Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

PROTESTS: Rich deserve to be resented

Letter by Bernice Larsen, Puyallup on Nov. 14, 2011 at 4:45 pm with 118 Comments »
November 15, 2011 10:12 am

Re: “Resentment of rich is un-American” (letter, 11-14).

Resentment of the rich is un-American? They damn well deserve the resentment as they are not handling the monetary system for the good of all concerned, not even their country.

What ivory tower has that letter writer been living in? Certainly not the reality of many in this country who do not have equal opportunity.

Envy? How about the desire to have adequate food, shelter, and care? Or is that a luxury only the winners can afford? Many of the rich in this country are abject failures as human beings. Even many animals take care of their own.

A Christian nation? I’m not buying it. Capitalism seems to be the root of the problem. If the monied corporations hadn’t killed the electric car, we would not be having our poor and low-income soldiers being slaughtered for oil.

If the rich don’t like being resented and hated, maybe it is time for them to pay attention and start questioning their morality.

Tags:
Leave a comment Comments → 118
  1. “The Rich” are not, by definition, evil. In order to reduce further polarization and demonizing, perhaps we should focus on particulars.

  2. aislander says:

    sozo: One of the more reasonable lefty members used to end his posts with the sentiment, “We’re all in this together.” Fomenting hatred of fellow citizens hardly comports with that idea.

    Apropos of nothing at all, it’s difficult to “ignore” blatant non sequiturs, isn’t it…

  3. LarryFine says:

    The good thing about this letter and others like it is I never have to listen to leftwing talk radio to find out what the current talking points are… and for that, Bernice, I thank you.

  4. The rich don’t deserve to be resented – those who have crashed the economy through reckless speculation deserve to go to jail.

    And….”rich” is waaaay too big a category. Target it. Those who have gotten wealthy through manipulation of the system in a way that has had huge negative impact are very different from those who have become wealthy through innovative approaches that benefit consumers.

  5. aislander says:

    beerBoy: It’s another mibabile dictu! I agree with your last post regarding prosecuting actual crimes, rather than creating a new crime–being rich.

    This all reminds me of the French, rather than the American, revolution…

  6. aislander says:

    That was quick! The “non sequitur post I referred to has been “disappeared” (a little Chilean communist lingo)…

  7. aislander says:

    Upon reflection, I’m guessing the…er…member flagged his own post…

  8. old_benjamin says:

    As we are so often told, we are not a Christian nation. Why, therefore, would anyone be expected to abide by a putative Christian ethic? If someone advocates Christan morals, it’s unconstitutional. If someone doesn’t act like a Christian, he’s violated a national imperative. That cake just won’t go away not matter how much of it is eaten.

  9. LarryFine says:

    It was probably off topic aislander… ;)

  10. concernedtacoma7 says:

    “Capitalism seems to be the root of the problem”

    Capitalism brought a car to every driveway, a roof over even the poorest head, the computer you typed your jealous letter on, etc…

    Where are kids starving in America due to lack of funds? It is bad, selfish parents, not the system.

    “If the monied corporations hadn’t killed the electric car” They are still not practical for most Americans, on top of being too expensive for the masses.

    We have the largest energy reserves on Earth right here in America.

    You want to limit individual freedoims and responsibility. Our mega-rich are the most charitable in history, so the evil rich are giving back. 47% of Americans pay nothing toward our national defense and the wars you hate.

    Your letter is un-American, except for your right to have it published without interference from the government.

  11. I’m tired of hearing about all of the “low income” and “disadvantaged” Americans and how it is so unfair that they don’t have all of the nice things that wealthier people have. Unless they grew up in a third world country, they’ve had every opportunity to succeed that all Americans have. If they chose to sleep through class and lay around and watch Oprah instead of making a decent life for themselves. Shut up with the class envy, o.k?

