|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
Latte Liberals (a.k.a. Starbucks Democrats) - 9/14/2008 1:14:06 AM
|
|
|
aslouie
Posts: 648
Joined: 5/15/2005
From: Los Angeles, CA.
Status: offline
|
A couple of months ago, I was watching <ahem>  Hannity's America, and I was once again was reminded of the latest acknowledgment of a pivotal voting bloc, if not swing vote bloc: white collar urban(?) professionals who vote left-of-center, yet are of a high tax bracket, i.e. middle to possibly upper-class liberal.*
*Past labels/perjoratives includes Lexus Liberal, Lexus Leftist, SUV Liberals. One might say they're a step down from limousine liberal, Limousine Leftist, or Chardonnay Socialist, Champagne Socialist, Caviar Gauche (French for The Caviar Left!)!
The reason behind this demographic name is that presumably if one is relatively well-off enough to purchase those oft-unpronounceable caffeinated drinks, most likely one will be an office working, business savvy types, who graduated from any university-level school with an excellent business program--even despite with the recent downsizing of the Seattle-based coffee franchise.
Personally, I guess that's why in some *cough cough* GOP weblink/Ann Coulter op-ed, the very-often controversial pundit/satirist (take your pick) opined that the biggest contributors to the Democratic Party nowadays is not big labor, Hollywood, or some of the more usual suspects: it's Wall Street! Yep, the same capitalist class that's been traditionally associated/synonymous with right-leaning/right-wing ideological groups,is now in the tank for Obama's party, if not Obama himself.
Someone like yours truly may be very tempted to concur with the conservative (rhetorical) bomb thrower like Coulter, when she states that the explanation behind the rise of white collar liberalism is that when this future voting bloc was in college, they not only were the types who could afford to go to college (a.k.a. the hotbed of traditional left-wing politics), but likewise the types who could afford to napped through those popularly-perceived, boring Marxist/atheist lectures found in university lecture halls everywhere. Yet somehow, part of me thinks that there are still plenty out there in college halls then as now, who somehow allowed those lectures seep into them, while they're busy pursuing some prestigious major in economics or anything business-related (if not scientific/tech-related, a la Silicon Valley), maybe without much post-collegiate retrospect on what or why they learn what they learned in their humanities/social science classes, in conjuncture to the real world ('cause when one is in their 20's, there's still plenty yet to figure out where/when one wants to lead in life, politics not excluding).
Sometimes I'll even opined that some of these potential latte liberal voters were also the same group of demographic paradigm, when many are actively pursuing what I refer to as the Maxim Magazine lifestyle, post-Playboy philosophy, even before there was a Maxim Magazine--unless it's Esquire or GQ(!)  --they are also pursuing a somewhat, fiscally wiser route of having a high paying career, since living like a "player" requires a large cache!
So, if one hasn't yet decided they're a libertarian type (let alone a conservative-leaning libertarian--outside of the Howard Stern mold of libertarianism), one might see how these white collar professionals came to politically be!
Your thoughts?
_____________________________
With fame I became more and more stupid, which of course is a very common phenomenon.
--Albert Einstein
That's hot.
--Paris Hilton
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Latte Liberals (a.k.a. Starbucks Democrats) - 9/14/2008 1:26:50 AM
|
|
|
iluvatar
Posts: 1961
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: online
|
An alternative explanation is that these individuals know how to think for themselves and don't buy what the Republicans are selling.
-Dan.
_____________________________
Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Latte Liberals (a.k.a. Starbucks Democrats) - 9/14/2008 2:43:18 PM
|
|
|
blessedinnyc
Posts: 1966
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: aslouie
Someone like yours truly may be very tempted to concur with the conservative (rhetorical) bomb thrower like Coulter, when she states that the explanation behind the rise of white collar liberalism is that when this future voting bloc was in college, they not only were the types who could afford to go to college (a.k.a. the hotbed of traditional left-wing politics), but likewise the types who could afford to napped through those popularly-perceived, boring Marxist/atheist lectures found in university lecture halls everywhere. Yet somehow, part of me thinks that there are still plenty out there in college halls then as now, who somehow allowed those lectures seep into them, while they're busy pursuing some prestigious major in economics or anything business-related (if not scientific/tech-related, a la Silicon Valley), maybe without much post-collegiate retrospect on what or why they learn what they learned in their humanities/social science classes, in conjuncture to the real world ('cause when one is in their 20's, there's still plenty yet to figure out where/when one wants to lead in life, politics not excluding).
