Pages:
1
..
26
27
28
29
30
..
35 |
Paula
Super Nomad
Posts: 2219
Registered: 1-5-2006
Location: Loreto
Member Is Offline
|
|
|
|
Iflyfish
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3747
Registered: 10-17-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
Quote: | Quote: | Originally posted by Paula
That the old phrase, "it takes money to make money" is certainly true. But I am living proof that it CAN be done without millions to start, and I
have many friends that did also. I was thinking, maybe it helped growing up among the fairly wealthy in Coronado which set my "state of
mind"--------Coronadoan's all think "success", and it usually happens when you stay concentrated on making it happen.
One of my Ranger's once quoted that phrase, "the poor are poor because they are poor", and it really struck me, and has stayed in my mind how true
that is. Being poor, in many cases, is a 'state of mind' that apparently is very hard to break out of for many. When you consider all the billions
that have been spent since the "Great Society" began on the programs for the poor, and how little things have changed for the poor since (a few %
points different in "poor" today), I don't think it is money well spent-------there has GOT to be a better way!!! THAT is the "big picture" to me,
anyway
Barry
[Edited on 6-17-2012 by Barry A.] |
Barry, I agree that attitude, confidence, and vision count in getting to the top. It is a nice thing that you got there, I'm happy for you. But luck
and good breaks count too.
It is said that the great thing about America is that anyone can make it to the top.
The flip side is that there is not room at the top for everyone. Many of those who don't get there are hard working, intelligent and earnest folk--
just like you. Some of them may be brighter and more creative than some successful people, but circumstances stand between them and material success.
"The poor are poor because they are poor" is an arrogant, rude and presumptive statement. Some people who lack hutzpah, self-confidence, and good
fortune may be the dark stars who have the answers and the compassion to bring about a better world. If the have-muches listened to the have-nots
instead of dismissing them, they might find themselves arriving at a place of compassion and attention and open-mindedness as opposed to guardedness
and dismissiveness. And they might find their lives improved for doing so.
For the record, I am not poor. And if you choose to reply to my post, please just call me Paula. My name is not, and never was Paula Paula
Paula. |
Well said Paula. We are not all born equal. Some are more intelligent than others. Some better looking. Some have a higher status pigmentation, some
are exposed to better education, some are of the sex that make more money doing the same work, some are dealing with problems with the senses i.e.
deafness, blindness, tactile defensiveness, developmental differences like Autism, Mongolism, Hydrocephaly etc. It is presumptive and displays a great
deal of denial to say that this is not true. We do not all have the capacity to earn or acquire wealth and the wealthy that claim that we all could be
wealthy must have skipped out on the day the class studied the Great Depression, where the economy tanked so bad that it was near impossible to gain
employment, let alone become rich.
The corollary to this argument that anyone can become rich is that the rich somehow have greater virtue than the person who is poor by virtue of their
wealth. This view, not often stated overtly, is often embedded in statements like "I'm rich and anyone can be rich too, see how my hard work has
created wealth for me and mine.
The bible refers to the difficulty of the rich attaining salvation, heaven, enlightenment etc. depending upon how one interprets the statement about
the rich entering the Eye Of the Needle, a gate in the wall of the Holy City that was very narrow and difficult for someone carrying a lot of baggage
to navigate. It is the self sanctity, arrogance and hubris of the rich that can blind them to the genuine situation and needs of others. I have
mine....go get yours....add pejorative adjective here. Witness Barbara Bush's comment about how the poor in the Astrodome were "underprivileged anyway
so this is working well for them" or "why should we about body bags and deaths? It's not relevant. Why should I waste my beautiful mind on something
like that?"
http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/barbara2.asp
It is this sanctimonious attitude of rich=good/virtuous and poor=bad/morally bankrupt, deficient etc. that is so destructive to the commons, our
public space, our shared boat. If you don't see a problem, or deny it's existence, or discount the problem by making up a fairy tale about the problem
then positive change cannot occur.
