Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: this is not a romney leak !

Posted 11 years ago on Sept. 19, 2012, 8:08 a.m. EST by bensdad (8977)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

it is the truth that the republiclans have been trying to hide for decades



Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 11 years ago


Washington Post: Former president Jimmy Carter’s grandson helped leak video of Mitt Romney at a private fundraiser to Mother Jones Magazine, the younger Carter told NBC News and New York Magazine’s Daily Intel blog. James Carter IV helped connect Mother Jones reporter David Corn with video of Romney at a fundraiser saying, among other things, that it is not his “job” to win over the 47 percent of voters committed to President Obama, because they are “dependent on government” and he will “never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.” Carter IV, whose Twitter bio says he is an opposition researcher, told Daily Intel he first noticed online a part of the video in which Romney discusses Chinese labor when working at Bain Capital. Then, as additional footage was added, he tracked down the originating source of the footage and put that person in touch with Corn.

“Any time that you can find a clip that strengthens the narrative already established, that’s what becomes a big deal,” Carter told Daily Intel. “I’ve been trying to get paid for this but it hasn’t worked out yet. This might help.”

Carter told NBC News that after he sent the Mother Jones article to his grandfather, the former president responded warmly, writing: “James: This is extraordinary. Congratulations! Papa.”

Carter also told NBC that Romney’s criticism of his grandfather bothered him, providing extra motivation to release the videos. “It gets under my skin — mostly the weakness on the foreign policy stuff,” Carter said. “I just think it’s ridiculous. I don’t like criticism of my family.”

Also: Andrew Breitbart still burning in hell, with Raygun and Tricky Dick.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 11 years ago

Can you imagine - Jimmy Carter's toothy smile - from ear to ear.
Lets hope willard's anchor pulls down the Rs senate numbers too.
Seems to be true:
Polls are now 48D 43R & 9 tossups:
AZ just moved from R to tossup !!!
CT D & moving more D
MA D but $$$$ will roll in for R
MT tossup
NV tossup
IN TP/R & likely to stay that way

Imagine getting rid of bachmann, walsh, gomert, west ‼‼‼‼

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 11 years ago

...Demint, McConnell, Boner, Kyl, Cantor, Ryan, on and Corp/Con/Teabag on...!!! Everyone at the '08 DC sabotage/treason meeting!

Seen it before, and they come back while we party (ie 2008)!! Vigilance! Zombies never die!

Everything and all hands on deck to right the wrongs that 1% tyranny has wrought! RIGHT NOW: Vote the bastards that done it to us OUT!

Get more info at www.wtfu2012.com.

Here's a handy guide to WTFU: http://www.randirhodes.com/pages/rrnews.html?feed=393046&article=10394961

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 11 years ago

randi is great - do you ever listen to or watch thom hartmann or rachel maddow
fyi - kyl is retiring

[-] 2 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 11 years ago

Of course! Haven't we all?? AAR!?! And if not WTFN? Norman, Ed, Carl, Ring of Fire, Colmes, Press, Current TV, Stephanie Miller! Progressive radio folks, get to know it. OWS is just the new kid on the block.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 11 years ago

Great cartoon.

Repubs are too far into the pocket of the 1% plutocrats! We will never get them to serve the 99%.

We have begun to drag the dems back from the right wing abys of corp 1% corruption, but we have a ways to go.

We must grow the movement, protest for real change, and pressure all pols to serve the 99%.

[+] -5 points by progRobo (-30) 11 years ago

We will never get them to serve the 99%.hahahaha to funny and where would you like "your" redistribution of wealth sent to

[-] 5 points by VQkag2 (16478) 11 years ago

I don't want redistribution. I want my money back that the wealthy took from the 99%.

Stop catering to the 1%, no more corp welfare, end deductions/loopholes/shell comp/tax shelters for the wealthy.

The 1% plutocrats have bought the govt, gamed the system, to suck up OUR wealth!

Thats not redistribution! That's fairness, justice, and wealth equity.

[-] 1 points by ComeTogetherNOW (650) 11 years ago

And NOW the 1%er Romdee lost. Who saw that coming :D

Thanks OWS, you awoke many from their slumber. Now we must learn to fight and NEVER stop. This is our country. Stay active, it matters....

Come Together NOW

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 11 years ago

ACTION for the next 8 weeks - pressure your senators to end the filibuster [ I will post more on this ]

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 11 years ago

Yes. There is a plan by Harry Reid, to force real talking to initiate a filibuster so hopefully that will happen.

[-] 2 points by ComeTogetherNOW (650) 11 years ago

I agree, the repugo's abused that priviliege for way too long. It's time to close the loophole that they used solely to stop government from working effectively for ALL Americans. We will keep fighting so government begins to cater to our needs, the middle class, the people that have seen the dream slipping away while the rich run away with it and ship it overseas.

We are still in the game and we have hope having re-elected Obama. We have a chance.

Come Together and Stand UP!

Now move FORWARD!

[-] 1 points by yobstreet (-575) 11 years ago

No one is hiding anything - unless they have zero income, the 47% should pay federal income taxes commensurate.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 11 years ago

should GE pay tax?

[-] -1 points by yobstreet (-575) 11 years ago

We can argue this a number of ways, can't we?

A corporation is not a person.

A corporation is an association of people.

Could we create an entirely computerized corporation to attract wealth that does not involve human participation? Of course, but to what purpose if no one is to benefit?

Perhaps we could use the computerized non-human corporate entity to fund government, but even if we did, the people would benefit - government serves government, as an association of people, even if somewhat remiss in its duty to serve the populous - people would therefore benefit.

What is income, can this computerized, entirely non-human entity, that attracts wealth be said to have "income" if no human ever benefits?

If not expressed in income to employees or profitable shares to the "shareholder" can that profit that lands in a corporate bank vault be considered income? Well, certainly - because it is the profit share of the shareholder, investment "income."

Eliminate these investors, these shareholders, and there is no reason to tax that which lands un-utilized in the corporate bank vault because there would be no benefit to human beings, ever.

Even so, that share sold does not attract profit, it attracts investment dollars, it is not corporate "income."

The profit derived of that share is not derived of the corporation itself but from the increased value of the stock as determined by our stock market; outside of some perceived resale "value" no portion of profit as income here is derived of the corporation.

The corporate vault is an "asset"; as such it is a business expense as "investment" utilized to grow the value of shares which in turn attracts the increased investment of others, a portion of which is then utilized to actually grow the income of the corporation.. this asset grows, hopefully, but this profit itself is not income.

So the answer is basically NO - that that share of the profit of corporations that remains in a corporate bank account should NOT be taxed because it is not "income" - it serves no human being, it serves the value of paper sold as a share.

Corporate profit, squirreled away in the vault, only becomes income when someone raids that vault - and since in this case it is the government who is raiding it as "tax" then its incumbent upon government to pay this income tax - because only they have any acquired "income."

Government is a corporation that derives income, which we relabel as "revenue," by taking money directly from people, and from corporations, no portion of which is ever squirreled away; a government "for and by the people" should pay tax to the people for that income that it has derived, commensurate with that which the people are taxed.

And government is not satisfied with revenue - it borrows additional monies... war is but an excuse to borrow more; and its negative shares are "bonds."

So I think we can argue virtually anything, to some success.

But no corporation should ever pay more than 15% in tax because if it does it leaves the country to find more favorable conditions. And that benefits nothing but the corporate bank vault and the shareholders it enriches.

