How the powerful convince you to hate the oppressed.

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

I don't normally share articles from Cracked, because, you know, it's Cracked, but David Wong is a pretty solid writer, regardless of the medium, and he's put out an article explaining how the upper crust successfully turns society against the downtrodden that is worth reading by anyone interested in those things.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-ways-powerful-people-trick-you-into-hating-underdogs/

So yer tellin' me that the Upper Crust tricked Jerry Rubin and the Chicago 7 into committing violence and levitating the Pentagon so the Majority But Dullard Class (you and me) would unknowingly turn on the Downtrodden, keep the status quo, and and deny them their rightful whatever?

All I can say is "step back non-believers, or the rain will NEVER come."

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I know for a fact I wouldn't want to live in a country that takes half of anyone's wealth and gives it everyone like that.

I wouldn't want to live in a country that did that, either. But I also don't want to live in a country where a small handful of people own most of the wealth.

Personally, I don't want to redistribute wealth during someone's life anymore than we already are. Taxes are plenty high. I could see some restructuring for how things work. We should consider raising the cap on FICA taxable income, for example.

No, I'd much rather take your wealth away when you die. I see a strong value to society for letting people get rich through hard work. Even if luck is a huge part of it (i.e., winning the genetic lottery as a superstar athlete), people still have to contribute to the economy and to society in some way to get that money. Good for them.

But I see no benefit to society for letting you pass enormous wealth on to the next generation. Four of the 12 richest people in America are on the list solely because of what they received from Sam Walton's estate. Not because they played any significant role in earning that wealth. Only because they got a huge chunk of it when he died. That's obscene. It's exactly the kind of aristocracy Jefferson warned against.

 

[Sope Creek]

Except that I'm not the one seeking to impose anything on anybody. It's those who see it as society's role to provide for them who do that. Who, really, is being tyrannical here? I'll ask it again: can I opt out of Social Security and Medicare? I'll stop paying into them and, as such, disclaim any right to the first penny from either one of them. Deal?

Oh, of course not. And it's "tyrannical" for me to even ask it.....but not at all tyrannical for others to compel me to participate. No, no.

All I'm really asking is to be left alone. What others want to do -- including collectively with other willing people -- is entirely up to them. That's not tyranny -- it's the antithesis of it.

Anarchism - which is what you essentially advocated - is one of the most insidious forms of tyranny . . .

. . . your seemingly innocent "All I'm really asking is to be left alone" comment is, of course, a utopian fantasy at its best and a cover for imposing yourself when viewed pragmatically. What you really want is the right to pick and choose when to participate - because it's to your advantage, or perhaps even when you can make it a disadvantage to others - and when not to because others have an advantage - or can make it a disadvantage to you. That's a highly insidious form of tyranny, and one that is prevalent now. It's a significant part of what is wrong with the country. Consider the application of your "leave me alone" principle in any number of contexts - driving on a highway, obtaining health services at a hospital, establishing property lines for one's residential lot - and you see that it's nothing but a fiction. Such a state of being doesn't - can't - exist. The rest of us are here too.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Anarchism - which is what you essentially advocated - is one of the most insidious forms of tyranny . . .

No, anarchy is not at all what I advocated -- essentially or otherwise. For a really good primer on what it means to be a libertarian, I highly recommend Charles Murray's book, er, "What It Means to Be a Libertarian." Anybody who confuses this with anarchy is confused.

What you really want is the right to pick and choose when to participate

Mmm, to some degree -- particularly as it relates to something I pay for in exchange for future personal benefits. But not entirely. Rather, I favor Lincoln's great explanation of "the legitimate object of government". Here's how he put it:

The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done, but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves, in their separate and individual capacities. In all that the people can individually do as well for themselves, government ought not to interfere.
​

I'm sure there are plenty of things any of us could think of that we'd look at and say: "I don't want my tax dollars going to that." But, as Lincoln pointed out, there are things that a community of people need but can't really provide for in our "separate and individual capacities." Of course, what those things are is a matter of debate.

Consider the application of your "leave me alone" principle in any number of contexts - driving on a highway, obtaining health services at a hospital, establishing property lines for one's residential lot - and you see that it's nothing but a fiction.

