"I won't vote for someone who has a real chance to help the poor--spends too much on luxuries."

[jpgray]

Let's see who this can apply to! Get your enemies list ready!

Ted Kennedy - Sorry Ted, I'd like to be paid a living wage, and thanks for fighting for my labor rights all these years, but your yacht and your palatial compound make it all meaningles and worthy of my petty hatred. I just can't bear the hypocrisy! Sell the compound, live in a shack, and buy a small dinghy to use for photo ops instead. Then I can like you again, because naturally politicians must live the life of anyone they want to help through policy. And one person's luxury -naturally- affects the poor far more than a simple policy change! (Again, forget FDR and the New Deal.)

John Edwards - Bye John, you spend too much money on hair. Therefore, I don't want poverty to be a major issue in this campaign. Since all the other candidates (except Dennis!) spend similarly ridiculous amounts on luxuries, the problem with you must be that you made poverty a centerpiece of your campaign. Just sort of shunt it off to the side and talk about the dangers of video games or something instead, and you can keep your nice hair AND the votes of stupid superficial people! Maureen Dowd will like you! If you're rich and lead a luxurious lifestyle, obviously you can't really do anything for the poor. (Historical examples such as FDR, who helped millions out of poverty, shall again be ignored.)

John Kerry - STFU about healthcare for all, your windboarding, multiple estates and rich widow conquest make you an effete elite. Buy a ranch and cozy up to big industries, and we, the superficial, won't hear much more about your rich lifestyle. We'll hear you're a straight talker, and then your lack of doing anything for us won't matter--we'll superficially like you! At least you won't be a hypocrite then! Seriously. Rich people have no right to help the poor or talk about the issue of poverty, as they are rich. Therefore, they should do nothing to help the poor at all, for fear of being hypocrites. What a narrow escape for the poor!

Every single petty, superficial, led-by-the-nose moron on this issue - Do you spend more than $100 on a meal? Do you ever spend more than $20 on a haircut? Do you have a new car? Do you go golfing? Do you have a big screen TV, an up-to-date computer? Well then you are far richer and spend far more on luxuries than many of the poorest in this country. By your own logic, you should do nothing for them and say nothing about them for fear of hypocrisy.

[Heidi]

1. This is just me, but how I help is an entirely private matter,

as I expect it would be for anyone with any sense of respect for those in need of a little help. When we boast of how we help others, we draw needless attention (and often humiliation) to those who are receiving the help. Who _gives_ the help is no more anyone's business than who _gets_ the help.

Edited to add: Recommended. Thank you, jpgray. :thumbsup:

[jpgray]

2. That's totally true, and I hope no one feels the need to justify themselves in-thread

Nobody's personal morality is at stake here. :)

[Heidi]

8. Thank you for making that clear.

Those who would crucify another progressive for what that person spends on hair care have no idea how much more the same person contributes to help others. I am betting that (for example) John and Elizabeth Edwards, plow far more into philanthropy than they do hair care, and that likelihood seems to have evaded many.

[Snotcicles]

9. Lets look at where the money comes from for a change instead of where it's going

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?cycle=2008
Shit, they don't have one for the haircare industry.

[The Backlash Cometh]

17. Really. Since when has being a Democrat required one to take an oath

of poverty?

Good luck with that.

[Heidi]

30. I'm afraid you may have misunderstood my post.

Or maybe not. (It's nearly 8 p.m. here and I've had a long day, so it's not unlikely I've misunderstood your reply.) What I'm asserting is that the amount any of us give, or get, in terms of help, should be an entirely private matter. Boasting of what we give only serves to inflate our own egos, often at the expense of those we help. I'm reasonably certain that many good progressives, including the Edwardses and the Clinton, spend far more on philanthropy and personal measures of helping others than they do on their hair care.

[The Backlash Cometh]

62. Pretty much, I was agreeing with you.

[maddezmom]

32. well put as always, Heidi

:thumbsup:

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. Can I add some to the list

Granted they are dead but still

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, rich kid and all, he didn't help the poor now did he?

:-)

[jpgray]

7. Didn't forget him, he was the subject of another thread on this issue

People told me that I should just quit talking about FDR. :shrug:

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. Red what's the matter with kansas

may explain some of this shh, just shup up attittude

[BrklynLiberal]

23. JFK and Jackie did not exactly lead a life of poverty, either. Nor did RFK and family.

[Joe Chi Minh]

46. And that old goat, Lloyd George. What an adulterer!

He introduced the old-age pension in the UK in the early part of the last century, but I bet fok were just too disgusted to collect it. And guess what! He was rich too, the varmint.... Wouldn't you know it! We don't want your rotten old pension...

