News Is Pelosi's Posse Funded by Taxpayer Dollars?

[isly ilwott]

The liberal elitists are gathering with the world's most powerful woman at the DNC Convention. While the Pelosi 100 wine and dine from a lavish layout of foods and spirits at the Speaker's private party, the grassroots delegates eat seven-dollar hotdogs on the convention floor level because 'das all dey got'. This is indicative of the liberal elite's ability to live on the backs of dumb voters. I'm relatively certain there's also a "Clinton's Clutch" and a selected few called "Obama's Bunch" who will pay big bucks to rub elbows with those in control. Let the peons eat hotdogs while the ruling few have French wines and Russian caviar paid for with donations and taxes from all the sheeple.

I wonder if there're any rules to preclude the Pelosi Posse from being entertained at the expense of the federal government general funds. I wonder if the peons know what they are doing when they support the liberal elite.

I wonder if anything could look more like gestapo tactics than the video of the fine officers who choked and arrested the ABC producer trying to get information about some of Pelosi's Posse on a public street...outside of a fine and fancy restuarant. I wonder if the liberal peons know what kind of people actually benefit from their fanatic, kool-aid driven, circus-band-wagon support of their messiah liberal? I mean, they had to be fine cops...their platoon goon was smoking a cigar. Celebrities don't get such protection from paparazzi. It was like this man couldn't even be on the same side of the street as the restuarant.

Big Brother is right around the corner.

 

[Gokul43201]

I have no idea what this has to do with liberal elites (as opposed to conservative elites?), but here's the story :
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hLbr1AhJlkHCazQIGlL6lVwVG8rAD92R5BOO1 (see link to video)

Looks damning - I see no good reason for the cops to be shoving the reporter around and treating him the way they did. Pretty pathetic.

 

[isly ilwott]

I have no idea what this has to do with liberal elites (as opposed to conservative elites?), but here's the story :
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hLbr1AhJlkHCazQIGlL6lVwVG8rAD92R5BOO1 (see link to video)

Looks damning - I see no good reason for the cops to be shoving the reporter around and treating him the way they did. Pretty pathetic.

What it has to do with the liberal elite is that he was investigating the large group of them that is leeching off the hospitality of Pelosi and company. He was investigating the enfluence of lobby money and other big-spenders that Obamessiah had promised the sheeple would not be welcomed by the coming administration.

ABC should follow this story to its very end. They may become least favored in the White House press corp...but who cares? With that group, I'd want to be called least favorite.

 

[LowlyPion]

He (ABC man) got too close to exposing some things that the liberal elite would just as soon not be exposed.

I'd say the only lobby he got too close to was the hotel lobby.

Authorities said Eslocker repeatedly had been told to stop blocking a sidewalk and an entrance to Denver's Brown Palace Hotel. He wasn't arrested until three hours after the first warning, police said.

 

[isly ilwott]

I'd say the only lobby he got too close to was the hotel lobby.

Perhaps you saw a different video. I saw an uncrowded sidewalk. The business entrance could hardly have been blocked by the presence of a single person. I did notice they were not manhandling the boom man of the camera operator...just the nosey reporter.

 

[Gokul43201]

I did notice they were not manhandling the boom man of the camera operator...

The cops didn't do anything to stop the video or the audio feed ... what a bunch of incompetents the liberal elite recruit into their gestapo!

 

[LowlyPion]

Perhaps you saw a different video. I saw an uncrowded sidewalk. The business entrance could hardly have been blocked by the presence of a single person. I did notice they were not manhandling the boom man of the camera operator...just the nosey reporter.

Occupational hazard.

 

[isly ilwott]

The cops didn't do anything to stop the video or the audio feed ... what a bunch of incompetents the liberal elite recruit into their gestapo!

I believe I did hear them tell him once to turn the camera off...he didn't. I'm shocked they didn't arrest him for disobeying a lawful order...could have put more into the legal system coffers...paying fines and lawyers and such. What a shame.

 

[isly ilwott]

Obama has recently voted YES to increased taxes on everybody making over something in the 40s. You need to wake up.

 

[LowlyPion]

I wonder if the liberal peons know what kind of people actually benefit ...

