Posted by crazystengel on 10/17/2011 2:28:00 PM (view original):
And yet even with professors Mike and tecwrg and swampy educating the WIS masses, a recent Time poll shows 54% of Americans viewing the OWS protesters very or somewhat favorably, compared to just 27% viewing the Tea Party very or somewhat favorably.  It must eat you guys up that dope-smoking ****-the-USA singing police car shitters are so respected.

A recent MikeT polls shows 84% of Americans are too ******* stupid to understand polls.    So take that for what it's worth.

Posted by swamphawk22 on 10/17/2011 2:39:00 AM (view original):
1 Almost all of the "Bailout" money to the banks was repaid. That was not a gift.

2 How are you going to eliminate fundraising from politics?

This whole idea that Politicians are being bought by the rich is a left wing talking point that has no basis in fact. Almost every politician keeps the same views he started with. How could he be bought? What happens is companies look at everyone running and give moeny to the guy that supports their views, just like every person in America.

To claim that money does not influence, and has no basis in fact is purely ridiculous. 

Just look at all of the bribes used to secure votes for Obamacare.

This was all done in plain view, and is exactly what goes on when some companies "donate" funds to politicians. They do so to ensure that a politician votes yeah or nay on a particular bill that impacts their interests. To deny that this happens is being blind at best and outright deceptive at worst.

And the fact that a poll shows 54% support the Occupiers is not very meaningful, especially considering the lack of a concrete ideology of these people. What people identify with is the 99% mantra. I am not one of the top 1% earners, so therefore I must be part of the 99%. 

Kind of the reason I started this thread. I think some of their points are valid, but it is kind of hard to support or denounce a cause that really isn't defined more thoroughly than "Wall Street fvcked all of us."

There certainly are those that acted irresponsibly as can be seen here. 

Part of the anger is due to the fact that in most of these cases the company settled without acknowledging wrongdoing. Then very promptly went right back to work doing the same old sh!t. 

The problem is, of course, not ALL of wall street is guilty or corrupt, and so the generalization of "wall street is bad" is misguided.

Posted by philogenemay on 10/17/2011 2:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 10/17/2011 2:39:00 AM (view original):
1 Almost all of the "Bailout" money to the banks was repaid. That was not a gift.

2 How are you going to eliminate fundraising from politics?

This whole idea that Politicians are being bought by the rich is a left wing talking point that has no basis in fact. Almost every politician keeps the same views he started with. How could he be bought? What happens is companies look at everyone running and give moeny to the guy that supports their views, just like every person in America.

To claim that money does not influence, and has no basis in fact is purely ridiculous. 

Just look at all of the bribes used to secure votes for Obamacare.

This was all done in plain view, and is exactly what goes on when some companies "donate" funds to politicians. They do so to ensure that a politician votes yeah or nay on a particular bill that impacts their interests. To deny that this happens is being blind at best and outright deceptive at worst.

Again this is politics as normal.

I think that neither side of the aisle is "Bought and paid for".

You have to make deals to get things passed. I think you cant claim moral superiority if you pass a bill doing it, but it isnt criminal.

Again you give your money to the people who will support you. Not you offer money if someone will start voting for you.

What I am utterly sick of is the misinformation shoveled out by both sides.

Let's take the MSNBC lean forward crap.

Some are decent and make sense. Chris Matthews regulation spot comes to mind.

But most of them are terribly skewed. 

Rachel Maddow - Govt Leadership  "Not every idea that is good for the country is a profit making idea for some company somewhere. It's never going to be a profitable venture for some company to come up with this idea and build it on spec, that's just not going to happen" 

Actually that bridge she is standing in front of is the Ambassador bridge and was indeed built by a private company.

Ed Schultz - Manufacturing  "All American workers need is for someone to believe in them. We've got to put the same incentives on the table for the manufacturers as we do for wall street barons, then you'll see the economy turn around"

What incentives is he talking about? I might have all the faith in the world for someone, but if I don't have a position open I can't hire you.

Lawrence O'Donnell - Added Value  "With immigration, you can only fear the future if you don't know our past. If you know how this country really was built on immigration, you'll understand that immigration is an added value. It is an invaluable energy infusion into this country it always has been. If we close the door it changes who we are"

Who cares. No one is against immigration. We are against ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. He acts like there is no difference and distorts the debate.

Hannity and most of Fox News, of course is going to spin everything to the right. Here is a particularly shameful example, exposed by Jon Stewart.

Makes me sick of all of them really.

Posted by swamphawk22 on 10/17/2011 3:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by philogenemay on 10/17/2011 2:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 10/17/2011 2:39:00 AM (view original):
1 Almost all of the "Bailout" money to the banks was repaid. That was not a gift.

2 How are you going to eliminate fundraising from politics?

This whole idea that Politicians are being bought by the rich is a left wing talking point that has no basis in fact. Almost every politician keeps the same views he started with. How could he be bought? What happens is companies look at everyone running and give moeny to the guy that supports their views, just like every person in America.

To claim that money does not influence, and has no basis in fact is purely ridiculous. 

Just look at all of the bribes used to secure votes for Obamacare.

This was all done in plain view, and is exactly what goes on when some companies "donate" funds to politicians. They do so to ensure that a politician votes yeah or nay on a particular bill that impacts their interests. To deny that this happens is being blind at best and outright deceptive at worst.

Again this is politics as normal.

I think that neither side of the aisle is "Bought and paid for".

You have to make deals to get things passed. I think you cant claim moral superiority if you pass a bill doing it, but it isnt criminal.

Again you give your money to the people who will support you. Not you offer money if someone will start voting for you.

So on the one hand it has no basis in fact, but on the other hand it is politics as normal.

No one made the claim that one side or the other was bought and paid for.
You denied that money influenced political decisions, which is false, as you just acknowledged by saying politics as normal.

No one claimed politicians paid people to vote for them. LOL. Great rebuttal.

FWIW, the OWS people just want to be part of something.   They're sheep without a leader.   That's why it looks like Woodstock. 

Posted by philogenemay on 10/17/2011 4:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 10/17/2011 3:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by philogenemay on 10/17/2011 2:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 10/17/2011 2:39:00 AM (view original):
1 Almost all of the "Bailout" money to the banks was repaid. That was not a gift.

2 How are you going to eliminate fundraising from politics?

This whole idea that Politicians are being bought by the rich is a left wing talking point that has no basis in fact. Almost every politician keeps the same views he started with. How could he be bought? What happens is companies look at everyone running and give moeny to the guy that supports their views, just like every person in America.

To claim that money does not influence, and has no basis in fact is purely ridiculous. 

Just look at all of the bribes used to secure votes for Obamacare.

This was all done in plain view, and is exactly what goes on when some companies "donate" funds to politicians. They do so to ensure that a politician votes yeah or nay on a particular bill that impacts their interests. To deny that this happens is being blind at best and outright deceptive at worst.

Again this is politics as normal.

I think that neither side of the aisle is "Bought and paid for".

You have to make deals to get things passed. I think you cant claim moral superiority if you pass a bill doing it, but it isnt criminal.

Again you give your money to the people who will support you. Not you offer money if someone will start voting for you.

So on the one hand it has no basis in fact, but on the other hand it is politics as normal.

No one made the claim that one side or the other was bought and paid for.
You denied that money influenced political decisions, which is false, as you just acknowledged by saying politics as normal.

No one claimed politicians paid people to vote for them. LOL. Great rebuttal.

Money makes you win elections. I dont believe that people are changing their values for money, If you pump money into an election your guy will win. You dont own him and he should vote for what he beleives.

Getting a deal for your state is not the same as a bribe. Getting deals for your state is the job of a Congressman.

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/17/2011 5:27:00 PM (view original):
FWIW, the OWS people just want to be part of something.   They're sheep without a leader.   That's why it looks like Woodstock. 

I'll be impressed if the corpse of Jimi Hendrix shows up to play the Star Spangled Banner at 6am one morning.  Though the douchebags in the park will change the lyrics to "**** the USA!"

If you didn't think that Obamacare was a good idea, but after you were promised something for your state you voted for it, then you let money change your values.

Also you were "owned" for that vote.

I don't know how much more clear that could be. 

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/17/2011 7:59:00 AM (view original):
Bailing out the banks was a necessity.   Let them go under and there's a revolution.   As for how the money was dispersed, the government should play a major role in any bailout situation.    Not sure that's better but since we can't fire bank management, we can elect new politicians.  So the people have a say.

As for the political process, eliminate consecutive terms.    Out go the career politicians pandering for money and votes.

But, back on point, "Economic Justice" is a nice way to say "socialism".   Take from person A and give to person B regardless of merit.

How about also lowering their pay. That would also deincentivize the fight to hold on to power.

Originally the idea was to "serve" your state or country. Shouldn't need a six figure salary to serve.

Posted by swamphawk22 on 10/17/2011 6:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by philogenemay on 10/17/2011 4:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 10/17/2011 3:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by philogenemay on 10/17/2011 2:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 10/17/2011 2:39:00 AM (view original):
1 Almost all of the "Bailout" money to the banks was repaid. That was not a gift.

2 How are you going to eliminate fundraising from politics?

This whole idea that Politicians are being bought by the rich is a left wing talking point that has no basis in fact. Almost every politician keeps the same views he started with. How could he be bought? What happens is companies look at everyone running and give moeny to the guy that supports their views, just like every person in America.

To claim that money does not influence, and has no basis in fact is purely ridiculous. 

Just look at all of the bribes used to secure votes for Obamacare.

This was all done in plain view, and is exactly what goes on when some companies "donate" funds to politicians. They do so to ensure that a politician votes yeah or nay on a particular bill that impacts their interests. To deny that this happens is being blind at best and outright deceptive at worst.

Again this is politics as normal.

I think that neither side of the aisle is "Bought and paid for".

You have to make deals to get things passed. I think you cant claim moral superiority if you pass a bill doing it, but it isnt criminal.

Again you give your money to the people who will support you. Not you offer money if someone will start voting for you.

So on the one hand it has no basis in fact, but on the other hand it is politics as normal.

No one made the claim that one side or the other was bought and paid for.
You denied that money influenced political decisions, which is false, as you just acknowledged by saying politics as normal.

No one claimed politicians paid people to vote for them. LOL. Great rebuttal.

Money makes you win elections. I dont believe that people are changing their values for money, If you pump money into an election your guy will win. You dont own him and he should vote for what he beleives.

Getting a deal for your state is not the same as a bribe. Getting deals for your state is the job of a Congressman.

C'mon, you're not that naive, are you?

It isnt naive. The left has started selling the point that everything is corrupt. The people in power are evil.

It isnt true. Public servants are some of the most dedicated people I know. I am active in Warren city politics and I know a lot of people who are Leslie Knope from Parks and Recreation. They are left and right, but they really believe they are going to save the city!

Obama may be wrong but he also believes he is going to save America. If McCain/Palin had won they would believe that their policies are going to save America.

Government isnt evil, any more than any huge orginization is.

Posted by philogenemay on 10/17/2011 8:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/17/2011 7:59:00 AM (view original):
Bailing out the banks was a necessity.   Let them go under and there's a revolution.   As for how the money was dispersed, the government should play a major role in any bailout situation.    Not sure that's better but since we can't fire bank management, we can elect new politicians.  So the people have a say.

As for the political process, eliminate consecutive terms.    Out go the career politicians pandering for money and votes.

But, back on point, "Economic Justice" is a nice way to say "socialism".   Take from person A and give to person B regardless of merit.

How about also lowering their pay. That would also deincentivize the fight to hold on to power.

Originally the idea was to "serve" your state or country. Shouldn't need a six figure salary to serve.

The pay isn't the problem.   It's the stuff that goes with it.   Write a book.   Buy some land that is about to be annexed.   Swing some deals based on laws that are going to be passed.    It's almost like insider trading.  

Just eliminate consecutive terms.   That way, no one is campaigning while in office.  They're not doing a bus tour when they should be doing what they were elected to do.