AP: Romney's NH mansion "a valuable asset"; Edwards' NC mansion "contrasts with anti-poverty message"
A July 10 Associated Press article by Philip Elliott reported that former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's (R) New Hampshire vacation estate, valued at $10 million, "allow[s] him to portray himself to New Hampshire voters as one of them as he seeks to win the state's first-in-the-nation primary." The article reported that "[f]or a man who could be the next president, the estate at the tip of Clark Point could easily serve as a remote, [Lake] Winnipesaukee White House." But the AP presented a very different view of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards' $5.4 million North Carolina estate, which a February 7 AP article stated "contrasts with" Edwards' "anti-poverty message."
According to the February 7 AP article (written, according to the Nexis database, by Mike Baker), "Democrat John Edwards, who has made an anti-poverty message the theme of his 2008 presidential campaign, is taking heat for the lavish home he has constructed in Orange County, N.C." The article quoted Monty Johnson, a neighbor of Edwards and a supporter of former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani's (R) presidential bid, saying: "There's no way that a normal family could ever need a house like that. It's only going to hurt him. I don't think he's going to be able to sell his story that he's for the poor people." The article also cited Republican political consultant Bill Miller in reporting that "the lavish estate could become a sore point for the candidate."
But the July 10 article on Romney's estate, while noting that "[t]he abodes of most New Hampshire voters, however, have little in common with the candidate's residence," included no suggestion that the mansion -- one of three houses Romney owns, according to the July 10 article -- would remind voters that he supports economic policies that favor the wealthy. Indeed, the only quotes in the article are from members of the Romney family and from the Clark Point, New Hampshire, town administrator, who said simply of the house: "It would be like Kennebunkport" -- a reference to the Bush family's Maine vacation house.
The AP can't have it both ways
With Republicans holding great sway
In the battle of houses
The "news" wire espouses
That the Democrats be held at bay
included no suggestion that the mansion -- one of three houses Romney owns, according to the July 10 article -- would remind voters that he supports economic policies that favor the wealthy.
A biased suggestion. The articles points are right on: John Edwards rails against the ills of the very economy that he has operated within to gain so much wealth. Romney has done no such thing, so certainly he's not hurt by owning a mansion. Also MMfA, it's misleading to suggest that supporting policies that do not disfavor the "wealthy" means that they support the wealthy or do not support the "poor" or "not wealthy."
"...it's misleading to suggest that supporting policies that do not disfavor the "wealthy" means that they support the wealthy or do not support the "poor" or "not wealthy."( dexteritas)
Dex, that's one for the spinny hall of fame.
So, in other words, you really do support the "for or against" doctrine.
Pot, meet Kettle...
I think to imply that I do not not support that idea is not to say that I am not being unsupportive of a policy that is not necessarily against a policy that is neither for nor against the theory that not disfavoring the wealthy is favoring the not-wealthy or not not supporting the not -wealthy.
That's all I'm saying.
So what you're saying is.....the Tigers are going to win the World Series this year!!
Yay!!
Second that emotion!
I want successful people teaching the poverty stricken or is it better to have a homeless wino drug addict teaching people how to get out of poverty? Example: if you want to learn about peophilia who you gonna cal? hantywaste. He is a spot on the undies of life.
Wrongo, Dex. John Edwards rails against those who have wronged others, such as doctors who have engaged in malpractice.
Dude, the point MMFA is making is fairly obvious.
Why is a rich man who cares about the poor (Edwards) far worse than a rich man who does not care about the poor (Romney)?
If Jesus, Ghandi or Mother Theresa were rich, would Republicans be mocking their humanitarian efforts?
I just don't really see the connection between a politician's personal wealth and his capacity to help his fellow man. If anything, Edward's fortune (while much less than Romney's) should highlight his ability to put common interests ahead of his own. Poverty relief isn't going to do Edwards any good, but he champions the cause anyway. Romney's platform includes helping only well-off people like himself. So who do you think is the better man?
How is it that you can assert that Romney doesn't care about the poor? How clairevoyant of you.
Not clairvoiyant, just observant.
