a question for you Ron Paul fans

vision · Post by **vision** » Thu Jan 19, 2012 12:31 pm

http://www.theonion.com/articles/dry-hu ... ens,27084/

flip · Post by **flip** » Thu Jan 19, 2012 12:52 pm

wow. just wow.
This was nowhere near where I thought this thread might be heading

bull★■◆●. When you can find no fault in a man, then you have to attack his ideals and fundamental beliefs. It's insanely obvious, yet it works most times. It's an earmark of fear towards a man that everyone was saying 2-3 weeks ago had no chance.

The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will.

EDIT: I also think you will find that all those happy go lucky liberals y'all yank around by the nose, will start caring less and less about abortion when their bank accounts run dry.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Thu Jan 19, 2012 7:24 pm

flip wrote:****. When you can find no fault in a man, then you have to attack his ideals and fundamental beliefs. It's insanely obvious, yet it works most times. It's an earmark of fear towards a man that everyone was saying 2-3 weeks ago had no chance.

if the last part is about Ron Paul, I will GUARANTEE that he has ZERO chance of EVER becoming President. ZERO.
The first sentence is utter nonsense. If I choose to attack Ron Paul's 'ideals and fundamental beliefs', obviously I find fault with the man. Much fault, in my case. I think he's a hypocritical, somewhat old-school Southern racist, and most of all a complete loon with no clue about the outcome of his 'ideals' in a real world situation.

EDIT: I also think you will find that all those happy go lucky liberals y'all yank around by the nose, will start caring less and less about abortion when their bank accounts run dry.

so, in other words, some people will stick to their morals, but others will abandon them, and you are sure you know which ones will do which?

flip · Post by **flip** » Thu Jan 19, 2012 7:51 pm

Yeah, I think the ones who value life the least would probably fold first. I hope Ron Paul's popularity, which runs right down the center of middle America, continues to grow. If he has no chance then, at least the bull★■◆● becomes more evident. If Ron Paul gets on the ballot, he has great chances of winning, but your right, the dark forces that run the world probably won't let him get that far.

EDIT: Erp, I meant caucuses

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Thu Jan 19, 2012 10:29 pm

New DBB Topic: "Is Ron Paul a Southern Racist?"

flip · Post by **flip** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 6:42 am

Here's a couple racist statements

Romney is the white Obama, Obama is the black Romney. That's the only difference I see

flip · Post by **flip** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 7:14 am

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/ar ... ead=210931

I would like Slick to explain how any of this makes Ron Paul a loon?

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 7:58 pm

sorry, Flip, not worth responding to a Paul shill's video clips. Over that past decade, ample words have been written, by Paul and others, regarding the details of his position. It would be a flat-out disaster for the future of the nation, in many respects. I stand by that statement. One can start with pulling all overseas troops back home, immediately, in one wishes, or perhaps wonder what he plans to do after he closes the Federal Reserve. Perhaps, some thought might be given to how he transitions from entitlements, or rather, how folks current receiving same make the transition. I could go on, but why bother? You seem to find Paul your 'flavor of the month' , so why don't YOU explain what YOU think he would accomplish and how that would be a good thing.

flip · Post by **flip** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 8:46 pm

Everything he says is true. I say you could immediately remove the Federal Reserve just as quickly as it was built and relinquish sole regulation of commerce back into the hands of our government and elected officials. Is that not a step in the right direction? I imagine if the idea to restore the power of regulating commerce back to the government was to catch on, the transistion could be made easily and gently enough. Fear-mongering only works with those liberals.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 10:14 pm

The flavor of the month bit was a pathetic cheap shot. I can't help but feel you're not being totally open with us, callmeslick. You seem like you're smarter than to just buy some of the B.S. and fear-mongering aimed at the Ron Paul campaign. It's not that it can't possibly work, truthfully it's just not at all what you want. It has occurred to me that our country isn't facing the difficulties we face because no one can figure out how to avoid or prevent it--I believe the difficulties we "face" are collateral damage at best. The incredible inability to match solutions to the problems in our country (and perhaps others) is a sign that the problems themselves are not the focus at all, they are either a means to an end, or an unfortunate side-effect of a focus that is indeed elsewhere. By God if it is at all possible when it comes time to vote the buck stops here. ★■◆● the media and their games, and to hell with the useless politicians who aren't even talking about the real problems.

