Rich people have no idea what you're thinking

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 17, 2010 11:24 PM GMT
    http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/upper-class-people-have-trouble-recognizing-others-emotions.html
    http://bodyodd.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/12/13/5624389-rich-people-have-no-idea-what-youre-thinking
    http://bodyodd.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/12/13/5624389-rich-people-have-no-idea-what-youre-thinkingWondering why your fat cat boss seems so clueless about why you don’t want to work extra shifts during the holidays? It could be because he can’t understand the dour looks you keep throwing his way.


    So here's an example of how to capture an article in an inflammatory headline. Witness the mutations:

    Upper class (as defined by education) subjects don't recognize emotions on static images of faces as well as lower class subjects
    --->
    Rich people have no idea what you're thinking

    Between those 2 sentences are numerous assumptions that need to be proven.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 18, 2010 12:05 AM GMT
    That makes a kind of sense. When one is in a higher status position, you need not "rely upon the kindness of strangers" and there is no concern for any need to "sweet-talk" someone. One just expects compliance without the need for sugar-coating.
  • conservativej...

    Posts: 2465

    Dec 18, 2010 12:09 AM GMT
    Ironic isn't it, when understanding the reciprocal is just as daunting?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 18, 2010 12:39 AM GMT
    I worked in an architectural firm in NYC that built custom multi-million dollar homes for Park Avenue rich folk, and this article is dead-on.
    The rich not only don't know what you're thinking - they also don't care what you're thinking, or about the fact that you exist at all.
    UNLESS, you have as much money as they do.
    Then suddenly, you exist and you matter.
    They consider the rest of inferior beings to be dealt with as little as possible.
  • conservativej...

    Posts: 2465

    Dec 18, 2010 1:37 AM GMT
    rickrick91 saidI worked in an architectural firm in NYC that built custom multi-million dollar homes for Park Avenue rich folk, and this article is dead-on.
    The rich not only don't know what you're thinking - they also don't care what you're thinking, or about the fact that you exist at all.
    UNLESS, you have as much money as they do.
    Then suddenly, you exist and you matter.
    They consider the rest of inferior beings to be dealt with as little as possible.


    So why did you leave the employ of this architectural firm that succeeded in moving a portion of those millions of dollars over into your pocket?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 18, 2010 2:30 AM GMT
    conservativejock said
    rickrick91 saidI worked in an architectural firm in NYC that built custom multi-million dollar homes for Park Avenue rich folk, and this article is dead-on.
    The rich not only don't know what you're thinking - they also don't care what you're thinking, or about the fact that you exist at all.
    UNLESS, you have as much money as they do.
    Then suddenly, you exist and you matter.
    They consider the rest of inferior beings to be dealt with as little as possible.


    So why did you leave the employ of this architectural firm that succeeded in moving a portion of those millions of dollars over into your pocket?


    Probably because he preferred being treated like a human being... icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 18, 2010 3:33 AM GMT
    rickrick91 saidThey consider the rest of inferior beings to be dealt with as little as possible.

    Which would apply to their lapdogs as well, Republican politicians.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 18, 2010 5:02 AM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    rickrick91 saidThey consider the rest of inferior beings to be dealt with as little as possible.

    Which would apply to their lapdogs as well, Republican politicians.


    But...........Red you have proven to us many a time, by either name dropping, and telling us all about the status of the parties you enjoy being invited to so much; albeit hate paying for it,and how much you yourself are into status.

    So pray tell possums, what separates you from the the republicans you bash?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 18, 2010 5:15 AM GMT
    When you really stop to think about it, nobody knows what anyone else is thinking...regardless of income or education level.
    That fact is evidenced right here in this thread. icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 18, 2010 5:47 AM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    rickrick91 saidThey consider the rest of inferior beings to be dealt with as little as possible.

    Which would apply to their lapdogs as well, Republican politicians.

    Just a quick reality check. Wallstreet (and the rich) have contributed far more to their Democrat lapdogs than their Republican lapdogs. This may mean the the price for the soul of a Democrat is a little higher than a Republican; but they are both for sale.

