Anger is not rational. Also protesting in washington DC adds a unique element, namely the secret service. They can, and will, remove people much faster than say the NYPD. You might also end up thrown down some stairs as well. Wall Street, bribes aside, is not a government agency, and thus accusations of terrorism, racism, or anti-semitism are harder to make 'stick'. Who really wants to defend the rich anyway?
They do make a nice target, don't they?
That said, they can afford walls, and private armies, making it hard to have much sympathy.
They have CorpSec?
Dunkelzahn for President!
|
Well that would require patriots - which you/they are notDude, I'm not even on BNW's side, and here's where you lost. Completely. Don't assume they don't want this nation great. They just see "great" as looking different.
You've lost, lost, lost this argument.
Gimme a break! If you are going to use hyperbole like "Ok, you tried, time to water that tree of liberty now" which = War, violence and bloodshed, you're damn right I am going to call him you out on it!
And Smarnil I'm not trolling this thread, just bringing my dissenting view. If you want to make a "Support the OWS" thread I'll make a point to stay out of it, this isn't that place. And not everyone who dissents with your view is a troll, deal with it.
I didn't lose anything
-These people are not fighting to restore this Republic, they are fighting for power (or in some cases - waving their debt, more money)
-This movement is not organic since it does not hold all parties accountable, which means it's fake. At least the Tea Party put pressure on ALL candidates who didn't support their view or cause, didn't matter which side.
-Using mob power and implied threat to get what they want vs. voting "all the bums out of office", i.e. not using the system but taking a road where their numbers work (the mob threat) vs. their vote.
-Partisan movement which is inimical to my beliefs, I would be a fool to NOT challenge all the outright lies and deception going on in this thread.
I don't call out OWC patriotism based on their dissent, I call them out based on their trans-formative vs. restorative stance towards the country, that they are using a "shortcut" (threat of the mob) when they don't get their way vs. using the existing system. Go protest against ALL the candidates (will NEVER happen) in the right place.
As it has been said upthread, they've had a chance to vote, and they have repeatedly voted in the wrong people.
I stand by everything I already said.
Carry on
I do find the idea of ignoring student debt across the board strange.
Let's say Student A goes to an expensive private university, takes out enormous loans to pay for it and gets an english degree and has trouble finding a job to pay them back.
Now let's say Student B goes to a state university, perhaps after spending the first few years at a community college, and has more modest loans. This student also gets an english degree, and has trouble finding a job to pay them back.
Ignoring both students' entire loans, actually punishes Student B's more responsible choices (to attend a more economical higher education). Student A now has more advantage because they have been able to get a more prestigious education (and yes, people still equate price to quality, right or wrong), but didn't have to actual pay for that education.
I'm not against more help on the education payment front (I'd like to see families that are "good investments", i.e. likely to succeed get better loans and grants), but we need to be careful we are not punishing those making good choices for society over those making poor choices.
After reading through the last page of posts, I can see the general consensus is, although not directly stated, our Goal is:
2. to make everyone play by the same rules.
.
It is nice to know where we are going. But the BIG question is how
do we make this happen?
Some among us believe congress has all the power, and they are powerless
to affect change.
Others are quoting the constitution as if that will magically make
people change their behavior pattern.
How do we move from our current state of affairs to our goal state?
.
I know lets all go stand around outside. That always makes bad guys
change into good guys.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
These people are not fighting to restore this Republic, they are fighting for power (or in some cases - waving their debt, more money)
They are requesting that limmits be placed on how much money corporations can contribute to campaign funds, restoring regulations whose removal destroyed our ecconomy, preventing regulators from working for companies they regulate, and instituting new taxes to reduce speculation on the ecconomy. They want representation in government, since right now they feel they are not getting it.
-This movement is not organic since it does not hold all parties accountable, which means it's fake. At least the Tea Party put pressure on ALL candidates who didn't support their view or cause, didn't matter which side.
- Currious how it isn't holding all parties accountable. They are disgusted with everyone. They are complaining about democrats just as much. Even if they aren't holding all parties accountable, how is that not an organic movement?
-Using mob power and implied threat to get what they want vs. voting "all the bums out of office", i.e. not using the system but taking a road where their numbers work (the mob threat) vs. their vote.
Really currious how this is any different than the tea party you are praising. They did the exact same thing, only from what I saw even more militantly, with blatant threats of violence against political officals at my local rallies. OWS's whole mission is to raise awareness and give people a voice.