Well, you could rely on ESP. Or, you could go to Mitt's own website, http://www.mittromney.com/. Go ahead. I dare you to find a single word about the poor. What you will find is a lot of the same rhetoric that has helped keep the American poor in their place: Support for free trade with Asia, renewal of tax cuts, eradication of social assistance, etc. In a nutshell, Romney seems to assume that any problems that exist in America are problems of "America vs. The Rest of the World." Nowhere does he acknowledge that problems exist within our own borders, among our own people. He is absolutely obsessed with externalizing all of our problems.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Paramount to the Republican game plan is an absolute denial that American people or the American government have ever done anything wrong.
Believe me, there are plenty of poor Republicans to make it worth Romney's while. Yet, after sifting through page after page of promises, I see nothing addressing that issue. Looks like Mitt's taken a liking to the Bush campaign strategy of "scare the hell out of everyone into thinking the Democrats are all Communists and want to see al-Qaeda murder your children."
Good luck with that, Mitt.
If the two articles were written by the same person the *double-standards* would be glaring.
I really haven't heard too many on the Right carping about Edward's mansion...probably because every other Republican/Conservative politician, pundit, TV/Radio commentator etc. live in one.
Then again that goes for Democratic/Liberals as well.
I think more was said about John-Boy's $4,000,000 haircut ;-)
I think the haircut stories are misinformation based simply on the fact that I could make my hair look like john edward's using a wet comb and hairspray.
given enough time, I'm inclined to agree with you...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AE847UXu3Q
Gosh, that amount just keeps going up and up. Pretty soon it will equal the "budget" of the Iraq war. ;)
12 billion a week is a tough act to follow.
Aside from the fact that Edwards earned his money suing doctors, I don't think anyone begrudges him building his mega-thousand square foot home. :-)
It is when he talks like a populist, but lives like an elitist, that the apparent hypocrisy seems to be a sticking point.
Romney on the other hand, may have his faults and his own hypocrisies to answer for, but it doesn't look like his campaign is has as it's tag line to criticize the affluent.
Give me that good ole poverty makin', middle class shrinkin', wage stagnatin', war generatin' Republican status quo any day of the week.
Only if you accept the notion that Rich people cannot advocate for the poor nor care about the middle class without being hypocrites. I think FDR proved that one to be disengenuous.
Excellent point Solon.
Your dictionary is broken. Buy a new one and look up the word hypocrisy again. It is not hypocritical for a rich man to help the poor. That is a completely idiotic talking point.
Democrat John Edwards said that he worked for a hedge fund between presidential campaigns to learn about financial markets and their relationship to poverty—and to make money too.
Hahaha.... I'm inclined to believe the last part. The first part sounds like a politician. Gimme a break.
the fact that Edwards earned his money suing doctors
You left out the part about "winning". He didn't win on his own. He convinced juries that others had been wronged by said doctors (and whomever else.) "Suing" isn't the evil regressives have portrayed it to be.
Sounds to me that Edwards performed hard, skilled work, and did it very well. That's the kind of thing this country is supposed to espouse and encourage.
What was it again that GWBush earned previous to getting into politics?
Yeah and Edwards 'winning' lawsuits by channeling fetuses have been a major problem with out of control health care costs. He got his money but he took it from POOR patients who have to pay higher insurance and medical costs.
I wonder if Edward's recently announced poverty tour will include a stop at his palatial compound? Maybe for afternoon tea, or at least so John-boy can sign the checks for the household servants.
hahaha.. and nobody begrudges Al Gore's $30,000 electric/nat gas bill last year.
Run Al run!
Al lives in a larger than normal home, which also doubles as his office, so naturally he will have a higher energy bill.
Gore has never stated that people live in smaller homes, just that they employ common sense practices to reduce their energy consumption, which he DOES.
Oh stop, Tommy ol' boy, you're causing me to chortle quite heartily. 1 lump or 2?
Also on the *Poverty Tour* tour are Al Gore's carbon credit homestead & the Kennedy compound in Hyannis. No windmills please!
Then a boat ride over to Nantucket to stop by one of the many Kerry abodes.
are republicans only pro capitalism if the capitalist is a republican ?
