DVD Talk
You're a mean one Mr. Boortz.... [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum

PDA

View Full Version : You're a mean one Mr. Boortz....


JumpCutz
10-15-05, 08:11 AM
On the October 14 broadcast of his daily radio show, right-wing radio host Neal Boortz stated that if the country is faced with an impending national disaster, it should make it a higher priority to save rich Americans rather than poor Americans.

An October 13 New York Daily News article spurred Boortz's comments. The front-page story, headlined "Rich Got Terror Tip," reported that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has launched an investigation into whether its officials alerted certain New Yorkers of a terror threat to the city's subway days before the rest of the city learned of the possible plot. According to the article, the probe was launched after the discovery of two emails describing the bombing plot that "had been sent early last week to a select crowd of business and arts executives by New Yorkers who claimed to have close connections to Homeland Security."

After summarizing the story, Boortz responded, "This is as it should be." He went on to imagine a scenario in which the country is forced to "set some priorities" regarding who will be notified of an impending disaster. "We should save the rich people first," Boortz declared. "You know, they're the ones that are responsible for this prosperity." Boortz described the poorest Americans as "a drag on society" and stated that they "don't achieve squat. They sit around all the time waiting for somebody else to take care of them. They have children they can't afford. They're uneducated. They can barely read."

From the October 13 broadcast of Cox Radio Syndication's The Neal Boortz Show:

BOORTZ: OK, I've got an insensitive thought, folks. There's a news story out there -- there's a news story out there that rich people got some sort of an email notification of the terrorist threat against the New York subway before poor people did. OK? They're making a big deal out of it. Let me see if I can find it on the Drudge Report here. Let's see. There's a guy strangling a goose. That's a pretty good -- that's a pretty impressive picture. It's something about bird flu. So he's got this goose and he's just wringing its neck. You can -- oh, who tipped off the big shots? OK, now here's the story. And it says, "The Homeland Security Department launched internal probes yesterday into whether its officials tipped off friends and relatives to a possible subway terror plot days before average New Yorkers were alerted." So the real gripe here is that it seems that some wealthy people got notified of the terror plot before the great unwashed, before the others. Now, the Daily News in New York has a headline: "Rich got terror tip." Rich got terror tip. OK, let's get logical about this, folks. Let's play logic with this. This is as it should be. OK? If we are faced with disaster in this country -- let me ask you this, OK? You just be logical. Get all of the emotion out of this. Get all of the emotion out of this. But if we are faced with a disaster in this country, which group do we want to save? The rich or the poor? Now, if you have time, save as many people as you can. But if you have to set some priorities, where do you go? The rich or the poor? OK? Who is a drag on society? The rich or the poor? Who provide the jobs out there? The rich or the poor? Who fuels -- you know, which group fuels our economy? Drives industry? The rich or the poor? Now if you -- all of a sudden, somebody walks up to you and says, "Hey, Boortz listener. You're gonna have a -- you have to make a choice. You're going to -- we're gonna move you to another country. And you're just gonna have to make your way in this other country. We have a choice of two countries for you. In this country, people achieve a lot and they are wealthy because of their hard work. In this country, people don't achieve squat. They sit around all the time waiting for somebody else to take care of them. They have children they can't afford. They're uneducated. They can barely read. And the high point of their day is Entertainment Tonight on TV. Which country do you want to live in? The country of the high achievers, or the country of sheep, the country of followers?" You know what you're gonna do. I don't see what the big problem is. I just don't. I mean, if you -- who do I want to save first? The rich. Save the poor first. Then, when everything's over, where are you gonna go for a job? OK, hey, if I get a tin cup, can I sit next to you and sell pencils too?

[...]

I'm serious about that, folks. You see, that's the kind of thing that's going to end up in news stories: "Neal Boortz said that in times of disaster we should save the rich people first." Well, hell, yes, we should save the rich people first. You know, they're the ones that are responsible for this prosperity. I mean, you go out there and you look at this vast sea of evacuees, OK? You want to get an economy going in some city? Well, who you gonna take back? The people who own businesses? Or the people that sit around waiting to get their minimum wage job, work 'til Friday, get a paycheck and then not show up again until the following Wednesday? Come on. Just put a little logical thought into this, folks.


