PDA

View Full Version : Michelle Obama elitist?



code3retrievers
10-29-2009, 08:38 PM
How many staffers does the first lady need?

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12652


Maybe she is just doing her part to reduce the unemployment rate.

JDogger
10-29-2009, 09:48 PM
How many staffers does the first lady need?

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12652


Maybe she is just doing her part to reduce the unemployment rate.
Republican Elitism

Every day, Republicans lace into Democrats as elitist. I think they do that because these super-rich, super-religious and super-anti-intellectual people are so smug in their self-righteousness - so elitist - that they believe everyone else suffers from the same hubris as they do. Democrats are not concerned with any elite group. They believe that all citizens should be treated the same. With Republicans, however, elitism is at its core.
We all know how the Bush Administration favors the super-rich. Just take a look at the major pieces of legislation the Republican Congresss passed this year that favor bankers, energy companies and pharmaceutical companies, and then look at the billions it threw away on "earmarks."
We all know how the Bush Administration favors the super-religious. Bush has established a faith-based regime. It's latest action is to favor abstinence-only before marriage, this time with a twist: it defines marriage as being between man and a woman. In other words, if you are gay you are never to touch another person of the same sex.
We all know how the Bush Administration favors the super-anti-intellectuals. It disregards science in favor of its own superstitions. It disregards recommendations from scientists. It seems to prefer "intelligent design" to evolution.
But none of us realized to what degrading depths the Bush Administration would take its righteousness, its snobbism, its elitism. But this is what happened during one of the most religious events: Easter.
I'm referring to the Easter egg roll on the White House lawn. It is but a custom, a chance to be cheerful, an opportunity to entertain kids. Every past year, parents were encouraged to obtain free tickets so their kids could participate in this great fun event.
Well, this year a few hundred same-sex parents who had adopted kids decided to wait on line all night long in order to get tickets. And they were very happy when they received the tickets. Their happiness was tarnished, however, when they noted that the time of admission on their tickets was 12 noon and not 8 AM when the event was scheduled to start.
What happened? The Bush Administration could not countenance having gays and lesbians participating in an event together with the elites. Yet, they dare not rescind the policy of first come first serve for tickets. So they conceived the brilliant (to an elitist, that is) idea of a later entry time for the rif-raff. This way the opening ceremony and the attendant pictures need not be contaminated by gays and lesbians.
The Bush Administraton said that the early tickets were for "volunteers." There must have been thousands of "volunteers."
This is Republican elitism at the most petty. But elitism is always petty. What makes these super-rich, super-religious, super-anti-intellectuals so arrogant that they know they are always right? So right that they cannot even mingle with those they disdain even for an event like an egg roll?
Democrats frown on such action. We believe that what Republicans did to the gay and lesbian families is atrocious. We believe that all Americans, regardless of what they do privately, must be treated with the same consideration. We believe in the common good for the common man.
Republicans calling Democrats elitist is part of the Republican propaganda strategy. It should be obvious to all, however, that Republicans are the real elitists.
http://www.watchblog.com/democrats/archives/003475.html

Just one example from a few years ago c3r. Ya want some more? The internet is resplendant with anything we want to find and cite. We can all do it.
Remember Wm. Buckley Jr. ? Now there was not an elitist, Eh?

JD

Pete
10-29-2009, 11:18 PM
Uummm Ummmmm
I wouldnt want to go on an easter egg hunt with a gay guy either.:p
Boy you sure had alot to say for a change:D
Pete

Buzz
10-30-2009, 09:09 AM
The stuff you guys dig up to crap all over the Obamas...
Yup, another snopes link.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/firstlady.asp

road kill
10-30-2009, 09:12 AM
The stuff you guys dig up to crap all over the Obamas...
Yup, another snopes link.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/firstlady.asp


Maybe someone could do a side by side of Mrs. Obama and Mrs. Bush??

just sayin'.........:D

Steve Hester
10-30-2009, 10:37 AM
How many staffers does the first lady need?

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12652


Maybe she is just doing her part to reduce the unemployment rate.