  12. aislander says:

    Frosty: HOW can you blame the victims? (In order not to be poor in America, it is necessary to do only a few things: graduate from high school; be married; refrain from having children before the age of 22; avoid substance abuse)…

    LarryFine: It was doubly off topic. The comment didn’t relate to the thread, and then, the comment ON the comment (which, I assume was to drive home the point) didn’t relate to anything

  13. BlaineCGarver says:

    The OP is just another envy-poisoned whiner that wants what someone else worked for handed over to them without haveing to do any work themself. HEY! Go beg for money on a corner and buy lottery tickets!!

  14. Bernice – you’re spot on about the basic desires – but (in spite of the squawking chickens on the right) – what the vast majority of Americans want is a JOB that allows them to earn their own food, shelter, and care.

    Concerned –
    Unions brought a car to every driveway.

    How practical would a Model A be today?

    While today’s E-cars may not be affordable or practical for most Americans, who can say the second or third generations would not be acceptable.

    Our mega-rich are so charitable they are giving our jobs away – and getting a large untaxed return in the process.

    47% pay no income tax because their AGI is too low – they still pay other federal, state, and local taxes.

    Frosty and AI – typical – blame the unemployed for being unemployed and defend the outflow of US jobs to other countries.

  15. aislander says:

    xring: You DO know that the AGI threshold is merely an arbitrary number set by Congress and holds no metaphysical certitude or immutability? Don’t you?

    As for the remainder of your assertions: supporting data?

    How can you, as a liberal, presume to speak for “the majority of Americans” from the vantage point of your paltry 22% minority?

  16. SadujTogracse says:

    Jealous much??? Instead of whining like a 4 year old about what others have and you don’t, why don’t you go DO something about it? Oh and standing on a street waving a sign ain’t gonna make it happen for you. Just a friendly tip!

  17. The good thing about this letter and others like it is I never have to listen to leftwing talk radio to find out what the current talking points are… and for that, Bernice, I thank you.

    Thank you for reminding me….I need to point out to my students that, if they don’t cite their sources it is plagiarism.

  18. concernedtacoma7 says:

    What have unions invented?

    “While today’s E-cars may not be affordable or practical for most Americans, who can say the second or third generations would not be acceptable.”

    What is acceptable? How about cost effective without huge subsidies?

    And I think I read that line in a 1980 Popular Science.

  19. NickDixon says:

    Since we are all over the board on this thread, I note that sozo mentions “demonization”.

    Brings back fond memories of yesterday when Cain had to determine Obama’s stand on Libya before he knew where he stood.

    The demonization of Obama continues and the conservative base can’t see the forest for the trees. I’m certain they think that Cain was just being thoughful.

    blog hits increase significant

  20. SadujTogracse says:

    Can’t see the forest through the trees? Yeah those 42% approval ratings are some mighty tall oaks!

  21. NickDixon says:

    gotta watch out of those comments that no one reported

  22. NickDixon says:

    I’ll take the match ups.

  23. concernedtacoma7 says:

    “The demonization of Obama continues and the conservative base can’t see the forest for the trees.”

    The same BHO that in one week called us lazy, insulted China and Japan, just one week after insulting Israel.

    Oh, do we have to pay 15c per tree to see through that forest?

  24. SadujTogracse says:

    Me too!

  25. Aislander,
    I am well aware who sets the AGI levels.

    The rest of my assertions are just my opinions based on my reading of history and the news.

    A partly 22% majority – that must be based on some poll that says 88% of the country think we are heading in the wrong direction. Funny how those polls never identify which direction is the wrong one.

    Concerned –
    What have unions invented? The question was who is responsible for putting a car in every garage.

    Unions made the middle class, Detroit made the cars, and Banks made the loans that allowed the middle class to buy cars and many other consumer goods.

    Cost effective and no subsidies would be two criteria for be acceptable. Range, depedability, comfort, and safety would be some others.

    No need to wait – we can begin cutting federal subsidies to supposedly profitable businesses now.

    SadujT –
    Obama’s approval rate is currently 45.4%
    Congress’s approval rate is currently 11.3%

    Real Clear Politics has Obama beating any of the current GOP wanabees by up to 14 points.

