Obama became the genius of the DNC after he read a speech in 2004. I am curious why the dems decided he knew everything there was to know about the world back then, but for some reason they think that Sarah Palin, a woman with decent executive career knows nothing about the world?
When Barack was moving through the corrupt Chicago machine, foreign policy was irrelevant. When he was a community disorganizer, his main issue was how to get more connections and not get caught. When he was a US senator, well, he spent all the time campaigning. So, all in all, Obama has no advantage on the foreign policy over Palin, let alone McCain. And yet, the myth of Palin’s inexperience lives on. How smart is it?
Most feminists believe that Hillary was mistreated by the media and the DNC. If Sarah is faced with a barrage of questions that Obama was not (and Obama is still an unknown quality through out the campaign) - then many of those feminists will very likely stay home on the election day. After all, do you really expect them to vote for the abusive liberals?
A secondary effect may be an utter loss of credibility of the media among the feminists. As you may remember, the feminists are still pissed off at the media for their “sexist” attack on Hillary Clinton, so their eyes are not closed yet on how media promotes its own agenda. I sincerely hope that this election will be the straw that breaks the media’s back, and it won’t be a second too late.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
As one dem said, we are all in this together...
We are all in this together, shared sacrifice and shared reward. I am sure you've heard these banalities coming from the liberals many times. Here is a quick question to you. My wife and I work long, long hours. While my job is more theoretical and research oriented, she has to support much more time-sensitive process technology development. She is on call every other week, and some times she is paged at night. And yes, we are in the top 5% of earners, which means we have to pay a lot in taxes.
People in the bottom 20% work at most half the time we work, if even that. Their income mostly comes from the government handouts, their living, medical care, housing is subsidized by the government. They contribute next to nothing to our common social spending - roads, schools, police, military.
And yet, it is us, my wife and I who are called evil and exploiting, while the bottom-feeders are considered righteous victims of oppression. I keep hearing about common sacrifice, common rewards, that we all in this together. Could someone explain to me - just exactly when are the people in the bottom going to start sharing not only my rewards, but also my sacrifice? When will they start putting in at least 50 hours of work every week?
Oh, never mind, I was just kidding. Silly me. It will never happen.
People in the bottom 20% work at most half the time we work, if even that. Their income mostly comes from the government handouts, their living, medical care, housing is subsidized by the government. They contribute next to nothing to our common social spending - roads, schools, police, military.
And yet, it is us, my wife and I who are called evil and exploiting, while the bottom-feeders are considered righteous victims of oppression. I keep hearing about common sacrifice, common rewards, that we all in this together. Could someone explain to me - just exactly when are the people in the bottom going to start sharing not only my rewards, but also my sacrifice? When will they start putting in at least 50 hours of work every week?
Oh, never mind, I was just kidding. Silly me. It will never happen.
Liberal Media Bias? You won't say....
Recently, the media has started pushing the meme that Sarah Palin is a bad mother, since she is not staying at home taking care of her children. Well, color me unimpressed. Do you remember the Clinton family? It was claimed that both of them, papa Clinton and mama Clinton were running the American government. As Hillary once said - she will not be baking cookies. Or, as Clinton also said - get two for the price of one. So, while both parents were busy, who exactly was raising their daughter? Was it Monica Lewinski? Alas, I never heard this question asked before. No one claimed that Clintons are bad parents because they chose a political career instead of taking care of their precious little daughter. So, why is Palin treated differently? Does it mean that media is sexist, or that it is liberal and it would do anything to help the unfortunate Mr.Obama?
Should Obama give more details than McCain on his economic plans?
Well, as you know, liberals are complaining that McCain's speech is less informative on his plans to reform the economy than Obama's. It's not fair! Well, think about it...
As the Russian saying goes - "You have to build socialism. It's sufficient to allow capitalism". Obama wants to nationalize the medical care. He plans to drastically increase spending on social programs, raise minimum wage, make "volunteer service" compulsory for high school students. Moreover, he wants to spend tens of billions of dollars on "alternative energy", heavily tax all businesses that emit CO2, regulate labor relations, heavily tax all companies that export capital to foreign countries and make much tougher environmental laws. It's his duty to explain how exactly he proposes these thing to work, and why exactly he believes these new (actually modern day European) policies will create jobs, revitalize the US economy and increase the wealth production. For example - it's common knowledge that minimum wages increase unemployment, particularly among uneducated workers. So, why is he promoting a policy which will undeniably hurt his professed goal of creating more jobs?