It is almost as if a democrat isn't allowed to be financially successful and a republican isn't allowed to be environmentally friendly.
Weird.
That would be weird if a Republican ever was environmentally friendly, but they're not so the point is moot.
Is he gonna stop off at the Bush ranch bought for him previous to running for President to clear some brush?
Maybe he should stop by all three of Mitt Romney's house and ask the help what sort of plans Romney has for helping those who aren't rich.
Geez, you cons have no idea what the term "hypocrite" actually means. It is NOT hypocritical to be wealthy AND care for the poor. It would be hypocritical to claim you care for the poor while engaging in behavior that harms that economic group.
How does Edwards owning a big house hurt the poor?
What is hypocritical is to placate and patronize people that are less fortunate than you by saying you "feel their pain" or some such touchy feel good catchphrase, only to do so in order to get their vote.
Except what evidence do you have that he doesnt care about the poor? I have listened to Edwards for a long time. He isnt one of my favorite politicians but most politicians have an issue they care a lot about and for Edwards it has always been that the middle class isnt getting a fair shake. He has never wavered from that he came from fairly humble begginings and I have no reason to believe him to be insincere when he talks about the very issue he has ALWAYS shown is important to him
It isn't particularly courageous or novel to stump on speeches that you're in favor of the working class, that you care about people, and your beginnings were the humblest out there. This kind of talk comes from most politiicians and it just doesn't resonate with me, it's pandering, placating and patronizing, usually.
I want politicians to tell me what specific policies they advocate to keep us safe, make our streets and neighborhoods safer, and lead by integrity, trustworthiness and honor.........not pat me on the head and tell me what feels good or sounds all squishy and cute in some campaign rhetorical slogan.
"I want politicians to tell me what specific policies they advocate to keep us safe, make our streets and neighborhoods safer...
Why try to change the subject from economics to public safety? We're talking about Edwards' policies to help the needy, which he has spoken about frequently and in great detail. Nobody said anything about Edwards's positions on making our "streets safer." That's a transparent attempt to move the target.
Edwards spent his legal career helping the average guy get justice for wrongs done to them.
Just because YOU say he doesn't believe what he says, or patronizes people, means squat. As usual.
Are you suggesting that one must be destitute in order to advocate for the poor? Edwards comes from a working class family. He was not born with a silver spoon in his mouth. His mother was a rural mail carrier, a solidly middle-class wage earner. His father worked in a mill, one of the many that are now closed down so that the jobs could be outsourced to some low-wage slave-worker in another country so that corporate investors can add a few more dollars to their bottom line. As a City Mail Carrier myself, I can relate to the type of lifestyle he had as a child. I believe that he is sincere in his concerns for the less affluent in our society, and the fact that he built a very nice home for his family, using his well-earned resources, does not disqualify him from speaking out on behalf of the poor. On the contrary, it would be quite easy for him to say, "I got mine" and kick back with a bottle of Dom Perignon rather than seek to find ways to help others fight their way out of poverty.
Please be specific and tell me what policies John Edwards advocates for the poor? If it includes taking from one and giving it to someone else, that is not being an advocate for anything but income redistribution.
Never mind, I just breezed over Edward's way out of poverty in 2036. It's one big liberal government program after another, creating temporary jobs and then the job killer of all - raising the minimum wage.
Hillary for President!!!
Nice to know that after all your Edwards bashing, you only just now got around to "breezing over" his policies. Say goodbye to whatever credibility you had with anyone on this topic.
Heh. The assumption being that he had any credibility to start with.
Tommy
You do realize, don't you, that literally EVERY study on raising the minimum wage has debunked your hackneyed talking point that it is a 'job killer?'
So... what else you got?
It's called creating a working society and it's about honoring labor, instead of worshipping wealth.
The main points are the creation of temporary stepping stone jobs for people who show enough initiative to hold a steady job. It's a common sense Rooseveltian Public Works initiative.
There's the strengthening of labor laws, which unapologetically means restoring the rights of workers to unionize without employer intimidation.
There's investment in rural community colleges because education is the best tool wit which to build the foundation of prosperity.
Of course, raise the minimum wage and healthcare for all.
