Oh jeebus. How could I not see this. The social struggles of the 19th and 20th century were really elaborate kabuki plays orchestrated by the Duponts or the Masons, or something.
Excellent post. I think the mistake is to let cynicism get the best of us where we give up. Our system is far from perfect and our elected leaders often further that doesn't mean though that change isn't possible but the recognizes that change is often incrememtal and uneven at best.
This is the important difference. Obama does not believe in this and is only reacting to the constant attacks by McCain that he is weak on terror. The Repubs believe in this and voted with one exception for this bill. This is what they are all about. It is the same with the Iraq War. Many Dems like Kerry, Edwards, Clinton, I believe, did not support the war, but voted to give Bush the authorization for the war for the same reason.-- McCarthyesque tactics to question one's patriotism. THE THING TO DO IS TO E-MAIL OR CALL THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN TO LET THEM KNOW YOU DON'T APPROVE.
I said before I was sometimes more worried about Obama supporters than Obama himself. While yes maybe I was crushing people's idealism but the image that was being made of Obama was unsustainable and there was bound to be some sort of dissapoint. This also was why I and others brought up the experience angle. Its not so much as how long Obama has served in office but how long he has been in the national spotlight. People derided the idea that Hillary Clinton's experience as First Lady mattered but that experience meant that we had a good idea about who she was. Obama might've served in elected office longer than Hillary Clinton but the national spotlight for an IL state legislator just doesn't compare to being a resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. What we are finding out about Obama now is probably what Obama has always been and not some turn to the dark side. He is a pragmatic politician who makes compromises that he believes will help advance his career. That's not necessarily evil and even if this makes him not the political savior I still will agree overall with him and think he will likely move many of the issues I'm concerned about in the right direction.
This is both class warfare and conspiratorial thinking. Yes it true often the super rich learn to benefit from social changes. They wouldn't be super rich for long if they weren't adaptable enough to figure out how to profit from change. What does it matter though if someone does get rich from a progressive social change as long as most of society also benefits.
This is such a stupid cop-out. This does nothing to make Obama seem less a douche. It just makes him a douche and a p***y.
who said anything about a conspiracy? I certainly don't think rich people are in a conspiracy to do anything. There are people who like to broker power- most of them are very rich, that is history, the history of politics. The super rich benefit from social change- you mean it's an accident they happen to appreciate? do you think for a second that KBR and Halliburton get unique govt. opportunities in some kind of pure untainted process? so the behind the scenes is all 'conspiratorial' because I said ' fabian socialist' it's a conspiracy? Getting rich from social change and staying rich because of it are very different issues and implicate different approaches. There are very wealthy families (my brother is married to a McGraw of McGraw-Hill) and they are quite determined to sustain their wealth, power and positions. McGraw-Hill is one of the few conglomerates that are still run by the 'family'. I know first hand alot about their history and how the power elite operate- politically and socially. Did I mention conspiracy?
No. In the D&D it is OK to say that politics stink because wealthy people have too much power over the system- you don't even have to be right; this is a place to hang out not 'search for truth' I post mostly for fun I could care less if the Duponts or any other family is involved in some mystical conspiracy- but I am not going to believe they don't use their power deliberately for their benefit and to influence and control- even governments. Why does it have to be a conspiracy? 'Conspiracy' is the new code word for better tow the line or you will be labeled a wacko. I don't buy into the purity of our current process. Two political parties that basically pander to the same wealthy people. And the Masons- what are they controlling the Oval Office? If you dismiss the roll of wealthy elitist in the politics and social changes of America I don't think you have read enough on this subject.
Just a follow-up. I will be the first to admit that I have heard alot of stuff from Ron Paul and my brother concerning wealthy and powerful people that I find interesting to the point of reading up myself. I don't for a minute waste my own time (except in here) thinking about it anymore. I really don't know if Ron Paul is into conspiracy theories, he never has said that to me, but he has given me examples he said he has seen in Washington of the power of wealthy men over our government politicians. But that really doesn't matter because I didn't think it really mattered to me. I don't buy into conspiracies. That is ridiculous being a Christian and taking a biblical worldview. My focus is towards loving people as a pastor. I think after the invasion of Iraq and remembering all the political jocking on that one issue I became totally disgusted with the system. But the system is just what it is. It doesn't change what we do as people each and every day. I am going to be a Rocket fan regardless of who gets elected.
thanks, but obviously i am confused politically at the moment I just hope the Rockets have a very profitable draft night
I think different people with likeminded goals coalesce into a likeminded agendas. It's like reading a millionaire book and breathing its principles will prompt you to find people with those same principles. It doesn't take a global conspiracy to accomplish that, although there are people pulling behind the scenes to catalyze certain events.
Rhester, you are all over the place with this stuff. You hint that major social struggles were only successful because the power elite wanted them to happen, but won't just come out and say it. I'll tell you what, I believe in "conspiracies". The "power elite" absolutely exert a huge, disproportionate amount of influence over our government and society, and they do so in a deliberate, thoughtful way. They wield this influence to further their own wealth and power. To my mind, these aren't even controversial positions. However, if you take this even further, to the point that you see popular movements like the ones that led to the advancement of labor or civil rights, as pawns of the power elite, instead of countervailing centers of power, I'd say you are crossing the border into lala land.
I agree but i wasn't trying to hint, and i never said major social struggles were only successful because of the power elite. that is not what i said what i said was to imply that the influence of powerful rich people who are involved in politics plays into alot of issues just like you posted, whether it is environmental issues or healthcare i don't think the rich power brokers are sitting on their hands.
Yeah...Obama now supports this measure because he's scared of the big, bad Republicans. What a weak comment. I was hoping for better.
Not necessarily trying to derail this thread with a discussion of the "power elite" but, if you read C. Wright Mills book "The Power Elite" the buy-in and support of these movements by the elites is precisely what stimulates successful political change. In other words, if the "power elite" had not accepted the idea that the time for equality of "civil rights" was at hand, that battle would have lasted longer. The civil rights movement was successful, not necessarily as pawns of the power elite, or a result of the elites, but with their support. If you haven't read the book, it is a classic, and still fairly relevant 50 years later.
I don't know anymore. I'm open to ideas from either camp's douche-tacular retinue of soundbites, talking points, or other assorted useless and easily forgotten promises of actual progress. Can we reanimate Tom Paine?
