|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 7,082 Likes: 30
Society's Discontent 6000+ posts
|
|
Society's Discontent 6000+ posts
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 7,082 Likes: 30 |
Last edited by iggy; 2011-10-19 6:44 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 7,082 Likes: 30
Society's Discontent 6000+ posts
|
|
Society's Discontent 6000+ posts
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 7,082 Likes: 30 |
Last edited by iggy; 2011-10-19 6:44 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 7,082 Likes: 30
Society's Discontent 6000+ posts
|
|
Society's Discontent 6000+ posts
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 7,082 Likes: 30 |
Will it fit in one post?
Okay, Wondy wants a response to my siding with hippies so here it goes...this may not all post at once so be prepared to read it in parts...
I share much of the same anger about the state of things that the Occupy (Insert Name Here) people do. I don't share the same solutions. But, I do agree with them about the problem. Contrary to what you seem to believe, we do not have a free market system. We have a crony capitalist system that benefits the few and is detrimental to the many. It's a plutocratic kleptocracy that is being abetted by both sides of our supposed two party system. It isn't. It hasn't been for, at least, the past twenty years. What we have now is akin to Soviet Russia but with the illusion of choice: Wall Street Red or Wall Street Blue. It's a sham. Look at the donations! The biggest change from one election year to the next is the way corporate money moves. The CEO's might have their political preferences, but most--if not all of them--don't take those into account when they start passing out the cash. It is a simple matter of reading the political headwinds and donating to the person they believe will give them the best bang for their buck. And, hey, you read the headwinds wrong and throw a fundraiser for the wrong guy? No problem, just send a few lobbyists.
I already posted the article that pointed out the myth of TARP being paid off, but that is really just the tip of the iceberg. The stimulus and all its 800 something billion dollars is nothing. Look at the part of the iceberg that is underwater and one number screams at you: SIXTEEN TRILLION! What's that number? It's the number of dollars that we handed out like bailout candy in three years (2007-2010). According the the debt clock, sixteen trillion is enough to pay off our entire debt, the stimulus, and still have about 150 billion with which to do...whatever. Why are we arguing over the debt ceiling and cuts when the Fed could've paid off the entire debt in three years?!? Because, I'm sure they'd say, it is none of our business, wasn't meant to be our business, and was meant to do anything for you, me, or main street. We'd have never known about it had it not been for Ron Paul. I'll get back to him later.
My whole point here is that all of those people on Wall Street and around the country have valid reasons to be pissed off. Do I agree with all of their solutions? Not really. Do I think large numbers of them have no fucking clue what they are talking about? Yes. Does that mean I should just dismiss them as a bunch of bongo bashers? No. It means that I should engage them on the issues. We should be doing all we can to teach them that this isn't a free market economy. But, they shouldn't be belittled for not understanding that because it is the propagators of this system on both sides that have taught them that this is capitalism. Simply put, we should engage and enlighten rather than belittle and dismiss.
The best person, IMO, for this job is Ron Paul. Over the past thirty years, he has been the most consistent in his beliefs and the most vocal on the issues of liberty, economy, and social mobility. Most of the other candidates don't really want or look towards doing the need changes to the foundation of our economy that need to be done. They'd all be more than happy to just ride the next bubble like Dubya did with the housing market. In fact, save Sarbanes-Oxley, most of their economic agendas are just to undo the past three years and talk about how the glory days of the Bush administration are here again. And, hey, anything they say now that might be more extreme than that doesn't count because they'll shift more to the center after getting the nomination...right? Despite their rhetoric, they all come across as rehashed Keynesians (just, maybe, with a little k). One of my few exceptions to this, oddly, is Newt. The problem is that I don't think Newt holds serious aspirations for being the GOP nominee or president. He's just looking for a seat at the table and doing what he can to instill a little more substance into a field that--generally--sound like they all received the same list of Luntz talking points. Some may be able to do it a little more smoothly to the point of sounding to smooth by half (Romney) while others do it so badly that vapid isn't even a strong enough word to describe it (Bachmann).
Paul, along with other Austrian School economists, have called the bubbles and the bursts again and again. And, they have pointed out continuously the irrationality of trying to prop up the roof when the floor is caving in. You can't just say cut taxes and regulations then everything will be okay. And, none of the other GOP candidates really want or are up to the challenge of instituting the reforms that this country really needs. They are just up to not being as bad as Obama.
Let's face it, the only reason the media covers Paul when they do is because they can't just ignore him this time. This isn't to say they won't try just that it can't be done so easily this time. They can't ignore that he called the housing bubble in '01. They can't ignore that he has breathed new life into the, supposedly, eviscerated and dead Libertarian/Goldwater wing of the Republican party. He's here. We're here. And, we're Austrians!
As for my dismissal of the Tea Party as of late, I feel a large portion has been duped and co-opted (much like a lot of the pinheads that, admittedly, do reside in Zucotti Park right now). They've been so blinded by anti-Obama zealotry that they run like madmen to whomever they can convince themselves is the Tea Party messiah at the time (see; Bachmann, Perry and Cain). I'd almost feel sorry for them if it wasn't so pathetically laughable.
And, honestly, I can see some similarities between them and what is happening in the OWC movement. Those that talk of Obama standing up and, apparently unbeknownst to them, bite the hand that feeds him is fucking hilarious. Still, for every knucklehead out there screaming about death to capitalism or whatever, there are still a lot of people in the movement that don't ascribe to that philosophy (or, any philosophy other than rightful anger) that can be engaged and enlightened.
But, hey, you want it to be nothing more than "leftist rabble" and Soros goons then feel free to belittle, denigrate, and dismiss. But, bear in mind, you are taking the risk of alienating an entire generation and losing them to those same communazis you rant and rave about every day.
The demographics are clear. The GOP is getting a lot greyer than the Dems are. And, by an unwillingness to engage the youth of this country in a meaningful way in this time of crisis, you and others like you are setting yourselves up for political extinction. Good luck with that.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 7,082 Likes: 30
Society's Discontent 6000+ posts
|
|
Society's Discontent 6000+ posts
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 7,082 Likes: 30 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3
Regenerated 15000+ posts
|
|
Regenerated 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3 |
Is it, or is it not a fact: This fat Bellvue-patient psycho, is unquestionably looney-tunes in the first segment.
And then is interviewed later in the O'Reilly segment by Jesse Waters and actually seems normal and lucid.
She's a perfect poster person for these demonstrations. Mentally deranged, high on drugs, fed soundbyted liberal propaganda by her puppeteers to sound halfway plausible and intelligent. But she's still clearly a very disturbed Bellevue patient, who is out canvassing for the cause to qualify for her meds. 20,000+ protestors in New York, alone. Over 80 cities in the US, Occupied. Over 1000+ cities global, Occupied. One crazy woman showing her tits off and pissing off FAUXNews. Yep, that's a real game changer, right there.  
