Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: U Defective Bro? Here's What a Leading Candidate of the Right Thinks of #OWS

Posted 8 years ago on Oct. 6, 2011, 3:16 p.m. EST by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Basically: #OWS is a buncha defective whiners:

"Don't blame Wall Street, don't blame the big banks, if you don't have a job and you're not rich, blame yourself!" Cain said. "It is not a person's fault because they succeeded, it is a person's fault if they failed. And so this is why I don't understand these demonstrations and what is it that they're looking for." (Source: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/cain-tells-occupy-wall-street-protesters-blame/story?id=14674829)

I'm sorry, but this is a key underlying assumption of what the Tea Party--which is a big fan of Cain--actually believes. (Source: http://www.wbez.org/story/herman-cain-wins-tea-party-straw-poll-illinois-92729)

So, if #OWS wants to parlay with the TP? Fine. Just understand that the Tea Party darlings have beliefs that are completely counter to the core beliefs of #OWS.

So, if you don't have a crappy pizza empire that turned you into a gazillionnaire, why u mad? Bad parenting? No skills? What could it be??

groobiecat www.groobiecat.blogspot.com



Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by HankRearden (476) 8 years ago

Tea Party does NOT back Cain.

Cain worked for the Fed. He's a NWO insider.

You misunderstand the Tea Party the same way Cain misunderstands you. WTF??

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 8 years ago

He won the staw poll in Illinois:

Herman Cain wins Tea Party straw poll in Illinois Rep. Joe Walsh speaks about 'revolution' at Schaumburg event

Did you not see the link?? So, that was, what, a different Tea Party? "WTF?" is right. Read, please:

Presidential candidate Herman Cain came to Illinois this weekend to woo Tea Party activists, and left with a straw poll victory. Cain attended the Midwest Tea Party Convention in northwest suburban Schaumburg.

The Georgia businessman got the crowd at TeaCon 2011 riled up on Saturday afternoon by paraphrasing the Declaration of Independence.

Again, here's the link:


[-] 1 points by HankRearden (476) 8 years ago

So the entire OWS movement is spoiled brats whining for more benefits??


And neither does one press event make the Tea Party.

Damn party tool.

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 8 years ago

Again, you don't get it. I'm quoting Cain. I'm not saying that, Cain is saying that. Wow. Scary.

But hey, I have a question for you:

Name me one democrat--just one--who is a prominent member of the Tea Party. I'm partisan?? Answer the question "buster"...

[-] 1 points by HankRearden (476) 8 years ago

Wow, subtlety zooms right over your head, too.

You see, painting us with Cain, is the same as painting you as an ungrateful whiner like Cain did.

Get it? You're trying to do the same thing to us that Cain did to you.


[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 8 years ago

Subtlety? No. Not typically. But you and your ad hominem attacks? Not going to get you too far when you're trying to "integrate two similar movements." Newsflash: the people of the movement think a lot more like I do than they do like you--but that's just a hunch.

Also, I'm not painting you with Cain--he's a Tea Party favorite. I didn't make that it. It's bloody well true. Actually, the Tea Party painted themselves with Cain--see the link in the original.

And no, I don't "get it." He didn't do anything to me. He just made himself sound like an idiot. And the Tea Party voted for him in a straw poll in Illinois. This isn't a fabrication. It's fact...

[-] 1 points by HankRearden (476) 8 years ago

Well, time is going by. And the owned press is coalescing around the portrait of your movement painted by Cain.

They've used your own tactic against you.

[-] 1 points by HankRearden (476) 8 years ago

OK, as someone who originally lit the fuse on the Tea Party I bow to your superior knowledge of us. You know our goals better than we do.

You idiot.

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 8 years ago

So you lit the fuse and now you're a bunch of self entitled brats that lie to yourselves. You wave flags while you are unpatriotic for wanting America to die. You decry corporate cronyism, while attending corporate-sponsored protest-themed events. You call yourself Hank Rearden even though you are truly the James Taggart's of America.

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 8 years ago

Oh, hey, calm down there tiger. I'm only using publicly available sources. Are you saying that Cain didn't win the Tea Party straw poll in Illinois at TEACON 2011? Is that what you're saying? Did you even know that took place? I guess I'm confused, I thought TEACON 2011 was a Tea Party event. You know, the one with Andrew (not very) Breitbart saying horrendously sexist vile things about people? That event? Not Tea Party? Sorry, my bad, bro.

[Sources: http://www.wbez.org/episode-segments/2011-10-03/tea-party-convention-offers-support-herman-cain-and-revolution-2012-9273]

[Source: http://www.560wind.com/pages/TeaCon_Home]

BTW, if you can't actually engage in the rough and tumble of verbal polemic with civility, logic, and calm; if you think I'm an idiot for using facts and basic logic, wait until you engage w/ people who aren't going to put up with your lack of debating skills. If you can't make it past me with facts, then good luck, man, you're gonna need it.

Last thing: You guys can't get out of your own way:

From twitter feed today:

This was tweeted this am by #OWS: THIS IS NOT OUR SITE AND IT REEKS OF EVIL: www.occupyparty.org --is that not Tea Party? Sure looks like it to me! :D

[-] 1 points by garvan (52) from North Bergen, NJ 8 years ago

Yo, check out Groobiecat's page.

It's democratic-astroturf in support of Obama.

You know, the president who has received the most money from Wall Street ever, and has staffed his cabinet with members of Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan.

The democrats are just as corrupt as the republicans.

Your left is just as corrupt and their right.

Do not trust the words of ANYONE trapped inside the left-vs-right paradigm. Support of the paradigm is support of the status quo.

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 8 years ago

Yes, please do check out my page! I'm not doing google adsense now, but maybe i will if I get enough traffic! I'm a democrat, yes, oh, deep shame! See, i thought you were non-partisan, so, me being a democrat shouldn't matter, right? And um, you do know that there are a few "recovering" democrats in tghe #OWS movement, right? Maybe they have blogs too, but I think you'll be busy checking them all out.

I will let you in on a little secret though: I'm disgusted with the democrats, too, but for different reasons, and I have to say, I now miss Ronald Reagan. Something I never thought I'd say.

Okay, one more secret: I have had discussions with other conservatives on this board, and they've been civil. I actually do want to bridge the divide because, well, we really have to at some point. I agree. But the current Tea Party is so far to the right, that I only see potential in the more moderate elements. No taxes ever? Eliminate food safety inspections? Something's wrong with people who aren't rich? To me, this is nuts.

I liked the tea party when it was against the bailout--but it's taken a hard right turn since then.

[-] 1 points by garvan (52) from North Bergen, NJ 8 years ago

Lol. I'm not non-partisan. I'm anti-partisan, as in I hate both sides.

The only side I'll take is my own.

The bridge needs to be gapped, and the Tea Party has to be taken back from the Republicans by the people that started it.

As per no taxes ever, and eliminating food safety inspections...

Well let's put it this way; As long as we're being taxed for war, why would I want to pay it? The way we're being taxed now allows for the government and corporations to gain all the authority of our money, while passing the responsibility on to us.

That I cannot support.

And as long as Monsanto is in charge of the FDA, can we really trust said food safety inspections? Especially when they're passing laws against being able to have home gardens? I don't think anyone in #OWS supports letting corporations decide what's safe and not-safe to eat.

And let's not forget about the other FDA regulations that basically say that you do not have the authority to decide what enters your body.

[-] 1 points by Flsupport (578) 8 years ago

The other problem is too often you believe the poor are lazy or undermotivated and you concentrate on things like taking money away from the elderly......everyone hates that shit because it lacks compassion and really is not what most of us think this country is about. I am fine being taxed so grandma can get Meals on Wheels and little kids in the Ghetto can get something to eat. I never will have a problem with that. But some people on the right act like starvation will make our country great.

[-] 1 points by Flsupport (578) 8 years ago

So the deal is that nothing allows the government to do one damn thing.....but maybe the government allows corporations to do things because the control point is the other way round.

[-] 1 points by Flsupport (578) 8 years ago

Here is where we have a problem. I get being pissed at the government and taxes going for stuff you didnt intend but here is where you went wrong. You began to assume the statement, "Government is not part of the problem, government IS the problem," was correct. It is only a part of the problem. Who do you think has more to do with the FDA regulations, the government or Monsanto? See, while you protest the government endlessly the guys at Monsanto are laughing their asses off because you arent taking it to THEM. And THAT, my friend, is what this movement is about. D.C. works for the money and the money comes from people like Monsanto so who should we be fighting, the master or the lap dog?

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 8 years ago

Taxes don't just go for war. They go into programs that actually feed people. Foodstamp programs. Programs to help people with their escalating heating bills. Programs that provide healthcare to the indigent.