    The top 6 Wall street firms gave 58% of their 2009 donations to... Democrats.

    Jamie Dimon (head of JP Morgan) gave $65000 in 2006 and 2008 to Democrats. Leon Black (Apollo global) gave $200 000 to Democrats. Blankfein (like I need to say it- Goldman) gave $50 000 to Democrats. And the list goes on...

    In 2008 the DSCC and DCCC (Democrat party) raised 20% of their total funds from Manhattan (I hate to say it- but if it came from Manhattan, it was likely originating from millionaires.) 28% or their funding came from New York.

    From back when Hilary was still battling for the Democrat nomination... "For now, though, Sen. Clinton of New York is leading the way, bringing in at least $6.29 million from the securities and investment industry, compared with $6.03 million for Sen. Obama of Illinois and $2.59 million for McCain, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Those figures include donations from the investment companies' employees and political action committees."

    Seems like the Democrats were raking in 12 million compared to the Republicans 2.5 million from the investment industry back when.

    Democrat Eric T. Schneiderman easily beat the hell out of Republican Daniel M. Donovan Jr. Schneiderman (Manhattans upper west side) raised 6.8 million to Donovans (less than) one million.

    I know, it was millions of middle class Democrats contributing $5each to one big, rich Republican contributor...

    That's about it. I just have a tough time accepting that the Democrats are going to fight for the "little guy" while accepting the majority of their funding from millionaires. I also get a kick out of it only being Republicans "lapdogs" of the rich... The fact is that the rich have paid for lapdogs from both parties. Remind me again who extended the Bush tax cuts?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 18, 2010 5:54 AM GMT
    it's called the other minds problem . . .
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 18, 2010 5:56 AM GMT
    and thank you, west77, for reminding all of RJ that liberalism is just misanthropy with a PR agent . . .
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 18, 2010 6:39 AM GMT
    paulflexes saidWhen you really stop to think about it, nobody knows what anyone else is thinking...regardless of income or education level.
    That fact is evidenced right here in this thread. icon_wink.gif


    Yeah, but empathy doesn't require mind-reading--it's just requires that your guesses are closer to knowing what I am thinking, based on reading emotions on the face. And all this study shows is that better educated people are less adept at it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 18, 2010 9:50 PM GMT
    west77 said
    Art_Deco said
    rickrick91 saidThey consider the rest of inferior beings to be dealt with as little as possible.

    Which would apply to their lapdogs as well, Republican politicians.

    Just a quick reality check. Wallstreet (and the rich) have contributed far more to their Democrat lapdogs than their Republican lapdogs. This may mean the the price for the soul of a Democrat is a little higher than a Republican; but they are both for sale.

    The top 6 Wall street firms gave 58% of their 2009 donations to... Democrats.

    Jamie Dimon (head of JP Morgan) gave $65000 in 2006 and 2008 to Democrats. Leon Black (Apollo global) gave $200 000 to Democrats. Blankfein (like I need to say it- Goldman) gave $50 000 to Democrats. And the list goes on...

    In 2008 the DSCC and DCCC (Democrat party) raised 20% of their total funds from Manhattan (I hate to say it- but if it came from Manhattan, it was likely originating from millionaires.) 28% or their funding came from New York.

    From back when Hilary was still battling for the Democrat nomination... "For now, though, Sen. Clinton of New York is leading the way, bringing in at least $6.29 million from the securities and investment industry, compared with $6.03 million for Sen. Obama of Illinois and $2.59 million for McCain, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Those figures include donations from the investment companies' employees and political action committees."

    Seems like the Democrats were raking in 12 million compared to the Republicans 2.5 million from the investment industry back when.

    Democrat Eric T. Schneiderman easily beat the hell out of Republican Daniel M. Donovan Jr. Schneiderman (Manhattans upper west side) raised 6.8 million to Donovans (less than) one million.

    I know, it was millions of middle class Democrats contributing $5each to one big, rich Republican contributor...

