[trebb]

Exactly, and I was watching FOX the other day and they mentioned that Bill Gates (the creep) has about a $24 Billion charity program. Hard to get much badder then that...

[dix]

It's funny how all that works.

[davisfh]

"Bill Gates is a favorite target as one of the "bad" rich. But really who "gives back" more to the community? Oprah does entertainment and creates a few jobs."

As far as I'm concerned, Bill Gates is a national hero. Many, many people have jobs as a result of his efforts. I would even say that the jobs created, both directly and indirectly by him, number in the tens of millions. And, to his credit, a corrupt justice department and the evil woman who headed it were unable to bring him down.

[Cicero]

It's simple. The evil rich donate to Bush. The good, generous, thoughtful altruistic rich donate to clinton/gore.

Actually Bill Gates spends most of his money on liberal causes: minority education, population control, all that other stuff. But he didn't give clinton/gore as much money as the trendy Silicon Valley/Left Coast socialists did. With his money, he should have spent at least a year in the Lincoln Bedroom.

[Diddley]

How shallow the Libs are.

[NotJustAnotherPrettyFace]

Logic is not a DUMMYcrat trait. They don't ever use it!

[wizzler]

The reason is that modern "liberalism" is informed not by the Enlightenment (which elevated freedom above all else and led to the birth of America) but by Romanticism (which glorifies human suffering as something heroic). In the Romantic view, only ordinary people in despair are truly humanized; this is why it's crucial for modern "liberals" to maintain the victim culture and to continue fueling class envy.

These are stark, glaring differences in philosophical roots, and recognizing these foundations can help explain a lot about contemporary life and politics. Understanding romanticism sheds light on why the Constitution has been chipped away, why we are so heavily taxed, why leftism has overtaken universities, and on and on.

It also provides an answer to your question: Why are some wealthy people targeted by liberals, and others aren't? It's all about perceptions. I suspect it's not the acquisition of wealth, per se, that bothers "liberals." It's all about the person who has the money. The Oprahs and Kennedys of the world are seen as maintaining a fondness for the commoner -- they've kept their romanticism intact and are thus seen as partners in Humanity's Heroic Struggle.

Contemporary art has strong Romantic roots. This can help explain the overwhelmingly leftist bent of Hollywood and rock 'n' roll. "Real art," in the Romantic view, is born of pain, and "integrity" is about never forgetting that pain. I suspect many Hollywood Romantics feel an acute guilt, maybe even a fear, about their success and comfort. It creates a paradox in their lives: The suffering required to create good art can disappear because of the success that results from creating good art. To ensure their own sense of credibility as artists, they actively champion liberal causes to help keep their Romantic infrastructure intact.

Most modern adherents of romanticism couldn't even tell you what the word means. But it is an alluring mindset, because it provides something of a mythic, valorous edge to life. It feels noble and righteous.

It's also a bunch of horseshit, and just one more thing to blame on France and Germany.

[xm177e2]

It was gained through bootlegging ... What did old Joe Kennedy "give back"?

Our right to drink? People gladly paid for the stuff.