A brief firestorm was raised when Democratic strategist and soon-to-be former DNC adviser Hilary Rosen went on CNN and sneeringly said that Ann Romney, our nation's next First Lady, "has actually never worked a day in her life" - despite being the mother of five.
Democrats immediately started falling all over themselves to make amends, realizing that many hard-working mothers might still carve out enough personal time to actively involve themselves in campaign activities - and help throw out the party which looks down on them and their life choices.
Meanwhile, "Crazy Uncle Joe" Biden hit the stump on Thursday to push the so-called "Buffett Rule" which would essentially double capital gains taxes on the people who invest most in America. And won't that help stimulate the economy!
Champing at the bit to start throwing out anti-Romney rhetoric (and it's a real bit - so Joe can be reined in when necessary), Biden said that Mitt is one of those evil rich types who loves "tax loopholes" (which is how Dems describe the capital gains tax), and who is "out of touch" and "out of step" with basic American values. Like, apparently, creating trillion-dollar deficits and calling for class warfare.
Of course, even if the "Buffett Rule" were passed (which it won't be), it would only raise $54 billion over the next decade. Which Obama claims is a HUGE amount of money. Which is odd, because that's only one tenth of what he's cutting from Medicare ($540 billion) while claiming that it's no big deal.
Finally, we couldn't wrap up the week without acknowledging that Rick Santorum has dropped out of the presidential race, virtually assuring that Mitt Romney will be the GOP candidate. And while hardcore Conservatives (like us!) aren't exactly turning cartwheels, it's time to take a deep breath...put on our "Romney 2012" buttons...and start girding up for the real and surely ugly battle ahead.
It's impossible to overstate the importance of this election - but it's not just about Romney and Obama. It's about the Supreme Court. It's about the House and the Senate. And it's about countless local elections, all of which have a direct impact on our lives. We mustn't get so focused on any single candidate or office that we lose sight of the importance of the overall conservative movement and the need to make our beliefs rock this election the way they did in 2010.
Hope n' Change is looking forward to it!
-
41 comments:
Slow Joe and BO... I was going to call them the Abbott (BO) and Costello (JB) of the political world, but I like Abbott and Costello and wouldn't want to insult their memories...
#1: Hilary Rosen has already been fitted for her tire-print tunic. She will fade away quickly.
#2: Joe Biden is simple comic relief (and I do mean "simple"). He sets no policy and inspires nothing but laughter.
#3: Yeah, right, Stilton. I don't think I'll be wearing any Romney 2012 buttons. I still haven't committed to voting for him and I make no promises. Perhaps to you it's a slam dunk; not to me. I recognize that I have a duty to choose but I have to decide that my hate for Turdboy and my revulsion at existing conditions is more ominous than my fear for what the stealth Democrat will do to this Republic over the long term. Fast absolute destruction or slow probable destruction. That's the choice as I see it. Kinda sucks, doesn't it?
Once again, a liberal gender-feminist openly showed her contempt for people who actually take personal responsibility for raising their own kids. It didn’t help Obama that she was a surrogate for his administration. Hilary Rosen was quickly taken to the wood shed and later said "I apologize to Ann Romney and anyone else who was offended," Rosen said of her "poorly chosen" words in a widely reported statement Thursday. "Let's declare peace in this phony war and go back to focus on the substance."
Except it’s not a “phony war”. Her supposedly off-the-cuff comment alone is proof of that. It’s a war that has been going on over 40 years. "No women should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children," said feminist founder Simone de Beauvoir. "Women should not have that choice, because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one". (Saturday Review, June 14, 1975)
Remember, gender-feminist dogma dictates that traditional family roles like "stay-at-home moms" are a barbaric, primitive throwback, and logically, women who "choose" to do so only do so because they are uneducated & ignorant, enslaved, lazy, or are simply less intelligent and not capable of working in the "real" world.
