Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Forced into a corner by the Mittey's VP choice

Posted 1 year ago on Aug. 11, 2012, 7:10 p.m. EST by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Most everyone on this forum knows that I am non-partisan, but Mitt Romney's choice of Paul Ryan as a VP candidate has forced me into an untenable position.

Paul Ryan is the architect of the Ryan budget, which is probably the inimical piece of legislation designed against the working class in decades. Not only does the Ryan budget target what few remaining safety nets the workers still cling to, but it gives the privileged elite even more tax breaks.

I was not sure whether I was going to vote, since the very process in our system is antithetical to all I believe, but now I must vote, not for Obama, but against Paul Ryan. This is an all-out assault against the working class. Romney has just proven that. We must now respond in whatever way we can.

265 Comments

265 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by beautifulworld (20424) 1 year ago

I think Romney's choice of Paul Ryan is going to finish him off. Obama will sail to victory. All choosing Ryan does is secure his loony tune base which he already has, dhoh! It's going to scare off almost everyone else.

[-] 10 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

By choosing Ryan, Mittey slapped the working man in the face and said, "Take that."

Most anarchists believe that voting in our system does nothing but perpetuate the mess, but at a certain point, the oppressed have to wipe the dung off their face and start pitching back.

[-] -3 points by Justoneof99 (80) 1 year ago

Are you kidding? I LOVE this guy!! He is the only one with the courage and intelect to go after corporate welfare and restore government TO THE PEOPLE! Don't be fooled by the Obama machine- they had their chance.

[+] -6 points by ivian (-60) 1 year ago

by choosing ryan, romney slapped obama in the face. obama hates ryan. ryan showed up obama for the empty suit he is when ryan explained oabamacare to obama with fact and numbers.

[-] 6 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

Post the facts and numbers with a reputable source. Then explain why Ryan is so eager to cut Medicare and Social Security, federal insurance programs, for which most working people have already paid their premiums.

If Ryan is willing to accept the same health insurance and old-age benefits that he wants to foist off on workers, I may lend him some credence. Meanwhile, I'll just view him as another fat cat, who wants take even the little scraps tossed to the workers.

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/no-end-to-end-medicare-claim/

Here's a video clip of Paul Ryan telling Debbie Wasserman-Shultz that he believes that ALL citizens should have the same benefits as congress members have. (Many websites have the link up-it's a CNN interview that took place in 2010)

http://scaredmonkeys.com/2012/08/11/flashback-paul-ryan-laughs-at-debbie-wasserman-schultz-during-cnn-interview-i-would-like-to-have-an-adult-level-converstion/

[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

That's what he may have said in an interview in 2010, but yesterday the Washington Post briefly summarized the Ryan budget. "A big chunk," around $3.1 trillion, of the $5.3 trillion cut would be from health care, specifically Medicare and Medicaid. Obviously, there's a big difference between what Ryan says and what he actually does.

He also plans on spending considerably less for assistance programs for the needy and poor.

I'm afraid that Mister Ryan doesn't add up, but that's no surprise considering his running mate.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/12/what-paul-ryans-budget-actually-cuts-and-by-how-much/

Next,

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Maybe you just aren't capable of understanding how the bipartisan 2012 Wyden/Ryan plan, or Romney's plan, actually work.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/08/27/fact-checking-obamas-campaign-ad-about-romneys-proposal-for-medicare-reform/

The plan doesn't affect ANYONE who is currently 55 years old or older AND clearly establishes "defined-benefit plans in which every participating insurer would be required to offer plans that contain the same set of benefits that Medicare guarantees today."

Got it? SAME benefits extended to future beneficiaries and the plan is solvent. Spending LESS and giving the same or better benefits to the needy and poor seems to upset you a great deal.

[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

You did read the link I provided? Got it? Read the link, not from Forbes, a partisan rag, but from the Washington Post.

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

You mean the same Washington Post that printed this two weeks ago?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/14/ryans-budget-keeps-obamas-medicare-cuts-full-stop/

"Here’s what everyone agrees on: Ryan and Obama include the same cuts to the Medicare program itself"

"But deciding who is cutting Medicare by $700 billion just requires looking at who is cutting Medicare by $700 billion. And at the moment, that’s both Obama and the Republican budget."

Now I don't know where YOU got the $3.1 TRILLION figure that YOU claim will be "cut from health care, specifically Medicare and Medicaid" but I'd LOVE to see someone other than YOU claim such a figure. The link you provided says no such thing.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

Here is a direct quotation from the link I provided: "Ryan’s plan would also spend $5.3 trillion less over that time. A big chunk of this is health care: Ryan would cut federal spending on Medicare and Medicaid for a portion of his savings. But he’d also spend $2.2 trillion less on everything else."

Let's do some basic arithmetic, Betsy. $5.3 trillion will be cut "a big chunk of this is health care." Now read carefully, Betsy,"$2.2 trillion less on everything else." Subtract $2.2 trillion from $5.3 trillion, and the difference will be the cuts in Medicare and Medicaid = $3.1 trillion.

To shore up my basic arithmetic, this link: http://www.insurancenewsnet.com/article.aspx?id=354522&type=healthcarereform Goes on to say that the Ryan budget will cut Medicaid alone by $1.5 trillion in the next decade.

Now to finish with Ryan's butchery of health care, his Medicare payment system, which you insist would provide the same benefits, would be tied, in effect, to the standard inflation rate: (another direct quotation) "The Ryan plan would also replace Medicare’s guarantee of health coverage with premium-support payments to seniors (starting with new beneficiaries in 2023) that they would use to buy coverage from private insurance companies or traditional Medicare. The growth in these payments each year would be limited to the percentage increase in per capita GDP plus one-half percentage point. For more than 30 years, however, health care costs per beneficiary in the United States have risen an average of about two percentage points per year faster than GDP per capita. CBO thus projects that under the Ryan budget, federal Medicare expenditures on behalf of an average 67-year-old beneficiary would, by 2050, be 35 percent to 42 percent lower than under current law." The link: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3708

So, you see my arithmetic was pretty close to what the actual projected figures will be.

[-] 0 points by slizzo (-96) 1 year ago

they've been posted. any response?

have you ever seen this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPxMZ1WdINs

no need for a reputable source, this is it actually happening. Ryan really made Obama look bad.

response?

[-] -2 points by ivian (-60) 1 year ago

not cut them, save them. obamacare has taken about 500 bil out of medicare to fund obamacare. why dont you watch the video of ryan explaining to obama what obamacare really costs. it's on the front page of drudge, just click turn the sound on and listen.

[-] 3 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

I don't consider Drudge a reputable source. I know what the ACA projected costs are. Do you?

[-] 0 points by slizzo (-96) 1 year ago

"I don't consider Drudge a reputable source."

how pathetic. this is a video of it happening. all drudge did is post it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPxMZ1WdINs

this is why leftists are seen as unwilling to accept reality. you are told of a VIDEO of something and you try to swerve from it and avoid it because of what site posted a link to it?

how. fucking. lame.

[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

I thought they had dumped the sleaze out with trash, but I was wrong,.

[-] -1 points by slizzo (-96) 1 year ago

"I was wrong"

about almost everything, it seems. did you watch the video? are you convinced matt drudge fiendishly dubbed in different audio and deceptively edited it like NBC with the trayvon martin 911 call?

curses! foiled again!

[-] -1 points by ivian (-60) 1 year ago

the drudge isnt the maker of the video, its the provider of a video of ryan talking to obama specifically about obama care. watch and listen for yourself. or continue to hide your head in the sand.

[-] -1 points by TryingForAnOpenMind (-358) from Yonkers, NY 1 year ago

love drudge. He is 100% reliable.

[-] 3 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

Of course you do; Drudge isn't, but you've already shown your stripes by supporting Romney and Ryan.

[-] 1 points by WeWillOvercome (3) 1 year ago

So only a vote for Obama is acceptable?

[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

No, vote for whomever; I don't care, but don't post mindless opposition comments and not expect to be rebuffed. Reread my OP; I'm an anarchist, and really didn't want to vote, but Mittey's choice of Ryan assured not a vote for Obama, but a vote against Romney-Ryan.

[-] 0 points by slizzo (-96) 1 year ago

"but don't post mindless opposition comments and not expect to be rebuffed."

so a video of Ryan speaking to Obama is what call "mindless opposition comments"?

be honest, are you trying to be ridiculous? I see your phony phone call senator has trained you well in the art of self-deceit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPxMZ1WdINs

"I'm an anarchist," said the closet democrat desperate for a reason to vote Obama and save face.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

If he brings Marxism, which he won't since he's a corporatist puppet, I would welcome that. Instead he'll bring more corporatism to please you fascist scum.

[-] -1 points by WeWillOvercome (3) 1 year ago

You don't know what corportism is. And are you sure all your fellow anarchists welcome Marxism? Perhaps you worship a political/economic system that has murdered more people than fascist systems could have dreamed of murdering. But I don't think most of your fellow anarchists( by the way, you are obviously no anarchist) would agree with you.

[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

You haven't the slightest idea what your talking about.

I don't know about my "fellow anarchists," except for other anarcho-communists. You can visit the website: http://libcom.org/ After that rudimentary move to educate yourself, I suggest you read Mussolini's definition of fascism and corporatism: "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/b/benitomuss388775.html#B1v0I4TJb0zl3xYZ.99

So you see, I know what corporatism and fascism are; they are the corporate state, like the United States of America. Your ignorance is exceeded only by your stupidity.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by slizzo (-96) 1 year ago

"anarcho-communist"

how silly. what a silly, silly thing to claim to be.

anarchy: no rules communism: rules for everything, more rules than sharia law

anarcho-communist: confused left winger embarrassed to admit he's a DNC lapdog because despite the ability to recognize the dems are as corrupt as the reps, he still needs a herd to feel safe in.

one more time, for the people.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPxMZ1WdINs

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Romney represents the 1% elites. So unfortunately in our country it is him or the D. One day we will have a new system of govt and be done with corp owned parties. Until then keep the republican 1% elite out of office.

