Skip to Next Poll »
10
Calling all Lib-tards, Things Just Got More Wonky

Hello all, and welcome to my first Libtard session I have multiple things I would like to discuss. As things go though, certainly add your two cents to anything else you would like to talk about. For now though:

1.)  We were close to a government shutdown over, of all things, FEMA funding and offsets to it. Now, Congress didn't compromise to avoid the shutdown, but FEMA basically said it can get itself through the end of the fiscal year without new funding. The new CR runs through November 18th. As a federal employee, I am way too biased to answer this question, so I'll ask you guys. Is there a scenario where a government shutdown helps politically, in terms of what they are fighting over? Note this a solely political question, since we all know there is no economic benefit to a shutdown.

2.) On to the GOP presidential race, where we all know it's a two man race between Romney and Perry. At the same time though, the Chris Christie speculation keeps growing here in the Beltway, so we'll include him for now as the new Flavor of the Month. My question, which will be the actual poll, is you could pick the GOP nominee, which of those three would it be?

3.) What political writers and media do you read and/or watch? I'll give my answer in the comments so you know what I'm talking about. If you have a conservative writer/pundit who's worth reading/watching, definitely let us know. I'd be most interested to hear one.

4.) Finally, getting back to straight electoral politics, I want to spend some time on the upcoming Senate cycle. I'll post in the comments the full list of who's up this time, and what the races look like at this juncture, but the short of it, it's not a good map for Democrats. For this one, I'm mainly hoping to get some insight on the races from a local perspective. Any information outside the DC bubble is good with me. Calling all Lib-tards, Things Just Got More Wonky Photo

Of course, this is your poll, so take it wherever you all desire. I'm just hear to kick the conversation off.

Please remember that all opinions are welcome, but this poll is geared towards the liberals here. So it can and often gets heated, so if you can't take the heat stay out of the poll. And let's all remember the CoC. Basically, don't be like our politicians, but disagree without being disagreeable.

*bangs gavel*

| Closed on 10/27/11 at 05:00PM
FanIQ Pts? No | Locker Room, Politics | Multiple Choice Opinion Poll
11 Fans 
45%a. Romney
27%b. Perry
27%c. Christie

 &nbp;
TOP COMMENT * * * * * * * * * * * *
#1 | 1059 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

(Edited by NorseHeathen)
Well, President Obama had a heckler call him the "anti-Christ".....which is funny because most of the anti-Christian actions I see being supported comes by way of the right-wing establishment, clerics, and politicians.

Republican pundits honestly believe that independents support their cause......which made watching a Sarah Palin interview stating such was hilarious.  (For historical reference, review the history and public reaction to the Gingrich congress).

And the Wall Street protests still aren't getting any legitimate news coverage despite having carried out their protest for over a week.  A perfect example of how even though certain media outlets may have a liberal perspective, they're still corporations and maintain their allegiance to the declining "almighty dollar" than to news.

There's plenty more, but I'm sure this thread will evolve.
  
85 Comments | Sorted by Most Recent First | Red = You Disagreed
Vote for your favorite comments. Fans decide the Top Comment (3+ votes) and also hide poor quality comments (4+ votes).
#1 | 1059 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

(Edited by NorseHeathen)
Well, President Obama had a heckler call him the "anti-Christ".....which is funny because most of the anti-Christian actions I see being supported comes by way of the right-wing establishment, clerics, and politicians.

Republican pundits honestly believe that independents support their cause......which made watching a Sarah Palin interview stating such was hilarious.  (For historical reference, review the history and public reaction to the Gingrich congress).

And the Wall Street protests still aren't getting any legitimate news coverage despite having carried out their protest for over a week.  A perfect example of how even though certain media outlets may have a liberal perspective, they're still corporations and maintain their allegiance to the declining "almighty dollar" than to news.

There's plenty more, but I'm sure this thread will evolve.
#2 | 1059 days ago

(Edited by Eric_)
Now that the O's game is over (so close, damn it), I should probably answer my own questions.

As stated in the intro, I can't answer the first question, as my self-interest in wanting to go to work and get paid trumps basically anything the Congresscritters can fight over.

For question two, I answered Romney because the fact of the matter is there is a distinct possibility Obama loses in 2012. If there must be a GOP president, Romney is easily the least bad of those that can actually win. Perry is a dangerous theocrat, while Christie (if he runs) is a loud and crass bully who will probably go right to shredding my pay and benefits. However, I suspect that in the end it isn't really going to matter which of them is the president if the GOP wins.

For question three, we all know of course that I'm a Ezra Klein fanboy. I also read Eugene Robinson's op-ed at the Post. Economically, I make sure to read every Paul Krugman column (even if it times he falls into self-parody), and when I have the time, Brad Delong. For pure politics, I mainly check Political Wire. The stories are just the facts ma'am, and the comments can be a decent time waster. I don't read Mother Jones for time reasons, but I do follow David Corn on Twitter. I also read and follow David Weigel at Slate. He's good to read to find out what conservatives are thinking and doing at any given moment. One place I stay away from on purpose is HuffPo. Site's too slow and it reminds me too much of Bleacher Report.

TV wise, if I'm up for it, I'll pick Rachel Maddow first. Occasionally I'll watch O'Donnell. He's enjoyable when he's pissed (see: I BLAME THE LAW FOR THE OTHER 21 BULLETS THAT HE FIRED). Ed Schultz and Chris Matthews are idiots, so pass. I'll also admit I used to watch KO for when I felt like good old partisan red meat. I don't have Current TV, so watching him now isn't an option, and I don't I'd go out of way for it. Stewart and Colbert I usually catch the repeat the next day.