And if I really were advocating anarchy, you'd be right. But, once again, I'm not. One man's rights end where another's begin. And of course it's a critical role of government to manage this. In fact, this gets to the other part of Lincoln's quote about government's role:

The desirable things which the individuals of a people cannot do, or cannot well do, for themselves, fall into two classes: those which have relation to wrongs, and those which have not. The first—that in relation to wrongs—embraces all crimes, misdemeanors, and non-performance of contracts.

...if all men were just, there still would be some, though not so much, need of government.​

But of course all men aren't just. In fact, without government playing this role, we'd all be screwing each other every way we could figure out. Even with government dispensing justice, we still make a helluva go at it.

Knowing that I wholeheartedly agree with Lincoln's view of the role of government, can you tell me where exactly the anarchical tyranny comes in? Was Honest Abe a tyrannical anarchist, too?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

No, anarchy is not at all what I advocated -- essentially or otherwise. For a really good primer on what it means to be a libertarian, I highly recommend Charles Murray's book, er, "What It Means to Be a Libertarian." Anybody who confuses this with anarchy is confused.



Mmm, to some degree -- particularly as it relates to something I pay for in exchange for future personal benefits. But not entirely. Rather, I favor Lincoln's great explanation of "the legitimate object of government". Here's how he put it:

The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done, but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves, in their separate and individual capacities. In all that the people can individually do as well for themselves, government ought not to interfere.
​

I'm sure there are plenty of things any of us could think of that we'd look at and say: "I don't want my tax dollars going to that." But, as Lincoln pointed out, there are things that a community of people need but can't really provide for in our "separate and individual capacities." Of course, what those things are is a matter of debate.



And if I really were advocating anarchy, you'd be right. But, once again, I'm not. One man's rights end where another's begin. And of course it's a critical role of government to manage this. In fact, this gets to the other part of Lincoln's quote about government's role:

The desirable things which the individuals of a people cannot do, or cannot well do, for themselves, fall into two classes: those which have relation to wrongs, and those which have not. The first—that in relation to wrongs—embraces all crimes, misdemeanors, and non-performance of contracts.

...if all men were just, there still would be some, though not so much, need of government.​

But of course all men aren't just. In fact, without government playing this role, we'd all be screwing each other every way we could figure out. Even with government dispensing justice, we still make a helluva go at it.

Knowing that I wholeheartedly agree with Lincoln's view of the role of government, can you tell me where exactly the anarchical tyranny comes in? Was Honest Abe a tyrannical anarchist, too?

I find it fascinating that your Lincoln quote in defensive of your libertarian views is almost identical to my description of a liberal view of the proper role of government.

Perhaps the difference between a liberal and a libertarian is solely to be found in this line from your post: "Of course, what those things are is a matter of debate."

At any rate, your version of libertarianism does not sound like anarchy to me, but I know quite a few libertarians (some close relatives) who are essentially anarchists, although they'd despise the label.

 

[Sope Creek]

No, anarchy is not at all what I advocated -- essentially or otherwise. For a really good primer on what it means to be a libertarian, I highly recommend Charles Murray's book, er, "What It Means to Be a Libertarian." Anybody who confuses this with anarchy is confused.



Mmm, to some degree -- particularly as it relates to something I pay for in exchange for future personal benefits. But not entirely. Rather, I favor Lincoln's great explanation of "the legitimate object of government". Here's how he put it:

The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done, but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves, in their separate and individual capacities. In all that the people can individually do as well for themselves, government ought not to interfere.
​

I'm sure there are plenty of things any of us could think of that we'd look at and say: "I don't want my tax dollars going to that." But, as Lincoln pointed out, there are things that a community of people need but can't really provide for in our "separate and individual capacities." Of course, what those things are is a matter of debate.



And if I really were advocating anarchy, you'd be right. But, once again, I'm not. One man's rights end where another's begin. And of course it's a critical role of government to manage this. In fact, this gets to the other part of Lincoln's quote about government's role:

The desirable things which the individuals of a people cannot do, or cannot well do, for themselves, fall into two classes: those which have relation to wrongs, and those which have not. The first—that in relation to wrongs—embraces all crimes, misdemeanors, and non-performance of contracts.

...if all men were just, there still would be some, though not so much, need of government.​

But of course all men aren't just. In fact, without government playing this role, we'd all be screwing each other every way we could figure out. Even with government dispensing justice, we still make a helluva go at it.

