Thoughts on Today's Political Landscape

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

I don't speak for the Occupy movement. I think Warren Buffet and his like should be taxed at 100 percent of their income over $200,000. No one needs more than $200,000 to live.

Wow, that's quite a statement. Actually you'd need quite a bit less than that to "live". But that's beside the point. I'm wondering if there's any writings from the Founding Fathers, the Declaration of Independence, or Constitution where you draw the inspiration to make this statement?

I'm writing from a phone so I'll address definition concerns later but i tripped over my jaw on that one.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Wow, that's quite a statement. Actually you'd need quite a bit less than that to "live". But that's beside the point. I'm wondering if there's any writings from the Founding Fathers, the Declaration of Independence, or Constitution where you draw the inspiration to make this statement?

I'm writing from a phone so I'll address definition concerns later but i tripped over my jaw on that one.

My statement has nothing to do with, nor does it "draw the inspiration" from, the "Founding Fathers, the Declaration of Independence, or Constitution."

I'd like to read your continued justification for the use of the charged word "mob."

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

I'd like to read your continued justification for the use of the charged word "mob."

Apparently the word "mob" is charged in your mind based on some past experiences of yours, which I obviously can't guess. I've said why I used it and used some examples of mob-like behavior, at least in my interpretation. If you're thinking of charged uses of the word "mob" and I haven't listed those uses then obviously I am not using the word as you fear.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Apparently the word "mob" is charged in your mind based on some past experiences of yours, which I obviously can't guess. I've said why I used it and used some examples of mob-like behavior, at least in my interpretation. If you're thinking of charged uses of the word "mob" and I haven't listed those uses then obviously I am not using the word as you fear.

This has NOTHING to do with my "past experiences," but that's an interesting approach to take in justifying the use of such charged language.

The word "mob" is a shortening of Latin words that came to mean a "disorderly part of the population" or, more commonly, "rabble," back in the late 17th century. Its use over the centuries has been generally limited to describing a group or crowd when one wants to paint it with a political brush. And when it became synonymous in the United States with the Mafia, its use to describe others took on a new dimension -- i.e., implied criminality. Hence, you witnessed Eric Cantor call the Occupy folks, sitting in peacefully in New York City (before the protests at people's houses), a "mob," but never did he call the Tea Party disrupters at Town Halls a "mob." He called peaceful Occupy protesters who marched with a permit in New York City a "mob," but he didn't call Tea Party protesters who sought to keep elected representatives from speaking a "mob." I think anyone else reading this thread will understand the distinction, no matter how much you pretend not to or refuse to answer my specific question about the Tea Party behavior (see above).

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

I think Warren Buffet and his like should be taxed at 100 percent of their income over $200,000. No one needs more than $200,000 to live.

Originally Posted by smc

My statement has nothing to do with, nor does it "draw the inspiration" from, the "Founding Fathers, the Declaration of Independence, or Constitution."

If it's not in the Constitution or even mentioned by Founding Fathers or the Declaration of Independence, I'm not understanding then where the power or right to take any and all income over $200,000 comes from or where the federal government's claim on that money would come from, or the power to decide how much money American citizens need to live.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

If it's not in the Constitution or even mentioned by Founding Fathers or the Declaration of Independence, I'm not understanding then where the power or right to take any and all income over $200,000 comes from or where the federal government's claim on that money would come from, or the power to decide how much money American citizens need to live.

I wasn't aware that this thread's discussion was limited to ideas that are embodied specifically in the U.S. Constitution. I am talking about something that the people would decide, perhaps under a new "Constitution."

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

I wasn't aware that this thread's discussion was limited to ideas that are embodied specifically in the U.S. Constitution. I am talking about something that the people would decide, perhaps under a new "Constitution."

Ok, so by definition, as far as US politics go, we're in fringe territory. What parts of the Constitution would you change?

[TracyCoxx]

The Hypocrisy of the Occupy movement

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

The Hypocrisy of the Occupy movement

The Hypocrisy of the Occupy Movement:

They dare feed themselves breakfast (the food having been grown by CORPORATIONS) before setting of for Liberty Park. Also, they dare piss, shit and drink water in/from machines made by CORPORATIONS. And they cut their hair with scissors made by CORPORATIONS. These people should know better, the fucking HYPOCRITES.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

The Hypocrisy of the Occupy movement

I guess you must spend a fortune! drinking nothing but bottled water instead of commie government water.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

The Hypocrisy of the Occupy movement

This is the same kind of asinine crap I've heard over the years from people who, in response to hearing that someone identifies as a revolutionary socialist, calls that person a "hypocrite" because that person has a job at a profit-seeking company.

We live in the world and must partake of what the world offers. Only utopians and hermits would be able to "avoid" what the cartoon implies.

This is not serious, but it is -- unfortunately -- typical.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Ok, so by definition, as far as US politics go, we're in fringe territory. What parts of the Constitution would you change?

"Fringe territory"? Please explain what you mean.

I am for a transformation of the United States. The Constitution serves the interests of that transformation only in degrees, and I would like to see it replaced. But to call that "fringe" is to employ the same approach as you have with the use of the word "mob" -- at least it seems so to me.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

"Fringe territory"? Please explain what you mean.

I am for a transformation of the United States. The Constitution serves the interests of that transformation only in degrees, and I would like to see it replaced.

Fringe - as in far from the mainstream. I would say most Americans endorse the majority of the Constitution. They may interpret it differently, but overall republicans, democrats, libertarians endorse the Constitution. Even progressives who think the Constitution should be changed seek to do it gradually rather than an outright revolution. But as you say, the Constitution does allow for change, but not fast enough for your tastes You want it to be replaced.

That is not mainstream. Is there another country you'd model it after or are you talking about something completely different?