It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


SC Lt. Gov: Poor Like "Stray Animals." Don't Feed Them or "They Breed."

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 24 2010 @ 04:07 PM

ChattahBox)—Republican Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer of the bible-thumping state of South Carolina revealed his version of compassionate conservatism during a recent speech to his constituents, when he compared poor people on welfare to stay cats and dogs. Providing hungry people with an “ample food supply,” says Bauer only encourages the great unwashed of our society to breed more poor wretches whom the state is forced to feed. The genteel Southern gentleman is shocked that the poor on the dole have the bad taste to reproduce right under his nose, and he proposes that South Carolina “curtail that type of behavior,” by cutting off their food supply of government cheese and food stamps. Because after all, the poor, just like stray animals, can’t control their distasteful sexual urges. “They don’t know any better,” Bauer said.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Still more brilliance from the state that gave you Governor Mark Sanford.

Not all South Carolinians are imbeciles, of course, but it appears many imbeciles have high state positions.

I know I'm asking for trouble by posting this. There will be some people who will actually agree with Bauer. (Picture Charlie Brown banging his head against a tree.)

I've been a starving artist and poor in my lifetime. I'm not now, thanks to perseverance, hard work, and a hand up when I really needed one. No matter how high and mighty one is, there is always someone in his background who helped him when he fell.

That's how idiots like this one got to be where they are now.

Now I have the luxury of being allowed an opinion on poverty. I know many welfare recipients who could govern S.C. better than these two. Give them a job and get them off the dole!

[edit on 24-1-2010 by Sestias]

posted on Jan, 24 2010 @ 04:10 PM
I had to stop chewing for a second as my brain could not process thinking how atrocious this was and the former all at once.

And people wonder why some think that these states are little "back water" and "redneck-ish".

Yeah, a great solution he's give. Starve 'em.

I can see the homeless riot now.

I'm actually surprised that some intelligent human being didn't boo him off that stage, or at least key his car on the way out.

We should use people like this to pick out which folk to have sterelized in the near future. However stands up and cheers when he makes these remarks are just walked off.

I'm kidding of course....


[edit on 1/24/2010 by tothetenthpower]

posted on Jan, 24 2010 @ 04:23 PM
Come on, did you ever think politicians ever think before they stick their feet in their well endowed mouths.

As I read the article, I could not keep the movie Idiocracy out of my mind.

I think politicians suffer from that old disease, diarrhea of the mouth, anything that comes across the mind-just say it and to hell with the consequences.

posted on Jan, 24 2010 @ 04:28 PM
Ignorance at its best =(
It seems darker and darker by the day.

[edit on 24-1-2010 by spaz490]

posted on Jan, 24 2010 @ 04:29 PM
I am from SC too. I did not vote for Bauer, but can honestly say...................

How can a man that is supposed to be for our best interests, state something as ignorant as this? It's bad enough to be out of work and living on Uncle Sams dime................but to be belittled by someone who is obviously NEVER going to miss a meal!

Clearly, an ever going increase in the wedge between those who have, and those who never will.

Thanks for the post!

posted on Jan, 24 2010 @ 04:36 PM
On the flip side, by cutting off unconstitutional wealth redistribution policies, we will force the "poor" to fend for themselves or simply perish.

Not really a bad thing.

posted on Jan, 24 2010 @ 04:44 PM
since some people dont care about people who have less money than them, i suggest that if you were one of these people that entertained the thought in your mind, replace "poor" with whatever social class/race/religion you are, because:
yes, if people are alive then they breed, its not because they are a social parasite.
when you have a child with someone you love, how would you feel if someone said it was because of you somehow wanting to drain more from the system and because of your "distasteful sexual urges"? if you think he's right, do you honestly think you were concieved because your parents couldnt get the thoughts of purity, good values and faith to the system out of their mind? no, im gonna guess is was pretty "distasteful".

maybe i could kill this idiot then say "well im poor, i dont know any better" since thats what he thinks.

posted on Jan, 24 2010 @ 04:44 PM
This isn't a Republican or Democrat point of view,it is from "the elitist's" point of view.

Obviously this article is written with a certain slant to further anger and divide the people.(And encourage more votes for Democrats.)

Just look into the eugenics of Planned Parenthood and the goals to eliminate vast portions of the population...yes,it is sickening!

However,it is true that some people will settle for a lifetime of assistance and never strive for more,and some people do abuse the system,and the worst part? It was set up for that very reason,to diminish the human potential,breakdown of the family,a steady stream of those dependant and thus supportive of more governmental control,...

Before you get me wrong,I believe it would be cruel to yank these provisions away from people when their lives depend on it. Some people genuinely need assistance when the family and the church are unable to help.(Especially since the "family" and the "church" are no longer able to do much better!)

This is just another sad reflection on the times we're living in.

posted on Jan, 24 2010 @ 04:50 PM
reply to post by brainwrek

How about cutting the banks off from welfare, too?

I'll bet the man's a good, god-fearing Christian, too, who votes against sex education and birth control.

Words fail me. The man's advocating population control via starvation.

This place gets worse every day.

posted on Jan, 24 2010 @ 04:54 PM
Add one more to the list of "Politicians Say the Dumbest Things". That is just more of the elitist attitude of the self absorbed aristocracies of the Republican and Democratic parties.

