Occupy: Animal Farm.

If you still think this movement isn’t run & kept alive by the most cynical of marxist, then you have not been paying attention. The LSM sure isn’t but some people are:

A key Occupy Wall Street leader and another protester who leads a double life as a businessman ditched fetid tents and church basements for rooms at a luxurious hotel that promises guests can “unleash [their] inner Gordon Gekko,” The Post has learned.

The $700-per-night W Hotel Downtown last week hosted both Peter Dutro, one of a select few OWS members on the powerful finance committee, and Brad Spitzer, a California-based analyst who not only secretly took part in protests during a week-long business trip but offered shelter to protesters in his swanky platinum-card room.

This is Animal Farm all over, man. Paraphrasing one of my favorite lines from that most illuminating tome of great wisdom, Mr. Orwell’s Animal Farm, I have to say that “All 99%ers are equal, but some of the 99%ers are more equal than others”. In fact, doesn’t look like there is much difference between those that are a lot more equal than the others and that 1% they are so angry at.

Don’t be fooled people. What we have here with this OWS movement isn’t anything new, noble, or good intended: it is the same kind of old time marxist and big nanny staters that brought us every one of the most miserable experiments of the last century. The plan, as usual, is for some of the most dishonest scumbags – following the footsteps of such greats as Lenin, Hitler, the Kims, Mao, Ho Chi Ming, and so on, if you allow me to make a comparison – to dislodge the current haves, using the masses as their blunt instrument, and then, when firmly ensconced at the top, they will resort to imprisoning, abusing, and killing anyone in the masses that wises up to what happened. Misery for all.

Comments are closed.

  1. Hal_10000

    Completely unsurprised. Look at Michael Moore’s mansion. Or the luxurious homes of “Marxists” like Noam Chomsky or Corell West. The idea that these guys are anything but well-paid poseurs is ridiculous.

    Thumb up 1

  2. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  3. Section8

    What’s the solution for “economic justice” CM?

    Also, what a disingenuous cartoon, especially the “let’s see what our friends in the Tea Party think?” line. Let’s not try to rewrite history here, the press was no friend of the Tea Party, and still isn’t. The amount of ridicule they got was enormous, and much of it was based on assumptions of what would happen, rather than violence that’s actually happened with this bunch. It’s only been a couple of years, so no one has forgotten about that OK? Don’t even try, you’re wasting your time.

    Thumb up 5

  4. CM

    What’s the solution for “economic justice” CM?

    That’s certainly a legitimate discussion. When the OWS protests began, many on here were agreeing with the complaints about corporatism, which is a large part of what OWS is about.
    The cartoon is mocking those who are dismissing OSW on the basis that it isn’t about one single specific issue which is easy to fix. Suggesting that because there isn’t a quick-fix, or solution that suits everyone, doesn’t mean the movement should be dismissed. (Neither does the violence of a very minor number of contributors, although I think people are well within their rights to point out the violence and comdemn it)

    Also, what a disingenuous cartoon, especially the “let’s see what our friends in the Tea Party think?” line. Let’s not try to rewrite history here, the press was no friend of the Tea Party, and still isn’t. The amount of ridicule they got was enormous, and much of it was based on assumptions of what would happen, rather than violence that’s actually happened with this bunch. It’s only been a couple of years, so no one has forgotten about that OK? Don’t even try, you’re wasting your time.

    I would think the “let’s see what our friends in the Tea Party think” line is a specific dig at Fox News, who covered the Tea Party protests in a very supportive way (much like they covered the Iraq War). They were ‘reporting’ on it while very much appearing to be part of it.

    Thumb up 0

  5. Section8

    I would think the “let’s see what our friends in the Tea Party think” line is a specific dig at Fox News,

    Then the entire dig would be at Fox News wouldn’t it? This rather than the so-called main stream press who was not friendly to the Tea Party at all. To have half of the cartoon aimed at the main stream press, and the other half directed toward a specific network out of many without making that clear is disingenuous, just that it would be disingenuous in a slightly different way..

    Suggesting that because there isn’t a quick-fix, or solution that suits everyone, doesn’t mean the movement should be dismissed.

    Ok, any ideas on solutions? Such as?

    Look, everyone here has bitched about government handing out cash left and right, stimulus packages, bailouts, interest rate and monetary manipulation, etc for years, and I’ve been on this site to see it all. I’ve lived in the USA to discuss it with my neighbors, co-workers, family, and just about any other American has done the same. None of this is new.

    What is new is that it appears more and more that this is a left leaning protest done by people who have suddenly figured out shit the rest of us have known for years. Congrats to them, now what is the solution? Alex seems to think their solution will be of the big government type where the government runs the show, except that the people running the show would be as crooked as ever. So what is he wrong about? What’s the solution by the left that wouldn’t ultimately lead down this path?

    (Neither does the violence of a very minor number of contributors, although I think people are well within their rights to point out the violence and comdemn it)

    Oh absolutely it should be pointed out, considering when anyone on the right protest, they were condemned for what might happen, rather than reality. The left set the standards of protesting etiquette when bashing the Tea Party, now look at how they practice what they preach. Why should I be even the slightest tolerant of it?

    Thumb up 2

  6. CM

    Then the entire dig would be at Fox News wouldn’t it? This rather than the so-called main stream press who was not friendly to the Tea Party at all. To have half of the cartoon aimed at the main stream press, and the other half directed toward a specific network out of many without making that clear is disingenuous, just that it would be disingenuous in a slightly different way..

    I think it’s having a go at a certain mentality, and then specifically linking that to specifically to Fox News at the end.

    Ok, any ideas on solutions? Such as?

    Tighter control on relationships between government and business (around conflicts of interest and lobbying, greater transparency, greater separation), tighter control on financial products and the provision information to prospective investors and borrowers, much larger penalties for CEOs and others within companies when it’s shown that companies made decisions against the interests of their investors. Indepedent bodies (as much as possible) to oversee the transparency. That’s aside from taxation changes (closing loopholes etc).

    I think it’s probably quite difficult to separate capitalism from corporatism. However I certainly think there are measures that can be taken which doesn’t simply mean the government doubles down on its corporatist role.

    I know many conservatives have no issue with the issue of ever-increasing income inequality. To conservatives it’s irrelevant how much more money some have than others. Which I can certainly agree with and appreciate on the surface, but only to the point where I think about what that ultimately means. I don’t see how the continuing increase in the disparity (taken to an extreme) can result in any of sort of society worth living in. For anyone. Particularly when the disparity is completely disproportional to the actual effort put in. This apparently marks me an evil, dirty socialist, just like the rest. But I have no desire to control individuals. I just think that as a society was have the ability to direct where we go, not just “see what happens” because “to meddle would be wrong”. That just seems like a self-defeating philosophy. Of course that relies on my thoughts that ever-increasing income inequality just continues if left to itself, and were it leads (to inevitable revolution, or alternatively a sort of police-state-for-the-poor in order to stop a revolution). I don’t really like the fact that I think that, because it sounds like some sort of extremist scare-scenario designed to manipulate people, so if anyone can convince me that my thoughts are wrong, please do.

    I think the ever-increasing income inequality is a big part of the OWS anger. It’s the end-result of the problems (as they see it). To that extent, I agree with them.

    We (in NZ) don’t seem to have nearly the same corporatism issues as the US does, however apparently our income-equality is one of the fastest growing in the world. So perhaps they aren’t quite as related as I and others think. Perhaps there are other factors that make much more of a difference.

    What does everyone else think about a continuation of income-inequality in a society? Even if you believe it’s irrelevant as a measure of anything because to intefere wouldn’t be right, where do you think it leads? Or do you disagree with the theory that it will keep increasing? Will it reach a point where it naturally stops and starts decreasing?

    Thumb up 0

  7. CM

    #ows is fighting back against the corrosive power of major banks and multinational corporations over the democratic process, and the role of Wall Street in creating an economic collapse that has caused the greatest recession in generations.

    http://occupywallst.org/about/

    From I can gather, the theory is that voting in elections is becoming largely meaningless as the meaningful political decisions are determined by politicians in collusion with big business. They enable each other to engage in corrosive and damaging practices. And nothing within the present system can stop it. And if it continues then wealth will continue to be concentrated amongst even fewer people.

