Tax-Us '5 percenters' group holds S.F. rally

General Buck Turgidson said:
Hasn't the "lead by example" horse been beaten to death and had a stick of dynamite shoved up its ass and exploded into a million pieces already?
Click to expand...

It's always going to be around. Several years back on this board when state governments were really struggling with revenues and started to lay off workers and make others take pay cuts there were posters calling for the legislatures to take pay cuts first, as basically a way to lead by example.
 
Superfreak said:
Apparently not. Can't help but notice you ran right up and started commenting on the topic. Also can't help but notice you still don't get it. So no, it most certainly has not been beaten to death.
Click to expand...


You are confusing not getting the point with getting the point and thinking it's a stupid one. Repeating it over and over and over and over and over again doesn't make it any less stupid.
 
Superfreak said:
Do you understand how movements begin? Do you have any comprehension of the number of times we have had to hear about 'we should be paying more/I am ok with paying more' from wealthy liberals? Why is it that you feel that the only way they can get this passed is to force everyone to do it at once? Why is it that you cannot understand the simple concept of 'see, we are doing it, we believe in what we are saying should be done enough to do it voluntarily'? Why is it that you cannot see that it adds power to their message?

They are not meant to simply pay more and then stop. If they believe in something and want to affect a policy change then they continue on, recruiting more wealthy people to do the same.
Click to expand...

Again, it's a one-cycle news story, and a small one, at best.

I don't believe in symbolic, ineffectual BS, and never have.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
You are confusing not getting the point with getting the point and thinking it's a stupid one. Repeating it over and over and over and over and over again doesn't make it any less stupid.
Click to expand...

Yes, I understand you don't get the concept of leading. Most liberals don't. They want things handed to them. They want the government to run their lives for them. They don't want personal responsibility, let alone leadership responsibilities. It is no wonder you find the concept of leadership 'stupid'. You voted for Obama... a 'lead from behind' kind of guy.
 
Onceler said:
Again, it's a one-cycle news story, and a small one, at best.

I don't believe in symbolic, ineffectual BS, and never have.
Click to expand...

Tell us... how is the alternative approach been working for you? All the liberals do is use 'tax the rich' for their class warfare games.
 
Superfreak said:
Yes, I understand you don't get the concept of leading. Most liberals don't. They want things handed to them. They want the government to run their lives for them. They don't want personal responsibility, let alone leadership responsibilities. It is no wonder you find the concept of leadership 'stupid'. You voted for Obama... a 'lead from behind' kind of guy.
Click to expand...

Well you know, with the right guy...
 
LOL I'm sorry I can't be serious here anymore. I am feeling incredibly goofy lately, and the fact that we keep having the same arguments with the same people isn't helping. I hope I am not annoying everyone.
 
Darla said:
LOL I'm sorry I can't be serious here anymore. I am feeling incredibly goofy lately, and the fact that we keep having the same arguments with the same people isn't helping. I hope I am not annoying everyone.
Click to expand...

way way way way too late to be concerned about that.
 
Darla said:
LOL I'm sorry I can't be serious here anymore. I am feeling incredibly goofy lately, and the fact that we keep having the same arguments with the same people isn't helping. I hope I am not annoying everyone.
Click to expand...

It's okay by me. The "lead by example" has been a strange, meandering one, and I'm probably too into it.
 
Superfreak said:
Yes, I understand you don't get the concept of leading. Most liberals don't. They want things handed to them. They want the government to run their lives for them. They don't want personal responsibility, let alone leadership responsibilities. It is no wonder you find the concept of leadership 'stupid'. You voted for Obama... a 'lead from behind' kind of guy.
Click to expand...


I hope you are smart enough to know that Obama and a bunch of rich liberals donating money to the government isn't going to matter one whit to the Republicans in Congress whose votes are necessary to pass any tax increase on rich people, but sometimes I wonder ...
 
Superfreak said:
Yes, I understand you don't get the concept of leading. Most liberals don't. They want things handed to them. They want the government to run their lives for them. They don't want personal responsibility, let alone leadership responsibilities. It is no wonder you find the concept of leadership 'stupid'. You voted for Obama... a 'lead from behind' kind of guy.
Click to expand...

Okay, here you are shifting the goalposts again. Even the symbolic, BS action you're talking about would be to EFFECT policy change - it would be completely meaningless, otherwise. Where we differ is in how effective that symbolic action would be.

But above, you're addressing why there should even be policy change to begin with - any way you slice it, it's gov't action that is the end goal, and that's what you're railing against.
 
Onceler said:
Okay, here you are shifting the goalposts again. Even the symbolic, BS action you're talking about would be to EFFECT policy change - it would be completely meaningless, otherwise. Where we differ is in how effective that symbolic action would be.

But above, you're addressing why there should even be policy change to begin with - any way you slice it, it's gov't action that is the end goal, and that's what you're railing against.
Click to expand...

Really? I am railing against all government action? Or am I railing against liberals lack of comprehension of leadership? Like you and Dung, many liberals sit on the sidelines bitching and moaning because the government can't get things done for them. Then when someone suggests that the most powerful man in the country could lead by example, you bitch and moan and say his leadership on the issue is pointless because it is just symbolic. It cracks me up. When you lead on an issue it is not normally going to be you and 200 million others walking in step. It is typically going to be you and you alone. Your actions are meant to encourage others to join you.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
I hope you are smart enough to know that Obama and a bunch of rich liberals donating money to the government isn't going to matter one whit to the Republicans in Congress whose votes are necessary to pass any tax increase on rich people, but sometimes I wonder ...
Click to expand...

You are right. They stand a far better chance by doing nothing but bitching about the rich paying more. How could I have been so silly to think they might shift the thinking of the moderates or even more importantly the public that votes every two years on every member of the House and a third of the Senate.
 
I readily admit that if attempted my idea may produce absolutely no policy change and basically be viewed as a failure. But my argument is still this. Most of the people in the top 5% are people of action in the sense they didn't get where they are by sitting around doing nothing (yes I know there are exceptions but generally speaking). Generally speaking as well, in my experience at least, you don't usually see people in the top 5% out on the streets protesting. Thus the fact that if a good sized number of these top 5% took to the streets across the country as they did in SF and created an action (such as paying more in taxes) it could change people's minds. And if can't change Republicans in Congresses minds maybe it will have an influence on the voters who voted those Republicans in.

And I admit I am not 100% consistent on symbolic actions. A lot of times I find them pointless but there are times I find myself in agreement with them so I'll admit my hypocrisy up front.
 
Superfreak said:
You are right. They stand a far better chance by doing nothing but bitching about the rich paying more. How could I have been so silly to think they might shift the thinking of the moderates or even more importantly the public that votes every two years on every member of the House and a third of the Senate.
Click to expand...


Republican moderates. LOL.
 
Superfreak said:
Really? I am railing against all government action? Or am I railing against liberals lack of comprehension of leadership? Like you and Dung, many liberals sit on the sidelines bitching and moaning because the government can't get things done for them. Then when someone suggests that the most powerful man in the country could lead by example, you bitch and moan and say his leadership on the issue is pointless because it is just symbolic. It cracks me up. When you lead on an issue it is not normally going to be you and 200 million others walking in step. It is typically going to be you and you alone. Your actions are meant to encourage others to join you.
Click to expand...

That's if you believe in the following:

1) The value of empty symbolic BS that has no effect at all, on anything
2) The change you are looking for involves volunteerism and not a change in policy

Michael Moore - hero to all - has a great chapter on one of his books about symbolic BS. Ultimately, it just makes those doing it feel good about themselves, and does little else. He was talking specifically about environmentalists, and how most think they're "doing their part" by recycling or conserving, but in reality, those things don't have any effect whatsoever without policy change. And it hurts the effort for policy change to have a bunch of people who believe in it, but feel like they're doing their part & that's all they need to do....
 
cawacko said:
I readily admit that if attempted my idea may produce absolutely no policy change and basically be viewed as a failure. But my argument is still this. Most of the people in the top 5% are people of action in the sense they didn't get where they are by sitting around doing nothing (yes I know there are exceptions but generally speaking). Generally speaking as well, in my experience at least, you don't usually see people in the top 5% out on the streets protesting. Thus the fact that if a good sized number of these top 5% took to the streets across the country as they did in SF and created an action (such as paying more in taxes) it could change people's minds. And if can't change Republicans in Congresses minds maybe it will have an influence on the voters who voted those Republicans in.

And I admit I am not 100% consistent on symbolic actions. A lot of times I find them pointless but there are times I find myself in agreement with them so I'll admit my hypocrisy up front.
Click to expand...


Public opinion is already well in Obama's favor. Doesn't matter. The thing to do is hold the votes and run against the people who voted against the policy change. It's not rocket surgery.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top