[-] 1 points by WeWillOvercome (3) 1 year ago

Wow. So you really believe that none of the 1% are democrats? Why would you think that?

[-] 0 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

The 1% elites are served by the republican agenda and actions. Are you a moron? Or just trying to pretend that the republican agenda is not at the center of all our problems? Dem pols may sometimes vote for the republican laws that serve the 1% criminals but only some.

[-] -1 points by TryingForAnOpenMind (-358) from Yonkers, NY 1 year ago

Oh, wow. Is that not allowed here? I thought this was the USA, not Red China. Must we tow the party line here? Many peep's on this site are haters, if you disagree w/ them politically. What's up with that?

[-] 0 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

You can support anyone you want, but don't expect others to believe you have an open mind, when you write, "love drudge. He is 100% reliable."

That's an extremely biased opinion with little basis in fact. Once again, if you want to sweeping statements like that, provide a reputable source aside from Drudge.

[-] 0 points by TryingForAnOpenMind (-358) from Yonkers, NY 1 year ago

Once again? Oh sorry, I did not realize that you were appointed to decide who we can reference here. Why must I comply with the demands of a dogmatic, control freak? Please relax .

[-] 3 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

But you never provide a source except your own opinion, which you hold in higher esteem than the rest of us do. You don't have to comply with anything. I certainly can't force you, I can only point out the illogical structure of your comments and demands.

[+] -4 points by TryingForAnOpenMind (-358) from Yonkers, NY 1 year ago

Thanks for pointing that illogical stuff out. You seem well qualified to be a fact checker. Go Conservatives !

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

You prove my point with your every reply: grammar-school slogans rather than reasoned arguments. You offer no facts, only childish opinions; you offer no facts to check like politicians in their ads. You're a perfect example of the oligarchy's success in conditioning individuals to not think, only salivate and respond.

[-] 0 points by slizzo (-96) 1 year ago

you might be the least self-aware person I have ever come across on these ows boards.

and that is saying a lot. no wonder NV is so deep in the toilet. are there others like you there?

trick question. I lived there for over a decade. it's a cultural, educational, intellectual, civic and economic disaster area. great place to live in your partying 20s when you're just starting out, but no place for an adult that wants to live a life with business and leisure options.

[-] -1 points by TryingForAnOpenMind (-358) from Yonkers, NY 1 year ago

go away you crack pot lib.

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by TryingForAnOpenMind (-358) from Yonkers, NY 1 year ago

Oh..thanks. I'll leave then. I didn't realize that oppositional thought was not permitted. Sorry.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Ummm agian you show your stubborn refusal to understand - havingachievedaclosedmind. This is a progressive site/forum you can check it out in the rules - this is not a site for conservative RW policy.

[-] 2 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 1 year ago

Where is that in the rules DKA? I don't see it.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

I gave you a couple of excerpts and the links so you can go and read the complete articles for yourself. I suggest you do this - then spend some time thinking and then you may start seeing the connections. Have a chat with jart - as we have had a couple of conversations about this and I do believe that there is a planned update to be released about the forum.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

1st in case you were wondering progressives are considered to be left.

And for further information I suggest you could also verify with jart as I have had several conversations with her.


Read the Rules Before Posting

No Platform. Conspiracy theories, will be removed immediately and the spammer will receive a swift global network ban. Fascist propaganda, will be treated with the similar actions. In that we are very specific about what fascism is: the word has a meaning.

We do not support an election campaign for 2012. At all. We have removed election material for Obama, Paul, Warren, Paul, Cain, Paul, Perry, Paul, the green party, Paul, Nader, Paul, and did I mention Paul? The spamming by the Ron Lawl 2012 fan club was getting out of hand. We will continue to remove such material and any call for the Paul 2012 campaign will, at this point, be considered spamming. End of. We're tired of hearing about it. Main street debates are also largely off topic.


About

Occupy Wall Street is a people-powered movement that began on September 17, 2011 in Liberty Square in Manhattan’s Financial District, and has spread to over 100 cities in the United States and actions in over 1,500 cities globally. #ows is fighting back against the corrosive power of major banks and multinational corporations over the democratic process, and the role of Wall Street in creating an economic collapse that has caused the greatest recession in generations. The movement is inspired by popular uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia, and aims to fight back against the richest 1% of people that are writing the rules of an unfair global economy that is foreclosing on our future.


[+] -9 points by jart (815) from Brooklyn, NY 1 day ago

I just like to throw the words out there occasionally for fun and hope people suppress that initial response of horror that capitalist propaganda has conditioned them to have, and actually do the research and find out what those words mean. I like to remind people that the ideas are still relevant, but outside of internet forums I hardly ever use those words because they've been stolen from us and are no longer capable of articulating my ideas.

So since you asked, and for anyone reading, here's my little spiel about my favorite alternative to capitalism.

I believe the simplest system is always the best system. I also believe that true genius comes from bringing simple systems to life. If you peel back a lot of the layers of what we've been taught growing up in this society, you wonder why so many things are more complicated than they ought to be. I wonder why when I'm hungry, that I can't simply just go into a supermarket and take the food I need. I wonder why I can't just walk into a cafeteria and get a meal. I wonder why when I need to go somewhere, I can't just hop into the first car I see parked on the street and go. I wonder why when I need clothes I can't just walk into H&M and take them. I wonder why when I'm sick, that I can't just see a doctor. I wonder why when I need a place to sleep, I can't just walk into an Inn and ask for a bed.

Money and paperwork stands in the way of doing all these things. The only things you can actually get in the U.S. without money and paperwork is air and clean water. Why does it have to be that way? I'm not hurting anyone by taking the things I need to survive. So what is money protecting? There's no scarcity of resources thanks to modern technology. The labor necessary to produce the things we need to live a prosperous lifestyle becomes lower and lower each day. The only thing money seems to be protecting is the urges of men to be greedy and in control.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could just produce an abundance of resources and let people take what they need freely without any hindrances? No accountants, no banks, no stock, no deeds, no insurance companies, no superfluous nonsense that serves only to waste labor. The only expectation is that people contribute back to society in accordance with their abilities. This is called a gift economy, and it's a large part of what Marx defined as pure communism.

Now forget everything you think you know about what's practical and what isn't. In that case, wouldn't you agree that a gift economy is what we should be striving for? Seriously, if you reply to this comment, then please answer that question. How could you possibly argue against a society where all the basic needs in life are just free and no one has to struggle to survive and prosper. A society where we've finally evolved past the primitive human struggle for basic survival and we move on to accomplishing bigger and better things. I believe it's possible.

So if we can all get on board with the idea that a gift economy is the way to go, then politics simply becomes a question of how we get there. This is, after all, the recognized end goal of pretty much everyone further left than liberals. The anarchists and the marxists want the same thing, they just disagree on tactics and strategy. One of the reasons I have more affinity with the anarchists than the marxists is because the attempts of marxist-leninists, maoists, etc. in the past have failed to achieve communism. There's all sorts of theories as to why, like putting communism on the backburner to fight fascists, inability to move past the nation-state paradigm, centralization of authority, bureaucracy, etc. I could even argue that in many ways, state-communist societies worked out better than most capitalist societies, but I'd rather not because talking about what "works" on the macro scale is such a pseudo-intellectual activity.

So if you take one thing out of reading this comment, I ask that you reorient your politics to keep these goals in mind, and try not to get lost in the minutiæ of petty political struggles. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink

[-] 3 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 1 year ago

Maybe my eyes are tired tonight but I can't find it. Would you mind zeroing in on the part where it says this is a progressive site and/or conservative perspectives are disallowed?

[-] 1 points by WeWillOvercome (3) 1 year ago

Too true. It seems to be a site for DNC propaganda.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Progressive - unfortunately if we are looking at politics today that would be the democrats in office that would be the most visible representation - but there are plenty of independent progressives and the day may come when they will be 1st identified as being progressive. So it may seem like this is a democratic party site - BUT - It is Not. This site is about forwarding and addressing the ills of our country. Notably pointed out in the economic meltdown and the mishandling of the recovery - which points us to Capitol Hill ( and state government ) as a major problem standing in the way of healthy growth.

[-] -2 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

We cannot support republican 1% elites. We have to recognize the democrats won't do what is needed until we make them

[-] -1 points by slizzo (-96) 1 year ago

drudge is an aggregator. he links other sites. do you now know this?

how is he unreliable? didn't most lefties stung by the clinton sex scandal get over it and accept the fact that drudge rarely writes ANYTHING about 15 years ago? what's your excuse? have you ever seen the site?

give it a look. it won't hurt you, promise....

drudgereport.com

[-] 1 points by shooz (26667) 1 year ago

Only if you're looking to believe in lies and mistruths.

Apparently, that is the case.

[-] 0 points by TryingForAnOpenMind (-358) from Yonkers, NY 1 year ago

Can you name exact news story that is false? your statement is not truthful.. He broke the Lewinsky story 1st way back..is that what bugs you?

[-] 2 points by shooz (26667) 1 year ago

The Lewinski breakage was mostly BS, and it's his main claim to fame.

Plus he got a lot of help from Limbaugh on that shit.................

Drudge has always been about trumping things up, that's the core tenet of mistruths.

You don't also think FLAKESnews tells the truth?

[-] -2 points by TryingForAnOpenMind (-358) from Yonkers, NY 1 year ago

I guess you can't defend your slander of Matt Drudge. It is not fair to call people liars just because you disagree with their politics.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26667) 1 year ago

I just feel no need to follow a known liar.

