Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bush-The Mastermind behind 9/11? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: shadowman who wrote (11751)	10/6/2005 8:29:45 AM
From: sea_urchin	Respond to of 20039

OT shadowman > your above paragraph is pretty much saying the same thing as I did only a little more fleshed out. Yes, I agree. I have to say when I wrote my response I thought you were making a statement in support of the status quo, rather than being critical of it. Only afterwards, when I re-read your post a few times, and my reply, I realized your position. > The influence of the wealthy and business interests reaches down through the media (national and local), federal government, the state governments, and the city, county and town governments. I agree and provided the elite act in a paternalistic way, as they have done, towards the majority I don't have an argument, because it has been that way since the "founding" of the US. But what we now see is a serious departure from what has gone before. > The noble phrase "equal justice for all" has also been co-opted to a large degree in the judicial system. Money talks loudly in American society and within the legal/court system. One might even say that, traditionally, the God of Mammon was actually the god being worshipped in the US -- although the God of Abraham has now stuck his nose in, particularly as far as foreign policy is concerned. > To think that progressive social economic policy somehow diminishes democratic representation on the part of the individual seems imbedded in most American's minds. The problem is the balance --- also the entitlement that some feel about receiving the benefit and the resentment that others feel about paying for it -- and all the pork in-between. > In this country we seem to have an almost gray and lighter shade of gray party/policy diversity...anything else is considered extreme or on the fringe. I wonder why that is? Yes, socialism is abhorred although when Roosevelt brought it in, in the 1930s, it was well received. Actually, I don't think Americans are very different from anyone else. It's just that the US was a very rich country and so it's only natural that the people believe that their good fortune results from the political/economic system. Unfortunately, things are not so straightforward now and I think a lot of the political activity we see now, including the War on Terrorism, is as result of panic -- the establishment felt surrounded and became desperate. So it fell into the historic trap of going for "empire" -- an exercise where the costs to the nation will far outweigh the benefits. > It "appears" so.<g> That's just a "weasel-type" expression to soften the impact of an otherwise dogmatic opinion which many would resent because I'm not an American. > I have political views that most consider way to the left. You are not a "leftist", that I can tell you. In SA, we are surrounded with Marxists, in the government and elsewhere. We even have a Communist Party and, although I try not to take too much of it in, I have, to some extent, gotten used to "leftist" opinion. I would say that you were a "libertarian" and, in fact, I regard myself as that, too. > I try not to express them in a serious manner in public forums. I understand that and it's a problem, especially if your livelihood could be on the line. I have also been apolitical but have recently taken a different approach. I am retired and financially independent and so I felt screw that -- I am going to say what I feel.