Historic record will cite that the greatest movements for change were not brought on by unintelligent, vulgar hate-speak. Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., Fredrick Douglas and any other true catalyst for change appealed to the masses through smart argument. Selfish exploits of lawyers, businessmen and journalists have brought change to civil rights, economic competition and civil rights, respectively. Remember, you are a man (or a few men) taking on a corporation. This is a tough fight, it needs to be handled appropriately.
Trust me; I do not live the life of luxury that you allude to. However, that doesn?t matter. FDR grew up in one of the most powerful and wealthy families in America. As an adult, the aristocrat became the hero of the small men, founder of the welfare movement. He is not alone; the Kennedy dynasty has fought for the liberal movement since its existence. Today, John Kerry looks to change the radically conservative direction America is going. These aristocrats care about the common person. There is no reason to hate a social class.
Your position of taking the small man fight ?out of the box? is not revolutionary. Your argument of making CEDU uncomfortable in their seats is very socialist and very flawed. However, you may be a socialist (that?s OK), but any socialist will note the tragedy of introducing a radical idea into an unaccepting, possibly corrupt (by socialist thought) system. No matter if you are socialist or not, this is a direct metaphor for your situation. The disgruntled CEDU population is a fraction of the small percentage of the small fraction of people that know about CEDU to begin with. How are they going to change the system with your misdirected argument at the helm? How will you rally your constituents with such a radical philosophy? You can make a difference, you can change the system, do it right!
As a side note, when you wrote that you wanted to make CEDU uncomfortable in their seats is exactly the same philosophy that Iraqi terrorists utilize in acts of terrorism within their country. This is not a good example, because you may not agree with the war and agree with the Iraqi terrorists. There are too many factors to discuss this topic as well. Just remember, these attacks have not differed American involvement in their country, or the formation of their government and constitution. This same thought process of making them uncomfortable in their seats is taken by the ineffective attacks on Israel by suicide bombers of the Palestinian State. I note that these arguments (Iraq, Israel) are flawed because of personal belief, please do not make future postings regarding these comments. They are just food for thought; I know you probably do not agree.
If you are the spokesman for this movement, it is doomed. I think you are forgetting that I am not on CEDU?s side. I advocate that those of you who are willing to fight the war against CEDU take an active and smart position.
I would like to add, that I am enjoying this debate. However, if thread is just another thorn in your side, let me know- I'll stop. No matter what, everyone is entitled to an opinion. Even if I disagree with your methods, I do not want to take up your time especially when it could be valuable to your cause.
A former congressman came to talk to my government class today. He was the only person in history to win an election against George W. Bush back in 78, their opinions were so different that one would infer a hatred between the two. He explained that candidates that take two different sides of a issue can be civil. Today, besides lobbying for many liberal causes, he sits on Bush?s board of finance. We don?t even have a different opinion. You choose to be active, I do not. You have one set of ideas how to handle this issue, I have another. That is our debate. Please keep any further correspondence to attacks on my ideas and not on my character.
