Thoughts on Today's Political Landscape

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

Tracy, it reads to me as if you've decided to become a troll again, with your unjustifiable generalization through the use of "gangs." Are you capable of having an honest political discussion? (I believe the history of your participation here would make the answer a resounding NO.)

I have been painted with this broad brush by your post, and yet I will put my knowledge of the world economy against yours any time, any where, in any way.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's a duck. I don't go for politically correct lingo. It is what it is. I have justified my characterization of the occupists as gangs and you need to recognize that. You don't have to agree with me, but at least do as I do and recognize that everyone has their own perceptions. Like with your hope for the country eventually completely changing the constitution, I'm not going to keep at you and keep at you until I can "cure" you. It's your view and that's fine. I'm not going to whine about your view and not going to call you names, that's who you are, and you can accept me for who I am. On a forum like this I wouldn't think that's asking too much.

[TracyCoxx]

Here's a different perspective on OWS. You won't like it. You'll call me a troll, and I'll say no, it's called another viewpoint.

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

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Here's a different perspective on OWS. You won't like it. You'll call me a troll, and I'll say no, it's called another viewpoint.

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

I will comment extensively on this, but first I want to ask Tracy Coxx a direct question:

Do you, Tracy Coxx, agree with the perspective of Adam Carolla as expressed in this video, including his analysis of what drives the Occupy Wall Street protesters?

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

I will comment extensively on this, but first I want to ask Tracy Coxx a direct question:

Do you, Tracy Coxx, agree with the perspective of Adam Carolla as expressed in this video, including his analysis of what drives the Occupy Wall Street protesters?

I'm not totally blind to corruption on Wall Street & some bankers. I posted this 3 years ago: http://forum.transladyboy.com/showpo...postcount=1406

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Oh yes, republicans screwed up everything and it's all under control now. BO has Corporate America under control now huh... BO's own secretary of treasury, Tim Geithner, allowed Steven Friedman to oversee Goldman Sachs. Who's Friedman? Former chairman of Goldman Sachs and was on the board of directors. Geithner OK'd this conflict of interest. Geithner also allows Friedman to keep his 52000 shares of Goldman Sachs stock while he oversees Goldman Sachs. Oh, and btw, Goldman Sachs stock rose from $78/share to $167 per share over the last year.

There's a new lobbyist for Goldman Sachs. Michael Pease. He's joining the director of government affairs. They hired him because their previous lobbyist, Mark Patterson, has been named the chief of staff for Timothy Geithner. Michael Pease is now in Barney Frank's office.

But you don't throw out what drives America's economy over a few bad eggs. You throw the bad eggs out. A lot of what Occupy wants simply baffles me. I cannot see any rational thought behind it. If you follow their goals to their logical ends, you'll further destroy our economy. I do agree with Adam Carolla that a large part of the motivation is envy. Not because I know this to be true, but it's the only thing that explains what looks like irrational behavior. My relatives who empathize with occupists post weird crap on facebook like Black Friday: Buy Nothing Day - an international day of protest against consumerism. I'm like, what the fuck are you talking about? You know we're in a recession right? You know what happens if people stop buying stuff right? I seriously do not understand what motivates these people.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

- When the Tea Party in Virginia posted Congressman Tom Perriello's address on the Web and encouraged people to visit him and "express their thanks" for his yes vote on the Obama healthcare bill, but they mistakenly posted his brother's address, and the brother had the gas line to his home severed, were they behaving like a "gang"? (This is an example from dozens where the Tea Party encouraged vigilante-like action against elected representatives).

So what this shows is that you can identify gang behavior, but deny it exists when it applies to some members of the occupy movement.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

So what this shows is that you can identify gang behavior, but deny it exists when it applies to some members of the occupy movement.

The conclusion you draw from this particular exchange is so illogical as to be laughable. Your clever use of rhetorical devices from the Sophists has failed you this time, on an epic level.

Further, it's notable that you only respond to one of the many aspects of the post. But it's okay, I get it.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

The conclusion you draw from this particular exchange is so illogical as to be laughable. Your clever use of rhetorical devices from the Sophists has failed you this time, on an epic level.

Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule.

The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an "argument."

Example of Appeal to Ridicule
"Sure my worthy opponent claims that we should lower tuition, but that is just laughable."

