Yes.
Next!
Just damn.
If you want on the list, FReepmail me. This IS a high-volume PING list...
Posted on 06/29/2004 11:57:42 AM PDT by Sola Veritas
Yes, they are stupid to think that the power elites will leave them alone if they ever get power back. They are also CROOKS, like Terry McAwful who made his millions in Global Crossing Stock by stealing from the pension plans and 401k's of the "ordinary" people.
Never the less they are rich and powerful and winning this election
Never the less they are rich and powerful and winning this election
Never the less they are rich and powerful and winning this election
Never the less they are rich and powerful and winning this election
No, they just "feel badly."
Wow! What a great post, Steel!
Show me a rich liberal, and I will show you a person who became wealthy through either a means that requires no intelligence, or through inheritance. Tracer Heinz Kerry comes to mind here for some reason.
Who is the 'we' she refers to? The Democrats? The ruling elites, of which she, of course, is one?
Yes.
Next!
Just damn.
If you want on the list, FReepmail me. This IS a high-volume PING list...
If Senator Clinton is dedicated to the common good, I am wondering what that is. Department of Education? Transportation Security Administration? $600 toilet seats? $4000-a-month government pensions? Expensive studies of the club-footed anteater? If these are what she considers necessary for "the common good" I think we need a new Senator.
Liberalism is mostly about self-delusion and self-congratulation.
I think the phenomenon of the rich liberal can be explained only by the psychological satisfaction it provides. In economic terms, cash ain't the only source of utility.
YES!!
I don't see why we should single out the rich ones......
I agree. Rich, poor and middle class: if you're planning on voting for ketchup boy — or any of the rest of 'em — there's something not quite right about you.
After all, why do you think they're called dimocrats?
No they are both stupid and filled with guilt over being financially well off.
But the other reason is more subtle: by promoting socialism, the ruling elites cut the legs out of a growing middle and upper class and avoid the accumulation of wealth which will compete with their wealth.I’m sure this does play a significant role, I would venture to suggest, however, it doesn’t imply such a carefully orchestrated scenario. The populist nature of democratic politics contributes to parties’ policies. Multiparty political environment presumes different (and, at times, opposing) expectations of the electorate. Therefore, we have two (or more) distinct groups of the population, each having specific (and, probably, opposing) expectations and requirements.
By its competitive nature, democratic societies (perhaps, unwillingly) encourage the populist politics. In the end of the day, a party has to take into consideration the demands of its supporters. Due to the competition within the party itself, the leaders strive to satisfy as many potential voters as possible. This creates an environment where leaders, at times, have to create policies that satisfy many so-called traditional supporters to secure their votes (taxation policy, for example), and, sometimes, they are drawn into following rather extremist political agenda to secure some of the fringe votes as well; obviously, they also have to prepare some policies to mollify the swing voters as well (compromise policies). This, I think, means that there’s always some sort of a lag between politics and economy (and science).
There’s no question that the Left ideology based on Socialist/Communist theories has totally failed, they have lost the ideological war (some of the centrist policies of the Democrats – or British New Labour - could easily have been proposed by the Conservatives). However, the fact of this failure has not filtered through to the individual voters on the left yet. This inertia creates a delay in the party’s politics – they do have to keep their supporters happy.
My guess is there’s no real cure for it. One could consider, I suppose, some sort of regulation, where the campaigning would be severely restricted, the media would be banned from taking part in the campaigning, only the scientific bodies would be allowed to conduct any sorts of polling (subject to methods agreed to by all parties), and the current ruling party’s performance would be analyzed by independent institutions, thus striving to create the environments where only bare dry facts are displayed before the electorate. However, I think, such a system is totally unrealistic. So, I guess, the current system is the price we have to pay for the free democracy. Some sort of a balance will be achieved in the end, where a form of sane politics will be followed (hopefully).
It would seem it’s down to the members of a party to increase the number of supporters in order to ensure a victory. This means some sort of targeted and well-organized ideological work is necessary for ‘converting’ of the undecided. This, I think, is best achieved by exposing (without any venom, humorous-like) the lies and distortions pushed by the leftist media and the Democrats.
Yes, rich Democrats are STUPID when it comes to politics. I was recently on the East Coast, visiting a wealthy part of the family (with homes in Stowe and Nantucket, just to give you an idea- as a matter of fact my husband's brother-in-law grew up near John Kerry and their mothers were friends). Anyway, my brother-in-law is a rabid liberal, yet all he did was complain about the way the environmentalists were causing trouble in Vermont. When you try to ask him why he votes for them, he shrugs and says because they are better than the other party. He won't even say the name, Republican. They hated Dean as govenor, but loved his anti-Bush rants and would have voted for him for president. Then one of their Nantucket friends asked my husband what he did for a living, and when he told them that he worked for an oil company, she sniffed, "Oil, oil?" Then stammered that you people, you people are just so.... and walked away. I noticed that she and her husband left in an SUV.
At least he is honest about it.
this may not play as vital role in the US, where the super-rich must compete with other powerful factions, but is much more prominent in a country like Mexico.
i have a perfect example: back in 1982 or so, the Mexican economy was booming, perhaps as a belated effect of higher oil prices. the Mexican middle class was starting to become more powerful, particularly in northern mexico, which was always a conservative stronghold -- the PAN (Fox's party) had actually won some mayoralities and other posts against the corrupt PRI goliath.
lower-middle class shop owners were becoming prosperous, upper middle class folks were starting to make some real money as their small factories and businesses grew. some were even buying property in Ruidoso and other spots in the US for vacations.
so one weekend, the Mexican government 1) froze all dollar assets 2) fixed the exchange rate to a ridiculously value.
shazam! overnight the emerging classes that were starting to exert themselves had a major portion of their savings wiped out... PRI was safe for another ten years or so.
"Nice girl...but about as sharp a sack of wet mice"
- Foghorn Leghorn
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.