Attacks on Wealth Don't Harm McMahon Lead

FILE: June 14, 2012: Former Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn, and Linda McMahon debating at the University of Connecticut campus in Storres, Conn.

[JohnInLa]

I'd gladly vote for either one of those two before ever voting for another damned democRat. That party is ran by and for marxists and it is anti-Americanism...despicable.

[Curtis Lowe]

America loves wealthy people. We all want to be wealthy. A wealthy dude signs my paycheck every week. Why would anyone vote for a poor schleeppp?

Where is Vera Baker?

"You didn't build that." - Barack Obama

[The laughing liberal]

The Azzwipe Obama HATES Personal Success by others.
It flies in his rotten face.




Obama is a Jackass that believes and said: "If you own a Business, YOU DIDN'T BUILD THAT!"
Obama is disgusting. Only a Socialist PIG would make such a claim!

[The laughing liberal]

Obama is the Most Divisive POS president we've ever seen.

The Hypocrite Millionaire obama only paid 20% Income Taxes last year and used his own children as TAX SHELTERS.


It's so typical of a Socialist PIG like obama to claim that he deserves Wealth while putting his dirty boot on the neck of real Americans trying to get ahead.

[liza]

Hes worth millions NOW, and thats because you
voted for him, and gave him the RIGHT to try
and get RID of those who have made it in our ONCE
FREE country. Jealousy and envy is YOUR fault
and blame. Your time to fess up to what
you will do to our people when you get the chance
to vote.... He would never have been in the position
to do the harm hes done without YOU. Bush had
nothing to do with WHAT you have done.
When all the wealth is gone, will you be satisfied
to see all Americans poor and needy as other
countries.*WHoes side are you on? Duh!!!
All mouth and no brains, it works every time when
something is tried to take over...feel proud of
yourselves, I wouldn't start beating myself on the
chest just yet. Lightening might strike and
wake up SOME Americans.

[John]

Any wonder America is going down. Just because one is wealthy does not make him/her intelligent. How do Americans elect idiots into powerful political positions? Bush, Palin, Bachman, Romney.

[xnutmegger]

John wrote:

Any wonder America is going down. Just because one is wealthy does not make him/her intelligent. How do Americans elect idiots into powerful political positions? Bush, Palin, Bachman, Romney.

Duh !

Palin rich in '08......duh ! Try again .

Don't forget mega-bucks JFK, FDR or Dem candidates Gore ( oil money)or Kerry ( married richest widow in U.S.A.).

[Madaman]

John wrote:

Any wonder America is going down. Just because one is wealthy does not make him/her intelligent. How do Americans elect idiots into powerful political positions? Bush, Palin, Bachman, Romney.

THAT is the problem, right there. Conservatives equate WEALTH with INTELLIGENCE. While most rich people are not dummies, it seems that most truly intelligent people choose to serve humanity in less lucrative ways (e.g., teachers, social workers, scientists, college professors, et cetera). They seem to say, "Well, if you're so smart, why aren't you rich?" They aren't smart enough to see the inherent flaws in posing that question!

Fortunately, only Bush Lite achieved political power of those on your list. Palin and Bishop Romney hold no office, and Bachmann is a bit player in her own caucus -- with an insufferably big mouth.

Please forgive the picking of nits -- your point is totally VALID!

[the rest of us]

Madaman wrote:

<quoted text>
THAT is the problem, right there. Conservatives equate WEALTH with INTELLIGENCE. While most rich people are not dummies, it seems that most truly intelligent people choose to serve humanity in less lucrative ways (e.g., teachers, social workers, scientists, college professors, et cetera). They seem to say, "Well, if you're so smart, why aren't you rich?" They aren't smart enough to see the inherent flaws in posing that question!

And then there's you who is serving humanity by being a school bus driver.....LOLOLOLOL! You are the poster child for the arrogant, jackass liberal.

[xnutmegger]

Madaman wrote:

<quoted text>
THAT is the problem, right there. Conservatives equate WEALTH with INTELLIGENCE. While most rich people are not dummies, it seems that most truly intelligent people choose to serve humanity in less lucrative ways (e.g., teachers, social workers, scientists, college professors, et cetera). They seem to say, "Well, if you're so smart, why aren't you rich?" They aren't smart enough to see the inherent flaws in posing that question!
Fortunately, only Bush Lite achieved political power of those on your list. Palin and Bishop Romney hold no office, and Bachmann is a bit player in her own caucus -- with an insufferably big mouth.
Please forgive the picking of nits -- your point is totally VALID!

Sure.

That's why the richest ZIP codes in the U.S. voted for Obama over McCain.

That's why WS supported Obama 75-25% in campaign donations .

But the lower income military vote went to McCain.

Try again you're spinning B.S.

[Madaman]

xnutmegger wrote:

<quoted text>
Sure.
That's why the richest ZIP codes in the U.S. voted for Obama over McCain.
That's why WS supported Obama 75-25% in campaign donations .
But the lower income military vote went to McCain.
Try again you're spinning B.S.

