Hello:

I've been gone a few days, and I see the wingers have gone off the rails again... I don't think I can bring 'em back this time...

Let's start with Obama. I've heard the complaints about communism, socialism and all those words, but I'm a lefty, and he hasn't approached ANYTHING that I would consider a left wing proposal... Ok, the heath care law was an attempt at left wing stuff, but it didn't wind up being left wing at all. In terms of foreign affairs, he's been positively NEOCONISH! The bailouts are NOT left wing, although you'll CALL 'em that.

Tom calls Clarence Thomas the finest jurist he ever seen. I see a legally lazy and incurious right wing politico. I think he's been the WORST jurist we've ever had on the court.

And, I'm amazed at how angry the right wing is over the occupy movement. Really, I am.

excon

Correction... I said he was ONE of the finest jurors and I'll stand by it. Hmmm interesting use of code words like lazy in describing him. If I called Obama lazy for handing off the details of Obamacare to Reid and Pelosi I wonder what I'd be called ?

I told you he would have no choice but the follow the template for dealing with jihadistan ;but he screwed that up too . He was given victory in Iraq and he screwed up by failing to negotiate an extension to the Status of Forces agreement. In Afpakia he announced the date of US surrender ,and he stoked the flames of the Arab spring turned autumn nightmare with his appeasing addresses in Cairo and Ankara .

Like it or not ,the bailouts are the essence of state socialism and have nothing to do with a conservative vision of a free market where creative destruction and failure are part of the model . There is no such a thing as too big to fail ;and if you look at the vote for TARP you will see that it was generally conservatives who opposed it.

I have already stated my opposition to the silly OWS . To sum it up ;if they want to organize to make a political movement then go for it. The only people they are hurting are people who don't deserve it and themselves. Their movement is swifty being coopted by radical elements and it is nothing short of chaos in their encampments. I say to them.. Go home already... Mommy kept your bed made and has prepared a nice hot meal .

Palin spoke yesterday and not surprisingly said many of the things us "perplexed" "right wingers " have said about OWS.

Quote:

---

Sarah Palin told Republican donors Thursday that Occupy Wall Street protesters want the same thing as the "fat cats" they're upset with — a government bailout.

Palin criticized the protesters as believing they're entitled to other people's productivity and money and said they've drawn the wrong conclusions. Instead, the former Alaska governor said people should look to the tea party.

"They say `Wall Street fat cats got a bailout so now I want one too.' And the correct answer is no one is entitled to a bailout," Palin told the crowd of about 1,000 at the Republican Party of Florida dinner. "The American dream, our foundation, is about work ethic and empowerment, not entitlement."

She compared the protesters and President Barack Obama to the "crony capitalists" they say they oppose.

"Barack Obama is owned by Wall Street. The fat cats, as he calls them, they're his friends. They're his pals. That's where he gets his campaign donations. And he's very generous about giving these cats their cat nip — bigger returns on their investments in bailouts," Palin said.

She said she understands why people are frustrated with Wall Street and government and that she's disgusted by the wrong kind of capitalist. But the proper way to protest is through the tea party movement.

"My question to the Occupy Wall street crowd is, `Where have you been the last three years?' I suggest if they want to vent and want to change the situation, then they vent in the right direction. They need to hop on a bus and travel south — 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, where there's plenty of space to occupy," Palin said.

---

Palin slams Occupy Wall Street protesters during Fla. appearance; says they want a bailout | StarTribune.com

Hello again, tom:

In the early 60's a rag tag bunch of hippies starting protesting on the campus of Columbia University. They were called names too. But, within the space of a year, they FORCED a sitting president to bow out of office.

We did it because our CAUSE was just. Yes, it took a few months to learn HOW to protest. But, learn we did, and the world was never the same again.

The same is true with OWS. These kids aren't good at articulating their anger. They're not good demonstrators yet. But, their cause is just, and we're going to change the world again.