You know how when you watch a TV show, if you've seen enough of them, you can know how they're supposed to end because all of the events and dialog are just fabricated support material for the storyline the show is following? A lot of times, unless you're too engrossed in what's happening you can see a pattern leading to a predictable conclusion. Let's just say I'm not happy about the way our foreign policy is being conducted.

I've never been proud to be an American before, but now that an old-School southern racist has a shot at the white house I am!

[/Thorne channeling Michelle Obama]

flip · Post by **flip** » Sat Jan 21, 2012 8:05 am

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/baby-melin ... d=15162257

Hurry! Kill it before it becomes human!!!!!

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Jan 21, 2012 10:28 am

flip wrote:you could immediately remove the Federal Reserve just as quickly as it was built and relinquish sole regulation of commerce back into the hands of our government and elected officials

.

the same bought and paid for hacks that most folks despise? Seriously? Dude, my fears are borne not of some 'liberal' thinking, as you go on to suggest(actually, the Occupy folks are big on the 'get rid of the Fed' thing), but out of a view of modern economics which suggests that the Fed has saved the USA's economic ass more than once.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Jan 21, 2012 10:34 am

Thorne, the guy is about to finish, at best, THIRD in the South Carolina GOP primary. Where does this, in any way, shape or form, translate into 'on the verge of the White House'? Get a grip on yourself, Paul has been on this goofy crusade for years. Many, many economists and other experts have dissected his plans to death. He never gets any real support, except from college students, who find the thought of no drug laws or likelihood of military service enticing. Beyond that, he draws the hardcore libertarian crowd, who would have us return to the US of 1800(pre-industrial, agrarian economy), and that's about it. Sorry, if I am ruining your burst of 'pride', but those are the facts. And, those facts will NEVER get him close to becoming President.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sat Jan 21, 2012 10:39 am

callmeslick wrote:Where does this, in any way, shape or form, translate into 'on the verge of the White House'? Get a grip on yourself

That part was a joke.

flip · Post by **flip** » Sat Jan 21, 2012 11:00 am

That would have to be the first step to moving back towards a government by the people and for the people and away from the direction we're taking now. That idea is offensive to some I guess.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sat Jan 21, 2012 11:12 am

I think your statistics on who supports him may be outdated, though. He seems to be getting a lot more support from your everyday conservative. People like myself, my family, my friends, who fall under neither category you just mentioned, see a real problem with the way our currency is being inflated/devalued, with the way America is conducting itself overseas, with the loss of liberties at home in the name of keeping us safe, with the income tax, with increased and unconstitutional federal control--the centralization of power in America (which looks like it may increase significantly, even before the elections). Not quite sure what to think about ending the drug war (we're very much against drug use). A lot of people may buy what the media says about him, and what folks like yourself have to say about his policies not working, but a lot of people are waking up to the issues that I've listed above, and no one else is addressing these with any significant level of competence.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sun Jan 22, 2012 8:21 am

4th in a field of 4......what a juggernaut! Hell, damn near a movement!

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sun Jan 22, 2012 9:40 am

77,993 in a state where he got 15,773 last election cycle.

2nd in NH, and a close 3rd in Iowa according to this great setup on the New York TImes.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Jan 23, 2012 7:23 pm

flip wrote:That would have to be the first step to moving back towards a government by the people and for the people and away from the direction we're taking now. That idea is offensive to some I guess.

when 5 times as many of the 'people' can identify Survivor cast members or American Idol finalists than can name their elected officials or Supreme Court justices, yes, it could be viewed as both offensive and frighteningly stupid. This never was a nation run by the common man, it wasn't set up by ordinary citizens, it wasn't set up to be responsive to ordinary citizens. Remember, the original pool of voters was limited to white, male property owners for the most part.

