Forum Post: Republicans Declare War On OWS!
Posted 12 years ago on Feb. 6, 2012, 3:11 p.m. EST by HitGirl
(2263)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
What is the Republican response to OWS? Well, it looks like their holy one is going to be Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney is not just a one-percenter but a .01 percenter. Mitt made over $20 million last year and paid a real tax rate of about 13.9 percent. The majority of his $250 million net worth is managed by none other than Goldman Sachs! He owns 6 homes, almost one for each day of the week. His tax plan looks like a wish-list for wealthy Americans.
Maybe the Republicans haven't declared war on OWS, but they're certainly spitting in our general direction.
[Removed]
According to the memo, if Democrats embrace OWS, “This would mean more than just short-term political discomfort for Wall Street. … It has the potential to have very long-lasting political, policy and financial impacts on the companies in the center of the bullseye.”
CLGC memo to the American Bankers' Association. All this money floating around for the purpose of silencing Americans...it's criminal.
[Removed]
The best I'm hoping is that they educate and inform. Growing income inequality is something we all understand and that message is getting out there. Also, people realize it is linked to joblessness and outsourcing. Even more feel that their government has failed them in some essential way. And Obama is connecting the dots for people now. The Republican lies can't hold up, but, you're right, it is a good environment for driving a stake through their heart.
[Removed]
Republicans are their own worst enemies. Look what they did to the Komen Foundation. Planned Parenthood is absolutely giddy.
[Removed]
Especially if your job is to help people. Haha.
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
i don't know if PP is giddy. They needed the main stream media, the PP lobbyist to come in and help them and having the spotlight on the Abortion issue may not help them.
Lets see, PP not only won back the Komen Foundation grant, but Karen Handel, the Republican who ran for governor of Georgia on a platform calling for the defunding of Planned Parenthood, has stepped down from her senior vice president position. In addition, PP picked up an endorsement from Mayor Michael Bloomberg, not to mention a $250,000 grant that was matched as well as other contributions. I think giddy pretty much describes it.
PP doesn't do mammograms.
It was fun to see the liberals go crazy! Sad to see that there is no tolerance if you are pro life. I support a women's right to have an abortion, but i'm respectful of those who do not support abortion. half of the country doesn't support abortion, they are Americans too, and they don't want their money going towards abortions.
The worst of it is...................it's our money!!!!!!!
do you even pay taxes? Like most liberals you probably cheat.
Only for about 45 years.
Does that count?
so you are an old 60's hippie, makes sense now.
So you've declared war on me, because I'm a tax payer??
Seems silly.
who says i declared war on you? boy you liberals are sensitive.
Note the title of the thread and your assumption.
If I were that sensitive, I would react accordingly.
I would just prefer if you got the point.
it looks like you the one who has declared war on conservatives, i don't think that conservatives care much about occupy or are worried that occupy is any threat. I'm open to hearing occupy's point of view, all i see is hate.
What you call "conservatives" declared war on me a long, long time ago.
I took it for a while, but now I'm fighting back.
It's your misconceptions that say I shouldn't.
It was, after all "conservatives" that smashed my country into a brick wall.
It's going to take a while for me to get over that.
what do you mean conservatives smashed your country. it's our country not just your country. The U.S. is a right of center country, most people don't agree at all with you.
OK, Bush, crashed OUR country.
"Conservatives" voted for him.
Can we agree on that?
I'm not a Bush apologist, he and liberals help the crash happen. Don't forget that Congress was controlled by the Democrats in Bush's last two years.
You're not an "apologist", in that you won't apologize for what Bush did?
Or did you just forget?
I remember, the first thing he did after he entered his second term, was claim he had a "mandate" to give a huge chunk of of SS to WallStreet.
I said to myself, "wallstreets in trouble, they're running out of other people money". I didn't know then that I was correct.
I then remember, he decided to " rework" the bankruptcy laws.
In between, he started a couple of expensive "wars". ( They aren't wars, but I won't get into that here).
He lost his bid on SS, thank God.
But everything crashed as he left office, and he kicked an undeserving Post Office in the nuts, on the way out the door.
So yeah, there might be a small amount of complicity on the part of the dems, but "conservatives" own the lions share.
And those fucks still want to give SS to WallStreet!!!
Can we agree to get all the money OUT, and then let's talk again.
You hit pay dirt. This scares them more than anything! RJ is just a bitter, old loser.
How popolar is OWS? Who knows? Corporate polling doesn't say!!!!
Like that Chris Moody article :)
Thanks HitGirl.
Mitten!
Huh.
What a mistake for society that would be!!!!!!
a vote for Mitt is a vote for Bank Of America & Goldman Sachs
Romney & Me
Mitt Romney is an honest American patriot from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
He pays all the taxes that he is required to pay by law. Not a dollar more. Just like you.
I won't spoil the surprise. Check out the Romney Tax Calculator
(((HERE))): http://romneyandme.com/
These calculations do not factor in undisclosed holdings in accounts located in Grand Cayman or small amounts made in public speaking fees.