As for taking the Tea Party back from the republicans, I'll say this one last time:

ALL of the major candidates in the republican field are Tea Party candidates. All of them. Michele Bachmann heads up the TP in the House.

How do you suggest doing that? Cain won the straw poll in Illinois--he's a complete idiot. Take it back from the republicans? LOL. Not. Very. Likely.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 8 years ago

good points. tea party is anti truth and is really the party of the one percenters. and their dupes.

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 8 years ago

Thanks, but the more I do this, the more I realize that that there really are "flavors of tea" and it's kind of hard to know what constitutes the "real" tea party. Cain, Bachmann, Beck--these loons are most definitely in the wing/version of the TP that holds beliefs that are contrary to the goals and beliefs of the #OWS. Some Tea Partiers hate these guys, whereas some are very much on their side (this latter group will be the most different to parlay with).

Cain's latest comments underscore his hatred and misunderstanding of the movement:


But I really am trying to find common ground. I've read and listened, and believe that rather than vilify the "other," I should try to discuss our differences--that's what conflict resolution teaches us. I'd like a different paradigm for describing us as beyond "left and right," although that's going to take some doing, since it's been ingrained in us and in our culture, since the beginning of the republic.

But I'm willing try--because I believe that's what the #OWS wants, and ultimately, it's what our divided, at civil cold war country needs, lest it become a "hot" war...


[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 8 years ago

focus on finding common ground. the tea party per sey was an astro turfed one percenter con scam that duped other Americans into fighting for them. Thats what it IS. To find common ground with those peeps we need to look at the issues they were con scammed over. There is some truth in all of that... it would be very hard to suck all those people in if they had just lies and nonsense... there is truth and lies there and we need to suss out the truths and relate that and those issues to find middle ground.

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 8 years ago

Well, first, I am trying to identify common ground, but I haven't seen this happen on their end, to a large degree Most seem to think that #OWS should be reaching out to them--and frankly, I think it's the other way around.

Second, nothing personal, but really, the Tea Party was republican from the outset. No one was tricked. The people who attended these rallies weren't democrats (by and large). I've studied this. Go and google any tea party rally and look at the pictures from February throughout the spring of 2009--the "birth" of the movement. (April 2009: Hartford http://tinyurl.com/cf2v2f). i do believe it was hijacked to a degree, but people doth protest too much on the co-opting front, I believe (otherwise, why didn't they protest loudly about this?).

Still, I'm willing to try, but all the trolls and haters, and thee are a lot of them, they need to be denounced by more moderate Tea Party people. Just like the insane people carrying "Obama is a Nazi" signs should have been ushered the fuck out of the rallies for that.

I will be doing a comparative analysis in the near future, but it's challenging. In the interim, here are some initial thoughts on the challenges of the two different systems of belief and why the gulf is so wide: http://groobiecat.blogspot.com/2011/10/laissez-unfaire-thoughts-on-national.html

Ultimately it's about national priorities and opportunity costs. Finland is my case study...

[-] 1 points by beyondmoney22 (233) 8 years ago

here is the plan. this is what we have to do to accomplish our goals. pass it on. http://www.radiokazoo.net/OPV/

[-] 1 points by steve005 (256) from Cincinnati, OH 8 years ago

tea party is part of the 99% too is it not?

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 8 years ago

Definitely. But if someone supports a !% candidate like, say, Herman Cain, does that still make them a 1%er? Yes, on paper, but supporting someone like that, who says things like this...

"The bankers and the people on Wall Street didn't write these failed policies of the Obama administration. They didn't spend a trillion dollars that didn't work. The administration and the Democrats spent a trillion dollars. They're now proposing another $450 billion," Cain said. "So it's a distraction. So many people won't focus on the failed policies of this administration."

He contended that those protesting against banks were merely jealous of wealthy Americans, or those with financially lucrative jobs, and lambasted them for playing the "victim card."

"Part of it is jealousy," he said. "I stand by that. And here's why I don't have a lot of patience with that. My parents, they never played the victim card. My parents never said, 'We hope that the rich people lose something so we can get something.' No, my dad's idea was, 'I want to work hard enough so I can buy a Cadillac - not take somebody else's.'

"And this is why I don't have a lot of patience for people who want to protest the success of somebody else." (source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/10/09/ftn/main20117819.shtml)

...is supporting antithetical views to the movement's ideals and mission, in my view. I'm not the gatekeeper or arbiter, but I am trying to sort out the key commonalities and differences between the two sides.

Also, I'm struggling to figure out where the tea party stands, to be honest. There seem to be many flavors of tea: There's the extremist, republican party co-opted end of things, represented by Cain, Bachmann, Cantor, Beck and others. For that wing, there is no compromise (and make no mistake, there will most definitely need to be compromises in outlook and agenda). The more moderate folks tend to be, from what I can tell, supporters of Ron Paul. I'm going to try to sort out the issues on that front as best I can in another post. Then there are people who are sick of the TP altogether, and are looking for something altogether different.

I think I've been conversing with all these flavors of tea on this board. Ultimately, labels need to be eliminated--something i'm guilty of as well, clearly. The work that needs to be done is an honest appraisal of differences that divide us, and commonalities that unite us.

And yes, again, there must be a willingness to compromise. On one TP web site, there is a list of "non-negotiable core beliefs": http://www.teaparty.org/about.php I'm told this is not the official TP web site, but who's to know?

Lastly, the best thing that people who believe they represent the "true" tea party can do is some work: TP folks need to outline where they believe there is common ground with the #OWS movement, and where there are differences. That would show a willingness to work together and would go a long way toward growing beyond "us vs. them" divisions. A few folks have


[-] 1 points by operationpurple (8) 8 years ago

Cain and his 9-9-9 which would make some people's sales taxes 17% or more. Great way to tax the poor and make diapers even more expensive.

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 8 years ago

Great point. Thanks for weighing in...

[-] 1 points by Laurieinny (7) from Saratoga Springs, NY 8 years ago

OWS is making bad choices re: their supporter affiliations..just as the Tea party did. there is a letter to ows re; this very problem. http://www.reddit.com/r/occupywallstreet/comments/kyjo2/an_open_letter_and_warning_from_a_former_tea/ ....they have infiltrated and are looking to bring down the movement. here is a link to the letter..good for all occupiers to read. You must elect a Representative to each city and coordinate with each other and do not accept support from know associates of big gov. examples are moveon.org, Michael Moore, Big union reps. these are all bad! This will certainly discredit, possibly the best Movement yet to date, and destroy all efforts! You have awakened the American people now lets finish it ...the Right way! Bring back our REPUBLIC. Does anyone remember the Pledge of allegiance?

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 8 years ago

Gee, sounds like someone has an agenda. I notice that you didn't include any "right-ist" folks in that list of the "all bad!" And your reveal yourself: "...now lets (sic) finish it...the Right way!" (emphasis added) Keep criticizing the movement; it's really the most effective way to marginalize your voice...

[-] 1 points by Laurieinny (7) from Saratoga Springs, NY 8 years ago

I am a simple (maybe thats obvious) mother in upstate NY that has been supporting the movement since its inception in the only way i can. I have been out in neighborhoods and talking to people to make them aware of what is going on and to get involved... I do not know all of the people that i should have listed as BAD for business groups, sorry for the inconclusive list, i only wish for this to succeed and from where i sit, out here in the general public, talking to people and trying to get them involved, these are the issues brought to my attention and am only trying to help keep the momentum going. You certainly misunderstand my intentions....i am neither left or right i am in the middle where a Republic should be! I have never been very political .. so i do not really know proper terminology to watch out for ...thank you for the lesson. and by "right way" i mean to not to fall into the same sink hole as the tea party..and become discredited to the rest of the Americans that we need to win against big government.

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 8 years ago

Okay, thanks for the clarification--I apologize for pigeonholing you based on my misinterpretation of your words. I'm used to dealing with something very different on this forum. Keep up the work; sounds like you have passion. It's really much more complicated than people think, though: there are some very significant philosophical differences between those who saw the Tea Party co-opted and this new difference, regardless of protestations from all sides. The role of government, and the specifics of what this anger will ultimately translate into is very gray; and much less black and white (although I could be wrong).

[-] 1 points by writtenbyrex (30) from Michigan City, IN 8 years ago

Don't blame yourself, and don't blame Wall Street:



[-] 1 points by marsdefIAnCe (365) 8 years ago

The Tea Party is against the private Federal Reserve. Herman Cain use to work for the private Federal Reserve. Don't give too much credibility to mainstream FR-funded propaganda outlets.

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 8 years ago

Well, all I was saying is that the Tea Party supports republicans. That's all. This is not a lie, and it's not me being co-opted by the MSM, it's me using my brain to observe events and read constantly from many different sources, including the primary sources of the tea party itself.

Here's how the logic works: A) Beck and Bachmann are spokespeople for the Tea Party. Tea Partiers flock to see them speak. B) These people are republicans. C) The Tea Party backs republicans.

Now, this logic doesn't prove that all Tea Partiers like Bachmann and Beck, but I don't see any protests against them at official rallies and events like TEACON, where Cain won the straw poll, and Bachmann came in second.

It's incredible--and frankly, more than a little depressing--that I have to keep explaining this most basic logic. The Tea Party has never endorsed a democrat, has it? No. Why? Because, again, the Tea Party is all about republicans. They say they're not, but that's not supported by the facts. I don't watch Cable news. I read everything through independent sources. These are facts. It's not conjecture.

The last thing? The Tea Party's first rally came a week after a Democrat was elected. WTF were they during the Bush administration?

Yeah. I understand the anger against the fed, but please folks, stop insinuating that I'm controlled by the MSM. I'm controlled by a pretty fucking rational 52 year old brain. And I actually make a strong effort prove it in every comment on this board.

[-] 2 points by marsdefIAnCe (365) 8 years ago

So as someone who supports the Tea Party (anti-Fed) movement and hangs out with a lot of folks who feel the same, here's what I have to report:

(1) Beck is a hired shill, like virtually everyone else on Fox, MSNBC, and other media outlets funded by the private Federal Reserve and the mega-corporations that it keeps afloat.

(2) We like Bachmann's pro-life stance and attitude, but I don't know anyone that thinks she is prepared to govern.

(3) We consider Ron Paul the spokesman, if you can say there is one, for the Tea Party. You won't like this because lots of people on the left agree with so much that he has to say.

(4) Personally, I like Rep. Kucinich, Sen. Sanders, and former Sen. Fiengold. This is a widespread sentiment, as evidenced by Ron Paul recently saying he could see Kucinich in his cabinet. I could go on, but it might make your brain hurt. I know that there are a LOT of things these people say that my Tea Party friends agree with.

(5) Virtually all of us subscribe to minimal foreign intervention, opposite of Bush (and Obama), dislike spending with reckless abandon and no purpose, opposite of Bush (and Obama), etc.

It really isn't productive (or even accurate) to keep desperately grasping at this Democrat-Republican paradigm. There are a few good people in both parties. The majority of both parties simply work together to provide left-right cover for one another while continuing the exact same agendas regardless of who is in power.

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 8 years ago

Interesting, I'll give you that.

1) Beck. Good to hear. He's obviously insane.

2) Bachmann is anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-taxes on corporations, and frankly, anyone who thinks that Hamas has plans to put missiles in Cuba has no remote idea how international strategy works. This view is not be something that will be accepted in #OWS, I'm 99% sure....

3) Ron Paul. Okay, well, the Tea Party needs to sort out what it stands for--seems to be a very splintered movement at this point. This one's representative, this one's not. And yes, his completely laissez faire view of the world won't be accepted by all--returning to the 1900s isn't something that #OWS is all that interested in, I'm guessing. If he were in charge in the late 1930s, we'd probably all be speaking German because he wouldn't have allowed the government to a) get into the war or b) turn the economy into a war-economy, with collective sacrifice and retooling industry to the war machine. Also, if he'd be president during time of DARPA, there would be no Internet, because that's the result of government research.

4) This is really interesting and makes no sense to me: Kucinich, Sanders (my senator), and Feingold. They don't agree with any of your platform at all, as far as I know, with the exception of getting out of the wars. They believe that there is an important role for regulation and social programs and making the tax system fairer. But I'd love to hear more about what the tea party likes about these people--whom I agree with 100%. * Perhaps Feingold and his finance reform views? Everyone likes that--except for pro-corporatists.

5) I understand, but one person's "reckless spending" is another person's critical program. Is FEMA funding for Irene reckless spending? Ron Paul seems to think so. What about heating assistance? Sanders is very much in support of that.

I think that the D / R paradigm is tired and old. But the truth remains--there are deep and challenging philosophical differences between strict constitutionalists who believe in pure market capitalism (which, btw, happens to be pro-corporatist) and progressives.

Doesn't matter what people are called: acknowledging these differences is critical before going forward with any kind of dialogue, I'm sure. But I agree with the majority of your final paragraph. Thanks for the civil discourse.

[-] 1 points by marsdefIAnCe (365) 8 years ago

2) I'm "anti-choice" too because I believe living organisms with human DNA are in fact humans. We can agree to disagree on that. But, yes, Bachmann is clueless and would be just as embarrassing as Obama.

3) It is important to get your mind around the fact that free speech does not exist in the USA, at least if you have a prominent voice. The last two Presidents that attempted to issue lawful currency were assassinated (JFK & Lincoln). The President who presided over the creation of the privately owned Federal Reserve, Wilson, went on to say he had unwittingly betrayed his country. Ron Paul is only allowed to get away with his anti-Fed opinions because he mixes it up with a lot of stuff that is unpalatable to most people. This may seem like a cold comfort, but that is the way it is.

4) Kucinich had the gall to file impeachment charges on Bush. You may or may not be aware that impeachment charges are privileged motions and under the rules of the House his motion should have taken precedence over all other business, a rule which Pelosi gleefully ignored as she is a oligarchy minion and knew that Obama was going to pursue policy that would call for impeachment for very similar reasons. He is on the side of the average worker. He is anti-fed and has said the smartest thing to date about it (taking up my suggestion to nationalize it alongside Tarpley and a rapidly increasing contingent of intellectuals tired of this left-right nonsense), but is erring in wanting to give it over to the Executive branch. Sanders has attacked the notion of abstractly hating the rich on the floor of the Senate, articulately making the case that the millionaires are pretty irrelevant to what ails our nation and correctly pointing towards a handful of families that own the private Federal Reserve as well as other central banks of the world and a couple hundred more families beneath them that serve as henchmen grasping for membership in the club. Feingold is prominently anti-Patriot act, a fierce defender of free speech, has invested much effort in trying to make elections reflect the will of the people, etc. These are all pretty good guys, each with a wide array of smart things to say.

5) Ron Paul is a lot more open to general welfare programs than you might think. He indicated this by voicing support of someone like Kucinich being in his cabinet. Ron Paul is fully aware that the Constitution states that among its purposes is the enhancement of the general welfare of the people. Ron Paul would definitely count himself among strict constitutionalists, which I think is a good thing. The rule of law is a nice thing. It provides provisions for amending if we decide we don't like parts of it. There is no doubt in my mind that he is a strong supporter of the Declaration of Independence too, which declares that it is not only your right but your duty to overthrow the government under certain circumstances so party on in voicing your discontent with whatever provisions you don't like (and I would be interested in you expounding on that). This is all very good.

The Constitution is specifically not an endorsement of pure market capitalism. This is evidenced by the granting of powers such as coining money to the Congress and the authority to regulate interstate commerce. Neither of these are consistent with pure market capitalism.

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 8 years ago

2) Sorry, but conflating Obama with Bachmann? How so? Aside from healthcare, what, exactly has he done that's any different from Bush? Energy? Nope, continues Bush's all nuclear, all the time policy. Even proposed oil drilling off the coast--that's even more conservative than Bush. 2nd Amendment? What has he done on that front? Oh, wait, everyone was hoarding bullets because he was going to take their guns away--did that happen? Did anything (sadly) happen on that front? Just insinuating that Obama is batshit doesn't help--what has he done to piss you guys off so much. I wish I'd seen similar outrage when Bush doubled the national debt and left Obama with $1.3 trillion budget deficit in Fiscal Year 2008. (source: http://tinyurl.com/6fhbrte)

3) "It is important to get your mind around the fact that free speech does not exist in the USA, at least if you have a prominent voice." Yeah, no. The fact that #OWS exists--and that many tea party members carry around signs that show Obama as Hitler (source: http://tinyurl.com/63olcto)--proves that this is a false statement. Click the link, as far as I know, no one in the tea party hustled that guy out of the tea party rally--although they should have...

As for JFK and Lincoln, that seems a bit, er, of a stretch and sounds a bit conspiratorial. But that's your right. I think Paul is allowed to "get away" with his anti-fed opinions, because there is free speech (although it get mangled by the MSM) and there is no pro-Fed conspiracy that eliminates potential enemies. This argument--nothing personal--just sounds crazy. First, government is not that coordinated and structured to carry out a conspiracy. It's not run by political appointees nearly as much as it's run by career federal folks. I've worked in and with the government my whole entire life, and let me tell ya, the government isn't clever enough to engage in big time conspiracies--other than the ones that occur right before our eyes (like, say, getting into a war in Iraq).

4) "Kucinich had the gall to file impeachment charges on Bush." LOL. This is actually funny--no, sorry, it is. Bush's policies in Iraq--and the lies his administration perpetrated to get us into war--are war crimes. They are. He and Cheney and Rumsfeld all ought to be in prison for what they did to this country--and hundreds of thousands in Iraq and Americans who died there. Offenses don't get much more impeachable. They said the war would cost about $2.3 billion--instead of $1 trillion. Where was your outcry?? The republican party tried to impeach Clinton for lying about oral sex! How many people died as a result? Where was your outcry then. This kind of thinking completely derails your argument--and I can tell you that > 99% of the #OWS agrees with me on this one. I take your other points about these guys--and appreciate your effort to be inclusive--but seriously, defending Bush's crimes? I'd avoid that like the plague, but can agree with you on the other points, although I don't think Bernie believes that millionnaires are irrelevant. Since he's my senator, I follow him very closely. He has stated--repeatedly--that the wealthiest among us should help shoulder the burden to help those who are less fortunate: what he has called "shared sacrifice" in no uncertain terms.

You're obviously a thoughtful person, and we can agree to disagree, but pure market capitalism is the reason that the market melted down. Yes, people shouldn't have purchased homes that they couldn't afford--but they shouldn't have been allowed to do so in the first place--and the CDS and mortgage backed securities should not have been allowed either. Seems like we agree on that, as well?

Anyway, this is a good start. I agree that there are many changes that need to be made to the Fed and to the Federal Government as well. These high level issues are a great start--the specifics of how that should be done? A very long discussion, I think.


[-] 1 points by marsdefIAnCe (365) 8 years ago

2) "what, exactly has he done that's any different from Bush?"

EXACTLY! They are on the same team.

"I wish I'd seen similar outrage when Bush doubled the national debt and left Obama with $1.3 trillion budget deficit in Fiscal Year 2008. (source: http://tinyurl.com/6fhbrte)"

I'm really glad you posted this, actually. I don't want to venture too far into bashing Obama because he is part of the elite (both grandparents and all three parents, including step-father are documented CIA, so, again, a lot like the Bush family) but there is some important stuff to note about this chart.

You count his $1 trillion stimulus program as well as TARP program into Bush's last year deficit. TARP was paid back and the stimulus is obviously owned by Obama, so we're really looking at something closer to a $500 billion deficit in Bush's final year in office and $1.5 trillion deficits for all of Obama's tenure. It's a lot closer to reality to say Obama took the deficit from, generously, $11.2 trillion, or, realistically, $10.5 trillion, to $14.7 trillion in 3 years.

This is not intended as any sort of credit to Bush's policies but rather serves to underscore the severity of the crisis we're facing which was intentionally set up and is the fruit of many years of policy through multiple administrations and chairsatans of the Fed. Trying to say Obama's deficits are not that bad by inflating Bush's last year of deficits is partisan gimmickry and #OWS should be tired of that crap.

"Did anything (sadly) happen on that front?"

He did continue a program that started on Bush's watch and was renamed Fast and Furious. Ships arms to domestic and international drug cartels (fact). Designed to discredit supporters of the second amendment (my opinion). So, no, Obama did not and will not make progress on getting guns, but he certainly continued the continuity of agenda program to demonize the second amendment.

3) It is a fact that the last two presidents that tried to issue lawful currency were shot and that Wilson described his acquiescence to the Fed as unwittingly betraying his country. Feel free to draw your own conclusions.

4) You're being too partisan in my opinion. By "having the gall" I meant it as a compliment: speaking truth to power is brave. As for Clinton's impeachment, Gingrich was having affairs at the same time and Clinton knew this. There was never any chance of him being removed from office and not only did Clinton know that but Gingrich and other House Republicans did too. Look past the curtain.

"Yes, people shouldn't have purchased homes that they couldn't afford--but they shouldn't have been allowed to do so in the first place--and the CDS and mortgage backed securities should not have been allowed either. Seems like we agree on that, as well?"


[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 8 years ago

No, sorry, the Fiscal Year budget signed into law by Bush for 2009, began in October 1, 2008. That budget incurred $1.3 trillion in debt. These aren't my figures, they're the US Teasury's figures. TARP wasn't Obama's alone, it was Bush's as well--in fact, that's where it was "developed," in the Bush administration. I do agree that the two are much closer politically; something that the #OWS has responded to. I was stunned just how similar they are; stunned and disappointed.

But I'm not inflating Bush's national debt contributions: the fiscal year operates from Oct. 1 through September 30. That's a fact, it's not crap--I'm not including any program specifics, just the simple fact that the fiscal budget for 2009 can't be "owned" by Obama, because it was passed before he even took office and had been in place for months. That's the point of that chart. I never said that Obama's contribution to the national debt wasn't as bad as Bush's, but in point of fact, at this point, its' not. I'm just pissed that no one said boo during Bush's administration--where were the TP protests then? Ultimately, it doesn't matter, because that's not the point of #OWS.

re: Fast and furious, yes yes, I'm aware of that. Government does stupid shit like this all the time. It happened with "Arms for Hostages" under Reagan too, remember? The government has been doing insanely stupid shit like this forever, including supporting crazy dictators like a guy named Saddam Hussein back when Donald Rumsfeld held a different post. SOS, different day. Nothing new here, folks, move along....

On the 2nd amendment, lol, really? How so. How, specifically, did he demonize the 2nd amendment? You should read what that idiot Wayne LaPierre said recently about this, to wit: Obama's lack of action was a feint, meant to fool people. Aggressively apocryphal and unsubstantiated paranoid nonsense. (source: http://tinyurl.com/3qx6s44)

4) I mistook your meaning, and apologize for that regarding "gall." Traditionally, it's a word pejorative term, not a compliment. As for Clinton, well, a lot of people who were for his impeachment stood still while Bush plundered the treasury to the tune of $2 trillion for two wars and didn't suggest impeachment. Truly amazing.

[-] 1 points by marsdefIAnCe (365) 8 years ago

"No, sorry, the Fiscal Year budget signed into law by Bush for 2009, began in October 1, 2008. That budget incurred $1.3 trillion in debt."

I'm sorry, but how does this contradict anything I said? Of that $1.3 trillion debt in FY2009, $700 billion is part of the TARP program which was paid back. So we're down to $0.6 trillion.

Then we have: "The package (Obama's stimulus) was designed to be spent over ten years. However, to give maximum impact, $720 billion, or 91.5%, was budgeted for the first three fiscal years: $185 billion in FY 2009"

Which gets us down to $0.415 trillion deficit in Bush's final year.

I'm not trying to bash Obama by pointing this out. The reason for pointing it out is that people need to realize that despite over $1 trillion increase in deficit spending in each of Obama's three years, the economy is still in a cluster fuck because the Democrats and Republicans work together.

You have to be an epic fucking retard to not be able to get the economy going with $1 trillion extra per year to throw around. Or simply not interested in helping, which is the case for both Bush and Obama.

But it seems like we're more or less on the same page. Nationalize the fed and use it to implement a hybrid of FDR+Eisenhower programs.

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 8 years ago

I agree that the democrats and republicans can't work together, and yes, it's cluster fucked, but the simple truth is that nothing that the democrats offered was considered--even when they were offered with their own policies! Cantor, Boehner, et al refused to play. Not that it matters now.

I do think that the last paragraph makes the most sense to me: Eisenhower plus FDR, moderated by a completely revised election funding process, elimination of derivatives, etc.


[-] 1 points by GOBAMA (16) 8 years ago

Don't listen to that uncle Tom, he hates hope and change and refuses to spread the wealth.

[-] 1 points by fliffles (1) from Madison, WI 8 years ago

where to begin with the psychological malfunction that is Herman Cain... let me see, i could start with....

  1. since when is being rich what people are really looking for? as far as i can tell, the people protesting in Wall Street are sick of having their basic rights taken away because Wall Street stole the money that should have been available to the PUBLIC. especially since it was promised that it WOULD go back into the public - but shit, dude - we didn't mean the CHINESE public!!

  2. it is a person's fault that they failed and that is why they are not rich and don't have a job... wow, where did this guy buy his psychology degree, eBay? according to him, Jesus Christ, Gandhi, and Mother Teresa - major fail!!!

  3. Cain doesn't understand what protesters want... well, it's hard to make out what people are saying when the corporate gangbang you signed up for has every hole plugged up, Mr. Cain. we get that. we just wish you and Ann Coulter would suck each other's tiny little worms off and shut your yammering holes already.

Barnum and Bailey's doesn't have as many clowns on rotation as the GOP does right now, really. it's over 13 months till the next presidential election, obviously they are scrambling to find anyone that doesn't sound like the idiot they truly are.

[-] 1 points by RantCasey (782) from Saginaw, MI 8 years ago

What an elitest statement??? It's your own fault. Like he has sum rags to riches story??

[-] 1 points by LeanneC (62) from Fremont, CA 8 years ago

Yea, actually he does.

[-] 1 points by RantCasey (782) from Saginaw, MI 8 years ago

Yeah a man who used affirmative action and government assistance thru social programs. In a day where the education system was more adequate telling us how to achieve the american dream. What a jerk. I would like to see him start as a youth now with just a high school diploma in hand??? Cain get a life

[-] 1 points by garvan (52) from North Bergen, NJ 8 years ago

Cain is was a former member of the board of directors of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City in 1992.

Most of the Tea Party wants to End the Fed.

(Though it's pretty easy to paint the tea party as just supporting Republicans)

I think you've gotten the astro-turf neo-cons confused for the legitimate Tea Partiers again.

Just like the real Occupiers are at huge risk of being co-opted by the Democratic establishment.

But hey, keep playing into the left-right paradigm.

Keep trying to divide us into opposing sides when we're after the same goals. It's how the elite keep us in check. Dividing and sub-dividing us into different groups, and then filling in a narrative of hate to turn us against each other.

This revolution is not left v.s. right.

This revolution is corruption v.s. justice.

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 8 years ago

Just like the real Occupiers are at huge risk of being co-opted by the Democratic establishment.

I don’t think that’s the risk. I don’t see any democrats coming here an “wooing” the #OWS. Just people speaking truth to power. I use facts. I use the Interwebs and links to articles. What, exactly, do you guys use? Innuendo and righteous indignation.

But hey, keep playing into the left-right paradigm.

Well, the two movements are very different. The Tea Party—at least one branch—is corporate funded. Can you imagine that happening with #OWS? I can’t…

Keep trying to divide us into opposing sides when we're after the same goals. It's how the elite keep us in check. Dividing and sub-dividing us into different groups, and then filling in a narrative of hate to turn us against each other.

Dude, I’m not trying to divide anyone. I’m trying to tell the truth, and empower people with information and logic. Oh, and BTW, I’m not the elite—I’m one of the 99%. Your logic, even in that statement, is flawed.

This revolution is not left v.s. right.

Well, it would be nice if that were true, but it’s not entirely true. There are no Tea Party darlings of the left, are there? Name one. Just one.

This revolution is corruption v.s. justice.

I agree there. But here's the thing: the Tea Party's interpretation of what that means is very conservative. The interpretation of what that means for many of the #OWS folks is much less conservative. Is there overlap in belief systems? Definitely. But I posted this to point out just how far apart we are. The Tea Party is, today, the far right wing of the republican party. That's a fact. How do I know? Reagan was moderate by comparison. How do I know? Because he believed in taxing the wealthy more than the not-wealthy. And that's a fact. Learn about it here: (Source: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/10/03/333912/reagan-tax-loopholes-crazy/)

[-] 1 points by garvan (52) from North Bergen, NJ 8 years ago

Your problem is that you get the Tea Party confused for Republicans.

Which isn't your fault entirely. The Republicans certainly like to pretend that the Tea Party is theirs. The power of the Mainstream Media and the Republican spin machine is powerful enough spin a legitimate protest to represent their goals. Just the same way as the Democrat's spin machine is attempting to do to this legitimate protest.

You want darlings? As in media darlings? How could they exist when the Tea Party's narrative is controlled by Republican dollars.

Google "Tea Party Democrats" and you'll find a few, though the media in general would rather focus on celebrities and their marriages, drug usage, and new TVs and books than have a real discussion.

Unfortunately, when you keep trying to put this in the spectrum of left-vs-right, you just end up helping the elites over and over again.

The establishment Democrats and Republicans are attempting to co-opt these revolutionary movements so they can spin this as left-vs-right once more.

The more you feed into this, the more you help the status quo.

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 8 years ago

"Which isn't your fault entirely. The Republicans certainly like to pretend that the Tea Party is theirs. The power of the Mainstream Media and the Republican spin machine is powerful enough spin a legitimate protest to represent their goals. Just the same way as the Democrat's spin machine is attempting to do to this legitimate protest."

Yeah. Good point. Where would I get that idea? The spin machine must be it. It couldn't possibly be that Bachmann and Perry and Cain all pander to the Tea Party, and it loves 'em right back. Hey, question: who's the head of the tea party in the House of Representatives? Wait, I know this one, hold on, wait...oh! I know! It's Michele Bachmann!! One of the most far right republicans in the House! So, yeah, the spin machine has me all confused...

As for Tea Party democrats, well, I'll look into it, but really, be honest: the Tea Party is basically a newly retrenched arm of the republican party. In fact, one of the "subdivisions" is supported by corproate donations--right? At least one?

Here's what I'm trying to do: A) use facts to explain that it would be easier to try to pull more centrist people into the #OWS fold, not people who are diametrically opposed to many of the ideals. Example? The Tea Party wants zero regulation. None. Zip. Nada. That's not a core principle of the people gathered in lower Manhattan. They believe--I'm pretty sure about this--that lack of regulation is what led to the meltdown in the first place. And you know what? They're right.

B) What I'd like to see--and I haven't seen it--is someone to actually stop telling me how wrong I am, and start addressing the issues I'm raising. I mean, at least I acknowledge when I think you've made a good point. But man, there's zero freakin' humility among my detractors on this board. And seriously, dude, if you can't do that on this board, how on earth are you going to do that with the people who actually read Howard Zinn--and friggin' believe it, know what I'm sayin'??

[-] 1 points by garvan (52) from North Bergen, NJ 8 years ago

The crowd in lower Manhattan is pretty damn diverse.

If you want to pull "centrists" in, then stop trying to prop up the same left-right paradigm.

There's only two groups of "centrists", the status-quo (which is well represented in both the left and the right), and those that don't fit into either narrative of the left or the right.

Most people in America don't vote BECAUSE they aren't represented by either side.

If you really want to pull those centrists in, there is ONLY one way. To demonstrate the fallacy of the left-right paradigm, and to support that.

As per the Tea Party in the House of Representatives being headed up by corporate shill Bachman?

That's just how powerful the corporations truly are. Employing their political actors to pass the laws, and to set the debate to how they see fit.

Only the blind see United States politics as it currently is as anything other than Political Theater.

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 8 years ago

occupyparty.org -- that's how democratic the TP is. They put up a site stating that they're the 99%. Truly surreal and borg-like. No communication or coordination with the real movement #OWS.

You can't "wish away" the differences between these two movements. The strict constitutionalists are about as far away from the core beliefs as of the #OWS as they could possibly be. The only commonality is a disgust with government and inequality. But the far right isn't actually interested in egalitarianism and the greater good--it's interested in placing the rights of the individual above all others. This is not what #OWS is about, and whether they admit it or not, the #OWS is much more of the "European model" than the right's anti-government at all costs viewpoint.

You want to take back the Tea Party, great. Do it. But until you start admitting that you actually agree with what the #OWS really stands for, how can you possibly start a dialogue with them? There are a lot of specifics underneath the outrage. I suggest you start acknowledging them. I haven't heard a word about how you agree with any the core beliefs of the #OWS--most of whom have been democrats (or at least hold democratic ideals).

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 8 years ago

Cain is was a former member of the board of directors of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City in 1992. Most of the Tea Party wants to End the Fed.

Interesting. So, why who won he win the straw poll in Illinois? John Huntsman? Oh, wait, no, it was Cain. My bad.

(Though it's pretty easy to paint the tea party as just supporting Republicans)

Interesting. So why are all the leading republican candidates and hard right Members of Congress of the Tea Party? Michele Bachmann. Rick Perry. Eric Cantor. How many prominent Democrats are members of the Tea Party?

I think you've gotten the astro-turf neo-cons confused for the legitimate Tea Partiers again.

I think you didn’t read the entire post or the links. Also, see response above. Are you saying the Michele, Perry, Cantor (and heck, he’s not running for office, but let’s include crazy far right, Glenn Beck) are not republicans?

[-] 1 points by garvan (52) from North Bergen, NJ 8 years ago

Thank you for confirming that you're working for the status-quo, and the mainstream media.

"So why are all the leading republican candidates and hard right Members of Congress of the Tea Party? Michele Bachmann. Rick Perry. Eric Cantor."

Looks like Ron Paul is missing from that list of "leading" candidates. Seriously, you speak of a "hard right", but you bring up a bunch of political shills who'd sell out their own mothers for a nickle. The only "right" those politicians adhere to is the right to sell out the American People for their own narcissistic political goals. Just as such great "left"-ists like Obama and Pelosi do.

Am I saying that "Michele, Perry, Cantor" aren't Republicans?

No, they're Republicans alright, ready to co-tow for special interests and sell the public at large. Same as the Democrats.

What I'm saying, is that the REAL Tea Party, the non-astroturfed version of it propagated by the MSM, is in line with the Occupiers.

We need people of principal, and outside of Ron Paul types, and Dennis Kucinich types, who aren't afraid of telling America how it is even if it could hurt them politically. Sadly outside those few, we're not seeing much of either on the Democratic or Republican side that actually addresses any real issues..

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 8 years ago

Thank you for confirming that you're working for the status-quo, and the mainstream media. Using facts makes me a member of the mainstream media? I dont' think so. If anything, it makes me not one. I do analysis and point out contradictions; unlike the MSM.

"...political shills..." Ron Paul is no better than these guys except for the fact that he wants us out of the wars abroad. That is the only thing that stands him apart. Access to affordable healthcare? Let the market decide! Oh, wait, they already do! And oh, wait, it's incredibly expensive. Why? Because that's what corporations do. They charge as much as they can. Always. Forever. And now, healthcare is decreasingly affordable. That's the world Ron Paul inherits. Well, here's a clue: corporations--and please, listen to this--do not have people's best interest at heart. Got that? They just don't. But a completely laissez faire world--the one he and you want--lead to only one possible outcome: corporations will, in fact, govern everything.

Herein lies the irony: #OWS is against corporations. But the core element of the TP and Ron Paul--and the only possible logical conclusion that can be drawn from their platforms--is that in the absence of the government for, say, providing help on healthcare, is that corporations run everything.

No, seriously, this is the crux of the "eliminate all government" argument--it fails, because in the absence of an entity that doesn't have a profit motive, you only have corporate services. Government sucks, yes it does. But it doesn't have a profit motive. Corporations? They suck even worse--especially when it comes to something like healthcare.

[-] 1 points by HankRearden (476) 8 years ago

Your turn will come, buster.

Wait until the press starts defining you, and then idiots come out of the woodwork using that as a launching pad to associate you with someone who directly opposes your goals. It'll come. And you'll deserve it.

Fucking partisan shill.

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 8 years ago

LOL. Man, this is so predictable. When you run out of facts--or are outwitted--you turn violent.

Partisan shill? You haven't undermined my arguments with facts? How does that make me the bad guy? I acknowledge that there are similarities between #OWS and the TP, I do. Just that there are a lot more differences. A lot more. One? Civility. This is a non-violent action, and your words and seething intent reveal you.

Forget facts, you're just a verbal bully--and really, that's what undoes you, not facts.

[-] 1 points by HankRearden (476) 8 years ago

On second thought, maybe you ARE a neocon shill, pretending to be a socialist shill to make the Tea Party look bad.

Nice try.

[-] 1 points by HankRearden (476) 8 years ago

Violence? I do not advocate violence.

Read what I wrote again. You are painting me and a whole lot of others with this bullshit about Cain. We OPPOSE Cain. Because he is a new world order insider, from the Federal Reserve. (Maybe you're in favor of that, I guess.)

What I said was that if this movement goes anywhere, you are going to have a bunch of idiot politicians trying to run out in front of the parade and pretend to lead it. Then the media will attempt to define you according to that, and I can guarantee you the media will not tell the truth.

Then a bunch of idiots are going to come out and use that as a launching pad to try to promote their own agenda.

I called you a partisan shill because you just can't get that, and insist on repeating the same bullshit. You had the facts. You ignored them. I expect the same thing from you as I do from the media. You will ignore the points in this post, too.

Fuckin partisan shill. EVERY bit as bad as a neocon shill. Sheesh.

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 8 years ago

1) Keep yelling, man. Just keep doing it. You don't even know what violence is (hint: it can be verbal and threatening)--just think because you don't intend it doesn't mean it's not happening.

2) You don't understand basic discourse, you just tear down someone who disagrees with you and call them names. I understand you're upset, but you need to learn some civility. I haven't attacked you or suggested that "You'll get yours."

As for reading what you wrote, I did--did you? You wrote that I'll get what's coming to me. You wrote that I'm a fucking partisan shill. That is not intelligent civil discourse and polemic--which, sorry dude, you totally do not understand.

3) I do my own homework. I read voraciously. And I come to my own conclusions. I always have--from the time I was in graduate school to the time I worked on Capitol Hill to the time I worked in the federal government to the time I started my own successful business. So, not that it's your business, but I don't repeat MSM nonsense, and if you look at my blog, you'll see that's the case.

4) You're one of the only people on this board who hasn't provided specific counter arguments, only angry yelling. I have actually been carrying on intelligent conversations with some people. Why is it so hard to do that with you? Must be because of something wrong with me and hey--there's some irony--that's what Herman Cain thinks! :D I put my sources of information out there--have you? No? That YU mad bro?

Here's a tip: If you want to sway someone's opinion, don't yell at them, and don't call them names. We, as big kids, use our ideas to persuade, not angry, unsubstantiated words, okay?

[-] 1 points by HankRearden (476) 8 years ago

I guess I made you angry, and so you ignored the points I raised again.

When I said you'll get what you are dishing out, I was speaking of what is already happening. The press is defining you .

Sorry about the tone.

Congratulations on being an unwashed, ungrateful anti-capitalist wannabe hippy. Even though you're not. That's what I meant. Too late now anyway.

[-] 1 points by BrainC (400) from Austin, TX 8 years ago

Let me ask you this. Do you have the skills to run a pizza empire? If so, why have you not done so?

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 8 years ago

You don't get the point. Read the quote. He thinks that #OWS protesters are somehow defective or lazy if they're not rich. That's the point. The pizza remark was a snarky joke. FFS.

[-] 1 points by BrainC (400) from Austin, TX 8 years ago

But Cain did not say they are faulty, or lazy.

But, how is the greedy corporations keeping you from being wealthy? Because they will not give you a job? Help me understand.

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 8 years ago

"But Cain did not say they are faulty, or lazy."

Dude, again, read it: "It is not a person's fault because they succeeded, it is a person's fault if they failed." He even used the word "fault" FFS. And instead of acknowledging the range or reasons why on earth people are angry, he just assigns blame to him. He's incredibly stupid.

Cain's assumption is that if you're not rich, there's something wrong with you. It couldn't possibly be the economy, or say, usurious student loans, or the fact that companies that are sitting on trillions of dollars aren't hiring, no, he specifically said it's the fault of the unemployed. And he really doesn't get the #OWS movement, because he's in the 1% who is completely unaffected by the hosed economy that the 1% are responsible for creating in the first place.

I'm not saying that the wealthy corporations are keeping me from being rich, in fact, I make a good living, to be honest. I'm saying that in Cain's world, if you're not rich, there must be something wrong with you. He's not getting the point of this movement, even remotely--it's not about getting rich, it's about the injustice that corporations get bailed out and have lower taxes, while the other 99% gets screwed.

[-] 1 points by BrainC (400) from Austin, TX 8 years ago

I guess if you equate "its your fault" as "you are faulty" then your statements are accurate. I personally do not make that connection.

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 8 years ago

Yes, that is, in fact, what it means:

noun 1. a defect or imperfection; flaw; failing: a fault in the brakes; a fault in one's character.

— adj , faultier , faultiest

  1. defective or imperfect

They're the same concept--one's a noun, one's an adjective. But really, that's not the point. The point is he is favored by the Tea Party (it's not that moderate crazy Huntsman!), and he doesn't get the #OWS, ipso facto, the Tea Party doesn't get the #OWS.

Nothing personal, but man, this is exhausting. Look, I want to have a civil dialogue with the right, but as you might see by other posters, I get attacked from all sides. What, exactly, do you think's going to happen when it's more than just me and "powertothepeople" playing verbal wack-a-mole. Do you really think there are more right-leaning #OWS folks out there? They have far more facts and are much more articulate than I.

This is a very long road, if you guys want to try--but a more moderate stance, and a true understanding (and point by point refutation, with links) of our arguments would help. Oh, and no name calling--that's just verbal violence and isn't terribly clever...

[-] 1 points by BrainC (400) from Austin, TX 8 years ago

I believe that the one at fault is the American Dream. It is an illusion, and always has been. The American Dream tells you that if you graduate high school and go to a good university and get a good degree and you can party like a rock star and retire at 65 with a good living.

Who has told us this? Our teachers, who were struggling to make a living. Our parents, that were middle class, at best. They all followed the same advice, and look where it got them.

[-] 1 points by BrainC (400) from Austin, TX 8 years ago

I do realize this is off topic of your original post about Cain...

[-] 1 points by servicesRendered (37) 8 years ago

Cain is likely reacting to the list of "demands" that has now been caveated as not official. But reading that list, you can hardly blame Cain for thinking of the OWS as a bunch of whiners.

Thanks to powertothepeople for pointing out the caveat that got added....

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 8 years ago

First, no, he should--or his people should--do their homework. Don't blame his lack of knowledge for his statements--but to be honest, there's never any accountability on the far right. i've never, not once, heard a rightist say "Yeah, you know, we totally fucked up by letting Wall Street crater the economy! Our bad!" Own that.

Second, it doesn't matter if he understood it or not--even thinking that #OWS is a bunch of whiners shows a complete lack of understanding of what's happening. If you're not pissed off at the inequality of the situation on its face--and don't take the time to learn about this movement, like Cain apparently didn't do--then you don't get it. It sounds like you do, but people who support Cain, most definitely do not.

Third, Cain made it crystal clear: If you're not rich, that's your fault and there must be something wrong with you. That's the underlying assumption of the co-opted Tea Party. America is in a looooong recession caused, mainly, by very wealthy people who were completely unregulated (think AIG and Credit Default Swaps) and through increasingly worthless mortgage backed securities.

Fourth, and this is also off-topic: I've never seen the #OWS indicate that it thinks all government should go away. Yes, they think government should be smaller, but they dont' think it should be removed from our lives, the way that the neo-right does. That's foolhardy and dangerous, because there are a LOT of programs that people depend on. If you or someone you know has a parent or a grandparent over 65, you have someone who depends in one way or another on the a fully functioning federal government. That's not in dispute...

[-] 1 points by servicesRendered (37) 8 years ago

Re First and Second: I am not a Cain supporter, and I myself have been doing my homework trying to find out exactly what the purpose of all this is -so I do have some empathy for him trying to figure it out by reading this site and listening to the media.

Re Third: Can we agree on a different wording of a similar sentiment? How about: if you aren't rich and you want to be, then don't blame someone else. I still believe the American Dream is still alive even if we have taken a setback. We will learn the lesson and move forward.

Re Fourth: I agree that we need government regulations, but I think the role of government is to enforce self responsibility and support capitalism so that we all can prosper as much as we like. I believe in a very small safety net with very few entitlements because as a first principle I think that an very real but unintended side effect of entitlements is that they entitle the government to restrict individual liberty.

New Point: I think Occupy Wall Street should be about getting back to pure capitalism... If you are interested, see my recent post on how Market Speculation has corrupted capitalism:


Final new point related to the above: To be honest, all of us who participated in the 401K and Housing bubble have to take some self responsibility.

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 8 years ago

First and second, yeah, I never suggested anyone on this board was a Cain supporter. What I did do, of course, was hit a hornet's nest by stating the obvious: TEACON elected Cain in a straw poll by a landslide, and therefore, the Tea Party supports Cain. And if Cain is against #OWS, then the people who elected him in the straw poll elected a guy who's against the #OWS. That's a fair thing to do, and it's logical. (Of course, what I'm leaving out is that not everyone voted in that poll...) :D My main point is that the Tea Party is really a right wing arm of the republican party, and that's true. Sorry, but it is. When Ronald Reagan is considered a moderate for his stand on taxation, man, something's gravely wrong.

Third, I agree. Dude, I'm closer to the 1% than I am to the 99%, in terms of wealth. I do well. I don't think that's what this is about, people being wealthy (although Cain made it about that). The point is that 1% of the people (the super wealthy) get away with paying lower taxes and get bailed out when the completely fuck up the economy--and they have a greater voice in the political system because they're rich (as do the "human corporations" as Romney referred to them).

Fourth, personal responsibility is, yes, missing in much of our society, but that's often a euphemism aimed at poor and minorities. Personal responsibility should be required of the people who screwed up the economy--knowingly. But your point--entitlements lead to restrictions on individual liberty? No, I can't agree with that. Why? Because soooo many countries support their populations. They don't call them entitlements--that's an American construct. Look at Finland. They give every, single, person a home there. Anyone who needs one. Are they run by marxists denying freedoms? Um, no. They are however, one of the most educated countries on the planet. I respect your right to your opinions, but conflating social services programs for those who--often through no fault of their own--need support with some mythical restriction of freedom? Some people take advantage of the system, but overall, it can work without being a "nanny state." Provide some specific examples about how it restricts freedom. I agree we need more accountability everywhere, however, including buying homes we can't afford--that's just stupid and contributed to the fiasco.

Re: New Point: No. No. No. Don't you see? The meltdown happened because of pure capitalism!! There were no regulations preventing "zero down mortgages"--that's pure capitalism. There were no regulations to track the "real" value or ensure limits on trades of Credit Default Swaps--that's pure capitalism. Holy Gods, what makes you think corporations have the greater interest at heart? They don't! They're not supposed to! They're interested only--and this is part of corporate law, btw--in profit! This is why our healthcare system and educational loan system is so fucked and why corporations have no business providing these services: it's not intended to be affordable or reasonable, because it's incredibly deregulated and there's an inherent disincentive for corporations that provide these services to provide affordably. Government workers suck sometimes. Corporate workers suck even more--when it comes to human need. I've been both.

[-] 1 points by servicesRendered (37) 8 years ago

Wherever the word entitlement came from, if anyone thinks that they are owed something just for successfully being born, then that is what I mean. Examples of entitlements leading to loss of freedoms: now that we are accepting universal health care, we are seeing soda tax, salt tax, fat tax, etc. Seat belt laws, helmet laws etc, have been in force ever since we expect free emergency room care. I can provide other examples.

The principle of self responsibility unfortunately is kind of like letting natural selection play its role. Harsh, but alas likely necessary.

BTW, this doesn't put me into a full libertarian camp where I don't believe in environmental laws, etc. I don't think I have the right to my pollution spilling out beyond my borders. For example, I appreciate some anti smoking laws because second hand smoke is hard to contain...

[-] 1 points by servicesRendered (37) 8 years ago

Good discussion, and I think we agree in principle on many things (point three being an example), but maybe are getting caught up in some semantics on what constitutes capitalism.

It seems like you I like to start with the dictionary definition:

cap·i·tal·ism   [kap-i-tl-iz-uhm] Show IPA noun

an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

My definition is much like this, but I may have a stricter definition of wealth and money as a symbol of service rendered. Thus, if you can't show some value being produced by the seller, it is not a capitalistic exchange.

All the things you are pointing out, Credit Default Swaps, Zero Down Mortgages, etc, done in the hopes that the market prices are going up (or down as the case may be) are speculation, i.e. gambling, and in my book of dreams, anti-capitalistic.

I have more explanation in this other post, and would be interested in your take: http://occupywallst.org/forum/pure-market-speculation-is-anti-capitalistic-and-s/

Pardon me if you've already read it. If that is the case, I am hoping we can agree that in what I am calling "pure" capitalism, those are not legitimate practices, and I call them Market Speculation, pure greed, love of money for money's sake, etc.

I don't think Market Speculation should be illegal, just that, like gambling, it should be heavily regulated (like with Glass-Stegal) and heavily taxed.

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 8 years ago

Agreed on all fronts--! I'll read this post and comment. This is the level of conversation that needs to take place--because it's going to get a little crazy. Back to discuss the other piece later.


[-] 1 points by servicesRendered (37) 8 years ago

Try definition 2.

responsibility for failure or a wrongful act: It is my fault that we have not finished.

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 8 years ago

Look, it's really not the point: he blames (insert your own adjective) people if they're unemployed or not rich. That's the point. He's not empathetic, doesn't understand the movement, and lives in a bubble. He's not part of the solution, he's more of the same x 10....

[-] 1 points by powertothepeople (1264) 8 years ago

Yea, what if you never wanted to be rich? What if you are a great carpenter, what if you are a great mechanic, what if you love being a receptionist? That means we're defective, faulty, lazy, not entitled to be treated as human, fodder for being exploited by those with more than we have?

[-] 1 points by BrainC (400) from Austin, TX 8 years ago

Those things that you mentioned, a great mechanic, receptionist do not make you faulty or lazy, yet expecting someone to provide for you does. You can be in those professions and make a living.

How are you not being treated as a human? Who is it that you are allowing to take that away from you? Are you saying that someone is forcing you to be treated as less than human?

[-] 1 points by powertothepeople (1264) 8 years ago

Show me where i said someone should provide for me. Show me where "getting money out of politics" or "prosecuting bankers who broke the law" equates to someone providing for me. Show me where stricter regulation on financial transactions or reinstating Glass-Steagall equates to asking someone to take care of me. Even - asking people who derive GREAT benefit from this country to pay more taxes - that is not "asking people to take care of me" either.

As for not being treated as human, remember what I'm responding to. I'm responding to Herman Cain's statement here, that somehow if we aren't rich we are "at fault". That's what he said. We are "at fault" and should "blame ourselves" if we aren't rich.

[-] 1 points by BrainC (400) from Austin, TX 8 years ago

Even - asking people who derive GREAT benefit from this country to pay more taxes - that is not "asking people to take care of me" either

Yes, it is. Saying someone should pay more in taxes is directly equivalent to saying someone should pay more to take care of me. Maybe not YOU specifically, but the "poor". That is who you are speaking for, right? The poor? The middle class? The 99% that are not rich.

[-] 1 points by powertothepeople (1264) 8 years ago

Do you believe tax money only goes to "taking care of the poor"? Do you know that for two years in a row the largest part of the federal budget is spent on the military?

Also, there is a huge Federal deficit right now. Wouldn't paying a little bit more in taxes help with closing that gap? GWB cut taxes for upper income brackets, that cut was supposed to expire but it wasn't allowed to. What would be so terrible about going back to tax rates from 2000?

Also - Paying taxes doesn't equate to "taking care of the poor" (that idea that some rightists hate so much). I have rightwing friends that I debate with all the time and they draw this false equivalency too. I'm gonna post a link to the federal budget pie chart so we can all see what taxes actually pay for.

Ok, here you go.


Biggest 3 slices are 1.) Military 2.) Health (which includes Medicare that people paid into and health care for govt workers and then 3.) Pensions (again, for govt workers, not "the poor).

[-] 1 points by BrainC (400) from Austin, TX 8 years ago

So you are saying that is taxes are increased, then most of that money will go to the military? You mean the military budget will increase as well?

[-] 1 points by powertothepeople (1264) 8 years ago

We are operating on a deficit. We are borrowing money to pay for what you see there in that chart. More revenue would go towards getting us out of the red.

If you want to know if there are plans to increase the military budget you'll have to research that, I'm only showing you what it the budget is now and what the money is being spent on.

[-] 1 points by BrainC (400) from Austin, TX 8 years ago

But wouldn't decreasing the government spending do more than increasing taxes? Why is that not a direction you are interested in heading? It seems everything talked about now is increase spending, increase borrowing.

I say "you" being that the general discussion with people that say raise taxes does not include decreased spending. I do not know what YOU personally believe.

[-] 1 points by powertothepeople (1264) 8 years ago

I have some ideas for decreasing spending. I do think Federal government is too big.

We should end some of our "wars" including the ones we fight at home, ie the drug war. The TSA and so much unecessary "homeland security spending". DHS is giving pd's in tiny towns across the nation sophisticated military equipment to use against - who?

But see - some of the "rich" and the "evil corporations" are exactly who profits from that type of excessive spending. Boeing & General Electric are THE largest government contractors and they benefit from this excessive spending. so they will lobby against any cuts that effect them

[-] 1 points by BrainC (400) from Austin, TX 8 years ago

I agree 100%.

[-] 1 points by servicesRendered (37) 8 years ago

Do you agree with the OWS "demands"? If so, then you are saying someone should provide for you...

[-] 1 points by powertothepeople (1264) 8 years ago

What are the demands? There is no official list of demands at this time. However, the things I just mentioned are some of the "ACTUAL" issues that are being discussed. Repeal GlassSteagall, get money out of politics, prosecute bankers who broke the law. Some "media" people and bloggers have taken stuff that was posted here by individual, anonymous forum posters (who might even be trolls) and have reported that those are somehow OFFICIAL demands of this movement. They aren't.

[-] 1 points by powertothepeople (1264) 8 years ago

The things I mentioned above is what I agree with.

I'm glad the admins put a note on that page you are linking to.

That is ONE GUY'S opinion and who knows how legit he is, I have no idea if he is a troll or not.

[-] 1 points by servicesRendered (37) 8 years ago

Thanks for pointing that caveat out. When I first looked, it was not there.

That said, what I hear Cain saying is that if I am not happy financially, I should not blame someone else. The benefit to me is that if it is my fault, then I can do something about it.

A corollary to what he is saying is that if someone is rich from legitimate enterprise -like making pizza, we should all be happy because they added to the "pie" and will eventually spend their wealth.

Finally, and with respect to taxes, asking the rich to pay a greater percentage of their income than "the 99%" is morally wrong to me because it represents a tyranny of the majority. A flat tax with no loopholes is the only fair approach.

[-] 1 points by msherman (32) from Long Beach, CA 8 years ago

Yes it is our fault.!!... we let the Govt. get too BIG! and Cain get a pay check.. let this mistake never happen again!

[-] 0 points by Jasminethebunny (0) 8 years ago

The rhetoric from the Right is - though coded - basically that what the Federal Government does is take the hard-earned money of White people and give it over to lazy minorities, especially implying Blacks. They use their simplistic talking points to create an alternate perception of the world which divides our country and covers the reality of the power of the wealthiest to influence elections (including the current efforts toward suppression of votes in areas that normally lean Democratic), hire lobbyist, and set the conditions of our country so that it favors them - at our expense and that of the environment. Why people aren't up in arms about the reality of climate change and the way in which people like the Koch brothers perpetuate the lie that any significant number of climate scientists have any doubt about human driven climate change - I do not understand.

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 8 years ago

Yeah, apocryphal nonsense repeated over and over is a tried and true approach to control people, unfortunately. What I'm finding, however, is more than that: 9 of 10 people refuse to address the key issues, or they do so poorly. It's not a debate, it's either a shout down or an ignore off.

I will keep trying, but it's incredibly challenging. Lack of basic tools of civil polemic, lack of knowledge of how the system works, and radical ideals that somehow "all government is evil and all corporations are pure good" have tainted the discussion. Well, that and the smoldering undercurrent of racist. The TP keeps protesting that their movement was hijacked. I think that's bullshit. The Tea Party's earliest rallies were within the months after Obama took office and even then many of its members were calling for his impeachment. Where the hell were they when Bush was destroying the country? Why didn't they call for his impeachment? They weren't co-opted--they were far right from the outset--there's never been a major candidate on the left supported by the Tea Party that I'm aware of. I keep asking them for one, but get no response:


re: climate change, to me, this is a simple case--which the TP is brilliant at, I'm sorry--of cognitive dissonance. The facts are in. Scientists who have no agenda other than to tell the truth are ignored, and the evidence is dismissed as with simplistic talking points, like Rick Perry's "the jury's still out" nonsense. Here's a post I did to make light of it:


I can deconstruct intentions and perceptions all day long, but the one threat to any kind of integration of the "two sides" is the conclusion that, increasingly, I can't escape: the other side wants to "win" at all costs, and will stop at nothing to do so.


[-] 0 points by eric1 (152) from Corona, CA 8 years ago

Don't be surprised if Cain doesn't get the nomination or is on the ticket . . . the plan being to siphon off a large percentage of the black vote from Obama. Another Republican Party/Big Business HACK!!

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 8 years ago

Yeah, possibly. I just think that it's highly unlikely that the rightists will nominate a black man. I mean, why else do everything by kidnap Christie to run? To be honest, I think the reason the Tea Party sprang up in the first place is because Obama--who actually continued republican policies--is black.

If you look at the birth of the Tea Party, they held their first rally a week after he took office in January 2009. That's a fact. It's also a fact that he inherited a doubled national debt from Bush. Where was the tea party under Bush? They only sprang up after --and the month during--Obama's inauguration. Now, maybe that's racist, and maybe it isn't--we all have seen the signs carried at Tea Party rallies depicting him as Hitler etc. (source: http://tinyurl.com/6dt54yd)

[-] 1 points by eric1 (152) from Corona, CA 8 years ago

As a person who is a political junkie, I'll tell you what the deal is with the Tea Party is. First of all, with respect to their springing up immediately after the election tells you one thing first and foremost , and that is that they're a bunch of sore losers. That said, the Tea Party consists for the most part of the far right wing of the Republican Party. Won't find too many moderates in it. A lot of extreme libertarians and religious devotees. No doubt there are a handful of racists among its ranks, but that is not what is driving them. And as per the rightists not nominating a black man, they actually have a better track record I believe with high level black appointments than do previous and maybe even the current Administration. Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice to name but a few.

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 8 years ago

Well stated; although if you take a look at their mission, a lot of it is aimed at people who are low-income and that could well be construed as racist. Also, I argue that they didn't spring up during the Bush administration while he was completely fucking up the country, and I can find no other reason why they would once Obama was elected, other than, well, he's black. In fact, Bush more than doubled the national debt and they were out in the streets before he even put his stamp on fiscal policy. It's especially egregious since he carried on (and still does, IMO) many of Bush's policies and they continue to decry him as a socialist threat. I tried to explain some of that in my blog post:


I do agree that racism isn't the only thing that's driving them, but if they weren't mobilized while Bush completely screwed the country, how can one explain their virulent anger only after Obama, a black man, was elected?

Also, many many of the signs held up at their rallies were seriously racist (see link), and they didn't escort those fuckers from the rallies like they should have, with pepper spay and batons. Arrrrgh.