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3
Regenerated 15000+ posts
|
|
Regenerated 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3
Regenerated 15000+ posts
|
|
Regenerated 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 7,082 Likes: 30
Society's Discontent 6000+ posts
|
|
Society's Discontent 6000+ posts
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 7,082 Likes: 30 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,305
kung-fu treachery 5000+ posts
|
|
kung-fu treachery 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,305 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3
Regenerated 15000+ posts
|
|
Regenerated 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 7,082 Likes: 30
Society's Discontent 6000+ posts
|
|
Society's Discontent 6000+ posts
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 7,082 Likes: 30 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
Here's a liberal media NEW YORKER MAGAZINE attempt to quantify what the Wall Street protestors know (or don't) about their own cause. http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/10/occupy_wall_street_quiz.htmlBasically, they don't know anything about what they are protesting: 84% never heard of the Dodd-Frank act. Only 38% know Bernanke is chairman of the Federal Reserve. 68% don't know what the SEC is. 94% thought the greatest Federal expenditure is defense. It is, of course, entitlements.
- from Do Racists have lower IQ's...
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
POLLING THE OCCUPY WALL STREET CROWD:
In interviews, protesters show that they are leftists out of step with most American voters. Yet Democrats are embracing them anyway.By DOUGLAS SCHOEN  President Obama and the Democratic leadership are making a critical error in embracing the Occupy Wall Street movement—and it may cost them the 2012 election. Last week, senior White House adviser David Plouffe said that "the protests you're seeing are the same conversations people are having in living rooms and kitchens all across America. . . . People are frustrated by an economy that does not reward hard work and responsibility, where Wall Street and Main Street don't seem to play by the same set of rules." Nancy Pelosi and others have echoed the message. Yet the Occupy Wall Street movement reflects values that are dangerously out of touch with the broad mass of the American people—and particularly with swing voters who are largely independent and have been trending away from the president since the debate over health-care reform. The protesters have a distinct ideology and are bound by a deep commitment to radical left-wing policies. On Oct. 10 and 11, Arielle Alter Confino, a senior researcher at my polling firm, interviewed nearly 200 protesters in New York's Zuccotti Park. Our findings probably represent the first systematic random sample of Occupy Wall Street opinion. Our research shows clearly that the movement doesn't represent unemployed America and is not ideologically diverse. Rather, it comprises an unrepresentative segment of the electorate that believes in radical redistribution of wealth, civil disobedience and, in some instances, violence. Half (52%) have participated in a political movement before, virtually all (98%) say they would support civil disobedience to achieve their goals, and nearly one-third (31%) would support violence to advance their agenda. The vast majority of demonstrators are actually employed, and the proportion of protesters unemployed (15%) is within single digits of the national unemployment rate (9.1%). An overwhelming majority of demonstrators supported Barack Obama in 2008. Now 51% disapprove of the president while 44% approve, and only 48% say they will vote to re-elect him in 2012, while at least a quarter won't vote. Fewer than one in three (32%) call themselves Democrats, while roughly the same proportion (33%) say they aren't represented by any political party. What binds a large majority of the protesters together—regardless of age, socioeconomic status or education—is a deep commitment to left-wing policies: opposition to free-market capitalism and support for radical redistribution of wealth, intense regulation of the private sector, and protectionist policies to keep American jobs from going overseas. Sixty-five percent say that government has a moral responsibility to guarantee all citizens access to affordable health care, a college education, and a secure retirement—no matter the cost. By a large margin (77%-22%), they support raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans, but 58% oppose raising taxes for everybody, with only 36% in favor. And by a close margin, protesters are divided on whether the bank bailouts were necessary (49%) or unnecessary (51%). Thus Occupy Wall Street is a group of engaged progressives who are disillusioned with the capitalist system and have a distinct activist orientation. Among the general public, by contrast, 41% of Americans self-identify as conservative, 36% as moderate, and only 21% as liberal. That's why the Obama-Pelosi embrace of the movement could prove catastrophic for their party. In 1970, aligning too closely with the antiwar movement hurt Democrats in the midterm election, when many middle-class and working-class Americans ended up supporting hawkish candidates who condemned student disruptions. While that 1970 election should have been a sweep against the first-term Nixon administration, it was instead one of only four midterm elections since 1938 when the president's party didn't lose seats. With the Democratic Party on the defensive throughout the 1970 campaign, liberal Democrats were only able to win on Election Day by distancing themselves from the student protest movement. So Adlai Stevenson III pinned an American flag to his lapel, appointed Chicago Seven prosecutor Thomas Foran chairman of his Citizen's Committee, and emphasized "law and order"—a tactic then employed by Ted Kennedy, who denounced the student protesters as "campus commandos" who must be repudiated, "especially by those who may share their goals." Today, having abandoned any effort to work with the congressional super committee to craft a bipartisan agreement on deficit reduction, President Obama has thrown in with those who support his desire to tax oil companies and the rich, rather than appeal to independent and self-described moderate swing voters who want smaller government and lower taxes, not additional stimulus or interference in the private sector. Rather than embracing huge new spending programs and tax increases, plus increasingly radical and potentially violent activists, the Democrats should instead build a bridge to the much more numerous independents and moderates in the center by opposing bailouts and broad-based tax increases. Put simply, Democrats need to say they are with voters in the middle who want cooperation, conciliation and lower taxes. And they should work particularly hard to contrast their rhetoric with the extremes advocated by the Occupy Wall Street crowd. _______________________________________________ Mr. Schoen, who served as a pollster for President Bill Clinton, is author of "Hopelessly Divided: The New Crisis in American Politics and What It Means for 2012 and Beyond," forthcoming from Rowman and Littlefield.Not just my opinion. In two different polls, the polled protestors --informed or not-- may have a smattering of other ideologies, but the major thrust of it is a hard-left socialist/liberal crowd, to the far left of the majority of Americans. As contrasted with the Tea Party ( as polled by Gallup) which are representative of the demographics and values of the rest of America. Note how the media labelled the Tea Party as an "all-white"/"white-racist" event (despite that the Tea Party demographics are 6% black and 15% hispanic), and yet despite the virtual non-existence of black protestors, the media didn't label the Occupy Wall Street protestors the same way.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
Fact, not deflection.
You deflected that Obama was protected by media propaganda, and McCain was slandered by the same media. Obama narrowly won, and I believe that was because of unprecedented partisanship by the liberal media. That's false. Prove it.  You also have been trolling and cheerleading Pro's infantile antics. Seriously, show me one post where I absolve Obama of being a corporatist wanker. I'll wait. You seem to be arguing for Obama's re-election, with a dismissive rejection of Romney. But you mentioned Republicans of interest for you as Ron Paul, Gingrich, and Roemer. But my impression is you'll ultimately pull the lever for Obama and label the Republican candidate as a corporate whore. (a la Prometheus) In other words, you can't prove it, because it's not true. You just wish it were, so it might give you some sympathy over your butthurt attitude. Once again, reality proving you wrong, David. At what age did you set up your highly compacted cognitive dissidence? The reality is, Obama  That's another DNC talking point, not reality. Good old Dave. Deciding what is and isn't "reality". Romney, unlike Obama, is not in favor of a strong socialist central government. Prove Obama is. Oh, you can't. Unlike Obama, does not favor crony capitalism that would use corporations to advance an ideological socialist experiment. Prove it. Oh, you can't. (as I sourced from Tim Carney's book OBAMANOMICS "That's another RNC talking point, not reality." Spin Right. Despite your condescending dismissiveness, Obama is unprecedented in his damage to the country, and three years later, it still isn't even being reported! LMAO!!! BECAUSE IT'S NOT TRUE YOU FUCKING MORON! Jesus fucking Christ, David. If you think Obama's shitty, do-nothing Presidency has done "unprecedented damage" to this country, you must have had your entire hands inside your ears the eight-years Bush and the Extremist Right pissed on the Constitution and instituted a Corporate Police State, dictated by the Military-Industrial Complex. You perpetually amaze me at the level of ignorance and cowardice you're willing to sink to defend criminal billionaire strangers. That's just fucking crazy on your part, dude. Holy shit.  Republicans are just as bad? Prove it.  Done. Again: we have a choice in Nov 2012, most likely between Obama and Romney. It's called freedom of choice, David. Simply vote for Ron Paul, or do a Glenn Beck write-in vote. OF COURSE there's a choice, man. This is America. Stand up and make your choice based on what YOU want, not what your party allegiance wants. Seriously. despite that the co-opted Occupy Wall Street movement is funded by Soros, SEIU, UAW, MoveOn and so forth. Fiction. Prove it or stop lying.  Other than your support for a bunch of unwashed neo-hippie rabble in the streets who talk about --in no uncertain terms-- intimidating if not violently rioting to take stuff from people who worked for what they have. You are a fucking pawn of the Corporate Government. Congrats on literally regurgitating exactly what the Extremist Right has told you to say and believe. It's like watching a textbook deconstruction of the quintessential Bernays Model "media puppet", simply salivating whenever the bell is rung...
