GG Posted November 9, 2012 Posted November 9, 2012 Interestingly, to some extent I agree with it as well, but what galls me (as a blue collar kid from a blue collar town who worked hard, got educated and spent 7 years in the Ivies among folks who were waaayyyy more privileged than those I grew up with and have spent the next twenty or so plus years living what most would call an UMC/rich lifestyle) is that many/most of those who are doing the preaching wouldn't know adversity if it bit them in the....welll....you can fill in that part. That would include both Romney and Ryan. I've found most of those who have truly grown up without and made it tend not to be the ones doing that preaching. That message, at least to me, goes down much better when delivered by someone who's done it all himself. For that reason, i found Marco Rubio's RNC speech to be a great speech, even if I disagree with him on a good number of issues. His background gave him "street cred" so to speak..... And on the flipside, usually the biggest liberal weenies I know come from lily white old money blue blood trust fund backgrounds, and they espouse their belief largely out of guilt of their background. Yet, very few disown the endowments and when calamity strikes, they run back to the cocoon. That's why street cred is a baloney argument, unless you're running for high school president.
We Come In Peace Posted November 9, 2012 Posted November 9, 2012 We are not the best country in the world? In the world? No.
B-Large Posted November 9, 2012 Posted November 9, 2012 In the world? No. One of Mitt's campaign ads being run in Colorado referred to the US as the "hope of the world" My wife and I looked at each other and said "what does that even mean?" Lol- campaign ads are the best
B-Man Posted November 9, 2012 Posted November 9, 2012 One of Mitt's campaign ads being run in Colorado referred to the US as the "hope of the world" My wife and I looked at each other and said "what does that even mean?" Lol- campaign ads are the best It means that we use our freedom to lead by example. At least, we would have................... .
birdog1960 Posted November 9, 2012 Posted November 9, 2012 And on the flipside, usually the biggest liberal weenies I know come from lily white old money blue blood trust fund backgrounds, and they espouse their belief largely out of guilt of their background. Yet, very few disown the endowments and when calamity strikes, they run back to the cocoon. That's why street cred is a baloney argument, unless you're running for high school president. so what your both saying is that people who come from money are often weenies. yep. i'll buy that. but which party puts more of those weenies up as candidates?
....lybob Posted November 9, 2012 Posted November 9, 2012 (edited) It means that we use our freedom to lead by example. At least, we would have................... . of what freedom do you speak of, we are surveilled in meticulous detail such that would have the 1960s Commies in the USSR and East Germany green with envy, we have the largest incarcerated population both on a per capita basis and absolute basis that the world has ever seen, both parties are controlled by the same big money interests, effective protest is quickly squashed, there is a two tier justice system and no equality under the law- of what freedom do you speak Edited November 9, 2012 by ....lybob
3rdnlng Posted November 9, 2012 Posted November 9, 2012 so what your both saying is that people who come from money are often weenies. yep. i'll buy that. but which party puts more of those weenies up as candidates? Democrats.
birdog1960 Posted November 9, 2012 Posted November 9, 2012 (edited) Democrats. hmmm, bush, bush, quayle, cheney (i don't know. is he old money?)=3/4 or 4/4 old money. clinton,gore,obama,biden =1/4 old money Edited November 9, 2012 by birdog1960
VABills Posted November 9, 2012 Posted November 9, 2012 hmmm, bush, bush, quayle, cheney (i don't know. is he old money?)=3/4 or 4/4 old money. clinton,gore,obama,biden =1/4 old money Kerry - yes Dukakis - Yes Mondale - Yes Mccain - No
birdog1960 Posted November 9, 2012 Posted November 9, 2012 (edited) Kerry - yes Dukakis - Yes Mondale - Yes Mccain - No mondale was the son of a minister and part time teacher. so no. will have to check on dukakis. kerry is a yes. still looking like old money is better represented by the grand old psarty in recent years. dukakis wa son of an obstetrician who got his md 12 years after immigrating. so, no. unless my kids would be classified old money. and they most certainly wouldn't. Edited November 9, 2012 by birdog1960
3rdnlng Posted November 9, 2012 Posted November 9, 2012 hmmm, bush, bush, quayle, cheney (i don't know. is he old money?)=3/4 or 4/4 old money. clinton,gore,obama,biden =1/4 old money Roosevelte, Roosevelte, Kennedy, Johnson, =3/4 old money
GG Posted November 9, 2012 Posted November 9, 2012 so what your both saying is that people who come from money are often weenies. yep. i'll buy that. but which party puts more of those weenies up as candidates? That's not what was being discussed. But if you want to go on a tangent, it doesn't matter the background of the candidate, he is beholden to the party that got him to the nomination and all of them answer to the dollar. At least GOP is more upfront about it, and in my view GOP policies are better for the overall population's welfare and growth prospects. DEM platforms surely sound better, but at the end of the day someone has to pay for the free lunches.
