Calling people 'lazy' because they can't find work in a recession is pure apathy. It also doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the OWS movement. People putting down the movement are also putting down those who can't find work and happen to also be pissed about it enough to be out protesting.
these accusations of laziness and entitled, etc and the looking down upon the unemployed and poor are part of the same rhetoric i hear rush limbaugh spew every day on my drive home from work.
The point of my post was to dispute what you guys called an entitlement culture for the poor when one already exists for the rich. I am not jealous of those who are rich, and most OWS aren't either. I just don't think calling things like welfare, financial aid, and so on "entitlement" programs are accurate or respectful when my wife and in-laws were entitled because of where they were born. What exactly did they do to EARN their degrees and their jobs?
Yes my in-law's knows how I feel, they read everything I write, and I talk to them every day. We disagree on things politically, but that doesn't mean that I don't love and care for them. Further, I want my son to understand that he is, in fact, entitled and that he did nothing to EARN is spot on this earth and that he should respect that when he goes to nice schools, has a nice living situation, and two caring parents.
but unless their great ancestors came over already rich at some point someone in their familiy earned that prilevege. I think you would agree that Eddie Vedder has earned his privilege and don't think it's fair that his daugthers not share in that in the future.
and RW not to get off topic i give you a lot of credit for making arguments without resorting to personal and juvenile attacks (as you have seen in our philly sports threads on aet). clearly we disagree on some things (ok many things ) but at least your arguments are clearly written and are used to stir a debate. honestly i thought my last comments about your in-laws might resort to that (after i posted that wasn't sure if i should edit it out, kind of border line shot on my part). it's kind of cool that we've gone 4 or 5 pages in this thread without few if any insults or name calling happeneing.
first...i really like debating various topics (from philly sports to politics) and i have found it to be far more productive to think through things in a calm manner than to fire off some crazy stupid posts. We all do it from time to time (see one of my posts in this thread from a few days ago), but it doesn't get us anywhere better. So thank you for doing the same, and the same goes for just about everyone in this thread.
now back to Eddie's kids...this is where the whole system of class reproduction centers, and is really the crux of this debate. What makes his kids anymore deserving of anything than my child, or yours, or anyone elses? They were literally the one Eddie sperm to fertilize Jill's egg, and they luck right into being their child. That's all they did to become instant millionaires. Fundamentally I have no problem with them being taken care of by their parents (they would be bad parents if they didn't). What I do have a problem with is that if that child later argues that they got to where they got all on their own. So many Libertarians, Tea Partiers, hell all of them really (but the former two especially) fail to acknowledge that they had advantages over others and that those advantages probably helped them out quite a bit. Further, these people (my in-laws included) then have the audacity to bitch about "free handouts" that are, albeit flawed, attempts to at least help make it possible for people to achieve success when their WHOLE LIVES have been free handouts.
I shit you not, and I still tease my wife about this: one time I was visiting her in Ithaca when I was going to grad school at UMD. I scraped together the 100 dollars to drive up there and go out to dinner, etc. from I don't know were, and when I got there she complained that she was "out of money" (she did work summers to help pay rent at her apt., but never worked during school AND she's very frugal with money, clips coupons, etc.). She got up the next day and her dad had transferred one thousand dollars into her bank account. A G-FUCKING UNIT just like that. This happened like 3-4 times during her Junior/Senior year. Is that not a free handout?
P.S. I voted for Obama in the last election, think he sold out, and wish that there was an OWS candidate to throw their name in the ring for this election (of course s/he wouldn't win because where would they get the corporate funding needed to win?). I will probably vote for Obama again, because for god's sakes what is the alternative? I mean seriously this is the Republican's most easily winnable election in years, but now people are through being tricked, and as soon as a Republican gets popular they open their mouth and they plummet. I am not in the practice of defending Obama, but what is the other actual viable alternative?
See my post above. 64% of the protesters in NY who plan on voting in 2012 say they will vote for Obama in 2012 according to a survey. There are still others who are undecided. I'd say he has much more support in that crowd of protesters than he has in the general population.
