Many seem to have a problem with capitalistic, expensive haircuts. In a capitalistic and free society, people can charge whatever they want for a haircut, and people have the right to pay or go somewhere else. To be against this would have to be some sort of socialized, regulated haircut system. I guess they have this in the military. Or maybe they don't get haircuts. But they seem to complain about hippies a little too much for this to be true.
2007-07-05 09:54:59 · 21 answers · asked by Take it from Toby 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
LOL ~ Thank you! Wish I thought of this question ;-)
As if anybody running for President is poor! I'm sure they have all spend money on ridiculously extravagant crap they don't need!
2007-07-05 09:57:38 · answer #1 · answered by shelly 4 · 7⤊ 3⤋
the government isn't a private agency. It represents all 260 million individuals, that's the mummy of all conflicts of pastimes; quite while skill "adjustments palms" each few years. Blunt isn't speaking approximately loose industry opposition, which has the flair to deliver coverage rates right down to a minimum of 0.5 their contemporary tiers. If all and sundry's on a central authority-backed plan, nonetheless, then aggressive wellbeing care will without delay fall to the wayside, and the downward spiral will deliver approximately an fairly socialized wellbeing care device, the place there'll be no opposition.
2016-09-29 03:41:56 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because it shows vanity. If a public servant pays 500 dollars for a 20 dollar cut. That 480 dollars could be donated to the poor or other needy group. So it shows they are more interested in there outward appearance than their inner need to actually help people.
2007-07-05 10:02:09 · answer #3 · answered by hedddon 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
OK, I'm a conservative. conservative means just that. I don't want a $200.00 haircut, I want a conservative haircut. I pay $8 and leave a $2 tip. $4 haircuts are available, but that would make me cheap and a risk taker, which is not conservative.
2007-07-05 10:09:33 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ahhh...the Edwards tempest in a teapot. The whole point about bringing that up is the naked hypocrisy that Edwards claims there are two Americas. One poor, one rich. What does Edwards know about the poor anyway? He claimed he learned about them while he worked at a hedge fund. It isn't really about haircuts. It's about the image he wants to portray. He is trying to persuade people to vote for him.
2007-07-05 11:45:13 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
You are eluding to John Edwards who pays $400 for a haircut..You are talking about a man who made his money by suing insurance companies and corporations ..we need tort reform but Edwards would oppose it..You liberals
2007-07-05 10:02:06 · answer #6 · answered by John 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Socialized haircuts? I'm all for it.
You ought to see some of the butchered hair-cuts I've gotten.
2007-07-05 10:22:02 · answer #7 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Hey a $1000.00 pizza might be fine for people on food stamps but a $400.00 haircut is nothing compared to what it costs to fill my hat up .
2007-07-05 10:10:39 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why do so many liberals want not only to scalp the conservative's heads, but do them in completely? Fair play is fair play after all.
2007-07-05 10:07:01 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
no silly socialized haircuts for DEMS only
You didn't see any of them complaining when Lauara Bush got a $750 hair do at the expense of the AMERICAN TAXPAYER
2007-07-05 10:08:41 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
It took me a moment to get the joke, but that's a good one!
2007-07-05 12:50:13 · answer #11 · answered by ConcernedCitizen 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