-Partisan movement which is inimical to my beliefs, I would be a fool to NOT challenge all the outright lies and deception going on in this thread.
I would love to see you point out a single lie by your opposition, instead of just spouting hateful rhetoric.
I know lets all go stand around outside. That always makes bad guys change into good guys.
If history is any teacher, it certainly can.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think both sides have a problem accepting their own side's arguments/views at face value, while questioning everything else.
Question everything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know lets all go stand around outside. That always makes bad guys
change into good guys.
Your never going to change the bad guy's minds. Whaat you can do is raise awareness to your cause and bring up disscussions of how to make things better. And lots of good conversations are happening now that were not happening before. The first stop in fixing a systemic problem is convincing people there is a problem. Thats what this is. They don't have the answers. They have some ideas on things they think will help, but they understand that their ideas are not the only ones that are valid and are open to debate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If history is any teacher, it certainly can.I know lets all go stand around outside. That always makes bad guys change into good guys.
groups of people with nothing to do are not always right or wrong but always dangerous. the fact that large groups of people protested/organized in 30's Germany, against the vietnam war, or Assad in Syria show us the importat thing is 'upset people protest'. The US government and US public are fools to not notice this. A real protest will grow. The US has a functioning democracy and people will vote. Yet the republican party is ignoring this, and the democrats are not making enough of it. Even worse, the american people know the OTHER party will be running Obama. There is no longer a chance of a democratic primary in the states. This means we have a 1.5 party system. Not a 2 party system.
If history is any teacher, it certainly can.I know lets all go stand around outside. That always makes bad guys change into good guys.
groups of people with nothing to do are not always right or wrong but always dangerous. the fact that large groups of people protested/organized in 30's Germany, against the vietnam war, or Assad in Syria show us the importat thing is 'upset people protest'. The US government and US public are fools to not notice this. A real protest will grow. The US has a functioning democracy and people will vote. Yet the republican party is ignoring this, and the democrats are not making enough of it. Even worse, the american people know the OTHER party will be running Obama. There is no longer a chance of a democratic primary in the states. This means we have a 1.5 party system. Not a 2 party system.
The repubs pushed deregulation through. The dems, taking money from the same lobbyists, went right along with it (for the most part).
Now we're seeing the results of that. A real protest is growing.
So wall street can only make money via loopholes?
I find that idea suspect. I also find it interesting that all involved have different ideas regarding whose responsibility it is to create jobs/hire people.
I don't think Aux lost anything. He simply made a false assumption, that the OWS folks aren't patriots.
The Boston Tea Party example I think is a poor analogy, as the colonists here were doing what they could to harm a foreign oppresive government, who offered them no recourse in way of representation.
That simply is not the case now. Everyone of those folks on OWS can vote, and did. The current administration and it's party has done just as much pandering to corps and the market as any Republican, yet they're angry at Wall Street, who's job is to make profit, and can only do so now within the loopholes in regulation they've been saddled with. Uncertainly in the market is keeping businesses from hiring, uncertainty that is unwittingly being supported by Obama's policies, or in some cases lack thereof.
They are protesting at the wrong address.
They should be on Pennsylvania Ave.I don't have a problem with the OWS crowd or what they are doing. They are exercising their constitutional rights to address a wrong.
I just think they're angry with the wrong people.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So wall street can only make money via loopholes?
I find that idea suspect. I also find it interesting that all involved have different ideas regarding whose responsibility it is to create jobs/hire people.
Yeah, I wouldn't say they need loopholes, but I would say they are working under the current conditions of the system. Suggesting that people should shoot themselves in the foot (not use the system as it is now, despite their competition doing so) for some moralistic ideal, that might not even be feasible, it a bit silly.
You see this kind of thinking in the gaming community. You have these folks complain that the other player is a "munchkin" for using the rules in play to make an optimized character, while they purposefully gimp themselves thinking it proves they are good roleplayers. If you have a problem with the system, then fix the system, but don't complain when others use the system as designed and you feel some moral obligation to gimp yourself.
|
|
Which really invalidates any claim you have to objective "holding all parties accountable".
Or to calling anyone else out for hyperbole.
LOL, and wasn't I attacked/dismissed for making such a claim? Please spare me the sermon and double standards.
