- This topic is empty.
October 26, 2011 at 6:12 am #738011
Whole movement never had the medias steam
Kinda makes you wonder what would get their attention.October 26, 2011 at 11:38 am #738012
jo: a CNBC reporter standing on the floor of the NYSE stamping his tiny little feet in impotent fury, squealing that, “what we need is a tea party!”
the media would definitely cover that.
wardrobe malfunctions. who’s on dancing with the stars. sports. a democrat caught with his hand in the cookie jar. the importance of facebook.
these are all very good and important topics.October 26, 2011 at 1:25 pm #738013
The media is still on it, especially when police decide to attack with sound cannons, beanbag rounds, tear gas, and percussion grenades. (Why are they even in riot gear?)
I agree, though, that we should all definitely occupy Dancing with the Stars next.October 27, 2011 at 4:46 pm #738014October 27, 2011 at 4:51 pm #738015
I think we should have a Federal law that prohibits the making of any law that would interfere with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibit the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.
Seems right, doesn’t it!?October 28, 2011 at 8:31 pm #738016
Definitely, dawsonct. I think that law is just generally referred to as the Constitution. It’s hard to stop cities from making or trying to enforce silly laws of their own, though, even if they are unconstitutional.
Freedom of speech and peaceful assembly are overwhelmingly supported and vital human rights in the United States. The Occupy Movement is exactly how our founders envisioned these rights being exercised.October 29, 2011 at 1:52 am #738017
Yardvark, if I had a Kewpie doll, you’d be the first winner!
Posted a very similar comment in the SeaTimes on a story about the Oakland Police riots, and the fascists couldn’t denounce my “radical” and “un-American” thinking fast enough. Some even called me an idiot (not touting my own intellect here, but c’mon! Do some research!)
Whadda bunch of maroons!October 29, 2011 at 2:01 am #738018
They are all for the constitution
Until the actual contents are pointed out to themOctober 29, 2011 at 2:42 am #738019
Hard to believe the following:
College tuition in Calif was free until Reagan. Was extremely affordable in the other 49-
When Jimmy Carter ran against Reagan their entire election run was accomplished without one dime from pacs etc. All paid for by us-now it’ll cost two billion, run 18 months etc.
College kids now looking at tuition costs for a BA ranging from 10 g’s up to 50 a year depending.
Where did we go wrong……it’s obvious, isnt it???October 29, 2011 at 4:24 am #738020October 29, 2011 at 3:38 pm #738021
Such a waste of money. Are we going to learn anything new about the candidates? We need to be asking these candidates how they justify spending that much cash so foolishly to promote themselves when the job their applying for requires fiscal responsibility and rational behavior.
We also need to be asking their contributors why they aren’t donating to their hard earned money to more essential and dire needs, such as education. Holding donors responsible for their decisions is just as important as demanding that our politicians free themselves from this horrible system of veiled bribery.October 29, 2011 at 9:11 pm #738022
“We also need to be asking their contributors why they aren’t donating to their hard earned money to more essential and dire needs, such as education”
Because there is almost no better return than bribing congress? For about 100,000 George Kaiser got 540 million. Who can resist? Wall Street turned it down flat…October 29, 2011 at 10:54 pm #738023
Bribery definitely pays. Make sure ya know how much the folks you’re voting for have accepted. It’s depressing to look at sometimes because you immediately realize how little your vote counts. Time to declare that our democracy isn’t for sale.
Also time to stand up and be counted. The peaceful march tonight will go from Westlake up to SCCC and will (of course) be followed by a Halloween party. All are obviously welcome. See you at Westlake at 5pm!October 29, 2011 at 11:58 pm #738024
I can understand taking a bribe… but damn we sell our votes so cheap! Our votes count. Trouble is we sell them cheap. For baubles, trinkets, the appearance of benefits we will sell em’.. and gosh if “someone else” has to pay for them, so much the better! Are you going to sell your vote for an average $10 per month reduction in your student loan and a default grant in twenty years? Will you do that for assuming the liability of a trillion dollars of loan debt? Someone is out there betting you will. Cheapus PorkulusOctober 30, 2011 at 11:46 am #738025
speaking of banks…
my favorite line in this article…second to last paragraph, he lists 4 things…if you read nothing else, scroll down to #4…it’s a doozy :)October 30, 2011 at 5:41 pm #738026
selling our vote to make it more possible for our kids to go to school and compete in the global marketplace makes a whole lot more sense than selling out vote to someone with their hand in our pocket.October 30, 2011 at 5:45 pm #738027
from JanS’s link
“One consumer group using information from Opensecrets.org calculates that the financial services industry, including real estate, spent $2.3 billion on federal campaign contributions from 1990 to 2010, which was more than the health care, energy, defense, agriculture and transportation industries combined. “
that alone is sobering.
what is more sobering is Kootch’s assertion about how well that “investment” pays off for them.November 1, 2011 at 4:28 pm #738028
Kootch, you seem to be a relatively smart (guy?), so I suspect you DO know that the Solyndra loans, like TARP, were GeeWhiz Bush’s baby.
You DO know that, right?
