Trans Ladyboy Forum

Trans Ladyboy Forum (http://forum.transladyboy.com//index.php)
-   General Discussion (http://forum.transladyboy.com//forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   Thoughts on Today's Political Landscape (http://forum.transladyboy.com//showthread.php?t=11618)

Enoch Root 07-19-2011 10:38 AM

Thoughts on Today's Political Landscape
 
I thought we might have a couple posts worth of real discussion. What think you all about the recent debacle with Rupert Murdoch and that of Dominique Strauss-Kahn, former chief of the IMF?

smc 07-19-2011 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enoch Root (Post 191338)
I thought we might have a couple posts worth of real discussion. What think you all about the recent debacle with Rupert Murdoch and that of Dominique Strauss-Kahn, former chief of the IMF?

I think the DSK issue and Murdoch issues are not really discussable in the same breath. I will touch on the Murdoch hacking scandle, however. I want to make clear that my views have absolutely nothing to do with Murdoch's political positions or the political positions espoused by his primary media outlets, especially Fox News Channel in the United States.

What is so interesting about the hacking scandal is what it tells us about how class society works. While all capitalist countries are class societies economically, England is a very class-oriented society on the cultural level, far more so than the United States. Newspapers such as The Guardian and even Murdoch's own Times of London have long been the outlets turned to by the upper crust of British society. They are also celebrated for their high ethical standards and attention to detail and truth. They also enjoy the lowest circulation figures among British newspapers.

The tabloids -- The Sun, News of the World, and many others -- have long been the popular newspapers. Why is that? Part of it is the simple fact that they seek the lowest common denominator in their coverage. But a big part of it is the way they cover the powerful, the wealthier, the more privileged, be it a celebrity, a politican, or a member of the British royal family. By printing anything and everything about these people, they appeal to the oppressed class's desire to bring their oppressors down. And those with more wealth, power, and privilege are the oppressors in this simple calculus (even if at the individual level it is not the case, on a class basis it is true).

Now the tabloids have revealed that while seeming to speak for this desire of the "little people," they are actually in bed with the "enemy." Their editors and reporters rub shoulders with the rich and powerful, be it in private or in very public venues. Rebekah Brooks lives in a massive country estate, which everyone probably knew but nobody really saw until the scandal broke and it was shown on television every day in Britain. She who would pretend to speak for the powerless had become one of the powerful. Murdoch, always behind the scenes and always wealthy and powerful, is reaping what he and his minions have sown.

Edward Wasserman, a professor of media ethics at Washington and Lee University, has put it very well. These reporters were kind of the instruments of the underdog in soeity, pulling down the rich and powerful. Suddenly, now it turns out that these people were doing the bullying."

I believe that the full ramifications of this scandal have yet to be revealed. The British government may fall. Murdoch may divest himself of his newspapers, and probably be pushed out of the executive offices of News Corp. Fox News Channel here in the United States may have to be sold, too, perhaps to a buyer group that includes Roger Ailes (thus ensuring that nothing will change in how FNC functions). But in the end, this may be the thing that cracks the walls of the echo chamber.

Enoch Root 07-19-2011 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smc (Post 191342)
I think the DSK issue and Murdoch issues are not really discussable in the same breath. I will touch on the Murdoch hacking scandle, however. I want to make clear that my views have absolutely nothing to do with Murdoch's political positions or the political positions espoused by his primary media outlets, especially Fox News Channel in the United States.

I have recently seen several stories about abuses of power or the powerful getting away scotfree. Murdoch's empire was hacking into a girl's cellphone and Strauss-Kahn raped a woman and got away with it. There are other examples. The recent decision by the Supreme Court not to consider the mass of women suing Walmart as a class allowing them to sue Walmart for sexism. And yesterday I watched an HBO documentary called "Mann v Ford" about the Rampaugh Indians' attempt to sue the Ford company and the EPA for poisoning the land (with dioxyn or some such, apparently the most poisonous substance known to man. It kills in points per trillion according to the scientist who was a part of the legal team), staging a show cleanup, lying to the community that the land was now clean and safe to live in, and the health problems that abound the community (an inordinate rate of cancer and miscarriage and early death). The community settled out of court for a paltry 1.5 million dollars that had to be split about 600 ways (I think. The tv's audio isn't very good).

Does this explain the reasons behind starting the thread clear enough?

smc 07-19-2011 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enoch Root (Post 191367)
I have recently seen several stories about abuses of power or the powerful getting away scotfree. Murdoch's empire was hacking into a girl's cellphone and Strauss-Kahn raped a woman and got away with it. There are other examples. The recent decision by the Supreme Court not to consider the mass of women suing Walmart as a class allowing them to sue Walmart for sexism. And yesterday I watched an HBO documentary called "Mann v Ford" about the Rampaugh Indians' attempt to sue the Ford company and the EPA for poisoning the land (with dioxyn or some such, apparently the most poisonous substance known to man. It kills in points per trillion according to the scientist who was a part of the legal team), staging a show cleanup, lying to the community that the land was now clean and safe to live in, and the health problems that abound the community (an inordinate rate of cancer and miscarriage and early death). The community settled out of court for a paltry 1.5 million dollars that had to be split about 600 ways (I think. The tv's audio isn't very good).

Does this explain the reasons behind starting the thread clear enough?

So, you want to discuss "abuses of power" generally? If so, I would have given the thread a different name. But note that a thread titled "Abuses of Power" is an open invitation to a discussion on things that have been posited (not truthfully, but posted nonetheless) in the very thread from which you moved your initial post. Just sayin' ...

Enoch Root 07-19-2011 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smc (Post 191371)
So, you want to discuss "abuses of power" generally? If so, I would have given the thread a different name. But note that a thread titled "Abuses of Power" is an open invitation to a discussion on things that have been posited (not truthfully, but posted nonetheless) in the very thread from which you moved your initial post. Just sayin' ...

That is quite true. Frankly I had no idea what better title to give it but I am open to suggestions. Of course, I've no idea how to change the title once the thread has been created.

And how curious you would mention a certain other thread. It is my hope this thread serve as an antithesis to Tracy's "Liberal free for all" thread. It is my hope this thread host as little in the way of abuses of logic, evidence, language as possible. It would also be nice if people didn't make up quotes to suit their needs a well.

smc 07-19-2011 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enoch Root (Post 191376)
That is quite true. Frankly I had no idea what better title to give it but I am open to suggestions. Of course, I've no idea how to change the title once the thread has been created.

And how curious you would mention a certain other thread. It is my hope this thread serve as an antithesis to Tracy's "Liberal free for all" thread. It is my hope this thread host as little in the way of abuses of logic, evidence, language as possible. It would also be nice if people didn't make up quotes to suit their needs a well.

A moderator can change the thread title.

Do you think my initial post is on topic? If so, perhaps the discussion could begin there. While I did not use the specific phrase "abuse of power," I think the British hacking scandal is a particularly interesting example of it, in that it involves supposed "voices of the people" actually colluding with the power elite and then betraying both them and the common people they pretended
to serve.

Enoch Root 07-19-2011 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smc (Post 191379)
A moderator can change the thread title.

Do you think my initial post is on topic? If so, perhaps the discussion could begin there. While I did not use the specific phrase "abuse of power," I think the British hacking scandal is a particularly interesting example of it, in that it involves supposed "voices of the people" actually colluding with the power elite and then betraying both them and the common people they pretended
to serve.

Absolutely. Though I would certainly like to hear people's input on the Walmart case and that of the Rampaugh Indians.

I know nothing of tabloids. In fact, I'm not sure I know what they are--save perhaps for those ridiculous things that claim Clinton has met with alien ambassadors and Bat Boy or some such. Neither was I aware of the tabloids' reputation for "speaking for the people" which is now exposed as a lie. Yes you may begin there. The part about the more explicit class distinctions of England is of particular concern for me as well.

smc 07-19-2011 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enoch Root (Post 191381)
Absolutely. Though I would certainly like to hear people's input on the Walmart case and that of the Rampaugh Indians.

I know nothing of tabloids. In fact, I'm not sure I know what they are--save perhaps for those ridiculous things that claim Clinton has met with alien ambassadors and Bat Boy or some such. Neither was I aware of the tabloids' reputation for "speaking for the people" which is now exposed as a lie. Yes you may begin there. The part about the more explicit class distinctions of England is of particular concern for me as well.

The word "tabloid" when describing a newspaper is first a description of its size. So, strictly speaking of size, those supermarket rags to which you refer are tabloids and The New York Times (I presume you are familiar with its size) is called a "broadsheet." Lots of mainstream newspapers are tabloid size, including The Independent in England, which is one of the nation's most highly respected newspapers.