Makes more sense than pandering to the middle class and working poor by giving them a tax cut to the tune of a few hundred dollars and calling that incentive or economic stimulus or trickle down or whatever stupidity Republicans call opportunity.
disagree, being empathetic and concerned about people less fortunate that you isn't pandering, it's the sign of a person with real compassion, and it shows the ability to consider someone other than yourself. That's not a fault or a weakness, although right wingers certainly try to frame it as such.
It is pandering when you want something from them, like their vote. If you want nothing, then it's a magnanimous gesture worthy of respect.
So by that definition, anything any politician says on the campaign trail is pandering for votes?
According to your definition it is impossible for a politician to be anything other than a panderer. An elected leader certainly needs votes to be in a position to effect real change. I believe you can be compassionate and caring and be a gazillionaire philanthropist like the Gates' and Warren Buffet or you can be a compassionate and caring gazillionaire and seek public office to shape policy that will help reduce cyclic poverty. By the way you questioned Edwards’s policies to end poverty. This was readily available on his campaign site:
http://johnedwards.com/about/issues/poverty/
Maybe you're right Lynn, I am admittedly very cynical when it comes to most politicians. So when they say things that people just want to hear without any real specifics or details in the funding, for example; I get nervous and suspicious. My bad.
Except that as you just pointed out above, you wouldn't be aware of any specifics, because until now you haven't even bothered to do the slightest bit of research into what Edwards' policies actually are.
".. when they say things that people just want to hear without any real specifics or details in the funding..." - tommy
can you say... preaching to the choir??? hellooooo this is the POLITICAL SYSTEM WE HAVE....Nothing has changed.... wake up...
I can sum this up in one word....
DUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!
As far as "income redistribution" is concerned... do I really have to say it again... DUUUUHHHH!!! ALL forms government spending is "income redistribution" BY DEFINITION... we, taxpayers provide the "income" to the government (federal and state) and is "redistributed" to federal and state programs, military expenditures, military salaries,and most importantly CORPORATE BAIL OUTS
You wanna talk about income redistribution?? Try this one on for size... YOUR tax dollars have been "redistributed" over and over again, especially in the airline and automotive industries to pay for mistakes of these poorly managed entities. HOWS THAT FOR INCOME REDISTRIBUTION??
Lynn,
Unlike some I don't make my political decisions on whether to vote for someone or not based on their website and it's information. Now that would be reserved only for the admitted clueless and those devoid of any critical thinking skills. I know you are in that category, but sadly some here apparently think their experts because they lap up political rhetoric off a campaign website, how incredibly sad and pedestrian for those.
I have far more respect for you than that.
Oops, I meant to say I know you are NOT in that category, sorry.
Unlike some I don't make my political decisions on whether to vote for someone or not based on their website and it's information.
Just because Edwards' website (which had to be spoonfed to you) is the only place that you've used to learn about his policies doesn't mean that's the only source of information for everyone else. Some of us actually take an interest in these matters and do more than just "breeze through" a potential candidate's website.
And yes, just in case you were wondering, it's a very basic logical fallacy to assume that because only one source of information was provided (at your request), then that's the only source of information available.
Hey Tommy,
Most candidates post their official detailed platforms on their websites. Of course you have to read it and read it carefully, because that is the measure should the candidate be elected that they will be held to. In addition to this you research the the candidates' political history if he has one (past votes in the legislature for example). This is what you said you wourld do, and this is how you said you would achieve that goal. One of the things I certainly did during the last presidential election was to print off all the candidates detailed platforms from their web-sites and read them carefully. That's far more responsible than voting for someone based on what a friend told you, you heard on the Factor or a swift boat commercial or that feeling in your gut. Detailed plans posted on the websites are certainly a useful tool in data gathering to help make a decision on a candidate.
Nice little bit of "passive aggressive Tommy". Afraid to address questions head on, afraid to even look at a candidate's proposals, he prefers to listen to ... what? The guys that get him thinking that owning a big house is a bad thing? That working as a trial lawyer is evil, regardless of who your clients are? Naw, once it's discovered that he isn't even minimally informed about a topic he's bloviating on, he'd rather just take a wide swipe at everyone who disagrees with him. Nicely done.
