Reuters Notices OWS Dying...While Tea Party Thriving
We begin tonight with what has become by any measure a pretty massive protest movement. While it goes by the official name ‘Occupy Wall Street,’ it has spread steadily and far beyond Wall Street, and it could well turn out to be the protest of this current era. ---Brian Williams on Oct. 5, 2011 gushing with extreme hype over OWS.
Despite all the friendly hype given to the Occupy Wall Street protests by much of the mainstream media, OWS is now in its death throes according to this Reuters report by Chris Francescani. He also notes that as OWS is about to be taken off life support, the much maligned Tea Party movement is doing quite well by contrast:
More than eight months after Occupy Wall Street burst onto the global stage, decrying income inequality and coining the phrase "We are the 99 percent," the movement's survival and continued relevance is far from assured.
Donations to the flagship New York chapter have slowed to a trickle. Polls show that public support is rapidly waning. Media attention has dropped precipitously.
Bursts of violence, threats of municipal chaos and two alleged domestic terror plots have put Occupy on a recurring collision course with law enforcement.
Even its social media popularity, a key indicator of the strength of a youthful movement, has fizzled since its zenith last fall.
And as OWS begins to fade into Coffee Party obscurity, the Tea Party continues to remain a political force despite having been written off in the past by much of the MSM:
"Most of the social scientists who are at all like me - unsentimental leftists - ... think this movement [OWS] is over," said Harvard University professor Theda Skocpol, a liberal academic who wrote a book on the Tea Party.
..."Eight months in, the Tea Party were beginning to impact primary elections, and by the second year were having a tremendous impact," Skocpol said. "They were, if not electing, then at least changing the kind of candidates that were being elected.
"But Occupy got bogged down in tent cities. In social movement literature we'd argue that there was a failure to engage in tactical innovation at a crucial time." Certainly the movement shows few signs of creating a summer of discontent in American cities this year.
Read MRC's A Tale of Two Protests by Geoffrey Dickens for details on the contrasting media coverage given to the two movements:
In the media's coverage of the Wall Street occupiers and Tea Partiers, a clear tale of two different protests is seen. One that grew out of concern for out-of-control government spending was initially ignored and treated to catcalls of racism and thuggery by ABC, CBS and NBC. The other, a leftist movement screaming for an even more expansive government, that actually resulted in hundreds of arrests, was greeted by the Big Three networks with a tidal wave of coverage full of friendly talking heads.
And OWS is now on its deathbed despite all the TLC given to it by Brian Williams and his media cohorts.
- P.J. Gladnick's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
I think even stupid people
Submitted by rbosque on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 7:22pm.
I think even stupid people are seeing this as a farce. Took them a while...
Yep !
Submitted by nixon on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 7:34pm.
I'm sure singing kumbaya while living in a filth encrusted tent got rather pointless after only a few months .brilliant folks .
Theda Skocpol, the liberal
Submitted by neutron on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 12:57am.
Theda Skocpol, the liberal [redundant] Harvard University professor, who wrote a book on the Tea Party, was misquoted. She actually said, "... this Boston Liberal OWS movement [BLOWS] is over."
Come on. The TEA "Party" is
Submitted by skarts on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 11:44am.
Come on. The TEA "Party" is just a GOP publicity stunt with one sensible member for every 30 Reptilian conspiracy theorists. I don't have much to say about OWS, but while I didn't always support the TEA "Party", it has it's roots in solid, libertarian thought. With it's increasingly anti-gay, pro-prohibition positioning, it's been absorbed by same-old-same-old Big Government GOP.
BS Flag
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 2:57pm.
Please name some "anti-gay", "pro-Prohibition" positioning by the Tea Party.
Considering the e-mails I get from them - which I read - I know this is a case of you shooting off your mouth.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
wow
Submitted by Darkstar61 on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 5:46pm.
for someone who acts as though they know so much, you seem to be completely clueless.
1 - The TEA Party is anything but a GOP arm. In fact, at least once an hour you can hear a Democrat complaining how the TEA Party is holding the GOP hostage forcing Republicans to the "far right"- you know, the exact opposite of what you somehow here claim is the case. But the ignorance of your statement can be seen even clearer by simply opening your eyes to what the TEA Party has actually done above all else; that is, eliminate RINOs and Establishment-Type Republicans - the very thing the GOP is trying to protect at all costs.
So yeah, sorry, but your "TEA Party is a GOP publicity stunt" is about as stupid a statement as one can make...
2 - The TEA Party isnt an organization and doest have official platforms, its countless splinter groups made up by random individuals working on a limited Government platform, and really nothing more. It is a group of people willing to stand up when needed to fight against Government intrusion, the Socialist agenda or Big-Government and RINO type Republicans wherever it/they pop up.
But, it does NOT have its roots in Libertarian thought - it has its roots purely in Judeo-Christian and Conservative thoughts. Libertarians simply hold some of the same views; not the other way around. Besides, Libertarians are just as, if not even more likely to be seen at Occupy "movements" as TEA rallies.
3 - The TEA Party may seem to be against gay marriage and legalized drugs to you because the TEA Party is made up of the average moral-driven person in the country, not because the non-existent originated TEA Party tells them what to think. When more then 50% of the population consistently voting against gay marriage and drug legalization, and most individuals who desiring those things being self-identified Democrats, it should be pretty simple for even a toddler to figure out what TEA Party boots will hold as moral platforms.
That said, personal moral beliefs does not make a Political Platform, and the topics of Gay marriage and Legalization are fairly unlikely to ever be brought up at TEA Party in the first place. The people themselves will almost certainly be against them, but no need to talk about it either because those issues are not the focus or goal of the movement.
So yeah, maybe you should get a clue before making up conspiracy theories as you really took a nose-dive here and pretty much lost all credibility on the topic, if not completely.
I think OWS is dying because...
Submitted by TempusFugit on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 7:47pm.
...the Soros backed organizations that provided seed money for it saw it was turning violent, and conservatives could easily use it against Obama. Then when even Socialist Jon Stewart was making fun of it, it was time for the Soros people to cut and run. Without the financial backing, and without paid "volunteers", there's pretty much nothing left of this "grass roots organization"
RIP
Submitted by NC Boy on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 7:51pm.
Rest in Puke, OWS!
I was somewhat hoping for an
Submitted by nixon on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 9:00pm.
I was somewhat hoping for an ows redux . Would have been fun to watch the dem. convention . Might have been '68 all over again. The more the radical base shows its support for BHO ,the better it is that he'll lose in 2012 .
Anyway that's what I'm hoping for . My 65th birthday is Nov.7 ,and waking up to find that We have a new president would be just great .
Wishing you
Submitted by NC Boy on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 9:25pm.
Wishing you a WONDERFUL birthday!
I fought hard for a large
Submitted by skarts on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 11:01am.
I fought hard for a large demonstration at the GOP as well as Dem nat. conventions, few really seemed interested enough to be dedicated.
The difference I think between today and '68 is that too many OWS are still partisan to the Democrats - the same reason why TEA isn't a real political movement either, really just an extension of existing party politics.
Unfortunately, I think Mittens will loose to Obama, I don't think he can generate enough enthusiasm. He's boring and doesn't seem to have any real objective plan of what he'd do that so much better than any other president in the last 30 years leading up to this mess.
I'd love to see Romney try to save this sinking ship and watch the conservatives struggle with what to do next. I think that this is the position the hardline and "true" Occupiers faced. A lot of us who voted for Obama had a lot of genuine hope that he'd truly offer change. Mittens will likely be GOP's Obama, if only he weren't so stale.
Search NB, Occutard.
Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 12:31pm.
There was a post the other day, your guy, Baracka, trails Romney by 1 in Michigan. This, after he was up by 9 or 10 a month or two back. That is not good news for him, and you.
Baracka's idiotic statement that the "private sector is just fine" is, in reality, what he thinks. No matter how he tries to walk it back, the fact that he is out of touch with reality is real, and it's there for everyone to see.
My guy?! Have I not made it
Submitted by skarts on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 12:37pm.
My guy?! Have I not made it clear that I don't support him, nor any other politician?
Yeah, riiiiight.
Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 12:47pm.
.
lol. okey dokey.
Submitted by skarts on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 1:03pm.
lol. okey dokey.
BTW, didn't you say upthread that you voted for him?
Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 1:49pm.
"A lot of us who voted for Obama had a lot of genuine hope that he'd truly offer change". Was that not you?
That would make him your guy. It would also mean that you supported him.
This place needs a better class of trolls.
Oh yeah. That was me. It
Submitted by skarts on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 2:02pm.
Oh yeah. That was me. It seemed like you were saying that I'd vote for him again in 2012.
RE: trolls, perhaps. But I think this place could also use a few more fallacious arguments than just ad hominem and nonsequenter.
If you voted for him last time,
Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 2:17pm.
and won't this time, Mission Accomplished. And, I don't think "fallacious" means what you think it means. And, it's non sequitur. You might want to edit an English class at that private school.
Are you posting from the Occutard tent, on dad's computer?
UpNorth
Submitted by motherbelt on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 2:21pm.
Check your PM
Thx, MB.
Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 2:32pm.
And, I did mean "audit".
when the going gets tough,
Submitted by skarts on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 3:34pm.
when the going gets tough, the tough check spelling.
spelling is a minor faux pas*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 3:38pm.
Typos and spelling is no big deal here. Spewing lies, liberal myths, talking points, and cliche's however, will get prompt replies.
Caj, must be UC Berkley is out for the summer.
Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 3:49pm.
Or, like I said, the Occutards got their orders this morning, or both.
Verrrry inneresting
Submitted by CO2Maker on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 10:12pm.