You'd be suprised just how smart and competent these "latte liberal" wall street types are. One guy was a starter on a Big Ten school's basketball team while also starting a mutual fund that was registered with the SEC and controlled $10 million in assets ($9.9 million from outside his family) while getting a 3.9 GPA. These guys aren't lazy, and in fact, most of them are pretty smart and hard-working, as well.
Second off, if you've worked at a wall street firm long enough to get the kind of bonus that would allow you to support these campaigns, whether or not you napped through finance and econ, you are probably extremely competent at what you do, at the very least. There is a good chance you know how the market works, and there is likely a reason why you deserve the job you have.
Third, if you got hired because Daddy pulled some string for you, the only reason you got your bonus was that you made money for the firm. My experience has been that these people are actually pretty rare. 80% of our analysts came from anything from inner-city to upper-middle-class backgrounds; perhaps 10% were the kind whose families had enough money to do business with our private wealth management group, but I don't think any of them had a GPA below 3.6 from a competitive school, and most of them had stellar extracurriculars. And the year-end bonus had everything to do with how well you did your job.
quote:
Sometimes I'll even opined that some of these potential latte liberal voters were also the same group of demographic paradigm, when many are actively pursuing what I refer to as the Maxim Magazine lifestyle, post-Playboy philosophy, even before there was a Maxim Magazine--unless it's Esquire or GQ(!) --they are also pursuing a somewhat, fiscally wiser route of having a high paying career, since living like a "player" requires a large cache!
Yes, the people who tend to be at the top of the market game also tend to be under the influence of sin- all worldly processes are under the influence of sin, and it makes sense that the people at the top might be a little corrupted.
quote:
So, if one hasn't yet decided they're a libertarian type (let alone a conservative-leaning libertarian--outside of the Howard Stern mold of libertarianism), one might see how these white collar professionals came to politically be!
Your thoughts?
If you're a Christian, this should make you rethink a 100% faith in capitalism. Our faith should first and foremost be in God.
< Message edited by blessedinnyc -- 9/14/2008 2:49:43 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Latte Liberals (a.k.a. Starbucks Democrats) - 9/14/2008 2:53:09 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7785
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
That actually was one of my frustrations as a leftist in my youth; I was from a very low income backgound while most of my compatriots were the sons and daughters of wealthy parents who played at outrage on behalf of the 'poor' with whom they didn't have any personal aquaintance, and rebelled against an 'authority' that was very much a stand in for there own parents with whom they had a disfucntional relationship.
The fact that the left is often simply playing at politics for the sake of gaining power is easily displayed by this one fact - I have never met a leftist or liberal who voluntarily paid more taxes than he or she was required to. They simply don't believe or live their own rhetoric.
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Latte Liberals (a.k.a. Starbucks Democrats) - 9/15/2008 10:23:08 AM
|
|
|
rhippie
Posts: 628
Joined: 4/13/2005
From: Rich The Hippie
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
That actually was one of my frustrations as a leftist in my youth; I was from a very low income backgound while most of my compatriots were the sons and daughters of wealthy parents who played at outrage on behalf of the 'poor' with whom they didn't have any personal aquaintance, and rebelled against an 'authority' that was very much a stand in for there own parents with whom they had a disfucntional relationship.
The fact that the left is often simply playing at politics for the sake of gaining power is easily displayed by this one fact - I have never met a leftist or liberal who voluntarily paid more taxes than he or she was required to. They simply don't believe or live their own rhetoric.
We had them in my group as well. We called them weekend hippies!!
_____________________________
Stand up for what's right....even if you're standing alone
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Latte Liberals (a.k.a. Starbucks Democrats) - 9/15/2008 1:11:43 PM
|
|
|
huangshan
Posts: 766
Joined: 8/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
The fact that the left is often simply playing at politics for the sake of gaining power is easily displayed by this one fact - I have never met a leftist or liberal who voluntarily paid more taxes than he or she was required to. They simply don't believe or live their own rhetoric.
The way I've always heard it is that taxes help against collective action problems. That is, the rhetoric is that people simply aren't going to volunteer extra money to the government. Free rider problems and all that.
All my liberal friends, as far as I can tell, feel the same way. Which liberals are you thinking of who advocate individuals volunteering extra tax money? I have never met a leftist or liberal who advocated voluntarily paying more taxes than he or she was required to. I have met plenty who advocate raising the amount which is required, however.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Latte Liberals (a.k.a. Starbucks Democrats) - 9/15/2008 1:26:48 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7785
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
The way I've always heard it is that taxes help against collective action problems. That is, the rhetoric is that people simply aren't going to volunteer extra money to the government. Free rider problems and all that.