Big Banks Have Picked Their Candidate, & it's Romney
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/01/15/135945/big-banks-have-picked-their-candidate.html
-January 15, 2012- By Andrew Dunn | Charlotte Observer
CHARLOTTE, N.C. — The country's biggest banks are overwhelmingly supporting Mitt Romney's bid for the Republican presidential nomination, an analysis of federal campaign contributions shows.
Employees at the five largest U.S. banks by assets, including Bank of America Corp. and Wells Fargo & Co., had given Romney about $600,000 through the first three quarters of 2011, according to the most recent filings available from the Federal Election Commission.....
Romney Hiding Millions in Dozens of Secret Offshore Accounts: Report
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30296.htm
-January 19, 2012- by Stephen C. Webster
Massive File on Romney Hits Internet, Likely from 2008 McCain Campaign
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30299.htm
(((TheRomney'Book'))): http://www.docstoc.com/docs/102095500/The-Romney-Book
Romney’s Bain Capital Owns Media Giant Broadcasting: Limbaugh, Hannity
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30260.htm ,
by Alex Newman -January 16, 2012-
...Activists are expressing serious concerns that Mitt Romney’s private equity firm Bain Capital owns one of America’s largest media conglomerates, Clear Channel Communications, Inc., which broadcasts numerous popular talk-show hosts with incalculable influence in the 2012 GOP primary. Among the radio personalities syndicated by Clear Channel or aired on hundreds of stations it owns nationwide are Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, and many others.
Because of the San Antonio-based media giant’s enormous influence — it is the largest owner of radio stations in the United States, and experts point out that it essentially owns what has come to be known as the conservative talk-radio industry — Romney critics, supporters of Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich, Tea Party groups, and elections commentators are all raising the alarm. Some analysts are even calling for the firm to disclose the fact that Romney’s Bain Capital owns a station or syndicates a show whenever a media personality is reporting on the Republican presidential campaign....
(((Read the whole article Here))): http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/10547-romneys-bain-capital-owns-media-giant-broadcasting-limbaugh-hannity
With that said, who on either side of the aisle supports OWS. Just wondering, because Right Now, I'm not aware of many ..at all. They both spit in OWS's direction in my opinion, for the most part.
I dont see any evidence that anybody from any party embraces OWS on Capital Hill anywhere.
Romney's Taxes pretty much prevent him from representing the White Working Class Republicans (But the working class might not understand this!! and vote for him anyway!)
From their profits, the client investors pay the Bain partners in what is called “carried interest,” which is taxed at the longterm capital gains rate of 15 percent. Obviously Lawyers and Lobbyist and Politicians stretched the law to help rich guys avoid paying the tax rate from the IRS tax booklet.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2012/0119/Unlocking-the-mystery-of-Romney-s-15-percent-tax-rate.-Yes-it-s-legal
And don't believe that capital gains are taxed twice. It's a typical lie. Capital gains are not corporate profits, which are taxed differently. It is totally a free ride for wealthy traders.
Yes, Dividend reduce the yearly profits before taxes. I guess at least for Master Limited Partnerships, and for Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs).
Well I suppose they are joining the Democrats in declaring war on OWS. After all, most of the municipal administrations that have evicted us have been Democratic after all.
I'll still be voting for Obama in 2012.
Your vote doesn't count and neither does mine, the global elite have this situation well in hand...They bought it.
Chances are we won't be worrying about an election anyway...Bigger things are going on...
Well, maybe you know stuff I don't.
The number of OWS activists is far too inconsequential to have any effect on the election in terms of mere voting. Where it could have and effect, and what the real issue is, is, are you going to build the movement or are you going to campaign for Obama. Realistically you can't do both. You can't being staffing a phone bank or ringing door bells or licking envelopes for Obama and at the same time be building OWS. The question is, which side are you on?
Are you on the side of the Commander and Chief of American imperialism or on the side of a movement that seeks to transform the world and topple American imperialism?
Also OWS is more than just those who show up at protests. OWS is everybody that understands that the wealth of our society is being channeled to the very few at the expense of the many. Not because the many don't want to work, but because the few have become so greedy, self-interested and amoral in their pursuit of profits that they have no problem exploiting men, women and children in other countries or perverting and corrupting our government agencies and politicians. The number of OWS sympathizers is not inconsequential, and it is growing as fast as we can educate people.
I don't think the fact of sympathy is in and of itself at all consequential. In fact, most of the mere sympathizers of OWS that I have personally run across are basically clueless as to what OWS is all about and as a consequence it is not at all clear what exactly they are sympathetic with. The activist base is another issue and that, I think, is what matters in terms of really effecting genuine social change.
That's a neat trick - being both sympathetic and clueless at the same time...
My impression on personally talking to many passive OWS "supporters" is that they really didn't understand the movement or its dynamics which is what I meant by them being clueless. At the same time they are frustrated at the state of our society and as such willing to grasp at any slender reed of hope that they see on the horizon, even if they don't understand it.
