Originally posted by sasquatch672I think your comparison of our current state with that of the pre-revolutionary France or Russia is inexact. In the latter two examples society was sharply divided between a tiny rich elite and masses of the poor. Because of this stark contrast, the poor working classes were able to develop a strong class conciousness which allowed them to act as a common group. By contrast, the great degree of stratification within the US workforce has all but eliminated any class conciousness that it may have had. There is room for some social mobility here. As a consequence, the ambitions of the workers have been diverted away from bringing about a transformation of society and have instead been safely channeled into having them strive for that elusive next rung on the corporate ladder.
Let me first state, without equivocation, that I AM NOT endorsing the violent overthrow of the American government.
One thing that's become clear as a result of the political season just passed is this: our government is broken. ...[text shortened]... rnment.
Does anybody agree with me, or am I just a doomsayer?
This has been the single greatest act of self preservation that the capitalist system could have come up with. By allowing for some degree of advancement for the workers (always the smallest amount they can get away with), the capitalist class has completely undermined the class conciousness and solidarity of the US workers. Barring any cataclysmic changes, a revolution within this country is virtually unthinkable.
Originally posted by sasquatch672You are a very immature person. And a poor loser.
Let me first state, without equivocation, that I AM NOT endorsing the violent overthrow of the American government.
One thing that's become clear as a result of the political season just passed is this: our government is broken. The problems are systemic. It's got nothing to do with George Bush winning. It's got everything to do with the Bush ...[text shortened]... arms to remove the entire government.
Does anybody agree with me, or am I just a doomsayer?
I thought my side did extremely well in this last election.
If you don't like the result, then become active and try to suppress the majority. That works. Especially in socialist governments.
See the big Socialists states; USSR,PRC etc.
In case you missed it, we began the "revolution" when we elected Reagan and the "revolution" continues to gain strength. Power to the people!
Originally posted by sasquatch672I am not going to read any more of your spamming PM's. If you have anything to say, say it here.
See? This is exactly what I'm talking about. This is SVW's tired, old approach - insult anybody you disagree with. Because you couldn't debate me or anybody else on what time of the day it is.
Originally posted by sasquatch672Not at all. It was like your first post here. Not well thought out and an effort to be a killer chimp. You want blood. That's ok.
Why? Did my message hit a little too close to home, there, slick?
Like I said - you can't debate me, you learned this in another thread, so you call me childish and immature. That's fine. Bye-bye.
Do you wish to debate the premise of your assertions? I'll lay you ten to 1 you can't even list them. I will do that here. Then we can debate each assertion. You really never did state a thesis resulting from your assertions. I'll do that for you also. Because? You don't know what it means.
Originally posted by StarValleyWy'Your side' did a tremendous job to win re-election (no sarcasm). Karl Rove is a political genius.
You are a very immature person. And a poor loser.
I thought my side did extremely well in this last election.
If you don't like the result, then become active and try to suppress the majority. That works. Especially in socialist governments.
See the big Socialists states; USSR,PRC etc.
In case you missed it, we began the "revolution" when we elected Reagan and the "revolution" continues to gain strength. Power to the people!
That conceded, doesn't it make you a little uncomfortable that 'your side' is becoming increasingly dependent upon the religious theocrats?
Without the zealous aid of evangelical xtian soldiers, your party would not have the political monopoly it now enjoys. With all the good work these suburban Bible-thumpers are doing, surely your party will have to let them in on the spoils? Crazy though they may be, the theocrats aren't completely stupid. The Pat Robertson's, Jerry Falwell's, and James Dobson's of the Christian Coalition will remind the elitist Republicans of a basic principle from neoclassical economics: paying factor inputs their marginal value of product.
Will 'your side' be able to keep these rabid wolves at bay when they come demanding a reinstitution of school prayer, a criminalization of abortion, or the substitution of science for 'intelligent' superstition?
Surely, you at least still value science?
Your first assertion is that "Our government is broken". To your credit you do state a reason for your belief. You do not give an example.
You derive a second assertion from this first, unsubstantiated assertion that "Bush wants to establish an oligarchy"
An "oligarchy" is a nation ruled by a small group of people. Is it not? A small group of people having control of a state.
This assertion is childish at best. We have elections every four years. "Control of a state" should be made of sterner stuff.
Your second assertion is that our government "doesn't represent us anymore." Again you give no examples to back your assertion. This is a pattern now that you have done it twice.
You give no reasons to support assertion number two, but launch assertion number three instead.
Your third assertion is that "Politicians in Washington get lobbied relentlessly by groups who want a bigger share of the pie than they're entitiled to, and who want that bigger share at the expense of ordinary citizens." You give no proof again. I see a pattern. Just assert and hope for the best.
You just launch assertion number four: "Billions of federal tax dollars are funnelled to corporations and special-interest groups. And this happens no matter who's in the White House or Congress."
This is the definition of government. It does stuff. It collects and disperses money mostly. Is your assertion number four a "bad" thing? Why? Who is a "special" interest? A person or group who is good at "Politic" qualify? Isn't that "Politics"? I believe your argument is circular in nature. Which comes first? Special interests, ie, the people or the government?
Your assertion number five is "The tax-reform movement is pushing for a flat tax or sales tax that will eliminate the IRS." You give no source for this bit of wisdom. Show me where anyone in the Bush administration is pushing this.
Then your assertion number six: "This is a way of further reducing government revenue and increasingly shifting the burden of paying for government onto the middle and working class." No examples. Just speculation based on a blind assertion, ie, your number five.
Then you go to your number seven: "The Bush budget makes it harder for 300,000 people to get food stamps and defunds Amtrak."
The truth is that Bush "might" propose these ideas to be voted on by congress. He didn't "do" it yet. And he never will. Our "government" might do it. Bush has no way of "doing" anything except proposing.