[Tejanocrat]

4. Don't forget that bastard FDR!

[gravity]

14. Fred?

that bastard!

[Tejanocrat]

34. FRD, FDR, DRF - they ALL suck, those wealthy poor-coddling bastards!

[The Count]

5. I don't vote for someone who, when he had a real chance to help the poor, helped the rich instead

Talk is cheap.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00236

[jpgray]

10. So goodbye to almost all the Democratic Senate leadership

Reid, Clinton, sounds a bit drastic to me over a single vote (even one as indisputably horrific as the chapter 11 re-vamp). :shrug:

But at least that's a real issue! I can respect that, unlike an argument based on hair care.

[The Count]

22. I had the chance to vote Clinton in 2006 - and didn't (mostly on the war though)

And the fact that she showed contempt for the primaries all together.
Issues do matter to me. Integrity too - when a candidate's actions are at odds with his rhetoric - not so good.

[jpgray]

24. I can't fault you for that, but I do disagree

Clinton leaves me totally cold as well, and her stances on the issues are a huge part of that. I haven't fully formulated a view on Obama or Edwards yet, but I -really- like that someone is making poverty a major issue again. It's likely true that there is hypocrisy there, but to me having the issue back in the spotlight is worth almost any amount of hypocrisy. Also, the prevailing wisdom about first Senate terms is not to make waves. In my view, this was a perfect place to make the -right- waves, and Edwards blew it.

[The Count]

64. Edwards senate term is his only resume . Why people chose to completely ignore it

it's beyond me.

[jpgray]

70. Well, as far as expectations for political service, you're right

However his work as an attorney and his personal history are also part of his resume. I'm totally with you though on political time in office being paramount in guaging how someone might perform in another office.

[sandnsea]

15. Kerry voted no - left of left still pissed all over him

Some people just look for shit to stir up into a controversy.

[The Count]

74. They attacked Kerry for voting against the bankruptcy law? I doubt it.

It doesn't compute at all.

[sandnsea]

75. Didn't do him any good

So why use it to beat up somebody else? Face it. The left of left looks for any reason to beat up a Democrat, it doesn't even have to be consistent.

[The Count]

77. Ah, so integrity is overrated - let's all be opportunists, it doesn't pay off being honest?

Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." --John Quincy Adams

When we get too boggled down in strategery, we run the risk of forgetting what matters: being a decent person. Are they supposed to vote for what people stand for - or it doesn't matter - as the media noise machine creates notoriety and overrides merit?
And to my recollection, Kerry was attacked on his IWR vote, never for his bankruptcy vote for which I salute him. (but which shouldn't give him blanket immunity for bad actions)

[sandnsea]

79. Nitpicking Democrats is being a dishonest opportunist n/t

[K8-EEE]

6. I'll only vote for a vegan who lives in a YURT!

So silly, the things they try and divide us on. Unless somebody is profiting from, oh, say the Iraq war, I don't care if they have made money or what they spend it on.

[tabasco]

28. Good one!

Building a coalition of Democrats is like herding cats, as someone said.

But that is a sign of a healthy, vigorous, "big tent" party.

The republicans have the luxury of obedient followers and leaders.

[philosophie_en_rose]

61. Yurt! That's excessive!

I'll only vote for a candidate that lives in a naturally formed cave and receives nourishment by lightly licking lichen. :)

[sandnsea]

11. To your last paragraph - no

If that shocks you, then that's why you don't understand those that find this kind of extravagence disgusting.

Anybody that says it will affect their vote though, is a disruptor. Don't let them rattle your cage.

[jpgray]

13. Again I really don't want to put anyone personally on the defensive

But whatever we do for the poor personally (which is not at issue here), I can guarantee many DUers have luxuries. In my view, that does not at all tarnish any good they do for the poor, nor does it mean they aren't doing enough.

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. This computer I post from could be considered a luxury

hell more than one tv can be considered a luxury

eating veggie is a luxury

The problem is that many of our luxuries we don't see them as such

But let me list the ways

This computer was bought six years, almost seven years ago as a gaming rig, cutting edge... and when it is replaced it will be replaced by a cutting edge computer. Most people may say, but you do not need to spend that much on a puter... and they may be right... that is why it is a luxury

[sandnsea]

21. "up-to-date"

That's what the OP said and what I responded to. What's intersting is that the OP apparently considers not having any of that as poor, while it's actually average. And what you describe is average, but can certainly be considered luxury for someone on welfare.

