We are the 99%

[California Girl]

Um, let's see. You have been on this board for a few weeks and you think you know me?

You are the same Si modo who is, or at least was, a regular poster at U.S. Politics On Line. Yes?

I am the same poster who was Dragontalk on that forum and TSGracchus before that. (I finally abandoned that forum because I got sick of Matt Lawson's pettiness.) I have known you for a lot longer than a few weeks.

This is not about me.

I think it is, and that you are deceiving yourself about that. You are obsessed with William Ayers, beyond all reason and sense, unless of course there's some private reason that I don't know about and that's none of my business. None of the things you keep saying about him, which are statements of your opinion about things that are public knowledge and generally known, justify your obsession.

Everyone knows that Ayers was a member of the Weatherman group in the late 1960s and early 1970s, that as part of that group he was involved in planting bombs that destroyed property and risked people's lives, and that one of those bombs was involved in an accident that killed several of the Weathermen themselves. This is not new. It is not something you or anyone else needs to point out to us. Nor do you need to point out to us that he was never convicted of any crimes involved in this bombing activity, of which he was certainly guilty, because of malfeasance on the part of the prosecution. Other Weathermen, tried separately, were convicted and sent to prison. Ayers and his wife Bernadine Dohrn were acquitted on a technicality.

All this is true, but so fucking what? It's not in any way relevant to anything under discussion, but all anyone has to do is mention the man's name and you salivate and blow spittle like Pavlov's dog.

This is not rational. It's just plain weird.

No way!!!

TS!! I really admire you and rarely agree with you.

But, Bill Ayers is a terrorist pig and a piece of shit.

It's a fact.

And, he hates the USA.

 

[AVG-JOE]

There's nothing good about moderate socialism. There's nothing "grownup" about making concessions to evil. What this country needs is to defeat socialism, not bargain with it.

That sounds so fascist. "Yer either with me or yer a terrorist!" "Heh heh heh."

Troublemaker.

Actually, it just sounds like someone who prefers a Constitutional Republic. The two do not fit together. We are either a free nation or a nanny state. Not hard. Choose. If the answer is a nanny state, pack up and move... cuz this country isn't suitable.

Who is the judge?

Who gets to say whose point of view is toxic and whose is not?

The whole point to 'America' is a multitude of view points. It's up to her people to decide which direction to take the education of her masses. If some folks want to minimize the nanny-state elements required to keep the streets safe for the tourists, then some folks need to pony up the tax dollars required to educate all those little bastards that keep showing up looking for food and shelter on ways to make a living in a free market place the 21st Century.

Pay for schools or pay for prisons. The bane of freedom.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Actually, it just sounds like someone who prefers a Constitutional Republic. The two do not fit together. We are either a free nation or a nanny state. Not hard. Choose. If the answer is a nanny state, pack up and move... cuz this country isn't suitable.

A Constitutional Republic is based upon the doctrine of the rule of law; all branches of government are subject to the rule of law, as are all state governments and local jurisdictions, and all of its citizens.

Lawmaking entities enact measures designed to reflect the will of the people and to address matters of concern. All laws are presumed to be Constitutional until a court says otherwise*; if a citizen believes a given law violates the Constitution he may file suit in Federal court.

Consequently, in this context, there is no such thing as a ‘Nanny State’; it is a conservative political contrivance used to vilify responsible governance that conservatives perceive to be in conflict with rightist dogma.

If a conservative believes her civil rights are being preempted as a consequence of the ‘Nanny State,’ then she needs to file a complaint in court. Otherwise all current laws, measures, and policies are Constitutional and conform to the Republic’s doctrine of the rule of law.




*see: United States v. Harris, United States v. Morrison

 

[Liability]

Actually, it just sounds like someone who prefers a Constitutional Republic. The two do not fit together. We are either a free nation or a nanny state. Not hard. Choose. If the answer is a nanny state, pack up and move... cuz this country isn't suitable.

A Constitutional Republic is based upon the doctrine of the rule of law; all branches of government are subject to the rule of law, as are all state governments and local jurisdictions, and all of its citizens.