"Tabloid journalism" when used to describe mainstream newspapers or other media outlets (e.g., New York Post being "mainstream" and The National Enquirer being not mainstream) generally refers to the focus of the coverage on sensationalized stories about celebrities, crime, gossip, and with coverage of politics and economics that is typically either highly partisan, hysterically presented (often with too-clever headlines), or both.

Tabloid journalism in mainstream outlets typically goes to the limit of slander, libel, defamation -- call it what you will -- whereas in the supermarket rags tabloid journalism involves wholesale fabrication ... unless you actually believe that aliens visited Bill Clinton when he was in the White House, or that a woman has given birth to a baby who is half boy, half bat. When it comes to political coverage, though, the "mainstream" tabloid journalism outlets are prone to making things up, because they can get away with it, or in the case of Fox News Channel, "accidentally" running incorrect information on the crawl or beneath a picture of someone being covered, letting it sink in subliminally with the viewer, and then "apologizing" for it later.

GRH 07-20-2011 10:11 AM

In the case of DSK, it's important to remember the presumption of innocence. The prosecutor's ended up having a nail driven into their case when it was discovered that the hotel maid has a history of lying (and at worst committing fraud).

Enoch Root 07-22-2011 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GRH (Post 191475)
In the case of DSK, it's important to remember the presumption of innocence. The prosecutor's ended up having a nail driven into their case when it was discovered that the hotel maid has a history of lying (and at worst committing fraud).

Would you care to expand on this?

SluttyShemaleAnna 07-22-2011 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enoch Root (Post 191684)
Would you care to expand on this?

There was various stuff with her receiving money from criminals, she was involved in some kind of criminal scheme, and of course we all know that only good girls can get raped, once a woman commits any crime, she automatically consents to any sexual act possible with every man she meets.

Enoch Root 07-22-2011 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SluttyShemaleAnna (Post 191689)
There was various stuff with her receiving money from criminals, she was involved in some kind of criminal scheme, and of course we all know that only good girls can get raped, once a woman commits any crime, she automatically consents to any sexual act possible with every man she meets.

Criminal scheme? That's the first I've heard of that. I have heard that she is, or was, illegal and there was something dubious about her accounts or some such but that this is not strange when it comes to illegals. Of course there are fools out there who would condemn her on that alone rather than recognizing the perilous position she is in.

I've also heard DSK has a history of misogyny and sexual harassment.

ila 07-22-2011 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enoch Root (Post 191684)
Would you care to expand on this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enoch Root (Post 191690)
Criminal scheme? That's the first I've heard of that. I have heard that she is, or was, illegal and there was something dubious about her accounts or some such but that this is not strange when it comes to illegals. Of course there are fools out there who would condemn her on that alone rather than recognizing the perilous position she is in.

I've also heard DSK has a history of misogyny and sexual harassment.

Do you ever read or listen to the news beyond the original sensationalist headlines?

SluttyShemaleAnna 07-22-2011 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enoch Root (Post 191690)
Criminal scheme? That's the first I've heard of that. I have heard that she is, or was, illegal and there was something dubious about her accounts or some such but that this is not strange when it comes to illegals. Of course there are fools out there who would condemn her on that alone rather than recognizing the perilous position she is in.

I've also heard DSK has a history of misogyny and sexual harassment.

Well, apparently an assortment of known criminals have paid $100,000 into her bank account, so there's definitely something going on, that cash didn't spring out of a monkey's butthole.

The facts of the case though is that the medical and forensic evidence is in her favour, and the circumstantial evidence that is known to the public seems to back her up too, as does DSK's history of sexual harassment.
The prosecution is going ahead however as the US justice system places so much weight on victim 'credibility', it seems quite likely that DSK will not be convicted.

ila 07-22-2011 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SluttyShemaleAnna (Post 191722)
...The facts of the case though is that the medical and forensic evidence is in her favour, and the circumstantial evidence that is known to the public seems to back her up too, as does DSK's history of sexual harassment...

The medical and forensic evidence shows that there was some kind of sexual activity. It does not prove that there was a rape.

smc 09-04-2011 05:58 PM

I know Enoch Root wants this thread to keep going. Today's column by Maureen Dowd in The New York Times is worthy of resurrecting the thread.

I am no supporter of Obama. His failure to stand up to the right doesn't surprise me at all. When he was running for president, I went on record saying that he stood for nothing.

But from the point of view of political process, watching his demise has been interesting. There are, of course, those on this site who will chime in with their usual dissembling about his policies. But I hope some of you will be spurred to discuss the process of governing, not just take the opportunity to spew bullshit that's already posted elsewhere.

One and Done?
By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: September 3, 2011


WASHINGTON -- One day during the 2008 campaign, as Barack Obama read the foreboding news of the mounting economic and military catastrophes that W. was bequeathing his successor, he dryly remarked to aides: ?Maybe I should throw the game.?

On the razor?s edge of another recession; blocked at every turn by Republicans determined to slice him up at any cost; starting an unexpectedly daunting re-election bid; and puzzling over how to make a prime-time speech about infrastructure and payroll taxes soar, maybe President Obama is wishing that he had thrown the game.

The leader who was once a luminescent, inspirational force is now just a guy in a really bad spot.

His Republican rivals for 2012 have gone to town on the Labor Day weekend news of zero job growth, using the same line of attack Hillary used in 2008: Enough with the big speeches! What about some action?

Polls show that most Americans still like and trust the president; but they may no longer have faith that he?s a smarty-pants who can fix the economy.

Just as Obama miscalculated in 2009 when Democrats had total control of Congress, holding out hope that G.O.P. lawmakers would come around on health care after all but three senators had refused to vote for the stimulus bill; just as he misread John Boehner this summer, clinging like a scorned lover to a dream that the speaker would drop his demanding new inamorata, the Tea Party, to strike a ?grand? budget bargain, so the president once more set a trap for himself and gave Boehner the opportunity to dis him on the timing of his jobs speech this week.

Obama?s re-election chances depend on painting the Republicans as disrespectful. So why would the White House act disrespectful by scheduling a speech to a joint session of Congress at the exact time when the Republicans already had a debate planned?

And why is the White House so cocky about Obama as a TV draw against quick-draw Rick Perry? As James Carville acerbically noted, given a choice between watching an Obama speech and a G.O.P. debate, ?I?d watch the debate, and I?m not even a Republican.?

The White House caved, of course, and moved to Thursday, because there?s nothing the Republicans say that he won?t eagerly meet halfway.

No. 2 on David Letterman?s Top Ten List of the president?s plans for Labor Day: ?Pretty much whatever the Republicans tell him he can do.?

On MSNBC, the anchors were wistfully listening to old F.D.R. speeches, wishing that this president had some of that fight. But Obama can?t turn into F.D.R. for the campaign because he aspires to the class that F.D.R. was a traitor to; and he can?t turn into Harry Truman because he lacks the common touch. He has an acquired elitism.

MSNBC?s Matt Miller offered ?a public service? to journalists talking about Obama ? a list of synonyms for cave: ?Buckle, fold, concede, bend, defer, submit, give in, knuckle under, kowtow, surrender, yield, comply, capitulate.?

And it wasn?t exactly Morning in America when Obama sent out a mass e-mail to supporters Wednesday under the heading ?Frustrated.?

It unfortunately echoed a November 2010 parody in The Onion with the headline, ?Frustrated Obama Sends Nation Rambling 75,000-Word E-Mail.?

?Throughout,? The Onion teased, ?the president expressed his aggravation on subjects as disparate as the war in Afghanistan, the sluggish economic recovery, his live-in mother-in-law, China?s undervalued currency, Boston?s Logan Airport, and tort reform.?

You know you?re in trouble when Harry Reid says you should be more aggressive.

If the languid Obama had not done his usual irritating fourth-quarter play, if he had presented a jobs plan a year ago and fought for it, he wouldn?t have needed to elevate the setting. How will he up the ante next time? A speech from the space station?

Republicans who are worried about being political props have a point. The president is using the power of the incumbency and a sacred occasion for a political speech.

Obama is still suffering from the Speech Illusion, the idea that he can come down from the mountain, read from a Teleprompter, cast a magic spell with his words and climb back up the mountain, while we scurry around and do what he proclaimed.

The days of spinning illusions in a Greek temple in a football stadium are done. The One is dancing on the edge of one term.

The White House team is flailing ? reacting, regrouping, retrenching. It?s repugnant.

After pushing and shoving and caving to get on TV, the president?s advisers immediately began warning that the long-yearned-for jobs speech wasn?t going to be that awe-inspiring.

?The issue isn?t the size or the newness of the ideas,? one said. ?It?s less the substance than how he says it, whether he seizes the moment.?

The arc of justice is stuck at the top of a mountain. Maybe Obama was not even the person he was waiting for.

Enoch Root 09-10-2011 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smc (Post 195737)
I know Enoch Root wants this thread to keep going. Today's column by Maureen Dowd in The New York Times is worthy of resurrecting the thread.