To say that the Great Society Programs did not work discounts many other societal changes that happened during that period including the Vietnam War
that nearly bankrupted the country and in order to pay for it required that it would take two working parents to provide the lifestyle of their
parents generation. I saw Great Society Programs working, I see Great Society Programs working, I worked in Great Society Programs and saw many, many
people helped by them. These programs got cut by austerity measures and defunding undermined their effectiveness. The Great Society Programs were a
work in progress whose life was cut short by economic constraints. Johnson tried to provide both Guns and Butter and it did not work any better under
him than under the Republicans.
The Great Society Programs were intended to end poverty, racial discrimination, create more schools and education, better medical care, and help the
economy. President Lyndon B. Johnson created this program after John F. Kennedy was assassinated. Some things from his program are still in use today
like Medicare and Medicaid, others were very helpful to minorities like the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and education opportunities.
I do not deny the existence of an entrenched subculture of intractable poverty and a sense of entitlement that binds people to poverty. I do not deny
that there is a permanent underclass in US society. I do say that it is disingenuous to say that all poverty is self created by victim entitlement.
This simply is not true but it is a common belief in the upper/ruling class.
“About 47 percent of Congress, or 249 current members are millionaires. … In 2010, the estimated median net worth of a current U.S. senator stood at
an average of $2.56 million, a Status Shared by Only 1% of Americans"
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/47-of-congress-...
The attitudes and beliefs that Paula and I are confronting are commonly held by this ruling class. This aught to concern Americans because the
majority interests are not being addressed and to Christians who have been told by their Teacher, to care for the poor and the "least of these".
Iflyfish
Iflyfish
|
|
SFandH
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7084
Registered: 8-5-2011
Member Is Offline
|
|
Thanks Iflyfish. I enjoy your writing.
I was watching a TV show last night about monk who happens to sing well and I was impressed by his vow of poverty. Much more impressed than by anyone
who is rich. Materialism and the measure of worth by a bank statement has never been taught or practised by what I consider truly religious people.
Probably their best trait. Something to emulate.
[Edited on 6-18-2012 by SFandH]
|
|
Osprey
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3694
Registered: 5-23-2004
Location: Baja Ca. Sur
Member Is Offline
|
|
Well said Flyguy. Now would be a perfect time for some really bright poor people and some dumb as they come billionaires to jump in here, nail this
thing down once and for all. If you're out there, let us hear from y'all.
|
|
woody with a view
PITA Nomad
Posts: 15939
Registered: 11-8-2004
Location: Looking at the Coronado Islands
Member Is Offline
Mood: Everchangin'
|
|
i'm here!
|
|
Barry A.
Select Nomad
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
Just to clarify one thing, per IFlyFish's excellent post---------the average net worth of the so called "1%'ers" is 14 million, down from 19 million
earlier. Senators and Congressmen in general are NOT in the top 1%, or even close, as I interpret this article in the Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/who-are-...
Barry
|
|
Skipjack Joe
Elite Nomad
Posts: 8084
Registered: 7-12-2004
Location: Bahia Asuncion
Member Is Offline
|
|
The body bags quote taken out of context leads to wrong conclusion. Here is more of it.
I watch none. He [former President George H.W. Bush] sits and listens and I read books, because I know perfectly well that, don't take offense,
that 90 percent of what I hear on television is supposition, when we're talking about the news. And he's not, not as understanding of my pettiness
about that. But why should we hear about body bags and deaths, and how many, what day it's gonna happen, and how many this or that or what do you
suppose? Or, I mean, it's not relevant. So, why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that, and watch him suffer.
She's not saying that she doesn't want to clutter her beautiful mind with body bags.
She's saying that since 90% of the news reported is false she doesn't want to clutter ... etc.
Another words, she doesn't want to get worked up over mistruths by the press.
It seems to me that this is a great example of how each political party demonizes the other side by falsifying their message itself.
|
|
Iflyfish
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3747
Registered: 10-17-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
Quote: | Originally posted by Barry A.
Just to clarify one thing, per IFlyFish's excellent post---------the average net worth of the so called "1%'ers" is 14 million, down from 19 million
earlier. Senators and Congressmen in general are NOT in the top 1%, or even close, as I interpret this article in the Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/who-are-...
Barry |
Thank you for the nod to my post. I appreciate your engaging this issue.
