Jim Webb

OrnotBitwise said:
Not "bad" per se, they merely have divergent interests. What's good for the privileged classes is not necessarily good for everyone else. The difference between me and thee is that I believe that what's good for everyone else is more important. ;)
Click to expand...
I believe what's good for everyone else is important too. Once again, instead of reading my ideas and commenting on them you simply pretend that they don't exist and promote some inane idea that I think it is great and only promote what is good for the "priveledged"...

First, I believe that every person in the US is priveledged by birth. Second, I promote removing all subsidies for businesses at such a level. Third I promote actual eduction so shareholders know their rights and can actually solve the problem through excercise of those rights rather than simply bringing the hammer of "enmity" to solidify a powerbase.

So, winkies are considered, but are dismissed. At least attempt to read my posts and present my view without assumptions, especially when the view was spelled out in no uncertain terms in previous posts.
 
Damocles said:
Just like abortion kills innocent little unborn everyday, pointing that out isn't an escalation...

*sigh* You are one of the very people I spoke about, it drives that wedge it promotes the idea that they are somehow "bad". Even the name of it is clear on that point "warfare" promotes the idea that they are enemies...
Click to expand...

YEAH just like denver kills pitbulls...
 
Damocles said:
I didn't get that from the speech, I got that from history. You promote the idea of looking to history then pretend it doesn't exist when I actually do that?

Once again, I have stated clearly pointing it out without creating the ideation of "enmity" over it is something I promote. However pointing it out in a way that projects that enmity and drives the wedge is an attempt to solidify a powerbase and is not going to create a real solution.

"They are the enemy" is not the solution.

I even gave ideas on how to create a solution, instead you promote "warfare" as a good idea. You aren't even in a sand-trap yet you use the wedge here. Emotive politicking serves only one purpose and it isn't to create a solution.
Click to expand...


The way I read your response, is that what Webb is proposing, leads ultimately to a revolution, like they had in France. Where the rich and the priviledged got their heads chopped off.

this is just too much drama for me. I'm not buying that Webb is leading us into a revolution.

I think Webb is speaking on behalf of the majority of americans: we need trade policies, tax policies that help the middle class. We've done this before: it doesn't mean you have to destroy coporations to get there.
 
That was what John Adams was all about, keeping big money from grabbing control of our gummit. A show on PBS last night about this.
You guys need to watch more PBS.
 
Damocles said:
I believe what's good for everyone else is important too. Once again, instead of reading my ideas and commenting on them you simply pretend that they don't exist and promote some inane idea that I think it is great and only promote what is good for the "priveledged"...

First, I believe that every person in the US is priveledged by birth. Second, I promote removing all subsidies for businesses at such a level. Third I promote actual eduction so shareholders know their rights and can actually solve the problem through excercise of those rights rather than simply bringing the hammer of "enmity" to solidify a powerbase.

So, winkies are considered, but are dismissed. At least attempt to read my posts and present my view without assumptions, especially when the view was spelled out in no uncertain terms in previous posts.
Click to expand...
Hey, you're the one who came out gunning for Webb. That kind of provocation is going to incite an adversarial response.

I don't think I'm making any assumptions about your beliefs. In fact, I think you're making a few that aren't warranted . . . as we've discussed before.

I do believe that the interests of the "working classes" -- a poor phrase but one we're saddled with by history -- are intrinsically at odds with some of the interests of the upper classes. That's okay, actually. That's just the way human society works. There are times, though, when the working classes need to be reminded of this fact. And this is one of those times, in my view.
 
Cypress said:
The way I read your response, is that what Webb is proposing, leads ultimately to a revolution, like they had in France. Where the rich and the priviledged got their heads chopped off.

this is just too much drama for me. I'm not buying that Webb is leading us into a revolution.