Since you use this method so often, I assume you teach it to your beloved rhetorics class.

[smc]

Tracy Coxx, you posted the link to the Adam Carolla rant with the following words:

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Here's a different perspective on OWS. You won't like it. You'll call me a troll, and I'll say no, it's called another viewpoint.

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

In other words, you suggest it is a legitimate “viewpoint” in a serious discussion.

In nearly 10 foul-mouthed minutes, Carolla displays that he knows absolutely nothing of the Occupy Wall Street movement, its broad demands and aspirations, nor anything about the real people who make up the majority of its constant activists.

For instance, Carolla states:

“We are now dealing with the first wave of ‘participation-trophy, my-own-fecal-matter-doesn’t-stink, empowered, I-feel-so-fucking-good-about-myself, everybody’s-a-winner, there’s-no-losers,’ we are dealing with the first wave of those fucking assholes. That’s who we are dealing with now.”

He refers to the Millenial generation as a bunch of “self-entitled monsters” and “ass-douches.”

He boils the entire movement down to envy and an unwillingness to play by the rules.” He then compares the “rules” of the Wall Street casino, by implication a level playing field, to the rules followed by someone who runs at a good pace in a legitimate 440-yard race at a track meet.” Specifically, he states:

“What we created is a bunch of self-entitled monsters. People are so far out of it in what they expect and what they think realistic is and the set of rules that pertains to them versus the other guys.”

He ends his rant with a comparison of the Occupy movement to the “terrorists” who “blow up our buildings” because they are envious, resentful, and are ultimately driven by shame, and who then rather than decide to get their own “shit together” decide to “tear that guy’s shit down.”

In fact, some specific and unbaffling demands (even if you don’t agree with them) have emerged from the Occupy movement. Public financing of all U.S. political campaigns, to break the link between the government and the corporations. The overturning of the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United. The elimination of special private benefits and perqs to public servants, such as the “revolving door” with lobbying firms. Elimination of tax loopholes that favor the rich and the corporations. Enactment of comprehensive job-creation legislation. Student loan forgiveness. Immediate reenactment of the Glass-Steagall Act.

To suggest that Adam Carolla’s rant and his deliberate ignoring of the real substance of Occupy (whether one agrees with it or not) is part of a legitimate discourse, Tracy Coxx, that it is a legitimate “viewpoint” that might add to the discussion, is an affront to every real discussion about important topics that has ever unfolded on this site.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

... But you don't throw out what drives America's economy over a few bad eggs. You throw the bad eggs out. A lot of what Occupy wants simply baffles me. I cannot see any rational thought behind it. If you follow their goals to their logical ends, you'll further destroy our economy. I do agree with Adam Carolla that a large part of the motivation is envy. Not because I know this to be true, but it's the only thing that explains what looks like irrational behavior. My relatives who empathize with occupists post weird crap on facebook like Black Friday: Buy Nothing Day - an international day of protest against consumerism. I'm like, what the fuck are you talking about? You know we're in a recession right? You know what happens if people stop buying stuff right? I seriously do not understand what motivates these people.

I respect that you are baffled by Occupy, but I simply don’t believe you when you write that you “cannot see any rational thought behind” the movement. You’re smarter than that. To post this link to Adam Carolla should be an embarrassment to you.

By the way, for those readers who do not know, Adam Carolla is a TV and radio host who has notoriously attacked ethnic groups and women, and now the entire Millenial generation, with useless name-calling that is inappropriate at best and is highly offensive and that has no place in civil discourse at worst. Here are a few examples:

• 2003 on the TV show “Loveline”: Carolla stated Hawaiians are “dumb” and “in-bred” and “retarded,” and that they are among the “dumbest people we have.”
• 2010 on “The Adam Carolla Show”: Carolla, speaking of Filipino boxer Manny Pacquiao, cast all sorts of aspersions and then took on the Philippines in general. “They got this and sex tours, that’s all they have over there. Get your shit together Philippines. Jesus Christ. I mean, again, it's fine to be proud of your countrymen. But that's it? That's all you got?” Carolla had to apologize after the office of the Filipino president responded. He said, “I don’t preplan my commentary. I try to be provocative [and] funny but I crossed the line and I'm sorry.” Sounds like a troll, eh?
• 2011 in one of his podcasts: Carolla, referring to transgender people, asked, “When did we start giving a shit about these people?” Further, he suggested the LGBT designation should be replaced with “YUCK” and that LGBT activists ought to “shut up.”

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

In fact, some specific and unbaffling demands (even if you don?t agree with them) have emerged from the Occupy movement. Public financing of all U.S. political campaigns, to break the link between the government and the corporations.

You do that, and every idiot with a gripe will put themselves on the tax-payers payroll. Instead of 12 or so idiots with at least some experience doing something running for president you'll have hundreds of idiots getting paid by tax payers to rant about the government under the guise of a campaign.

Originally Posted by smc

The overturning of the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United. The elimination of special private benefits and perqs to public servants, such as the ?revolving door? with lobbying firms. Elimination of tax loopholes that favor the rich and the corporations. Enactment of comprehensive job-creation legislation. Student loan forgiveness. Immediate reenactment of the Glass-Steagall Act.

That's all laughable! oh wait, sorry that's not a response is it? (but I do admit it saves time and effort)

1. Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United
Careful what you wish for smc. You wanted corporations to be taxed like people. All of a sudden corporations are people now. That means they have rights doesn't it? They have the right to freedom of speech don't they?

2. The elimination of special private benefits and perqs to public servants, such as the ?revolving door? with lobbying firms
Eliminate perks to public servants, yes. The revolving door is good in a way because it gets experienced people into government rather than career politicians and lawyers who don't really know the industry they are regulating. It has some good points. Minimize the bad points with rules such as mandating that politicians recuse themselves from committees overseeing industries they just came from within 3 or so years.

3. Enactment of comprehensive job-creation legislation.
Obama has tried this many times. It hadn't worked. His last jobs bill failed to pass. Interestingly unemployment went down afterwards without the stimulus package.

4. Student loan forgiveness.
The country can't afford to take on all these student loans. And it sets a bad example to students as they enter adulthood. Lesson: You don't ask for a loan you don't know you can pay off.

5. Immediate reenactment of the Glass-Steagall Act.
I'm not up on the Glass-Steagall act or its reasons for repeal. I spent some time looking at it, but not sure which way we should go with it.

I'm sure there are some in the occupy movement that have legitimate gripes about the government and certain fat cat people in wall street who ought to be in jail. Fine. I'd like to see some of them in jail myself. But I also see many pro-occupy people who are anti-corporation... regardless of the corporation, and think that rich people ought to get the shit taxed out of them to support their entitlements. That is who Adam Carolla is directing his ranting towards.

Originally Posted by smc

By the way, for those readers who do not know, Adam Carolla is a TV and radio host who has notoriously attacked ethnic groups and women, and now the entire Millenial generation, with useless name-calling that is inappropriate at best and is highly offensive and that has no place in civil discourse at worst. Here are a few examples:

Just so you know, I have never heard of Adam Carolla before this rant of his. I posted the video because of its criticism of the latest self-empowered, everybody's a winner, no-loser generation.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

You do that, and every idiot with a gripe will put themselves on the tax-payers payroll. Instead of 12 or so idiots with at least some experience doing something running for president you'll have hundreds of idiots getting paid by tax payers to rant about the government under the guise of a campaign.

Did you actually spend any time thinking about what you would write in response before your knee jerked? Obviously, as the experience of nearly every industrialized country in the world (and where public financing is the norm), what you fear doesn't happen. Safeguards, reasonably constructed under a system that aims to work and level the playing field, not favor the corporation-humans you consistently defend, ensure that the waste is minimized. I would trade some of my tax money for a less-expensive campaign system that is publicly financed for the Super PACS and other interest groups that can spend unlimited amounts of money, with no transparency, any day of the week.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

1. Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United
Careful what you wish for smc. You wanted corporations to be taxed like people. All of a sudden corporations are people now. That means they have rights doesn't it? They have the right to freedom of speech don't they?

I never said I wanted "corporations to be taxed like people." But by putting those words in my mouth, you get to make your insipid point about freedom of speech. Seriously, this is your response? I bet you'd be embarrassed to say such a thing on a stage, in a public debate, in front of people, when you can't hide behind the Internet.