Here are some interesting facts about OWS:
A study based on survey responses at OccupyWallStreet.org reported that the protesters were
81.2% White
6.8% Hispanic
2.8% Asian
1.6% Black
and 7.6% "other"
The mask is a stylized likeness of Guy Fawkes, who was a member of the Gunpowder Plot to blow up Westminster Palace in 1605.
That's the thing, CO2
Submitted by LinTaylor on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 10:44pm.
The use of the Guy Fawkes mask has absolutely nothing to do with its original symbolism. It's a symbol of the troll/hacker group Anonymous, adopted entirely because of the Alan Moore comic book "V for Vendetta", and is just used as an emblem of their hatred for any form of authority and their desire to tear it down by any means necessary (though they'll result to harassment and violence as a first result, because they're a bunch of smug kids who think they're hot stuff).
And the real Guy Fawkes was...
Submitted by TempusFugit on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 10:48pm.
....(gasp!) a Catholic! The Gunpowder Plot was an attempt to restore a Catholic monarch to the throne of England. Methinx most of the OWS clowns in their wittle masks have not a clue that the original man was a defender of the hated (by the Left) Catholic church
Yep
Submitted by Darkstar61 on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 6:07pm.
and they are also apparently just as blind to the fact that all those masks they wear are produced by cheap labor in China by heartless corporations.
...another ironic tidbit, occupy scumbags generally consider the TEA Party to be a bunch of "Hillbillies" and "Rednecks".
Rednecks comes from Union Workers wearing red handkerchiefs around their necks to show union solidarity. Hillbillies were named as such by the British because they were literally the Irish and Scottish men of the hills who fought on behalf of King William against King James and the Catholic Church.
A "Redneck Hillbilly" is technically an Anti-Catholic Union Worker - now hows that for funny...
Anonymous may always have
Submitted by hoosherdaddy137 on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 5:41am.
Anonymous may always have been a bunch of "kids and their damn computers" but before the sickness called ows anon had a pretty big fight with the Church or Scientology. They hacked their homepage and left a message "closed due to theatons". They wernt an organized "hacking" group, it was a group of dorky men and women (ha women) who actually took action against what alot of people saw as corruption within the Scientology church, which in more then one case end up in someone dieing. Youtube is full of their protests, even crashing Scientology "conventions". Im not defending website hacking, but I admit I laughed my ass off when they got CoS.
You silly social darwinist!
Submitted by skarts on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 11:07am.
You silly social darwinist! Our species has always and instictfully sought to preserve our only true asset, diversity.
??
Submitted by milootoole on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 4:54pm.
One man's asset may be another's treasure!
Well, they probably should have stayed home
Submitted by Calypso Jones on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 10:48pm.
this winter. Cause now i suspect most of them are fighting body vermin infestations and sexually transmitted diseases. I thought maybe they could keep this going but ....i guess not.
I want OWS to survive
Submitted by Galvanic on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 12:18pm.
Now that it has boiled down to a hodge podge of anachists, Marxists, homeless seeking free food, the hygeneine deficient, and criminals, I want them out there in front of TV cameras at every opportunity.
I want Democrats to send them $$$ so they can keep making city parks look like abandoned lots, and driving away tourists.
I want to see the arrests for assaults on police, sexual assaults on each other, vandalism, etc.
I want the Democratic mayors of these major cities at press conferences issuing ultimata to the OWS squatters.
Please don't let them fade away.
They're just fighting the
Submitted by skarts on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 12:28pm.
They're just fighting the tourist threat, right? :D
This just in: Duh!
Submitted by LinTaylor on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 10:50pm.
This is something anyone with half a brain could have seen coming (which of course means the news media was totally blind). They loved to compare Occupy to the Tea Party, but the simple fact is that the TP has focus and goals. Occupy is just a conglomeration of welfare whores, communists, anarchists, cyber-terrorists, liberals, Michael Moore, and other idiots. They don't have any unified message other than "We hate rich people!", they don't have an overall goal, and really they have nothing to unite them other than that blind, manufactured hatred fed to them for years by people who taught them that the amount of money you have is directly proportional to how evil you are.
What makes it really hilarious is that the liberal establishment (like the MSM and Hollywood) absolutely adores these scumbags who would, beyond a shadow of a doubt, come after them the nanosecond they ran out of conservative targets to kill and devour.
a minor correction/quibble
Submitted by wizardjr on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 11:41am.
I don't think they hate the rich for the wealth. I think they hate them because the rich are so very successful and these whiny clowns are not, generally because they have taken the wrong path over and over again and will not do what it takes to get to the top of the pile. Instead they want mommy and daddy to give it to them.
Other than that small difference, I completely agree with you.
Come on. Are you really
Submitted by skarts on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 12:33pm.
Come on.
Are you really telling me that the rich are rich soly from their choices? You don't think daddy paying Yale's full tuition had anything to do with it?
My wife goes to a private school, half of it is paid for by scholarships, the rest with grants and a significant amount with loans. So we're not rich at all. But trust me, she works harder than the majority of her more "privledged" classmates - who I have no doubt will end up quite successful regardless.
What you hate is that it's Daddy's money,
Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 12:36pm.
to do with as he pleases. He doesn't owe anything to you, or any other Occutard. Whether he made it, or his father or mother made it is immaterial, the money belongs to Daddy.
So, your wife is benefitting from scholarships and grants? How very 1% of you and her. And, "trust" you? I think not.
That's beside the point. The
Submitted by skarts on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 1:14pm.
That's beside the point. The rich can do whatever they please. My point is that the rich don't get where they are from their choices alone, but benifit from the privledge which money, and it's inheretance, provides.
And what the hell are you talking about? How is receiving a Pell grant "very 1%" of us?
What is your deal, anyway? Just because I'm skeptical of the TEA "Party" and GOP doesn't make me a Democrat.
How do you account for Steve Jobs?
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 1:17pm.
Or Bill Gates? There are still people in this country who become rich by making the choices to work brad, save money, and invest in their future.
You have no idea how hard the other students work, and you have the option of going to a cheaper school instead of whining about paying for it.
I'm rich, but I didn't benifit from an inheretance.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 1:18pm.
So put that in your pope and smike it.
SoL
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 1:27pm.
And you should be able to give it to your kids if you want to, not the undeserving government.
I'm not saying that it does
Submitted by skarts on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 1:37pm.
I'm not saying that it does not happen, only that it's a LOT easier to be rich, and continue being rich if you start out that way, and the negative choices which teh rich make have far less impact.
If a rich young adult gets addicted to drugs, he or she has the option of the best, continued treatment available. If a very poor young adult becomes addicted to drugs, he or she can expect long waiting line, substandard care and likely a much higher chance of homelessness. Both the rich kid and the poor kid made the same bad choice, but the rich kid has more opportunity to overcome it.
Of course, this does happen. You hear about it in Readers Digest and watch durring the fluff peice on the news. But the media doesn't report what is typical, and teh sad truth is we are born into circumstances which provide intrinsic effects on our ability to succeed.
Fail
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 2:24pm.
Drugs are an equal opportunity killer. If anything having money is worse because the addict can buy more drugs.
Also, it's very difficult to hold onto money. Inheriting money is far from the path to the easy life you think it is. Why do you think so many families lose the wealth in one genation?
How do you lose a small fortune?
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 2:28pm.
You start out with a larger one.
Amazing how that happens, isn't it. Not everyone makes smart choices, even when inheriting gobs of money.
Quit being an envious assclown.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
So, are you trying to tell us that you're a conservative?
Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 1:55pm.
You voted for Baracka, you're totally into wealth distribution and class envy, you hate that someone has money and does what they want with their money. That might be a lot of things, but conservative isn't one them.
We have no interest in being
Submitted by skarts on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 2:31pm.
We have no interest in being rich. My wife is going to be getting a MSW/JD. If we had so much "class envy" why would she be getting a degree which is suited for public law with $50-100k of debt? Why wouldn't she get a coorporate law degree? So class envy, not at all. If you read my posts on class, I was merely stating that the class you're born into affects the liklihood of success, and that it's not as simple a matter as simply saying "work hard".
If you read what I actually was saying about welfare, you'd see that I am not pro-welfare at all. It stifles social changes, placates the poor, and encourages corporations to exploit employees.I was merely pointing out that you can't get rid of it without serious social consequences, and that it's purpose isn't to help the people receiving benifits.
I am not a conservative, I am not a moderate, I am not a liberal. I'd be an anarchist, except some specific economic reasons which I am sure you wouldn't comprehend. I'd be a libertarian, except that very, very few of them have any idea what that means and I don't want to be associated with them. I'd be a capitalist, except that it doesn't work. I'd be a communist, except that it doesn't work.
If you want to get right down to it, I'm an anti-American. Not because I hate this country and what it stands for, but rather because the federal government, the entire federal government, no longer represents it's citizens as a democracy, but rather only the that of coorporate interests and the lobyists which represent them.
The GOP promises us false hope while the democrats seek buy us off; the ONLY interest which Washington has is that specifically of the the most wealthy members of society, after all, that's who they all are. This has nothing to do with class envy, or telling rich people how to spend their money, nor welfare or wealth distribution. It's that of a democracy verses an aristocracy.
Which brings me to the core of my position. The only thing I truly believe in right now is ending the federal government entirely.
"I'm an anti-American".
Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 2:47pm.
Thanks for telling the truth, at least about that. Now GDIAF. I'm sure you'll be there in Tampa Bay this summer. If not, then camped out in Seattle, or Portland, or another city.
Oh, and yeah, you do hate this country, you've admitted it, so own it, Occutard. How'd the "occupation" of the farm go at the Gill Farm? Or any of your other "Occupy" events?
