Those that want to engage in violence at this point are complete idiots. We are no where near the point of corporatism, fascism, tyranny, or whatever you want to call it where armed resistance is required. Don’t get me wrong, I’d be more than happy to water The Tree of Liberty if needed to. I just think that most of our current problems could be remedied without it at this point.
I don’t think we are really too far off on this. It is just a matter of how we see it. You see it as something we are heading towards. I see it as something that is already lurking beneath the s
I see a few people among the Occupy Wall Street protestors who make legitimate points about the corruptness of the system.
Again: I think Tim Carney in his book OBAMANOMICS makes the best and most comprehensive case. Against the revolving door between government and lobbyists, and how they make money working on both sides of the government/private-sector fence.
The OWS protestors are mono-focused on corporations, and not on the corrupt government officials they are donating to. My concern is that OWS protestors are inadvertantly flying cover for government corruption by giving a free pass to the politicians who take the money, and making a disproportionate scapegoat of Wall Street investment firms.
Why do they give disproportionate anger to Wall Street wealthy, while giving a free pass to groups like G.E., Pfizer, and the large HMO's. And the benefit from political donations to Chris Dodd, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Barney Frank and Barack Obama, all of whom took cash from Fannie/Freddie and enabled the financial collapse, obstructing any obstacle to easy mortgage loans, calling Fannie/Freddie a "sound investment" right up to the day of its collapse?
Why aren't they protesting in front of these people's homes and offices?
Why aren't they striking in front of G.E. and Pfizer, who have benefitted in the tens of millions from Obama's crony capitalism?
Why is it only from conservative news sources, and not from the Wall Street protestors, that you hear it exposed that Wall Street firms were the largest contributer to getting Obama elected in 2008?
Instead they are shouting slogans in angry mobs in front of Rupert Murdoch's New York home. That seems to me to be a different and more partisan agenda than striking against corrupt abuses of the financial system.
I assume the "tree of Liberty" you refer to is Jefferson's statement that it periodically needs to be watered with the blood of patriots.
I agree that the system is not broken enough that anyone should be calling for violent revolution. That's why I support the Tea Party more, because they have unquestionably made their agenda one that must be pursued within the rule of law. They are not calling for anyone to be killed, or carrying movie-prop heads in implied guillotine fate for "the rich".
The Tea Party it could be argued is too focused on government corruption, and not giving enough mention to the corporate lobbyist part of the equation.
The Occupy Wall Street protestors give more emphasis to corporate lobbyist influence and profit, and not giving enough (if any) mention of the necessary government part of the equation to enable corporate profits. Rham Emmanuel, Tim Geithner, Chris Dodd, and Barack Obama himself are prime examples of the pay-to-play system, where donations get corporations the state-selected contracts, corporate welfare and monopolies from our political leaders, both Democrat and Republican. Ironic that Obama, who campaigned as a reformer, has fed and more vastly expanded this system, more so than any other politician.
