Fighting Oligarchy

[Moderate Right]

After the Charlie Kirk assassination can we all agree that "Fighting Oligarchy" is bad terminology? It just incites some people to want to commit violent acts against one percenters, not that Charlie Kirk himself was a one percenter. But, we have already had a healthcare CEO mercilessly gunned down in cold blood, shot in the back, and afterwards many on the left referred to it as a justified killing and many of them donated to a fund to defend him. So, I say the left needs to tone down their rhetoric as it obviously incites more of this. The Fighting Oligarchy terminology needs to be changed.

 

[Hari Seldon]

 

[holbritter]

After the Charlie Kirk assassination can we all agree that "Fighting Oligarchy" is bad terminology? It just incites some people to want to commit violent acts against one percenters, not that Charlie Kirk himself was a one percenter. But, we have already had a healthcare CEO mercilessly gunned down in cold blood, shot in the back, and afterwards many on the left referred to it as a justified killing and many of them donated to a fund to defend him. So, I say the left needs to tone down their rhetoric as it obviously incites more of this. The Fighting Oligarchy terminology needs to be changed.

No.

 

[reinaert]

After the Charlie Kirk assassination can we all agree that "Fighting Oligarchy" is bad terminology? It just incites some people to want to commit violent acts against one percenters, not that Charlie Kirk himself was a one percenter. But, we have already had a healthcare CEO mercilessly gunned down in cold blood, shot in the back, and afterwards many on the left referred to it as a justified killing and many of them donated to a fund to defend him. So, I say the left needs to tone down their rhetoric as it obviously incites more of this. The Fighting Oligarchy terminology needs to be changed.

No, we do not agree. Oligarchs are adversaries of republics.That's kind of obvious if you know what the -arch suffix means.

 

[Moderate Right]

View attachment 67588484

Everyone gets richer and richer, the rich and the poor. If you look at the poor's standard of living today, it is exponentially better than it was 25 years ago, 50 years ago, 100 years ago, or even 250 years ago. What someone else has is irrelevant. Care to address the thread topic though, of toning down the "fighting" rhetoric? Or, was your post in support of violent rhetoric?

 

[Moderate Right]

No, we do not agree. Oligarchs are adversaries of republics.That's kind of obvious if you know what the -arch suffix means.

So, you're fine with inciting violence against the rich.

 

[Greenbeard]

After the Charlie Kirk assassination can we all agree that "Fighting Oligarchy" is bad terminology? It just incites some people to want to commit violent acts against one percenters, not that Charlie Kirk himself was a one percenter. But, we have already had a healthcare CEO mercilessly gunned down in cold blood, shot in the back, and afterwards many on the left referred to it as a justified killing and many of them donated to a fund to defend him. So, I say the left needs to tone down their rhetoric as it obviously incites more of this. The Fighting Oligarchy terminology needs to be changed.

Well, “eat the rich” had to be abandoned after the unfortunate ensuing spike in cannibalism. What’s left?

 

[element94]

After the Charlie Kirk assassination can we all agree that "Fighting Oligarchy" is bad terminology? It just incites some people to want to commit violent acts against one percenters, not that Charlie Kirk himself was a one percenter. But, we have already had a healthcare CEO mercilessly gunned down in cold blood, shot in the back, and afterwards many on the left referred to it as a justified killing and many of them donated to a fund to defend him. So, I say the left needs to tone down their rhetoric as it obviously incites more of this. The Fighting Oligarchy terminology needs to be changed.

The left? The right started all this with the J6 lies and violence, and now we're here because of it. You don't like the fruit of their labors?

 

[Hari Seldon]

Everyone gets richer and richer, the rich and the poor. If you look at the poor's standard of living today, it is exponentially better than it was 25 years ago, 50 years ago, 100 years ago, or even 250 years ago. What someone else has is irrelevant. Care to address the thread topic though, of toning down the "fighting" rhetoric? Or, was your post in support of violent rhetoric?

I'll take the advice of Louis Brandeis over yours any day of the week. So disagreeing with your assertion is supporting violent rhetoric? Hard to take you seriously.

 

[Moderate Right]

Well, “eat the rich” had to be abandoned after the unfortunate ensuing spike in cannibalism. What’s left?

So, you refuse to tone down the rhetoric.

 

[Moderate Right]

The left? The right started all this with the J6 lies and violence, and now we're here because of it. You don't like the fruit of their labors?

LOL. The only person murdered on that day was an unarmed woman who was no threat to anyone, shot by police. But, for a perspective, check this out:

 

[element94]

LOL. The only person murdered on that day was an unarmed woman who was no threat to anyone, shot by police. But, for a perspective, check this out:

I stand by what I said. This all started with Trump's lies and violence on J6, and it's been ramping up ever since. Looks like you like the FA more than the FO.

 

[reinaert]

So, you're fine with inciting violence against the rich.

No. I'm fine with illuminating that oligarchs qua oligarchs are adversaries of republics. A republic that does not constrain its aristos ends up an oligarchy or the plaything of despots.

This is not hard. It gets even easier if you don't willfully misread others.

 

[Questerr]

After the Charlie Kirk assassination can we all agree that "Fighting Oligarchy" is bad terminology? It just incites some people to want to commit violent acts against one percenters, not that Charlie Kirk himself was a one percenter. But, we have already had a healthcare CEO mercilessly gunned down in cold blood, shot in the back, and afterwards many on the left referred to it as a justified killing and many of them donated to a fund to defend him. So, I say the left needs to tone down their rhetoric as it obviously incites more of this. The Fighting Oligarchy terminology needs to be changed.

“We need more civil terminology even though it’s never been effective at resisting fascism”

 

[Questerr]

Everyone gets richer and richer, the rich and the poor. If you look at the poor's standard of living today, it is exponentially better than it was 25 years ago, 50 years ago, 100 years ago, or even 250 years ago. What someone else has is irrelevant. Care to address the thread topic though, of toning down the "fighting" rhetoric? Or, was your post in support of violent rhetoric?

“Have you considered that JD Rockefeller didn’t have a microwave? You are rich compared to him.”

 

[Questerr]

So, you're fine with inciting violence against the rich.

Those same rich people would gladly kill you if it maximized their profits.

 

[Greenbeard]

So, you refuse to tone down the rhetoric.

I’m not affiliated with the Fighting Oligarchy Tour.