Knowing that I wholeheartedly agree with Lincoln's view of the role of government, can you tell me where exactly the anarchical tyranny comes in? Was Honest Abe a tyrannical anarchist, too?

So I see that my post moved you from "All I want is to be left alone" to "Well, um, yeah, now that you mention it, there are some things that government ought to be involved with". Now it's just a matter of where we draw the line in providing for a community of people whatever they need to have done, but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves, in their separate and individual capacities . . . .

Do you really think that most folks can "well do" at providing medical care for themselves? Do you really think most aged folks can "well do" at supporting themselves after their working capacity has diminished to a point where no reasonable employer would hire them? If so, perhaps you shouldn't be spending so much time alone, in your personal little microeconomy.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

So I see that my post moved you from "All I want is to be left alone" to "Well, um, yeah, now that you mention it, there are some things that government ought to be involved with".

I didn't move at all. You, as you often do, gleaned a meaning from my words that I wasn't expressing. Of course there are things government should be involved in -- and the Constitution does a really good job of outlining them.

Do you really think that most folks can "well do" at providing medical care for themselves?

Absolutely. And, for most of this country's history, we did just that. It wasn't until we started viewing healthcare as a right to be provided, guaranteed, or financed in whole or in part by the state that we started experiencing out-of-control costs. I don't have any particular problem with involving insurance in the mix to cover large, unexpected healthcare expenses. But insurance as a mechanism for paying for any and all healthcare services has proven to be a catastrophe.

Do you really think most aged folks can "well do" at supporting themselves after their working capacity has diminished to a point where no reasonable employer would hire them?

Yep, if we give them the tools and incentives they'll need to prepare for it. Here's how Franklin addressed that:

There is no country in the world where so many provisions are established for them; so many hospitals to receive them when they are sick or lame, founded and maintained by voluntary charities; so many alms-houses for the aged of both sexes, together with a solemn general law made by the rich to subject their estates to a heavy tax for the support of the poor. Under all these obligations, are our poor modest, humble, and thankful; and do they use their best endeavors to maintain themselves, and lighten our shoulders of this burthen? On the contrary, I affirm that there is no country in the world in which the poor are more idle, dissolute, drunken, and insolent. The day you passed that act, you took away from before their eyes the greatest of all inducements to industry, frugality, and sobriety, by giving them a dependence on somewhat else than a careful accumulation during youth and health, for support in age or sickness. In short, you offered a premium for the encouragement of idleness, and you should not now wonder that it has had its effect in the increase of poverty. Repeal that law, and you will soon see a change in their manners.
​

Franklin was right. And I'd say that human nature hasn't changed much in the 260+ years since he wrote that.

If so, perhaps you shouldn't be spending so much time alone, in your personal little microeconomy.

....which has served me well. And would serve anybody else who followed the same practices equally as well. It's not my kind of microeconomy that is leaving me in a chronic state of need and dependence.

 

[hoot1]

David Wong's essay was actually entitled 5 Ways Powerful People Trick You Into Hating Protesters rather than Goat's thread title How the Powerful Convince You to Hate the Oppressed.

I say this because protesters and the oppressed may or may not be the same people. Furthermore, isn't it what people are protesting about which makes us love or disapprove of them? Also isn't hate a little strong?

Finally, why didn't Wong just ask this on behalf of the more affluent, Why aren't these people working instead of tearing up public property? Or this, "They are unhappy with the American way because they are losers and cannot accept being the cause for their own lack of success?

People complaining about things of which we approve are whiners. People who protest against things we don't like are freedom loving Americans willing to speak out for what is right.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

The article demands that I accept 2+2=5. Repeatedly.
It is straw man argument on top of straw man argument surrounded by straw man arguments.

Sometimes - even as a member of the Majority But Dullard Class to which Wong relegates me - I reject (or do not get tricked into accepting) the Upper Crust side, and INTENTIONALLY fail to reject the Downtrodden.

Example - not one time did I ever decide MLK was wrong because (1) he broke the law (2) he had extra-marital affairs (3) he hung with or liked or was a Commie.

If you ground yerself in principles, right is often right and wrong is often wrong and Andrew Damn Carnegie can't change your mind. Not even with a 6th way the Upper Crust keeps us down - i.e. by building a damn library with some bread crumbs of his wealth.

