Warren didn't use affirmative action based on her supposed small minority bloodline to her advantage. There is a PBS show about heritage that shows many people have black, Hispanic, or Native American blood in their past, that have been told in their family history... some are correct, others like Warren, would need a DNA test to determine if the family stories are true or not.
On your Republican Selling Point... "Risk Takers and Entrepreneurs that make themselves successful and rich"... I'm afraid that the facts don't agree with your Republican Talking Point.
Take for example...GWB. He was "Rich" even though he failed as a baseball owner... He failed as an Oil Man... But he is Rich... He was BORN THAT WAY... which once more proves... No one gets rich in America on their own.
I could buy the "I believed what I was told argument" 30 years ago, but not today. You do NOT need to go through a DNA test to prove heritage. There are MANY online sites that do genealogy for you. There is no excuse for a Harvard Academic to fail to realize this. Warren didn't use any of the official Minority programs, but she used the best unofficial one. Public relations...If she herself KNEW she was a VERY small part Native American, why did she list that in the faculty book and NOT her other Genealogy?
All you rich hating liberals actually believe the vast majority of the rich got to be that way by inheriting it and therefore doing no work to earn it. That belief gives you the moral authority perpetrate the "class envy" and "soak the rich" strategies.
"Arguing with liberals is like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good I am at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock out the pieces, crap on the board, and strut around like it is victorious." - Author Unknown
Take for example...GWB. He was "Rich" even though he failed as a baseball owner... He failed as an Oil Man...But he is Rich... He was BORN THAT WAY... which once more proves...No one gets rich in America on their own.
I don't even understand what the hell that's supposed to mean. That isn't even a coherent argument. So being born into a family with wealth earned by prior generations now makes that wealth the property of the collective? Like public domain? Are the Obama children allowed to inherit their fathers wealth earned off of book sales and his eventual speaking fees? How about his grandchildren?
I could buy the "I believed what I was told argument" 30 years ago, but not today. You do NOT need to go through a DNA test to prove heritage. There are MANY online sites that do genealogy for you. There is no excuse for a Harvard Academic to fail to realize this. Warren didn't use any of the official Minority programs, but she used the best unofficial one. Public relations...If she herself KNEW she was a VERY small part Native American, why did she list that in the faculty book and NOT her other Genealogy?
All you rich hating liberals actually believe the vast majority of the rich got to be that way by inheriting it and therefore doing no work to earn it. That belief gives you the moral authority perpetrate the "class envy" and "soak the rich" strategies.
Ah Tbird... Where to begin... First there are some on this board who consider me a "Phony Liberal" and I don't disagree... I don't pretend to represent any group... just myself... so your charge of being a "rich hating liberal" doesn't stand up.
Second: I don't envy the rich... many of the Rich, I pity... some I admire, of most, I'm indifferent.
Third: I don't "believe the vast majority of the rich got to be that way by inheriting it" , as you post... a large group of the Rich got that way by stealing it! Some earned it, some a combination of inheriting, stealing and earning it. Some hit the lotto and just got lucky!
From the Lucky jerk who happened to buy the right Lotto Ticket... to the Hard Working Entrepreneur, to yes, even the thief who stole it... "No one gets rich in America on their own."
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Ah Tbird... Where to begin... First there are some on this board who consider me a "Phony Liberal" and I don't disagree... I don't pretend to represent any group... just myself... so your charge of being a "rich hating liberal" doesn't stand up.
Second: I don't envy the rich... many of the Rich, I pity... some I admire, of most, I'm indifferent.
Third: I don't "believe the vast majority of the rich got to be that way by inheriting it" , as you post... a large group of the Rich got that way by stealing it! Some earned it, some a combination of inheriting, stealing and earning it. Some hit the lotto and just got lucky!
Just your belief that a large group of rich got that way by stealing tells me all that I need to know. As far as being a "phony Liberal" WHO ON THIS BOARD AGREES WITH THIS STATEMENT?? PLEASE REPLY. I expect to hear crickets...
"Arguing with liberals is like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good I am at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock out the pieces, crap on the board, and strut around like it is victorious." - Author Unknown
Just your belief that a large group of rich got that way by stealing tells me all that I need to know.
Maybe I'm wrong. Some Americans consider "Tony Soprano" to be an "Entrepreneur"... I'd call him a thief. America has many Drug King Pins, Organized Crime Bosses, Political and Corporate extortionists... all who became Rich by stealing their wealth. Some invested their stolen loot so that now they are wealthy far beyond their original theft... and appear to be legitimate business men.
I have no way of knowing the exact number, but I would guess that for every rich man who earned his wealth, there is one who stole, at least part of it.
(Off the subject... Money doesn't make you happy... People make you happy. Many of the Rich are miserable and alone. Sure I'd enjoy a few million if it came my way, and it would be fun, but if you're happy with out being rich... money loses some of it's charm.)
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Maybe we differ on the definition of Rich or maybe we don't. I'm talking about what the government defines as rich. The government seems to define rich as single earners making over 250K and married couples making 350K. That is hardly drug kingpin territory or CEO territory. There are MANY more sub-million rich than people above that number. Most of them have made it by earning it. The Government sells the "soak the rich" strategy by touting the million dollar figure. They call it the millionaires tax, not the "as little as 250K" tax. They do that for public support. It's disingenuous and wrong. If you ask some of the true self-made success stories, it wasn't their goal to get rich, it was their goal to be successful in their particular line of work. That's why you don't see them head to a Caribbean island and retire when they have "enough" to be comfortable.
You're right in the phrase that money doesn't make you happy, but it sure doesn't hurt.
"Arguing with liberals is like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good I am at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock out the pieces, crap on the board, and strut around like it is victorious." - Author Unknown
Maybe we differ on the definition of Rich or maybe we don't. I'm talking about what the government defines as rich. The government seems to define rich as single earners making over 250K and married couples making 350K. That is hardly drug kingpin territory or CEO territory. There are MANY more sub-million rich than people above that number. Most of them have made it by earning it. The Government sells the "soak the rich" strategy by touting the million dollar figure. They call it the millionaires tax, not the "as little as 250K" tax. They do that for public support. It's disingenuous and wrong. If you ask some of the true self-made success stories, it wasn't their goal to get rich, it was their goal to be successful in their particular line of work. That's why you don't see them head to a Caribbean island and retire when they have "enough" to be comfortable.
You're right in the phrase that money doesn't make you happy, but it sure doesn't hurt.
250K is NOT rich in my opinion. Unless you can count in 10's of millions, you're not really rich.
A Gulfstream G650 costs $65 million... $250K a year doesn't even cover the cost of it's parking.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Logged