Maybe her staffers are where the 600,000 jobs came from that Osama created. :p:p:p

ducknwork
10-30-2009, 10:48 AM
JDog, nice cut and paste.:rolleyes: However, think about this. Democrats are elitist in a 'sneakier' way. How much more elitist can you get than giving handouts to millions so that they will never desire to advance past the level they are currently at? Why work hard to better yourself when someone else is paying your bills?
See where I'm going with this? If people are content to accept handouts and be low class citizens, you NEVER have to worry about them coming for YOUR high paying job or moving into YOUR flashy neighborhood.
Democrats know how to be elitist and give people hush money so they stay happy and don't ask questions...
________
HAWAII MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES (http://hawaii.dispensaries.org/)

code3retrievers
10-30-2009, 02:43 PM
Republican Elitism

Ya want some more? The internet is resplendant with anything we want to find and cite. We can all do it.

JD


Your cut and paste is a load of crap. Dems are the most elite group ever. They spend their time trying to convince the public other wise. You have two types of Democrats. One's that want to control others through government programs and those that are on government programs.

Should we talk about the Speaker of the Hose? Or how about the Kennedys or better yet Biden with his million dollar mansion but gives a paltry sum to charity. Or the Obama's going on dates on the public dole and sending their kids to private school. How about those that feel they do not have to pay their taxes that are in this administration and those running everything are so intertwined with wall street. John Kerry with his wife's millions. How about Al gore and carbon credits and oil money? Rockefeller?

I could go on and on.

The last I heard the richest congressmen were Dems.

How about Hollywood. Sean Penn and the rest.

Every study I have ever seen points to conservatives giving the greatest portion of their income to charity. That doesn't sound very elitist.

There are a few generous libs but overall they expect and hope that the public ends up on the government dole so they can then have influence over their votes.

As far as using the internet, I am glad you are able to figure it out. Maybe now you can do some research on how not to be so sensitive.

If someone gives you an opinion you folks cry "What are your sources" . When some links to a source you whine about that. You can't have it both ways.

Elitist regards,


"You can't fix stupid"

Buzz
10-30-2009, 02:52 PM
I just realized why I waste so much time reading POUTS. Pure unadulterated comedy.


Why Are Democrats Richer than Republicans?
Tom Kando

...And here is another thing: On average, Republicans are poorer than Democrats! Just go figure. When it comes to economics, it should be pretty simple. There are two basic political attitudes, and you would expect them to correlate with how rich a person is: you would expect both the rich and the poor to vote their pocketbook. The rich would vote for lower taxes and for the government to butt out, i.e. Republican, conservative. The poor would vote for more re-distribution of wealth, more government services, i.e. Democratic, liberal. But, lo and behold, it’s the opposite! Even though there is a lot of overlap, the statistics are clear: The average income of the 100 million or so Republicans is LOWER than that of the 150 million or so Democrats!

This oddity can be explained, of course. The first thing we should understand is the enormous regional variation in democratic and republican support. There are red states and there are blue states. And as it so happens, “blue America,” (E.g the East Coast and my beloved Left Coast) is more urban and richer than “red America,” and it is also way more liberal. And as we all know, the Deep South has become the bastion of Republicanism. And of course the Deep South is the country’s poorest region. The other red states are mostly in the Rocky Mountains and in the Midwest - again, rural, poor, and culturally conservative. So at the aggregate level, richer states are more democratic and poorer states are more republican.

In an article titled, “Rich state, poor state, red state, blue state,” (Quarterly Journal of Political Science, Sept. 2007), Andrew Gelman et.al. Reconcile the facts I just mentioned with our common-sense expectation that poorer folks should be voting Democratic: Indeed, within states, that is precisely what happens. Furthermore, the authors write, the “slope (statistical jargon for “relationship”) is steepest in poor, rural areas. That is, in poor rural areas, the poor are much more likely to vote for the Republican candidate.” In other words, the authors, write, “income matters more in “red America” than in “blue America...For example, in rich states such as Connecticut, income has a very low correlation with vote preference.”

But I get back to my starting point: Overall, it is America’s poor who elect people like George W. Bush, and America’s (somewhat) rich(er) who elect people like Obama. And we just saw one reason for this: the poorest regions are also those that are the most conservative - culturally (red states).

