I thought we got rid of George Jr?

Oh. He was only AWOL.

Dopey remarks like the above are why I never vote the way tw does. That would be simply toooooo inept. His whole mentality is designed to fill me with the urge to urinate.

You look like an Obama voter, tw.

Try not to piss your pants, UG. :right:

I unzip, dear boy, I unzip -- a worthy thought. One I can brandish. One only improved on by pissing on tw's impolitic -- how impolitic! -- head. How do you feel about it? Do you look like an Obama voter too? That's how someone... broken looks.

I am seriously considering boycotting the next election. The choices are lining up to be 1) Bad and 2) Worse.

But then I'd miss voting on local issues and candidates, though. I feel that an individual voter can have some impact there. I'm even willing to go as far as voting for a Representative for the Colorado State Legislature. Maybe I can just leave the National stuff blank.

solvitur suffragii

:lol: Well happy Thanksgiving anyway!

Ignore everything until well after the Iowa Caucuses and New Hampshire primaries. Historically, the party's nomination is hardly even known until after those events. What is ongoing is the nonsense that will wed out many we should not even know about. I will never understand why anyone pays attention to so much nonsense as if any of it was relevant. Currently the many who only crave power are shooting themselves in the foot. Or pissing in their pants.

You are saying this like it is a bad thing.

Not at all. Just want him to be honest with the Cellar and where he was and what he did at the time. His choice. After that, like he said, we can go with what ever we want to believe.

Either way it will be doubted for his failure to answer.

None of it matters. The National Game has become too corrupt. Whoever gets voted(?) in under the current system and set of laws will not be a representative of the people - not whoever is President and not whoever gets into Congress.

The current deadlock in Congress is ample evidence of this. Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle want their owners to see that the Congressmen are voting for the ideologies they have been paid to back. Congress does not care that they have managed to lower the US's credit rating. Congress does not care that unemployment remains at 9%. Congress does not care about the American people. Period.

And Obama doesn't seem to care that much, either. He doesn't seem to be making an effort to even rally his own party - not really.

So, I am returning the favor.

The country has been in the crapper since we ratified the 19th amendment. Mississippi didn't ratify until March of 1984. The country would have been far better off if the rest of the nation followed our state.

:D

:corn:I'm waiting for it to start.

Sam, I lay that on the doorstep of Obama's not being a capitalist. He was brought up by a Communist single mother, and mentored by other communists, like the Churchillian Bill Ayers -- Ward Churchillian, that is. The past three years have pounded home even into his resistant skull that Americans do not want or trust a socialist of either the communist or the fascist description (there is next to no fundamental difference, as students of these religions will tell you) running America's affairs. Even foreign heads of state are regarding Obama as something of a nonentity and are treating him as such.

There haven't been very many things Obama has said or done that didn't either offend me, or seem to me unwise and ill founded. I never listen to the man's speeches with any attention -- none of his ideas work, so I'm not going to attend to them. I chiefly attend to the man and his party in the polling booth -- to vote against the lot of them.

I never boycott elections. But if those who are bitterly hostile to about every worthwhile thought ever thought do so, then you've left the field to me, to the likes of me, and to those who go too far beyond me to be liked by me. But where are you then? Out in Dicksville-Urinant.

Meanwhile, what Heinlein said: TANSTAAFL.

Meanwhile, what Heinlein said:

“When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout."

^^Like^^

Hell you could find more contradictory quotes in Heinlein than you can in the modern day Bible.

The shocking truth about the crackdown on Occupy

"Unparallelled police brutality" it is to laugh. I have a video of Syrian protesters getting shot in the face that dumb Naomi Wolf needs to see.

Next up LA!

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/11...Occupy-LA-camp

The thrust of the article was that, in contemporary American politics, there has not been an example of a protest movement consistently met with batons, pepper spray, and the wanton destruction of property. In that, she argued that the harsher police and, demonstrably, federal response to the movement is that it begins to threaten the financial interests of our elected officials.

Certainly, the police treatment of OWS has been butterflies and daises in comparison to Syria. But, Syria is a "republic under an authoritarian regime"; we are a "Constitution-based federal republic [with a] strong democratic tradition."

I would expect that the methods of control be different. But the difference does not mean we are not in a society of control.