But just for you I'll post a little something.

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/matt-drudges-race-war-mongering-narr

There's more than one way to tell a lie.

[-] -1 points by Abby100 (-54) 1 year ago

Hey snooz keep drinking the koolaid.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Mitts internal polls must be showing continued weakness with his ultra right wing TP base. Good sign for progressives hoping to keep theseright wing 1% plutocrat extremist tools out of office.

The election is won amongst the indies. So this pick should help the left.

We shall see.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20424) 1 year ago

I agree. He's solidifying what is already solid. Weird choice.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I've assumed Romneys base was solid because his base hates this black Pres but His polls must be showing some weakness.

It means that he is still shoring up the right wing wackos when he should be moderating and going after indies.

He's in trouble. Got hit him now mercilessly.

[-] -2 points by Abby100 (-54) 1 year ago

Sorry former NYC Sanitation worker the polls show Mitt is tied with obummer. With obummer losing ground daily.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

"former NYC Sanitation"? What does that mean.? You support Romney the 1% plutocrat? Even though he raises taxes on middle class, & cuts taxes for his 1% friends? & he seeks to balance the budget on the backs of the poor, elderly, and sick.? Thats ok w/ you?

[-] 0 points by flip (5063) 1 year ago

i think you are right but are you forgetting the effects of the last 70 years of propaganda? social security is a ponzi scheme and going broke etc. we are a very confused country and there will be millions of people voting against their interests - how many millions remain to be seen - i wonder what it would look like if obama had been the man we hoped he was?

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (20424) 1 year ago

You make a good point, flip, but let's hope that OWS, among other groups, has made enough of a difference in educating and shedding light on issues, to ensure Romney's loss in what will be a close race.

[-] 2 points by flip (5063) 1 year ago

it will be interesting to see how the next few months play out. economics is at the heart of our problems and there is so much misinformation on that subject it is frightening. the most simple common sense problems become unintelligible when one listens to economists. are you aware that what we talk about used to be called political economy - they were separated to confuse us! here is a bit from a long article on the subject - "I am using the term political economy to refer to a body of thought in which the economic order is considered to be a part of a larger order, such that the purposes it serves are values affirmed in that wider order. Modern economics initially developed as political economy, indeed, as a branch of moral philosophy. Through the nineteenth century, most of the discussion of economic issues had this wider context. Even in the twentieth century, as long as Marxism presented itself as a serious alternative, this context could not be avoided altogether.

Nevertheless, during the twentieth century, practitioners of economics as an academic discipline, especially in the English-language world, have moved away from political economy. They have wanted to separate their discipline from the humanities, including history, and to establish it as a science modeled on the physical sciences. This has meant that it has taken increasingly mathematical form.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (20424) 1 year ago

It is a joke. Economics is a social science, not a hard science. And, can you imagine that it was once part of the wider branch of moral philosophy?

[-] 2 points by flip (5063) 1 year ago

i think it is worse than that - it is an ideological profession in service to the rich - just like history.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20424) 1 year ago

Well said.

[-] 2 points by Shule (1541) 1 year ago

Let us be careful here. Social Security is not a ponzi scheme. There is actually plenty of money in the Social Security system. The only reason it is going broke is because the rest of the federal government is borrowing against it to pay for wars and other such foolish activities.

[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

People use the title Ponzi scheme for most any political-financial program they dislike regardless of the actual definition of a Ponzi scheme.

Social Security and Medicare are federal insurance programs. To cut the benefits is nothing but fraud on the part of the government, cheating working people out of benefits for which they have already paid. The frauds are people like Paul Ryan, who want to steal from lifelong investments many workers have made.

[-] 1 points by flip (5063) 1 year ago

if you look at the definition of ponzi scheme i think you will find it is - along with treasuries and stocks. i was pointing out the propaganda about social security not attacking it.

[-] 2 points by Shule (1541) 1 year ago

"A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to its investors from their own money or the money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from profit earned by the individual or organization running the operation" according to Wikipedia. Social security is not that. Social security taxes go into an interest earning trust fund, and the trust fund pays out when individuals retire. It is essentially a collective retirement account. Maybe social security is a bad example for the point your trying to make. But then again maybe it is not. This idea that social security is somehow a ponzi scheme is the real propaganda being perpetuated by people who are out to end it.

[-] 1 points by flip (5063) 1 year ago

i know what it is but unless you die early you need other young workers in order to get your payments - here is dean baker on the subject - "At the most basic level, Social Security has 100 percent transparency in its finances. Anyone who cares can find the past, current, and projected future income and cost of the program in great detail in the annual trustees reports. The basis of every Ponzi scheme is deception: the claim of enormous returns. There is zero deception in Social Security.

And, these projections show that the program can pay all benefits for the next 35 years with no changes whatsoever. They also show it can pay more than 75 percent of benefits indefinitely. A tax increase that is less than 5 percent of projected wage growth over the next three decades would make allow it to pay all benefits into the indefinite future.

The way in which Social Security is ostensibly similar to a Ponzi scheme is that it depends on new workers in the future to meet obligations that it incurs today. This also happens to be true of any debt issued by either the government or the private sector.

If the size of the working population in the United States collapsed tomorrow, then it would not have the tax revenue to pay off government bonds. Similarly, if the public stopped buying General Electric's products, it would also be unable to pay off its bondholders. Yet no one in their right mind would describe the bonds issued by the federal government or General Electric as Ponzi schemes.

[-] 1 points by Shule (1541) 1 year ago

I certainly see what you're saying. Your pointing out a fundamental weakness in our entire Capitalist system which is based on the assumption of growth. Just about every major business will eventually collapse based on the accumulation of promised payments over time as well as the eventual saturation of products in a set customer base. I point to the U.S. auto industry as an example where by the accumulation of retirement payments and other debts over time contributed to the industry being uncompetitive to industries overseas. Then couple that with the fact that once every one has a car to drive, the demand to buy is no longer there. (The auto industry had other problems too.)

I still would not call what your pointing out a Ponzi scheme though since what your describing does not exactly fit the definite meaning, or at least the original intent of social security, bond and many businesses is not to defraud investors by never truly investing the money in the first place. Using the term for these cases tends to undermine the very valid point and most important point which your trying to make. Maybe we can call what your describing "fraudulence of presumed growth."

[-] 1 points by flip (5063) 1 year ago

well i guess what i am pointing out is that maybe the term ponzi scheme has gotten a bad rap - if you need new investors to pay off old investors then that is a ponzi scheme but it can work under certain circumstances. as i said i am all for social security and would like to expand it - even though it is what most people would call a ponzi scheme if they thought about it

[-] 2 points by Shule (1541) 1 year ago

Well maybe we are confused as to how social security really works. To my understanding from the little research I've done, social security does not depend on new investors to pay off old investors (so long as people who are borrowing from the kitty are paying back.) Basically, its like an insurance policy/retirement fund; you pay in, and later when you need it you get the money back. No ponzi scheme there.

The problem only starts when the rest of the federal government borrows from the social security trust fund, and then does not pay back as promised. Then the social security system gets "stuck" with having to operate in "Ponzi Scheme" mode.

The fraud is done by those entities borrowing without intention of paying back, and not the social security system itself. By ending social security those who borrowed from it will then be relieved of their obligations of paying back. Evil huh??

[-] 1 points by flip (5063) 1 year ago

to some extent you are correct that the money paid into the system pays for the payouts but i don't think it does at all fully. doesn't matter though - we need social security and should expand it - we are the richest country the world has ever seen! people should be able to retire comfortably

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (5739) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

I don't think it is. In a Ponzi scheme, people voluntarily buy in with the expectation of making a significant profit. Not only is SS not voluntary, I don't think people look at it as returning any sort of financial profit.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

I think if you were to look up definition of ponzi scheme today? As long as the definition was written by an honest publisher - you would likely see a picture of WallStreet next to the definition as a prime example of a major practitioner.

[-] 1 points by flip (5063) 1 year ago

i am with you here and i am for maintaining social security and expanding it as jamie galbraith says - he thinks what we should do is for the next 3 yrs offer full benefits to those 62 and over and partial to 59 and over - along with medicare this owld help people retire and let younger people find jobs. it is still a ponzi scheme but that doesn't mean it is bad - treasuries are also but nobody complains about them!

[-] -1 points by funkytown (-374) 1 year ago

Have you considered the possibility that it was intentional? Because that was my first thought.

[+] -5 points by ivian (-60) 1 year ago

YOU are the loony tune base,......................thats what obamabots are. loons.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (20424) 1 year ago

And, you're here, why? This is the OWS forum.

[+] -5 points by ivian (-60) 1 year ago

because laughter is good for my soul.

[-] 5 points by beautifulworld (20424) 1 year ago

Oh, so you think it is funny that one-half of all Americans earn less than $26,000 per year, that 1 in 7 are on food stamps, that 49 million have no health insurance, that 22% of our kids live in poverty, that wages have been declining while the average CEO's take has increased from about 40 times the average worker's wage 30 years ago to 343 times the average worker's wage today. College costs are soaring while our kids rank horribly in math and science, home values are down, foreclosures are up. Yeah, it's hilarious. Keep laughing.

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 1 year ago

Verry good synopsis of what has been going on. It would be perfect though if after the CEO pay, you added, 'all while they outsource some of our best jobs' over-seas.'. According to a Drew University professor who gave a teach-in at Bryant Park, 'in the top twenty projected jobs that will be needed in the next ten years...only one will require a college education.

