The Tea Party Republicans are Revolting

@Fido,

Quote:

Hang 'em... And if they object, then wound 'em first...

Hang them....NO NO NO.....It would be far more appropriate to used exacts copies of the French guillotines of the French Revolution era.

It would also be a pleasure to set up a bank of them in front of Congress to deal with the best group of Congresspersons that money can buy along with the untold numbers of lobbies/bagmen who hang around them.

0 Replies

@Fido,

You paper tiger revolutionaries crack me up.

Why would "the rich" leave the country and leave their wealth behind? Because you and your geurrillas might threaten to hang them? Growl paper tiger, growl!

Better that we should split the country in half:

You and your confreres can have one half and run it without concentrating wealth in the few; sharing equally with everyone.

From each according to his ability; to each according to his need.

Then we can sit back and wait for all the fools who chose to live in your paradise try to emigrate to our half.

You would get to keep all of the natural resources contained within your half of the nation. The rich who left couldn't bring their, mines, factories and farms with them. They would, however, be able to bring their cash, valuables , companies and patents.

Of course, their cash would have no value in Progressive Land, so why would you care? Likewise, the concept of an individual owning intellectual property would have no meaning in your nation and so you would be able to pirate all sorts of technological wonders.

But those who did remain in PL would be the true believers, the unselfish ones and theirs would be the strength of a thousand capitalist parasites! Your nation could not but thrive and produce heaven on earth, while mine followed it's inevitable road to hell

3 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Any society with most of the wealth in the hands of a very few and no real middle class any longer that have a stake in maintaining the society is very unstable to say the least.

So you are of the opinion that the rich can buy enough security government or private to keep the vast bulk of the population under control?

That you can have a group living like kings and queens of old where the rest of society is not sure where their next meal is coming from?

Good luck on that idea as a fast read of history will give you a long list of rulings classes that had their throats cut by the peasants.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Oh overthrowing a ruling class that had seize the government to benefit themselves only, by force or other means does not imply the kind of government that would be set up to replace it.

It could in fact be very similar to the government we have now just with damn strong safeguards to keep a very small ruling class from seizing power/control or almost the total wealth of the society.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Calling me a tiger is too much abuse, and I object... I'm a dog to those who know me best, and always faithful, a friend to all mankind... Trust me... I am too old for revolution...I know the best and greatest punishment for the rich and powerful is to make them use the same toilets and showers as us and drink out of our drinking fountains... They thinik they are too good to be Americans, and that surely the blood of lords pulses in their veins... Putting us all in the same life boat is punishment enough...

I will say, that the values the rich might take with them mean very little... Since capitalism is international as feudalism once was, what we must fear is that with revolution here, that they will turn the nukes of the world on us and burn the cities just as the king of France wanted to lead other countries against France... They could at this moment be as a class convicted of treason in a Just world...Who expects Justice??? If there is a revolution all the rules will change... The green back dollar will mean no more than honest people can demand for it in trade for the money of the land... Those with too much money and too little sense will have to settle for what they get...

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Oh overthrowing a ruling class that had seize the government to benefit themselves only, by force or other means does not imply the kind of government that would be set up to replace it.

It could in fact be very similar to the government we have now just with damn strong safeguards to keep a very small ruling class from seizing power/control or almost the total wealth of the society.

You have to remember that no form lasts forever, and that the history of human progress has been the story of changing forms, of exchanging used forms for new, and the new for newer yet when the time comes... What we wish from our form: Stability becomes in time an impediment to change which means change when it occurs may be sudden and violent... It does not have to be... All people need in quantity is formal consciousness... When you know what is happening it takes very little to effect change...

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Any society with most of the wealth in the hands of a very few and no real middle class any longer that have a stake in maintaining the society is very unstable to say the least.

So you are of the opinion that the rich can buy enough security government or private to keep the vast bulk of the population under control?

That you can have a group living like kings and queens of old where the rest of society is not sure where their next meal is coming from?

Good luck on that idea as a fast read of history will give you a long list of rulings classes that had their throats cut by the peasants.

That may or may not be, but you are certainly not even remotely describing America.