Look Lynn, I know we disagree - but I don't vote for politicians because of what they promise they will do for ME, individually. I have no interest in what they say on that subject to try and win my vote, no matter what party they represent. I want leaders who make tough choices, who are honest and upfront, treat me like an adult, not a potential voter or donor, and take their public service seriously and respectfully because they want to make a difference. It's when they violate that trust, like wasting our money or abusing their power and privelege in any way, that I vote against them. National security and keeping the citizenry safe is the #1 reason for my vote.
Tommy,
Of course we have our differences about what's important and our priorities are quite different sometimes. I guess that's why I'm a Liberal and you're a Conservative. I think that effecting change to improve the lives of a group that I don't belong to by the way since I'm not poor is the right thing to do. A capable president can maintain our security and work to reduce poverty simultaneously. You don't have to choose one or the other Tommy. Every job I've ever had said the applicant must have the ability to multi-task. Hey, maybe we could employ our poor fellow citizens to secure our unsecured harbors. how about that?
"I want leaders who make tough choices, who are honest and upfront, treat me like an adult, not a potential voter or donor, and take their public service seriously and respectfully because they want to make a difference."
That's just about the perfect argument in favor of public financing of elections.
Tommy .. this whole argument is crap. Since when does someone have to be in the exact same situation as another in order to empathize with them?
If this kind of bogus class warfare is all the Republicans have, it's going to be a long campaign. Good luck with that.
"John Edwards rails against the ills of the very economy that he has operated within to gain so much wealth."
And in return he is using that wealth to promote policies that will try and fix counteract the problems in our economic system. What is wrong with that? The common, working-class man--even if he so desired--does not have the resources to do such a thing.
And in return he is using that wealth to promote policies that will try and fix counteract the problems in our economic system.
Translated: raise our taxes
No thank you.
Nice job putting words in his mouth. We could have national health care and tuition funded for students for the same amount we are spending each year in Iraq. All it would take is an end to Pentagon excess and reverting back to the Clinton-era tax code. No tax increases, unless you make over $336,000 a year.
Exactly J,
Whenever a liberal uses terms like "investment" or "using wealth to promote", it's just code for a fat tax hike on us all.
Why can't they just say it?
Only if by "us all" you mean the top tier tax brackets. Last I checked I wasn't making $300,000 a year.
Actually, I hear from very reliable sources that Edwards makes upwards of 50k a pop to spread the message.
No he charges admission to his speeches to cover the costs of travel, hotel expenses, and other necessary expenditures.
LOL.
Typical CON repsonse. Resort to puerile mockery and namecalling when confronted with the facts.
Edwards doesn't take a DIME of university money. He collects admission fees from those who of their own free will CHOOSE to hear him speak.
How is that in any way reprehensible?
Resort to puerile mockery and namecalling when confronted with the facts.
Good observation, Blueblood. And, alas, it appears to be contagious. I see that even the normally reasonable Jeter has sunk to a juvenile level of spewing talking points on this thread. With any luck, he'll be more of an adult tomorrow.
God forbid a successful capitalist like John Edwards would open the door of opportunity for the working poor of America.
Enough with the Republican perversion of capitalism. The Republicans turned their backs on the middle class and ceded their fundamental responsibility to promote the general welfare. Handed their oath-sworn duty off to the money hungry fat cats of the private sector. We are losing the middle class under the weight of the Republican winner takes all economy. In the absence of a shared risk and shared reward safety net, failure in the market leads to ruin and effectively bars the doors to market participation.
In the absence of healthcare coverage for all, a catastrophic illness, which is the leading cause of destitution in this country, leads to helplessness. That must change. Healthy living is a sacred right for all Americans, were it not a right, we would have no need for safe food and safe water standards.
What does the Republican offer besides a trillion dollar deficit? More money for the filthy rich investors, more money for the labor shaving CEO while working people toil at two jobs just to eat tonight. The Republican gives more money to the private military contractors, loyal not to our Constitution but loyal to the man who signs their check. Meanwhile our sons and daughters in Iraq are given a pittance and medical care a dog would reject when and if they come home. More war, more torture, more invasion of privacy, more executive authority, more poverty.