Government is not being called out at all at these protests and the reason is.... these are all Obama supporters, who seek to deflect blame from his unfavorable record.
i STRONGLY disagree with your not so expert assessment that these are all obama supporters deflecting blame from an unfavorable record. these are people out there trying to make a change. these people are not supporting obama. they are in the streets because they are obama's base that he used to get elected and has abandoned them.
do you have evidence that these are all democratic voters? i can't prove that they are.
now back to Eddie's kids...this is where the whole system of class reproduction centers, and is really the crux of this debate. What makes his kids anymore deserving of anything than my child, or yours, or anyone elses? They were literally the one Eddie sperm to fertilize Jill's egg, and they luck right into being their child. That's all they did to become instant millionaires. Fundamentally I have no problem with them being taken care of by their parents (they would be bad parents if they didn't). What I do have a problem with is that if that child later argues that they got to where they got all on their own. So many Libertarians, Tea Partiers, hell all of them really (but the former two especially) fail to acknowledge that they had advantages over others and that those advantages probably helped them out quite a bit. Further, these people (my in-laws included) then have the audacity to bitch about "free handouts" that are, albeit flawed, attempts to at least help make it possible for people to achieve success when their WHOLE LIVES have been free handouts.
I am still not getting this part. Is all you are really worried about is an admission by folks that they started out from a better position than others? Ok. That's easy. Not that it solves anything. But, the fact is, I'm guessing most did not. Yes, there are the extremes, but most folks fall in the middle.
If it's more than that, do you want Eddie to forgo sending his kids to the best schools possible because some other kids might not have the same quality teacher? Or, do you want him to insist that the higher paid (though, that's not always true), more qualified (not always true either) private school teacher not only teach his kids, but go teach other kids to make sure everyone has the same exact education?
Or, are you saying that Eddie should not give his vast welath to his kids and grand kids when he dies, but instead make them earn it?
I don't see the end game in your argument.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
See my post above. 64% of the protesters in NY who plan on voting in 2012 say they will vote for Obama in 2012 according to a survey. There are still others who are undecided. I'd say he has much more support in that crowd of protesters than he has in the general population.
i would believe that poll ... i mean if your choice is between obama and one of (cain, perry, romney, bachman) - he's your best bet ... but it still comes down to the system ... the concept of democracy is a fallacy ... the voting system is archaic ... i mean electoral colleges!?? ... gotta be the least democratic system out there and the result ... two sides of the same coin ...
I don't usually post articles, but I found this enlightening (plus I love Seinfeld). There's obvious right leaning allusions. But, I think if you are honest with yourself, you will get out the kernel of truth being shown. Plus it is the best distinction yet I've seen made between OWS and the Tea Party (not that I am a full believer in either). Enjoy!
No Soup for You!
The New York Post has another hilarious dispatch from the People's Republic of Obamaville (or, as it was known before the revolution, Zuccotti Park). It seems "the Occupy Wall Street volunteer kitchen staff launched a 'counter' revolution yesterday--because they're angry about working 18-hour days to provide food for 'professional homeless' people and ex-cons masquerading as protesters."
For three days beginning tomorrow, the cooks will serve only brown rice and other spartan grub instead of the usual menu of organic chicken and vegetables, spaghetti bolognese, and roasted beet and sheep's-milk-cheese salad. They will also provide directions to local soup kitchens for the vagrants, criminals and other freeloaders who have been descending on Zuccotti Park in increasing numbers every day. To show they mean business, the kitchen staff refused to serve any food for two hours yesterday in order to meet with organizers to air their grievances, sources said.
It reminds one of Seinfeld's Soup Nazi: "No soup for you!" But it's also reminiscent of President Obama's comments that we noted yesterday: "The one thing that we absolutely know for sure is that if we don't work even harder than we did in 2008, then we're going to have a government that tells the American people, 'you are on your own. If you get sick, you're on your own. If you can't afford college, you're on your own. If you don't like that some corporation is polluting your air or the air that your child breathes, then you're on your own.' That's not the America I believe in. It's not the America you believe in."
Yet to judge by their actions, the denizens of Obamaville have come to believe in it very quickly. They selfishly feast on spaghetti bolognese and sheep's milk, but when the truly needy show up, the cupboard is bare. "No soup for you! You're on your own, freeloader." Apparently it's the bottom 1% against whom they're waging class war.
Of course we are being half-facetious here. In truth, the Obamavillians are learning why Obama is wrong--why socialism doesn't work. A society that makes a virtue of dependency ultimately encourages freeloading and grifting. The instinct to prevent it is a healthy one. A lot has been written about the similarities and differences between Obamaville and the Tea Party, and here is one: Whereas the latter arose out of the instinct to reward self-reliance and discourage dependency, the former is having it awakened by an encounter with the real world.
