How To Avoid Rich Liberals In Oregon

[ExNooYawk]

Originally Posted by CCCVDUR

I'm just referring to self-righteous Rich Liberals that you find in Boulder, Flagstaff, Santa Fe, etc. that exclude outsiders.

How, exactly, do they do this? When the tea-baggers show up with their Dachau posters showing piles of dead people, do they specifically announce, "Those with brains, stay away, or else!!"?

[Brenda-by-the-sea]

Originally Posted by CCCVDUR

Lars Larson ratings are increasing on his Oregon network, even among Liberals, but probably not among Rich Liberals. I think Lars Larson is more a populist than a Republican.

If popular appeal is to be the measure of a person's greatness than we should take a moment to acknowledge the contributions of Adolf Hitler. No politician in modern times has ever enjoyed a greater degree of popular support (though I suppose that Osama bin Laden would rate a close second).

[ExNooYawk]

Oh, and a few other things to watch out for. If people are going hungry and the government is pushing for a food stamp program, they will be the ones saying they'd rather starve. If the government is working towards medical help for the unemployed and those making under $30k a year, the ones making under $30k a year and are unemployed will be the ones screaming about the ills of socialism. In addition, if the government is seeking to put a jobs program in town which will enable these same people to work, they'll be the ones shouting down the stimulus programs.
In short, a town full of people willing to shoot themselves in the foot in the name of 'republicanism' will be the ticket for those wishing to avoid 'rich liberals'. (Wall Street loves those guys, btw).

[Fiddlehead]

Originally Posted by ExNooYawk

Oh, and a few other things to watch out for. If people are going hungry and the government is pushing for a food stamp program, they will be the ones saying they'd rather starve. If the government is working towards medical help for the unemployed and those making under $30k a year, the ones making under $30k a year and are unemployed will be the ones screaming about the ills of socialism. In addition, if the government is seeking to put a jobs program in town which will enable these same people to work, they'll be the ones shouting down the stimulus programs.
In short, a town full of people willing to shoot themselves in the foot in the name of 'republicanism' will be the ticket for those wishing to avoid 'rich liberals'. (Wall Street loves those guys, btw).

It is sad really. Folks who are of low educational attainment getting worked in a lather about people who want to help them. If it weren't for rich liberals, noone with the resources and skills would be working for your typical poor person at all! For all the people who rail about the "socialist" takeover of health care, amazingly few of these folks are incensed about the largest, and undoubtedly most powerful and possibly corrupt government arm, the military. It is a shockingly slick brainwashing that has been done on the rural white poor in America by the rich and their corporate mouthpieces like Limbaugh. Kind of a "Stockholm Syndrome" on about 150 million people. I think the book "What's the Matter With Kansas" does a good job with the topic.

Before anyone flames me. I will just say I hate taxes as much as the next guy. But if I truly believe those taxes will be used to help improve the lot of the country and its people, I pay with pride. Healthcare for the rich and poor is one of those causes. It should not be driven by profit.

[Cornerguy1]

Moderator's Note:

Please stick with state issues on this forum board.

Health care reform is a national issue and should be discussed over in the Politics forum.

Thanks.

[2bpurrfect]

YOU KNOW, RICH LIBERALS ARE GOOD FOR BUSINESS. THEY SPEND MONEY. SO, WHY WOULD ANYONE, ESPECIALLY IN OREGON, WANT TO AVOID THEM? I mean, unless you live right next to a (usually very small) family of them and they have gay marijuana all night rockband sex orgy yogurt eating contests.

[2bpurrfect]

Originally Posted by Fiddlehead

It is sad really. Folks who are of low educational attainment getting worked in a lather about people who want to help them. If it weren't for rich liberals, noone with the resources and skills would be working for your typical poor person at all! For all the people who rail about the "socialist" takeover of health care, amazingly few of these folks are incensed about the largest, and undoubtedly most powerful and possibly corrupt government arm, the military. It is a shockingly slick brainwashing that has been done on the rural white poor in America by the rich and their corporate mouthpieces like Limbaugh. Kind of a "Stockholm Syndrome" on about 150 million people. I think the book "What's the Matter With Kansas" does a good job with the topic.