But please, let's talk about haircuts and who has the nicest shoulders.
Actually, Roundhouse, I'd rather make tired jokes about the Dems big houses and begrudge their utility bills, then vote for a guy in a rented pickup truck.
The paradox of politics is fascinating and frustrating at the same time.
One Liberal goal is to help the downtrodden. A Conservative goal is to appeal to the "common man". It's almost impossible to get far in politics without vast sums of personal wealth. How can one with uncountable amounts of money truly care for those without? (rhetorical question - please don't answer). The real question is how can they truly care without being brutalized by the opposition?
The article spoke about Edward's mansion. I don't believe I read shoulders in there.
The numbers are in; the Iraq War is costing us about $15,000,000 per hour. Yet, supporters of George's optional war insist that we can't afford to upgrade public schools, or provide healthcare for every citizen? Republican candidates have it easy...they don't even have to pretend to give a ratsass about the poor.
Again, like Roundhouse's post..pertinent to this article?
Maybe $15,000,000 is the cost of Edwards next haircut?
Apparently we're just going to rail about stuff in general since this post should be removed from today's list for being not-so-misleading.
It is misleading in suggesting that Edwards is an out-of-touch elitist for owning a big home while Romney is spared the same treatment despite owning a $10 million mansion.
Just more reinforcement of the myth that the GOP= ordinary people and Democrats=out of touch coastal elitists.
Is that really all you guys have? I mean, seriously, we get it. You think it's bad the guy gets expensive haircuts.
How about adding something real to the conversation instead of just another stupid, and overtold joke?
Great work here by Media Matters...
The double standard is glaring.
“This situation may be paradoxical, but it is also universal. For decades Americans have experienced a populist uprising that only benefits the people it is supposed to be targeting. In Kansas we merely see an extreme version of this mysterious situation. The angry workers, mighty in their numbers, are marching irresistibly against the arrogant. They are shaking their fists at the sons of privilege. They are laughing at the dainty affectations of the Leawood toffs. They are massing at the gates of Mission Hills, hoisting the black flag, and while the millionaires tremble in their mansions, they are bellowing out their terrifying demands. “We are here,” they scream, “to cut your taxes.””
Thomas Frank -- “What’s the Matter with Kansas?”
The Preamable of the United States Constitution did not say for the welfare of the wealthiest members of our People.
The fake Tax Cut amounts to this. The Republicans steals money from babies that aren't even born yet. They steal it by borrowing the money to pay for the tax cut for the wealthiest members of our land. The babies that aren't born yet will have to pay for that borrowed money including interests.
While Conservatives scream about high taxes they say nothing about their stealing money from babies that are about to be born and saddle with paying for the extravaganzous spending spree of Conservatives.
Bush and the Republican Controlled Legislative branch violated every word in the Preamble of our Constitution.
That's why every sperm is so precious.
Attention, Media Matters: FIX YOUR TOPIC NAME - It's not Bill Richardson!
The American aristocracy and their little palaces, eh? A land fit for millionaires.
Edwards should respond to all his many many many conservative critics of his poverty tour by syaing something like. Maybe Jesus wouldn't approve of my haircut expenditures, maybe that is too self indulgent and excessive, but I certainly think he would approve of my poverty awareness tour since he was the first to conduct one.
he cant say that lynn rupublicans will say he compaired himself to jesus savage will say john edwards said jesus was a nazi coulter will say john edwards wants to kill jesus
Thanks, guys, for the reminder: I (pension=fixed income) need to cruise on over to John Edwards' campaign site, and deposit my meagre monthly donation. I have not yet encountered a Democrat for whom I would not vote if nominated, nor a Repugnant for whom I would, but Edwards is certainly my first choice. I hope to see such a Dem sweep in the 2008 elections that we could begin to stave off the AMT - and pay for that with restoration of the 1999 tax code for the top 1% (including capital gains and dividends). Can't get it done now because of Repugnant obstruction in the Senate, but one season of AMT should help propel that sweep.
The clear differnect is that Romney is not going around the Country trying to end poverty.
Evidently, you don't understand analogies.