Id love to see the statistics
Submitted by skarts on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 5:29pm.
Id love to see the statistics to support that the rich are more likely to die of drug-related injury!
Drugs may be an equal oppertunity killer, but healthcare is not an equal oppertunity provider.
Sorry, Marxist skarts
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 6:27pm.
Ah, but medical care IS an equal opportunity provider.
I (nor anyone else by law) cannot be turned down on the ability to pay. And, because I paid for one recent trip to the doc IN CASH (well, with a medical savings account), the hospital immediately cut my bill by 65%.
You need to get something through that very, very, very, very thick skull of yours about the doctor.
You have ZERO RIGHT to see a doctor or to get medical care.
Just as you have ZERO RIGHT to food, water, clothing, and shelter - things that you REQUIRE REQUIRE REQUIRE REQUIRE to live every single solitary day.
Go worry about something else than about how I pay for my doctor.
And by the way: some "anarchist" you are. You are some alleged anarchist, yet you think you have a "right" to a doc. Um, what enforcement mechanism can make that possible? Why, the government you allegedly despise.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
medically speaking*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 6:33pm.
We do have one form of medical equality. Cancer does not discriminate.
Cajun
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 6:48pm.
There is a propaganda sheet available in a portion San Antonio which calls itself the KellyUSA Observer. It should truly be called Правда, Neues Deutschland, or The Daily Worker because it takes stances to the Left of Marx most of the time. It is available in various places at Port San Antonio. In my opinion its printing press needs to be carefully examined for e.coli contamination. Anyways...
Your post reminded me of a headline I saw on it last week: something to the effect of "Most States Saw Reduction In Health Access in 2010". Here I was, thinking to myself, pedant that I am, that "Gee, this is terrible: that many people lost the ability to be healthy and to make healthy decisions in 2010? I access my health all the time! That's how I'm able to run!"
Cancer does not discriminate, among many other things.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
unsane*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 7:17pm.
You have a lot more patience than I do. This young skarter is obviously an occupier that has been brainwashed with starteling cliches rather than facts and accurate history. I admire your willingness to educate him one post at a time. But I do not like trolls. I do not like ignorant trolls. Trolls I do not like.
You are correct, Healthcare
Submitted by Darkstar61 on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 6:37pm.
You are correct, Healthcare is not an equal opportunity provider...
...you need to be either responsible enough to hold onto some money, responsible enough to hold onto a job or responsible enough not to do things which will cause harm to yourself. Unfortunately, that's way too much responsibility for our so-called "poor" to handle and they instead want to be detrimental to their own well-being and kick and scream when they dont have whatever luxury responsibility provides and they subsequently desires to have for themselves.
Side-note:
~ Greed is Excessive Desire. (ie, I want free-school, work-free jobs, free homes, free healthcare, etc etc etc)
~ Envy is Resentment of those who have (ie, the "1%")
~ Pride is a Sense of ones own Worth (ie, "I am the 99% and I deserve..." fill in the blank)
~ Sloth is Laziness (ie, the feeling of not needing to work to obtain, and instead desire to hang out in tent cities parting while demanding free stuff)
~ Wrath is Anger (that word sums up occupy anytime they are asked to do something they just dont want to)
~ Lust is deviant and/or obsessive Sexual Desires (ie,having sex in public, the need for Rape-Free zones, gay marriage, etc...)
~ Gluttony is Over-Indulgence and Over-Consumption (which would seemingly be the only one which occupy doesnt fall victim too. However, seeing each has their lap-tops, data-phones, name-brand clothing and desires for all the things listed under Greed to be given to them for them to consume endlessly free of self-responsibility - well, their gluttony is likely merely a result of not being seen in regular daily life and instead in an isolated environment which would limit its possibility)
So yeah, the evil out of Occupy should come as no surprise to anyone; they cover all the bases of pure Evil to at least some extent, and most to the utmost extremes. Anyone screaming for free heathcare (or similar government handout) should also probably take a good look into a mirror themselves as well.
Lizzie, is that you?
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 2:09pm.
Faux-cahontas is in our midst, peeps.
So you think Bill Gates and Steve Jobs were born with silver spoons? How about Zuckerberg?
Did you know that Mitt Romney gave away his inheritance? That his father made that money all by his lonesome....it wasn't family money?
What on earth are you skeptical about....in re: Tea Party? We are hard working Americans, who resent the government putting a gun to our heads to "redistribute" our wealth to slackards and their pals like the Obama bundlers who started up Solyndra....and ran off with a half a billion in public money.
Or do you think it's cool that BOO absconds with $5 BN of the public treasury to bestow upon the his pals and the Brazilians to drill for oil?
What, exactly, is it that you're bitching about?
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
the whole damn thing. the
Submitted by skarts on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 2:39pm.
the whole damn thing. the fact that you conservatives think that federal government is the answer. The fact that the liberals think federal government is the answer (at least the dems can admit it!). Same old garbage generation after generation. Every four years we go through this same song and dance, and then we're all suprised that it didn't work out.
Come on people. Wake the eff up.
The federal government is the problem to start with.
Back up the bus, Buckwheat!
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 3:33pm.
you conservatives think that federal government is the answer
Of all the stoopid stuff you've posted here, that one is the absolute winner for idiocy.
BTW, your wife's MSW degree is one specifically made for the gullible. Of course, she married you, so I am not surprised.
Good luck w/your little faux fantasy though. I believe you're the father of a disabled child, whose wife is enrolled in a prestigious private college, who works part time, all the while surrounded by rich silver-spoon morons.....whilst pursing an MSW with a soupcon of JD in public policy on the side. You don't envy the rich, yet you would love nothing more than to destroy the entire society.
Oh hell yeah, I believe THAT.....like I believe my cat is going to grow wings and I will then call him a parrot. (He won't talk, however).
Try again, Deddy. All of your tells are still here.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Have fun at the polls in Nov.
Submitted by skarts on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 3:40pm.
Have fun at the polls in Nov. Last I checked, not a single politician has EVER given up any amount of power, no matter if they are conservative or liberal.
Have fun in 2014, too. And 2016. Maybe someday you'll come around and realize what a sham this all is.
-trololololol-
Deddy rises from the dead (again)
Submitted by TempusFugit on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 5:22pm.
I notice Ms Blonde that when you called him Deddy that he didn't question it. If I was a complete stranger here and someone called me that I'd say "huh?". Nice work Sherlock Blonde!
PS I see you're up to 151 already. I hope my prediction of 232 doesn't get passed too quickly! The Gaffer-in-Chief has just way too many opportunities for gaffes on the campaign trail. Maybe I need to revise my prediction upward
We got a "new" Socialist here!
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 3:02pm.
My point is that the rich don't get where they are from their choices alone, but benifit from the privledge which money, and it's inheretance, provides. No, maybe you are not a Democrat. I think it makes more sense to consider you an angry, hate-filled, envy-driven Socialist instead.
You know, you could go out and make something of yourself instead of sitting around being resentful and plotting to get to State to do what you are too big a coward to do: steal.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Are you incapable of seeing
Submitted by skarts on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 3:25pm.
Are you incapable of seeing what I actually wrote in context?
Oh, and it's saturday. like many people, I don't work today.
Fixed it for ya.
Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 3:37pm.
"I don't work
today". That, I do believe.What?
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 3:41pm.
I usually work on Saturdays.
What context? Especially with your Marxist rant below - you convince me now more than ever you are possessed by envy, hatred, and resentment.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Your wife could probably get
Submitted by motherbelt on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 2:31pm.
Your wife could probably get just as good an education at a public school, at 1/4 the cost, with far less debt.
Going to the big name private school is a choice. If you choose to go into debt for 10 years for her schooling, that's up to you.
So exactly WHAT is your point?
I think you are just jealous because some people have it easier than you, and you think they don't deserve it.
IOW, you're whining.
I'm not whining about the
Submitted by skarts on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 2:46pm.
I'm not whining about the cost! Where is this even comming from?! It's a good school, it's worth the investment. Unlike you, perhaps, education and ambition is a priority.
Some of us also have bigger things in mind than our bank account.
The mask slips
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 3:06pm.
Some of us also have bigger things in mind than our bank account. More resentment comes dribbling out along with your condescending remarks to a respected poster. (I got degrees from icky public schools. So what?)
My bank account is a big deal. See, I have to eat. I also consume water, need clothing, and need a roof over my head.
You say ambition is a priority yet you have indicated elsewhere that you don't like much ambition and want to see people punished if they succeed in any way.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
punished?! what are you even
Submitted by skarts on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 3:27pm.
punished?! what are you even talking about???
This is because OWS is not a
Submitted by mattm on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 1:24am.
This is because OWS is not a movement, it's a political campaign. The Tea Party, by contrast, is a true, grass-roots movement based on ideas, not emotions; and principles rather than slogans.
god bless the tea
Submitted by gr29az on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 9:23am.
god bless the tea party.
makers vs takers nov 2012
Excellent Slogan, graz
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 2:30pm.
You should send that to the National Tea Party.
I can see those signs all over this land in November.
Well played!
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
OWS was never intended to be
Submitted by skarts on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 10:51am.
OWS was never intended to be a political movement.
you're right
Submitted by wizardjr on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 11:37am.
it was a bunch of whining and sniveling infantiles crying about their lot in life and wanting "mommy" and "daddy" to come and bail them out
It was the leftards who tried to turn it into a political movement. Considering who the occupy folks were, that turned out to be like herding cats. In addtion to their lack of abiilty to hold a thought for more than a couple minutes, there was "the next thing" for them to go to leaving 'occupy' behind like all fads.