Will Obama ever have such an encounter with the real world? Probably not until he's been out of office for at least 10 years. There were no reports that any homeless people or ex-cons showed up asking for dinner at the million-dollar fund-raiser where he made the sanctimonious remarks quoted above. If they had, the Secret Service would have told them they were on their own.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
first...i really like debating various topics (from philly sports to politics) and i have found it to be far more productive to think through things in a calm manner than to fire off some crazy stupid posts. We all do it from time to time (see one of my posts in this thread from a few days ago), but it doesn't get us anywhere better. So thank you for doing the same, and the same goes for just about everyone in this thread.
now back to Eddie's kids...this is where the whole system of class reproduction centers, and is really the crux of this debate. What makes his kids anymore deserving of anything than my child, or yours, or anyone elses? They were literally the one Eddie sperm to fertilize Jill's egg, and they luck right into being their child. That's all they did to become instant millionaires. Fundamentally I have no problem with them being taken care of by their parents (they would be bad parents if they didn't). What I do have a problem with is that if that child later argues that they got to where they got all on their own. So many Libertarians, Tea Partiers, hell all of them really (but the former two especially) fail to acknowledge that they had advantages over others and that those advantages probably helped them out quite a bit. Further, these people (my in-laws included) then have the audacity to bitch about "free handouts" that are, albeit flawed, attempts to at least help make it possible for people to achieve success when their WHOLE LIVES have been free handouts.
I shit you not, and I still tease my wife about this: one time I was visiting her in Ithaca when I was going to grad school at UMD. I scraped together the 100 dollars to drive up there and go out to dinner, etc. from I don't know were, and when I got there she complained that she was "out of money" (she did work summers to help pay rent at her apt., but never worked during school AND she's very frugal with money, clips coupons, etc.). She got up the next day and her dad had transferred one thousand dollars into her bank account. A G-FUCKING UNIT just like that. This happened like 3-4 times during her Junior/Senior year. Is that not a free handout?
P.S. I voted for Obama in the last election, think he sold out, and wish that there was an OWS candidate to throw their name in the ring for this election (of course s/he wouldn't win because where would they get the corporate funding needed to win?). I will probably vote for Obama again, because for god's sakes what is the alternative? I mean seriously this is the Republican's most easily winnable election in years, but now people are through being tricked, and as soon as a Republican gets popular they open their mouth and they plummet. I am not in the practice of defending Obama, but what is the other actual viable alternative?
First off, no it is not a free handout.
But more to your second point. That is the problem. That is the problem with American politics. the phrase lesser of two evils needs to be taken out of the parlance of our times, man...If you want things to be different then support a candidate for president that is different. If you think Obama sold out why not support someone else. The reason we end up with sell outs is because we, the people, allow a D and R monopoly. http://www.politics1.com/p2008.htm
there were in 08 and will be in 2012 candidates that do not subscribe to the D or R monopoly. Find the one that fits the best. Don't simply vote for a D because you are afraid of an R. And if you are afraid of the R that is put out there why not participate in the primaries and help pick the R. You don't have to look at them as the enemy. Quite frankly if you aren't happy with the guy you voted for last time...why on earth would you support him again?
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
first...i really like debating various topics (from philly sports to politics) and i have found it to be far more productive to think through things in a calm manner than to fire off some crazy stupid posts. We all do it from time to time (see one of my posts in this thread from a few days ago), but it doesn't get us anywhere better. So thank you for doing the same, and the same goes for just about everyone in this thread.
now back to Eddie's kids...this is where the whole system of class reproduction centers, and is really the crux of this debate. What makes his kids anymore deserving of anything than my child, or yours, or anyone elses? They were literally the one Eddie sperm to fertilize Jill's egg, and they luck right into being their child. That's all they did to become instant millionaires. Fundamentally I have no problem with them being taken care of by their parents (they would be bad parents if they didn't). What I do have a problem with is that if that child later argues that they got to where they got all on their own. So many Libertarians, Tea Partiers, hell all of them really (but the former two especially) fail to acknowledge that they had advantages over others and that those advantages probably helped them out quite a bit. Further, these people (my in-laws included) then have the audacity to bitch about "free handouts" that are, albeit flawed, attempts to at least help make it possible for people to achieve success when their WHOLE LIVES have been free handouts.
I shit you not, and I still tease my wife about this: one time I was visiting her in Ithaca when I was going to grad school at UMD. I scraped together the 100 dollars to drive up there and go out to dinner, etc. from I don't know were, and when I got there she complained that she was "out of money" (she did work summers to help pay rent at her apt., but never worked during school AND she's very frugal with money, clips coupons, etc.). She got up the next day and her dad had transferred one thousand dollars into her bank account. A G-FUCKING UNIT just like that. This happened like 3-4 times during her Junior/Senior year. Is that not a free handout?