To equate the "freedom of speech" of people to corporations is an affront to the Bill of Rights, and you know it.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

2. The elimination of special private benefits and perqs to public servants, such as the ?revolving door? with lobbying firms
Eliminate perks to public servants, yes. The revolving door is good in a way because it gets experienced people into government rather than career politicians and lawyers who don't really know the industry they are regulating. It has some good points. Minimize the bad points with rules such as mandating that politicians recuse themselves from committees overseeing industries they just came from within 3 or so years.

Our cemeteries are full of those who paid the ultimate price of having politicians become lobbyists for industry and then being handed the reins of writing regulations for the industries they serve. Ask any worker in the bituminous coal industry of Kentucky, West Virginia, Virginia, and so on.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

3. Enactment of comprehensive job-creation legislation.
Obama has tried this many times. It hadn't worked. His last jobs bill failed to pass. Interestingly unemployment went down afterwards without the stimulus package.

I said nothing about Obama's proposed legislation.

I'd like to see your evidence that the implied direct link between failure of his bill to pass and a decrease in the unemployment rate are positively correlated.

In any case, while some Occupiers may support the specific Obama legislation, I would support something more along the lines of what was done during the Great Depression to put people to work doing what needs to be done. You know as well as the next person, Tracy Coxx, that it is government that builds roads, repairs bridges, and generally deals with infrastructure. We need those things done in the United States. You have no answer for why it shouldn't be done, except to defend the phony "job creators" among the wealthy who economists have proven do not create jobs.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

4. Student loan forgiveness.
The country can't afford to take on all these student loans. And it sets a bad example to students as they enter adulthood. Lesson: You don't ask for a loan you don't know you can pay off.

Imagine if higher education were free in the United States, like it has largely been in most of the rest of the industrialized world. Imagine the innovative spirit of the United States coupled with a highly educated workforce. Imagine paying for this by not building a few aircraft carriers or suspending a few other wasteful defense contracts.

Oh, my god ... that might be SOCIALISM!!!!

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

5. Immediate reenactment of the Glass-Steagall Act.
I'm not up on the Glass-Steagall act or its reasons for repeal. I spent some time looking at it, but not sure which way we should go with it.

This isn't rocket science. The Glass-Steagall Act separated bank types into commercial and investment, and established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), during the Great Depression. Study after study after study has shown that a huge portion of the things banks have done that caused the economic meltdown that began in 2008 are linked directly to the fact that these two banking functions were consolidated into single "too-big-to-fail" banks. The research is easy to find, and "which way we should go with it" should be quite obvious.

As far as I can tell, the only people who are strongly advocating to keep the overturning of Glass-Steagall from 1999 are mega-bankers and the politicians they own.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I'm sure there are some in the occupy movement that have legitimate gripes about the government and certain fat cat people in wall street who ought to be in jail. Fine. I'd like to see some of them in jail myself. But I also see many pro-occupy people who are anti-corporation... regardless of the corporation, and think that rich people ought to get the shit taxed out of them to support their entitlements. That is who Adam Carolla is directing his ranting towards.

Why you would choose to be an apologist for Adam Carolla, who says absolutely nothing in his rant to distinguish one Occupier from another, and who paints the entire Millenial generation with his broad brush, is beyond my comprehension ... unless you really do agree with him.

But more interesting would be to learn who you think ought to be in jail, and for what crimes.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Just so you know, I have never heard of Adam Carolla before this rant of his. I posted the video because of its criticism of the latest self-empowered, everybody's a winner, no-loser generation.

Yeah, well, I would recommend listening again before you again support anything that he says. Do you think his kind of "criticism" is actually productive? What if I just ranted and said the following about every person who works on Wall Street (paraphrasing Carolla):

?We are now dealing with another wave of 'I'm-rich-and-you're-not, my-fecal-matter-smells-better-than-yours, powerful-thanks-to-bought-and-paid-for-politicians-and-regulators, anyone-unemployed-is-a-lazy-fucking-asshole, who-cares-about-losers-who-lose-in-a-rigged-game-on-an-uneven-playing-field, motherfucking-douchebags,' from the lowly accountant at Goldman Sachs all the way up to the CEOS, because if you work for any of these cretins you are no different than the worst of them!"

Would you think that was legitimate criticism, serious and worthy of discussion?

