You know, you guys on Skins's island are big, real big, about comparing this country with the waning days of the ancien regime in France, say circa 1789-1793, where the super-rich partied while the peasants starved; where the aristocrats fiddled while the country burned.
And then there's calls for the guillotine.
Fine, and I personally happen to agree that's a damned good analogy.
But it seems to me you're confusing the aristocrats as being the peasants, and the peasants as being the aristocrats here.
There's thousands of examples--the pages of democraticunderground are rife with them--name-calling George Bush as a "rich boy" and not name-calling your 2004 presidential candidate the same thing. George Bush in 2004 was worth 5.6 million; John Kerrey in 2004 was a razor's edge from being a billionaire.
Or whining about the plight of $90,000+ teachers and other union workers in Wisconsin, while denigrating the plight of $20,000 workers in the Badger State.
I won't bother repeating other examples where you've confused the rich with the poor, and the poor with the rich; there's not enough bandwidth to do that.
But now this has come up.
The country is tottering on the brink, the closest to financial breakdown it's been in its history.
The day after we're scheduled to go broke, your Chosen One is having a big birthday bash in Chicago, $36,000 the price of a ticket; obviously an evening only the super-rich can afford.
I think you need to reconsider who you think the aristocrats are, and who the peasants are.
And thus, whose heads are going on the electoral chopping block next.