Interesting aside, a detour for any of you who like to get worked up over 'privileges' for immigrants: For quite some time, anyone who emigrated to the US, so long as they were light-skinned males, could vote. The privilege was not limited to citizens at all, until after World War I.

flip · Post by **flip** » Mon Jan 23, 2012 7:37 pm

You act like these guys have some inherent claim to rule this country. It's no wonder the noose is closing around our necks with people like you thinking you have some kind of God-given right to rule the masses in whatever manner you choose. The difference from now and then, is then they were doing everything they could for the good of the country, now they are just whoring us out. This world has 7 billion people on it now, good luck!!

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Jan 23, 2012 8:09 pm

flip wrote:You act like these guys have some inherent claim to rule this country

why not? They own it, well, most of it, at least. Further, the same folks have essentially been running the show for over 200 years and it's worked ok, for the most part. Sure, they let a few folks into the club, once in a great while they boot some out, but pretty much a consistent pool.of talent.

.

It's no wonder the noose is closing around our necks with people like you thinking you have some kind of God-given right to rule the masses in whatever manner you choose. The difference from now and then, is then they were doing everything they could for the good of the country, now they are just whoring us out.

always were, if the price was right......now, to a great extent, please understand that I am writing what I am here, and above, partly out of sense of playing Devil's Advocate, coupled with giving the unvarnished reality. Of course, if you could wake the collection of dolts which currently comprise the vast bulk of American society to your great revelation, you might get somewhere. Otherwise, it will be business as usual. Meet for drinks at the Yacht Club in Onancock and I'll gladly fill you in on the gory details.

Seriously, though, you make some seemingly viable points, but they just don't jive with reality. The controlling elite, or whatever one wishes to call that class, act in the 'public' interest when it dovetails with their long-term interest. And frankly, the vibe I get at the moment is that a lot of that group has given up on the 'public' as a bunch of over-entitled whiners focused on goofball religious trends, mass consumption lowbrow culture and a celebration of the coarse, uneducated and obscene. Can you fault that line of thinking? How long have we watched the denigration of higher education, the diminishment of what used to be(as recently as the 1970's) the pinnacle of the world art scene, the reduction of serious political discourse into 'sound bites'?

This world has 7 billion people on it now, good luck!!

so? If, say, 200 million of them live really well and the others alternately scrape for a meager existence, kill one another through crime or war, and starve to death in large clumps, what is the difference to the planet? Hell, that could well help out with the whole environmental mess, when such a small fraction consume significant energy or food. Ever study population biology, or population dynamics? Fascinating stuff. It applies to homo sapiens as well as any other species, by the way.

flip · Post by **flip** » Mon Jan 23, 2012 9:17 pm

Hey, I'm just saying....

. All the things you just said wasn't said so easily years ago;) but I had an advantage, an outline if you will, so I will not be unaware or surprised. It's dead on so far.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Tue Jan 24, 2012 6:33 pm

interesting stat on TV tonight.....the 400 wealthiest Americans have more assets than the 150,000,000 poorest, combined.
Or, as I put it above, they DO own it.

flip · Post by **flip** » Tue Jan 24, 2012 7:42 pm

To him who much has been given, much will be required. Going on that premise, I would say it's more accurate to say they covet and hoard more than they actually "own." If that's the case, they have a certain responsibility and accountability to make it work for all. Unless of course you are right, then get your dancing shoes on

.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Wed Jan 25, 2012 5:59 am

I appreciate your perspective on that, callmeslick, and I tend to agree with your logic with two main exceptions: we don't need them to run our country--this is something that has been done for their benefit--for their gain--for their purposes, with concessions made to the ignorant (and actively deceived) majority. The everyday citizen has suffered from this rule. To portray it any other way is disingenuous. Secondly, can you tell me, where has their right to rule derived from?

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Wed Jan 25, 2012 6:06 pm

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Secondly, can you tell me, where has their right to rule derived from?

can't really add much to your first part, but this one? Heck, the 'right' to rule isn't so much a right as a privilege granted to those that :
1. were financially benefitted by us winning the revolution(big boost to certain large landowning families, and certain northern
businessment).
2. were, due to 1, the folks looked up to in their local societies, and thus put into office at the founding
3. set up the rules looking to their own class or group being the 'prime' beneficiaries. Bear in mind, to the Jeffersons, Adams'
and all, they and their peers were the 'people' they spoke of. Heck, they accepted the wholesale ownership of some segment
of their fellow men......what more does one need to know?