I am no supporter of Obama. His failure to stand up to the right doesn't surprise me at all. When he was running for president, I went on record saying that he stood for nothing.

But from the point of view of political process, watching his demise has been interesting. There are, of course, those on this site who will chime in with their usual dissembling about his policies. But I hope some of you will be spurred to discuss the process of governing, not just take the opportunity to spew bullshit that's already posted elsewhere.[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]

I have a story that must be all too familiar. I was in college. I had never voted before. I had never registered as a voter. Not even here in Puerto Rico. I had no idea what it was like. I'd never felt compelled to vote. But then along came Obama. I'd always been annoyed that my college years would be spent under Bush yet here was an opportunity for something different. So it seemed. An acquaintance of mine was a member of the College Democrats. Smart fellow, slim, ginger--Canadian if I remember correctly--full of energy. All in all he was a good man, calm and moral. He convinced me to register. He told me the dates to keep an eye out for. He was there in the public library we were driven to vote.

He was a Hillary man but then Obama became the candidate.

Now I wonder what he feels about Obama and Hillary. I certainly do not like what's happened. There's the old but true refrain: we've gotten four more years of Bush. It's certainly a lesson. I think I've learned it pretty well. Democrats are pretty much just like Republicans.

randolph 09-10-2011 01:41 PM

Enoch
Quote:

Now I wonder what he feels about Obama and Hillary. I certainly do not like what's happened. There's the old but true refrain: we've gotten four more years of Bush. It's certainly a lesson. I think I've learned it pretty well. Democrats are pretty much just like Republicans.
http://forum.transladyboy.com/images/buttons/quote.gif
I would not jump to that conclusion in the upcoming election. Think about what will happen if Republicans get control of both houses. The democratic firewall will be gone and the Republicans can enact the immoral teabagger adjenda
Destroy social Security, destroy Medicare, eliminate family planning, redefine rape, the list goes on and on. We will see our great country decend into a morass of pseudo religious bull shit that supports a corporate takeover of the country. These are very dangerous times and it's not from Al Quida.

Enoch Root 09-10-2011 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by randolph (Post 196170)
Enoch
http://forum.transladyboy.com/images/buttons/quote.gif
I would not jump to that conclusion in the upcoming election. Think about what will happen if Republicans get control of both houses. The democratic firewall will be gone and the Republicans can enact the immoral teabagger adjenda
Destroy social Security, destroy Medicare, eliminate family planning, redefine rape, the list goes on and on. We will see our great country decend into a morass of pseudo religious bull shit that supports a corporate takeover of the country. These are very dangerous times and it's not from Al Quida.

Tell me randolph, how are the Democrats any different? To me it seems a matter of degree (a very slight one) rather than substance. Am I wrong? I welcome any information for further education.

A note: I have seen a difference between the rank and file Democrats like you, who do appear to have a concern for other people, and those Democrats in power, which appear to have power rather than people as their concern.

TracyCoxx 09-10-2011 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by randolph (Post 196170)
The democratic firewall will be gone and the Republicans can enact the immoral teabagger adjenda
Destroy social Security, destroy Medicare, eliminate family planning, redefine rape, the list goes on and on. We will see our great country decend into a morass of pseudo religious bull shit that supports a corporate takeover of the country. These are very dangerous times and it's not from Al Quida.

yikes... It's not about destroying social security and medicare. It's a recognition that those programs are going bankrupt. I know what you're going to say, but the democrats also said Fannie & Freddie were financially sound. It's about what to do to either rescue those programs so that it's actually there for the people who are paying into it, or gradually phasing it out based on age so that something else will replace it for the younger generations. It's not about destroying those programs leaving people with nothing.

I'm really not sure what's wrong with family planning. They should just call it sex ed though lol.

With respect to redefining rape. I wasn't aware of this and had to look it up...
"This legislation would exclude adult victims of incest, women who were raped while drugged or unconscious, and statutory rape."

I think you can exclude the first one. If adult siblings willingly want to go at it, then who cares. The other two are rape. The repubs screwed up on this in an effort to outlaw as much abortion as they can. If the repubs had control of the presidency and congress as you fear, they could just outlaw abortion for most cases rather than redefining rape.

There is certainly religious bullshit on the part of republicans, but how does said bullshit support a corporate takeover of the country?

I agree with your last sentence. Over the last 3 years, the democrats have stuck us with spending packages and royally expanded government which greatly accelerates our debts rise to $20 trillion. The debt level and current spending levels has already brought our credit rating down for the first time ever. This limits our ability to care for the segment of our society that worries you so much without putting us further in the hole. Dangerous times...

randolph 09-10-2011 05:42 PM

Tracy
Quote:

I agree with your last sentence. Over the last 3 years, the democrats have stuck us with spending packages and royally expanded government which greatly accelerates our debts rise to $20 trillion. The debt level and current spending levels has already brought our credit rating down for the first time ever. This limits our ability to care for the segment of our society that worries you so much without putting us further in the hole. Dangerous times... __________________
We have gone over the "quantitative easing" and the enormous costs of that program in other posts and threads. I hate it that the banks have got off Scott free on the financial debacle.
The massive debt is indeed very scary, particularly in view of the fact that it has had marginal beneficial effect. Presumibably it prevented a worldwide depression, which is very good. If the economy was back on its feet and unemployment was down to 6% I suspect the huge debt would seem less important.
A lot of that will be paid back with recovery and the rest will be inflated away to the detriment of my and everybody elses savings. It will be good for the stock market however.
Indeed, we are in a serious bind and now Obama wants to spend another 450 billion to reduce unemployment,. Where is that money coming from, more debt? Now he wants to cut employment taxes, further weakening social security. Reinstating the Bush tax cut for the rich would only add 80 billion, where is the rest coming from. A serious slashing of our bloated imperialistic military budget would help alot.

randolph 09-10-2011 05:51 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Here is a hypothetical scenario and how it would work out for government income. It is quite clear where all the money is. FDR taxed the rich at around 70% to help pay for WWII.

TracyCoxx 09-11-2011 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by randolph (Post 196184)
Indeed, we are in a serious bind and now Obama wants to spend another 450 billion to reduce unemployment,. Where is that money coming from, more debt?

How many stimulus packages is this guy going to do before he finally realizes they don't stimulate the economy? There is something wrong with the economy. BO's administration needs to stop printing money to buy votes and try to understand WHY the economy is so bad and fix the real problems.

aw9725 09-11-2011 07:17 PM

Some interesting posts. I've actually enjoyed reading them. :respect: I don't identify with either party. One thing that has become obvious is that the US desperately needs leadership and Obama is clearly not the "one":

http://www.standard.net/stories/2011...r-nation-needs

My ex-wife and I supported Hillary through the 2008 primary. Reluctantly I voted for Obama in the fall. It was in the midst of my divorce. Maybe I can plead temporary insanity? :lol:

Who do any of you see emerging as the next US president?

ila 09-11-2011 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aw9725 (Post 196250)
...Who do any of you see emerging as the next US president?

The wrong person.

I don't really see any leaders running for the US president. The only person that has a chance of bringing some credibility to the office is Hillary, provided that she decides to run and gets the nomination.

smc 09-12-2011 07:41 AM

The problem is that the government is not stimulating the economy enough. Roosevelt understood it. Obama does not, or the intransigence of those who more directly represent the wealthy rulers (i.e., more directly than does he) keeps it from happening. What we need is many, many, many hundreds of billions in investment to create jobs doing things this failing, falling-behind country needs, not piddling symbolic stimuli ... and not tax breaks for phony "job creators."

randolph 09-12-2011 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smc (Post 196284)
The problem is that the government is not stimulating the economy enough. Roosevelt understood it. Obama does not, or the intransigence of those who more directly represent the wealthy rulers (i.e., more directly than does he) keeps it from happening. What we need is many, many, many hundreds of billions in investment to create jobs doing things this failing, falling-behind country needs, not piddling symbolic stimuli ... and not tax breaks for phony "job creators."

Maybe the billions will come from China to build factories here when millions of desperate unemployed workers here in the US are willing to work for peanuts, like the dock workers in the nineteen thirties.

smc 09-12-2011 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by randolph (Post 196297)
Maybe the billions will come from China to build factories here when millions of desperate unemployed workers here in the US are willing to work for peanuts, like the dock workers in the nineteen thirties.

The United States has all the money needed to stimulate the economy without help from anyone. It's a matter of whose interests the government and the spending serve. Anyone who thinks the wealthiest are suffering even remotely in the current recession is delusional or lying.

Enoch Root 09-12-2011 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aw9725 (Post 196250)
Some interesting posts. I've actually enjoyed reading them. :respect: I don't identify with either party. One thing that has become obvious is that the US desperately needs leadership and Obama is clearly not the "one":

http://www.standard.net/stories/2011...r-nation-needs

My ex-wife and I supported Hillary through the 2008 primary. Reluctantly I voted for Obama in the fall. It was in the midst of my divorce. Maybe I can plead temporary insanity? :lol:

Who do any of you see emerging as the next US president?