I can agree with a lot of
Submitted by skarts on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 12:26pm.
I can agree with a lot of what you are saying here. But I can assure you, with my wife going to a private school, there are more whiney rich kids out there than the fifty or so who showed up on the first few days.
I think that there is a legitimate core to the movement, and I agree that the "lefties" kind of took that "get wall street out of Washington" core and splintered it into a million "bleeding heart" directions - what abortion and gay rights has to do with OWS is beyond me - but i don't think that OWS was originally so infantile, but was rather an expression of wage disparety and an increasing lack of social mobility which OWS's core pinned onto government favoritism for larger corporations.
You really are jealous of you wife's classmates aren't you?
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 1:24pm.
My daughter also goes to a private school. The families at that school make us look poor by comparison. But interestingly enough, I can't think of one of her friends who doesn't have some kind of job while at school. Also, every fall and spring break the school runs mission and service trips. Guess what? So many of these rich whiney kids want to go and do manual labor to help others that they have to apply and be interviewed to be allowed to go.
So you might want to step off your high horse and get off the pity pot. From the perspective of someone in Vietnam you are the whiny overprivelaged one.
My wife works part time, we
Submitted by skarts on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 1:54pm.
My wife works part time, we have a special needs child to care for and she goes to school full time. We can't afford law school without scholarships, she she has to maintain as close to a 4.0 as possible.
So, I don't really care if they're working. They are still B minus students at best. They don't go to class, then they whine at the teacher because they got a bad grade. Simply put. That's lazy.
In one of her classes, the grades broke down to two A's, one B, Three D's and something like six Fs. I kind of doubt though that this breakdown is due to their dinky part time job selling Lattes.
You should use the spellcheck feature.
Submitted by drsamherman on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 2:23pm.
Your last few posts were nearly incomprehensible.
DocSam, methinks it's Deddy reincarnate
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 2:33pm.
So much stoopid only comes in one readily recognizable poster.
BTW....did you see Kraut's "Word Salad" piece I posted yesterday? ROTFL.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Which incarnation number is this for Deddy? Six digits?
Submitted by drsamherman on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 2:37pm.
And yes...did see the "Word Salad" post yesterday. Magnificent. Classic Dr. K and wonderful piece of cognitive psychiatry on his part!
I would say Incarnation # is approximately equal to....
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 2:44pm.
...the number of Gaffes on my list (note to self....start a "pool" on the Forums for the actual number of Gaffes on election day).
As soon as I read that Dr. K piece, I immediately thought of you. Glad you liked it.
A Clinton Knife-Obama-In-The-Back List, a Moochelle Gaffe List, as well as Racist Code Word List keep dancing in my head. So much moonbattery, so little time!
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
It very well could be, J.
Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 2:53pm.
Then again, it might be some of the collective identified by DocSam, who posted as Van Damage. It has the same air of single purpose, I don't care what anyone says, I'm always right, smug superiority.
If I generalized about blacks, hispanics
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 5:24pm.
Or any other group the way do about children of the wealthy I bet you would be screaming to high heaven about it. But because you are so jealous of these people it's ok for you to exhibit blind and irrational hatred.
The fact is, you and your wife made the decision to have a child and for her to go to law school. Suck it up. Your child is special needs? Again suck it up. I say this as the mother of an adult special needs son. It's going to hard and not get easier. Moaning about it teaches your child the wrong lesson.
Tell me why a job pouring lattes is less stressful than any other and merits your ridicule? The fact that through desire or their parents not funding their children's every need these people are earning on their own is to be commended. Unless you are an occupier who only hates everyone who has accomplished more than you have.
BS all around
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 2:44pm.
but was rather an expression of wage disparety In other words, it was a temper-tantrum fueled by hatred, envy, and resentment.
People who want to use the power of the State to steal from other people just because they are more successful should be thrown in jail for larceny alone, as should all politicians who want to use the State to steal from the successful. At least in a perfect world, they would be.
and an increasing lack of social mobility which OWS's core pinned onto government favoritism for larger corporations. If this statement were true, they would be busy attacking the Warren Buffetts of the world for trying to use things like "The Buffett Rule" to raise barriers to entry for others and trying to permanently entrench themselves as something of an aristocracy. But they didn't. So that line is a load of crap.
And I, for one, love corporations, great and small.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I never said that this was an
Submitted by skarts on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 3:12pm.
I never said that this was an accurate assessment of the situation, only that this is what they believed.
But at the same time, I really have a hard time seeing investment bankers really deserving the money they earn, if we were truly compensated for our labors, food service workers and day laborers would be billionairs - they work harder than just about anyone. I'm not even sure what practical role investment bankers play in society, or how they contribute. I have a hard time believeing that without them the world would just stop, and I have a suspicion that we'd all be wealthier, too, as more capital would be funnelled into the actual goods and services the rest of us provide.
Skarts the Marxist
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 3:39pm.
But at the same time, I really have a hard time seeing investment bankers really deserving the money they earn, if we were truly compensated for our labors, food service workers and day laborers would be billionairs - they work harder than just about anyone. I'm not even sure what practical role investment bankers play in society, or how they contribute. I have a hard time believeing that without them the world would just stop, and I have a suspicion that we'd all be wealthier, too, as more capital would be funnelled into the actual goods and services the rest of us provide. You are filled with virtually uncontrollable resentment, hatred, and pure envy. Not to mention you aren't even a Socialist - you are a Marxist. This is essentially Marxist rhetoric here.
Unfortunately for you I have been in all sorts of positions in this life and I can tell you that many rich people - even those evil investment bankers (without whose capital none of those food service workers and day laborers you hold up as paragons of virtue would even have JOBS or PLACES TO WORK) - work FAR HARDER than even you or I do. And you can save the lectures on hard work - I have an education yet I bust my ass 40 hours a week while looking for something more lucrative. And unlike you I roll out of the rack and bust my ass on the days I work - all without looking at management and ownership with the level of hatred and envy you certainly would be. In fact I am thankful for their putting together a business which happens to be one of the best companies I have ever worked for.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Well. At the end of this
Submitted by skarts on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 4:20pm.
Well. At the end of this election year, you would have done exactly the same thing you've done eevery other election year, the same thing that every one else does every other election year and expect some kind of different result.
Good luck with that.
You might not agree with my views, and that's OK, I may be wrong on a lot of things. But it's insanity that you and many others think the same actions will lead to different results.
And instead of the TEA Party creating a real political party with real candidates, nd actually doing something novel to promote real change, they've aligned themselves with the GOP to the point that they hold no true influence on their own.
No influence skarts?*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 4:38pm.
Let me introduce you to one of our heroes. Let me know if you want more.
http://west.house.gov/
Good one Caj
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 5:26pm.
This guy is also ignoring Wisconsin and what happened there. But I've noticed he ignores everything that doesn't fit his agenda. Almost like a liberal....
Patently Untrue
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 4:38pm.
The GOP has tried, w/o success, to co-opt the Tea Party. The Tea Party is not courting the GOP, the GOP is relying upon the Tea Party for victory. Too bad for them.....we have no intention of following their agenda....they're going to have to follow, or get the hell out of the way, because they surely can't lead.
It's going to take more than two (or five) elections to replace the squishy middle of the road (R)'s.
Too bad you're not capable of seeing that.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
I hope that this is the case.
Submitted by skarts on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 5:03pm.
I hope that this is the case. But the GOP is extremely powerful, and I really do see the operation going in that direction. Until I see a TEA party candidate without an (R) affiliated with it, I'm going to stand by my position.
While I don't agree with everything the TEA party stands for by a long shot, especially as time goes on I seem to hear much more GOP than TEA, I can get behind a lot of the more Libertarian aspects.
Unlike what some of you might be choosing to hear, I do not support government of any kind. I don't support Immigration Control. Prohibition of any kind. Social engineering (including bans on homosexual activities such as marriage). Gun control.
Welfare to me is more a hinderance to the prosperity of those who receive it, than the tax payer from who it was "stolen" from. Welfare really is a loose-loose situation, but at this point in time, it's absolutely neccesary in order for society to function for a number of reasons. Ultimately though, welfare is a poverty problem.
As I have said, I am more an anarchist than anything. There are some sociological problems dealing with excess which I cannot resolve to really get behind anarchism. But ultimately, I hope that someday in the distant future we can get rid of rulers, and rule ourselves. Until that point, freedom will be regulated and controlled by governmental policies.
I sincerely hope that some of you can just take that for what it is, without moronic and sophomoric name calling and accusations based on a limited idea of that political ideology must consist of only a left and right wing. I don't consider myself either. I don't consider myself both.
Stand on your head for all I care
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 5:20pm.
The party with which the Tea Party most clostly aligns is (R).
So, unless one is a total idiot, and wants to try 3rd party (which hasn't worked, not even for a hugely popular person like Charlie Crist).....that's the way to get into office.
Of course, I don't expect YOU to understand that.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
PS. It's lose-lose, not loose-loose
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 5:22pm.
But that's okay, we know you are an uneducated OWie.
I do hope you've saved up some bail money for the upcoming protest season.
Good luck with your economic world-view. It's clearly insane.
Ta ta, now.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
One more time skarts*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 5:27pm.
The TEA Party is not a political party and the group has no intentions of becoming a third party. The TEA Party does not support nor oppose social or legal issues other than those directly related to the consititution.
Dont believe the lying liberal media. Read this, it wont take long. Now tell me where is the danger of the TEA Party.
http://www.teaparty-platform.com/
The thing liberals do not understand is that conservatism is basically a founding belief in the Bill of RIghts and the Constitution. Follow the tenets of those documents, "conserve" our republic and our capitalist system. What is "extremists" about that? To me it is the prime example of a patriotic American.
Contradictions collapse
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 5:57pm.
An anarchist.
Which means you know absolutely nothing about human nature and don't want to know anything about human nature. Worse, you ceaselessly brag about your ignorance of it.
And I'm not really buying that, either. If you were TRULY an anarchist, you wouldn't be advocating for businesses and people you don't like to be endlessly bullied at the point of a gun wielded by an all-mighty STATE!
I think you are best off leaving this site and going to indulge in whatever illegal drugs you are obsessed with, and leaving discussion here to adults who have, unlike you, fully and clearly thought out their positions.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
skarts = "F" in politics and history
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 5:53pm.
You are out to show you are a complete flunkie at politics and history, aren't you?
Sorry. The GOP wants NOTHING TO DO with the Tea Party. NOTHING. Your insistence of otherwise to the contrary. The Tea Party sickens and horrifies the GOP establishment.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
skarts
Submitted by MrShy on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 3:51pm.
"but i don't think that OWS was originally so infantile"
It's good that you prefaced this with the word "think" because, it turns out, you thought totally wrong.
OWS originally staked their stinky flags at every public park they could find and proceeded to camp out 24/7 -- turning our parks into their "under the bridge" homeless homes -- and reek havoc on their surrounding areas, businesses and communities with trash, filth, and an assortment of disorderly conduct.
OWS originally seized public roads, bridges and ports, stopping traffic.
OWS originally picked fights with law enforcement -- whose resources, btw, were sapped in countless cities (my tax dollars) -- forcing their hand and setting off riots, forcing cities to bring in riot police.
OWS originally YouTubed all of their criminal behavior, propagandizing that "the man" was holding them down in every way possible.
They started doing all this when they "hit the scene" back in late Summer of 2011. They have been infantile from the get-go.
- occupy mr-shy.com
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Didn't take a psychic...
Submitted by Jimi Streets on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 3:45am.
...to have known, as I did, a looong time ago that this silly "movement" would die under the weight of its members idiocy...
The Tea Party is beautiful....
Submitted by Paarl on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 7:00am.
I belong to a small chapter in the Raritan Bay region of New Jersey that got its start on a warm spring day in 2009 at a demonstration against Porkulus (the obama stimulus) in an empty parking lot of a shuttered KMART on route 36 in middletown NJ.....i joined the group for an hour before heading for the boat and some good fishing....the group organized over the next 60 days and to this day we are working on registrations of voters..prmotion of TP ideals and 6 people from out little group went to Wisconsin to work for Scott Walker...
The discipline of the TP is terrific. As a group we have kept our focus on the issue of the financial integrity of the Federal and state governments and have not let other issues divide us.
Paarl of Rhodesia
nothing new
Submitted by skarts on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 10:44am.
TEA has been so absorbed by GOP party politics that it's starting to look like a publicity stunt from the outside. With prominent TEA party leaders comming out against issues like gay marriage, immigration reform and in favor of marijuana prohibition, it's clear that TEA supports the same Big Government as the GOP.
Link or slink
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 3:11pm.
Please show me where the Tea Party has come out against "gay marriage".
Please show me where the Tea Party has said anything about immigration reform.
Please show me where the Tea Party favors keeping marijuana illegal (also, can you tell me why you are apparently pro-loser?).
You CAN indeed shoot off your mouth here all you want. But if you cannot substantiate your claims here, don't be surprised if you start getting torn apart by multiple posters.
And as for the Tea Party getting absorbed by GOP politics? Thanks for showing us all on NB that you don't understand jack about politics. For that is in fact a scenario that horrifies the GOP to no end.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
excellant unsane*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 3:32pm.
Great post. To add, the GOP and the Dems, especially in this administration, have all ignored the 3 branches of government that are designed to bring order and balance to government. The TEA Party is reminding them of the responsibilities of government and separation of roles of government and the foundation of our economy. The government should not be interfering in the economy and hence, the dems and the GOP are fearful of the growth of the TEA Party influence. But the purpose of the TEA Party is linear and only interested in the rights of individuals and protection of our capitalist economy. Social issues are not part of the TEA Party. Liberals are trying to call the TEA Party extremists in order to compare them to the OWS movement which is nothing but spoiled whinny socialist/commies who are interested in destruction. They are disjointed and scattered in their demands because if closely studied, they only have "change" in mind with no solutions. Solutions imply active participation in change, impossible for these people since they have no clear sense of individual responsibility. For them everything is group, collective, share without participation.
TEA Party is about individual rights and opportunity. Liberals are all about equality in reception without contribution. How hard is that to figure out?
the next thing
Submitted by gr29az on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 9:22am.
now the next thing to do is take away their welfare and food stamps.
Welfare and food stamps
Submitted by skarts on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 10:47am.
Welfare and food stamps protect people like you from revolution, otherwise it would have been done away with already. Just pay your Revolution Insurance and get over it, less you want to end up like Marie Antoinette.
az doesn't need
Submitted by gr29az on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 11:21am.
az doesn't need protection.
we've got our own.
This is such a silly position
Submitted by skarts on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 12:17pm.
This is such a silly position to hold, that simply because you have a gun the mob won't. I gan ensure you that if you get rid of welfare, there will be more problems than the tiny portion of your taxes that go into it are worth.
Curious
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 3:14pm.
So how did society survive and thrive for close to 150 years without any form of welfare?
Just admit to being a hate-filled, envy-driven Socialist.
And if your heart aches so much for people on welfare, go start a charity to help them when their welfare checks stop rolling in (as it should). Oh wait. You think government is THE charity!!!
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I'm done. Go reread my posts
Submitted by skarts on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 5:16pm.
I'm done. Go reread my posts if you want an answer.
White flag rising
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 5:30pm.
.
Waving around...
Intellectually bankrupt
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 5:49pm.
Bark orders at me instead of answering the question.
You are an intellectually bankrupt Marxist. As Rad says, you have begun waving the white flag.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
ha ha ha ha ha ha
Submitted by wizardjr on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 11:31am.
that's really funny
I haven't enough space to spend the time showing how false and silly that statement is in modern well armed America compared to the French revolution. Please go read some history then come back and try again. Better luck next time.
I was being a bit
Submitted by skarts on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 12:15pm.
I was being a bit hyperbolous. My larger point is that if you get rid of welfare, there will be negative consequences. The role of welfare isn't to help the poor, but rather to placate them.
Woo-hooo, a 2 hour wonder,
Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 12:23pm.
explaining to all of us how welfare works? What's next, the role of the dollar in the international economy? Welfare doesn't "placate" the poor, it makes them dependent on politicians to keep the money spigot open.
It has done one thing very well, though. It has destroyed even the idea of the family in the poor community.
That's exactly what I mean,
Submitted by skarts on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 12:42pm.
That's exactly what I mean, it makes the poor dependent, why fight for anything if you have all your basic needs covered? Before welfare, the poor fought and fought hard for equality and fair wages. Now, McDonalds can pay a substandard wage to struggling parents because they know that the government will pick up the rest.
I'm not saying I'm pro-welfare. I just don't think it's purpose is to help the recipients.
That's an interesting point about destroying the idea of family, can you elaborate? I think I know where you are heading...
Easy, Occutard.
Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 12:46pm.
Just one example, cited by Paul Vitz.
I will read that later.
Submitted by skarts on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 1:00pm.
I will read that later.
However, I think that poverty and singleparenthood has more to do with the stress inherent to poverty, than welfare itself. I am fairly certain that if the government provided unemployed families $35,000/year for an unlimited amount of time, they'd have no problem staying together.
That of course isn't meant as a solution to the problem, only that welfare isn't the problem but ratehr poverty is.
Welfare may inhibit a sense of actively participating in in the family's wellbeing, however, by eliminating the sense that one is "working to provide for their children", thus reducing the sense of pride one has not only for their family but also their labor.
I don't think that eliminating welfare is the correct approach, however, but rather providing oppertunities for recipients and tax incentives for employers who hire them with wages that can support them.
IOW, some people should be given jobs
Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 1:42pm.
whether they're qualified or not? And, of course they should be paid the "living wage". And who determines the "living wage"? Apparently, in your mind, not the employer, maybe the "people's collective"? Should the "collective" also set immigration policy?
Color me shocked that you asked for a cite, then didn't bother to read it.
We already have formulae to
Submitted by skarts on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 3:02pm.
We already have formulae to determine living wages.
I've seen receptionist positions that required a 4-year degree. They didn't even care what that four year degree was in. How is this helping the economy?
The company belongs to the owners,
Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 3:08pm.
they get to set the qualifications for the jobs that they want to fill. Or, would it be better for the Collective, or the commune, to set job qualifications?
How does it help the company? Well, they know that the person with the degree has the self discipline to show up for work, they showed up at school for 4 years. But, you didn't really pose a question, did you? You just want to bitch about something.
UpNorth*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 3:15pm.
We already have a "collective" to control wages, companies, and employee tasks and qualifications. They are called UNIONS. At one time, unions were to protect workers from unreasonable demands. Today unions purpose is to command decisions over the company and power and money to the unions. As a result, the unions are destroying entire industries with their demands.
Where is the "balance" these new trolls are begging for???
I am not saying that
Submitted by skarts on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 3:16pm.
I am not saying that companies must hire unqualified individuals, only that they should not be allowed to rely on the government to split the bill, and companies who don't should receieve a tax benefit.
Are you actually arguing against a tax break?
This is what i want
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 3:32pm.
I don't want tax breaks.
I want every single last individual in America to pay 17% of their income in taxes, with no deductions, no breaks, nothing.