In addition, consider the following factors:
1. Education: Those with a college education are more liberal than those without.
2. The stars of popular culture (Hollywood, pro athletes) are both rich and liberal.
3. Public employees at the managerial level, politicians, lawyers, all make good money, and of course they are overwhemingly Democrats (think of Marxist university presidents making over a million a year).
4. Brainwashing: Republicans, the media and other opinion leaders have been able to divert people’s attention away from economics and towards cultural issues - abortion, gay issues, religion, flag waiving, race, etc. Smokescreens, you might say. Come to think of it, this is related to #1: It’s easier to brainwash dumb and uneducated people.

So here you have it: At the local level, Americans may vote their pocket book interests, but as a nation, they frequently do the opposite. As a result, it’s the little old flag-waiving ladies in tennis shoes who live on $20,000 a year, who help Wall Street to perpetuate the plutocracy which is so unfair to them. Isn’t this aggravating?

Buzz
10-30-2009, 03:06 PM
But then there is this:


Study debunks journalistic image of rich 'Latte' Democrats, poor 'NASCAR' Republicans

By Gerry Everding

April 6, 2006 -- Fueled by the simplicity of red state-blue state election maps, some pundits have leaped to the conclusion that America is experiencing a landmark shift in traditional political allegiances, with poor, working-class voters leaving the Democratic Party to become "NASCAR Republicans," while wealthier voters join the ranks of an increasingly elite bunch of liberal, limousine-driving "Latte Democrats."

Not so, suggests David K. Park, Ph.D., an assistant professor of political science in Arts & Sciences at Washington University in St. Louis and co-author of a new study of how income influences state-by-state voting patterns.


"The novelist F. Scott Fitzgerald once proclaimed that the rich 'are very different than you or me,' and our study suggests that he was right, at least when it comes to voting patterns in some of our poorer Southern and Midwestern states," says Park.

Titled "Rich State, Poor State, Red State, Blue State, What's the Matter With Connecticut?" and funded by the National Science Foundation, the study has sparked lively debate in political blogs since presented at the Midwest Political Science Association conference.

Park, a political scientist, collaborated on the research with Andrew Gelman, Ph.D., professor of statistics and political science at Columbia University, New York; Boris Shor, Ph.D., assistant professor of public policy at the University of Chicago; and Joseph Bafumi, Ph.D., assistant professor of political science at Dartmouth College, New Hampshire.

For decades, Democrats have been viewed as the party of the poor, with Republicans representing the rich. Recent presidential elections suggested a reversal in this pattern, with Democrats performing well in richer "blue" states of the Northeast and West Coast, and Republicans dominating a central swath of poorer "red" states in the South and Midwest.

To reconcile this paradox, Park and his colleagues examined more than four decades of data on income and voting patterns and compared trends at the individual, county, state and national levels. Results shed light on what's really behind the seeming shift in rich-poor voter affiliations and debunk a number of common misconceptions about current political realities.

'Gross oversimplification'

"Our results suggest that the popular journalistic image of rich latte-drinking Democrats and poor NASCAR Republicans is a gross oversimplification," Park says. "Income varies far more within states than average income does between states, and it is these with-in-state variances that explain national voting patterns."

The bottom line, the study suggests, is that little has changed in terms of income's general influence on individual voting patterns: in every presidential election since 1952, the richer a voter is, the more likely that voter is to vote Republican, regardless of ethnicity, sex, education or age.

What's changing, the researchers argue, is how differences in income are playing out at the county and state levels. A key finding is that relative income is a much stronger predictor of voting preferences in poor states than it is in rich states.

"We find that income matters more in 'red' America than in 'blue' America," the researchers explain. "In poor states, rich people are much more likely than poor people to vote for the Republican presidential candidate, but in rich states (such as Connecticut), income has a very low correlation with vote preference."

In Connecticut, one of the nation's richer states, researchers found little difference between the voting patterns of the state's richest and poorest residents. In Mississippi, the nation's poorest state, they found dramatic income-related differences, with rich voters twice as likely as poor to vote Republican.

The study also documents changing income-related voting patterns in counties across the nation. Rich counties, a longtime bastion of Republican support, are generally shifting toward the Democrats. And while Republicans maintain an edge among rich counties in poor southern states, they're doing so with slimmer margins.

These regional differences may be especially important, the researchers suggest, in understanding why the national news media is especially vulnerable to the misperception of the typical Democrat as a rich liberal living in a wealthy urban metro area.

