Posted on 08/21/2004 2:27:05 PM PDT by BritishBulldog
In the U.S., the hard-core liberals are often the most wealthy. We have derisive terms for this, like "limousine liberal." I didn't know that liberal UK politicians are often from a less-wealth background than the conservatives -- that's interesting.
Didn't you guys invent the phrase "limousine liberals"? You got 'em, too.
Kerry/Edwards fans are the same folks that think Oprah is their best buddy. All Americans think the rich equates to successful, and they all respect wealth. Malcontents, though, only like the rich folk that say they want to give them stuff. Not consistent at all, hence why dumocrats have a foolish following.
"Didn't you guys invent the phrase "limousine liberals"? You got 'em, too."
Not heard that term before, we do say "Champagne Socialist" but that tend to be used to describe a lefty who has aquired a taste for the finer things while (at face value) maintained his lefy views.
They like to pass themselves off as friends of the little guy, but take a look at who they really are.
The lines are blured a great deal in the US. The lines between the two parties are so blured that a case can be made that they are really the same party with two wings. One wants to take your money now, the other wants to wait a while. Maybe we need a little reform in this nation--like Jefferson said--there should be a revolutition every once and a while just to clear the muddy waters.
Because they, generally speaking, never had to work a day in their lives to obtain their wealth (i.e., inheritance or marriage). Examples inlude Kerry, the Rockefellers, the Kennedys, and many more.
They have no clue what it takes to earn a living or amass a fortune; hence they could care less if their taxes go up a bit. Similarly, they have no idea of the deleterious economic effects of their policies, having never worked for a living.
That's it! Our rich lefties maintain the same pretense. Some, like John Edwards, really were born without much. The ones like Kerry believe that by virtue of their right-thinking on key topics, they genuinely empathize with the common man.
Your "centre-left publicly acceptable wrapper a la Clinton" is standing shoulder to shoulder with President Bush on Iraq while your Conservative party is opposed to the war. What's up with that?
what the crats are really trying to do is get rid of the middle class they want all the citizens living under the control of Gov't subsidies and controls. while they sit up in Washington sipping champagne and eating lobster.
That's code for tax the upper middle class. The really rich (like Kerry) "structure" their wealth to minimize taxation.
With a tax code that exceeds ten bibles in extent, the very rich can find ways to shield their wealth and income from the ruinous taxation that affects the rest of us, while at the same time crying out that "the rich don't pay their fair share."
"Seemingly" is the key word. They are profoundly insincere and duplicitous.
P.S. You don't talk like a Brit.
The lefties to a man (or woman) are political exploiters.
They develop interest groups of the undereducated and promise whatever they want. Once in power they squeeze whatever from whomever to maintain and increase their wealth.
The interest groups..... Labor unions (AFL/CIO), National Education Association (NEA) ( and related State associations), Sierra Club, and National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).
There are also various women's and pro abortion groups, Homosexual groups and anti war groups.
All the above have sub groups for radicals with a single issue.
In addition to the undereducated, the left includes a large component of over educated women who are trained since conception to be agressive advocates of some cause, both main stream and obscure.
You aren't stupid at all, it's a matter of many politicians, party hacks and media outlets perpetuating numerous lies in an effort to get uneducated people to vote Democrat.
Back in the very early part of last century, the Democrats could honestly say that they supported policies that benefited the poor and the "working man" (I've always hated that expression, as some of the hardest working people I've met in my life have been millionaires, the sort that the Left like to deride as being "priviledged") they supported unions at a time when there were none and there was indeed a problem with some people being taken advantage of.
Problem is, the Democratic party was quickly taken over by the Socialists, because the Socialists could never get anywhere here in the USA by being honest (thank GOD) but when they infiltrated the Democratic party they moved the Democrats steadily to the Left until now the Dems differ from full-throated Socialists pretty much in name only.
So, for the past seventy or so years the Dems have been running on a lie, that being that they are "the party of the working man" when in fact they are completely corrupt and care only about increasing the size of Government and doing everything they can for Big Labor.
When you are in the pockets of big labor and the unions, you can make a lot of money. The unions love to "support" their "friends" in government, and so you have a situation where you have fabulously wealthy politicians who still try to spout the lie of being "for the poor and the working man".
It's all smoke and mirrors and I can easily understand why it's confusing....it's confusing because it's all built on lies and corruption.
It would be a lot simpler to understand our politics if the parties (particularly those on the Left) were honest about what they were about, but the problem with that (for them) is that they would never get elected that way. So, along with an enthusiasically supportive Left-wing media, we have a party that continuously misrepresents itself.
Sorry about the confusion....I wish that it was different. It would all be a lot easier to understand if the Dems renamed themselves the Socialist Labor party, it would be a bit clearer then.
You really think the Conservatives are a viable alternative to Labour nowadays?
"Your "centre-left publicly acceptable wrapper a la Clinton" is standing shoulder to shoulder with President Bush on Iraq while your Conservative party is opposed to the war. What's up with that?"
By and large the Labour Party is and was totally opposed to the war. Tony B. Liar and some of his croneys went along with it because he/they felt it would increase his public popularity (a stupendous error in reality) and for no other reason.
The Conservative Party backed the war at the time but the current leader (Michael Howard - good man - had several high offices under Thatcher) is currently back peddling a little (while not condemning Bush or his actions) because he is trying to get elected.
Understand this, Tony Blair stands for nothing. He has no concrete opinions or beliefs. His only concern is his re-election and his own interests. He is a toad and is not to be trusted.
"You really think the Conservatives are a viable alternative to Labour nowadays?"
What other alternative is there?
As it happens I don't think the Tories (Conservatives) will be elected next time. I think Labour will just scrape in again (unfortunately). I do believe though that Blair will be jettisoned either before for shorty after the next election and that his successor (Gordon Brown - utter tosser) will fcuk things up so badly that Labour won't get elected again for 20 years.
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.