Get ready for the ride.

excon

I remember the progression . The hippies turned into the Weather Underground and the Yippies . The Democrat Mayor of Chi-town said his job was to preserve disorder... I always thought that was a malaprop but evidently the Oakland city Council has taken those words to heart.
You guys forced a sitting President to resign and what did you get in his place ?

The US did not lose the war because a bunch of college students protested . The US lost the war when left wing journalist Water Cronkite took the opportunity of a US victory during Tet to proclaim the cause lost.

However ;you are right about one thing ,the Democrats were infiltrated 4 years later and as a result George McGovern was the nominee . Oh ,yeah... and those hippies/yippies of old became the conspicuous consumption yuppies of the 1980s ,abandoning and selling out all their youthful idealism in favor of becoming 'Masters of the Universe".

Jerry Rubin was one of the leaders of the Yippies . He is the quintessential example of what I mean.
Rubin in the 1980s argue that activism was hard work and that the abuse of drugs, sex, and private property had made the counter-culture "a scary society in itself." He maintained that "wealth creation is the real American revolution. "

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I remember the progression . The hippies turned into the Weather Underground and the Yippies .

---

Hello again, tom:

No, you don't. I thought your history was better than that, but I see you got blinded with right wingedness. The hippies didn't turn into anything. Let me say it AGAIN. The hippies didn't turn into ANYTHING. We're still here, and the Weather Underground is dead. You'd LIKE to say that all of us were commies then, and you're STILL saying it about the OWS'rs now.

Deny what's happening right under your nose today, if it gives you comfort, just like you denied it 50 years ago.

excon

OK ,for berevity I won't dispute romantic notions of what the hippy movement was . I won't dispute that a small minority of them still exists... I've been to Woodstock enough to see the grey beards selling tie -dyed shirts .

But you do a big disservice to the hippies by comparing then to this rabble at OWS . I don't ever recall a sniff on anti-semitism in the movement . I don't recall any stories of women having to segregate themselves from the men for safety sake.
Women at Occupy Wall Street protest put up female-only tents to avoid rape - NYPOST.com

I don't recall stories of the threat of theft, assault, and even rape at hippy events .
Occupy Wall Street tackles crime in protest camp - WSJ.com

And they never resorted to violent riots ;the yippies did ,the terrorist Weathermen did ;but the hippies didn't .
So where is the comparison ? The hippies had a specific attainable goal in the Vietnam protest .
Oh there were platitudes about changing the world ;but once the Vietnam war ended ;they moved on the so called middle class existence.

Thanks to the hippies, I'm sitting here at my computer instead of baking cookies in the kitchen.

Hello again, tom:

You should excuse me, but if the right wing press is reporting the rapes, I'm not so excited about them. I've heard them say all sorts of OTHER stuff that isn't true about the protesters, so why should I believe the rape crap?

And, if they are unruly, they'll have to LEARN HOW to be demonstrators. I have faith that they will, because as I said earlier, their cause is just.

Let's speak to that for a second.. I don't have the chart, but sometime around 1980 the super rich began to get even MORE super rich... And, they did so by leaps and bounds.

Common sense should tell you that our entrepreneurs didn't all of a sudden get BETTER. They didn't all of a sudden get SMARTER. The only thing that changed was POLICY. And it's the POLICY that needs to be changed back. The OWS'rs get it. How could they NOT get it? How could YOU not get it?

excon

So ex what you are saying is everything old is new again. What you are proving is that we are destined to do it over and over again until we get it right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

So ex what you are saying is everything old is new again. What you are proving is that we are destined to do it over and over again until we get it right.

---

Hello clete:

Or, remember what happened last time. But, we don't. I don't know why.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello clete:

Or, remember what happened last time. But, we don't. I dunno why.

excon

---

We don't remember because we weren't there, and subtle differences in the scenario. It's a generational thing

I won't waste my time linking to other corraborative sites. You know I'm right.