After all, many of the nation's elite news media just happen to live in affluent coastal states, such as New York, Maryland, Virginia and California, where their neighbors and co-workers are likely to be both rich and Democratic. Most have little or no contact with voters in deep-red southern states, such as Oklahoma, Texas and Mississippi, where rich counties still support Republicans and poorer counties still support Democrats.

"They thought about typical individuals, and since they mainly live in metro New York, or Washington, the typical Democrat they conjured up was a wealthy one, a 'limousine liberal.' At the same time, they conjured up a typical conservative as poorer, more religious, a 'NASCAR' Republican," says study co-author Boris Shor.

If income has less influence on voting patterns in rich "blue" states, as this study suggests, then what factors are motivating voters in these states?

"Maybe social or moral issues matter more in 'blue' states," Park speculates. "In other words, maybe 'values' matters more in 'blue' states than 'red' states. We're currently extending our research to include these additional factors."

code3retrievers
10-30-2009, 05:17 PM
Red State vs Blue State- which ones are better off financially.

If blue states are full of libs and run by libs how do they compare to the red states.

I know CA is broke any others?

YardleyLabs
10-30-2009, 06:20 PM
Red State vs Blue State- which ones are better off financially.

If blue states are full of libs and run by libs how do they compare to the red states.

I know CA is broke any others?
It depends on how you measure "better off". If you base it on median income, the median income for the 19 "red" states is $63,027 in 2009 and the median income for the 20 "blue" states is $76,510 in 2009. (See http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/liheap/guidance/SMI75FY09.pdf for income information and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states for the definition of red and blue states.). The remaining states are generally classified as "purple".

Pete
10-30-2009, 06:36 PM
hey ,,quit high jacking this thread
I thought it was about gay guys lookin for easter eggs .

Pete

JDogger
10-30-2009, 11:28 PM
hey ,,quit high jacking this thread
I thought it was about gay guys lookin for easter eggs .

Pete

Gay guys, High-jackin' easter eggs. Pete...yer a hoot.

(thread now back on track)

Elitist, not pernicious regards,
http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll176/JDoggger/smilies/poke.gif
JD

code3retrievers
10-31-2009, 12:12 AM
No,

I wanted to know which states are showing deficits like our feds. Are the blue or the red states more likely to be going broke.

I really could not care less about the median income. I know folks in CA make more then me in AZ but their cost of living is a lot higher.

Which states are going broke?

JDogger
10-31-2009, 12:36 AM
No,

I wanted to know which states are showing deficits like our feds. Are the blue or the red states more likely to be going broke.

I really could not care less about the median income. I know CA make more then me in AZ but their cost of living is a lot higher.

Which states are going broke?

So... tell us c3r. Enquiring minds want to know.

You have questions. Do you have the answers? Opinions?

Jess' curious regards, ya know. What states do you think are goin' broke?

...and why? Cause they are blue or red? Pretty simplistic, Eh?

JD

code3retrievers
10-31-2009, 09:36 AM
So... tell us c3r. Enquiring minds want to know.

You have questions. Do you have the answers? Opinions?

Jess' curious regards, ya know. What states do you think are goin' broke?

...and why? Cause they are blue or red? Pretty simplistic, Eh?

JD

JDog-

Last I checked this was a discussion board. I offer my opinions often but let me explain to you how discussions work since you seem to have trouble understanding.

First- someone throws out a topic, then you respond. If you do not understand this concept, then I suggest you may want to do a little more research.

As far as what states are going broke, I would bet the Blue (liberal) are the ones in the deepest financial trouble due to their over spending.

Examples-CA, NJ, MA or how about I just list the East coast and West coast states.

Maybe even you can see a pattern. Liberals come up with programs they can't pay for and then expect us to foot the bill, just like your leader and congress are doing right now. Where do you think they came up with the term "tax and spend liberal"?

Do I have solutions. You bet! Vote your liberal friends out and get government back to the basics. Is it simplistic? Absolutely! Most good solutions are. OK now since you do not seem to know how this discussion thing works, it's your turn to offer opinions and solutions if you have some.

Only 366 more days until the next election!

"You can't fix stupid"

YardleyLabs
10-31-2009, 10:28 AM
JDog-

Last I checked this was a discussion board. I offer my opinions often but let me explain to you how discussions work since you seem to have trouble understanding.

