RBJ, they're coming to get you

Tocky on 8/10/2011 at 05:24

I don't think corporepublican is that much of a stretch. They weakened regulations which allowed for the economic breakdown then blame fannie may and freddie mac who were a grease to the skids they put us on but not the main factor they claim. Fannie and Freddie had thier hearts in the right place at least with putting the non wealthy in houses but republicans put all the blame on them. Then when the president starts a regulatory government branch the republicans fight the appointment of a head for it. Anything to obstruct for long enough to give the rich a chance to hide until they get all their bought and paid for boys to take the senate and presidency.

Then this lie-

Quote Posted by CCCToad

I have heard some other buzz about this. To me it seems a bit bizarre(and more than a bit dissonant) that an ostensibly progressive movement is espousing the most wall-street friendly (and right-wing economically) president that the Democratic party has ever had.

In a way, the real damage caused by Obama is that he's more or less assured the success of the Right's pro-wall street agenda by undermining the only viable source of Reform. Since Obama the choice is no longer between corrupt Republicans and pro-regulation Democrats, its now between corrupt Republicans and a Democratic party that touts a populist line while quietly working to thwart any attempts at reform and accountability.

The problem for OWS is how to establish any meaningful change when they have two choices of party to support, and both of those parties display an incredible amount of favoritism to the top 5 banks.

Inline Image:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-DTISheL7OGQ/TndFvCUOksI/AAAAAAAAAOk/1zDUi9_vr7I/s400/vastleft.png

The cartoon is particularly heinous. The only reason populist stands will not work is that the republican house votes as a solid block to block legislation like the end of Bush tax cuts for the rich. And yet CCC blames not the perps but the president who has so bent over backwards that he has received the condemnation of his own party for it and ANYTHING he proposes will be blocked by the house regardless. The republican house has proven time and again that it will protect it's rich masters yet the president is to blame because THEY block legislation? Please.

Sure the president gave us a soft landing by continuing the bailout Bush started. He had no choice because he has a brian. A hard landing would have sent both the US and world into an economic depression of terrible proportions but now that we have had the softer recession he struggles to reform the mess and he is blamed by stealth republicans like CCC for a populist stand that can't work because republicans block it. It is surreal.

The tea party and other republicans are trying to insinuate themselves in this OWS movement for the purpose of a dividing fifth collumn. Don't vote either party they hiss. Both are as bad. NO THEY ARE NOT and if the OWS do not vote democrat and get back control of the house then republicans win. The tea party wins. The poor and middle class lose. DON"T FALL FOR IT. Vote for the president who is trying on the side of the 99%. Vote the republicans out and he will succeed. OWS movement will have a chance. Get apathetic like CCC wants and republicans win. The tea party WILL NOT FAIL to vote republican. Do not be duped.

june gloom on 8/10/2011 at 05:31

Quote Posted by Tocky

That's NOT THE POINT. Read my post again. READ IT CAREFULLY. ALL OF IT. And then come back. Until you do, this conversation is over.

Boxsmith on 8/10/2011 at 06:03

Quote Posted by Tocky

The poor and middle class lose. DON"T FALL FOR IT. Vote for the president who is trying on the side of the 99%.

Every time I read any damn thing about that "we are the 99%" bullshit I cringe. I get you're worked up and this is important to you, but realize that between the CAPITALIZATION for EMPHASIS and silly slogans, it's very difficult to take you and your message seriously. Please do yourself a favour and stop talking like this.

Tocky on 8/10/2011 at 06:18

I give. All you folks care about is the style over substance.

Boxsmith on 8/10/2011 at 06:24

You know that relying on slogans and speaking in a heated manner is more often than not "style over substance," right?

Tocky on 8/10/2011 at 06:30

Except I'm not sloganeering and it's the future of the country we are talking about.

Oops I mean I am talking about. You and dethy are concerned about style.

edit-What I have written not only has substance but neither of you have adressed it. It seems that all you can do is concentrate on capitalization or terminology. I don't care to have a conversation about semantics.

Boxsmith on 8/10/2011 at 06:47

Quote Posted by Dictionary.com

slo·gan
noun
1.
a distinctive cry, phrase, or motto of any party, group, manufacturer, or person; catchword or catch phrase.

Quote Posted by Tocky

on the side of the 99%

Quote Posted by OWS

we are the 99%

It's rapidly approaching three in the morning here and I'm pretty fucking out of it, I'll admit, but it sure as hell sounds like you're incorporating a slogan here.

I'm not trying to diminish your concerns or anything. I'm well aware that you're worried about the future of your country. Yes, I'm concerned about style, but only because the way you write reeks of substituting actual meaning with passionate language and meaningless buzzwords god this argument is so fucking autistic I'm going to bed

Tocky on 8/10/2011 at 07:19

Except that I'm not substituting actual meaning. Read it again. It was a list of facts. "The 99%" is not my slogan. It was repeated as a bracketing of voting population for a reason. We can get the country on track if we refuse to be fooled or divided by republicans. By all means point out democrats who have gone over to the side of protecting the wealthy and who are widening the gap at the expense of the rest of us (the president isn't one of them) but if you are only concerned about the phrase 99% then it will continue to get worse. It's paying attention to the wrong thing. It's what republicans urge. It's a type of watch this hand not the one in your pocket.

Go to bed. This argument is autistic because you see what you regard as meaningless buzzwords without paying attention to what they mean or the context in which they are placed. I'm going to bed too. When my actual meaning is diregarded in favor of dismissive conclusion jumping then there is no point.

june gloom on 8/10/2011 at 09:58

God you don't fucking get it, and people not fucking understanding BASIC CONCEPTS is pissing me off way more than usual.

Nobody is jumping to conclusions here. That's not what this is about. What this is about is that nobody is going to listen to the message if the message is full of stupid, meaningless bullshit like "repubocorporates" or "radical homosexuals" (ever notice how conservatives rarely use terms like "gay?" it's always "homosexual" and I think it's a dehumanization tactic) because that turns people off. I have no issue with "We are the 99%" as it has emerged as a central underpinning theme. That's not the problem here.

You accuse us of not reading what you had to say. I did read what you had to say. And I don't give a fuck, because my eyeballs started rolling as soon as you started sounding like Joe Tinfoil keeping the brain agents from reading his dreams.

Your concerns are valid, but nobody will listen if you sound like you're just mad 'cuz you ran out of pot and your dealer got arrested. And THAT is the entire point here. Presentation is as important as the message itself. You think anyone's going to take someone seriously if he shows up to give a speech in his bedclothes while eating mustard and peanut butter sandwiches? No. So why would anyone take your posts seriously if all you can muster is incoherent, inchoate rage?

Why am I even still fucking here? I should be going to bed too, but no, I'm arguing with an asshole on the internet who can't understand why nobody takes his shit seriously. Fuck this shit, I'm going back to Buzzy Bus.

CCCToad on 8/10/2011 at 13:13

Quote:

I don't bother with the Republicans much because there's no point: everyone here agrees that they are corrupt scumbags who shameless serve the oligarchy.

Still, I take issue with your insinuations. I think that a Republican president winning would actually improve the situation on a whole host of issues. Whether its corporate-friendly legislation, tax cuts for the rich, or civil liberties, the Democratic party has fallen into the trap of supporting a neocon agenda due to blind partisan loyalty.

Hell, that factor is strong enough to make Democrats rally in support of the due-process free KILLING of an American citizen, while they screamed bloody murder about detaining them while a Republican was in office. Of course, the right isn't going to complain about these policies because they support them ideologically. Shouldn't it raise an eyebrow that both Ed Schultz and Rush Fucking Limbaugh agree that Obama's doing a "great job" in regards to "security"?(aka destroying civil liberties in the name of the war on terror).

If a Republican was in office more attention might be drawn to these issues, and the Democratic party would actually stand to gain a partisan advantage by attacking these issues and they will come to the forefront of national debate. As a result the Democratic party might actually obstruct these harmful policies instead of just brainlessly supporting their policies.

Of course its not an ideal situation. The best case scenario is admittedly extremely unlikely, but I can still dream: the Democratic party needs a progressive, successful primary challenger instead of the stealth-neocon we have now. Failing that maybe we could have a Republican president, and a Democratic congress who will work tirelessly to obstruct him.