Therefore, it is easy to trace a huge chunk of today's wealth and especially influence, which is far different, to folks who either go directly back to Colonial wealth, or those who developed familial wealth in the first 75 years of the nation's existence. Most of those
in the influential class who don't fall into that category have direct networked ties to institutiuons that cater to the elites(Ivys, north and south, certain banks and certain organizations(Union league, for example, or the DAR/SAR, or FFV or Masons, to name but a few. So, not some sort of given 'right', just an assumed mantle, a nobless oblige, if you will. The problem, in modern times, is a distinct lack of interest among that class in social justice. As I stated above, I have detected for a couple decades a growing dismissal of the common American as disdainful of education, work, culture or any nobility of character. Right or wrong, that assessment carries a lot of weight today, if one travels in certain circles, and it has become difficult to sell the concept of maintaining a society which maintains some balance between the haves and have-nots.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Wed Jan 25, 2012 6:59 pm

I really hate to break this to you but…all of those people are DEAD, and now you are stuck with explaining to a person who doesn’t believe in original sin (the passing of things from generation to generation, such as rights or guilt, property not withstanding) how the descendents of these DEAD people inherit said rights.

Now if you wish to simply concede wealth = power…then we can agree.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Thu Jan 26, 2012 6:01 pm

Spidey wrote:I really hate to break this to you but…all of those people are DEAD, and now you are stuck with explaining to a person who doesn’t believe in original sin (the passing of things from generation to generation, such as rights or guilt, property not withstanding) how the descendents of these DEAD people inherit said rights.

Now if you wish to simply concede wealth = power…then we can agree.

no, in no way does it work as simply as wealth equals power. To give you an example, JayZ and Beyonce are fabulously wealthy,
probably to the tune of a half-billion dollars. Do they have anywhere near the effective power of some of the minor DuPonts, for example? No way. Not even close, if one defines power as the ability to influence governmental or financial decision making.
Now, I am sorry if you read me as fully serious when I said those descendants had the right to their power and influence, but the fact remains they HAVE it, and here, as in many things in life, possession is at least nine tenths of the law.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Thu Jan 26, 2012 6:51 pm

let me put it to you differently, Spidey. As I am trying to say, this isn't a matter of some conferred, agreed-upon right. View it, if you will, as a matter of upbringing and networking. Folks from certain families are raised with the expectation of a certain level of influence. The children are well educated, often in the exclusive company of others of the same class. More importantly, they are exposed, from what may seem an early age to folks in positions of political power. Dinner with the governor's family, a lunch meeting with a Senator, sharing the box at a football game with a Congressman. They get sent away to higher education, build more networks and emerge with a far greater entree to the halls of power than the average citizen can ever hope to have. And, so long as this little network holds the reins, that pathway continues to be the primary source of each succeeding generation of 'power elite' or whatever one wishes to call them. We, in America, always avoided the trappings and pomp of a nobility or peerage, but, trust me, we have one, it has carried on it's business since Day 1 of the nation, and, to ignore that reality is to forever fall short of understanding how things need to change, or how things need to get done. One rather small group provides the overwhelming majority of the people who run every aspect of the nation. It's neither as organized, nor as insidious as ary of the goofy conspiracies one can read about(Freemasons, various One-World groups, Trilateralists, take your pick). Still it is the unseen part of the organizational chart.

flip · Post by **flip** » Fri Jan 27, 2012 10:05 am

It's the part that is hidden and has no accountability. They self-rule and dictate what is supposed to be and always remain a democratic republic. It's kind of insidious

but as you say, I doubt you could point the finger at any one individual. It's the idea that because of some fortunate timing on their ancestors part, they are entltled to dictate politics in what is supposed to be a democratic republic. A government by the people and for the people, one that took the common good into account at every juncture. By becoming what they have and by showing disdain for the principals that this nation was built on, they are at complete odds with the idea of what our society would become. You say this was always intended by the architects. I say they should have been forthright about it then.

flip · Post by **flip** » Fri Jan 27, 2012 10:21 am

LOL. Imagine the waterboy saying.