First- someone throws out a topic, then you respond. If you do not understand this concept, then I suggest you may want to do a little more research.

As far as what states are going broke, I would bet the Red (liberal) are the ones in the deepest financial trouble due to their over spending.

Examples-CA, NJ, MA or how about I just list the East coast and West coast states.
...

Just as an aside, the "Red" states are the conservative ones.;-)

California and NJ are both in trouble now because of Republican state leaders that adopted the traditional Republican approach to government -- spend big while cutting taxes; borrow money to close the gap. In NJ, the responsible culprit was Christie Whitmen who became one of the most popular governors by cutting taxes while running up billions in debt in a state that, until then, had been essentially debt free. She left the state in financial ruin. The same is true with Republican Gov. Arnie in California. He took over a state facing a perpetual gap in its budget because of voter referenda that capped taxes while mandating increased government spending (primarily for education and prisons). He immediately cut taxes and ran up tens of billions in debt. Unlike Whitman, he wasn't smart enough to get out before the bills came due and is now left holding the bag that he filled with $h*t. Having said that, however, you are absolutely correct that blue and purple states are more likely to be facing government deficits now than red states and that there deficits are higher on a per capita basis. (See http://symbionews.com/thetakeaway/state-deficits-2009.html)

JDogger
10-31-2009, 10:42 AM
, I would bet the Red (liberal) are the ones in the deepest financial trouble due to their over spending.


I thought the blue states were the liberal ones? What do I know? I can't even figure out how use an internet forum :rolleyes:

code3retrievers
10-31-2009, 10:59 AM
Jeff,

Thanks for the correcting my previous post. I have corrected it above.

I don't think you can have it both ways. You blame the current problems on Arnold which we know is not a conservative when he walked into a financial mess from Grey Davis and the liberal legislature, but you blame current NJ problems on Whitman when when she left office in 2008. NJ has had 7 years to fix the problems.

I don't expect Obama to fix everything in 1 year but if he has 8 years, I expect some progress.

This is the issue. No body, both Republicans and Dems want to fix any problems. Every one wants to blame the other party and can not honestly critique their own. They continue to pile on debt and spend like there is no tomorrow. ( You can't do both)

I will be the first to say any Republican that does not want to control spending should be thrown out. I would be happy to give up tax cuts for a little financial responsibility.

AZ is also in a mess. We are a Red state that had a Dem for a Governor and a Republican legislature. They increased spending much in the same way CA has with no increase in long term revenue and now we are not far from CA's mess.

Jdog- I would expect nothing less from you then a stupid comment. See, you still don't get how this discussion thing works. Now how about you try and jump in on a discussion somewhere.

JDogger
10-31-2009, 11:17 AM
c3r,

Take a look at the first post on this thread and ask yourself, is this an invitation to genuine, highbrow, intellectual discussion? Or just another political jab?
Maybe my responces have been measured by the intent of the thread starter. You made a post, I responded in kind.
Don't kid yourself, PP, with few exceptions, has never been about 'discussion'.

JD

Julie R.
10-31-2009, 11:44 AM
Republican Elitism

Every day, Republicans lace into Democrats as elitist. I think they do that because these super-rich, super-religious and super-anti-intellectual people are so smug in their self-righteousness - so elitist - that they believe everyone else suffers from the same hubris as they do. Democrats are not concerned with any elite group. They believe that all citizens should be treated the same. With Republicans, however, elitism is at its core.
We all know how the Bush Administration favors the super-rich. Just take a look at the major pieces of legislation the Republican Congresss passed this year that favor bankers, energy companies and pharmaceutical companies,
JD

Yes, that was just wrong. Let's just give all the money to the non working poor. When was the last time a poor person gave you a job?

YardleyLabs
10-31-2009, 12:11 PM
Jeff,

Thanks for the correcting my previous post. I have corrected it above.

I don't think you can have it both ways. You blame the current problems on Arnold which we know is not a conservative when he walked into a financial mess from Grey Davis and the liberal legislature, but you blame current NJ problems on Whitman when when she left office in 2001. NJ has had 7 years to fix the problems.

I don't expect Obama to fix everything in 1 year but if he has 8 years, I expect some progress.

