reply to post by Osiris1953
Many of us do realize that, which is why we are attacking those who have rigged the game. Defending capitalism is one thing, defending those
who have hastened this country to unresolvable predicaments is another. Your statements simultaneously defend and indict the power elite, and I don't
even think you realize it.
But, that is just the thing, I am not defending the power elite. I know very well who the enemies of the people are, and it is certainly not the
proprietor of Papa Johns.
The enemies of the United States have always been "the bankers," for lack of a better term.
If you were a chicken, would you support KFC as well? Would you climb into the fryer willingly? Because hey, they have the right to eat
But that is not the same thing. The United States has always had rich business men, that is
a part of the United States. But it is not rich
businessmen who have destroyed the Union.
Or, let me rephrase that, our Union has not been destroyed by the fact that people can become rich.
Was it rich men who helped to shape the Federal Reserve? Yes. Was it rich men who have taken over the Union? Yes. Does that mean that all
men are guilty of the crimes of a select few, simply because they are wealthy? No. That would be irrational.
wealth /= evil
Point is the uber-wealthy have perpetuated this dysfunctional system
But, when you say it that way, you are making it sound like they perpetuated the dysfunction as a result of
their wealthiness, which simply
isn't the case.
For "the bankers" it was never about wealth, it was about the power to control nations. It is fractional reserve banking and the law that has been
used as weapons against us.
and no matter how much you love capitalism, something needs to be done. Like many things in this country it may be a matter of choosing between
the better of two evils.. but in the end the needs of the many outweigh the wants of the few.
That would be a false dichotomy. Why should people have to choose between two evils in the first place? If we still have to choose between two evils
we are still perpetuating the same system.
The majority should not be able to dictate to the minority, nor vice versa.
If everyone in the world only needed to eat beans to survive, and beans were the general currency in our society, and I had amassed more beans
than myself or my family could eat in two lifetimes (they don't spoil), but I didn't provide enough beans for my workers who collect the beans
enough for their families to eat, you would defend my right to do so... I get that. Doesn't make it morally right, and when there enough bean
hoarders in the world, that the general populace begins to suffer something has to be done... it's just that simple.
In that context I would agree with you. Because in that context it sounds like the majority of people are simply being robbed of the things they need
to survive, which is wrong.
In a sense that is basically what has happened, but we need to be sure we have the clarity to know who has actually done it to us.
There is a reason that stories of characters such as Robin Hood are popular. Stealing is wrong, I think we can all agree on that, but when
greed is financially raping and backstabbing your country do you ignore it, and defend their legal right to do so? Or do you pick up the bow and arrow
and become a leader instead of a follower?
Yes I agree.
But I disagree as to whom we should be taking up arms against.
Choice is yours.