    PS: there are many lefties who disapprove of Obama’s because they fell he is too center-right (i.e. not progressive/liberal enough)

  26. NickDixon says:

    We are now concerning ourselves with insulting China? I thought they were the communist bad guys?

    Amazing how the goal posts change.

    “Called us lazy”. Hmmm, sounds like these forums on a daily basis.

    Insulting Israel? What? Did Obama cut off their money and arms?

  27. aislander says:

    xring writes: “I am well aware who sets the AGI levels.”

    Then why treat it as sacred writ? If were set substantially higher the awful one percent wouldn’t have to pay income tax–which would be a real loss since they currently pay over 36% of that tax…

    Why did you change the subject? Twenty-two percent of Americans identify themselves as “liberal,” while twice the number says they are conservative.

    So…the unions made payroll, they? I thought all the checks went from the workers to the th…er…bosses.

    Historically, if the incumbent is under 50% (in this case, well under, he’s a loser. We elected the loser once. That’s enough.

    As for lefty disapproval of Obama, start a third party as you have before. Please…

  28. LarryFine says:

    Try to stay on topic not_nos… Kard_not was banned for it… (but u new dat)

  29. took14theteam says:

    Hey xring, congress had about the same approval rating when George W. Bush was President, so what is your point? Other than trying to defend the “face” of the OWS protestors (which is now BHO, to help you out). And I am pretty sure that 84% of America is sick and tired of spending the money from the 99% to clean up their “occupation”.

    Aloha

  30. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Larry, I’ll take the hit for changing topics. I took xring’s usual union bait then fell for the easy pickings of dickster. I am still waiting for the rest of his business lessons to get me through the night.

  31. NickDixon says:

    If “off topic” was an offense of which a person was banned, Orly Taitz wouldn’t exist.

    Case in point – “The good thing about this letter and others like it is I never have to listen to leftwing talk radio to find out what the current talking points are… and for that, Bernice, I thank you.”

    Of course I guess you could use this comment, change the name and post it for every letter with which you disagree, thus “on topic”.

    Thanks for your attempt at honesty concernedtacoma7, but Orly was the first one to drift away.

    Orly has a little resentment brewing because of a failed effort.

  32. NickDixon says:

    “Twenty-two percent of Americans identify themselves as “liberal,” while twice the number says they are conservative.”

    And yet the Maoist, Socialist, Communist, Whateverist (born in Kenya, right Orly?) won in 2008, handily.

    It would appear that a truckload of “independents” vote Democrat.

  33. SadujTogracse says:

    xring, it depends on what polling organization you are looking at. I quoted Gallup which is the standard for Presidential approval ratings.

  34. SadujTogracse says:

    We all go off topic once in awhile. I think most letters allow for some leeway in straying to different topics of conversation. Much like the Triggerfish who will search the bottom of the sea floor for crustaceans.

  35. Aislander – We just have to wait till 1 Jan 2012 when the income tax brackets to back to the Clinton rates;

    Less than $26,250 at 15%
    $26,250 – $63,550 at 28%
    $63,500 – 132,600 at 31%
    $132,600 – $288,350 at 36%
    $288,350 and above at 39.6%

    And as one of the Republicans on the Super Committee pointed out today since the Clinton Rates are the true rates, voting for any tax rate above the Bush rates but below the Clinton Rates in not voting to raise taxes under the Norquist Pledge.

    Actually there is talk about a forming Liberal Party – After the 2012 elections.

    You should fear the actual Tea Party ruining the GOP chances.

    Took1 – we are now at stage 3 – They fight us.

    SadujT – I quoted Real Clear Politics which is an average of 8 major polls, including Gallup which as of 11/14 puts Obama approval rating at 44%.

  36. SadujTogracse says:

    xring, yes Gallup has it at 44% today, I was going of yesterday’s data. I wonder why he rose 2% in a day?

  37. He is in Hawaii, the palm tree and ocean in the background are always good for a few points…

  38. xring – you might want to check that date… wrong… again.

    There is no such thing as a “true tax rate” it’s political talk that can almost always be ignored…

    Liberal party… I hear that too with the Democrats disolving as a party…

    Tea Party endorsed candidates did pretty dang good for the GOP in 2010… 2012 is looking… well, we will see.

  39. The same BHO that in one week called us lazy, insulted China and Japan, just one week after insulting Israel.

    Now I’m confused…..weren’t you guys all up in arms because Obama had bowed to foreign leaders? And….I’m used to the expectation that the US president must lick Bibi’s shoes but now you want him to kowtow to China?

  40. NickDixon says:

    I wonder why people don’t realize there are several polls and several outcomes. This is why you can add up to plus or minus 6 to certain polls based on methodology.

  41. NickDixon says:

    “Gallup which is the standard for Presidential approval ratings.”

    Don’t tell Rasmussen. Their feelings will be hurt.

  42. whitecap says:

    When I consider opinions like Ms. Larsen’s I usually have the same question and I hope someone can answer it for me: how much money does someone have to have in order to be “the rich”?

  43. SadujTogracse says:

    Who would spend their time posting in here if they are IN HAWAII?????

  44. LarryFine says:

    Which presidential polls were most accurate in 2008?
    According to an analysis by Fordham University political scientist Costas Panagopoulos, Rasmussen and Pew tied at #1…

    Gallup ??? #20.

    Don’t tell Gallup, Kardnos, their feelings might get hurt.

  45. NickDixon says:

    Exactly, Saduj.

    But remember, I’m Kardnos because Orly Taitz says so.

  46. NickDixon says:

    How do you rate “most accurate” on a poll? You were either right (said Obama would win) or wrong (said Palin would win) 50/50 chance.

    I must be the most accurate commentator on the TNT thread. I picked Obama.

    I hope Fordham will start spending their money on serious things like a cure for cancer. Keeps Costas employed, though, huh?

    It’s that what they say about Climate Change scientists?

  47. aislander says:

    xring—bless your heart! You do realize that going back to the old rates would constitute a huge tax increase on the lowest earners and middle classes? Don’t you?

  48. NickDixon says:

    beerBoy – different day, different goal posts.

  49. NickDixon says:

    Whitecap – if you have to ask, you ain’t there.

  50. whitecap says:

    NickDixon…that may or may not be true, but my question remains unanswered.

  51. NickDixon says:

    whitecap – one word. Research.

  52. “what the vast majority of Americans want is a JOB that allows them to earn their own food, shelter, and care.”

    You’re sure about this are you…because I have a really bad feeling that what a whole bunch of Americans want is what Europeans have bragged about having for a long time now…a government nanny who will take care of their every need + a guaranteed 3-week holiday every year.

    And when the nanny starts to snatch away the goodies because there’s no money left to pay for them, the children get very angry and riot in the streets.

    For the astute among us, the “occupation” is a foreshadowing of things to come if we continue to rally behind the Hope and Change gurus.

  53. whitecap says:

    NickDixon…I have researched “the rich” and just who is “rich” is all over the map. Surveys give different answers based on the earnings of those surveyed; the IRS has its top tax bracket; Obama proposed increased taxes on yet another group. Also, is “the rich” determined by annual earnings or net worth? Two entirely different things. So…since it’s Ms. Larsen who is tossing her slings and arrows at “the rich” I guess maybe it’s her responsibiltiy to tell us just who that is.

  54. NickDixon says:

    “a government nanny”.

    I read this comment frequently and have to laugh because the government IS the taxpayers by majority, for the most part.

    If the majority of Americans voted in representation to create universal healthcare, for instance, they have created their own benefit, thus “no nanny”. Same goes for Social Security, Medicare and on.

    I’ve resolved that “government nanny” is just another DEMONIZATION. (see first comment on thread)

  55. NickDixon says:

    whitecap – I knew you could do it. Now, more directly research the “top 1%” and you’ll learn more on the subject and be able to look beyond paradigms

  56. whitecap says:

    NickDixon (and with this, I’m done)…make it simple for me because I’m a simple person…just who does Ms. Larsen want me to resent and hate?

  57. aislander says:

    whitecap: “Rich” is a matter of opinion, and as we have seen from Obama, is variable. Here’s two-part MY definition:

    Being rich is having enough assets to live off of them.

    Being rich is having an inbuilt resistance to being pushed around by schmucks.

    If you are depending on earned income, you ain’t rich…

  58. aislander says:

    Oops–insert went into the wrong space…

  59. I have to agree with part of aislander’s definition. Being rich means you don’t have to work for a living.

    It also means you would have to work really, really hard at putting a crimp in your budget by buying things.

  60. aislander says:

    And, whitecap, we shouldn’t hate any of them. I read an essay a long time ago proving that Carl Icahn (hated rich guy) did more to ease suffering in the world than did Mother Teresa, merely by virtue of his business activities…

  61. aislander says:

    Those sound like awfully good reasons to become rich (the carrot part of capitalism), beerBoy, and, in fact, describe an awful lot retired folks.

    And that’s all we conservatives want: for people to be able to become rich (and a civil society, of course)…

  62. aislander says:

    Capitalism, beerBoy, is a carrot-and-stick process, and I quite agree with the Occupy people that business should not be subsidized–and certainly not be rescued–by government.

    The problem with the LRV folks (and most clean lefties) is that they wish to eliminate most or all of the carrot…

  63. LarryFine says:

    “Rich” is a sliding scale… and if you have something someone else believe they are entitled to… you might be rich.

  64. aislander says:

    I wrote: “Being rich is having enough assets to live off of them.”

    I thought that the words, “If you choose to” would be understood, since there are plenty of people who have enough assets but choose to continue to work to provide products for consumers, dividends for stock holders, jobs for employees, and personal satisfaction (as well as more money) for themselves. But apparently that was not understood by beerBoy…

  65. aislander – not sure how you think “don’t have to work” is any different in meaning than “having enough assets to live off of them” or why you think I in anyway stated that being rich precluded the option of working if one so chose.

    “Rich” is a sliding scale absolutely – if you don’t need lots of possessions or luxuries you can be rich fairly cheaply.

  66. concernedtacoma7 says:

    It is not easy to find a good (non dictonary) definition of ‘rich’. I recall an article (Fortune maybe) that defined it by region, as home prices and cost of living vary greatly. The article was related to income, not net worth. The average was about $300k, and they defined as vacation time, size of home, cars, and ability to save and pay for college for offspring. But in LA/NY vs a place like Tacoma the difference was substantial.

    Another take http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2008/01/09/a-rich-persons-definition-of-rich/

    http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/tax-the-rich-depends-on-how-you-define-rich/

  67. NickDixon says:

    “Being rich is having enough assets to live off of them”

    So if your assets provide $2000 per month and your liabilites are only $1,500 a month, you are rich?

  68. NickDixon says:

    whitecap – I took you at your word. You’re done with this. I’m done with you.

  69. aislander says:

    beerBoy: Perhaps I read too much into your post. Sorry.

    I didn’t add that one should be able to live off his assets without invading capital, a difficult thing to accomplish at today’s paltry returns. One would have to have an interest-bearing account with over $2,000,000 in it just to eke out around $20,000 per year. And, of course, government is invading your capital with inflation, and God knows what flagitious tax schemes are coming down the governmental poop-chute.

  70. fanciladi says:

    Bernice, do ‘you’ even know what ‘you’ are talking about? Very confusing, and nonsensical letter…

    Why do people seem to think they know what a ‘Christian Nation’ should do…and they spout it out like they are the judge and jury.

    Oh, well, Bernice, I don’t know you, but I’ll just consider the source, not knowing what it is!

  71. LarryFine says:

    So… the folks that “don’t have to work”, because they are on the tax payer funded gravey train, are rich ?

