Whose side are you on?

[JVS]

And whatever your answer is, start fucking acting like it!

[pennylane100]

1. Great way to get people to take your poll, insutl them.

[JVS]

2. Fuck em!

If they don't want to answer, I don't much care

[jobycom]

3. Neither. I'm on the side of those trying to help all people, not one class or another.

That usually means preventing the wealthiest of Americans from abusing the poor, and that usually means supporting policies that help the poorer of Americans to survive and maintain a certain level of quality of life. But it can--though it hasn't in the last six years--mean preventing unfair policies against wealthier or even middle class Americans. And it can mean supporting the truly "poor" in other nations, where "wealthy" would mean living in conditions similar to our poorest of the poor. It can mean supporting the well-being of other nations over the instant gratification of our own. It can mean supporting paying more for gasoline in our nation rather than bombing other nations into oblivion.

Sorry, you want a cute little answer in an big ugly world. I won't give one. Simplistic slogans lead to single-minded, meaning flawed, policy, and to dogmatic ideology, and the only thing more dangerous than a conservative to the world is a dogmatic, rather than logical, response to anything.

[JVS]

4. The very existence of one of those classes requires the subjegation of the other

you cannot be for both of them.

[jobycom]

16. Wrong. It's a false dichotomy meant to create animosity where there should be none.

Rich and poor aren't even realities, they are positions on the same economic sliding scale. Being for one or the other is a false choice. You should be for the economic scale itself. JFK's rising tide that lifts all boats, in other words. Rather than attempting to sink one type of boat to create more water for another type, try to be for improving the quality of the water.

YOu cannot be for one side or the other without being part of the problem. That's not to say you shouldn't fight the rich in their attempts to shift everything their way--obviously you should. But that's what I said in my first post. You shouldn't just support one or the other without considering the context. To do so is mindless dogma.

[JVS]

19. The rich have no problem being for their interests, why can't we be for ours?

Why do we need to be ashamed of our desires, hopes and dreams?

[jobycom]

21. Who's ashamed? Why do we have to sink to the level of the Republicans?

The Republicans, or to be fair, rightwingers of all eras in all nations, create class warfare because they know they can win. The rich will always win such battles, they are better armed.

There is no battle. There is only common interest. Step out of their paradigm, and see the world as it is. And quit using emotional tags like "Why do we need to be ashamed of our desires, hopes and dreams?" I didn't say anything like that.

[JVS]

22. Step out of their paradigm by accepting their paradigm?

Laughable. Clearly the only way to be equal is to do what our superiors tell us :sarcasm:

[jobycom]

29. First, the sarcasm smilie is always a surrender of the argument, and is only used

by bullies. If you have an actual argument against what I said, make it, don't think you can win points by saying "laughable" and dodging the issue. That's way beneath you.

Second, I didn't say "step out of the paradigm by accepting their paradigm," nor anything even remotely implying that. It's on you to demonstrate why you are claiming I did.

Third, you ignored every point I made.

You got something, bring it. You don't, throw up the white flag and talk to people who agree with you.

[JVS]

45. You claim I am part of the problem because I am only for the poor

that certainly sounds like something that would be used to make me feel ashamed.

What's wrong with me being only for the poor and not for the rich? Do the rich need my help too? What makes that part of the problem?

[jobycom]

51. That's not what I said

This is: YOu cannot be for one side or the other without being part of the problem. That's not to say you shouldn't fight the rich in their attempts to shift everything their way--obviously you should. But that's what I said in my first post. You shouldn't just support one or the other without considering the context. To do so is mindless dogma.


It's like attacking your brain for making your heart pump so much blood. You lose the battle whichever side wins. The solution is to find a balance for both. The wealthiest create jobs that the poorest need to survive. The poor buy products that creates the wealth of the richest. The poor use those products to raise their quality of life. The ideal situation is not one in which the rich are destroyed--that destroys the poor, too--but one in which a good balance of rewards for both classes, all classes, is reached. To me that means a high standard of living for the poor, but an incentive for the wealthiest to continue to make their products. If the poor sink too low, the wealthy make less money, so exploitation by the rich is against everyone's interests. Fight that exploitation, but fighting the rich just to fight the rich is bad policy.

Not trying to make you or anyone feel ashamed. Just stating my position, which is what the OP asked for.

[Journeyman]

5. Well, here's a topic on which I have a lot to say. . .

on both sides of the issue, and on the phrasing of the question, but I learned my lesson.

It's a little cool in South California tonight, chance of rain. Better keep my puppy indoors.

Regards to all.

