The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Gun Dog Broker
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 41

Thread: Michelle Obama elitist?

  1. #1

    Default Michelle Obama elitist?

    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.

  2. #2
    Senior Member JDogger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    MRGV New Mexico
    Posts
    3,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by code3retrievers View Post
    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
    Last edited by JDogger; 10-29-2009 at 09:55 PM.
    One cannot reason someone out of something they were not reasoned into. - Jonathan Swift

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    2,721

    Default

    Uummm Ummmmm
    I wouldnt want to go on an easter egg hunt with a gay guy either.
    Boy you sure had alot to say for a change
    Pete

  4. #4
    Senior Member Buzz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Brookings, South Dakota
    Posts
    6,571

    Default

    The stuff you guys dig up to crap all over the Obamas...
    Yup, another snopes link.

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/firstlady.asp
    "For everyone to whom much is given, of him shall much be required." -- Luke 12:48

    Raven - Moneybird's Black Magic Marker***
    (Esprit's Power Play x Trumarc's Lean Cuisine)
    Mick - Moneybird's Jumpin' Jack Flash***
    (Clubmead's Road Warrior x Oakdale Whitewater Devil Dog)
    Peerless - Moneybird's Sole Survivor
    (Two River's Lucky Willie x Moneybird's Black Magic Marker)

  5. #5
    Senior Member road kill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI
    Posts
    10,196

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Buzz View Post
    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'.........
    Stan b & Elvis

  6. #6
    Senior Member Steve Hester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas
    Posts
    1,659

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by code3retrievers View Post
    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.
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have." - Thomas Jefferson

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Eastern NC
    Posts
    2,755

    Default

    JDog, nice cut and paste. 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
    Last edited by ducknwork; 04-21-2011 at 06:24 PM.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JDogger View Post
    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"
    Last edited by code3retrievers; 11-03-2009 at 03:37 PM.

  9. #9
    Senior Member Buzz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Brookings, South Dakota
    Posts
    6,571

    Default

    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?
    Last edited by Buzz; 10-30-2009 at 02:59 PM.
    "For everyone to whom much is given, of him shall much be required." -- Luke 12:48

    Raven - Moneybird's Black Magic Marker***
    (Esprit's Power Play x Trumarc's Lean Cuisine)
    Mick - Moneybird's Jumpin' Jack Flash***
    (Clubmead's Road Warrior x Oakdale Whitewater Devil Dog)
    Peerless - Moneybird's Sole Survivor
    (Two River's Lucky Willie x Moneybird's Black Magic Marker)

  10. #10
    Senior Member Buzz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Brookings, South Dakota
    Posts
    6,571

    Default

    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."
    "For everyone to whom much is given, of him shall much be required." -- Luke 12:48

    Raven - Moneybird's Black Magic Marker***
    (Esprit's Power Play x Trumarc's Lean Cuisine)
    Mick - Moneybird's Jumpin' Jack Flash***
    (Clubmead's Road Warrior x Oakdale Whitewater Devil Dog)
    Peerless - Moneybird's Sole Survivor
    (Two River's Lucky Willie x Moneybird's Black Magic Marker)

Similar Threads

  1. Take This Obama
    By Franco in forum POTUS Place - For those who talk Politics in the Gallery!
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 09-04-2009, 01:55 PM
  2. My New Hero: Michelle Bachman
    By road kill in forum POTUS Place - For those who talk Politics in the Gallery!
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 08-18-2009, 08:13 PM
  3. Replacing Michelle
    By Legacy 6 in forum POTUS Place - For those who talk Politics in the Gallery!
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 05-01-2009, 12:25 PM
  4. Thank you Obama!
    By labdoc in forum POTUS Place - For those who talk Politics in the Gallery!
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-07-2008, 03:55 PM
  5. Obama jokes
    By lablover in forum RTF - Retriever Training Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-06-2008, 09:26 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •