View Full Version : Who's the Elitist?
TheSexKitten
09-08-2008, 02:32 PM
hehe. you're beginning to sound like Tim Gunn, E_S. I didn't know you had such a passion for fashion! :P
Eric Stoner
09-08-2008, 02:33 PM
But they do care how John Edwards spends HIS money?
Yeah BUT, Edwards kind of left himself open to the hypocrisy charge with his "Two Americas" campaign; his energy squandering 20,000 square foot house; his work for the hedge fund that FORECLOSED on and otherwise exploited the poor etc.
Bad example, but I'll concede the point that BOTH parties make too much of ultimately trivial matters.
Eric Stoner
09-08-2008, 02:35 PM
Maybe the "super rich" republicans just don't donate.
Maybe the 'super rich" democrats are just more generous people.
Hillary looks fine in pants suits.....good grief.
They most certainly do and as far as "generosity" ; self confessed right wing
Christians donate a larger % of their income to charity than self described Libs.
Eric Stoner
09-08-2008, 02:37 PM
hehe. you're beginning to sound like Tim Gunn, E_S. I didn't know you had such a passion for fashion! :P
Weren't you blinded by that orange abomination Hillary wore ?
As far as fashion is concerned, I prefer well dressed women.
"Passion" ? I have an admitted dislike and distrust of Hillary that goes well beyond her politics.
sapphiregirl
09-08-2008, 02:38 PM
They most certainly do and as far as "generosity" ; self confessed right wing
Christians donate a larger % of their income to charity than self described Libs.
Really.....Not from what I have seen with my own life and I do a lot of non-profit work.
Heck, I have not seen my Mom in over a year because she is in Romania helping the children there with the Peace Corps.....not a lot of Republicans are helping her. I can tell you that. She cant stand the Republican Party anymore.... and she used to be Republican.
Eric Stoner
09-08-2008, 02:39 PM
Sorry, I haven't seen a list of the donors, can you provide a link?
One of my many shortcomings is that I'm clueless when it comes to linking. Every time I've tried, I somehow end up losing the whole thing. However if you do a google; you'll find the lists of donors and an analysis of who gave how much to whom.
Eric Stoner
09-08-2008, 02:41 PM
Really.....Not from what I have seen with my own life and I do a lot of non-profit work.
Heck, I have not seen my Mom in over a year because she is in Romania helping the children there with the Peace Corps.....not a lot of Republicans are helping her. I can tell you that. She cant stand the Republican Party anymore.... and she used to be Republican.
You confuse your anecdotal experience ( and that of your mother ) with actual scholarly RESEARCH on the issue. There are a number of peer reviewed studies and surveys that prove my point.
sapphiregirl
09-08-2008, 02:42 PM
You confuse your anecdotal experience ( and that of your mother ) with actual scholarly RESEARCH on the issue. There are a number of peer reviewed studies and surveys that prove my point.
Do all the people in this research have the same extra expense to part with in the first place?
cinammonkisses
09-08-2008, 02:47 PM
I'm not all hung up on the elitist tag either, but you can bet the people he was referring to might be. That's why such a big deal was being made of it. he was potentially alienating the very voters he needed.
Just as those small town voters may feel alienated by Cindy McCain and her $300k outfit and 7 homes?
Thank you!! Just like a game of chess! Set it up and check mate! ;D
Eric Stoner
09-08-2008, 02:49 PM
Do all the people in this research have the same extra expense to part with in the first place?
Huh ? "Extra expense to part with " ?? What does that have to do with anything ?
I'm referring to actua peer reviewed scholarly research that compared charitable giving rates between self-labeled "Conservatives" and "Libs". The Conservatives
donated a higher % of their incomes AND donated MORE of their time to charitable activity.
Zia_Abq
09-08-2008, 02:53 PM
this "research" is so far just one person's claim and has not be proven with reliable sources to be even true to begin with ;) oh and apparently no Christian or other people of any other religion who donates 10% is a registered Democrat either. nope every single one of them is a republican :sarcastic
sapphiregirl
09-08-2008, 02:54 PM
Huh ? "Extra expense to part with " ?? What does that have to do with anything ?
I'm referring to actua peer reviewed scholarly research that compared charitable giving rates between self-labeled "Conservatives" and "Libs". The Conservatives
donated a higher % of their incomes AND donated MORE of their time to charitable activity.
What charitable activites are they donating time to.....because I've never seen it. Seriously....send them my way.
doc-catfish
09-08-2008, 03:04 PM
Someone explain to me how a pair of earrings can cost more than a quarter of a million dollars?
Eric Stoner
09-08-2008, 03:07 PM
this "research" is so far just one person's claim and has not be proven with reliable sources to be even true to begin with ;) oh and apparently no Christian or other people of any other religion who donates 10% is a registered Democrat either. nope every single one of them is a republican :sarcastic
I NEVER said that. Of course there are "Liberal Christians". And many of them donate but when the percentages of income donated are compared, self described Conservatives tend to donate more. In time and money.
Eric Stoner
09-08-2008, 03:07 PM
What charitable activites are they donating time to.....because I've never seen it. Seriously....send them my way.
So if you've never seen or heard of it, it doesn't exist ?
sapphiregirl
09-08-2008, 03:08 PM
Someone explain to me how a pair of earrings can cost more than a quarter of a million dollars?
SERIOUSLY!!!! Even if I was super rich....I would not do that.
I also wonder how many of these so called generous Republicans are really giving to their Churches.
Eric Stoner
09-08-2008, 03:08 PM
Someone explain to me how a pair of earrings can cost more than a quarter of a million dollars?
Depends on how many diamonds they contain.
Zia_Abq
09-08-2008, 03:14 PM
Someone explain to me how a pair of earrings can cost more than a quarter of a million dollars?
Good question. I am guessing the diamond part that is covered in the blood of exploited and repressed Africans like the ones who republicans often ignore and deny are suffering under genocide.
sapphiregirl
09-08-2008, 03:20 PM
So if you've never seen or heard of it, it doesn't exist ?
Did I ever say it did not exist....seriously...send them my way.
sapphiregirl
09-08-2008, 03:21 PM
Good question. I am guessing the diamond part that is covered in the blood of exploited and repressed Africans like the ones who republicans often ignore and deny are suffering under genocide.
BINGO!
doc-catfish
09-08-2008, 03:23 PM
Depends on how many diamonds they contain.
Well, I don't understand the need for extravagant jewelry in general, but hell, even if those earrings cost one-tenth of what they do, we're likely still having this argument.
Conversely, I don't know what John Edwards gets out of his $400 haircuts, that an ordinary joe can't get for $25.
And the more I think about it, I can't think of too many members of Congress from either party who really needs their Congressional salary, or even the greater half of their non-salary income. Neither of these guys have a clue what their rank and file constituents go through.
Miss_Luscious
09-08-2008, 03:24 PM
The conservatives that donate to charitable organizations are not actually giving to the people. They are giving to their own churches (tithing and spending time building up their own church). They don't really give for the greater good of the common people.
Eric Stoner
09-08-2008, 03:27 PM
The conservatives that donate to charitable organizations are not actually giving to the people. They are giving to their own churches (tithing and spending time building up their own church). They don't really give for the greater good of the common people.
That's what I always thought too UNTIL I actually READ the research. They give to BOTH religious and SECULAR charities in greater percentages than so-called Libs.
The "Libs" donate to their churches too.
sapphiregirl
09-08-2008, 03:29 PM
The conservatives that donate to charitable organizations are not actually giving to the people. They are giving to their own churches (tithing and spending time building up their own church). They don't really give for the greater good of the common people.
That was my gut feeling....
Eric Stoner
09-08-2008, 03:29 PM
Good question. I am guessing the diamond part that is covered in the blood of exploited and repressed Africans like the ones who republicans often ignore and deny are suffering under genocide.
Actually most diamonds on the American market come from South Africa and Australia. The Chinese buy most of the "blood diamonds".
sapphiregirl
09-08-2008, 03:31 PM
That's what I always thought too UNTIL I actually READ the research. They give to BOTH religious and SECULAR charities in greater percentages than so-called Libs.
The "Libs" donate to their churches too.
How accurate is this research? I've given to charties plenty of times and there is no way anyone could know if I was a Republican or Democrat
Eric Stoner
09-08-2008, 03:36 PM
How accurate is this research? I've given to charties plenty of times and there is no way anyone could know if I was a Republican or Democrat
It's called "conducting surveys". Obviously, they forgot to call you. Maybe next time.
sapphiregirl
09-08-2008, 03:38 PM
It's called "conducting surveys". Obviously, they forgot to call you. Maybe next time.
LOL at surveys!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Eric Stoner
09-08-2008, 03:53 PM
LOL at surveys!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The definitive work in this area is by Arthur Brooks and his book : "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism, America's Charity Divide, Who Gives, who Doesn't and Why It Matters ".
Brooks relied on data collected by prestigious universities like Indiana University.
His conclusions were confirmed by that hotbed of Conservative journalism : ABC News.
To date, nobody has attacked either his research or his conclusions.
sapphiregirl
09-08-2008, 03:57 PM
The definitive work in this area is by Arthur Brooks and his book : "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism, America's Charity Divide, Who Gives, who Doesn't and Why It Matters ".
Brooks relied on data collected by prestigious universities like Indiana University.
His conclusions were confirmed by that hotbed of Conservative journalism : ABC News.
To date, nobody has attacked either his research or his conclusions.
We all know people tell the truth in surveys...not........Anyway...I don't see how that subject could really be proven either way.
I would rather read this book.
http://www.amazon.com/Giving-How-Each-Change-World/dp/0307266745/ref=pd_sim_b_2
Eric Stoner
09-08-2008, 04:08 PM
We all know people tell the truth in surveys...not........Anyway...I don't see how that subject could really be proven either way.
I would rather read this book.
http://www.amazon.com/Giving-How-Each-Change-World/dp/0307266745/ref=pd_sim_b_2
Brooks did not rely on "surveys". There is IRS and other data on charitable gifts.
Inter alia, he compared charitable activity in San Francisco and Sioux Falls.
Read the book or at least the reviews with synopses and THEN critique it.
As for YOUR link, Bill Clinton's favorite charity has proven to be : BILL CLINTON.
sapphiregirl
09-08-2008, 04:11 PM
Brooks did not rely on "surveys". There is IRS and other data on charitable gifts.
Inter alia, he compared charitable activity in San Francisco and Sioux Falls.
Read the book or at least the reviews with synopses and THEN critique it.
As for YOUR link, Bill Clinton's favorite charity has proven to be : BILL CLINTON.
OMG....I know what you are referring to now about charitable activity in SF vs Sioux Falls.....THAT IS SUCH BS!
The IRS? You know how many people dontate/give and never put it on their taxes? LOTS AND LOTS
Eric Stoner
09-08-2008, 04:14 PM
OMG....I know what you are referring to now about charitable activity in SF vs Sioux Falls.....THAT IS SUCH BS!
The IRS? You know how many people dontate/give and never put it on their taxes? LOTS AND LOTS
How do you KNOW that ? What is it based on besides your own gut ?
What is wrong with comparing charitable activity in San Fran. vs. Sioux Falls ?
sapphiregirl
09-08-2008, 04:17 PM
How do you KNOW that ? What is it based on besides your own gut ?
What is wrong with comparing charitable activity in San Fran. vs. Sioux Falls ?
I've seen the tv special on it. It was awhile back so I'm not positive though.
It was a JOKE
Zia_Abq
09-08-2008, 05:06 PM
How accurate is this research?
I think at this point it's safe to assume it's a bogus claim.
Zia_Abq
09-08-2008, 05:16 PM
I don’t remember if this was brought up yet because this topic is long and gone in lots of directions. However, I was wondering what those who praise Cindy McCain have to say about her stealing pain meds from kids who needed them? She seemed to think she deserved them more than those people did because of her status in life. Does that not qualify as elitist?
Sure she has done some good works and that is WONDERFUL but she is not the saint you all are trying to make her out to be, sorry. And that does not make her incapable of being an elitists either.
Plus lets not forget how John McCain abused his power and status to try and cover Cindy's mess all up.
So next time one of you wants to trash Obama for saying people in crisis cling to their Bible you better remember that is not near as bad as stealing meds form people who need them and then trying to abuse ones power to cover it up.
Hello_Kitty27
09-08-2008, 06:57 PM
I don’t remember if this was brought up yet because this topic is long and gone in lots of directions. However, I was wondering what those who praise Cindy McCain have to say about her stealing pain meds from kids who needed them? She seemed to think she deserved them more than those people did because of her status in life. Does that not qualify as elitist?
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1994-09-08/news/opiate-for-the-mrs/1
Sure she has done some good works and that is WONDERFUL but she is not the saint you all are trying to make her out to be, sorry. And that does not make her incapable of being an elitists either.
Plus lets not forget how John McCain abused his power and status to try and cover Cindy's mess all up.
So next time one of you wants to trash Obama for saying people in crisis cling to their Bible you better remember that is not near as bad as stealing meds form people who need them and then trying to abuse ones power to cover it up.
Wow, that article is VERY interesting. I'll give you that. I don't think it makes her "elitist", more like a prescription drug addict. Either way, a very interesting read. I admit, I only read the first page, as I just got home from school and have tons and tons to do, but I do plan to read the whole thing later.
kitana
09-09-2008, 07:53 AM
Ok, I'll bite why would it be more of a scandal? No offense to you either but that makes no sense at all. It's not like I expect her to wear what I could afford to pay for an outfit or anything. However it's pretty shitty and hypocritical for them to claim that Obama is the elitist when they are wearing outfits that cost more than the houses that the majority of American spend most of their adult lives paying off. It’s twice as bad when they can’t even keep track of how many houses they own.
Due to the fact is is a multi millionaire, it would be more of a scandal. Seriously, the gross majority of her outfit cost were the earrings. (280K), but how many times can she wear them again? Daily. What's the big deal about her having a nice pair of diamonds? Honestly, her outfit wasn't that expensive after the jewelry was taken out.
I just think if she wouldn't have dressed so 'designer', she would have crucified for being fake and trying to fit in with the lower classes.
Oh and if you ask my landlord how many homes he owns, he would have to get back to you with a true answer too.
bem401
09-09-2008, 08:01 AM
Obama is having a reception this month hosted by Steven Spielberg and David Geffen. The Hollywood elite will dine with Obama and be entertained by Barbra Streisand at the Beverly Wilshire Hotel.
I'm sure the dining room will be filled with many non-elitists as the affair is open to anyone. Anyone, that is, willing to pay the $28,500 cover to rub elbows with the enlightened Hollywood crowd. I doubt anyone there will be wearing very expensive clothes and jewelry though.
I also wonder if a portion of the proceeds will go hurricane relief or some other charity.
This could represent the final nail in Obama's presidential coffin though, as the last 3 candidates Babs sang for ( Gore, Kerry, and Hillary ) all lost.
kitana
09-09-2008, 08:03 AM
Just as those small town voters may feel alienated by Cindy McCain and her $300k outfit and 7 homes?
Personally, I don't think so.
I am MUCH more offended by Obama inferring that all small town peoples are basically ignorant and uneducated and cling to guns and religion instead of logic.
So what, she has money BIG DEAL.
It's much more offensive to basically be called ignorant, than poor.
kitana
09-09-2008, 08:10 AM
Someone explain to me how a pair of earrings can cost more than a quarter of a million dollars?
4 C's.
Cut, color, clarity, carat.
A perfect color D, round 60/60/60 cut, 3 carat, IF diamond is very very very rare. Now match 2 of them and try to find a perfect matching pair, very hard to do. Also set them in platinum, and have the diamonds cut by Harry Winston, and you have easy a 300K pair of pretty rocks.