    Thumb up 0

  8. Seattle Outcast

    I’d like to protest economic injustice as well. I mean, the ultimate economic injustice is equal economic outcomes regardless of who actually put in all the work. Most people call that “theft” or “Marxism”, while CM apparently calls it paradise.

    Economic Justice would be giving everyone a level playing field and equal opportunities and then letting people decide just how fucking hard they want to work and how many risks they want to take with their own money.

    Thumb up 5

  9. Section8

    Tighter control on relationships between government and business (around conflicts of interest and lobbying, greater transparency, greater separation), tighter control on financial products and the provision information to prospective investors and borrowers, much larger penalties for CEOs and others within companies when it’s shown that companies made decisions against the interests of their investors.

    We had the Sarbanes Oxley act that was supposed to do just that, give greater transparency, and make sure CEOs didn’t fall out of line. While the end result was making it very difficult for businesses to be public without a lot of money, which benefits those with money, it didn’t do anything to stop one of the biggest frauds in US history. Libertarians believe in one regulation, which is punishing fraud, and doing it severely. The more laws there are, the more loopholes, and the more cronyism that goes on. I believe government is part and parcel to more cronyism, not less.

    On a side note, while the SEC was supposedly going to crack down even after this mess to make the markets safer, billions have been wiped out by fraudulent Chinese pump and dump companies that were set up via American manipulators, and it still goes on today. This isn’t to side bar this to a China discussion, simply that the SEC is STILL asleep at the wheel. They have done very little to stop this. The people who exposed this were small time investors and bloggers, the government sure didn’t figure it out, and even the so called smart money has been duped. I’m not aware of any of the American counterparts being arrested to this day as the SEC has the reach to at least get them, but it’s a large scam that has been going on right at a time when supposedly the government was going to get its act together. While it’s not a big story (I follow small caps, and this is the only reason I know about it) it’s just amusing this stuff continues unchecked. Sad thing is if you read message boards about these companies on finance sites, the argument has been the SEC wouldn’t let this happen. So much for relying on government.

    Indepedent bodies (as much as possible) to oversee the transparency. That’s aside from taxation changes (closing loopholes etc).

    Not much wrong here, I’m fine with independent private 3rd parties being standard bearers, as long as their ass is on the line when and if they screw up. For example, I didn’t have a problem with S&P or Moody’s or Fitch overseeing credit worthiness, but there was obvious fraud going on where they weren’t honest. Don’t need more laws for this. Find out who was pushing crap as AAA and arrest them for fraud, try, and jail them.

    I think it’s probably quite difficult to separate capitalism from corporatism. However I certainly think there are measures that can be taken which doesn’t simply mean the government doubles down on its corporatist role.

    I think it’s more difficult to separate socialized government from corporatism. When the government has the power to decide who survives via regulation outside of basic rules such as fraud, it’s only natural for those with the most money to skew those rules in their favor. It’s only natural for those with government power to be swayed by this. I only say this because we see this over and over again with the dipshits from both parties.

    I know many conservatives have no issue with the issue of ever-increasing income inequality. To conservatives it’s irrelevant how much more money some have than others. Which I can certainly agree with and appreciate on the surface, but only to the point where I think about what that ultimately means.

    I agree with varying income if the rules are equal, then it boils down to work and drive for success. For example, I don’t have the drive to make billions because I’d rather enjoy my time with friends and family and spewing my drivel on blogs. I do not think, however, the inequality would be this large without the government promoting itself from moderator in disputes to active participant which it has increasingly done over the past century, which is polar opposite of the beliefs of a free market system.

    I don’t see how the continuing increase in the disparity (taken to an extreme) can result in any of sort of society worth living in. For anyone. Particularly when the disparity is completely disproportional to the actual effort put in. This apparently marks me an evil, dirty socialist, just like the rest. But I have no desire to control individuals. I just think that as a society was have the ability to direct where we go, not just “see what happens” because “to meddle would be wrong”.

    The problem is there is already meddling.

    The Fed has meddled. The supposed free market Greenspan did a shitty job at controlling the Fed, Bernanke is even worse. There were problems at Fannie and Freddie, and the government did nothing even though concerns were there. While they were not the sole reason for every bad mortgage, being GSEs what they did was a seal of approval, and no one from either side of the aisle did a concerted effort to stop them. This after SOX, and more regulation. They were GSEs that if anything the government would have had the most control over and did nothing.

    That just seems like a self-defeating philosophy. Of course that relies on my thoughts that ever-increasing income inequality just continues if left to itself, and were it leads (to inevitable revolution, or alternatively a sort of police-state-for-the-poor in order to stop a revolution). I don’t really like the fact that I think that, because it sounds like some sort of extremist scare-scenario designed to manipulate people, so if anyone can convince me that my thoughts are wrong, please do.

    I don’t have an issue of your concern of income disparity, that is a problem, the solutions are where we differ.

    I think the ever-increasing income inequality is a big part of the OWS anger. It’s the end-result of the problems (as they see it). To that extent, I agree with them.
    We (in NZ) don’t seem to have nearly the same corporatism issues as the US does, however apparently our income-equality is one of the fastest growing in the world. So perhaps they aren’t quite as related as I and others think. Perhaps there are other factors that make much more of a difference.

    What does everyone else think about a continuation of income-inequality in a society? Even if you believe it’s irrelevant as a measure of anything because to intefere wouldn’t be right, where do you think it leads? Or do you disagree with the theory that it will keep increasing? Will it reach a point where it naturally stops and starts decreasing?

    I don’t subscribe to the take a shower and get a job argument, so I can’t argue with you if you think that’s a ridiculous position to take, because there needs to be jobs in order to get one, but I do disagree with those that think having the government have even more influence will help. I just see it leading to more cronyism between those in power with those that have money. So I think our concerns are nearly 100% identical, just how it’s resolved is different.

    Personally I believe in the following to help revive America (this can’t apply to everyone else since some of the issues in my list are distinctly American):

    Ditch the Fed, this is the banking system mixed in with government, and it doesn’t belong there.

    A simple flat tax

    End the US policy of policing the world. Even if it might be for the right reasons (I believe the intentions are good most of the time but no always), people generally don’t see it that way. It’s just like yes, if a cop sat in every house and made sure you ate right, you most likely would feel better and live longer, but who the fuck wants a cop in their house all day? It’s not much different on a foreign scale. In the meantime, we deplete our coffers. The end result regardless of intent good or bad is no different than Rome, or GB back in its day, it’s a drain and it kills eventually.

    Fraud should be the primary regulation, and it should be dealt with by handing out strict punishment as a future deterrent for others when it occurs, rather than the current solution of politicians running around saying something has to be done by passing yet another law (with certain caveats for their buddies) after the fact so that they can justify their reelection, and still very few end up punished for whatever current debacle is going on.

    No more bailouts. On instances such as this big collapse if the government must step in it should be for an orderly dismantling of the too big to fail companies.

    Local banks should have more control. For example, prior to the Fed, they simply shut down for a couple of days during banking panics. When the Fed took over they stayed open which contributed greatly to the severity of the depression of the 30’s. This is just one example of failure of centralized control. Now local banks who did not participate in this crap have to pay more for FDIC insurance, and have to suffer stricter rules when they did nothing in the first place.

    Give more power back to the states. Just like our natural resources, the move you use that resource to convert it from one form of energy to another, the more energy is wasted in the transition phase before it’s even put to use. The same applies with money resources, the more you pass it around through these agencies, the more is lost from that action alone.

    Anyhow, I have more of a list, but by now I’m sure I have butchered the English language enough, and I have to head out for now.

    This is good, I feel we had a reasonable discussion here. One in a row!