P.S. I voted for Obama in the last election, think he sold out, and wish that there was an OWS candidate to throw their name in the ring for this election (of course s/he wouldn't win because where would they get the corporate funding needed to win?). I will probably vote for Obama again, because for god's sakes what is the alternative? I mean seriously this is the Republican's most easily winnable election in years, but now people are through being tricked, and as soon as a Republican gets popular they open their mouth and they plummet. I am not in the practice of defending Obama, but what is the other actual viable alternative?
First off, no it is not a free handout.
But more to your second point. That is the problem. That is the problem with American politics. the phrase lesser of two evils needs to be taken out of the parlance of our times, man...If you want things to be different then support a candidate for president that is different. If you think Obama sold out why not support someone else. The reason we end up with sell outs is because we, the people, allow a D and R monopoly. http://www.politics1.com/p2008.htm
there were in 08 and will be in 2012 candidates that do not subscribe to the D or R monopoly. Find the one that fits the best. Don't simply vote for a D because you are afraid of an R. And if you are afraid of the R that is put out there why not participate in the primaries and help pick the R. You don't have to look at them as the enemy. Quite frankly if you aren't happy with the guy you voted for last time...why on earth would you support him again?
i also do not believe that is a free-handout. her dad or someone else in her family worked to get that money to have to give to her. that's not a hand-out but a hand-me-down a la with money.
as for why Ed's kids deserve it - because their daddy is in the top one one-hundred of a percent in ability in his chosen field. there are arguably 5 or 10 people in the past 50 years who have been as good as Ed as what he does and Ed has earned everything he gets, so no i have no problems with Ed's kids being privileged because it's an earned privilege...call it a 2nd generation earned privilege for his kids but it was still earned.
now back to Eddie's kids...this is where the whole system of class reproduction centers, and is really the crux of this debate. What makes his kids anymore deserving of anything than my child, or yours, or anyone elses? They were literally the one Eddie sperm to fertilize Jill's egg, and they luck right into being their child. That's all they did to become instant millionaires. Fundamentally I have no problem with them being taken care of by their parents (they would be bad parents if they didn't). What I do have a problem with is that if that child later argues that they got to where they got all on their own. So many Libertarians, Tea Partiers, hell all of them really (but the former two especially) fail to acknowledge that they had advantages over others and that those advantages probably helped them out quite a bit. Further, these people (my in-laws included) then have the audacity to bitch about "free handouts" that are, albeit flawed, attempts to at least help make it possible for people to achieve success when their WHOLE LIVES have been free handouts.
I am still not getting this part. Is all you are really worried about is an admission by folks that they started out from a better position than others? Ok. That's easy. Not that it solves anything. But, the fact is, I'm guessing most did not. Yes, there are the extremes, but most folks fall in the middle.
If it's more than that, do you want Eddie to forgo sending his kids to the best schools possible because some other kids might not have the same quality teacher? Or, do you want him to insist that the higher paid (though, that's not always true), more qualified (not always true either) private school teacher not only teach his kids, but go teach other kids to make sure everyone has the same exact education?
Or, are you saying that Eddie should not give his vast welath to his kids and grand kids when he dies, but instead make them earn it?
I don't see the end game in your argument.
It's not just an admission that they started out better, but a commitment to and understanding by those people that it is ok to help other people out through things like welfare (my family was on it when I was young and there were only 2 kids, and the first 6 out of 8 of us are college grads, 1 PhD, 2 MA so it can help), Social Security, Health Care, and Financial Aid for schooling (without that I would surely be 200k+ in debt, which means higher education becomes an even bigger class segregated space). Further I would like a general understanding by those people that these programs are necessary and worthwhile components of an advanced society. I mean why shouldn't we be trying to feed, educate, medicate, and house our brothers and sisters? Why do we have to be so cutthroat?
Further, if Eddie, and my in-laws providing for their children is considered a "hand-me-down" from the parent to the child, then welfare should be considered a "hand-me-down" from the government to the people using it - the people it is supposed to be by and for.
As for making the kids earn it, if you want to be a true Libertarian (not saying you are or want to be) and there is no social contract, just everyone for themselves, then everyone should not receive one red cent from their parents. To follow through with that logic everyone gets thrown into a draft pool and, by luck of the draw, children get to go to whichever public school they are drawn to go to. There could be no private school unless a 5-18 year-old kid made enough money via their own hard work decided to segregate him or herself from the rest of the people. This way each "individual" makes it or breaks it on their own accord, not because of the situation they were born into. Usually as soon as I take Libertarianism to it's logical conclusion, my Libertarian friends say "whoa, whoa, whoa why can't I provide for my child"? Because it's an unearned handout...how can you say that child earned it? If you don't do that then individuals are not truly earning things through their own efforts, and we have the same problems we do right now.