Your silly desire to be seen as a "revolutionary" leads you to grossly exaggerate the conditions of society in America. What is truly pathetic though is that even if your assessment was accurate, the extent of your revolutionary response is sitting on your ass and posting to an internet discussion forum.

What champions of the peasants you and Fido are.

We rich certainly don't need security of any sort to protect us from firebrands like you.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

BillRM wrote:

Any society with most of the wealth in the hands of a very few and no real middle class any longer that have a stake in maintaining the society is very unstable to say the least.

So you are of the opinion that the rich can buy enough security government or private to keep the vast bulk of the population under control?

That you can have a group living like kings and queens of old where the rest of society is not sure where their next meal is coming from?

Good luck on that idea as a fast read of history will give you a long list of rulings classes that had their throats cut by the peasants.

That may or may not be, but you are certainly not even remotely describing America.

Your silly desire to be seen as a "revolutionary" leads you to grossly exaggerate the conditions of society in America. What is truly pathetic though is that even if your assessment was accurate, the extent of your revolutionary response is sitting on your ass and posting to an internet discussion forum.

What champions of the peasants you and Fido are.

We rich certainly don't need security of any sort to protect us from firebrands like you.

No one needs protection from us... Nor should you... We are into the rebuilding of society out of the salvaged trash of the old... And some one besides us is going to have to trash it first... Tear it down... Let it burn... Let blood flow like water... First tear it down, and then I will take a hand... And you cannot say what the people will do any more than I... I do know, that it is not people deprived of their bread who make revolutions, but people robbed of their dreams, and that is many in this society... People have been working for ever for something better, and if they are totally demoralized they will accept worse... But if the crash comes hard enough and it reveals the extent to which their lives and dreams have been robbed from them and pissed away by the rich, there is hope for change... The intelligent should be talking about what comes next, because no one is going to stop revolution once the fuse is lit...

1 Reply

@Fido,

Let me see if I have this straight:

You are hoping for a crash that is hard enough to wake the peasents up and drive them to fire and blood so that you, unsullied by the violence of the upheaval, can step in and tell them how they really should live.

You are worse than I originally thought.

At least BillRM, in his gradiose posturing, see himself manning the barricades.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

That may or may not be, but you are certainly not even remotely describing America.

No that is not the current conditions in the country and hopefully will not be reach in my remaining life time however that is the direction that the GOP and it now controlling fringe group the tea party is pushing us toward at maximum possible speed.

We already had a middle class that had gain zero ground in the last thirty years and a ruling/rich class who had already reach the fifty percent mark in having ownership of the total wealth of this nation.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

I love the rhetoric of class warfare. The claim that the wealth of the country is in the hands of the few. If that is so then how come there are new millionaires made all the time. How long has the internet been in its current form? Let’s say 15 years. How many people have become millionaires because of the internet? The founders of some of the largest internet companies in the world were not millionaires when they started their companies. Google, Amazon, Yahoo, Facebook these companies were mostly started by college kids out of their garages or dorm rooms. Even now Apple has taken the top spot in business from Exxon. Steve Jobs started in his garage as a college student. Same thing goes for Bill Gates.

You also forget that some of the wealthiest people in the US are not even business people. What do some of the top athletes make? Last I heard there were contracts being signed in the 10's of millions of dollars. What about the film and TV industry? Some actors are making over a million dollars per episode on TV and well over 10 million per film. Sports, film and TV are not industries where there is longevity so something you can count on so there is always an influx of fresh meat and with that fresh meat there are bound to be new millionaires being made.

So the premise that wealth is in the hands of the few is only somewhat true. What the left always forgets to mention is that there are always new people finding their way into the millionaire club that didn't start with money. The club isn't that exclusive if you have a good idea, or some talent and the drive.

2 Replies

@Baldimo,

Some of what you say is true, but you forget that the majority in the middle class are barely keeping up with inflation - if they have jobs. Last year, the CEOs earned over 35% while the middle class came up with about 2.5%. This has been going on for some 30 years, so your concept of what is fair and equitable falls in the face of facts. Why do you advocate for less taxes for the rich when they are not asking for you to keep their taxes low? Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are ready to pay more in taxes, because they they you can\t bleed a turnip.