Well speaking for the Lowly Pions only I'd have to ask you to look at the beneficiary list that has been basking in the glow of the Bush-Cheney-Rove years.

 

[isly ilwott]

Well speaking for the Lowly Pions only I'd have to ask you to look at the beneficiary list that has been basking in the glow of the Bush-Cheney-Rove years.

Show me where I implied that the Republicans don't have similar groups of VIPs. It is not an argument of mine to justify the actions of criminals based on the widespread occurences of crimes. "Everybody else does it" is not a valid justification.

When the Republican Convention comes around next week, I hope the press is equally tenacious in exposing the money trail.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Careful there, you're foaming at the mouth. Based on your education level, it is clear that your family makes less then $150,000/year, so don't you realize that Obama will cut your taxes more than John McCain will? That's not Kool-aid, it's brain juice.

Maybe with income tax, but Obama will increase the hell out of every other tax. There is no magic cure here. The gov needs your money and will get it whether you eat rep/lib spin for dinner or not.

 

[WarPhalange]

Obama has recently voted YES to increased taxes on everybody making over something in the 40s. You need to wake up.

Source.

 

[isly ilwott]

Source.

The Congressional Record. Obama's statements.

and this...(similar to others)


http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/07/07/1184635.aspx


From NBC’s Domenico Montanaro
Flat-taxer Steve Forbes went after Obama on taxes, claiming Obama’s tax proposals would “devastate” the American economy. He said that even though Obama now says he will cut taxes for the low-income to middle-class voters, Forbes and McCain economic adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin claimed Obama voted for increasing taxes on those making as little as $32,000 a year.


VIDEO: Sen. John McCain will be in the Rocky Mountain State of Colorado on Monday, working to convince voters he's the best candidate to confront the rocky economy. NBC's Kelly O'Donnell reports.

This gets to Obama’s “credibility,” Forbes said on a conference call with reporters, and cited it as an example of the Illinois senator “saying one thing and doing another.”
The McCain campaign also sent out a memo, reinforcing the point. "This year, Barack Obama returned to the United States Senate twice to vote in favor of a budget resolution which raises income tax rates by three percentage points for the 25, 28 and 33 percent tax brackets," Holtz-Eakin writes in the memo. "This would mean a tax increase for those earning as little as $32,000. While Barack Obama campaigns on a promise of no tax hikes for anyone but the rich, we once again find that his words are empty when it comes time to act. In both March and June, Barack Obama could have put the force of his vote behind his words. Instead, he decided that 'rich' now means those making just $32,000 per year."

 

[Cyrus]

The liberal elitists are gathering with the world's most powerful woman at the DNC Convention. While the Pelosi 100 wine and dine from a lavish layout of foods and spirits at the Speaker's private party, the grassroots delegates eat seven-dollar hotdogs on the convention floor level because 'das all dey got'. This is indicative of the liberal elite's ability to live on the backs of dumb voters.

I really don't understand the point of this comment.

I'm relatively certain there's also a "Clinton's Clutch" and a selected few called "Obama's Bunch" who will pay big bucks to rub elbows with those in control.

Yes, there always is. Be it republican or democrat. Having money gives you power and connections to powerful people. Why's this new's to you?

Let the peons eat hotdogs while the ruling few have French wines and Russian caviar paid for with donations and taxes from all the sheeple.

Did those powerful people pay to have those meals? Did they donate in the millions? Could you possibly give some background to the story to validify your complaint? ...

I wonder if there're any rules to preclude the Pelosi Posse from being entertained at the expense of the federal government general funds. I wonder if the peons know what they are doing when they support the liberal elite.

This is hilarious. And I'm sure George Bush doesn't do the exact same thing...

I wonder if anything could look more like gestapo tactics than the video of the fine officers who choked and arrested the ABC producer trying to get information about some of Pelosi's Posse on a public street...outside of a fine and fancy restuarant.

OooooHHhhhh, a "fine fancy restuarant". Seriously, get over your inferiority complex. The woman works in congress and makes upwards of $200k a year. She can afford them there fancy restuarants because she has a high paying job, bubba. And no, top government offical's don't have to go to TGI-Fridays for meals on tax dollars just because they work for the gov. They meet with the most powerful people in the world. These people don't want to be harrassed by the public, and probably prefer more private places where they can do business. CEO's of major companies don't tend to want to eat at cheap places.