Also I am not the one protesting here so I am not obligated to "hold all parties accountable". I am not the one stating a grievance here, they are - with claims of this movement being legit and not being politically motivated (LOLOLOL). THEY are the ones who need to hold all parties accountable or they end up starting to look very fake and manufactured.
I question their motives as being purely political and partisan due to their targets and methodology. I don't see them protesting in DC or at their Dem representatives offices, why? Because that would damage the hell out of "their" guy in the upcoming elections.
March on Washington and demand the POTUS and Co. (Dems and Repubs) do something or face impeachment, and then I'll believe that they are legit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So wall street can only make money via loopholes?
I find that idea suspect. I also find it interesting that all involved have different ideas regarding whose responsibility it is to create jobs/hire people.
Sorry, they can only maintain pre-regulation levels of profit by exploiting loopholes in said regulation. The hoops they have to jump through, the less certain generation of that profit is. The less certain they are, the less likely they are to invest in expansion. No expansion, no jobs.
If the hoops are tight enough, they will not only not expand, they will take other measures, like reducing overhead, like their workforce.Businesses exist to make money, no matter what sector they are in.
Employees tie themselves to a company to have gainful employment, and reap the benfits of working for a successful business. Good benefits are in direct proportion to their profit margin, and when that shrinks the benfits shrink, and then the workforce itself.
No one starts a business to provide people with jobs. They have a product or a vision, and invite other people to go along for the ride with them as employees. All of their success or failure in inexorably tied to each other. You can not tighten the reigns on one without hurting the other.
Some folks in DC seem to think you can seperate the two and play both sides against each other. Enter current economic crisis.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So wall street can only make money via loopholes?
I find that idea suspect. I also find it interesting that all involved have different ideas regarding whose responsibility it is to create jobs/hire people.Yeah, I wouldn't say they need loopholes, but I would say they are working under the current conditions of the system. Suggesting that people should shoot themselves in the foot (not use the system as it is now, despite their competition doing so) for some moralistic ideal, that might not even be feasible, it a bit silly.
You see this kind of thinking in the gaming community. You have these folks complain that the other player is a "munchkin" for using the rules in play to make an optimized character, while they purposefully gimp themselves thinking it proves they are good roleplayers. If you have a problem with the system, then fix the system, but don't complain when others use the system as designed and you feel some moral obligation to gimp yourself.
This right here.
Wall Street is only doing what they try to do best - make money, namely for their investors. They play by the rules provided (as I said upthread) and if they don't like the rules they try to change them (much like the OWS protestors) to suit their advantage. In many respects they are like children, but they aren't the gatekeepers here, our elected officials - the people who write and enforce the laws are. That is where you have a failure in the system - misdirected rage and a apathetic constituency.
|
Who are the right people? I haven't been able to find any, and that's the real problem.As it has been said upthread, they've had a chance to vote, and they have repeatedly voted in the wrong people.
Just to elaborate on what I thought about this, I felt that this problem stems back at least as far as the 2000 Presidential election, when the major parties gave the choice of Bush vs. Gore, instead of a more independent choice of McCain vs. Bradley. Once it was Bush vs. Gore, we already had lost.
(McCain 2000 was a different candidate from McCain 2008.)
Gimme a break! If you are going to use hyperbole like "Ok, you tried, time to water that tree of liberty now" which = War, violence and bloodshed, you're damn right I am going to call him you out on it!
What did the founding fathers rebel against?
-A world ruling military industrial complex that used its military to make money for the elites in england. (psssst.. thats us now)
-A system that did not represent them.; England had (has?) general representation where each member of parliament represented all of the brittish empire. New Hampshire was just as represented in parliament as Hampshire- not very. Money talked, and if soldiers had to die and people had to starve so Lord Pantywaist could buy another gold cufflink then so be it.
-To a large extent, they just flat out didn't want to pay taxes. England spent a lot of money on the French and Indian war. It needed to make its money back. When they tried to do it through internal taxes, America used its paid representatives (like Franklin) AND street protests and violence to object. England dropped the internal taxes like the stamp act and moved to external taxes like the tea act and re enforced the navigation acts.
Americans responded by objecting to these taxes too, smuggling, breaking into government buildings, arson, and breaking into the governors house and drinking his liquor. So why are you insulting me for drawing the comparisons? OWS is downright TAME compared to even the start of the american revolution.
