Forum Post: "I welcome their hatred"
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 17, 2011, 11:57 p.m. EST by an0n
(764)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
"We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace--business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering."
“They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob."
“Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me -- and I welcome their hatred."
I admit, you folks have had some pretty damn cool presidents.
This is also a good example that a president going to the people actually works. All the talk of "oh, but if a candidate openly challenges the banks or the corporate oligopolies and refuses their money, why, he'll never get elected. They all mean well, but you just gotta play the game" is bullshit. It's an excuse or a delusion.
Taking the money is a choice. It's not the "price" of getting into office. FDR won by a landslide in that election.
Politicians will always make the political choise to WIN it is in their Chemistry - we just have to make it clear that you need the 99% to win!!!
Yes FDR made a decision -- Now We Have to make Obama make a similar one!!!
Very good point.
an0n
"I welcome their hatred"
100% right on with that brothers and sisters!
Boom! FDR ftw
I dedicate this beautiful statement to MikeyD.
[Removed]
Idiotic.
You're blaming him for the mismanagement of public affairs from Coolidge to Hoover, and for Hitler's rise and Japanese aggression.
What you point out as his failings, most see as his shining successes:
The holding of the line on capitalism and democracy while the depression caused other big powers to abandon them for extremism.
The mitigation of the ravages of the depression on the most vulnerable, with policies and a new social contract that would survive him and form the basis for 40 more years of unmatched prosperity and equality.
The last truly just war we participated in, and a source of pride for almost every American.
You are so wrong.
Why is it failed presidents always try and tell us how much worse it would have been without them. It seems to be the main thrust of Obama's campaign slogans these days.
40 years of unmatched prosperity? The charts show 40 years of stable growth, without a whole lot of ups and downs, but calling it "unmatched prosperity" is laughable. Also laughable is crediting FDR with that, when any history book will tell you our mobilization for WWII, and subsequent victory left us the defacto economic super power in the world. That's what happens when you kill off your international competitors. I believe it was one of your "faves" that droned on about the Military Industrial Complex.
BTW, how much are they paying you? I could switch sides for the right price.
More:
"But although the reforms of the New Deal did not greatly reduce economic inequality—either by lowering unemployment or by creating a more progressive tax system—they did create the political architecture that would permit the reduction of economic inequality during World War II and the postwar era. In addition, the very wealthiest fraction of the American population lost their control over the national income during the Depression and World War II, a loss from which they never completely recovered. In 1915, the top .01 percent of the population earned incomes 400 times the national average. In 1970, they earned 50 times the average income, and by 1998 they still had not regained the control of the pre-World War I era, earning "only" 250 times the average income."
"Income distribution in the United States was becoming steadily more unequal during the early years of the twentieth century. During the 1920s, income inequality widened rapidly, and during the early years of the Depression, the distribution of incomes became more dispersed as poverty spread, reaching its peak for the century. But in the late 1930s income inequality began to decline, and during World War II it narrowed rapidly. After the war, the distribution of incomes remained fairly stable, though it continued to narrow slightly throughout the postwar economic expansion. In the mid-1970s, income inequality began to expand once again, a trend that accelerated in the 1980s and 1990s. Clearly, something happened during the 1930s and 1940s that created a stable political economy of equally distributed economic growth."
http://www.novelguide.com/a/discover/egd_01/egd_01_00283.html
"either by lowering unemployment" - they, like you, don't see 25% -> 15% as lowering unemployment, for whatever reason. But that's not the point of the piece. EDIT - on re-reading, I think their point is that employment alone didn't address equality, which makes sense. Still doesn't matter. And the progressive taxation position is that is wasn't enough, at the time, but the framework was laid down for it to have a real impact in the decades to come.
Really good reading, thanks.
Prosperity for the few is not prosperity at all. Notice I said prosperity and equality. Anyone in their right mind would take it.
Blame him for the war then give it sole credit for economic growth. Typical.
Won't argue military had nothing to do with it. But, except for the war years, the GDP growth rate between 1933 and 1980 is nearly linear: http://www.economics-charts.com/gdp/gdp-1929-2004.html
After 1980, some interesting things start to happen in terms of private investment, exports, AND public investment. Hmm.
Blame Truman or Ike - despite his warnings, he was accepting responsibility for the MIC - or better yet, Stalin. It was not FDR's choices.
/\ Miss this guy/girl.