I think they are learning very well from groups like the former ACORN and the public unions how to hold unruley disruptive violent protests. Oakland is not the exception .It will soon be the rule ;just like it is in Europe.

I stand by my premise that their goal is more statism. Call it whatever name you wish . If they are protesting what is falsely called croney capitalism ;their remedy is more of the same.

Palin is right. If they really was concerned about status quo they should all flock to D.C. and to liberate the economy of excess regulation. If the percentage of miilionaires and billionaires is 1% ,the percentage in Congress and the White House is 50 %.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

and to liberate the economy of excess regulation. If the percentage of miilionaires and billionaires is 1% ,the percentage in Congress and the White House is 50 %.

---

Tom, you know the only way to liberate the economy is the same way you liberate the nation, with a boots and all revolution so that the established order is destroyed along with all their legislation, regulations, rules, etc.. That 1% you speak of isn't about to let that happen because they will lose their protections. That same 1% is represented 100% in Congress, etc, because that's the way your political system works, no one gets elected without money and to suggest it is 50% as if the 99% are actually represented...

A few long haired hippies matching on the capital isn't going to change anything including their clothes. These people are not the majority, they may not even be voters. You want them to Occupy Washington

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I think they are learning very well from groups like the former ACORN and the public unions how to hold unruley disruptive violent protests.

---

Hello again, tom:

It's true.. I saw an ACORN bus here in Seattle. It was parked right next to the George Soros bus, which was squeezed in next to the communist bus.. The communist bus was the coolest. It had a picture of Lennon on it. Hamas and the skinheads share a bus, while the rapists have their own. I didn't see the Weather Underground bus, but you know it's here. Yes, that old hippie school bus is here. They're passing out orange acid, green condoms, and a drum or two.

excon

Cuhm Bya

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Palin is right. If they really was concerned about status quo they should all flock to D.C. and to liberate the economy of excess regulation. If the percentage of miilionaires and billionaires is 1% ,the percentage in Congress and the White House is 50 %.

---

Hi Tom,

From what fairy tale did Palin get this idea.

As you say, it is all about bread and circuses. It is also about alea iacta est (The die has been cast) and has been for a long time. She doesn't honestly think the so-called 1 percent is going to tolerate some form of political pluralism. If the 1 percent have any sense they won't. Not at the prices they are forced to pay. Regulation is just fine so long as it serves their ends.

Re read Clete's excellent comment.

Tut

The Tea Party demonstrated the proper way to get political change. Oh they had their demonstrations ;but the more important point was they mobilized at the grass roots level to take over the nominating process and get their candidates on the ballots and elected. There will be more of that in 2012 .
These Occupy movements are nothing more than Kabuki political theater . But now people are getting hurt. Time to call it off and go home.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

The Tea Party demonstrated the proper way to get political change. Oh they had their demonstrations ;but the more important point was they mobilized at the grass roots level to take over the nominating process and get their candidates on the ballots and elected. There will be more of that in 2012 .
These Occupy movements are nothing more than Kabuki political theater . But now people are getting hurt. Time to call it off and go home.

---

Hi Tom,

The occupy movement are confused and becoming more so. I agree, time to go home.

Nonetheless,you miss the point. There won't be any political change. It will be more of the same regardless of whoever we/you vote for.

You don't believe the so-called 1percent are going to risk all that power, prestige and influence on the whims of the ballot-box? Do you?

I'll have a guess and say the occupy movement is really bemoaning the lack of pluralism in politics.


P.S. Unlike our politics, I am beginning to realize American politics is so exciting.

Tut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

The Tea Party demonstrated the proper way to get political change. .

---

Hello tom:

Well, I've read the Constitution, and I didn't see ANYTHING in the First Amendment about "proper" demonstrations... All I saw was the peoples right to assemble. It didn't say they need to be well mannered, or bathed. To me, it looks like the ONLY requirement for assembling, is being PISSED, and they qualify.