Question 4 I'll answer tomorrow, as I should really go to bed.
Romney  
#3 | 1059 days ago

I don't have a lot of time, so I'll just start with this:  I'd want Perry running.  I don't think Christie is going to run, but he'd do nicely, too.  Neither would win, and that's just fine by me.
#4 | 1058 days ago

 1) Except for those trying to avoid a Tea Party primary, there is no benefit to a government shutdown.

2) Jon Huntsman is understandably not an option, so I guess Mitt Romney.  In terms of increasing Obama's chances, I'd love for Perry to win.

3) Krugman, Corn, Weigel, Klein, Maddow, and Lawrence O'Donnell.  I also enjoy the entire Talking Points Memo website.

4) Here in Wisconsin we're nominating Tammy Baldwin on the Dem side.  She's awesome, progressive, and openly gay.  Obviously, I find nothing wrong with any of that, but the openly gay part terrifies me with Northern Wisconsin independent voters. The Republicans would be smart to go with Tommy Thompson, but he could easily get primaried out by the Fitzgerald family, who along with Scott Walker essentially run this state right now.  Mark Nuemann is also running, but he runs for every state wide race and is a bigger joke every time.
#5 | 1058 days ago

Posting for political education, and to pq Glenda when she starts posting in here!
Christie  
#6 | 1058 days ago

NorseHeathen wrote:
Well, President Obama had a heckler call him the "anti-Christ".....which is funny because most of the anti-Christian actions I see being supported comes by way of the right-wing establishment, clerics, and politicians.

Republican pundits honestly believe that independents support their cause......which made watching a Sarah Palin interview stating such was hilarious.  (For historical reference, review the history and public reaction to the Gingrich congress).

And the Wall Street protests still aren't getting any legitimate news coverage despite having carried out their protest for over a week.  A perfect example of how even though certain media outlets may have a liberal perspective, they're still corporations and maintain their allegiance to the declining "almighty dollar" than to news.

There's plenty more, but I'm sure this thread will evolve.
I just made a considerable donation to cancer research with some of my Wall Street earnings, in protest of the protest
#7 | 1058 days ago
cubsgirl2 (+)

richard_cranium wrote:
Posting for political education, and to pq Glenda when she starts posting in here!
 



Question 2. You know I think Romney,  but what scares me about that is, he would have the biggest chance of winning. If it is a republican I think he worries me the least. 
Romney  
#8 | 1058 days ago
cubsgirl2 (+)

 And Erik.  
Romney  
#9 | 1058 days ago

PS - I think there is a political benefit from a government shutdown.  I think it's just one other way that Republicans are trying to make the president look bad/weak.  
I've said it before, I'll say it again.  Republicans don't WANT the country to recover.  They don't WANT to help people.  They don't WANT things to turn around.  At least not until THEY get back in office.  F**king politics.
#10 | 1058 days ago

 I picked Perry, but who I really mean is Parry. 
Perry  
#11 | 1058 days ago

 Oh and Chris Hayes show on MSNBC is awesome.  Only problem is I'm asleep through it (and its only on twice a week) so I have to either DVR it or watch it online later.
#12 | 1058 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

kteacher wrote:
 I picked Perry, but who I really mean is Parry. 

The Definition of Parry:
transitive verb
1 : to ward off
2 : to evade

My personal definition for Parry/Perry:
1:  AVOID LIKE THE F)*(^&* PLAGUE!!!



As this time passes into history, I believe the future of a more enlightened society will embrace the term "you tea-bagger" to be a grave insult.
#13 | 1058 days ago

OMG  =    Obama Must Go!

I don't want either one of the ones you selected, they are all Bilderberg picks.

I say gooooooooooo Cain!!!
Christie  
#14 | 1058 days ago

janet011685 wrote:
PS - I think there is a political benefit from a government shutdown.  I think it's just one other way that Republicans are trying to make the president look bad/weak.  
I've said it before, I'll say it again.  Republicans don't WANT the country to recover.  They don't WANT to help people.  They don't WANT things to turn around.  At least not until THEY get back in office.  F**king politics.
You do realize that these things have happened with Republicans in power too, right? To act like one side has the best interests of the people in mind any more than the other side is just foolish... REGARDLESS of which side you're taking. They both have ulterior motives, they're both selfish, and they're both willing to rake the little guy over the coals just to make their point and/or push their agenda.
#15 | 1058 days ago

Pat wrote:
You do realize that these things have happened with Republicans in power too, right? To act like one side has the best interests of the people in mind any more than the other side is just foolish... REGARDLESS of which side you're taking. They both have ulterior motives, they're both selfish, and they're both willing to rake the little guy over the coals just to make their point and/or push their agenda.
Yes, both parties do it.  However, historically, it has NEVER been as bad (the ridiculous political posturing and refusal to work together when there is a serious crisis) as it is now.  
#16 | 1058 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

Pat wrote:
You do realize that these things have happened with Republicans in power too, right? To act like one side has the best interests of the people in mind any more than the other side is just foolish... REGARDLESS of which side you're taking. They both have ulterior motives, they're both selfish, and they're both willing to rake the little guy over the coals just to make their point and/or push their agenda.
Viva la Cascadia!
#17 | 1058 days ago

OK, now to answer question 4. I'll start with the Democratic held seats. Each race will be rated Safe-Likely-Lean-Toss Up. I'll admit some of these may be conservative. Without further ado:

SAFE DEMOCRAT

Delaware (Carper)

Hawaii (OPEN- Akaka)- I'll miss quorums and votes starting with "Mr. Akaka."

Maryland (Cardin)

New Jersey (Menendez)

New York (Gillibrand)

Rhode Island (Whitehouse)

Vermont (Sanders)

LIKELY DEMOCRAT

California (Feinstein)- There's some of scandal with the California Dem treasurer stealing money, and Feinstein had to loan her campaign $5 million. Something to keep an eye on.

Connecticut (OPEN-Lieberman)- It will likely be Chris Murphy vs. Linda McMahon, although both have primary challengers. This race only becomes interesting if Chris Shays somehow beats McMahon.

Minnesota (Klobuchar)- I doubt she's in much trouble, but I have no idea who she'll be running against.

Washington (Cantwell)- This one actually might be too lenient after what happened to Murray in 2010, and the fact that the Republican candidate for governor has the early lead. Still, I'm not sure anyone (not even Dino Rossi) has challenged Cantwell yet.

LEANS DEMOCRAT

Florida (Bill Nelson)- Big GOP primary between a teabagger and former Sen. George LeMieux should buy time for Nelson. Rick Scott's unpopularity should also help.

Pennsylvania (Casey)- As far as I know, no challenger yet. Casey's poll numbers are decent all things considered.

West Virginia (Manchin)- This could probably be in the Likely category, but I'm not comfortable with that yet given Obama's hated in WV, and will be on the ballot.

TOSS-UP

Michigan (Stabenow)- I have no idea if the GOP has a candidate yet, but after 2010 I'm not taking any chances.

Missouri (McCaskill)- She's one of my favorites, but it's obvious this one will be tight the whole way, regardless of GOP candidate.

Montana (Tester)- He barely won in 2006 against a heavily damaged incumbent. The political climate's a lot more hostile now.

Nebraska (Ben Nelson)- Watch him be seat 51 for the Democrats.

New Mexico (OPEN-Bingaman)- New Mexico's some what of a presidential swing state, so the open seat will make it competitive. Once the candidates are known though, this could change.

Ohio (Brown)- See McCaskill.

Virginia (OPEN-Webb)- Tim Kaine vs. George Allen. Polls are already tight. It'll be Northern Virginia vs. the rest of the state.

Wisconsin (OPEN-Kohl)- Mike pretty much covered that one

GONE

North Dakota (OPEN-Conrad)- Remember when both North Dakota senators and their Congressman were Democrats? That was fun.
Romney  
#18 | 1058 days ago

(Edited by Eric_)
Now for the Republicans. As you'll see, their situation looks like a lot different.

SAFE GOP

Mississippi (Wicker)

Tennessee (Corker)

Texas (OPEN-Hutchison)

Utah (Hatch)

Wyoming (Barrasso)

LIKELY GOP

Arizona (OPEN-Kyl)- Open seat plus all the issues in Arizona plus their demographic changes means there might be an opportunity for Democrats if everything breaks right. I do mean everything though.

Indiana (Lugar)

Maine (Snowe)- Both of these become safe if Lugar and Snowe aren't teabagged out in a primary. At this point, neither seem all that likely.

LEANS GOP

Massachusetts (Brown)- I want to see more of Elizabeth Warren as a candidate before moving this to toss-up. So far though, I like what I see.

TOSS-UP

Nevada (Heller)- The incumbent Heller vs. Shelley Berkley in a president toss-up. This is the one dogfight that Republicans are on the defensive, at least so far.

That's it. Republican are only defending 10 seats, and only 2 have any realistic shot of being in play. Keeping control of the Senate is going to be a big problem for Democrats. As someone who's a big fan of most of the 2006 freshmen, it's a depressing development.
Romney  
#19 | 1058 days ago

Im not even going to start on politics again this time around since i have been added back to the Q. I just get to pissed off. And besides that.....this is not even an issue. Obama will be re elected period.
#20 | 1058 days ago

P.S. Gearhead.....i didnt mean that these were not good points when i said it wasnt an issue. I just meant that i think Obama will win it again.
#21 | 1057 days ago

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/610964639/occupy-wall-street-media

They started their own paper, since they can't get any coverage.
#22 | 1057 days ago

SlowRider wrote:
Im not even going to start on politics again this time around since i have been added back to the Q. I just get to pissed off. And besides that.....this is not even an issue. Obama will be re elected period.
 Obama is anything but a sure bet to get re-elected.  With Romney starting to look like the clear front runner (look no further than the White House pointing out Romney calling the individual mandate a conservative idea today), he's going to have a tough opponent.  The one downside of a Romney nomination though is that through comparison it will end up proving just how moderate Obama actually is.  However, a bad economy (its not getting better soon) is going to make an Obama re-election tough and especially against a tough opponent.
#23 | 1057 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

ohwell_ wrote:
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/610964639/occupy-wall-street-media

They started their own paper, since they can't get any coverage.
Laurel....if we should ever meet, I'm buying you the beverage of your choice!!!  Great find....

On another note, HOF lineman Dan Hampton of the 85 bears isn't going to the White House visit with the rest of his 85 Championship team-mate.  He cited 3 reasons: 1) Immediate family isn't invited, 2) He's not a fan of the man currently occupying the White House, and 3) it's been 25 years, "let it go".  Personally, I wouldn't invite but maybe two or three players from the 85 bears to my house anyways (Walter Payton and Mike Singletary are the exceptions---R.I.P. Sir Walter).  My take, to each his or her own in that regard--generally speaking.  
#24 | 1057 days ago

kantwistaye wrote:
 Obama is anything but a sure bet to get re-elected.  With Romney starting to look like the clear front runner (look no further than the White House pointing out Romney calling the individual mandate a conservative idea today), he's going to have a tough opponent.  The one downside of a Romney nomination though is that through comparison it will end up proving just how moderate Obama actually is.  However, a bad economy (its not getting better soon) is going to make an Obama re-election tough and especially against a tough opponent.
Exactly why i said i am staying out of these politicle poles.......i just get to pissed off and when i get to pissed off on here i get banned.
#25 | 1057 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

SlowRider wrote:
Exactly why i said i am staying out of these politicle poles.......i just get to pissed off and when i get to pissed off on here i get banned.
Yea, I hear ya...LOL!
#26 | 1056 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

The pathetic state of our government at this time can not be more clearly defined than with the example of an entire party that "represents the people" (corporations not counted in this equation), that wants to take away one of the most fundamental needs of heat from people that have no means to produce such on their own.  The first thing that would happen if this were to occur would be to see news coverage of families asphyxiating themselves with alternative heating sources just to keep their families warm--and an immediate effort of spending the money that originally should have been spent on such heat to advertise ways not to keep their families warm.

Anyone who defends this--regardless of the means of rationalization is inhuman.
#27 | 1056 days ago

I forgot to mention how much I love the word Wonky.  
#28 | 1054 days ago

Presented without comment, because I don't think it needs one other than disgusting, but not surprising.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-02/koch-brothers-flout-law-getting-richer-with-secret-iran-sales.html
Romney  
#29 | 1054 days ago

cubsgirl2 wrote:
 And Erik.  
Pssst...It's Eric.
Romney  
#30 | 1054 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

Eric_ wrote:
Presented without comment, because I don't think it needs one other than disgusting, but not surprising.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-02/koch-brothers-flout-law-getting-richer-with-secret-iran-sales.html
#31 | 1054 days ago

Eric_ wrote:
Presented without comment, because I don't think it needs one other than disgusting, but not surprising.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-02/koch-brothers-flout-law-getting-richer-with-secret-iran-sales.html
 Seems about right. Classy, classy, classy individuals.
#32 | 1054 days ago

 For the record, I don't necessarily blame the uber-rich for doing the things they're doing.  Its really our fault.  We've never done anything to protect our rights as the middle class and its about time we do.
#33 | 1054 days ago

kantwistaye wrote:
 For the record, I don't necessarily blame the uber-rich for doing the things they're doing.  Its really our fault.  We've never done anything to protect our rights as the middle class and its about time we do.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/10/02/wall-street-protests-spread-to-toronto-calgary-montreal/

#34 | 1053 days ago

ohwell_ wrote:  I love the Occupy Wall Street protests... I just hope they turn into substantive policy changes eventually.
#35 | 1053 days ago
cubsgirl2 (+)

Eric_ wrote:
Pssst...It's Eric.
Sorry. 




Romney  
#36 | 1053 days ago

(Edited by JBrenn)
kantwistaye wrote:
 I love the Occupy Wall Street protests... I just hope they turn into substantive policy changes eventually.
My $.02 ... 
Not until they form a coherent, group-held message. Right now, it just seems as though it's, "Big companies are BAAAAD". They cannot continue to discount two things (imo) 
1. Not all big companies are bad, and many do tons of local charity work and make donations to poor areas/countries.
2. The people really responsible for God-awful "business decisions", are actually located to the south of NYC. The crowds should be gathering outside Congressional offices and impeding traffic in DC. It's a headline of "The men responsible for the new bank fees, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, couldn't get to the Capitol Building today..."

THAT'S the way to affect change, not camping out on the NY streets.
#37 | 1053 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

Really?  The protests have spread to several U.S. and Canadian cities now, and I've seen various efforts pop up on my Facebook feed.

As for the it being the legislators fault.....  My wife and I both have credit scores in the 700's, yet the credit card companies jacked up our interest to 30%  No offense, but there would be no need for such laws if the essence of greed were curtailed by placing a lifetime earnings cap upon these "black-hole capitalists".
#38 | 1053 days ago

JBrenn wrote:
My $.02 ... 
Not until they form a coherent, group-held message. Right now, it just seems as though it's, "Big companies are BAAAAD". They cannot continue to discount two things (imo) 
1. Not all big companies are bad, and many do tons of local charity work and make donations to poor areas/countries.
2. The people really responsible for God-awful "business decisions", are actually located to the south of NYC. The crowds should be gathering outside Congressional offices and impeding traffic in DC. It's a headline of "The men responsible for the new bank fees, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, couldn't get to the Capitol Building today..."

THAT'S the way to affect change, not camping out on the NY streets.
THAT'S the way to affect change, not camping out on the NY streets.




I'm assuming you mean this in regards to this specific issue only...
Romney  
#39 | 1053 days ago

www.youtube.com/watch

From Occupy Canada,,,,,,,,,social networking is working.   
#40 | 1052 days ago

JBrenn wrote:
My $.02 ... 
Not until they form a coherent, group-held message. Right now, it just seems as though it's, "Big companies are BAAAAD". They cannot continue to discount two things (imo) 
1. Not all big companies are bad, and many do tons of local charity work and make donations to poor areas/countries.
2. The people really responsible for God-awful "business decisions", are actually located to the south of NYC. The crowds should be gathering outside Congressional offices and impeding traffic in DC. It's a headline of "The men responsible for the new bank fees, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, couldn't get to the Capitol Building today..."

THAT'S the way to affect change, not camping out on the NY streets.
 Agree and disagree.

Yes, these companies do some good.  Some do it just to cover up the bad things they do too, though (*cough* Exxon *cough*).  And yes, Washington deserves some blame for thinking Wall Street should regulate themselves and continuing to push free trade.  However, what Wall Street, particularly since they were given the benefit of the doubt they've desired for so long, did was immoral and disgusting.  The fact that after they screwed up the entire system, got bailed out (because our economy would've completely collapsed had we not), and then continue to do the same things they did before is even more immoral and disgusting.  Wall Street should be protested and I'm thankful that it is being protested.
#41 | 1052 days ago

According to PPP, Herman Cain is leading in North Carolina, Nebraska, and West Virginia.  At this point it likely means nothing, but just adds another layer of "WTF" to this Republican primary. (Also these polls weren't able to account for the criticism Cain received from conservative activists and columnist for daring to point out that going to shoot and kill things at a place called N*****head might be really offensive.)
#42 | 1052 days ago

kantwistaye wrote:
 Agree and disagree.

Yes, these companies do some good.  Some do it just to cover up the bad things they do too, though (*cough* Exxon *cough*).  And yes, Washington deserves some blame for thinking Wall Street should regulate themselves and continuing to push free trade.  However, what Wall Street, particularly since they were given the benefit of the doubt they've desired for so long, did was immoral and disgusting.  The fact that after they screwed up the entire system, got bailed out (because our economy would've completely collapsed had we not), and then continue to do the same things they did before is even more immoral and disgusting.  Wall Street should be protested and I'm thankful that it is being protested.
#43 | 1052 days ago

I'm sorry, but even as a bleeding-heart liberal who supports the idea of peaceful protest, and the general theme of the NYC Wall Street protests, I just can't take them seriously.

From the media coverage I've seen, this is what it seems to be:

-  Hippies trying to stick it to the man.  I'm pretty sure most of them are so high on the IDEA of protesting (among other things) that they're not even 100% sure who "the man" is.  (Could you imagine the mixture of B.O. and hemp that must be wafting through the air out there?)
-  Protestors dressed up as zombies.  Yeah, because now they'll definitely take you seriously.
-  A muddled variety of issues.  I saw signs for financial reform, some for regulation of big business, some anti-war signs, human rights signs, LGBT signs ... and a few more that, well, must have been written by one of those hippy protestors post-toke that made NO sense to me whatsoever.

*sigh*
#44 | 1052 days ago

janet011685 wrote:
I'm sorry, but even as a bleeding-heart liberal who supports the idea of peaceful protest, and the general theme of the NYC Wall Street protests, I just can't take them seriously.

From the media coverage I've seen, this is what it seems to be:

-  Hippies trying to stick it to the man.  I'm pretty sure most of them are so high on the IDEA of protesting (among other things) that they're not even 100% sure who "the man" is.  (Could you imagine the mixture of B.O. and hemp that must be wafting through the air out there?)
-  Protestors dressed up as zombies.  Yeah, because now they'll definitely take you seriously.
-  A muddled variety of issues.  I saw signs for financial reform, some for regulation of big business, some anti-war signs, human rights signs, LGBT signs ... and a few more that, well, must have been written by one of those hippy protestors post-toke that made NO sense to me whatsoever.

*sigh*

From the media coverage I've seen, this is what it seems to be:

therein lies the problem....... The Networks are only showing what they want you to see.
.social media is the only place to find the non-crazys.  

And of course here, on this thread.      

 

#45 | 1052 days ago

ohwell_ wrote:

From the media coverage I've seen, this is what it seems to be:

therein lies the problem....... The Networks are only showing what they want you to see.
.social media is the only place to find the non-crazys.  

And of course here, on this thread.      

 

Oh no, this thread has it's share of crazies.  Hell, I'm one of them.  

It's not even the crazies, though.  It's that there's no cohesion.  Everyone seems to be there for a different purpose.  What, exactly, ARE they protesting?  Everything that each individual protester thinks is wrong in this country.  I don't see this demonstration going anywhere unless they unite under A common cause.

Take a looksie.  
#46 | 1052 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

On another note, for the 5th day in a row, Bank of America's website is down.  Although the emphatically deny they've been hacked, I personally think the reason they can't "fix" it is attributed to Anonymous' response to their recently announced increase in fees.
#47 | 1052 days ago

NorseHeathen wrote:
On another note, for the 5th day in a row, Bank of America's website is down.  Although the emphatically deny they've been hacked, I personally think the reason they can't "fix" it is attributed to Anonymous' response to their recently announced increase in fees.
I just checked my account at that wretched bank, and got right in.    Of course, I am Anonymous  LOL
#48 | 1052 days ago

janet011685 wrote:
I'm sorry, but even as a bleeding-heart liberal who supports the idea of peaceful protest, and the general theme of the NYC Wall Street protests, I just can't take them seriously.

From the media coverage I've seen, this is what it seems to be:

-  Hippies trying to stick it to the man.  I'm pretty sure most of them are so high on the IDEA of protesting (among other things) that they're not even 100% sure who "the man" is.  (Could you imagine the mixture of B.O. and hemp that must be wafting through the air out there?)
-  Protestors dressed up as zombies.  Yeah, because now they'll definitely take you seriously.
-  A muddled variety of issues.  I saw signs for financial reform, some for regulation of big business, some anti-war signs, human rights signs, LGBT signs ... and a few more that, well, must have been written by one of those hippy protestors post-toke that made NO sense to me whatsoever.

*sigh*
http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-please-help-editadd-so-th/


Not the one portrayed on Fox News today.      
#49 | 1052 days ago

Bit of a surprise tonight electorally, as the Democrat held on in the special election for West Virginia governor. The GOP's attempts to tie the governor to Obama had made this a tough race (in DC, the RGA ran an ad tying the governor to the health care law). However, the AP and others have already called the race for Gov. Tomblin. That at least (for now) takes away a meme that Obama's a total drag on other Dem candidates.
Romney  
#50 | 1052 days ago

(Edited by ohwell_)

Came across this today, I didn't realize privatized prisons were such huge lobbyists.
minnesotaindependent.com/88389/cca

#51 | 1052 days ago

I picked Perry, because I want the wackiest, craziest Republican candidate...one who really reflects what that party seems to be all about. If I can't have Bachmann, I'll take Perry.

The poster who said that the Republicans do not want the economy to work had it right on the button. They are willing to let this country go down the tubes, solely for political gain. Mitch McConnell's stated goal of making sure that Barack Obama is a one-term President was a cynical and transparent statement that nothing is more important than the next president being a Republican. (Since the last one was so peachy, huh?)

I feel that the protesters in New York should be protesting CEO and executive pay. The pay policies of these large banks and corporations have divided this country, and defeated the 'American Dream'. At this point, the 'American Dream' is only available to you if you run a company, sit in a high office at a large bank, or conduct trades on Wall Street.

So much of this can be laid at the feet of both parties, but the overall scheme of non-regulation can only be laid at the feet of one party. If we could turn back the clock to 1980, and have the knowledge of what was coming, who here, besides Cuddles, would vote for Reagan? Be honest... 
Perry  
#52 | 1051 days ago

(Edited by Eric_)
janet011685 wrote:
I'm sorry, but even as a bleeding-heart liberal who supports the idea of peaceful protest, and the general theme of the NYC Wall Street protests, I just can't take them seriously.

From the media coverage I've seen, this is what it seems to be:

-  Hippies trying to stick it to the man.  I'm pretty sure most of them are so high on the IDEA of protesting (among other things) that they're not even 100% sure who "the man" is.  (Could you imagine the mixture of B.O. and hemp that must be wafting through the air out there?)
-  Protestors dressed up as zombies.  Yeah, because now they'll definitely take you seriously.
-  A muddled variety of issues.  I saw signs for financial reform, some for regulation of big business, some anti-war signs, human rights signs, LGBT signs ... and a few more that, well, must have been written by one of those hippy protestors post-toke that made NO sense to me whatsoever.

*sigh*
Yes, things are quite unorganized at this point, which is a pity because it just gives the detractors an easy way to sneer and say "get a job, you bum." Of course, one forgets there aren't many jobs to be had at the moment.

What they need to do is convalesce over the ideas expressed in the We Are the 99 Percent Tumblr. As Ezra puts it here, the underlying theme is "I did everything I was supposed to and have nothing to show for it." The underlying sense of income inequality and a lost generation can be a coherent message, especially if combined with the more realistic Occupy Wall Street demands (yeah, I saw that list in F/E, and while I don't trust that that guy directly copied it, some of those are admittedly pretty out there).

On a personal note, seeing these stories from those in our generation was a kick in the pants. I was offered my job in December 2007, graduated college in May 2008, and starting my job July 2008. It made think how lucky I am. If I had graduated just one semester later....
Romney  
#53 | 1050 days ago

www.youtube.com/watch    George Carlin had it goin on.     
#54 | 1050 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

Didn't even have to watch this one.  Once I saw the name of the routine, I knew the exact contents.  One of the smartest (and personal favorite) comedy routines of all time.

Though I still bust a gut with Bill Cosby's "To Russell, My Brother, Whom I Slept With".
#55 | 1050 days ago

Ezra Klein is subbing for Rachel Maddow tonight. Hello liberalgasm!
Romney  
#56 | 1047 days ago

(Edited by Eric_)
#57 | 1046 days ago

ohwell_ wrote:
And now, Wachovia is part of Wells Fargo.  So we can narrow that down even further.
#58 | 1046 days ago

janet011685 wrote:
And now, Wachovia is part of Wells Fargo.  So we can narrow that down even further.
If someone can figure out how to resize that  chart, it shows it to current date.  The big 4.

I 'm having problems with my laptop.   
#59 | 1046 days ago

I think I got it resized for you.
Romney  
#60 | 1046 days ago

(Edited by ohwell_)
#61 | 1046 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

ohwell_ wrote:
That is the EXACT truth too few either understand or refuse to accept!  If I could, I'd allocate 10 respects for this post!
#62 | 1046 days ago

NorseHeathen wrote:
That is the EXACT truth too few either understand or refuse to accept!  If I could, I'd allocate 10 respects for this post!
I may sound like a rabid dog when I post about the Occupy movement, however, I have 2 teenage children who are
surrounded by opulance in our community, with friends who's parents are Consumed with maintaining and building
their own wealth, while at home are watching their parents just try to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table.

My kids are asking questions, researching on the internet, talking to their peers about the change in the weather,
I couldn't be happier.   I actually raised children that think for themselves.  



#63 | 1046 days ago

Great job. And good for your kids for having minds of their own.
Perry  
#64 | 1044 days ago

The drafter of Cains 9-9-9 plan is:   drum roll please:

www.linkedin.com/pub/rich-lowrie/a/74b/805     

#65 | 1044 days ago

There's always this...

#66 | 1044 days ago

Cactus_Jack wrote:
There's always this...

Always thinking with the wrong head...............
#67 | 1044 days ago



This summarizes ALL Politicians
#68 | 1044 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

ohwell_ wrote:
Always thinking with the wrong head...............
I don't know......perhaps if some guy ever broke through their inhibitions and opened their minds with an "Don't touch me, I'm too sensitive right now.....I just need to lay here and quiver right now (experiencing a succession of orgasms after the fact).  I'm sure they've all done their "wifely duties", but I doubt one has truly experienced the joy of mind-blowing sex...
#69 | 1044 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

BTW, I can't say that I'm surprised with the jobs vote yesterday--though I was hoping (considering the multitude of polls reflecting such) that there would be some Republicans that actually had the integrity to listen and respect the desires of their constituency. 

The problem is that there are too many that consider themselves as elected "leaders" instead of elected "representatives", and others from the 2010 election that have stated that they came in not expecting to be re-elected because they were going to make their stands on principle; well, despite the hardship, Congress(wo)men are only elected for two year terms--what hurts are the Senators whom adhere to the afore stated mindset senators which have an elected term of 6.
#70 | 1043 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

(Edited by NorseHeathen)
This is an e-mail I just sent to Rep. Cathy McMorris-Rogers, R-WA 5th District:

Considering all that's taken place in 2011, the many breaks the House has taken, and today's current debate regarding abortion, I will not be registering Democrat, but will vote Democrat down the line in the next election. 
America is in dire straits, and Republicans are focused upon social fascism rather than the obvious needs of the economy.  Until this point, I've always studied the voters pamphlet and selected candidates based upon their positions--ironically, voting (by percentage) more oft times Republican.
 
Including myself, three straight generations of my family have served active duty in the military--a total of 1 war and 3 tours in a police action.  Before that, my family was instrumental in the settling of a region in the west in law enforcement.  My family has served this country in one way or another since 1916 on one side, and since 1623 on the other side of my family, with the latter being the result of the Huguenot exodus for religious persecution.  I am probably the first of my entire family line to be ashamed to be an American.
 
As for you and the rest of your corporate lap-dogs.  I invite you to find the first inanimate object of your choice and fornicate upon it--instead of doing it to the American populous.
 
You're a disgrace.

(I corrected two typo's before posting here, but at the time I wasn't too concerned with spelling).
#71 | 1043 days ago

I have other things to say, which I might get to later tonight after having a relaxing drink (although it's already a good night, Caps won and Community and Parks/Rec will hilarious), but for now, this is priceless.

http://slyoyster.hypervocal.com/cheap-thrills/2011/decades-old-calvin-and-hobbes-strip-succinctly-explains-occupy-wall-street-movement/
Romney  
#72 | 1043 days ago

NorseHeathen wrote:
This is an e-mail I just sent to Rep. Cathy McMorris-Rogers, R-WA 5th District:

Considering all that's taken place in 2011, the many breaks the House has taken, and today's current debate regarding abortion, I will not be registering Democrat, but will vote Democrat down the line in the next election. 
America is in dire straits, and Republicans are focused upon social fascism rather than the obvious needs of the economy.  Until this point, I've always studied the voters pamphlet and selected candidates based upon their positions--ironically, voting (by percentage) more oft times Republican.
 
Including myself, three straight generations of my family have served active duty in the military--a total of 1 war and 3 tours in a police action.  Before that, my family was instrumental in the settling of a region in the west in law enforcement.  My family has served this country in one way or another since 1916 on one side, and since 1623 on the other side of my family, with the latter being the result of the Huguenot exodus for religious persecution.  I am probably the first of my entire family line to be ashamed to be an American.
 
As for you and the rest of your corporate lap-dogs.  I invite you to find the first inanimate object of your choice and fornicate upon it--instead of doing it to the American populous.
 
You're a disgrace.

(I corrected two typo's before posting here, but at the time I wasn't too concerned with spelling).
Let us know how long it takes before you notice a dark Suburban in your rear view mirror being driven by a clean shaven hair gelled geek wearing dark sunglasses.
#73 | 1042 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

beach_pirate wrote:
Let us know how long it takes before you notice a dark Suburban in your rear view mirror being driven by a clean shaven hair gelled geek wearing dark sunglasses.
Oh I guarantee I've been on the corporate "silence list" for years.  The last thing a control-minded government likes is an informed citizen--let alone one that isn't afraid to speak.  I just can't wait until the 2012 elections because the Republican controlled House is pissing-off the American public more than the Gingrich house of 95.

Funny how the American founders were saying things like "Death to the king", and now common citizens have to worry about the new American KGB, known better as Homeland Security monitoring non-violent speech.
#74 | 1042 days ago
cubsgirl2 (+)

janet011685 wrote:
I'm sorry, but even as a bleeding-heart liberal who supports the idea of peaceful protest, and the general theme of the NYC Wall Street protests, I just can't take them seriously.

From the media coverage I've seen, this is what it seems to be:

-  Hippies trying to stick it to the man.  I'm pretty sure most of them are so high on the IDEA of protesting (among other things) that they're not even 100% sure who "the man" is.  (Could you imagine the mixture of B.O. and hemp that must be wafting through the air out there?)
-  Protestors dressed up as zombies.  Yeah, because now they'll definitely take you seriously.
-  A muddled variety of issues.  I saw signs for financial reform, some for regulation of big business, some anti-war signs, human rights signs, LGBT signs ... and a few more that, well, must have been written by one of those hippy protestors post-toke that made NO sense to me whatsoever.

*sigh*
 Agreed Janet, from what I have seen as well, it looks like a certain generation needs protesting 101 classes. 
Romney  
#75 | 1042 days ago

 ‎"Even Lassie could beat Obama. Of course she’d never get the Republican nomination. Helping Timmy out of that well is socialism." -- Stephen Colbert
Perry  
#76 | 1042 days ago
John_Daly (+)

kteacher wrote:
 ‎"Even Lassie could beat Obama. Of course she’d never get the Republican nomination. Helping Timmy out of that well is socialism." -- Stephen Colbert
#77 | 1042 days ago

beach_pirate wrote:
Let us know how long it takes before you notice a dark Suburban in your rear view mirror being driven by a clean shaven hair gelled geek wearing dark sunglasses.
I don't own a Suburban.
#78 | 1042 days ago

 RIDICULOUS! 
Perry  
#79 | 1042 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

kteacher wrote: Yea, this is the seventh 'version' of a bill limiting abortion that's passed the house this year.  It's not like 48% of American's polled don't rank jobs as the number one priority, with the issue of abortion not even making the list of 8 issues presented.  But hey, it's the U.S. Congress, and they've done so well this year, have listened and quickly addressed any concerns brought forth by the American public; it's obvious they take their responsibility of being true representatives of their constituency seriously, and not succumb to the special interests or their personal agendas. 

We should feel so blessed.  Perhaps I really should reconsider my position on the issues.....
#80 | 1042 days ago

NorseHeathen wrote:
Yea, this is the seventh 'version' of a bill limiting abortion that's passed the house this year.  It's not like 48% of American's polled don't rank jobs as the number one priority, with the issue of abortion not even making the list of 8 issues presented.  But hey, it's the U.S. Congress, and they've done so well this year, have listened and quickly addressed any concerns brought forth by the American public; it's obvious they take their responsibility of being true representatives of their constituency seriously, and not succumb to the special interests or their personal agendas. 

We should feel so blessed.  Perhaps I really should reconsider my position on the issues.....
You know what I really love?

All these lying, worthless, two-dollar gutter sluts politicians coming out with their "job plans" that are supposed to create 1.9 million new jobs or some $h*t.  Where the f**k were they at when the job market started this slide?
#81 | 1042 days ago

Cactus_Jack wrote:
You know what I really love?

All these lying, worthless, two-dollar gutter sluts politicians coming out with their "job plans" that are supposed to create 1.9 million new jobs or some $h*t.  Where the f**k were they at when the job market started this slide?
They were busy ripping off the taxpayers, taking over small businesses and laying off workers so they
could use their personal wealth to buy the election.   Oh, maybe that's just my Governor www.youtube.com/watch
www.youtube.com/watch
#82 | 1042 days ago

ohwell_ wrote:
They were busy ripping off the taxpayers, taking over small businesses and laying off workers so they
could use their personal wealth to buy the election.   Oh, maybe that's just my Governor www.youtube.com/watch
www.youtube.com/watch
Do those steps have to be taken in that order?  I need to know so I can arrange my day planner.
#83 | 1042 days ago

Cactus_Jack wrote:
Do those steps have to be taken in that order?  I need to know so I can arrange my day planner.
Make the money,by defrauding Medicare, and giving substandard health care
Lie to Congress
Move to Florida
Spend 72 million of your (stolen taxpayer $) on ads.
Throw out the first pitch at spring training

That looks about right..

I am looking forward to 2012. www.youtube.com/watch
#84 | 1042 days ago

ohwell_ wrote:
Make the money,by defrauding Medicare, and giving substandard health care
Lie to Congress
Move to Florida
Spend 72 million of your (stolen taxpayer $) on ads.
Throw out the first pitch at spring training

That looks about right..

I am looking forward to 2012. www.youtube.com/watch


Got it. Thanks.
#85 | 1042 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

ohwell_ wrote:
Make the money,by defrauding Medicare, and giving substandard health care
Lie to Congress
Move to Florida
Spend 72 million of your (stolen taxpayer $) on ads.
Throw out the first pitch at spring training

That looks about right..

I am looking forward to 2012. www.youtube.com/watch
And that's what is going to be so sweet.  All the left needs to run are the multitude of examples of what's been done since 2010.  If I fear anything, it's people becoming too confident and not voting because they assume there will be a lot of others that will and it's not as important if they do so.

Post a Comment   Already a user? Sign in here
Join FanIQ - It's Free
FanIQ is the ultimate free community for sports fans.
Talk sports with fans from all over - 1,649,417+ Comments
Track your game picks - 38,670,182,382+ Sports Predictions
Prove you know sports - 116,275+ Trivia Questions
Find fans of your teams - 11,453,110+ New Friends
F/E 8/21
Asked by kobe_lova | Locker Room | 1 questions asked Today
0 opinions | 1 comment | Last by -
To Filter Err or Not to Filter Err that is 8/19
Asked by The_Real_Stoney | Locker Room | 1 questions asked 08/19/14
7 opinions | 17 comments | Last by Debi_L
Vacation WHAT?!
Asked by Jess | Locker Room | 1 questions asked 06/12/14
11 opinions | 13 comments | Last by ML31
F/E 8/15
Asked by kobe_lova | Locker Room | 1 questions asked 08/15/14
11 opinions | 22 comments | Last by ankurnathmishra
F/E 8/14
Asked by kobe_lova | Locker Room | 1 questions asked 08/14/14
6 opinions | 20 comments | Last by JenX63