Author Topic: Abraham Lincoln, futurist: (Read 1320 times)

oboe · « **Reply #30 on:** December 28, 2004, 11:10:48 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
most of the evil corporations you speak of today are not owned by a few men but by stockholders... average wage earners. retirees..
lazs

There is a big difference between miniscule share of ownership in a corporation by an average wage earner and control over corporate direction and policies exerted by the corporation's senior executives and board. I think "ownership" is not really adequate to describe the relationship of a typical shareholder to the corporation. "Investor" is probably a more accurate and descriptive term.

lazs2 · « **Reply #31 on:** December 28, 2004, 03:10:57 PM »

who owns these evil empires and what are their crimes? they started the war in iraq? gonna need some proof of that and it will have to be more than a MM movie. george soros is not even an American. The U.N. is not American. Neither is mercedes but they have a right to sell here.

Who are the barons of today... what man or men? Bill gates? oprajh? which of these is turning the world and pulling the strings for our policies?

I am not so much against your theory as I am against your proof or lack thereof. It apears to me that the things lincold forsaw came and went by the 30's

lazs

oboe · « **Reply #32 on:** December 28, 2004, 07:20:19 PM »

I don't think its a question of a few individuals committing crimes. I think its a question of powerful corporations funding lobbyists to get whatever outcomes they desire - outcomes that benefit the corporations and not necessarily the taxpayers. I don't think its illegal, but certainly it usurps the sovereignty of power from the people and puts it in the hands of a few. And to me, that represents the "destruction" of the Republic.

As "proof" you could look into how Bush's drug prescription benefit or energy policy were crafted, or who had lobbied for the modifications to the Fair Labor Standards Act, which eliminated the guarantee of overtime pay for an estimated 8 million workers.

Or look at how NAFTA was passed, or tort reform was ignored during the Clinton years. Or look at the lack of progress on campaign finance reform. Examples abound.

I think what Lincoln foresaw was an essential truth in a capitalistic, democratic society. Just because the Republic wasn't destroyed in the few years after he uttered his statement doesn't mean we can stop being concerned.

crowMAW · « **Reply #33 on:** December 29, 2004, 12:21:53 AM »

Does anyone bother to check these kinds of things on Snopes??

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/lincoln.htm

Quote

Claim: Abraham Lincoln issued a prophetic warning about the tyranny of capitalism.

Status: False.

The quote, attributed to President Abraham Lincoln, has been periodically dusted off and presented to the public as a prophetic warning about the destruction of America through the usurpation of power and concentration of wealth by capitalist tyrants for over a century now, undergoing a renewed burst of popularity whenever wartime exigencies stir public debate over governmental policies.

These words did not originate with Abraham Lincoln, however — they appear in none of his collected writings or speeches, and they did not surface until more than twenty years after his death (and were immediately denounced as a "bold, unflushing forgery" by John Nicolay, Lincoln's private secretary). This spurious Lincoln warning gained currency during the 1896 presidential election season (when economic policy, particularly the USA's adherence to the gold standard, was the major campaign issue), and ever since then it has been cited and quoted by innumerable journalists, clergymen, congressmen, and compilers of encyclopedias.

JB88 · « **Reply #34 on:** December 29, 2004, 01:32:22 AM »

lol. well alrighty then.

oboe · « **Reply #35 on:** December 29, 2004, 07:31:56 AM »

Its best to have the truth. Thanks crowMAW, for uncovering it.

Removing credit from Lincoln for this warning, however, really does nothing to discredit the message it carries. It's insightful no matter who said it.

lazs2 · « **Reply #36 on:** December 29, 2004, 08:31:18 AM »

so you are saying that stockhoilders and big companies have to much power over the government or the people or both? lets look at people...

unions... unions are not evil corporations (in the strictest sense) they are the "democracy" you so espouse... labor unions have used the most influence that could ever be brought to bear on elections.... I doubt that a liberal democrat would ever be elected in the country if it weren't for labor unions... they are pandered too allmost as bad as the barons of old.... teachers unions and lawyers... both scum of the earth with only bad things in store for the little people but both allmost unstoppable because of their numbers of "people".

NRA... a 4 million vote block that actually does want to keep our rights instead of take em away.. Christians... you name it. the government is influenced byu all kinds of self interests... The government itself wastes our resources and rights without our consent and in their own self interest.

the fact that lincoln didn't say that and it was said 20 or so years latter is telling... telling in that 20 years latter the barons and carpetbaggers were pretty obvious to everyone.... this would have been a common sentiment not something earth shaking and fururistic.... and... it is telling because the lack of research in attributing it to lincoln shows that you are not that interested in the research end of it.

lazs

oboe · « **Reply #37 on:** December 29, 2004, 09:32:33 AM »

I think you are railing against the size of the government - which is another issue and one I'm sure I wouldn't disagree with you much on.

What I am saying, and I think is in the spirit of the quote, is that government policies are being influenced by small groups of powerful, wealthy people - and that endangers the Republic. All you have to do to see this is look at any proposed bill before Congress - 1000s of pages of special interest 'tackons' that have nothing to do with the main point of the bill. Look at who got the lion's share of benefit from the Bush tax cut, his energy policy, his prescription drug benefit - and look at who has to pay for it.

Unions are far less influential now than they once were (in the 50s and 60s for example), and I won't argue that there are problems with some of them. What I say about unions is that they were a powerful factor in the creation of the American middle class - and that middle class was a big factor in the political stability and high standard of living the country has enjoyed. The pressures of global competition have seriously weakened organized labor in the U.S. -- unions have been steadily losing membership for decades.

As I say I believe the message of the quote is an essential truth in a capitalist democracy, no matter who the author is.

by the way, I read the snopes article and it turns out Lincoln was a supporter of Labor. And that from a REPUBLICAN no less!

Drunky · « **Reply #38 on:** December 29, 2004, 12:23:51 PM »

Didn't read all the posts but I will add this as a side-note.

Washington warned against cliques (parties). He thought it would tear the country apart.

Aubrey · « **Reply #39 on:** December 29, 2004, 05:00:04 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Lazs, you believe corporations aren't lining the pockets of our politicians?

You should live in DC and work on the hill for a while, you don't even have to give up your hand guns if you get a concealed carry permit.
-SW

The only honest politician is the one that stays bought!

{I stole that, I think from Robert Heinlien}

Gunslinger · « **Reply #40 on:** December 29, 2004, 07:01:06 PM »

This whole argument went on for a couple days and it was snoped!!!!!!!!!!

I'd still like to know why culero thinks lincoln was a war criminal?

lazs2 · « **Reply #41 on:** December 30, 2004, 08:31:21 AM »

so the unions and teachers and NRA and christians aren't being pandered to by the political system because they are weak and impotent compared to.... compared to corporations that everyone/no one owns? this is getting confusing.

Who are these few people who control all the money? "Few" would indicate a short list. What companies do they own majority stock in?

lazs

oboe · « **Reply #42 on:** December 30, 2004, 09:25:02 AM »

Laz, some of the groups you mention are pretty powerful (e.g. the NRA and the 'Christian' right) and have been able to influence policy - isn't the NRA one of the most powerful lobbies on Capitol Hill? And certainly the Christian right is happy to have GWB in office. But, I'm hard pressed to think of any recent beneficial government policies or decisions towards unions or teachers.

I think the crafting of the Bush energy plan is probably the best example of industry influencing government policy. Here are some real quick googled links.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1336960.stm
http://www.sierraclub.org/globalwarming/bush_plan/
http://www.judicialwatch.org/1270.shtml
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0826-02.htm

As far as the few influential people - if you really want names then buy the "Richest Americans" issue of Forbes magazine. (You can immediately cross out any Hollywood or sports stars).

soda72 · « **Reply #43 on:** December 30, 2004, 09:34:56 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by oboe
Laz, some of the groups you mention are pretty powerful (e.g. the NRA and the 'Christian' right) and have been able to influence policy - isn't the NRA one of the most powerful lobbies on Capitol Hill? And certainly the Christian right is happy to have GWB in office. But, I'm hard pressed to think of any recent beneficial government policies or decisions towards unions or teachers.

For every NRA there is an ACLU....

lazs2 · « **Reply #44 on:** December 30, 2004, 02:38:26 PM »

those organizations are not big corporations at all but groups of people with a common goal.

Are you now saying that any organization including corporations that has too much influence is the problem that you were originaly talking about or do you just have a hardon for corporations?

lazs