    That's about it. I just have a tough time accepting that the Democrats are going to fight for the "little guy" while accepting the majority of their funding from millionaires. I also get a kick out of it only being Republicans "lapdogs" of the rich... The fact is that the rich have paid for lapdogs from both parties. Remind me again who extended the Bush tax cuts?




    Your "reality check" is a steaming pile of BS.

    Here is how Wall Street doled out it's cash over the last year or so.

    http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/09/fdasfsd-fdsaadfs-in-the-early.html

    They gave their campaign $ to the REPUBLICANS.
    They believed that the Repubs would be back in power soon, and that if they could help elect the Repubs, the Repubs would push for greater deregulation and away from the protections for average Americans that the Dems have pushed for over the last couple of years.
    Wall Street gave it's $ to the REPUBLICANS to try to get the corporate-friendly Repubs back in power.

    AND, the FACT is that rich Americans overwhelmingly favor and vote for the Republican party.
    Just check out how the rich voted in the last election.

    http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2010/results/polls/#USH00p1

    You can't post a bunch of false BS and get away with it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 18, 2010 9:55 PM GMT
    noren saidand thank you, west77, for reminding all of RJ that liberalism is just misanthropy with a PR agent . . .



    NOPE.
    All west did was post phony ass lies.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 18, 2010 10:01 PM GMT
    jprichva said
    noren saidand thank you, west77, for reminding all of RJ that liberalism is just misanthropy with a PR agent . . .

    Oh Christ, you're back. Did someone say your name three times or something?


    LOL. That's funny.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 18, 2010 11:34 PM GMT
    rickrick91 said
    noren saidand thank you, west77, for reminding all of RJ that liberalism is just misanthropy with a PR agent . . .



    NOPE.
    All west did was post phony ass lies.

    Oh man, you are stuck on the idea that the Democrats represent the "little guy" against the evil, corrupt corporations. The simple fact is that the Republicans represent the rich and powerful- so do the Democrats. If it makes you feel any better, contributions from the rich to the Democrats dropped off last election cycle. Don't worry too much- I am sure they have learned their lesson as to who holds the purse strings and who they must serve to get reelected.

    On to the links. I will go through each of the figures that I gave above with posts to reputable news sources. Perhaps we can agree that the figures I posted above are not "lies"?

    From Reuters. Notice that I include the drop in contributions for your pleasure. My figure of 58% for 2008 is accurate- it was not a lie. Yes, the figure dropped to 51% for 2010. Feel free to use that, but they are still giving to the Democrats and Republicans (good insurance to have lap dogs from both parties.)
    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66Q68G20100727E
    "... the top six Wall Street firms -- Bank of America, Citigroup Inc, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs Group, JP Morgan Chase and Morgan Stanley -- gave 58 percent of their total donations to Democrats in 2009 but have trimmed their contribution to 51 percent over the past six months."

    On to the Washington Post... Again, feel free to call them mistaken and "liars." I will even quote a little further to give you the "free ammuntion" that these individuals did not contribute (at that point in the campaign) to the DCCC last election cycle. Keep in mind, that the figures I quoted were 2006 and 2008- meaning that I was not "lying."
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/05/AR2010070502913.html
    "Take Jamie Dimon, the head of J.P. Morgan Chase, who is known for his close relationship with President Obama...In 2006 and 2008, he donated $65,000 to the Democratic committees. This election cycle, he has not contributed at all to the DSCC or DCCC."
    "... Leon Black... gave more than $200,000 to Democratic congressional committees over the previous two election cycles but have not given this year, according to the latest disclosure documents."
    "Lloyd Blankfein, chief executive and chairman of Goldman Sachs, has not donated to the Democrats, either, after giving $50,000 in the previous two cycles."
    "


    I will use the same Washington post article linked to above to defend my figures of 28% of the funding from New York and 20% or it from Manhattan.
    "In reviewing the FEC records, The Post analyzed fundraising data for New York City and its suburbs in New Jersey, on Long Island and north of the city -- a region that had become an outsized source of Democratic campaign cash. In the 2008 cycle, 28 percent of the two committees' itemized individual contributions came from the region. Manhattan alone accounted for 20 percent."