"Well, y,ya,yall just a bunch of lieing mofo's then"

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Fri Jan 27, 2012 6:26 pm

It may well boil down to what callmeslick has described, but I guarantee that every one of the folks who wields power and influence over a people ignorant of it, to take advantage of or defraud them, has not gotten to that point without making decisions that were very wrong. And inasmuch as they wield power or influence to ends contrary to the ideals of individual liberty and our constitution, they are guilty, and can must be held morally accountable regardless of right to rule.

The idea that the founders of our nation had a legitimate hand in the power/influence structures of our day is easily seen for what it is when you consider how they divided up power, and is just as effectively refuted by the fact that present-day elites have no use, conceptually, for the governmental constructs authored by the founders. These systems were not designed to accommodate the interests of the kind of ruling elite we find ourselves under today.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Fri Jan 27, 2012 6:47 pm

Sergeant Thorne wrote:It may well boil down to what callmeslick has described, but I guarantee that every one of the folks who wields power and influence over a people ignorant of it, to take advantage of or defraud them, has not gotten to that point without making decisions that were very wrong. And inasmuch as they wield power or influence to ends contrary to the ideals of individual liberty and our constitution, they are guilty, and can must be held morally accountable regardless of right to rule.

these thoughts, plus 89 cents, will get you any size coffee at McDonalds, if I heard the ads correctly. Beyond that, they are meaningless.

The idea that the founders of our nation had a legitimate hand in the power/influence structures of our day is easily seen for what it is when you consider how they divided up power, and is just as effectively refuted by the fact that present-day elites have no use, conceptually, for the governmental constructs authored by the founders. These systems were not designed to accommodate the interests of the kind of ruling elite we find ourselves under today.

of course they were. In fact, precisely so. The powerful families of the time can be roughly seen as from the Northeastern urban centers(Philly, New York, Boston, a few others) or from the plantation states (Virginia south). The setup of the House and Senate, along with the electoral college were designed SPECIFICALLY to make a union wherein neither of those groups could run roughshod over one another, and that both could coexist happily and control their regions(um, State's Rights?). And, since I am contending that, for all intents and purposes, you have the same ruling elite you had in 1784, give or take a few branches and regional developments, that system still works in the same way. Now, I'll grant you that the founders probably didn't envision the absolute travesty we have seen many levels of politics sink to, but, then again, wasn't it Jeffereson who linked the education and involvement of the population to the functionality of the system they set up?

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Fri Jan 27, 2012 7:09 pm

Thorne, I don't agree with the malicious view you take. When one succeeds, and succeeding generations snowball the initial success via thrift and sound investment, that isn't taking unfair advantage. When the current generations are the upshot of, literally, 7 or 8 or more generations of upbringing to lead, the fact that they are the controlling elite, to my mind, is largely benign. In other words, they run the show because:
1. They own the most stuff
2. They have been raised to understand politics, economics and other more subtle factors FAR more than most kids,
and the gap here is getting more pronounced over the past couple of generations.
3. The rest of the populace has chosen(conspiracy theorists might suggest they have been led) to focus on such
drivel as pop culture, showy materialism and sensationalist demagogues(notably on the right, see Glenn Beck or Rush
Limbaugh as prime examples).

it's all a matter of competetive advantage, coupled with the set of rules that was designed to benefit them. Is it somehow malicious that these folks aren't rushing to change a system the rest of the people aren't clamoring to see changed?

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:10 pm

callmeslick wrote:When one succeeds, and succeeding generations snowball the initial success via thrift and sound investment, that isn't taking unfair advantage.

Looking good so far.

callmeslick wrote:When the current generations are the upshot of, literally, 7 or 8 or more generations of upbringing to lead, the fact that they are the controlling elite, to my mind, is largely benign. In other words, they run the show because:
1. They own the most stuff
2. They have been raised to understand politics, economics and other more subtle factors FAR more than most kids,
and the gap here is getting more pronounced over the past couple of generations.
3. The rest of the populace has chosen(conspiracy theorists might suggest they have been led) to focus on such
drivel as pop culture, showy materialism and sensationalist demagogues(notably on the right, see Glenn Beck or Rush
Limbaugh as prime examples).

