2007-12-14 12:54:16 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
But of course I am referring to the antagonist. The one who owns the slums.
2007-12-14 13:13:08 · update #1
avatar 20 nice answer
2007-12-14 13:13:52 · update #2
His name is Mr. Potter
2007-12-14 13:15:06 · update #3
Technically, yes, as the bank owner, at least the savings and loan owner, was conservative with his money, yet compassionate to the greater community. The S&L was not losing money, it was profiting, if not greatly at least enough to be in a position to loan more members of the community money while providing a living to the owner. Now, if you mean the owner of the other bank trying to buy out the S&L, no, not a compassionate conservative at all, but a capitalist of the truest, worst kind, equaled only by a socialist style bank which would borrow out money to everyone equally, of course demanding they give up all rights to anything including first born and the air they breath. Compassionate conservatism allows for the free man to earn his way up without unduly blocking his attempts to do it on his own terms. We don't have either compassionate conservatism or socially responsable liberalism working for us in this country anymore, what a shame. We are stuck picking sides over which corrupt pol we support.
2007-12-14 13:09:45 · answer #1 · answered by avatar2068 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Mr. Potter is a Democrat and Mr. Bailey is a Republican.
2007-12-14 22:02:45 · answer #2 · answered by Johnny Reb 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No because in the parallel of Bedford Falls is full of prostitution, welfare, poverty, dying children, All the things the Liberals create so they can make the world a better place.
2007-12-14 21:05:05 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 3⤊ 4⤋
Which bank?
2007-12-14 21:09:50 · answer #4 · answered by grumpyoldman 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not at all. It's a fairy tail
2007-12-14 21:02:03 · answer #5 · answered by 1st Buzie 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋
i think so
2007-12-14 20:56:36 · answer #6 · answered by irish_matt 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