I think Webb is speaking on behalf of the majority of americans: we need trade policies, tax policies that help the middle class. We've done this before: it doesn't mean you have to destroy coporations to get there.
Click to expand...
No, I believe that the way Webb promoted it leads those who are "underpriveledged" to resent others who are not. I believe that he presented it as a wedge to support his base. I believe that his wording was meant to get out people who like to promote that separation, to excite the base so to speak, and to promote emotive politics.

The other was in answer to your "history shows us" remark. History shows us many things...
 
uscitizen said:
That was what John Adams was all about, keeping big money from grabbing control of our gummit. A show on PBS last night about this.
You guys need to watch more PBS.
Click to expand...
Oh, and I also promoted earlier in the thread a remove from coin-operated government. That is what makes such divides so large.

First, people are ignorant of rights as shareholders, a huge portion of shares are never voted and that leaves these people open to make such decisions for you.

Second, I believe in equality of opportunity, not of outcome... In order to create this opportunity it begins at basic economic education. It is something that has been near and dear to me for probably as long as you have known me. I am sure you will remember many times where I have promoted a true education in economics. This is one extremely important place where Americans are extremely ignorant, ignorant of the workings, their rights, even to the point where some graduate High School and think they have money in a checking account because they have checks left in a book...

Saying that those who make more are an enemy, or suggesting it by clever wording, by promoting simple jealousy, you are not seeking a solution you are seeking power through the ignorant. They have the power to change this, very quickly if they know what rights they have, how to spend the power they get as shareholders, and how to educate themselves on these things...

Simply giving it over to the government for magical solutions based on emoting, is not a solution.
 
Damocles said:
No, I believe that the way Webb promoted it leads those who are "underpriveledged" to resent others who are not. I believe that he presented it as a wedge to support his base. I believe that his wording was meant to get out people who like to promote that separation, to excite the base so to speak, and to promote emotive politics.

The other was in answer to your "history shows us" remark. History shows us many things...
Click to expand...
Sometimes this is necessary. The reason it is sometimes necessary is that it is perfectly natural for the priviledged classes to continue to accrue wealth, status and power past the point where that accrual is beneficial to society as a whole. It isn't that they're "evil" in any sense since it's a perfectly human thing to do. That's just how people are.

The vast and still growing wealth gap we're now seeing is the natural and inevitable result of this tendency. I and many others believe that this growth, if left unchecked, will utterly destroy the United States in time. The only way to check that growth is to redistribute some -- note that I say some, not all -- wealth and power back to the working classes. This redistribution can be done in many ways: I personally favor taxation, but there are others.

The thing is that the working classes have to stand up and force the change. One of the few non-violent methods they have to do so is by making use of politicians who pander to their interests. They are still very much the majority, after all.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
Sometimes this is necessary. The reason it is sometimes necessary is that it is perfectly natural for the priviledged classes to continue to accrue wealth, status and power past the point where that accrual is beneficial to society as a whole. It isn't that they're "evil" in any sense since it's a perfectly human thing to do. That's just how people are.

The vast and still growing wealth gap we're now seeing is the natural and inevitable result of this tendency. I and many others believe that this growth, if left unchecked, will utterly destroy the United States in time. The only way to check that growth is to redistribute some -- note that I say some, not all -- wealth and power back to the working classes. This redistribution can be done in many ways: I personally favor taxation, but there are others.

The thing is that the working classes have to stand up and force the change. One of the few non-violent methods they have to do so is by making use of politicians who pander to their interests. They are still very much the majority, after all.
Click to expand...
Once again, I didn't say leave it unchecked, I said it was unnecessary to promote enmity to get it done and have even given ways to do that. So deliberately missing my point and then once again saying "warfare" among classes is necessary is simply another attempt at saying it is okay to use this particular wedge issue because you agree with it for another reason.

Emotive politicking is only necessary for one thing, to protect and secure a power base. It does nothing to educate those who are ignorant of what rights they have and promotes continued ignorance because the government will do it all for them.
 
BTW - I'd be saying the same things, and have, if the Rs were again using Gay Marriage or any other emotive wedge issue.
 
