To bad this guy never ran for president. But, being a military man, with duty away from home for long stretches, he probably knew he couldn't escape the scrutiny from the press, and what it might reveal.
I can think it is silly, even if I otherwise respect the person. I don't agree 100% with anyone, although I will admit that it bothers me when people I otherwise respect say dumb things.
It is not "as American as apple pie" to deficate on police cars or trash the bathrooms in local businesses.
I am actually enjoying this very much. Yesterday the news had interviews with the local business men in downtown Oakland. They were initially very sympathetic, so I am guessing they are liberal. They are at wit's ends.
It's businessmen that declared the class war in the first place. The Occupy protests could end tomorrow, all the business class has to do is declare a ceasefire in the class war. The longer they refuse to budge, the worse it will be for them.
I understand why wall-street is happening because the tax payers are responsible for those huge bank bailout/bonuses. What does Oakland want from businesses? I hope none of those tuberculosis ppl in Atlanta come out to my business. I have worked very hard for anything I own.
They want democracy to be REAL. They're tired of politicians being beholden to their bribers instead of the voters.
Like the teachers union in L.A. that gives millions to the governor and mayor.
Like the prison guards union that gave millions go Gov. Brown and then got the nicest deal in town.
Like the sanitation workers in Chicago and NY who gave millions to their representatives and ended up with contracts that makes private workers green with envy.
Like the SEI that gives millions to Obama and then has their president in the White House as a frequent guest.
Are those the bribers that the Occupy Crowd wants out?
Unions benefit workers (who are also consumers), which in turn benefits the economy and the society as a whole. Corporations benefit the 1%.
I don't think politicians should be able to take corporate money, nor should they take money from anyone else.
By the way, corporations contribute 20 times more money to candidates than unions do.
When a public employee union gives a million dollars to a mayor or governor, they then "negotiate" a contract with someone they just gave a million dollars to. In any other arena, that would be a horrific conflict of interest.
Also, the fact that a select group of people gets "benefits" does not mean that everyone benefits. If a union has pensions that bankrupt Chicago, no one benefits.
If a union makes it impossible to fire a teacher, a teacher can molest a child and remain on the payroll for three years while the case goes to trial. Of course, paying the teacher to stay home for 4 years hurts children who then have one less teacher because the budget has a limited number of teachers.
The same goes for the City Attorney's Office that takes 3 years to fire an impompetent teacher. With a limited budget, that's one less attorney working for the people while someone has 4 years leave with pay.
Corportations benefit more than the 1%. How that simplistic number took hold, I do not know. A very small percent of corporate profit goes into the pockets of the CEOs or other individual. A huge percent goes to my pension fund, teachers' pensions funds, Harvard University's endowment of a billion dollars, Princeton, etc.
Just because you put money in the system doesn't mean it helps anything. Hey, instead of giving money to unemployed for benefits or teachers, give it to me, and I promise I will spend it, giving it to all sorts of workers, like waiters, salesmen, and providers.
There is an economics lesson that you are missing - the story of the broken window. Briefly, a boy breaks a bakery window and takes a cake. He is caught and he explains how he helped. The glazier will get $50 to fix the window, giving $10 to his assistant. He will pay $10 taxes, giving a benfit to the state, and will take his wife to dinner, supporting other local businesses. Every thinks he did good because they don't see the baker who had to spend $50 and could not take his wife to dinner.
I doubt your statistics about corporations giving 20 times as much as unions. I know that is not true in CA. But assuming it is true you miss another point. Corporations give to both sides. Think of all the billionaires supporting Obama. Like the Solyndra guy. They are neither Dem nor GOP.
Unions give 95% to one side.
That is what tips the balance.
I don't think politicians should be able to take corporate money, nor should they take money from anyone else.
By the way, corporations contribute 20 times more money to candidates than unions do.
It stands to reason, that anytime anyone gives any money to any politician, the purpose is to bribe that politician in order to win favors.
Yes, a union that gives money to a politician and then negotiates a contract with that politician has a conflict of interest. But how often are union contracts negotiated? You know what else is a conflict of interest? A corporation giving money to a politician who is deciding regulations that effect that corporation. How often do you think that is happening by comparison? Can you think of any instance where a union's lobbyist WROTE legislation for congressmen to pass? Has this not become commonplace on Capitol Hill in regards to corporations?