As for McCain, his job is much simpler. In many cases he supports simple conservative-libertarian position - cut the government role and give money back to the people. Since he won't be the one spending people's money - he cannot explain which mechanisms will be created in a free market economy. Asking him what solutions will become popular is like asking someone promoting democracy to explain who must become the president.
As the Russian saying goes - "You have to build socialism. It's sufficient to allow capitalism". Obama wants to nationalize the medical care. He plans to drastically increase spending on social programs, raise minimum wage, make "volunteer service" compulsory for high school students. Moreover, he wants to spend tens of billions of dollars on "alternative energy", heavily tax all businesses that emit CO2, regulate labor relations, heavily tax all companies that export capital to foreign countries and make much tougher environmental laws. It's his duty to explain how exactly he proposes these thing to work, and why exactly he believes these new (actually modern day European) policies will create jobs, revitalize the US economy and increase the wealth production. For example - it's common knowledge that minimum wages increase unemployment, particularly among uneducated workers. So, why is he promoting a policy which will undeniably hurt his professed goal of creating more jobs?
As for McCain, his job is much simpler. In many cases he supports simple conservative-libertarian position - cut the government role and give money back to the people. Since he won't be the one spending people's money - he cannot explain which mechanisms will be created in a free market economy. Asking him what solutions will become popular is like asking someone promoting democracy to explain who must become the president.
What do community organizers do?
A recent New Republic article described in detail what Obama had been doing, and how he had failed in everything he tried to do as a community organizer. Why? Actually, it's a no brainer.
Here is what "Faithful America”, a liberal community organizing group and a staunch supporter of Barack Obama says about the job of community organizers:
"Many politicians simply don't understand what community organizers do. So here's a short lesson: They work in church basements, synagogues and mosques to empower their communities and make life better for millions of working people across the country."
Thanks a lot, Faithful America, now it’s all clear for me, even though I am no politician. A janitor cleans the toilets and takes away the garbage. A developer builds houses. An engineer designs new technical appliances. A doctor treats diseases. And a community organizer "empowers communities". Sounds like a "community organizer" is a job description for people who need high self-esteem, but who cannot or do not want to do the actual job of a janitor, engineer or a doctor.
In fact, a million community organizers cannot create a single job, build a single house, or open a single store. It's all done by people who have actual jobs - you know - builders, businessmen, store clerks, developers. So what do "community organizers" actually do? Lets repeat the slogan – “They work in church basements, synagogues and mosques to empower their communities and make life better for millions of working people across the country."
So, in summary, we know exactly WHERE they work – but their day-to-day responsibilities are a bit uncertain. Don’t you love the liberal “nuance”, the ability to use many words while saying absolutely nothing about the subject?
Here is what "Faithful America”, a liberal community organizing group and a staunch supporter of Barack Obama says about the job of community organizers:
"Many politicians simply don't understand what community organizers do. So here's a short lesson: They work in church basements, synagogues and mosques to empower their communities and make life better for millions of working people across the country."
Thanks a lot, Faithful America, now it’s all clear for me, even though I am no politician. A janitor cleans the toilets and takes away the garbage. A developer builds houses. An engineer designs new technical appliances. A doctor treats diseases. And a community organizer "empowers communities". Sounds like a "community organizer" is a job description for people who need high self-esteem, but who cannot or do not want to do the actual job of a janitor, engineer or a doctor.
In fact, a million community organizers cannot create a single job, build a single house, or open a single store. It's all done by people who have actual jobs - you know - builders, businessmen, store clerks, developers. So what do "community organizers" actually do? Lets repeat the slogan – “They work in church basements, synagogues and mosques to empower their communities and make life better for millions of working people across the country."
So, in summary, we know exactly WHERE they work – but their day-to-day responsibilities are a bit uncertain. Don’t you love the liberal “nuance”, the ability to use many words while saying absolutely nothing about the subject?