Damocles said:
Once again, I didn't say leave it unchecked, I said it was unnecessary to promote enmity to get it done and have even given ways to do that. So deliberately missing my point and then once again saying "warfare" among classes is necessary is simply another attempt at saying it is okay to use this particular wedge issue because you agree with it for another reason.

Emotive politicking is only necessary for one thing, to protect and secure a power base. It does nothing to educate those who are ignorant of what rights they have and promotes continued ignorance because the government will do it all for them.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Enmity and group solidarity are the ONLY things that effectively motivates large groups of people. Sorry, but it's true: large scale, grass roots political movements are inevitably "Us against Them." That can be non-violent, of course, but the group identification is necessary.

Now, I, personally, almost never use the phrase "class warfare." It's too emotive. You're the one who brought it up, I believe.
 
Damocles said:
BTW - I'd be saying the same things, and have, if the Rs were again using Gay Marriage or any other emotive wedge issue.
Click to expand...

I will wait for your words, cause they will be using them again. Mark my words.
and yes you have been critical of these types of political plays.
 
uscitizen said:
I will wait for your words, cause they will be using them again. Mark my words.
and yes you have been critical of these types of political plays.
Click to expand...
You only need to look back and see how I was against that ploy from before. I promotes ignorance. They see it as "necessity" an "us against them" type of thing. They want to be elected now, not when people are making clear choices not based on emotive response.

Just as I have said I'd be the first to burn a flag if a flag-burning amendment were passed by the Congress.... The idea that it isn't some sort of emotive ideation to "get out the base" is inane. I just find it amazing that some would trash when the other side does it yet cheer it one when done for "their" side. It just goes to show that people love to live in dichotomy.

A group of people using the ignorant as a power base rather than educating them on an issue is, to me, a gross misuse of power and works to keep some people ignorant rather than giving them that equal opportunity that I spoke of before. Only those who work toward equality of outcome rather than of opportunity could reasonably say that it is unnecessary to educate so that one can create an emotive response to build their power.
 
I thought this was going on about "caste" system and economic differences, not gay marriage and emotiomotive issues ?
 
uscitizen said:
I thought this was going on about "caste" system and economic differences, not gay marriage and emotiomotive issues ?
Click to expand...
So, no matter how many times I express to you that it is about emotive powerbase building wedge issue politicking you pretend you can't read it?

Rubbish you thought that. It is what you want it to be about.

This is about a group of people keeping others in ignorance to use that ignorance to build a power base. I find it repugnant no matter whom it is done by.

Don't worry we'll get those "baddies" for ya. No need to look over here and see that you had a way to express your discontent using your own power... Nothing to see there... Just let us take care of it all for you...
 
You label it as an emotive issue , I see it as a power base and who actually controls our government issue. The people vs big money. Sorry I am not as skilled in verbosity as many here are.
 
uscitizen said:
You label it as an emotive issue , I see it as a power base and who actually controls our government issue. The people vs big money. Sorry I am not as skilled in verbosity as many here are.
Click to expand...
Once again, I have given ways to promote an actual fix. I have not digressed from my point from the beginning. Using specific wording to promote emotive reaction, creating enmity, is what I have stated from the beginning has been what I am against here.

I have no problem with pointing out such things, I have a problem with using emotive terms spoken solely to create emotive response and to drive a wedge rather than promote a working solution.

BTW - They aren't even suggesting stopping the moneyflow. They might suggest ways to stop it from so openly happening, but they have yet to suggest a means to end the coin-operated government that you and I agree is a problem.
 
I think it's great that an opposition rebuttal nearly overwhelmed an SOTU speech by a president.

I've never seen that happen before. Rebuttal speeches are usually forgotten five minutes after they're over.

And Webb is addressing a REAL issue: overwhelming majoriites of american's think this economy is not working for the middle class. So do life-long republicans like CNN's Lou Dobbs and JacK Caferty. This ain't no "marxist" thing - this is real economic populism.

And, if the Dems lose the presidency in 2008, look for Jim Webb to be a candidate for prez in 2012.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top