That's one problem right there. There is no "one" leader. A leader is not needed. People working in concert in full knowledge of the benefits they will gain and the good they are doing for their fellows is what is needed.

Enoch Root 09-12-2011 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smc (Post 196284)
The problem is that the government is not stimulating the economy enough. Roosevelt understood it. Obama does not, or the intransigence of those who more directly represent the wealthy rulers (i.e., more directly than does he) keeps it from happening. What we need is many, many, many hundreds of billions in investment to create jobs doing things this failing, falling-behind country needs, not piddling symbolic stimuli ... and not tax breaks for phony "job creators."

Wasn't about half of the stimulus bill composed of tax cuts?

aw9725 09-12-2011 05:19 PM

Enoch,

My reference to Obama as the “one” was somewhat sarcastic as he was presented to us as a “semi-messiah” (my own term… :lol:) by the United States media. Here are a few images from his campaign in case anyone forgot. Sorry… :innocent: I agree with you 100% that we need to work together--I hope that will happen--but seems unrealistic to expect from our society as fragmented as it is. Maybe I’m wrong. My use of the term “leader” also does NOT mean “dictator.” History is rich with individuals who rose to the occasion in times of crisis--I will let you pick your favorites--we need one of them now.

A

Enoch Root 09-13-2011 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aw9725 (Post 196347)
Enoch,

My reference to Obama as the ?one? was somewhat sarcastic as he was presented to us as a ?semi-messiah? (my own term? :lol:) by the United States media. Here are a few images from his campaign in case anyone forgot. Sorry? :innocent: I agree with you 100% that we need to work together--I hope that will happen--but seems unrealistic to expect from our society as fragmented as it is. Maybe I?m wrong. My use of the term ?leader? also does NOT mean ?dictator.? History is rich with individuals who rose to the occasion in times of crisis--I will let you pick your favorites--we need one of them now.

A

I am sorry. I never meant to give the impression you earnestly saw the man as a pseudo-messianic figure. In fact it never occurred to me you may have meant that. Instead the use of "the one" made me think of leaders, any leader, on whom all hopes are saddled. I am leery of any one person becoming a symbol. A friend of mine once put it as: we need leadership, not leaders. I think I understand that. Maybe I do not.

GRH 09-13-2011 04:52 PM

Just some random musings on the new "Jobs Bill" that Obama proposed. Tracy Coxx has insisted that we don't need more "stimulus." But what of the proposed payroll tax cuts? Was there ever a tax cut (except for green energy subsidies) that a Republican didn't like?

Personally, I feel it's reckless to steal money from Social Security given its long term trajectory. Rob Peter to pay Paul-- gladly have a hamburger today if I can pay you for it tomorrow. But Republican opposition to the payroll tax cut isn't rooted in this. If anything, Republicans would like policy that would make entitlements more likely to go bankrupt (that way they have an excuse to destroy the social safety net). No, any Republican opposition to the payroll tax cut proposal is rooted in the fact that they don't want to do ANYTHING that might help the economy (and by extension, possibly help Obama's reelection chances).

TracyCoxx 09-13-2011 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GRH (Post 196448)
Just some random musings on the new "Jobs Bill" that Obama proposed. Tracy Coxx has insisted that we don't need more "stimulus." But what of the proposed payroll tax cuts? Was there ever a tax cut (except for green energy subsidies) that a Republican didn't like?

Tax cut?
Obama proposes tax hikes to pay for jobs bill
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-send-job...230355229.html

transjen 09-13-2011 07:14 PM

You know i'm getting sick and tired of listening to the GOP BS about the rich should never pay one red cent in taxes
For ten years they have been greedy pig hogging there money getting fatter and yet where are the jobs from these so called job creaturers?
The pigs have enjoying there cuts for oven ten years so by GOP logic this should be a jobs boom time and yet where are the jobs from the rich not paying taxes?
And the great trickle down BS the rich pay less taxes everyones life improves so after ten years of rich pigs not paying taxes way are so many Americans living under the poverity line?
I know Tracy will scream it's all BO's fault
But in trurh the Bush GOP policies are still in effect so we should be in the middle of a booming enconmy
And all eight GOP bozos answer is the same cut taxes do away with regulations trickle down all the way
And these are the same bozos who created this mess to start with starting with the deity R Reagan a brain dead two bit movie actor
:p Jerseygirl Jen

smc 09-13-2011 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx (Post 196463)
Tax cut?
Obama proposes tax hikes to pay for jobs bill
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-send-job...230355229.html

Read the story carefully, all.

As Obama said in his speech, there is a proposal to cut payroll taxes in half, to 3.1 percent. That is a "tax cut."

As for the tax increases, the are:

- an increase on the tax rate for the wealthy;
- an increase in taxes for the energy corporations that are raking in billions in profits;
- the elimination of some loopholes in the tax code for those making over $200,000 per year.

So, yes, it will be paid in part by a tax increase. And to those who will feel the impact of these increases (and their apologists), in our country where the number of people living in poverty grows each day along with the embarrassing gap in income between the richest and the poorest, I say boo-fucking-hoo.

smc 09-13-2011 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by transjen (Post 196466)
You know i'm getting sick and tired of listening to the GOP BS about the rich should never pay one red cent in taxes
For ten years they have been freedy pig hogging there money getting fatter and yet where are the jobs from these so called job creaturers?
The pigs have enjoying there cuts for oven ten years so by GOP logic this should be a jobs boom time and yet where are the jobs from the rich not paying taxes?
And the great trickle down BS the rich pay less taxes everyones life improves so after ten years of rich pigs not paying taxes way are so many Americans living under the poverity line?
I know Tracy will scream it's all BO's fault
But in trurh the Bush GOP policies are still in effect so we should be in the middle of a booming enconmy
And all eight GOP bozos answer is the same cut taxes do away with regulations trickle down all the way
And these are the same bozos who created this mess to start with starting with the deity R Reagan a brain dead two bit movie actor
:p Jerseygirl Jen

C'mon, Jen, they've created lots of jobs ... for lobbyists to carry some of the extra windfall cash the shameful tax cuts have given them into the offices of politicians of both parties and distribute it in unmarked envelopes. ;)

randolph 09-13-2011 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by transjen (Post 196466)
You know i'm getting sick and tired of listening to the GOP BS about the rich should never pay one red cent in taxes
For ten years they have been greedy pig hogging there money getting fatter and yet where are the jobs from these so called job creaturers?
The pigs have enjoying there cuts for oven ten years so by GOP logic this should be a jobs boom time and yet where are the jobs from the rich not paying taxes?
And the great trickle down BS the rich pay less taxes everyones life improves so after ten years of rich pigs not paying taxes way are so many Americans living under the poverity line?
I know Tracy will scream it's all BO's fault
But in trurh the Bush GOP policies are still in effect so we should be in the middle of a booming enconmy
And all eight GOP bozos answer is the same cut taxes do away with regulations trickle down all the way
And these are the same bozos who created this mess to start with starting with the deity R Reagan a brain dead two bit movie actor
:p Jerseygirl Jen

Hey Jen, you should be Obama's press manager.
You are saying the things he should be saying. :respect:

TracyCoxx 09-13-2011 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by transjen (Post 196466)
You know i'm getting sick and tired of listening to the GOP BS about the rich should never pay one red cent in taxes

...

I know Tracy will scream it's all BO's fault

No, Tracy will say "I didn't realize the GOP were saying that. You're right. That is wrong for the rich not to pay one red cent in taxes."

aw9725 09-14-2011 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enoch Root (Post 196444)
I am sorry. I never meant to give the impression you earnestly saw the man as a pseudo-messianic figure. In fact it never occurred to me you may have meant that. Instead the use of "the one" made me think of leaders, any leader, on whom all hopes are saddled. I am leery of any one person becoming a symbol. A friend of mine once put it as: we need leadership, not leaders. I think I understand that. Maybe I do not.

Sure, no problem. :) I think it is good and prudent to be wary of anyone who appears to be ?the one? or have all the answers. History is full of examples of this type of person too coming to power?usually with disastrous consequences. Also you make an excellent point that we need ?leadership? as opposed to leaders.

smc 09-14-2011 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx (Post 196473)
No, Tracy will say "I didn't realize the GOP were saying that. You're right. That is wrong for the rich not to pay one red cent in taxes."

Let's take a stab at the civil discussion we've been talking about elsewhere.

What do you think is a reasonable breakdown of tax rates based on income levels? For instance, should we go back to the rates that existed during the Clinton Administration, or keep them as is with the so-called "Bush tax cuts" that Obama agreed to extend? If you are for a flat tax, I urge you not to re-open that discussion, but simply refer us to earlier postings.