- from Do Racists have lower IQ's...
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 7,082 Likes: 30
Society's Discontent 6000+ posts
|
|
Society's Discontent 6000+ posts
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 7,082 Likes: 30 |
I share much of the same anger about the state of things that the Occupy (Insert Name Here) people do. I don't share the same solutions. But, I do agree with them about the problem. Contrary to what you seem to believe, we do not have a free market system. We have a crony capitalist system that benefits the few and is detrimental to the many. It's a plutocratic kleptocracy that is being abetted by both sides of our supposed two party system. It isn't. It hasn't been for, at least, the past twenty years. What we have now is akin to Soviet Russia but with the illusion of choice: Wall Street Red or Wall Street Blue. It's a sham. Look at the donations! The biggest change from one election year to the next is the way corporate money moves. The CEO's might have their political preferences, but most--if not all of them--don't take those into account when they start passing out the cash. It is a simple matter of reading the political headwinds and donating to the person they believe will give them the best bang for their buck. And, hey, you read the headwinds wrong and throw a fundraiser for the wrong guy? No problem, just send a few lobbyists.
I already posted the article that pointed out the myth of TARP being paid off, but that is really just the tip of the iceberg. The stimulus and all its 800 something billion dollars is nothing. Look at the part of the iceberg that is underwater and one number screams at you: SIXTEEN TRILLION! What's that number? It's the number of dollars that we handed out like bailout candy in three years (2007-2010). According the the debt clock, sixteen trillion is enough to pay off our entire debt, the stimulus, and still have about 150 billion with which to do...whatever. Why are we arguing over the debt ceiling and cuts when the Fed could've paid off the entire debt in three years?!? Because, I'm sure they'd say, it is none of our business, wasn't meant to be our business, and was meant to do anything for you, me, or main street. We'd have never known about it had it not been for Ron Paul. I'll get back to him later.
My whole point here is that all of those people on Wall Street and around the country have valid reasons to be pissed off. Do I agree with all of their solutions? Not really. Do I think large numbers of them have no fucking clue what they are talking about? Yes. Does that mean I should just dismiss them as a bunch of bongo bashers? No. It means that I should engage them on the issues. We should be doing all we can to teach them that this isn't a free market economy. But, they shouldn't be belittled for not understanding that because it is the propagators of this system on both sides that have taught them that this is capitalism. Simply put, we should engage and enlighten rather than belittle and dismiss.
The best person, IMO, for this job is Ron Paul. Over the past thirty years, he has been the most consistent in his beliefs and the most vocal on the issues of liberty, economy, and social mobility. Most of the other candidates don't really want or look towards doing the need changes to the foundation of our economy that need to be done. They'd all be more than happy to just ride the next bubble like Dubya did with the housing market. In fact, save Sarbanes-Oxley, most of their economic agendas are just to undo the past three years and talk about how the glory days of the Bush administration are here again. And, hey, anything they say now that might be more extreme than that doesn't count because they'll shift more to the center after getting the nomination...right? Despite their rhetoric, they all come across as rehashed Keynesians (just, maybe, with a little k). One of my few exceptions to this, oddly, is Newt. The problem is that I don't think Newt holds serious aspirations for being the GOP nominee or president. He's just looking for a seat at the table and doing what he can to instill a little more substance into a field that--generally--sound like they all received the same list of Luntz talking points. Some may be able to do it a little more smoothly to the point of sounding to smooth by half (Romney) while others do it so badly that vapid isn't even a strong enough word to describe it (Bachmann).
Paul, along with other Austrian School economists, have called the bubbles and the bursts again and again. And, they have pointed out continuously the irrationality of trying to prop up the roof when the floor is caving in. You can't just say cut taxes and regulations then everything will be okay. And, none of the other GOP candidates really want or are up to the challenge of instituting the reforms that this country really needs. They are just up to not being as bad as Obama.
Let's face it, the only reason the media covers Paul when they do is because they can't just ignore him this time. This isn't to say they won't try just that it can't be done so easily this time. They can't ignore that he called the housing bubble in '01. They can't ignore that he has breathed new life into the, supposedly, eviscerated and dead Libertarian/Goldwater wing of the Republican party. He's here. We're here. And, we're Austrians!
As for my dismissal of the Tea Party as of late, I feel a large portion has been duped and co-opted (much like a lot of the pinheads that, admittedly, do reside in Zucotti Park right now). They've been so blinded by anti-Obama zealotry that they run like madmen to whomever they can convince themselves is the Tea Party messiah at the time (see; Bachmann, Perry and Cain). I'd almost feel sorry for them if it wasn't so pathetically laughable.
And, honestly, I can see some similarities between them and what is happening in the OWC movement. Those that talk of Obama standing up and, apparently unbeknownst to them, bite the hand that feeds him is fucking hilarious. Still, for every knucklehead out there screaming about death to capitalism or whatever, there are still a lot of people in the movement that don't ascribe to that philosophy (or, any philosophy other than rightful anger) that can be engaged and enlightened.
But, hey, you want it to be nothing more than "leftist rabble" and Soros goons then feel free to belittle, denigrate, and dismiss. But, bear in mind, you are taking the risk of alienating an entire generation and losing them to those same communazis you rant and rave about every day.
The demographics are clear. The GOP is getting a lot greyer than the Dems are. And, by an unwillingness to engage the youth of this country in a meaningful way in this time of crisis, you and others like you are setting yourselves up for political extinction. Good luck with that.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3
Regenerated 15000+ posts
|
|
Regenerated 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3 |
I AM NOT PAYING ATTENTION TO PROMETHEUS! I WILL ONLY REFERENCE HIM OVER AND OVER BUT I CANNOT HANDLE HIM IN A DEBATE! LIBERALMARXISMMEDIA!! 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3
Regenerated 15000+ posts
|
|
Regenerated 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3 |
 No bias!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3
Regenerated 15000+ posts
|
|
Regenerated 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3 |
Fact, not deflection.
You deflected that Obama was protected by media propaganda, and McCain was slandered by the same media. Obama narrowly won, and I believe that was because of unprecedented partisanship by the liberal media. That's false. Prove it. You also have been trolling and cheerleading Pro's infantile antics. Seriously, show me one post where I absolve Obama of being a corporatist wanker. I'll wait. You seem to be arguing for Obama's re-election, with a dismissive rejection of Romney. But you mentioned Republicans of interest for you as Ron Paul, Gingrich, and Roemer. But my impression is you'll ultimately pull the lever for Obama and label the Republican candidate as a corporate whore. (a la Prometheus) In other words, you can't prove it, because it's not true. You just wish it were, so it might give you some sympathy over your butthurt attitude. Once again, reality proving you wrong, David. At what age did you set up your highly compacted cognitive dissidence? The reality is, Obama That's another DNC talking point, not reality. Good old Dave. Deciding what is and isn't "reality". Romney, unlike Obama, is not in favor of a strong socialist central government. Prove Obama is. Oh, you can't. Unlike Obama, does not favor crony capitalism that would use corporations to advance an ideological socialist experiment. Prove it. Oh, you can't. (as I sourced from Tim Carney's book OBAMANOMICS "That's another RNC talking point, not reality." Spin Right. Despite your condescending dismissiveness, Obama is unprecedented in his damage to the country, and three years later, it still isn't even being reported! LMAO!!! BECAUSE IT'S NOT TRUE YOU FUCKING MORON! Jesus fucking Christ, David. If you think Obama's shitty, do-nothing Presidency has done "unprecedented damage" to this country, you must have had your entire hands inside your ears the eight-years Bush and the Extremist Right pissed on the Constitution and instituted a Corporate Police State, dictated by the Military-Industrial Complex. You perpetually amaze me at the level of ignorance and cowardice you're willing to sink to defend criminal billionaire strangers. That's just fucking crazy on your part, dude. Holy shit. Republicans are just as bad? Prove it. Done. Again: we have a choice in Nov 2012, most likely between Obama and Romney. It's called freedom of choice, David. Simply vote for Ron Paul, or do a Glenn Beck write-in vote. OF COURSE there's a choice, man. This is America. Stand up and make your choice based on what YOU want, not what your party allegiance wants. Seriously. despite that the co-opted Occupy Wall Street movement is funded by Soros, SEIU, UAW, MoveOn and so forth. Fiction. Prove it or stop lying. Other than your support for a bunch of unwashed neo-hippie rabble in the streets who talk about --in no uncertain terms-- intimidating if not violently rioting to take stuff from people who worked for what they have. You are a fucking pawn of the Corporate Government. Congrats on literally regurgitating exactly what the Extremist Right has told you to say and believe. It's like watching a textbook deconstruction of the quintessential Bernays Model "media puppet", simply salivating whenever the bell is rung...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3
Regenerated 15000+ posts
|
|
Regenerated 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3 |
Poor David. When he can't refute facts or reality, he just tries to ignore anyone showing him the truth. Sad.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
|
|
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593 |
No bias! I've seen this pic and discussed it with several people. Three very good points were made. - 1. Using the phrase 'weaponized tear gas' is like using the term 'edible apple pie'. It's used here as a way to try and escalate the feeling of oppression against those pure hearted, sinfree protestors. That is unless there's some domestic/commercial use for tear gas that I'm totally unaware of.
2. The picture is further proof that an armed public is a true defense against an oppressive state.
3. The guys with guns are sitting in a park somewhere. The guys without guns are in the middle of a city street. Without context, I can assume that the guys in the park are just chilling while the guys in the street are being disruptive and hostile.
But as Pro pointed out with his humor, this is strictly a biased photoshop by someone pushing their own agenda and not allowing the context of either photograph be known.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet." Our Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man said: "no, the doctor's right. besides, he has seniority."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3
Regenerated 15000+ posts
|
|
Regenerated 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3 |
- 1. Using the phrase 'weaponized tear gas' is like using the term 'edible apple pie'. It's used here as a way to try and escalate the feeling of oppression against those pure hearted, sinfree protestors. That is unless there's some domestic/commercial use for tear gas that I'm totally unaware of.
Which doesn't negate the weaponized use of it. Tear gas and weaponized tear gas are the exact same thing, and therefore the exact same crime/abuse of power. 2. The picture is further proof that an armed public is a true defense against an oppressive state. I'm going to take that as a joke, since it's not an actual point. 3. The guys with guns are sitting in a park somewhere. The guys without guns are in the middle of a city street. Without context, I can assume that the guys in the park are just chilling while the guys in the street are being disruptive and hostile.
Says who? You? The "people" you "discussed" this with? The facts, no matter how anyone tried to "perceive" it, are still the exact same before "excused": UNARMED America citizens, protesting peacefully versus a group of gun-toting, hateful thugs who base their hostility on partisan politics. The injustice still remains, no matter how you try and slice it to make your preferred "side" look "better".
Or, we could be totally fair, and recognize both parties to be of the same temperament and morality. If that's the case, then the biased "justice" is still against The Occupy movement, as no one has beaten unarmed Tea Party protestors. However, not even taking the Police abuse into account, I can already remember an event where a Tea Party mob beat a woman up for protesting against their politics. But, hey, we'll just leave that out of the consideration for now. Just to be fair and give the apologists a fighting chance to try and denounce The Occupy movement in some brand new fictional fashion of grasping at straws.
Total bias against Occupy. It's all there, as a fact. Not an opinion.
[quote]But as Pro pointed out with his humor, this is strictly a biased photoshop The only "photoshop" in this pic is the joining of two images together and adding words. Kind of like "weaponized tear gas", right? by someone pushing their own agenda and not allowing the context of either photograph be known. Yeah, because the context isn't readily available from the very fact of its existence, is it? It's not like they showed both sides in "fairy tale warmth and innocence" nor did they show the Tea Party with their normal racist signs and the Occupy hippies praying, or something. They showed a picture from a Tea Party Rally and a picture from The Occupy Protest. Nothing is in dispute about either...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
|
|
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593 |
- 1. Using the phrase 'weaponized tear gas' is like using the term 'edible apple pie'. It's used here as a way to try and escalate the feeling of oppression against those pure hearted, sinfree protestors. That is unless there's some domestic/commercial use for tear gas that I'm totally unaware of.
Which doesn't negate the weaponized use of it. Tear gas and weaponized tear gas are the exact same thing, and therefore the exact same crime/abuse of power. Is it a crime/abuse of power simply to use it? Also, I haven't heard a single claim of NYPD using tear gas. Again, as I originally pointed out, it's an attempt to escalate the sense of victimization for the protestors. 2. The picture is further proof that an armed public is a true defense against an oppressive state. I'm going to take that as a joke, since it's not an actual point. It is both. 3. The guys with guns are sitting in a park somewhere. The guys without guns are in the middle of a city street. Without context, I can assume that the guys in the park are just chilling while the guys in the street are being disruptive and hostile. Says who? You? The "people" you "discussed" this with? The facts, no matter how anyone tried to "perceive" it, are still the exact same before "excused": UNARMED America citizens, protesting peacefully versus a group of gun-toting, hateful thugs who base their hostility on partisan politics. The injustice still remains, no matter how you try and slice it to make your preferred "side" look "better". Or, we could be totally fair, and recognize both parties to be of the same temperament and morality. If that's the case, then the biased "justice" is still against The Occupy movement, as no one has beaten unarmed Tea Party protestors. However, not even taking the Police abuse into account, I can already remember an event where a Tea Party mob beat a woman up for protesting against their politics. But, hey, we'll just leave that out of the consideration for now. Just to be fair and give the apologists a fighting chance to try and denounce The Occupy movement in some brand new fictional fashion of grasping at straws. Total bias against Occupy. It's all there, as a fact. Not an opinion. I've never said that the OWS people are in the wrong for what they're doing. I just question the messenger and the message of this picture. There is bias in it as well. For the OWS protestors. Against the Tea Party. Against the NYPD and government as a whole. There are peaceful protestors there. There are also unpeaceful protestors who've attacked police. And, yes, I'll admit that police have attacked beyond reasonable force many protestors. Tempers are flaring on both sides. Neither is saintly. But as Pro pointed out with his humor, this is strictly a biased photoshop The only "photoshop" in this pic is the joining of two images together and adding words. Kind of like "weaponized tear gas", right? by someone pushing their own agenda and not allowing the context of either photograph be known. Yeah, because the context isn't readily available from the very fact of its existence, is it? It's not like they showed both sides in "fairy tale warmth and innocence" nor did they show the Tea Party with their normal racist signs and the Occupy hippies praying, or something. They showed a picture from a Tea Party Rally and a picture from The Occupy Protest. Nothing is in dispute about either... Yes, Pro. Tea Partiers all carry around racist signs all the time. This is a Wonder Boy level response from you. You can't tell me that the guy being carried away by the police in the photo is being oppressed. I can't tell you that he committed an illegal act that perpetrated him being carried away by officers for a 100% legitimate arrest. Nor can you say with any certainty that no one was arrested at the Tea Party rally or that there were no cops there at all. Both photos lack their true context. The maker of the combined pic creates his own. It's called 'propaganda'. Neither of us knows the truth about it, so stop pretending you do.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet." Our Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man said: "no, the doctor's right. besides, he has seniority."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3
Regenerated 15000+ posts
|
|
Regenerated 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3
Regenerated 15000+ posts
|
|
Regenerated 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3 |
it's an attempt to escalate the sense of victimization for the protestors. No, it's indisputably a clear fact. Spinning it however you want it to mean doesn't change the reality of its existence. They are armed with "weaponized" tear gas. Nothing changes that. Neither of us knows the truth about it, so stop pretending you do. I know enough from what I've seen, read, and witnessed on the bazillion videos out there over the past month. Which is a lot more than many (if not all) the Rightwingers here have done. You pretend to be objective about that picture, and yet automatically assume it's "propaganda". Unfortunately, this is the way it looks. This is fact, not fiction. Reality, not propaganda. The Occupy movement is under attack from the entire establishment because money is power, and those in power have all the money. Believe what you like. It doesn't change the truth. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
|
|
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593 |
- prop·a·gan·da
noun
1. information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.
So, yeah, it is propaganda. Once again, I admit that there have been overreaching by the part of the police; but there has been by some protestors as well. I have no idea why the police are carrying off that guy. Neither do you. I don't mind information. I don't like propaganda used to try and belittle one group that is not at all involved in what's going on in order to try and prop up another. Context for both pictures it was will make me decide. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to search the rest of the electronic internet.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet." Our Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man said: "no, the doctor's right. besides, he has seniority."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3
Regenerated 15000+ posts
|
|
Regenerated 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3 |
I'm against shitting on police cars, if that helps...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3
Regenerated 15000+ posts
|
|
Regenerated 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3 |
Wonder Boy content User mighty weilder of the Penis of Truth 7500+ posts 25 minutes 25 seconds ago Making a new reply Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: Re: Occupy Wall Street Don't bother, no one cares...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3
Regenerated 15000+ posts
|
|
Regenerated 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3 |
Fact, not deflection.
You deflected that Obama was protected by media propaganda, and McCain was slandered by the same media. Obama narrowly won, and I believe that was because of unprecedented partisanship by the liberal media. That's false. Prove it. You also have been trolling and cheerleading Pro's infantile antics. Seriously, show me one post where I absolve Obama of being a corporatist wanker. I'll wait. You seem to be arguing for Obama's re-election, with a dismissive rejection of Romney. But you mentioned Republicans of interest for you as Ron Paul, Gingrich, and Roemer. But my impression is you'll ultimately pull the lever for Obama and label the Republican candidate as a corporate whore. (a la Prometheus) In other words, you can't prove it, because it's not true. You just wish it were, so it might give you some sympathy over your butthurt attitude. Once again, reality proving you wrong, David. At what age did you set up your highly compacted cognitive dissidence? The reality is, Obama That's another DNC talking point, not reality. Good old Dave. Deciding what is and isn't "reality". Romney, unlike Obama, is not in favor of a strong socialist central government. Prove Obama is. Oh, you can't. Unlike Obama, does not favor crony capitalism that would use corporations to advance an ideological socialist experiment. Prove it. Oh, you can't. (as I sourced from Tim Carney's book OBAMANOMICS "That's another RNC talking point, not reality." Spin Right. Despite your condescending dismissiveness, Obama is unprecedented in his damage to the country, and three years later, it still isn't even being reported! LMAO!!! BECAUSE IT'S NOT TRUE YOU FUCKING MORON! Jesus fucking Christ, David. If you think Obama's shitty, do-nothing Presidency has done "unprecedented damage" to this country, you must have had your entire hands inside your ears the eight-years Bush and the Extremist Right pissed on the Constitution and instituted a Corporate Police State, dictated by the Military-Industrial Complex. You perpetually amaze me at the level of ignorance and cowardice you're willing to sink to defend criminal billionaire strangers. That's just fucking crazy on your part, dude. Holy shit. Republicans are just as bad? Prove it. Done. Again: we have a choice in Nov 2012, most likely between Obama and Romney. It's called freedom of choice, David. Simply vote for Ron Paul, or do a Glenn Beck write-in vote. OF COURSE there's a choice, man. This is America. Stand up and make your choice based on what YOU want, not what your party allegiance wants. Seriously. despite that the co-opted Occupy Wall Street movement is funded by Soros, SEIU, UAW, MoveOn and so forth. Fiction. Prove it or stop lying. Other than your support for a bunch of unwashed neo-hippie rabble in the streets who talk about --in no uncertain terms-- intimidating if not violently rioting to take stuff from people who worked for what they have. You are a fucking pawn of the Corporate Government. Congrats on literally regurgitating exactly what the Extremist Right has told you to say and believe. It's like watching a textbook deconstruction of the quintessential Bernays Model "media puppet", simply salivating whenever the bell is rung...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3
Regenerated 15000+ posts
|
|
Regenerated 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3 |
But, hey, you want it to be nothing more than "leftist rabble" and Soros goons then feel free to belittle, denigrate, and dismiss. But, bear in mind, you are taking the risk of alienating an entire generation and losing them to those same communazis you rant and rave about every day.
The demographics are clear. The GOP is getting a lot greyer than the Dems are. And, by an unwillingness to engage the youth of this country in a meaningful way in this time of crisis, you and others like you are setting yourselves up for political extinction. Good luck with that. LIBERALMEDIASOROSPROAGANDAMARXISM!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
|
|
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593 |
No, it's indisputably a clear fact. Spinning it however you want it to mean doesn't change the reality of its existence. They are armed with "weaponized" tear gas. Nothing changes that. I would like to point out again that the NYPD has not once used tear gas, weaponized or otherwise. They've used pepper spray. Not sure if it is of the weaponized variety, though. Again, propaganda takes the forefront instead of the truth. Italy, so far, is the only nation to use tear gas against protestors; but that was after it turned from protest into riots with vandalism.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet." Our Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man said: "no, the doctor's right. besides, he has seniority."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 17,868 Likes: 16
Son of Anarchist 15000+ posts
|
|
Son of Anarchist 15000+ posts
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 17,868 Likes: 16 |
I tried to squeeze a girl's boobs once, but she sprayed weaponized mace in my face. Also, she used a weaponized kick to crush my balls.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
I tried to squeeze a girl's boobs once, but she sprayed weaponized mace in my face. Also, she used a weaponized kick to crush my balls. that's some weaponized bullshit, man.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
I waited to respond to your post, Iggy, because you make serious points and aren't just engaging in Prometheus' brand of NYA NYA NYA and infantile name-calling and gloating. I used up my available time posting those polls, and I still feel they are accurate. The thrust of the movement are Pro-Obama lefties and front groups of the George Soros variety. And many others who are even further Left and openly talk about how we need to "abolish capitalism". That's a quantifiable fact established by several polls of the Occupy Wall Street crowd. It's not just a few selective interviews of the craziest ones in the crowd. That said, I think there a handful, maybe 10% at most, of the crowd who are what you describe: serious people who are informed about the issues and advocate the kind of changes to the system necessary to take us back from the edge and restore our economic and democratic freedoms. Most of these OWS people are so far off the deep end that enlightening them and pulling them into a seroius reform movement could only hurt the credibility of that serious movement. Will it fit in one post?
Okay, Wondy wants a response to my siding with hippies so here it goes...this may not all post at once so be prepared to read it in parts...
I share much of the same anger about the state of things that the Occupy (Insert Name Here) people do. I don't share the same solutions.
I'm glad to hear you say that. Because a lot of these people, in their dramatic rhetoric, if not their intent, are talking about something akin to the French Revolution. But, I do agree with them about the problem. Contrary to what you seem to believe, we do not have a free market system. We have a crony capitalist system that benefits the few and is detrimental to the many. It's a plutocratic kleptocracy that is being abetted by both sides of our supposed two party system. It isn't. It hasn't been for, at least, the past twenty years. I agree that we are headed in that direction. We still have a well-monied middle class, and have a material quality of life that most of the world envies, and would gladly immigrate here to have too. The middle class still shares the benefits of what unquestionably most benefits the corporate lobbyist class. In the plutocracy you describe (as exists in places like Brazil, Venezuela and Mexico) the wealthy live in mansions behind gates and barbed wire, and everyone else lives in shantytowns and cardboard boxes. It's an exaggeration to say we're there. But I'll grant you: the lobbying-donations-to-play structure that has been in place for 20-plus years is taking us in that direction. Wages relative to inflation are down, and inflationary prices are rising to move us in that direction. Yes.
What we have now is akin to Soviet Russia but with the illusion of choice: Wall Street Red or Wall Street Blue. It's a sham. Look at the donations! The biggest change from one election year to the next is the way corporate money moves. The CEO's might have their political preferences, but most--if not all of them--don't take those into account when they start passing out the cash. It is a simple matter of reading the political headwinds and donating to the person they believe will give them the best bang for their buck. And, hey, you read the headwinds wrong and throw a fundraiser for the wrong guy? No problem, just send a few lobbyists.
I both agree and disagree. Some who donated to Obama were cynically just picking the foreseeable winner in 2008. Others are zealots for liberal ideology. Obama still has ardent support of the zealots. And the same for Romney, or whoever. Some are just hedging their bets and picking the winner. Others passionately believe that Obama/Reid/Pelosi's radical socialism has to be stopped before it permanently cripples the economy. I already posted the article that pointed out the myth of TARP being paid off, but that is really just the tip of the iceberg. The stimulus and all its 800 something billion dollars is nothing. Look at the part of the iceberg that is underwater and one number screams at you: SIXTEEN TRILLION! What's that number? It's the number of dollars that we handed out like bailout candy in three years (2007-2010). According the the debt clock, sixteen trillion is enough to pay off our entire debt, the stimulus, and still have about 150 billion with which to do...whatever. Why are we arguing over the debt ceiling and cuts when the Fed could've paid off the entire debt in three years?!? Because, I'm sure they'd say, it is none of our business, wasn't meant to be our business, and was meant to do anything for you, me, or main street. We'd have never known about it had it not been for Ron Paul. I'll get back to him later. I've harped quite a bit on TARP, the auto bailout, AIG, Bear-Stearns, Stimulus (847 billion), Omnibus (550 billion), Cap-and-Trade, Obamacare and so forth. And was only receptive to TARP when it seemed to be paid off, as you showed the slight-of-hand trickery for in the article you posted. The total debt is much higher when you consider entitlements going forward over the next 10 or 20 years, in the range of 50 or 60 trillion. But I agree with you, that we the taxpayers are excluded from the decisionmaking in how our dollars are spent --or printed! And the days when the Fed is able to just print another 2 trillion as Obama/Bernanke have, are fast coming to a close. When the dollar collapses and is no longer the global currency. My whole point here is that all of those people on Wall Street and around the country have valid reasons to be pissed off. Not really. The overwhelming majority either have no clue, or are talking about abolishing capitalism. I think those who are serious should distance themselves from the OWS crowd, and form a separate group that can have credibility. Standing in front of that OWS mob can only hurt the credibility of serious people. Do I agree with all of their solutions? Not really. Do I think large numbers of them have no fucking clue what they are talking about? Yes. Again, I'm glad to hear you say that. Does that mean I should just dismiss them as a bunch of bongo bashers? No. I dismiss the 90% for exactly what they are. Geraldo Rivera was sympathetic to their cause, and even took a lot of their antics in stride as he tried to give their views serious consideration and coverage. His reward was hundred of them chanting over and over "FOX NEWS LIES! FOX NEWS LIES!" to try and drown out his interviews. Incredibly, he still remains sympathetic, and still, like you, gives their rhetoric serious consideration. But again, to me this movement is like a Rorschach test, and it has so many contradictory ideas being voiced, that to take it seriously, one has to set aside what they chooose to disagree with, to focus on the portion they choose to take seriously.
It means that I should engage them on the issues. We should be doing all we can to teach them that this isn't a free market economy. But, they shouldn't be belittled for not understanding that because it is the propagators of this system on both sides that have taught them that this is capitalism. Simply put, we should engage and enlighten rather than belittle and dismiss.