...and the fact that Romney has no interest in ending poverty says a lot about him. It says that he's no different then most of the other Republican candidates because only one has even aknowledged the problem of poverty. The others never talk about it. It's as if it doesn't even exist, just like racism. You know when you pretend that bad things aren't happening then it's safe to assume that the candidate has no interest in addressing a problem that he pretends is non-existent.
"The clear differnect [sic] is that Romney is not going around the Country [sic] trying to end poverty."
And in your world that's a good thing?
Just wish to add my devout hope that every opponent on this board should be soaked the max AMT in the next tax season - then you will have a lot less to support the despots of the national Repugnancy. [ Oh - you're not all rich? Well, then, you are so silly that a good dose of AMT is just what the Doctor and your Repugnants ordered for you! ]
It amazes me that cons aren't upset over the expenditures of the Bush crime family over in Iraq, the non bid contracts, the redistribution of wealth from their pockets into the wealthy's pockets. But by god, don't mention giving a slice of bread to a poor person.
And the talk of taxes makes them go into some kind of coniption. Using taxes for wasteful military spending on systems that don't work (as Mary mentioned), no problem. Giving shoes to a homeless child, no way.
Again, as was mentioned before, and obviously ignored, just bring up the tired, meritless meme of "big liberal spending" on programs for the poor huddled masses that might just need a temporary break. This when the con men in power have spent and borrowed and mortgaged our futures.
Do you guys know how pathetic you sound? It is beyond reason.
Amen, sister.
NEW ELEMENT "Du" DISCOVERED A major research institution (probably funded by a government subsidy) has just announced the discovery of the densest element yet known to science. The new element has been named "Bushcronium". Bushcroniumhas one neutron, 12 assistant neutrons, 75 deputy neutrons, and 224 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 311. These particles are held together by dark forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons. The symbol for Bushcronium is "Du", as the symbol "W" was already taken by Tungsten. Bushcronium' s mass actually increases over time, as morons randomly interact with various elements in the atmosphere and become assistant deputy neutrons in a Bushcronium molecule, forming isodopes. This characteristic of moron-promotion leads some scientists to believe that Bushcronium is formed whenever morons reach a certain quantity in concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as "Critical Morass". When catalyzed with money, Bushcronium activates Foxnewsium, an element that radiates orders of magnitude more energy, albeit as incoherent noise, since it has 1/2 as many peons but twice as many morons. The "nucular" reaction alluded to below where Du combines with Foxnewsium (Fx) when bombarded by a moron beam yields: Du + m (morons) + Fx = DumFx which is sometimes phonetically pronounced to describe the nature of the isodope produced.
Although Faux Noise is the only “news” element mentioned in the formula, any other “news” element, i.e., CNN, ABC, CBS, WoPo, WSJ, etc., could be used just as well and get the same isodope.
I would like to say that I come up with this witty but overlooked scientific discovery. However, it was sent to me and I know not from where it came. I just want as many citizens as possible to think about it and ponder its message.
Read and appreciated. Thanks.
And of course the AP would never mention that the best friend America's poor ever had happened to also come from one of America's wealthiest families...
But we wouldn't want to remind the idiocracy of Franklin Roosevelt's America.
Hey folks, your republic is dead and gone. You live in a fascist, authoritarian nation, run by a tiny handful of corporate executives. Your bank accounts voting habits, travel schedules, financial data, communications data, entertainment tastes are all being surveilled and catalogued so that whenyou finally realize you have to rise up and use force to restore your republic, the fascist forces of the so-called right wing, will quietly be taking you away before you even get to standing fully upright.
Without public financing of elections a poor man or even a middle class man is never going to get elected president of the United States. FDR was an extremely rich man and he is forever known as a champion for the poor and working class. With the logic the A.P. used FDR could never be genuine about helping the poor during the Depression and Herbert Hoover was wise in doing nothing, I'm sure a poor person is happy to get help from whomever he can.
So...the bottom line for Republicans that if you are a wealthy Democrat you cannot discuss the poor? And if you do they will feed on you like frenzy sharks. I guess there is no hope for the poor. Like there was in the first place.