Absolutely spot-on picture and article.

They have to pretend to be “poor”, not just to seem to be in line with the “regular people” so they can get elected, but also because their basic pitch is “rich and powerful is bad”. They believe it even though they are rich and powerful, it’s a part of their creed.

Quote:Hillary Clinton claimed that, at the moment she and her husband were signing up for $18 million in book deals, that they were “dead broke.”

Harry Reid (who lives in the Ritz-Carlton Hotel) said liberals are getting bullied by Republican billionaires but the Democratic Party “doesn’t have many billionaires” behind it.

Joe Biden (family earnings: $407,000 last year plus a free house, driver, meals, etc.) claims he “I don’t own a single stock or bond. . . . I have no savings accounts . . . I’m the poorest man in Congress.” (Triple fail: Joe isn’t poor, isn’t in Congress and wouldn’t be the poorest member of it if he were.)[ed.- and Joe was lying about that-he has stocks, bonds and a savings account]

Keep reading.....

Or, I can sum it up more quickly.

Cause they're frauds.

Good article, though.

Reid looks like Shylock in that pic.

Because it's a great usage of pathos. In a nation that is as class conscious as we've every been (with little ability to actually be that way) you have to demonstrate where you stand and with poorer people that means you have to be "real". Rich people who acknowledge their wealth aren't well received (example: Romney) because in some people's eyes, they aren't capable of understanding anything besides fancy dinners and being socialites.

I know at one point it was almost impossible to not hear the words "Scott Brown" and "pickup truck" in the same sentence, trying to appeal to the voters that value that type of thing.

because wealth is theft, capitalism is a scam, and every dollar the rich (which is never defined, of course) guy has is really a dollar he took from me, and if I vote for the dems, they will take it from him and give it to me.

They lie about everything. Why would they treat the issue of wealth any different.

(06-28-2014 04:45 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Because it's a great usage of pathos. In a nation that is as class conscious as we've every been (with little ability to actually be that way) you have to demonstrate where you stand and with poorer people that means you have to be "real". Rich people who acknowledge their wealth aren't well received (example: Romney) because in some people's eyes, they aren't capable of understanding anything besides fancy dinners and being socialites.

I know at one point it was almost impossible to not hear the words "Scott Brown" and "pickup truck" in the same sentence, trying to appeal to the voters that value that type of thing.

I think what you say has a lot of truth to it, and frankly it's rather sad and pathetic and discerning and maddening.

Since when, in THIS country do we celebrate or cater to or wish to "identify" with the losers? Not to say that all poor or lower rung folks are losers, but what the hell is it nowadays with the working class worship crap? Why are "we" now apologizing for those that achieve? Why would anyone want to say they can identify with being poor if they actually can't?

Does that make one more virtuous? More "pure" or something? Salt of the earth, perhaps? Hell I do what I do and live how we live so that someday, hopefully I can make damn well SURE that neither of my kids will ever have to worry about a place to live or their next meal.

There was a time, not so long ago, when everyone (loosely speaking) had ambition to identify with the climbers and achievers. Optimisim, go get it ism, chasing your dreamsism. Now? It's depressing. Dress like a bum, live like a bum, work for a bums wage and you're celebrated. Make it on your own and drop a cool couple hundred Mill in the bank account and your vilified and derided as some kind of social pariah.

It's the Country I once knew turned upside down. Makes NO sense.

When you're committed to class warfare, it doesn't do to let your constituents see that you're really on the other side.

Seven of the Top Ten Wealthiest Members of Congress Are Democrats

Quote:Yes America, there is a wealth gap. Seven of the top ten wealthiest members in Congress are Democrats.

The results are based on a new study released today by the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics. The Center did an analysis of the financial statements filed by members of Congress for 2010 income and net worth.

This revelation of extreme wealth by Democratic politicians is completely contrary to the public image of the Democratic Party. President Obama has castigated “millionaires and billionaires,” suggesting they are evil people, largely Republican or conservative. The issue of the Democratic Party as the millionaire party has not yet made it into the mainstream media. But the facts are indisputable. Democratic members of Congress tend to be wealthier than their Republican counterparts.