[+] -4 points by ivian (-60) 1 year ago

i didnt detail what i thought was funny. do not do it for me , its pure conjecture on your part. the off wall post by some ows people are hilariously funny.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (20424) 1 year ago

Okay, fair enough. So you admit that the facts about how our economy fails to work for the citizens of this country is not funny.

[-] 0 points by flip (5063) 1 year ago

highly doubtful that you have a soul if you are here to laugh at those who are sick of the super rich running the world. they gave us ww1, ww2, the threat of nuclear war and for what - so they can live like kings while the rest of us struggle? should i go on? and i imagine you laugh when you hear that god created the world 6000 yrs ago - does your soul soar when you read this from Dinosaurs and the Bible by Ken Ham on

November 5, 1999 ? - "Other scientists, called creation scientists, have a different idea about when dinosaurs lived. They believe they can solve any of the supposed dinosaur mysteries and show how the evidence fits wonderfully with their ideas about the past, beliefs that come from the Bible.

The Bible, God’s very special book (or collection of books, really), claims that each writer was supernaturally inspired to write exactly what the Creator of all things wanted him to write down for us so that we can know where we (and dinosaurs) came from, why we are here, and what our future will be. The first book in the Bible—Genesis—teaches us many things about how the universe and life came into existence. Genesis tells us that God created everything—the Earth, stars, sun, moon, plants, animals, and the first two people.

Although the Bible does not tell us exactly how long ago it was that God made the world and its creatures, we can make a good estimate of the date of creation by reading through the Bible and noting some interesting passages: 1. God made everything in six days. He did this, by the way, to set a pattern for mankind, which has become our seven day week (as described in Exodus 20:11). God worked for six days and rested for one, as a model for us. Furthermore, Bible scholars will tell you that the Hebrew word for day used in Genesis 1, can only mean an ordinary day in this context.

2. We are told God created the first man and woman—Adam and Eve—on Day Six. Many facts about when their children and their children’s children were born are given in Genesis. These genealogies are recorded throughout the Old Testament, up until the time of Christ. They certainly were not chronologies lasting millions of years.

As you add up all of the dates, and accepting that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came to Earth almost 2000 years ago, we come to the conclusion that the creation of the Earth and animals (including the dinosaurs) occurred only thousands of years ago (perhaps only 6000!), not millions of years. Thus, if the Bible is right (and it is!), dinosaurs must have lived within the past thousands of years.

[-] -2 points by TryingForAnOpenMind (-358) from Yonkers, NY 1 year ago

they will shut you down soon for not towing the party line.. I respect you, good to see someone w/ a correct perspective.

[-] 0 points by ivian (-60) 1 year ago

liberals are tolerant as long as you agree with them.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by ComeTogetherNOW (650) 1 year ago

I totally and completely. Mittney's message to ALL of US is immediately crystal clear with his choice for Paul Ryan as VP. He shows once again how poor his judgement is. But worse, it is now clear that Mittney will be by no doubt, a 1% President. Bought and paid for by the rich, for rich, so the rich can everything and anything they want. And to the middle class, and the soon to be poor, and poor, screw you!

We received it!. We got it! NOW, we ALL have skin in this game. We can NOT Lose

Do SOMETHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Come Together NOW

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

Please, don't misinterpret my decision. It is in no way a show of approval for Obama, but only an effort to slow the steady eating away of all benefits for workers. The Democrats care no more for the lower class than the Republicans; their so-called concern is only a tool to placate workers and give them false hope of pie in the sky.

[-] 2 points by freehorseman (267) from Miles City, Mt 1 year ago

What a wonderful choice.Ryan in the white house would be end of American apathy.Evan those fat assed walmart shoppers might wake up.This country gets screwed because most of its people are to stupid and lazy to get off there ass.They do not give a sh=t about anything but there next big mac.

[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

You've got me laughing and for good reason. I wish that I had some type of witty repartee with which to counter, but what you say is right on the money (pun intended).

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

lol how does this change anything about Romney?? Romney already supports the exact same policies as Ryan. Nothing about Romney's terrible policies changes.

Romney shouldn't be an option even if he chose Barack Obama as his VP choice lol

Gah with candidates like these they're forcing me to vote Green!

[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

If Ryan hadn't authored the budget eviscerating so many safety-net programs, I might have let it slide, but the Ryan budget, so directly aimed at the working class, forced me to take a side I didn't want to take.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

But Romney was for all that kind of stuff with or without Ryan or the Ryan Budget.

Nothing about Romney changes with Ryan. He's still a 1% shill aimed at leading a system that exploits the 99% with or without Ryan.

We're not really "stuck" between these 2 candidates you know... most people have just been lead to believe that by the television paid for by corporations that finance the candidates. The two party system hijacked the government years ago and Fail Hard or Fail Harder is the latest result of that.

Nowhere in the constitution does it lay out an electorate process between democrats and republicans yet everyone thinks this is how the electorate process is supposed to be. And since they're both financed by BILLIONS of dollars by corporations and banks.... this is the outcome we face. CONTROLLED

Money in politics is why republicans have a clown like Romney over a real republican like Gary Johnson. Money in politics is the reason there's Obama instead of a real democrat like Dennis Kucinich.

There's 3, 4, or maybe even 5 presidential candidates on your ballot in November. People need to pick up on that and stop letting the tv tell them how to vote.

That's all I have to say about that.

THE WARS CAN END AS SOON AS PEOPLE VOTE FOR THE CANDIDATES THAT WANT THE WARS TO END

And Obama supporters who may read this... please don't even try to tell me Obama wants to end the wars. Because I'll just ask you about how many countries Obama bombed in the last 12 months.

[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

You are correct, and I won't argue that Obama has not seriously attempted to curtain America's imperialistic designs through war.

Once again you are right; there are several candidates on the ballot, but realistically, in a swing state only the two major candidates matter. I had planned on voting simply in protest, if I voted at all, but now with Ryan as part of the equation, I have to ask myself, whether stopping the further spread of right-wing insanity is more important than protesting the system, when I know that the that Romney-Ryan are committed to the quick destruction of what few benefits remain for the American worker.

Not that I believe Obama cares a bit for the interests of the workers, but only that he, puppet A, buys a little more time, in which to build a more effective resistance network.

[-] 5 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

"only two candidates matter" because people have been propagandized by money on politics.

I refuse to play that game like I refuse to shop at wal mart. Is wal mart going to close tomorrow? Probably not but I refuse to support something I'm morally opposed to. Call me old fashioned.

I have a dream that Americans will lift the veil of lies that has been draped around their eyes.

[-] 3 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

You are right. I can't argue your logic or your sentiments. I'll see what the late October polls in Nevada look like. Some of the Dem partisan completely offend me with their end-of-the-world hysteria. We lived through Bush; I'm sure we can survive a Romney.

[-] 1 points by MadInMedford (-15) 1 year ago

Bush, Obama, Romney, whoever. The names change but not the agenda.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

You're absolutely right. The point is to avert any possibility of a Ryan budget being passed. I don't care about the politicians, but don't want to see safety-net programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Food Stamps, etc. drastically reduced. I'll fight for that.

[-] 1 points by MadInMedford (-15) 1 year ago

It's all staged and scripted, my friend. Debating the two party platforms merely perpetuates the two-party tyranny. We have better uses for our time.

[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

The really sad part of what you say is that I buy it. That's my own line. Where is our option for peaceful change? As jrhirsch points out both parties and almost all politicians are part of the oligarchy.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

The option is an engaged public that wants the change. In that regards, the future looks bleak.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

Many of us on the forum believe that elections are a farce and an exercise in futility. If real hope of durable change cannot be achieved through the ballot box, and politicians are nothing more than tools of the oligarchy, few options remain for Americans to achieve governmental reform.

At a certain point, however, the subjugation of the workers becomes intolerable. Most live as hopelessly and miserably as medieval serfs. Then any hope of peaceful revolution vanishes.

[-] 1 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 1 year ago

An engaged public is the option that will work. I admit that it looks bleak. There is no person/candidate that will motivate people to vote IMO.

Our elections are already a mockery, can we make the elections more of a mockery in a way that people would respond? You know my idea is a write in for LOVE, but I can't say it's catching on among people on this forum or the people I talk to.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Unfortunately, most people who want new ways of doing things, or simply increased accountablity on behalf of the public, cant stomach the idiocy of the internet. Which makes organizing and networking very difficult.

Now if I was recruiting for Dems of Reps, I would have no problem.

I think the motivation has to come from the people first. No matter how hard I try, if a person is not motivated, they will not make a good worker. The same is true for this. If the public is not motivated to become engaged, then their system, regardless of what system it is, will not work.

Very bleak indeed :(

[-] 1 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 1 year ago

Bleak or very bleak, we can't stop at that point. Motivation to become engaged is the answer but how?

A simple attempt to mock our elections, with the most powerful word in the world!

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by ivian (-60) 1 year ago

obama care has taken over 700 billion $ from medicare. ryans budget does not disturb medicare i any way for anyone over 55.

[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

The problem is the reported facts, links below, don't coincide with your statement. In the first place Ryan doesn't intend to restore the money Obama has irresponsibly funnelled away from Medicare; he intends to keep the cuts: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/14/ryans-budget-keeps-obamas-medicare-cuts-full-stop/

Secondly, "The Republican-backed shift to private insurance plans could saddle future retirees with thousands of dollars a year in additional bills.

"That would leave the children of the baby boom generation with far less protection from medical expenses than their parents and grandparents have had in their retirement."

Furthermore, the Ryan budget drastically cuts Medicaid and other programs designed to assist the poor, needy, and very ill. http://news.yahoo.com/ryans-medicare-plan-tricky-pull-off-161507280.html

By now you can see the plan doesn't sound so good, when presented by third parties. Maybe all the politicians from Obama to Ryan should forego their pay and benefits, until their median constituents--those above poverty, but not well-to-do--receive equal pay and benefits.