Some feedback for Mr. Boortz:



-But....wait....I thought Rich people were self-sufficient and didn't need help from the government? Can't they save themselves?



Oh, for the love of all that's sacred...
A prime example of Social Darwinism if I've ever heard one -- "The fact that I'm rich proves that I'm a better person than you are, therefore I deserve to get even more even if it's at your expense."

Hmmmmmm...there sure do seem to be more than a few people on the right who embrace this philosophy and who also claim to be Christians. What would Jesus think of this, I wonder...?




-Interesting analysis.

How do we tell who is rich and who is poor when disaster strikes? An easy way to do this is charging on a per-incident basis to rescue people in disasters. Those that can pay to be rescued will be rescued and those that can’t… well what can you say.

Firemen and other rescue workers could take cash or credit cards. I am sure we can come up with some kind of monetary scale. Perhaps something like $1000 to be pulled from a collapsed building or rescued from a flood.

I sure hope Boortz carries a lot of money around on his person, just in case.




-Why bother telling the rich people first about a subway attack? Do they actually use the subway? Why would they need to know when they drive their Hummers to work?

I never heard of Boortz before this little tidbit. All the more proof of the right-wingers' grand vision for America is a society full of nothing but 'haves' and 'have nots'.

Boortz drives the stake in even further by saying that the worth of a person's life is prportional to the size of their wallet. What despicable man
this is.

The last sentence of Boortz's idiocy was "Just put a little logical thought into this, folks."

Obivously, Boortz put a little thought into his comments.

Very little.



-Since all these "wrong" winged wackos speak the same language regarding everyone who is not just like them, I am concluding that they all share the same numb brain. They must rent it out when they need to use it. There just couldn't be that many "divine mistakes" all gathered in the same time period of history. I hope that this idiot is one of the first to go, come the revolution when the poor rise up to claim what is rightly theirs, which these low-lifes have stolen from them in the name of their profit margins.


Idiot
Christians should finally look at this and realize that Boortz and his ilk are using them to achieve their greedy desires. It's not Christ that would argue we should save the rich and kill the poor, but Boortz's philosophical mentor, Ayn Rand. Wake up!





-first of all, lets say you have a serious enough disaster, say avian flu, who is rich person going to turn to powder their shiny hiny?

but, seriously, his assumption is that money is all that is needed to sustain a community. not workers, people who know how to fix things, people who know how to grow food ... hell, people who know how to drive!! it isn't as if our favorite symbol of useless rich protoplasm, paris hilton, would ever be able to lift a finger on her own behalf.

rich people always seem to think they can eat money. nope, can't do it. geez.



"His assumption is that money is all that is needed to sustain a community. Not workers, people who know how to fix things, people who know how to grow food...

--------------------------------------------------------------

Exactly. When Congress briefly shut down the federal government a number of years ago because of the disagreement over the budget, resulting in the temporary layoff of many federal employees, I became absolutely incensed with Andy Rooney over an opinion piece he did on "60 Minutes". I wish I could find the text so that I could include it in here -- to this day, I still consider what he said to have been unbelievably callous and asinine -- especially given the fact that even some of the federal employees who had not been laid off would not be getting paid, despite the fact that the members of Congress were still receiving their pay despite the fact that they had basically decided not to work. He said something to the effect that if everyone in the United States who made over $100,000 per year were prevented from going to work, the country would encounter serious problems. As a result, I penned an outraged missive to the point that if everyone in this country who made under $100,000 per year were prevented from coming into work, the country would collapse into utter catastrophe within less than a week -- particularly since that total would probably represent over 75% of the population.


-Yet another example of someone who almost makes me hope that there is an afterlife, so he can be judged and found wanting. The only differences between Boortz and poor people are [a] he has more money and [b] they're not as arrogant and heartlessly evil. Not that he'll ever remember, or deserve, his membership in the human race.