But to about 70% of the country, the $400-$1500 hair care is incomprehensible. Others have dared to come along and a, say they are struggling, and then b, say they spend $250 on hair. And then tell people not to go to Walmart for their $4 prescription. It all gets a bit mind-bending after a while.

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. How about the 6000 computer

which also tells the story about inflation

[sandnsea]

31. Insanely extravagent

We build our own and never spend over $1,000. I wish I could find people who would pay $6,000 for a computer, besides particular business applications. You couldn't make a living here trying to sell $6,000 computers, even if you serviced the entire coast, I can tell you that for sure. Just no demand for it at all.

[nadinbrzezinski]

42. Well a couple of my aplications I use for work

do need that kind of power

As to building my own. Been considering taking a course at the JC, at the end of the semester you walk away with a computer

So some research and show up wiht the components. Hell, that would cut it down to two thou.

On the plus side, computers tend to last six to seven years, instaed of going "obsolete" after a couple of yaers

If you do the math, we are spending the sme, just every six yaers

but... it is extravagant, and many gamers have them rigs

(I benefit since Z-Brush requires that kind of an environment anyway)

But as I said, that is a luxury

And vegies, for some folks them are luxuries too

[sandnsea]

49. To clarify

It makes no difference to me what you spend on a computer, or even your hair really. What I object to is when people try to pretend that it isn't extravagent and that it's the same as that family trying to purchase the luxury of fresh veggies because they'll die if they keep on eating 50 cent mac 'n cheese. I know you are not in that category, not anywhere near. I also sincerely believe that every one of our Democrats should hire a real alternative energy expert and remodel their homes, except those that are specifically historic. "Energy Star" is just not enough. But again, that wouldn't affect my vote, unless somebody actually went out of their way to do that. So this stuff matters, but it can all be used as a positive for our party, and none of it is the crisis some folks around here want to play it up to be.

[nadinbrzezinski]

67. swell the point I made is that if we all examine our lives

we will find somethning that is indeed extravagant and a luxury.

It really depends on where you are what that luxury happens to be

For my mother our spending every six to seven years on a computer that ammount of money is absolutely insane (she's in her late seventies and if we had not given her a computer eight years ago, she would not have ever gotten one)

But to reiterate, the point is that we all have soemthing that our hapless media can take upon as a sign of not in contact with the common folk and useless spending, even luxury

I mentioned vegies since they are a luxury for a large swath of the population... mostly they are too expensive for them

[sandnsea]

71. Well I disagree with that

$6,000 computers is simply not the same thing as having to change your diet to stay alive.

[nadinbrzezinski]

80. we can ffreely disagree

But you just watch...how the equivalent of that computer will continue to be the molehil to swiftboat our candidates

Oh and what is worst, you just watch how many, even some on this board, will be outraged by it

[sandnsea]

81. If they admit it's extravagant

Then most people would give it a pass. It's when they try to justify their extravagance, like by comparing it to necessity, that they get into trouble. People actually have a right to eat well for their health, sorry you think it's the same kind of struggle as affording a $400 haircut. Thank goodness they've all at least had the sense not to do that.

[sandnsea]

19. Depends on their attitude

In any event - my main point is that people claiming to base VOTES on this are disruptors.

Seriously, think about it. Hairstyling can only get a certain level of 'good'. These are the people we're electing to the Presidency - and they can even figure out where to get a reasonably priced hair stylist??? Psssht. That's incompetence right off the bat. No wonder they make so many decisions that are out of touch with the rest of us.

[sandnsea]

20. Also, you didn't describe poor

You described average - just to get that clear.

[etherealtruth]

16. Yeah, I prefer the uber-wealthy ...

... to be strong advocates for the uber-wealthy. What the heck is this ...championing the poor when not poor:sarcasm:

It seems to me the Edward's wealth is an issue ONLY because they champion the plight of the poor and disadvantaged. I guess great affluence is a negative thing if you are committed to those that have mush less than you ... and a positive thing (think the Chimp...) if your vision is one of preserving the assets of the most economically fortunate among us.

[jpgray]

29. That's why I find the reactions of DU, Maureen Dowd, et al really bizarre

Doesn't relative wealth bring with it an accompanying responsibility to do more for the poor?