Mike I voted for Nader in the past, and if there's a reasonable (even if slim) shot for a 3rd party person to win, and I like their politics (so not Ron Paul though if I believed in his schtick I'd def. vote for him) then I will vote for them. There's never going to be anyone that I truly believe in 100%. By my thinking I'd rather my vote contribute to someone that has a 60% chance of winning who I agree with 50% of the time vs. 1% of the time, rather than pick someone who truly has 0% chance of winning who I agree with 95% of the time. It may be bad logic, but I feel like it's more hedging my bets, because I lived 8 years of 1% and it FUCKING sucked.
So the protesters at Occupy Wall Street are upset that homeless people are eating the free food. Outstanding compassion from that bunch right there! So they want people who have more than they do to give to them but they don't want to give to those who have less. They should change their signs to say "We are the 98%" since they are apparently so opposed to the "other" 1%, too.
They actually talked about it in Baltimore, and have decided to provide food and shelter for the homeless who are looking for food. It was in the local newspaper. Obviously some people in the OWS movement aren't going to be on board with it (as in NYC), but others have decided that EVERYONE is worth helping, because they are human beings too.
Yeah, I believe the protesters in Atlanta are allowing them to eat, too. I just find it ironic and hypocritical for the NY group to act that way. After all, the homeless are part of the 99% and I'd say they're far worse off than any of the protesters.
They actually talked about it in Baltimore, and have decided to provide food and shelter for the homeless who are looking for food. It was in the local newspaper. Obviously some people in the OWS movement aren't going to be on board with it (as in NYC), but others have decided that EVERYONE is worth helping, because they are human beings too.
They actually talked about it in Baltimore, and have decided to provide food and shelter for the homeless who are looking for food. It was in the local newspaper. Obviously some people in the OWS movement aren't going to be on board with it (as in NYC), but others have decided that EVERYONE is worth helping, because they are human beings too.
That's great. But, they are going to find that unsustainable. Sort of like our economy at large. Like most things, NYC is ahead of the curve.....
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
They actually talked about it in Baltimore, and have decided to provide food and shelter for the homeless who are looking for food. It was in the local newspaper. Obviously some people in the OWS movement aren't going to be on board with it (as in NYC), but others have decided that EVERYONE is worth helping, because they are human beings too.
That's great. But, they are going to find that unsustainable. Sort of like our economy at large. Like most things, NYC is ahead of the curve.....
people are donating food to the protests. many businesses are donating food, and just likethe money they are raising, i think it is a little too early to be calling things "unsustainable". i feel that that is just wishful thinking from those opposing the movement.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Measures are being discussed right now in Baltimore about how to do this for the long haul. As gimme said local businesses and people have been donating things to the people here in order to help them out. If nothing else this whole OWS has given me hope that there does exist some compassion, solidarity, and (gasp) a turn to the social amongst the American people. I mean some of the homeless looking for "handouts" are people with serious mental/emotional problems like bipolar disorder, who literally cannot get a job, and have no safe places to stay. I think the best part about this is that the wealthy can no longer ignore it as an issue, because the poor have taken themselves to the rich so that they can see the devastation that this particular form of capitalism has caused. What'd I'd really like to see is the people here in B'more and other spots go to places like M&T Bank Stadium, or Yankee Stadium where so much of our public tax dollars have been directed and plant themselves down on the 50 yard line during and after the season. I mean those spaces were purchased with our public money, why shouldn't we get to use it?
Nation Finally Breaks Down And Begs Its Smart People To Just Fix Everything
"As anyone who listens to me for even two seconds can tell you, I'm no expert when it comes to pretty much anything," Gov. Rick Perry of Texas said. "That's why I promise voters that as president, I will make it my top priority to just hang back and let smart people take care of everything."
"Come to think of it, though, I'm not really qualified to give an opinion on this or any other issue," Perry continued. "I should probably just shut the fuck up now and go away.
You don't think the guy in NY with a cardboard camera and microphone that says "Faux News" and pretends to interview people is voting for Obama? He sure as hell isn't voting for the Republican candidate.
I saw a survey that said only 56% of those surveyed at the NY protest voted in 2008 and 74% of those who voted cast their vote for Obama. Now 51% of the total survey group said they disapprove of the job Obama's doing. So approximately 49% of the people there apparently approve of the job Obama is doing (and, one can assume, are therefore NOT protesting his administration) and you know that a large percentage of the people that disapprove of the job he's doing won't be voting for the Republican candidate in 2012. In fact, 25% of the people surveyed at the protest said they don't plan on voting in 2012. So, out of the other 75%, do you think that most of them are more likely to vote for Obama or Romney/Cain/Paul/Perry? 48% of the people surveyed said they are voting for Obama in 2012. That leaves 27% who are either undecided, voting Republican, voting for a 3rd party, or will join the other 25% who aren't voting. If you do the math, that means that 64% (48/75) of the people surveyed who intend to vote or have at least not ruled out voting yet in 2012 plan to vote for Obama.