birdog1960 Posted November 9, 2012 Posted November 9, 2012 Roosevelte, Roosevelte, Kennedy, Johnson, =3/4 old money i'm more interested in recent histroy (within the last 25 years or so) as i think it more accurately represents the current parties. but ok, they were from well established and situated families. That's not what was being discussed. But if you want to go on a tangent, it doesn't matter the background of the candidate, he is beholden to the party that got him to the nomination and all of them answer to the dollar. At least GOP is more upfront about it, and in my view GOP policies are better for the overall population's welfare and growth prospects. DEM platforms surely sound better, but at the end of the day someone has to pay for the free lunches. i think mattm was saying that he that the backround of the candidate did matter. i certainly do. maybe he'll weigh in on the issue again.
MattM Posted November 9, 2012 Posted November 9, 2012 i'm more interested in recent histroy (within the last 25 years or so) as i think it more accurately represents the current parties. but ok, they were from well established and situated families. i think mattm was saying that he that the backround of the candidate did matter. i certainly do. maybe he'll weigh in on the issue again. I'm at work, so will try to post more later, but personally I'd just like to see either party nominate someone for Pres. who went to a public HS. Clinton was the last one I believe. Amazing when you consider that less than 1 kid in 100 (more like 1 in 200 or 300 I'd wager) is educated at an Andover, Cranbrook, St Albans or Punahou that each of the last 7 candidates for Pres. have gone to such schools....
John Adams Posted November 9, 2012 Posted November 9, 2012 I'm at work, so will try to post more later, but personally I'd just like to see either party nominate someone for Pres. who went to a public HS. Don't we have enough problems?
VABills Posted November 9, 2012 Posted November 9, 2012 mondale was the son of a minister and part time teacher. so no. will have to check on dukakis. kerry is a yes. still looking like old money is better represented by the grand old psarty in recent years. dukakis wa son of an obstetrician who got his md 12 years after immigrating. so, no. unless my kids would be classified old money. and they most certainly wouldn't. Then Bush would be no. As well as Romney. Because the kids got it from dad only.
birdog1960 Posted November 9, 2012 Posted November 9, 2012 Then Bush would be no. As well as Romney. Because the kids got it from dad only. what? the bush family is the prototype for an establishment family. right up there with the rockefellers and vanderbilts. romney's money is only a couple generations old but he is certainly a patrician and acts the part to perfection. the dad only thing - no idea what you mean. if you mean wealth inherited from the mother's descendents , then yes, that would make someone old money in my estimation. was that the case for dukakis or mondale?
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 9, 2012 Posted November 9, 2012 This thread has evolved into something disgusting and bigoted. Why does it matter where someone came from? My only concern is where they are going. This callous disregard of a persons merit, giving no creedance to their individual character, philosophies, or achievements, based solely on the amount of money their parents had represents everything that is wrong with this country.
GG Posted November 9, 2012 Posted November 9, 2012 i think mattm was saying that he that the backround of the candidate did matter. i certainly do. maybe he'll weigh in on the issue again. That's another red herring, just like the tripe that a Latina woman will be a better judge of Constitutional law because she came from a poor background.
meazza Posted November 9, 2012 Posted November 9, 2012 This thread has evolved into something disgusting and bigoted. Why does it matter where someone came from? My only concern is where they are going. This callous disregard of a persons merit, giving no creedance to their individual character, philosophies, or achievements, based solely on the amount of money their parents had represents everything that is wrong with this country. Welcome to birdshit logic.
Recommended Posts