Ruling class

[medicineman]

Does America even have a ruling class? Well it is pretty hard to get them to admit it, but the answer is a resounding YES.
Who are these people? If you saw them on the street, (they will never be found there), You couldn't tell them from most other well off people. One could name most of them by looking up Multimillionairs and billionaires, but actually, even presidents, elected officials and other governmental employees are sometimes members of the ruling class. Their lifestyle is so far beyond what the average citizen lives, it is criminal. Here is a short list of ruling class presidents:
George Washington (descendant of Edward III of England)
· Thomas Jefferson (descendant of Edward III of England)
· James Madison (descendant of Edward I of England)
· John Quincy Adams (descendant of Edward III of England)
· William Henry Harrison and his grandson, Benjamin Harrison (descendants of Edward I of England)
· Zachary Taylor (descendant of Edward I of England)
· Franklin Pierce (descendant of Henry I of England)
· Rutherford Hayes (descendant of David I of Scotland)
· Grover Cleveland (descendant of Edward I of England)
· Theodore Roosevelt (descendant of Edward III of England)
· William Taft (descendant of Edward I of England)
· Warren Harding (descendant of Ethelred II of England)
· Calvin Coolidge (descendant of Henry II of England)
· Herbert Hoover (descendant of John of England)
· Franklin Roosevelt (descendant of Edward III of England)
· Gerald Ford (descendant of Edward I of England)
· George H.W. Bush and his son, George W. Bush (descendants of Edward I of England and Afonso I of Portugal)

Not only are the ruling class related to royalty, but are related to each other.
As you can see, our founding fathers, that the right praises so much, were really decendants of european royality and really had no connection to the common man. The ruling class founded America to fit their vision, not what would be good for everyone. The bill of rights tried to fix that, but the ruling class still prevailed.
Yes Matilda, there are a few, Maybe a few hundred thousand, people that actually control America, and you or I can not do one goddamn thing about it, voting, yeah right. That vehicle is rigged from the gates. So carry on, knowing that you live in an oligarchic plutochracy, and there ain't nothing you can do to change it.

 

[MexicanWarlord420]

There is some hardcore brainwashing for corporate favoritism in republicans these days.
As seen in these forums

 

[doobnVA]

Oh no some else has a differing opinion than yours! Time to start slinging insults and foaming at the mouth!

LOL Rick is the perfect little elitist zombie. He's against gay marriage, hates poor people, and thinks the ACTUAL elitists give a crap about what happens to him! And they say liberals are "indoctrinated"?! Irony at its absolute finest. It would be even funnier if people like him weren't the ones keeping us from getting anything DONE.

 

[NoDrama]

My family genealogy records indicate that I am a descendant of Elizabeth I on my mothers side, Guess what? I have to work for a living just like the rest of you schmucks. No special privileges given to me Med.

 

[Green Cross]

My family genealogy records indicate that I am a descendant of Elizabeth I on my mothers side, Guess what? I have to work for a living just like the rest of you schmucks. No special privileges given to me Med.

hey me too! That makes us brotha's from different mutha's or something lol

Barack Obama's Royal Roots

Originally posted Monday March 03, 2008 08:55 AM EST
Photo by: HENRY McGEE / GLOBE PHOTOS

Barack Obama has connections in high places – like the British Royal Family.

So says British genealogist Robert Barrett, who traced the Democratic presidential hopeful's roots.

"Obama's mother, Ann, brought to his gene pool a descent from the 17th-century plantation owner Mareen Duvall," he told Britain's Sunday Telegraph. "She is an ancestor of the Duchess of Windsor."

Wallis, Duchess of Windsor, is the only American to have married into the British royal family – Edward VIII abdicated the throne in 1936 to become her spouse. She died in April 1986.

But that's not all, according to the genealogist.

"[Obama] has a rich mixture of European ancestors, including the early medieval kings of England and Scotland, a signatory of the Magna Carta, and, for good measure, an Irish emigrant from County Offaly," he explained.

[youtube]HLaR6BgpJ7E[/youtube]

Oh I'm sorry did you think Obama was black?

 

[NoDrama]

hey me too! That makes us brotha's from different mutha's or something lol


Oh I'm sorry did you think Obama was black?

Watch out! Real soon someones gonna come and call you a Racist!

 

[ilkhan]

Real elites are in banking cartels.
They run the show.
No they don't give a shit about you.
But you damn well better play ball.
or at least not get to upitty about it.

 

[Green Cross]

Watch out! Real soon someones gonna come and call you a Racist!

I'd rather have a real black man in Office instead of this elitist leftist revolutionary with no experience, but the media would never help a regular black dude.

 

[Johnnyorganic]

Democrats represent the richest districts. Blue states are richer than red states. A sizable number of Democrats are extremely wealthy. The Democratic party is the party of elites. Anyone who does not understand that has not been paying attention.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2009/10/14/House-Democrats-represent-rich-districts/UPI-15041255530331/

The poor and downtrodden continue to gravitate to the Democrats which means they must continue talking a good game. But this disparity in the party will not hold indefinitely.

 

[tnrtinr]

Go back far enough and you are related to someone.

 

[PVS]

Democrats represent the richest districts. Blue states are richer than red states. A sizable number of Democrats are extremely wealthy. The Democratic party is the party of elites. Anyone who does not understand that has not been paying attention.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2009/10/14/House-Democrats-represent-rich-districts/UPI-15041255530331/

The poor and downtrodden continue to gravitate to the Democrats which means they must continue talking a good game. But this disparity in the party will not hold indefinitely.

horseshit

"elite" does not mean "higher than the national median income".

 

[Johnnyorganic]

horseshit

"elite" does not mean "higher than the national median income".

What metric do you use to define an elitist?

This ought to be good....

 

[PVS]

What metric do you use to define an elitist?

This ought to be good....

technically 'elite' is a subjective term, but its most commonly used to describe the top 1% of household incomes. that would be multi-millionares and billionares:

from 2005 census:
$100,000 or more (15.73%)
$100,000 to $149,999 9.89%
$150,000 to $199,999 3.17%
$200,000 to $249,999 1.17%
$250,000 and above 1.50%



anyway, read your own "evidence" before trying to insult the intelligence of about 50% of americans.

"Democrats now represent 57 percent of the 4.8 million households that had incomes of $200,000 or more in 2008.
In 2005, Republicans represented 55 percent of those affluent households."

that simply means that roughly 10% of households of $200,000 or more have been swing voters from 2005-2008. how does this make democrats 'elitists'?

figures don't lie but liars figure

 

[GrowRebel]

anyway, read your own "evidence" before trying to insult the intelligence of about 50% of americans.

Democrats now represent 57 percent of the 4.8 million households that had incomes of $200,000 or more in 2008.
In 2005, Republicans represented 55 percent of those affluent households.
figures don't lie but liars figure

Right on ... it's not just the dims ... it's the repukes as well. Both have "elitists" in those parties, both controlled by the same corporate interests. Med and the others are right ... the elite don't give a damn about average Americans and are destroying this country. It is very amusing how the "wantabes" actually believe they are part of that or will be. How delusional is that?

 

[Johnnyorganic]

horseshit

"elite" does not mean "higher than the national median income".

technically 'elite' is a subjective term, but its most commonly used to describe the top 1% of household incomes. that would be multi-millionares and billionares:

from 2005 census:
$100,000 or more (15.73%)
$100,000 to $149,999 9.89%
$150,000 to $199,999 3.17%
$200,000 to $249,999 1.17%
$250,000 and above 1.50%



anyway, read your own "evidence" before trying to insult the intelligence of about 50% of americans.

"Democrats now represent 57 percent of the 4.8 million households that had incomes of $200,000 or more in 2008.
In 2005, Republicans represented 55 percent of those affluent households."

that simply means that roughly 7% of households of $200,000 for more have been swing voters from 2005-2008. how does this make democrats 'elitists'?

figures don't lie but liars figure

Priceless! You contradicted yourself. If 'higher than the national median income' has nothing to do with the definition as you stated previously, your subsequent claim (57% is larger than 55%, by the way) is, as you so eloquently put it, horseshit.

Come one now! Income notwithstanding. You ruled it out already.

What defines elitism?

An Ivy League education?
The number of Houses one owns? If you respond with McCain, I'll respond with Kerry, Boxer, Pelosi, etc.

What is it?

 

[fdd2blk]

...
Yes Matilda, there are a few, Maybe a few hundred thousand, people that actually control America, and you or I can not do one goddamn thing about it, voting, yeah right. That vehicle is rigged from the gates. So carry on, knowing that you live in an oligarchic plutochracy, and there ain't nothing you can do to change it.