Lawmaking entities enact measures designed to reflect the will of the people and to address matters of concern. All laws are presumed to be Constitutional until a court says otherwise*; if a citizen believes a given law violates the Constitution he may file suit in Federal court.

Consequently, in this context, there is no such thing as a ‘Nanny State’; it is a conservative political contrivance used to vilify responsible governance that conservatives perceive to be in conflict with rightist dogma.

If a conservative believes her civil rights are being preempted as a consequence of the ‘Nanny State,’ then she needs to file a complaint in court. Otherwise all current laws, measures, and policies are Constitutional and conform to the Republic’s doctrine of the rule of law.




*see: United States v. Harris, United States v. Morrison

Facile bullshit.

There is obviously such a thing as a nanny state; and a presumption of Constitutionality in legislation doesn't mean that all legislation IS actually Constitutional.

Such sophistry is pretty transparent and quite pathetic of you Adam Clayton.

By the way, in case you truly are as simplistic as your post suggests, there is yet another way to "test" the Constitutionality of an Act. Disobey it. If and when the gubmint then tries to prosecute you for that alleged transgression, you can seek to defend yourself on Constitutional grounds. It is NOT required that you go to the nanny state judicial system for "mother may I" permission to engage in disobedience.

Snap the fuck out of it.

 

[Mr.Nick]

How deplorable, defecating on cars now plus the stench from the crowd is becoming unbearable. Probably a 99 percent chance you'd catch something if you joined in with this group.

At this point I can see the organizers saying "don't drink the brown water that has our shit in it" and then the idiots will blame Wall Street because they destroyed a clean water source...

They belong in a zoo...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

OWS is finally the movement that will send the Dems to extinction

 

[LoneLaugher]

OoooooKaaaaayyyyy!

 

[The Gadfly]

It'll be the moderates and grown-ups of both ideologies that work things out going forward, into the future.

There's nothing good about moderate socialism. There's nothing "grownup" about making concessions to evil. What this country needs is to defeat socialism, not bargain with it.

That sounds so fascist. "Yer either with me or yer a terrorist!" "Heh heh heh."

Troublemaker.

No; it's called uncompromising defense of this republic. Compromise with the Left simply is not compatible with that. I'm going to be blunt here; I will NEVER compromise with the Left on anything whatsoever, I despise them, and all they stand for, and I wish to see them destroyed. Any communist, or communist fellow traveller, is my enemy. I was trained to hate communists, and if necessary to kill communists. I've fought one war to do that, and I will fight another, if need be. I am not a "troublemaker"; I am your worst nightmare!

 

[Money]

Well, I'm the 86% of the 99% that thinks OWSers should get a job.

 

[flacaltenn]

Very Funny.. Hilarious in fact. The part about "increased wealth in third-world countries arises from wealth produced IN THOSE COUNTRIES and is not a transfer".. You get the irony of that statement considering the 1% implied topic of this thread? How come that works that way for GLOBAL redistribution and not DOMESTIC redistribution?

OF COURSE there is a transfer of wealth across nations right now.. It's f'in undeniable. Ever hear of "The World is Flat?"? Ever seen a protest about US JOBS going offshore? Ever hear of "competing with slave wage labor" in Thailand?

I just want to point out that you've taken a lot of bandwidth here to say very little. About the only sentence you've got here with cognitive content is the last sentence. So I'll address the subject of outsourcing, whose effect is not well understood on either the left or the right.

Outsourcing is part of the reason why we have lost a lot of manufacturing jobs, but not the whole reason (automation is at least as important). However, loss of manufacturing jobs is not the reason unemployment is so high, nor the reason why real wages have stagnated over the last thirty years.

Before the Great Recession and the start of the Second Depression (as it will be called in the future), jobs lost to outsourcing were quickly replaced by expanded employment in the service industries. Now, most of these service jobs paid less, on the average, than the manufacturing jobs that were lost. But is that because of some inherent quality of factory work that requires it to be well-paid, while service work is not? No. It's because the factory jobs were mostly union jobs while the service jobs that have replaced them haven't been. And that, in turn, is due to a shift in government policy on enforcement of labor law that has made it easier for employers to break attempts to form unions. Factory work used to pay shit, too. And there's no inherent reason why service work can't pay well.

There is no worth to the belief that "most factory jobs were union jobs" or that unions as presently contrived will even play a role in a 21st Century American economy. I'm more than willing to SUPPORT labor organization once the organizations realize what century they are in and show a concern for the NEW definition of job, work, and career. I believe MARVELOUS things could be done to make unions relevent again. And automation could be a wonderful boon to union organizations that didn't already equal their members to robots performing a script for the duration of their careers.

But you (and MOST of our economic advisors) are misreading the vast diffs in the service industry that we've let ourselves slip into..

1) Service economies are largely LOCALLY constrained. How many chiropractors and Home Depots do you need in a city of 60,000? There is a saturation effect that constrains local growth -- this DOES NOT apply to manufacturing where you can serve the WORLD from Rochester NY.

2) Because service bizzes are tied to local demographics, you need an amazing amount of capital to replicate and expand them. You have to methodically expand and find "pockets of service" that can be mined for market share. This all has to compete with "brickless" ventures that can deliver the cyber-equivalent of your service. Applies to everything from counseling to vacuum bags. Which makes capital expansion extremely risky and low margin. To double a manufacturing plant, you probably consume less than a 1/10 of the capital resources and compliance costs and taxes, and space.

3) Salaries and opportunities in service bizzes are much more limited in their ceilings and margins. Because they are usually on a small scale of local management and control.

4) Trying to stimulate an entire economy by increasing consumer demand will NOT have the same effect on service bizzes than in the past. In a recession, people tend to allocate for staples and hard goods, and although that increases retail volume, less labor is involved in the retail transaction.

Whole lot of reasons why we may not see the economy improve until capital is directed at innovation and NEW industries that we need to build FIRST before the rest of the world catches up..

As for the cause and effect of govt collusion -- we also continue to disagree. You stated before that it's the govt role to REGULATE the free market. But even in that assertion - you're missing the inherent conflict. This may be news to you -- but the Dept of Agriculture is there to PROMOTE American Agriculture. The entire premise of the Commerce Dept is to EXPORT American products. Just like the role of the FAA is to PROMOTE aviation. In fact, the Dept of Ag spends more on advertising for products than probably Archer Daniels Midland does. So there is an INHERENT conflict in the missions to start with. You CANNOT REGULATE an industry without COLLUDING with that industry.. You end up looking completely foolish if you don't LIVE IN THE SAME PANTS as that industry. Because if you don't know what's in their labs and in their plans, your policy is worthless.

I don't expect the brain-dead masses carrying those signs to have pondered how you're supposed to write an energy policy without talking to and getting PROPRIETARY information from the energy producers. The more minutiae that gets attempted to be manipulated the closer BY DEFINITION that incest has to be.. That's the REALITY of the Cause/Effect of Govt/Corp collusion..

 

[Mr.Nick]

Well, I'm the 86% of the 99% that thinks OWSers should get a job.

Wealthy LW'ers are buying them food...

They will be there until NYC freezes over.

They're fucking retarded and fed by rich leftists...

I'm sure Sean Penn is itching to get back from his "Arab spring thing."

I'm sure he would be willing to buy them 250 pizzas...

I wonder how they distribute the pizzas???? is it mob rule or does Michael Moore make sure every one gets a slice while he gets an entire deep dish pizza? while he gets his feet rubbed by 17-year-old progressive girls?

 

[Money]

Well, I'm the 86% of the 99% that thinks OWSers should get a job.

Wealthy LW'ers are buying them food...

They will be there until NYC freezes over.

They're fucking retarded and fed by rich leftists...

I'm sure Sean Penn is itching to get back from his "Arab spring thing."

I'm sure he would be willing to buy them 250 pizzas...

I wonder how they distribute the pizzas???? is it mob rule or does Michael Moore make sure every one gets a slice while he gets an entire deep dish pizza? while he gets his feet rubbed by 17-year-old progressive girls?

It's whack. Its like a little commie leftwing tea party replica stunt enacted ahead of this election cycle. That's my math on the subject.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Well, I'm the 86% of the 99% that thinks OWSers should get a job.

Wealthy LW'ers are buying them food...

They will be there until NYC freezes over.

They're fucking retarded and fed by rich leftists...

I'm sure Sean Penn is itching to get back from his "Arab spring thing."

I'm sure he would be willing to buy them 250 pizzas...

I wonder how they distribute the pizzas???? is it mob rule or does Michael Moore make sure every one gets a slice while he gets an entire deep dish pizza? while he gets his feet rubbed by 17-year-old progressive girls?

It's whack. Its like a little commie leftwing tea party replica stunt enacted ahead of this election cycle. That's my math on the subject.

The tea parties go home after a few hours these idiots are camping out and are being fed pizza by leftist celebrities...

 

[Mr.Nick]

Funny how hard working TEA Party patriots can buy their own hot dogs and all of a sudden the Koch brothers are funding them but dickheads like Michael Moore come down and buy these bums free pizza and fund their commune and its a grace from God...

Well that's how the MSM treats it...

 

[AVG-JOE]

There's nothing good about moderate socialism. There's nothing "grownup" about making concessions to evil. What this country needs is to defeat socialism, not bargain with it.

That sounds so fascist. "Yer either with me or yer a terrorist!" "Heh heh heh."

Troublemaker.

No; it's called uncompromising defense of this republic. Compromise with the Left simply is not compatible with that. I'm going to be blunt here; I will NEVER compromise with the Left on anything whatsoever, I despise them, and all they stand for, and I wish to see them destroyed. Any communist, or communist fellow traveller, is my enemy. I was trained to hate communists, and if necessary to kill communists. I've fought one war to do that, and I will fight another, if need be. I am not a "troublemaker"; I am your worst nightmare!

You sir, are setting yourself for a frustrating foray into American politics.

Good luck with that!

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

We are the 53%.... you know, the ones who pay for the rest of you who don't.

We Are The 53%

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Actually, it just sounds like someone who prefers a Constitutional Republic. The two do not fit together. We are either a free nation or a nanny state. Not hard. Choose. If the answer is a nanny state, pack up and move... cuz this country isn't suitable.

A Constitutional Republic is based upon the doctrine of the rule of law; all branches of government are subject to the rule of law, as are all state governments and local jurisdictions, and all of its citizens.

Lawmaking entities enact measures designed to reflect the will of the people and to address matters of concern. All laws are presumed to be Constitutional until a court says otherwise*; if a citizen believes a given law violates the Constitution he may file suit in Federal court.

Consequently, in this context, there is no such thing as a ‘Nanny State’; it is a conservative political contrivance used to vilify responsible governance that conservatives perceive to be in conflict with rightist dogma.

If a conservative believes her civil rights are being preempted as a consequence of the ‘Nanny State,’ then she needs to file a complaint in court. Otherwise all current laws, measures, and policies are Constitutional and conform to the Republic’s doctrine of the rule of law.

*see: United States v. Harris, United States v. Morrison

Yeah, but the dynamics changes when it becomes a "multitude of shit points".

 

[Mustang]

OWS is finally the movement that will send the Dems to extinction

You need a reality check.

I hear that people who are driving by honk their horns and wave in support of the protesters. In fact, people who are not actually participating in the protests are bringing food and a warm change of clothes for the protesters.

Average Americans who aren't even there know that they have far more in common with these protesters than they have in common with the people who are condemning them.

 

[Chris]

The one thing that all of us can do is vote with our feet.

I long ago moved my money to a bank that was not involved in the derivatives Ponzi scheme.

 

[EriktheRed]

OWS is finally the movement that will send the Dems to extinction

Hello again, stupid.

I'll bet if we took a look at the Hannity board archives we'd find you saying something similar back in '05 and '06.


But carry on your tin-foil ways, my man. It's entertaining.