Also, what about corporate tax rates? Should all corporations pay taxes? Should loopholes that create the known situation in which many of the largest corporations in the United States pay no income tax be shut?

Most important, please motivate your answer. What is the reasoning behind the answers you give.

TracyCoxx 09-14-2011 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smc (Post 196541)
What do you think is a reasonable breakdown of tax rates based on income levels? For instance, should we go back to the rates that existed during the Clinton Administration, or keep them as is with the so-called "Bush tax cuts" that Obama agreed to extend? If you are for a flat tax, I urge you not to re-open that discussion, but simply refer us to earlier postings.

It was discussed here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smc (Post 196541)
Also, what about corporate tax rates? Should all corporations pay taxes? Should loopholes that create the known situation in which many of the largest corporations in the United States pay no income tax be shut?

I haven't thought a lot about corporate tax rates, so my opinion probably isn't worth much and I'm sure plenty of holes can be shot through it because it's a huge issue and like I've said I haven't thought a lot about it. Tax on corporations include income tax, employment taxes and excise taxes correct?

All these taxes are passed on to and actually paid by customers, employees, suppliers, and shareholders. Many of these people are already paying income tax or sales tax so it seems that in taxing a corporation, the government is really potentially taxing customers, employees, suppliers, and shareholders twice, which I don't think is right. Excise taxes is a very thorny issue. Some of it is probably warranted, other parts of it, I don't think so.

One opinion I am sure of is that corporations shouldn't be taxed to the point where they are not competitive against foreign businesses. Otherwise the corporations will relocate some or all of their work to other countries and drive their economy instead of ours.

smc 09-15-2011 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx (Post 196575)
... I haven't thought a lot about corporate tax rates, so my opinion probably isn't worth much and I'm sure plenty of holes can be shot through it because it's a huge issue and like I've said I haven't thought a lot about it. Tax on corporations include income tax, employment taxes and excise taxes correct?

All these taxes are passed on to and actually paid by customers, employees, suppliers, and shareholders. Many of these people are already paying income tax or sales tax so it seems that in taxing a corporation, the government is really potentially taxing customers, employees, suppliers, and shareholders twice, which I don't think is right. Excise taxes is a very thorny issue. Some of it is probably warranted, other parts of it, I don't think so.

One opinion I am sure of is that corporations shouldn't be taxed to the point where they are not competitive against foreign businesses. Otherwise the corporations will relocate some or all of their work to other countries and drive their economy instead of ours.

This sounds like an argument either for no taxes (or very little) on corporations, or for price controls. I am sure it's not the latter. Please elaborate on this question: is it reasonable in theory to tax profits? If so, what might be done to prevent the burden of such a tax from being passed onto to consumers? Do you believe, as Ron Paul might state, that the "market" can be counted on to solve all things?

randolph 09-15-2011 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx (Post 196575)
It was discussed here.

I haven't thought a lot about corporate tax rates, so my opinion probably isn't worth much and I'm sure plenty of holes can be shot through it because it's a huge issue and like I've said I haven't thought a lot about it. Tax on corporations include income tax, employment taxes and excise taxes correct?

All these taxes are passed on to and actually paid by customers, employees, suppliers, and shareholders. Many of these people are already paying income tax or sales tax so it seems that in taxing a corporation, the government is really potentially taxing customers, employees, suppliers, and shareholders twice, which I don't think is right. Excise taxes is a very thorny issue. Some of it is probably warranted, other parts of it, I don't
think so.

One opinion I am sure of is that corporations shouldn't be taxed to the point where they are not competitive against foreign businesses. Otherwise the corporations will relocate some or all of their work to other countries and drive their economy instead of ours.

There is some logic in just taxing just individuals. Of course corporations and individuals would have to be closely monitored to prevent cheating. Also the capital gains tax would also have to be progressive instead of a mere 15%.

GRH 09-16-2011 02:59 AM

If corporations are "persons" as the Supreme Court has recently decided, than by God, they can pay their share of taxes like all the other REAL people I know.

Enoch Root 09-20-2011 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GRH (Post 196676)
If corporations are "persons" as the Supreme Court has recently decided, than by God, they can pay their share of taxes like all the other REAL people I know.

I find the whole corporate personhood thing to be a real brain teaser. It is so self evidently absurd it's a wonder it's gained any traction at all.

randolph 09-20-2011 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enoch Root (Post 197097)
I find the whole corporate personhood thing to be a real brain teaser. It is so self evidently absurd it's a wonder it's gained any traction at all.

Defining a corporation as a person was done back in the 1880s. the purpose was to protect the owners of the corporation from liability suits relating to the corporations activities. Since the corporation is a "person". Liability stays with the corporation and the owners are protected from lawsuits.

Enoch Root 09-20-2011 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by randolph (Post 197102)
Defining a corporation as a person was done back in the 1880s. the purpose was to protect the owners of the corporation from liability suits relating to the corporations activities. Since the corporation is a "person". Liability stays with the corporation and the owners are protected from lawsuits.

Right yea because that funny building that scratches the sky--made of glass and steel, lots and lots of glass eyes--is a thinking thing. Sure. How brilliant then--I mean, how curious it protects the corporation's owners from the repercussions they should have coming to them were they to do something bad. How very very odd.

stephanie4life 09-20-2011 09:56 PM

Mythought is none of the above. If you work for a living both parties have sold you out along time ago. The democrates support NAFTA, the red-neckpublicans support sending jobs to china. Personally ill vote for a third party every chance I get. I don't care if a german sheppard is running for office as long as its not a dem or rep.

Enoch Root 10-05-2011 08:29 PM

Occupy Wall Stree (Brooklyn Bridge):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUmyP...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_1bYVMwg8k

Enoch Root 10-11-2011 11:17 AM

Occupy Boston:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iu63e...utu.be&t=1m42s

TracyCoxx 10-12-2011 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enoch Root (Post 198515)

Since the occupy mobs like to march up to people's homes and act like a bunch of dunk college kids just out of a football game they lost why don't they march up to Warren Buffett's house and protest the billionaire who doesn't pay his taxes?

smc 10-12-2011 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx (Post 198562)
Since the occupy mobs like to march up to people's homes and act like a bunch of dunk college kids just out of a football game they lost why don't they march up to Warren Buffett's house and protest the billionaire who doesn't pay his taxes?

In Boston, what Tracy Coxx refers to as a MOB comprises, among others, a number of recently laid-off teachers, union ironworkers who want nothing more than to fix the North Washington Street bridge, several dozen clerks who have lost their jobs at retail outlets that have closed, a large contingent of Vietnam Veterans, etc., etc., etc.

I think the use of the highly charged term MOB ought to be explained.

Enoch Root 10-14-2011 08:14 AM

Drunk college kids eh? Well, I have my doubts about the movement since it might be taken over by pro-corporate folk but the fact Tracy had that reaction tells me the movement may be onto something.

franalexes 10-14-2011 09:41 AM

may we hear from the left?
 
why don't they march up to Warren Buffett's house and protest the billionaire who doesn't pay his taxes?
__________________
And the answer is?

smc 10-14-2011 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by franalexes (Post 198696)
why don't they march up to Warren Buffett's house and protest the billionaire who doesn't pay his taxes?
__________________
And the answer is?

I do not speak for this movement, but I suspect that the answer is quite simple. The millionaires and billionaires whose homes have been targeted for demonstrations in New York City are the ones who have gamed the "system" on Wall Street. They are senior executives at Goldman Sachs and other investment banks and brokerage firms who not only are largely responsible for the economic collapse that begin in the last years of the Bush administration, but who -- unlike Warren Buffet -- have said nothing about the responsibility of their class for the current situation.

That said, I am all in favor of taking on Warren Buffet. In my view, a "benevolent" capitalist is no better than a Wall Street mogul who says "let 'em eat cake." In the end, they are all exploiters.

"Left" enough for you, fran? ;)

TracyCoxx 10-15-2011 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smc (Post 198701)
The millionaires and billionaires whose homes have been targeted for demonstrations in New York City are the ones who have gamed the "system" on Wall Street.

Those are the mobs that I speak of.

smc 10-15-2011 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx (Post 198738)
Those are the mobs that I speak of.

The use of the word "mob" is highly charged. Please define what distinguishes people exercising their constitutional rights to free speech and assembly from a "mob"? When Tea Party activists seek to shut down a member of Congress who is conducting a town hall meeting in her or his district, is that a "mob"?

Trogdor 10-16-2011 08:14 AM

~Comes on in, listening to Silent Running by Mike and the Mechanics~

I myself am rooting for the folks taking on Wall street....my only regret is not being there as well. :respect: I'd get some hard body suit to wear under my shirt in case some of these N.Y. cops get taser happy.