What's your problem with American citizens exercising their rights to freedom of assembly and freedom of speech? LA is pretty far from Georgia last time I checked. Plus, the LA group has been very peaceful. From your link:

You just don't want people walking around and freely expressing a point of view that does not agree with your own. Well, you can always move somewhere that does not allow freedom of speech - many places you could choose from.

What Gvidas said. What is it about this movement that has sprung up lately among conservatives to hold the US and the Third World to the same bar? "At least we are not as bad as Syria" is a cop out. We are not in some competition with countries run by dictators and/or governments where the military has seized power away from the people.

This is not about "only" wounding people instead of killing them. This is about the rights given the American people by our constitution. Apparently you think its fine to restrict these freedoms whenever you don't agree with what some group is saying. Yet, whether you agree with the ideas of a given group or not should NEVER be the most important question. Ultimately, it is the right to free speech that we should be monitoring here. Whatever happened to the attitude, "I disagree with what you say, but I'll give my life for your right to say it"?

What's next? The US is better than Sri Lanka during its horrible civil war some years back? Better than Cambodia in the days of the "Killing Fields? Better than Argentina when It was "disappearing" people by pushing them out of airplanes at 15,000 ft? I have seen this "better than THAT atrocity" mindset on other boards besides this one. This outlook baffles me. And nobody would have dreamed of making such crazy comparisons a while ago.

Oh, so they've been hanging black people and civil rights workers? At least the US is better than Hitler's Germany since we don't put African Americans in concentration camps.

Just what kind of behaviors and to what degree of integrity do people in the US aspire to now, anyway?

Does not equal freedom to occupy....

That would be an assumption on your part. I have no problem with people expressing a point of view that differs from mine, and you should have no problem with me doing the same. I won't be going anywhere. My service to my country is well documented.

"Unparallelled police brutality" it is to laugh. I have a picture of Kent State protesters getting shot to death.

I was a freshman in college when Kent state happened. Those images remain in my brain to this very day. I remember how stunned all us college age kids were that our own countrymen would shoot us. After the shock and horror came the anger. Students closed down almost every university in the country in protest. At the University of Denver, we camped out (whoops!) in front of the admin building and prevented anyone, including the president, from going in to work. We boycotted classes.

The University of Denver (and many, many other institutions of higher learning) simply shut down for 6 weeks or so until summer quarter started. That was a dark time. Kent State radicalized me and many others, as well.

9/11 radicalized me.

Figuring out I was wrong de-radicalized me.

All the BS and misinformation has left me utterly confused.

I am on an alternating current.

Here as well.

Freedom to assemble, unless it's in a place.

If I'm understanding this guy's quote correctly, he's saying the elected leaders responsible for 'creating conflict with peaceful protesters' are the ones who should be focused on enforcing regulations on banks. If I'm understanding his city's situation correctly, it's City Hall calling the shots regarding the protesters. Now I'm curious, what can city hall do to enforce regulations on banks? I thought that was a federal level thing and it's not the feds rousting the protesters.

Town Hall is responsible for municipal bank reconciliations. An employee of the city (like the town clerk) has the job of accounting for all monies taken in, making sure bank statements tally with the municipalitie's own records and so on. Banks are also subject to regulation on the State level.

Do a Google News search on "OWS and FBI" to find articles about Homeland Security
participating in conference calls between city officials in several "occupied" cities.
Apparently DHS helped with coordination of both strategy and tactics.

As a result, a group of attorneys have filed Freedom of Information Act papers
to gain access to records of DHS participation in the OWS activites.
.

My next question would be what actual law enforcement division is out on the streets? The feds holding the line or advising on how to hold it? It'd be a bit different if the feds were actually doing the enforcing.

ftfy

I'm sorry, but I'm not understanding where we are going with this discussion.
And, it bothers me when someone tries to re-word something another has said.

Were you simply pointing out that signs of the OWS spoke to national issues,
while local authorities have no way to affect those national issues ?
If so, I could agree the locals may be powerless in that respect.

But that still would not be sufficient to nullify the message of the OWS signs.
That is, it's not necessary to have a full fledged "March on Washington" to send a national message.
OTOH, it's hard me to see why the DHS would or should need to be involved in such local demonstrations.
.

What got re-worded?

