Quote:

---

Even our presidental candidates all make an attempt to look like "just plain folks" Bush has his ranch. Edwards has his story about his milkman father, growing up poor. Clinton childhood was anything but privileged. At least that is the offical narative. Now, if class consciousness was such a big issue, why shoot for portraying yourself as lower class, instead of upper crust?

---

Quote:

---

Ye Gods and little fishes. Do you realize just how this sounds? Maybe the reason why thing have not gone that far is that those "sheep" see war as far to risky to what they have now, or can see obtaining in the future. But because they don't run out and man the barricades and start shooting people for your point of view, they are "sheep".

Yes, there is no revolutionary spirit in the proletariat. Not because they are stupid, or frightened, but because they see what they got as better than what their grandparents had.

But I think there is something else at work here. Things have changed too much since the last war, such that the political fault lines are not about slavery, or state's rights or whatever. Its more along libertarian/communitarian lines. Or to put it more bluntly, between the NRA and Handgun Control Inc. Who would you pick in such a fight?

Civil ain't going to happen any time soon, because frankly, one of the sides does not have the military expertese to fight.

---

Quote:

---

There is a big problem with this line of reasoning. Well several. Michael Jackson is in severe legal trouble, despite his celebrity status. The former CEO of Enron had to surrender to authorities just yesterday. Martha Stewart is on trial. So we see that celebrity status is not a guarentee of a free pass as you make it out to be.

---

Quote:

---

The second, more important problem is the inherent assumption that the "haves" got it by cheating, defrauding customers, or stealing in some manner. The idea that they might have created something of value, that folks voluntarily gave their own money for, seems absent.

---

Quote:

---

Bill Gates has a big house, Da Vinci's Codex, and a garage that looks like the batcave. But rather than forcing anyone to give him a dime, he offered a product that was cheap to build, and higly valuable to the market. So lots of folks, myself included, bought his products of our own free will. Handed him our hard earned dollars. Why? We saw it as valuable, and comparitively speaking, it is. I can do things with my Windows equipped computer that I can't do without it. Like write this stuff down in a manner where you can read it.

---

Quote:

---

The third problem has to do with envy. Its one thing when someone is well off and you are starving. But lets face it. None of us are. There are just not enough starving deprived people in the US to get that upset by what someone else has. Yes, I would love my own Lear Jet, and a big fancy house and a batcave of my very own. But I ain't living on the street, worried about where my next meal will come from.

What Bill got, he got. It ain't mine, and I ain't justified in stealing it, taking it by force. I don't want him stealing from me, so I ain't setting a precident by stealing from him.

Envy just ain't that much a motivator. Especially in capitalist economics where I have just as much potential of coming up with a great idea, or product, selling it and buying my OWN damn Lear Jet.

Now some may say that Bill never earned his dimes. But that is because most of Bill's efforts is in making good decisions. Making decisions is a mental process, and one of the biggest problems Marx had was he never saw how mental effort was just as important, if not more so, as physical exertion. Chipping away at a block of marble all day is not in itself going to make anything like Rodin's "Thinker" (In my case, more likely to make gravel than anything else.) It is the unseen thought processes, all the myriad decisions that go on inside the skull, that really makes a difference.

You can either have a fair system, whereby anyone can attempt to achieve the wealth of Bill Gates. But if you accept that, you also have to accept that not every will succeed, and some will fall short. Income inequity is inherent in any fair system. Or you can make equality of outcome your goal, create the world of "Harrison Bergeron" and live with the enforced mediocrity of it all.

---

Quote:

---

But only if one wanted to look foolish. Since the electoral vote is based on the popular vote in each individual state, as well as that states population, then what you are in effect saying is that the American electorate is for sale. Not something that I would agree with, nor say aloud if I ever expected that electorate to side with me and my cause, even if I did agree with them.

---

Quote:

---

(Just like calling them sheep, it is generally considered bad form to insult someone you want to listen to your views)

---

Quote:

---

Look, pure democracy says that 3 guys can vote to piss in the cereal bowl of the other 2. (Or round up the other two and kill them, enslave them, make them watch "Reality Television") Small states were concerned that straight popular election would mean that high populated states would shut out the voices of smaller, less populated states. Which would not be a good idea.

---

Quote:

---

You make this sound like a bad thing. You seem to be forgetting the rest of the equation. $Money = Food, clothing, shelter, cars, computers, Lear Jets, bobble headed giesha dolls. In Nevada, $Money$ = a really good time.

---

Quote:

---

None of those things mentioned mean anything if you are dead. There is no economy, no jobs, no healthcare, no freedom, or what have you, if you are dead.

---

Quote:

---

And, lets face it. Government economic policy is like pitching in baseball. Good pitching does not win the games. Good hitting does that. Bad pitching can lose the game, but good pitching can't win snot. You have to step up to bat and try your hardest, instead of leaving it up to the government. You see a need, you provide it. You can even do so at a profit, and make yourself rich. Or you can sit on your butt and demand that someone else fix all your problems, give you everything you want, whether they can or not.

I would prefer the government get out of the economy as much as possible. Stop screwing around with tax codes, or health care. Invariably, despite the good intentions of such programs, they tend to screw things up worse, the more government involvement you get. Have the government stick with foreign policy, make sure no more terrorist attacks occur here, and make honest cops and judges.

---

Quote:

---

I agree with Browncoat as far as it goes. Not completely. I would not fight for my "beliefs", my ideas or concepts, at least not to the extent of killing those who disagree with me. It is the actions that bother me. And if California ceded from the Union, I am not at all sure I would side with this state against the Federal government. Probably move and tell them good riddance.