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Nice quote from prince of leaves
I’m not voting against Obama because he’s black. I’m voting agains Obama because he’s red.
http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2008/06/21/obama-drops-pre-emptive-race-bomb/
http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2008/06/21/obama-drops-pre-emptive-race-bomb/
Nice quote from Chris Hitchens
“People who think with their epidermis or their genitalia or their clan are the problem to begin with. One does not banish this specter by invoking it.”
Nice quote from right-wing nut house...
It has been asked “Is America ready for a black president?” Maybe a more relevant question would be “Can America see through a racial charlatan who will shamlessly use the color of his skin to avoid debating the tough issues and call his opponents “racists” for disagreeing with him?”
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Nice article from Steyn. This guy is so right...
Steyn on America
Sunday, 15 June 2008
The short version of the Democratic Party primary campaign is that the media fell in love with Barack Obama but the Democratic electorate declined to.
"I felt this thrill going up my leg," said MSNBC's Chris Matthews after one of the senator's speeches. "I mean, I don't have that too often." Au contraire, Chris and the rest of the gang seem to be getting the old tingle up the thigh hairs on a nightly basis. If Obama is political Viagra, the media are at that stage in the ad where the announcer warns that, if leg tingles persist for more than six months, see your doctor.
Out there in the voting booths, however, Democrat legs stayed admirably unthrilled. The more the media told Hillary she was toast, and she should get the hell out of it and let Obama romp to victory, the more Democrats insisted on voting for her. The more the media insisted Barack was inevitable, the less inclined the voters were to get with the program. On the strength of Chris Matthews' vibrating calves, Sen. Obama raised a ton of money – over $300 million – and massively outspent Sen. Clinton, but he didn't really get any bang for his buck. In the end, he crawled over the finish line. The Obama Express came a-hurtlin' down the track at 2 miles an hour.
But what does he care? Sen. Obama has learned an old trick of Bill Clinton's: If you behave like a star, you'll get treated as one. So, even as his numbers weakened, his rhetoric soared. By the time he wrapped up his "victory" speech last week, the great gaseous uplift had his final paragraphs floating in delirious hallucination along the Milky Way:
"I face this challenge with profound humility and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people … . I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal … . This was the moment – this was the time – when we came together to remake this great nation."
It's a good thing he's facing it with "profound humility," isn't it? Because otherwise who knows what he'd be saying. But mark it in your calendars: June 3, 2008 – the long-awaited day, after 232 years, that America began to provide care for the sick. Just a small test program: 47 attendees of the Obama speech were taken to hospital and treated for nausea. Everyone else came away thrilled that the Obamessiah was going to heal the planet and reverse the rise of the oceans: When Barack wants to walk on the water, he doesn't want to have to use a stepladder to get up on it.
There are generally two reactions to this kind of policy proposal. The first was exemplified by the Atlantic Monthly's Marc Ambinder:
"What a different emotional register from John McCain's; Obama seems on the verge of tears; the enormous crowd in the Xcel Center seems ready to lift Obama on its shoulders; the much smaller audience for McCain's speech interrupted his remarks with stilted cheers."
The second reaction boils down to: "'Heal the planet'? Is this guy nuts?" To be honest I prefer a republic whose citizenry can muster no greater enthusiasm for their candidate than "stilted cheers" to one in which the crowd wants to hoist the nominee onto their shoulders for promising to lower ocean levels within his first term. As for coming together "to remake this great nation," if it's so great, why do we have to remake it? A few months back, just after the New Hampshire primary, a Canadian reader of mine – John Gross of Quebec – sent me an all-purpose stump speech for the 2008 campaign:
"My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it."
I thought this was so cute, I posted it on the Web at National Review. Whereupon one of those Internetty-type things happened, and three links and a Google search later the line was being attributed not to my correspondent but to Sen. Obama, and a few weeks after that I started getting e-mails from reporters from Florida to Oregon, asking if I could recall at which campaign stop the senator, in fact, uttered these words. And I'd patiently write back and explain that they're John Gross' words, and that not even Barack would be dumb enough to say such a thing in public. Yet last week his demand in his victory speech that we "come together to remake this great nation" came awful close.