Didn't say anything about OWS's signs. I saw that guy's statement about the elected officials enforcing bank regulations instead of bothering protesters. I was curious as to what enforcement local (city/town level) elected officials could enforce on banks, because I thought the enforcement of regulations was done on the federal level. That question was answered.

Didn't say anything about nullifying or otherwise diminishing OWS's message. And frankly, I don't see why an unincorporated city wouldn't call the relevant federal agency if they have a problem. They call FEMA when there are natural disasters... why not call DHS if they perceive a potential security issue?

Sorry, my bad. I meant I was trying to avoid re-wording anything in your posts.

Not the same as occupy. Nice try.

Pass? Fail? FAIL!
 

The whole of the 'occupy' movement FAILS.


Are the uber-rich any less rich? No.

Aside from token support, have the 'governors' re-formed anything to dis-empower the uber-rich? No.


-FAILFAILFAILFAIL-

-endprogram-

And at what cost to the taxpayer?

as·sem·ble
   [uh-sem-buhl] Show IPA verb, -bled, -bling.
verb (used with object)
1.
to bring together or gather into one place, company, body, or whole.


oc·cu·py
   [ok-yuh-pahy] Show IPA verb, -pied, -py·ing.
verb (used with object)

4.
to take possession and control of (a place), as by military invasion.

So your argument is that if they called themselves the peaceable assembly movement it would be okay to hold a multi-day protest? I understand that arguing is often the point of your arguments, but you didn't pay for an argument. Maybe you want abuse, its just down the hall.

No, I would argue that prolonged occupation is not the same as a simple "Right to assemble". At some point, against the letter of the law, the initial assembly becomes a form of protest and is no longer an exercise of the Right to assemble but an act of civil disobedience.

"what cost to the taxpayer?"
 

Who cares?

If Joe and Josephine Taxpayer are foolish enough to throw money down the john, flush the john, and then pat themselves on the back for their 'good citizenry', then Joe and Josephine 'deserve' to foot the bill.

If Joe and Josephine were truly concerned about 'governance' (and the corruptions of governance): they'd have stepped up (and put their collected 'foot' down) a long time back.

Of course it is going to fail by your standards if you put such rigid restrictions on what is considered a successful movement. I'm pretty sure this article was posted somewhere else on this site (Classicman?) but really grasp what it is saying.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/r...133707949.html

"They're having an impact on what the American people think of capitalism."

You really believe that? You really think the nation is beginning to rethink the role of capitalism in our society?

Describe what specific changes you could see that would come directly from the protests.

There doesn't have to specific changes for a movement to have an impact, especially if you consider who controls economic regulations. The Tea Party didn't solve the US debt problem but they did a good job of bringing the issue national attention. OWS has brought national attention to other issues, even without politicians representing them. That can be considered a success within itself, obviously depending on the person's standard of success.

Two grassroot movements have popped up in the past three years and both have spread like a wildfire, which says a lot of about how people are feeling about our current economic state.

All I have heard is a bunch of anarchists, old hippies, new hippies, with a smattering of the unemployed and other more intelligent people. No coherent message. No unified message. A lot of really great lemming behavior as they repeat lines of general protest. Not much change. No great hue and cry to end our current capitalist system to an end from the majority of the nation. These people do not represent the majority of the people.

Off to the Military National Rugby Championships for the weekend. Enjoy.

In the same way that the Tea Party is just a bunch of racists with an angry white guy attitude that can conceptualize no other perspective besides their own. Or maybe that is called the media.

This is a strawman. To have an influence does not mean causing a cry to end our current capitalist system.

Good luck.

"Of course it is going to fail by your standards if you put such rigid restrictions on what is considered a successful movement."

Unless I'm mistaken, the standards I applied...


-The uber-rich becoming less so.

-The 'governors' doing something, anything, to dis-empower the uber-rich.


...are the standards set by the 'occupants'.

That is: the standards aren't mine, but theirs.

If I'm wrong, then someone (anyone) tell me what the all the fuss and muss is really all about.

#

"...a bunch of anarchists..."

Hey! Watch it, *friend! ;)









*
I'm not your friend, buddy! I'm not your buddy, pal! I'm not your pal, guy! I'm not your guy, friend! I'm not your friend, pal! I'm not your pal, buddy! And on and on and on...