This is the issue. No body, both Republicans and Dems want to fix any problems. Every one wants to blame the other party and can not honestly critique their own. They continue to pile on debt and spend like there is no tomorrow. ( You can't do both)

I will be the first to say any Republican that does not want to control spending should be thrown out. I would be happy to give up tax cuts for a little financial responsibility.

AZ is also in a mess. We are a Red state that had a Dem for a Governor and a Republican legislature. They increased spending much in the same way CA has with no increase in long term revenue and now we are not far from CA's mess.

Jdog- I would expect nothing less from you then a stupid comment. See, you still don't get how this discussion thing works. Now how about you try and jump in on a discussion somewhere.
Just corrected your post to show that Whitman left in 2001, not 2008. Obviously this was just a typo given your 8 year comment. I would generally agree with you but for the depth of the hole that Gov. Whitman dug for the state. Before she became Governor, NJ had managed to operate for most of its history with no debt. Florio lost his job by raising taxes dramatically and very stupidly. These funds went primarily to implementing changes in educational funding to comply with state law and to other programs that reduced local property taxes. Whitman promised a rollback on these cits and delivered following her election. However, she did not rescind the increases in local educational support or property tax relief, producing a multi-billion dollar deficit. This was met through an annual ritual of one tie actions. She raided billions from the pension fund, leaving the fund short on cash and increasing the annual deficit as actions were needed to cover some of the gap. She sold off a number of state assets in ways that left the state paying annually for things it previously owned. Finally, she put together budgets that were based on wildly unrealistic revenue projections and covered the resulting gaps with massive borrowings. Where NJ had a platinum coated credit rating when she took office, it was virtually bankrupt when she left.

Her replacement, Jim McGreevey took some very unpopular actions to try to shrink the Whitman disaster. Public opposition and his own sexual confusion undermined his ability to be effective. Following his resignation, he was temporarily replaced by the State Assembly leader as acting governor who was both effective and popular. Knowing how deep the problems were, however, he declined to run for election. Corzine ran on a platform of fiscal responsibility. Unfortunately, in NJ, fiscal responsibility demanded massive cuts in services combined with a rollback of state aid and tax rebates that would have the effect of raising taxes again. There is simply no other way to overcome the massive deficits that have accumulated from Whitman's actions as Governor. Corzine did this and became one of the most unppular governors in the state's history as a result. Chris Christie is now running against him on a Whitman like platform: he will reduce taxes without cutting services. All this will produce is more deficits that the state cannot repay. Personally, I think NJ needs to adopt a strict fiscal accountability act carrying jail terms for governors who incur deficits. Of course, given that many NJ governors belong in jail anyway, I'm not sure how much of a difference this would make.:rolleyes:

In the interests of full disclosure, I served on the Governir's Management Improvement Task Force under Florio. I reviewed some of the recommendations at that time for reducing funding for pensions to obtain one time savings. I pointed out that this would be a disastrous strategy for the state. Florio, a tax and spend liberal, did not implement this as a result. Whitman picked up the original recommendation and used it to pay for the first year of her tax cuts.

code3retrievers
10-31-2009, 06:47 PM
Thanks for the correction again.

As for Jdog- You may want to follow Jeffs lead. I may not agree with his assesment but he put forth valid arguments and shed light on a few items that he has knowledge about.

I rarely agree with him but at least he attmepts to have a discussion with the facts as he sees them.

JDogger
10-31-2009, 10:46 PM
Thanks for the correction again.

As for Jdog- You may want to follow Jeffs lead. I may not agree with his assesment but he put forth valid arguments and shed light on a few items that he has knowledge about.

I rarely agree with him but at least he attmepts to have a discussion with the facts as he sees them.

I am not Jeff. I am not Joe S. I am not Buzz.
Buzz countered your post with a citation from snopes.
I'm sure Jeff is pleased with your assesment that he 'attempts' to discuss the 'facts as he sees them'.
Don't we all?
I suspect snopes as well as any here, but you made no challenge. I assume you concur then that many FL's have had significant staff members.
Did you read my last post c3r? You started this thread with a post concerning 'elitism'. You made an eight word statement and gave a link.
I countered with another link, and copied and pasted it.
Hardly an invatation to the civil discourse you seem so much to crave.
Again I ask you, was your opening thread starter intended to start a discussion, or was it merely a political jab?
Please this time, answer the question?