How sad is it that the people in that park claim to care so much that they felt compelled to protest and camp out in a park for weeks but 56% didn't care enough to vote in 2008 (the national voter participation in 2008 was 56.8%, so the protesters have a below-average voter participation rate) and 25% already say they won't vote next year? If you want to send a message, you need to vote. People wonder why corporations are able to influence polticians and get them to include loopholes in the tax code for their businesses. Well, here's your answer. People put more energy into complaining about "the system" than they put into doing their part to change it. Why would a politician who's worried about getting re-elected give a crap about people who don't vote?
Another interesting question asked in the poll was "What would you like the Occupy Wall Street Movement to Accomplish?" 8% said they weren't sure. What the hell are those 8% doing there? Who protests without a goal? They've had weeks to think about the answer to that question. Regardless of your point of view, at least the other 92% surveyed were able to answer the question. I have a funny feeling that those 8% are part of the 25% that aren't going to vote.
Seriously, that's your logic? The President has either done a good, a moderate job or bad job in response to this corporate governance. If you're frustrated with the system, the government will need change and you should be upset at the government for practicing this corporatized governance. I mean the corporate governance issue is your logic and your rationale for the upsetment... and this is the guy who promised "hope and change".... yet you're response is, it's not his fault? It's solely the corporations? He has no other choice? Seriously?
I mean it's tough to discuss issues like this with people who can't honestly say that the heavy majority of these protesters are trying to deflect blame from President Obama in a lead up the 2012 election. That's just fact.
I am losing a lot of respect for you here. I say keep your indignation regarding corporatism, but don't blatantly lie to yourself about the underlying agenda here, simply because you think one's side of the aisle's kool-aid tastes better.
Government is not being called out at all at these protests and the reason is.... these are all Obama supporters, who seek to deflect blame from his unfavorable record.
i can't speak for every protestor ... but i'm guessing they aren't obama supporters ... i consider myself supportive of this movement and i sure as heck don't support obama ... having said that - i also recognize what he can and can't do ...
the problem with obama is that he has compromised too much to both special interest and the republicans (who's sole function seems to be to screw obama over) ... it should be painfully obvious to everyone that partisanship has killed any real progress in gov't ...
Of those that didnt vote in 08, how many were actuallly of age TO vote?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,428
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
The poll info I've seen doesn't say how many of the non-voters in 2008 were old enough to vote then. The age groups given in the poll broke it down as 18-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50-64, and 65+. It would've been more useful to see if the question about voting in 2008 was limited to only voters who were 18 or older at the time or at least break down the ages as 18-25 and 26-39 so you can see how many people were too young to vote in the election.
I do have to correct myself on one point, though. I don't know if I misread the article or if it's been corrected since I saw it Friday, but 56% voted in 2008 and I had said that 56% didn't vote. I still think that's much too low of a number for a group of political protesters but it is nearly the same as the national voter turnout (which I find depressingly low as well).
A 23-year-old woman is accused of attempting to pimp out a teenage girl she met at an Occupy New Hampshire protest earlier this week.
After Justina Jensen, of Manchester, became friendly with the girl, she went on the Internet and arranged a tryst between her and a man -- who was actually an undercover cop, according to Union Leader.
Wall Street protesters in Zuccotti Park battened down the hatches yesterday as the early October snow turned their tents into igloos, but the close quarters also made easy pickings for one predator.
A sex fiend barged into a woman’s tent and sexually assaulted her at around 6 a.m., said protesters, who chased him from the park.
“Pervert! Pervert! Get the f--k out!” said vigilante Occupiers, who never bothered to call the cops.
“They were shining flashlights in his face and yelling at him to leave,” said a woman who called herself Leslie, but refused to give her real name.
She said that weeks earlier another woman was raped.
“We don’t tell anyone,” she said. “We handle it internally. I said too much already.”
Although the main purpose is to power laptops and cell phones ... two main staples of American consumerism and debt. Nevertheless, it's a creative method and much safer (and quieter) then generators.
Now they just need to figure out how to plug electric blankets into it.