If a corporation's shareholders benefit from laws passed by those whom the corporation has bribed, the only ones who benefit are the corporation and the shareholders. When a union works to establish and maintain a pension, then millions benefit. And it's not just the people receiving the pension that do. They spend their pension money, and it allows the economy to grow. Fewer people are impoverished, and therefore the society as a whole is safer. No city, county, or state would be bankrupt today if it hadn't been for the housing bubble, a bubble that was caused by banking lobbyists bribing politicians.
A very small percent of the value on the NYSE goes into teacher's pensions funds. The top 1% control 42% of the wealth. The top 20% control 50% of the wealth. The bottom 80% control 7%.
"Just because you put money in the system doesn't mean it helps anything. Hey, instead of giving money to unemployed for benefits or teachers, give it to me, and I promise I will spend it, giving it to all sorts of workers, like waiters, salesmen, and providers."
Actually, for every dollar in direct welfare you spend, it creates $1.27 in economic activity. In every dollar of tax cuts you spend, it creates just $0.22 of economic activity. The reason why is because what's important is to distribute an influx of capital into the economy around the entire country.
"There is an economics lesson that you are missing - the story of the broken window. Briefly, a boy breaks a bakery window and takes a cake. He is caught and he explains how he helped. The glazier will get $50 to fix the window, giving $10 to his assistant. He will pay $10 taxes, giving a benfit to the state, and will take his wife to dinner, supporting other local businesses. Every thinks he did good because they don't see the baker who had to spend $50 and could not take his wife to dinner."
Phil, I've mentioned Henry Hazlitt's Broken Window Theory quite a bit around here before. Not to be ironic, but since pensions and union benefits have been attacked, you've gotten a lot more broken windows at these protests, haven't you?
But on a more serious note, how is a pension a broken window? It is deferred income. If you're going to call that a broken window, then you might as well call any wage a broken window, and you would therefore be advocating slavery.
You can doubt my statistics all you like, but that doesn't make them any less true. The simple fact is that corporations have FAR more capital to spend on politicians than unions, especially when only 11% of the US workforce is in a union.
It doesn't matter that unions, for the most part, only give money to one side. The reason why is because they don't have enough capital to give to both parties like corporations do. Corporations have a sure bet, no matter who wins the election, they control the game.
Said it before and will say it again: I hope it lasts another 8 months. Small business owners, own the restaurants and stores around downtown Oakland, and they are getting pissed. Small businesses in New York and Boston are getting upset. Farmers in CA.
I just saw that they are talking about occupying the Rose Parade.
Pelosi and Reed and others have signed on in spirit. It is like the mayor of Oakland who at first backed the occupiers and the mayor of L.A who gave them panchos the first time it rained. Now both mayors are saying, "Okay, the people are getting upset. Please go home." And the occupiers are saying, "No. Try and kick us out and there will be hell to pay."
Of course, it is very hard to get off the tiger's back once you go for a ride. They will be remembered as the mayors (and senators and congressman....) who encouraged the occupiers, even if they got mauled trying to get off.
It's as American as apple pie to deficate on police cars or trash the bathrooms on local business. NOT!!! He didn't say that at all!
Oh, and it appears the movement is not as big a problem to local businesses and governments as you make it. See link!
How come if I posted a link to Fox or some similar source, it would automatically be discredited as a right-wing biased and unreliable source, but HuffPo is not tainted in a similar manner?
That asked, there was a segment on CNN yesterday morning interviewing business owners in Oakland. They are at wits end. And CNN is not a right wing source. If anything, it veers to the left and has been sympathetic. They also had a segment on the business in NY, and there were a lot of vocal complaints.
As the farmers who come into LA. A lot said they are not going to the downtown market until it was over because their business was down horrifically. (I had a Perry Moment and can't remember the number.)
One final question: The mayors of L.A. and Oakland were as sympathetic as could be when it started. They were welcomes and given ponchos when it rained. Suddenly, both mayors want them out. Did the two suddenly become GOP? If it isn't a problem, what caused them to change their song.
The actions of the mayors make me think HuffPo may be biased, unless there is some explanation.
(You also missed the sarcasm. Obviously Powell didn't say deficating on cars was American as apple pie. That was my juxtaposion of his opinion of them being American as apple pie on the photos of that happening.)
Oh, and it appears the movement is not as big a problem to local businesses and governments as you make it. See link!
If you think the Huffington Post is has not accurately reported the findings of the survey they are referencing, here is the link to the actual group who did the survey!