Why do you believe the current debt should be put on the shoulders of our children? You guys are just stupid!

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Sorry we need and will always need far more teachers then CEOs, far more police officers and firemen then stock brokers, far more construction workers then bankers, far more useful citizens doing middle class jobs that keep this society alive and growing then the next internet bubble millionaires.

All those people have a right to expect that the society is not going to allow so must of the wealth to be in so few hands that they can no longer provide a decent life for themselves and their families.

Class warfare had been ongoing and in the last thirty years the middle class and the working class had been losing that war with them having less and less of total wealth of the society in their hands compare to the rich.

Upward mobility is nice however by the very nature of the society that have no effect on the need to be fair to the middle class and the working class if you wish for a stability society that come from having a large base of stakeholders in the society.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Why do you think the individuals who have risen to the ranks of CEO are in their current positions?

They made a pact with the devil?

Their parents left them the position?

They are master criminals?

The vast majority of them are where they are because they have demonstrated rare and proven skills throughout their careers.

They are like athletes and artists who can provide something very few people can and which a lot of people value.

Warren Buffet and Bill Gates are two of the wealthiest men in the world. It is foolish to think that they represent "The Rich."

Nevertheless they are every Liberal's favorite billionaires, although I doubt they will be spared the peasant's sword come The Revolution of Fido and BillRM.

Rather than being paragons of generosity, they are simply sane. They realize that they can give the majority of their enormous wealth to charity and still remain filthy rich, and make no mistake about it, they both want to remain filthy rich.

I almost choked when I read you admonition about asking the next generation to pay for the excesses of today, but there's a modicum of truth in your statement. The people who benefit most from these excesses should pay for them, and they are not The Rich, they are the people who don't pay a dime in taxes but insist on more and more and more.

So, by your reckoning, The Rich should be willing to pay for bloated entitlements which do not benefit them, for the good of the next generation.

How easy it is for some people to spend other people's money.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

We will always need more street sweepers than we will men who can hit a baseball fairly three out of ten times at bat, but we will never pay the street sweepers what we pay the athlete, because it's easy to find people who can sweep streets but very difficult to find men who can hit .333.

Every nation that has tried to establish an economy based on the nonsense you are plying has either failed or been forced to greatly compromise their "principles," and become, essentially, what they have condemned.

Stop hoping for conditions that will satisfy your egoistic desire to be seen as a Revolutionary, and work for prosperity.

4 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Sorry as equal pay had never been my position!

A basic fairness that allow enough of the wealth of a society to be in the hands of the middle class and the working class to the point that they can enjoy a decent life for themselves and their families is my point.

We had very wealthy men and women in the 1950s with a top tax rate of 90 percents but we also have a strong middle class and not fifty percents of the total wealth in the hands of one or two percents of the population.

There is a point where the middle class and the working class will no longer be stakeholders in the welfare of the society and we are going toward that future.

Once we reach that point all the police officers, private security and military in the country will not be enough to either keep the society together or protected the one or two percents of the population who are still stakeholders.

Take note that all your security is base on members of the middle or working class.

Of course you could try what the romans try once they destroy the middle class small land owners in their society and hired foreign mercenaries to try to maintain order.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Here is the future you are driving toward with a smile on your face.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

You know I like living in a society where you can run into an old man in a 7/11 that you know is worth 500 millions dollars and he had zero security around him.

Or take your kids to a picnic and watch them play with the man grandkids once more with zero security.

Perhaps you are of the opinion that it is better for everyone to live in a South American type society with only the very rich and the very poor and where the rich need heavy security 24/7 as long as that mean that the rich can have the bulk of the wealth of the society instead of settling for say 25 percents or whatever.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Let me see if I have this straight:

You are hoping for a crash that is hard enough to wake the peasents up and drive them to fire and blood so that you, unsullied by the violence of the upheaval, can step in and tell them how they really should live.

You are worse than I originally thought.

At least BillRM, in his gradiose posturing, see himself manning the barricades.

