Posted on Dec 29, 2015
Is Lou Holtz Right about the Democratic party?
10.4K
132
66
6
6
0
Does Lou Holtz have it right?
Please read his speech before you answer the survey.
The Democrats are right, there are two Americas. The America that works and the America that doesn’t. The America that contributes and the America that doesn’t. It’s not the haves and the have nots, it’s the dos and the don’ts. Some people do their duty as Americans, obey the law, support themselves, contribute to society and others don’t. That’s the divide in America .
It’s not about income inequality, it’s about civic irresponsibility. It’s about a political party that preaches hatred, greed and victimization in order to win elective office. It’s about a political party that loves power more than it loves its country.
That’s not invective, that’s truth, and it’s about time someone said it.
The politics of envy was on proud display a couple weeks ago when President Obama pledged the rest of his term to fighting “income inequality.” He noted that some people make more than other people, that some people have higher incomes than others, and he says that’s not just. That is the rationale of thievery.
The other guy has it, you want it, Obama will take it for you. Vote Democrat. That is the philosophy that produced Detroit.
It is the electoral philosophy that is destroying America. It conceals a fundamental deviation from American values and common sense because it ends up not benefiting the people who support it, but a betrayal.
The Democrats have not empowered their followers, they have enslaved them in a culture of dependence and entitlement, of victim-hood and anger instead of ability and hope. The president’s premise – that you reduce income inequality by debasing the successful–seeks to deny the successful the consequences of their choices and spare the unsuccessful the consequences of their choices. Because, by and large, income variations in society are a result of different choices leading to different consequences.
Those who choose wisely and responsibly have a far greater likelihood of success, while those who choose foolishly and irresponsibly have a far greater likelihood of failure.
Success and failure usually manifest themselves in personal and family income. You choose to drop out of high school or to skip college – and you are apt to have a different outcome than someone who gets a diploma and pushes on with purposeful education.
You have your children out of wedlock and life is apt to take one course; you have them within a marriage and life is apt to take another course. Most often in life our destination is determined by the course we take.
My doctor, for example, makes far more than I do. There is significant income inequality between us. Our lives have had an inequality of outcome, but, our lives also have had an in equality of effort. While my doctor went to college and then devoted his young adulthood to medical school and residency, I got a job in a restaurant. He made a choice, I made a choice, and our choices led us to different outcomes. His outcome pays a lot better than mine. Does that mean he cheated and Barack Obama needs to take away his wealth? No, it means we are both free men in a free society where free choices lead to different outcomes.
It is not inequality Barack Obama intends to take away, it is freedom. The freedom to succeed, and the freedom to fail. There is no true option for success if there is no true option for failure. The pursuit of happiness means a whole lot less when you face the punitive hand of government if your pursuit brings you more happiness than the other guy. Even if the other guy sat on his arse and did nothing. Even if the other guy made a lifetime’s worth of asinine and short sighted decisions.
Barack Obama and the Democrats preach equality of outcome as a right, while completely ignoring inequality of effort.
The simple Law of the Harvest – as ye sow, so shall ye reap – is sometimes applied as, “The harder you work, the more you get.”
Obama would turn that upside down. Those who achieve are to be punished as enemies of society and those who fail are to be rewarded as wards of society. Entitlement will replace effort as the key to upward mobility in American society if Barack Obama gets his way. He seeks a lowest common denominator society in which the government besieges the successful and productive to foster equality through mediocrity. He and his party speak of two Americas, and their grip on power is based on using the votes of one to sap the productivity of the other. America is not divided by the differences in our outcomes, it is divided by the differences in our efforts.
It is a false philosophy to say one man’s success comes about unavoidably as the result of another man’s victimization.
What Obama offered was not a solution, but a separatism. He fomented division and strife, pitted one set of Americans against another for his own political benefit. That’s what socialists offer. Marxist class warfare wrapped up with a bow. Two Americas, coming closer each day to proving the truth to Lincoln’s maxim that a house divided against itself cannot stand.
“Life is ten percent what happens to you and ninety percent how you respond to it.”
Lou Holtz
Leo “Lou” Holtz (born January 6, 1937) is a retired American football coach, and active sportscaster, author, and motivational speaker.
Please read his speech before you answer the survey.
The Democrats are right, there are two Americas. The America that works and the America that doesn’t. The America that contributes and the America that doesn’t. It’s not the haves and the have nots, it’s the dos and the don’ts. Some people do their duty as Americans, obey the law, support themselves, contribute to society and others don’t. That’s the divide in America .
It’s not about income inequality, it’s about civic irresponsibility. It’s about a political party that preaches hatred, greed and victimization in order to win elective office. It’s about a political party that loves power more than it loves its country.
That’s not invective, that’s truth, and it’s about time someone said it.
The politics of envy was on proud display a couple weeks ago when President Obama pledged the rest of his term to fighting “income inequality.” He noted that some people make more than other people, that some people have higher incomes than others, and he says that’s not just. That is the rationale of thievery.
