Foobar said:
It is about the rich vs. the poor.
That's some good class warfare rhetoric!!
Just for the sake of discussion... why are the "rich" against the "poor"? If I were "rich" (may be depending on who's subjective def you prescribe to), I would not want to hold the "poor" down. A more wealthy "poor" class can buy more TV's, subscribe to broadband Internet svc, purchase more nice homes and cars, etc. As a "rich" person who may manufacture and sell these items, having more prospective customers is the way to build wealth, not by holding people down.
Also, the "rich" should want to
keep the "poor" happy so they won't want to riot or bring about a revolution and overthrow the system.
On the other hand, entitlements are used as a tool to appease the "poor". They're also a very effective means to keep the "poor" down. Who supports broad entitlements?! another debate...
Rich and poor are subjective terms. They are also required when people have varying amounts of wealth. In a free, capitalistic society
someone has to be rich and someone has to be poor. Otherwise, you'd have a system approaching communism.
The logic that the "rich" want to hold the poor down to keep them away from their money is just screwey - unless you're not a supporter of capitalism.
You do not know your enemies. Your enemy is George Bush, Bill Clinton, Sadam Husain and all those that blindly follow along.
I agree. Question and challenge authority. Individualism and personal liberty is the only safe path for a free society to stay free.
Violence keeps these people in power.
You really believe Bush stays in power with violence?! Oooooo-K
As for slick willy, you might ask Vince Foster and 50-something other associates of his who died of suspicious reasons if they think violence kept/keeps him in power.
Turn off your clear channel radio.
So we shouldn't hear all sides of the story?
Stop buying from the system.
what's the system?