All my liberal friends, as far as I can tell, feel the same way. Which liberals are you thinking of who advocate individuals volunteering extra tax money? I have never met a leftist or liberal who advocated voluntarily paying more taxes than he or she was required to. I have met plenty who advocate raising the amount which is required, however.
Well that is my point; if it is the case as the left contends that government programs can help alleviate a society's illls given sufficient funds, why would they not voluntarily contribute more than is required?
Or do they simply not really believe this?
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Latte Liberals (a.k.a. Starbucks Democrats) - 9/15/2008 1:48:10 PM
|
|
|
huangshan
Posts: 766
Joined: 8/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Well that is my point; if it is the case as the left contends that government programs can help alleviate a society's illls given sufficient funds, why would they not voluntarily contribute more than is required?
Or do they simply not really believe this?
I imagine most liberals consider themselves to be at least mostly human, and ergo advocate the raising of taxes to make sure their dollar has the backing of everyone else's, lest they get caught being the only one suffering the individual disadvantage of taxation.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Latte Liberals (a.k.a. Starbucks Democrats) - 9/15/2008 2:53:24 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7785
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
I imagine most liberals consider themselves to be at least mostly human, and ergo advocate the raising of taxes to make sure their dollar has the backing of everyone else's, lest they get caught being the only one suffering the individual disadvantage of taxation.
That seems like a rather odd compendium of thoughts there.
If there is no way to know if a person giving extra tax dollars is 'liberal' or 'conservative'.
And if the giving of additional funds helps additional people, why would any group or person get 'caught'? I mean if a liberal has funds to spare, and already believes more income should go towards government programs (and believes this helps people) then what beter way to demonstrate that belief than to give the greatest amount possible to such programs? How would this be suffering anymore than if the government simply raised taxes as the left desires?
Why better yet, why not just admit, when push comes to shove, the left simply doesn't want to live up to it's own rhetoric?
< Message edited by Jhud -- 9/15/2008 3:31:24 PM >
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Latte Liberals (a.k.a. Starbucks Democrats) - 9/15/2008 3:15:11 PM
|
|
|
Rufas2000
Posts: 1315
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
I mean if a liberal has funds to spare, and already believes more income should go towards government programs (and believes this helps people) then what beter way to demonstrate that belief than to give the greatest amount possible to such programs?
Is there any way he or she can ensure that their extra contribution will go to the programs they support? Many liberal supported programs don't exist yet or exist in a form that they may feel is too weak.
A better question may be to see if liberals are starting or contributing to charities that provide the type of relief for the poor they seek from the government. Even if they feel the government can do it better than a private charity (a very suspect notion at best) they would at least be helping those they care about.
I suspect that while liberals in general do care about the plight of the poor (of course there are exceptions) but I don't think that is the main issue behind their desire to redistribute income, at least for a significant portion. I personally think class envy has much to do with it as well.
If you're a liberal and after looking into your heart you know that's not you then great, I apologize. This is just how I see it.
_____________________________
Be my friend!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Latte Liberals (a.k.a. Starbucks Democrats) - 9/15/2008 3:34:54 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7785
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Is there any way he or she can ensure that their extra contribution will go to the programs they support? Many liberal supported programs don't exist yet or exist in a form that they may feel is too weak.
A better question may be to see if liberals are starting or contributing to charities that provide the type of relief for the poor they seek from the government. Even if they feel the government can do it better than a private charity (a very suspect notion at best) they would at least be helping those they care about.
I suspect that while liberals in general do care about the plight of the poor (of course there are exceptions) but I don't think that is the main issue behind their desire to redistribute income, at least for a significant portion. I personally think class envy has much to do with it as well.
If you're a liberal and after looking into your heart you know that's not you then great, I apologize. This is just how I see it.
I think the first point is a legitimate concern; though I have to say there is no guaranteee simply raising taxes will help either.
One presumes funds going to the government are always distributed amongst whatever need there are. Perhaps the left could allow the average above and beyond tax payer an opportunity to give to whatever program he or she sees as most worthy? In Minnesota we have a check off for conservation that does just that.
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Latte Liberals (a.k.a. Starbucks Democrats) - 9/15/2008 3:40:08 PM
|
|
|
HighPlainsDrifter
Posts: 1287
Joined: 9/22/2005
From: The Great Sioux Empire
Status: offline
|
quote:
Is there any way he or she can ensure that their extra contribution will go to the programs they support? Many liberal supported programs don't exist yet or exist in a form that they may feel is too weak.
