The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
Hmm and you see this as equal and fare? Not sure what your point is.
No, I don't see it as equal and fair. I see it as violent, stupid and misguided.
My point was that most conspiracy theories that do not revolve around governments revolve around the either economic or racial minorities, particularly the rich in terms of the former. Many people seem to think that the rich get together in a back room somewhere and plot out the future of the world, yet most of them can't even hold onto their own fortunes or at least avoid serious losses over their lifetime. This is not to suggest that the wealthy do not have significant power or that they do not often times use their positions for political or social influence, but the assumptions of most people regarding the extent of that power and the extent of that influence are often hilarious.
Greed and stupidity are certainly not the same thing. However, people often confuse stupidity with massive conspiracies (often times believed to be motivated by greed).
For every grand conspiracy in history there have been a million conspiracy theories. Certainly many seek and abuse power. But to believe this world is controlled by a select few is to completely ignore their nearly constant failures to achieve their ends.
It's no secret that some nationalities only spend money within their ethnic circle (or give preference to). This means hiring only certain contractors donating only to certain causes and certain ethnic members, etc etc... I have no problem with that concept and more power to them, if they are ok with it. I like to keep my money in my country an buy and support locally made products, services, food etc to put money back into the community.
That same thing happens at the elite level. Certain circles swirl together, in the sense royalty marries greatly from within. Certain communities are more ethnic, the existence of gay districts. It's herd mentality. It's just how it is imo. The people effecting policies think of themselves first, and when push comes to shove, the screws will clamp down to maintain the inner circle to maintain control.
The biger the task, the more control is needed. Hello patriot act. That thing is never going away. Spying is here to stay. No conspiracy there at all.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I get a little confused over how randoms things are just thrown out in this thread.
Roland has stated NWO is going to happen. If so, why fight it? You've stated it's going to occur, what do you hope to achieve by fighting it?
Someone else stated the the majority of Europeans feel the US is the biggest threat to world peace. Was this before or after it was decided that all but 2% of the world are sheep and have their head buried in the sand? Does it matter what a group of people think if what they think does not mirror reality?
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
I get a little confused over how randoms things are just thrown out in this thread.
Roland has stated NWO is going to happen. If so, why fight it? You've stated it's going to occur, what do you hope to achieve by fighting it?
It's the most natural course of events. It forces the corrupt to develop glimpses of conscience, and allows for a more natural progression into tyranny or "societal development" Power shifts have gone back and forth throughout time. It's all about balance.
But seriously, Nazi Germany was a perfect example of why society has the duty to oppose and question authority.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
to what end? what are you working toward? who are you mentoring/training/inspiring? what change are you making?
Social progress. THe working class have built this country, we should have control of it.
In order for social progress to occur, it seems that it requires massive puplic protests-strikes and so on-and that's almost always true. In order for the people to be organized though they need to be informed. THis may take hundreds of years, as the racial struggle in the 70's had brewed for hundreds of years, until enough minorities were informed, which allowed people like Martin Luthar King jr and Malcom X to rise up. It isn't the leaders that push for change, its the people. And it was the same with women's sufrage movement. At first they didn't even know how to discuss it, they simply called it "the problem". But word spread until enough were informed for them to get organized-and that is the ace in the hole.
The people always have the power. We can shut down any society at anytime-but with that also comes the responsibilty for our leaders actions. We allowed Bush to invade Iraq, we allowed Guantanimo to be built, and on.
Howard Zinn's saying, "You can't be neutral on a moving train" stems from this. We have the power, and so if we sit back and do nothing we are letting our leaders do what they want, with our consent. If we rise up en masse, as we should be doing more often, it forces teh leaders to listen. If we don't work, they don't have a country to run.
As for the gains we should be striving for I think the battle for workers rights needs to be fought again. I think we need to take back control of our military. I think we need to separate corporation and state. I think we need to stress education, accurate education. I think we need to take our media back. I think we need to take our democracy back. I think we need to train police to be public servants, as they were meant to be, instead of public bullies. I think we need to take control of how our taxes our spent-the list goes on.
But seriously, Nazi Germany was a perfect example of why society has the duty to oppose and question authority.
Bush administration is a perfect example....and yea dems aren't much better.....and think sometimes they just laugh at how easy it is.....know Karl's laughing his ass off...still.
How could it not be corrupt? by its very nature it is flawed. ANy system based on selfishness is.
That's very true. It's not a perfect system but it's better than every other economic system that's been tried in history. The problem with the left is they aim for impossible Utopian perfection and end up screwing everyone over (except the political elite of course). Free-markets can be ugly and can make things hard for some people but guess what? That's life. The greatest good for the greatest amount should be the aim of any economic system and that's something that socialism has never, ever been able to provide with any reasonable consistency.
So this life is sacrifice...
6/30/98 Minneapolis, 10/8/00 East Troy (Brrrr!), 6/16/03 St. Paul, 6/27/06 St. Paul
That's very true. It's not a perfect system but it's better than every other economic system that's been tried in history. The problem with the left is they aim for impossible Utopian perfection and end up screwing everyone over (except the political elite of course). Free-markets can be ugly and can make things hard for some people but guess what? That's life. The greatest good for the greatest amount should be the aim of any economic system and that's something that socialism has never, ever been able to provide with any reasonable consistency.
Look at Spain pre-Franco.
They not only had a unctioning socialist state but it was anarchist as well-no governement. It worked great. Native Americans, there's more.