I think that's why OWS relies on the simple 99% message. Someone has all the money. That's not hard to grasp. There aren't any good paying jobs. Also, not hard to grasp. The media gives you a bunch of BS, blaming poor people or, worse yet, too much government. I think people are getting it despite the propaganda. Americans may surprise you yet.
We are a very, very, very long way from the revolution which OWS envisions and which the erstwhile liberal supporters of OWS see as mere metaphor.
As I recall, the Tea Party was talking about revolution too.
You are presenting a false choice, of course, which makes your motivations questionable. You remind me of Bush, "You're either with us or against us." Maybe you're unable to multi-task but I am quite capable. So if a Union supports Obama, by your logic, they must abandon OWS, because the two are so incompatible, right?
You can't be organizing anticorporate demonstrations on the one hand while on the other hand symultaneously be organizing for a corporatist President who is in charge of a corporatist social system. It is not a matter of mere multitasking. It is a matter of working at cross purposes. I am very supportive of the labor movement. I have been a union member for most of my adult life, occasionally as a low level elected official and staffer, but mostly as a rank and filer. That said, the American labor movement is not only the smallest among the industrialized democracy per capita, it is also the most bureaucratic and the most conservative. The union tops would like nothing better than to coral OWS into the Democratic Party, which, of course, would spell the death of our movement. I'm all for OWS working with organized labor, but that does not include following it into the Democratic Party which has been the grave yard of every mass movement since the days of the Populists.
Well, I can do something productive by voting for Obama while donating to his campaign and OWS and working hard to convince people to vote for him. I'm not stupid enough to not support Obama and have the same outcome as the 2000 election.
In other words not only will you work for Obama, but you will act as an open mole in OWS, trying to convince OWS to support Obama rather than to pursue its program of absolute intransigence to corporatism including that of the nation's corporate liberal President. It is that kind of pathetic thinking that has eviserated every social movement since the days of the Populists. Fuck the Democrats.
Yes because I believe in Progressivism, equality, and hope! You not so much.
My two ex-wives (with whom I am very friendly) said they split up with me because I was the most optimistic person they ever met because I not only believed that there would be a revolution (a real revolution, one that overthrew our reactionary Constitution based on commerce and institutes real democracy) in our lifetime, but that I also insiste on living as though it has already happened. Sure you can place hope in the two big parties of the 1% which is to say placing hope in the status quo of inequality, injustice and permanent war. If that's what progress is, I want none of it.
Not surprised. Doubling down on stupid is something Dems and Libs are quite good at.
I'll double down on Obama and you can double down on your science denying, war mongering, law trashing, sell out Republicans. At least if I win you have a future.
If Obama wins in Nov. you can shoulder some of the blame for the economic and Constitutional destruction BHO will further continue.
He will be unbridled and completely unfettered by anything. He is a very dangerous person. He's anti-American and has no intention in promoting the common good or welfare (other than welfare checks) of people of this country,only his own selfish,Leftist green agenda.
Lets look at all the evil things Obama has done...
Signed into law to make it easier for workers (i.e. woman) to sue for pay discrimination.
Signed into law preventing credit card companies suddenly raising your interest rates and other consumer protections to prevent banks and credit card companies from abusing middle class credit card use.
Signed into law the ability of the FDA to limit the amount of nicotine in cigarettes and requiring larger warning labels
Signed into law making it a Federal crime to abuse people based on sexual orientation and hate.
Extended the government health care for 4 million uninsured children
Made it easier to get student loans for college and cut out the Bank as the middle man (it was pure profit for banks). Cutting out the middle man who did nothing and took no risks, means more money to loan to students.
Wrote into law to increase American corp for volunteers.
Saved the auto industry.
Gave the largest tax cut ever to middle class
Health care reform to regulate big health insurance companies -- stopping them for dropping coverage because you are sick, allow children to stay on parents policy until 26 years old, can not deny coverage for pre-existing conditions.
Passed financial reform curbing the excessive abuse of Wall street, banks, etc, while protecting average Americans
Approved the most funding ever for VA to provide adequate care for our soldiers.
Created a consumer protection agency.
Authorized the mission that brought the terrorist responsible for 9-11 to justice.
Got American troops out of Iraq
The Obama Justice Department got thousands of American tax cheats to disclose their hidden Swiss Bank accounts and pay their taxes, recouping millions for the tax payers.
If that's the kind of dangerous and anti-American stuff you're talking about I say bring it on! And I will be glad to shoulder some of the blame for the above.
Go for it dummy and vote for the loser. As far as OWS goes society is growing very tired of it. Obama has the Nation severely divided and OWS is nothing more than his little sheep's
after 3 years of obama attacking the principles that the USA was founded upon, you're still stupid.
Lets look at Obama's accomplishments in his first three years. These are facts. Not the lies and spin the Republican party uses, along with Fox news, to win power vs. what is best for middle class.
Signed into law to make it easier for workers (i.e. woman) to sue for pay discrimination.