Regarding your second question? I would not presume to answer for them!
-- Modified on 11/11/2011 3:55:01 PM
Very often people post things from Fox or other conservative sources that have links, and they are still questioned. It is the same problem that people have in that situation. Indeed, I don't think Fox ever "made up" news the way Dan Rather did.
In any event, the link does look fishy. It is for an organization of "appointed local government administrators." I took a quick look at their web site and I would place money as to where they fall on the political spectrum. Just a guess.
Second - COP OUT.
You don't have to "answer" for the mayors. But what do you think caused the to make 180 degree turn around. Maybe they all just joined the Tea Party.
The fact that they made that type of swith, and the fact that Bloomberg and other mayors have also turned against Occupiers, obviously says something.
If you can't see the fact that they changed their view for some reason you are being intentionally blind.
Regarding your second question? I would not presume to answer for them!
-- Modified on 11/11/2011 3:55:01 PM
One of them being, it's hurting their bottom line. I don't think it's beyond the real of anyone's imagination that some of their biggest contributors, who are against the demonstrations, may be beginning to really apply significant pressure for them to in turn pressure the demonstrators to go away. Now, that's only one of many explanations I can think of.
We are talking about three very liberal mayors. SF, Oakland, and LA.
If they were under the thumb of their big evil contributors from the Corporation world, they would never have supported it to start with.
Also Villaragosa has always had labor as his big contributor. In fact, the cut his teeth as a labor leader and that was his base. If labor has always been his base, your theory doesn't make sense. Suddenly he is caving in to Wells Fargo and B of A, in spite of the fact that they weren't his base.
Ditto for Oakland. She is labor and Dem from Day One, and suddenly she is giving into her fictional big supporters.
Do Dems really sell out that fast? And for no reason?
And then Bloomberg. He is a multi, multi, multi millionaire. He doesn't need "corporate support." But suddenly he is caving to those who never supported him.
Got a second theory?
Yes, some of their staff are left wing, but they are mainly an aggregator of stories written by others. So you need to check to see if the story originated with them, or a more traditional source like the AP. As for Fox, it is a blatantly right-wing organ and has hardly any journalistic standards at all. CNN does lean left but at least tries to be objective. Every news source needs to be evaluated on its merits. And you must discriminate between the editorial page and the news pages. The New York Times editorial page leans left. Its straight news is pretty reliably unbiased. With The Wall Street Journal it's the reverse. Its editorial page is slightly to the right of Attila The Hun, but its news pages are solid journalism.
-- Modified on 11/11/2011 8:42:59 PM
Do you have any fake stories from Fox on the level of Dan Rather running a story he was told may have been false?
How about 60 Minutes. Did you know that the producer coached Clinton prior to the Jennifer Flowers interview. Imagine a "news producer" coaching a person about to be interview on how to answer the question. Can you think of anything Fox has done like that.
MSNBC is blatantly left wing. Is there anyone on Fox as bad as Al Sharpton that knowingly committed libel. Who in Fox has been found liable for that type of offense?
you might just get it. Here's a start. Yes, it's from HuffPo, but consider first whether it's true or not. More at 11.
As for MSNBC being blatantly left wing, I agree. But Fox has many more viewers. As for Sharpton's libel, please clarify. If you mean in the Brawley case, it was egregious. If you mean since he's been on MSNBC, please clarify. If it's Brawley, that happend more than 20 years ago, before either Fox or MSNBC existed.
I asked if there were any knowingly fake stories from Fox on the level of Rathergate et al.
You said to be careful what I wish for. I am careful but still wishing. So what are the equally outrageous stories.
Yes. I mean the Brawley case. Yes, it was libel. The people sued and were successful proving he lied. It was 20 years ago, but it shows that the guy is a pure liar for political reasons. It may be before Fox or MSNBC, but that is irrelevant. Do they have anyone with that type of blot on their record.
In the old days when there was dignity, that sort of story would forever disqualify someone from the public arena. Today there is no shame.
ALso, it was 20 years ago, but 4 years ago he was asked if he had any regrets. None to speak of. The man is a pathetic liar. Is there anyone of that low caliber on Fox?
Again. I asked was there ever a story as KNOWINGLY false as Rathergate. I will be careful what I wish for and I wish for an answer.
As for MSNBC being blatantly left wing, I agree. But Fox has many more viewers. As for Sharpton's libel, please clarify. If you mean in the Brawley case, it was egregious. If you mean since he's been on MSNBC, please clarify. If it's Brawley, that happend more than 20 years ago, before either Fox or MSNBC existed.
