Radarbeam From Canada, joined Mar 2002, 1239 posts, RR: 4 Posted (2 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1287 times:
One of the persistent memes in the Republican line of attack against Barack Obama is the notion that he is an elitist, whereas the G.O.P. represent real working Americans. But when Vanity Fair priced out Cindy McCain's Monday Night Convention outfit, the total price was staggering to say the least.... between $299,100 and $313,100.
PacNWjet From United States, joined Sep 2000, 327 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (2 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1251 times:
Republicans point out that liberals espouse elitist values that are not in sync with traditional American values of country, family, and individual responsibility. Republicans do not apologize for wealth because they believe that if people are free to exercise their individual freedoms unfettered from unnecessary government intrusion they too can acquire wealth. Cindy McCain is not elitist for wearing an expensive outfit anymore than a hard-working American is elitist for saving up money to buy an expensive motorhome or RV. What is elitist about liberals' values is their condescension towards Americans with traditional values who do not begrudge Cindy McCain (or anyone else for that matter) for having enough money to live as she pleases.
MadameConcorde From Monaco, joined Feb 2007, 2434 posts, RR: 6 Reply 4, posted (2 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1236 times:
Quoting Radarbeam (Thread starter): when Vanity Fair priced out Cindy McCain's Monday Night Convention outfit, the total price was staggering to say the least.... between $299,100 and $313,100.
This is not much when you think that Carla Bruni and the ladies in the French government are wearing clothing comingalmost exclusively from Couture houses, Dior, Saint Laurent, Lagerfeld et al. that cost in the thousands of Euros each.
In comparison Cindy McCain goes cheap and I bet it's on her own money not the political party's money. If she owns a private jet, she could spend a lot more than $300 on a suit. It does not shock me.
$300 is the kind of money any executive secretary in a major company in Paris will spend on a suit that she will wear in the office on her day job and she will need a different one each day of the week.
There was a better way to fly. It was called Concorde.
N1120A From France, joined Dec 2003, 22904 posts, RR: 79 Reply 8, posted (2 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1215 times:
Quoting PacNWjet (Reply 3): What is elitist about liberals' values is their condescension towards Americans with traditional values
What is a traditional value? Discrimination is not a "traditional value". Interfering in other people's daily lives is not a "traditional value". Spending bucket loads of money on useless foreign policy is not a "traditional value".
Quoting PacNWjet (Reply 3): Republicans point out that liberals espouse elitist values that are not in sync with traditional American values of country, family, and individual responsibility.
You apparently have absolutely no idea what the term "elitist" means then.
Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 4):
$300 is the kind of money any executive secretary in a major company in Paris will spend on a suit that she will wear in the office on her day job and she will need a different one each day of the week.
Not $300 (Three Hundred), $300,000 (Three Hundred Thousand)
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
Sv7887 From United States, joined May 2008, 739 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (2 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1209 times:
Quoting Radarbeam (Thread starter): But when Vanity Fair priced out Cindy McCain's Monday Night Convention outfit, the total price was staggering to say the least.... between $299,100 and $313,100.
Seems diamonds were the bulk of that at $280,000
Guess her charity work means nothing right? Or the 25K she donated to Hurricane Gustav victims? Or the Bangladeshi kids she adopted and saved the lives of?
Falstaff From United States, joined Jun 2006, 2869 posts, RR: 14 Reply 10, posted (2 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1206 times:
Quoting PacNWjet (Reply 3): Republicans do not apologize for wealth because they believe that if people are free to exercise their individual freedoms unfettered from unnecessary government intrusion they too can acquire wealth. Cindy McCain is not elitist for wearing an expensive outfit anymore than a hard-working American is elitist for saving up money to buy an expensive motorhome or RV. What is elitist about liberals' values is their condescension towards Americans with traditional values who do not begrudge Cindy McCain (or anyone else for that matter) for having enough money to live as she pleases.
That is exactly right. Being elitist is when you think you know what is best for everyone. Owning expensive things you bought with your money doesn't make anyone elitist. Telling somebody they can't have something they can afford just because you don't like it is elitist.
I always say "You are not a snob if you really are better than other people".
Speedbird741 From Portugal, joined Aug 2008, 57 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (2 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1191 times:
Elitist - An elitist genetic algorithm is one that always retains in the population the best individual found so far. Tournament selection is naturally elitist.
Elitist - is the belief or attitude that those individuals who are considered members of the elite -- a select group of people with outstanding personal abilities, intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes -- are those whose views on a matter are to be taken ...
Elitist - Someone who believes in rule by an elite group; Of or relating to elitism
Does any one see anything regarding the use of a nice dress, that was bought with the persons own money, result of her own work ?
Sv7887 From United States, joined May 2008, 739 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (2 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1191 times:
Quoting N1120A (Reply 8): Spending bucket loads of money on useless foreign policy is not a "traditional value".