[-] 2 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 11 years ago

In 1950, corporate taxes accounted for about 30 percent of all federal revenue.

In 2012, corporate taxes will account for less than 7 percent of all federal revenue.

WTFU! Get more info at www.wtfu2012.com.

[-] -2 points by yobstreet (-575) 11 years ago

Wake up... this government literally pisses on American tax dollars; corporations can't afford to lose their competitive edge; when they l lose, we lose...

[-] 2 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 11 years ago

RW talking points are so 2010.

special privilege giveaways Steady Stream of Embarrassing Scandals corporate welfare handouts

Congressman Sanders on US Corporate Welfare Giveaways

The US federal government is guilty of making huge corporate welfare handouts. Taxpayers are forced to pay for ridiculous things, including handouts to Enron, General Motors and AT&T.

Here is a new article by Representative Bernie Sanders. It appears here with the permission of BuzzFlash. The Export-Import Bank: Corporate Welfare At Its Worst by Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)

This country has a $6 trillion national debt, a growing deficit and is borrowing money from the Social Security Trust Fund in order to fund government services. We can no longer afford to provide over $125 billion every year in corporate welfare - tax breaks, subsidies and other wasteful spending - that goes to some of the largest, most profitable corporations in America.

One of the most egregious forms of corporate welfare can be found at a little known federal agency called the Export-Import Bank, an institution that has a budget of about $1 billion a year and the capability of putting at risk some $15.5 billion in loan guarantees annually. At a time when the government is under-funding veterans' needs, education, health care, housing and many other vital services, over 80% of the subsidies distributed by the Export-Import Bank goes to Fortune 500 corporations. Among the companies that receive taxpayer support from the Ex-Im are Enron, Boeing, Halliburton, Mobil Oil, IBM, General Electric, AT&T, Motorola, Lucent Technologies, FedEx, General Motors, Raytheon, and United Technologies.

You name the large multinational corporation, many of which make substantial campaign contributions to both political parties, and they're on the Ex-Im welfare line. Needless to say, many of these same companies receiving taxpayer support pay exorbitant salaries and benefits to their CEOs. IBM, for example, gave their former CEO Lou Gerstner over $260 million in stock options while they were lining up for their Ex-Im handouts.

The great irony of Ex-Im policy is not just that taxpayer support goes to wealthy and profitable corporations that don't need it, but that in the name of "job creation" a substantial amount of federal funding goes to precisely those corporations that are eliminating hundreds of thousands of American jobs. In other words, American workers are providing funding to companies that are shutting down the plants in which they work, and are moving them to China, Mexico, Vietnam and wherever else they can find cheap labor. What a deal!

For example, General Electric has received over $2.5 billion in direct loans and loan guarantees from the Ex-Im Bank. And what was the result? From 1975-1995 GE reduced its workforce from 667,000 to 398,000, a decline of 269,000 jobs. In fact, while taking the Ex-Im Bank subsidies, GE was extremely public about it's "globalization" plans to lay off American workers and move jobs to Third World countries. Jack Welch, the longtime CEO of GE stated, "Ideally, you'd have every plant you own on a barge."

General Motors has received over $500 million in direct loans and loan guarantees from the Export-Import Bank. The result? GM has shrunk its U.S. workforce from 559,000 to 314,000.

Motorola has received almost $500 million in direct loans and loan subsidies from the Ex-Im Bank. The result? A mere 56 percent of its workforce is now located in the United States.

In fact, according to Time Magazine, the top five recipients of Ex-Im subsidies over the past decade have reduced their workforce by 38% - more than a third of a million jobs down the drain. These same five companies have received more than 60 percent of all Export-Import Bank subsidies. Boeing, the leading Ex-Im recipient, has reduced its workforce by more than 100,000 employees over the past ten years.

Here are a few examples of your Ex-Im taxpayer dollars at work:

The Export-Import Bank has provided an $18 million loan to help a Chinese steel mill purchase equipment to modernize their plant. This Chinese company has been accused of illegally dumping steel into the U.S. - exacerbating the crisis in our steel industry.

Since 1994, the Export-Import Bank has provided $673 million in loans and loan guarantees for projects related to the Enron Corporation, leaving taxpayers exposed to $514 million. The Ex-Im Bank approved a $300 million loan for an Enron-related project in India even though the World Bank repeatedly refused to finance this project because it was "not economically viable."

The Export-Import Bank is subsidizing Boeing aircraft sales to the Chinese military. According to the President of Machinists' Local 751: "Boeing used to make tail sections for the 737 in Wichita, but they moved the work to a military factory in Xian, China. Is this Boeing's definition of free trade, to have American workers compete with Chinese labor making $50 a month under military discipline?"

The Ex-Im Bank insured a $3-million loan to aid General Electric build a factory where Mexican workers will make parts for appliances to export back to the United States. This project is responsible for the loss of 1,500 American jobs in Bloomington, Indiana.

And on and on it goes. The bottom line is that if the Export-Import Bank cannot be reformed so as to become a vehicle for real job creation in the United States, it should be eliminated. American citizens have better things to do with their money than support an agency that provides welfare for corporations that could care less about American workers.

Bernard Sanders is a member of the U.S. Congress. For additional information, visit BuzzFlash

[-] -2 points by yobstreet (-575) 11 years ago

Yes, government is corrupt, and increasingly anti-american.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 11 years ago

Government has been corrupted BY ANTI-AMERICANS!!!

[-] 1 points by UntilUKnow (35) 11 years ago

Your argument all sounds great in theory, And although I can understand an argument against the taxation of the actual Corporate entity itself, what of the profits that are disbursed to those Insiders, as I point out within the text of my post below? Aside from offering an Austrian/Trickle-down defense, would you actually suggest and can you really justify that these individuals who currently pay 15 percent, move to paying zero percent? I want you to remove yourself for a moment from the realm of theory, plug any corporation name or stock symbol into this site and actually examine the $$$. I have for example witnessed an Insider who was on the Board of a HealthCare corp, who reaped several hundred million dollars. And that is before he was no longer on a Board and therefore was not required to report the sale of his remaining shares. In fact, he and others like him could have actually reaped well over a billion dollars each. And this scenario occurs day after day after day. But within the context of examining a corporation such as this that addresses Utilitarian services, I would like to hear your justification for not taxing these people. I mean, here we have a relationship where on one end is a consumer who has the funds to pay for a life sustaining service and on the other end a Provider who can provide the services, but inbetween a Corporation, and more specifically, Insiders within that Corporation, who with the government's assistance, serve primarily as sycopants, whose sole purporse is nothing more than to drain the resources from this vital relationship. I understand the principles of Capitalism (Suplus Value and Surplus Profit). I embrace the Free Market and Free Enterprise. But what of the excesses. I want you to step our of your theoretical Comfort Zone, to justify the aforementioned scenario I have just presented.