The other guy has it, you want it, Obama will take it for you. Vote Democrat. That is the philosophy that produced Detroit.
It is the electoral philosophy that is destroying America. It conceals a fundamental deviation from American values and common sense because it ends up not benefiting the people who support it, but a betrayal.
The Democrats have not empowered their followers, they have enslaved them in a culture of dependence and entitlement, of victim-hood and anger instead of ability and hope. The president’s premise – that you reduce income inequality by debasing the successful–seeks to deny the successful the consequences of their choices and spare the unsuccessful the consequences of their choices. Because, by and large, income variations in society are a result of different choices leading to different consequences.
Those who choose wisely and responsibly have a far greater likelihood of success, while those who choose foolishly and irresponsibly have a far greater likelihood of failure.
Success and failure usually manifest themselves in personal and family income. You choose to drop out of high school or to skip college – and you are apt to have a different outcome than someone who gets a diploma and pushes on with purposeful education.
You have your children out of wedlock and life is apt to take one course; you have them within a marriage and life is apt to take another course. Most often in life our destination is determined by the course we take.
My doctor, for example, makes far more than I do. There is significant income inequality between us. Our lives have had an inequality of outcome, but, our lives also have had an in equality of effort. While my doctor went to college and then devoted his young adulthood to medical school and residency, I got a job in a restaurant. He made a choice, I made a choice, and our choices led us to different outcomes. His outcome pays a lot better than mine. Does that mean he cheated and Barack Obama needs to take away his wealth? No, it means we are both free men in a free society where free choices lead to different outcomes.
It is not inequality Barack Obama intends to take away, it is freedom. The freedom to succeed, and the freedom to fail. There is no true option for success if there is no true option for failure. The pursuit of happiness means a whole lot less when you face the punitive hand of government if your pursuit brings you more happiness than the other guy. Even if the other guy sat on his arse and did nothing. Even if the other guy made a lifetime’s worth of asinine and short sighted decisions.
Barack Obama and the Democrats preach equality of outcome as a right, while completely ignoring inequality of effort.
The simple Law of the Harvest – as ye sow, so shall ye reap – is sometimes applied as, “The harder you work, the more you get.”
Obama would turn that upside down. Those who achieve are to be punished as enemies of society and those who fail are to be rewarded as wards of society. Entitlement will replace effort as the key to upward mobility in American society if Barack Obama gets his way. He seeks a lowest common denominator society in which the government besieges the successful and productive to foster equality through mediocrity. He and his party speak of two Americas, and their grip on power is based on using the votes of one to sap the productivity of the other. America is not divided by the differences in our outcomes, it is divided by the differences in our efforts.
It is a false philosophy to say one man’s success comes about unavoidably as the result of another man’s victimization.
What Obama offered was not a solution, but a separatism. He fomented division and strife, pitted one set of Americans against another for his own political benefit. That’s what socialists offer. Marxist class warfare wrapped up with a bow. Two Americas, coming closer each day to proving the truth to Lincoln’s maxim that a house divided against itself cannot stand.
“Life is ten percent what happens to you and ninety percent how you respond to it.”
Lou Holtz
Leo “Lou” Holtz (born January 6, 1937) is a retired American football coach, and active sportscaster, author, and motivational speaker.
Democrats
Republicans
Barack Obama
Election 2016
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 19
7
7
0
Lonsberry wrote the speech, but yes, he has it mostly right. I would say Republicans also bear some blame on this topic, so I would not have placed the burden only on Democrats. In the end, we do not need more disincentives to education and hard work, and more incentives to leave the labor force. Wealth redistribution does both. Income inequality is outcome-focused without considering what hard work those outcomes require. It attempts to paint all those with more as undeserving of what they have.
(7)
(0)
Cpl (Join to see)
From "7 Reasons Why Liberals Are Incapable of Understanding The World"
by John Hawkins | Aug 23, 2011
3) Liberals emphasize feeling superior, not superior results. Liberalism is all about appearances, not outcomes. What matters to liberals is how a program makes them FEEL about themselves, not whether it works or not.
http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2011/08/23/7_reasons_why_liberals_are_incapable_of_understanding_the_world/page/full
by John Hawkins | Aug 23, 2011
3) Liberals emphasize feeling superior, not superior results. Liberalism is all about appearances, not outcomes. What matters to liberals is how a program makes them FEEL about themselves, not whether it works or not.
http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2011/08/23/7_reasons_why_liberals_are_incapable_of_understanding_the_world/page/full
7 Reasons Why Liberals Are Incapable of Understanding The World
To understand the workings of American politics, you have to understand this fundamental law: Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil./
(1)
(0)
Col Joseph Lenertz
Cpl (Join to see) - LOL, yes. The belief that emotions or feelings are a valid source of national policy is a big problem for liberals. That is what allows me to sue you (and get away with it) if you hurt my feelings or disagree with my philosophy or way of life. And, if I happen to be a spider, I get to call you a bigoted arachnophobe all the way to the bank.