Hey, I like that idea. Let me have complete control over how my money is spent too. I have a laundry list of departments I'd ban my money from supporting.
_____________________________
Molon Labe
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Latte Liberals (a.k.a. Starbucks Democrats) - 9/15/2008 4:00:57 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7785
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Hey, I like that idea. Let me have complete control over how my money is spent too. I have a laundry list of departments I'd ban my money from supporting.
I think the liberals might fear such a system because we would end up with a well funded military and a almost non-existent National Endowment for the Arts.
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Latte Liberals (a.k.a. Starbucks Democrats) - 9/15/2008 4:46:44 PM
|
|
|
Rufas2000
Posts: 1315
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
I think the first point is a legitimate concern; though I have to say there is no guaranteee simply raising taxes will help either.
Oh I agree. Higher taxes doesn't always lead to greater revenue. A higher perecentage on a lesser amount will likely mean less.
quote:
One presumes funds going to the government are always distributed amongst whatever need there are. Perhaps the left could allow the average above and beyond tax payer an opportunity to give to whatever program he or she sees as most worthy? In Minnesota we have a check off for conservation that does just that.
I thought that might be possible so I asked. I guess it isn't done on the federal level yet. But ...
quote:
Hey, I like that idea. Let me have complete control over how my money is spent too. I have a laundry list of departments I'd ban my money from supporting.
True democracy. I really like that idea. With some safeguards in place of course.
quote:
I think the liberals might fear such a system because we would end up with a well funded military and a almost non-existent National Endowment for the Arts.
LOL. Seriously, the arts are a worthy enterprise. A perfect enterprise for well off liberals and others who are interested to make charitable contributions too.
_____________________________
Be my friend!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Latte Liberals (a.k.a. Starbucks Democrats) - 9/15/2008 9:33:13 PM
|
|
|
aslouie
Posts: 648
Joined: 5/15/2005
From: Los Angeles, CA.
Status: offline
|
going back on subject, I almost was reminded of this interesting statement:
In recalling Joel Kotkin's op-ed (about gentry liberals), perhaps part of the reason why there's more of this pivotal swing voting bloc is that in the past, some of the economic reforms helped out many in the lower to middle classes to higher, social mobility, hence the conservative argument explaining why there's supposedly a diminishing middle class (however middle class is defined nowadays--outside of McCain's $5 million rough estimate!).
But regarding raising taxes, I've been also reminded by some editorialists from the likes of The Week magazine (or elsewhere: the precises sources I'm still trying to pinpoint), opining that the wealthier you are, the more liberal you can be. At first, I though it sounded a bit simplistic at best, a hasty generalization at worst, but when I recalled my past lessons in my collegiate arts & humanities/literature classes, it is said that the wealthy or (fairly well off) can afford to contemplate about the philosophical/humanitarian issues of the day, since conventional wisdom suggests that if someone like me is too busy trying work to make ends meet, most of my mental powers will be invested in economic survival, hence leaving little or no time to reflect, much less spending quiet time with God.
Yet, when considering the sort of philosophical/humanitarian causes and issues that's currently in vogue (if I may utter such possibly-loaded wording ), I've been made aware of the post-modernist, politically-correct issues that are in place from college onward. So, if social justice, or whatever is defined thereof, means higher taxes for the well-off (as indicated by the prior paragraph on latter liberalism), I guess it wouldn't be a surprise there will be those of the Starbucks crowd who will be in favor of such socio-economic efforts, since technically, or at least theoretically, if one could afford college, then one could eventually afford to fork over a 6th of their weekly income/monthly salary to government programs... at least that's my hypothesis. 
Whether or not those higher taxes--or taxes in general, are being used to better use, that's a different question, Ted Stevens and/or Nancy Pelosi notwithstanding...
_____________________________
With fame I became more and more stupid, which of course is a very common phenomenon.
--Albert Einstein
That's hot.
--Paris Hilton
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Latte Liberals (a.k.a. Starbucks Democrats) - 9/15/2008 10:33:23 PM
|
|
|
iluvatar
Posts: 1961
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
Hey, I like that idea. Let me have complete control over how my money is spent too. I have a laundry list of departments I'd ban my money from supporting.
I think the liberals might fear such a system because we would end up with a well funded military and a almost non-existent National Endowment for the Arts.