Comments
You listen to Rush Gimme??? :shock: WHY?
now back to Eddie's kids...this is where the whole system of class reproduction centers, and is really the crux of this debate. What makes his kids anymore deserving of anything than my child, or yours, or anyone elses? They were literally the one Eddie sperm to fertilize Jill's egg, and they luck right into being their child. That's all they did to become instant millionaires. Fundamentally I have no problem with them being taken care of by their parents (they would be bad parents if they didn't). What I do have a problem with is that if that child later argues that they got to where they got all on their own. So many Libertarians, Tea Partiers, hell all of them really (but the former two especially) fail to acknowledge that they had advantages over others and that those advantages probably helped them out quite a bit. Further, these people (my in-laws included) then have the audacity to bitch about "free handouts" that are, albeit flawed, attempts to at least help make it possible for people to achieve success when their WHOLE LIVES have been free handouts.
I shit you not, and I still tease my wife about this: one time I was visiting her in Ithaca when I was going to grad school at UMD. I scraped together the 100 dollars to drive up there and go out to dinner, etc. from I don't know were, and when I got there she complained that she was "out of money" (she did work summers to help pay rent at her apt., but never worked during school AND she's very frugal with money, clips coupons, etc.). She got up the next day and her dad had transferred one thousand dollars into her bank account. A G-FUCKING UNIT just like that. This happened like 3-4 times during her Junior/Senior year. Is that not a free handout?
P.S. I voted for Obama in the last election, think he sold out, and wish that there was an OWS candidate to throw their name in the ring for this election (of course s/he wouldn't win because where would they get the corporate funding needed to win?). I will probably vote for Obama again, because for god's sakes what is the alternative? I mean seriously this is the Republican's most easily winnable election in years, but now people are through being tricked, and as soon as a Republican gets popular they open their mouth and they plummet. I am not in the practice of defending Obama, but what is the other actual viable alternative?
I am still not getting this part. Is all you are really worried about is an admission by folks that they started out from a better position than others? Ok. That's easy. Not that it solves anything. But, the fact is, I'm guessing most did not. Yes, there are the extremes, but most folks fall in the middle.
If it's more than that, do you want Eddie to forgo sending his kids to the best schools possible because some other kids might not have the same quality teacher? Or, do you want him to insist that the higher paid (though, that's not always true), more qualified (not always true either) private school teacher not only teach his kids, but go teach other kids to make sure everyone has the same exact education?
Or, are you saying that Eddie should not give his vast welath to his kids and grand kids when he dies, but instead make them earn it?
I don't see the end game in your argument.
i would believe that poll ... i mean if your choice is between obama and one of (cain, perry, romney, bachman) - he's your best bet ... but it still comes down to the system ... the concept of democracy is a fallacy ... the voting system is archaic ... i mean electoral colleges!?? ... gotta be the least democratic system out there and the result ... two sides of the same coin ...
No Soup for You!
The New York Post has another hilarious dispatch from the People's Republic of Obamaville (or, as it was known before the revolution, Zuccotti Park). It seems "the Occupy Wall Street volunteer kitchen staff launched a 'counter' revolution yesterday--because they're angry about working 18-hour days to provide food for 'professional homeless' people and ex-cons masquerading as protesters."
For three days beginning tomorrow, the cooks will serve only brown rice and other spartan grub instead of the usual menu of organic chicken and vegetables, spaghetti bolognese, and roasted beet and sheep's-milk-cheese salad. They will also provide directions to local soup kitchens for the vagrants, criminals and other freeloaders who have been descending on Zuccotti Park in increasing numbers every day. To show they mean business, the kitchen staff refused to serve any food for two hours yesterday in order to meet with organizers to air their grievances, sources said.
It reminds one of Seinfeld's Soup Nazi: "No soup for you!" But it's also reminiscent of President Obama's comments that we noted yesterday: "The one thing that we absolutely know for sure is that if we don't work even harder than we did in 2008, then we're going to have a government that tells the American people, 'you are on your own. If you get sick, you're on your own. If you can't afford college, you're on your own. If you don't like that some corporation is polluting your air or the air that your child breathes, then you're on your own.' That's not the America I believe in. It's not the America you believe in."
Yet to judge by their actions, the denizens of Obamaville have come to believe in it very quickly. They selfishly feast on spaghetti bolognese and sheep's milk, but when the truly needy show up, the cupboard is bare. "No soup for you! You're on your own, freeloader." Apparently it's the bottom 1% against whom they're waging class war.
Of course we are being half-facetious here. In truth, the Obamavillians are learning why Obama is wrong--why socialism doesn't work. A society that makes a virtue of dependency ultimately encourages freeloading and grifting. The instinct to prevent it is a healthy one. A lot has been written about the similarities and differences between Obamaville and the Tea Party, and here is one: Whereas the latter arose out of the instinct to reward self-reliance and discourage dependency, the former is having it awakened by an encounter with the real world.