Here are the real “Takers” (aka:the face of the One Percent). Check this site out: SECForm4.com Info derived from the SEC's EDGAR database. It’s a site that allows traders to track Trading Activity for Insiders. You know, Board Members like CEO’s, Directors, VP’s, and others, who are supposed to be "Investors". But when you take a look, you'll see that most of them have not put up a penny. These people are NOT Investors. It's just plain GIVEN to them as Options, Gifts, or Awards. In "addition" to what they are paid for their Corporate roles. And when you see the amount of $$$, you won't believe it! You do not have to be a trader to figure this out, When Romney began his run for President, I decided to look into his baby. You know, BAIN! Man oh man, talk about the “bane” of mankind? I've seen a lot of companies on this site, but Bain is a whole different animal. Just do this: Go to http://www.secform4.com/insider-trading Type BAIN into the “Search by Company or Insider Name” box. Click “Search”. When your browser appears, click on the first link. When it takes you back to SECForm4, choose “All Data” in the top left box. Like I said, you don’t have to be a trader to understand what’s going on. Especially when you realize that all this $$$ is only taxed at 15%. Yup, that’s what they call CAPITAL GAINS! You know, what Romney & Ryan want to drop down to 0%. Zero tax. NOTHING! Bain happens to be Romney’s baby. He created it, along with their MO. But there are thousands of other Bains out there. Maybe not quite as bad, but take a look for yourself and you be the judge. Just plug in any public corporation’s name and see for yourself. Make you wonder, just how much is enough?

[-] -1 points by yobstreet (-575) 11 years ago

I think concepts of insider trading are relatively easy to grasp even for working class individuals like myself who do not generally have the disposable income available to profit greatly from any form of trade... and I have often wondered to what extent insider trading should be regulated; to what extent it should be deemed illegal. Insider trades might be indicative of the health of a company; likewise it would appear that CEOs and board members who predetermine to profit or minimize loss as the direct result of actions they then complete, in essence taking advantage of their nonpublic position to intentionally imperil investment of the shareholder to their profit - no one would buy their stock if they knew it was to be worth less - is decidedly unethical; it would seem there are CEOs - hatchet men - who have made a career of this. And although tanking companies is a very lucrative business, it destroys the corporate entity as employer, economic producer, and investment vehicle.

You're suggesting though that since insider traders profit that government should take the money and then give it to un-vested, uninterested, unrelated third parties - which with this government could - would - does - include virtually any "special" interest anywhere in the world - because... why? Why would you suggest that we should take the profits of privately employed Americans to give it to government which will then piss it away on anything it pleases, including the transaction of the very insider deals you rail against? Why would you do that, what is your vested interest? Why do you choose to empower government as the middleman in your theft of another's profit, unless you yourself have insider info that ensures your profit?

That insider info that you here assume does not exist - government is self serving, always; you would hope they seek to buy your vote... this voter market corrupts the political environment, it destroys good governance, and endangers our fiscal health.

So that's my story and I'm sticking to it - remove most if not all corporate taxation - make the enterprise viable in this third world we-work-for-morsels environment or the average working class American, like myself, will be reduced to begging.

Which is what you are doing now.

[-] 1 points by UntilUKnow (35) 11 years ago

Actually, fewer people would buy their stock if they knew of this current surreptitious redistribution of wealth that is occuring among these Insiders. But the bulk of trading is being done not by the average person, but rather the Market Makers who represent Investment Firms(i.e. holders of IRA's and 401K's). And I take no issue with this practice, when it comes to profit derived from Corporations who's business deals with Discretionary Products/Services. Your argument against government is ideological, and would take me more words that are on this entire page to debate. Nevertheless, that is not the essence of my argument. I listed the information re SECFORM4.com to point out that when it comes to Insiders, or who I am attempting to unvail as "The One Percent", ROI no longer exists because they "no longer" invest. Instead, Corporate profits are now being distributed to a select few, and taxed at only 15%. With regard to the latter portion of your argument and suggestion. My suggestion to you is to learn more about the essence of Capitalism. For ironically enough, it is my opinion that Capitalists are the least knowledgable of the principle concepts of Capitalism. Where do you think the $$$ that these Insiders are raking in, comes from? One of the most enlightening books I've ever read is "The Creature from Jekyl Island" by G.Edward Griffin. Hie is by nature and occupation an researcher, and his research and analysis of the concepts of $$$ and more importantly fiat currency, and all that is derived from it, is as revealing as anything I've ever read. And he is as strong a Capitalist as anyone.

[-] 0 points by yobstreet (-575) 11 years ago

I think I'm going to do that but you know short of actually crashing the system, which would be disastrous for the entire world, I don't believe there's a real lot any of us can do about this. And none of it excuses government spending on a level that far surpasses the taxpayers ability.

[-] 1 points by UntilUKnow (35) 11 years ago

You know, I think we're closer in agreement than not. I've always preferred written discourse to verbal, as the discussion is less sucecptible to Logical Fallacies, which have done more harm to mankind than any war or plague.

[-] -1 points by yobstreet (-575) 11 years ago

I've always felt that the fallacies of logic can generally be attributed to either an intentional deception or the result of false premise, as incorrectly conceived basis.

Conversational debate is difficult because it does not allow of time; it represents logic induced rather than deduced, and the conversational method itself is too disruptive.

Corporate profits are now being distributed to a select few.

The question is, is this a modern day phenomenon, or has it always been this way? Or is it just more common to see CEOs today rape corporations rather than attempt to grow a business as original proprietors tend to do?

Could it be that too many corporations have simply grown far too vastly profitable?

[-] 1 points by UntilUKnow (35) 11 years ago

Actually yes, this is a relatively new phenomenon. It’s referred to as the Shareholder Maximization Model, or sometimes SWM. The father of which was Jack Welch, former President and CEO of GE. This model states that the value of a Corporation should be measured by the ROI for its shareholders along with Capitalization, as opposed to the number of people it employees, growth model, longevity, and actual product/service value to the market. And coincidentally Mitt Romney is in some circles referred to as the Son or Prodigy’ to Jack’s SWM.

I’ve developed a theory that relates to false premises. I call it the Cycle of Cognition. In brief, all thoughts involve a chronological cycle of Perception, Analysis, Comprehension, Conclusion, and Action (and hence Reaction). These cycles occur within each of us countless time each day. My basic premise is that if one of these steps is defective, for example if we were to not perceive (hear, see, smell, taste, etc. all stimuli), or in our case perceive all the facts, each following step would be adversely affected. We would have a faulty analysis, and insufficient Comprehension, inaccurate Conclusion, and therefore produce a faulty action which would reap an adverse Reaction. But here is the key, since these cycles occur within us countless times each day, each following cycle is dependent on the previous cycle. And like a building that is built upon a bad foundation, if we do not at least occasionally review the steps within our cycles, and instead just hide within our Comfort Zones of ignorance, we as individuals are doomed to crumble. What’s even more interesting, is that if we extend this theory of CoC, and apply it to society and sects within society, we can see how the faulty actions provoke faulty reactions of others, and cause Wars.

I once read that those who control the institutions (i.e. media) that control the perceptions of the people, in essence, control the people. And if you take into consideration the realization and power of Institutionalized Logical Fallacies and how they control society, you can see how important it is to consistently be leery of Power and the Powerful.

[-] 0 points by yobstreet (-575) 11 years ago

I think the shareholder maximization model is a natural by product of growth. Essentially what it states is that if I have enough capital, I can purchase any entity I want, streamline it's operation, merge that operation with those of others, and capitalize. If I have enough money I can seek out those start-ups with potential, invest and influence growth, and then when these companies have achieved some maxim, and grown naturally top heavy, I can purchase the entire corporation, streamline, merge, and profit. This has gone on throughout America's history; it probably dates to at least the mid 18th century. It has become all the more obvious because it has actually spurred a separate industry, which specializes in this form of capitalization, and all of it is the result of a general prosperity, and capital growth. This is not a factual interpretation; it's just a casual observation, the impression that people get, and generally far too late in the game - the average individual is not introduced to arbitrage until it effects them directly.