Bloomberg

We know repeatedly in history that when the uber-rich get richer, then jobs are destroyed. The rich do not create the jobs - except in soundbytes.

"We know repeatedly in history that when the uber-rich get richer, then jobs are destroyed. The rich do not create the jobs - except in soundbytes."

I don't care.

My only points in any of this 'occupancy' nonsense (this thread) are...

(1) the 'occupants' are motivated by envy (no matter how each dresses his or her envy up), and...

(2) it (the 'occupancy') ain't working 'cause the rich are still rich and the governors ain't doing jack to alter that fact.

All this pro/con, for/against 'occupancy': pffftt! That's your train to ride, not mine.

"Wealthy producers" is an oxymoron equivalent to "military intelligence." The emperor wears no clothes, and many, including the OWS contingent are beginning to see this. Tax breaks for the rich have the result of making the rich richer. That's pretty much all.

The voice of reason at last. A business can be sitting on a million gold American Eagles, but if its potential customers lack the money to buy its product, throwing more money at the business owner is NOT going to solve the problem.

If I may be excused for using an anecdotal example - one need only look at the Bates Motel where I work. Congress can give the owner a million dollars, but as long as the population in this area lack the income to pay for a room here, nothing changes. There will be no new positions for housekeeping or desk clerks. I turn away 3, 4, 5, potential customers every day because they can't afford the rates, and we are one of the least expensive motels in town.

What is it with Conservatives, anyway? They scream bloody murder at the thought of "throwing money" at some problem, but when it comes to the wealthy, there is never enough money to be thrown their way. The rich scream for more and their sycophants in congress rush to obey.

The bonus army also did not succeed because too many ignored a real problem that the 'Army' made so obvious.

I see you also ignoring the real problem. When the rich get richer, then jobs are destroyed. How to destroy jobs? Enrich the rich. Reality is that simple.

Provided were numbers. Whereas an under 35 year old averaged $45,000 in 1992 and $47,000 in 1999. The same under 35 year old group earned only $32,000 in 1998 - after wacko extremists fixed the economy by enriching the richest at the expense of all others. Those facts are why Occupy Wall Street exist.

Whereas their message is distorted, not understood or vague, the facts behind that movement are obvious. Wacko extremists, who have enriched those who buy them, have also harmed America in numbers that most people do not yet appreciate.

There is no envy. But there is denial among those are told to deny. Extremists intentionally harmed this economy to enrich their elitist friends. While reducing the American standards of living. Unfortunately, many Americans with the least education were calling that good. Would even blame Occupy Wall Street for their own plight. History is full of attacks on such demonstrations because some are told how to think by their extremist propaganda machines rather then learn the problem.

#1 – when the rich get richer, then jobs are destroyed. #2 – it gets even worse when the rich buy politicians and tell the least educated among us this is good.

“Occupy xxx” can be criticize for a diluted and vague message. And for being in conflict with the wrong ‘enemy’. But reasons behind it were bluntly defined even here over ten years ago when extremists were creating these problems. Unfortunately too many people did not see back then what was obvious. What was even known from lessons provided by history.

Provided are numbers based in 1992 dollars. Damning numbers that say why Occupy Wall Street should have been obvious long ago even when the same scumbags invented the California energy crisis, MCI Worldcom, and LTCM. All were created to enrich the richest at the expense of all other Americans.

So, if I'm hearing you right, Henry, they should just pack up and go home yes?

Maybe when they get home they can bend over the kitchen table and just take the almighty buttfucking their country is delivering to them, without complaint.

Or just stock up on tinned food and opt out of the race entirely.

What they are doing is expressing the anger and dismay currently felt by millions of ordinary Americans who've seen their economy and natinal happiness broken, and left shattered on the roadside by a class who claim not to exist as such, and who see themselves as citizens of corporate entities not nation states.

They haven't an agreed message? Well, hell, stick 10 Republicans, or 10 Democrats in a room together and you'll get 15 political messages from each group. They haven't changed anything? Nothing moves fast in the basic structures of society, even with the combined weight of the political and finacnial classes, it takes years and even decades to effect real change, why would you expect a citizen protest to have provoked concrete change in the short term?

OWS is a grassroots movement borne of anger and riding a wave of events. It doesn't need a unified message. It just needs to sustain its energy and anger and draw more people into the conversation. It is serving its purpose.