And I want every single corporation in America to pay 17% of their income in taxes, with no deductions, no breaks, nothing.
And I want it in the Constitution to prevent Congress from tinkering with the rates.
And unlike you I do not want to base everything in life on envy.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Well. Like I said. If I were
Submitted by skarts on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 4:35pm.
Well. Like I said. If I were so envious, we'd be doing things differently.
Flat tax rates may ultimately be a better solution. At 17%, this would generate an enormous amount of money very quickly. I think that with a very small federal government, this amount could be lessened over a period of time.
I still think the best option is to dissolve the federal government. I don't think it can be made smaller. Too much greed in Wash.
Contradictions collapse
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 6:31pm.
You want to dissolve the federal government but you want the State to order around and bully businesses at the point of a gun.
You have, by far, the most incoherent political philosophies I have seen in quite some time in my 6 years on NB.
I think you need to put away the drugs, and the keyboard, and walk away, and do some very serious soul-searching.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Number
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 3:16pm.
No, no, no, my hate-filled Socialist. I don't want formulae. I WANT A NUMBER.
Unlike mealy-mouthed whiny people like you I work in an actual business.
I want a NUMBER. What is this "living wage"?
A NUMBER.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Just as a guess, 150% federal
Submitted by skarts on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 3:19pm.
Just as a guess, 150% federal poverty threshold. The actual number would be based on statistics.
Incorrect answer
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 3:29pm.
I WANT A NUMBER. GIVE ME A NUMBER.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Do the math
Submitted by skarts on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 3:45pm.
Do the math yourself.
http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/12poverty.shtml
Take the family size and multiply it by 1.5
Now divide that by 12
And that by 4
and that by 40
There. An hourly wage. I know it's hard for a business major who drank his way through college , graduating with a 2.3 GPA.
NUMBER
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 5:47pm.
I suggest not ever whining about name-calling ever again after making a condescending comment like that.
By the way, nice try. None of my degrees are in business.
Anyway, if I were asked for evidence of a particular argument in college, and I responded as you did: namely, storming up to my professor's desk in class, and then dumping all my books, papers and notes on his desk, and yelling at him "HERE! YOU FIGURE IT OUT!" and making several snide comments about his educational background, I would have been laughed out of academia.
So I'm not going to let you off the hook that easy.
YOU MADE THE CLAIM; NOW YOU GIVE ME THE NUMBER. I AM NOT DOING YOUR WORK FOR YOU.
I WANT A NUMBER.
And if you cannot give me a NUMBER, you lose this argument, by admitting you have NOTHING.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Listen, Uns. All I hear is crickets.
Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 7:16pm.
Maybe Sfarts is stumped?
I really can't believe you
Submitted by skarts on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 3:20pm.
I really can't believe you people are arguing AGAINST a tax break.
This is amazing.
I want a
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 3:28pm.
NUMBER.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
ok. what family size?
Submitted by skarts on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 3:31pm.
ok. for what family size? since you clearly don't even know what the poverty threshold is or where to find it.
Here ya' go skarts*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 3:52pm.
Try reading this and then explain to us where is the incentive to actually participate in our society?
Come Jan, that family of four is going to have to pay even higher taxes since the recession and inflation is really hurting those who live off the government largesse.
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/entitlement-america-head-household-maki...
::sigh:: If you all could
Submitted by skarts on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 4:02pm.
::sigh::
If you all could just step back a little and get it out of your head that I'm 1) an occupier, 2) a socialist, 3) a democrat, for no other reason than I don't like the GOP or TEA party, this all would go so much easier.
Advice:
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 5:43pm.
Quit making arguments rooted in Marxism and I would have zero grounds to call you a Marxist, or a Socialist.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Get it out of our head that you're an Occutard?
Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 7:26pm.
Was this not you, upthread, in addressing the Occutards? "I fought hard for a large demonstration at the GOP as well as Dem nat. conventions, few really seemed interested enough to be dedicated"?
Go so much easier? Why would we want to make it easier for you? It's self-evident that you're a socialist, one only has to read your words, ditto for Occutard and democrat.
NUMBER
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 6:34pm.
I WANT A NUMBER that YOU consider to be a "living wage".
The concept of poverty, as well as a "living wage", is entirely subjective. I could argue that you can be in poverty making $150,000 a year - all that is needed are some bad decisions.
You could also be an accumulator of wealth beyond compare at $50K a year, if you do the right things.
So, no formulae, no subjective BS, none of that crap. A NUMBER.
JUST GIVE ME A NUMBER and I will do the rest.
("Living wage" advocates always get burned up when they are asked for a NUMBER to back up their crap.)
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
What part of TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY, don't you get?
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 4:03pm.
Cronyism tax breaks for the likes of Solyndra. Got it.
Got a video for ya... SAID ISM WILL TAKE CARE OF YOU FOREVER.
Yea we hear you skarts ...fareness and equality... screw FREEDOM
You Didn't Build That.
To tell you the truth, I'm
Submitted by skarts on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 4:39pm.
To tell you the truth, I'm kind of seeing your point on this issue.
If you people could just stop with the name calling and accusations, especially about my employment status and if I really had a disabled son or not, we'd have gotten here much quicker.
Friendly advice Deddy-skarts
Submitted by TempusFugit on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 5:37pm.
Normal people don't give their life stories to an online group of people they've never met before today. You've been here a few hours and I already know more about you than about 95% of the people here. And you bear all the personality traits of a serial troll, who in one of his personalities worked in the Hollywood movie industry. Now can you see why no one believes you?
TempusFugit
Submitted by MrShy on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 6:46pm.
The reason John Starks (Skarts?) is such an open book (be it fiction or non-fiction :p) is because he, like all leftists, rely heavily on personal sob stories to manipulate and justify their pro-nanny state policy arguments. It's always: their personal sob story, a friend's personal sob story, any real or made-up or hypothetical "what-if" sob story of Joe or Jane or even you, etc..
It's always, "When this [sob story] happens, who will be there to help? We need a safety net for [this sob story] and [that sob story]". They hope you will feeeeeel for each victim, and join in advocating for all the endless policies that will be there to catch each victim when they fall.
Are liberals obsessive control freaks and micro-managers of the world? Yeah, they kinda are, aren't they?
- shy stories @ mr-shy.com
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
A lot of vitriole here about
Submitted by mlytle0 on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 9:36am.
A lot of vitriole here about OWS. Puzzling.
The Tea Party has an 'older' bias and the OWS has a younger bias, with a few old hippies thrown in. I think most of the Tea Party have some investments they're concerned about keeping, thus their pro-Wall Street stance.
With over 200 trillion in derivatives across the 5 major banks in the U.S., most of the Tea Partyiers investments are at risk, as is the entire financial framework.
Paul Craig Roberts (Assistant Sec of the Treasury under Reagan) estimates current Wall Street Bank Leverage at very large multiples. From one of his recent articles:
"Assets, of course, are not risk-based capital. According to the Comptroller of the Currency report, as of December 31, 2011, JPMorgan Chase held $70.2 trillion in derivatives and only $136 billion in risk-based capital. In other words, the bank’s derivative bets are 516 times larger than the capital that covers the bets."
Much of it (the Tea Partier's investments) will disappear over the next few years.
I expect some changes in the viewpoints in the "Tea Party" because of this, over time... They have oddly trusted riverboat gamblers and sociopaths with their savings, and currently feel rather smug and condescending towards those that haven't or can't do the same thing. This could change....
I also would note that most
Submitted by mlytle0 on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 10:12am.
I also would note that most (not all) of the pro-Wall Street Tea Party movement regards themselves as part of the Judeo-Christian American culture.
Little problem there.
Most of the 'heavy lifting' Jesus was involved in was economic in nature. The Pharisees were big on manipulating the peasants to get more tribute both for themselves and their Roman overlords.
The LDS (President Romney's personal choice) has put together how the Pharisees worked. it is here:
http://www.lds.org/ensign/1990/03/sacrifice-in-the-law-of-moses-parallel...
The more guilt, the more food and goodies came into the Synagog...
The Pharisees learned to manipulate the masses through something called the "Oral Torah". Basically, somewhat, these were ad hoc rules designed to bring more sacrifices and alms into the temple. Quite a racket, based on fear. And we know about Jesus and the money lenders, how that went, and his attitude towards wealth. Put it this way, He and the Tea Party would be at odds, were He here today.
The Tea Party is more anti-Christ then Christian...but they don't know that...
Hmmmm...
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 3:19pm.
So what you are saying is that North Korea best exemplifies the Judeo-Christian tradition.
Interesting...
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
So, you're suggesting..
Submitted by jonota on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 10:59am.
... that the TEA Party is all about Wall Street? That I find "puzzling", I don't recall many (if any) "save Wall Street" signs. From my understanding, the TEA Party was, is, and always will be about fiscal responsibility in the government. That DOES mean we don't want government using finger pointing games to justify drawing more money from other institutions ( like castigating Wall Street and taxing or fining their operations more).
OWS has been, is, and will be a bunch of whiners without any solutions other than "gimme more". Eventually, like the homeless with their signs, such people find that there is a limit to how much a given person will give to their like. Hence why homeless people tend to drift around in search of new, still compassionate souls to milk. OWS would have done far better if it actually had even ONE concrete goal that it could support/do by itself (aka that wasn't another government handout).
I also find it interesting that you mention the Pharisees in another post, and talk about them effectively fleecing their people. THAT is the point of the TEA Party. 40+% of EVERY DOLLAR spent in the U.S. is either direct to/through the government, or is copied into debt for our children and their children to pay into the government. And yet, despite this fact, there are still those clamoring for MORE government spending. THAT is what the TEA Party opposes. We simply cannot stand the constant comparison to OWS, with all the myriad differences, and just like most "normal" people, detest them for their behavior as well.
