#OWS Signs

[Old Rocks]

The sign I like sez, "I can't afford my own politicians, so I made this sign".
I always thought that term limits trumped campaign finance reform.
I was wrong. Especially when I found out that freshmen Congressmen are already on the phone shortly after they assume office to drum up funds for their next campaign.
We gotta start somewhere to turn the current plutocratic shitstorm around that no longer remotely resembles representative government.
And, this is a better place then most.
As long as the OWS focuses on Wall St., Congress is safe.
That movement needs to change their acronym and focus to OCC, Occupy Corrupt Congress.
Just this little minor shift in the direction of grievances might make all the difference in the direction of our country.

Actually, need to look in both directions. One has to have the other. The K Street Strategy wedded the GOP to the money of Wall Street. And Democrats have been equally feloneous in being in bed with the lobbyests against the interests of the American Citizen.

But Wall Street were the people that put up the money for the lobbyests to influence Congress to end Glass Steagal and other regulatons that protected us from the kind of economic crisis that we are in at present.

The OWS people are far closer to correct in their blame that the Teabaggers that want to hang this crash around the neck of the consumer and American worker.

 

[Old Rocks]

Indeed.

Of course you are going to only showcase the crazies and the anti-Semites and then claim that it represents everyone at #OWS.

It's your modus operandi.

Did I say that? Hint: No, I didn't.

But I haven't seen much in the way of critical thinking skills from the OWS crowd. Or you, for that matter.

I have not seen much of thinking skills of any kind from you or the other 'Conservatives' on this board.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ultimately, it is your responsibility to determine what you are capable of purchasing. Stop passing responsibility for your decisions off on other people.

If a person lacks enough common sense to know what he can or cannot afford, it's up to the lender to set him straight.

Afterall, it's the lender who is ultimately on the hook for the money.

Not under our system. Banks were told "lend money to people on the margins- they need to get a piece of the American dream- we'll make Freddie and Fanny buy the paper".

The government created the bubble, blamed the bankers, then took credit for "fixing" it. It's criminal.

Bush ties tax relief, home ownership - politics - msnbc.com

In a swing through the Southwest on Friday, the president highlighted three of his economic policies he said can help nearly 400,000 low- or moderate-income families become home buyers.

One of the approaches, the American Dream Down Payment Act, will help low-income Americans afford the down payment and closing costs on their first home. Bush is asking Congress to provide $200 million a year for the program. He also proposes to make zero down-payment loans available to first-time buyers whose mortgages are guaranteed by the Federal Housing Administration.
In addition, Bush is proposing a tax credit to encourage builders to provide 200,000 affordable homes over five years for low-income families.

These and other steps, he said, will push the nation toward his goal of adding 5.5 million new minority home owners by the end of the decade.

But housing advocates say assistance for renters is just as critical a component to addressing the housing needs of families with limited financial resources

 

[Synthaholic]

 

[Synthaholic]

 

[Synthaholic]

 

[Synthaholic]

 

[Synthaholic]

 

[Synthaholic]

 

[Ame®icano]

 

[Synthaholic]

 

[Synthaholic]

 

[Mustang]

It saddens me to say that conservative radio and tv 'personalities' will likely have no problem dissing former soldiers who join the protests, just like they haven't had any problem with belittling and mocking everyone else who's joined the protests.

But, of course, those conservatives are members of the 1%. It's their middle class dittohead fans who suprise me. But then, they've always been easily led, haven't they?

 

[Synthaholic]

It saddens me to say that conservative radio and tv 'personalities' will likely have no problem dissing former soldiers who join the protests, just like they haven't had any problem with belittling and mocking everyone else who's joined the protests.

But, of course, those conservatives are members of the 1%. It's their middle class dittohead fans who suprise me. But then, they've always been easily led, haven't they?

Just like those wingnuts who have no problem booing a gay active duty soldier.

You are only patriotic if you agree with them.

 

[Liability]

It's pretty funny to see the liberals worrying about whether conservatives may disagree with a soldier or not.

Newsflash:

I can respect the hell out of these men and women for their service and I don't hesitate in offering thanks.

But if anyone thinks that this entails some obligation on my part (or anybody's part) to accept the political viewpoints of all such vets, then they seriously have another "think" coming.

 

[The T]

It's pretty funny to see the liberals worrying about whether conservatives may disagree with a soldier or not.

Newsflash:

I can respect the hell out of these men and women for their service and I don't hesitate in offering thanks.

But if anyone thinks that this entails some obligation on my part (or anybody's part) to accept the political viewpoints of all such vets, then they seriously have another "think" coming.

They're dying for the chance to throw the hypocrite card against conservatives...

 

[Contumacious]

It saddens me to say that conservative radio and tv 'personalities' will likely have no problem dissing former soldiers who join the protests, just like they haven't had any problem with belittling and mocking everyone else who's joined the protests.

But, of course, those conservatives are members of the 1%. It's their middle class dittohead fans who suprise me. But then, they've always been easily led, haven't they?

Have you seen those guys DD214?

And even if they truly served, are we required to adopt their political philosophy?

/

 

[Dragon]

I can respect the hell out of these men and women for their service and I don't hesitate in offering thanks.

But if anyone thinks that this entails some obligation on my part (or anybody's part) to accept the political viewpoints of all such vets, then they seriously have another "think" coming.

Sooooo . . .

Does this mean that you will, in the future, not confuse respect for our military personnel with support for whatever war they happen to have been sent to fight?

Because those two things are separable, logically, by the exact same line of reasoning.

 

[Liability]

I can respect the hell out of these men and women for their service and I don't hesitate in offering thanks.

But if anyone thinks that this entails some obligation on my part (or anybody's part) to accept the political viewpoints of all such vets, then they seriously have another "think" coming.

Sooooo . . .

Does this mean that you will, in the future, not confuse respect for our military personnel with support for whatever war they happen to have been sent to fight?

Because those two things are separable, logically, by the exact same line of reasoning.

Soooo, only fubars like YOU and your filthy ilk have confused support for the troops with opposition to the wars (by the pretext that opposing the wars in which they have fought somehow constitutes "support" for them).

I have not engaged in any rhetoric evidencing such "confusion," dopey.

 

[Dragon]

Soooo, only fubars like YOU and your filthy ilk have confused support for the troops with opposition to the wars (by the pretext that opposing the wars in which they have fought somehow constitutes "support" for them).

Oh, nice bit of squirmy twisting there, dude. Careful about your back, though!

You're ignoring a step in the dialog. It goes like this:

War opponent: "Bring the troops home!"

War supporter: "You unpatriotic shit, support our troops!" [Note PRECISELY the implied confusion I was referring to.]

War opponent: "Support our troops! Bring them home!"

You see, that line you're talking about is only brought out in response to, and defense against, the confusion of support for the troops and support for the war on the part of the war supporters.

So once again: will you in the future eschew that argument? Will you never, EVER use the line "support our troops!" to imply that those who don't support the war, don't support the troops?

I think that's a completely reasonable expectation.