I wonder if the liberal peons know what kind of people actually benefit from their fanatic, kool-aid driven, circus-band-wagon support of their messiah liberal? I mean, they had to be fine cops...their platoon goon was smoking a cigar. Celebrities don't get such protection from paparazzi. It was like this man couldn't even be on the same side of the street as the restuarant.

Big Brother is right around the corner.

I think you should stop talking, you look kinda foolish right now.

P.S. why do you call all liberals 'peons'? I'll call republicans like you morons.

So far, I see nothing but unsupported acusations and insults towards people that are democrats.

 

[LowlyPion]

It is not an argument of mine to justify the actions of criminals based on the widespread occurences of crimes.

Nor is it mine. Of course enforcement of the laws and obeying the police when they have issued a lawful order is not to be ignored either. If Eslocker wanted to engage in civil disobedience in pursuit of his story, then he must be prepared to accept the consequences.

Personally I look with some suspicion on reporters that make an effort to become the story rather than report it. But then maybe that's just the way we mesons see things?

 

[Cyrus]

I'd say the only lobby he got too close to was the hotel lobby.

And after the hotel lobby its the, after partayyyyyyyy.. -R. Kelly

 

[Gokul43201]

So after the hand picked Gestapo thugs of the elitist liberal pigs forgot to actually throw the cameraman and mic operator in the gulag, we've now got the commie, liberal, America-hating ACLU speaking up in defense of the ABC producer.

 

[isly ilwott]

So after the hand picked Gestapo thugs of the elitist liberal pigs forgot to actually throw the cameraman and mic operator in the gulag, we've now got the commie, liberal, America-hating ACLU speaking up in defense of the ABC producer.

I support some of the causes promoted or defended by the ACLU...such as a man's right to be on a public sidewalk.

 

[LowlyPion]

I support some of the causes promoted or defended by the ACLU...such as a man's right to be on a public sidewalk.

Did Eslocker refuse to vacate the sidewalk in direct defiance of the order of a policeman? Did he refuse over the course of 3 hours?

Civil disobedience of unjust laws has a fine tradition. But I'd say the issue is not access to a public sidewalk. Any more than someone stopping in the middle of a traffic intersection refusing to move could be considered unjustly denied access to a public motorway, if such a person was arrested for refusing to move.

 

[vociferous]

I believe I did hear them tell him once to turn the camera off...he didn't. I'm shocked they didn't arrest him for disobeying a lawful order...could have put more into the legal system coffers...paying fines and lawyers and such. What a shame.

I do not believe that is a lawful order, at least unless you want to show me the law which says that it is illegal to videotape police officers.

As for the "liberal elites", I have a news flash. Most people who hold positions of power in Washington are quite well-off, be they liberal or conservative, and both the Republicans and Democrats can count a very large number of wealthy people on their donor lists.

 

[isly ilwott]

Did Eslocker refuse to vacate the sidewalk in direct defiance of the order of a policeman? Did he refuse over the course of 3 hours?

I was not there and cannot testify. I suspect he was repeatedly asked to leave and didn't. I suspect this because all media accounts that I have read say that is what happened.

What I question is the officer's jusitification for asking him to leave in the first place. Who put out the orders to have the man removed? Why wasn't the camera operator or the boom-mic operator asked to leave? Was it because they were not being nosey...asking questions?

Civil disobedience of unjust laws has a fine tradition. But I'd say the issue is not access to a public sidewalk. Any more than someone stopping in the middle of a traffic intersection refusing to move could be considered unjustly denied access to a public motorway, if such a person was arrested for refusing to move.

Sidewalks and vehecle paths are not comparable.

I do not believe that is a lawful order, at least unless you want to show me the law which says that it is illegal to videotape police officers.

Whether they were videotaping, holding a microphone or standing there emptyhanded, they were still "blocking the sidewalk" just as much as the inquisitive one being recorded.

As for the "liberal elites", I have a news flash. Most people who hold positions of power in Washington are quite well-off, be they liberal or conservative, and both the Republicans and Democrats can count a very large number of wealthy people on their donor lists.

