Re: Occupy Wall Street protest
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Silcc69
Yes having Dubya lie about WMD was a helluva lot better.
I hate to step in on this, but ever time I See this I can't help but comment. WHy s it that the Clintons, the Gores, The Kerry's and all the rest of the "Do gooders"of the 1990's said, emphatcally I might add, that they were SURE Saddham had WMDs and was a direct threat, and something needed to be done about it? I went on snopes asnd found that all those quotes floating around in those email chain-thingys were real. They all said it--Bush was not the first or only one to say he had WMDs, but he was the one to go after them. We gave them (the IRaqi's) 13 months to hide/destroy their stuff before we went in with inspectors, so nobody can sit back and say outright that "Bush Lied." The whole thing was one big clusterfuck, from both sides.
Having said that,I'm not defending him, rather, what I AM doing is trying to disspell that fucking phrase. I hate it. Seems like the only thing that the clinton administration DIDNT get away with is Ol Bill getting his dick sucked in secret. Everything else they said and did seemed to be pure gold (unless of course you're the fat-assed Rush Limbaugh... lol) In the era of "political correctness" all they had to do was sound concerned and it felt like things were being handled.
Re: Occupy Wall Street protest
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Silcc69
It would be nice if we could have online voting. But for some reason we haven't even gotten there and I don't we will ever get there. Which is highly ironic given the technical advances of these days.
It would be nice but there needs to be a paper trail.
Re: Occupy Wall Street protest
Quote:
Originally Posted by
needsum
I hate to step in on this, but ever time I See this I can't help but comment. WHy s it that the Clintons, the Gores, The Kerry's and all the rest of the "Do gooders"of the 1990's said, emphatcally I might add, that they were SURE Saddham had WMDs and was a direct threat, and something needed to be done about it? I went on snopes asnd found that all those quotes floating around in those email chain-thingys were real. They all said it--Bush was not the first or only one to say he had WMDs, but he was the one to go after them. We gave them (the IRaqi's) 13 months to hide/destroy their stuff before we went in with inspectors, so nobody can sit back and say outright that "Bush Lied." The whole thing was one big clusterfuck, from both sides.
Having said that,I'm not defending him, rather, what I AM doing is trying to disspell that fucking phrase. I hate it. Seems like the only thing that the clinton administration DIDNT get away with is Ol Bill getting his dick sucked in secret. Everything else they said and did seemed to be pure gold (unless of course you're the fat-assed Rush Limbaugh... lol) In the era of "political correctness" all they had to do was sound concerned and it felt like things were being handled.
I think there is a case that he and his administration lied about the nuclear capabilities of Iraq, something that was controversial, as opposed to the chemical weapons that we knew Iraq had at one point. When he asserted Iraq had sought uranium from Africa and acquired tubes for making a nuclear bomb we have to guess about what he knew and when he knew it. While both assertions were false, there is a case that Bush believed the uranium claim but the tubes claim was known to be false by his administration when he said it. So maybe proving that he lied is impossible but he certainly said things that were untrue at a time when some in his administration knew they were untrue.
Re: Occupy Wall Street protest
Ahhhh! We're back to arguing Bush v Gore & WMDs in Iraq. Almost as good as the fight over whether capitalism or socialism would have helpe man discover fire sooner.
Re: Occupy Wall Street protest
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hippifried
Ahhhh! We're back to arguing Bush v Gore & WMDs in Iraq. Almost as good as the fight over whether capitalism or socialism would have helpe man discover fire sooner.
I think at that point, all we had was socialism.
Re: Occupy Wall Street protest
Here's my summary of the current political stalemate. It's a bit simplistic, but fits a short-post format like this.
There are the "haves" and the "have-nots".
The have-nots clamor for more of what they don't have : more health insurance, more financial assistance, more unemployment benefits, more social security benefits, etc. Meanwhile, the haves pay the bill (taxes).
Politically, the have-nots are powerful because they are numerous, while the haves pull the purse strings that pay for elections. Groups like "Americans for Tax Reform", which are financed by the haves, are very powerful. In the case of ATR, they require congressmen to pledge that they will not raise taxes. A very simple pledge that is easy to enforce. And if the congressman breaks the pledge, the ATR heavily funds someone who will follow the pledge.
The equilibrium (i.e. stalemate) is achieved thusly: For whatever political fervor the have-nots muster, the haves will match by spending exactly enough to counter-act it, through campaign contributions, advertising, and propoganda. The danger for the haves is that, through democracy, the have-nots could effectively steal what they have.
I'm not saying it's good or bad, just trying to explain how it works.
Re: Occupy Wall Street protest
Re: Occupy Wall Street protest
The best way to rob a bank is to own one.
Oh yea, fuck you and your "gun control".
Gun control is being able to hit what you're aiming at asshole.
Re: Occupy Wall Street protest
Quote:
Ahhhh! We're back to arguing Bush v Gore & WMDs in Iraq. Almost as good as the fight over whether capitalism or socialism would have helpe man discover fire sooner.
More wisdom from the moron who said Credit Default Swaps and CDO's were "no big deal" three years ago.
Funny that.
You won't be thinking that when Europe tanks, dumb-ass.
Re: Occupy Wall Street protest
Nothing much will come from these protests. Yea,, there will be some kind of window dressing and some leaders of the movement will get good jobs on Wall street but for the most part things will remain the same. Because most revolutions need the masses to be starving in order for real change to occur and people owning ipods, iphones and computers aren't starving.
If the protesters feel that the fed is being controlled by big money then they should do some learning. I understand that history isn't a hot subject in schools anymore but the protesters should learn from history on how to control the gov't to their needs. Just look back to the Tammany Hall Machine of old NYC. Although they were corrupt as hell, one can learn from them in how to use the vote to control the gov't for themselves.
What is lacking from the protest movement and I think the same can be said with unions as well, and that is they rely on democrats and maybe in some way republican parties for leadership. They try and make democrats and republicans do their bidding when a better way would be to put one of your own kind in power. They hope that change can come from the usual suspects that infest the fed gov't.
I know what I say is a bit confusing but what I am trying to say is the protesters(and unions) should not align with any party, instead use their numbers to elect one of their own. Don't rely on a democrat to make change, do it for yourself.