I share the content of your link below to leave it up to the readers whether our Senators and Congressmen/women are in the top 1%. I know those people
don't frequent the same haunts that I do, maybe Woody is an exception to that rule and I would be happy to quaff a Tecate or two with him, first one's
on me Woody.
This post has been updated.
Occupy Wall Street says their movement represent the “99 percent” of Americans who’ve been left behind, while a tiny minority of wealthy earners pull
ahead. So who are the 1 percenters?
(SOURCE: REUTERS ) Taken literally, the top 1 percent of American households had a minimum income of $516,633 in 2010 — a figure that includes wages,
government transfers and money from capital gains, dividends and other investment income.
That number is down from peak of $646,195 in 2007, before the economic crisis hit, all adjusted to 2011 dollars, according to calculations by the Tax
Policy Center. By contrast, the bottom 60 percent earned a maximum of $59,154 in 2010, the bottom 40 percent earned a max of $33,870, while the bottom
20 percent earned just $16,961 at maximum. As Annie Lowrey points out, that gap has grown wider over time: “The top 1 percent of households took a
bigger share of overall income in 2007 than they did at any time since 1928.” (And in New York City, it’s even more skewed: the top 1 percent have an
average of $3.7 million in income.)
When you look at the disparity in net worth, things look even more skewed. Wealthier Americans have assets — in home equity, stocks and other
investments — that generally outstrip their cash income. Average wealth of the top 1 percent was almost $14 million in 2009, according to a 2011
report from the Economic Policy Institute. That’s down from a peak of $19.2 million in 2007.
By contrast, the poorest households were experiencing declines in net worth even before the recession hit. In 2007, the bottom 20 percent of
households had an average (negative!) net worth of –$13,800 in 2007, which fell further to –$27,200 in 2009. Altogether, “average wealth of the bottom
80 percent was just $62,900 in 2009 — a dropoff of $40,900 from 2007,” EPI writes. That means the wealthiest 1 percent held an average of 225 times
the wealth of the average median household in 2009 — a ratio that was 125 in 1962.
Interestingly, just as Occupy Wall Street is bringing their grievances about this growing gap to a broader public, the Democratic Party is
re-adjusting it’s definition of “rich.” As my colleague Lori Montgomery reports, Senate Democrats have ditched President Obama’s plan to raise taxes
on households who have more than $250,000 a year for a proposal to tax those who earn more than $1 million a year. Those who have a household income
of $250,000 wouldn’t fall in the top 1 percent. But those who have incomes of more than $1 million would — at least outside New York City.
*Update: This post was updated to clarify that the second and third paragraphs describe income floors — the mininum amount at different percentiles —
not average income. The average income of the top 1 percent of US households in 2011 is $1,530,773, while the average income of the bottom 20 percent
is $9,187, and the median income is $65,357, according to Jim Nunns, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute.
Iflyfish
|
|
Iflyfish
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3747
Registered: 10-17-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
Quote: | Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
The body bags quote taken out of context leads to wrong conclusion. Here is more of it.
I watch none. He [former President George H.W. Bush] sits and listens and I read books, because I know perfectly well that, don't take offense,
that 90 percent of what I hear on television is supposition, when we're talking about the news. And he's not, not as understanding of my pettiness
about that. But why should we hear about body bags and deaths, and how many, what day it's gonna happen, and how many this or that or what do you
suppose? Or, I mean, it's not relevant. So, why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that, and watch him suffer.
She's not saying that she doesn't want to clutter her beautiful mind with body bags.
She's saying that since 90% of the news reported is false she doesn't want to clutter ... etc.
Another words, she doesn't want to get worked up over mistruths by the press.
It seems to me that this is a great example of how each political party demonizes the other side by falsifying their message itself.
|
"She's not saying that she doesn't want to clutter her beautiful mind with body bags.
She's saying that since 90% of the news reported is false she doesn't want to clutter ... etc.
Another words, she doesn't want to get worked up over mistruths by the press."
She is saying BOTH of these things and both are odious to me.