[BrklynLiberal]

25. Thanks for putting my thoughts into a post. If it looks like Swiftboating, and sounds like

Swiftboating amd sure as hell SMELLs like Swiftboating, I would say it was SWIFTBOATING.
As usual, consider the source, and see who is actually financing this "expose"

[jpgray]

26. It's interesting who we -don't- hear about. Bush bought that ranch in 1999

To gear up for the 2000 campaign. He doesn't ride horses. But did the press attack that faux-cowboy image? That naked, pandering grab for Southern and Western cachet? Nope.

[BrklynLiberal]

39. Exactly. That is why I say this entire "controversy" is an attempt by the RWers to Swiftboat

a potential winning Democratic candidate...with the complicity of the media. They are repeating the "crazy Howard Dean" trick.

[sandnsea]

56. Except it's TRUE

Which is why it's not swiftboating at all, just routine dirty tricks politics. We should save the term 'swiftboating' for when they out and out lie.

And Edwards supports should really just stop posting this shit. It isn't going to matter to an honest Democrat and will be resurrected if he wins the GE no matter what anybody says right now. Continuing to get in a twirl about it helps the right keep the focus off the issues. We have GOT to STOP THAT.

[Tejanocrat]

33. Let's not forget Jimmy Carter: Peanut Tycoon

[supernova]

35. I think the lefties who buy into this crap

are engaging in a version of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good and workable. There's no monk wearing a hair shirt and flagellating himself living off a quarter a day who is going to run for President.

Yes, people who run for President are wealthy. Big shocker there. The difference is what do they do with that wealth in the public domain? Do they speak out and provide encouragement on issues that concern all of us? Do they support workable solutions to difficult problems we face with money, with their talents, with their ability to shine a spotlight where it matters? I think these are the things that matter most about Dem candidates.

If you don't like that candidates spend money on their appearance in the media age, you wouldn't like working on a campaign period. And as we noted on a previous thread, quality hair care is expensive.

edit: spelling

[jpgray]

37. It's not like that's such an odious compromise, eh?--I wonder if people are being honest

Perhaps they dislike Edwards or whomever for other reasons, and are using the superficial when it appears in the news to really drive this dislike home. Cf. Ann Coulter, who, while extremely weird-looking, would not be a target of constant abuse based on appearance from DUers if she weren't reviled for her obscene political stances already.

[supernova]

48. You might have something there

The superficial stuff gives them an easy escape route to not deal with other issues over which they might be in more disagreement.

FWIW, I purposely don't engage in the "Mann Coulter" jokes. I'd rather ague with her "rhetoric." The misogynistic tone of that stuff really bothers me.

[jpgray]

50. The superficial is always an easy avenue to express dislike of someone

I'm a huge Kucinich fan, as impractical as his presidential campaigns will always be. When he gets lambasted for looking like a dowdy little elf, I somehow doubt the people saying that would be on board with his spending $1000s on a superficial image makeover.

[supernova]

54. You know,

"dowdy little elf" :rofl:

You know, I think he's cute. But "cute" really isn't a quality that national leader should possess? (I'm just asking)

Oddly, I think his basic problem is, again, his hair. x( He might come off better if he could be pursuaded to let go of the 9 yo haircut. Perhaps something more um, military? I think otherwise, his presentation is fine. He wears nice suits and ties.

[MedleyMisty]

36. I'm a moron, I suppose

But I certainly don't have $100 to spend on one freaking meal. And no, I have never spent more than $20 on a haircut. My car is a 1994 Thunderbird, and my husband's - I think his Accord is a 96 model, but I'm not sure. He bought it with about half of the insurance money we got after the flood that destroyed his 80s model Honda, along with most of our other possessions.

We don't go golfing. Why would we want to bore ourselves to death? We have a medium size TV, probably somewhere around 18-24 inches. Computers - okay, so we do have three computers. And the gaming one does have 2 gigs of RAM, a 3.4 GHz Pentium 4, and a PCI-E Radeon X800. But that's not up-to-date and it'll be a long while before we get another computer.

I make $10.25 an hour, and he makes $10 but he works part-time.

In other words, we're not poor but we're not ridiculously wealthy either, and I'm sorry, but spending $200 on a haircut is ridiculous. It doesn't mean that I'm not going to vote for a Democrat in the general election. It does mean that I think Edwards is out of touch with the average American and it does mean that I really really wish that people who didn't have a ton of money could have a viable chance of running a successful political campaign.