I - for one - do not begrudge the rich and powerful their rich and power. Doesn't bother me that I'm a have not. Never has. Let me eat cake and I won't storm the Bastille or guillotine anybody either. I got over it.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

David Wong's essay was actually entitled 5 Ways Powerful People Trick You Into Hating Protesters rather than Goat's thread title How the Powerful Convince You to Hate the Oppressed.

I say this because protesters and the oppressed may or may not be the same people. Furthermore, isn't it what people are protesting about which makes us love or disapprove of them? Also isn't hate a little strong?

Finally, why didn't Wong just ask this on behalf of the more affluent, Why aren't these people working instead of tearing up public property? Or this, "They are unhappy with the American way because they are losers and cannot accept being the cause for their own lack of success?

People complaining about things of which we approve are whiners. People who protest against things we don't like are freedom loving Americans willing to speak out for what is right.

It's worth noting that Cracked plays fast and loose with article titles. At one point, the link was, "How the powerful convinces you to root against the underdog," or something to that effect.

I think the lesson to be learned, though, is that, no, sometimes it isn't what people are protesting that determines our reaction. Sometimes it's some amount of imperfect or incomplete knowledge we have about them, and that the people in power are often the ones who dictate that knowledge. Even in your post, your question "Why aren't these people working instead of tearing up public property?" strikes to the heart of the article, because most of them aren't tearing up public property. But those people aren't going to get heard, because everyone is painted with the same broad brush. And who is doing the painting? The people who don't want us to actually hear the genuine complaints.

 

[rocket_knight]

It's worth noting that Cracked plays fast and loose with article titles. At one point, the link was, "How the powerful convinces you to root against the underdog,"

Cracked is a nice but no substitute for John Gaventa's classic work on social power .....

 

[VanPastorMan]

Sure. The point is, you probably don't judge them by their merits. Instead, you've been tricked by clever rhetoric to dismiss them.

Ultimately, the point of the article was that it's easy to be tricked into thinking a certain way about something by someone who has a vested interest in your opinion. Recognizing the fact that we are vulnerable to being tricked is an important first step toward preventing it.

The more confident someone is in their own objectivity, the less I am.

Goat, I don't hold any ill will towards anyone. Conservative values speak about everybody taking care of themselves the best way they can. Of course we have folks who get into accidents etc who need disability. I would not have a problem with helping a single woman raising a child for a while. What I am against is keeping people in poverty because they end up in a system where they feel trapped. This isn't me hating poor people. Good grief, for most of my life I have been a poor person. I make 42k a yr and am 47. This is the most I've made in my life. I know poor,because I have been poor.

 

[rocket_knight]

Goat, I don't hold any ill will towards anyone. Conservative values speak about everybody taking care of themselves the best way they can. Of course we have folks who get into accidents etc who need disability. I would not have a problem with helping a single woman raising a child for a while. What I am against is keeping people in poverty because they end up in a system where they feel trapped. This isn't me hating poor people. Good grief, for most of my life I have been a poor person. I make 42k a yr and am 47. This is the most I've made in my life. I know poor,because I have been poor.

Seems you're suggesting Jesus let his super natural ego get in the way of the cause when he fed those irresponsible 5000. Should of preached a message for the ages on personal responsibility and sent those slackers back to work hungry.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

Goat, I don't hold any ill will towards anyone. Conservative values speak about everybody taking care of themselves the best way they can. Of course we have folks who get into accidents etc who need disability. I would not have a problem with helping a single woman raising a child for a while. What I am against is keeping people in poverty because they end up in a system where they feel trapped. This isn't me hating poor people. Good grief, for most of my life I have been a poor person. I make 42k a yr and am 47. This is the most I've made in my life. I know poor,because I have been poor.

Oh man, I didn't know that people taking care of themselves was a "conservative value". Sh*t. Do I have to pay some conservative group every time I think that? I also know some "liberals" who think the same thing. Do they owe you guys money? Have you trademarked these "conservative values"? Have you guys trademarked hard work, morality, and respect? I hope those aren't strictly "conservative values". Get off your F*cking horse about what values are "conservative". It makes you look like a self righteous jerkoff. Oh, and those aren't "Christian values" either. I know Jews and Muslims who believe and practice those same values.

 

[VanPastorMan]

Oh man, I didn't know that people taking care of themselves was a "conservative value". Sh*t. Do I have to pay some conservative group every time I think that? I also know some "liberals" who think the same thing. Do they owe you guys money? Have you trademarked these "conservative values"? Have you guys trademarked hard work, morality, and respect? I hope those aren't strictly "conservative values". Get off your F*cking horse about what values are "conservative". It makes you look like a self righteous jerkoff. Oh, and those aren't "Christian values" either. I know Jews and Muslims who believe and practice those same values.

You are the self righteous person. Go back and reread what you just wrote to me.

 

[VanPastorMan]

Seems you're suggesting Jesus let his super natural ego get in the way of the cause when he fed those irresponsible 5000. Should of preached a message for the ages on personal responsibility and sent those slackers back to work hungry.

Jesus did an actual miracle in John 6 no doubt. But can you really take that amazing miracle and say Jesus wants people to be taken care of for the rest of their lives when they have the ability to work? I can't see that point in the text. It's not like Jesus took the boy's sack lunch because the boy had too much and had to share. Jesus could have done the miracle without the loaves and fishes. He could have created ex niho, out of nothing food for the people to eat. For He is the same God who created manna which fell from Heaven.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

You are the self righteous person. Go back and reread what you just wrote to me.

I don't claim to hold values that are specific to any group. You do. I clearly stated multiple groups that hold the values you espouse. Maybe I should type slower.

 

[Rockfish1]

Jesus did an actual miracle in John 6 no doubt. But can you really take that amazing miracle and say Jesus wants people to be taken care of for the rest of their lives when they have the ability to work? I can't see that point in the text.

Republican Jesus was very concerned that handing out fishes and loaves to slackers would breed dependency, which He opposed above all else. That's why the fishes and loaves miracle was a one-off that He later regretted. This isn't actually in the Scripture, of course, but it's plain as day if you read between the Holy Lines.

 

[hootch1]

David Wong's essay was actually entitled 5 Ways Powerful People Trick You Into Hating Protesters rather than Goat's thread title How the Powerful Convince You to Hate the Oppressed.

I say this because protesters and the oppressed may or may not be the same people. Furthermore, isn't it what people are protesting about which makes us love or disapprove of them? Also isn't hate a little strong?

Finally, why didn't Wong just ask this on behalf of the more affluent, Why aren't these people working instead of tearing up public property? Or this, "They are unhappy with the American way because they are losers and cannot accept being the cause for their own lack of success?

People complaining about things of which we approve are whiners. People who protest against things we don't like are freedom loving Americans willing to speak out for what is right.

I agree with your assessment in general but would boil it down even further. Looking through the thread the term oppressed seems to be a sticking point. The examples used in the article have little to do with power. These are example, for the most part, of minimizing the arguments/concerns of people with whom you disagree without addressing those arguments or concerns, a sort of argumentum ad hominem (I didn't take Latin so this may be the wrong. Is it Romanes eunt domus or Romani ite domum?) or building a straw man or any of the other many types of fallacies intended to counter an arguments without addressing the arguments or concerns.

Some idiots, idiots making up well less that 0.1% of protesters, crapped on a police car so all Occupy Wall Street protesters need to be condemned and ignored.

Someone claims to sees a person or knows someone who has seen a person a on SNAP or some other aid program so the programs are not necessary.

Proponents use straw men well beyond the existing issue to create an atmosphere of fear and confusion, e.g the impacts of gay marriage.

In some cases these claims have real world impacts. A number of states have recently added limitations on how public assistance can be used. Kansas, which has one of the most far reaching lists, admits that they really don't know how how much, if any, aid money is spent on these items. In an effort at limiting the extravagance of those receiving public aid, the state limited the amount of money that could be taken from an ATM at any one time $25, effectively $20. This increases the cost of ATM fees thus reducing the amount of the aid money that can be used for food and other necessities.

 

[hootch1]

How many times we seen the traditional media butcher reporting, understanding and due diligence?

I didn't comment much on traditional media since my point is that a substantial and growing number of people get information from non traditional sources, i.e that traditional media does not necessarily have to be complicit for these actions to take place.

 

[Rockfish1]

http://southpark.cc.com/clips/103454/the-chewbacca-defense

I agree with your assessment in general but would boil it down even further. Looking through the thread the term oppressed seems to be a sticking point. The examples used in the article have little to do with power. These are example, for the most part, of minimizing the arguments/concerns of people with whom you disagree without addressing those arguments or concerns, a sort of argumentum ad hominem (I didn't take Latin so this may be the wrong. Is it Romanes eunt domus or Romani ite domum?) or building a straw man or any of the other many types of fallacies intended to counter an arguments without addressing the arguments or concerns.