Not in the least... The fall will come... The crash is going on... If the process happens in slow motion people will get demoralized and forget they have rights and will trade all their paper rights for food, but only after they trade out their neighbors and strangers rights for food... I do want them to get mad, and to get violent... I will not tell them what to do nor when... I will not encourage them to violence because usually that means a lot of innocents getting hurt while the guilty slip away... I see only hope in violence, that the spirit that gave this place the fresh air of freedom is not dead... It really is not necessary for change... ALL that is needed is formal consciousness... Jeffferson had formal consciousness, and he was not alone since the subject of forms come up in the Declaration of Independence... The point being, that when setting out to accomplish a task, in this case, revolution, it is essential to understand what one is actually about doing, exchanging one social form for another...Those people knew what they were doing as most of us do not...

So violence is not at all necessary, but it is planned and contemplated by the right... Now, the implications of their words are violence to the human spirit, and later, it will be violence on the body politic... There is little difference after all from denying rights to denying to government the means to enforce rights... There is little difference between denying democracy to the people or denying them food, housing, or opportunity for education and advancement... There is no difference between hating ones neighbors, and viewing them as strangers, objects, and enemies to be used or killed with equanimity, and simply doing the deed... The violence of revolution is always begun in reaction to human rights... When the peasants rise, it will not be for the poor, but for themselves, and they are far from poor... They will attack those who eat without producing when they should attack the financiers and middle men who bleed them... Their attack on the cities which they would burn along with those who live there should remind all the people who actually owns this commonwealth, and what are the obligations of those who live and produce on the land, and what is our obligations to them... I get it that those few peasants do not want to see their farms lost to them to pay taxes whose value they never see, much... But they do not see because they do not look... And that is not my problem...

So; yes... I do nothing, but I resist everything against the rights of human kind... I do nothing, but I educate myself on the subject of revolution because the history of human kind has been the story of changing forms... There is not a day of my life not devoted to revolution, but I will never lift a finger to injure another... It is pointless and justly fround upon... Revolutions have gone, in many instances, to those who thought them out before hand... I urge people to think rather than act so that when they act their actions can tell...

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Sorry as equal pay had never been my position!

A basic fairness that allow enough of the wealth of a society to be in the hands of the middle class and the working class to the point that they can enjoy a decent life for themselves and their families is my point.

We had very wealthy men and women in the 1950s with a top tax rate of 90 percents but we also have a strong middle class and not fifty percents of the total wealth in the hands of one or two percents of the population.

There is a point where the middle class and the working class will no longer be stakeholders in the welfare of the society and we are going toward that future.

Once we reach that point all the police officers, private security and military in the country will not be enough to either keep the society together or protected the one or two percents of the population who are still stakeholders.

Take note that all your security is base on members of the middle or working class.

Of course you could try what the romans try once they destroy the middle class small land owners in their society and hired foreign mercenaries to try to maintain order.

The thing is, that you cannot get that wealth back a fraction at a time...You have to take your whole country back and re-establish the rules, the constitution by which we relate... Property and wealth are supposed to support the people and government that defend them... When property and wealth, or rather, those who own property and wealth begin to look at the people, and the government which defends them as the enemy, then they are are the enemy of the people... They need to be dispossessed... We all need to understand that this is a commonwealth, and we all defend this place and our rights together, and it is the job of government to defend rights rather than attack rights of the people at the pleasure of property and wealth... Nations are destroyed because the rich to be rich so weaken their people and rob their countries that no one there can offer a reasonable defense of them... The wealth of this country is ours... It is inevitable that it will get into the hands of the rich and powerful and intelligent at some point, but it is not in the best interest of the people to see it stay their... Taxes should slow the process of wealth accumulation, but once they have so much wealth and so much control of government that we cannot tax them, we have no choice but to rid ourselves of government and rich in one same move... And then start out with the realization that no form is immortal, and that change and the need of change is the making of our lives... Life is change... Get used to it... We cannot give all security and wealth to the rich at the expense of our own insecurity and poverty... Equality of rights and wealth is a phantom... But we can all have enough of wealth and democracy to protect ourselves and defend this place...

0 Replies

The Tea Party Republicans are Revolting

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know