That is no news flash. I want the same exposure of the "big givers" to the Republicans to be made. I'm just wondering if the same repressive tactics will be used.

 

[LowlyPion]

I do not believe that is a lawful order, at least unless you want to show me the law which says that it is illegal to videotape police officers.

Viewed through the lens of Denver's history with other loitering incidents, I'd say it likely should have reasonably been anticipated that Eslocker would create such a reaction.

I found this personal anecdotal account that at the very least reveals a tendency toward using police in a preferential way.

http://colorado.indymedia.org/node/662

While I don't speak in support of loitering laws generally or even necessarily take the indymedia anecdotal account as proven, I do note the apparent historical climate with respect to police action in this direction, and I must remain suspicious of Eslocker's true motives to turn himself into a story, rather than this avowed interest in pursuing the alleged subject of his journalistic interest - Democratic power elite.

 

[turbo]

That is no news flash. I want the same exposure of the "big givers" to the Republicans to be made. I'm just wondering if the same repressive tactics will be used.

It is hardly repressive for the police to arrest someone after asking him to move along for 3 hours. People will be arrested in St. Paul - it will be interesting to see if you are as outraged about that, or about the lavish parties thrown by GOP heavy-hitters and lobbyists. Greed and excess are not confined to one party or the other, nor does Pelosi's presence in the restaurant implicate her in the actions of the Denver police.

Our two-party system is a sick joke designed to keep the same rich powerful elite in power while the voting public dithers over minutia.

 

[WarPhalange]

6lyaMrS0hzk[/youtube]

 

[LowlyPion]

YouTube

In an age that places great importance in images - news at 11:00, I think it sadly pits the rights of free expression against the desire to control the message. If at once we permit unfettered expression then we may be faced with a cacophony of dissent that results in a mutual assured inability for any party or group to express itself at all. A result that doesn't seem to be in the public interest.

Clearly the librarian was not serious in thinking her sign was not offensive to the image the McCain people wanted to project. Neither did the event operative not know he was stepping on her rights to free expression.

Wherever we draw the line between the rights to free expression and the rights of event organizers to project their own expressions there are bound to be border wars.

 

[isly ilwott]

It is hardly repressive for the police to arrest someone after asking him to move along for 3 hours. People will be arrested in St. Paul - it will be interesting to see if you are as outraged about that, or about the lavish parties thrown by GOP heavy-hitters and lobbyists. Greed and excess are not confined to one party or the other, nor does Pelosi's presence in the restaurant implicate her in the actions of the Denver police.

Our two-party system is a sick joke designed to keep the same rich powerful elite in power while the voting public dithers over minutia.

You appear to misrepresent what happened. I doubt the policeman stood there for three hours asking him to move along. He was removed three hours after being asked the first time. I too doubt that Nancy gave the orders to have him removed. I do not doubt that some follower of her's (sympathetic to the Democratic march on Washington) had it done.

I have already stated that I am just as interested in following the money trail for the Republicans as I am for the Democrats. They both do bad things. Neither of them justifies the actions of the other. That's why the youtube video below garners no reply from me. Silencing the opposition via the use of police is questionable. A policeman's action based solely upon his own political beliefs is just as repugnant as a big wheel ordering all the protestors off camera. Unless a protestor physically disrupts a political gathering, they should be permitted to display their opinions...especially from outside the venue. It's called freedom of speech.

 

[Cyrus]

It is hardly repressive for the police to arrest someone after asking him to move along for 3 hours. People will be arrested in St. Paul - it will be interesting to see if you are as outraged about that, or about the lavish parties thrown by GOP heavy-hitters and lobbyists. Greed and excess are not confined to one party or the other, nor does Pelosi's presence in the restaurant implicate her in the actions of the Denver police.

Our two-party system is a sick joke designed to keep the same rich powerful elite in power while the voting public dithers over minutia.

Not 'our' two party system, any political system.

 

[turbo]

Not 'our' two party system, any political system.