And spending money on useless domestic entitlement programs is any better?
Quoting N1120A (Reply 8): Interfering in other people's daily lives is not a "traditional value"
Oh wow so banning foods I might want to eat isn't interference? Raising my taxes through the roof isn't interference? Or stopping me from buying a diesel vehicle in CA, MA, and a few others?
Give me a break. The world isn't black and white like that. There is Good and Bad with BOTH of these political parties...
Falstaff From United States, joined Jun 2006, 2869 posts, RR: 14 Reply 13, posted (2 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1171 times:
Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 4): $300 is the kind of money any executive secretary in a major company in Paris will spend on a suit that she will wear in the office on her day job and she will need a different one each day of the week.
A good men's suit will cost a lot more than that. A halfway decent suit runs about $300-$400. Sometimes you can get last year's model for a great discount.
Mdsh00 From United States, joined May 2004, 3943 posts, RR: 16 Reply 15, posted (2 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1150 times:
Quoting Sv7887 (Reply 12): Oh wow so banning foods I might want to eat isn't interference?
When taxpayers have to foot the bill of people who engorged themselves on fatty foods and then need life saving operations and procedures, or payment of their diabetes medication, there is an element of a government role in preventative health. Are you then also against things like flouridated water, certain vaccinations, and so forth?
"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a big fat white guy who is threatened by change."
N1120A From France, joined Dec 2003, 22904 posts, RR: 79 Reply 16, posted (2 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1145 times:
Quoting Sv7887 (Reply 12):
Oh wow so banning foods I might want to eat isn't interference?
I don't see anyone banning foods you want to eat. If you are talking about bans in place with restaurants, you can look dead on at a Republican mayor for taking the lead on that one.
Quoting Sv7887 (Reply 12): Raising my taxes through the roof isn't interference?
"Your" taxes? Are you part of John McCain's "middle class" making $4 million a year? Barack Obama is proposing a massive middle class tax cut. Oh, by the way, the government has every right to tax people anyway they see fit. You sure sound "entitled" there.
Quoting Sv7887 (Reply 12): Or stopping me from buying a diesel vehicle in CA, MA, and a few others?
First, this is a federal election. If you want to get into a State's Rights argument about this one, you will be flying WAY off the "conservative" line. Second, you already can buy diesels in those states, so you are misrepresenting what the laws are. Third, if you want car makers to put out more compliant diesels, convince them that the economic realities fit for them.
Quoting Sv7887 (Reply 12):
And spending money on useless domestic entitlement programs is any better?
"Useless" programs huh? So, rectifying the fact that 50 million are uninsured is "useless"? Spending less on health care overall is "useless"? Insuring that the elderly don't have to choose between pills and a hot meal is "useless"? Insuring that US industry is on an equal playing field is "useless"?
Quoting Sv7887 (Reply 12): There is Good and Bad with BOTH of these political parties...
Unfortunately, most of the bad with one is caused by that of the other.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
Beaucaire From Syria, joined Sep 2003, 4877 posts, RR: 23 Reply 17, posted (2 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1136 times:
talking about Cindy-she does not find Palin's speech so great and refuses to be called an adept of her utterly rightwing excesses tied to some abortion refusal practice and denial of sex-education..
Sv7887 From United States, joined May 2008, 739 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (2 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1130 times:
Quoting Mdsh00 (Reply 15): Are you then also against things like flouridated water, certain vaccinations, and so forth?
Of course not..But there is a big difference. We allow people to drink, smoke cigarettes and whatever else is fashionable these days and the effects are equally if not more damaging.
Where do you stop?
Banning trans-fats does what exactly? It doesn't stop the source of the problem: Poor eating habits. It's like people who overdose on "Low Fat" products thinking it gives them free license to do whatever they want.
HALFA From United States, joined Jan 2004, 1034 posts, RR: 10 Reply 19, posted (2 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1070 times:
Quoting Falstaff (Reply 10): That is exactly right. Being elitist is when you think you know what is best for everyone.
Like the Republican platform of banning abortion? I am personally against abortion but who am I to tell another women what to do with her body?!
Like the Republican platform of supporting sodomy laws that are applied to gay men? If two men are in love (or not) and want to get it on in the privacy of their own home, who cares? I sure don't.
Republicans seem to be real good at talking about less government but are the masters of placing MORE restrictions on people based on their own moral code. It seems like it is the Republicans that think they know what is best for everyone.
You might want to re-evaluate your thought process.
Sponsor Message: 
From Canada, joined Mar 2002, 1239 posts, 
From United States, joined May 2004, 3943 posts, 
From Monaco, joined Feb 2007, 2434 posts, 
From Greenland, joined Sep 2003, 1981 posts, .gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (England), joined Aug 2006, 1906 posts, 
From France, joined Dec 2003, 22904 posts, 
From Portugal, joined Aug 2008, 57 posts, 
From Syria, joined Sep 2003, 4877 posts,