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's a duck. I don't go for politically correct lingo. It is what it is. I have justified my characterization of the occupists as gangs and you need to recognize that. You don't have to agree with me, but at least do as I do and recognize that everyone has their own perceptions. Like with your hope for the country eventually completely changing the constitution, I'm not going to keep at you and keep at you until I can "cure" you. It's your view and that's fine. I'm not going to whine about your view and not going to call you names, that's who you are, and you can accept me for who I am. On a forum like this I wouldn't think that's asking too much.

More of your dissembling ...

The difference is that I am addressing your use of language and that you use particular words deliberately to provoke. That is what it means to be a troll. When I raise a question of changing the U.S. Constitution, I don't call people who defend it by names. You are called a troll not for your defense of the Constitution.

This isn't about being politically correct or not.

I have written time and again that I consider you to be an intelligent person. Therefore, I know when you are being a troll, because you are intelligent enough to choose specifically to be one. But perhaps I am wrong. Maybe you really don't get it. (I doubt that.)

I have never sought to "cure" you of your opinions, only to point out that you discuss dishonestly and that you behave like a troll. This is a community, and time and again you disrespect the community with your troll behavior.

You're right: "It is what it is." And what it is is this: you post like a troll, get called on it, and then you're the one who tries to change the subject. That is it's own unique form of whining.

As for the use of the word "gang," let me ask you these questions (two of many examples I could pose):

- When the Republicans in Florida organized political operatives to go to the Broward County Board of Elections and pound on the door as they were doing their recount, and act threateningly, and get in the elevator with election workers and menace them, was that a "gang"?

- When the Tea Party in Virginia posted Congressman Tom Perriello's address on the Web and encouraged people to visit him and "express their thanks" for his yes vote on the Obama healthcare bill, but they mistakenly posted his brother's address, and the brother had the gas line to his home severed, were they behaving like a "gang"? (This is an example from dozens where the Tea Party encouraged vigilante-like action against elected representatives).

You want to reserve for yourself the right to use troll language but claim that it's all about the right to one's personal "perspective." To quote the inimitable Tracy Coxx: "If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's a duck."

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

More of your dissembling ...

The difference is that I am addressing your use of language and that you use particular words deliberately to provoke. That is what it means to be a troll.

Actually what it means is:
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

My posting about ows being gangs was neither extraneous or off-topic. This thread is called Today's Political Landscape. Do you deny that OWS is part of today's political landscape? It is on topic. Does it provoke readers into an emotional response? You assume what I said was to provoke. Let's be honest. Anything I post which you do not agree with will elicit an emotional response by you. Care must then be taken with that definition because it assumes that discussion can be had without an emotional response. As long as any and all opinions of mine that you don't agree with elicits an emotional response from you, your accusations of being a troll are obligatory responses that should be ignored. Unfortunately you take advantage of the fact that the more you say something, true or not, the more people believe it.

Originally Posted by smc

When I raise a question of changing the U.S. Constitution, I don't call people who defend it by names. You are called a troll not for your defense of the Constitution.

And you're intelligent enough to know that I never said or implied that I was called a troll for my defense of the Constitution.

Originally Posted by smc

I have never sought to "cure" you of your opinions, only to point out that you discuss dishonestly

Wrong. I honestly believe that some people within the occupy protests behave as gangs.

Originally Posted by smc

As for the use of the word "gang," let me ask you these questions (two of many examples I could pose):

- When the Republicans in Florida organized political operatives to go to the Broward County Board of Elections and pound on the door as they were doing their recount, and act threateningly, and get in the elevator with election workers and menace them, was that a "gang"?

Knowing how you mischaracterize sometimes, I would like to see video of that since I have no knowledge of that.

Originally Posted by smc

- When the Tea Party in Virginia posted Congressman Tom Perriello's address on the Web and encouraged people to visit him and "express their thanks" for his yes vote on the Obama healthcare bill, but they mistakenly posted his brother's address, and the brother had the gas line to his home severed, were they behaving like a "gang"? (This is an example from dozens where the Tea Party encouraged vigilante-like action against elected representatives).

Accidentally giving the wrong address aside, if what you say had happened, then obviously it is gang behavior.

Originally Posted by smc

You want to reserve for yourself the right to use troll language but claim that it's all about the right to one's personal "perspective."

