Re: Not to be smug or anything, but...
- From: "COJ" <coj1961@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 10:48:55 +0100
"Mickey" <Mickey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> skrev i meddelandet
news:bs0fk3phabqbi3q9a6hashsqsaa6ns9o2r@xxxxxxxxxx
"Alex W." <ingilt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
We just call them "Democrats".
"Mickey" <Mickey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:qb8ek3lo6cs85m2i1mj35k1lnq2d6jkd2p@xxxxxxxxxx
"Democrats like to define themselves as the party of poor and
middle-income Americans, but a new study says they now represent the
majority of the nation's wealthiest congressional districts."
We have a term for people like that in Britain: Champagne Socialists.
A far better word is politicians....as, as soon as you've filtrate away all
the fancy wordings they are all the same....they are only in it for
themselfs...
Or as its so well put by Douglas Adams
"It is a well-known fact that those people who most want to rule people
are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it... anyone who is capable of
getting themselves elected should on no account be allowed to do the job."
COJ
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Not to be smug or anything, but...
- From: Justin C
- Re: Not to be smug or anything, but...
- References:
- Not to be smug or anything, but...
- From: Mickey
- Re: Not to be smug or anything, but...
- From: Alex W.
- Re: Not to be smug or anything, but...
- From: Mickey
- Not to be smug or anything, but...
- Prev by Date: Re: fakes
- Next by Date: Re: Review: Cuba Aliados Candela Lonsdale
- Previous by thread: Re: Not to be smug or anything, but...
- Next by thread: Re: Not to be smug or anything, but...
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|