Speaking personally, I don't want to remake America. I'm an immigrant, and one reason I came here is because most of the rest of the Western world remade itself along the lines Sen. Obama has in mind. This is pretty much the end of the line for me. If he remakes America, there's nowhere for me to go – although presumably once he's lowered sea levels around the planet there should be a few new atolls popping up here and there.
Marc Ambinder is right. Obama's rhetoric is in a different "emotional register" from John McCain's. It's in a different "emotional register" from every U.S. president – not just the Coolidges but the Kennedys, too. Nothing in Obama's resume suggests he's the man to remake America and heal the planet. Only last week, another of his pals bit the dust, convicted by a Chicago jury of 16 counts of this and that. "This isn't the Tony Rezko I knew," said the senator, in what's becoming a standard formulation. Likewise, this wasn't the Jeremiah Wright he knew. And these are guys he's known for 20 years.
Yet at the same time as he's being stunned by the corruption and anti-Americanism of those closest to him, Obama's convinced that just by jetting into Tehran and Pyongyang he can get to know America's enemies and persuade them to hew to the straight and narrow. No doubt if it all goes belly-up, and Iran winds up nuking Tel Aviv, President Obama will put on his more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger face and announce solemnly that "this isn't the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad I knew."
Every time I hear an Obama speech, I start to giggle. But millions of voters don't. And, if Chris Matthews and the tingly-legged media get their way and drag Obama across the finish line this November, the laugh will be on those of us who think that serious times demand grown-up rhetoric.
Sunday, 15 June 2008
The short version of the Democratic Party primary campaign is that the media fell in love with Barack Obama but the Democratic electorate declined to.
"I felt this thrill going up my leg," said MSNBC's Chris Matthews after one of the senator's speeches. "I mean, I don't have that too often." Au contraire, Chris and the rest of the gang seem to be getting the old tingle up the thigh hairs on a nightly basis. If Obama is political Viagra, the media are at that stage in the ad where the announcer warns that, if leg tingles persist for more than six months, see your doctor.
Out there in the voting booths, however, Democrat legs stayed admirably unthrilled. The more the media told Hillary she was toast, and she should get the hell out of it and let Obama romp to victory, the more Democrats insisted on voting for her. The more the media insisted Barack was inevitable, the less inclined the voters were to get with the program. On the strength of Chris Matthews' vibrating calves, Sen. Obama raised a ton of money – over $300 million – and massively outspent Sen. Clinton, but he didn't really get any bang for his buck. In the end, he crawled over the finish line. The Obama Express came a-hurtlin' down the track at 2 miles an hour.
But what does he care? Sen. Obama has learned an old trick of Bill Clinton's: If you behave like a star, you'll get treated as one. So, even as his numbers weakened, his rhetoric soared. By the time he wrapped up his "victory" speech last week, the great gaseous uplift had his final paragraphs floating in delirious hallucination along the Milky Way:
"I face this challenge with profound humility and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people … . I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal … . This was the moment – this was the time – when we came together to remake this great nation."
It's a good thing he's facing it with "profound humility," isn't it? Because otherwise who knows what he'd be saying. But mark it in your calendars: June 3, 2008 – the long-awaited day, after 232 years, that America began to provide care for the sick. Just a small test program: 47 attendees of the Obama speech were taken to hospital and treated for nausea. Everyone else came away thrilled that the Obamessiah was going to heal the planet and reverse the rise of the oceans: When Barack wants to walk on the water, he doesn't want to have to use a stepladder to get up on it.
There are generally two reactions to this kind of policy proposal. The first was exemplified by the Atlantic Monthly's Marc Ambinder:
"What a different emotional register from John McCain's; Obama seems on the verge of tears; the enormous crowd in the Xcel Center seems ready to lift Obama on its shoulders; the much smaller audience for McCain's speech interrupted his remarks with stilted cheers."
