of the meaning of the Constitution by those who ratified it at the time they did so was the limted government view expressed by Madision and Jefferson.
Madison is the one who is known as the father of the Constitution - not Hamilton.
The whole purpose for the Constitution in the first place was to establish the limits of federal power. A view that the federal government could do just about anything and everything that a simple majority of Congress approved of at any given point in time via "creative" interpretations of "general welfare" would negate the purpose of having a Constitution to begin with.. The states considerend themselves to be individual soverign nations. There were not going to cede any more power to the central government than they though was absolutely necessary for their own survival (i.e mutual defense against foreign powers, etc.)
Furthermore there is no evidence that even Hamilton believed that the federal government could be involved in all the things that people today claim is authorized by the Constitution.
Show me any of Hamilton's writings that have anything to do with approving the authority of the federal government to set up entitlement programs or mandatory health care programs.
That's damn straight Gilbert!!!!! Why are you even arguing with these libtard losers?!?!! If the founding fathers were alive today, they'd go to commie East Nashville and kick these libtards @ss, starting with Jeff Woods! Libs wouldn't know history if it bit them in the @ss. It used to be common knowledge that Thomas Jefferson was a sixth degree black belt, which he used when ever marauding Indians violated his property. And I don't mean his land (wink, wink).
But Gilbert, I've got your back. And in not in that filthy way that libtards have each others back!!!!!
======================================================
England vs Algeria Live live & All World Cup Games For Just $27
======================================================
http:/4liveworldcup.com
Interesting how, here in the South, everyone (like nashpirate, no doubt) brags about what great "Christians" they are. Yet they suddenly turn very selfish, greedy, and Darwinist when it comes to helping out those less fortunate themselves. These same greedy idiots have the nerve to label the true Christians like Ms. Harper as "socialists" and "communists", as if both of those things are somehow anti-Christian. I'd say Jesus was clearly more of a socialist than a capitalist, like the pigs at the top of the food chain in this country. If you make any kind of salary and you can't justify spending a few dollars a year to help out those who don't, then your'e not a Christian at all. You better hope there will be some reall ones around when you're down and out yourself someday.
"If you make any kind of salary and you can't justify spending a few dollars a year to help out those who don't, then your'e not a Christian at all."
The issue isn't a question of willingness to help those less fortunate. Rather, government ordering where, when and how much. (With a hefty deduction for administration.) The short New Testament Christian plan for giving suggests quiet, circumspect charity. And not allowing one hand to know what the other is doing. A preferable difference from Marx I think.
Evajames, have you ever noticed how GIVING Southern Christians are compared to other parts of the country? The South is the MOST giving, despite the govt stealing away money. I give to charities. I'd give more if the govt didn't take so much. We conservative Christians argue against the govt taking our money and then "giving" it to "charities" that don't amount to much. More money is wasted going thru a fed agency than it would be thru a Christian charity. Or any charity for that matter. What's wrong with that? And also, if you're Christian you'd know this, but the Bible specifically says those that don't work won't eat. So don't evoke Jesus when it's convenient for you and your politics. There's nothing wrong with people deciding where their money goes and who gets it. That's the point. The govt should get out of the way.
Also, for THarper to evoke MLK and say people like SGill called him a communist? Woah, lady, take a look back and it was actually YOUR party, the dems, that hated him so much and wanted him gone. How easily the dems have covered over this and also the fact that Republicans were FOR the civil rights bill. Hmmmm. How 'bout that?
Let me paraphrase for Sen. Harper, since she is obviously such a fine Christian Woman and the mentioning of religion throws so many into a tizzy. If you DON"T pay taxes to support my otherwise helpless constituents, then I will turn them loose to go TAKE what they need! Now, isn't it alot easier to voluntarily pay for the "general welfare"?
Sen. Harper, I am a senior citizen on Medicare. Unfortunately, medicare does not cover dental work. I cannot afford dental insurance so I was wondering if you could help me out with dental work that I am in serious need of. Thank You
Pretty funny interchange. What that ole gal Thelma doesn't realize is that she made her choice of "which end of the rope" a long time ago when she began as an apologist for the LBJ mentality of give the porch monkeys lots of money and they will stay over in Barrel-House Town and not bother us. Yeah, the Day of Decision is coming soon to America and everyone will be forced to choose their end of the rope. This isn't about "White Power" anymore, it is about "Loyal American Power" -- Americans of all races and religions are banding together to preserve what is called "The American Way". The mohammadans and the looney left wing characters whether brown, black, yellow or white will do their best to destroy the Old American Republic and put the likes of Hussein Obama and his freak-show in charge as dictators for life. Well now, we are not going to let that happen. Thelma and Cohen over in Memphis and all of your breed will go away and join the rest of the forgotten fools of history.
What's that huge orange thing on Thelma's head?
Charlie Daniels eat your heart out!!