Will Obama ever have such an encounter with the real world? Probably not until he's been out of office for at least 10 years. There were no reports that any homeless people or ex-cons showed up asking for dinner at the million-dollar fund-raiser where he made the sanctimonious remarks quoted above. If they had, the Secret Service would have told them they were on their own.
But more to your second point. That is the problem. That is the problem with American politics. the phrase lesser of two evils needs to be taken out of the parlance of our times, man...If you want things to be different then support a candidate for president that is different. If you think Obama sold out why not support someone else. The reason we end up with sell outs is because we, the people, allow a D and R monopoly.
http://www.politics1.com/p2008.htm
there were in 08 and will be in 2012 candidates that do not subscribe to the D or R monopoly. Find the one that fits the best. Don't simply vote for a D because you are afraid of an R. And if you are afraid of the R that is put out there why not participate in the primaries and help pick the R. You don't have to look at them as the enemy. Quite frankly if you aren't happy with the guy you voted for last time...why on earth would you support him again?
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
i also do not believe that is a free-handout. her dad or someone else in her family worked to get that money to have to give to her. that's not a hand-out but a hand-me-down a la with money.
as for why Ed's kids deserve it - because their daddy is in the top one one-hundred of a percent in ability in his chosen field. there are arguably 5 or 10 people in the past 50 years who have been as good as Ed as what he does and Ed has earned everything he gets, so no i have no problems with Ed's kids being privileged because it's an earned privilege...call it a 2nd generation earned privilege for his kids but it was still earned.
Further, if Eddie, and my in-laws providing for their children is considered a "hand-me-down" from the parent to the child, then welfare should be considered a "hand-me-down" from the government to the people using it - the people it is supposed to be by and for.
As for making the kids earn it, if you want to be a true Libertarian (not saying you are or want to be) and there is no social contract, just everyone for themselves, then everyone should not receive one red cent from their parents. To follow through with that logic everyone gets thrown into a draft pool and, by luck of the draw, children get to go to whichever public school they are drawn to go to. There could be no private school unless a 5-18 year-old kid made enough money via their own hard work decided to segregate him or herself from the rest of the people. This way each "individual" makes it or breaks it on their own accord, not because of the situation they were born into. Usually as soon as I take Libertarianism to it's logical conclusion, my Libertarian friends say "whoa, whoa, whoa why can't I provide for my child"? Because it's an unearned handout...how can you say that child earned it? If you don't do that then individuals are not truly earning things through their own efforts, and we have the same problems we do right now.
That's great. But, they are going to find that unsustainable. Sort of like our economy at large. Like most things, NYC is ahead of the curve.....
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
cool avatar by the way.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"As anyone who listens to me for even two seconds can tell you, I'm no expert when it comes to pretty much anything," Gov. Rick Perry of Texas said. "That's why I promise voters that as president, I will make it my top priority to just hang back and let smart people take care of everything."
"Come to think of it, though, I'm not really qualified to give an opinion on this or any other issue," Perry continued. "I should probably just shut the fuck up now and go away.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/nation-finally-breaks-down-and-begs-its-smart-peop,26450/
Enjoy your weekend.
Spaceman, out.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I missed out on the 1908 elections by two months.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
the protestors are back on donated land instead of public property
It doesn't appear to be a very big space though nor protest
I guess the Mayor will speak about this today
I do have to correct myself on one point, though. I don't know if I misread the article or if it's been corrected since I saw it Friday, but 56% voted in 2008 and I had said that 56% didn't vote. I still think that's much too low of a number for a group of political protesters but it is nearly the same as the national voter turnout (which I find depressingly low as well).
After Justina Jensen, of Manchester, became friendly with the girl, she went on the Internet and arranged a tryst between her and a man -- who was actually an undercover cop, according to Union Leader.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... z1cMxZ5BZK
A sex fiend barged into a woman’s tent and sexually assaulted her at around 6 a.m., said protesters, who chased him from the park.
“Pervert! Pervert! Get the f--k out!” said vigilante Occupiers, who never bothered to call the cops.
“They were shining flashlights in his face and yelling at him to leave,” said a woman who called herself Leslie, but refused to give her real name.
She said that weeks earlier another woman was raped.
“We don’t tell anyone,” she said. “We handle it internally. I said too much already.”
http://m.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhat ... J7VGC9nJZP
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/power-people-occupy-wall-street-uses-bikes-generate-141853827.html
Although the main purpose is to power laptops and cell phones ... two main staples of American consumerism and debt. Nevertheless, it's a creative method and much safer (and quieter) then generators.
Now they just need to figure out how to plug electric blankets into it.