Posted on 10/09/2004 6:57:32 AM PDT by JohnRand
A man who has never run a business and created his own wealth has no intellectual equipment to judge wealth in others. I see this in my profession, the trust babies are clueless to the small business owners' actual net worth. They think if a man doesn't drive the correct luxury car, he must be struggling.
Entrepreneurs make good money when they work hard, but they are too busy to acquire the trappings of obvious wealth. Kerry is a snob geek who cannot buy his way to cool, and it KILLS him.
The man is plain arrogant and don't think this statement plus the "global test" phrase won't be on people's minds when they vote in a little over three weeks from now. This was a horrendous gaffe and it showed Kerry at his worst snobbish self. Hillary and Bill are all smiles now.
I think he really has screwed the pooch when it comes to the Polish vote and NOBODY is talking about it.
Nobody in our old media seems to have noticed it. Heaven forbid that blather etc. bring anything that would appear negative to Kerry to the attention of their audiences.
I'll bet people are talking about it among our allies though. Kwasniewski the Polish president had a comment about it too the other day. He was not pleased.
That answers my question --- he's not really in the elite range of salary earners either --- but I have a feeling he looks down on anyone who actually WORKS for a living --- he married a woman who inherited her wealth --- a true aristocrat --- not a working slob like the rest of us.
The media certainly would have noticed it if Bush had sad something so condescending --- but you can tell Bush is an okay kind of guy who doesn't really look down on the little people --- he acts like someone who could show up at a picnic or baseball game with the little people and fit in just fine. Kerry never could except before an election.
Reminds me of Ross Perot's "You People".
Kerry was engaging in class warfare in its ugliest form. His analysis that only the two candidates and the moderator would be affected is equivalent to saying: "Hey, you folks are the little guys. This tax hike isn't going to hurt you. It's only going to hurt the big guys, and therefore, you should embrace it."
Let me tell you something, Mr. Kerry. The fact that a particular tax is borne by the few at the benefit of the many does not make it fair, and reeks of the principles of Karl Marx ("From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.") The goal of the democrats is to find the exact spot where 51% of the voters would pay no taxes and be beholden to the democrats, while the other 49% would shoulder the full burden and vote fruitlessly for the republican candidates. A close look at the tax system in this country will demonstrate that we are almost at that point, and Kerry's proposals will speed the way.
The fact that a tax only applies to certain people does not make it a fair tax. On the contrary, it makes it blatantly unfair. Suppose I propose a tax of a billion dollars a year on all couples named Bill and Melinda Gates. The tax would raise a fairly substanital amount of revenue while only affecting a very, very tiny number of voters, i.e., two. And, they could clearly afford it. Does that make it right?
There is an old saw about the possible tyranny of democracy when majority rule is applied in the absence of fairness. It is the tale of two wolves and a sheep voting to decide what's for dinner.
is that a husbands 100k and wifes 100k = 200k ?
-OR-
The family business makes 200k...
-OR-
They can both make 200k... and the business can too..
-OR-
Was that a throw away argument.. since it means absolutely nothing...
We're not talking about ANY wealth of his own. He's a kept man, always has been. He got nothing from his first wife, had no money of his own, had to borrow friends' apartments because he couldn't afford to pay the rent, was said not to have a bed of his own when he married Mama T.
Even in his early years, though his family had the name and connections to put them in the world of the wealthy, they had no money either.
One of his aunts or great-aunts paid his way through his expensive schools, and he was said not to have the wherewithal to even have a proper wardrobe for the circles he traveled in.
Now of course, his wardrobe is tended to by his valet, and he looks down on those whose clothes don't measure up to his.
Is this a trick question..?
TOP FIVE ANSWERS:
1. Too much.
2. Too darn much.
3. Way too much.
4. They are set for life.
In addition to this remark, was anyone else annoyed by Kerry's name dropping: "Chris Reeve is a friend of mine." ?
No, Bush is a regular guy I think.
He was said even at Yale to despise the eastern establishment types (of which Kerry is certainly one).
I think he couldn't wait to get back to Texas.
He was the only child of his parents to have been born in CT, yet he is also the only one to have become a true Texan in spirit.
No, if you want to make it right, you'd have to change the names to Teresa Heinz and Liveshot Kerry. Then it would be right! ;-)
Well currently, I make less than $200,000 a year and I guess with Kerry as president, I have no incentive to even try to make more. That's the liberal way....keep people down. I am a small business owner and I want to grow my business, but if I do, I'll have to give more to the government. I'll have to hold off on hiring and expanding my business if Kerry becomes president. How is that good for anyone?
Yes but he's still superior because he never dirtied his hands by doing any kind of work.
I think that passed and became permanent.
That's why I asked what they got PAID ---- not what they EARN.
Hehe.
That reminds me of the Seinfeld episode, with the girl with "manhands".
Kerry's got just the opposite.
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.