Just because Americans get to vote does not mean that we're being represented. We have an unconstitutional (extra constitutional?) party system in place that makes it ridiculously easy for anyone with a large amount of cash to swing elections and bribe politicians into making laws that favor them. After Citizens united they don't even need to put up a paper thin pretense at doing anything else.
Getting to pick which of the two clones gets to cow tow to corporate interests is not democracy, its shadow theater.
And Smarnil I'm not trolling this thread, just bringing my dissenting view.
-you're not a patriot, you disagree with the government- is NOT a view, its an insult. My argument is above, black and white, clear as crystal. Argue with it, not with a person you don't know from adam.
I also suspect you think i hold some economic policies that i do not.
-These people are not fighting to restore this Republic, they are fighting for power (or in some cases - waving their debt, more money)
Massive numbers of people having power over their own government? Its downright unamerican!
-This movement is not organic since it does not hold all parties accountable, which means it's fake. At least the Tea Party put pressure on ALL candidates who didn't support their view or cause, didn't matter which side.
First off, this is factually incorrect. Secondly it doesn't follow
Democrats showed up and tried to speak at the rally. They got their keisters booed out.
Secondly, blaming the republicans more than the democrats is perfectly reasonable since they're more at fault here.
-Using mob power and implied threat to get what they want vs. voting "all the bums out of office", i.e. not using the system but taking a road where their numbers work (the mob threat) vs. their vote.
ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGH!!!!!!
Are you listening to the complaints?
Following the tea party "vote em all out" will accomplish NOTHING if the system remains in place. As long as corporations can bribe their way through an election anyone you elect in will do the exact same thing as the people you voted out. Its like chasing squirrels out of your house and leaving the big gaping hole in the roof: next week you'll just have raccoons.
-Partisan movement which is inimical to my beliefs, I would be a fool to NOT challenge all the outright lies and deception going on in this thread.
Point them out and challenge them then. So far all you've done is toss baseless ad homs.
I don't call out OWC patriotism based on their dissent, I call them out based on their trans-formative vs. restorative stance towards the country, that they are using a "shortcut" (threat of the mob) when they don't get their way vs. using the existing system. Go protest against ALL the candidates (will NEVER happen) in the right place.
The system has been corrupted, the system needs to change. This is the only way change has ever really happened in our country. Thankfully it usually stops once the people in charge realize that the people are getting ready to go all out.
I think this crop of elites has their head in such an anatomically impossible position that they're not going to see when that point is passed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Boston Tea Party example I think is a poor analogy, as the colonists here were doing what they could to harm a foreign oppresive government, who offered them no recourse in way of representation.
Not that it really matters to the current topic, but it wasn't a foreign government...it was their government. :P
The Boston Tea Party example I think is a poor analogy, as the colonists here were doing what they could to harm a foreign oppresive government, who offered them no recourse in way of representation.Note that it really matters to the current topic, but it wasn't a foreign government...it was their government. :P
It wasn't even a government it was a megacorp in bed with the government.
They were trying to make a point to King George by throwing the tea into the bay, showing that he could not protect his interests here and to get his attention.
This was not an attack on the tea company becasue of "teh (missperceived) evilz" of capitalism.
The Boston Tea Party example I think is a poor analogy, as the colonists here were doing what they could to harm a foreign oppresive government, who offered them no recourse in way of representation.Note that it really matters to the current topic, but it wasn't a foreign government...it was their government. :P
LOL got me.
Their oppressive government who happened to be seprated by a thousand miles of water.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
These bulletins just in:
* The Tea "Party" leans right. Many people who lean left will therefore dismiss it out of hand.
* The OWS people lean left. Many people who lean right will therefore dismiss it out of hand.
The thing to take away here is: Both are the result of anger born of financial hardship. Whomever you blame for that hardship, people of this country are getting a raw deal, and they know it.
In short: We have a problem.
The Boston Tea Party was a direct action by colonists in Boston, a town in the British colony of Massachusetts, against the British government and the monopolistic East India Company that controlled all the tea imported into the colonies.
|
The Boston Tea Party example I think is a poor analogy, as the colonists here were doing what they could to harm a foreign oppresive government, who offered them no recourse in way of representation.Note that it really matters to the current topic, but it wasn't a foreign government...it was their government. :PLOL got me.
Their oppressive government who happened to be seprated by a thousand miles of water.