I'd say the article I provided shows a pattern of falsehoods at Fox that is stupifying. But here's another link. And don't dismiss it because it's Jon Stewart and it's funny as hell. The question is, is Stewart's list of Fox's lies correct? So dispute that if you can. And don't tell me none of them art the equivalent of Rather's "lie." By asking for an exact equivalent you are creating a false need for an exact equivalent. Fox's lies and gross errors are part of a pattern of distortion to favor the right that is remarkable. And they are, indeed, KNOWINGLY false.
Regarding Rather, I'd have to go back and study the incident. But I think he believed his sources and was simply sloppy. He was fired not because the story was proven untrue but because he used sloppy journalism and his sources were unreliable. I, for one, believe that Bush may well have failed in his obligations to the Air National Guard as the story alleged.
Now, as to Sharpton/Brawley, I actually agree with you. Sharpton was a despicable opportunist who lied and helped to ruin a decent prosecutor. I think he has changed a lot, but I was surprised when MSNBC hired him. I don't watch his show. In fact, I watch Fox more than MSNBC. That's not hard because I almost never watch MMSNBC.
First, I don't need an exact equivillent, but there is a difference between mistake and lie and opinion and fact.
As to Rather, BEFORE the show was aired, the network's document examiner's looked at the documents and said they were suspicious. For anyone my age (and Rather's) this was obvious because we all did footnotes on a typewriter that did not have super script.
That said, this is different
First, none of these were shown (or claimed) to be intentional or reckless lies. Jon Stewart does not even make that claim. Just that they were incorrect. They were mistakes, but that is not what I asked for. Rather was told the document was probably false.
Second, if you look at what they are citing, it is not to the news program, but to the commentators. For instance, one story has Beck saying. Commentators give opinion and are biased by nature. This is very different from news.
A good example is the statement “Health care reform is a government take over of health care.” That is not true or false. That is a matter of opinion. It is not “false” to believe that when the government decides to impose massive regulations on a field it is a form of take over. When the bill was being debated, Sen. Baucus said it would effect every household in America. If before you had your choice of doctor or plan, and now you can’t keep it – for what ever reason – it would not be false to say that government took over those options.
The fact that they can find a lot of mistakes for a TV show that runs 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for 60,000 hours a year does mean that they are lying. CNN has a slew of hideous “mistakes” with faked pictures that I think CNN honestly believed were true at the time.
Finally, I don't watch Fox or MSNBC, unless that is what they have when I am at the gym. I don't watch any TV news except on the treadmill. I am just amazed at the double standard that is applied to the two.
Regarding Rather, I'd have to go back and study the incident. But I think he believed his sources and was simply sloppy. He was fired not because the story was proven untrue but because he used sloppy journalism and his sources were unreliable. I, for one, believe that Bush may well have failed in his obligations to the Air National Guard as the story alleged.
Now, as to Sharpton/Brawley, I actually agree with you. Sharpton was a despicable opportunist who lied and helped to ruin a decent prosecutor. I think he has changed a lot, but I was surprised when MSNBC hired him. I don't watch his show. In fact, I watch Fox more than MSNBC. That's not hard because I almost never watch MMSNBC.
It is simply not possible to put out so many stories that are demonstrably wrong and slanted the same way and not have it be conscious distortion. In other words, lies. And you are wrong when you say they were all opinion and not during a news sequence. Remember, Politico is a non partisan group that has called out CNN as well.
The only example where I agree with you is regarding health care.
of Fox News and Fox Opinion shows.
Hannity is to Fox, what Ed Shultz is to MSLSD.
the list I provided of Fox lies and distortions was not all from their so-called "opinion" shows. Bill Hemmer, for example, a news reader.
I saw NOTHING that demonstrated the Hemmer or anyone else KNEW the boy was of the age of consent and reported him as underage anyways.
I know the links take you to MediaMasturbator that make that claim but offer no proof. Lots of the distortion I see is leftwingers "reporting" avbout Fox News.
Yes it is hard to pull out "so many stories....."
Just give me one where they ran a story when there was prior information that they had that indicated it was false.
Politico may be non partisan. But that doesn't change the fact that a statement like the take over of health care is an opinion. It doesn't change the fact that one of the things Stewart cited referenced a headline by Beck, who is a commentator.