JD

Richard Halstead
11-01-2009, 04:57 PM
Yes, that was just wrong. Let's just give all the money to the non working poor. When was the last time a poor person gave you a job?

When did the wealthy democrats volunteer to share their wealth. ie George Soros. Ideally the wealthy should support those that are indigent.

JDogger
11-01-2009, 07:38 PM
When did the wealthy democrats volunteer to share their wealth. ie George Soros. Ideally the wealthy should support those that are indigent.

I sometimes give a couple bucks to the couple with a black dog on a leash sitting on the off ramp as I come home from work. I don't ask their political affiliation. They have a dog that shares their life with them, and that's good enough for me. They're usually gone by the next day.
I live by a prison, makes hitch-hiking difficult, with the warning signs and all.
When did the wealthy Republicans volunteer to share their wealth? Goes both ways don't it?

JD

Richard Halstead
11-01-2009, 08:30 PM
When did the wealthy Republicans volunteer to share their wealth? Goes both ways don't it?

JD


The Democrats, Obama, wanted to spread the wealth around. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs) is a slogan popularized by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program.

YardleyLabs
11-01-2009, 08:46 PM
When did the wealthy democrats volunteer to share their wealth. ie George Soros. Ideally the wealthy should support those that are indigent.
Let's see, Gates has donated billions (almost $10 billion) for charitable projects through the Gates Foundation, Soros has contributed hundreds of millions per year (average of $300-500 million) through his own Foundation (providing scholarships), through various international poverty relief foundations, etc. Soro's personal objective has actually been to give more in philanthropy than the Ford Foundation. Warren Buffett, in turn, donated $37 billion to charity. Ted Turner has donated hundreds of millions. More importantly, he suggested that the measure of success should not be how much you make but how much you give. That inspired the Slate 60 List which annually lists the 60 largest public donors (excluding some of the largest, who prefer to be anonymous). This list happily includes a mix of liberals, moderates, and conservatives.

Richard Halstead
11-01-2009, 08:51 PM
I am not a Republican or a Democrat my personal philosophy more closely approaches that of a conservative Libertarian. In the last nine years neither Bush or Obama has tried to end unnecessary spending. Both Presidents must not have been told that each trip on Air Force One doesn't add to frequent flyer miles.

I would like to see those without health care put into a group with the same type of health care that the federal employees receive without changing the entire system.

JDogger
11-01-2009, 09:22 PM
The Democrats, Obama, wanted to spread the wealth around. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs) is a slogan popularized by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program.

Please Richard, Show me where and when Democrats and Obama have espoused this Marxist paradigm as you quote. When you do, I will defer to your interpretation. Until then regards, JD

code3retrievers
11-01-2009, 10:12 PM
I am not Jeff. I am not Joe S. I am not Buzz.

Again I ask you, was your opening thread starter intended to start a discussion, or was it merely a political jab?
Please this time, answer the question?

JD

Jdog try and not get your panties in a wad. Was my thread starter a jab? Absoulutely.

Did it start a discussion? Yes!

Do I still think 22 some staffers for a first lady (Democrat or Republican) is too many? Heavens yes. Remember Obama said he would change the way things are done in Washington.

Here is a little cut and paste for you.

"The combined annual salaries for the 22 staffers we can specifically identify as working for Michelle Obama come to $1.6 million. For the 18 we could identify as working for Laura Bush in 2008, the total is $1.4 million.

Dr. Myra Gutin, a professor of communications at Rider University and a first ladies historian, says that the first lady’s role has certainly "grown and evolved" since the 1960s, but generally speaking, the first lady’s "staff numbers about 14-16." Gutin told us she recalled "some first ladies have had staffs of more than that.""

So the average has been 14-16 and she has around 22 sounds like a slight increase.

Did I learn something from what others had to say? Sure.

Have I grown bored with your drivel? Yep!

Enough said.

Julie R.
11-02-2009, 06:55 AM
Let's see, Gates has donated billions (almost $10 billion) for charitable projects through the Gates Foundation, Soros has contributed hundreds of millions per year (average of $300-500 million) through his own Foundation (providing scholarships), through various international poverty relief foundations, etc. Soro's personal objective has actually been to give more in philanthropy than the Ford Foundation.