Our two-party system is designed to retain control over rules of eligibility and control over influence, so that alternative parties are suppressed and starved of cash. I would much prefer a multi-party system in which the parties would have to bargain and compromise in order to form a coalition government. This cannot happen without public financing of elections - essentially telling the special-interest groups and businesses and their lobbyists to go home. It is such a profitable trough to feed at that the politicians will never agree to give it up without a real citizens' revolt.

Incumbents love to see the cost of campaigns skyrocket, because they can squash their challengers by dint of wealth. Lobbying and donation-bundling is ill-disguised bribery, and we all know it.

 

[isly ilwott]

Not 'our' two party system, any political system.

Our system has its warts...but it's the best thing going.
I cannot think of a country in which the ruling power is not weilded by a rich, powerful entity.

 

[Cyrus]

Our two-party system is designed to retain control over rules of eligibility and control over influence, so that alternative parties are suppressed and starved of cash. I would much prefer a multi-party system in which the parties would have to bargain and compromise in order to form a coalition government. This cannot happen without public financing of elections - essentially telling the special-interest groups and businesses and their lobbyists to go home. It is such a profitable trough to feed at that the politicians will never agree to give it up without a real citizens' revolt.

I agree, but that's not what I was pointing out. You made it seem as if 'our' system was the only one designed to retain power for the wealthy. Pretty much all political systems in any country is designed with this intention.

 

[Cyrus]

You appear to misrepresent what happened. I doubt the policeman stood there for three hours asking him to move along. He was removed three hours after being asked the first time. I too doubt that Nancy gave the orders to have him removed. I do not doubt that some follower of her's (sympathetic to the Democratic march on Washington) had it done.

I have already stated that I am just as interested in following the money trail for the Republicans as I am for the Democrats. They both do bad things. Neither of them justifies the actions of the other. That's why the youtube video below garners no reply from me. Silencing the opposition via the use of police is questionable. A policeman's action based solely upon his own political beliefs is just as repugnant as a big wheel ordering all the protestors off camera. Unless a protestor physically disrupts a political gathering, they should be permitted to display their opinions...especially from outside the venue. It's called freedom of speech.

That is something I can agree with you on.


Exactly what is illegal about standing outside in a public place with that ladies sign, or a camera for that matter?

 

[LowlyPion]

You appear to misrepresent what happened. I doubt the policeman stood there for three hours asking him to move along. He was removed three hours after being asked the first time. I too doubt that Nancy gave the orders to have him removed. I do not doubt that some follower of her's (sympathetic to the Democratic march on Washington) had it done.

In looking at the filmed accounts I'd say Eslocker apparently knew full well what he was doing. He was seemingly non-cooperative with a purpose. And I suspect his real purpose - given the busy nature of the street there in Denver - wasn't really to catch fat cats, nor do I suspect that truly fat cats would even emerge onto a busy public street when they could be carried by private conveyance, from publicly inaccessible entrances, and in much more comfort. But rather it looks to me like it was to make himself a name to advance his own career by precipitating his arrest and acting all noble in the name of free speech.

Other TV news people that have advanced from such conflict:
http://www.demconwatchblog.com/2008/07/john-chancellor-dan-rather-and-oreo.html

 

[Cyrus]

Also, could you please justify your comments about 'liberal elites'

Specifically, I'd like to know how a black guy that grew up poor and a VP that has a net worth of under $400k qualifies as 'ELITE'.

Now, I'd like you to explain to me how a GW Bush, from a long line of oil millionaires, and John McCain, the son of a long line of rear admirals, is 'one of you common folk'...

You must have some very very impressive ways of rationalizing in your head non-truths. Because clearly, what you stated was nonsense. You sure the Repubs haven't been feeding you any kool-aid?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Also, could you please justify your comments about 'liberal elites'

Specifically, I'd like to know how a black guy that grew up poor and a VP that has a net worth of under $400k qualifies as 'ELITE'.

Now, I'd like you to explain to me how a GW Bush, from a long line of oil millionaires, and John McCain, the son of a long line of rear admirals, is 'one of you common folk'...

You must have some very very impressive ways of rationalizing in your head non-truths. Because clearly, what you stated was nonsense. You sure the Repubs haven't been feeding you any kool-aid?