Richard_Head
09-09-2008, 08:30 AM
I am MUCH more offended by Obama inferring that all small town peoples are basically ignorant and uneducated and cling to guns and religion instead of logic.Seems like you're reading much more into that Obama comment than was intended. Where did he mention ignorant and uneducated?
bem401
09-09-2008, 08:35 AM
Seems like you're reading much more into that Obama comment than was intended. Where did he mention ignorant and uneducated?
It was inferred not stated. Unless, of course, his comments were meant as a compliment.
Miss_Luscious
09-09-2008, 09:17 AM
He never said that people were uneducated or ignorant. What in that statement even leads you to believe that? I mean give me the exact part of his statement that could be infered as "uneducated and ignorant" .
If you eve heard or read the entire quite in context, you would see that he saying that these people don't have any other way to express their frustration with the government because they feel they have no control over lost jobs and such because a vote can't change the economy. So they vote based of things like religion, gun control, immigration, etc to feel like they do have some control over their country. In fact, the word bitter is meant as angry, fed up and cynical (which says a few times in the quote) Here is the whole quote:
"The places where we are going to have to do the most work are the places where people are most cynical about government ... everybody just ascribes it to 'white working-class don't wanna work -- don't wanna vote for the Black guy.' ... There were intimations of that in an article in the Sunday New York Times today -- kind of implies that it's sort of a race thing. "In a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long. They feel so betrayed by government that when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn't buy it. And when it's delivered by -- it's true that when it's delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama, then that adds another layer of skepticism," Obama said to laughter.
"So the questions you're most likely to get about me, 'Well, what is this guy going to do for me? ... we'll give you talking points about what we're proposing -- to close tax loopholes ... roll back the tax cuts for the top on perent. Obama's gonna give tax breaks to uh middle-class folks and we're gonna provide healthcare for every American.
"Our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
bem401
09-09-2008, 09:34 AM
And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
He's generalizing here and by inference saying all they have in their life ( the clinging part ) is guns, religion, and an intolerance of those different from them. That is hardly complementary. Its a form of stereotyping and he should have been more careful, especially given that he wasn't speaking to them but about them, to a group of big-money San Franciscans.
Eric Stoner
09-09-2008, 10:50 AM
I think at this point it's safe to assume it's a bogus claim.
Prove it. That's right . Come up with some actual EVIDENCE to refute Brooks and show that Liberal Dems donate more. Or actually bother to read the book and critique it.
Miss_Luscious
09-09-2008, 12:19 PM
Well this guy did a critique of book. (http://www.volokh.com/posts/1164012942.shtml) He makes some valid points but nothing that outright refutes the book's premise. I would like to see more studies from both sides though. Just one on each side isn't really damning evidence one way or another.
sapphiregirl
09-09-2008, 12:20 PM
Prove it. That's right . Come up with some actual EVIDENCE to refute Brooks and show that Liberal Dems donate more. Or actually bother to read the book and critique it.
There is no way to prove it either way! You could prove how many Democrats or Republicans donate AND put it on their taxes ect. I saw 20/20 do a special on this very subject and it was so dull.
Eric Stoner
09-09-2008, 12:30 PM
There is no way to prove it either way! You could prove how many Democrats or Republicans donate AND put it on their taxes ect. I saw 20/20 do a special on this very subject and it was so dull.
Dull though it may have been to YOU ; the report by John Stossel SUPPORTED the Brooks thesis.
Zia_Abq
09-09-2008, 12:32 PM
Prove it. That's right . Come up with some actual EVIDENCE to refute Brooks and show that Liberal Dems donate more. Or actually bother to read the book and critique it.
ahahahahaha!
I never said one party or the other donates more. YOU DID. I have nothing to prove. Not to you or anyone else. You might as well get used to this fact and drop that little self absorbed, self important attitude you've got going on here.
I am not the one claiming things to be gospel truth. You are! Why do I need to disprove a claim YOU made and WON'T prove? Pfft. Get real, lol! The reality that you won't prove it is proof enough ;)
Wait, why am I even responding to your stupid attention seeking bullshit anyway? Opps. Must try not to make that mistake in the future.