Ummm.....Let's take a closer look at just WHERE their money goes. Most of it outside the U.S. to the ever-multiplying masses of the downtrodden south of the equator. Global pimps....

YardleyLabs
11-02-2009, 07:17 AM
Ummm.....Let's take a closer look at just WHERE their money goes. Most of it outside the U.S. to the ever-multiplying masses of the downtrodden south of the equator. Global pimps....
You are right about a large percentage going to people outside the US. You are wrong in assuming that means south of the equator. Over $1 billion of Soros' money went to Russia, trying to fund the development of capitalism and to relieve some of the economic dislocations following the collapse of the Soviet Union. In the US he has provided hundreds of millions in scholarships. Gates has provided funds throughout the world, just as he made his money throughout the world, with massive donations in the US, in Asia, in Africa, and in Latin America. Somehow, the same global vision that allows people to become billionaires in a global economy seems to help them retain a global vision on how to invest their profits in charitable endeavors.

JDogger
11-02-2009, 07:42 AM
Jdog try and not get your panties in a wad. Was my thread starter a jab? Absoulutely.

Did it start a discussion? Yes!

Do I still think 22 some staffers for a first lady (Democrat or Republican) is too many? Heavens yes. Remember Obama said he would change the way things are done in Washington.

Here is a little cut and paste for you.

"The combined annual salaries for the 22 staffers we can specifically identify as working for Michelle Obama come to $1.6 million. For the 18 we could identify as working for Laura Bush in 2008, the total is $1.4 million.

Dr. Myra Gutin, a professor of communications at Rider University and a first ladies historian, says that the first lady’s role has certainly "grown and evolved" since the 1960s, but generally speaking, the first lady’s "staff numbers about 14-16." Gutin told us she recalled "some first ladies have had staffs of more than that.""

So the average has been 14-16 and she has around 22 sounds like a slight increase.

Did I learn something from what others had to say? Sure.

Have I grown bored with your drivel? Yep!

Enough said.

There's an ignore list. Feel free to utilize it. :razz: JD

ducknwork
11-02-2009, 09:37 AM
There's an ignore list. Feel free to utilize it. :razz: JD

That's the most sensible thing I have ever heard from you...;-):D

code3retrievers
11-02-2009, 01:10 PM
There's an ignore list. Feel free to utilize it. :razz: JD

I believe I answered all of your brilliant questions and that is your next response?

Hit the ignore button and miss all the great discussions you are involved in? No way! I am just bored with your drivel on this thread.

Richard Halstead
11-02-2009, 04:45 PM
Please Richard, Show me where and when Democrats and Obama have espoused this Marxist paradigm as you quote. When you do, I will defer to your interpretation. Until then regards, JD


You can see the intent when Obama "Just wants to spread the wealth around"....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ilwk_wmsQk&feature=fvw

JDogger
11-02-2009, 10:00 PM
You can see the intent when Obama "Just wants to spread the wealth around"....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ilwk_wmsQk&feature=fvw

Thanks Richard, Obama did indeed utter the dreaded words "spread the wealth around" in his exchange with 'Joe the plumber':rolleyes:. While not hardly the Marx and Engels paradigm " of from each according to his means, to each according to his needs" I stand corrected and will now throw my support behind the republican party and all its candidates, local and national.
I have been duped once again, by the evil democrat machine.:razz: Please though, reassure me that I will not fall victim to the oligarchy of the right, as I have fallen victim to the oligarchy of the left, (per UB's dire warnings)once again.
Now please, in the interests of c3r's ungainly interest in civil discourse, please explain to me the difference between the right and the left as they are expressed on this board?
There is a 'right'and a 'wrong' operating here, as I take it...,
Or, are we all just spear carriers in some one else's play?
JD

JDogger
11-02-2009, 10:42 PM
That's the most sensible thing I have ever heard from you...;-):D

Please, go for it. Taken to its epitomy you'll never have to read anything disagreeing again, ever. JD

ducknwork
11-03-2009, 06:27 AM
Please, go for it. Taken to its epitomy you'll never have to read anything disagreeing again, ever. JD

Notice the smileys...:rolleyes: