Does Australia have too many elitists in positions of power?

Its been said many times that the problem with Australian society today is that the people, in power, or the people making decisions in terms of Government policy and social outcomes do not in fact have to live by those decisions. These people can be classed as the elitist component of our society, however the term for elitist was generally considered to be applied to aristocracy and the like.
Any communist or socialist agenda is to remove these decision makers out of society and place government and social decisions back in the hands of the common people, the ones that have to live with the decisions made. The Nazi governments solution, when in power, was to identify these ‘’Elitists’’ (For want of a better term, we will use this description) and have them arrested and placed in a concentration or work camp.
Of course, we have moved on from such extreme measures, but how does the average working class of Australia deal with so many rich and privileged MPs being elected into our governments.
For the past 20 years, our elected MPs have had financial portfolios that the average voter cannot even think to reach. Examples can be found in Malcolm Turnball and Kevin Rudd. These Men make decisions for the nation that they surly do not have to live by.
And what about other sectors of our nation such as banks and credit organizations ( In this I mean the credit reporting agency ).These institutions are managed by wealthy executives and managers who do not have to live by their decisions, especially when it comes to affording products and services that they offer.
It is hard enough we have become such a paranoid and distrusting society of people towards each other. This can be seen now in the amount of police checks we go through for employment, even for low skilled factory floor positions.
Which brings to Dr Hugh Wirth? What society allows such stupidity from a person of power to become law?

Perhaps once they come to power they become elitist no matter their origins.

It is interesting that MPs superannuation is not linked to CPI and salary rises are way out of proportion to other wage increases despite the muffled murmurings of the impartiality of the Remuneration Tribunal. Perhaps if politicians' salaries were linked to CPI or to % rises in award wages at the lower income end it would be seen as fairer given their salaries and associated benefits are already generous.

“Any communist or socialist agenda is to remove these decision makers out of society and place government and social decisions back in the hands of the common people,”

Not based on what Lenin (a well known advocate and implementer of communist agendas) said
Being:
“”Under socialism all will govern in turn and will soon become accustomed to no one governing.”

And
“When there is state there can be no freedom, but when there is freedom there will be no state.”

So I fail to see how, based on the theories of communisms, adopted by its most noted practical exponent -
“the common people” would ever get their hands on “government and social decisions”.

Indeed, in the 1920s Lenin’s strategies were to so limit the “common people” and kulaks from getting their hands on anything, that they starved in their millions.

Of course, Lenin died and he was succeeded by Stalin who perfected Lenin’s doctrines and murdered even more of the “common people”, along with anyone who, in his paranoid state, he perceived as a threat (aka the intelligentsia and his fellow political commissars).
But Stalin’s excuse was simple “The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic.”

“but how does the average working class of Australia deal with so many rich and privileged MPs being elected into our governments”

Maybe, if they earn more than an average income or own more than one house they should be disbarred from standing for election? However, rich folk get to vote too.
So, should we disenfranchise the wealthy and deny them their right to vote, in the name of the “working class”?

Somehow, as a libertarian, who supports the values of democracy and universal suffrage, I find such notions grossly offensive.

And I do know that for an absolute certainty, that communism and socialism have nothing to offer anyone

- other than the lies and deceits of small-minded, envy driven political opportunists who are out to gain power by beguilling the feeble minded and gullible.

Dear Col,
All men have a gift and it is their passion so spend your energy developing your full potential and don't worry about the grass in K Rudd & M Turnbulls back yards for life has a way sorting that out.
Life wasn't meant to be easy as the other Malcolm said. A good character is built in hard places as you build your testomny of your life. The only one you realy affect with your choices is you. I try not to be an aginer and be an encourager instead as I first reap the benefits of joy instead of sorrow and depression.

Oscar
Pelican is right in this: It wouldn't matter who you put in.

The problem is not in the selection process. The elitism is in the fact of making decisions by political process in the first place. The alternative is to leave people free to make their own choices based on property and consent, rather than having an elite of politicians, whether elected or not, dictating to everyone else.

Being a grouch is one thing, oscar. But this particular whinge belongs in the sixties, along with factory picketting, BO and really bad haircuts.

Where on earth did this one come from, for example? Certainly not from the history textbooks:

>>The Nazi governments solution, when in power, was to identify these ‘’Elitists’’ (For want of a better term, we will use this description) and have them arrested and placed in a concentration or work camp.<<

Errrr... you may be thinking of Pol Pot, and his Year Zero.

"Markets, schools, newspapers, religious practices and private property are outlawed. Members of the [previous] government, public servants, police, military officers, teachers, ethnic Vietnamese, Christian clergy, Muslim leaders, members of the Cham Muslim minority, members of the middle-class and the educated are identified and executed."

http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/pot.html

Pol Pot was communist.

Or perhaps you had Mao's Cultural Revolution in mind?

"As a first step, Mao closed China's schools and established the Red Guards–groups of youths who assaulted traditional values and bourgeois culture, attacked intellectuals, and belittled certain party officials. As the revolution escalated, many elderly people and intellectuals died in the violence directed against them"

http://www.athenalearning.com/programs/peoples-republic-of-capitalism/a-history-of-the-cultural-revolution

Mao was - oh yes. Communist.

The Nazis, on the other hand, were extremely proud of their elite.

So long as they were Aryan, of course.

But if your main concern is the wealth of our leaders, I fail to see how that can be prevented, or even whether it is desirable to prevent them from becoming well off.

There is in fact much to be said for a parliament where we don't pay them salaries at all, instead relying upon them having been sufficiently savvy in their business life, not to require one.

And we could disallow corporate donations at the same time, to eliminate the possibility of corruption.

Not that there have ever been any backhanders for public works projects such as the Sydney Harbour Tunnel. Or any other, come to that...

Despite Pericles' and Col's attempts to steer the debate away from the idea that people in positions of power could possibly use their power to their own advantage, it's pretty obvious to the ordinary worker - not the ordinary socialist - that it happens all the time. Funny who supports the status quo in these debates.

>>Somehow, as a libertarian, who supports the values of democracy and universal suffrage, I find such notions grossly offensive.<<

Give it a rest, Col. I'm heartily sick of your straw man arguments where you paint anyone with a different opinion than you as a socialist swill.

The opening post was about the way people with talent and power use it to maximise outcomes for themselves. How about addressing THAT issue for a change?

Similiar in theory to the Democracy thread. More in tune though is that the perceived "white" working class are now looked down on as bogans, rednecks, yobbos, idiots though some still maintain some personality to their credit. Whatever did happen to personality? Seems to be a social ill to have one these days.! Anyways I digress.

However come election time these ferals suddenly morph into Howard battlers or Rudd working families because a few votes are required.

The irony is they probably earn more than the uni graduate, the teacher and many accountants. Especially the few left with union membership, rich mans world lol. Often financially disadvantaged are the working single mothers, the immigrants with useless degrees, Indigenous, the older worker, the young hopeful and of course old age pensioner.

Multiculturalism and the eternal victim industry have ensured these groups do not organise and rise up as a whole. the "elite"" have embraced a divide and conquor strategy, probably not consciensly but effectively in any case.

It is a shame on many levels but also as a result of the university system churning out brainwashed robotic corporate slaves and removing all traces of individuality, Australia is becoming dead boring. What happens when robots that can only operate with graphs, polls, numbers and computers rather than humanity run the show.

pelican, "It is interesting that MPs superannuation is not linked to CPI.."

That is as good an example of elitism as one could get. The pollies, especially on the conservative side, have often referred to themselves as the 'masters' and the public servants as their 'servants' when justifying their (politicians') wage rises. The argument was that the masters should not be paid less than their servants - forgetting of course that the pollies were comparing themselves with the Senior Executive Service of the APS and they were not including their allowances and other benefits.

The elitism is especially noticeable in superannuation where the masters have indexation based on AWE, thus ensuring it maintains their standard of living, whereas the servants' super is indexed against the heavily discounted CPI, ensuring that their spending power diminishes in real terms year by year.

oscar the grouch,

Why not have a separate thread for Dr Harry Wirth and the RSPCA? There seems to be a lot of criticism of the $$ spent on publicity, allegations of bullyboy tactics and concern and confusion about the right to enter property and seize goods.

Dear Oscar,

Social institutions tend to reflect the
interests of those who control the economy
rather than the interests of those who don't.
In any society, therefore, the laws tend to
protect the rich, not the poor.

Governments uphold the
status quo, rather than undermining it.

Like anyone else, high status people form social
networks, webs of relationships that link the
individual directly to other people, and through
these others, indirectly to even more people.
They enter these networks through socialization in
their families, schools, clubs, corporate boards,
and other elite circles where they associate with
people of similar background and advantages.

Because these social networks have much greater
resources of wealth, power, and prestige than
those of other people, their members have far more
"leverage" in society, despite their fewer numbers.

In effect, they have easier access to the
best education, the highest paid jobs, the most
useful contacts, the most powerful positions,
the most crucial information.

They influence, control, or occupy the commanding
heights of the economic and political order, and their
actions tend to preserve the advantages of their
class as a whole.

This class system survives for as long as
the resources of those who benefit from it outweigh
the resources of those who are disadvantaged by it.

Change may come about if members of the lower
class successfully mobilize their own resources,
by forming a social movement - such as a labour
movement - or as in the US - a civil rights movement,
that organises votes, funds, access to the media,
ability to cause demonstrations, strikes, etc.

In extreme cases social movements aim at revolutions,
using violence as a resource. World History has seen
revolutions overthrow governments, from the French
Revolution to the Russian, Chinese, Cuban, Iranian,
etc.

Revolutions however are exceptional, and violent
class conflict is unusual. Usually overtime the
existing inequality becomes a tradition, to be
taken for granted as the "way things are."
In short it gains legitimacy, the generally held
belief that a given political system in valid and
justified.

Pelican's idea of pollies wages linked to CPI would be OK, along with their super being linked to the incompetence of our business leaders so they too suffered massive losses as we do instead of continual rising benefits.

But why not do what happened to 'the workers', those slavish beasts who also think of themselves first before the good of the community?

During the 1990s, the Award system was restructured around the metal workers wage, which became known as the 100% rate.

People less than a tradie had their base award rate expressed in terms of 'less than' the 100% rate, so a shoppo might have been 75% of a tradie, but with added skills, industry courses, company PD etc, they could be promoted to the 100% rate as they rose in the ranks.

There is no reason why our CEOs, and pollies, could not be described in terms of a 'tradie'.

Are they 300%, 500%, or 45%.... at least 'the workers' could start to evaluate against where they sat in the muck heap.

Richie10 “All men have a gift and it is their passion so spend your energy developing your full potential”

English grammar is, obviously, not present among your “gifts”, Richie…

As for me, I do not care how verdant is Krudd or Turnbulls pasture

So long as rapacious socialists do not demand a greater share of “nature strip” from my house front than is actually there

Nor more from my already squeaky pips or I might venture to pastures overseas and beyond the clawing grasp of the ATO.

Re “The only one you really affect with your choices is you. I try not to be an aginer and be an encourager instead as I first reap the benefits of joy instead of sorrow and depression.”

I am happy with the decisions I have made, they got me to where I am today and I can assure you, that is a very, very good place to be.

My concern with “decisions” is I want to make them. I do not wish to subcontract them out to a bunch of socialist nongs, driven by left wing ideology and with no idea about worldly reality.

Peter Hume “The alternative is to leave people free to make their own choices”

Exactly, the best solution, devolution of responsibility to the individual.

It eliminates the power-elites and “special interest” groups. Those who feel a thing is worthy can do it (doubtless through a private provider if there are enough interested) and those who think something is garbage can ignore it.

Ronald Reagan had a term for it which he implemented into action.. he called it “smaller government.”

However, I doubt Obama feels the same.

RobP “Give it a rest, Col. I'm heartily sick of”

Proving, once again that “censorship” is the first weapon in the arsenal of repression used by the socialist swill


Your health (heartily sick) and welfare are none of my concern RobP,

especially when I recall your “concern” for my health was emphasised by you previously suggesting I contract cancer (presumably as a favour to yourself).

But you have no real reason for concern RobP.. I was not quoting Margaret Thatcher. I was quoting Lenin.

Unlike your "heartily sick" demand for silence, I prefer to give all opinions an airing…

just blame my libertarian values system…


So I am happy to quote from the left and the right of politics


and I will "balance" those views by quoting from both:


Ladies first (and the swill probably thought chivalry was dead):

So dearest Margaret

"Individualism has come in for an enormous amount of criticism over the years. It still does. It is widely assumed to be synonymous with selfishness...But the main reason why so many people in power have always disliked individualism is because it is individualists who are ever keenest to prevent the abuse of authority."

(by the elites)

Compared that thought to the thoughts of comrade Lenin

“It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.”

And uncle Joe (Stalin)

“It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.”


So, RobP is “heartily sick”


I would observe.. he would likely be even termiinally sick under Lenin and dead under Stalin.


While the “left” invent many a pretence to grand designs and edifices of “socialist glory”,

they sub-contract to the “right” to actually build them.


"Libertarian Capitalism" generates the wealth;


whilst "Socialism/Communism/Collectivism" merely shares out the poverty
(- and shares it unequally and badly, if you recall the millions who died under Lenin and Stalins deliberate policies and watchful eyes).

Have a nic e day RobP

So the big dog has done a big piss on the carpet. Whoopee doo, Col. (Note the long drawn-out post, that makes Col's view look more big and imposing than it actually is - actually an old trick to win the battle before it's actually been fought.)

There you go again tarring all your opponents with the same brush.

Here's something to consider, you so-called libertarian. Libertarianism is independent of scale - that is, it doesn't matter if you are big or little; everyone's the same. Now let's read between the lines and look at the pig swill innuendo you are serving up on every single thread you write to. It boils done to: "if you're a big dog like us, libertarianism rules supreme. However, if you're a little guy, then you can have a few crumbs off the table ... when we get around to it of course".

I'll start giving you some credit, you tosser (in the metaphorical sense of course), when you start acknowledging that fact. As it is now, you're acting as a front man for those doing well. Get it yet?

You, whether you know it or not, are a patronising so-and-so. Just to show you are a cherrypicker of other people's posts, I also said I would treat the cancer comment as a joke if you would. Obviously, you are putting your hardline stance above all else including an offer to bury the hatchet. OK, so be it. In light of your comment, I couldn't give a toss about your health either. Consider the sentiment reciprocated.

If you like Margaret Thatcher so much why don't you go back to Britain and stand for Parliament. Get off your backside and put yourself to use where it's needed. The last thing we need here in Australia is "dearest" Margaret's industrial-strength brand of thinking. Margaret's high-sounding rhetoric, whilst strictly correct, could only come out of the mouth of an aloof soul who was out of touch with the ordinary person (as opposed to socialist).

You treat my view with contempt, I reciprocate.

Have a nice day.

RobP

Go to the naughty corner! and write out ten times "I must neither expect Colonel Bluster's opinions to be any more than prejudice, nor inflict inhuman mental suffering on lesser nations".

Ok, I'll go to mine with hand on head. ;-)

If my dog pees on the carpet she gets a kick in the bum, read examinators post please Col.
I can not support the idea leaders lead in the wrong direction.
Ego can often look far worse than it is good leaders have egos but it is ok by me.
I learn however something every day, yesterday my lesson was clear, you do not know a man, truly, until you see how he handles power.
Some make a new enemy every day, the wise make a new Friend.

Dear Belly,

I recently read a very interesting article
in Time magazine (July 20, 2009 issue)
on "Leadership,"
entitled, "Who needs Charisma?"

I'm going to cut and paste from it -
so bear with me:

It seems that Americans, since JFK,
prefer leaders to be handsome or heroic,
preferably with a thatch of dark hair and
a trim waistline. It's therefore not
surprising that two of the foreign
leaders who've made an impression in the
US were young Tony Blair and French President
Nicolas Sarkozy (who to add to the JFK meme -
had the extra advantage of a fashion-plate wife).

Australia has a higher proportion of naturally
rugged men than any other country on earth,
but combined, its two most recent Prime
Ministers, John Howard and Kevin Rudd, have the
sex appeal of church mice. Who cares?
Both have made tough calls - Howard to back
the US through thick and thin after 9/11.
Rudd to apologise for the treatment of
Australia's Aborigines, and other issues.

Besides a certain homely style can make your
adversaries underestimate you. Look at German
Chancellor Angela Merkel - who may look like
a typical hausfrau - but don't cross her.
"She's ruthless," says a political insider in
Berlin. "She doesn't just sideline her opponents,
she destroys them."

When it comes to Leaders and how they handle
power?

Well, when leaders understand the nature of their
followers, they can get away with an awful lot.
For example, Italians forgive Prime Minister
Silvio Berlusconi's lapses in judgement because
they feel he's "one of them."

In the 1980s, Germans used to make fun of their
Chancellor for his thick Rhineland accent and
stumbling speeches. But when more elegant
and eloquent statesmen were dithering after the
fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, Kohl seized
the moment. He propelled East and West Germany to
unification within a year, while others thought
that unification if it happened at all, was a
distant prospect. It was Kohl's decisiveness that
made him a leader, not his honeyed tone.

RobP “you're acting as a front man for those doing well.”

I am acting in my own best interests

Am I doing well?

You bet your sweet arse I am

Why?

Because I plan and anticipate what is going to happen next and look for opportunities including the counter-cyclical.

You could do the same but you are probably either too thick or prefer to spend your time bending your beer arm with your cloth-capped, cloggie, leftie mates, singing "the internationale", sitting around waiting for someone to announce the next "workers revolution".


“I also said I would treat the cancer comment as a joke if you would.”


Sorry, my wife had a radical hysterectomy in 2008, lost 11 lymph nodes, underwent extensive courses of both chemo and radiation treatment to prevent the spread of ovarian and cervical cancer. She dealt with all that before she met me and is now in remission.

The notion of “treating cancer as a joke”

Leaves me cold and devoid of any feelings of laughter.

Obviously, what makes you laugh is something which the vast majority of people would describe as "very, very sick"

“Get off your backside and put yourself to use where it's needed.”

Well with ignorant ding-bats like you I am obviously needed here… to educate.. but I must admit with you and the rest of the swill who venture on to this site…

it is literally like "casting pearls before swine”

“You treat my view with contempt, I reciprocate.”

Only because, as your cancer comments illustrate:

Your “View” is “Contemptible”


I see the pontificator is being his usual facile self


Belly “read examinators post please Col.”

I have and made appropriate response -

see my comment immediately above my quote of your "erudite input" to the debate (Ha Ha Ha)

>>Well with ignorant ding-bats like you I am obviously needed here… to educate.. but I must admit with you and the rest of the swill who venture on to this site…<<

Don't hold back will you, Col.

Actually, your impersonation of a libertarian is a fraud. A true libertarian would never put people down, but take them as they are say "Do your best at whatever you do". You prove yourself to be a con artist pure and simple.

The more you crap on, the more you dig a big hole for yourself as you show your true self. Promise to keep it up, won't you.

>>Am I doing well? You bet your sweet arse I am.<<

Need you say any more? Me, myself and I are all paramount in your world. You can have it.

Try to stand over me and I'll continue to rebut your self-serving rubbish.

Gentlemen please ...

Can we go back to the topic of this thread...

You've both made your points.

Now how about letting it go?

Now,Now,Now.
People please.
I have always said that there is too much freedom,and i mean liberal freedom, in this country,where anyone can have thier arguments heard.
Not saying that anyone is wrong,But,and there is always a but,do we allow too many voices in this country to be heard when we should just make decisions,or not make decsions,based on the context of the topic.
The point of the post was that people sometimes make decisions that do no not affect them directly.
Example being the people that determine how long a bad debt stays on the credit listing,for an individual
Which is 5 years.
This can determine an individuals entire future.
Now the point being that the people deciding upon that time frame do not have to worry about a credit file listing.Remembering that you can be listed for being late on your power bill,which is easy to do.
These are the crucial decisions that are killing us all slowly, taking away our hope.
An example of many things that people overlook.We must queston everything that happens in our society in this country or we are truly the herd controlled by the masters within our social condition,spoon fed our daily dose.

Hi Foxy

Which part of “treat the cancer comment as a joke“

Would you like me to let go of?


Maybe I should “let go “ because RobP feels “heartily sick” and it disturbs his "sensitive nature"?


This thread is supposedly about “WHO HAS THE POWER”


Well, whilst I still have the power to post, I will, freely and without regard to

the disgusting perspectives of the likes of RobP,


his cancerogenous sense of humour


or his “heartily sick“ and disgusting view of who and what views should be allowed on an opinion board.


So, after due consideration,


I must decline your request.


The topic (Who has the power) speaks for itself


I, for one, will never surrender anything or yield my personal right or fall into line, simply to pacify the likes of RobP or any other self opinionated “elitist” (those who we are talking about, after all) of the "left" or "right"(not that it ever seems to be a problem for the “right”).


or abdicate my personal rights of free expression,


Such requests are offensive to me,


just as I would expect such a request to be offensive to you.

Oscar “have always said that there is too much freedom,and i mean liberal freedom, in this country,where anyone can have thier arguments heard.”

Oh yes, as comrade Lenin said “It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.”

Of course he also had his own way of ensuring the ration process

“One man with a gun can control 100 without one.”

And so did uncle Joe

“Death solves all problems - no man, no problem.”

I guess, I see the curtailment of personal oral and aural liberty to be the first step toward despotism, of any sort

And that is a path of civic curtailment along which I seek to protect us all from (regardless how altruistic that might seem).

“The point of the post was that people sometimes make decisions that do no not affect them directly.”

So do you prefer a decision to be made by

someone who could be described as “objective” and has no “interest” in the outcome, like a judge, dispensing justice between plaintiffs

or

someone with what might be seen as a “vested interest” in the outcome,

such as an insider trader or a property speculator holding land in an area which might be about to be rezoned or a “politician” with “sponsors” who are insider traders and speculators or a judge who is related to a plaintiff?

