Strother on Steve on the wherewithal of NOLA's poor

That's a lot of writing in order to 'compassionate conservatize' a harsh and insensitive statement.

I don't play the compassionate conservative spin game. I just call them as I see them. But please, enlighten me as to what is harsh and insensitive about the statement? You three libs seem to be long on characterization but short on evidence. Meanwhile, I'll tell you this: Life is pretty harsh and insensitive, regardless of what you've been told by your leftist mentors. And you can't change it one iota, no matter how many hippie-dippie happy words you use or how many times you dot your i's with smiley faces.

Nice try, but I feel a bit slimy after reading it.

Well good for you. Now you know how I feel when you inevitably mount a defense for some celebrity piece of pond scum.

Wherewithal? Maybe. But desire? Doubtful.

Why did you post everything before this if you agree with me? You have simply repeated my point. Maybe if we just backed the government off a few notches, we might just be surprised at how much desire to help our fellow man springs up.

Businesses are generally not interested in unprofitable undertakings.

Indeed, but who says this is unprofitable? Hundreds of busineeses will find windfalls from this in dozens of ways. Of course all of you libs will chastise them for making a buck off someone else's misery. And that brings us back to where we started, doesn't it?

And what's profitable about saving thousands of people that haven't "the wherewithal to get up off their butts" and take care of themselves?

Oh well, I thought you had it for a moment there, but you've gone and shown that you missed the point entirely again. I think I said that the problem was the government who created all these dependencies. The obvious corollary to that is that if we eliminate the dependencies, we eliminate the huge class of folks who can't manage to get off their butts without the government telling them how. Yeah, yeah, I know, that's slimy. So says you.