I don't defend Obama, but at the same time don't accept sugar-coated pills about the Ryan budget.

[-] 0 points by ivian (-60) 1 year ago

romney intends to do away with obamacare, by doing so the 700bil is restored to medicare.under romney, medicare benefits would stay exactly the same for people 55 and over and it will not shift the costs onto seniors of the future. it wont kick in for another 10 years, the dems dont want to talk about that becaue it takes the fear factor away from their " throw granny off a cliff" meme. the current version of the ryan plan gives future benficiaries the option to keep traditional medicare. they will choose among a menu of insurance plans, including a fee for service federal option, all of which will be required to offer at least the same level of benefits as medicare now. the federal govt will pay everyones premiums up to a level matching the second lowest priced plan in a given area. there's no reason a benficiary will have to pay more , although he can choose a pricier plan and pay the difference. obama wants a bureaucratic board to get savings through arbitrary limits on prices that ultimately limit access to care while ryan wants to get the services through competition and choice. the dems voted for 700 bil. in medicare to fund obamacare.NOW.ryan preserved the cuts in his budget but has put them aside for a medicare trust fund. romney wants to repeal obamacare in its entirety, including the medicare cuts. the ryan plan offers most fundamentally , is a vision of a reformed entitlement state that wont require massive new tax increases or debt to fund.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

Here we go again; this quotation is from the second link I provided in the previous post: "For the most part, Ryan's plan would not directly affect people now in Medicare. One exception: In repealing Obama's health care law, Ryan would re-open the Medicare prescription coverage gap called the doughnut hole.

"Under his plan, people now 54 and younger would go into a very different sort of Medicare. Upon becoming eligible, they would receive a government payment that they could use to pick a private insurance plan or a government-run program like traditional Medicare. The payment would be indexed to account for inflation, and that could be a problem if health care costs race ahead of the inflation rate."

The first paragraph specifically addresses the doughnut hole in Medicare Part D, the prescription coverage, which leaves those most in need picking up a large portion of their prescription costs per year. So that will cost current recipients dearly, it it passes.

Notice the second paragraph, without any spin, makes it clear that future medical-expense allotments would be indexed to the inflation rate. The unfortunate aspect of this little trick is that health care costs traditionally "soar above the overall inflation." http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/page-1/FIN-258088/Healthcare-Costs-Soar-Above-Overall-Inflation http://www.californiahealthline.org/articles/2010/10/26/health-care-expenses-outpace-overall-rate-of-inflation-study-finds.aspx http://money.cnn.com/2007/09/11/pf/health_costs_kaiser/index.htm

Notice that third-party sources present a different picture. Current Medicare recipients undoubtedly want the plan to remain as low-cost as possible. After all, they already pay an additional premium for Medicare Part B depending on their lifetime income level, as well as a secondary premium for Part D in non-HMO plans.

Almost all doctors will tell you the current health-care system needs drastic modification. Many had hopes for the Congressionally passed ACA, but those were dashed. I certainly don't like the ACA, not because workers haven't earned decent, universal health care, but because the ACA does not provide that. For the most part, it provides a mandate to purchase health-insurance, except for the lowest income earners.

Incidentally, the way I have understood the shift of money from Medicare to the ACA is that many of the beneficiaries of the ACA would not then be Medicare patients. Medicare eligibility is not based on age alone. Some terminal conditions, like Chronic Kidney Disease Stage 5, also qualify people for Medicare. In such instances the primary insurance (non-Medicare) is responsible for most costs for at least thirty months after diagnosis. So, you can see how an insurance-buying mandate would decrease Medicare costs shifting much of the burden to private insurers.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Did you already forget about Obama battling to get the NDAA indefinite provision reinstated?

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

No, I have not forgotten. I am one of the most vocal critics of Obama's usurpation of American Constitutional rights like suspension to the right of writs of habeas corpus, as well as unwarranted surveillance, and even the murders of American citizens without due process of law.

Somehow, we have to buy more time, so that workers are not stripped of their few remaining benefits, as we work for change. If I write in, for example, Jill Stein on the Nevada ballot, that may assuage my conscience slightly for actually casting a ballot, but it won't in any meaningful benefit the working class, which is my only reason for even bothering to vote.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

It is precisely that kind of thinking that prevents any outside candidates from ever winning and insuring that the duopoly triumphs again. Well meaning people have done the same for decades and look where it has gotten us. We will be in an even deeper rut in 2016. Will your reasoning still be the same then? What will it take to break out of the rut and vote for a person and not a party?

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

No, I have looked at other candidates, Jill Stein, for example. One of the problems in Nevada is that almost any candidate outside of the two-party system is a write in, which weighs heavily them. The states are complicit in the oligarchy making any serious attempts to overthrow the existing order via the ballot box nearly impossible without major funding.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

It's not a matter of funding. It's a matter of risk. I will take that chance and vote for another candidate even if there is the chance that Romney or Obama will win. If we risk nothing, then nothing will be gained.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

I understand your position, but California will almost certainly go for the President, just as Arizona will surely go for Romney. Nevada, however, is a swing state, and if the election is close, I have to ask myself if writing in Jill Stein benefits the workers more than simply swallowing hard and marking the ballot against Romney-Ryan.

This wouldn't even be an issue, except that Romney picked a man, who seems dedicated to the destruction of the remains of the safety-net programs. The working class can only give up so much. I'm not willing to risk the little bit that's left for it's people.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

If the American rebels weren't willing to take the risk in 1776, we would still be a colony of England.

The small risk you refuse to take now will result in the greater certainty of ourselves becoming a colony of the wealthy.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

If the risk were my own, I would take it, but the working class has its neck on the block. I'm not so sure of the ideology in turning away, when the axe is about to fall.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Doing the safe thing led to them to the chopping block. Doing the safe thing will see their children's head's cut off.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

That's true. This is no easy matter for me, even deciding to vote has been difficult. I may end up voting for the most viable of the "other" candidates whose views lean toward mine.

[-] -1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Pres Obama already ended the Iraq war, And is almost done with the Afghan war. We haven't started any other wars. So Wars end if you stick with Pres Obama

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

it's been 11 years. There is no excuse to still be at war in any country.

[-] 0 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

The war mongers have much power. But Pres Obama has resisted calls to invade Iran He is ending bushs last war, and he hasn't started any others. What the fuck more do you want? You set the bar too fuckin high.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

resisted the calls by surrounding Iran with warships? One of which crashed into a civilian oil tanks in the straight of hormuz... another which shot and killed innocent fishermen...

Maybe he'll just drone strike it? The ONLY reason we're not in Iran is because of China. There is no other reason than that.

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Now now give the man some credit! He HAS resisted republican war mongers pressure to invade. The oil tanker collision was an accident it doesn't mean he is a war monger. (bit of a stretch even for you no?) The fisherman could have been carrying bombs (can you say Kohl).

Why won't you give Pres Obama the credit he deserves? Ended or ending bushs illegal wars, hasn't started any other wars,& has resisted republican war mongers pressure to invade Iran. I guess you are just anti Obama. Do you support Romney in any way other than attacking Obama?

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Yeah the fishermen could have had bombs so just shoot the fuck out civilians! You're right. How could I ever think killing civilians is wrong? Sorry about that. We should just kill everyone because they might have a bomb. Can you say Iraq?

If you're trying to accuse me of supporting Romney I'm just going to do the same to you.

It's been 11 years. There is NO excuse to be occupying any foreign country. There is no excuse to be bombing 5 countries in the past 12 months.

Do you support Romney by making democrats look like idiots?

[-] -1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

I support progressives by challenging unfair childish accusations against the only people working to improve the lives of the 99%.

The Fisherman got too close!!! We kill anyone who gets too close because of the attack on the USS Kohl.!! And they should do it again. Thats the world we live in. Pres Obama didn't shoot the fucking gun. He didn't create the atmosphere that has brought us here.

He HAS begun the slow process of stepping back from the fear mongering republicans created. He HAS started the process of getting us off fossil fuels. Republicans stand in the way of greentech, and cutting fossil fuel subsidies. That is reality for us adults. So grow up you immature republican troll.

[-] -1 points by gnomunny (5739) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Most of them don't care about the truth, TM. Just mindless shilling. I'd be a little more sympathetic if they didn't keep spouting the same lies over and over (like "Obama stopped the Iraqi war." Bush did that).

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

You shant not speak of such things as the Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq! Bama played a role in it too. But 3 years is bullshit and what's with the new era Black Water mercenaries still being there?

Also do not tell anyone about Bill Clinton in 1998 saying weapons of mass destruction are in Iraq. Only Bush and Cheney thought that way.... completely blank out the 1990's and the bombs in Iraq and sanctions that killed about as many people as the invasion.

The repeal of Glass Steagall was republicans only! LOL

video from 2008 - when did this happen? lol - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEqcSmC4GYE

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (5739) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Heh heh heh. I shant not indeed! How silly of me (hey, did Bama really have a hand in it? If he did, that brings up another interesting thought).

And, don't get me started on Clinton, dammit. The horror! The . . . horror!

Can't watch the YouTube video (which really pisses me off, I'm missing some good stuff, I'm sure). I have restored the point someone took from you for speaking something resembling the truth. ;-)

[-] 2 points by JackHall (439) 1 year ago

Voting against Republicans is not enough. The people have to tell Democrats what to do such as make the banks too big to fail divest, set a limit to the size of banks as either absolute number or percentage, and make job creation a priority, even new government jobs tied to full employment at 4%. End cronyism. Force the economy back to a supply and demand model. The government may have to produce goods and services because private enterprise won't or can't deliver at the price the country can afford. Reinvestigate 9-11 and do whatever else we need.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

Agreed.