-If I were to pick and choose who I saved, I'd end up saving fewer people than I were capable of. I understand what Boortz was getting at, but he's missing an important factor. When saving lives, just save lives. If you so happen to save a rich person, so be it. Same with a poor person. The value of a person should not matter. To ask me who'd I'd save first? I'd save the first person I can get to.



It's comments like Boortz's that make me very skeptical of the libertarians. With all of their talk about preserving personal freedom,they're really just right-wing free-market worshippers in disguise. Sure,they think people should be able to do drugs if they want to and screw around,but if you aren't well-off,they're like,"to hell with you". They're almost Satanic.






-As a libertarian, believe me, I've been called a lot worse.

I do think your comment is instructive, though, because it seems to imply that your ideas about the economic sphere, where you disagree with the libertarian and think the state should intevene, are (with the possible exception of the Abortion question) more important to your political identity than your ideas about the social sphere, where you agree with the libertarian that the state shouldn't intervene.

-When talking to left-wing people, I often get the impression that this is the case. And when talking to right-wing people, I often get the impression that the interference of the state in the social sphere is more important to them than its non-interference in the economic sphere. I fear the day that the left-wing and right-wing realize that their strongest interests are compatible, and proceed to use the power of the state to ram their values down other people's throats in each of their seperate, favorite spheres.

P.S. I have no interest in defending Boortz' comment. I don't think it's decent and I don't think it's libertarian.


-Dont you need the "poor" to work when its all over...if not your stuck with to many chiefs not enough indians...where does the line get drawn? How do they decide who is really rich and who is just kinda rich....OMG that would start a new class war!!!!Boortz is a genius!!! I wish I can learn at the feet of this idio....i mean genius.


-doesnt greed and these "rich" elites actually create more poor people in our society...seems to me when there is less regulation like there was in the 80's for example the gap between rich and poor grew....am i wrong?


-I wonder if Boortz realizes that many great men and women who have contributed to society have not always come from a rich background . At least not materialistically anyways . If you are to determine the value of a person's life there are a many different ways of determining that value . Someone who is not wealthy may contribute more to society by donating a number of hours a week to a charity like the United Way the Salvation Army Big Brothers/Sisters World Vision etc. I wonder if the life of some executive who has scammed millions of dollars or a porn magazines publisher who is rich deserves to live more than the bulk of the population who are not rich . Perhaps Boortz would rescue Larry Flynt over Johnnas Salk Ludwic Von Beethoven or John the Baptist .



-Wanna bet he considers himself a Christian...maybe even a compassionate conservative? And I'll bet he gets all lathered up over issues like "class warfare." Imagine that. Boortz makes comments like this and people actually have the nerve to bring up the divide between the rich and the poor.

Boortz has shown his true colors. Logic? Not from this crowd.

grundle
10-15-05, 09:13 AM
I think they should save all the women, plus me.

Th0r S1mpson
10-15-05, 09:21 AM
I've never heard of Boortz before. I also don't understand the "Christian" connection being made above, but I don't feel "used" by him at all because I wouldn't give him my attention beyond this thread. Seems more like an indirect way to take a shot at Christianity.

While I can vaguely see the concept he is getting at, it fails on a lot of levels. America owes our blue collar workers a lot more respect than he gives here.

Now, this article is talking about notification. What about preservation? In Deep Impact, they herded a certain number of americans into caves, many of which were top scientists, etc. Then they had a lottery for the others, and nobody over a certain age was permitted. But everyone was notified of the impending asteroid hit. I also don't recall wealth being a factor in the decision, though it would obviously be a related factor for many of the people. Different scenario, since it outlining prevervation of the human race, but a very strong comparison. The process outlined in that story seemed somewhat reasonable, and far more tactful than Boortz' analysis.