    On to the L.A Times. I already posted the complete quote, but seeing as I did not give the link, I will do it again. I am not going to sift through the net for final figures given to both parties for the presidential elections. Please feel free to spend the time and get back to us with the final figures that the securities and investment industry contributed to each party for that election- but my figures stand from when Hillary was still in the race.
    http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/21/nation/na-wallstdems21
    For now, though, Sen. Clinton of New York is leading the way, bringing in at least $6.29 million from the securities and investment industry, compared with $6.03 million for Sen. Obama of Illinois and $2.59 million for McCain, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Those figures include donations from the investment companies' employees and political action committees.

    I included the race for AG with Schneiderman and Donovan. I will use the numbers from http://www.law.com/jsp/nylj/PubArticleNY.jsp?id=1202475908736&Schneiderman_Fundraising_Tops__Million_to_Win_AG_Contest&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1 because it seems like a pretty good source. I will apologize in advance, as my numbers were a little off. Not a "lie", and I can find other sources that support my original numbers, but we will stick with these... It was still 3X as much contributed to the Democrat, Schneiderman as his competition.
    "Overall, Mr. Schneiderman raised $7.46 million through Nov. 29 for his primary and general election campaigns...Mr. Donovan collected $2.32 million overall."

    Well, I think that covers all of the facts and figures that I had included in my original post. I know that you had seen my post as an attack, possibly pro Republican. The simple fact is that it was only meant to show how much money flows to the Democrats from Wall Street. I hoped to show that there may be a few Democrat "lap dogs" in addition to the Republican "lap dogs."

    You can continue to call me a liar- but please, this time include specific details. Which of the above facts do you wish to dispute? Which of the above sources are you going to call out? You can post all the links to show that the rich support Republicans that you want. I will not disagree- but posting those links does not make me a liar; the Democrat party gets millions each election cycle from Investment banks, billionaires, and industry. To close your eyes to the idea that they may have a debt to these contributors is to be willfully blind...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 19, 2010 12:36 AM GMT
    west77 said
    rickrick91 said
    noren saidand thank you, west77, for reminding all of RJ that liberalism is just misanthropy with a PR agent . . .



    NOPE.
    All west did was post phony ass lies.

    Oh man, you are stuck on the idea that the Democrats represent the "little guy" against the evil, corrupt corporations. The simple fact is that the Republicans represent the rich and powerful- so do the Democrats. If it makes you feel any better, contributions from the rich to the Democrats dropped off last election cycle. Don't worry too much- I am sure they have learned their lesson as to who holds the purse strings and who they must serve to get reelected.

    On to the links. I will go through each of the figures that I gave above with posts to reputable news sources. Perhaps we can agree that the figures I posted above are not "lies"?

    From Reuters. Notice that I include the drop in contributions for your pleasure. My figure of 58% for 2008 is accurate- it was not a lie. Yes, the figure dropped to 51% for 2010. Feel free to use that, but they are still giving to the Democrats and Republicans (good insurance to have lap dogs from both parties.)
    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66Q68G20100727E
    "... the top six Wall Street firms -- Bank of America, Citigroup Inc, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs Group, JP Morgan Chase and Morgan Stanley -- gave 58 percent of their total donations to Democrats in 2009 but have trimmed their contribution to 51 percent over the past six months."

    On to the Washington Post... Again, feel free to call them mistaken and "liars." I will even quote a little further to give you the "free ammuntion" that these individuals did not contribute (at that point in the campaign) to the DCCC last election cycle. Keep in mind, that the figures I quoted were 2006 and 2008- meaning that I was not "lying."
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/05/AR2010070502913.html
    "Take Jamie Dimon, the head of J.P. Morgan Chase, who is known for his close relationship with President Obama...In 2006 and 2008, he donated $65,000 to the Democratic committees. This election cycle, he has not contributed at all to the DSCC or DCCC."
    "... Leon Black... gave more than $200,000 to Democratic congressional committees over the previous two election cycles but have not given this year, according to the latest disclosure documents."
    "Lloyd Blankfein, chief executive and chairman of Goldman Sachs, has not donated to the Democrats, either, after giving $50,000 in the previous two cycles."
    "


    I will use the same Washington post article linked to above to defend my figures of 28% of the funding from New York and 20% or it from Manhattan.
    "In reviewing the FEC records, The Post analyzed fundraising data for New York City and its suburbs in New Jersey, on Long Island and north of the city -- a region that had become an outsized source of Democratic campaign cash. In the 2008 cycle, 28 percent of the two committees' itemized individual contributions came from the region. Manhattan alone accounted for 20 percent."