[-] 5 points by shadz66 (17677) 1 year ago

Ryan on Rand, in his own words (20 min. full audio file + partial transcript):

Ryan is an absolute devotee of Ayn Rand & y'all need to listen to Paul Ryan's views on "Personalising Social Security" ; "Privatising Medicare" and his avowed intentions to "make every worker a capitalist".

Scroll down to the audio file (just near the star rating) ; click play & have a big barf bucket handy !!!

caveat ...

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

Gotta make the TP comfortable? Where was she on abortion?

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

Thanks, I think. Ayn Rand. Ummm.

[-] 3 points by shadz66 (17677) 1 year ago

Ryan's hero, Rand regarded 'altruism' as a reprehensible moral failing. She was a total sociopath who extolled 'psychopathy' as 'moral rectitude'. Alan Greenspan was an early acolyte and disciple. Rand is responsible for much of the faux 'rugged individual' false consciousness that pervades / infects much of The USA & works against real, natural born, humans & for 'Corporate Pseudo-Entities' and The 0.01% !!

fiat lux ...

[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

Oh, yes, I'm familiar with Ayn Rand; had the misfortune of reading a couple of her books. Paul Ryan, well, what can I say? HIs budget speaks for him.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20543) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Sorry Titus - I kinda thought the writing was on the wall long ago, but that's me.

Repelicans have been very successfully stacking the deck since the mid-late '70's.

You've seen Inside Job - right?

I can't help myself - I hate those fuckers.

[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

I still believe both parties work for the same master, but to basically say that the little the working class have left means nothing, Mittey wants the lower class to accept the exploitation without even a whimper.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20543) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I think it's complicated - it is entirely possible I am completely wrong. I don't think I am - but it is possible.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Romney is losing so bad even the polls on Fox News have him down by 9 points as of August 10, 2012

This is an ass who only had 50% of his party vote in the primaries.

[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

If I had been polled before yesterday, I would have responded, "I don't care."

Now, however if someone asks how I intend to vote, I will answer, "Against Romney and Ryan."

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (5739) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

I don't think you should abandon your principles because of this. If you truly believe that both parties work for the same masters (as I do) then you could view this pick as being part of the plan. To get more Dem votes in Nov. They had to know choosing Ryan would chase a lot of votes toward Obama.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

That would be fine, except the idea of allowing the few safety net programs left for workers to be gutted, has me more concerned than perpetuating the myth that we need leaders.

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (5739) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Definitely vote your conscience, my friend. But, hypothetically, if you thought Obama was a lock, would you still abandon your principles and vote for him?

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

The answer to your question if no. Since I live in a swing state, Nevada, I had not planned to vote, unless the state polls were close in mid-Fall. If I lived in California or Arizona, I would not vote in either, since the results in each are fairly well decided.

[-] 0 points by gnomunny (5739) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Take those poll numbers with a grain of salt, of course. It's my guess the so-called polls will show it a neck-and-neck race all the way till November, just to keep us all transfixed. Poll numbers, as you know, are mostly useless since they never give details as to exactly who they polled. So I think poll numbers are used mainly to manipulate the public.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

Nevada has lost many people since 2008. The state still has the highest unemployement rate in the country and--depending on which source you use--the highest foreclosure rate.

Many people here are very discouraged. Construction workers, who in 2008 were earning $35-$40 an hour, are now settling for minimum-wage jobs, happy to get them. Revenues from gaming (gambling), after rising from a terrible depression after the collapse have started to sink again.

I do agree, though, that polls are little more than a tool used to generate interest in our lackluster elections. Choose from puppet A, the ruling class's choice, or from puppet B, the wealthy elite's choice.

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (5739) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Puppet A or Puppet B. That does pretty much sum it up.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

Traditionally, anarchists oppose voting in a system like ours, not only because it's so corrupt, but we (anarchists) ask ourselves, who are we to vote on someone to "lead" other people and perpetuate an automatic class division.

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (5739) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

That does make a lot of sense, in theory. There are things about anarchism that sound desirable, although I haven't studied the various political theories to have a say either way. We didn't learn those things at the 'indoctrination centers' I was enrolled in as a kid.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

Our school systems are basically that: indoctrination centers teaching revisionist history and current affairs.

Most anarchists support what some people call horizontal government or true direct democracy with no representation, unless that representation is modeled on something like the Paris Commune practiced, in that elected representatives were common citizens, paid the same as other working men, in for short terms, and subject to quick recall.

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (5739) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

I have to agree completely with that. Elected officials need their pedestals completely removed and be treated again as public servants, which is what they're supposed to be.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

Amazing what those early syndicalists, communists, socialists, and anarchists accomplished right in the heart of enemy country.

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (5739) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

I can see a similarity in our times. Trying to accomplish monumental change in the heart of enemy country. ;-)

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20543) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Faux snooze may be lying a bit to try to get out the vote.

I would not put it past them.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

My news station shared 5 polls. All had Romney losing by 5 to 10 points.

Go online and check some out. He's losing in all of them as far as I'm aware.

"Mitt Romney is wearing mom jeans"

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20543) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

NBC leans left, so I'm guessing your station isn't NBC. CBS leans right - although the anchor, Scott Pelley, I'm not sure of. He might be centrist, but the spin that is placed on stories around him leans right - I assume that comes from either the individual reporters [Bob Schieffer is one example], or from management itself, or quite possibly both.

There are other networks out there, I haven't spent much time with them.

I do hope Romney is losing - the problem is the suggestion that he is may reinforce the repelican base to get out the vote.

Given his pick of running mate, and his introduction: "Here is the next President" - I seriously question if he even wants the job. Maybe he does, and he is simply beginning to choke under the pressure.

Don't know.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

I'm local news. We shared 5 polls ranging from Left to Right. Romney was losing hard in all of them.

We don't lean. We have a policy that opinions are not allowed on politics at all. We do interviews and have equal air time for all sides. You can get suspended or fired for violating this policy.

We also did a story about how you can't get into local debates in our city unless you've raised 50,000 dollars from supporters.

I've often wondered if Romney has figured out a way to pocket some of his campaign contributions. Seems like something he'd do lol

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20543) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Your station doesn't lean?

Congratulations. It would be interesting to review both the story content and the iconography over the past several years to see how well the station has lived up to your personal expectation.

I'm not saying they haven't done well in that regard. Perhaps they have. What I am saying is that it is a difficult challenge. Especially given the pressure from marketers, and who ever else might have or seek to have influence over that window into American homes.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

I know the guys who choose and write the content.

They definitely don't get kickbacks

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20543) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Actually I wouldn't expect they would. They could, but I think that method is perhaps a bit less likely than pressure from marketers influencing management.

A more subtle method might come in the form of assignment - Knowing how individual reporters respond to given subjects, especially where empathy is apt to leak from the reporter to the story coverage, management can either assign or not assign particular stories on that basis.

I said that in a confusing way - a bit tired.

I wasnt' attempting to suggest doubts with my earlier comment - it's more that the current media environment has become so permissive of bias of one kind or another, it seems unlikely that it hasn't spread even to places where people are being vigilant.

In the end one can only do so much - even in a perfect system. Reporters are human too.

Even Cronkite had his moment . . .

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

Ron Paul is calling for an end to US military aggression

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

That should have stopped years ago, no, decades ago.

[-] 1 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 1 year ago

Whatever dumbshit. Ryan????

These Cons are only figureheads, all the same anti-99% policies were always there for all to see, no matter who gave them a face. All authored by ALEC, Heritage, Kato, 1% would-be Kings' think tanks.

This is Class War, Shock Doctrine is the strategy, it been going on for decades ~ wake the fuck up ~ and get people registered and VOTING!!! You dimwitted dumbshit!

[-] 1 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 1 year ago

Whatever dumbshit. Ryan????

These Cons are only figureheads, all the same anti-99% policies were always there for all to see, no matter who gave them a face. All authored by ALEC, Heritage, Cato, 1% would-be Kings think tanks.

This is Class War, Shock Doctrine is the strategy, wake the fuck up and get people registered and VOTING!!! You dimwitted dumbshit!

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

Yes, you'll certainly gain a lot of converts with your winning ways. It's Cato Institute by the way. At least learn your enemies. You make me sorry that I have to vote.

[-] 1 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 1 year ago

Not a social event patty cake party!

We have real bastards to keep out of our government, who have a proven track record of inflicting unbelievable carnage. It's been obvious, it still is, Ryan does not change a thing.

Meanwhile, whiny, petulant, airheads have been complicit with these bastards by default. 2010 was their fault, and we will suffer their stupidity for years to come. Ryan's face on the Con ticket does not grant these complicit brats a get out of jail free pass.

This is Class War, Shock Doctrine is the strategy, We are losing, wake the fuck up and get people registered and VOTING!!!

http://www.gottavote.org/en/?choose-state=true

[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

No, thanks.

[-] 1 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 1 year ago

Wake up people, this Con-complicit twit is not alone!

2010 Never EVER Again! Unite and Win!!

Get People REGISTERED and get out the VOTE!!

http://www.gottavote.org/en/?choose-state=true

[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

Does the DNC pay you? I don't think so; it must be the RNC. You're such an irritating poster, that most people will probably vote opposite of what you supposedly advocate.

[-] 0 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 1 year ago

I wish someone would fucking pay me!! Perhaps the Cons will pay me to stop! They've tried and failed to censor me.

I just have an aversion to weaselly, lying assholes, and I love to let them know about it.

These jokers never quit, People!

Get People REGISTERED and get out the VOTE!!

http://www.gottavote.org/en/?choose-state=true

[-] 0 points by slizzo (-96) 1 year ago

"most people will probably vote opposite of what you supposedly advocate."

pfffttt! yeah, most people are looking to what rpc972 has to say so they can do the opposite. 10s of millions of people, even!

you're comical.