Of course, you want them to go home.. You realize that this movement is MUCH bigger than the tea party, and the result they'll have will devastate the gains made by the tea party.

Now, you can criticize them for their dress and their manners. But, you're missing the bigger picture. Bummer for you. Me? I'm loving it. My people are going to pull us back from the brink of right wingism forever.

excon

There is no such thing as "the 1%". It is an artificial construct of the class warriors.

There is mobility within the American economy which makes the concept of a 'permanent rich ' a myth.

A Census Bureau study for the period from 2004 to 2007, about a third of the households in the highest income quintile (the top 20%) moved down to another income group. In the same period, a third of those in the lowest income group moved to a higher group. There are rags to riches stories, and riches to rags as well.

Now admittedly that was in years when the ecomomy was seen as doing good .And that leads me to the most important point. Fix the economy and the unrest goes away. Mobility does suffer in a down economy.
Another point I continue to make is that excess regulations also restrict mobility because it makes it more difficult for the start up business to get off the ground.

One other thing that is specific to this OWS crowd. I think they are looking for instant gratification and historically that's not how it's done. When I graduated I lived week to week and had to sacrifice some wants to take care of the needs. Over time opportunities present themselves and with hard work ,thrift ,and a bit of luck I worked my way up the income ladder. College loans got paid off.A home purchased the old fashion way with my having some skin in the game to demonstrate an ability to pay off the mortgage. Working long hours when available... etc . All part of the Western work ethic that seems to have been forgotten in the entitlement era.

I read the 1st all the time too. It talks about "peaceful assembly"... not a right to assemble. In other words,it is not an absolute.

When your demonstration turns violent it crosses your constitutional threshold. When you occupy land that doesn't belong to you you cross that constitutional threshold. When you fail to get permits and disrupt other people rights you've crossed that constitutional threshold .

Tut

There is no such thing as a permanent top 1% . It is a myth.

Quote:

---

The U.S. Treasury released a study in November 2007 that examined income mobility in the U.S. from 1996 to 2005. Using data from individual tax returns, the study documented the movement of households along the distribution of real income over the 10-year period. As shown in Figure 1A, the study found that nearly 58 percent of the households that were in the lowest income quintile (the lowest 20 percent) in 1996 moved to a higher income quintile by 2005. Similarly, nearly 50 percent of the households in the second-lowest quintile in 1996 moved to a higher income quintile by 2005. Even a significant number of households in the third- and fourth-lowest income quintiles in 1996 moved to a higher quintile in 2005.

The Treasury study also documented falls in household income between 1996 and 2005. This is most interesting when considering the richest households. As shown in Figure 1B, more than 57 percent of the richest 1 percent of households in 1996 fell out of that category by 2005. Similarly, more than 45 percent of the households that ranked in the top 5 percent of income in 1996 fell out of that category by 2005.

Thus it is clear that over time, a significant number of households move to higher positions along the income distribution, and a significant number move to lower positions along the income distribution. Common reference to “classes” of people (e.g. the lowest 20 percent or the richest 10 percent) is quite misleading because income classes do not contain the same households and people over time.

---

U.S. Income Inequality: It?s Not So Bad

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

There is no such thing as "the 1%". It is an artifical construct of the class warriors.

There is mobility within the American economy which makes the concept of a 'permanent rich ' a myth.

A Census Bureau study for the period from 2004 to 2007, about a third of the households in the highest income quintile (the top 20%) moved down to another income group. In the same period, a third of those in the lowest income group moved to a higher group. There are rags to riches stories, and riches to rags as well.

Now admittedly that was in years when the ecomomy was seen as doing good .And that leads me to the most important point. Fix the economy and the unrest goes away. Mobility does suffer in a down economy.
Another point I continue to make is that excess regulations also restrict mobility because it makes it more difficult for the start up business to get off the ground.