The second reaction boils down to: "'Heal the planet'? Is this guy nuts?" To be honest I prefer a republic whose citizenry can muster no greater enthusiasm for their candidate than "stilted cheers" to one in which the crowd wants to hoist the nominee onto their shoulders for promising to lower ocean levels within his first term. As for coming together "to remake this great nation," if it's so great, why do we have to remake it? A few months back, just after the New Hampshire primary, a Canadian reader of mine – John Gross of Quebec – sent me an all-purpose stump speech for the 2008 campaign:
"My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it."
I thought this was so cute, I posted it on the Web at National Review. Whereupon one of those Internetty-type things happened, and three links and a Google search later the line was being attributed not to my correspondent but to Sen. Obama, and a few weeks after that I started getting e-mails from reporters from Florida to Oregon, asking if I could recall at which campaign stop the senator, in fact, uttered these words. And I'd patiently write back and explain that they're John Gross' words, and that not even Barack would be dumb enough to say such a thing in public. Yet last week his demand in his victory speech that we "come together to remake this great nation" came awful close.
Speaking personally, I don't want to remake America. I'm an immigrant, and one reason I came here is because most of the rest of the Western world remade itself along the lines Sen. Obama has in mind. This is pretty much the end of the line for me. If he remakes America, there's nowhere for me to go – although presumably once he's lowered sea levels around the planet there should be a few new atolls popping up here and there.
Marc Ambinder is right. Obama's rhetoric is in a different "emotional register" from John McCain's. It's in a different "emotional register" from every U.S. president – not just the Coolidges but the Kennedys, too. Nothing in Obama's resume suggests he's the man to remake America and heal the planet. Only last week, another of his pals bit the dust, convicted by a Chicago jury of 16 counts of this and that. "This isn't the Tony Rezko I knew," said the senator, in what's becoming a standard formulation. Likewise, this wasn't the Jeremiah Wright he knew. And these are guys he's known for 20 years.
Yet at the same time as he's being stunned by the corruption and anti-Americanism of those closest to him, Obama's convinced that just by jetting into Tehran and Pyongyang he can get to know America's enemies and persuade them to hew to the straight and narrow. No doubt if it all goes belly-up, and Iran winds up nuking Tel Aviv, President Obama will put on his more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger face and announce solemnly that "this isn't the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad I knew."
Every time I hear an Obama speech, I start to giggle. But millions of voters don't. And, if Chris Matthews and the tingly-legged media get their way and drag Obama across the finish line this November, the laugh will be on those of us who think that serious times demand grown-up rhetoric.
Saturday, June 14, 2008
What we should do about the gas prices...
I've been listening to Hannity's radio show, and Sean is promoting a petition that would demand Congress to allow drilling in America (you can sign the petition here). Personally, I think this is not enough. I believe conservative radio talk show hosts, conservative writers, bloggers and all people of good will should organize a nation-wide 2-day demonstration in front of the gas stations (this could be done on the weekend) with conservatives showing signs like "Gas is so expensive because liberals don't want to drill in America" or "Republicans want to lower your gas prices - Liberals want to raise them to save caribous in Alaska".
If we could have many gas stations covered in one blitz attack - we could get quite a reaction from the citizens. Either American people will force liberals to let the oil industry to drill, or they will decide to vote for republicans in November. Americans are pretty pissed off today, GOP should use it. Of course, there is little hope that the GOP leadership can do anything, so it's up to citizen activists to do so. In reality, it should not be too difficult to organize. It could also be a good idea to link with truck drivers, farmers and others, and organize some acts of civil disobedience, road blocks in front of Capitol and the like. It could be a huge event, and it would shook the country.
If we could have many gas stations covered in one blitz attack - we could get quite a reaction from the citizens. Either American people will force liberals to let the oil industry to drill, or they will decide to vote for republicans in November. Americans are pretty pissed off today, GOP should use it. Of course, there is little hope that the GOP leadership can do anything, so it's up to citizen activists to do so. In reality, it should not be too difficult to organize. It could also be a good idea to link with truck drivers, farmers and others, and organize some acts of civil disobedience, road blocks in front of Capitol and the like. It could be a huge event, and it would shook the country.
Here is why I am pissed...
