Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

American Tyrants


  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1    Uncle Sam

Uncle Sam

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,372 posts
  • Joined:26 Jul 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

Posted 06 February 2013 - 08:41 AM

Quote

When Elizabeth Warren went on MSNBC to deny that she was a member of the 1 percent despite her nearly 15 million dollar net worth, the denial had a cultural element to it. Despite being a millionaire, Warren did not see herself as “wealthy.”

The current debate over the 1 percent and the 99 percent is notable mainly for the shifting boundaries that are not based on economics, but on identity. For all its ‘Power to the People’ antics, American liberalism is not a movement of struggling people; there is a reason why the word limousine so often comes before liberal. Its roots lie in an upper class New England strata that relentlessly fought against Southern Baptists and working class Catholic immigrants. Those roots define modern day liberals much more so than the Jacksonian populism that they occasionally try to imitate.

http://frontpagemag....erican-tyrants/


Discuss... want your opinion on this guy Daniel Greenfield who wrote this...

Edited by Uncle Sam, 06 February 2013 - 08:43 AM.

A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. - Albert Einstein

#2    Jinxdom

Jinxdom

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 720 posts
  • Joined:06 Sep 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:East Coast

  • Education...has produced a vast population able to read but unable to distinguish what is worth reading.
    -- G.M. Trevelyan

Posted 06 February 2013 - 08:46 AM

She isn't a part of the 1% if she worked for her money. The 1% are the ones who are rich who didn't work for it who scam and steal from other people to get their money. Not all the rich people in the world are bad some actually worked for it.

He's a great man the guy who said it.

Edited by Jinxdom, 06 February 2013 - 08:49 AM.


#3    AsteroidX

AsteroidX

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,570 posts
  • Joined:16 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

  • it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Posted 06 February 2013 - 09:52 AM

I think the point was not that she worked to make her money but the business she is in continues to propagate the same problem that Liberal Govmnt is notorious for. Control of the people through social programs making them dependent on the Govmnt to the point that control is easily maintained. Thus making her part of the problem and not the solution.

But in summary the article is obviously biased and there is no rebuttal argument presented which should be if only in passing to show that your not some single minded lockhead right winger. So he hurts his own credibility when he wrote a well thought out historically represented article.

It was still a good read. And informative as most liberals dont know what there own party ultimate goals are and how close they are to achieving those. And many Republicans are just as responsible for advancing that agenda as Democrats. Democrats just accelerate the process.

Whatever the article says the long believed thinking that Liberal Democrats are not a war mongering part of the military industrial complex has been shattered by our current POTUS. All under the guise of "its for your own good"

Also I dont believe I can remember when the term Tyrant has become so prevelant when describing a POTUS as with our current one. Sign of the times ?


#4    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 36,264 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 06 February 2013 - 02:26 PM

Well, nice to mix up identity with personal wealth...it just does not jive. If you are among the 1% richest Americans you are among the one percent richest Americans, regardless how you came by the money and how socially responsible you are. If we had to go by that we probably would have to take Bill Gates and Warren Buffet out of the 1% too.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#5    aztek

aztek

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,810 posts
  • Joined:12 Nov 2006

Posted 06 February 2013 - 05:31 PM

View PostJinxdom, on 06 February 2013 - 08:46 AM, said:

She isn't a part of the 1% if she worked for her money. The 1% are the ones who are rich who didn't work for it who scam and steal from other people to get their money.
imo 1% are those that make you work for their money. on a huge scale.

Edited by aztek, 06 February 2013 - 05:31 PM.

RESIDENT TROLL.

#6    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Closed
  • 8,732 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 06 February 2013 - 07:02 PM

View PostUncle Sam, on 06 February 2013 - 08:41 AM, said:

[/size]

Discuss... want your opinion on this guy Daniel Greenfield who wrote this...

Becoming wealthy is no crime.  If Warren is actually worth $15 million, good for her.  As long as she paid taxes on it, that's great.

Her advocacy for transparent government and honorable and fair tax policies is what has her being protrayed as wicked, NOT her net worth.  She has angered Wall Street and the status quo, that's why she's in trouble with the so-called right.


#7    tapirmusic

tapirmusic

    Astral Projection

  • Closed
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 643 posts
  • Joined:24 Feb 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 06 February 2013 - 11:38 PM

WHy is there any debate at all on what 1% means?

1% = 1%

or is some of that gender Identification nonsense at work here?

Even though I am a multi millionaire, I feeeelllll like I'm not wealthy.

Warren has lots and lots of wampum...





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users