Of course, anyone who was raised by a stay-at-home mom, who is a stay-at-home mom, who has been a stay-at-home mom, or actually knows a stay-at-home mom knows much better. It’s not a Monday-to-Friday 9-5 affair in air-conditioned comfort with legally defined break times. It’s my personal belief that the ugly reality is that many, if not most of these women actually do know how much work it really is, and are scared of it. So they buy into the feminist dogma that stay-at-home motherhood means you are less of a women, person, citizen, etc and they decide that they “must” work, and outsource the parenting to domestic labor and the government. Then to make themselves feel better about this “choice”, they reinforce the dogma. The fact that for many families, the cost of childcare, work expenses and the extra income taxes they pay almost totally negates the economic gain of working. And yet the choose to do so anyway.
Oh, to the “stay at home dads” I know: How do you feel about being labeled as economically clueless?
The big question as of yesterday afternoon seemed to be was Hillary REALLY that dumb, or was it all a set up, to give Dems an excuse to express some sensitivity, as most Moms ARE aware of how expensive EVERY thing is getting. Painfully aware.
As for AHD's 'suckky choice' I can't agree more - but you can betchyer bipppy I'll be voting in the local stuff, state amendments, and all that. As for the 'what can we DO about all the squishy candidates 'we' can become precinct delegates and take the darned party back from the squishies, making sure we nominate good solid people. And challange incumbent squishy butt-heads.
As for the "Buffett Rule": It's a total fraud, designed mainly for the economically ignorant rubes who Obama depends upon as his voter base.
Buffett actually pays a much higher rate than most secretaries, when you consider that the bulk of his income is taxed multiple times before he has to pay capital gains; if he pays them at all. (and he won't as he's giving most of it away)
And also know that his secretary he uses as his example makes about $250,000 a year; yes, she too is part of the 1%. I don't understand why we're supposed to feel bad that she's getting soaked.
Most economist concede that the "Buffett tax" will result in barely marginal revenue, as Stilton pointed out above, will likely have negative impact as it chase more American investment overseas while discouraging investment already overseas from ever returning.
Then why do it? To establish a "a basic issue of tax fairness." says the Administration. I doubt the millions of Americans who will remain un-or-underemployed as a result of this will appreciate the "fairness" of it all.
I'd also had "druthers" regarding potential Obama-slayers, but when the dust finally settles I will vigorously support who we have, encourage any faltering Conservatives I find and aggressively - yet winsomely - challenge my Liberal friends to soberly reconsider taking a Democratic-lemming cliff-dive onto nothing but sharp, jagged rocks below.
AHD: Think strategically. Electing Romney will slow the enemy's advance, giving us more time in determining our strategy to defeat them (them including the Republicans). If you either vote for Øbama (shudder - it is my fervent hope that no one I speak with here could possibly do such a heinous thing), vote for another candidate, or don't vote at all, you've given up and they win.
Please - PLEASE! - I'm begging you all: think strategically. This election is incredibly important, and the important objective is to prevent Øbama's ultimate damning of us all. If he gains his second and final term, he will be unrestrained. We've already seen what this person has done with the prospective re-election looming in his future. Imagine what he will do if he need not worry about that. PLEASE cast your vote for a candidate with a hope in hell of displacing him. Lets not pull a Teddy Roosevelt/H. Ross Perot, giving the enemy victory by splitting the conservative vote - which has happened every single time someone has run as the alternate conservative candidate.
And it is pertinent to our survival as a free nation that we don't let Øbama have a single additional shot at the Supreme Court appointment.
@Stilt: loved them all, (what does Biden actually do when he is not embarrassing the country in front of a microphone?!). I often think fondly back on the memory of that time when the economy allowed for stay-at-home mom's like my own. Imagine how much better my five children could have turned out had their mother been with them immediately after school, rather than them mulling the time in some latch-key or other, or, when they were older, spending the time at home pretty much unsupervised; unmentored? It sickens me to hear the NEA/AFT and education wonks constantly chiding parents to "spend more time" with their kids and their education - especially when it is organizations including the NEA/AFT that have foisted themselves onto our economy, driving costs to the point that few families can afford a stay-at-home mom. Yes, it is important for parents to spend as much time as possible with their kids - not just for their , but for their social education and the instillation of a moral compass. And the state's version of a stay-at-home mom - a single welfare enrolled woman - is typically more interested in where their next high is coming from than in those little things running around that they can't quite recall conceiving. (Yeah, I know. Harsh. But I live in Detroit. These are our "stay-at-home moms".)
