5 day forecast
'Millionaire' reference is shameful class warfare
Share with others:
What a surprise, the PG endorses Bob Casey for U.S. Senate. You didn't really need to try and trump up reasons; we all know he is a Democrat and you could have written his re-election endorsement six years ago when he was elected the first time. What was utterly shocking, however, and clearly showed the PG bias, is that you used the word "millionaire" after Tom Smith's name. Tom Smith the millionaire Republican!
The PG takes that directly from the Democratic playbook. The Mark Critz campaign ads use the same phrase when mentioning his opponent Keith Rothfus. So, my question to the supposed objective PG editorial board is: When did it become a bad thing in this country to be a millionaire? The PG uses it, just like the Democrats, as a pejorative.
This is class warfare at its ugliest and is shameful. So, anyone who has reached a certain level of success, saved money, paid taxes (and a lot of them) and accumulated assets is a bad person? Someone to be held in contempt? Of all the biased, liberal articles the PG runs daily, this is the clear sign that you have lost any semblance of journalistic objectivity.
By the way, you also insult many of your subscribers, and there are many who are millionaires -- a large number of whom are Democrats. I guess a millionaire Democrat is OK. Do you mention "millionaire" before other prominent people in other walks of life? Where does the PG draw the line? Remember, without millionaires, President Obama would have no one to redistribute money from! All I can say is shameful.
TERENCE SANCTIS
Cranberry
First Published November 4, 2012 12:00 am