She believes that showing the American Public the consequences of the wars her son waged are "cluttering of her beautiful mind". Really, hard to take
reality sometimes isn't it? This is the very sort of thing that life in a bubble can produce, gross insensitivity and denial of the everyday reality
of other people. Marie Antoinette said it best when watching Paris in the throes of a revolution fermented by the accumulation of too much wealth at
the top when she said when told that the people were starving "Let them eat cake".
She belies the truth that which is before her in the press, discounts information that does not fit with her world view by calling it "mistruths".
"I know perfectly well that, don't take offense, that 90 percent of what I hear on television is supposition, when we're talking about the news. And
he's not, not as understanding of my pettiness about that." No indeed, he was actually President of the Untied States, one time Head of the CIA, a
decorated war hero and a man of considerable intelligence and accomplishment. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.
Her comments about people in the Astrodome are well documented and display the same lack of interest, consciousness and awareness.
I am not saying that Barbara Bush has not done some wonderful things for her country, she has, I am only referring to her obviously classist
perspective. Class is the dirty little secret in the US of A. and our class/subculture affects our perception of our society and those people around
us. It bothers me that many people of power in the ruling class in the US or for that matter in Mexico are out of touch with the realities of the
poor. George I for example was stumped when asked what the cost of a gallon of milk or a loaf of bread was. I don't begrudge him his wealth, nor the
fact that others fill his larder, fill his car at the pump etc. and understand that this well could account for his lack of knowledge of these things.
However it is precisely this lack of knowledge that concerns me in this context as people of this class are on a daily basis making decisions that
have profound affects on the daily lives of those who are of lower classes and economic circumstances. When you add a sense of moral superiority to
this lack of information or empathy for the lower classes whose life your decisions profoundly affect then you are adding insult to injury. I am not
casting aspersions here on George I, who was in my view eminently qualified to be President of the US, unlike Bush II. I disagreed with many of his
policies but don't for a minute question his qualifications to hold the office he did.
Iflyfish
Iflyfish
|
|
Cypress
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7641
Registered: 3-12-2006
Location: on the bayou
Member Is Offline
Mood: undecided
|
|
Is Skeet/Loreto blaming Bush for his(Skeet/Loreto)dropping out of the Nomads? And is Bush responsible for the various religious/nonreligious belief
systems expressed by various Nomads? Why not? Bush has been blamed for everything else that has had a negative impact on anybody and everyone.
|
|
Cisco
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4196
Registered: 12-30-2010
Member Is Offline
|
|
Quote: | Originally posted by Cypress
Is Skeet/Loreto blaming Bush for his(Skeet/Loreto)dropping out of the Nomads? And is Bush responsible for the various religious/nonreligious belief
systems expressed by various Nomads? Why not? Bush has been blamed for everything else that has had a negative impact on anybody and everyone. |
Probably have to ask Skeet about the first part.
Regarding Bush's responsibility are you referring to the elder or the lesser Bush? I have different issues with each.
|
|
Cypress
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7641
Registered: 3-12-2006
Location: on the bayou
Member Is Offline
Mood: undecided
|
|
Cisco, The younger, he's the one that's been blamed for everything with the exception of the Chicago fire. He wasn't born yet. Issues with each? You
do? Wonder why?
|
|
Mexitron
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3397
Registered: 9-21-2003
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Member Is Offline
Mood: Happy!
|
|
By definition, capitalism---the economic system we generally have---depends on a working class to fuel the engines of the upper classes. So in that
sense some people are destined to be poor.
Quote: | Originally posted by Barry A.
Paula-------------"rude, presumptive, and arrogant" were the furthest things from my mind when I heard that statement about the poor-------it was a
kinda resignation by me that no matter how hard we try, and how many different approaches we take, there are simply many in the poor community that do
not appear to respond. My conclusion, after exhausting all possibilities that I could come up with, was that many would stay poor no matter what.
I do have a tendency to 'go on to other things' when I find after a while that my approach is not working----------sorta like the other phrase that
says something like, "the definition of insane is trying the same things over and over again when they simply don't work". If that is any one of the
3 descriptions you gave, then I plead guilty. I have always hated wasting time.
On Edit---------and Paula, I am a long way from "the top". I am just comfortable.