If distance is your criteria for legitimacy, how far is Washington DC from the west coast?
Hawaii?
Go back and read the whole passel of letters and pamphlets sent to King George. They were initially basing their claims on their "natural" rights as British citizens same as any others.
The Boston Tea Party was a direct action by colonists in Boston, a town in the British colony of Massachusetts, against the British government and the monopolistic East India Company that controlled all the tea imported into the colonies.
None of that counters what I said. They were mad at King George for raising their taxes on tea simply because he could. It was a crappy solution to a problem, but it was his solution. The East India Company just happened to be the schmucks with the boatload of tea in Boston.
No matter what the EIC did taxes wise, the buck stopped at King George.The argument that their actions were equally about the EIC would make more sense if the colonists were also mad that they weren't represented on their board of directors...
The Boston Tea Party example I think is a poor analogy, as the colonists here were doing what they could to harm a foreign oppresive government, who offered them no recourse in way of representation.Note that it really matters to the current topic, but it wasn't a foreign government...it was their government. :PLOL got me.
Their oppressive government who happened to be seprated by a thousand miles of water.
If distance is your criteria for legitimacy, how far is Washington DC from the west coast?
Hawaii?
Apaprently, it's not just about legitimacy, but if you can enforce the legitimacy at those distances.
Also, Hawaii is not an errant colony, it is a state with full rights in the union, with full representation.I never claimed they weren't British citizens, or that they thought they weren't. But they certainly felt as though they weren't being treated as British citizens, hence the problem.
I dunno what triggered this respose, actually, as it was just playful banter with Bugely...
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
I blame a certain chatter for this post...
Here's how I view OWS and what they stand for (to me). I believe that every American should have the opportunity to work to support themselves. This means that everyone who wants to get a job should be able to get a job, even if they're incompetent. They shouldn't have a right to the best job, or a high paying job, but at the very least, if they're willing to punch in and work 8 hours per day, 5 days a week, even if that work is digging holes that don't need to be dug and then re-filling them, they should have the opportunity to earn wages and support themselves and their families. Such a job should enable them to purchase nutritious food, it should provide their children with access to education (including college, without student debt), and it should allow them to obtain healthcare.
The current system does not currently support this dream. It did for a while - there was a period in American history where one income earner could support a family, afford a home and a car (even pay for a college education for their kids), make an honest living and retire without fear. But, for the past 3-5 decades, wages have stagnated (or held steady only through moving from a one income household to a two income household), healthcare has become too expensive and difficult to obtain, and living standards have fallen. during this time, the pie has grown, the economy has grown larger, but that growth has not been shared by everyone who helped create it.
This is a dream, and the reality of implementing it is fraught with peril. I'm not going to poke my head in the ground and tell you that this could be achieved without recalibrating the balance of American life. If the entire American economy is based upon digging and re-filling holes, there won't be any food to purchase or healthcare to be found. If there's no incentive to build businesses, there will be no money to pay even a limited number of people to dig/re-fill holes. If American businesses are less competitive on the international stage, we will be unable to protect our way of life and the dream will evaporate before it can be experienced. Answering these questions and facing these challenges is a necessary step to improving our lives, and I refuse to be defeated by the spectre of what could go wrong without also discovering what could go right.
The current system does not seem to be working. I believed for a long time in the promise: if corporations can grow bigger, if capital can accumulate in greater amounts under the control of a small number of skilled business persons, everyone will experience prosperity, everyone will have a job, a bed, and an opportunity to share in the American dream.
I want that outcome, and I think we need a better system to realize it. I don't know all the details of that system. I don't know if that system can be obtained at a cost that is worth paying. I don't know, but I think there is the possibility of a discussion, of a compromise, of coming together as a nation and choosing to make the lives of our people better. The current system drives us to hoarde and consume at the expense of so many things that are more valuable to us as humans, as Americans, as, if you will, Christians.
That's my take. I'm tired of trying to figure out who's absolutely right and wrong. I'm tired of being told I have two polarized choices when it comes to any particular issue. I'm tired of fighting. I want a better life for me, for you, for every American.
And, if I may steal an innovation from toy_robots:
TL;DR Version: The dream of a better way of life is worth having, and only by sharing a dream can we make America better.
|
|
The Boston Tea Party example I think is a poor analogy, as the colonists here were doing what they could to harm a foreign oppresive government, who offered them no recourse in way of representation.Note that it really matters to the current topic, but it wasn't a foreign government...it was their government. :PLOL got me.