Regarding “credit ratings” and the removal of defaults from records. I would note the reason for a credit record is to protect other potential creditors from the bad experiences of previous creditors.

A “credit referral” is not there to offer opportunity to a bad debtor or extend to him new victims to practice his past profligacy.

Quite the opposite

Col,

If you're serious, it's you who is disgusting. If you're joking, you are plain pathetic.

I know my view's not something that everyone understands, but it is real enough for a proportion of the population and I mean it seriously. Whichever of the two views you happen to have, you're not impressing me one jot, despite your low-level attempts to stir me up or get your jollies or whatever.

I'm not interested in carrying this on any further as there is a limit to which you can go before you realise you're wasting your time. That limit has come.

There's a challenge in this for you. See if you can make yourself useful on OLO and upgrade yourself into a pony that has more than one party trick.

Dear Col,

We've been down this road before if my memory
serves me correctly.

I wouldn't dream of telling you what to do.
I was simply making a polite request of both
yourself and Rob - to try to raise the bar
of this thread - because it was being
side-lined into a name-calling, slanging match.
I felt that you're both better than that.

Anyway, if you find my request offensive - that
certainly wasn't my intention.

I still remember with great fondness
the gentleman who offered to wear a
tux to my dinner party.
And the same man - had advised a friend
to treat his ex-with fairness and respect because that
friend had "loved her once."

Kind words can be short and easy to speak, but their
echoes are truly endless. The same goes for nasty words.
I guess it depends where one's preference lies - in
what we choose to use for good effect. Charm and wit
seems to be a dying art.

What a pity.

Hi all.
Great debate,plenty of mud in your eyes.

Here is the post by Foxy to remind us all of the nature of the original discussion.

Dear Oscar,

Social institutions tend to reflect the
interests of those who control the economy
rather than the interests of those who don't.
In any society, therefore, the laws tend to
protect the rich, not the poor.

Governments uphold the
status quo, rather than undermining it.

Like anyone else, high status people form social
networks, webs of relationships that link the
individual directly to other people, and through
these others, indirectly to even more people.
They enter these networks through socialization in
their families, schools, clubs, corporate boards,
and other elite circles where they associate with
people of similar background and advantages.

Because these social networks have much greater
resources of wealth, power, and prestige than
those of other people, their members have far more
"leverage" in society, despite their fewer numbers.

In effect, they have easier access to the
best education, the highest paid jobs, the most
useful contacts, the most powerful positions,
the most crucial information.

They influence, control, or occupy the commanding
heights of the economic and political order, and their
actions tend to preserve the advantages of their
class as a whole.

This class system survives for as long as
the resources of those who benefit from it outweigh
the resources of those who are disadvantaged by it.

Change may come about if members of the lower
class successfully mobilize their own resources,
by forming a social movement - such as a labour
movement - or as in the US - a civil rights movement,
that organises votes, funds, access to the media,
ability to cause demonstrations, strikes, etc.

In extreme cases social movements aim at revolutions,
using violence as a resource. World History has seen
revolutions overthrow governments, from the French
Revolution to the Russian, Chinese, Cuban, Iranian,
etc.

What more can i say.
Thanks for everyones posts,but im moving on to my next discussions

>>Kind words can be short and easy to speak, but their echoes are truly endless. The same goes for nasty words.<<

Too troo, Foxy.

I put in a complaint and got Col's post removed.
I also put in a request to have my turdaceous retort removed as well as it's now out of context.

Yep, it would be better to get out of ruts and move on. But, when someone has a crack at you, you've only got two options, respond in kind or turn the other cheek. Best of all is not to be destructive in the first place, I agree.

Dear Rob,

Thank You. It takes a big man to do what
you did, and I salute you for it.

I know that we all react when the right
buttons are pushed. It's human nature.
I've lost it myself many times.
And, I've been called many names on OLO
in the past.

I find when people attach
insults to their discussions, they're angry.
Angry people need to insult as an outlet
for their anger. However, insults are never
part of a meaningful discussion or critique.
The purpose of insults is to simply punish.

Discussions on OLO aren't supposed to be an
all out "battle." I don't think they're supposed
to be a battle at all. When the discussions slip
into being dysfunctional - well as another poster
once said, "There's another just around the corner."

Anyway, Thanks once again for realizing that people
don't have to face insults, and for doing something
constructive about it. You gave yourself the power
in this situation by taking control of it.