Yes, I am back, possibly to the regret of a few people. :cool:

JodieTs 10-17-2011 07:25 AM

[QUOTE=Trogdor
Yea! welcome back.
We've missed you. :hug:

I guess you were rather busy in September, what with the world's 4th annual transsexual porn star convention being held, yet again,
........in Leonx, Michigan. :lol:

smc 10-17-2011 02:54 PM

A Letter From Goldman Sachs
 
A Letter from Goldman Sachs Concerning Occupy Wall Street

NEW YORK (The Borowitz Report)? The following is a letter released today by Lloyd Blankfein, the chairman of banking giant Goldman Sachs:
Dear Investor:

Up until now, Goldman Sachs has been silent on the subject of the protest movement known as Occupy Wall Street. That does not mean, however, that it has not been very much on our minds. As thousands have gathered in Lower Manhattan, passionately expressing their deep discontent with the status quo, we have taken note of these protests. And we have asked ourselves this question:

How can we make money off them?

The answer is the newly launched Goldman Sachs Global Rage Fund, whose investment objective is to monetize the Occupy Wall Street protests as they spread around the world. At Goldman, we recognize that the capitalist system as we know it is circling the drain ? but there?s plenty of money to be made on the way down.

The Rage Fund will seek out opportunities to invest in products that are poised to benefit from the spreading protests, from police batons and barricades to stun guns and forehead bandages. Furthermore, as clashes between police and protesters turn ever more violent, we are making significant bets on companies that manufacture replacements for broken windows and overturned cars, as well as the raw materials necessary for the construction and incineration of effigies.

It would be tempting, at a time like this, to say ?Let them eat cake.? But at Goldman, we are actively seeking to corner the market in cake futures. We project that through our aggressive market manipulation, the price of a piece of cake will quadruple by the end of 2011.

Please contact your Goldman representative for a full prospectus. As the world descends into a Darwinian free-for-all, the Goldman Sachs Rage Fund is a great way to tell the protesters, ?Occupy this.? We haven?t felt so good about something we?ve sold since our souls.

Sincerely,

Lloyd Blankfein

Chairman, Goldman Sachs

ucmeat 10-17-2011 05:01 PM

follow the money...
 
Everyone pissed at what happened, bank bailouts and all need to direct their anger at our politicians, not the banks. Why was Goldman saved? Follow the money, of our congressmen and omen are heavily invested in Goldman and others, they acted solely in THEIR best interest, not our country's.
Why are Freddie and Fannie still around? Who are the private share holders in these institutions? Well Barney Frank is one, and a biggie at that so again, follow the money folks. Cap n trade good for everyone NO! Good for a few like Gore and GE damn straight. How is it that these two GE and Gore already had carbon credits when they have not even legally been established, why did they both push so hard for passage of cap n trade...smoke n mirrors, they would have made billions!

Goes back to the politicians, make them accountable or vote them out!

Trogdor 10-17-2011 05:35 PM

UcMeat, I never felt that our votes count, like the whole thing is a farce and set up from the start, and I quit voting 7 years ago. Even if voting is legit, when have we ever gotten someone we voted in that kept their promises...as well as the fact people outta learn that the presidency is not the be all, end all ranking power in the American government. He, or she, is nothing but a puppet and all these special interest groups, corporations and so on pretty much tell him what to do, and thy reward him for it. Hell, how else could that dumb cluck, Gerald Ford, who was pretty much a flesh and blood Homer Simpson lave the presidency a millionaire?

One thing I would say to solve economic problems is get rid of the income tax, and replace it with the fair tax, which is pretty much a retail tax. People will have more of their own money for themselves, will help bring back businesses, since we got some of the highest corporate taxes around, hence why everyone's going overseas, and people will actually be able to buy stuff and invest in stuff and can get things moving again. Whatever happened, we gotta change our tax codes, since they do not work, and I always thought taxing one's livelihood was stupid to start with.


Quote:

I guess you were rather busy in September, what with the world's 4th annual transsexual porn star convention being held, yet again,
........in Leonx, Michigan. :lol:

ucmeat 10-17-2011 06:02 PM

Trogdor

Don't be so down on voting unless you are ready to pursue the alternative. In general political systems can be drastically changed one of two ways. Change the system from within utilizing all of the methods and tools available within the construct of the system...or...attack and destroy it externally, which means the use of extraordinary force, aka revolution.

Evolution in not an option because the change is too slow. When a society is fed up enough, it must resort to one of the two options listed above. There are precious few that have succeeded via the first, but they have indeed succeeded proving the point that it is possible. More often than not, societies have chosen the latter.

Questions all peoples must continuously ask of themselves. is our government working for us in accordance with the foundation and legalities provided to it? If the answer is no, then change is warranted. Forget not, that governments will protect themselves at all costs, and like any institution will seek to preserve itself at the expense of all other, even if they supposedly represent you, they will represent themselves first.

Enoch Root 10-17-2011 07:56 PM

I am facepalming over the last three posts.

Trogdor 10-17-2011 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enoch Root (Post 198923)
I am facepalming over the last three posts.

What's the faceplamable (if that could be considered an appropriate past tense of it) parts?

TracyCoxx 10-20-2011 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smc (Post 198756)
The use of the word "mob" is highly charged. Please define what distinguishes people exercising their constitutional rights to free speech and assembly from a "mob"? When Tea Party activists seek to shut down a member of Congress who is conducting a town hall meeting in her or his district, is that a "mob"?

The videos I have seen show a crowd shouting at police. NYPD say they've had to pepper spray people to control the crowds.

?I think the vast majority of people who protest were peaceful,? said Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly. ?But there?s clearly a core group of self-styled anarchists ? that?s what they call themselves ? who want to have a confrontation with police.?

Kelly says that there are groups of protesters who?ve tried to charge police barricades, which caused officers to have to respond in force.

?They locked their arms. They counted down ? 10, 9, 8, 7, 6. Then they decided to charge the police. That is going to be met with some physical force,? Kelly said.

Marching to <insert rich guy's name here>'s home seems to me to cross the line.

Also, interviews with demonstrators revealed that many would support violence to advance their agenda. A position I suspect Trogdor, a wanna-be occupy participant, and supporter of war with our federal government would give thumbs up to.

smc 10-20-2011 05:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx (Post 199048)
The videos I have seen show a crowd shouting at police. NYPD say they've had to pepper spray people to control the crowds.

?I think the vast majority of people who protest were peaceful,? said Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly. ?But there?s clearly a core group of self-styled anarchists ? that?s what they call themselves ? who want to have a confrontation with police.?

Kelly says that there are groups of protesters who?ve tried to charge police barricades, which caused officers to have to respond in force.

?They locked their arms. They counted down ? 10, 9, 8, 7, 6. Then they decided to charge the police. That is going to be met with some physical force,? Kelly said.

Marching to <insert rich guy's name here>'s home seems to me to cross the line.

Also, interviews with demonstrators revealed that many would support violence to advance their agenda. A position I suspect Trogdor, a wanna-be occupy participant, and supporter of war with our federal government would give thumbs up to.

Painting the movement with this broad brush is simply wrong. The overwhelming majority of participants in the United States have demonstrated themselves to be peaceful.

What about my Tea Party question?

Trogdor 10-21-2011 01:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx (Post 199048)
The videos I have seen show a crowd shouting at police. NYPD say they've had to pepper spray people to control the crowds.

?I think the vast majority of people who protest were peaceful,? said Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly. ?But there?s clearly a core group of self-styled anarchists ? that?s what they call themselves ? who want to have a confrontation with police.?

Kelly says that there are groups of protesters who?ve tried to charge police barricades, which caused officers to have to respond in force.

?They locked their arms. They counted down ? 10, 9, 8, 7, 6. Then they decided to charge the police. That is going to be met with some physical force,? Kelly said.

Marching to <insert rich guy's name here>'s home seems to me to cross the line.

Also, interviews with demonstrators revealed that many would support violence to advance their agenda. A position I suspect Trogdor, a wanna-be occupy participant, and supporter of war with our federal government would give thumbs up to.


All I am saying, Coxxy, is that most of the time simply protesting gets nothing....Wallstreet, for example, knows we are pissed off with them, and they don't give a damn if we are angry and show up with picket signs. Same with many governments across the world. Look at Egypt with their past militaristic ruler, he knew the people were pissed off, but he did not give a damn shit about them, and the people were only able to get what they wanted by getting mean, and getting ugly. You can vote all you want (though I never felt our votes ever meant anything, even if it did, when have we EVER gotten a politician that made good on their promises?), but how is one to make changes needed, especially with something like Wallstreet, which pretty much does whatever the hell it wants, and pretty much can pay off or keep quiet or anyone a people will elect to make the changes. It's like a bully in school who keeps beating you up or taking your lunch money (Wallstreet's been taking everyone's lunch money, hence the protests), ignoring him and hoping it somehow all comes out right in the end never works, you gotta give that bully a good right cross to his chops to make him listen. If you wanna make banks, Wallstreet and congress (since con is the opposite of pro, congress must be the opposite of progress, yes?) listen to us and work for us, and no longer the other way around, you gotta get their balls or nipples in a vice....then you have them in a mood more willing to listen to us. I'm not saying an open revolution is only way to make change happen, but if it happens, I am going to support it.

