I think you are stretching in this case to find hypocrisy. The statement you've hinged your argument on isn't as clearly hypocritical as you think.

Your opinion.

Just to be clear...by "liking" this post, RTS, are you agreeing that you do what RM is accusing you of? :sssh:

Yep, and I'm saying RM does it, you do it.....

 

Technically, we all have an agenda. However, RM's opinion of what my agenda is not reality.

To get back on topic...

 

 

...the lady could and should have said something like "Mrs. Romney has led a privileged life", without getting into the stay-at-home/never worked thing.

Republicans have problem with Obama trying to force churches to HAVE to provide birth control on health plans and Democrats turn it into attack on women.

 

Democrat tries to win votes by potraying Romneys as out of touch wealthy people and Republicans turn it into attack on women.

 

Nothing but typical political theater instead of being leaders and leading.

To get back on topic...

 

 

...the lady could and should have said something like "Mrs. Romney has led a privileged life", without getting into the stay-at-home/never worked thing.

 

Why should she have said anything about Mrs Romney? She running?

Ooops. I'm sorry. I obviously hit too close to home with my post. I do think that those who buy into the class warfare strategy of President Obama aren't the brightest of folks. Take comfort: I also feel the same way about those that buy into some of the positions of the Tea Party. Letting emotions and not intellect rule the day.

 

I guess I am also one of the challenged. I don't believe that the argument is class warfare. As a country we have one major decision to make - How much do we want to spend. After that, it is working out the details of what we spend it on and how do we distribute the costs. At a time when the share of income going to the highest earners is rising to gilded age levels and middle class earnings are stagnant it doesn't strike me as class warfare to propose that the additional income we need should come from the segment of society that is increasing its share of the national wealth. I may be "challenged", but I am smart enough to know that dismissing those that disagree with you as "challenged" does nothing to add weight to your argument.

I guess I am also one of the challenged. I don't believe that the argument is class warfare. As a country we have one major decision to make - How much do we want to spend. After that, it is working out the details of what we spend it on and how do we distribute the costs. At a time when the share of income going to the highest earners is rising to gilded age levels and middle class earnings are stagnant it doesn't strike me as class warfare to propose that the additional income we need should come from the segment of society that is increasing its share of the national wealth. I may be "challenged", but I am smart enough to know that dismissing those that disagree with you as "challenged" does nothing to add weight to your argument.

 

Fine, if they want to keep the argument to how we generate and spend OUR money, I'm all for it. When they start making comments like "she's never worked a day in her life", that is class warfare, nothing less. It has nothing to do with the problem at hand and is brought up simply to generate envy, the main weapon in class warfare.

Fine, if they want to keep the argument to how we generate and spend OUR money, I'm all for it. When they start making comments like "she's never worked a day in her life", that is class warfare, nothing less. It has nothing to do with the problem at hand and is brought up simply to generate envy, the main weapon in class warfare.

Exactly! No matter how one tries to spin it, class envy is the message that was sent.

Exactly! No matter how one tries to spin it, class envy is the message that was sent.

That's a stretch .

Yep, and I'm saying RM does it, you do it.....

 

Technically, we all have an agenda. However, RM's opinion of what my agenda is not reality.

 

:isurrender:

I guess I am also one of the

challenged. I don't believe that the argument is class warfare. As a country we have one major decision to make - How much do we want to spend. After that, it is working out the details of what we spend it on and how do we distribute the costs. At a time when the share of income going to the highest earners is rising to gilded age levels and middle class earnings are stagnant it doesn't strike me as class warfare to propose that the additional income we need should come from the segment of society that is increasing its share of the national wealth. I may be "challenged", but I am smart enough to know that dismissing those that disagree with you as "challenged" does nothing to add weight to your argument.

If you add a lower income class that is increasingly little desire to look for a job but is contemt with living on the government payroll, then i could agree with your statement.

That's a stretch .

I guess it depends on your perspective.

That's a stretch .

Hardly. It is election year you know...

:isurrender:

:lol: Honestly, TB&G, if we all didn't have an agenda so to speak, we wouldn't be in this forum at all. But some people like to think they know what others agendas are, usually they're wrong.

How dare she, I've been a stay at home dad for over 4 years now. But I did work for 40 years.