In reference to our institutions you have to realize that there is nothing that exists in our world that is not evolutionary, the result of some evolutionary desire. And this desire, or these desires, are common to all people, everywhere. The difference is in how we react to these desires, the result of circumstance; how we attempt to fulfill these exact same desires, the paths we choose to fulfill are entirely dependent on environmental circumstance. If we take America's educational institution, for example, which as an "institution" is essentially a method idealized within a supportive framework - "institutionalized" - we can see very clearly that it's an attempt to fulfill evolutionary desire. Public education was initially promoted as an attempt to improve the general welfare, the idea being that if people were possessed of a more general knowledge, that they would be empowered to a greater individual comfort and prosperity. But was this really the intent or were we simply driven by the desire, the need, to introduce the immigrant to our way of life and our way of thinking?

America's institutions are the evolutionary outgrowth of a particular people, whom I label, to generalize, as the "people of the North." The people of the north came from a harsh world, a world of extremes, possessed of few resources and huge adversaries. And here in America, we took those things long held vital to our survival, incorporated as the main tenets of a belief system, and we institutionalized them - form of governance, militarization, free enterprise, capitalization of resources, education, religion, etc - they were prioritized and institutionalized. And some of these are good; our value of life for example is the direct result of a very high mortality, and some of these - our militarization and ruthless approach to adversaries, for example - are less attractive. But they are what we are, because we were what we were.

So I don't necessarily think it's a case of false premise - our institutions are the result of a belief system thousands of years old, amongst a particular people.

Your Cycle of Cognition is very similar to my interpretation except that I place much more emphasis on desire and emotion. Emotions, as you know, may sooth us, warm us, or they may incite us to "see red." I tend to view emotions then, "in this light," as colors which represent a mix of emotions that will funnel upwards to eventually blend to reveal some final hue. I call this "emotional sorting."

The senses inform, incite us to emotion, but how we perceive of this input is based heavily on both experience as knowledge and that which is known innately - all humans, all newborns, for example - are born with knowledge of the inanimate; they recognize innately that the inanimate is not a living entity. And there are many things that are known innately, that require no life experience.

This forms the nature of response which may or may not be a truthful representation of the inner hue; it is left to the interpreter, the audience, because all humans are manipulative, to evaluate the exact nature of these words which emanate, born of some subliminal desire.

Rational... and cognitive... don't necessarily influence behavior, which often represent some manifestation of the emotional. I think that those more capable of denying the impulse to react, who are more capable of suppressing emotion, to plan or scheme of another day, if combined with both strength of action and a whole ruthlessness, are destined to eventually rue the roost. I think our ancestors were fully capable of that, and driven, pressed emotionally, by the utter lack of resources in a world of violent extremes, capable of inflicting an extreme horror, to seek avenues others did not.

Are we leery of the powerful? Of course, we are the masters of premonition, of evils and portents... we are ever vigilant, keenly aware. And so we prepare. And thus our institutions. Sometimes to extract the corruption of our institutions, as our own history informs, it is necessary to remove the institution and recreate entirely anew.

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 11 years ago

Romney seems to be struggling with this compassionate conservative thing. Obama is much better at it.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 11 years ago

Here's the States with the highest level of those lazy 47% .

Hmmmmm. Interesting.


[-] 2 points by UntilUKnow (35) 11 years ago

LMAO! Good stuff. Looks like he's between a rock and a hard place. As the Soup Nazii would say, "NO SOUP FOR YOU. NEXT!!!" LOL!

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 11 years ago

Perhaps we should cut our loses and sell off Mississippi and Alabama to the highest bidder. If anybody willing to pay for them.

Love the fact that Florida is on the list too.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 years ago

Thanks shooz.

Well ain't that just a co-ink-e-dence(?) anyone know where there are voter restriction campaigns happening? Think they may be concerned about the people in the party that they are misrepresenting - turning around to bite them?

Repeat: http://www.alternet.org/hot-news-views/which-states-do-most-romneys-moochers-live

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 11 years ago

How will they wiggle out from under the truth?

You know they always try.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 years ago

They will likely try to avoid talking about it in front of cameras - as the MSM is not really providing good and truthful and complete coverage - that should not be to hard for them to do.

The truth is mainly getting circulated by people on the internet.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 11 years ago

You did notice that those that used to claim that they are both exactly alike are switching to the term "false dichotomy"?

Both terms are 100% bullshit.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 years ago

Another attempt at confusing the issues.

[-] -1 points by progRobo (-30) 11 years ago

The obama admin is encouraging folks to get ton the Gov assistance program because then he can create his socialist regime. Even pelosi once said that "unemployment and gov assistance" is very good for the economy and it pumps a lot of money into it. Half the people that do not pay taxes should and the ones getting gov assistance should only be on it for one year max then pull the plug on them

[-] 2 points by TommyNYC (730) 11 years ago

Stop red-baiting.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 11 years ago

Perhaps we should just fire all those States that are mooching.

Or could they be outsourced or Sold to the highest bidder?

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 11 years ago

Excellent idea. Lets takeaway their votes. Or force them into bankrupcy.

Send Bain Capital in! That'll learn 'em.

& whatever we get when we sell those states we throw at the debt. I wonder what the total annual amount we send to them, the annual deficit is $1.3T

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 11 years ago

If Romoney is the astute businessman he claims to be, he should be talking about doing exactly that in every speech he gives.

If he was honest.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 11 years ago

He appears to be toast today in any event. Because of his honesty caught on tape by Jimmy carter IV. How great is that?

I suppose anything can happen, but even the PA repub vote suppression effort looks dead so I suppose things are going the right way in general.

Gotta focus on gettin all pols to push for change to help the 99%.

[-] 1 points by podman73 (-652) 11 years ago

You mean dems just say it you are a dem supporter that way you don't look like a tool.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 11 years ago

Dems failed miserably when they betray progressive principles & vote for conservative policies.

replace cons w/ progs! & protest for chg that helps the 99%

[-] 0 points by alva (-442) 11 years ago

romney sppke the truth.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 11 years ago

The only truth he spoke is that he didn't care about 1/2 the country.& even that was only 1/2 the truth because he only cares about the 1%

[-] 1 points by alva (-442) 11 years ago

thats not what he said.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 11 years ago

Some people love him so much they cannot see the real Mitt, & his constant flip flopping makes it difficult, but if you take your time you will realize that he is a selfish, greedy 1% plutocrat who cares for no one but the his oligarch buddies.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 11 years ago
[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 11 years ago

What is the meaning of this song. Matt? I saw the play as a teenager in the '70's.

It was great! good friends, good times.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 11 years ago

just using it we people become obsessive over names

[-] -2 points by alva (-442) 11 years ago

keep repeating the dem party line like the good little "useful idiot" you are. and YES that s exactly what you are.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 11 years ago

"useful idiot"? please refrain from the name calling schoolyard bullying tactics of your candidate Romney.

If you can't debate with substantial facts in a civil, & respectful way, you should be an adult and just admit defeat.


[-] -3 points by alva (-442) 11 years ago

wasnt calling you a name, just stating the fact.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 11 years ago

Gufaw! Ha! ha!

That's so funny! You should have your own show!