Obama made four million last year. Just because he was poor as a kid doesn't mean he can't have become an elite/elitist. I'm not saying that he has necessarily. I don't know him well enough, but at the same time I am sure he currently lives a hundred times better than the people still living where he grew up.

And he wasn't mentioning the repubs so I have no idea why what they do makes any difference. The point is that the Dems tout themselves as the champions of the poor and oppressed while they themselves live like rayalty in comparison. And this they do often on money from public or campaign funds so they don't have to worry about spending any of their large tax payer funded salary in the process. Then they condemn those greedy republican bastards who make fortunes at the expense of the people.

 

[Cyrus]

Obama made four million last year. Just because he was poor as a kid doesn't mean he can't have become an elite/elitist. I'm not saying that he has necessarily. I don't know him well enough, but at the same time I am sure he currently lives a hundred times better than the people still living where he grew up.

Because unlike the people where he grew up, he studied hard, went to school (harvard) became a lawyer, then a congressman, and now presidential candidate. So, yeah he lives better than those people because he worked hard to get there. So, they can cry me a river while I play the worlds smallest violin.

And he wasn't mentioning the repubs so I have no idea why what they do makes any difference.

You should have an idea. It's a god damn joke for republicans that come from a long line of old money oil tycoons to call anyone else a 'liberal elite' who is not 'one of us' regular folk. You got into yale because of your father, skipped out in military service, and never did a hard days work in your life. Explain to me how your 'regular folk'? Better yet, explain how you can have the audacity to open your mouth and call anyone else elite.

The point is that the Dems tout themselves as the champions of the poor and oppressed while they themselves live like rayalty in comparison.

Does one have to be poor to be a champion of the poor? No, they dont. This is absurd.

And this they do often on money from public or campaign funds so they don't have to worry about spending any of their large tax payer funded salary in the process. Then they condemn those greedy republican bastards who make fortunes at the expense of the people.

How much money are they taking in at the end of the day from campaign funds?

 

[mheslep]

Also, could you please justify your comments about 'liberal elites'

Specifically, I'd like to know how a black guy that grew up poor and a VP that has a net worth of under $400k qualifies as 'ELITE'...

Obama made four million last year.

And he attended an expensive prep school followed by Columbia and Harvard.

This Obama tangent is ridiculous. The OP was about Speaker Pelosi, daughter of Congressman, who is well qualified as an elitist. More importantly, Speaker Pelosi rode into her current position on promising ethics and lobbying reform. One of the few things her Congress has managed to do was approve new rules that in part banned legislators/aids from receiving anything from lobbyists and the companies that employ them. In response we get "A Coors Field Day", a private event on Tuesday hosted by the Colorado Rockies and sponsored by Eli Lilly, Microsoft and others and attended by dozens of ... legislators and aids.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/08/26/corporate-interests-take-democrats-out-to-the-ballpark/

 

[Cyrus]

And he attended an expensive prep school followed by Columbia and Harvard.

Seriously, you're going to say Obama is 'Elite' becuase he went to a prep school...please try harder.

 

[WarPhalange]

He went to a prep school that he got scholarships for, no less.

ZOMG! HE WORKS TOO HARD! HOW UNAMERICAN!

 

[mheslep]

Same subject, another article.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121884539418446077-email.html"

WASHINGTON -- When the Democratic Party holds its convention the week after next, members of Congress will be able to hear singer Kanye West at an all-expenses paid party sponsored by the recording industry.

They can play in a poker tournament with Ben Affleck, courtesy of the poker industry. They can try to hit a home run at Coors Field, home of the Colorado Rockies, thanks to AT&T Corp. Free drinks and cigars will be on offer at a bash thrown by the liquor industry...

 

[Cyrus]

Same subject, another article.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121884539418446077-email.html"

I will concede Pelosi as being an elite, she's very wealthy and came from a family of power. But when the OP made the statement 'liberal elite' he lumped in EVERYONE that's democrat must be elite and wealthy. That's a nonsense statement and you know it.

Do you really think Nancy Pelosi, a woman worth $25million, is worried about spending a few hundred or even thousand bucks on dinner at fancy restaurants?