I don't care what the percentage of "benign" is. There are a lot of very unbenign things being perpetrated in this country, and these things are clearly happening with their consent. If you're not a patriot and you have no influence, then you're a fool. If you're not a patriot and you have power and influence... woe is you.

callmeslick wrote:it's all a matter of competetive advantage, coupled with the set of rules that was designed to benefit them. Is it somehow malicious that these folks aren't rushing to change a system the rest of the people aren't clamoring to see changed?

Frame it how you will. See above. A convenient inaction can be just as wrong as an action. Moses chose to suffer with the people of God rather than enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season, that in spite of the fact that we could easily draw the conclusion that he was benign in his role as Egyptian upper-class by the fact that he defended the Israelite who was wronged.

I'm not being malicious. I don't hate rich people. I'm the dolt that believes that the only difference between them and us is discipline, etc, remember? I'm all for inheritance, and any and all privileges and conveniences which that brings with it. That's not at all the problem here. The problem, on a miriad of different levels is simple: money and power over principle and freedom. You said it yourself, you and your friends will vote Obama in because... he upholds the constitution? Defends the Bill of Rights? Secures the borders? Works to bring sound money back? How about tells the truth, even? Which one of these was it?

flip · Post by **flip** » Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:13 pm

Slick you have a very narrow and one-sided view of things. Thorne is absolutely right. Take the duress that Woodrow Wilson was under for instance. These changes and the design that we see now was not at it's very inception, with the very old money. It was by force and coercion of vast wealth made at the beginning of the industrial revolution. As these "current families" started amassing great wealth and control over natural resources, they started bending the path of this country to suit themselves. Thugs.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Jan 28, 2012 2:36 pm

I can cite you dozens, maybe hundreds, of influential familites who both predated, and had nothing to do with the Industrial Age for their economic foundations. Sure, many invested and stil do, in major industrial concerns, but the foundations of their wealth are purely agricultural.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:10 pm

we've gotten well off the Ron Paul topic,but some worthwhile tangents, IMHO. For those unclear of where I'm going here, or why, it is this(and it's a point that has been both missed and rejected elsewhere, so I have few illusions):

until the general public learns to unify for their self interest, they will continue to be used and abused by the powers-that-be. Given the current state of disinterest in the 'public good' by most of the ruling elite, that level of abuse will continue to grow. How long are people going to be dumb enough to keep accepting such crap as 'don't tax job creators' and 'we can't have a still inheritance tax because someday you might be wealthy' and, of course, 'rich person envy drives Progressive politics'? What has happened for over 40 years is that political forces drove a wedge between various groups and instead of self-interest, we see the politics of
black vs. white vs. hispanic, 'liberals' vs. 'conservatives', North vs. South, rural vs. urban. It's all a smokescreen, and just as with major economic downturns, when the dust settles, the same people always win out. As, IIRC, Warren Buffett noted, the class war is long over, and our side won.........

And, to return to original topic, NOTHING, but NOTHING in the message of Ron Paul addresses this issue. If anything, his policies would solidify the inequities and growth in the gap between rich and poor, as if such were needed.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sat Jan 28, 2012 6:15 pm

callmeslick wrote:What has happened for over 40 years is that political forces drove a wedge between various groups and instead of self-interest, we see the politics of
black vs. white vs. hispanic, 'liberals' vs. 'conservatives', North vs. South, rural vs. urban. It's all a smokescreen, and just as with major economic downturns, when the dust settles, the same people always win out.

Now that I can see.

I can't reconcile taxation with class warfare, and your post isn't helping me out there. There's nothing inherently bad for poor people in the fact that rich people are rich, in my mind. I could come up with problems, but they all either boil down to a governmental imbalance or a lack of laws preventing big business running rough-shod over and infringing on the rights of the little guy. All of these boil down to common sense and individual rights, never spilling into a consideration of whether or not someone is too rich. Going to have to strike that one at a different angle if you have a point to gain.

EDIT: I believe I have heard that certain groups pay NO taxes, and that is wrong. Someone who makes more money than I do, and presumably engages in more business--more purchasing should be paying more taxes, but in my mind there is still no justification for a higher percentage rate.

flip · Post by **flip** » Sat Jan 28, 2012 6:58 pm

I would also argue that most of the early founders also thought of themselves as nobility, and framed our constitution as such. A feeling that obviously diminished over time.