So you are a wannabee then, good luck with that. BTW, it is asses like you that keep the elites in power. Although you are brainwashed into the fantasy, you will never achieve ruling class status, unless of course you are related, then you will achieve list status, my list.

somewhat confused.

 

[PVS]

Priceless! You contradicted yourself. If 'higher than the national median income' has nothing to do with the definition as you stated previously, your subsequent claim (based on four-year old data {LOL!}) is, as you so eloquently put it, horseshit.

Come one now! Income notwithstanding. You ruled it out already.

What defines elitism?

An Ivy League education?
The number of Houses one owns? If you respond with McCain, I'll respond with Kerry, Boxer, Pelosi, etc.

What is it?

thats awesome how you ignored the rest of the post. yes fine...i too will pretend that you weren't caught posting lies based on irrelevant figures. it will be our little secret.

anyway, read your own "evidence" before trying to insult the intelligence of about 50% of americans.

"Democrats now represent 57 percent of the 4.8 million households that had incomes of $200,000 or more in 2008.
In 2005, Republicans represented 55 percent of those affluent households."

that simply means that roughly 10% of households of $200,000 or more have been swing voters from 2005-2008. how does this make democrats 'elitists'?

figures don't lie but liars figure

those are the most recently available census figures, so i dont understand what your lol'ing about. if you wish to provide countering evidence via more recent census figures, i'll be looking forward to eating some humble pie. or you can just continue with your petty asinine tirade.
http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032007/hhinc/new06_000.htm

and YES its about income. what the hell else would it be about? the topic here is ruling/elite class. incomes of 250,000 hardly account for a ruling class.

 

[Johnnyorganic]

thats awesome how you ignored the rest of the post. yes fine...i too will pretend that you weren't caught posting lies based on irrelevant figures. it will be our little secret.

After you contradicted yourself on the income question, there was no reason to discuss it further. At that point in the discussion income was not considered relevant to elite status, according to you.

No need to pretend, please explain what "lies" I posted based on "irrelevant figures." Remember now, you simply stating it does not make it so.

those are the most recently available census figures, so i dont understand what your lol'ing about. if you wish to provide countering evidence via more recent census figures, i'll be looking forward to eating some humble pie. or you can just continue with your petty asinine tirade.
http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032007/hhinc/new06_000.htm

and YES its about income. what the hell else would it be about? the topic here is ruling/elite class. incomes of 250,000 hardly account for a ruling class.

I simply asked for your opinion on what constituted elite, an opinion you are not clear on yourself. Which as far as I can tell, boils down to this: "Elitism is not correlated to income, except when it is." Fucking brilliant.

Your multiple and petty attempts at insult make me LOL! Each one explains so much about the validity you place on your own 'arguments.'

 

[Illegal Smile]

Soon the elite will be anyone who pays taxes. That is the democrat goal - a voting majority who pays no tax but who can levy whatever tax it wants on the productive minority.

 

[PVS]

After you contradicted yourself on the income question, there was no reason to discuss it further. At that point in the discussion income was not considered relevant to elite status, according to you.

No need to pretend, please explain what "lies" I posted based on "irrelevant figures." Remember now, you simply stating it does not make it so.

I simply asked for your opinion on what constituted elite, an opinion you are not clear on yourself. Which as far as I can tell, boils down to this: "Elitism is not correlated to income, except when it is." Fucking brilliant.

Your multiple and petty attempts at insult make me LOL! Each one explains so much about the validity you place on your own 'arguments.'

ok so you're just going to take the cowardly route and not address your little lie? you could have simply admitted error in judgement in posting it...but thats ok. go on posting your 'lol's and smilies. that will make you correct.

i addressed your accusation once as i shall again: the generally accepted elite/ruling/controlling/economical-ass-rapers-of-common-folk-like-you-and-i/etc are those making far beyond 250,000 household income. unless you feel that the difference between a 250,000 and 250,000,000 income is nothing to sneeze at. a doctor/lawyer married couple can easlily make 250,000 a year. an elite banking executive can easily make 250,000 as a monthly bonus...and feel cheated.

and here's the kicker: i never said that it wasn't an issue of income. i said "national median income". totally different things, which should be obvious to anyone with a rudimentary grasp of the english language. but you keep pushing your lies, misquotes, and distorting libel. whatever helps you win that internet!