He said he wonders if the 'peons' know their money is supporting the liberal elite. News flash, they have more money than all the 'peons' combined. You're not supporiting the very wealthy by giving them a few expensive dinners.

You're wasting money on them, sure. But your not 'supporting' them.


Side: Why do they have a sketch of Kanye West like the police would make for a crime suspect?

 

[mheslep]

Seriously, you're going to say Obama is 'Elite' becuase he went to a prep school...please try harder.

No, I'm saying he didn't grow up 'poor'. He didn't drive BMWs to class but you don't attend 4 and 5 figure prep schools and get to claim you grew up without privilege, scholarship or no.

 

[Cyrus]

No, I'm saying he didn't grow up 'poor'. He didn't drive BMWs to class but you don't attend 4 and 5 figure prep schools and get to claim you grew up without privilege, scholarship or no.

Can we agree on middle class?

 

[mheslep]

I will concede Pelosi as being an elite, she's very wealthy and came from a family of power. But when the OP made the statement 'liberal elite' he lumped in EVERYONE that's democrat must be elite and wealthy. That's a nonsense statement and you know it.

The only lumping comes from your description, he made no such all inclusive statement, only that the 'elitists' are plural, and the lavish lobbying articles posted above obviously indicates that there are more than one.

 

[mheslep]

Side: Why do they have a sketch of Kanye West like the police would make for a crime suspect?

Standard WSJ practice, a trademark really. All such pieces use a black and white sketch of individuals.

 

[mheslep]

Can we agree on middle class?

Maybe, I don't really no how he came through the early years out in Ha.

 

[Cyrus]

Maybe, I don't really no how he came through the early years out in Ha.

If we can agree that he is (probably) middle class growing up. Let's even say upper middle class, he was by no means ELITE growing up.

He did not get into harvard becasue his father was a congressman (GW), or go to the Naval Academy because his father was a rear admiral (McCain), or had a father that was congressman (Pelosi).

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Because unlike the people where he grew up, he studied hard, went to school (harvard) became a lawyer, then a congressman, and now presidential candidate. So, yeah he lives better than those people because he worked hard to get there. So, they can cry me a river while I play the worlds smallest violin.

And I'm sure that attitude would fly well among all those liberals who feel that Obama got a lucky break and most young black people from poor communities are denied these opportunities.

You should have an idea. It's a god damn joke for republicans that come from a long line of old money oil tycoons to call anyone else a 'liberal elite' who is not 'one of us' regular folk. You got into yale because of your father, skipped out in military service, and never did a hard days work in your life. Explain to me how your 'regular folk'? Better yet, explain how you can have the audacity to open your mouth and call anyone else elite.

I doubt that Isly is in reality McCain or Bush. And think he is just calling the Dems hypocrites. On top of that the classic Repub position is that anyone who works hard enough can become as successful as they are or pass on success to their future generations. Some of them might even believe it. I think that the 'regular folk' line is generally in reference to possession of traditional conservatives values. Feeling and thinking the same way about things. And some of them might actually fit this bill aswell.
At any rate calling Dems hypocrites doesn't imply that Repubs are not. So saying that the repubs are hypocrites is in no way a refutation of the claim made by the OP.

Does one have to be poor to be a champion of the poor? No, they dont. This is absurd.

I never said they needed to be poor did I?
But a person looks like an absolute hypocrite when they decry the wealthy living in ostentatious comfort while the poor are starving and have no health care when that person can later be found having cigars over a five hundred dollar bottle of brandy in the most exclusive restaurant in town. I don't care for people who live like that to begin with but when they pay lip service to fighting for the poor and oppressed at the same time it makes me sick. Worse is when they pay that lip service in order to get elected so they can gain more power and wealth.
Considering that a person could live comfortably for the rest of their life with only a couple million dollars in the bank and that Obama is worth nearly 80 million and madeover four million last year alone I would like to see him giving more than 5.7% of that income to those people he is fighting so hard for. Does he even need that four million at all? Hell he can even get a tax right off for up to 50% of it.

How much money are they taking in at the end of the day from campaign funds?

I'm not sure what you mean from this. Like putting in their pockets? I never even insinuated that they put it in their pockets but said that they can live rather well on that money on the campaign trail without ever reaching into their own pockets which are rather well lined to begin with. **** how many million was Hillary's campaign in debt again?