Some idiots, idiots making up well less that 0.1% of protesters, crapped on a police car so all Occupy Wall Street protesters need to be condemned and ignored.

Someone claims to sees a person or knows someone who has seen a person a on SNAP or some other aid program so the programs are not necessary.

Proponents use straw men well beyond the existing issue to create an atmosphere of fear and confusion, e.g the impacts of gay marriage.

In some cases these claims have real world impacts. A number of states have recently added limitations on how public assistance can be used. Kansas, which has one of the most far reaching lists, admits that they really don't know how how much, if any, aid money is spent on these items. In an effort at limiting the extravagance of those receiving public aid, the state limited the amount of money that could be taken from an ATM at any one time $25, effectively $20. This increases the cost of ATM fees thus reducing the amount of the aid money that can be used for food and other necessities.

This is the classic rhetorical technique that I call: "Look, over there!" If you can't win the argument, change the subject -- preferably in a nonsensical way. See, e.g., the Chewbacca Defense.

P.S. As a former Latin student, I particularly respect your classic Python reference.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I agree with your assessment in general but would boil it down even further. Looking through the thread the term oppressed seems to be a sticking point. The examples used in the article have little to do with power. These are example, for the most part, of minimizing the arguments/concerns of people with whom you disagree without addressing those arguments or concerns, a sort of argumentum ad hominem (I didn't take Latin so this may be the wrong. Is it Romanes eunt domus or Romani ite domum?) or building a straw man or any of the other many types of fallacies intended to counter an arguments without addressing the arguments or concerns.

Some idiots, idiots making up well less that 0.1% of protesters, crapped on a police car so all Occupy Wall Street protesters need to be condemned and ignored.

Someone claims to sees a person or knows someone who has seen a person a on SNAP or some other aid program so the programs are not necessary.

Proponents use straw men well beyond the existing issue to create an atmosphere of fear and confusion, e.g the impacts of gay marriage.

In some cases these claims have real world impacts. A number of states have recently added limitations on how public assistance can be used. Kansas, which has one of the most far reaching lists, admits that they really don't know how how much, if any, aid money is spent on these items. In an effort at limiting the extravagance of those receiving public aid, the state limited the amount of money that could be taken from an ATM at any one time $25, effectively $20. This increases the cost of ATM fees thus reducing the amount of the aid money that can be used for food and other necessities.

LOLOLOLOL

"Someone claims to sees a person or knows someone who has seen a person a on SNAP or some other aid program so the programs are not necessary.

Proponents use straw men well beyond the existing issue to create an atmosphere of fear and confusion, e.g the impacts of gay marriage."
​

Gotta love it!

The ranchers in these parts say you are dealing in used hay.

 

[hootch1]

LOLOLOLOL

"Someone claims to sees a person or knows someone who has seen a person a on SNAP or some other aid program so the programs are not necessary.

Proponents use straw men well beyond the existing issue to create an atmosphere of fear and confusion, e.g the impacts of gay marriage."
​

Gotta love it!

The ranchers in these parts say you are dealing in used hay.

Yep, the stories were so prevalent in Kansas that they just had to something about it with the result that banks will get more money and the aid recipients will be able to use less for themselves.

How about our dear old friend Mike Huckabee:

“Christian convictions are under attack as never before,” Huckabee said in the call, which was meant to rally pastors to participate in the FRC’s upcoming “Stand for Marriage” event. “Not just in our lifetime, but ever before in the history of this great nation. We are moving rapidly towards the criminalization of Christianity.”

That's about as straw mannish as there can be.

People will put all kind of BS out there to cause confusion. I remember a poster, in 2009 or 2010, that brought our attention to Obama's plan for the inheritance tax which reduced threshold to only a million and had eliminated the marking up the cost basis to current value. In fact, the law was written by the Republican majority years before Obama was on the national scene and Obama's proposal was a much more generous $6.5 MM each for a couple with portability and a stepped up cost basis.

Yep, there's a whole lot of BS out there.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Is it Romanes eunt domus or Romani ite domum?

The latter. Now, write it out a hundred times. And if it's not done by sunrise, I'll cut your balls off.