  72. aislander says:

    Great point, LF!

    Good to see you again, fance! Where’ve you been?

  73. So… the folks that “don’t have to work”, because they are on the tax payer funded gravey train, are rich ?

    Only if they don’t want for anything due to lack of funds.

  74. That gravy is awful thin.

  75. ND your comment about the Nanny reflects a problem a lot of people are having these days. Yes, we ARE the people, and theoretically, the government, but how taxes are used has always been determined by the people in power…which is why revolutionaries often aim their guns at “taxation” issues.

    What’s important to me in all this is the fact that relying on government to provide always leads to entitlement and dependence mentalities which lead to riots in the streets when the money runs out.

    Who are the folks in the street mad at? Themselves? (since they ARE the taxpayers) … nope. They’re angry because Nanny or Daddy and Mummy aren’t giving them anything all of a sudden.

  76. They’re angry because Nanny or Daddy and Mummy aren’t giving them anything all of a sudden.

    Could you cite something that supports your derisive conclusion?

    And, while you are at it, could you demonstrate how the following is “fact”, not opinion and it “always” leads to an inevitable outcome?
    the fact that relying on government to provide always leads to entitlement and dependence mentalities which lead to riots in the streets when the money runs out.

    Condescending dismissal of those you don’t agree with rarely leads to a meeting of the minds.

  77. LarryFine says:

    “Condescending dismissal of those you don’t agree with rarely leads to a meeting of the minds.

    So why do you do it so often kettleBoy ?

  78. falkoja6 says:

    “Many of the rich in this country are abject failures as human beings”

    What a vicious diatribe Bernice. However, I am assuming that you must be specifically referring to the members of our elected US House and Senate. In another part of the Tribune an article defined millionaires as comprising about 1% of the population. Our Congress on the other hand is composed of 47% millionaires. Our own Maria Cantwell is the “Queen” of the rich with a net worth of over 10 million. My question to you is… Given your obvious hate of the rich… are you going to vote her back into office and forever be the supreme hypocrite?? Or are you going to vote for her opponent????

  79. aislander says:

    sozo: I find it hilarious that those same lefties who defend o’erweening (that was for beerBoy and xring) government by assuring us that WE are that government, excoriate that same government as being a creature of evil corporations…

  80. sozo – I guess, aside from rah-rahs from the pompon squad (they look so cute in their little skirts and knee socks!), you aren’t going to get any help with finding citations to demonstrate that your statement was based in anything but ideological bias.

  81. aislander says:

    Yep, beerBoy, those Europeans are rioting because they’re set to get MORE of other people’s money. Should their welfare payments be reduced, I’m certain that they would take great pleasure in how their “sacrifice” contributes to the common good…

  82. LarryFine says:

    … followed by a condescending dismissal of Sozo… par for the course.

  83. This may surprise some of the leftists that routinely soil these pages but I just want them to know that I support the OWS mobs that are demonstrating in the streets. I support them because I want them to continue to do what they are doing all the way until election day of 2012. I’m enjoying the sights showing the crowds fighting the police, threatening to burn down New York, and generally causing mayhem. Nothing will contribute more to the overthrow of the current administration faster than what’s going on in the streets with the blessing of the demokrats in Congress and the White House.

  84. If sozo, the stooge or the island guy can cite something that supports sozo’s statement of “fact” then she has met my challenge – not sure how that is a condescending dismissal Jimm.

  85. aislander says:

    The venerated ’60s “demonstrations” did more for the conservative movement than William F. Buckley.

    The reaction to the mayhem elected Nixon twice (although he was no limited-government guy), and had it not been for Watergate, there probably would have been a political generation free of Democrat rule. It TAKES a generation to get the taste out of the electorate’s collective mouth.

    There was a potent reaction against the first Roosevelt, and the second Roosevelt didn’t follow the execrable Wilson for…a generation! Add that Kennedy ran to Nixon’s right and the point should be obvious…

  86. aislander says:

    I expect that beerBoy would be equally hard-pressed to produce an explanation for the behavior of the LRV. sozo’s is as good as anything I’ve heard.