Signed into law preventing credit card companies suddenly raising your interest rates and other consumer protections to prevent banks and credit card companies from abusing middle class credit card use.
Signed into law the ability of the FDA to limit the amount of nicotine in cigarettes and requiring larger warning labels
Signed into law making it a Federal crime to abuse people based on sexual orientation and hate.
Extended the government health care for 4 million uninsured children
Made it easier to get student loans for college and cut out the Bank as the middle man (it was pure profit for banks). Cutting out the middle man who did nothing and took no risks, means more money to loan to students.
Wrote into law to increase American corp for volunteers.
Saved the auto industry.
Gave the largest tax cut ever to middle class
Health care reform to regulate big health insurance companies -- stopping them for dropping coverage because you are sick, allow children to stay on parents policy until 26 years old, can not deny coverage for pre-existing conditions.
Passed financial reform curbing the excessive abuse of Wall street, banks, etc, while protecting average Americans
Approved the most funding ever for VA to provide adequate care for our soldiers.
Created a consumer protection agency.
Authorized the mission that brought the terrorist responsible for 9-11 to justice.
That's more positive stuff than Bush did in 8 years.
Wait....What................I can't think of a single positive thing Bush ever did???????
And I forgot to mention getting the troops out of Iraq.
You mean carrying thru on the Bush timetable.
Cheney shot friend in face with gun.
$hit girl still dumber than dumb and proud of it.
I guess that means you don't have an argument of any substance to offer. A mind is a terrible thing to waste, skylar.
your mind is already "wasted".
Hey sky!!!!
Mom's callin'!!! Dinners on.
Pull your pants up, dipshit!!!
If a majority of the 99 % of americans vote to put a 1% into office like mitt romney, this doesnt speak well of your intelligence. Do you really believe that this 1% has the interest of the 99% at heart? If he did, he would have gave away his wealth to the poor already.
There is a big difference in asking for the wealthy to pay the same percentage in tax that I pay, and asking them to give all their money to the poor. And yes people are stupid if they elect Mitt Romney considering what the last rich Republican president did to us.
[Removed]
Let them have Wars we will have a peacefull peoples revelution.
[Removed]
If this movement represents the 99%, why are you so quick to always jump on the half of the movement that would be conservative or at least right leaning?
Have you heard any GOP politician support OWS or the 99% in any way? A little time with Google could answer your question. There are several positions that GOP rank and file and the GOP politicians are on opposite sides of. We are one of them.
[Removed]
Who cares if he has money? jeeze.
And who cares if he pays taxes, right? He's only running for president of the United States, right? Some of us care. This country could do with a whole lot more of that.
He pays plenty of taxes.
I pay more as a percentage, Apercentage.
[Removed]
George Soros is wealthier than Mitt and he supports you, but by your rules you have to turn down his money. Elizabeth Warren, OWS's intellectual, mother is rich. A lot of rich people are liberals and support OWS. A lot of working class and middle class people don't support OWS.
What rules? Did I post any rules? Just because a person is rich doesn't make them an ignorant, science-denying, greedy, self-involved tax cheat. I think you have to be Republican too.
That was too funny.
;-)
[Removed]
Why are you describing liberals in such a negative light? ignorant, science denying? According to you the 1% are bad. Who are the 1%? They are the top 1 percent richest people in the U.S. that would include George Soros, most of theHollywood stars, Elizabeth Warren, Pelosi....
If you have to put words in my mouth, you're not arguing with me...you're masturbating.
ok, define for me the 1% who are they. who are the 99 %. If we are to succeed we should know these basic definitions.
The 1% is a term used to describe those wealthy individuals who pursue profit without regard for the laws and history of this country. Indeed, they will ignore scientific findings, human suffering and the degradation of their own country in order to obtain greater wealth. They will change laws, corrupt politicians, outsource jobs all because they have made money their God. They worry about OWS hurting capitalism when they're the ones giving capitalism a bad name.
Again, you just described George Soros (except for the last sentence)
Really can not be stated better than that in a short comment.
You have no idea how perfect you are the system. They love people like you. You think you're better than the Tea Party. You're just like one of them. You think you're intellectual. Those elites think of you as nothing more than the bug on the sidewalk. Look at you, drooling over Obama as if he was for the common man. You're a person of the divide. You hate the 1% and call them idiots...yet somehow...they are the ones with all the money that want. You call them science haters yet they are the ones using science to keep you on the Kool-Aid, keep the country divided by ideology and mass media (CNN psychology for the left, FOX for the Right, etc, etc). You are delusional fool and have played right into the game. Ha, I can't believe you really think of yourself is englightened. What you are is a fantastic pawn. If the 1% were so idiotic then clearly it should be easy. You think science doesn't have benefactors? Who do think pays for all that research? the 99%? Or the 1%? Did you even know the 1% pretends to be on the left or right, but altogether they party together and laugh at us for being morons for falling for their shit? Elizabeh Warren and Mitt Romney are one of the same. Koch Brothers and Soros are one and the same. You want to wish the lovable rich liberal people are on your side (no, they are just funding this movement to placate to your rage and keep it misplaced and contained)? I hope one day you really REALLY look deep into this madness before you.
Yes...yes...I see it all now! Elizabeth Warren is just mad for power! She never really cared. She never created the new Consumer Protection Bureau. The House Republicans never called Elizabeth in and gave her the 3rd degree and called her a liar. The bankers never stopped her from being appointed to head the new Consumer Protection Bureau. It was all just a scripted and well financed act by rich people with a lot of free time...you've opened my eyes! One question though: Are you on any medication? Earth to airplaneradio, you need to land that thing!
Right. Elizabeth Warren just cares.
I imagine she does. The sad thing is that you're too cynical to believe that.
Actually the sad thing is you're gulliable.
Liberalism is a mental disorder, you live in a bubble hitgirl as you only believe in what you are used to seeing from the people you hang around with. Open your mind a bit read both sides of an issue. Elizabeth Warren is worth 14 million dollars, and lives in a 5 million dollar home. As the intellectual mother of the occupy movement, why isn't she giving her money to the poor, and allowing her home to be occupied. The liberal elites are hypocrites that's why. Pelosi is one of the richest in Congress.
I don't mean to get in the middle of your discussion, but since you asked, the below link provides detailed answers to your questions of who the 1% and 99% are. I will now drop back out of your dialog.
Hope this helps.
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
Geithner is a proven tax cheat, Tom Dacshel is a proven tax cheat, as is, the comedian who jokes about a woman's rape, turned senator who stole the election from Norm Coleman, Al Franken.
ok, so the 1% isn't a statistical definition as i doubt that many top 1percenters fit your description. So let's say its in statistics about .01% . What about the 99% what does that mean. 60% of Americans actively dislike the occupy movement. its got some good points about corruption in government and bad business practices but overall is a very negative movement and it doesn't offer a solution. OWS folks also don't mention corrupt Unions private or public sector, nor voter fraud (Acorn) or many things that the left supports. To improve and move forward we need move than a biased hateful movement like ows.
60% of Americans actively dislike the occupy movement? You need to site your source for that and provide a link.
here you go http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/january_2012/51_see_occupy_wall_street_protesters_as_public_nuisance
Since when does 51% = 60%? Looks like you learned how to keep books from the Wall Street bankers. On top of that, Rasmussen has a right-wing bias and there's always a margin of error. Do you dislike OWS so much that you have to make-up numbers to put them down?
OK , but 51% is still high for actively disliking anything. I was thinking of this stat from the same article: 'Only 39% see them as a valid protest ' . 100-39 = 61, my mistake. I just don't , as you don't, believe what i read in this blog from you or anyone else. OWS is always saying that support is growing for OWS, I think that they started out higher than 39% approval (i.e. valid protest).
I would imagine a lot more people actively dislike Congress. I don't blame you for not trusting anyone considering the lies I here from FOX News and the Republican talking heads.
Congress has never been popular, and i don't think anyone has lied about it. do you watch foxnews? What is your source of news? is it unbiased? All news is biased you need to used your brain and make your own decisions about what to believe.
I think the percentage is much higher than that
Wishful thinking.
Even though Romney is a shithead, he's much preferred over that jackass we have now.
The OWS declared war on the Tea Party along time ago and the only reason why is because they are envious of them. So what is the point of this posting you have???
Is that why we don't see the Tea Party anymore? I figured the real reformists defected to occupy a long time ago.
Good read.
that's why occupy is called the Flea Party
you might not "see " the TEA party , but they're out there , working to depose obama and his cohorts.
So, they're sneaking around.
They are a bunch of lying, snakes in the grass.
I guess that's why they are ALL (R)epelican'ts.
This is a silly thread. The Tea Party is no longer relevant.
I like you Hit and agree with almost everything you say, but on this I disagree.
They are still very much a threat to America and this forum.
They will continue to be a threat until their ties to the Kochs are severed.
Maybe so.
1 Limited govt.
2 Fiscal responsibility.
3 Constitutional goverance.
4 Free Markets.
Good luck with that, they're (R)epelican'ts now.
Teabaggers raised my taxes.
4.) Is an impossible illusion.
Who ( be specific) raised your taxes on what(again , be specific). You did not anwer as to how the TEA party values are a threat to America.
1.) (R)epelican'ts are all for HUGE government.
2.) Is this supposed to be a joke?
3.) Only if it's interpreted the way they want it to be.
4.) I already answered.
The 4 things that I listed were the TEA ( not republican) values. Regarding # 3, courts routinely make law instead of constitutional interpretation.Courts are not empowered to make law. Regarding #2 The democrat lead senate has refused to pass a budget. It's 1000 + days.
Teabaggers are (R)epelican'ts, one and and all.
I can't recall even ONE running as an independent.
Not one of them has introduced a bill to reduce anything, except support for working stiffs and the poor.