Your attempted rebuttal misses the point: "conservatives" favor the wealthy BECAUSE they are wealthy. Even the wealthy could see that McSame was a loose cannon and had little chance of winning.

Nice try.

[voteearlyvoteoft en]

Madaman wrote:

<quoted text>
.... it seems that most truly intelligent people choose to serve humanity in less lucrative ways (e.g., teachers, social workers, scientists, college professors, et cetera).

You forgot the Peace Corps! LOL

Tenured professorships and science positions are more lucrative than you probably realize.

And Steve Jobs, Warren Buffet and Bill Gates are not "truly intelligent?"

Another LOL

[xnutmegger]

Madaman wrote:

<quoted text>
Your attempted rebuttal misses the point: "conservatives" favor the wealthy BECAUSE they are wealthy. Even the wealthy could see that McSame was a loose cannon and had little chance of winning.
Nice try.

Try again.

The Tea Party doesn't favor the wealthy as they see them wearily connected to the good ole boy politics of go along , get along.

...and how do I miss the point on the political Zip Code demographics as it is in black and white and verified.

I give you facts and you give me spin.

[Madaman]

voteearlyvoteoften wrote:

<quoted text>
You forgot the Peace Corps! LOL
Tenured professorships and science positions are more lucrative than you probably realize.
And Steve Jobs, Warren Buffet and Bill Gates are not "truly intelligent?"
Another LOL

While professorships and science positions may well be more lucrative than I realize -- THOSE folk are NOT part of the top 1%.

How odd that your examples of Steve Jobs, Warren Buffet, and Bill Gates are/were Liberals that favored Obama. These exceptions just prove the rule.

[Madaman]

xnutmegger wrote:

<quoted text>

...and how do I miss the point on the political Zip Code demographics as it is in black and white and verified.
I give you facts and you give me spin.

This part of my reply covers your zip code analysis:

"Even the wealthy could see that McSame was a loose cannon and had little chance of winning."

I suspect the voting patterns of those wealthy zip codes will trend Republican this time!

[FD Up]

Linda McMahon for president. The Rock VP. What a team.

[voteearlyvoteoft en]

Madaman wrote:

<quoted text>
While professorships and science positions may well be more lucrative than I realize -- THOSE folk are NOT part of the top 1%.
How odd that your examples of Steve Jobs, Warren Buffet, and Bill Gates are/were Liberals that favored Obama. These exceptions just prove the rule.

Not odd at all. Proof that a) Liberals don't object to all wealth, so long as the 1%er (actually .005%er) in question toes the Leftist line and properly assauges their "wealth guilt" by demanding others pay more; b) Someone doesn't automatically cross an imaginary line into "wealth" when they reach the top 1%. They are already there; and c) these "exceptions" don't prove anything regarding the "truly intelligent" supposedly choosing social work as a career.

[xnutmegger]

Madaman wrote:

<quoted text>
This part of my reply covers your zip code analysis:
"Even the wealthy could see that McSame was a loose cannon and had little chance of winning."
I suspect the voting patterns of those wealthy zip codes will trend Republican this time!

I actually think those Zip Codes voted Elitist white guilt " Give this bright sharp personable blackman a chance to lead the country ".

He is still personable but his record and performance is there to be debated so he can be judged by other than white guilt and personality.

Obama pulled in 3% more of the white vote then Kerry did. That's a 6% change.

[Madaman]

voteearlyvoteoften wrote:

<quoted text>
Not odd at all. Proof that a) Liberals don't object to all wealth, so long as the 1%er (actually .005%er) in question toes the Leftist line and properly assauges their "wealth guilt" by demanding others pay more; b) Someone doesn't automatically cross an imaginary line into "wealth" when they reach the top 1%. They are already there; and c) these "exceptions" don't prove anything regarding the "truly intelligent" supposedly choosing social work as a career.

A) I don't recall either Steve Jobs nor Bill Gates demanding that others pay more. Warren Buffet has simply called for sanity in establishing tax rates.

B) All tax brackets are "imaginary lines," they do not exist in nature. The top 10% are wealthy, moving up into the top 1% simply makes them EXTREMELY wealthy. What is your point here?

C) Nice try at twisting my words. I did NOT say that "ALL" the truly intelligent chose social work, or other decidedly non-lucrative careers. I made the point that not ALL folk who are truly intelligent turn their pursuits to business and material gain. Obviously, some do. I repudiate the Republican canard that WEALTH=INTELLIGENCE, and NON-WEALTH=DULL/LAZY. This is SUCH self-serving BS!

[Madaman]

xnutmegger wrote:

<quoted text>
I actually think those Zip Codes voted Elitist white guilt " Give this bright sharp personable blackman a chance to lead the country ".
He is still personable but his record and performance is there to be debated so he can be judged by other than white guilt and personality.
Obama pulled in 3% more of the white vote then Kerry did. That's a 6% change.

You are free to make this assertion. I do not agree with it.