~ Washington Irving

[wiggs]

9. I'm with you, literally (in Socal also) and figuratively. nt

[nosmokes]

6. damn. i thought this was a rosie v the donald. n/t

[JVS]

7. LOL

Feel free to copycat

[Laurier]

8. Only two disparate options and nothing in between?

Hmm. Sorry, can't participate in your "poll" then, it sets up a false dichotomy.

[JVS]

10. Fine, then leave. If you can't accept the options, that's your problem.

[Laurier]

11. Got it.

You're not interested in a reality based result for your "poll" and you're not interested in a reality based discussion. You do no favors to the Democratic cause by such nonsense.

Got it.

[JVS]

12. See you around

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JVS]

14. Wow. Namecalling. I'm really impressed!

[Laurier]

17. See #11

I am not going to add to your thread any further because I do not believe that it furthers the democratic cause.

See #11.

[JVS]

18. Like I said: see you around!

[Laurier]

24. With us or against us - where have I heard that before?

Your poll smacks of "you're either with us or against us" and we all know where that comes from. Sorry, I just can't buy into your false dichotomy.

And yeah, this is my last post in your thread, so feel free to say whatever you want in response, knowing that I won't respond respond publicly - you have carte blanche. So knock yourself out. If anyone wants to discuss this via PM or on other threads, that would be great, but I'm not not going to feed someone's ego by posting on this particular thread when it is obvious that it doesn't deserve the attention.

[JVS]

25. So are you or aren't you going to keep replying to this thread that you said you..

didn't want to contribute to?

[Guaranteed]

15. Hey, this is going to take time to fix, JVS- years.

These folks have been getting pummeled with this propaganda for a long, long time. So, don't burn out too quick....take it easy, make use of time. Slow and steady, they'll come back.

[Buddyblazon]

26. Well....

I'm certainly not going to revolt.

[Guaranteed]

27. LOL nt

[Quixote1818]

20. I am on the side of nice people, poor and wealthy! But I look after the poor!

O8)

[Buddyblazon]

23. I voted for the poor...

as I am one them.

However, the idea of such a "black and white" poll...a poll of absolutes...that certainly isn't very Democratic-like.


I mean...my Sister now has money. She grew up poor with me. My brother-in-law grew up lower middle class. Her and her husband worked their butts off in real estate...for years...and they literally did it with their blood, sweat and tears.....and are now loaded.

They're rich...but I'm for them. So am I bad person? Am I not supposed to be for them? They vote Democrat. He went to art school and is an amazing artist.


But apparently...according to you...I can't be for them.

When should I let them know? Before they give me and my Fiance our wedding gifts? Or after?

[Buddyblazon]

28. Come on JVS....

Please tell me how I am supposed to act now.

Do I need to sneak into my Sister and Brother in Laws house at night and slit their's and my two nephews throats because their wealthy?

Please....I need to know...because I'm totally torn here. I work for the IATSE (Production Union)...so I'm definitely blue collar and have a very modest income. But someone in my family went from rag to riches.

Please...what do I do?

[JVS]

30. Yes. That's exactly what you need to do.

Actually it isn't, but it might be helpful to remember which side of the divide you're on. I haven't noticed this from you, but there seem to be a lot of people running around turning this forum into "Rich people can spend their money however they want and nobody has any right to say peep about it-- Underground" For such people a reminder of who they are for might be a way of either curbing that behavior or forcing them to admit to themselves that they actually prefer the rich

[Buddyblazon]

32. JVS...

Unfortunately...you and I will not have a legitimate choice to vote for in '08....that's NOT wealthy.

So what they heck do we do?

Think about it. I would love to vote for a middle class guy. But you and I both know, that barring some miracle...no middle class guy is going to win a damn thing.

Money is power. It's control. My Sister hasn't figured that out...and when she does...I hope she uses her power for good and not evil.


And I admit...I can look at many wealthy people that have no idea what it's like living on a food budget...or worrying about the fact they don't have healthcare (like myself)...and get pretty damn angry.

But I have a hard time telling wealthy Dems that are fighting for me to piss off.

[JVS]

35. You're talking about 08. I was just talking about life in general

I guess I'll talk about 08 first. We should vote for whatever benefits us most. But on a broader level we should never feel loyalty to the ruling class. You don't need to tell wealthy dems to piss off, but you certainly shouldn't feel obligated to defend their position of power and their behavior.

[Spider Jerusalem]

31. Is there a side with people...

who don't actually think that crazed hyperbole and high-volume moral outrage are substitutes for rationality and genuine debate? Because, you know, after the past several days around here, I'm starting to think that would be nice. (People being what they are, it'd never happen, but it'd still be nice.)

[JVS]

33. what's such crazed hyperbole about telling people that if they think they are for the poor they...

should act like it. It seems a very logical proposal to me. Perhaps the "fucking" is unnecessary, but here we have one of the most liberal forums on the internet turned into a place where all people can do is spout about the absolute right of rich people to consume as they see fit.

[Spider Jerusalem]

36. Yes, but...

is that not just an extension of the general American attitude that we ALL (whether rich or no) have the right to consume, if not as much as we want, at least as much as we can afford to? I agree that the grotesque excesses of the mega-wealthy are pretty much identical to to Rockefellers and Morgans and Carnegies building massive palaces on Fifth Avenue while thousands starved and died of TB in tenements five miles away...but even so, the problem of feeling that one has an absolute RIGHT to consume as much as one can is NOT just the province of the rich.

[JVS]

38. That last sentence you have is exactly what I'm trying to get at

This "right to consume as much as one can" is the idea that keeps the people who are for the poor from acting like it. At some point the absolutist mentality of the right to consume becomes a horrific abomination.

[Spider Jerusalem]

41. It's going to take a lot of work to change people's minds about that, unfortunately...

our modern consumer culture and the 'American Dream' of material success make for a rather toxic combination; our present economy is predicated of the former, and the latter drives people who AREN'T rich to consume more than they can really afford to, because if they can't have the reality, at least they can buy a simulacrum on credit. Which provides just enough lube so that they don't notice the ass-fucking they're getting.

[JVS]

34. oops, the board said the first one had been unable to go through. Dupe

[donheld]

37. start fucking acting like it!?

How's that? What will satisfy you? I am poor is that enough for you?

[Gwerlain]

39. None of the above.

I think it's an artificial distinction, with the exception of those of the rich who believe they are not "one of us." I let people decide they're against me; I don't place them in that category. The ones I don't like do it themselves. It's easy to spot.

[Selatius]

40. I'm a socialist, but I don't see the world in black and white.

The point of socialism is that everybody has the resources they need to bring out the full potential of each and every individual. The notion that socialists want everybody to be the same is an exercise in reductio ad absurdum. I generally have no problem with somebody who may be, in relative terms, several hundred thousand times wealthier than me, but I do have a problem with somebody who dedicates his entire life to shirking his responsibility to his fellow man. A man who earns 20,000,000/year who pays his taxes and donates to causes that fight poverty and provide opportunity to people is far better than one who simply uses his power to take away the opportunity of others and drives people into poverty for his own gain.

The statement of "from each according to ability to each according to need" is a marvelous statement not in that it simply expresses the ideology of the left but also because the statement is inherently one that allows for different situations beyond simply two. The statement of being on the side of the rich or the poor is little different than George W. Bush asserting bluntly that, "You're either with us or with the terrorists."

I'm on the side of my principles, and they say we should not move ahead until we ensure those who need help the most are helped first. While we should strive to eliminate poverty, we should also not be afraid to award special talents and abilities. The key is the decisions are made in a democratic manner with as much input from the people as possible. An economy where a few at the top control the majority of the nation's resources is not an economy that lends itself to social justice. It generally creates a grossly unbalanced and unequal environment instead.

[LeftishBrit]

43. I agree with you - great post!

Also, I think that the way the question is phrased implies that there will always be two sharply divided groups of 'the rich' and 'the poor'. I am 'on the side of the poor', in the sense that I support policies aimed at preventing and abolishing poverty, rather than in the sense of supporting a certain country or team. In a better-run world, there would *be* no really poor people to be 'on the side of'.

[billyoc]

42. Eat the rich. n/t

[sanskritwarrior]

44. The American side

n/t..........

[RiverStone]

46. EVERYBODY'S!!!

Rich or Poor - we are ALL in it together! Why be divisive? Go here instead...

http://www.climatecrisis.net/

[Bluebear]

47. "You're either with the ____ or you're against them!"

[Katherine Brengle]

48. Um, what the fuck???

I'm on the side of human beings.

I'm on the side of helping people when they need a hand.

I'm on the side of congratulating people when they do well.

I'm on the side of not assuming everyone in the world will live according to my personal ideals.

[Old and In the Way]

49. I think we should all be poor.

Then everyone would be miserable.

[xchrom]

50. i'm going shopping!

[shadowknows69]

52. On the side of anyone with the power

to eliminate ridiculous poll questions.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

53. I'm going to vote for the poor presidential candidate.

Which one is that again?

[cynatnite]

54. I'm either with the poor or against them/I'm either with the rich or against them...

:eyes: My answer is this is a stupid poll.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

55. Now There's A Worthless Bullshit Poll If I Ever Saw One LOL So So Silly Nilly.

Hey, which direction do you like driving in; east or west? And whichever your answer is, you better drive in that fucking direction! :rofl:

Oh, what a poll. You're too much. :rofl: