Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: WHO is the worst corporate stooge of them all? YOU decide.

Posted 10 years ago on Jan. 8, 2012, 11:41 p.m. EST by TIOUAISE (2526)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Since Mitt Romney's recent surge in the polls, George W. and Barack H. have been seen anxiously pacing up and down and obsessively interrogating their huge, ornate presidential mirrors:

"Mirror, mirror on the wall, please tell me truly WHO is the worst corporate stooge of them all?"

And to their horror, they see in their shadow Mitt Romney with that wide, stupid I-just-sold-you-a-used-car-and-it's-a-lemon grin : "Corporations are people too!!!"

Well, how do members of this forum feel? Please vote for YOUR worst CORPORATOPHILE.

a - George W.

b - Barack H.

c - Mitt R.

d - All Three Stooges

e - other

33 Comments

33 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 7 points by toukarin (488) 10 years ago

Ronald Reagan

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 10 years ago

yet under reaganomics we experienced the wealthiest economic boom in all history. funny that people would forget that fact.

[-] 1 points by XaiverBuchsIV (508) 10 years ago

RayGun's unrestrained spending tripled the national debt. Massive deficit spending artificially boosted GDP. He also raised taxes 11 times.

And to think we had almost paid off the debt from the Great Depression and WWII (120% of GDP in 1945). RayGun was the kiss of death, and it was under his watch that the current corrupt system began to flourish.

[-] 1 points by lgarz (287) from New York, NY 10 years ago

Excuse me??? People forget that fact because it never happened! It has got to be the biggest LIE ever told! Pure revisionist history! Reaganomics didn't cause anything like a boom in America!

Reaganomics in fact caused the Stock Market to crash, (Biggest drop in history!) which resulted in a recession, (Highest unemployment rate since the depression) that made him enact the biggest tax hike on the middle class in history. (He raised Taxes 11 times!)

What he did do, with the help of Newt Gingrich, was ignite the Class Warfare that made the Rich Richer, The Poor Poorer, and killed the American dream for millions of people! They didn't call it Voodoo Economics for nothing!

And, the Voodoo is that he got reelected with that kind of record, and that people like you think there was a boom of some kind because of his policies! He was and still is a disaster! Why do you think people are protesting in the street? Reaganomics!

For Pete's sake read a book that wasn't written by a Conservative!!

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 10 years ago

A president is rarely responsible for a stock market crash, more likely it was caused by things being over inflated. I remember reagan was for small government. and its no cooincidence that after he left office, (which is when the effects of a president are really felt down the road, we experienced the biggest economic boom ever. Heres an excerpt about him As president, Reagan implemented sweeping new political and economic initiatives. His supply-side economic policies, dubbed "Reaganomics", advocated reducing tax rates to spur economic growth, controlling the money supply to reduce inflation, deregulation of the economy, and reducing government spending.

[-] 1 points by lgarz (287) from New York, NY 10 years ago

A president is rarely responsible for a stock market crash??? Really! So, in your book Cooledge wasn't responsible for the 1920 Crash??? Bush didn't cause the recent Crash??? Are you serious! What book did you read that in???

There was no Economic Boom after Reagan!!! NONE! Bush followed Reagan and there was another recession! Remember "It's the Economy stupid!" That won Clinton the White House! The Biggest sustained Economic Boom after Reagan came when Clinton trashed his Voodoo Economics, and raised taxes!

Repeating a lie won't make it true no matter how hard you try! Deregulating, and reducing Government spending have Never, I repeat Never resulted in an Economic Boom! What it has resulted in, is economic recessions, high unemployment, and deficits as far as the eye can see, (Sorta like whats happening now) and that's a fact!!

Alleging that Reaganomics spurred economic growth is pure revisionist history, and Republican Bulldinkyof the worst kind! Like I said, read a book that wasn't written by a conservative for once in your life!

[-] 1 points by toukarin (488) 10 years ago

Which set us up for the mess we are in right now...

[-] 1 points by alexrai (851) 10 years ago

Uggh. You can almost forgive him for being a clueless movie star with terrible (but slick) economic advisers... but not quite.

[-] 6 points by Spade2 (478) 10 years ago

Ronald Reagan

[-] 8 points by nucleus (3291) 10 years ago

The Patron Saint for all who've followed, including CLINTON, who is responsible for:

NAFTA

welfare "reform"

FCC deregulation and consolidation of media

repeal of Glass-Steagal Act

[Removed]

[-] 3 points by GreedKills (1119) 10 years ago

The entire government

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (23620) 10 years ago

Definitely Ronald Reagan. He set the last 30 years in motion.

[-] 1 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 10 years ago

Well, folks, it seems that so far we have a consensus in favor of RONALD REAGAN.

BTW, I imagine everyone on this forum knows by now that Obama just IDOLIZES Reagan...

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23620) 10 years ago

Sadly, yes.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 10 years ago

That's more on the basis of his oratory and ability to persuade. I don't believe he shares too many of Reagan's ideas. As disappointing as Obama has been, for a whole host of reasons, he is not a closet Libertarian.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 10 years ago

I think, I hope, Obama has learned that politics is a contact sport (not for pussies, so time to man the fuck up). I still have hope in Obama, maybe I'm a naive optimist (oh well). I should qualify my use of the term "hope" ... not a religious sort of hope, just a feeling that I wasn't wrong about him (but he was a little naive going into this thing). Now, while I hope he's the guy I thought he was, I also hope he understands that he'll need to get rough and tumble. After kicking Romney in the balls, then kick him in his face a few dozen times (metaphorically speaking of course).

[-] 1 points by lgarz (287) from New York, NY 10 years ago

As an aside, now is not the time to lose Hope, my friend. If there is anyone on this planet that knows that politics is a contact sport in America, it’s the President! He’s a Basketball player from Chicago! That should tell you something about unseen elbows in the low post, and boxing out for rebounds!

The accepted liberal media “Wisdom” is that the President is too naïve and trusting, and that it took him until now to realize that the Republicans will never compromise with him. You should never accept the “Accepted Wisdom” they are always wrong!

You think he was naive, but It wasn’t the President who had to learn that the Republicans were incapable of compromise, it was the electorate that had to learn that. It wasn’t the President who had to learn that the Republican mantra of “Jobs, Jobs, Jobs!”, was a lie it was the people that had to learn that. It wasn’t the President who was naïve enough to believe that the Republicans would put their Country first and help the economy, it was the voters who were naïve to think that. It wasn’t the President who had to understand that the Middle Class was under attack, it was the American people who had to understand that. And now that it seems like the people are getting his message, and supporting him, he is coming out fighting.

The fact is that if there was anyone in Washington who absolutely knew what he faced coming into office, it was President Obama. He was a Senator for Pete’s sakes, and he wasn’t sitting on the back bench sucking his thumb while he was there either! He was studying how the Senate worked, who ran it, and most importantly for a community activist, how to count votes.

So, while the accepted wisdom of the “L:iberal Media” was crowing about the democratic 60 vote super majority, the reality was that the President knew that with democrats like Blanche Lincoln, Tail Gunner Jo Lieberman, Mary Landrieu, and Ben Nelson on his side he could only reasonably count on 53 votes. It is a tribute to his political talents that the President was able to pass anything at all.

The reality is that for the last few years the President has been “Rope-A-Doping” the Republicans in Congress! By appearing to compromise, he has been slowly cutting off the political ring, and backing them into a corner, while delivering heavy body blows to them everyday with his jobs plan. Now, he’s going to the head. Remember the Christmas Tax Fight. Obama gave them a Right Jab, and a straight Left Hand to the jaw, and: “Down went Boehner!” “Down went Cantor!” Down went McConnell!” and he neatly won that fight! Do you think that happened by accident??? It took him over a year, but his unrelenting body attack set them up for that KO.

Don’t you remember how easily President Obama “Smacked Down” Romney’s appeasement lie, and how he neatly sliced & diced Trump over the Birther issue? He knows how to fight without getting down and dirty in the gutter. Why kick them in the “Nuts,” when a good right hook will knock them out! At some point in time, (perhaps after the election) you will come to the sudden realization that President Obama is a consummate politician of the first order, who knows exactly what he’s doing.

Keep Your Hope Alive!

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23620) 10 years ago

I know what you mean. He uses Reagan as a way to present himself as a moderate, but it is very unappealing, to me, anyway.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 10 years ago

I agree. It is part of his "uniting" strategy (or actual belief) of transcending party divisions. (And. unbelievably, Reagan remains the most popular president of this generation according to all polls. He may be trying to rub some of that onto himself.)

For me, and many here, it is like embracing evil. What Obama hasn't understood until perhaps recently, is that if you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23620) 10 years ago

Well said.

[-] 1 points by JackHall (413) 10 years ago

The Republican candidate has always been for corporations.

Have the Republicans ever fixed anything (except elections)? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jocRd-aajW0 [right click]

We had an industrialized economy in the United States until private enterprise outsourced our major manufacturing with the US Chamber of Commerce and Republican Party's blessings.

Mitt Romney on Outsourcing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gym_4-o60LY [right click]

Republicans and Unemployment

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsipmvkLhc [right click]

Rachel Maddow – Republican Party promotes outsourcing jobs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xB0G16VswG8&NR=1&feature=endscreen [right click]

The 3 Stooges who broke our economy are proof the Republicans should get out of government and politics.

The Republicans didn’t see a problem with the Gramm Leach Bliley law when it was written. Most Democrats didn’t either. Now Republicans aren’t doing anything to repair the damage and prevent recurrences. Democrats aren’t doing enough.

Byron Dorgan (D) N.D. v Gramm (R) Leach (R) Bliley (R) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvnO_SH-4WU&list=PL399213F28C3CC71A&feature=plpp_play_all [right click]

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 years ago

Ronald (foot in mouth) Reagan!

Can I vote twice?

'cause I just did......LOL.

Reagan is the one who started it in earnest.

[-] 1 points by TheGreedyCapitalist (47) from Long Beach, CA 10 years ago

e - all politicans

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 years ago

Ronald (foot in mouth) Reagan.

[-] 1 points by neveragain (55) 10 years ago

d

d + many not on the list

+

[-] 0 points by FarIeymowat (49) 10 years ago

BHO. He parades as an anti wall street guy, but in reality they are his big supporters and he supports them.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 10 years ago

Corporate Stooge? e. Steve Jobs.

[-] 0 points by blackbloc (-19) 10 years ago

reagan

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by francismjenkins (3713) 10 years ago

It's spelled worse (not worst) ... but anyway, George W. takes the prize.

[-] 2 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 10 years ago

OK, 1 vote for Dubya.

BTW, it IS spelled "worst". I'm a writer, hopefully I know how to spell. :)

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 10 years ago

Well, okay, technically it can be spelled both ways (Google it) .... but (not to get picky, but I'm gonna get picky) worse is less good, while worst is least good. So in the context of a question where more than one choice (e.g. "all three stooges") is an allowable selection, using "worse" would seem more appropriate? Sorry (I shouldn't have mentioned it in the first place, but now I'm forced to redeem myself) :)

[-] 0 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 10 years ago

Well OBVIOUSLY both words exist: "worse" and "worst". But the correct one to use here is "worst" - no question about it. Look it up in a grammar.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 10 years ago

Look it up a grammar what .... LOL