    Regarding OWS: You can’t form a rationale for the irrational…

  87. LarryFine says:

    “aside from rah-rahs from the pompon squad (they look so cute in their little skirts and knee socks!” Because it came from beerBoy it can’t be condescending… naaaa.

  88. fanciladi says:

    Hello, aislander…I’ve been busy with ‘stuff’…sometimes real life takes us away from things…I peek in occasionally…to give my 2¢…thanks for the greeting!

  89. I am always amazed about how many Americans hate the people that are called rich.The people that had Ideas that called for hard work and inititive are vilified for their success.Becoming rich requires more effort than sitting on ones sofa and letting someone else do everything that they should be doing.If Americans were to trade places with the citizens of places like,say parts of India or Africa,then the Americans would realize just how rich they really are.But there are those that prefer to condemn the rich,instead of doing something to better themselves.If it wasn’for the rich folks,where would the jobs come from?How many workers are hired by poor people?So stop complaining and be grateful there are people with enough money to pay for your labor.If you have enough ambition to want to provide for yourself instead of waiting for a handout,I commend you.

  90. NickDixon says:

    “Who are the folks in the street mad at? Themselves? (since they ARE the taxpayers) … nope. They’re angry because Nanny or Daddy and Mummy aren’t giving them anything all of a sudden.”

    So which was “giving her something” – the 80plus year old woman tear gassed in Seattle? Mummy? Daddy? Nanny?

    Again, the demonization game, of which you spoke against, comes around and bites right in the keester.

    There is a far larger cross section of society in support of the OWS than the Conservative talking points try to picture. It’s just demonization at its best, or should I say worst?

  91. NickDixon says:

    In the accounting world, a $2,000 income from a pension, would be an asset. Thus a person could have a $2,000 asset and a $1,500 liability, netting $500 each month.

    Are they rich?

    Paradigms cloud the vision.

  92. aislander says:

    God, I’d hate to be sitting next to you on a plane…

  93. NickDixon says:

    it’s tough to be held accountable for what you say.

  94. aislander says:

    Your comment makes no sense in any context. It is just blather like almost all of your posts. Do us all a favor and stop embarrassing yourself.

  95. stumpy567 says:

    I’m not rich but I sure wish I was just to piss all you wingnuts off.

  96. LarryFine says:

    If you were unfortunate enough to be sitting next to him… an interesting opportunity may present itself.

    Ever seen a flying snail ??? an airborne Toyotaman ??? Sumnone without a parachute ???

  97. Many Americans believe in a simple 3 class social system;
    Wealthy / Upper Class;
    Middle Class= business people, professional, skilled workers, and crafts persons.
    Poor

    These three Classes are usually divided into:
    Upper Class = the rich and powerful (top 5%)

    Upper Middle Class: (top third less the Upper Class) = white collar, salaried professional class, whose work is primarily self-directed.

    Lower Middle Class (middle third) = White collar technical, managers, craftspeople, etc who work for those in the upper middle class.

    Working Class = Clerical and blue collar workers whose work is highly routinized.

    Lower Class consisting of the:
    Working Poor and
    Unemployed Underclass.

  98. First they ignored us,
    Then they ridiculed us,
    Then they fought us,
    Then we won.

  99. aislander says:

    Top out of sight

    Upper class

    Upper middle class

    Middle

    Lower middle/upper prole

    Prole

    Lower prole

    Bottom out of sight

    And it all has less to do with money than you think…

  100. “Then we won.”

    xring – do you have any clue what you are attempting to “win”?

    Can you please attempt to string a few sentences together and articulate what winning looks like to you.

    Just me and you here buddy, just let er’ rip… what do you want to “win”?

  101. Larry – that cheerleader comment was a condescending comment about you and aislander, not sozo. I can’t understand why someone who only posts under one screen name would get confused about that.

    And – way to go – screwing up another thread by not closing the italics.