    On to the L.A Times. I already posted the complete quote, but seeing as I did not give the link, I will do it again. I am not going to sift through the net for final figures given to both parties for the presidential elections. Please feel free to spend the time and get back to us with the final figures that the securities and investment industry contributed to each party for that election- but my figures stand from when Hillary was still in the race.
    http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/21/nation/na-wallstdems21
    For now, though, Sen. Clinton of New York is leading the way, bringing in at least $6.29 million from the securities and investment industry, compared with $6.03 million for Sen. Obama of Illinois and $2.59 million for McCain, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Those figures include donations from the investment companies' employees and political action committees.

    I included the race for AG with Schneiderman and Donovan. I will use the numbers from http://www.law.com/jsp/nylj/PubArticleNY.jsp?id=1202475908736&Schneiderman_Fundraising_Tops__Million_to_Win_AG_Contest&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1 because it seems like a pretty good source. I will apologize in advance, as my numbers were a little off. Not a "lie", and I can find other sources that support my original numbers, but we will stick with these... It was still 3X as much contributed to the Democrat, Schneiderman as his competition.
    "Overall, Mr. Schneiderman raised $7.46 million through Nov. 29 for his primary and general election campaigns...Mr. Donovan collected $2.32 million overall."

    Well, I think that covers all of the facts and figures that I had included in my original post. I know that you had seen my post as an attack, possibly pro Republican. The simple fact is that it was only meant to show how much money flows to the Democrats from Wall Street. I hoped to show that there may be a few Democrat "lap dogs" in addition to the Republican "lap dogs."

    You can continue to call me a liar- but please, this time include specific details. Which of the above facts do you wish to dispute? Which of the above sources are you going to call out? You can post all the links to show that the rich support Republicans that you want. I will not disagree- but posting those links does not make me a liar; the Democrat party gets millions each election cycle from Investment banks, billionaires, and industry. To close your eyes to the idea that they may have a debt to these contributors is to be willfully blind...



    My comment was in response to the idea that you tried to sell - that the Dems are just as bad as the Repubs when it comes to corporate cronyism.

    That's false.

    Maybe the facts you posted aren't false, but the IDEA that you pushed is.
    The IDEA that the Democratic party is as pro-corporate as the Repubs is total BS.
    And a lie.
    You can post as many facts that show that the Dems take corporate cash as you want, but that doesn't mean that the Dems are equally as much tools of corporate America as the Repubs are.

    And you may post facts about the cash some "Investment banks, billionaires, and industry" give to the Dems, but unless you can also post proof that the Dems pass into law rules and regulations favorable to those entities, as payback - then you've proven NOTHING.
    The FACT is that the Dems have a record of putting in place rules and regulations of business and Wall Street that is FAR superior to the stridently pro-corporate record of the Repubs.

    And you also used OLD stats about campaign contributions.
    In the most recent election cycle, it was the REPUBS who got the most campaign contributions from Wall Street - NOT the Dems.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 19, 2010 6:09 AM GMT
    rickrick91 said
    My comment was in response to the idea that you tried to sell - that the Dems are just as bad as the Repubs when it comes to corporate cronyism.

    That's false.

    Maybe the facts you posted aren't false, but the IDEA that you pushed is.
    The IDEA that the Democratic party is as pro-corporate as the Repubs is total BS.
    And a lie.
    You can post as many facts that show that the Dems take corporate cash as you want, but that doesn't mean that the Dems are equally as much tools of corporate America as the Repubs are.