[jpgray]

38. How many politicians do you think are in touch with the average American?

And sorry if you felt you had to justify your opinion by telling me all the personal info. As I told Heidi, no one's personal morality is at stake here. :( Again I apologize if it seemed that way.

[w13rd0]

40. I don't spend a lot on haircuts myself...

...but then again, I don't appear on TV or get videotaped giving speeches and such on a regular basis.

This is just complete bullshit, coming from people with absolutely NO idea what being on a campaign trail is like.

[BrklynLiberal]

41. So it would seem that the Swiftboating of Edwards has succeeded in your case.

Edwards is wealthy, thanks to his own hard work...not inherited wealth that was helped along by political connections in his family.
So he spent alot of money on a haircut! If that is the worst sin of his life, then he is way ahead of every other viable candidate.
Who says rich people cannot fight for the rights of those less fortunate than themselves, especially if they had once been there themselves. Edwards early life was not one of privilege!!!!

FDR, JFK, and RFK, among others, had fortunes, and still found themselves able to fight for the rights of those whom they would probably never run into at the local fast food restaurant or $10 haircut shop.

[Czolgosz]

44. I don't think you are a moron. I just don't think you are very realistic What's the right amount a

presidential candidate should pay for hair care?

Is $75 OK?

What if time is tight on your schedule? What if going to the barber will cost you the time you would have been able to squeeze in an extra fundraiser where you anticipate raising $50,000, but you'd have to skip that fundraiser to schedule your hair cut? What if the barber offers, "I'll come to you so you can do your fundraiser, but I'll have to block out 2 appointment blocks before your hair cut ant 2 appointment blocks after your hair cut to allow me travel time, plus I'll have to charge you for cab fair."

So - do you cancel the $50,000 fundraiser or pay the barber for the hair cut, plus his cost for traveling to you to accommodate your schedule?

I guess you'd cancel the fundraiser. I'd just do the math and pay the barber.

[supernova]

45. I agree with you

:thumbsup:

I'm a woman and I've gone to The Haircuttery as well as the most expensive place in town (when I had the money) The HC is serviceable, no question I look better when I go to the salon. Better quality hair color and stylists. And I'll tell you something, this matters more as you get older.

While I think it's sad that we depend so much on looks (lookism?) as to how smart or accomplished, talented, or in control someone appears due to their appearance, that's the sad reality.

If you want to be President, you have to look like a President.

[jpgray]

47. The essence of this is compromise--do you go the Dennis route and get mocked for bad hair by Dowd?

Politicians aren't saints. They are almost wholly ambitious people who value a highly obscene quality of life and unnecessary luxuries. Those that pander to the rich and the powerful deserve our contempt. Those who help or highlight the plight of those less fortunate deserve more respect.

[sandnsea]

52. I'd have advance people

Who knew that local barbers would die for the opportunity to use pics in their store, and that there is certainly at least ONE good barber in every town in America.

Brother. The egos.

[Madspirit]

43. BFD

....and Lenin supposedly never ate more than the poorest peasant. So the fuck what. If you're waiting for a poor politician in this country, don't hold your breath. The rich do what the rich do...spend money and own things. The most we can hope for is a rich liberal with a good heart. That's it. If you go around acting like people with money shouldn't spend it....there are still some caves left you could go live in.
Lee

[hfojvt]

57. The most liberal person in the Senate in 2004

was Mark Dayton of Minnesota - a very rich person. Still, I think there are a fair amount of politicians who are not all that rich, maybe middle-middle or upper middle class. Russ Feingold and Tammy Baldwin were in the State legislature before they got elected to Congress. That was a $35,000 a year job. Decent money, and maybe they made good money practicing law, but they are not in Herb Kohl or Ted Kennedy's league. It is not surprising to me when a wealthy person, like Kohl, ends up being very economically conservative. It would be false consciousness if they were not.

[etherealtruth]

58. A question I ask myself is ...

Would the world have been a better place if the Kennedy's gave all their money away ... or are we better off living with the influence the Kennedy's have had on American policy? I, for one, am very glad for the influence Ted Kennedy has had ... He has done much more for the most fragile of us than would/could have happened had he simply walked away from his wealth.

Edwards has a chance to truly change the course that our country is on ... I am not so sure (right or wrong) that he would have that chance if he were not wealthy.