Again, we do have a free market economy. I have multiple friends who started small businesses and have built themselves a very comfortable life within our existing free market system. Within the last 20 years. But again, I do agree with you that the system is eroding and in danger, due to the expanding lobbyist system. [quoteIggy]The best person, IMO, for this job is Ron Paul. Over the past thirty years, he has been the most consistent in his beliefs and the most vocal on the issues of liberty, economy, and social mobility. Most of the other candidates don't really want or look towards doing the need changes to the foundation of our economy that need to be done. They'd all be more than happy to just ride the next bubble like Dubya did with the housing market. [/quote] Well, I like Ron Paul, and gave him serious consideration in 2008. As, I think, did much of the media in 2008. He was given great praise for his remarkable fundraising over the internet, and likewise getting his message out over the internet, when he didn't have the dollars to compete with the other contenders on the more conventional mainstream campaign venues. At least, unlike Ralph Nader, he was not excluded from the debates, and that alone is giving Ron Paul national visibility. My problem with Ron Paul is that while his ideas are not the status quo and he is serious about making decisive and needed reforms, I think it's easier to talk about doing those reforms than to actually do them. I'm not sure they would work in practice. Put us back on the gold standard? It was fiat currency that allowed our economy to expand so vastly over the last 100 years. And now we have about 300 billion left in gold reserves, to service a debt of 15 trillion? Abolish the education department? Abolish the IRS? While they need reformed, any one of those things could severely damage the country even further, it reformed the wrong way. In fact, save Sarbanes-Oxley, most of their economic agendas are just to undo the past three years and talk about how the glory days of the Bush administration are here again. And, hey, anything they say now that might be more extreme than that doesn't count because they'll shift more to the center after getting the nomination...right? Despite their rhetoric, they all come across as rehashed Keynesians (just, maybe, with a little k). I agree that there is an attempt by Republicans to say that things were better under Bush. I saw someone, I believe Mitch McConnell, interviewed 2 nights ago by Greta Van Susteren, and he was saying that under Bush in 2007 the deficit --even with the 2 wars we were fighting-- was 170 billion for that year. And every year since Obama has been in office, it's been more than 1.5 trillion, roughly tenfold. I do agree that there's a tendency --both Democrats and Republicans-- to just slap a band-aid on a limping system that needs much greater reform, and that their greatest consideration is only what looks good enough to get them re-elected in the short-term. And that the status-quo that is their life's-blood politically will not keep the nation from going over the cliff. One of my few exceptions to this, oddly, is Newt. The problem is that I don't think Newt holds serious aspirations for being the GOP nominee or president. He's just looking for a seat at the table and doing what he can to instill a little more substance into a field that--generally--sound like they all received the same list of Luntz talking points. Some may be able to do it a little more smoothly to the point of sounding to smooth by half (Romney) while others do it so badly that vapid isn't even a strong enough word to describe it (Bachmann). As you know, I like Newt. Romney is the guy who has the conventional structure to win. But I think Newt is the most capable. Newt is the guy who drafted the legislation as speaker to balance the budget from 1996-2000. I don't think Newt would take the time and enormous effort it takes to run if he didn't seriously want the job. And if Romney implodes, I see Newt as the one Republican contender with the ability to rise and be the front-runner. I like all the other contenders (except Perry), but I just don't see them as having the same knowledge of the system, and proven ability to get things done that Gingrich has. Paul, along with other Austrian School economists, have called the bubbles and the bursts again and again. And, they have pointed out continuously the irrationality of trying to prop up the roof when the floor is caving in. You can't just say cut taxes and regulations then everything will be okay. And, none of the other GOP candidates really want or are up to the challenge of instituting the reforms that this country really needs. They are just up to not being as bad as Obama. I'll say this for Paul: he is the one guy who is committed to transforming the system and doing the needed reforms that have needed done for decades, reforms that have been prevented by the lobbyist-controlled status quo. My only concern with Ron Paul is that while he understands the problem, I'm not sure his proposed solutions would work. But given how the status quo has not worked, maybe it is time to give Paul's ideas a try. Let's face it, the only reason the media covers Paul when they do is because they can't just ignore him this time. This isn't to say they won't try just that it can't be done so easily this time. They can't ignore that he called the housing bubble in '01. They can't ignore that he has breathed new life into the, supposedly, eviscerated and dead Libertarian/Goldwater wing of the Republican party. He's here. We're here. And, we're Austrians! I don't think they ignored Ron Paul in 2008, but let's face it, he wasn't the frontrunner. That said, the media clearly has their favorites, and that is reflected in coverage. And in 2008, they were deeply in love with Obama, and will likewise be acting as part of the Obama campaign in 2012 as well. It's clear watching Fox that they don't favor Paul either. They currently give the most coverage to Romney and Cain. They are dismissive of Gingrich getting the nomination as well. But it's still very early in the campaign. This was about the point where Bill Clinton even announced his candidacy, in 1991. As for my dismissal of the Tea Party as of late, I feel a large portion has been duped and co-opted (much like a lot of the pinheads that, admittedly, do reside in Zucotti Park right now). They've been so blinded by anti-Obama zealotry that they run like madmen to whomever they can convince themselves is the Tea Party messiah at the time (see; Bachmann, Perry and Cain). I'd almost feel sorry for them if it wasn't so pathetically laughable. I think there is a tendency to --myself included-- try and side with whoever can "realistically" (perception) beat Obama, rather than get all ideologically pure and end up picking a Ross Perot that just succeeds in handing the election to a liberal socialist again. For me the "realistic" choice is Romney. My best-candidate choice is Gingrich. Again: it's early in the election process. I think all but the most news-conscious are oblivious to the campaign, and a surge in popularity for a week or two by Bachmann, Perry or Cain is utterly insignificant. They're just the flavor of the week. And that's why I think Gingrich has a shot. Because when people have time to think who is really capable, Gingrich will get serious consideration. And, honestly, I can see some similarities between them [the Tea Party] and what is happening in the OWC movement. Those that talk of Obama standing up and, apparently unbeknownst to them, bite the hand that feeds him is fucking hilarious. Still, for every knucklehead out there screaming about death to capitalism or whatever, there are still a lot of people in the movement that don't ascribe to that philosophy (or, any philosophy other than rightful anger) that can be engaged and enlightened. I'd say the overwhelming majority of the Occupy Wall Street crowd are radical left, and the few serious voices among are rendered ridiculous by who they stand with. What made the Tea Party so striking to me was that they were so clearly regular people who had never participated in a demonstration before. They weren't wild-eyed activists, they weren't wearing ourtrageous costumes, they weren't carrying around severed heads or people killed in effigy. They were sincere, respectful people who had for the first time come out of their homes to stand in a town hall or demonstration, because they were genuinely alarmed at what Obama/Reid/Pelosi were doing. And many of them had voted for Obama. I think it's fair to say that many of these Tea Party-goers didn't gully undertand the issues either. But THESE were people who wouldn't continue to stand with people who were defacating on police cars or advocating death to capitalism!Huge difference. And again: I'm not saying that a few of the Occupy Wall Street group don't raise some valid points. But they are rendered completely rediculous by who they stand next to. If these few in the crowd with serious views had a Youtube video or a C-Span panel where they voiced their legitimate concerns in a respectful format that didn't endorse the antics of their Promodian brethren just by standing with them, they would be taken seriously. But where they stand, who they stand with, renders it imposssible to take them seriously. Their advocacy of chaos is implied in who they allow to be included with them. But, hey, you want it to be nothing more than "leftist rabble" and Soros goons then feel free to belittle, denigrate, and dismiss. But, bear in mind, you are taking the risk of alienating an entire generation and losing them to