Summary: Should we notify the rich first? Of course not. There are a lot of underserving rich, and notification of "the rich" isn't even practical. In a worst-case scenario, everyone should be notified, and when it comes to saving people, perhaps there are priorities of who should be evacuated. But it wouldn't be based on wealth, unless it was a private profiteering company organizing part of the rescue.

bhk
10-15-05, 10:06 AM
Seems more like an indirect way to take a shot at Christianity.
In between all that rambling and incoherence, that's what stood out to me.

movielib
10-15-05, 10:27 AM
What stood out for me was this exchange between people commenting on Mr. Boortz's remarks because, although I have never heard Mr. Boortz, I have heard he is at least something of a libertarian. Also, this exchange mirrors a discussion I just had with sfsdfd in another thread.

It's comments like Boortz's that make me very skeptical of the libertarians. With all of their talk about preserving personal freedom,they're really just right-wing free-market worshippers in disguise. Sure,they think people should be able to do drugs if they want to and screw around,but if you aren't well-off,they're like,"to hell with you". They're almost Satanic.

-As a libertarian, believe me, I've been called a lot worse.

I do think your comment is instructive, though, because it seems to imply that your ideas about the economic sphere, where you disagree with the libertarian and think the state should intevene, are (with the possible exception of the Abortion question) more important to your political identity than your ideas about the social sphere, where you agree with the libertarian that the state shouldn't intervene.

-When talking to left-wing people, I often get the impression that this is the case. And when talking to right-wing people, I often get the impression that the interference of the state in the social sphere is more important to them than its non-interference in the economic sphere. I fear the day that the left-wing and right-wing realize that their strongest interests are compatible, and proceed to use the power of the state to ram their values down other people's throats in each of their seperate, favorite spheres.

P.S. I have no interest in defending Boortz' comment. I don't think it's decent and I don't think it's libertarian.

movielib
10-15-05, 10:38 AM
Here's someone else who thinks Boortz is definitely not a libertarian no matter what he calls himself:

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/jspecial112603.html



Boot Boortz!

Neal Boortz is a statist, not a libertarian.
So why is he speaking at the Libertarian Party’s national convention?

by Justin Raimondo
November 26, 2003

One thing one has to say about most of the "liberventionists" – the tiny but vocal clot of pro-war, pro-Bush "libertarians" – and that is they oppose this administration’s attacks on our civil liberties here at home. But what are we to make of alleged libertarians, such as Neal Boortz, who wants to know why the FBI shouldn’t be allowed to spy on the antiwar movement:

"The FBI is investigating the backgrounds and organizational methods of antiwar demonstrators in the US. Hopefully that doesn't come as a surprise to you. It is safe to assume that a large number of these demonstrators are out there in the streets because they want America to fail in its efforts to fight terrorism and its efforts to bring secular representative governments to Iraq and Afghanistan. Translated: Many of these demonstrators are pro-Saddam and anti-US. So, who wouldn't want them investigated by the FBI?"

Oh, gee, I don’t know: maybe a self-described "libertarian" who advocates strictly limited government and regards such surveillance as impermissible, in principle. Perhaps someone who takes the Bill of Rights seriously. In short, someone who believes in upholding the primacy of individual liberty – even in the face of an unprecedented assault by a cabal of war-crazed power-hungry ideologues.

Is this guy for real? Half the American people do not support this war. Are they "anti-U.S."? And isn’t it just a little too whiney to blame the antiwar camp because the policies of the War Party are failing? Surely the antiwar contingent, including this column, predicted the tragedy now unfolding in Iraq in most of its particulars, but to infer from this that anyone is gloating seems to me to be awfully presumptuous. This hardly describes my own response, which I can describe only by resorting to the poetry of Robinson Jeffers:

"The mad girl with the staring eyes and long white fingers
Hooked in the stones of the wall,
The storm-wrack hair and screeching mouth: does it matter, Cassandra,
Whether the people believe
Your bitter fountain?
Truly men hate the truth, they'd liefer
Meet a tiger on the road.
Therefore the poets honey their truth with lying; but religion—
Vendors and political men
Pour from the barrel, new lies on the old, and are praised for kind
Wisdom.
Poor bitch be wise.
No: you'll still mumble in a corner a crust of truth. to men
And gods disgusting—you and I, Cassandra."

