I personally feel sorry for her. Furthermore I think that with the lifestyle that she is now accustomed to, she should receive even more assistance than before so that she is not forced into dropping back into poverty like the rest of us. She has to be on A higher plain than the majority of us and I don't feel that we should be critical of her. We cannot after all understand the superior intellect of someone this special and she probably cannot comprehend the sub-par level of intellect of the average working man. We should just accept that there are people among us that think they inherently deserve more than the rest of us and work harder to achieve they're goals. I wouldn't mind paying more taxes so that someone like this can live well beyond they're means.
lol.. A little harsh though. She's getting all this for taking 200 bucks from her assistance after winning some money. Sure it's bad taste but far from being the worst thing that people have done, see bank ceo's and others. Sucks though she lost half her winnings b4 she got it.
They were just trying to find something to agree on. Hatred for bank ceo's. You might as well throw in Former New York Times Co Chief Executive Janet Robinson received a total payout of nearly $24 million after she left the newspaper publisher at the end of last year.
Perhaps our standards should be higher than the lowest common denominator?
that's sort of what I was going for. Going after a poor person but letting the super wealthy person go for approximately the same thing is not right. See lawsuits against people for downloading a few songs via torrents. We should have higher standards of how people get treated and how they are judged/fined and the like. Of course I could say we should all want things better for ourselves not lesser.
Seriously, how is this any different from the Wall St investment bankers who took bailout money and used it to reward themselves with bonuses...except for the fact that the Wall St crooks got one helluva lot more than the welfare queen?
Comments