 

[Cyrus]

And I'm sure that attitude would fly well among all those liberals who feel that Obama got a lucky break and most young black people from poor communities are denied these opportunities.

Yea they are. But they are also not the one's claming he's a liberal elite. They're the ones voting for him because they know where he came from.

I doubt that Isly is in reality McCain or Bush.

I thought it was obvious who the 'you' was in the context of what I was saying...

And think he is just calling the Dems hypocrites.

Yes, and I am showing you that this is a game republicans play when they themselves are guilty of what they claim democrats do.

On top of that the classic Repub position is that anyone who works hard enough can become as successful as they are or pass on success to their future generations.Some of them might even believe it.

Wouldnt that be....dare I say...ELITIST?

I think that the 'regular folk' line is generally in reference to possession of traditional conservatives values. Feeling and thinking the same way about things. And some of them might actually fit this bill aswell.

I think that's part of it. And another part of it is him conning the people he's speaking to into thinking he's a hard working american like them -which he is not.

At any rate calling Dems hypocrites doesn't imply that Repubs are not. So saying that the repubs are hypocrites is in no way a refutation of the claim made by the OP.

I'm not refuting his claim about the party. I just don't like his generalizations about democrats and the tone in which is mouthing off about them. It's got no purpose other than to be offensive when you call them 'liberal elite' drinking 'kool aid'.

I never said they needed to be poor did I?

You said:

The point is that the Dems tout themselves as the champions of the poor and oppressed while they themselves live like rayalty in comparison.

So they don't need to be poor, but they also can't be rich. So what must they be then? There's also the possiblity that they live well but also help the poor.

But a person looks like an absolute hypocrite when they decry the wealthy living in ostentatious comfort while the poor are starving and have no health care when that person can later be found having cigars over a five hundred dollar bottle of brandy in the most exclusive restaurant in town.

That I'll agree with you on.

I don't care for people who live like that to begin with but when they pay lip service to fighting for the poor and oppressed at the same time it makes me sick. Worse is when they pay that lip service in order to get elected so they can gain more power and wealth.
Considering that a person could live comfortably for the rest of their life with only a couple million dollars in the bank and that Obama is worth nearly 80 million and madeover four million last year alone I would like to see him giving more than 5.7% of that income to those people he is fighting so hard for. Does he even need that four million at all? Hell he can even get a tax right off for up to 50% of it.

Where did you get 80 million from? I thought he's worth a few million.

I'm not sure what you mean from this. Like putting in their pockets? I never even insinuated that they put it in their pockets but said that they can live rather well on that money on the campaign trail without ever reaching into their own pockets which are rather well lined to begin with. **** how many million was Hillary's campaign in debt again?

I mean, if they loose do they get to keep whatever money is left over from the campaign? Also, how many of these expensive event dinners do they hold?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

So they don't need to be poor, but they also can't be rich. So what must they be then? There's also the possiblity that they live well but also help the poor.

Where did you get 80 million from? I thought he's worth a few million.

Oops... I was skimming and improperly placed the commas.

I mean, if they loose do they get to keep whatever money is left over from the campaign? Also, how many of these expensive event dinners do they hold?

I don't believe they keep it for themselves (aren't supposed to anyway) but it usually goes to other campaigning whether for the same person or another. Once in office there are plenty of ways to get money to support an overly glamourous lifestyle. The republicans around here just recently went after a democrat politician for using slush funds to pay for expensive dinners, trips to europe, and expensive gifts. And it was all technically allowable because he was 'on business'.

I'm not sure about the number of event dinners that they have held for the campaigns. So far I can't find anything specifically on that but only campaign spending which is pretty outrageous in and of itself. Hillary's campaign apparently spent $1,200 on donut runs and $11,000 on pizza runs in just the month of january. She and her campaign people stayed in places like the Belagio($25,000) and Four Seasons($5,000) in the week before the Nevada Caucus.
And here's the article so you know I'm not mussing numbers again...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/22/us/politics/22clinton.html
It also states that she had to spend 5 million on her campaign due to over spending. I like they way they say she had to "lend" her campaign the money.