It's too bad that, sometimes, the stupid words overshadow a decent idea. The suggestion that those receiving government assistance be required to attend PTA, parent / teacher conferences, etc. is a good one, and could very well have a positive impact on students. Though, it should be required of all parents, of children attending public school.

Now, let's see how many ignore my first paragraph and start accusing me of agreeing everything this nit-wit said.

posted on Jan, 24 2010 @ 05:17 PM
reply to post by WTFover

I hope no one misunderstood my first post.

It seems I did not get any stars so I must have said something wrong.

Of course the elites are idiots. That is a given. When there is not a society that promotes work ethic and free will, what does one expect?

Anyway, I better keep my well endowed mouth shut, before both feet come a flying.

posted on Jan, 24 2010 @ 05:23 PM
reply to post by endisnighe

Thank goodness it happens, though. Because, when the mouth moves faster than the brain, the truth escapes the tongue. Then we get a glimpse behind the masks.

posted on Jan, 24 2010 @ 05:24 PM
I guess the next logical step for the gentleman from South Carolina would be to "cull" the ranks of the poor with a limited hunting season. And of course, you would obviously not want health care for these 'poor folk" otherwise they might live longer and breed more.

The people of South Carolina have got to start electing people that don't keep giving the rest of the the world the impressions that the whole state is some redneck backwater.


posted on Jan, 24 2010 @ 05:26 PM
reply to post by apacheman

I support cutting off all welfare, both for the individual and the corporation.

If someone or some company cannot survive on its own, then it must be allowed to die.

+10 more 
posted on Jan, 24 2010 @ 05:36 PM
reply to post by brainwrek

Ok, but when they survive by taking your stuff, don't complain, because by your logic, survival is all that counts, and if you can't protect your stuff they have a right to take it to survive.

Me, I'd rather share freely than constantly fight for survival, dog-eat-dog.

posted on Jan, 24 2010 @ 05:37 PM
reply to post by apacheman

Certainly people shouldnt whine then if one of the "poor" gets killed by someone defending their stuff then correct?

What you are basically saying is that we should be held hostage so the "poor" dont start going on crazy crime sprees.

Thats called extortion.

posted on Jan, 24 2010 @ 05:46 PM
reply to post by brainwrek

Did I say you couldn't protect yourself?

I would and do.

However, I have a preference for nonviolence if at all possible, although if not, I'll dispatch the offender with the greatest haste and least mess possible.

I'm saying that it's probably the wiser societal choice to provide help than not. But if you choose not to follow that path, then take responsibility for the decision and don't gripe or complain about the forseeable consequences. Your path condemns some to unnecessary death, so don't be surprised when they return the favor.

posted on Jan, 24 2010 @ 05:50 PM
Let's deal with reality and facts.

The global birth rate is already falling without draconian measures.

According to the Dictionary of Geography by Audrey Clark, crude birth rate is also known as natural increase. It ranges from 12 to 50 per 1000 people. Furthermore, Clark describes that there is only a small tendency for birth-rates to fall even with more usage of birth control. During the period of 1960 to 1980, the world population has fallen 2% to 1.7 per cent per annum in the 1980s.

The absolute highest birth rate in the world is 1/2 baby per 10 people (50/1000).

The average is 2/10 baby per 10 people. (20.3/1000)

The USA is about 1/10 baby per 10 people. (13.82/1000)

Germany and Italy are 8.18/1000.

China is 7.42/1000.

posted on Jan, 24 2010 @ 05:56 PM
I think somone should cut off his ability to have food and exist, as he might breed his stupidity, as well....what a dirtball...paid too much money to steal from the poor and feed the fat cats' it will be the middle class until all that's left in this world is morons like him!!!! I'm glad I don't live in SC, I would have to put a boot up his A** And likely be sent to prison, well at least I'd get three meals a day.

posted on Jan, 24 2010 @ 06:19 PM
I'll have to side with brainwrek on this one.

What many people don't understand, is that there is a difference between welfare, and unemployment.

Unemployment: If you lose your job (laid off. not fired or quit), the government gives you a chance to bounce back. As well they should, they rape taxes from you anyway, you might as well get a portion of that back.

Welfare: You don't have to have worked, or want to work. You just need to be poor and have no assets amounting to a certain amount: And then you get free housing, food, transportation, etc. All without lifting a finger. While some may say, 'well what about singer mothers with 5 children to take care of?' To that I say...."If you're in a period of your life where you can't even work for yourself, then don't have kids! Having children is a conscious choice, and your childrens' suffering is your own fault and you should be ashamed at creating a life that will only know suffering!"

Sure their are special cases like mentally ill/handicapped, etc. But there are plenty of wealthy people who choose to help the less fortunate. And there is nothing wrong with fact I encourage it. But it is their choice, and should not be forced upon the backs of middle class Americans to foot the bill, when some of those on welfare actually live better than an honest single mother living off of a lower income. Also bear in mind, the more the Govt. taxes these philanthropists, the less money they have to give, and the less they want to give.

//rant off


Not saying I agree or disagree with the governor on his point of view. Just wanted to make sure that he was more than likely talking about the the welfare state, not unemployment that you actually pay into with your taxes yourself.

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in