I oft accuse the democrats of hating various special interest groups that make up their constituency, but I am beginning to re-think my position on that... well for one group in particular that is.
Democrats love poor people. Democrats love poor people like tobacco companies love smokers, including yours truly (it’s good to be loved). Even the most black-hearted or black-lunged ~coughcough~ among us, including Big Tobacky would concede that cancer is bad, but there’s money to be made, and lots of it . Therefore it goes without saying that although Phillip and Morris might not want their customers to die of cancer, its just not in their fiscal best interest to do anything substantial about it.
So they throw up a few thirty second television ads, a warning label here a special committee there and the conscience is cleansed. These pipes are clean!!!!!
Same applies to the poverty problem, even us evil conservatives will admit that it sucks. Heck some of us hate it so much we swore we’d never be a poor again. Without question both parties benefit from the poor today, but it is the dems that benefit most from the poor of tomorrow. The colossal bureaucracy in place to deal with poverty is the lifeblood of the dem party, without which many libs themselves would be out of work.
For brevity purpose I'm not even going to go into the how two of the dem party’s largest donors, teachers and unions present the biggest obstacle in overcoming the vicious cycle... but they are.
Which brings me to the son of the mill owner… Johnny Edwards.
He really loves poor people. Loves loves loves. So much so that he is probably responsible for creating more of them than anyone else running for President (besides Duncan Hunter who sent a heckuva lot of VC back to the stone age in Vietnam, but we are talking Americans baby, YEAH!) as a direct result of his ambulance chasing frivolous lawsuits that culminated in massive layoffs by his shakedown victims. John Edwards loves them so much that he offers them a discount on his speaking fees and only charges fifty thousand dollars to talk about poverty. Loves them so much that he’s naming a wing after them in his new mansion that by no small means was paid for by his active and well compensated participation at that Fortress Investment Group which profited from foreclosing on Katrina victims the very same day he was giving a speech in N’Awlins about how George Bush hates black people.
In closing I will use John Edwards own words to demonstrate how out of touch liberals are with the poor.
“Well, you go into a restaurant with your family and you sit down, and everybody—especially when you‘re young—that is the only time I was poor, Chris. And you sit down, and then you start to order something, and your father says, we have to leave, because we can‘t pay for this. And you get up and leave, and it is humiliating. It feels humiliating when you are young. And it is particularly humiliating to see your mother and father have to go through that. So we do not want anybody to be treated without dignity and respect in this country, which is what is part of what motivates me to this cause.”
That's not being poor, that's being stupid.
4 comments:
The problem with this post, as i see it, is that it makes logical sense. Therefore all of our liberal readers are confused by it and they won't comment.
Ann Coulter is a she-devil.
from what i gather, john edwards may be a hypocrite. or, more likely, IS a hypocrite. with that moonbeam smile that utterly reeks of insincerity.
ok ... you satisfied now?
but on another topic, i've walked out of restaurants many times because they are bizarrely expensive. i'm neither rich nor poor. but it doesn't bother me if someone knows that neither i nor my most of friends or my relatives will spend $25, or more, for an appetizer.
They're all hypocrites.
Post a Comment