I especially appreciate your very succinctly-put position on the ultimate Romney nomination. Well done.
just reminds me of all the chauvanist men from the 40's-50's.
i believe warner brothers covered this back then. click here:
http://2xstandard.blogspot.com/2012/04/lazy-homemakers.html
/shameless self promotion
I am SO STINKIN TIRED of Obama talking about the "evil rich" as if he isn't one of the "evil rich". Which he is. And which half of America is too stupid to figure that out. Do people REALLY think Obama is living paycheck to paycheck, just like them, and is fighting for their basic human right to be filthy rich without doing much for it? People are such idiots. And yes. Obama is actually truly one of the EVIL RICH. Because he is rich. And he is evil.
I'm not a Romney person so I didn't see that slam to his wife coming. Whoa. She's so clean, all they can complain about is her being a housewife???? Oh well. I'm sure all that housewife-ing makes her much more attractive to her husband than all Michelle's jumping jacks, which makes her look like an Amazon body builder, and certainly not a nice feminine wife. (Of course probably Obama prefers it that way, just ask Larry Sinclair...)
Oh well sorry, that wasn't very nice. But Obama just makes me cranky these days.
@Emmentaler Limburger, with the possible exception of Reagan, we've been voting to merely "slow the enemy's advanced" for generations now. "Slowing" is not enough. Merely "slowing" the increase in the ratio of government spending to GDP by 8% instead of 16% is not enough. Merely slowing the approach to the point at which 50% of the voting population are net consumers of the labors of the other 50% is not enough. It has to be reversed now, or never.
After that point, America as we knew it will be over; it will be every man for himself.
@John the Econ: Maybe I'm mischaracterizing your comments, but what do you suggest be done at the ballot box?
Trust me I'm in full realization of what has been done in terms of electing Republicans since Theodore Roosevelt. Perhaps earlier. But what would you have folks do? Vote for a third party candidate? If so, then you are just as guilty of an inability to learn from history as those who want to get socialism right by trying it "just one more time." Attempts at promoting a third party conservative (re: competing with the R) candidate have failed each and every time since the Big R and the Big D took over our political system - the "Bull Moose Party" - when Roosevelt decided he wanted another term, but had already given away the nomination - allowed Wilson into office which introduced the progressive income tax and really got the progressives rolling; H. Ross Perot, bought the "crash" of 2008 with Clinton and his "electoral mandate" (none of them being any good at statistics) and his furthering of the damage Carter did with housing lending (among other things).
John, I do not have the magic to turn the electorate to favor the conservative we need over someone with either a R or a D next to their name. Neither do I have the magic to make Romney more conservative.
Again: if you choose to not vote, or toss your vote to someone who will not be elected; if you don't cast your vote for the less stinky pile o' stuff and we end up getting what we have again, then count your position as the undoing of the country. There is no hope. I would LOVE to be wrong about this position, but I don't think I am - history says I'm not. And, if by voting for the R, I only slow the demise of this country with my vote so that a few more generations can enjoy some semblance of liberty, so be it - but no-one saw Reagan coming when he did. By pissing away your vote, you very well may preclude the potential of another Reagan - or someone even better - getting the helm sometime in the future and turning this all around.
Romney is not my candidate, but if it means the socialists are slowed, he'll have my vote. 'nuff said.
And let's not forget that a solid Conservative control of both houses of Congress is a VERY worthy goal...
