Thoughts on Today's Political Landscape

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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]

~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. 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.

[JodieTs]

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

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.

[smc]

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]

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]

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.

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.

[ucmeat]

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.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

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]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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!

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

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]

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]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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]

Originally Posted by smc

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]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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]

Originally Posted by smc

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.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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).

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

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.

Originally Posted by smc

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]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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."