    Thumb up 4

  10. Section8

    Oh, and bring back more Common law. Yeah, everyone rips on the stupid juror, but that’s only because our legal system has become so convoluted with legal jargon that any slick lawyer can work the system with statute loopholes to get whatever outcome they desire. That’s not how it was meant to be.

    Thumb up 1

  11. CM

    I’d like to protest economic injustice as well. I mean, the ultimate economic injustice is equal economic outcomes regardless of who actually put in all the work. Most people call that “theft” or “Marxism”, while CM apparently calls it paradise.

    See this is one of the major problems. I’ve never in my life argued “equal economic outcomes regardless of why actually put in all the work”. And yet I call it ‘paradise’ apparently. How is it possible to have any sort of meaningful discussion with that shit thrown out from the outset? Might as well call yourself Alex.

    Economic Justice would be giving everyone a level playing field and equal opportunities and then letting people decide just how fucking hard they want to work and how many risks they want to take with their own money.

    I fucking agree. I guess you believe that already fucking occurs.

    Any thoughts on the ‘increasing income inequality’ aspect? Does it occur naturally (and is therefore totally fine, and if it results in people living in different worlds then that’s also natural, the rich will just need to build bigger walls) or is it actually a symptom of capitalism not being pure enough (i.e. cut out the interference and income inequality would stop increasing and would actually start decreasing)?

    Thumb up 0

  12. Mississippi Yankee

    Economic Justice would be giving everyone a level playing field and equal opportunities and then letting people decide just how fucking hard they want to work and how many risks they want to take with their own money.

    I fucking agree. I guess you believe that already fucking occurs.

    I grew up white and poor – retired early and quite comfortably too.

    Herman Cain grew up black and poorer than me and did quite well for himself also.
    And you know that I could do this ALL DAY LONG! So what’s you point??

    Thumb up 1

  13. CM

    We had the Sarbanes Oxley act that was supposed to do just that, give greater transparency, and make sure CEOs didn’t fall out of line. While the end result was making it very difficult for businesses to be public without a lot of money, which benefits those with money, it didn’t do anything to stop one of the biggest frauds in US history. Libertarians believe in one regulation, which is punishing fraud, and doing it severely. The more laws there are, the more loopholes, and the more cronyism that goes on. I believe government is part and parcel to more cronyism, not less.

    Any regulation that intends to provide greater transparency so that corporates aren’t so easily able to monopolise their position, but ends up making it more difficult to start and successfully operate a business, is obviously counter-productive. Yes, I definitely agree that fraud needs to be identified as much as it possibly can, and punished severely. And CEOs (and possibly others at the top) need to be held accountable for decisions made at the company, even if they can be shown to have not been involved. There needs to be a lot more responsibility taken for company decision-making. And people need to do hard-time. At the moment the risks seem worth the rewards.
    However I don’t think it’s enough to just target fraud. Investing needs to be more transparent. Companies shouldn’t be able to take someone’s investment and use it to buy financial products that the original investor would never have agreed to in the first place. I believe there is a duty of care when you take people’s money, whether it’s Government, or whether it’s ‘borrowing it’ via private investment. As much as investors need to do their own research (as they are ulimately risking their money), the people taking the money need to be clearer about what they intend to do with it and what the risks are.
    I don’t necessarily agree that more laws equals more loopholes. It depends very much on the laws. I’m not saying it can’t happen, just that it doesn’t have to.

    Hadn’t heard of that fraudulent Chinese pump and dump scam before. Yikes. Who are the “American manipulators”?

    Not much wrong here, I’m fine with independent private 3rd parties being standard bearers, as long as their ass is on the line when and if they screw up.

    Yep, accountability needs to be everywhere. Nobody should be immune. It pisses me off no end when people defend sporting officials after poor performances. They should be criticised and face the consequences just like everyone else.

    I think it’s more difficult to separate socialized government from corporatism. When the government has the power to decide who survives via regulation outside of basic rules such as fraud, it’s only natural for those with the most money to skew those rules in their favor. It’s only natural for those with government power to be swayed by this. I only say this because we see this over and over again with the dipshits from both parties.

    How ‘corporatised’ are the highly-socialised Scandanavian countries? Kimpost, is corporatism an issue in Sweden? In NZ we’re probably more socialised than the US in a lot of areas (but certainly way less socialised than Sweden), but we don’t really get corporatism rearing it’s ugly head. It’s not really an issue. I haven’t heard it at all in this election campaign (our national election is this Saturday). Maybe it’s hidden better. I know we are always in the Top 3 in those international reports on corruption and transparency. We have independent bodies that deal with a lot of stuff. And everyone goes out of their way to make everything as open as possible. Virtually everything that happens in the public realm is open to full public scrutiny). Maybe we’re just so small that nothing can ever get large enough.

    I agree with varying income if the rules are equal, then it boils down to work and drive for success. For example, I don’t have the drive to make billions because I’d rather enjoy my time with friends and family and spewing my drivel on blogs.

    ;-) I don’t have that drive either.
    I could only agree on a system where work and the drive for success is the path to financial riches. Which is why I’m always confused when I get called a ‘socialist’ etc etc. That must be the foundation of any set of rules which determine how society (the economy) functions.

    I do not think, however, the inequality would be this large without the government promoting itself from moderator in disputes to active participant which it has increasingly done over the past century, which is polar opposite of the beliefs of a free market system.

    It’s certainly not compatible with a purely free-market system, but then is anyone really under the illusion that the system is meant to be purely free-market? Is anyone actually pretending that this is what is meant to be happening?
    Are there no greater goods that justify the government interfering in the market? Is it entirely necessary for the market to govern every single area of society, otherwise it’s not capitalism? To me the only sustainable system is some sort of tempered capitalism. Because pure-capitalism is going to end in the same misery for all that pure-socialism would end in. However I’d certainly work back down from pure-capitalism rather than back down from pure-socialism.

    In saying that though, I can appreciate and understand why others might think differently, and I certainly don’t inherently believe that my opinion is superior or in any way complete.

    but I do disagree with those that think having the government have even more influence will help.

    I agree. The changes have to remove the inherent conflicts of interest. Forced separations between rule makers and regulators. If there are to be more controls in some areas to reduce corporatism, they can’t be rules that increase influence.

    Your suggestions sound reasonable to me. I’m not an advocate of flat taxes, but we can leave that alone for the purposes of this discussion. That’s more of an issue of how you’d raise sufficient revenue while still keeping low-wage tax rates at a reasonable level.

    Thumb up 0

  14. CM

    Not sure about you but Cain clearly had parents that pushed him along from the start and clearly invested a lot of time and money making sure he got the best opportunities possible. Good on them, and good on him for doing the hard work and following through on that to become successful. It’s yet another example of what people can accomplish. However it’s disingenous to suggest that he was provided with a playing field level with someone living next door who had shitty bludging parents with no work ethic, and who beat them and called them useless. Before you start, I’m no advocating handing that kid next door success on a platter. All I’m saying is that it’s pretty much an impossiblity to provide a level playing field and equal opportunities. Any opportunities the kid next door takes will likely be the result of running into the right people at the right time and turning his/her life around at a later point.

    Thumb up 0

  15. Mississippi Yankee

    Any opportunities the kid next door takes will likely be the result of running into the right people at the right time and turning his/her life around at a later point.

    You mean like “Fate?”
    New-ager Please!

    There is,not now, nor has there ever been a level playing field. Life is not fair!

    As discussed in an earlier post I had an abusive father. Got out of the Marine Corps just before my 22nd birthday, and proceeded to stay substantially ‘fuck-up’ for the next two years. I would have married LSD is I could have found her ring finger.

    My lifesaving moment was in 1974 when Clyde Beatty Cole Bros Circus came to town.

    Cain’s fictional neighbor had the choice to shit or get off the pot too, just like me.

    Thumb up 4

  16. Seattle Outcast

    So, everyone should get perfect parents? Like to see how that’s going to happen – shall the government step in with regulation? What if the parents in question don’t agree with approved political viewpoints, or own guns?

    Life is eventually a shit sandwich to everyone, so your “point” isn’t really there. Many millions of people have started life with completely worthless examples of humanity for parents and have succeeded.

    Thumb up 3

  17. CM

    You mean like “Fate?”

    Use whatever term you like. It’s just reality isn’t it? Kids from shitty backgrounds (by which I mean poor parenting, and not in monetary terms) have a considerable amount to overcome to be successful. Inevitably at some point someone (or some people) has/have taken an interest or given them a break or two, and the kid has otherwise done the hard work on top of it.

    There is,not now, nor has there ever been a level playing field. Life is not fair!

    Exactly. That’s my point. So I think assuming that a level playing field and equal opportunities exist, and using that as your starting point is just silly.

    So how do we help the kid who lived next to Cain? Cain was always going to be ok because he had the start he needed. The kid, through sheer circumstance, was statistically going to end up in trouble and never doing anything more than a minimum wage job. How do we increase the statistical chance that the kid next door ends up as Cain has? Is it too bad because we can’t give his parents anything because they’re deadbeats?

    Cain’s fictional neighbor had the choice to shit or get off the pot too, just like me.

    When though?
    Everyone is likely to have a chance at some stage. I’d like to live in a society the increases that chance and enables it to occur earlier (prior to LSD and being fucked up for 2 years) and for as many of those kids as possible. Get them close as possible to that start line where a load of other kids have been born. Not easy though. And good on you for getting there, eventually. Even if you did have to run away and join the circus ;-)

    But then I think we’re probably all pretty similar in this respect. I mean, really, who DOESN’T want to help those kids out? As much as we bitch and moan about each other (well you about me, me about some of you) none of us are bad people. We just argue about the methods of doing it.

    Thumb up 1

  18. CM

    Well it’s not just parents. Kids can end up going to shitty schools where the teachers are effectively glorified child-minders (and who in their right mind would send them with vouchers?). They then have pretty much no way of getting into college (and certainly not into a course which leads to a job that will pay their loans). So it’s into menial labour jobs (and I’m not dissing those, there is no shame in doing minimum wage jobs). And then the chances of being Herman Cain are pretty close to zero. The exceptions to the rule are called exceptions for a reason.

    So it’s not just about the parents. It’s society taking more than just an interest in that very early stage. Isn’t that the luxurious choice we have of living in the western world? Not only can we be rich, we can create systems to ensure as many people coming up behind can also be rich?

    I would disagree that “life is eventually a shit sandwich to everyone”. Most people I know are pretty happy with their lives and haven’t had a ‘shit sandwich’ experience (yet anyway). The better you were fortunate to start out, the much less chance you’ve got of experiencing a shit sandwich.

    Thumb up 0

  19. Mississippi Yankee

    So it’s not just about the parents. It’s society taking more than just an interest in that very early stage. Isn’t that the luxurious choice we have of living in the western world? Not only can we be rich, we can create systems to ensure as many people coming up behind can also be rich?

    We have 101 programs that were intended to “give a leg up” instead gave a softer cushion to any and all that hold their hands out.

    LBJ’s “Great Society” programs have done more damage to Cain’s fictional neighbors
    then we’ll ever be able to tally. But you don’t feel it’s enough right? Well I say BALDERDASH!

    I live in Mississippi, I see hard working and upwardly moble black people every frikkin day. I see white folks doing the same, along with quite a few brown ones too.
    Contrary to what those Ivory Tower liberals would have you believe Jim Crow mostly lives in Northern cities now. He’s real popular in the Rust Belt.

    The answer is not entitlement after entitlement. And don’t even get me started about a culture that berates it’s youth for “actin white” just for doing their studies.
    CM you haven’t had a leg to stand on in this argument, IMHO anyway.

    Thumb up 3

  20. CM

    We have 101 programs that were intended to “give a leg up” instead gave a softer cushion to any and all that hold their hands out.

    How has this been demonstrated?

    LBJ’s “Great Society” programs have done more damage to Cain’s fictional neighbors
    then we’ll ever be able to tally. But you don’t feel it’s enough right? Well I say BALDERDASH!

    I love ‘balderdash’, so you’re won the argument pretty much there and then.
    Perhaps they’re just not the right programs. We’re a bit more advanced in our thinking on lifting kids out of bad situations than they were in LBJ’s day.

    The answer is not entitlement after entitlement. And don’t even get me started about a culture that berates it’s youth for “actin white” just for doing their studies.

    I like this piece on the concept of ‘entitlement’.

    CM you haven’t had a leg to stand on in this argument, IMHO anyway.

    IMHO much of this is dependent on how you view the world, and what your priorities are. I think about what sort of society I want my kids growing up in.

    Thumb up 0

  21. CM

    Lenin, Hitler, the Kims, Mao, Ho Chi Ming, Lenin, Hitler, the Kims, Mao, Ho Chi Ming, Lenin, Hitler, the Kims, Mao, Ho Chi Ming, Lenin, Hitler, the Kims, Mao, Ho Chi Ming, Lenin, Hitler, the Kims, Mao, Ho Chi Ming, Lenin, Hitler, the Kims, Mao, Ho Chi Ming, Lenin, Hitler, the Kims, Mao, Ho Chi Ming, Lenin, Hitler, the Kims, Mao, Ho Chi Ming, Lenin, Hitler, the Kims, Mao, Ho Chi Ming, Lenin, Hitler, the Kims, Mao, Ho Chi Ming, Lenin, Hitler, the Kims, Mao, Ho Chi Ming, Lenin, Hitler, the Kims, Mao, Ho Chi Ming, Lenin, Hitler, the Kims, Mao, Ho Chi Ming, Lenin, Hitler, the Kims, Mao, Ho Chi Ming, Lenin, Hitler, the Kims, Mao, Ho Chi Ming, Lenin, Hitler, the Kims, Mao, Ho Chi Ming, Lenin, Hitler, the Kims, Mao, Ho Chi Ming, Lenin, Hitler, the Kims, Mao, Ho Chi Ming, Lenin, Hitler, the Kims, Mao, Ho Chi Ming, Lenin, Hitler, the Kims, Mao, Ho Chi Ming, Lenin, Hitler, the Kims, Mao, Ho Chi Ming

    Thumb up 0

  22. AlexInCT *

    That’s certainly a legitimate discussion.

    This is a discussion akin to how we can make the sun not go down at night. It is a total waste of time. If tomorrow we could miraculously distribute the entire world’s wealth equally, by the end of the week there would be idiots that lost it all demanding we redo it all over again. The problem is with the idiotic concept that the issue is the world’s wealth not being equally distributed. As long as we ignore that the vast majority of those people we are told have been jibbed out of wealth, and at which this “social justice” thing supposedly is targeted at, will simply find ourselves back right where we started: with them making the same or new bad choices, thus finding themselves exactly where they are now.

    The concept of social justice fails because of the simple fact that those peddling it blame the unfair distribution of wealth, solely on those that have it, and never, ever, on those that as a matter of course make bad choices in life that costs them wealth or prevents them from acquiring it. No matter how many examples of these less well off gaining instant wealth and then squandering it we see, the thing will not die. That’s what “hope & change” that so energized the left was all about. As I and others like me that know better expected however, it turned out to be just more promises that could never be kept, unless of course the result was failure.

    No artificial set of artificial rules will ever equal the playing field. Those that pretend that human nature can be overcome lie to us. Short of a tyrannical system where free will is completely removed and people behave like drones, following whatever those above them tell them to do without exception, the people peddling these systems have no way of preventing things going awry. Every time it has been tried it created an upper class that basically lived large and left the masses enslaved to them. Be it the hard way the communists did it – with the labor & reeducation camps, the whole sale slaughter of those people they didn’t like or blamed for the inequality, and the police state, where fences where not erected to keep the “enemy” out but the people in and under control – or the softer nanny states where people willingly sacrifice their freedoms and rights for the false illusion of security. In the end, they all fail because the system collapses under its own weight. The pool of the ones working shrinks and can no longer support the ones simply sponging, and then things go south. That’s where we are again today.

    The thing is that the elite that profit from this system are never going to give up their lucrative deal. That’s why they have convinced the masses that without them stealing on their behalf from the haves, for a price, the masses would be used & abused. It works, and people like CM are proof of it. So many of these idiots are not just driven by jealousy and envy of what others have, but willing to live enslaved to these elites, as long as the elites also take their neighbor and peers down to the same level of misery that the idiot lives in. That’s “social justice” in a nut shell.

    Thumb up 0

  23. AlexInCT *

    There is,not now, nor has there ever been a level playing field. Life is not fair!

    LIEZ!!!11!!

    The nanny staters have promised us equality! It’s not fair that some idiot that wants to work hard impresses others and makes more than me. I don’t value work as much but I am just as good if not better than he/she is!

    That the nanny staters can only deliver if they make us all equally miserable and poor, doesn’t matter to this type. If they can not get everything for free, they are just as content to then take it away from others that work for it.

    That’s the fair world they want. Fuck them all.

    Thumb up 0

  24. CM

    This is good, I feel we had a reasonable discussion here. One in a row!

    Alas, now we get:

    Thanks for making my point for me about how fucking stupid your fellow travelrs are CM.

    It works, and people like CM are proof of it.

    Fuck them all.

    Oh well, it was good while it lasted.

    Thumb up 2

  25. AlexInCT *

    No CM, it’s a waste of time to talk to you when you aren’t even bright or honest enough to admit that what you believe in is unachievable in the real world. There is no honest discussion if we can’t even admit that what the left preaches – mind you I said preaches, because we all know what they practice is the exact opposite – is impossible. The left has replaced the concept of perfect life in “heaven run by god” with “heaven on earth run by government”. The difference being that one tells you that it comes after death, with the threat of hell to keep you honest, while the other in practice has created hell on earth everywhere it was done. We should treat the ones putting their faith in those that promise they can give us heaven on earth with far more skepticism and scorn we treat those that put their faith in the belief that perfect life can only be achieved in heaven because of an all powerful entity that for the life of me I can not comprehend would give a rats ass about creatures that are so far removed from it as humans are from single cell organisms.

    I am enjoying everyone else telling you you are a tool though.

    Thumb up 0

  26. AlexInCT *

    It is always someone else’s fault that people end up where they do, SO! Never ever, the fact that they made the wrong choices. Don’t you get it?

    Thumb up 1

  27. CM

    No CM, it’s a waste of time to talk to you when you aren’t even bright or honest enough to admit that what you believe in is unachievable in the real world.

    Dishonest dishonest dishonest.

    I am enjoying everyone else telling you you are a tool though.

    I must have missed that.

    It’s amazing what happens to the discussion when you arrive. Co-incidence I’m sure.

    Thumb up 0

  28. CM

    It is always someone else’s fault that people end up where they do, SO! Never ever, the fact that they made the wrong choices. Don’t you get it?

    Completely dishonest.

    Thumb up 1

  29. ilovecress

    The thing with the OWS protest is that it’s a protest. By definition, a protest is against something. It’s reactive. It’s saying ‘stop this thing, I don’t like it’.

    So asking what OWS want is a bit misleading – it’s about what they don’t want. That’s true of every protest. The Taxed Enough Already protest wasn’t about advocating a specific tax plan, it was protesting the amount of tax already levied.

    Then the Taxed Enough Already protest became the TEA Party – it moved from protest to petitioning – advocating actual policy changes, solutions, with leadership.

    A protest is nothing more than a big, noisy opinion poll. It’s function is to draw attention to an issue that the protesters are not happy with. Sometimes that’s enough to force the establishment’s hand – but more often than not, the next step is to organise into a cohesive petitioning organisation (much as the TEA party did, or the various Green Parties across the world)

    Will the OWS form into a proactive movement? I actually doubt it. But what they might do is to make the campaigning politicians have to look a bit harder at things like where their campaign donations have come from, and to at least pay lip service to the income inequality issue. At the very least, OWS has put income inequality, and corporatism on the list of questions for the presidential debate.

    By the way, some of you might have to hold your nose whilst reading this (it’s from the Guardian), but an interesting peice on what ‘capitalism’ is in different countries.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/15/anti-capitalist-occupy-pigeonholing

    Thumb up 0

  30. CM

    From your piece:

    It is routinely described as anti-capitalist, but this label is highly misleading. …….many of its participants are not against capitalism. They just want it better regulated so that it benefits the greatest possible majority.

    What is capitalist, and thus anti-capitalist, it seems, depends on who you are.

    Exactly.

    Thumb up 0

  31. CM

    Hey ilovecress, don’t you love how ‘Mums and Dads’ will be in charge of formerly-state-owned companies here in NZ when the government sells those assets to them. You know, those “Mums and Dads” that struggle to pay the power bill. Apparently they’re going to be in a position to miraculously afford shares all of a sudden. Amazing.

    Thumb up 0

  32. ilovecress

    Yeah – I don’t know if you guys know this, but we in NZ have a general election on Saturday. We get to choose between the guy who isn’t that bad, but not brilliant, and the guy who probably is worse, but might not be.

    Thumb up 0

  33. Section8

    From the article regarding Americans

    They would have been shocked to find that their beloved country had decided to punish industry and enterprise with a progressive income tax. To their horror, they would also see that children had been deprived of the freedom to work and adults “the liberty of working as long as [they] wished”, as the US supreme court put it in 1905 when ruling unconstitutional a New York state act limiting the working hours of bakers to 10 hours a day. What is capitalist, and thus anti-capitalist, it seems, depends on who you are.

    Huh? There is no shock on the progressive tax, in fact it’s a focus of debate today. There was a lot of anti capitalist rules and a centralized banking system passed in the turn of the century, especially under Woodrow Wilson. Some of us feel it was not an improvement of anything. The sad thing is many people feel if something is made law then it’s made right, and that’s not always the case. It’s also interesting that since the government got its 3rd party printing press and sustained income that we’ve continued to get into more and more foreign entanglements, and still have managed to rack up astronomical debt with future liabilities of what will likely be broken promises. Time to chop the head off this fucker and give the power and money back to the states where it belongs. Feeding the federal fire will not help control anything. THEY ARE THE PROBLEM. Hell, we just elected “The most transparent president ever” tm, and look how that’s turning out.

    Thumb up 3

  34. AlexInCT *

    I am glad you show your devotion to the greatest mass murderers there CM. They are all your fellow ideologues and travelers. The more you try to dismiss them like this, the more obvious it is how it bothers you, and the more it shows that it does bother you.

    BTW, you forgot Pol Pot. And Stalin. Those guys sure know how to kill and swim in blood. All in the name of that social justice you have such a hard on for.

    Thumb up 0

  35. AlexInCT *

    Dishonest dishonest dishonest.

    Coming from the dickhead that still pretends I was not right because the story had not been broken by the LSM, with their spin on it, yet, that’s a lot of dishonesty there.

    I must have missed that.

    Not surprised you did. You only see what you want.

    It’s amazing what happens to the discussion when you arrive. Co-incidence I’m sure.

    The problem is that you are under the illusion people are discusing anything with you, while it is obvious to me that they are more like making fun of you. They then tire quick and just ignore you.

    Thumb up 0

  36. AlexInCT *

    Completely dishonest.

    What is this? You keep repeating what sounds like code for “fuck, he got me” and think people can’t figure out that you are the one lying?

    I will ask again: why is it always the fault of those that prosper and never the fault of those that do stupid things that the world is so unjust to you?

    Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
    This is known as “bad luck.”

    Robert A. Heinlein

    Thumb up 4

  37. AlexInCT *

    He will learn quickly, like I did, that he was wrong about thinking you were actually discussing anything in good faith. I am sure of that CM.

    Thumb up 0

  38. AlexInCT *

    Did you just say the exact same thing I do, and CM, for some reason didn’t attack you for it Section8? Don’t let it fool you into thinking he somehow saw the light though. He is doing that because I pointed out you get nowhere with him trying to discuss any topic that paints the elft badly in earnest, because he does no such thing.

    Thumb up 0

  39. AlexInCT *

    That’s what elections everywhere are like ilovecress. Good people, the most qualified to lead, will not go into politics for the same reason they will not go into child pornography.

    Thumb up 0

  40. CM

    Lenin, Hitler, the Kims, Mao, Ho Chi Ming, Lenin, Hitler, the Kims, Mao, Ho Chi Ming, Lenin, Hitler, the Kims, Mao, Ho Chi Ming, Lenin, Hitler, the Kims, Mao, Ho Chi Ming, Lenin, Hitler, the Kims, Mao, Ho Chi Ming, Lenin, Hitler, the Kims, Mao, Ho Chi Ming, Lenin, Hitler, the Kims, Pol Pot, Hitler, Lenin, Hitler, the Kims, Mao, Ho Chi Ming, Lenin, Hitler, the Kims, Mao, Ho Chi Ming, Lenin, Hitler, the Kims, Mao, Ho Chi Ming, Lenin, Hitler, the Kims, Mao, Ho Chi Ming, Lenin, Hitler, the Kims, Mao, Ho Chi Ming, Lenin, Hitler, the Kims, Mao, Ho Chi Ming, Lenin, Hitler, the Kims, Pol Pot, Hitler,
    Lenin, Hitler, the Kims, Mao, Ho Chi Ming, Lenin, Hitler, the Kims, Mao, Ho Chi Ming, Lenin, Hitler, the Kims, Mao, Ho Chi Ming, Lenin, Hitler, the Kims, Mao, Ho Chi Ming, Lenin, Hitler, the Kims, Mao, Ho Chi Ming, Lenin, Hitler, the Kims, Mao, Ho Chi Ming, Lenin, Hitler, the Kims, Pol Pot, Hitler,
    Lenin, Hitler, the Kims, Mao, Ho Chi Ming, Lenin, Hitler, the Kims, Mao, Ho Chi Ming, Lenin, Hitler, the Kims, Mao, Ho Chi Ming, Lenin, Hitler, the Kims, Mao, Ho Chi Ming, Lenin, Hitler, the Kims, Mao, Ho Chi Ming, Lenin, Hitler, the Kims, Mao, Ho Chi Ming, Lenin, Hitler, the Kims, Pol Pot, Hitler,
    Lenin, Hitler, the Kims, Mao, Ho Chi Ming, Lenin, Hitler, the Kims, Mao, Ho Chi Ming, Lenin, Hitler, the Kims, Mao, Ho Chi Ming, Lenin, Hitler, the Kims, Mao, Ho Chi Ming, Lenin, Hitler, the Kims, Mao, Ho Chi Ming, Lenin, Hitler, the Kims, Mao, Ho Chi Ming, Lenin, Hitler, the Kims, Pol Pot, Hitler,
    Lenin, Hitler, the Kims, Mao, Ho Chi Ming, Lenin, Hitler, the Kims, Mao, Ho Chi Ming, Lenin, Hitler, the Kims, Mao, Ho Chi Ming, Lenin, Hitler, the Kims, Mao, Ho Chi Ming, Lenin, Hitler, the Kims, Mao, Ho Chi Ming, Lenin, Hitler, the Kims, Mao, Ho Chi Ming, Lenin, Hitler, the Kims, Pol Pot, Hitler,
    Lenin, Hitler, the Kims, Mao, Ho Chi Ming, Lenin, Hitler, the Kims, Mao, Ho Chi Ming, Lenin, Hitler, the Kims, Mao, Ho Chi Ming, Lenin, Hitler, the Kims, Mao, Ho Chi Ming, Lenin, Hitler, the Kims, Mao, Ho Chi Ming, Lenin, Hitler, the Kims, Mao, Ho Chi Ming, Lenin, Hitler, the Kims, Pol Pot, Hitler,

    Thumb up 0

  41. CM

    Coming from the dickhead that still pretends I was not right because the story had not been broken by the LSM, with their spin on it, yet, that’s a lot of dishonesty there.

    How does that even remotely meet any definition of dishonesty? You’re not even making internal sense. Again.

    Not surprised you did. You only see what you want.

    Must be my browser that’s broken. I do a word search for ‘tool’ and only get 2 matches, both them above.
    Can’t be you just making shit up again of course.
    Dishonest dishonest dishonest.

    The problem is that you are under the illusion people are discusing anything with you, while it is obvious to me that they are more like making fun of you. They then tire quick and just ignore you.

    Poor Alex, reduced to that level of desperation now. Diddums.

    Thumb up 0

  42. CM

    What is this? You keep repeating what sounds like code for “fuck, he got me” and think people can’t figure out that you are the one lying?

    You interrupted a discussion claiming that I think “it’s always someone else’s fault that people end up where they do”. You state that I believe that it’s “never ever the fact that they made the wrong choices”.

    I’ve never suggested anything of the sort. So you’re being dishonest.

    Where am I lying? Back up your allegation or STFU.

    I will ask again: why is it always the fault of those that prosper and never the fault of those that do stupid things that the world is so unjust to you?

    And I will continue to point out that you’re being dishonest.

    Thumb up 1

  43. CM

    How is Phil Goff “probably worse”? I think he’s easily beaten Key in both debates. What is Key’s appeal? I don’t understand it. He even looks like a sulky teenager being told off by his Dad whenever Goff is speaking.

    Thumb up 0

  44. Mississippi Yankee

    CM said:

    Perhaps they’re just not the right programs. We’re a bit more advanced in our thinking on lifting kids out of bad situations than they were in LBJ’s day.

    C’mon guy, we’re trying to have an honest debate and you choice to read, almost verbatim, from the “Manifesto”!

    Socialism will work ‘this time’ I just know it will.

    As to your children, they’re kiwi’s, not low, middle, upper middle, or rich class Americans. Your government is racing headlong into the Euro-entitlement abyss. Your children will grow up vastly different than my grandchildren.Promises of outcomes, however hollow, will cause this vastness.
    Some will succeed in life, some may not.
    But if or when mine do they will know the sense of self accomplishment their parents and grandparents felt. And the feeling is tangible, trust me.

    In my country we have the grantee of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Pursuit being the optimum word here.

    Thumb up 1

  45. JimK

    Like anything on earth could stop that.

    What I won’t tolerate is troll shit. What you are doing with the repeated cut & paste text is troll shit. And now we’re done with that.

    Thumb up 3

  46. CM

    C’mon guy, we’re trying to have an honest debate and you choice to read, almost verbatim, from the “Manifesto”!

    Socialism will work ‘this time’ I just know it will.

    Assisting kids to get to the start line so they have at least the chance of the same opportunites as an average kid (ignoring those that start ahead of the start line because of privilege) doesn’t need to be ‘socialism’. Actually it’s acknowledging the importance of making the playing field as level as possible so that capitalism is possible. Otherwise the system is inherently rigged isn’t it?

    As to your children, they’re kiwi’s, not low, middle, upper middle, or rich class Americans. Your government is racing headlong into the Euro-entitlement abyss.

    Really? What do you base that on?

    Your children will grow up vastly different than my grandchildren.Promises of outcomes, however hollow, will cause this vastness.

    My point is at least to try and provide a starting point which isn’t completely lop-sided, a system that isn’t so obviously rigged. Who is promising an outcome? I’m certainly not. Why would you suggest that I have?
    Has Alex hacked your account now?

    Some will succeed in life, some may not.

    Absolutely. I support capitalism, which is inherently a system of winners and losers. Because not everyone can be winners. It’s not possible. But I’d rather give as many people as possible a decent shot at being one of the winners. The dice appears to be getting more and more stacked. Which is what the OWS people are complaining about. See ilovecress’s Guardian piece. I don’t see where they are saying “The system needs to be replaced by one where everyone is a winner”.

    But if or when mine do they will know the sense of self accomplishment their parents and grandparents felt. And the feeling is tangible, trust me.

    There is nothing I want more than my kids to succeed. I’d be disappointed if they don’t, particularly as they have every advantage on a plate. Attentive and encouraging and wealthy-enough parents, the correct skin colour, etc etc. Of course they could still fail because of an issue or a variety of issues.

    In my country we have the grantee of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Pursuit being the optimum word here.

    Exactly. Enable more people to persue happiness. That’s effectively what I take from the OWS protest. Make capitalism work for more people. I don’t see how that is in any way contradicting that guarantee. Again, I’m in no way talking about outcomes – outcomes are very much to do with the individual.

    Thumb up 0

  47. CM

    Like anything on earth could stop that.

    Of course it could. Any one of a number of things could stop that. None of them are going to happen though (well, I could get banned I guess, that would stop it ).

    What I won’t tolerate is troll shit. What you are doing with the repeated cut & paste text is troll shit.

    I completely agree.

    And now we’re done with that.

    We are. I’m still trying to get my head around the definition of ‘troll’ at this place. Continuing to post the same thing over and over again (which is what I was mocking) doesn’t seem that different to me. On top of the fact that the same poster comes back into a thread following a decent discussion and immediately starts abusing me left, right and centre and inventing rubbish. But if nobody else has a problem with it, onwards we proceed.

    Thumb up 0

  48. Mississippi Yankee

    Exactly. Enable more people to persue happiness. That’s effectively what I take from the OWS protest.

    That enable word is in a lot of your Narrative™.

    What I take away from the OWS protest is middle class mostly ‘white’ 20 somethings with their hands out. Being nominally lead by upper middle ‘white’ 30 somethings operating under the Piven Cloward Strategy using Allinsky’s Rules for Radicals. I further believe these two groups are no different than Stalin’s “useful idiot” of the 30’s,40’s 50’s ect…

    I understand your sole purpose here is as an agent provocateur, and you do it almost honestly butt…
    Calling Alex a liar at every conceivable opportunity is, again verbatim Allinsky Rjule #12:
    Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

    C’mon CM bring your A game.

    ——————————————————————————–

    Thumb up 0

  49. CM

    That enable word is in a lot of your Narrative™.

    I try and stay away from narratives. As far as I’m concerned they go hand in hand with pure ideology. So I’m much more interested in questioning them.

    What I take away from the OWS protest is middle class mostly ‘white’ 20 somethings with their hands out.

    Well ok fine. So long as you’re ok with reasonable people dismissing your opinions on the basis that you’re just greedy etc etc. The fact that you might have legitimate issues and points is important isn’t it?

    Being nominally lead by upper middle ‘white’ 30 somethings operating under the Piven Cloward Strategy using Allinsky’s Rules for Radicals. I further believe these two groups are no different than Stalin’s “useful idiot” of the 30′s,40′s 50′s ect…

    Do we have evidence of the engineering behind this? It’s an exceptionally cynical opinion isn’t it, if that’s just a hunch? Particularly given that some of the issues being raised are pretty similar to those raised on this very blog? Are some posters here just plants from The Strategy tm?

    I understand your sole purpose here is as an agent provocateur, and you do it almost honestly butt…
    Calling Alex a liar at every conceivable opportunity is, again verbatim Allinsky Rjule #12:

    I’d much prefer if he was honest, it gets tiring pointing out his dishonesty over and over again. And I’m being honest about that ;-) No truly I am. I’d much rather get into deep discussions with a variety of people with different opinions on many interesting issues. I’ve been able to do it in the past, including at MW forums.
    However I’m not going to let him get away with making shit up about me and my thoughts on issues. I have a right to defend myself and I’ll use it. So although it’s tiring, I’m not preparing to let him wear me down through dishonesty-attrition. Don’t let the truth-terrorists win etc etc.

    Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

    Nah, I’d much rather play the ball, not the man. I’ll only go after the man when the man has forgotten the ball and played at me (personal insult, dishonesty about my opinion, etc).

    C’mon CM bring your A game.

    I can usually only be bothered to bring my A game when I’m locked into a good discussion with people who want to do the same (and don’t just repeat the same old vague ridiculous mantras such as “following the footsteps of such greats as Lenin, Hitler, the Kims, Mao, Ho Chi Ming, and so on” and writing lame-ass responses like “why do you want to ensure all outcomes are the same”). Or when I’m discussing AGW (it’s a topic I’m fascinated with for a number of reasons, and it’s a useful intellectual exercise, and there’s always something new to learn about, and (childishly) I do love to see people proudly put their ignorance on display. So I don’t need a ‘good discussion’ to bring my A game on that one. I’m always ready. :-)

    Thumb up 0

  50. Mississippi Yankee

    Way back in this post I mentioned 101 entitlement programs, that was a random figure I pulled out of my ass. Well it turns our there are 185 (at least) of them

    :…Those programs collectively spend so much money that if you just gave it to the poor, there would be no poor left in America.”

    Are some posters here just plants from The Strategy tm?

    Why yes actually, Frances Fox-Piven not only attended the OWS protests she was teaching classes to protest organizers. And was filmed doing so I might add. BTW it’s also know asthe “Cloward-Piven Princple”

    Your response to my 30 somethig nominally in-charge folks.

    Do we have evidence of the engineering behind this?

    Please allow me to use your friend Wikipedia

    Origin

    In a July 13, 2011 blog post, the Canadian-based Adbusters Foundation, best known for its advertisement-free anti-consumerist magazine Adbusters, proposed a peaceful occupation of Wall Street to protest corporate influence on democracy, a growing disparity in wealth, and the absence of legal repercussions behind the recent global financial crisis.

    Now I have some pr0n that’s not gonna download itseft. G-nite

    Thumb up 0

  51. AlexInCT *

    Poor Alex, reduced to that level of desperation now. Diddums.

    When I see people like you quite eager to destroy my life’s work, out of nothing but envy & jealousy, you bet yourself that it pisses me off.

    Thumb up 0

  52. AlexInCT *

    Where was he being dishonest about what I’ve said?

    Section8 wasn’t: you however are the one being dishonest then projecting it.

    Thumb up 0

  53. CM

    You forgot to answer: How does that even remotely meet any definition of dishonesty?

    When I see people like you quite eager to destroy my life’s work, out of nothing but envy & jealousy, you bet yourself that it pisses me off.

    Your life’s work must be close to worthless anyway if I can destroy it from here. With words. Of moderation.

    Thumb up 0

  54. CM

    Has Gingrich released a list of what those 185 are? And how he calculates that “those programs collectively spend so much money that if you just gave it to the poor, there would be no poor left in America”?
    He’s a politician, making a campaign speech. So I’d like to see the detail behind the claim.

    Yes, I am aware that the Adbusters Foundation proposed it originally, but what has their influence been beyond that initial concept?
    I keep being told they’re all poor students who never want to work.

    Thumb up 0

  55. CM

    Again, how am I being dishonest? Why do consider it reasonable to keep making baseless accusations? What do you hope to achieve? Is it simply to relentlessly bully someone into submission so they give up and you then get away with it because noboby else will call you to account?

    You need to learn how to exercise some personal responsibility for what you post Alex.

    Thumb up 0

  56. AlexInCT *

    You interrupted a discussion claiming that I think “it’s always someone else’s fault that people end up where they do”. You state that I believe that it’s “never ever the fact that they made the wrong choices”.

    I’ve never suggested anything of the sort. So you’re being dishonest.

    Nice deflection CM. What I said was that the BELIEFS OF YOUR IDEOLOGY, that “social justice” nonsense, says that those that have a lot got it because of luck, work of others, contacts they know, and practically always, implied or not, subterfuge that allowed them to take from others, and hence, since these circumstances invalidates the claim that it was their hard work that got them where they are, that they should be forced to give more to help the community. I pointed out that your ideology conveniently ignores that the ones needing help, practically always, are in need of help, because they continuously make wrong choices & decisions in the grand wealth redistribution equation, and only factors them in when they tell us they will remove our freedoms, so these people can be prevented from doing the wrong thing.

