K: class warfare against the middle class and the working poor
as been on since Raygun was in office… it is time to fight back…
this war has been going on for a long time, it is time the middle class
and the working poor fight back……… I am Irish… when you get
into a fight with me, I don’t take prisoners, I don’t accept
surrender, I don’t fight nice,… it is a fight to the death…
I will kick you until you stop moving and then kick you a few more
times… bring it on…
This is just as absurd, divisive, hysterical, paranoid and reactionary as the republicans who feared the US would become an Islamocommunist dictatorship under Obama.
Total nonsense.
Why are so many Americans so divisive?
It seems everytime the republicans get in, democrats are screaming: its the end of the world, and everytime the democrats get in, republicans are shouting: the sky is falling.
Hate to toot our own horn, but we don’t have this sort of sensationalist attitude in Canada.
You’re already a demi-fascunist two party dictatorship, like we are, so really what does it matter?
Globalism…one party regime, fascist, dictatorship…sounds worse. At least Trump is trying to save our sovereignty. Have you been arrested or fined for using the wrong pronouns yet? Canada is even crazier.
I will deal with facts and only facts showing how
the middle class is getting squeezed…
IN 1970, the middle class held 62% of the aggregated wealth
in the country and the upper class held 29%
in 2014, the middle class held 43% of the aggregated wealth
and the upper class held 49%…
the % of middle class has fallen from 61% in 1971
to 50% in 2015
and the upper class has risen from 14% in 1971 to
21% in 2015…
the number of union member has fallen by 2.9 million
since 1983…
the rate of union membership has gone from 20.19% in 1983
to 11.1 % in 2015…
wage stagnation is very well known: since the early 1970’s the
hourly inflation-adjusted wages received by the typical worker as only
grown by 0.2% which means wages has not kept up with inflation…
so the average worker has lost ground since the 70’s in regards to
income…
the average amount of dept by the middle class in 1992 was
32,200 and by 2014, 84,000 dollars…
the amount of net worth of the middle class has plunged…
from 2007/ 120,000 to 2010 the net worth being 77,000
people living in poverty has risen from 11.3% in 2000 to
15.1% in 2010
in 1971 the middle class was the majority amount of wage
earners, in 2010, the number of middel class earners were
121.8 million people, or roughly a third
so what do these facts show us?
that the upper class has engaged with a war with the middle
class and the upper class has been winning that war…
these are facts, not guesses, not hysterical,
not paranoid, but facts showing that the war on the middle class
since Raygun has been in effect and has been working…
we also know that the United States has greatly increased
its income inequality over the last 20 years…
you cannot argue with facts…
Kropotkin
and we know that this happens regardless of which party is in the White House or who dominates Congress. We know that Obama, the potentially most liberal President in recent years, immediately brought as his financial team the very people responsible for the policies and practices that led to the financial crisis. This income gap thing no longer, if it ever did, have anything to do with this party or that party. Both parties are beholden to and in love with Wall St. Whatever they whisper to the spouses when going to sleep at night. Not one of them has the guts, so let’s not presume interest, to go public with qualms about the power of corporations and Wall st. and bankers while they are Presidents.
I agree, I was taking the piss, as the Brits say, Canada is messed up too.
Peter the Koch brothers are upset with Trump and are going to bankroll other people this time around. Should be interesting to see how that pans out.
Fascism? Cue the thugs…
slate.com/news-and-politics/201 … cists.html
I think perhaps we might even have a few of them here. 
Where are your articles about the AntiFa violent thugs? Who existed first…AntiFa or The Proud Boys?
Yeah, sure, wherever you find objectivists in power there’s the potential for thuggery. I’m sure there were thugs on the left when the antifascists and the Nazis waged war in the streets of Germany.
Some no doubt were motivated ideologically by “the cause”. And, once you arrive at that point “in your head”, there are very few means that can’t be rationalized in order to attain and then sustain the noble end.
On the other hand, there is also a nihilistic element embedded in the motivation of some. Being thugs is the whole point for them.
The bottom line here and now though [re this thread] is that it is not the radical objectivists on the left who are in control of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the U.S. Government. That’s why they don’t generate the sort of headlines that Trump’s thugs do.
Lucky for you?
You are still basically a right wing objectivist, aren’t you?
Let me invite you to bring your moral values and political agenda here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
Test them as it were. 
I’ll give you another chance to answer one of the simple questions from my last post, biggie. Go ahead, nobody is gonna stop you from being honest for a change.
These questions?
“Where are your articles about the AntiFa violent thugs? Who existed first…AntiFa or The Proud Boys?”
I’m conceding up front that there are thug’s on the left as well as on the right. Historically, that has always been a component of either religious or ideological objectivism.
And asking which came first is like asking the Jews and the Palastinians who is to blame for the hostilities over there.
As for honesty, that invariably revolves around the “one of us”/“one of them” mentality. At least pertaining to moral narratives and political agendas.
Someone is being honest when they think like “one of us”. They’re telling lies when they don’t. Why? Because they’re “one of them”.
It all comes “natural” as Satyr might insist.
Really, you need to bring one of your own value judgments here – viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382 – so that others are permitted to judge for themselves which of us is really being “honest”.
But then that’s the neat thing about being an objectivist. If your side wins, great. But even if your side loses, you still have the consolation of knowing you ought to have won because you are always right and they are always wrong.
That’s why, in my view, the sort of arrogance and contempt that the objectivists [left and right] often bring into discussions and debates like this is rooted far more in the psychology of objectivism.
This part: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
You are very prolific, enjoying all your written rigmarole, but unable to answer questions with honesty. Thank you for not trying, but you did have an opportunity to actually provide an answer specific to the questions rather than your usual literary grandstanding that amounted to naught.
Let me ask you a specific question:
Why don’t you actually make an attempt to respond to the points I raise instead of turning everything into an argument about how I have not attempted to respond to the questions that you raise?
I think that I have.
And I’ll leave it to others to decide for themselves who is ducking whom here.