@READERS- Wow, you guys are doing all of the heavy lifting in the editorial department today! Which I appreciate; I've been under the weather this week (early summer cold) and thanks to some cough syrup which apparently came from a Mexican drug cartel it's been hard for me to cobble together complex thoughts (harder than usual, even!) But I'm definitely on the mend, even though I'll now need to rob 7-11's to pay for my new cough syrup addiction.
A few piecemeal comments:
@Velcro- Thank you for showing proper respect to Abbott and Costello (by the way, A&C Meet Frankenstein is coming up on Turner Classic Movies in the fairly near future - it's my favorite A&C film).
@Angry Hoosier Dad- Per the Romney cartoon, I might well be the guy looking into the mirror and trying to talk himself into enthusiasm. And when I say we'll be putting on our Romney buttons, I meant it with a subtle sense of irony. But even if the question boils down to, in your words, "absolute destruction or probably destruction," it's not really a hard choice - even if it's not the choice we wanted. As others here argue, there's definitely no way to save this country without making the first step Obama's removal from office.
@John the Econ- Liberals are actually only "pro-choice" when you choose what they think you should. And that's definitely the case if a woman chooses to raise a family. Ann Romney handled this beautifully by simply saying that anyone who respects women should respect their ability to make choices.
@Pete(Detroit)- I think Hilary genuinely stuck her foot in it and this wasn't a pre-planned move.
And great point about getting involved with elections at the local level.
@John the Econ- As you point out, the economics of the "Buffett Rule" don't add up, but the politics do. It's only purpose is to inspire class warfare, which Obama has insidiously relabeled as "fairness."
@Chris- You paint a nicely visual picture!
@Emmentaler- Excellent comment, and the bold typeface for denying Obama another Supreme Court pick is more than appropriate. If there were NO other issues on the table, that would be enough to get me into the voter's booth. I would rather see Ahmadinejad get his nuclear weapon than see Obama get a 5th liberal Supreme Court judge.
And bless you for making the point that mothers don't just clean up everyone else's messes at home: they're instrumental in "social education and the instillation of a moral compass" (your words, and I wouldn't change one of them). Our society means nothing without family structure - which is why the Left loves to attack it.
And as just a little aside, I'll mention that one of the reasons that two incomes are needed by many families now is an inability to simply live within their means.
I'm not talking about the people who are really struggling; I'm talking about the ones who have to have two brand new cars and a house that's four times more than they can afford. Obama said that Michelle didn't have the "luxury" of staying home with their girls (cue violin music). But at the time, he was earning a salary of over $100,000 - which should have covered the bills nicely. But it wouldn't pay for the mansion in an upscale neighborhood they thought they deserved. So the girls got daycare, and the Obamas got their mansion...with suspicious help from Tony Rezko.
Drozz- Great WB cartoon! Readers, click here for 6 minutes of funny commentary about what "women who don't work" actually do.
@Suzy- Make no mistake: Ann Romney is a smart, strong, articulate woman and this was a deliberate attempt to cut her off at the knees before she can harm the Obama campaign. But Rosen was too direct in her attack and got nailed for it.
But it's all part of the narrative that the Romney's are pampered, out of touch millionaires who can't related to the struggles of the noble and sadly-oppressed working class.
But Ann Romney doesn't need my help in mounting a defense: "Look, I know what it’s like to struggle,” said Mrs. Romney, who has battled multiple sclerosis. “Maybe I haven’t struggled as much financially as some people have. I can tell you and promise you that I have struggled in my life. Mitt and I have compassion for people that are struggling, and that’s why we’re running.”
And Ann Romney's ability to articulate those truths are why she was attacked.
@John the Econ- I agree, even applying the financial brakes isn't enough to keep the momentum from carrying us over a cliff. But real entitlement reform - the "painful as hell" kind - might. But sadly, I'm not optimistic that the voting population will ever get smart enough or ethical enough to demand that sort of reform.
@Emmentaler- Well put. Maybe we can all agree on campaign buttons that simply say "Romney Has My Vote" without qualifying whether we're happy about it or not.