Slanted is different than lying. There is contrary evidence re global warming. Gore doesn't cite contrary evidence. He is slanted and I don't say that in a negative way. Slanting isn't lying.
I want a story where they were advised it was false. Like Rathergate.
Just one. And in exchange I will give you another for CNN.
Phil, when there's a pattern of lying, and it's all lies from one political bent, it's clear they come from an attitude of "facts be damned, I heard this somewhere, it suits my slant, I'm not going to fact check it, just run with it." Most of Fox's lies are like that. Rather, on the other hand, had never been accused of lying before and that was not the accusation in this case. He was found guilty of not checking his facts adequately. As I said, many of us believe the story, at base, is accurate but Rather got sloppy. As for the health care issue I already said that fell more under opinion.
Do I really have to get all dictionary on yer ass?
Now you're just repeating lib mantra. When oh when will we get ONE of all the hundreds of cases of lying???
You say a pattern of lying. I keep asking for one lie. A pattern of lying is a lot of LIES. You keep giving me "slant" and a pattern of opinionated items, admittedly geared to one side. That is not lying, and a pattern of opinionated is not a pattern of lies.
In Europe, it is recognized that the press is not neutral and both sides put their spin on it. You see the Guardian, and you take it with a grain of salt. But there very rarely, if ever, are lies. It is their slant. None of these are "lies," Indeed, few of the respectable papers would "lie" because that would ruin their credibility. However, they all tell the news as they see fit. (In Ireland, you can spot if a person is Protestant or Catholic by the paper under his arm. Not 100%, but enough to put money on it.)
That is all Fox does, but that is all the others do.
Orwell said that much of propoganda is the failure to report. It need not be "lies." When Climate Gate broke, I kept waiting for the L.A. Times to report the story. It took over five days and then only when the story didn't die on the internet. EVEN WHEN THEY REPORTED IT, they left out some of the most crucial data. There have been several stories like that.
One of the big complaints of conservatives is that they NY Times may not "lie." But it only prints the news it thinks is fit to print, and frequently ignores other stories or lets the sit for days to see if they will die. This is their "slant."
Finally, Rather was not just guilty of not checking facts. His staff DID check the facts and determined that they were highly suspect. Rather engaged in a reckless disregard for the truth, at the very least. He was told in advance the story was shakey. Anyone my age - and his - could see why it was a fraud. He didn't "get sloppy." He was told the documents were very suspect and he went with it.
(I don't know how old you are, and I hate to talk about when I walked to school in the snow and studied by firelight, but the footnotes were a dead give away. Ten years later, the state of the art typewriter was the IBM Selectric, which could not do footnotes like that. I was in one of the biggest entertainment firms in L.A. as an intern, and saw the most advanced typewriters. The second I heard the complaint about the documents, I know it was false.)
AGAIN, just one lie. Not a pattern of opinion, but one story where it is documented that they knew or clearly should have known it was false when they ran it.
I didn't want to snip just one lie out of this long list, so I don't expect you to eat the whole thing. And, BTW, I don't assert all of these are outright lies, but some of them clearly are. Now, are they identical to Rather's transgression? No. But this list includes several outright lies in which Fox put out misinformation that was easily checkable. In one case Fox simply lifted material from Eric Cantor's web site, put it on air without attribution and never checked to see if it was factual.
You send a link with I can't count how many references, admitting that you aren't saying that they are all lies. I don't want to start disecting them because I could disect 10 and the you say, "Well, I said they all weren't all lies. I can't spend time disputing things that you start out by admitting are not examples of what we are talking about.
None of them are close to Rather. At the very worst, they didn't check. Rather's staff CHECKED. 60 Minutes has docuement examiners who ACTUALLY LOOKED AT IT and said it was suspicious. None of the things you mentioned referenced this type of checking and then disregarding it. At worst, the repeated reports with no reason to believe they were false.
Likewise, you again throw in 100 opinions, admitting they are not all lies, and then I am supposed to start rebutting what????
Name one, just one, that is identical to Rather, where Fox was told in advance the story was probably fake in fact, not slanted opinion, but based on fraud and forgery, or something similar.
Lifting without attribution and checking is not the same as checking, finding out it is probably fake, and then report. THAT IS WHAT RATHER DID.