There are no "save Wall
Submitted by mlytle0 on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 1:06pm.
There are no "save Wall Street" signs because this crowd thinks Wall Street is invincible. They will find out, as if 2008 and the fraud that spawned it wasn't sufficient warning...
Some of OWS are freeloaders for sure, some not. Reckless fiscal policies and widespread corruption will soon take down the financial system and both parties.
Natures way of leveling the overconfident..
Well...
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 3:21pm.
Well, if people like you have their way, every single American who makes so much as a dime above per capita income will be hanged from every telephone pole and lightpost in the land for the crime of being successful...
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
That's a funny comment.
Submitted by mlytle0 on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 3:38pm.
"Well, if people like you have their way, every single American who makes so much as a dime above per capita income will be hanged from every telephone pole and lightpost in the land for the crime of being successful..."
Lessee, how do you arrive at that brain storm?
It has nothing to do with me. The excesses of the current system will find it's own correction. I would guess when the disinfranchised, finally reach critical mass, because the Financial class went too far, for too long, it will be considered unreasonable by that class. (It already is, thus your post, you think it's unreasonable that anyone should be that upset)
Those of us that warn, do only that.
The reckoning will come from the formerly middle class. Might take a few years. These are people who work hard (or are willing to) and currently want to be, well, rich. They are currently, conservative. Once they see they are condemned to a ravaged, debt laden society, there will be a reaction. No one will call them liberals, but they'll be p*ss*d. You don't want to get in the way of that. Liberals are soft, can't fight well, the ones the elites have to worry about are the disappointed and disenfranchised conservatives.
The liberty movement is an early manifestation of this. There will be more and different forms of it, later...these are not liberals..although liberals may join with them later...
Class?
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 6:36pm.
You ARE aware that in a dynamic economy like the United States, the notion of "classes" don't really apply, except for bitter, angry, resentful people such as yourself?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
what a blazing bunch of nonsense
Submitted by wizardjr on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 11:28am.
TEA Party folks are for the most part middle class. Their Wall Street investments are typically their retirement fund. I doubt you'll find much of any of them investing in derivitives because of the dangers and complexity of the various vehicles. Most of them are in mutual funds or dividend paying stocks with some gold and silver thrown in for good measure. In other words, they are conservative in their investments as it represents their retirement. The rest are contributing directly to annuity funds, usually at insurance companies.
I have seen no TEA Party parades for Wall Street. What I have seen is anger at the Congress for screwing it up so badly over the decades. I have also seen anger at the investment banks for screwing it up and causing huge losses in actual and paper value of investments and housing (another form of investment).
I don't know where you got this false concept that the TEA Party is made up of "friend of Wall Street". Instead they are friends of Capitalism and free markets which are represented by the stocks and bonds of America's corporations which are freely traded on Wall Street.
Friends of Capitalism?
Submitted by mlytle0 on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 2:05pm.
That's fine if you can find some. Right now we have a hardening social class structure, that stultifies true Capitalsm. Large firms are downsizing, outsourcing, and mechanizing jobs away. Small firms do most of the hiring and job creation, but they are not able to access much credit at the moment. The current fraud (there are many) is that the FED is giving away free money to spur the economy. The reality is that well connected firms playin the derivatives market get to be made whole for their significant losses, at taxpayer expense.
As far as 'conservative investments' go,PM's are probably the only ones, with their well known problems with storage (Think about your home safe, and MFGlobal as extremes). When the bond yields of all of the industrialised nations start peeling northward, and fiat currencies go through wild swings, ask you averge Corporate chieftan what the H*ll he's going to do.
Since only a few of them are that clear sighted, most haven't a strategy for this.
Not that most stretegies are worth much in that environment anyway..
I want to see all of these friends of Capitalism in about two years when the whole fradulent system is laying in smoking ruins and CNN is saying, like 2008, "no one saw this coming"...Good for a laugh...
You know liberals are sort of pathetic somtimes, but the bilious rants of the right gives me endless entertainment.
You were a Lyndon LaRouche voter, right?
Submitted by drsamherman on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 2:26pm.
All of you theories emanate right from his diatribe.
Lyrouchey
Submitted by mlytle0 on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 2:33pm.
Short answer
no.
I also don't do theory. I have provided no theory.
I just deconstruct the rants of the right or left to find the savage beneath :}
Heck, it's easy. both extremes say (and do) the same things over and over, and expect a different result?
"hardening social class structure...stultifies capitalism"
Submitted by drsamherman on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 2:34pm.
is pure sociological and social psychology theory. It certainly is not psychiatric theory.
No theory here.
Submitted by mlytle0 on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 3:23pm.
And why would psychiatric theory be relevant anyway?
These are statements of current conditions. The nation IS polarized. With a growing group in the middle saying "none of the above".
The search terms "United States" and "divided nation" produces this:
http://www.google.ca/search?as_q=United+States&as_epq=divided+nation&as_...
23,400 hits in the last year.
This is not theory, this is what people are observing and saying, and finding in polls.
I think that's enough for that point. it should be.
political extremism
Submitted by mlytle0 on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 2:55pm.
Political extremism is fashionable today. As the great ideologies finally fail against reality, there are furious attempts to find a "reason" the unreasonable doesn't work.
Usually, you blame the opposite ideology.
Hint...reality doesn't give a rat's behind about left or right or ideology...
Hint...societies can't be either all for the individual or all for the collective. Neither Ayn Rand or Karl Marx got it right. (OOPs! now I know I've offended someones religion :})
Hint...Balance is part of it.
Hint...It will take calamity to get people to seek balance again. People don't wake up 'till they're spanked. History is record of that periodic spanking, written from the perspective of the survivors...
You mean like this?
Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 3:04pm.
"As anger rises, riots on the streets of American cities are inevitable. “Yes, yes, yes,” he says, almost gleefully". George Soros. You're in good company, you and Skarts andOpportunity Cost.
Or, did you mean this? "The Poor People’s Economic Human Rights Campaign and others will march on opening day of the Republican National Convention on AUGUST 27th, Monday from 3pm to 530pm.
This is a March of the Homeless, the Poor, the Unemployed and Supporters to call for a STOP TO ALL FORECLOSURES, STOP THE CRIMINALIZATION OF THE POOR AND HOMELESS, HOUSING AND FOOD ARE HUMAN RIGHTS!!"?
The Occutards have their marching orders, this Saturday is Occupy NB.
Calamity means economic disaster and/or war
Submitted by mlytle0 on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 3:14pm.
People become more reasonable when events reaffirm how pointless the ego is, and how fragile life is. It is not an expression of left or right.
There are many events along that path that may have labels applied to it. The final outcome is ideological exhaustion.
This concept is of course, incomprehensable to Americans at the moment. It will make more sense as the wheels of the world grind to a stop and stay there for a while...
Interesting. So only you are capable of seeing this path?
Submitted by drsamherman on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 5:47pm.
When did this path become visible to you?
No suprises
Submitted by skarts on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 10:26am.
With the TEA "Party" increasingly in favor of government regulation over who we can marry and what we can smoke, it shouldn't be any suprise that they are gaining popularity. The TEA "Party" has allowed itself to become a gimmick for the GOP, while OWS has always distanced itself from party politics. So naturally, those that support the GOP are more likely to support the new-and improved Big Government TEA.
I'm unfamiliar with an
Submitted by jonota on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 11:02am.
I'm unfamiliar with an official TEA Party stance on gay marriage (as that is not the purpose of the movement, and distracts), but most likely, as they are ANTI government intervention, they would be for defining marriage as what it is and always has been. Read more properly, to correct your misstatement, they are against the government redefining said institution to suit a grievance group, that would then impose its views throughout the government (such as in schools, to our children, without our consent). See also: Massachusetts after legalizing "gay marriage".
However, I would argue that
Submitted by skarts on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 12:01pm.
However, I would argue that by ensuring that marriage is between a man and a woman still instills it's views throughout the government, and proactively creating laws which do so is the very definition of such activity. It is not my religious belief that marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman, why should governmenty be teaching this to my child, and endorsing this position exclusively.
Government has no place in the institution of marriage, and the issue of gay marriage is one that should be dealt with by religion, not politics.
wow, are you ever wrong
Submitted by wizardjr on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 11:19am.
the anti smoking crusade came from the left, not the center and right. In point of fact the TEA Party folks are a step to the left of the anarchistic Paulites and generally in center right which means they want very LIMITED government, not more and more intrusion by bureauweenies.
As for marriage, a society must set norms. Marrying your favorite goat is not in society's best interest. Traditional marriage was arrived at long before there was a "state" in existence for some very good reasons - reasons that have not become invalid. While reactionaries are the loudest in this issue, cooler heads such as the TEA Party have the same concerns and recommendation - "marriage" is between one man and one woman, the rest can gin up some sort of civil contract that confers the same legal fictions are marriage does but is never called marriage.
I am talking about
Submitted by skarts on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 11:54am.
I am talking about anti-marijuana, actually, not anti smoking.
As for society setting norms, I agree. But it should be SOCIETY that set the norms, not the government, the government has no place in marriage aside from ensuring that the contract is legally bindable.
What responsible, otherwise law obiding adult citizens do is not of the government's concern, provided the rights of others is not violated. How can we expect the government to not have their hands in our finances, when they can't keep their hands out of our pants?
Do you appreciate the social purposes behind marriage?
Submitted by drsamherman on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 2:32pm.