@Pete(Detroit)- Conservative control of both houses of Congress would be HUGE...but only if Obama is out of office. Positive change for this country will ONLY come from a conservative supermajority. So that's what we need to work for until November. And if things go south after that? Then we can (and should) start stocking our bunkers in the backwoods.
#1 - My wife was a stay-at-home Mom – three kids. I was an E-4 in the Army when we started our family 27 years ago (and we were eligible for, but did not receive, food-stamps). She managed the household on a shoestring budget and to this day I continue to receive praise about how great our kids are. And my hard-working wife is the reason why! I had the easier job!
#2 – The leftist strategy: divide and conquer. It’s all they’ve got, but the strategy does, I’m afraid, have a long history of success. Tell the lie often enough and loud enough and it will be believed … enough. And I’ve had enough of it!
#3 – ABØ
On a side-note: When I search for “Anyone But Obama” on Amazon, the “Obama Sutra” Is item # 16
@ Stilt You're right, a conservative Congress with an Obama White House is not a win for the country. It will lead to government by Executive Order, in other words a dictatorship, and the continued ruin of our country and eroding of our rights.
My deepest admiration to Mrs. Romney. I had no idea she had MS. And very appropriate of the Romney camp to not make a big deal of it - private matters should remain private. If Ms. Rosen had any idea what that horrid disease involves she would have kept her mouth sewn shut.
@Chuck- Your wife sounds like a terrific person. And I'm sure your great kids benefitted greatly from the influence of both their parents (which is itself a situation that is all too rare these days).
Per Amazon, I wish I'd thought of putting together a book called "Anyone But Obama" earlier in the campaign season!
@graylady- Mrs. Romney reminds us to look past stereotypes before judging anyone. To assume that people with money don't get sick, don't get hurt, or have uncaring hearts is at stupid as any other form of prejudice.
Isn't it great that BO is keeping Uncle Joe on the ticket with him? It's hard to believe he actually thought he could become president!
I have to say that at least Mitt Romney knows how to stimulate the economy--he jumped right on the bandwagon with Rosen's comment:
http://investmentwatchblog.com/new-romney-bumper-sticker-moms-drive-the-economy/
And frankly, I love it!!!!
I'm with Instapundit on this election. I would vote for a syphillitic camel over Obama. so, Romney is good enough.
@Cookie- Personally, I think Joe Biden's place on the ticket will depend entirely on the poll numbers heading into the election. If Obama is slipping, watch for old Joe to suddenly want to spend "more time with the family" so he can be replaced with someone who can excite the base. Vice President Jon Stewart, anyone..?
And full points to Romney's camp for "Moms Drive the Economy." That's a great line, and I hope it sticks!
@Legion- I, too, would cast that vote. And now I want to create a campaign commercial for a syphillitic camel...
Stilt, glad you're feeling better. Hat to have to send you to Johnny's Dr... (tho his pharmacist might be interesting)
Tag line for the commercial - "I'd walk a mile to vote for a syphilitic camel - over Obama"
Back in the late 70's, Mom was applying for a department store credit card, to start to build credit in her own name. In case, you know, something happened to Dad. Sales clerk filling out the app asked her occupation. "Housewife."
"Oh, I can't put that, it has to be a REAL occupation."
W/o missing a beat, Mom comes up w/ "Specialist in normal child growth and development in small group situations."
"Oh, I LIKE that!"
She has her moments, Mom does.
I have seen avalanches on video and wondered how someone must feel being in the middle of one...NOW I KNOW after the sunami-like onslaught of insane ideas, that come so quickly it is hard to keep up with! You could probably have made up several more strips with the news in this week alone!