[-] 0 points by gnomunny (5739) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

I think he meant the dude that used to run with the Green Hornet.

I thought he was daid?

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

Oh, yeah, I'd forgotten about the Asian sidekick.

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (5739) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

I was gonna say something, but thought better of it.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I would really like your input titus, (since your rep is screwed now anyway)

http://occupywallst.org/forum/paul-ryan-is-right-it-is-about-the-children/

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Take heart titus, to win a war you must kill the enemy one at a time, as your ruthlessness in battle becomes known those that oppose you will scatter in fear....

sorry I just started feeling a little like Gibson up there with my face painted riding a horse, (aka Braveheart)

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

Just so long as you don't moon the enemy.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

Some of the Dem partisans are enough to make me vote Green or skip the election: total ideologues with no clue about reasonable thinking or decisions.

[-] 0 points by slizzo (-96) 1 year ago

why does individualism scare leftists so much?

what makes one a collectivist, always needing the sweat of others to survive?

I wish it were something else, but it seems leftist thought is based largely on envy, resentment and other negative emotions. the way that sickness manifests itself today with the govt-media complex constantly pushing phony PC inclusiveness and tolerance has poisoned our culture to near-terminal status. if someone else has more than you, they've fucked you over. they did it by cheating or exploitation. the robber barons are gone, kids. this is just another example of the progressives unwilling to accept that they've won a righteous victory because that ends some gravy train somewhere. similar to the defeat of institutional racism, gender inequality, and the like, lefties just can't take the win and move on to other less profitable causes because they are largely full of shit. I'd like to see them concentrate on the actual civil rights disasters that persist. equal rights for gays and ending the drug war would be a great place to start. but no, they can't start over and rebuild the institutions that employ so many in the fight against issues that hardly exist anymore. they are too lazy and greedy to do that.

early 20th century SCOTUS Justice Louis Brandeis, as far from a right-winger as can be, talked about the right to be left alone.

today's leftists will have none of that, which is really a shame.

[-] -1 points by funkytown (-374) 1 year ago

I know you've heard of diversity, have you never heard the word "monoculture"?

[-] 0 points by slizzo (-96) 1 year ago

nope, never heard the term monoculture.

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

WOW- congratulations!
So few people here EVER are open minded enough to change their minds.
I imagine you know that I have been against the 1% party ( since I was arrested at a nixon speech ).
But all of us must realize that dogmatism - to the point of religious worship - shows a lack of reason. For example, I know why we dont have single payer - BUT WHY DIDNT OBAMA FIGHT FOR IT !!!


the ryan choice is perfect - for us!

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

Exactly, on your two last points.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by AngelAnn (-1) from Elmsford, NY 1 year ago

I am forced into a more scary corner with Biden and Obama

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

Are you afraid of what you already know?

I don't think so. If you reject Biden and Obama do so for a reason; don't just parrot words. I gave a very specific reason why Ryan earned my dislike: his budget, specifically the cuts in health care and aid for the poor and needy. Reductions so drastic they will eviscerate Medicare and Medicaid. You may be fine with that; I'm not. I believe in an equal and just society.

Finally, you should have noticed that I do not approve of Biden or Obama. They are Puppets A as compared to Puppets B, but Puppets A give us those of us interested in systemic change more time to start such a process. That's all.

[-] -1 points by Abby100 (-54) 1 year ago

We must boycott the election. Will show them.

[-] -2 points by TryingForAnOpenMind (-358) from Yonkers, NY 1 year ago

Yes Paul Ryan. go Mitt !! excellent VP choice

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

We'll have a prayer call for you at the next TP meeting.

[-] 0 points by TryingForAnOpenMind (-358) from Yonkers, NY 1 year ago

Mitt and Paul are totally excellent. The liberals are stuck all the crummy, down people, like Biden.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

Will all those who want to pray for TryingForAnOpenMind come forward and pray that he achieves what his name implies.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Not possible - he got the concept wrong - popped open his skull - and subsequently - lost his mind.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Supporters of a stronger EPA are the corporations. Congress doesnt hold them accountable, so it drowns out more of their competition.

Tax breaks- anyone who is falling for this nonsense is a fool. Bish cuts or not, its not working. 76k pages loaded of corruption. Show me the person who wants to crush it all and rebuild.

Supporters of CU are Dems and Reps, they are both using superpacs. Sanders, Roemer and a few others are vocal about getting rid of it. The vast majority are silent because it helps them.

One subject at a time gets support from a few on both sides of the isle from time to time. The vast majority dont want it because it mean more accountablity.

Fossil Fuel speculation- that could be interpreted many ways. Best measure- who is accepting money from corps and oil companies. Most of em.

See, I posted a shit ton of actual votes. The only thing you have is "hope" "support" etc. Focus on the actions, not the words.

[-] 3 points by ZenDog (20543) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Supporters of a stronger EPA are the corporations. Congress doesnt hold them accountable, so it drowns out more of their competition.

  • New Air Quality Rules for Power Plants in Dispute
  • WASHINGTON — The Obama administration said Thursday that a series of new air pollution rules for power plants would not cause power shortages, although the expert panel designated by the government to ensure electricity reliability warns that compliance with these rules could strain generating capacity.

  • The Environmental Protection Agency, under fire from the utility industry and from Republicans in Congress for what they call excessive regulation, has sent signals that it will be flexible in applying the new rules and may grant extensions or exemptions to make sure the lights stay on.

  • The Department of Energy said Thursday that under two major E.P.A. air quality rules that are supposed to be made final in the next few weeks, the amount of generating capacity would still be adequate if power companies and regulators were “prompt” in seeking replacements for plants shuttered because they could not meet the new pollution standards.



.

Tax breaks- anyone who is falling for this nonsense is a fool. Bish cuts or not, its not working. 76k pages loaded of corruption. Show me the person who wants to crush it all and rebuild.

The hchc personal ad should read:

Providing positive reinforcement for fallacious reasoning. Looking for like minded repelican souls, cowboys, and weak minded individuals, to simultaneously fuck the establishment and give OWS a black eye. Op Dragon is a go.



bwa hahaha

Hehehe

bwaaaaaaaaaaaa

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

LOL

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Man you're dumb...

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

At least he ain't working for republicans like you. You fucking asshole.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20543) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I'm not saying it can't work in favor of OWS - just have your eyes open people.

I just don't like positive reinforcement for fallacious reasoning - and claiming corps favor a stronger EPA is disingenuous.

Make sure the trouble makers are kept far, far away from the main message, and anyone who doesn't want to get hurt.

Tampa is the land of Bushite.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Let me ask you this...

Do you even realize how the LIBOR scandal ties into variable rate mortgage foreclosures?

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Libor scandal was a crime of 1% conservatives. Not democrats. You going to leave that out I guess. Republican troll

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

LIBOR wasnt a partisan issue at all, unless you want to count the US legislation that helped to create the monster financial giant we are battleing. In that case, it was VERY bipartisan.

But I guess you dont understand it. Come to Tampa, you could learn a thing or two.

[-] 2 points by shooz (26667) 1 year ago

It was very partisan among the neolibe(R)tarians.

They made billions.

Would you consider them unipartisan?

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

"If you think this isn't happening, then you're the fool that thinks these people are stupid."

I agree with this. I dont think they are as dumb as the people that vote for them. But they arent as smart as the people that fund them either. The political field usually doesnt attract the real go getters. Too many hurdles and nonsense to deal with on a regular basis.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26667) 1 year ago

Huh?

This makes no sense in context.

You don't get to vote for the neolibe(R)tarians.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

The ones that fund the two parties, that run all this bullshit? Yes, they all realize it doesnt matter who gets elected, they will get theirs.

To them, politicians are a neccesarry pain in the ass. Just throw some money at them, and it shuts them up.

It must be nice to preselect the populations choices for them, and then call it a democracy.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26667) 1 year ago

They do that just for appearances.

It keeps the divisiveness at a high level.

In reality they dump much more money and resources into State campaigns, think tanks and other "charities" that lobby for them, while having an effect on public opinion, often spending many millions to create wedge issue that we argue about, while they get to frack the shit out of everything...........raise some prices over here, price fix just a little over there.

They have ways of picking pockets you didn't even know you had.

A lot of that activity has been documented on the forum over the months.

Meanwhile, they are buying up our government, everywhere and which'a'way they can.

If you think this isn't happening, then you're the fool that thinks these people are stupid.

They are not, and even the dumbest among them got at least a near ivy league education. They are well networked.......

Keep in mind that 90% or so of the propaganda you see is bought and paid for by corporations, and the government probably farms out most of theirs to corporations these days......You know.........the neolibe(R)tarian drive to priva...............................er...................profitize, as much as they can..

They have paid a good deal to pull focus away from all of these deeds.

OccupyWallStreet......................is turning into BitchAboutGovernment.

BlameTheGovernment...............................

That was the aim of the corporations all along.

Slow this movement down. Keep it away from them.

Make it point it's finger elsewhere. Blunt it. Keep it from getting involved. Smear it every which way. Get it to magnify it's "otherness" and so many distractions...........But mostly..........keep 'em the fuck out of the government.

Use their anarchists against them.

PR=crackpots. Easy peesy.

Done deal

They are not stupid. They have almost unlimited means.

Do you really think they wouldn't try?

[-] 0 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

The bankers are hating the dems for passing Financial reform, and strengthening the EPA, and trying to raise 1% taxes. Who are you kidding. They love the republicans because they have promised to get rid of the fnancial regulations and reign in the EPA, and cut 1% taxes. Are you blind, A moron, Or just a lying republican asstroll as I suspect.?