One of the biggest advantages of having a society of married heterosexual couples is a massive reduction in the number of sexually transmitted diseases. Marriage not only serves a very useful legal vehicle under which assets and debts are managed when contracted by a legally married couple, but also a very important public health purpose. The protection of public health, along with the orderly transfer of assets and debts through the institution of marriage and the tracing of genetically-linked diseases ALL serve the public interest and are therefore the natural province of government.
Married gay couples, like
Submitted by skarts on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 2:59pm.
Married gay couples, like married stright couples, are less likely to have multiple partners.
Problem:
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 3:25pm.
I have no right to get married. So why are you demanding that this phantom "right" be granted to others?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Epidemiological studies have yet to say that.
Submitted by drsamherman on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 5:44pm.
HIV transmission rates, which are considered to be the most important markers of general STD rates within any given population, remain highest among homosexual men. CDC has yet to draw any specific statistics with respect to gay married couples. Lesbians have the lowest HIV transmission rates due primarily to very low risk activity. The groups disproportionately hit, in terms of a faster growth rate in HIV transmission compared to others, are African-American and Latino gay men. Gay men are likely to have more cumulative sexual partners in their lives than the majority of heterosexual males or females. The inference has been drawn and verified that married heterosexual couples who are faithful to one another have extremely low rates of HIV transmission due to absence of risky behavior. The same inference cannot be said of gay male couples in a self-described monogamous or legally married (per state law allowing such) status.
CDC published its HIV transmission rate reports for 2011 only recently, and it normally takes anywhere from three to six months (or later, depending on circumstances) to get reliable statistics.
At this time, there is no valid epidemiological basis to say that gay married (or self-described monogamous) couples are less likely to have multiple partners. The cumulative total of sex partners for gay men compared with heterosexual men, does not allow substantiation of your claim.
Parrot alert!
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 3:24pm.
SKARTS WANNA CRACKER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Seriously, how many times will you post this same tired post?
And how much money is Rent-A-Mob's new subsidiary, Rent-A-Poster, paying you for each post?
When has there ever been a right to marry?
Why do you support losers so much?
Show me where the Tea Party has cared about any of those things.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I never said anything about a
Submitted by skarts on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 3:50pm.
I never said anything about a right to get married.
First you're arguing against a tax break andn now you're arguing in favor of government regulations?
I think at this point you're just arguing.
Try reading for a change
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 5:41pm.
You simply refuse to read.
I do not want a tax break.
What I want is every single last American to pay 17% of his/her income in taxes. NO breaks, NO deductions, NOTHING.
I also want every American corporation to pay 17% of their income in taxes. NO breaks, NO deductions, NOTHING.
So yes, you might say I am arguing against a tax break. I want TAX OVERHAUL. What about that do you not get, Marxist?
And your desire to destroy the traditional family also falls right in line with Marxism.
You are intellectually bankrupt as well. Minimizing government regulations does not equal anarchy. World civilization has gotten along just fine for 6000 years without SILLINESS like "gay marriage" and I think it can continue to function just fine without it.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
absolutely no comparison
Submitted by wizardjr on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 11:11am.
the occupy idiots were dopers and dopes. They were all about "me, me, me". Most of them wanted either to score some grass or a six figure job to start out from because they had a college degree - usually in some lame-assed Liberal Arts concentration like queer theater. It was a fad and like all fads it faded away as folks scurried after "the next thing".
The TEA Party is a bunch of folks who are conservative and believe in the Constitution as written. They are not in it as a new fad, but as an expression of their fundamental beliefs. Beliefs that will not change with whatever the Kewl Kids think. Their view will not morph and is not dependent on others' views so it will last as long as they are alive and they will pass it along to their children.
The constitution
Submitted by mlytle0 on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 1:55pm.
I like the way labels are thrown about in the vague sense of "right" and "left".
Very productive.
What is the conservative of today, anyway? Is he Ron Paul? Is he Mitt Romney? Is he Rush Limbaugh? it's a useless label as not all of the people I can think of that labels themselves conservatives respects the constitution. Some do, some don't.
Same on the left...
Now I grant you, some of the young ones were fools looking for big salary, no work...but..
We now have a society where legal theft is becoming mainstream. Think MFGlobal here. Why so little criticism of the thieves? Only the little losers get chastisized.
Maybe the thieves are admired, no? Except for Maddoff and a few small fish, no Jail time is being allocated. It does make a kind of sense that in the world where big crimes go unpunished, the small sins of the weak will be highlighted....
It's all about Fraud really...
Submitted by mlytle0 on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 2:00pm.
The reason I brought religion into the discussion earlier, is that most religions eschew great wealth as a goal or lifestyle. Capitalism holds it out as a carrot for achievement.
Both can't be right.
We are now in a situation where the most knowledge intensive business is swallowing the whole of the West. I am refering to the Financial sector.
All transactions flow through the Financial Sector. Auto companies and their CEO's see a lot also, they have to know about the health of the steel industry, something about rubber and glass, etc. to be competitive, and to manage their businesses. But bankers see it ALL. J.P. Morgan, if they do data mining (I'm sure they do), knows more about the economy than the Government or GM does. Goldman Sacks is able to routinely outsmart most of the Political class of Europe (and here also, really).
What sort of a world does that bring about?
It's one where the virtual world of transactions takes precedence over the material world, to it's detriment.
It's a world where multi-trillion dollar credit instruments can be used as collateral to drive companies or whole nations down to the ground. They are useful as weapons.
They also can detonate at the wrong time, taking down the owner or user as well as the intended target (J.P.Morgan Chase is just starting to get a taste of this, much more to come). This will become more apparent to all soon.
They produce an environment of maximum insecurity for smaller firms and whole populations. But this is currently acceptable. Currently.
Do the Friends of Capitalism find this attractive? If so, they can't complain if they become collateral damage in the future... Of course, most think they will escape it. the misfortunes happen only to the slow ones, the lazy ones...
But nature is not necessarily that orderly...
Huh?
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 3:28pm.
So why is finance evil and everything else virtuous to you?
And why do you hate success? Could it be you are full of resentment?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Finance is like anthing else, wrong in excess.
Submitted by mlytle0 on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 4:01pm.
"So why is finance evil and everything else virtuous to you?"
I have said nothing about comparing finance to other things. However finance is currently full of fraud and abuse. It is close to taking the whole western world down.
The next iteration will be worse than 2008, as whole nations are going dark.
"And why do you hate success? Could it be you are full of resentment?"
I have had a good career in the oil business for over 25 years. I'm O.K.
But only a damn fool can't see what's happening. Get your vision checked, and maybe your soul as well.
Of course, sociopaths don't have souls...so reminding them about such things bothers them not...which is also a good test to see if they qualify.
It's how they justify themselves, anything goes as long as it makes them successful.
That's the ONLY yardstick, and that's imbalanced. Obviously.
It's the narrowness of the quest for success that makes it dark. If you create wealth by producing something of value, that fine. That however, is not Wall Street.
It dinner time here, so have a great day.
Twisted morals of a hate-filled Socialist
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 5:36pm.
It's the narrowness of the quest for success that makes it dark. If you create wealth by producing something of value, that fine. That however, is not Wall Street. Oh, I see now. YOU want to be the sole arbiter of what constitutes morality. In order for rich people to NOT be a target, they must meet YOUR criteria of morality. They must create something of value by YOUR standards, and if they do not, God help them, because YOU won't: YOU will make them enemies of the State and target them for destruction because they don't meet YOUR moral code.
It's all fun and games, Oilman, until you look down and see that the crowds of the envious and resentful have targeted YOU because they don't think you are moral for making money off of EVIL oil and have placed a noose around your neck.
You need to do something about all that resentment and hatred of your fellow man inside you and you need to prioritize that over dinner. In the meantime, Wall Street IS creating something of value: in part, MY RETIREMENT. That, and the retirements of millions of other Americans.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
The crowds won't be coming
Submitted by mlytle0 on Sun, 06/10/2012 - 7:30am.
The crowds won't be coming for me. They'll be coming for YOU.
Is this before the planet burns up from excess CO-2.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sun, 06/10/2012 - 2:07pm.
er after?
You Didn't Build That.
Huh?
Submitted by Unsane on Sun, 06/10/2012 - 7:06pm.
...and why would they be coming for me? You are the one who proudly announced that you spent 25 years working in a field of endeavor many of your fellow hate-filled Leftists and Socialists consider to be extremely immoral.
And you are the one casting moral judgments on people based on how they earn their living. You have stated that you hate Wall Street because "they don't produce anything of value" (which is crap and shows me you need serious professional help to deal with your hatred and bitter, intense resentment of people). I merely showed how the tables can just as easily be turned to the point where YOU become the target of rage.
And as I say, it's ALL fun and games until you become the recipient of that rage.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Anyone notice that mlytle0 is ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 11:12pm.
skarts with vastly improved spelling skills?
MD
MD, just part of the group
Submitted by UpNorth on Sun, 06/10/2012 - 10:35am.
sitting in the basement of the Poli-Sci building, whose mission this weekend was to go smell up the boards at NB.
Did anyone read mlytle0's profile? Like that's believable?
Big Liberal Taxi
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 06/10/2012 - 4:47pm.
I've been waiting for a chance to post this:
Don't it always go to show
You'll never know what you got till it's gone?
They gave up a job, to live a parking lot.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
there's a basic difference in OWS and TEA
Submitted by texasborngranny on Mon, 06/11/2012 - 12:52pm.
OWS members were/are, for the most part, society's 'takers', whining for more 'something for nothing'.
TEA members were/are, for the most part, society's earners; earning their own income, who were/are tired of having the government take if from them and give it to the whiners.