You call it patronage because George Kaiser, an Obama supporter, is an investor, but you ignore the fact that the Walton family, who are decidedly NOT supporters of President Obama or Democratic policies, are ALSO major investors.
You also seem to ignore the fact that trade policies, championed by neo-liberals on both side of the aisle, are mostly to blame for the difficulty American manufacturers are experiencing in trying to compete on the World Market.
We need to boost tariffs on foreign manufactured goods that can be made in our country. Every other country (with a functioning government) in the World protects their markets and domestic industries, it makes NO sense for America and her citizens, that we don’t protect our own markets.November 1, 2011 at 5:53 pm #738029
Toxic Asset Relief Program (TARP) was NOT part of the Solyndra deal..dawsonct.. you know not what you speak. It started as a small green energy loan fund.for R&D. and expanded itself into an Obama slush fund under the guise of Stimulus 1… the Bush administration as you know, turned down Solyndra as not economically viable… good try though. I is a porky pie program now. In fact, The Messiah just hired the Bush energy loan adminsitrator to come back…. cause he is getting such heat from congress for all the failures and porkulus.
“The loan program was started by President George W. Bush and expanded under President Obama as part of the stimulus effort. It has backed nearly $40 billion worth of loans so far in areas such as renewable energy, nuclear power and advanced auto technology” (now over 183 billion)November 1, 2011 at 6:40 pm #738030
Didn’t say they were in any way, other than the fact they were Bush’s babies, connected.
Here is a timeline that pretty much squashes all the hand-wringing about what in the grand scheme of things is pretty much the norm when it comes to investing, no matter who the funds come from.
You people make it sound like it was some grand scheme to defraud the American public, ignoring all the time all the money we dump into directly and indirectly supporting the fossil-fuels industry, when, in fact, it was simply an investment that many people thought was viable, including Kaiser and the Walton’s, who dumped hundreds of millions of their personal wealth into the company, and because we don’t protect our domestic market, China undervalues it’s currency, they treat their workers like slaves and have no environmental regulations, and they flooded the World marketplace with their products any Western manufacturers would find impossible to match, price-wise, then this American manufacturer employing American workers couldn’t compete. Sounds like we have bigger problems than a DOE investment equaling 1.3% of their entire investment portfolio (if you can do better, I want to invest with you!), we need to start protecting our domestic markets and our domestic manufacturers and the workers they employ. It is a matter of National security.
Anyway, here is a timeline of the Solyndra loan. I’m not certain what you think you are proving by bleating “Kaiser! Solyndra! Obama!” all the time. I doubt even you know why you keep repeating this non-story; you come across as a Fox Propaganda Channel parrot.
“What critics fail to mention is that the Solyndra deal is more than three years old, started under the Bush Administration, which tried to conditionally approve the loan right before Obama took office. Rather than “pushing funds out the door too quickly,” the Obama Administration restructured the original loan when it came into office to further protect the taxpayers’ investment.”
So, what exactly is your beef?November 2, 2011 at 10:18 pm #738031
Man you can weave anything out of false clothe! This is the strategy for 2012? Too many news sources for this turkey to fly. Your screeching parrot doesn’t make you right.
“Under the Bush administration, the Department of Energy rejected Solyndra for a loan in early 2009, worrying that the company didn’t have good long-term prospects.”
“The results of the Congressional probe shared Tuesday with ABC News show that less than two weeks before President Bush left office, on January 9, 2009, the Energy Department’s credit committee made a unanimous decision not to offer a loan commitment to Solyndra.”
The August 2009 e-mails, released toThe Washington Post, show White House officials repeatedly asking OMB reviewers when they would be able to decide on the federal loan and noting a looming press event at which they planned to announce the deal. In response, OMB officials expressed concern that they were being rushed to approve the company’s project without adequate time to assess the risk to taxpayers ” ABC and the Washington Post?November 2, 2011 at 10:26 pm #738032
And as you well know, or should know… against the law, dept of Energy subordinated the taxpayers to your examples of who dumped “millions” into Solyndra. George Kaiser gets paid first.. on asset dispositions. Taxpayer get nothing…You also should know, as the Department of Energy knew, Solyndra was about to proffer an IPO, but it was withdrawn because the risk was to great to attract more privt capital.. that is the function of private capital.. to take investment risks. A community organizer brokering a 500 million dollar loan? SheeshNovember 2, 2011 at 10:31 pm #738033November 3, 2011 at 12:50 am #738034
Kootch, haven’t read every one of your posts so sorry if I missed it… but curious. You obviously have a dislike for our government, and a pride in this countries push towards a oligarchical system.
What country/govt do you deem as what the US should strive to be??November 3, 2011 at 1:37 am #738035
Kootch: “the origins of high risk loans originate in the Community Reinvestment Act. Successively carried foward and expanded. In fact, one young community activist made his bones forcing B of A to make redline loans”
BS BS BS BS. Big banks are NOT regulated by the CRA!!!! And if you actually cared to look at the facts and not talk shows… small community banks that followed the CRA are doing BETTER than the national UNregulated banks. The fuk of the century is done by big banks, not by any regulation, but lack thereof.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.