You asked me to provide you with one actual lie Fox News has told. I send you a link with numerous citations of Fox News lies and you admit you didn't even try to read it. And because I acknowledged not all of them were lies, you throw the entire thing out. You clearly don't want to be confused with any facts whatsoever. And since when does one lie exactly have to equate to another? A lie is a lie. Fox, as Jon Stewart says, is a dynasty of lies. If you don't get that then clearly, you can't handle the truth. I am done with this foolishness. Clearly, you wouldn't know a lie if one bit you on the ass.
I didn't say I didn't read it. I said i didn't read it all. It is like the Stewart video. I saw 3 out of 5 minutes. As to the other link, I read enough to respond. The problem is it includes dozens of items and you admit they are not all lies.
If I respond to 1, 4, 8, and 15, you will say, "Well, I wasn't talking about that one. The others."
That is why the Stewart piece was not useful. I respond to several, including the healthcare one, which Stewart says was the biggest lie of all, and you say you agree with me on health care, but the lies are not the ones I addressed. The others.
Meanwhile, the head of his dynasty of lies - the biggest lie of all - is not even a lie in our opinion.
By sending 100 examples, many of which are not lies, you make it impossible to respond. Do you really want me to research every one on the list and respond to all?
Also, NONE of them have the crucial factor between lie, opinion, and mistake - the element of knowing falsehood of a fact. Not one that I looked at says, "Fox had info to the contrary." True I didn't look at all, but by sending so many you make it impossible.
That is why I keep asking for one. Don't give me 100 possibles, some of which you agree are not lies. One that you think is a lie, with the evidence that it was a knowing falsehood.
If you want to me to look at any one in particular, give me key words to search the article, so I don't have to wade through 100 that aren't applicable.
As I say: One knowing mis-statement of fact.
And your arguments are tendentious. You asked for one example, so I gave you a bunch to choose from. You read a few and admit you stopped reading, so how can you know one of them would not have fit your definition? Your excuse seems to be I gave you too much information and it was too hard for you to sift through it. Then you imply that because I agree one of them doesn't qualify it somehow disqualifies all of them. You also decline to even address my ponit about your bogus demand that I must find a lie that is virtually identical to Rather's deed. In addition, you have no response to another major ponit which is that where there is a pattern of lies that all come from one point of the political spectrum, it is clear the source must be aware that its bias is causing it to promote misinformation.
Anyway, I'm not going to convince you and you are certainly not going to convince me. So I hereby declare myself the winner, and this is my final post on the issue. Feel free to have the last word if you must.
I look at the first four items and see if any are "lies." If they are not, I don't have to go any further, but you find one that is.
My excuse is not that you gave me too much info. It is that you gave me info that contains a lot that is not lies, and you can always say, "I am not talking about that." which is what you did.
Rather than flood me with a lot of non-lies, tell me which ones you are talking about, and then I can reply.
I have a response to you "pattern of lies. It is if you list 100 things that are not lies individually because they are opinion or mistake, then there is not pattern. A pattern would be 10 lies, not 100 opinions you disagree with.
My "demand" isn't bogus. I never said it has to be "virtually identical." It does have to be something where the person knew it was false or was told it probably was. That isn't "identical," except that it is the generic definition of a lie.
Anyway, I'm not going to convince you and you are certainly not going to convince me. So I hereby declare myself the winner, and this is my final post on the issue. Feel free to have the last word if you must.
The OWS only resemblance to Apple Pie is their softness.
I'm not hiring any of those losers.
Powell is the precursor to Obama of the dangers of affirmative actioning careerist, bureaucratic, yes-men for superficial reasons over merit.
His message was we need to fix the economy and the first step is balancing the budget.
So basically, he said "protesting" was american as apple pie, but apparently the protest he would attend is a TEA PARTY rally!!
It's the Entitlement Generation.
They believe that they have "a right" to a job. They don't want to do anything to create the job, or do anything to make themselves more appealing to the job creator. And not just any job... but a job that lets them self-actualize the wondrous, precious snowflake that is inside of them
But by God, they want a job, and they are willing to scream and holler and piss and moan (and shit on police cars, rape, vandalize and murder) until someone gives them one.
my grandparents and parents, and most of their friends. You must be really, really old! 
What have YOU done to create jobs for these failed job seekers and whinging pissy-pants who want all of their debts and obligations expunged?
How can these precious snowflakes be saddled with debt, if they refuse to do business with the Capitalist oppressors?
Life is about what is, not what should be, and empowered them to succeed. That's not creating a job for them, but it is helping them live meaningful and productive lives. The same goes with my kids.