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8310) from Phoenix, AZ 11 years ago

I don't really think they've been hiding it, have they?

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 11 years ago

hiding it from the robotic lemmings

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8310) from Phoenix, AZ 11 years ago

There have always been those that miss the monarchy..people always think that they will be the prince, when the truth is they're just "red shirts".

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 11 years ago

Aligning against Republicans is a distraction from aligning against government corruption and wealth inequality. If you want to make substantial changes to how our government works then you're going to have to grow up and learn to work with people who don't agree with you on everything, in order to make our country a better place.


If you can't find the strength to do that then you're part of the problem, not part of the solution.

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 11 years ago

There are many people who may vote 'RepubliCon' under the misguided impression that they give a shit about All Americans and then there are The Actual Republican Leadership. One may be able to reason with the former but as for the latter ? You decide :

fiat lux ...

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23782) 11 years ago

Very nice, Shadz. Thanks.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 11 years ago

"If I Were a Fanatic I'd Let Off Nuclear Bomb in Chicago" : (Mitt for Brains Romoney) :

Romoney brands Iran 'crazy people' in new secretly filmed outburst

Mitt (for brains) Romoney’s White House bid took another twist last night after he appeared to suggest that a pro-Iranian terrorist group could hold America to ransom by threatening to blow up Chicago with a nuclear bomb. In one of the most bizarre remarks ever made by a presidential candidate, the Republican challenger outlined how he might carry out an attack - comments that some critics claimed exposed America’s weaknesses. They were revealed just hours after videotapes of Romoney showed him making a series of derogatory remarks about Americans, Palestinians, Mexicans and the Chinese.

So 'bw', rhetorically re. Obomber v. Romoney ; rock or a hard place ? Prof. Cornel West's come to mind - "Mitt Romney - Catastrophe ; Barack Obama - Disaster"

minima maxima sunt ...

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23782) 11 years ago

Wow. I hadn't heard that. Very disheartening. I guess very few get any more respect than poor Seamus.

[-] 0 points by shadz66 (19985) 11 years ago

"Don't Roof Rack Me, Bro !" (Seamus Unleashed) :

'Mitt for Brains' - yep, that'd be about right for a 'foot-in-mouth disease' afflicted Randian Psychopath. Poor treatment of animals reflects deep seated callousness, imho & please do try to catch the lyrics.

verum ex absurdo ...

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23782) 11 years ago

You see, the Seamus story, sadly, says more about Romney than anyone would hope.

[-] 0 points by shadz66 (19985) 11 years ago

Onwards & Upwards et "nihil illegitimi carborundum" :-)

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 11 years ago

To make substantial changes to our government, you're going to need votes from both sides. If you're not looking for common ground and working to build a consensus among the 99% then what are you trying to do? Just get the establishment Presidential candidate re-elected? If that's your goal then what's the point of OWS? Just go to an Obama campaign rally and be done with it.

[-] 3 points by shadz66 (19985) 11 years ago

How about a Huge Voter Turnout and agitating for mass 'write-ins' for Stein, Sanders, Nader, McKinney, Kucinich, Johnson etc ?! Think 'out of the box' and please stop being hysterical and get your head out of 'The DemoCrap / RepubliCon Faux-Binary Construct' !! The Entire voting system has been co-opted and The 99% must reclaim it - with 'Manually Counted Paper Ballots' being the bare minimum safeguard against demoCRAZY deMOCKERYcy in "The United States of Amnesia" (Gore Vidal, RIP) !!!

ad iudicium ...

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 11 years ago

Yes, my whole point is that getting out of the "DemoCrap / RepubliCon Faux-Binary Construct" is the only way forward.


You're not going to make significant changes by writing in longshot Presidential candidates during the election. The only way to do that is by building a true consensus that spans both sides of the ideological divide. By focusing on common issues that bring us together instead of the wedge issues that the 1% uses to maintain the status quo by aligning half of the 99% against the other half.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 11 years ago

"Apple-pie and motherhood & peaches and cream" are also good ideas and may well be "common issues" too but a struggle of ideas is a fundamental prerequisite to any real progress and true change. 'Universal Healthcare' should really be a 'common issue' but utterly bizarrely - it probably isn't - so very propagandised against its own interests is the US populace. 'Common issues' may not really cut it and could be tantamount to only even more of the same as before.

You seem resigned to duopolistic 'electoralism' (you're not going to find that word in a dictionary - but you'll know what I mean!) and voting as the only avenue of change. I regard it as only one aspect or tactic. As such I think that you may be missing the point of OWS.

Not unusually - I've little idea what 'VQ' is on about & my reply to your comment shouldn't be associated with his remarks or your squabbles with him. I merely wanted to try to see your point. Alas, I failed.

multum in parvo ...

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 11 years ago

If your goal is to change the structure of government then you're not going to do it without building a broad consensus that spans ideological lines. That was my point. Simple enough. Lawrence Lessig can elaborate a lot better than I can if you're just click on the link that I posted and read.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 11 years ago

The "goal" is NOT merely just "to change the structure of government" - it is to fundamentally reclaim 'The Lincolnian Definition' of "Government OF The People ; FOR the People ; BY The People" and to restore the demoCRAZY deMOCKERYcy that The U$A has become. The 99% deserve no less.

dum spiro, spero ...

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 11 years ago

How are you going to accomplish those changes if you boycott the process? You're going to wish really hard for them and hope that a fairy shows up to grant your wish?

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 11 years ago

"If voting changed anything - they'd make it illegal." (Emma Goldman)

ad iudicium ...

[-] 1 points by ComeTogetherNOW (650) 11 years ago

Yeah, because, not enough bother to vote, and those who do, many times don't have critical thinking skills, so the lies sound juicy and tasty. Just choose your narrative and put that brain into cruise control.

Come Together NOW

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 11 years ago

The Entire Voting System has been co-opted and The 99% must reclaim it - with 'Manually Counted Paper Ballots' being the bare minimum safeguard against demoCRAZY deMOCKERYcy in "The United States of Amnesia" (Gore Vidal, RIP).

We don't need be resigned to duopolistic 'electoralism' (that word is not in the dictionary, but the meaning is clear) and think that voting is the only avenue of change, instead regard it as only one aspect or tactic. Inability to see this may be missing the point of OWS.

True Anarchists are at the forefront of new ideas re. True, Direct, Participatory Democracy, so see ;

M.K.Gandhi said : "Healthy discontent is the prelude to progress" and also "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." Re His Ideas :

per aspera ad astra ...

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 years ago

Hey - would that relate to voter suppression?

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 11 years ago

'Voter Suppression' is a massive 'Iceberg Issue', ie. more to it below the surface than immediately meets the eye. As such some relevant links :

e tenebris, lux ...

[-] 1 points by ComeTogetherNOW (650) 11 years ago

Probably, and the worse kind........

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 11 years ago

Voting for either one of the two Presidential candidates who rejected public campaign financing probably isn't going to change anything, since both of them have to answer to the people who provided them with the financing to spend over two billion dollars combined on campaigning. If campaigns were financed with public money instead, then politicians would have to answer to voters instead of to lobbyists and campaign donors. Instead of acting like a change like that is impossible, why don't we start a conversation about how a change like that could actually happen.

(Hint: we'll never get there by dividing the 99% into two opposing factions.)