Barry
[Edited on 6-18-2012 by Barry A.] |
|
|
Cypress
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7641
Registered: 3-12-2006
Location: on the bayou
Member Is Offline
Mood: undecided
|
|
Mexitron, Some people, having inherited a fortune, end up being broke. Some people born poor have acquired a fortune. The former didn't work to
maintain it and the later worked hard to obtain it. Lady Luck has a lot to do with
it, up or down.
|
|
Skipjack Joe
Elite Nomad
Posts: 8084
Registered: 7-12-2004
Location: Bahia Asuncion
Member Is Offline
|
|
Quote: | Originally posted by Iflyfish
Quote: | Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
The body bags quote taken out of context leads to wrong conclusion. Here is more of it.
I watch none. He [former President George H.W. Bush] sits and listens and I read books, because I know perfectly well that, don't take offense,
that 90 percent of what I hear on television is supposition, when we're talking about the news. And he's not, not as understanding of my pettiness
about that. But why should we hear about body bags and deaths, and how many, what day it's gonna happen, and how many this or that or what do you
suppose? Or, I mean, it's not relevant. So, why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that, and watch him suffer.
She's not saying that she doesn't want to clutter her beautiful mind with body bags.
She's saying that since 90% of the news reported is false she doesn't want to clutter ... etc.
Another words, she doesn't want to get worked up over mistruths by the press.
It seems to me that this is a great example of how each political party demonizes the other side by falsifying their message itself.
|
Marie Antoinette said it best when watching Paris in the throes of a revolution fermented by the accumulation of too much wealth at the top when she
said when told that the people were starving "Let them eat cake".
|
Not a good day for you flyfish.
Marie Antoinette never said that. It's a historical myth.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/dubiousquotes/a/antoinette....
But it is valuable from my point of view. Rousseau coined that phrase during her lifetime in order to bring her down. In order to make her seem
insensitive so that his Revolution would have more public support and succeed(sp?). It was a lie. I see parallels here with the interpretation of
Barbara Bush's quote.
P.S. There is now a wonderful movie on Marie Antoinette directed by Copolla's daughter that has tried to be historically correct. It shows her as a
sensitive woman whose marriage was arranged to a mentally handicapped king who was the most powerful man in europe. He supposedly enjoyed a full
evening meal and slept soundly the night before he was guillotined. Her only fault was that she was the figuredhead of the monarchy and for that she
paid with her life. Her son, the dauphine, was spared the blade but spent a portion of his life in prison simply for who he was.
[Edited on 6-18-2012 by Skipjack Joe]
|
|
Skipjack Joe
Elite Nomad
Posts: 8084
Registered: 7-12-2004
Location: Bahia Asuncion
Member Is Offline
|
|
Quote: | Originally posted by vgabndo
Mine was an evil laugh when I read something earlier on this thread about the Judeo-Christian ethic. There would almost certainly be no such thing
today if the Russians hadn't kicked Hitler's butt. Christian Germany could have completed the "final solution" and there would be no judeos to have
an ethic. Sectarian warfare is historically a major part of Christian behavior.
|
While I don't agree with the idea that N-zi Germany's war crimes were motivated by Christianity I would like to comment on the "final solution"
(Anschluss).
We watched Schindler's List the other day. At the start of the war there were 3 1/2 million Jews in Poland. At the end - 4,000. Almost complete
annihilation. That's astounding. The final solution was almost achieved.
|
|
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4411
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
Did you know that California Cap and Trade act to cure the false notion of anthropomorphic global warming is called The Final Solution...
http://www.examiner.com/article/california-emissions-reducti...
|
|
Cisco
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4196
Registered: 12-30-2010
Member Is Offline
|
|
Please illuminate me on this.
The article is two or three years old, what are you referring to?
|
|
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4411
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
The legislation being passed in California actually passed in 2006 called Global Warming Solutions Act aka The Final Solution, was of course never
voted on by actual voters is also called Cap and Trade.
While it does nothing to reduce pollution, it provides for a new market called a carbon market which trades imaginary things called carbon units, big
energy companies can stop producing energy and be awarded carbon units to sell to people like you who may be required to buy them since you are a
human and expel CO2.
The legislation is referenced as CARB Cap and Trade titled the Final Solution.