I wasn't saying there is anything wrong with slow and steady, or linear graphs(so long as the line tilts up, not down). I was saying there is something deeply flawed with your assignment of credit and blame.
I also appreciate how you glossed over US subversion and oppression of foreign economies during your "glory years", with the CIA at the helm. I suppose Korea and Vietnam never happened, and we never installed the Shah in Iran, or Mubarak in Egypt.
Clearly the world doesn't fit into the tidy little partisan packets you break it into.
Me, the partisan one? I haven't taken a position on postwar foreign policy and don't see it as strictly related to our discussion on economics. Both sides take equal credit for our flawed dealings with the world in that era. Both parties and both powers used sovereign nations as pawns.
And yet, had we not, your little graphs showing linear "Unprecedented prosperity" might have shown something completely different. I was simply asking if the end justifies the means for you, though I'm sure you will declare the two to be unrelated.
Now you're the one using hypotheticals.
I don't buy we needed the cold war and MIC for our growth. It might have been less, or maybe not. Can't be determined. The point was that it was growth and equality, not just growth of the GDP boosting the profits of multinationals and lining the pockets of the few, which is what this whole OWS thing is about.
Its not a hypothetical. There are few who dispute that globalization is at least partially to blame for declining wages and general prosperity. You can't step on the necks of people for 50 years of subversive practices and then reintegrate them into the world economy without lowering wages in the "civilized" world. Perhaps we need to keep our boots to their necks....
Or step back from unilateral trade disarmament w/r globalization and other neoliberal garbage.
Ahh, now I see the other face of Janus...Gee that means MikeyD from your posts yesterday that you are a LIAR, and as the bible says, ALL LIARS have their place in the lake of fire..... I'll have the marshmallows ready troll.
Terrific! I'll say hi to Jesus and several generations of Popes when I get there.
Obama is the problem. Jeff Immelt and GE got $126 MILLION stimulus dollars despite making over $6 BILLION profit and paying ZERO TAXES at the same time. BaROKE Obumbler's $852 STIMULUS bill to create JOBS and start SHOVEL READY PROJECTS turns out to be a SLUSH FUND FOR CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTORS LIKE SOLYNDRA, GE, JEFF DOERR and STEVE WESTLY, other DONORS, fictitious zip codes,etc.. Obumbler blew $852 BILLION, NOW HE WANTS $450 BILLION MORE---SHOW US THE MONEY, WHAT DID YOU DO WITH THE $852 BILLION?? Criminals always return to scene of the crime, Obumbler's BACK TO STEAL MORE MONEY FROM TAXPAYERS! Millions went to foreign banks, $529 MILLION went to Finland to build hybrid cars, MILLIONS went to Hezbollah, MILLIONS TO CRONIES. The same type of CRONIES are on his JOBS BOARD! All we'll get from them is more LIES, DECEIT, FRAUD!
Bow down before Obama or face expulsion from the country!
Great I can go to Kenya I hear they are missing an idiot.
yes let's support that man who nearly became a dictator and whose policies have led to a society based on dependence and entitlement
His desire to do good for others was far greater than any of his personal desires. He was and will forever be a true American free spirit.
You should be ashamed of yourself !
Yes, a true American free spirit, I'm glad you support the s.o.b. and his court packing plan, comrade.
What's wrong with court packing plan ?
I hope you're either joking or just unaware of what it was. Basically, FDR wasn't getting what he wanted, since the supreme court was ruling some of his actions unconstitutional. FDR then devised a scheme that would have allowed him to appoint 6 new justices to the court, thus giving the court a majority in his favor. Thankfully this plan got smacked down.
Here's a list of a few world leaders who tried similar tactics and unfortunately succeeded: Hitler, Stalin, Mao
lol
nearly became a dictator
Our one and only 3 term president. We literally drafted the 22nd amendment to prevent it from ever happening again. What a legacy.
Looking at the rampant poverty of the great depression, and his use of demagoguery of those with money for political gain, it smacks more of Hugo Chavez than anyone else I can think of. President for life indeed. Hard to believe it happened in America.
Let's not forget FDR's "Economic Bill of Rights" from his 1944 State of the Union speech.
"We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. 'Necessitous men are not free men.' People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.
"In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.
"Among these are:
"The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
"The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
"The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
"The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
"The right of every family to a decent home;
"The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
"The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
"The right to a good education.
"All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
"America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens.
"For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world."
What's really amazing is that FDR's ideas sound radical today.
the historical definition of a "right" is something that doesnt require others labor or property. These wouldnt be rights, they would be privileges.