[-] 0 points by ComeTogetherNOW (650) 11 years ago

Too simple.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 11 years ago

Simple? Building a non-partisan coalition to pass a Constitutional amendment is "too simple"?

[-] 2 points by ComeTogetherNOW (650) 11 years ago

I was being cynical. Hell, we're lucky to get half the eligible voters out in these elections where they can actually be counted. Their not motivated or believe they make any difference. We have to work our way up from there. Citizens of this country should show some civic responsibility and pay some attention to our government. If we're not getting that these other ideas have no wings.

Come Together NOW

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 11 years ago

That's all definitely true. It's painful to see the Occupiers advising people not to vote, who don't believe in running candidates or participating in our democracy.

But remember that there have been many times in our country's history when broad, mainstream coalitions have formed in order to successfully pass Constitutional amendments. Pretty much all of them. Prohibition never could have passed without broad support, and it could not have been repealed without the same kind of broad support. The same goes for every amendment from about #16 onward. It is possible. It has been done many times before. The biggest obstacle to it happening is the partisan squabbling that keeps us divided that so many Occupiers are incapable of overcoming.

[-] 2 points by ComeTogetherNOW (650) 11 years ago

Divide and Conquer.


Come Together NOW

We can determine the Truth by considering the supporting evidence.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 11 years ago

Occupiers seem very intent on the "divide and conquer" part. They're even intent on dividing themselves.

[-] 1 points by ComeTogetherNOW (650) 11 years ago

Well, let's see, it never works out exactly as we believe it will.

This movement was an outgrowth of the angst everyone was feeling and some like me have been feeling that anxiety decade after decade since there was a realization what politics was REALLY about. It's deadly serious. I'm convinced that life is struggle, and we need to push hard to get to where ever that place may we dream of if only in our mind. Nothing against those sideliners, it's another point of view, but, for me, I'm leaving a mark, it's just matter of how deep.

Build Your Dream. Make IT Happen!

Exercise the greatest right you have as a citizen of USA and VOTE !!!

And never stop getting involved and learning to be a better citizen. This was the path laid out by our Founding Fathers. They were already thinking of us here at this moment all those years ago. They called it Enlightenment.

Get UP Stand UP & Come Together NOW

[-] 1 points by ComeTogetherNOW (650) 11 years ago

Simply put, it's about power. If you hold it you get to tell us ALL how it is.

Politicians have this kind of power. They are the deciders. Which ones get elected matters BIG TIME!

The PEOPLE, We the PEOPLE, decide which one speaks for US. And in these "daze" the distinctions, those hard lines are unmistakable unless you've been living in the clouds cave dwelling.

I vote we participate in democracy by voting to excercise the greatest right we have as a citizen. I also say for those NON-Voters out there, you have neglected your responsibility and civic duty to vote. If no one voted this wouldn't even be a shell of a democracy, it would be no democracy. Thomas Jefferson feared this could happen if people only complained of the government, never bothered to get involved, or understand how this was affecting all of us, collectively. From division comes things most of us despise. Does any of us have a clear understanding of the objective truth? It seems this one gets easily mixed with the subjective one so that if we say truth, maybe it is, or maybe it's not.

It seems many don't hunt it down to find out to know for sure. If seems true, likely true, well, must be. Why bother with such tedium about "fact-checking". Maybe that's why there's these delusional ideas running amok with no grounding to what I call ordinary or actual reality. Those ideas are not only delusion but also have a deadly side as well.

Those who ignore the evident truth do so to their peril.......

Come Together NOW

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 11 years ago

That's exactly what I've been saying since literally my very first post here:


The suggestion of participating in our democracy in order to make it better didn't go over very well back then, and it seems like it's an even less popular idea now.

[+] -6 points by VQkag4 (-30) 11 years ago

That sounds like anti-dem partisan talk!

You are well versed in teabaggers are you not?

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 11 years ago

You're transmitting ignorance like a beacon for yet another day? Seeking common ground is "anti-Democrat"? Anybody who isn't with you is against you? (Even people looking for ways to be with you?)

[+] -5 points by VQkag4 (-30) 11 years ago

You don't like pres Obama? You don't like progressive solutions for the 99%?

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 11 years ago

I told you yesterday that I voted for Obama. And I spend my time here pushing for progressive solutions for the 99%, whereas you're only concerned with the left half of the 99%. So much so that you're trying to position me as a tea bagger because you can't comprehend the idea of somebody who doesn't agree with everything that you say if they're not your polar, ideological opposite.

[+] -5 points by VQkag4 (-30) 11 years ago

Anti-dem partisan attack! Partisan politics are not allowed on this site!

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 11 years ago

Well gosh that's a relief, since I've been trying to dodge away from your attempts to trap me into partisan squabbling for the last 24 hours.

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 11 years ago

you're not talkin to me. That is some kinda trashy troll.

I'm not a partisan agent

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 11 years ago

Well, yes you are.

But I recognize the sock puppetry now, don't worry.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 11 years ago


I don't feel like I am a partisan agent. I certainly never tell people to vote democratic, and definitely not to vote for Pres Obama.!

I'm tryin anyway since of course I am solidly progressive & anti conservative.

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 11 years ago

"I'm not partisan ... but of course I'm solidly anti-conservative."


It's funny but it's also sad because it's a sign of weakness. It's a sign that common ground and consensus are hopeless, and that the 1% will maintain the status quo indefinitely because the people most interested in change are not capable of transcending partisan squabbling in order to make it happen.

I think that if substantial change ever does happen then it will come from the center, not from the extremes. The people at the extremes are too preoccupied with ideological polarization to ever form the kind of coalition required for real change. (This means you.)

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 11 years ago

I think the disappearing middle will be the origination of change.

I thought we did find common ground when I agreed with your money out of politics post.It's true we have made no other progress but not because I ain't tryin'.

If you wanted to expand the common ground you should either respond to my suggestions as I did yours or make new suggestions.

I'm certainly not being partisan. You have no evidence of such activity.

Your focus an those unfounded accusations is counter productive.

[-] -1 points by podman73 (-652) 11 years ago

wow head in the sand works for you huh? progressive solutions for the 99% you mean why are people not happy to take the crumbs that fall off the dem table? you go ahead and be happy begging for scraps ill pass thank you

[-] 1 points by ComeTogetherNOW (650) 11 years ago

Do ya think I might be able to chew gum and walk at the same time Techy?

Many here do support Obama and also are activists. I've been to one his rallies, and one for Biden, the crowd loves both. They do speak for us in that government and it does need change. But not the kind that Romney would bring.

You speak of consensus, good luck with that one. You'll have to face hard reality there. Being on the side of the actual truth gives an edge but the actual truth, as history illustrates, can be stomped, trampled, and set back. It's eventual, as Gandhi once said, so just be the part of it that is NOW.

Come Together NOW

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 11 years ago

Good for you dude. We can change the system from the inside with reformers, and use the radicals outside the system as leverage.

Gotta have the rabid anarchist street protesters to feed off of. I think we need them to have bigger events. They aren't really producing like we need them to!

[-] 1 points by ComeTogetherNOW (650) 11 years ago

That's the idea. I like the big dreams, their fantastic, but also I want to be effective and make the the most of my limited time. Focus.

We can do this.

Come Together NOW

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 11 years ago

Too many narrow minded people here. against everything but their own ideas. Also too many closet repubs here to only divide and personally attack.

Very few actually willing to get on the streets. Many anti Obama partisans.