You see, I see this country as unique in that it is not so much about land, but about ideas. The whole "blood and soil" stuff my ancestors left behind when they came here. Its the ideas of individual freedom, even if that freedom is to make crappy tv shows that I won't watch. I realize that in demanding my freedom, I also have to allow and respect the freedoms of others. (At least until I get super powers) Otherwise, I would be telling everyone just how unimportant they are, and how they should all bow to my whims.

But armed uprising I think is getting passe. Things are pretty good. They could be better, but open warfare is a sure way to make them worse. Besides, every 4 years we have an election. While you may not like it, too many sheeple voting for candidates you don't like, its much better than mob rule, or a dictatorship. At least with our system, we can institute our revolutions so peaceably that most folks won't know there was one.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Arawaen:
I honestly don't know if it was Drakon or Browncoat1 (or even somebody else) who said the above, post was confusing (missing an end quote). But as you can see it touched a nerve in me. I don't mean to flame or anything.


Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Arawaen:

They do it because they are courting the favor of the lower classes. They want everyone to believe that they understand the condition of the everyman. It is one of the many insincerities that passes for integrity in American politics. If class consciousness wasn't such a big issue they wouldn't bother, but it is, so they do.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BrownCoat1:
You misunderstood what I said. Nowhere did I say I advocate violence or a civil war. I answered a question and gave my reason for why it is not probable that a civil conflict take place.

By calling people sheep, I mean that they are so ingrossed in their own little worlds, that they simply plod along, following the general population. Many do not vote because they think "what difference will my one vote make". Many are not active in their community, children's school, or can even be bothered to pick up trash when taking a walk through their own neighborhood. I did not equate sheep to not fighting for some foolish cause. Bit of a misconception on your part.

---

Quote:

---

For every one celebrity that you name in trouble w/ the law, I can name one that used their power or money to do what you or I can not. OJ Simpson got away w/ murder. Heather French, Ms America 2000, married the Lt Govnr of KY, hits and kills a pedistrian while talking on her cell phone. She has not spent one day in jail, and charges were dropped and the family of the victim paid off. Why? The vehicle she was driving is a state gov't vehicle and she was supposedly acting in a state gov't capacity. Imminent domain, the law can't touch her. How many other examples are there that the public is aware of where people abuse such power.

I really am interested in seeing just how much trouble Michael Jackson is really in. How many times has this situation of little boys come up now? Half a dozen? Each time he pays them off out of court, case dropped. Sounds like money and priveledge to me. Never served any time. If it was me or you, we would be in jail.

CEO of Enron. Still waiting to see where that goes. Most likely what will happen is he will turn evidence on others to get a pardon or reduced sentence, spend some time in Club Fed and get his sentence reduced for good behavior. Problem is all that money will never turn up and those people are still out of work.

Martha Stewart? We'll see.

---

Quote:

---

Never said the "haves" cheated or stole to get their wealth. I am sure they are all not squeaky clean, but not all of them worked for that money (Paris Hilton).

---

Quote:

---

Never said Bill didn't offer up a useful product, and made a fortune doing so, but many question the need for the constant upgrades and the cost. He has a corner on the windows market which is used in many applications. Seems to be a sort of monopoly.

---

Quote:

---

I can say in all honesty I don't envy Bill Gates or any celebrity. I am content with what I have in the way of material possessions, and gladly give to my community and charity.

Envy may be a factor for some, but not me. Many envy others, but that is counterproductive. I would not say that everyone in this country has an equal opportunity to gain wealth, and anyone who does is naive or blind. Race, sex, age, and personal connections play a lot into how successful one will be, unless of course like Bill Gates they make something the world wants or needs.

---

Quote:

---

So, the popular vote, which favored Gore in 2000, even though the electoral vote won the election for Bush is a fluke? Tampering by the Republican Party? Seems skewed to me.

Don't get me wrong, I don't care for Gore, nor did I vote for him, but the fact of the matter is the vote of the people, the popular vote, did not elect the man the people wanted.

If it's not for sale, it seems to be broken.

---

Quote:

---

Not sure I understand where you are coming from with this statement. Those concerns are very much concerns of many Americans. If it is in response to my comment that tax dollars would be better spent on those things than adding to the already best trained, best equipped military in the world, than I don't think we are all doomed to die if military spending is cut back. Not in manpower mind you, but in weapons build up.

---

Quote:

---

The problem w/ that line of thinking is that our country is run by a federal government that wants to control your taxes and as many other aspects of running the country as they can at this point. The individual can only vote, write letters, and get involved in trying to get legistlation to change. There is no guarantee that those efforts will change anything. Sure it is better than nothing by far, but frustrating nonetheless.

---

Quote:

---

I would like the government out of more of the people's affairs and programs too, but that is simply not going to happen. If it did, I would be the first to dance w/ joy, but the best we can hope for is that tax dollars from unnecessary programs are diverted to those that are needed.

---

Quote:

---

Yes, what we have is better than most, but I think we can all agree it could be far better.

---

Quote:

---

I did not misunderstand you one bit. The problem is that you are a minority, and hold a minority opinion. Most people disagree or for whatever reason refuse to do what you want them to. Whether it is vote, go to school board meetings, or even armed insurrection over a tv show. (Yes I know very well that you are arguing against it.) That is what makes them sheep, in your opinion.

It makes them not sheep but people different from you, people who ain't you. You have no idea what their lives are like, what is going on inside their skulls, what is important to them. Nor show the slightest sign of giving a damn. Because they don't act the way you want them to, you decide they are not even human, just sheep.

---