The Boumediene v. Bush decision by five liberal judges, Kennedy, Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, which granted enemy combatants harbeus corpus has been met with obvious glee from the left. The conservatives were understandably pissed off. Here is one possible explanation for the conservative reaction. Back in 2005, same five liberal judges Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer decided that the government has a right to take your property "to promote welfare" - i.e. basically, if the government likes it, it can take and pay you whatever it thinks it okay (see Kelo vs City of New London). In other words, same liberal judges grant more and more rights to terrorists, while fucking up the rights of law abiding Americans. Now, I wonder, why wouldn't this piss off the liberals? Could someone explain?
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Very nice quote...
Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded ≈ here and there, now and then ≈ are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty. This is known as "bad luck." --- Robert A. Heinlein
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Liberals are so stupid, it's amazing....
A few days ago I read this article on internet. It was written by a Clinton secretary of labor, Robert Reich. The article is amazingly stupid. I mean, at some point, this guy should take a basic class on economics.
Reich's comments reminded me of a passage from an old Russian book "12 chairs". Two crooks got on the ship cruise, pretending that they were artists. At some point they were asked to paint a drawing. One crook asks another "I've got a question for you, as one artist to another, can you paint?".
Anyway, here is a nice passage that surprised me:
..(it would increase demand for gas and cause prices to rise, eliminating any benefit to consumers while costing the Treasury more than $9 billion, and generate more pollution).
I would like to understand why would the consumers have zero benefit if the proposed tax cuts stimulate the demand? In other words, if the prices were not lowered by the tax cut, why would the demand rise? And if prices are lowered, wouldn't the consumers benefit from it?
To put it bluntly, liberal economists (nice oxymoron) would greatly increase their understanding of economy if they took time to familiarize themselves with the law of supply and demand. Mr.Reich, when are you going to take Macroeconomics 101 class? Seriously, this is embarrassing.
Reich's comments reminded me of a passage from an old Russian book "12 chairs". Two crooks got on the ship cruise, pretending that they were artists. At some point they were asked to paint a drawing. One crook asks another "I've got a question for you, as one artist to another, can you paint?".
Anyway, here is a nice passage that surprised me:
..(it would increase demand for gas and cause prices to rise, eliminating any benefit to consumers while costing the Treasury more than $9 billion, and generate more pollution).
I would like to understand why would the consumers have zero benefit if the proposed tax cuts stimulate the demand? In other words, if the prices were not lowered by the tax cut, why would the demand rise? And if prices are lowered, wouldn't the consumers benefit from it?
To put it bluntly, liberal economists (nice oxymoron) would greatly increase their understanding of economy if they took time to familiarize themselves with the law of supply and demand. Mr.Reich, when are you going to take Macroeconomics 101 class? Seriously, this is embarrassing.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
One of the reasons why rich kids tend to be liberal
Quite recently we started looking for a school for our elder kid. After some hesitation, we dismissed the government schools - since we knew that they were horrible. The only decent option was to go to private schools. Now, I hope you understand that we are not super rich, and it's not easy for us to afford a private school. Moreover, both of us, my wife and I are non-religious Jews, which meant christian schools were out of question. One school that caught our attention was a secular private school, pretty expensive, excellent SAT scores, good statistics for university admissions. One thing among others caught my attention. During the interview we asked the school bureaucrat about the kids who go to that school, and whether the private school prepares them to live in a real world, not in a gated community. The answer was quite amazing - we were told that the teachers understand our concerns, and that they do everything possible to let the kids understand the world and the community. One of the things they do is to send kids regularly to work in the kitchens for the poor folks.
Now, think about it. Say, you are from a very rich family. You are surrounded by rich kids in the kindergarten, school, university. Your neighbors are rich. The only people you see who are out of your circle are the bums, drug addicts and the like. I wonder if this is what pushes rich kids to become liberal and elitist. That - and uber-liberal propaganda in schools and universities.
Now, think about it. Say, you are from a very rich family. You are surrounded by rich kids in the kindergarten, school, university. Your neighbors are rich. The only people you see who are out of your circle are the bums, drug addicts and the like. I wonder if this is what pushes rich kids to become liberal and elitist. That - and uber-liberal propaganda in schools and universities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)