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 11 years ago

We just dont like those that endorse the current corrupted slimeballs.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 11 years ago

You speakin for more than one now? You mean you and the gang of bullies you're with who personally attack anyone you disagree with?

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 11 years ago

No matter which of the two candidates you vote for, you have a choice between two candidates who rejected public campaign financing (Obama being the first major party candidate in history to do that since public campaign financing began) and who are therefore both beholden to the sources of the over two billion dollars that will be spent on the campaigns. Instead of to voters like you.

Eliminating the financing that makes politicians answer to campaign donors instead of their constituents is the only way to improve that situation. And the only way to do that will be if liberals and conservatives find the strength to transcend their partisan squabbling for the good of the country.


[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 11 years ago

The question I ask you-
are you anti-R
are your anti-D
are you anti-politician
are you anti-corruption

polls have proven 80% support for an anti-corruption solution

Do you disagree with any of this: http://corporationsarenotpeople.webuda.com

A constitutional amendment to Overturn Citizens United and Corporate Personhood

For a complete analysis of the amendment issue, and the text of all amendments,
and our comparison of all of the amendments, and the Citizens United case
transcript, and the Citizens United decision, and the Buckley decision,
and analysis of corporate personhood, and analysis of Article III,
and the ABC News poll on CU / CP,
and the PFAW poll on CU / CP,
and 70+ videos on CU / CP from
Chomsky, Hedges, Witchcraft, Reich, Nader
Warren, Lessig, Hartmann, Maher, Kucinich Sanders, Hightower, etc.

and our voting bloc petition & plan.

http://corporationsarenotpeople.webuda.com no password or signup

JOIN our OWS Working Group: http://nycga.net/groups/restore-democracy

REGULAR MEETINGS: Wednesdays 5:30-7:30PM @ 60 Wall St – The Atrium

[-] 7 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 11 years ago

CU and all of our most corrupt probs made possible by We the People. We have only ourselves to blame.

Lowest Voter turnout in the world!

Highest Big$ turnout in the world!

We can't expect maniacal greedy criminals NOT to be maniacal greedy criminals just because we're feeling apathetic.

Wake up and smell the reality. Vote!

[-] 0 points by ogoj11 (263) 11 years ago

Just because we don't vote, doesn't mean we're apathetic.

Voting reassures all the bosses and the pols that we still have faith in their system. If you want to accomplish something, scare them into thinking we've stopped believing in their charade of legitimation.

When we stop listening to their speeches, responding to their slogans, when they can't sell us their gadgets, their food products, their nationalism... Does your heart pitter patter when Old Glory flies?

If you're still voting, you've misjudged the enemy, what they'll do (800,000 murdered in Guatemala in the 80s for what?), who they are.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 11 years ago

If Voting didn't matter the "bosses and pols" would not waste one Citizens United dime to effect a result. But of course they do spend untold $Millions and $Billions to ensure the results they desire.

Lowest Voter turnout in the world!

Highest Big$ turnout in the world!

We can't expect maniacal greedy criminals NOT to be maniacal greedy criminals just because we're feeling apathetic (or your desired adjective).

Wake up and smell the reality. Vote!

Guatemalan murders to suppress the American Vote? That's one of the crazier GOP/anti-democracy reaches I've ever seen.

[-] 0 points by ogoj11 (263) 11 years ago

The battle for the presidency is a battle between two sections of the ruling class. I'm not saying the result doesn't impact the rest of us, but that we should be clear that we're not on their side.

I think your willingness to encourage participation in the system stems from a miscalculation about the nature of the class that is controlling us. They only permit voting as long as the results are guaranteed to be safe.

If you don't like my example of Reagan's sponsorship of genocide in Guatemala, recall how during and after WW1 the socialist party of Eugene Debs was crushed without any regard for legal inhibitions. It's kinda like playing Monopoly with your 8 year old nephew who abides by the rules as long as he's winning.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 11 years ago

Let's get Icelandic!! 80-90% Voter turnout! Banksters in jail!


Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Iran-Contra, North, Poindexter, Bush...! Socialist party, Labor Unions, the Progressive Party...! Crimes and suppression galore!! 47 days to start making a difference and end the indifference.

[-] 0 points by ogoj11 (263) 11 years ago

You know, W, your style is kinda like shouting slogans. Your point might be more convincing if you sounded more like a real person, less like a car with a lot of bumper stickers.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 11 years ago

Do you really wanna go there? No, you don't.

Let's concentrate on progress, shall we!?

Get out our inner Iceland!! Only 46 more days left!

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 11 years ago

I'm going to ignore the obvious implications about your world view in your question assuming that I'm anti-something. I'll go out on a limb and self-identify as being anti-corruption in order to provide a handy label that you can understand.


I've tried to point this out before, but "Corporations are not people" is a divisive title for that petition since it's a jab at Republicans. You're not going to make our government more responsive to your concerns by alienating half of the people who you need to support you.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 11 years ago

corporations are not people is not a jab at R
it is a factual statement are you afraid to tell me why corporations ARE people
and why 80% of Americans [ D + R + I ] disagree with you

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 11 years ago

Regardless of how I feel about the Citizens United ruling, that title is divisive because it's a reference to this quote from Mitt Romney:

Corporations are people, my friend… of course they are. Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to the people. Where do you think it goes? Whose pockets? Whose pockets? People's pockets. Human beings, my friend.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 11 years ago

"corporate personhood" has been around since 1886
and used by the courts
just because willard said what he said, it began in 1886
you can research it yourself or find the facts on our web site

4 National polls
PAFW poll - 64% corporations are not people
ABC/ Washington Post poll – [ no CP questions ]
Free Speech poll - 79% corporations are not people
Democracy Corp poll - 55% corporations are not people

Since the Citizens United decision specifically states
“The court has recognized that First Amendment protection extends to corporations”
& 1,900,000 Americans have signed anti-CU petitions, you could interpret this as
1,900,000 million to end corporate personhood

386 state and local resolutions advocate overturning CU
163 of these ALSO advocate overturning CP
[ and yes ALL 386 are posted on our web site for you to read ]
not a single one of the 386 specifies NOT overturning CP
50 law professors & state attorneys general wrote to congress to overturn CU & CP
[ and yes ALL 50 are posted on our web site for you to read ]

70+ videos from people such as Justice Stevens, Senator Feingold, Robert Reich, Ben & Jerry, Lawrence Lessig, Thomas Jefferson, Chris Hedges, Ralph Nader, Denis Kucinich, Olbermann
and numerous Occupy actions- most of which support overturning both CU & CP

which of the above to you disagree with ?

[-] 3 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 11 years ago

One of the names who you just mentioned was Lawrence Lessig. The page that I keep referring to is a collection of excerpts from Lawrence Lessig about how to mitigate undue corporate influence on our government. Maybe you should try spending more time reading and less time on the knee-jerk partisan paranoia.


[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 11 years ago

so you read all of the 40+ documents & watched 70+ videos and found ONE
well done !

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 11 years ago

You and I are not even having a conversation about the same thing. I can see that but I guess you can't.

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 11 years ago

You could use a bit more reading yourself.




Keep in mind that one of the co-founders was the daddy of the brothers Koch.

Would you please stop comparing OWS to the teabagge(R)s now?

There is no fair comparison.

[-] 3 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 11 years ago

How does a conspiracy theory about the Koch brothers relate to anything that I said? You saw the words "Tea Party" and had a knee-jerk reflex?