According to the Center, 36 Senate Democrats and 30 Senate Republicans reported an average net worth in excess of $1 million in 2010. The median estimated net worth among members of the Senate Democrats was $2.58 million. Senate Republican median net worth was $2.43 million.

And, the wealthy Democrats tend to inherit their money. Republicans tend to earn it.

Senators John Kerry (D-MA), Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) all came by their fortunes through marriage or inheritance. Senator Kerry, who was born into wealth, has listed his net worth as high as $281 million, while his wife Teresa is estimated to be worth $1 billion. Ms. Heinz did not earn her wealth either. She inherited the money from her husband Senator John Heinz, who died in an airplane crash.

Senator Rockefeller, representing dirt poor West Virginia, inherited his fortune from his family. He is reported to be worth $136 million.

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2011/11/15/sev...democrats/

john kerry isn't even rich because of who he is sleeping with. he is rich because of who he is sleeping with slept with. and even that guy was a republican.

(06-28-2014 05:46 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(06-28-2014 04:45 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Because it's a great usage of pathos. In a nation that is as class conscious as we've every been (with little ability to actually be that way) you have to demonstrate where you stand and with poorer people that means you have to be "real". Rich people who acknowledge their wealth aren't well received (example: Romney) because in some people's eyes, they aren't capable of understanding anything besides fancy dinners and being socialites.

I know at one point it was almost impossible to not hear the words "Scott Brown" and "pickup truck" in the same sentence, trying to appeal to the voters that value that type of thing.

I think what you say has a lot of truth to it, and frankly it's rather sad and pathetic and discerning and maddening.

Since when, in THIS country do we celebrate or cater to or wish to "identify" with the losers? Not to say that all poor or lower rung folks are losers, but what the hell is it nowadays with the working class worship crap? Why are "we" now apologizing for those that achieve? Why would anyone want to say they can identify with being poor if they actually can't?

Does that make one more virtuous? More "pure" or something? Salt of the earth, perhaps? Hell I do what I do and live how we live so that someday, hopefully I can make damn well SURE that neither of my kids will ever have to worry about a place to live or their next meal.

There was a time, not so long ago, when everyone (loosely speaking) had ambition to identify with the climbers and achievers. Optimisim, go get it ism, chasing your dreamsism. Now? It's depressing. Dress like a bum, live like a bum, work for a bums wage and you're celebrated. Make it on your own and drop a cool couple hundred Mill in the bank account and your vilified and derided as some kind of social pariah.

It's the Country I once knew turned upside down. Makes NO sense.

We're in a bad place; pretty much all I can say on most of what you've said. But I do have to say that a bum isn't celebrated, but he draws less ire than the rich man.

Optimism is flying out the window because, frankly there's no reason to be at the moment and there's not a whole lot of optimism on the horizon.

I also don't think rich people are social pariahs by default; it depends on how they got there. We still love the rags to riches story, but can't stand the rich kid got richer stories. We see this in a lot of things. Look at sports, the quickest way to be hated is to have repeated success.

(06-28-2014 07:24 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Look at sports, the quickest way to be hated is to have repeated success.

Ummm . . .



LeBron would like to have a little word with you.

(06-28-2014 06:29 PM)EagleX Wrote:  john kerry isn't even rich because of who he is sleeping with. he is rich because of who he is sleeping with slept with. and even that guy was a republican.

Great line. You should put that in your signature.

(06-28-2014 06:29 PM)EagleX Wrote:  john kerry isn't even rich because of who he is sleeping with. he is rich because of who he is sleeping with slept with. and even that guy was a republican.

Kerry also has family ties to the Forbes and Dudley-Winthrop family (a very wealthy and politically connected family) on his mother's side. He attended elite boarding schools growing up and went to Yale. He was a member of the Skull and Bones secret society (they just don't let anyone in that group).

He was from an average Joe even before he met Theresa.

(06-28-2014 07:33 PM)jh Wrote:  

(06-28-2014 07:24 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Look at sports, the quickest way to be hated is to have repeated success.

Ummm . . .



LeBron would like to have a little word with you.

What was worse, the hate he got from leaving Cleveland or the hate for actually winning.