(1)
(0)
Cpl (Join to see)
Col Joseph Lenertz I believe that's why non-liberals have a hard time articulating conservative principles to liberals. It's hard to argue a feeling when facts need to be presented. If facts seem harsh or do not appeal to emotion, you just can't win the argument. It's time to face the truth that until a negative emotion about a topic appeals to a liberal, they will not face the facts...
For Example, geraldo rivera took the liberal stance on syrian refugees until his daughter was caught up in the Paris terrorist attack. The liberal has to be personally affected by a negative emotion before they change their position. He's a liberal though and eventually, he's going to back the liberal candidates, but for now, he's a war-hawk.
“I think he (obama) is malignantly naive,” Rivera said, calling ISIS a de facto nation and directly disagreeing with the president, who has advised Americans not to categorize ISIS as such since that’s what they want.
Obama’s been too “muted” and “nuanced” in reaction to the Paris attacks, Rivera said. “We need to respond by declaring war on them… if we don’t kill them, they’re going to kill us.”
He offered specifics, calling for Russia, the U.S. and our Middle East Allies to join forces in a war against ISIS– even if have to drag the latter in “kicking and screaming.”
http://www.thewrap.com/geraldo-rivera-calls-out-malignantly-naive-obama-after-reuniting-with-daughter-in-paris/
For Example, geraldo rivera took the liberal stance on syrian refugees until his daughter was caught up in the Paris terrorist attack. The liberal has to be personally affected by a negative emotion before they change their position. He's a liberal though and eventually, he's going to back the liberal candidates, but for now, he's a war-hawk.
“I think he (obama) is malignantly naive,” Rivera said, calling ISIS a de facto nation and directly disagreeing with the president, who has advised Americans not to categorize ISIS as such since that’s what they want.
Obama’s been too “muted” and “nuanced” in reaction to the Paris attacks, Rivera said. “We need to respond by declaring war on them… if we don’t kill them, they’re going to kill us.”
He offered specifics, calling for Russia, the U.S. and our Middle East Allies to join forces in a war against ISIS– even if have to drag the latter in “kicking and screaming.”
http://www.thewrap.com/geraldo-rivera-calls-out-malignantly-naive-obama-after-reuniting-with-daughter-in-paris/
Geraldo Rivera Calls Out 'Malignantly Naive' Obama After Reuniting With Daughter in Paris
"It almost gave me a heart attack," Rivera tells TheWrap about not being able to contact his daughter Simone, who was at soccer game when bombs detonated
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
Regardless of who wrote this essay or presented it as a speech, it is fundamentally correct. There are at least two Americas and the Democrats are more inclined to value their party over and above their nation. However, to be fair, the same can be said of the other parties. That's the trouble with parties.
Again, to be fair, the Democrats are structured to abuse power more flagrantly. Look for example at the subject of "brokered conventions". It's much in the news these days because it appears that the GOP leadership is preparing for a brokered convention to defeat Donald Trump whom they fear as a candidate. Yes, the GOP hasn't had a brokered convention with its candidate selected in a smoke-filled backroom deal in a long time. Generally, they are selected democratically by the general membership of the party. (And in the interest of full disclosure I have often complained that they have chosen unwisely and wished for a return to brokered conventions of yesteryear.) However, in looking at the DNC conventions, I lose heart. Everyone of their conventions is brokered and none of them have produced any good candidates. The reason the Democrats end up selecting their candidates in smoke-filled backrooms is because not all delegates to their conventions are equal. Yes, there are those selected democratically by the membership at large. But the more "powerful" delegates represent special interests such as unions and their votes carry more weight than common delegates. Such a system is rife with potential for abuse.
Again, to be fair, the Democrats are structured to abuse power more flagrantly. Look for example at the subject of "brokered conventions". It's much in the news these days because it appears that the GOP leadership is preparing for a brokered convention to defeat Donald Trump whom they fear as a candidate. Yes, the GOP hasn't had a brokered convention with its candidate selected in a smoke-filled backroom deal in a long time. Generally, they are selected democratically by the general membership of the party. (And in the interest of full disclosure I have often complained that they have chosen unwisely and wished for a return to brokered conventions of yesteryear.) However, in looking at the DNC conventions, I lose heart. Everyone of their conventions is brokered and none of them have produced any good candidates. The reason the Democrats end up selecting their candidates in smoke-filled backrooms is because not all delegates to their conventions are equal. Yes, there are those selected democratically by the membership at large. But the more "powerful" delegates represent special interests such as unions and their votes carry more weight than common delegates. Such a system is rife with potential for abuse.
(5)
(0)
SrA Marlin Taylor
excuse me for posting this story. I may be wrong on who wrote it. But I do know for a FACT that he did use it on his radio broadcasting statement. What is said and supposed to be a quote of him needs to be SAID even if he wasn't the one that said it. NOW the next time I post a question here, I will in fact make sure I got the right person that spoke it.
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
PO1 (Join to see)
Regardless of who wrote it I am glad it was posted. All of these posts are detracting from the message the speech gives, by sending everyone around to fact check its author.
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google