"historical definition" ??? citations please
"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism—ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power."
-FDR
And we talk lightly about fascism today. He knew it well.
Even though he was born in a wealthy family, god had given him that ability to see what is good and what is bad !
I don't think any of our current leaders understand the greed of humans as he did.
Here's two quotes from a much wiser man than FDR.
"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." -Benjamin Franklin
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty. " -Benjamin Franklin
no fascism is when the government is in control of the state. Fascism = Communism = socialism. The nazi's were socialists (national socialist worker's party). The only reason people think fascism and communism are totally different is because one was fighting the other to take over the world. FDR was a fool whose policies exacerbated the great depression. The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of GOVT power. Or do you need a nanny state to mandate and control every aspect of your f%cking life?
Freedom is sexy, there I said it.
Freedom is totally sexy!
The truth of the matter is that nothing from libertarianism to anarchist communism can hope to provide equal representation for our diverse population. When any ideology seeks to achieve an unnatural state of perfection by accentuating one methodology while suppressing its opposite it has sown the seeds of its own destruction. If we strive for free-market libertarianism, the general welfare of the nation (which includes infrastructure and national defense, as well as social welfare like social security and medicare) will be wholly dependent upon the generosity of the wealthy for funding. If we strive for anarchist communism, the competitive nature of industrial innovations and technological advancements will be dependent on the collective effort of everyone and therefore no one.
No, I am not interested in a nanny state, nor am I interested in being reliant on the wealthy to determine what is best for the country. It is the duty of a civilized society to balance opposing ideologies equitably for the betterment of all its citizens. Any system that greatly rewards private gains must be balanced with the means to redistribute wealth when its inequity threatens to undermine democratic representation. Behaviors which earn a profit but do not benefit the common welfare should be taxed to discourage them while simultaneously providing means for the common welfare.
What solution to the problem of government would you suggest?
Hear, hear.
Reduce gov't down to it's core essentials: military, infrastructure, representing its citizens abroad. gov't has been too bloated since after the Civil War. Furthermore, people need to realize that life is not fair. Some people are born into wealth, others into poverty. Some people are tall others are short. Do the best with what you have. A lot of these Wall St. people are just b!tching about how their lives suck. Well do something about it! When my great great great grandparents immigrated from Sweden, they didn't have much. Perhaps the most valuable thing they had was work ethic. They worked not just for themselves but for the future. They weren't sacrificing for themselves but for their children, and their grandchildren, and the descendents that they knew they would never be able to meet.
Furthermore, a system that greatly rewards private gains should be left alone. Redistributing wealth does not work. Look at Detroit, end of discussion. Historically in America wealthy people have been quite generous, and no government needs to mandate philanthropy. From Washington and Hancock who spent some their wealth to propel our Revolution, to Rockefeller and Carnegie, wealthy people have quite happily given away vast amounts of money. Charity is wonderful. Forced charity is not. Forced charity (taxing the rich to give to the poor) is robbery. And to people who complain about how the rich are the only ones who get the tax breaks. Guess what? THE RICH PAY THE TAXES! A poor person who's not paying taxes is not going to get a tax cut.
Your solution does not square with your reasoning.
Even the reduced government you describe would require taxes to be funded. Taxes are wealth redistribution. They take money from the wealthy and give it to the poor. These non-taxed poor are free to enjoy the same military protection and infrastructure the wealthy have paid for. If this is "robbery", why not rely on the charity of the wealthy to fund government and do away with taxes altogether?
The reason is obvious and it underscores the point I was trying to make: the top 1% acquired their wealth through a focused effort on one goal- earning profit. These same people are not reliable when it comes to considering the welfare of society by their vary nature- in much the same way a communal hippy is not going to innovate industry. We need both to have a civilization that raises that standard of living for all while simultaneously providing incentive to innovate. Our system of governance has been distorted by the influence of money for the benefit of the top 1% at the cost of the 99%.
Great speech from a great man. Funny thing is he could have made this speech today.
I wish somebody would..
Gives me shivers. Thanks.
Ok Chris Matthews. :)
Ha!
Einstein said that we must have a higher level of thinking (or complexity) in solving today's problems than the lower level of thinking (or simplicity) that created those problems in the first place.
Kennedy said humanity's problems were created by man, therefore they must be solved by man.
I think both are true.
Right-On!!!
bump FDR!