I, gladly, will give a politician with a populist agenda a chance to govern this country ... the fact that Edwards accumulated his wealth through his own hard work, competence and intelligence is a plus to me ... unlike the Chimp, he wasn't born on third thinking he hit a triple (pp).

[Clark2008]

51. Well, then I'm not a hypcrite.

Every single petty, superficial, led-by-the-nose moron on this issue - Do you spend more than $100 on a meal?

Nope. Not since my honeymoon have I - and what drove the cost up was the drinks, not the food.

Do you ever spend more than $20 on a haircut?

No. I spend about $10 on a haircut. I have naturally curly, thick hair. Anyone can cut it because it so easily hides mistakes. I usually go to the barber college or America's Cuts.

Do you have a new car?

New to me, yes. New? No. It was a year-old when I got it - and I kept my last car for 11 years.

Do you go golfing?

No.

Do you have a big screen TV, an up-to-date computer?

No and no. My TVs are all about four to six years old and not a one is a big screen. My computer, I bought used and had a co-worker in the IT department erase it and put a new OS on it.

And, my husband and I are firmly middle class, but, with two kids and a mortgage, such luxuries are few and far between. We're not dirt poor, but we can't go and get the best and newest of anything.

Now, can I complain about haircuts? :7

[jpgray]

53. That's not meant to be a "guilt free superficiality obsession test"

:P

Do you see what I'm trying to say, at least? You're welcome to have your opinion without any moral disgust from me no matter how rich and luxurious your lifestyle. I just wish people could see helping the poor should not be dependent on how luxurious one's lifestyle is. The poor need all the help they can get.

[chimpymustgo]

73. Edwards wants to repeal NAFTA. Which matter is more important to you?

A lot of folks harping about a haircut might to re-think their priorities.

[edwardsfeingold08]

55. Edwards should say it was a $20 haircut

and he gave a $380 tip.

[rosesaylavee]

59. Yep. I want someone I can sit down and drink beer with. n/t

[jpgray]

60. I thought that phrase was so ironical in 2000, given that Bush doesn't drink

Was this an O'Doul's or a Buckler one would have to sit down and drink with him? :shrug:

[The Count]

65. or rather shouldn't...yet they used it in 2004 as well - I saw the polls questions.

Some daintily changed it to "BBQ with" - but not all.

[rosesaylavee]

78. Closet drinkers recognize each other.

I would venture to guess that those who based their vote on that like to drink more than a little.

[shireen]

63. they're just stimulating the economy

I'm not rich, I have CC debt and live modestly, but that does not stop me from making the occasional outlandish purchase which, if you scale by income, is as bad or even worse than JE's $400 haircut. I once paid $94 for a plant on Ebay. I once spent $120 on a book about horseshoe crabs written by Japanese scholars (I'm not a biologist, just love those amazing critters).

We all do stuff that others would consider as excessive or luxury. So, really people, let the rich spend lavishly. it's their money, and they can choose of spend it as they want. Edwards earned the right to do that. Kerry and Kennedy inherited the right to do that. Also, these people are supporting a part of the economy that's specifically geared to meeting their luxurious needs. Spending is relative. I cringed when I first heard about JE's haircut, but then realized that I was comparing that expense to my economic level. That's like comparing kumquats with grapefruit.

[bobbolink]

66. Yeah, like libruls are overly concerned with poor folk anyway.

:eyes:

You make good points, and certainly, if libruls really were interested, they would think of FDR themselves, and not get so embroiled in all this.

As a poor person myself, I don't hold out much hope of any enlightenment any time soon.

:cry:

[rhett o rick]

68. I am not against the outlandish spending but the outlandish stealing.

Not all rich are bad. Even those that use their wealth to "make" more. It is the ones that use their money to "steal" more that i despise.

[terrya]

69. Thank you, sir.

This is an excellent, excellent post. We could add others from history...FDR. for instance. Here's a man who came from privileged wealth. He had a lifestyle which could be construed as extravagant...and yet...well, this is a man who recognized the despair and serious hard times the Depression caused. And he brought this country hope during one of the most darkest of times in our history.

Kicked and recommended. Thank you for posting this. :thumbsup:

[bobbolink]

72. Somebody should have overthrown that FDR bastard!

Oh wait....


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13844.htm

[JerseygirlCT]

76. Did you see the Colbert thing the other day?

Paraphrasing here, but on Edwards:
If he really wanted to help the poor, he would have stayed poor!

On Gore:
He... he... owns a HOUSE!