those same communazis you rant and rave about every day. I'd love it if they would shun these jackasses crapping on police cars and pin them to the ground until the police arrest them. I'd love it if they'd tear up the banner of the "death to capitalism" crowd and tell them to get out of here, this is not what our movement is about and we don't want you here. But they don't. They stand withg them. And are forever rendered ridiculous by who they stand with. The participation of George Soros, SEIU, UAW, and MoveOn is also likewise not my choice. If this crowd were more respectful in the way they protest, not engaging in "death to capitalism", not defacating on police cars, not trying to silence a network shouting "Fox News Lies" over and over during broadcasts, not having sex and running around naked in public, I would think: "Hey, maybe these folks and the more serious members of the Tea Party and other like-minded dissenters could collaborate and leverage for real reform." But the Occupy Wall Street crowd is doing all these vile thing, and are connected to George Soros and the corrupt machine of the Left. They are. And are rendered ridiculous by it. The demographics are clear. The GOP is getting a lot greyer than the Dems are. And, by an unwillingness to engage the youth of this country in a meaningful way in this time of crisis, you and others like you are setting yourselves up for political extinction. Good luck with that. Read DEATH OF THE WEST by Pat Buchanan. Conservatives are becoming a diminished minority becaause of unprecedented waves of immigration. It is partly the liberal media's dominance over 4 decades that is converting the children of former conservatives. And it is largely the massive waves of immigration, where our elites are importing a third-world population that are natural-born Democrats, and unlike past waves of immigrants, will stay at the economic bottom and constantly demand more social spending because they won't make an effort to pull themselves out of poverty. 45 million immigrants since 1965. And overwhelmingly hispanic. There are plenty of young Tea Party members, roughly equal as a ratio of the Tea party as they are a ratio of the total population. But with 1.2 million immigrants added every year, native-born conservatives are being overwhelmed in numbers by the annual addition of foreign-born Democrats. Immigrants overwhelmingly enter to country poor and wanting government welfare, education, and other subsidy benefits. From 2000-2008, George W. Bush reached out to hispanics with "compassionate conservatism" (i.e., big-government Republican spending) and a flaccid and non-existent border enforcement. While it gained some up-tick in hispanic support, it ultimately compromised conservative values and hurt the party at its base. Democrats offer free stuff for immigrants. I don't know if there's a way Republicans can compete with that. Only the Democrats are willing to treat recent immigrants and illegal immigrants better than they treat U.S. taxpaying citizens.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3
Regenerated 15000+ posts
|
|
Regenerated 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3 |
I waited to respond to your post, Iggy, because you make serious points and aren't just engaging in Prometheus' brand of NYA NYA NYA and infantile name-calling and gloating. TRANSLATION: I can't respond to any of Pro's points because he's using actual facts and won't just quote from sources I approve of or are biased to The Right. He has finally beaten me. Got it. Thanks for being honest, instead of being an ignorant child...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3
Regenerated 15000+ posts
|
|
Regenerated 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3 |
Fact, not deflection.
You deflected that Obama was protected by media propaganda, and McCain was slandered by the same media. Obama narrowly won, and I believe that was because of unprecedented partisanship by the liberal media. That's false. Prove it. You also have been trolling and cheerleading Pro's infantile antics. Seriously, show me one post where I absolve Obama of being a corporatist wanker. I'll wait. You seem to be arguing for Obama's re-election, with a dismissive rejection of Romney. But you mentioned Republicans of interest for you as Ron Paul, Gingrich, and Roemer. But my impression is you'll ultimately pull the lever for Obama and label the Republican candidate as a corporate whore. (a la Prometheus) In other words, you can't prove it, because it's not true. You just wish it were, so it might give you some sympathy over your butthurt attitude. Once again, reality proving you wrong, David. At what age did you set up your highly compacted cognitive dissidence? The reality is, Obama That's another DNC talking point, not reality. Good old Dave. Deciding what is and isn't "reality". Romney, unlike Obama, is not in favor of a strong socialist central government. Prove Obama is. Oh, you can't. Unlike Obama, does not favor crony capitalism that would use corporations to advance an ideological socialist experiment. Prove it. Oh, you can't. (as I sourced from Tim Carney's book OBAMANOMICS "That's another RNC talking point, not reality." Spin Right. Despite your condescending dismissiveness, Obama is unprecedented in his damage to the country, and three years later, it still isn't even being reported! LMAO!!! BECAUSE IT'S NOT TRUE YOU FUCKING MORON! Jesus fucking Christ, David. If you think Obama's shitty, do-nothing Presidency has done "unprecedented damage" to this country, you must have had your entire hands inside your ears the eight-years Bush and the Extremist Right pissed on the Constitution and instituted a Corporate Police State, dictated by the Military-Industrial Complex. You perpetually amaze me at the level of ignorance and cowardice you're willing to sink to defend criminal billionaire strangers. That's just fucking crazy on your part, dude. Holy shit. Republicans are just as bad? Prove it. Done. Again: we have a choice in Nov 2012, most likely between Obama and Romney. It's called freedom of choice, David. Simply vote for Ron Paul, or do a Glenn Beck write-in vote. OF COURSE there's a choice, man. This is America. Stand up and make your choice based on what YOU want, not what your party allegiance wants. Seriously. despite that the co-opted Occupy Wall Street movement is funded by Soros, SEIU, UAW, MoveOn and so forth. Fiction. Prove it or stop lying. Other than your support for a bunch of unwashed neo-hippie rabble in the streets who talk about --in no uncertain terms-- intimidating if not violently rioting to take stuff from people who worked for what they have. You are a fucking pawn of the Corporate Government. Congrats on literally regurgitating exactly what the Extremist Right has told you to say and believe. It's like watching a textbook deconstruction of the quintessential Bernays Model "media puppet", simply salivating whenever the bell is rung...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3
Regenerated 15000+ posts
|
|
Regenerated 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3 |
His reward was hundred of them chanting over and over "FOX NEWS LIES! FOX NEWS LIES!" to try and drown out his interviews. "What?! FAUXNews was accused of lying or being biased? Shock! Gasp! Every single person on the planet who believes that MUST be a Leftist Marixist Socialist Terrorist!" - David, the Wonder Shill
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3
Regenerated 15000+ posts
|
|
Regenerated 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3 |
Oh and btw, journalists aren't "owed" anything or any "reward" for doing their fucking job. The fact Geraldo isn't simply laughed out of the room everytime he comes onscreen is evidence of FAUXNews corporate bias. Add their love of criminal traitors to America like Karl Rove, Cheney, or G. Gordon Liddy, and that's all the proof you need. That is, if you don't have your fingers in your ears chanting "Reagan save us, Reagan save us" over and over...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 7,082 Likes: 30
Society's Discontent 6000+ posts
|
|
Society's Discontent 6000+ posts
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 7,082 Likes: 30 |
Those that want to engage in violence at this point are complete idiots. We are no where near the point of corporatism, fascism, tyranny, or whatever you want to call it where armed resistance is required. Don’t get me wrong, I’d be more than happy to water The Tree of Liberty if needed to. I just think that most of our current problems could be remedied without it at this point.
I don’t think we are really too far off on this. It is just a matter of how we see it. You see it as something we are heading towards. I see it as something that is already lurking beneath the s
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3
Regenerated 15000+ posts
|
|
Regenerated 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3 |
This may not be true, but I heard former Governor Mark Sanford has joined FAUXNews. If that IS true then--WOW! What a name to add to the criminal Right list of hating heads they have on there with Rove, Liddy, and now Sanford. And I bet they would never bring up his affair or use of South Carolina tax dollars for personal gain, or even his censure...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3
Regenerated 15000+ posts
|
|
Regenerated 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 3 |
Wonder Boy content User mighty weilder of the Penis of Truth
7500+ posts 4 minutes 19 seconds ago Making a new reply
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Re: Occupy Wall Street
|
|
|
|
|