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 11 years ago

How does calling reality a conspiracy theory help your case?

I'm just responding to your insane obsession with the teabagge(R)s.

You apparently jerk your whole self at the mere mention of teabagge(R)y.

[-] 3 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 11 years ago

You don't even know what my case is, yet you're fighting really hard to oppose it anyway. Try reading what I said about common ground? Or are you not capable of comprehending such a thing as common ground?

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 11 years ago

I'm not fighting at all.

I'm presenting facts, that you are either ignoring or denigrating.

That seems to be an increasing problem with "conse(R)vative" thinking.


[-] 3 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 11 years ago

You're presenting "facts" that are completely irrelevant to anything that I'm talking about. I'm talking about seeking common ground.


[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 11 years ago

Not with you, obviously. Fortunately most people are not so bigoted.

I guess it was probably people like you who destroyed the General Assembly because they just couldn't bring themselves to go with any consensus forming if it wasn't hard-line extremism.

[-] -1 points by podman73 (-652) 11 years ago

You can't reason with pure hatred, it blocks their ability to think logically. Many on here have become what they hate, and it will burn them up.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 11 years ago

"Hatred", yes. I've been amazed by some of the rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth leftist partisans on this site. I've been trying to find the word that summarizes their world view. The outlook that views everything through a partisan lens. "Hate" is exactly the right word for it, thank you.

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 11 years ago

You're the one with a teabagge(R) obsession.

I'm just showing you a bit of truth about them and you're in denial about those truths.

Where is there EVER common ground with dedicated bigots?

[-] 6 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 11 years ago

What's the point of having conversations with people if you're never going to pay any attention to anything that they're saying? I'm just curious why you bother?

You're never going to achieve significant changes to our government if you're not capable of building a consensus across the ideological divide. If your response to that is that the other side isn't capable of that, then what you're really saying is that you're not even willing to try. So then what's the point of any of this? Hard-core leftists who are determined to fight it out with their ideological opponents are a crucial cog in the machine that the 1% uses to maintain the status quo. You're so distracted by rooting for your own team that you're not even considering the idea of forming a consensus among the 99% for improving our country for everybody. You're so preoccupied with fighting conservatives that you forgot that your fight isn't with conservatives, it's against the 1% ruling class. Every time you imagine conservatives as your enemies, aligned with the 1%, you're failing to do what needs to be done to significantly improve our country. Was OWS formed in order to campaign for Democrats? I think not.

[+] -4 points by VQkag4 (-30) 11 years ago

Nothing but anti-dem partisan politics!

[-] 3 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 11 years ago

What is it that you're referring to as "anti-dem"? All three of you are so confused that you're not even having a coherent conversation. You somehow think that I somehow attacked Democrats? By talking about the need for us to seek common ground?

[-] 1 points by yobstreet (-575) 11 years ago

Really bizarre people, wouldn't you say? The poor they profess to defend are very, very, conservative. In fact, "poor" is the very reason they are conservative. And whenever I encounter such philosophical inconsistency, I look for the underlying self-interest that attempts to direct the conversation.


[-] -2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 11 years ago

Thanks for another embarrasing post dude.

My brother called me yesterday, wondering how this idiotic shit is news? With everything else that is going on.

I told him the people love it. They gobble it up.

dont ya?

[-] -3 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 11 years ago

Kind of ironic that the grandson of the big 'loser' Jimmy Carter leaked the video that will probably sink the Romney campaign.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 11 years ago

Pres Carter is a better man than Reagan & the 2 Bushes combined.

[-] 0 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 11 years ago

I was implying that Carter and his family are not really 'new' democrats. His grandson points out that he was not paid to do this. He's doesn't seem to be a party insider. Since this whole thing is good news to me I'm not here to get snarky with dems. Republicans are a different story. They have noone to blame but themselves for this. This department store mannequin Romney was the best they could do? Wow.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 11 years ago

The repubs are certainly struggling with Romney but You did say "loser" Carter so I had to respond.

Not because of partisanship but because Pres Carter is more of a winner than all repubs Pres since.


[+] -4 points by alva (-442) 11 years ago

carter? of the 16% interest rate? ( try buying a car or house with that rate)carter of the you can buy gasoline very other day depending on the last number of your license plate? carter of the americans being held hostage for 444 days?

[-] 4 points by Buttercup (1067) 11 years ago

You are absurdly stupid.

Inflation started in 1965 and accelerated into the 70's due to the cost of the Vietnam War. And it was axasperated by Nixon's wage and price controls. It had nothing to do with Pres. Carter.

Pres. Carter appointed Paul Volcker. Who put the country into an intentional recession to combat the inflation. Paul Volcker ended the stagflation. Pres. Carter bravely did this knowing full well that it might take years to take hold.

Inflation started coming down when Reagan took office. Volcker flooded the market with money. And oil prices also started coming down. This is what got the economy going. Monetary policy and the drop in oil prices. Which continued dropping through most of Reagan's two terms. Reagan had little to do with the economy improving. Pres. Carter, Paul Volcker and reduced oil prices did it. Reagan just benefitted it.

[-] -1 points by alva (-442) 11 years ago

you dear are the stupid one. carter did such a great job as president that he was not re-elected.

[-] 3 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 11 years ago

lol , sadly

[-] -1 points by alva (-442) 11 years ago

no, gladly.

[-] 3 points by Buttercup (1067) 11 years ago

You're a complete dumbshit. I just explained why he was not re-elected! He knew that Volcker was going to put the country into an intentional recesssion. He did the right thing for the country at great political cost to himself. You are hopelessly stupid.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 11 years ago

Didn't the republican oil whores create all those debacles with their corrupt friends in the oil industry-middle east?

[-] -3 points by alva (-442) 11 years ago

i am are talking about carter , try to stay on subject

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 11 years ago

Me too. Didn't Reagan make a deal with the Ayotollah to hold the hostages until after the election.?

And didn't the repubs manipulate the price of oil (Like always) to hurt Carters chance at re election.?

[-] 0 points by podman73 (-652) 11 years ago

How could regan make a deal before he was in office? There was. I way to foretell he would win, so I doubt anyone would of made a deal under those circumstances

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 11 years ago

And yet they did! Even though the great Podboy doubts it. Imagine that.

[-] 0 points by podman73 (-652) 11 years ago

Heaven forbid anyone question the things that come out of your mouth..... Imagine that!!

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 11 years ago

"heaven"? I'm atheist. We disagree that's all.

[-] 1 points by GNAT (150) 11 years ago

lol. Woman 30-45. And you aren't atheist, you're manipulative. :D

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 11 years ago

insults? from outta nowhere. you wanna offer some evidence of my alleged manipulation? How? Why?

If you wanna offer your own personal info, andexplain why my personal info is important to you I might give you some of my personal info.

[-] 0 points by podman73 (-652) 11 years ago

Well insert what you think fits there :)

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 11 years ago

Question me at will. I welcome all honest, civil, & respectful debate. As long as I'm allowed to disagree.

[-] 1 points by podman73 (-652) 11 years ago

I could not of said I better myself

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 11 years ago

I'm sure you could "HAVE". ;)

[-] 1 points by podman73 (-652) 11 years ago

Lol * bows humbly

[-] -2 points by alva (-442) 11 years ago

did he? still holding the party line?

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 11 years ago

You mean YOU are holding the repub party line perhaps.