Surely...SURELYYYY...after McCain's super-squishy performance in his debates with 'the one', and his overall performance in general during his campaign (can you imagine how pathetic without Sarah Palin), Romney will bone up, man up, puff up, and whatever else you gotta get up to go toe-to-toe with a slick, 'articulate', well-financed but thin-skinned hot-head some call the POTUS! It will not be a time for letting ANYTHING slide, EVERYTHING about obama's reign, his lies, policies, hedgings, excuses, race-baiting, favortism, and unconstitutional actions should be brought to the light of day for all to see and be made to understand!
@pryorguy: Your comments reminded me of what we call the "Dopelar Effect". It's when stupid ideas come at you at such a high rate of speed, they almost seem rational. Like the Doppler Effect, it's effect is dependent on where you're standing relative to the spewer of the ideas. (That's why, for most of us here, none seem rational. We're standing in the wrong spot...)
@Pete(Detroit)- Having read Johnny Optimism, you have a pretty good idea how reluctant I am to seek medical attention if I have even a hope of recovering on my own. And happily, I'm on the good side of the sickness Bell Curve and improving steadily.
And I love your Mom's comeback to the snippy salesclerk!
@Pryorguy- The cartoons and punchlines are the relatively easy part of what I do. The harder part is focusing on a story that I feel like I can give a useful and/or interesting perspective on. Life would be much simpler for me if I could just do the cartoons, add a link to a news story, and then write "Seriously, WTF?!"
Regarding Romney, the current headline story on Drudge surprised me and gives me hope: "Romney Warns: Obama Coming For Guns." I'm so sick of our side always playing defense ("no, we're not against minorities," "no, we're not against the poor," "no, we're not against women") that I love the idea of playing OFFENSE finally.
I think it's the best thing Romney could do, and I hope that this is an early indication that he's smart enough to realize it.
@Emmentaler- The Dopelar Effect explains a lot. And "Political Physics" can be an exciting new field of study!
I'm still puzzled as to why nobody called Obama on his picking of Joe Biden for VP immediately after saying that John McCain had "been in the Senate for 25 years!". By the time he was picked, Biden had been in the Senate for 30 years! Where WERE the Republicans then?? Who was running that show??
I once read an article that pointed out that the stay-at-home Moms of the '50s were able to stay home because their tax burden was so much less than it became starting in the '60s. (Thanks a lot, LBJ!) Someone should be making that point loudly and clearly, and making sure everyone knows it's due to the Demo_rats that Moms CAN'T stay home like that any more.
While I admit that Romney would be preferable to O'Brahma, I'm concerned that Romney's RINO-esque reputation will only lead to a ho-hum attitude among the middle-of-the-road ('moderate') Republicans at election time.
Why vote for a squishy, half-hearted right-moderate-liberal in conservative clothing (which, whether true or not, is what Romney looks and has acted like,) when you can vote for a real capital-L Liberal (well, actually, closet Marxist?)
Who's gonna be more effective at rallying the troops? A hard-lefty in left-moderate clothing (O'Brahma), or a moderate-righty (Romney) in right-moderate clothing? O'Brahma may have screwed up royally, and that may be his downfall, but I wonder if we'd be better off with a clear choice between two visions of America.
Reagan and his team, for all their faults, presented that clarity of vision brilliantly, with stunning results. Will Romney do likewise? Or will we just be 'stunned' come November?
JeepGuy - about 20 years ago, (gosh - pre-internet! Shocka!) I recall that the 'break even' point for a 'two income' family (based on child care, needing two reliable vehicles, higher food costs, etc) was like $30k. If the 2nd income was not bringing down at LEAST that much, it wasn't worth it. Probably up to at least $45k by now. Yet we see an awful lot of "Moms" in the work force - partly because the 'sperm donor' is no longer in the picture, either physically OR financially, and / or they've been programmed to believe that a waitress (or other low wage "starter" job) has more validity that being 'just a Mom'. As if "Mom" wasn't the most important (and in many ways most difficult) job on the planet. I have asked women, when I found out they have kids "do you have to work outside the home, or are you a 'Real Mom'?
Some women get REAL offended by that, for various reasons...
Too Bad - I had a 'Real Mom', and know the worth thereof.