    This bill of goods is always sold by appealing to people’s emotions rather than their ability to think. So people like me, the ones that both make the right and hard choices and value our freedom, get double slammed by the stupid. Do you deny believing that those that are better off didn’t earn it by their work effort and that you actually feel they need to share, especially when they have a whole lot of money, because leftists always feel that no one person needs to have that much? And “that much” seems to always be a moving bar, always trending lower, that allows the nanny staters to take more and more from the productive. Because you have made both those points before.

    Where am I lying? Back up your allegation or STFU.

    I just did. You, I expect, will pretend that I am misrepresenting your beliefs, and contort yourself trying to say that this isn’t what you belief, while asking exactly for that in the end.

    My point is simple. You can not have freedom without personal responsibility. Some people will never be responsible. It is not my fault or obligation to then support a state where elites gain power by punishing me to buy votes from these other people.

    Thumb up 0

  57. CM

    You’re deliberately confusing my opinion with a pure ideology. You’re engaging in an ongoing fallacy that there is only two opinions that can be held. I reject that. I’ve told you that before. I am able to have opinions of my own without adhering to an ideology. I’m able to determine issues on their merits. So from the point that I explain that to you, you’re being dishonest. I realise you can’t and won’t accept that, but that fact remains.

    You simply refuse to engage with what is posted. And when you demonstrate that with your dishonest responses, I will call you out on that dishonesty. Again and again and again.

    Again, this is what you said:

    It is always someone else’s fault that people end up where they do, SO! Never ever, the fact that they made the wrong choices. Don’t you get it?

    That is dishonest. I don’t believe it’s always someone else’s fault that people end up where they do. I believe that people make the wrong choices all the time.

    If you want to stop this spiral, that’s entirely up to you.

    Thumb up 2

  58. Section8

    Alex, if you have ever seen my previous rounds with CM, you’d know we generally don’t communicate as best buds, but in my initial response to his post on this site, I ask specifically what he thought would be solutions, and he did post just that. For me, that’s all I really look for, and since he did that, while I may not agree with most of them, I felt it was my obligation to reciprocate and post mine.

    Had he avoided the issue and instead decided to harp on the evils of capitalism, or went off on a tangent to put me on the defensive over irrelevant aspects, or I’m just a binary ideologue, or I saw his response as a subtle jab at Americans, or anything else to light my relatively short fuse, then then my response would have been different, but I believe he posted a decent response, I believe his solutions are what he truly believes they should be, and I don’t have an issue with him posting that.

    Thumb up 2

  59. Mississippi Yankee

    Yes, I am aware that the Adbusters Foundation proposed it originally, but what has their influence been beyond that initial concept?

    Someone is banking and utilizing all the money being donated to OWS protests.

    In Oakland ‘the organizers’ deposited $20,000 from “donations” in a Wells Fargo Bank they had previously demonstrated against the day before.

    Nether the Arab Spring nor OWS was formed in a vacuum. There’s bunches and bunches of enabling going on here (and there) so don’t go all loquacious troll on me now. You’ve been relatively honest up to this point.

    My attention span is waning anyway.

    Thumb up 0

  60. CM

    My attention span is waning anyway.

    I can never compete with pr0n.

    In terms of the money:

    In the past, these funds financed the tent city that emerged at Zuccotti Park, covering the cost of such things as food, medical supplies, camping equipment, sanitation, and even bail bonds, when the occasion called for it — hundreds of protesters have been arrested in New York alone in the last two months.

    In the coming days members of the finance committee say they will initiate a process to streamline the movement and re-evaluate their budget. They may eliminate or restructure some of the “working groups” they no longer need on a day-to-day basis.

    “We have some ideas but we want to hear ideas from the other working groups,” said Dutro, “So we can put forward a proposal that would be fair and suit everybody’s needs.”

    http://money.cnn.com/2011/11/21/news/occupy_wall_street_money/

    Thumb up 0

  61. Mississippi Yankee

    In the coming days members of the finance committee say they will initiate a process to streamline the movement and re-evaluate their budget. They may eliminate or restructure some of the “working groups” they no longer need on a day-to-day basis

    .

    Somehow these ‘finance committee’ members are starting to sound a lot like event managers. And that’s just using your link.
    Hell it appears exactly like the Jon Stewart satire clip from last week.

    My whole point during this Homerific post has been the enabled will always want to be enabled It’s self perpetuating.
    And in this/these cases the enabling is planed, professional and comes from very deep pockets.

    Thumb up 0

  62. AlexInCT *

    You’re deliberately confusing my opinion with a pure ideology.

    No I am not, CM. I am basically pointing out what you argue for is what you believe in, and what you believe in seems to be 100% leftists ideology. I do not make any bones about being a conservative and believing in that – what conservatism is, not the left’s caricature of a conservative – and maybe you should man up and do the same about your hard left views. You have been repeatedly told that you may think you are a moderate but that’s just because the left has fooled people like you into thinking you are moderates due to the fact that so many left-leaners decide what is moderate or not.

    It is always someone else’s fault that people end up where they do, SO! Never ever, the fact that they made the wrong choices. Don’t you get it?

    That is dishonest. I don’t believe it’s always someone else’s fault that people end up where they do. I believe that people make the wrong choices all the time.

    How is that dishonest? When the SOLUTION is always that people like me, the ones that have made the hard choices and given up or postponed instant gratification in order to live within their means, and because of this and hard work succeed, need to give more and more, because it is unfair that I have and others that did neither do not, what’s dishonest about pointing that out? This is a pillar/cornerstone of liberalism and the whole socialist belief system.

    If there was any fairness in it all, I would be allowed far more say, or at least some guarantee, that the people that keep fucking up, and because of that stay poor, will have to stop doing more of the same. Instead I am told that I am a greedy, callous, and evil person for wanting to keep more of my money, when I point out that this thing that keeps the left in power is just them throwing pearls to swine, at my expense.

    If you want to stop this spiral, that’s entirely up to you.

    Actually I will stop when the left, people like you, stops pretending that robbing people like me is moral and justified. Until then I am going to be on people like you like stink is on shit.

    Thumb up 0

  63. AlexInCT *

    Your life’s work must be close to worthless anyway if I can destroy it from here. With words. Of moderation.

    What a fucking pack of lies. You are no moderate, despite your conviction that what you believe in is centrist and moderate. It is hard core leftist shit bordering on, if not outright marxist statism.

    Leftist ideology has basically brought the world’s economies to the brink of collapse. They keep pretending the problem is capitalism. We haven’t had anything but crony government controlled economies for the last 3 or more decades, with the left basically inventing nonsense like AGW and whatever else, to justify their desire to turn the world upside down. All so that a bunch of intellectual fuckwads that think they know better and can create utopia on earth, can ensconce themselves in all positions of authority. I hear constantly how some have too much and others don’t have enough, always with a tone that indicates that the haves took it from the have nots, and that refusing to allow these fuckwads to try to “fix that” is a sign that I am a greedy thief. I keep getting told that I need to give up more and more so that the left can fix the world’s ills, but all I see is a scheme that robs me so that they can buy votes & power, at my own fucking expense. And the problems never, ever go away. They just get worse and bigger and then they want more and more of my money.

    And yes, at the rate things are going my life’s work will be worthless sooner than later. And people that believe the lies you do will be responsible for that.

    Thumb up 0

  64. CM

    What a fucking pack of lies. You are no moderate, despite your conviction that what you believe in is centrist and moderate. It is hard core leftist shit bordering on, if not outright marxist statism.

    I can’t do anything about what you dream up. What you claim simply isn’t supported by what I post. I can see good points made on both sides in many political arguments.

    Whereas your second paragraph is indistinguishable from the rest of your hard-core ideological rantings found on almost every thread on this blog. It bears no relatioship to me. You’re a broken record. You’re screaming from the fringes.

    And yes, at the rate things are going my life’s work will be worthless sooner than later.

    Diddums, poor lil baby.
    If that’s the case then perhaps you shouldn’t have let your political opinions play any part in your engineering. I’d alert all your former clients and let them know.

    Thumb up 0