Dennis Prager asks an excellent question. Why is class hatred morally superior to race hatred?
Our schools go to great lengths to address, and probably exaggerate, the problem of hatred inspired by differences in skin color. Why not address hatred based on differences in income or accumulated wealth?
Rather than address this problem, the left, led by our president, instead stokes this hatred. This will not end well.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I don't hate the rich, I just don't want to be ruled by them.
I prefer a representative democracy to a plutocracy, a Republic, if we can keep it!
Sean, I thought you were all for the policies of Soros, Pelosi, Kennedys, John Edwards, John Kerry, etc, etc. All very rich indeed.
@Judge. You are leaving out Trumka, Hoffa and McEntee (rich off the backs of labor hehehe) - along with closer-to-home visionaries Marty Beil and Mary Bell. While M&M might not be rich like say, a Jesse Jackson, they are doing way better than anyone they represent. Rich enough, and good enough for Sean to be ruled by, since he already takes his marching orders from them.
Sean, why not take a shot at answering the question? Perhaps you would like to maintain the fiction that you are not a hater. So lets use "divider" instead. The OWS crowd has quite literally divided us into 99%ers and 1%ers. It just doesn't get any clearer than that. Now of course you have your rationalization about being ruled etc.... but all dividers have rationalizations and many have facts to support there divisions. If I were so inclined, I could come up with fact based reasons to divide and demonize virtually any group. It is really not that difficult. But here is where your side is basically morally similar to racists, for example. While there may well be despicable people among the most wealthy Americans, there are also great people who have made enormous contributions to our society. Note that these distinctions are lost when we, or rather you, lump everyone into either the 1% or the 99%.
The POTUS is acting in perfect character. When your background is community organizing, agitation (and intimidation) is your favorite tool. In the neighborhood, most folks will roll over and give into whatever his flavor of the day demand is... lest they be called racist.
Bringing that tactic to the national arena is a lot bigger sandbox, and it fails from it's own weight, like most liberal solutions. Agitating nationwide class warfare typlifies he was never interested in uniting anything beyond his fringe base.
Above all, it places an uneeded stain upon the American Dream of building yourself up to achieving so-called 1% status. It's our birthright to try, if that is our passion. Achievement should be celebrated instead of being vilified via jelousy and envy, and fleesed like the proverbial golden goose. It's a prescription for economic and social failure.
I thought you tea partiers were also upset about TARP and the Gov't bailout of AIG and the Wall Street Banksters. Then I remembered that was the pre-astroturf TP, before it was co-opted the corporate interests represented by Americans For Plutocracy (AFP) and the Club for Growths.
The Occupy Wall Street People didn't create the divide, they've only brought it to the attention of the national consciousness, despite the best efforts of the corporate media to ignore it. But I see you've taken your marching orders from FuxSnooze to denigrate the messengers and give your love to TARPed Banksters.
The divide has been created by 30 years of "conservative" financial policies starting with Supply Side Economics, which David Stockman has admitted is a failure. It's a failure whose leg the Republicons won't cease to "embrace" though. I've always thought it was more of a conscious scam than a "failure".
Furthermore, this divide is no accident. It was created by those with the money and access to bribe our congressmen to rig the game in their favor for the last 30 years.
Even in the Great GOPcession the rich are getting richer, bailed out CEOs are getting bonuses and big corporations are flush with cash. Cash they're not using to hire anyone, because there's no demand. And there's no demand because the consumers who drive 70% of the American economy are being left behind, struggling to keep their heads above water.
J-Mental correctly point out all the rich representatives on the left, but the fact is they are almost ALL rich and totally out of touch with average Americans. You can hardly get into the House without being wealthy anymore, and the Senate? Forget it!
The only difference between the Republicons and the Dems is that some of the Dems still at least think they care about ordinary Americans. The Republicons, if they give a crap at all it's because they are openly hostile to regular folks.
As for George Soros, I knew he would come up. It is after all the Cult of Con conditioned pavlovian response to objections about money in politics and the wealth divide.
Soros is expending his wealth try and sustain a representative democracy where more people have a voice and to promote the common good.
The Kochs and their fALEC ilk on the other hand are working to rig the game in the interest of garnering more wealth and power for themselves. They are trying to thwart democracy and curtail what little power and voice average people have anymore in the Plutocratic States of America.
Those ruled in interest of the hidden agendas of others are not free.
Q: Who said "You can't tackle the jobs problem, the budget problem, the tax problem...without tackling the first problem - money in politics. It's corrupt. It's institutionally corrupt."?
A: Current Republican Presidential Candidate Buddy Roemer. Gee I wonder why they haven't let him into the GOPish debates. Because he ain't got the dough-re-me and because they can't have a Republican speaking the truth like that!
Post a Comment