I do not have any faith left in our government, and I quit voting nearly a decade ago, feeling, along with many others, that our votes mean nothing to those suits in congress. And I for one am rooting for those folks in the middle east who are fighting their governments, since their governments screwed them over one too many times. I am sure the folks fighting in the American revolution against England and its King were considered self-styled anarchists themselves, since England did not seem to give a damn about them, apart from the tax money it kept wanting. I doubt a few cheesy picket signs are going to change or scare Wallstreet, Coxxy.

Soooo, Coxxy, let's hear (read?) your plan, if it were up to you on how to deal with Wallstreet. ~taps foot and says in a Sonic the Hedgehog voice~ I'm waaaaaaaaaaaitiiiinnnnng!

Enoch Root 10-21-2011 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trogdor (Post 198924)
What's the faceplamable (if that could be considered an appropriate past tense of it) parts?

Companies do what they do because of greed--with or without taxes, be they low or high. Your comment about them in regards to taxes falls to that old line of the poor private sector always being the victim of government. When a system is dependent on greed anything goes.

Enoch Root 10-21-2011 12:37 PM

Color me cynical but I do not think Tracy's problem with the Occupy movement has anything to do with "mobs" and everything to do with its clear upsurge of solidarity.

Enoch Root 10-21-2011 01:37 PM

Keith Olbermann reads statement from Occupy Wall Street:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5arX...eature=related

TracyCoxx 10-23-2011 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smc (Post 198756)
Quote:

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx (Post 198562)
Since the occupy mobs like to march up to people's homes and act like a bunch of dunk college kids just out of a football game they lost why don't they march up to Warren Buffett's house and protest the billionaire who doesn't pay his taxes?

When Tea Party activists seek to shut down a member of Congress who is conducting a town hall meeting in her or his district, is that a "mob"?

When those members of congress are off in DC making decisions about 1/6th of the economy with no public buy-in causing 27 states to file suit against the government and a few federal courts to rule their actions unconstitutional it tends to get people worked up.

When those congressmen do finally come to listen to their constituents in town hall meetings, yes, they will get an earfull. But it took place at townhall meetings... not the congressmen's homes.

You didn't answer my question about why billionaires like Warren Buffet who don't pay their taxes are ignored by the occupy movement.

Trogdor 10-23-2011 04:55 PM

That's because rich guys who don't pay their taxes pay off those in congress.


I say get rid of the income tax, I always felt it stupid to be taxed on one's livelihood...I don't want to spend 1/3 of my working hours working for that asshole, Uncle Sam...especially since we get nothing out of it.....and replace it with the fair tax...and that way, everyone benefits. I'd rather have some retail tax than having to give up a large chunk of my paycheck....and we can make room for prisons by letting go the tax evaders and lock up REAL criminals....you know....killers, rapists, etc. It's sad when a person who don't pay taxes gets harsher punishments than someone who kills people.

smc 10-24-2011 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx (Post 199296)
When those members of congress are off in DC making decisions about 1/6th of the economy with no public buy-in causing 27 states to file suit against the government and a few federal courts to rule their actions unconstitutional it tends to get people worked up.

When those congressmen do finally come to listen to their constituents in town hall meetings, yes, they will get an earfull. But it took place at townhall meetings... not the congressmen's homes.

You didn't answer my question about why billionaires like Warren Buffet who don't pay their taxes are ignored by the occupy movement.

I don't speak for the Occupy movement. I think Warren Buffet and his like should be taxed at 100 percent of their income over $200,000. No one needs more than $200,000 to live.

As for the "mob" question, you dodged it. There is a time-honored tradition of public assembly, free speech, and protest in this country. People's homes are not immune, especially when they are the people who cause the grievances seeking redress. This is protected constitutionally. To call such people a "mob" is an effort to delegitimize their rights. Show me the evidence of what is classically defined as "mob" behavior at these homes, and perhaps your position will have some merit.

Shouting down members of Congress -- i.e., denying them their right to free speech -- IS more mob-like than marching outside someone's mansion, and more in line with the classical definition of mob behavior.

TracyCoxx 10-24-2011 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smc (Post 199329)
I don't speak for the Occupy movement. I think Warren Buffet and his like should be taxed at 100 percent of their income over $200,000. No one needs more than $200,000 to live.

Wow, that's quite a statement. Actually you'd need quite a bit less than that to "live". But that's beside the point. I'm wondering if there's any writings from the Founding Fathers, the Declaration of Independence, or Constitution where you draw the inspiration to make this statement?

I'm writing from a phone so I'll address definition concerns later but i tripped over my jaw on that one.

smc 10-24-2011 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx (Post 199342)
Wow, that's quite a statement. Actually you'd need quite a bit less than that to "live". But that's beside the point. I'm wondering if there's any writings from the Founding Fathers, the Declaration of Independence, or Constitution where you draw the inspiration to make this statement?

I'm writing from a phone so I'll address definition concerns later but i tripped over my jaw on that one.

My statement has nothing to do with, nor does it "draw the inspiration" from, the "Founding Fathers, the Declaration of Independence, or Constitution."

I'd like to read your continued justification for the use of the charged word "mob."

TracyCoxx 10-25-2011 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smc (Post 199345)
I'd like to read your continued justification for the use of the charged word "mob."

Apparently the word "mob" is charged in your mind based on some past experiences of yours, which I obviously can't guess. I've said why I used it and used some examples of mob-like behavior, at least in my interpretation. If you're thinking of charged uses of the word "mob" and I haven't listed those uses then obviously I am not using the word as you fear.

TracyCoxx 10-25-2011 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smc (Post 199329)
I think Warren Buffet and his like should be taxed at 100 percent of their income over $200,000. No one needs more than $200,000 to live.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smc (Post 199345)
My statement has nothing to do with, nor does it "draw the inspiration" from, the "Founding Fathers, the Declaration of Independence, or Constitution."

If it's not in the Constitution or even mentioned by Founding Fathers or the Declaration of Independence, I'm not understanding then where the power or right to take any and all income over $200,000 comes from or where the federal government's claim on that money would come from, or the power to decide how much money American citizens need to live.

smc 10-25-2011 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx (Post 199369)
Apparently the word "mob" is charged in your mind based on some past experiences of yours, which I obviously can't guess. I've said why I used it and used some examples of mob-like behavior, at least in my interpretation. If you're thinking of charged uses of the word "mob" and I haven't listed those uses then obviously I am not using the word as you fear.

This has NOTHING to do with my "past experiences," but that's an interesting approach to take in justifying the use of such charged language.

The word "mob" is a shortening of Latin words that came to mean a "disorderly part of the population" or, more commonly, "rabble," back in the late 17th century. Its use over the centuries has been generally limited to describing a group or crowd when one wants to paint it with a political brush. And when it became synonymous in the United States with the Mafia, its use to describe others took on a new dimension -- i.e., implied criminality. Hence, you witnessed Eric Cantor call the Occupy folks, sitting in peacefully in New York City (before the protests at people's houses), a "mob," but never did he call the Tea Party disrupters at Town Halls a "mob." He called peaceful Occupy protesters who marched with a permit in New York City a "mob," but he didn't call Tea Party protesters who sought to keep elected representatives from speaking a "mob." I think anyone else reading this thread will understand the distinction, no matter how much you pretend not to or refuse to answer my specific question about the Tea Party behavior (see above).

smc 10-25-2011 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx (Post 199370)
If it's not in the Constitution or even mentioned by Founding Fathers or the Declaration of Independence, I'm not understanding then where the power or right to take any and all income over $200,000 comes from or where the federal government's claim on that money would come from, or the power to decide how much money American citizens need to live.

I wasn't aware that this thread's discussion was limited to ideas that are embodied specifically in the U.S. Constitution. I am talking about something that the people would decide, perhaps under a new "Constitution."

TracyCoxx 10-25-2011 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smc (Post 199372)
I wasn't aware that this thread's discussion was limited to ideas that are embodied specifically in the U.S. Constitution. I am talking about something that the people would decide, perhaps under a new "Constitution."

Ok, so by definition, as far as US politics go, we're in fringe territory. What parts of the Constitution would you change?

TracyCoxx 10-25-2011 08:51 AM

1 Attachment(s)
The Hypocrisy of the Occupy movement

Enoch Root 10-25-2011 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx (Post 199375)
The Hypocrisy of the Occupy movement

The Hypocrisy of the Occupy Movement:

They dare feed themselves breakfast (the food having been grown by CORPORATIONS) before setting of for Liberty Park. Also, they dare piss, shit and drink water in/from machines made by CORPORATIONS. And they cut their hair with scissors made by CORPORATIONS. These people should know better, the fucking HYPOCRITES.