Perhaps you can find something?
which republican raised your taxes? can you answer that?
I'll answer your question, once you've answered anyone of mine.
Your choice, after all you haven't one yet..
You have no ability to reason and use logic.
Oh???
Which teabagger doesn't have an (R) after his name?
You've also failed to answer any simple question.
Your accusation is completely baseless.
The amendment they introduced included spending cuts. The bill would mandate the federal spending not exceed total revenues, cap federal spending at 20% of the GDP, and require a 2/3 vote ( both house and senate ) for net tax increases. The legislation would require the president to submit a balanced budget to congress each fiscal year.
As usual, that doesn't answer the question.
What are they demanding to be cut?
Limiting without explanation is asinine.
Cornyn and Hatch introduced a balanced budget amendment . . All the dem senators blocked it Steny Hoyer ( D Maryland) who railed agains the republican when there was no budget is now saying that the govt does not need a budget.
What were they planning to "cut"?
You seemed to leave out that very important detail.
Actually, it was the teabaggers that declared war on this very forum.
You must be new here.
Getting your info from FLAKESnews?
No I have been here for a while now. What is flakesNews??? Must be all the liberal (cnn, msnbc, nbc) and other trash besides Fox??
Teabaggers have been calling us names and attacking the movement, and liberals in general, for some time now.
Were you sleeping?
I don't watch TV news...............At all.
Those I've met that watch FLAKESnews, are unable to converse on a rational level, about political and world events.
They remind me of people I've met, who believe the stuff they read in tabloids.
In other words, flakes.
I do not watch news hardly at all either. Although I heard that the liberals were attacking fox news heavy duty in the comments section. So maybe they are paying you folks back??
Paying me back for what????
Not being a flake, or for being rational????
It's like you only read some of the words I wrote, and I'm not that wordy.
I did not say "you in particular" have been in Fox news website in the comments section. I am saying I heard that liberals were attacking them heavy duty and that is probably why the conservatives are here. If we all could put aside our political affiliation and stand as one then we can make a change for the better. If we remain divided then we are all losers
Never been there either. Why would I?
Perhaps the folks plaguing the FLAKESnews forum are the ones they lie about, continuously.
How many times would you expect them to "turn the other cheek"?
At any rate, this forum has NOTHING to do with the FLAKESnews forum.
Obama has to go, no matter what the cost. Obama raised a billion last election cycle, Romney will raise more, this election cycle. I am no fan of him and his wool union suit, or whatever it is he wears,but Obama makes me want to puke, every time I see his stupid face and hear is phony class warfare speeches. He is a pig, and so is his diet preaching phony gardener wife. Does she really pull weeds?
Well, looks like you and the Republicans share a common goal. They don't want to see Obama get a second term either, which is enough to insure that I'll be voting for him.
[Removed]
I am no fan of Obama's either, not because he is some closet socialist. Quit the opposite. Obama is about as far from being a socialist as it is possible to be. Only in America would someone like Nancy Pelosi be considered a leftist. Obama got more funding from Wall Street than anyone. Obama bailed out the banks. In terms of genuine class politics, Obama hasn't done a fucking thing for the labor movement that went all out in support of him. I don't think he's much of a class warrior. Would that he were. To the extent that he is a class warrior he is on the side of the 1% and it is a very useful tactic in the class war for him to pretend allegiance to the working class, but with friends like him we don't need enemies. Farlymowat's real agenda has nothing to do with Obama's class position. The subtext of his message is clearly racist. To him Obama's greatest crime is not being a socialist, but being black. Indeed, "socialist" or "leftist" is essentially a code word among racist thugs for "blackness."
Fuck off asshole. You don't know what racism is.
Perhaps not, but I do know what it means to be rude.
I think it is a grand idea to judge a president on his/her looks. As for the first lady, if only you were weed you could find out first hand.
Seriously, do you have anything of any value at all to add? Anything at all, no matter how minuscule...?
No matter what the cost?
What about the cost of making the Supreme Court permanently hard right wing, ensuring the unbreakable consolidation of the corporate oligarchy for the foreseeable future, or the repeal of Roe v Wade? As much as I dislike Obama, that's a price I'm unwilling to pay.
It's hard left now. Everyone I have ever met that has killed a child in the womb regrets it. How can you be so cruel as to advocate the continued extermination of our society, the most helpless and unable to defend themselves? How? Are you a fucking creepy animal? Wtf are you? A droid? What?
I believe in a woman's right to choose in consultation with her doctor. I believe no one has the right to take that choice away from her. It is HER body.
Clearly, you believe otherwise. Feel free.
You are also opposed to Obama, to unions, to anyone who raises a peep against income inequity, or anything else outside of your mythologizing small world view. Again, feel free.
BUT, you certainly don't support OWS, yet you come here, the official OWS support site, to post your anti OWS opinions, and don't even have the brains to understand how bizarre that is. Very strange.
and you dont think its bizarre to kill a baby in its mothers womb, the insanity of this culture is bizarre beyond belief.