Bump this: http://occupywallst.org/forum/capitalism-is-at-its-end/#comment-145322
:)
In a sick way, I enjoy the ridicule we're recieving. I'd rather they understand and educate themselves...But it makes me love this movement even more.
I know this is obscenely irrelevant, but does ANYONE know why I can't post to the forum? I don't think it's my computer, I'm having no trouble on any other forum anywhere, but it refuses to load.
Also, I've tried to call the 1 - 877 number displayed on the home page but it always goes straight to a ''no voicemail'' alert after one ring...
Have you tried a different browser? If you use Internet Explorer, try Firefox or Chrome. Hope it helps...
I raise you the Second Bill of Rights: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmdW3hFPjC0&feature=related :D
Power will concede nothing until its demanded.................. Fuck the 1%
Thanks for posting!
My pleasure.
This is what we needed from Obama.
Which we will never get.
He is half liberal and half capitalist stupid.
You are literally too stupid to have an argument, with but I'll still try. Obama is the most anti-capitalist president we've ever had. The reason why things suck today? The f%cking democrats who controlled congress for 2 years (thank allah they don't now) let the President run crazy with his socialist redistribution policies. How did TARP work out? And the democraps cant even balance a f%cking budget. They had two years to work that out without any interference from the repubs. The only reason this Marxist in the white house has any approval rating at all is because the f%cking media still paints him as a well-meaning guy who couldn't get things done because of congress. Well guess what? He got a lot of f%cking things done. Too many f%cking things. And that's why we're in this goddam f%cking crisis right now.
And don't blame Bush, his liberal fiscal policies started this, but Obama took them and increased them x100.
You are not a liberal and so I don't think you understand what I mean by half capitalist :)
I sincerely apologize for my rude outburst. It's been raining all day, I've been in too many political arguments with dopes. This is the importance of punctuation. I read it as "half liberal and half capitalist, stupid" with the "stupid" being directed toward an0n. That of course is practically an oxymoron. I'm assuming you meant "half liberal and half capitalist-stupid" tying the "stupid" to obama.
b.u.m.p.i.t.y.
Ya'll faggosexual fagala fagotron unwashed hippy queers.
There are many misguided efforts, and it seems that the OWS movement has become a platform for just about any concern. A movement needs to focus and be very clear on what it seeks to accomplish.
I have spent nearly 4 years researching and educating myself on the law and rules that make up the basis on how business is financed and how the rules affect business and the individuals who own them and work for them.
First let me say that this problem is not liberal or conservative, democrat or republican but it is a common problem we all share. One key point must be stressed we are all affected by the issue at hand.
Now, let’s look at the laws. If you look at the fall of the exchange in 1929, its cause and the reaction by the government you will find most of the problem. In 1929 only ~10% of all businesses were public and the remainder was private. ~2% of the population were involved in trading stocks and most of the individuals we very heavily leveraged (They bought on credit).
Next the market dropped, individuals lost their ability to pay off their margin accounts and wiped out the capital overnight in the banking system, Couple that with the hysteria of the people running on the banks to get there gold out and you have a recipe for disaster.
For most they were not initially affected by the falls of the exchange in 1929 but when banks failed they felt it. Businesses lost credit to operate, accounts were wiped out and small private business failed. No fault of their own but the fault of the overzealous banks. Individuals found there savings wiped out alongside the private businesses and the world plunged into the abyss.
The reaction to this was FDR and the 1933 securities act and the 1934 securities and exchange act. What these two pieces of legislation did was strip the ability of the small private business (who did not cause the market collapse) to raise capital in a traditional form, Bonds. Direct investment was for many years the mainstay of the entrepreneur. It put the restrictions on who could invest (Qualified institutional investor) and how the investments could be sold. It stripped the ability of the individual to invest and make the high returns they became accustomed to and placed all of it into the hands of the very few 1%.
Today if you are a business owner there is a glass ceiling of about $3 million dollars where a business could potentially get debt to expand, retool, or modernize. The Wall Street and Banks prefer an Equity offering. How often do small business owners sell the majority share of the company they own under a public offering or private sale (sale to high net worth’s) to raise the capital they need. The horror stories of this arrangement are very clear. They give up control, get voted out of the company and the new share holders shut them down move the product manufacture to China to maximize the return to the High Net Worth investor (new owner).
The laws perpetuate the problem. Now remove the Glass-Steagall Act and it becomes a high net worth orgy.