Enoch Root 10-25-2011 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx (Post 199375)
The Hypocrisy of the Occupy movement

I guess you must spend a fortune! drinking nothing but bottled water instead of commie government water. :rolleyes:

smc 10-25-2011 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx (Post 199374)
Ok, so by definition, as far as US politics go, we're in fringe territory. What parts of the Constitution would you change?

"Fringe territory"? Please explain what you mean.

I am for a transformation of the United States. The Constitution serves the interests of that transformation only in degrees, and I would like to see it replaced. But to call that "fringe" is to employ the same approach as you have with the use of the word "mob" -- at least it seems so to me.

smc 10-25-2011 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx (Post 199375)
The Hypocrisy of the Occupy movement

This is the same kind of asinine crap I've heard over the years from people who, in response to hearing that someone identifies as a revolutionary socialist, calls that person a "hypocrite" because that person has a job at a profit-seeking company.

We live in the world and must partake of what the world offers. Only utopians and hermits would be able to "avoid" what the cartoon implies.

This is not serious, but it is -- unfortunately -- typical.

TracyCoxx 10-25-2011 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smc (Post 199385)
"Fringe territory"? Please explain what you mean.

I am for a transformation of the United States. The Constitution serves the interests of that transformation only in degrees, and I would like to see it replaced.

Fringe - as in far from the mainstream. I would say most Americans endorse the majority of the Constitution. They may interpret it differently, but overall republicans, democrats, libertarians endorse the Constitution. Even progressives who think the Constitution should be changed seek to do it gradually rather than an outright revolution. But as you say, the Constitution does allow for change, but not fast enough for your tastes You want it to be replaced.

That is not mainstream. Is there another country you'd model it after or are you talking about something completely different?

smc 10-25-2011 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx (Post 199416)
Fringe - as in far from the mainstream. I would say most Americans endorse the majority of the Constitution. They may interpret it differently, but overall republicans, democrats, libertarians endorse the Constitution. Even progressives who think the Constitution should be changed seek to do it gradually rather than an outright revolution. But as you say, the Constitution does allow for change, but not fast enough for your tastes You want it to be replaced.

That is not mainstream. Is there another country you'd model it after or are you talking about something completely different?

I have to go teach a class in a few minutes, so I cannot provide a complete "program" right now. Here are a few highlights of what I would like to see enshrined in a constitution, with the society that reflects these points. My "bill of rights" would encompass those in the existing First Amendment, but would also include guaranteed rights to a job, healthcare, housing, and education through the university level. Of course, this means organizing society in a much different way to ensure that these rights are granted.

GRH 10-25-2011 05:10 PM

I'm not sure what you find so unconstitutional about a 100% tax rate on income in excess of $200,000. Read the 16th Amendment:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

That precious Constitution of yours was amended (through mechanisms set up by the document) to include the ability for Congress to tax incomes. Where in the Amendment does it make any mention of specific tax rates (or limits thereon)? It reads pretty broadly to me.

That said, I wouldn't support taxing income in excess of $200,000 at 100% because I feel this would put America at a huge competitive disadvantage. However, I WOULD support taxing such excess wages at MUCH higher rates than at present. Our country saw some phenomenal periods of growth when the top marginal rates were at 70%. I'd also nix the lowered capital gains rate for capital gains in excess of a certain threshold.

Trogdor 10-26-2011 07:09 AM

Why not just get rid of the income tax, we were a country long before we had one, and just make the fair tax....that way it effects the rich and poor fairly. And these businesses will have no excuse to keep sending jobs overseas...none that anyone will believe, anyhow. And we'd have more control over our money once we get that 800 pound gorilla known as the income tax off our backs, and can use that extra money, that is rightfully ours to begin with, on what we need, or paying off debts, investing, and so on. Can't fix an economy if no one's buying anything. Also, I'd love to see us getting a refund of our taxes, since the tax money goes to our politicians and government services, and so many people are so unsatisfied and have no faith in the government, we outta get a refund for unsatisfactory service.

Besides, I am sure that there are people, besides myself, that would LOVE to see a sign in front of the IRS building that says, "Gong Out of Business" and it becomes a strip mall or a coffee house or something. :lol:



~Wonders who this post will piss off this time~ :yes:

smc 10-26-2011 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trogdor (Post 199447)
Why not just get rid of the income tax, we were a country long before we had one, and just make the fair tax....that way it effects the rich and poor fairly. And these businesses will have no excuse to keep sending jobs overseas...none that anyone will believe, anyhow. And we'd have more control over our money once we get that 800 pound gorilla known as the income tax off our backs, and can use that extra money, that is rightfully ours to begin with, on what we need, or paying off debts, investing, and so on. Can't fix an economy if no one's buying anything. Also, I'd love to see us getting a refund of our taxes, since the tax money goes to our politicians and government services, and so many people are so unsatisfied and have no faith in the government, we outta get a refund for unsatisfactory service.

Besides, I am sure that there are people, besides myself, that would LOVE to see a sign in front of the IRS building that says, "Gong Out of Business" and it becomes a strip mall or a coffee house or something. :lol:



~Wonders who this post will piss off this time~ :yes:

If by "fair tax" you mean the national sales tax advocated by FairTax.org, you need to revisit the meaning of the word "fair." Taxes are either regressive or progressive. The so-called "fair tax" is regressive, and hence there is nothing "fair" about it.

Trogdor 10-26-2011 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smc (Post 199450)
If by "fair tax" you mean the national sales tax advocated by FairTax.org, you need to revisit the meaning of the word "fair." Taxes are either regressive or progressive. The so-called "fair tax" is regressive, and hence there is nothing "fair" about it.

Having more money in the long run.


And you, seeing as you seem to be the expert, what would YOU do, hmmm? :rolleyes: The income tax is nothing but an 800 pound gorilla that is pretty much screwing over many people.

smc 10-26-2011 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trogdor (Post 199457)
Having more money in the long run.


And you, seeing as you seem to be the expert, what would YOU do, hmmm? :rolleyes: The income tax is nothing but an 800 pound gorilla that is pretty much screwing over many people.

Yours is a non-answer. I did not claim to be an "expert," but calling me that is a good attempt at dodging the question. I already wrote what I would do about taxes, only a few posts above. Will you answer the question I asked, by inference? Clarify what you mean by "fair tax," and explain how it means "having more money in the long run."

Enoch Root 10-30-2011 04:01 PM

Halloween Party at the foreclosure mill, Steven J Baum:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/29/op...veal.html?_r=1

TracyCoxx 11-03-2011 04:20 PM

Geez... now the occupy mobs in Oakland are clashing with police, setting bonfires in the streets, closing down ports, throwing molitiv cocktails at cops. Nice movement you guys have there.

transjen 11-03-2011 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx (Post 200121)
Geez... now the occupy mobs in Oakland are clashing with police, setting bonfires in the streets, closing down ports, throwing molitiv cocktails at cops. Nice movement you guys have there.

This is the start of a USA spring uprising :yes:

The 99 percent is getting feed up with the 1 percent who having been living like kings while they barely make enought to survive
And the 1 percent are starting to be affraid very affraid
President Perry may end up like King Louie
:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

TracyCoxx 11-04-2011 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by transjen (Post 200126)
This is the start of a USA spring uprising :yes:

The 99 percent is getting feed up with the 1 percent who having been living like kings while they barely make enought to survive
And the 1 percent are starting to be affraid very affraid
President Perry may end up like King Louie
:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

This would be your fantasy world... That the occupy nuts are actually 99% of the population. That 99% of the population barely makes enough to survive. And that the 1% are so afraid. Strange fantasy, but despite any facts this is your persistent view of the world.

smc 11-04-2011 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx (Post 200121)
Geez... now the occupy mobs in Oakland are clashing with police, setting bonfires in the streets, closing down ports, throwing molitiv cocktails at cops. Nice movement you guys have there.

It's notable that you love to tout the U.S. Constitution, but when the Oakland Police attack a peaceful demonstration and injure a veteran U.S. Marine you don't use the word "mob" to describe the cops.

The so-called anarchist "Black Block" members who "instigated" violence in Oakland on Wednesday night ... well, there is a time-honored tradition in the United States (and elsewhere) of employing agents-provocateurs to deal with protests. The majority -- the overwhelming majority -- of the Occupy Oakland protestors renounce the violence.

You do a disservice to democracy with your broad-brush generalizations, Tracy Coxx, and reveal your hypocrisy.

GRH 11-04-2011 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smc (Post 200152)
You do a disservice to democracy...

Could not these same words be said about the majority of Republicans and their voodoo economic policies?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:52 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright © Trans Ladyboy