 

[hannamarin1]

it upsets me! http://bigpaperwriter.com/blog/essay-on-andrew-carnegie has some info that can make your mood better! some info about Andrew Carnegie won't be excess!

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Now that this thread has been resurrected, isn't there a lot of OWS in both Brexit and Trump? Yet it seems many people who loathed OWS want(ed) to compromise heartily with Brexit/Trump.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Now that this thread has been resurrected, isn't there a lot of OWS in both Brexit and Trump? Yet it seems many people who loathed OWS want(ed) to compromise heartily with Brexit/Trump.

OWS, meaning Occupy Wall Street? Was this thread about that?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

OWS, meaning Occupy Wall Street? Was this thread about that?

No, but Crazed brought up Occupy in the 15th post of the thread. Since he and I went back and forth on Brexit supporters (and probably Trump supporters), I thought I would add those groups into the general discussion. It seems to me there is a lot similarity between OWS and Brexit/Trump, a general distrust of the powers that be.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

Some folks will intellectualize a brown turd.

Sorry, Jack.
Most of the time, beans are just beans.

 

[jughaid]

Oh man, I didn't know that people taking care of themselves was a "conservative value". Sh*t. Do I have to pay some conservative group every time I think that? I also know some "liberals" who think the same thing. Do they owe you guys money? Have you trademarked these "conservative values"? Have you guys trademarked hard work, morality, and respect? I hope those aren't strictly "conservative values". Get off your F*cking horse about what values are "conservative". It makes you look like a self righteous jerkoff. Oh, and those aren't "Christian values" either. I know Jews and Muslims who believe and practice those same values.

Umm...do you think before you post? This post is why nobody comes here. Values can cross lines. OP did not say it was an exclusive conservative value. Don't know that he brought up it up as a Christian value either. We can easily see who the "jerkoff" is here.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

Umm...do you think before you post? This post is why nobody comes here. Values can cross lines. OP did not say it was an exclusive conservative value. Don't know that he brought up it up as a Christian value either. We can easily see who the "jerkoff" is here.

You still come here. I don't sit back and let it slide when people try to insinuate that certain value sets are held exclusively by a certain group, be it a political group, a religion, whatever. I think I posted that a year ago. What took you so long?

 

[rocket_knight]

through a paradigm of the powerful vs. the powerless

Why haven't you read 'The Power Elite' by C. W. Mills?

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

No, but Crazed brought up Occupy in the 15th post of the thread. Since he and I went back and forth on Brexit supporters (and probably Trump supporters), I thought I would add those groups into the general discussion. It seems to me there is a lot similarity between OWS and Brexit/Trump, a general distrust of the powers that be.

I think OWS led directly to the rise of Bernie Sanders. OWSers were all about taking some of the wealth and income from the rich ("one per centers") and giving some "free stuff" to the rest of us, such as forgiving college debt, free college, high minimum wages, etc. I don't see much of a link to the rise of Trump coming from OWS.

Supporters of the Brexit and Trumpism has a little more similarity and one strong link in the idea of controlling their borders and immigration into their countries.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I think OWS led directly to the rise of Bernie Sanders. OWSers were all about taking some of the wealth and income from the rich ("one per centers") and giving some "free stuff" to the rest of us, such as forgiving college debt, free college, high minimum wages, etc. I don't see much of a link to the rise of Trump coming from OWS.

Supporters of the Brexit and Trumpism has a little more similarity and one strong link in the idea of controlling their borders and immigration into their countries.

I agree there are differences in specifics, but there is one overriding belief of both sides that "the man" is out to screw them. Distrust of authority is rampant on both sides. And it isn't just politicians, its media, scientists, industrialists, economists, etc. We can only trust our fellow Jacksonians.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

I agree there are differences in specifics, but there is one overriding belief of both sides that "the man" is out to screw them. Distrust of authority is rampant on both sides. And it isn't just politicians, its media, scientists, industrialists, economists, etc. We can only trust our fellow Jacksonians.

That part I agree with.

 

[hoot1]

Why haven't you read 'The Power Elite' by C. W. Mills?

Rocket, you might find this essay interesting,

Mills's The Power Elite, 50 Years Later
by G. William Domhoff

 

[rocket_knight]

Rocket, you might find this essay interesting,

Mills's The Power Elite, 50 Years Later
by G. William Domhoff

thanks, I like William Domhoff