Focus, access the laws, and fix the system that perpetuates the behavior.
FIX THE LAWS
Thanks actually a really good insight
The poor ended up hating him after extending the depression too.....
No. You've been propagandized by Austrians & libertarians who hate his success. He is one of the most beloved presidents of all time, and his policies certainly did not extend the depression. The depression was a global problem, no domestic policy was going to turn it around overnight. He kept the engine of our economy chugging - and growing for every year but one - while the rest of the world stagnated.
Why would anyone hate success if it brought people out of depression?
Why did the unemployment rate rise, not in the 2 years after the crash, but when the new deal enforced price controls?
Unemployment fell every year between 1933 and 1945 except for 1938, the year he caved to Republican pressure to balance the budget.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt#Economic_environment
Only one thing FDR got wrong, he didn't bomb the train tracks. That was horrible + wrong. Other than that, he's an iconic American Hero + one of the best presidents this country has ever known. He helped create the middle class. He changed the world.
It got to its high when he initiated price controls, it did start falling after that, you are correct, but to go from 3% to 20% down to 14.6% is not a great accomplishment. Robbing the citizens of 40% of their wealth when he changed the gold rate is the act of a criminal, not a patriot.
It rose to 25% under Hoover. Again, it never rose under FDR except in 1938 when he tried to roll back some of his programs and balance the budget. It fell 10% in his first 7 years (prior to the war - after that it dropped like a rock). That would seem miraculous to us right now.
Regarding the gold, etc, his popularity was nearly unmatched in history - except by the oligarchs, and he welcomed their hatred.
Robin hood was popular too, but a thief none the less.
if you are suggesting that FDR was anything but a great leader for America in a time when Americans were suffering. Get out of here with that tomfoolery.
depends on your definition of great, there's a lot of people who disagree, just helping with a balanced opinion
we are mad that he had to run around the constitution to do so. The ends never justify the means. He also put innocent americans into internment camps.....seems pretty wrong to me. I trust austrians more than i do keynesians
Do your history and your research.
Fellow protestors: It is very important that we address the obscene concentration of wealth without regard for name, face, industry, ect. We must also disregard what the rich claim to 'give back'. The bottom line is all that matters. Consider this: There are 10 hungry children and 12 sandwiches. If one child takes a second sandwich to satisfy his larger than average appetite, the other 9 children will still get a sandwich each with one to spare. If two children each take a second sandwich, the equation still works for all. But if one or more children take 3 or 4 or 5 sandwiches for themselves, hunger is the direct result. If one child (let's call her Oprah just for the sake of discussion) decides to take 5 sandwiches for herself and 'gives back' one for the less fortunate, then at least one other child must go without. Unless of course, the other children each share one bite. But if Oprah takes 8 sandwiches and 'gives back' 3, then at least two other children will go hungry. And so on and so on. Bottom line: There must be some reasonable limit. Unfortunately, there isn't with our current system. We also have not taken any real steps as a society to prevent our wealth from being horribly concentrated. Charity just doesn't cut it when the rich refuse to settle for anything. We don't need anymore millionaire 'humanitarians'. We need fewer millionaires. It does not matter how much they 'give back'. Afterall, all of them do. Every corporation, every politician, and every single celebrity. It doesn't matter. It will never work this way. It does not matter how much they 'give back'. It matters how much they keep. Remember: The richest one percent in America own over 40 percent of all United States wealth. This is true even after you account for what they 'give back'. It's all PR crap anyway. A similar rule applies within every major economy worldwide. Please keep this vital equation in mind. Otherwise, there will never be a more reasonable distribution of wealth and resources. It does not matter how much the super rich 'give back'. They still keep way too much.
Someone had to make the sandwiches. That's where your arguement fails. If the resources we needed dropped from the sky every night at no cost to us and was more to meet everyone's needs, then yes, we would all distribute enough evenly. The cost of production is where your terrible argument comes undone.
I've already had this debate with another guy who also missed the point. The sandwiches don't represent gifts from God. They represent all of the wealth immediately available within the economy at any given time.
And don't start with the 'zero sum' crap. On that day at that moment there were 12 sandwiches.
I'm sorry, I understand your point exactly, but your logic is flawed.. Wealth is not static. It is not a sandwich.
Didn't you get the last response? It's an analogy. There were going to be more sandwiches the next day. But at that moment on that day there were 12 sandwiches.
