It is time for a logical syllogism:
1. Ric=h people are unethical.
2. President Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are rich (a fact), along with Warren Buffett and so many other leftist Democrats.
3. Therefore, President Obama (along with the other rich leftist Democrats) are unethical.
This is straight logical deductoni, and cannot be challenged. What? You say that the PREMISE is wrng: that (all) rich people are not unethical. Don't talk to me. Talk to ABC "News" and Yaho "News": some of the most unethical and dishonest hypocrites to ever walk this Earth. Here is one of those infamous "featured" headlines on my Yahoo "News" default page provided by AT&T, with the story provided by ABC:
Are rich people unehtical?
The very first paragraph makes clear what the ABC/Yaho answer to this Obama CLASS WARVARE "question" is, as the story starts out: "At last an explanation for the Wall Street disgrace, Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme, and the other high society crimes and misdeameanors......." The story then goes on to describe a study from the "National Academy of Science" (telling you ALL you need to know about THAT organization, and the peole in it), about how "ewaltheir" people are omore "uneticcal" (using, I guarantee you, standrds that DETERMINE the answer) than people without as much money. No, this is an EVIL statement (the ABC "News"/Yahoo "News" headline.). That is not surprising, because these are EVIL people (mainstream media "journalists")
Doubt me? Never do that. Examine these statements? "Poor people are unethical." Or: "Black people are criminals." Think of the firestorm that would erupt if any 'study" said any such thing--not matter whether the "evidence" supported the idea that more poor people are unethical, or the idea that a higher percentage of African-Americans are criminals (the left makng the pint that so many black men are in prison). For once, the firestorm would be justified, because this kind of generalization is an EVIL thing. But it is just as evil to lump 'rich people' together as a HATED CLASS as it would be to lump poor peple together, or African-Americans. If you can't see that, I am sorry for you. The silver lining is that yhou can apply to work for ABC or Yahoo. You are their kind of peson.
"Rich people" are PEOPLE. Many of them, of course, did not start out as "rich peple". Some started out as "rich peple", and are now "poor peple". Did this give them VIRTUE? Is being poor a VIRTUE? This isall, of course, not new. Class warfare caused the downfall of the Roman Republic. And ist it really true: "It is easier for a camel to pass throught the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into Heaven?"
Enough. This is bad stuff. An upcomig article will go into how MSNBC, Juan Williams and the left in general are CALLLING THEMSELVES racists when they attack Pat Buchanan as a racist: accurately as to them all, for really the very same reason this quoted ABC hedline is so bad. Just a tease for a future planned article.
"But, Skip, you generalize about 'journalists', and call Wall Street people 'The Stupidest People on Earht.'"
That is corret. I do. Hoever, in the case of "journalists", I--which sitll rankles me, since I am an agnostic and still beliieve He was punisthing me for that--conducted that 8 year Sodom and Gomorrrah search for an honest, comeptent AP reporter. It was a totally futile saarch. The pont is that some generalizations are necessary, even though we know that they do not apply to all people in a category. It is still true that I have yet to find ANY modern "journalist" who I respect, but I acknowledge there may be one or two out there. It is STATUS to which it is truly evil to apply a label. "Journalists", and Wal Street peple, I would argue, are TAUGHT fo be the way they are, and the generalization goes to that rather than to the idea that the "category" of "journalist" or "Wall Street analyst" automatically makes lyou stupid. The only example I am aware of where I could be regarded as a hypocrite is on WOMEN. I am willing to generalize about women (the vicious creatures). Taht is the exceptiont taht proves the rule. You know, in your heart, that i am RIGHT abutwomen. There is something about being a woman that makes that category of human beings totally irrational. No, I am NOT that way about, say, homosexuals. I do not believe that society should APPROVE of homosexual conduct or homosexaul marriage. However, as I have said often, I am perfetly willing to accept that most homosseuxals are BETTER PEOPLE than I am. This is not a "status" thing. It is realy no different from the question of whether premarital sex or things like polygamy are "right" or "wrong". No, I plead "not guilty" as to my belief that we have no byusiness pushing the idea that homoseuxal conduct is a GOOD thing, to be endorsed by us all (and maybe experimented with by us all--see the movie, "Kinsey"). I pleade "guilty" with regard to WOMEN, and my only excuse lthere is that I just can't help myself.
Whehter I am "guilty" or not, there is no question that ABC and Yahoo are GUILTY as charged.
Oh, Presdient Obama is unethical", or at lest totally dishonet. Hoever, i truly don't think that is because he is rich. The same applies to Nancy Pelosi and so many others.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). Some of you may wonder whether this blog has any women readers. My two daughters don't read it. My mother does nto read it. My only female friedn, Sylvia, does not read it. I am, of course, notorious, among peopel who know me as well as among any people wo have ever read this blgo for any length of time, as to my attitude toward women. I would have to saly that it would be a RATOIONAL act (for an IRRATONAL sex) for women not to read this blog. Hey. Women not only think tis way about ME. I jsut reciprocate. They think this way aobut YOU (if you are a man). "Men are scum" pretty much describes the attitude of almost all women toward men (obviously to a greter or lesser degree, depending on the woman). Oh, I am perfectly comfortable with women reading this blog. It will do them god. I jsut udnerstand when they choose not to do so.