Before anyone flames me. I will just say I hate taxes as much as the next guy. But if I truly believe those taxes will be used to help improve the lot of the country and its people, I pay with pride. Healthcare for the rich and poor is one of those causes. It should not be driven by profit.

plenty of truth there.... but i do see it this way. after the liberals have voted in the money and funding via taxes, for good causes....well....
it often disappears long before it has done the work it was originally publicised/ voted in for.

you see there is then a necessity of having the strict and efficient non-liberals do their thing of tightly holding the money in place, til it has executed its function without being diverted. In Oregon, a lot of diverting goes on. In fact, we have our own Demosocialist version of Trickle down economics. It is merely called Disappearing funds that never quite got down to those poor people whom they used as their means of getting the funding; for themselves and all their overly trusted nonprofit, etc cronies who get a nice middle class or higher, wage off of them. They are ever so good at procuring, but it doesn't seem to get where it was originally destined for, except in those tiny little drops from that..same...old...trickle down.
So liberals are fine, rich liberals are even better. they will put their money where their mouth is. But this is why there has to be diversity in the government: so that the tightwads can watch their money once they have let it slip, er i mean, given it so generously. So it will be strictly allocated to where it belongs-- to the final recipients in need of it, the populace to be served. But that is mere civic minded trustworthiness, it is neither liberal nor conservative.

ps i grew up playing with guns unsupervised after school, had upper class conservative / nazi / liberal / intelligentsia parents who both worked and drove volvos, in formerly rural (now developed) northern oregon, on a pretend farm.
i don't currently register with any political party. moderation and balance are the keys.

[aroseinrain]

Originally Posted by 2bpurrfect

they have gay marijuana all night rockband sex orgy yogurt eating contests.

Aaahh. Those were the days...

[ndomorph]

If I understand it correctly, "Rich" and "Liberal" aren't really the issue, but a divisive and petty distraction to the real issue: internal colonizing.

What the OP is complaining about, I believe, is when an entity takes over a region, usurping talent, energy and resources for it's own gain, diminishing the autonomy and quality of life for the original inhabitants. This was historically done by tribes (monarchies, governments), and more recently by corporations. What the OP is illuminating, is that there are population blocks (i.e., wealthy exurbanites) who generate a collective will and power that is strong enough to colonize regions through expanded tourism and eventual takeover.

"Third-world"-like conditions create a ripe atmosphere for this kind of colonization. If you want to look for the next boom bubble, look to the region that is the most ripe for this kind of exploitation. Then call it what it is, and don't get distracted by lifestyle accoutrements like cars, beverages and exercise accessories.

[Fiddlehead]

Originally Posted by ndomorph

If I understand it correctly, "Rich" and "Liberal" aren't really the issue, but a divisive and petty distraction to the real issue: internal colonizing.

What the OP is complaining about, I believe, is when an entity takes over a region, usurping talent, energy and resources for it's own gain, diminishing the autonomy and quality of life for the original inhabitants. This was historically done by tribes (monarchies, governments), and more recently by corporations. What the OP is illuminating, is that there are population blocks (i.e., wealthy exurbanites) who generate a collective will and power that is strong enough to colonize regions through expanded tourism and eventual takeover.

"Third-world"-like conditions create a ripe atmosphere for this kind of colonization. If you want to look for the next boom bubble, look to the region that is the most ripe for this kind of exploitation. Then call it what it is, and don't get distracted by lifestyle accoutrements like cars, beverages and exercise accessories.

I like this generalization better than the "rich liberal" witchhunt. Generally, elites colonizing depressed or less powerful regions has a long history. Ask the Irish, Indians, Africans, Native Americans, or Aborigines.

Ok,ok, I did not mean to compare us citizens to imperial power, rather to point out that a single group is not singularly bad. It is an old story.