Their oppressive government who happened to be seprated by a thousand miles of water.
If distance is your criteria for legitimacy, how far is Washington DC from the west coast?
Hawaii?
Apaprently, it's not just about legitimacy, but if you can enforce the legitimacy at those distances.
Also, Hawaii is not an errant colony, it is a state with full rights in the union, with full representation.I never claimed they weren't British citizens, or that they thought they weren't. But they certainly felt as though they weren't being treated as British citizens, hence the problem.
I dunno what triggered this respose, actually, as it was just playful banter with Bugely...
It's nothing personal, I just reread Locke and a bunch of legal positivist / natural law / legal realist stuff for some seminars and felt a bit chirpy.
It's interesting to watch how people's conceptions of their rights, their property and their citizenship changed over the period. It's also interesting to sort of poke at and test those ideas nowadays and see if they are still applicable and relevant.
The original American dream relies on there being an infinite store of land and a settler / small holder mentality (John Locke). Anyone who wanted to eat and be prosperous could be, just by going out and clearing some land and farming.
That dream hit its limits, and was eventually replaced by a Fordist one, Fordism hit its limits in the 70s and not much has stepped in to replace it.
Returning to first principles is a good idea, your founders were smart folks - but you can't just transplant them across time and space ahistorically. Their ideas and ideals were a product of a situation that doesn't exist in the world today.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Impressively cogent post.
Wow -- that was an amazing piece of writing for a message board. How do we get you to make serious more often?
Wait...are you Sebastian's dad? ;-)
Impressively cogent post.Wow -- that was seriously an amazing piece of writing for a message board. How do we get you to make serious more often?
Wait...is this Sebastian's dad? ;-)
I think he holds back. If he were to lay it on us like that all the time, we'd worship him.
I think he holds back. If he were to lay it on us like that all the time, we'd worship him.
I'm sticking with the dad explanation. :P
Sebastian's old man is a smart bastard.
good stuff
I agree whole heartedly. But I also believe their intent to make a great nation, and the ideas therein, do survive accross time.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
None of that counters what I said.
Yes, it does. It was an action against the megacorp in bed with government as much as it was against the government itself.
This was not an attack on the tea company becasue of "teh (missperceived) evilz" of capitalism.
The boston tea party wasn't about capitalism, it was about corporatism and a government controlled/controlling business, same as OWS.
They were mad at King George for raising their taxes on tea simply because he could.
This is incorrect. The tea act LOWERED the price of tea for the colonists by allowing the dutch east India company to ship directly to America from India. This would undercut the smuggling business of many Americans and put them out of business.
Guesse what illegal enterprise a lot of the instigators of the boston tea party were involved in?
The reality is a lot more complicated than what they usually present in highschool.
The argument that their actions were equally about the EIC would make more sense if the colonists were also mad that they weren't represented on their board of directors...
Their board of directors sat in Parliament. That was the problem.
Something from a later time i found while digging.
The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, and more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the Bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe.. corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money powers of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is destroyed.
-Some bearded Hippy
The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, and more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the Bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe.. corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money powers of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is destroyed.
That is a seriously bad ass quotation...but is it legitimate? Would Lincoln have referred to corporations this way? I honestly don't know.
|
|
The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, and more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the Bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe.. corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money powers of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is destroyed.That is a seriously bad ass quotation...but is it legitimate? Would Lincoln have referred to corporations this way? I honestly don't know.
This one seems a bit suspect too:
"These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert to fleece the people, and now that they have got into a quarrel with themselves, we are called upon to appropriate the people's money to settle the quarrel."
speech to Illinois legislature, Jan. 1837.
I like this one from a hippie with a kite:
In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults, — if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people, if well administered; and I believe, farther, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other.
- Ben Franklin, Speech to the Constitutional Convention (28 June 1787)
I like this one from a hippie with a kite:
In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults, — if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people, if well administered; and I believe, farther, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other.
- Ben Franklin, Speech to the Constitutional Convention (28 June 1787)
Much as I love Ben, I'm glad he got that wrong.
Did he?
Did he?
Are we so corrupted we need despotic government?
Well, I'm sure if we discuss it for just a few more pages, we can figure it out.
Oh snap! :P