The fact that most people have no idea about this is no surprise, as no one except Al Gore really supports a new financial market to escalate energy
costs while doing nothing to reduce actual pollution.
Read about it and get involved, submit your comments, do your research. Its a bit confusing, you'll note the law says about reducing pollution??? It
only creates this huge funnel of money to a private company who will decide what to do with it.
http://www.examiner.com/article/california-emissions-reducti...
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ab32/ab32.htm
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California%27s_AB_32,_...
http://www.calwatchdog.com/2012/05/03/the-speculative-game-w...
http://legalplanet.wordpress.com/2012/04/11/how-california-c...
Read it quickly, Doug will delete this and any factual post since it goes against his politics.
Oh and by the way, all the money, estimated to be billions per year from California will be funneled to a private Delaware company called WCI Inc.
headed by ex Shell advisers.
http://www.wci-inc.org/
And if you read carefully Baja and Mexico are expected to pay heavily as well.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/05/08/global-warm...
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=NcFPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=5...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/02/14/a-top-germa...
http://youtu.be/WbLK4RZDdzI
http://youtu.be/tJ-1iL9g8nU
http://youtu.be/hgaeyMa3jyU
[Edited on 6-18-2012 by gnukid]
|
|
Iflyfish
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3747
Registered: 10-17-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
Quote: | Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
Quote: | Originally posted by Iflyfish
Quote: | Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
The body bags quote taken out of context leads to wrong conclusion. Here is more of it.
I watch none. He [former President George H.W. Bush] sits and listens and I read books, because I know perfectly well that, don't take offense,
that 90 percent of what I hear on television is supposition, when we're talking about the news. And he's not, not as understanding of my pettiness
about that. But why should we hear about body bags and deaths, and how many, what day it's gonna happen, and how many this or that or what do you
suppose? Or, I mean, it's not relevant. So, why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that, and watch him suffer.
She's not saying that she doesn't want to clutter her beautiful mind with body bags.
She's saying that since 90% of the news reported is false she doesn't want to clutter ... etc.
Another words, she doesn't want to get worked up over mistruths by the press.
It seems to me that this is a great example of how each political party demonizes the other side by falsifying their message itself.
|
Marie Antoinette said it best when watching Paris in the throes of a revolution fermented by the accumulation of too much wealth at the top when she
said when told that the people were starving "Let them eat cake".
|
Not a good day for you flyfish.
Marie Antoinette never said that. It's a historical myth.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/dubiousquotes/a/antoinette....
But it is valuable from my point of view. Rousseau coined that phrase during her lifetime in order to bring her down. In order to make her seem
insensitive so that his Revolution would have more public support and succeed(sp?). It was a lie. I see parallels here with the interpretation of
Barbara Bush's quote.
P.S. There is now a wonderful movie on Marie Antoinette directed by Copolla's daughter that has tried to be historically correct. It shows her as a
sensitive woman whose marriage was arranged to a mentally handicapped king who was the most powerful man in europe. He supposedly enjoyed a full
evening meal and slept soundly the night before he was guillotined. Her only fault was that she was the figuredhead of the monarchy and for that she
paid with her life. Her son, the dauphine, was spared the blade but spent a portion of his life in prison simply for who he was.
[Edited on 6-18-2012 by Skipjack Joe] |
I appreciate your clarification of the Marie Antoinette quote, which is not attributable to her, according to this source. I am sorry that I
besmirched the good name of the lady. I love to learn and have learned something from you post.
I do however stand by my position that subculture/class can skew perception of the world, ourself and other people in it. I also stand by the thrust
of my argument that it is not good for the US to have a Congress made up of the upper class as they may not well represent the interests of the
majority of the people. That is the point, they may be hopelessly out of touch with the real lives of people whose lives they so potently affect.
It is actually a good day for me, I learned something. My view of the statements of Barbara Bush have not changed, hopelessly out of touch, insulated
and isolated by wealth, power and a lack of curiosity. George I is/was at least interested in current events.
Thanks for the clarification, I always enjoy your posts.
Iflyfish
|
|
Pages:
1
..
26
27
28
29
30
..
35 |
|