Yes, and it's well known that my personal perspective offends you. Everything that proceeds from that fact becomes quite predictable and monotonous. So with that, I'll get back to the topic as people can read for themselves how these "You're a troll" "Am not" "Are too" conversations go as they are all over the political threads.

And yes, I did notice that you moved to your default position of attacking the poster (not the topic of the thread btw) rather than the well said anti-occupy video I posted.

[smc]

As exasperating as arguing with you is, Tracy, the one thing that makes it easy is that you are so consistent.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Actually what it means is:
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

My posting about ows being gangs was neither extraneous or off-topic. This thread is called Today's Political Landscape. Do you deny that OWS is part of today's political landscape? It is on topic. Does it provoke readers into an emotional response? You assume what I said was to provoke. Let's be honest. Anything I post which you do not agree with will elicit an emotional response by you. Care must then be taken with that definition because it assumes that discussion can be had without an emotional response. As long as any and all opinions of mine that you don't agree with elicits an emotional response from you, your accusations of being a troll are obligatory responses that should be ignored. Unfortunately you take advantage of the fact that the more you say something, true or not, the more people believe it.

Putting aside that this same thing could be said of you -- "you take advantage of the fact that the more you say something, true or not, the more people believe it" -- what is most notable in your response is that you provide a definition that includes three elements: "inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages". You then go on to defend your post because it is neither "extraneous" nor "off-topic." Of course, what I have said consistently is that your troll-like behavior is of the deliberately INFLAMMATORY variety. I leave the fact that you dealt with the other two, but not that one, for others to interpret (and we have a lot of really smart people reading these posts ).

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

And you're intelligent enough to know that I never said or implied that I was called a troll for my defense of the Constitution.

Nor did I ever suggest that you had done so. But by writing what I quote above, you trick the less-careful reader, or the reader who hasn't followed every bit of the exchange, into thinking that I did. We study that kind of thing in my rhetoric classes. It derives from the Greek Sophists, who were masters of what most accurately should be called rhetorical bullshit.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Wrong. I honestly believe that some people within the occupy protests behave as gangs.

As is typical, once you are called out for your troll-like inflammatory language, you begin to retreat. In Post 114, you wrote: "Many people on this thread are of the Bush's Fault camp or of the Occupy gangs."

No one reading that can fail to notice that now you say "some people ... behave as gangs," whereas I responded (quite specifically) to your generalization when using the term. So, shall we take this to be your way of admitting that the generalization was wrong?

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Knowing how you mischaracterize sometimes, I would like to see video of that since I have no knowledge of that.

I will look for video. Meanwhile, you can search news archives from the time, and add Miami-Dade to the mix. You will find newspaper reports of the Bush campaign hiring a "mob" and of the Justice Department launching an investigation. Of course, once Bush became president, the investigation was quietly dropped. Lest you claim that I am mischaracterizing that last point, historians from all across the political spectrum agree that the Bush Justice Department -- independent of the content of the politics -- was the most politicized Justice Department of the modern era.

By the way, I find it hard to believe you "have no knowledge" of these events. You registered on this site with a birthday that makes you old enough to have been cognizant of what was holding the United States at the edge of its collective seat during that period, and unless your interest in politics is a recent phenomenon, you would have had to shut your eyes and ears to miss the reporting.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Accidentally giving the wrong address aside, if what you say had happened, then obviously it is gang behavior.

Nice of you to say so. Meanwhile, as for the method of discourse, I refer readers to my response above regarding the clever implication that I may have made up what was widely reported in the media, that was addressed by the Virgina Tea Party leaders, and what became the subject of investigation by law enforcement agencies.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Yes, and it's well known that my personal perspective offends you. Everything that proceeds from that fact becomes quite predictable and monotonous. So with that, I'll get back to the topic as people can read for themselves how these "You're a troll" "Am not" "Are too" conversations go as they are all over the political threads.

And yes, I did notice that you moved to your default position of attacking the poster (not the topic of the thread btw) rather than the well said anti-occupy video I posted.

Your double standard is quite appalling. I hadn't gotten a chance to watch the video (which is nearly 10 minutes long) but have every intention of responding. You disappear for days at a time after posting things and getting responses.

But, by writing what I quote just above, you get to create the illusion that I am either afraid to respond to a post, or that I can't because I don't know what to say, or that I deliberately ignore something, or whatever. It's all of a type, and it's why you get called out on your method time and again.