I don't think it is any of your fucking business. It is a WOMAN'S right to choose what she does with her OWN BODY. Whether you think a blastocyst or zygote or fetus is a "baby" or not is a determination you have no right to make for any individual woman. It is what SHE believes that is relevant, not your beliefs or mine. It is SHE who has to carry a pregnancy to term or to terminate it, not you or me.
[Removed]
what you think is my business I dont give a bleep, calm down mac, its the law of the land now does'nt make it right, its not her body or yours or mine, killing a baby in the womb is wrong.
It is not for you to decide whether or not it is a baby. It is hers. That's why it is the law of the land. And you have no right to impose you definition of what a fetus is on any woman.
I dont have to decide what a fetus is, it is what it is,l, the truth is absolute
Really? No philosopher or scientist has been able to determine with anything remotely approaching certainty when human life begins. How is it that you know? The truth may or may not be absolute, but you don't have access to it in this case. Nobody does. Only God knows, and He/She/It hasn't come down from the heavens and made a declaration of it.
Your unsupported opinion does not constitute truth.
[Removed]
Science has determined when life begins, its called conception, my opinion is supported. As far as the truth goes look up absolute, its the truth no matter what you or I say or think.
Science has not determined when life become human. Bacteria is life, too. The issue is what is a human being, not what is life.
human life begins at conception, I guess bacterial life begins at conception, I never thougth of it .A human being is not life? strange thinking
A human being is life, but not all life is human. A dog is alive. It is not a human being. A zygote is life, but it is not determined that it is a person; not by science. It is a purely philosophical question, and philosophy can't determine it.
What the fuck is a zygote? Im talking about humans not dogs or bacteria, and whats this about philosopy? you can be philisofical about life, but it doesnt have to determine when life begins, thats up to medical hard science which says human life begins at conception
A starting point is not a realized entity. A primordium or beginning of a human being is not a human being.
You don't understand the difference between determining a quality and describing a quantity. Science does not answer whether a human embryo is a person, or human being, because it can't address what the QUALITIES of BEING human are, It can't talk about the nature of BEING. That is a qualitative value judgement, not a measurement of chromosomes. It is a question in metaphysics, not biochemistry.
Do you know, scientifically, what a being is? Do you understand al the components that make up the quality we call humanity? I doubt it, since better minds that yours have wrestled with the question for thousands of years, and have yet to arrive at any conclusions.
Quality is not quantity. Value is not measurement. And your opinion is not fact.
I'm done. You won't get it, and can't get it, because your ideology filters everything except what you want to hear or see out. And you're too dumb to even know that filter is there. Good luck trying to impose your ideology on someone else's body.
so what about this
Every new life begins at conception. This is an irrefutable fact of biology. It is true for animals and true for humans. When considered alongside the law of biogenesis – that every species reproduces after its own kind – we can draw only one conclusion in regard to abortion. No matter what the circumstances of conception, no matter how far along in the pregnancy, abortion always ends the life of an individual human being. Every honest abortion advocate concedes this simple fact.
Faye Wattleton, the longest reigning president of the largest abortion provider in the world – Planned Parenthood – argued as far back as 1997 that everyone already knows that abortion kills. She proclaims the following in an interview with Ms. Magazine:
I think we have deluded ourselves into believing that people don't know that abortion is killing. So any pretense that abortion is not killing is a signal of our ambivalence, a signal that we cannot say yes, it kills a fetus.1
Reply to your post below:
That is not a scientific document. It is a statement of opinion. "The new human zygote has the inherent CAPACITY OR POTENTIAL to become....a cognizant person" is the key phrase. By itself, the phrase acknowledges that the embryo is NOT fully human yet. It merely
REPRESENTS it. Everything else is philosophizing, drawing a value judgement, which is neither science nor medicine.
"There’s a point where life begins and a point where it ends, but determining precisely where each point lies is highly controversial." Note the source: Medical University of South Carolina, 2012
ok consider this
The following references illustrate the fact that a new human embryo, the starting point for a human life, comes into existence with the formation of the one-celled zygote:
"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception). "Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being." [Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]
reply to post below.
Medical science says no such thing. It is utterly silent on the issue. Show me a single article that confirms your assertion. Betcha can't find one. You know why? It is not a medical or scientific concern. Defining what a human being is outside the scope of medical science. Clearly, if you don't even know what a zygote is, you don't know much about what science is or isn't.
What you are left with is your individual opinion. It is NOT supported by science. It is supported by you belief alone. Sorry, that's just not enough.
"The embryo is a new human life which is genetically distinct and which has energy and a direction of its own from the moment of conception." Medical University of South Carolina, 2005
LIFE IN THE WOMB
Individual life begins with conception by the union of the couple's sex cells or gametes. The 23 chromosomes of the paternal sperm (male pronucleus) fuses with the 23 chromosomes of the maternal oocyte (egg or female pronucleus) at fertilization to create a single cell embryo or zygote containing 46 chromosomes. The fertilization process takes about 24 hours. The new human zygote has the inherent capacity or potential to become a fully rational and cognizant person! Each one represents a unique, irreplaceable, never-to-be-reduplicated human being!