[-] 0 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Fuck tampa. Republican territory. If the US congress helped these conservative banking criminals I'm sure it was a republican law.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

The bankers are still robbing us blind as evidenced by MF Global, LIBOR, Goldman Sachs guy is now president of Greece, JP MOrgan doesnt konw what happened to 20billion, etc.

They dont care about your silly D/R parties. They bought them out a long time ago.

You realize that congress HAS to pass SOMETHING after the 08 crash to keep the sheep believing, right?

The EPA has been a joke for a long time. It was started by fuckin Nixon of all people. Gimme a break. Stop being so easily fooled.

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

I'm not fooled by your anti Social Security republican bullshit. Bankers are still robbing us. Just got off without prosecution because of republican legislation that makes it imossible to prosecute them and allows only for ridiculous fines. That is from republican laws. You and your banker beholden republicans have created the financial problems we have. YOU. And I will not be fooled by your attempt to blame others for republican crimes

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Fuck Tampa? Nice. Glad you finally showed who you really are.

Tampa actually is pretty liberal, just elected a Dem Mayor.

Another low iq comment by another internet hack. Thanks for further ruining the site.

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Fuck you. republican anti Social Security piece of shit!

[-] -2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Right, the foreclosure stuff we are working on, the promos against the RNC, all of the rallies we have put togehter in Tampa, those are all actually undercover Republicans.

I guess you mustbe his wingman.

[-] 2 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Fuck you. I don't believe you are involved with that for 1 minute. You spew republican positions, like being against Social security. That's enough for me.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

You are just too dumb to understand what Im talking about. I dont blame you. It's very complicated. But try to follow...

Im not terribly comfortable giving my retirement money to a group that has led us into countless wars, has sided with the corps, basically has shown they have no intention of serving us whatseoever.

If you want to stick it out with them, go for it. Good luck, I think you should have the choice.

[-] 2 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Wars? Corps? Unrelated! You just don't care about the elderly poor which this was set up to serve. Stop being a selfish, greedy, republican asshole, and give up the 7%. Cheap bastard!

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

I thought that SS was set up to pay into it, and then you collect a ration of what you put in?

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Shut the fuck up. You are against SS like the rest of you selfish republicans. I am for it. End of story. All that is left is for you to admit you are a republican asshole.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

^meltdown due to dealing with occupier....classic.

[-] 0 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

You're having a meltdown? Who the fuck cares. It's not like you care about anyone but yourself. Your on your own selfish inconsiderate republican asstroll.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20543) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

go invest your retirement with the gamblers on wall street then.

that's what they are dying for.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Next time you try to be your fake creepy self, mix in more italics for more effect. I like that better.

Peace out dude.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20543) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago
[-] 0 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 1 year ago

I more than most love to fucking cuss and talk shit. But I try to maintain a level of respect. We are all going to piss each other off, we're talking about politics. Debate until it hurts and the points you fail to convey, do more research and keep arguing until your opponent has nowhere to go, a debate headlock. Other than sharing news and info, thats what this forum is good for. I didn't know half this shit when I first came to this forum. In making my points and failing to make them, I learned a lot.

Thank you again Jart.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

There's plenty of ways to invest in your future without needing the criminals on Wall St.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20543) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I don't like you hchc

I don't like positive reinforcement for bullshit - there is too much bullshit already.

I don't care if you think what you are doing is good for either Tampa, OWS, or the nation as a whole.

You don't know what you are doing.

You are a mushroom.

Kept in the dark.

Fed on shit.

It kills people.

Once that stain is on your hands, it will never come off.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Worked with plenty of ya's, cupcakes in a mound of fur and leather.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20543) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I've been in pocket thirteen years, more or less, and standin the whole time . . .

cupcake.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20543) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

really?

I hadn't heard that one.

[-] -1 points by TryingForAnOpenMind (-358) from Yonkers, NY 1 year ago

Well it seems to me that you are exhibiting a closed mind. Politically opposing views are not allowed here ? Some think continuation of the current leadership will further destroy the USA.

[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

I believe "leadership" from either side will destroy the USA, though it has been pretty well flushed down the toilet already.

If you oppose and make general statements, provide sources for your facts; not Paul Ryan defending Paul Ryan, but perhaps even a right-wing economist like Marc Faber defending his budget and why.

[-] -3 points by TryingForAnOpenMind (-358) from Yonkers, NY 1 year ago

News Flash : Spouting nonsense about opposing both candidates makes no sense, and is likely not truthful. you are transparent.

[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

Then you'd better get out the glass cleaner, so you can see better.

If you bother to search my previous posts and comments, you will discover, as an improvement to your vision and education, that I oppose Obama almost as strongly as I oppose Romney, but Ryan inserts a new part into the calculation, one that I most certainly object to, a further reduction in benefits for the working class at the benefit of the privileged few.

[-] -3 points by TryingForAnOpenMind (-358) from Yonkers, NY 1 year ago

Ryan is a good looking, serious budget hawk. Fiscally conservative Paul Ryan is not looking too bad to me. What do you want, the USA to be more of a welfare, nanny state? don't bother answering me. I don't like you.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

You're not liking me makes me think more highly of myself, Slack-jawed simians, like you, belong in their cages: "...good looking..." indeed.

[-] 0 points by TryingForAnOpenMind (-358) from Yonkers, NY 1 year ago

yeah I think he's cute. deal with it monkey brain.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

Proof of my opinion of you in your every post.

[-] -1 points by TryingForAnOpenMind (-358) from Yonkers, NY 1 year ago

proving your opinion is important. glad that I can help you feel better about yourself.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20543) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

apparently you were not aware that the stated repelican agenda is diametrically, and ideologically antithetical to everything OWS has stood for?

You really don't have a clue, do you.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Yes - you are free to be in the USA - but you are not free to be here on this site ( progressive site ) messing around with your RW BS. This is not the debate society - this is OWS and progressives talking about making progress ( see how that works ? ) We are not here to debate the merits ( none ) of mittens & ryan. OWS is not here to provide the RW with a political platform - PERIOD.

[-] 1 points by TryingForAnOpenMind (-358) from Yonkers, NY 1 year ago

are you going to call the Police or FBI..to have me removed? you do know that you are now promoting unconstitutional values. be careful.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

You certainly offer opposition, but no thought; that's my opinion.

[-] 1 points by beatleJuice (0) 1 year ago

who cares what your lame brained opinions are?..titus is a non stop mouth..name should be titusalways going mouth

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

I thought that you were leaving right winger?

[-] 0 points by TryingForAnOpenMind (-358) from Yonkers, NY 1 year ago

this is the USA left winger. I am free to be here.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

I saw Ryan's picture yesterday - His face kinda looked like it was smashed at some point in time - nothing lined up very well. But beauty is in the eye of the beholder - HavingAcheivedaClosedMind may like the type.

[-] 0 points by beatleJuice (0) 1 year ago

I bet 10 bucks that Paul looks way better than DKA.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Well in my defense - I don't seem to make women look away and wretch or children scream and cry at the sight of me.

But I have never been overly concerned about my appearance either. So I guess that I would not be the best judge to ask.

[-] 0 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 1 year ago

beatleJuice beatleJuice beatleJuice ...

[-] 0 points by beatleJuice (0) 1 year ago

thanks for the support richy <3

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 1 year ago

No problem, nameless and faceless.

[-] 0 points by beatleJuice (0) 1 year ago

Trying for an open mind, has been shut down, they (the obama robots) will not be challenged here..scary.

[-] 0 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Ryan wants to take from the sick and elderly and give to the 1%! Is that what you support?

[-] 1 points by TryingForAnOpenMind (-358) from Yonkers, NY 1 year ago

..I care for the sick and elderly. Ryan wants to reform medicaid and medicare for the elderly. This is good.

[-] 0 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Bullshit. Ryan wants to turn medicare into a voucher system, medicaid into block grants. Any price increases (& there will be many) must be absorbed by the individual elderly who will be too poor to afford it. he ain't kiding me. Did he fool you? Or is it that you don't give a shit about the elderly and poor?

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[+] -5 points by SteveKJR (-497) 1 year ago

I think Romneys choice of Paul Ryan is a good choice especially when Paul Ryan debated Biden.

It is going to be an embarassment for Biden and a lot of people will see the light when this happens.

Biden can't make a comment without stumbling or saying something stupid. Have you noticed he has not been seen in the news at all in the past several months - The Obimination is imbarrased because of him.

[-] 3 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

Well, Biden debated Sarah Palin last time, and Obama won by a landslide. Maybe it'll be that bad for Obama again.

[+] -6 points by SteveKJR (-497) 1 year ago

Yah but the news media did a character assination on Palin. How come Biden is not on the campaign trail? Could it be because he is feeble and forgetful and can no longer follow the lines on the teleprompter.

Face it - Biden is getting old and I wouldn't want him as president for any reason.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Biden is on the trail. You are creating fantasies of your wishful thinking. And you repubs choice of Ryan is great if you think compassion is a crime, and believe in every man for himself.

even the right wing catholic bishops came out against the ryan budget. He just wants to give more to the 1% by taking from the sick and poor.

It's criminal and un american

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

Did you say the same thing about McCain four years ago?

[-] 0 points by Shule (1541) 1 year ago

Biden is Obama's health insurance policy.

Seems like that is the main factor when President elects choose their running mates.....

[-] -1 points by beatleJuice (0) 1 year ago

yes stevie wonder !! bingo. They will shut you down soon for expressing disenchanment w/ Obama/Biden.

[-] 3 points by ZenDog (20543) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Not exactly, more like

for supporting candidates who are ideologically opposed to everything - and I do mean - *everything - OWS has stood up for.

that's just lame.

Signed up today?

So - whose sock puppet are you?