@JustaJeepGuy- Not only had Biden been in the Senate for 30 years, but there was no tangible record that - in the entire time - he'd ever been right about anything.
And I don't doubt that tax burdens have forced many women out of the home and into the workplace. After all, there was a time when we only had to take care of our own families instead of being compelled to pay the bills for countless other families.
@BS Footprint- If we lose the next election, I at least want it to be after a campaign that truly pits conservatism against liberalism. I'll be biting my fingernails to see if that actually happens.
@Pete(Detroit)- According to the Bamster, $106,000 isn't enough for a traditional family of four to afford the "luxury" of children having a full-time mother. Because that's what he was earning when Michelle was "forced" to go to work.
And anyone who had a "Real Mom" knows the work, the sacrifice, and the importance of the job.
[i]"Friday Free For All" in which I touch several bases without lingering on any of them.[/i]
Sounds like the Clinton White House.
Oh, yeah--Michelle was "forced" to go to work...at a job that was created for her, with no real responsibilities or real work. Just a salary over $300,000/year. Why can't I get a job like that??
@SJ - Pollos Hermanos is selling cough medicine now?!
@Coon Tasty- So you're opining that I said a mouthful?
And regarding Los Pollos Hermanos, just order the chicken nuggets with the "extra spicy" hydrocodone sauce.
@JustaJeepGuy- Michelle may not have had any significant responsibilities, but the hospital where she worked still got a good return on their investment in the Senator's wife. Completely by coincidence, of course.
@JustaJeepGuy, what you illustrate is why limousine liberals honestly believe that capitalism is corrupt and wealth must be redistributed: They achieved their wealth via means like Michelle's phony job, so they assume that everyone else (who clearly are not as clever or moral as they are) must have achieved their wealth through similar corrupt means.
The Clinton's and their involvement with the S&L debacle and Hillary's "Cattle Trades" were a good example of this. (In fact, that's when I developed the theory) When they used to go on with their rhetoric about the "greed and corruption of the '80s", they honestly meant it. I mean, look at all of their close associates in Little Rock; they were all corrupt. They just honestly assumed the rest of us were too.
It's just another example of the hubris of liberal intellectuals. They just assume they're the brightest and most moral, and anyone who disagrees with them is obviously defective and must be ridiculed or ignored.
@John the Econ- I've subscribed to your theory ("Big liberals come into money unfairly and corruptly so then assume that's how everyone else made their money") for a long time, but see its application most clearly in the Hollywood elites. First class idiot Alec Baldwin makes tens of millions for appearing on a sitcom and until recently lived in a $9.5 million apartment. Is it any wonder that he has no idea whatsoever how hard it is for real people/businesses to accrue significant wealth? He knows (and I think every Hollywood liberal knows) that he's making money in an obscenely unfair and easy way while others suffer. And so he does what liberals always do- open their yaps about social injustice and demand that reparations be made... but not out of their own, deep pockets.
@JustaJeepGuy:
"Why can't I get a job like that??"
Erm.. maybe: You didn't attend the "right" university; have the "right" mentors; don't hang out with the "right" people; espouse the "right" beliefs...
@JustaJeepGuy:
... continued ...
As George Carlin said, "it's a big club and you aint' in it."
@BS Footprint- It ain't what you know, it's who you know.
@JustaJeepGuy, @Stilton:
Is there anyone here who doesn't understand the concept of psychological projection?
@BS Footprint- I'm assuming that you're referring to psychological projection as it applies to the libs and celebs who waggle a finger at all of the evil people unfairly getting more than their share of the people's pie - right?
Well, I may not have attended the "right" school, but I HAVE noticed that so many people who were born into money are socialists or communists. Apparently, there's a huge pile of guilt that they feel they must assuage for their forebears' acquisition of so much money. If they would just give all that "ill-gotten" money away, they could be completely rid of all the guilt! Of course, they then wouldn't be able to enjoy the comfort and luxury the money gives them......
Post a Comment