    You have to love the twists and turns on a RJ thread (and I freely admit that I contribute to those twists.) What starts out as a thread about education and reading expressions turns into a discussion about which party is the most beholden to their corporate masters. Perhaps the problem stems from a misunderstanding. I did not say that the Democrats are every bit as "bad" as the Republicans. I did say that the rich have lapdogs in both parties. If you want me to say that there are more lapdogs or that their lapdogs in the Republican party are more obiedent to their masters, I will. However, as you point out in your post- the corporations and the rich have punished their disobedient pets within the Democratic party during the last election cycle by withholding some funds. I suppose that we will have to wait for the next cycle to find out if the politicians have learned from their mistakes of not toeing the line. I also gave credit to the Democrats and said that they demand a higher price before they sell their souls... perhaps the corporations only buy a portion of their soul for the millions the contribute?

    When you consider that corporations are only legally responsible to their share holders to increase the value of their stock, you have to wonder why they are giving millions to Democrats. The only reasonable response is that they expect a monetary return on their "investments" (those investments being politicians.) The simple fact is, and I keep going back to it- both parties have sold out Americans. Here in Canada, all three major parties have sold out Canadians- each to varying degrees.

    rickrick91 said
    And you may post facts about the cash some "Investment banks, billionaires, and industry" give to the Dems, but unless you can also post proof that the Dems pass into law rules and regulations favorable to those entities, as payback - then you've proven NOTHING.
    The FACT is that the Dems have a record of putting in place rules and regulations of business and Wall Street that is FAR superior to the stridently pro-corporate record of the Repubs.

    And you also used OLD stats about campaign contributions.
    In the most recent election cycle, it was the REPUBS who got the most campaign contributions from Wall Street - NOT the Dems.

    Do you demand the same burden of proof when it comes to Republicans? Unless I am mistaken, it would be illegal for a politician to openly take money and then proclaim that they are passing legislation to benefit that industry BECAUSE of the "donation." If you demand that I provide you with proof that Democrats pass regulations favourable to their donors as payback, I am afraid that I am unable to (or I would pass the info on to prosecutors.) Below, I reference Clinton... is he signing those papers as payback for the contributions over the years??? Your guess is as good as mine- but the picture remains of him looking pretty smug while clearing the way to increasing profits for Goldman and others. I also can not point to one example where the Republican party proclaimed that they were passing legislation in return for payment from any specific industry.

    As to the idea of "old" statistics, 2008, 2009 and 2010 is not old. The top 6 firms giving 58% to Democrats in 2009 and "only" 51% in 2010 is not that outdated. Even the 2008 figures are not "old." I would consider by quoting figures from the '70's as being irrelevant- but one or two election cycles past? That is not old as many of the politicians that money bought and paid for are still passing laws.

    This may sound bad- but I don't care if Democrats have a record of putting in place regulations on Wall Street that you feel do not benefit corporations as MUCH as Republican policies- they still relax regulation and policies and contributed to the implosion and the huge separation that now exists between rich and poor. Hell, Bernanke (whose incompetence and refusal to regulate derivatives contributed to the collapse) is now employed by the Democrats.

    Oddly enough, I just realized that this picture originated on a site called "the strange death of liberal America." I might have to look a little closer at that site- seems interesting. Anyhow, below you will find a picture of Clinton signing the documents repealing the Glass-Steigal act. This was put in place during the great depression to prevent retail and investment banks from screwing the economy again causing another depression- and was repealed by a Democrat president (I suppose I should add that I recognize that the bill to repeal Glass-Steigal was introduced by a Republican congress before Clinton signed it into law.) Yeah, it would likely have been repealed by a Republican president if not a Democrat- they are relatively interchangeable. Just look at all those happy rich people clapping and cheering him on as he repeals a major roadblock to unlimited profits and and massive risk.
    clintonsignsglasssteagallrepeal.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 19, 2010 4:53 PM GMT
    west77, this is largely an American thing; you are either one or the other with no middle. I think you made very good points, and you're right about Canada's parties as well.

    Why did the Canadian cross the road?

    To get to the median (middle). icon_lol.gif


    -Doug