Boortz openly sneers at the rule of law, and the constitutional restraints imposed on government power, that one would imagine would be axiomatic to a self-proclaimed "libertarian." In a textbook case of what being pro-war has to mean in this day and age, Boortz has no problem throwing overboard his assumed bias against expanding government power, and stops just short of wanting to outlaw the antiwar movement:

"Remember, as you've already learned, the organizers of the demonstrations last week in London were largely anti-American communists and Islamic radicals. So we're supposed to assume that all of the protestors in the United States are Boy Scouts and volunteers at nursing homes?

"Know your enemy .. and keep him close."

Hey, wait a minute, Neal: some of us were Boy Scouts. We’re against this war on the grounds that it is profoundly anti-American, and a moral abomination, along with the doctrine of imperial "preemption" you touted in one of your radio rants – an evil doctrine that is the antipode of the libertarian nonaggression principle.

As for volunteers in nursing homes: we’re going to need a lot more of them, in the days to come, as the wounded, the mutilated, and the mad come streaming back from Iraq. One wonders if Boortz is going to be volunteering for the job any time soon.

However, I do agree with that last part: Know your enemy. Libertarians of any and all stripes must surely know that someone who believes what Boortz believes is no friend of freedom. At a time when our liberties are being attacked, abridged, and abolished outright, Boortz is a deadly enemy of libertarians. He has no place at the Libertarian Party national convention for the simple reason that, in the battle to preserve what is left of our old Republic, he is on the other side of the barricades.

The Libertarian Party – what were they thinking?

kvrdave
10-15-05, 10:39 AM
I wouldn't touch him with a twenty seven and a half foot pole.

Mammal
10-15-05, 12:18 PM
Boortz has been the primary talk-radio voice in Atlanta for decades on various stations; he went into syndication last year. He's a die-hard supporter of the war and bush, has been involved in Libertarian politics, and isn't a great fan of the religious right despite his unending love of our current variety of Republicans. He's very big on "fair tax." I rarely listen anymore since I got XM.

DVD Polizei
10-16-05, 06:34 AM
Seems more like an indirect way to take a shot at Christianity.

In between all that rambling and incoherence, that's what stood out to me.

======================

"We should save the rich people first," Boortz declared. "You know, they're the ones that are responsible for this prosperity." Boortz described the poorest Americans as "a drag on society" and stated that they "don't achieve squat. They sit around all the time waiting for somebody else to take care of them. They have children they can't afford. They're uneducated. They can barely read."

Just where exactly does Christianity fit in that statement.

Boortz needs to do a little discovery on his own about big business and how it purposesly sets their wages to keep people poor, while making higher profits for the companies. That's what Capitalism is: Higher profits for yourself--and attaining those profits at whatever cost to society.

Boortz seems to be a one-dimensional thinker, who believes the rich are the reason for everything.

If he would do a little research on "the rich", not everyone became into wealth--many people who are now wealthy and gave back to society, were once poor or had a very low income.

And Boortz needs to recognize The Wealthy Welfare Class.

Those who come into wealth, who haven't worked a day in their lives, are probably the least likely of any class, to give back to society. They live on the wealth attained by their previous family's achievements, and merely exist. Because of their wealth, they take advantage of their monetary situation and have particular connections of using their money that no poor person could possibly have. These people are just as lazy as a family receiving welfare checks from the government.

Finally, if Boortz wants to do away with everyone but the rich, he will quickly find himself having to work for a living with the rest of the rich folk. And I highly doubt this social class will last long. They will be untrained, unskilled, and won't be able to do anything except hit tennis balls and swing golf clubs.

bhk
10-16-05, 10:47 AM
Those who come into wealth, who haven't worked a day in their lives, are probably the least likely of any class, to give back to society. They live on the wealth attained by their previous family's achievements, and merely exist. Because of their wealth, they take advantage of their monetary situation and have particular connections of using their money that no poor person could possibly have. These people are just as lazy as a family receiving welfare checks from the government.

Don't talk about the Kennedys and the Kerrys like that.


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0