That's very true. It's not a perfect system but it's better than every other economic system that's been tried in history. The problem with the left is they aim for impossible Utopian perfection and end up screwing everyone over (except the political elite of course). Free-markets can be ugly and can make things hard for some people but guess what? That's life. The greatest good for the greatest amount should be the aim of any economic system and that's something that socialism has never, ever been able to provide with any reasonable consistency.
the political elite benefit from socialistic policies?? ... do you have any basis for this assertation??
the current model serves only the wealthy and connected - everything is based on the exploitation of others - if you want to consider that "life" - that's fine but it doesn't make it right ... nor just ...
the current model serves only the wealthy and connected - everything is based on the exploitation of others - if you want to consider that "life" - that's fine but it doesn't make it right ... nor just ...
I'm not wealthy or connected and the current model serves me just fine.
Comments
Come now greed is not stupidity.
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
No, I don't see it as equal and fair. I see it as violent, stupid and misguided.
My point was that most conspiracy theories that do not revolve around governments revolve around the either economic or racial minorities, particularly the rich in terms of the former. Many people seem to think that the rich get together in a back room somewhere and plot out the future of the world, yet most of them can't even hold onto their own fortunes or at least avoid serious losses over their lifetime. This is not to suggest that the wealthy do not have significant power or that they do not often times use their positions for political or social influence, but the assumptions of most people regarding the extent of that power and the extent of that influence are often hilarious.
Greed and stupidity are certainly not the same thing. However, people often confuse stupidity with massive conspiracies (often times believed to be motivated by greed).
to what end? what are you working toward? who are you mentoring/training/inspiring? what change are you making?
It's no secret that some nationalities only spend money within their ethnic circle (or give preference to). This means hiring only certain contractors donating only to certain causes and certain ethnic members, etc etc... I have no problem with that concept and more power to them, if they are ok with it. I like to keep my money in my country an buy and support locally made products, services, food etc to put money back into the community.
That same thing happens at the elite level. Certain circles swirl together, in the sense royalty marries greatly from within. Certain communities are more ethnic, the existence of gay districts. It's herd mentality. It's just how it is imo. The people effecting policies think of themselves first, and when push comes to shove, the screws will clamp down to maintain the inner circle to maintain control.
The biger the task, the more control is needed. Hello patriot act. That thing is never going away. Spying is here to stay. No conspiracy there at all.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Roland has stated NWO is going to happen. If so, why fight it? You've stated it's going to occur, what do you hope to achieve by fighting it?
Someone else stated the the majority of Europeans feel the US is the biggest threat to world peace. Was this before or after it was decided that all but 2% of the world are sheep and have their head buried in the sand? Does it matter what a group of people think if what they think does not mirror reality?
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
It's the most natural course of events. It forces the corrupt to develop glimpses of conscience, and allows for a more natural progression into tyranny or "societal development"
But seriously, Nazi Germany was a perfect example of why society has the duty to oppose and question authority.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
In order for social progress to occur, it seems that it requires massive puplic protests-strikes and so on-and that's almost always true. In order for the people to be organized though they need to be informed. THis may take hundreds of years, as the racial struggle in the 70's had brewed for hundreds of years, until enough minorities were informed, which allowed people like Martin Luthar King jr and Malcom X to rise up. It isn't the leaders that push for change, its the people. And it was the same with women's sufrage movement. At first they didn't even know how to discuss it, they simply called it "the problem". But word spread until enough were informed for them to get organized-and that is the ace in the hole.
The people always have the power. We can shut down any society at anytime-but with that also comes the responsibilty for our leaders actions. We allowed Bush to invade Iraq, we allowed Guantanimo to be built, and on.
Howard Zinn's saying, "You can't be neutral on a moving train" stems from this. We have the power, and so if we sit back and do nothing we are letting our leaders do what they want, with our consent. If we rise up en masse, as we should be doing more often, it forces teh leaders to listen. If we don't work, they don't have a country to run.
As for the gains we should be striving for I think the battle for workers rights needs to be fought again. I think we need to take back control of our military. I think we need to separate corporation and state. I think we need to stress education, accurate education. I think we need to take our media back. I think we need to take our democracy back. I think we need to train police to be public servants, as they were meant to be, instead of public bullies. I think we need to take control of how our taxes our spent-the list goes on.
Bush administration is a perfect example....and yea dems aren't much better.....and think sometimes they just laugh at how easy it is.....know Karl's laughing his ass off...still.
That's very true. It's not a perfect system but it's better than every other economic system that's been tried in history. The problem with the left is they aim for impossible Utopian perfection and end up screwing everyone over (except the political elite of course). Free-markets can be ugly and can make things hard for some people but guess what? That's life. The greatest good for the greatest amount should be the aim of any economic system and that's something that socialism has never, ever been able to provide with any reasonable consistency.
6/30/98 Minneapolis, 10/8/00 East Troy (Brrrr!), 6/16/03 St. Paul, 6/27/06 St. Paul
They not only had a unctioning socialist state but it was anarchist as well-no governement. It worked great. Native Americans, there's more.
It can be done.
the political elite benefit from socialistic policies?? ... do you have any basis for this assertation??
the current model serves only the wealthy and connected - everything is based on the exploitation of others - if you want to consider that "life" - that's fine but it doesn't make it right ... nor just ...
I think I just threw up a little.
are you being serious?
I'm not wealthy or connected and the current model serves me just fine.