Isn't that what we already have? The DoD's annual budget is $439.3 Billion, whereas the NEA's annual budget is $144.7 million.
-Dan.
_____________________________
Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Latte Liberals (a.k.a. Starbucks Democrats) - 9/15/2008 11:12:26 PM
|
|
|
huangshan
Posts: 766
Joined: 8/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
I mean if a liberal has funds to spare, and already believes more income should go towards government programs (and believes this helps people) then what better way to demonstrate that belief than to give the greatest amount possible to such programs?
As I noted above, they don't want to be the individual that is contributing the most. The government is a public good, so everyone who is using it is (ideally) going to be contributing to it. It's also a matter of, as someone else noted, the inability of individuals to control where their money goes (and this is ultimately a good thing, I think). Roads are a public good, but I could, if I wanted to (and perhaps illegally?) repair the road in front of my house if I so desired, directing my labor and efforts to help a specific public good of my choosing.
As I understand it, this is not a possibility under the current state of affairs.
quote:
Why better yet, why not just admit, when push comes to shove, the left simply doesn't want to live up to it's own rhetoric?
Could you provide some examples of said rhetoric?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Latte Liberals (a.k.a. Starbucks Democrats) - 9/15/2008 11:37:06 PM
|
|
|
ljmac
Posts: 1378
Joined: 11/20/2006
Status: offline
|
Liberals are tightwads. Look at Obama. He has a brother that lives in a shack and has a history of tax returns with very little charitable giving. Biden's tax returns are even worse.
The Catalog for Philanthropy found that all 25 states that supported charities more than average went for GWB in the last election. All of Kerry's states gave less than average.
John Stossel and ABC put a Salvation Army kettle on a busy sidewalk in San Francisco and one in Sioux Falls. The people in conservative Sioux Falls gave far more money than the liberals in San Francisco, even though there was far more foot traffic in San F.
Syracuse professor Arthur Brooks wrote Who Really Cares and found that conservative families gave 30% more to charity than liberal families.
Liberals are stingy. The Democratic ticket consists of two cheapskates.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Latte Liberals (a.k.a. Starbucks Democrats) - 9/15/2008 11:54:32 PM
|
|
|
huangshan
Posts: 766
Joined: 8/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ljmac
Liberals are stingy. The Democratic ticket consists of two cheapskates.
Well, to be fair, they're nowhere near as loaded as McCain.
And while I'm aware of the charity disparity, I'm not sure that the Salvation Army is an appropriate comparison. The Salvation Army is an organization that discriminates in its hiring practices in a way that might rile certain subcultures in San Fransisco.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Latte Liberals (a.k.a. Starbucks Democrats) - 9/16/2008 12:17:03 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7785
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Isn't that what we already have? The DoD's annual budget is $439.3 Billion, whereas the NEA's annual budget is $144.7 million.
144 Million? That's a couple of well stocked humvee's. What a waste.
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Latte Liberals (a.k.a. Starbucks Democrats) - 9/16/2008 12:22:40 AM
|
|
|
huangshan
Posts: 766
Joined: 8/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
Isn't that what we already have? The DoD's annual budget is $439.3 Billion, whereas the NEA's annual budget is $144.7 million.
144 Million? That's a couple of well stocked humvee's. What a waste.
I think the influence of culture on foreigners is undersold and under-appreciated.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Latte Liberals (a.k.a. Starbucks Democrats) - 9/16/2008 12:32:07 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7785
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
As I noted above, they don't want to be the individual that is contributing the most. The government is a public good, so everyone who is using it is (ideally) going to be contributing to it. It's also a matter of, as someone else noted, the inability of individuals to control where their money goes (and this is ultimately a good thing, I think). Roads are a public good, but I could, if I wanted to (and perhaps illegally?) repair the road in front of my house if I so desired, directing my labor and efforts to help a specific public good of my choosing.
As I understand it, this is not a possibility under the current state of affairs.
Well, it's not possible to direct one's funds as it stands, but the IRS wouldn't refuse additional funds. And my simple point is this - if as the liberals claim the governement only had more money, more problems would be solved, then why won't they give the government more money?
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Latte Liberals (a.k.a. Starbucks Democrats) - 9/16/2008 12:33:56 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7785
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
And while I'm aware of the charity disparity, I'm not sure that the Salvation Army is an appropriate comparison. The Salvation Army is an organization that discriminates in its hiring practices in a way that might rile certain subcultures in San Fransisco.
Heavens! Forget about the poor - the homosexual lobby is offended.
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