(06-28-2014 05:46 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(06-28-2014 04:45 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Because it's a great usage of pathos. In a nation that is as class conscious as we've every been (with little ability to actually be that way) you have to demonstrate where you stand and with poorer people that means you have to be "real". Rich people who acknowledge their wealth aren't well received (example: Romney) because in some people's eyes, they aren't capable of understanding anything besides fancy dinners and being socialites.

I know at one point it was almost impossible to not hear the words "Scott Brown" and "pickup truck" in the same sentence, trying to appeal to the voters that value that type of thing.

I think what you say has a lot of truth to it, and frankly it's rather sad and pathetic and discerning and maddening.

Since when, in THIS country do we celebrate or cater to or wish to "identify" with the losers? Not to say that all poor or lower rung folks are losers, but what the hell is it nowadays with the working class worship crap? Why are "we" now apologizing for those that achieve? Why would anyone want to say they can identify with being poor if they actually can't?

Does that make one more virtuous? More "pure" or something? Salt of the earth, perhaps? Hell I do what I do and live how we live so that someday, hopefully I can make damn well SURE that neither of my kids will ever have to worry about a place to live or their next meal.

There was a time, not so long ago, when everyone (loosely speaking) had ambition to identify with the climbers and achievers. Optimisim, go get it ism, chasing your dreamsism. Now? It's depressing. Dress like a bum, live like a bum, work for a bums wage and you're celebrated. Make it on your own and drop a cool couple hundred Mill in the bank account and your vilified and derided as some kind of social pariah.

It's the Country I once knew turned upside down. Makes NO sense.

A lot of what you said is true, but the left doesn't hate everyone who's successful. The don't seem to mind actors and musicians being rich. Or Bill Gates or the Facebook guy. And John Kerry and Edwards had how much money between them? They don't hate Bloomberg or Soros.

The left is stupid. Someone tells them to hate persons A, B, and C and they do even though the people dictating that hate are doing the same this A, B, and C are.

(06-28-2014 09:59 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(06-28-2014 06:29 PM)EagleX Wrote:  john kerry isn't even rich because of who he is sleeping with. he is rich because of who he is sleeping with slept with. and even that guy was a republican.

Kerry also has family ties to the Forbes and Dudley-Winthrop family (a very wealthy and politically connected family) on his mother's side. He attended elite boarding schools growing up and went to Yale. He was a member of the Skull and Bones secret society (they just don't let anyone in that group).

He was from an average Joe even before he met Theresa.

Yeah, a real average Joe, who probably got 2 or his 3 Purple Hearts from paper cuts.
Ask the guys he served with, they seem to hate his guts.
None of them thought he deserved 3 Purple Hearts.

(06-28-2014 09:59 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(06-28-2014 06:29 PM)EagleX Wrote:  john kerry isn't even rich because of who he is sleeping with. he is rich because of who he is sleeping with slept with. and even that guy was a republican.

Kerry also has family ties to the Forbes and Dudley-Winthrop family (a very wealthy and politically connected family) on his mother's side. He attended elite boarding schools growing up and went to Yale. He was a member of the Skull and Bones secret society (they just don't let anyone in that group).

He was from an average Joe even before he met Theresa.

Bush was in Skull and Bones too. So I guess it doesn't matter whether you lean right or left as this secret society has the same agenda. Is it related to the Masons by the way?

(06-28-2014 10:20 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(06-28-2014 07:33 PM)jh Wrote:  

(06-28-2014 07:24 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Look at sports, the quickest way to be hated is to have repeated success.

Ummm . . .



LeBron would like to have a little word with you.

What was worse, the hate he got from leaving Cleveland or the hate for actually winning.

The hate was for the WAY he left Cleveland! Sure, there was hate for him leaving Cleveland, but it's my opinion that the fact he was given an hour to tell the nation something that could've been handled in 5 minutes was/is the major reason LeBron is hated to this day. The winning only fuels the hatred, IMO.

my favorite Democrat that rails against rich folks is John Davison "Jay" Rockefeller IV. I'm sure he had plenty of Ramen noodles and Mac & Cheese meals in college.