It's not really tough to get, it just doesn't work in a real world. It's too abstract an analogy. Whether socialist, capitalist etc, both systems focus is the production of the sandwiches, for your example to omit this fact makes your argument irrelevant.
Would you please put down the crack pipe and read it again. The god damn sandwiches were produced by the group. The next batch would be ready the next day. Like the previous batch, they would be produced by the group. That's production. You want me to simulate economic growth? Fine the next batch would be 13 sandwiches. Oprah takes 6 and 'gives back' 2. The next batch is 14. Oprah takes 7 and 'gives back' 3. And so on and so on. Now put down the crack pipe and acknowledge the issue of reasonable distribution.
No crack pipe here son, just a degree in economics and a successful business.
Degree in economics? Well then, if you truly understand this crisis you would have predicted it in writing 4, 5, or 6 years ago. Show me the link.
I predicted this crisis in writing 6 years ago. I've made well over a dozen accurate predictions proving 'experts' all over the world dead wrong. Before, I post the link, I want to give you the opportunity to post yours. Then answer this question. Do you think I'm lying?
I did predict it from 2005, and no, this is my first time blogging/posting. I got my money out of the system. Made about 400% following my hunches. There are no mainstream experts out there, just sheep.
Are you seriously telling me that you sat on that vital understanding and kept it to yourself while America's economy sat on the edge of a cliff? Why would you do such a thing? Don't you love your country? I'll give you one more chance to post your link before I post mine.
Post away sunshine
You claim that you predicted this years ago but you have no evidence. I also claim to have predicted this long before the so called experts. The difference is that i can prove it with the following links:
Here is one. On this page (February '08') another user complained that I was posting the same long diatribe all over the web (that was true. I started posting in the fall of '05' in AOL chartrooms and news articles).
http://www.deepjiveinterests.com/2008/02/27/googles-a-one-trick-pony-ill-bet-on-any-day/
Here is another complaint that I was posting where it didn't belong.
http://www.quietthethunder.com/2008/03/blog-bot.html
Here is another reference. This is a good one. It acknowledges that I was posting all over the web.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread452299/pg
Here is another one. This guy was so impressed that he created a website dedicated to my rant complete with graphics.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread452299/pg
Here is another from February of '08'. Remember: All of the experts were still saying everything was going to be fine. Not me. I knew damn well.
http://thatotherpaper.com/blog/kristin_hillery/brad_pitt_filming_in_bastrop
Here is another:
http://gossip.elliottback.com/cgi-beowulf-angelina-jolie/
Here is another one: two seperate posts on one page.
http://gossip.elliottback.com/cgi-beowulf-angelina-jolie/
The oldest I could find that is still searchable after all this time was from February 16 of '08'. The oldest ones were on AOL in '05' and '06' but theta were deleted automatically after 30 days. AOL cancelled my account in '06' for posting my warnings about the economy too many times,
If you search long enough you will find some older posts. I never once took credit for any of it by name. Every now and then I let a critic know (like you) that I have earned my credibility for being one of the very first worldwide. My predictions weren't all dead on but my record is better than any public figure. I've been making these predictions on talk radio since '05'.
Some of my early info was a little sloppy. A screwed up stat here and there but I did not give the economy a second thought until '04'. I wasn't even a student. I was a $7 per hour cook. I already knew there was trouble on the horizon but the underlying cause didn't really hit me until August of '05'. Since then, I've been on this cause like a mad dog on a cat. Borderline obsessed. 20,000 posts (all one at a time) from '06' to '08'. Over 10,000 still searchable.
"Don't believe one optimistic word about the economy"
Here is the long version. It will take way over an hour to read.
http://OprahAngelinaBradBonoBill.Blogspot.com
I think I've made my point. I'm no expert and I don't claim to be I infallible but I have damn well earned my credibility.
Ya'll faggosexual fagala fagotron unwashed hippy queers.
any of you idiots read yesterdays wall street journal? (of course not) well a story in there talks about the results of polling 200 of you morons. here's what they said: 70% of you want wealth redistribution, 58% would advocate violence to get what you want, only 15% of you are unemployed (that stat surprised me) and an overwhelming majority of you voted for Obama, but prob wont vote for him again. in short, the writer concludes that essentially this is a radical left wing movement that has the potential to turn violent. my guess is a violent marxist group wont last long in this country. good luck idiots!
Then why haven't they been calling for it? I'll tell you why. The poll results are fake.
ohhhhh. i see. its all a right wing conspiracy huh? (idiot)