One other thing that is specific to this OWS crowd. I think they are looking for instant gratification and historically thats not how it's done. When I graduated I lived week to week and had to sacrifice some wants to take care of the needs. Over time opportunities present themselves and with hard work ,thrift ,and a bit of luck I worked my way up the income ladder. College loans got paid off.A home purchased the old fashion way with my having some skin in the game to demonstrate an ability to pay off the mortgage. Working long hours when available ....etc . All part of the Western work ethic that seems to have been forgotten in the entitlement era.

---

Hi Tom,

Yes, I mostly agree with the above. That's why I keep saying "the so-called 1 percent"

I disagree is with the idea of permanent rich being a myth. The level of mobility is debatable. Nonetheless, I don't see there being a great 'turn over'. However, even if there was a large turnover I still don't see it changing anything.

The faces may change but it is still a case of shared values and beliefs.

Tut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

There is mobility within the American economy which makes the concept of a 'permanent rich ' a myth.

---

That's the part you are denying - the mobility is gone.

Read the link .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Now admittedly that was in years when the ecomomy was seen as doing good .And that leads me to the most important point. Fix the economy and the unrest goes away.

---

Hello again, tom:

No disagreement there.

But, it's easier said than done. Right now, you got both sides saying my way or the highway... Ain't nothing going to get fixed with that attitude. The Republicans are NOT interested in turning the economy around and giving Obama a victory. No way, no how, and you know that to be true. They'd rather the economy COLLAPSE because they think the Democrats will get blamed.. They're probably right. I think you'll do VERY WELL in the coming election.. But, I DON'T think you'll get 60 seats in the senate... Therefore, we're assured of gridlock for yet another term.

And the economy gets WORSE, and the people get more violent.. That shouldn't come as a surprise to you.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

read the link .

---

Got it:
http://www.economicmobility.org/asse...m%20Report.pdf

Maura Kelly: Economic mobility in the US is worse than suspected | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

U.S. falls behind Europe in Economic Mobility between Classes

The Koch bros have their brother from another mother, Romney has Rove (BUSHS BRAIN), and the far, far, far right has Slick Rick.

I got popcorn, cheese nips, pizza and chips, and beer, if needed. You guys are so outnumbered, and totally unprepared, but its going to be interesting.

So where's the party? Should we come over to your place?

Check your local cable listings, if there is a debate on, COME ON OVER..!

May be preempted by Monday Night Football though.

The debate was Saturday night, Cain and Newt. I watched it :D

November 9, 2011 8pm ET on CNBC
Location: Oakland University in Rochester, Michigan
Sponsor: CNBC, the Michigan Republican Party and Oakland University
Participants: Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, Huntsman, Paul, Perry, Romney, Santorum

November 10, 2011 WG's birthday

November 12, 2011 8pm ET on CBS
Location: Wofford College in Spartanburg, South Carolina
Sponsor: CBS News, The National Journal and the Republican Party of South Carolina
Participants: TBD

Happy Birthday. Wish I could've seen the Newt v Cain debate. Must've been better than the dog an pony show debates they've been having.

I missed 'em, blame it on NETFLIX, and popcorn, But the 10th is doable WG!!

You have to learn to multitask, Tal.

Obams been Neoconish? When did this happen?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

You have to learn to multitask, Tal.

---

Doesn't eating popcorn, and watching football count? Oh and Thursday Night football starts this week, how lucky are you? :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

Obams been Neoconish? When did this happen?

---

When he refused to get tough on the right wing, the banks, or those nickel slick republicans who rather take him down than do there jobs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

When he refused to get tough on the right wing, the banks, or those nickel slick republicans who rather take him down than do there jobs.

---

So then the Republicans are really Liberalish for not hammering the left any harder than they have?

No, the right is a slave to the corporate masters who have no concept of doing, or considering anything but the masters interest. Republicans and conservatives are but the overseers of the slave mentality, that keeps corporations in power.