The Pre-embryonic Period extends from the moment of fertilization of the ovum to the 4th week after conception. During this phase, the zygote undergoes continual cell division, implants in the uterus, and forms the primary germ layers, which give rise to the organs of the human body.
So you admit that you are a fanatic. Admitting you are the problem with the world is the first step to fixing it.
yes unimportant I am a fanatic. I believe a baby has a right to life just like you did when you were int the womb, I hope this can fix the world.
Educating others to use birth control or to abstain or pull out perhaps, the only one thate is effective is abstinence, but then what about rape.
This type of divisive topic will not get solved in this forum and serves only to divide everybody.
agreed! and I don't know about rape, I really dont man
It is because I don't have all the answers that I do not impose or seek to impose my will on others. As far as what is wrong with the country, there are so many things that there is no single solution.
What I do know is that right now we do not possess the means to make any changes and for that reason my only goal is to give the people back the ability to effect change without having to fight every corporation to do so.
I have no other goal, no hidden agenda.
Yes this world is
screwed up, what I see happening here is discussion and knowledege being exchaned, knowlege is power.
And wisdom is strength. It will require both, knowledge and wisdom to fix this country.
Agreed , I just learned what a zygote is!
Killing somebody is always wrong. We choose to do the wrong thing all the time. The key phrase is of course "WE CHOOSE". Contrary to the way you think, it isn't any of your business.
You must be some fanatic that thinks might makes right and that it is your duty to tell others, or make others do what you want them to do.
You're an uninteresting fuck you know.
I got a reply out of you, interesting
Imposing your will and your morals on others is part of what is wrong with this country. You don't see barring somebody from doing something you disagree with as imposing your will on them?
Addendum: I don't mean stealing from others or anarchy. I mean legal activities like abortion, sodomy and such things as homosexual acts.
and your not imposing your will on me? I conceded it is the law of the land, albiet wrong. How is my not agreeing with the insanity of it barring it? Your imposing your misguided morals on me.
So, you consider me saying to you, that you don't have the right to impose your will on others or calling you on what you said, is somehow me imposing my will on you.
"what you think is my business I dont give a bleep, [....] its the law of the land now does'nt make it right, its not her body or yours or mine, killing a baby in the womb is wrong."
"I dont have to decide what a fetus is, it is what it is, you know sort of like a brain dead dweeb like you, the truth is absolute"
Really?
I said that killing is always wrong we just choose to do what is wrong at times for our own reason(s) and/or excuses [an excuse is why you do something without a reason].
If somebody is going to kill us, we have a choice to allow it to happen, find a way prevent it which may be killing the person. It is called choice.
If a woman is raped, should she have to carry the baby to term, deliver the baby? Should abortion be used as birth control? Should the father of the child have any say? Could the baby be the person that finds the cure for cancer? Will the unborn baby be another Hitler? Will the unborn baby create a plague that ends mankind?
All good questions and I don't have the answer to any of them.
thats obvious
Actually I support private sector unions to the fullest. I have a problem with the conflict of interest on the public side. That is, they hold the taxpayer hostage. Obama is a puppet, nothing more, nothing less. I am all for a so called woman's right to choose what she does with her body, just not the dismemberment of her unborn. That is wicked and selfish beyond all human dignity and humanity. We treat dogs with more respect. On your final point. OWS has decided to represent me, one of the many 99%, so I must on moral grounds, voice my opinion. Is that wrong?
This is a support site site for OWS. It is not a support site for Obama not is it an Obama bashing site. It is a site dedicated to the Occupy Wall Street movement.
It is a site dedicated to changing the system so that even your voice is heard, as opposed to being drowned out by corporate interests. It therefore represents you better than you may think, since it is a pro-democracy movement at its core. If you are opposed to that, you are hurting the interests of the 99%, including your own.
This is a support site for a movement, not a general political debate site. I don't go into someone else's home when they are having a gathering to tell them they are wrong. It is unseemly. Simply because this is the internet instead of a physical house, doesn't mean that it is not intended to be a real gathering of real like minded people, and that you are doing nothing more than crashing the party in order to disrupt it.
So you're free to speak what you believe is truth, but I am not?
That's what a general political discussion board is for. Do you really not see how inappropriate you are? Really?
Hmm, you've been on an abortion rant this entire post. Dont you see how inappropriate you are? Doesn't that belong on a Roe v. Wade forum?
I saw it was too much, and that's why I stopped. Will you stop coming here expressly to heap scorn on OWS?
I support Unions, but I don't. I support our government, but I don't. Make up your mind.
As for your morals, you don't have any. You wish to impose your will on others against their will. This means you are immoral like the church.
OMG it is a pro-lifer that wants to kill people.... that hates people because they are black, hates a woman for gardening and taking care of herself....