  102. “The venerated ’60s “demonstrations” did more for the conservative movement than William F. Buckley.”

    aislander is correct. The modern “conservative” movement only can thrive in opposition. First they had the Communists, then the Hippies, then it was Artists, and Gays…..now it is #ows. Before that it was Blacks and Unions…..oh the good old days, when “conservatives” joined the Black Legion to teach Union leaders, Catholics and Blacks a lesson…..

  103. How old are you bBoy? Certainly old enough to know that there are observable patterns in society. If you are too rigid to acknowledge the obvious about dependence and entitlement mentalities developing in states where the people have grown dependent on government, there’s not much I can do about it. Some things can’t be googled.

    As for the grandma who got entangled in the Seattle mess, I don’t know about your grandma, but mine would have been smart enough to stay far from the madding crowd. Given Seattle’s record, I’d do a 180 to avoid encountering “it.” That said, she has every right to show up and protest, but she and all the others should be aware that the line is being crossed nationwide between peaceful protest and mob mayem.

    Call it demonization if you like, ND, but if it looks like a duck…?

  104. LarryFine says:

    “Thank you for reminding me….I need to point out to my students that, if they don’t cite their sources it is plagiarism.”

    How is that plagerism bB?
    ….

    I understand your hypocrisy was aimed at aislander and myself… I was refering to your other hypocritical “Condescending dismissal” > “sozo – I guess, aside from rah-rahs from the pompon squad (they look so cute in their little skirts and knee socks!)”

    But you knew that …

  105. “I understand your hypocrisy was aimed at aislander and myself…”

    Not according to your post of Nov. 17, 2011 at 2:11 pm:
    “a condescending dismissal of Sozo”

    Thank you for demonstrating that you have earned my condescension.

    Regarding plagiarism – I don’t keep archives of my posts so I don’t have it at my fingertips but you first started posting the bit about knowing what is on Left wing talk radio after you took a post of mine and swapped out “Left” for “Right”.

    But then, there is little about your posts that are ever original….

  106. LarryFine says:

    … so it’s not plagerism.

    You’re hopless b. You used condescention toward ai. and me while dismissing sozo… therefore, it was a condescending dismissal.

    Thanks for demonstrating that there are occasions when posters are willfully obtuse rather than just ignorantly obtuse.

  107. “… so it’s not plagerism.”

    Only if you can make a case for “Fair Use” based upon parody. There are two of four factors that would rule against you: since my posts and persona aren’t famous beyond this little circle and all you did was to change one word of the original statement your inversion of my original statement wouldn’t qualify.

    But, since this is for your own entertainment and the original statement wasn’t copyrighted (though an argument could be made that it was published) – you might be able to convince a copyright judge…..not so sure you could convince a tenure committee.

    http://www.lib.purdue.edu/uco/CopyrightBasics/fair_use.html

  108. took14theteam says:

    God, I’d hate to be sitting next to you on a plane…

    True that Aislander. It would probably be like chewing off your arm in the morning to get away after waking up next to someone you picked up at the bar the night before. :-)

    Hopefully I changed the thread to Bold Italics. ;-)

  109. LarryFine says:

    For someone who regularly implies how smart he is… you fail miserably. Is not the burden of proof on you ? I don’t have to prove anything teach.
    ;)

  110. LarryFine says:

    Who’s the author ?

    beerBoy says:
    June 3, 2010 at 6:14 am
    Great people talk about ideas
    Average people talk about things
    Small people talk about other people.

  111. A: Eleanor Roosevelt

  112. btw…..I hoped you would pick up the hint when I correctly spelled it “plagiarism” but, apparently I needed to be more direct in my pedagogy.

  113. LarryFine says:

    The overuse of Big College Words is common amongst those who are trying to baffle with b.s.

    ;)

  114. LarryFine says:

    Oops… I forgot the quotaion marks and to credit the author.

    “beerBoy”

  115. aislander says:

    peda–what?

  116. Dixon, you need to get a life.

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0