Sometimes when I read Pete's posts, I want to contact the authorities and tell them dinosaurs still live today
Printable View
Sometimes when I read Pete's posts, I want to contact the authorities and tell them dinosaurs still live today
wutQuote:
Originally Posted by Pete4256
lolwutQuote:
Originally Posted by Pete4256
Gotta love the irony of a "Tea Partier" making fun of people for speaking out against corporate control and political corruption. I thought you were supposed to be all about the common man? Oops.
LOL. I posted that as a joke. Since the time of Socrates people have said the next generation is stupid, they are lazy, what have you. Since the time of Socrates the older generation thinks they are God's gift to the Earth and the generation after them is ****.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete4256
Thanks for the debt, thanks for no social security, thanks for everything. You guys were great. You started the consumerist society, I guess. So there's that! LETS HEAR IT FOR THE PREVIOUS GENERATION!
:)Quote:
Originally Posted by OregonDuck1989
It's possible to detest corporate bailouts and welfare for big businesses and still have contempt for leftist "solutions" to economic problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Sure, but it's not like these rallies are comprised of just leftists. The "stated demands" or whatever, as I posted, were just the thoughts of one forum poster, not a declaration from the entire movement. The views of the protesters vary wildly.Quote:
Originally Posted by dps
Quote:
According to Adbusters, a primary protest organizer, the central demand of the protest is that President Obama "ordain a Presidential Commission tasked with ending the influence money has over our representatives in Washington"
These overarching ideas should be agreeable by everyone that isn't part of the super-wealthy elite.Quote:
Liberal commentator Michael Moore had suggested that this is not like any other protest but this protest represents a variety of demands with a common statement about government corruption and the excessive influence of big business and the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans on U.S. laws and policies.
Oh, andTotally a bunch of unemployed youths that have never worked a year in their life:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete4256
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi.../Wallst142.jpg
Yes, I understand that, but those posted "demands" were about all we have to comment on. Mostly this protest is just relatively unfocused anger. I think most of us feel that same frustration (if not anger), but as soon as you try to translate that to actual policy goals, there's no longer any consensus, I don't think. Really, there's not much difference between this and the original "tea party" protests (I don't think the term "tea party" was actually used at first) in late 2008, except those seemed more directed at the government and these seem more directed at business.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
The easiest way to dismiss people is to marginalize them.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
a movement has to start somewhere and it starts with grassroot efforts and grows from there. The fact they were able to get out a general theme and get people to gather without knowing the precise "demands" (a terrible word, but one used earlier) shows that there is legitimate support for that theme and those ideals. The backlash i've seen towards this is very similar to that of the tea party as it tried to gather its message. I welcome this group, feel they deserve a voice, and hope a message unites many middle class moderates.Quote:
Originally Posted by dps
regardless of whether or not i will agree politically with this groups message, i do not think they should be mocked and i think its these types of grassroot efforts from middle class american citizens that are necessary to take America back from the washington political machine. If they are able to unite a central theme/message, i look forward to seeing the democratic party attempt to infiltrate and corrupt it as has the republican party done to the tea party movement. hopefully both of these groups can free themselves from the machines claws and resonate but i don't hold out hope tbh.
Yo ... heads up and hear a true official community organizer for Occupy Wall Street.
http://www.4shared.com/audio/MPxvGl-R/radio100711.html
This is the Cincinnati person in charge of Saturday assembly.
No BS posted here ... once again ... just the facts .. you can hear it for yourself ... sad as it is.
According to his invite the TEA PARTY angry people ought to show up and protect for Low Taxes, Reduce Spending and Free Enterprise ... ya right ... lol
Well, if the Tea Partiers are truly against corruption and holding those a blew a trillion-dollar hole in the economy responsible, then yes, they should be there to protest. But we all know they're not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete4256
i'd love to see these two groups find some mutual agreement and stand together as the voice of middle moderate America, though before the tea party protests with this other group...i think the other group has to first legitimize itself and determine what if anything it truly stands for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobie
Just google ... occupy wall street and then click on "images"
Here are four pics in the top 10 list of crowd shots.
I didn't need to cherry pick one shot ... 90% appear to be youths (to me), who have probably never worked 12 months full time in their life yet. (I may be old but I can still google).
"I just calls 'em as I sees 'em." .. Yogi Berra :D
I don't believe this will happen, the reason is the TEA PARTY is focused on three things only and we want to stay on message.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
Shouldn't you be worried about yelling at the kids on your lawn before you yell about kids a thousand miles away?
I'm scratchin' my head at that comment etothep.
But Wall Street is where I make about half of my income from each year these days. So, really they are on my lawn ... lol
Yes, it's very easy to cherry-pick images to make things seem as you wish them to be. Yet another example of your stunning intellectual dishonesty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete4256
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_dishonesty
Ah yes, their are none so blind, as those who will not see.
Yes, most of the protests are "youths" but like it or not, "youths" are the future.
I don't know anything about their employment status, but guess who contributed to the fact that finding a job is incredibly difficult for my generation?
No, HGM, you're missing the point. If you're under 30, you don't know anything. That's why this world is such a utopia, what with the boomers in charge.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
http://images.dailydawdle.com/thats-a-good-question.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
@Kobie
My generation of conservatives, now known as the Tea Party, has realized and foreseen the problem for years. It is only now that even the liberal hippies of the 60's have awaken to the madness of uncontrolled Washington spending. But is it too late ... that is the unknown.
@HoustonGM
The bailouts were not the vision of the Tea Party ... only GM Union workers were saved. GM filed bankruptcy and millions, if not billions were lost by stock and bond holders (yes some if not all of our life savings were wiped out, who saved our lives?). The banks were saved by the Democrat control DC and Pres Obama (complete agenda control of the 3 branches in Washington for 2 years.) The Banks should have failed as should have GM and Chrysler. The dismal management should have had to pay the price for their incorrect choices and they should have all been shut down. But the Dems (ie government) stepped in and picked the winners and losers. But this spending fiasco isn't over yet, I can still foresee the banks may yet fail and maybe take the government with it.
Like I have said before ..cash is king at this time (debt is a big liability).
We can argue as who is to blame ... but fixing it is all that matters now. Obama wishes to retry what has failed for the last 2-1\2 years. There is a fork in the road ahead and the Tea party leg is the new direction to take.
It was Bush that bailed out the banks, not Obama.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete4256
/fact checking
"Congressional officials said they expected a request for legal authority to buy up the bad loans, at a cost in excess of $500 billion to the government. Democrats were discussing whether to try to attach middle class assistance to the legislation, despite a request from Bush to avoid adding controversial items that could delay action. An expansion of jobless benefits was one possibility."
Let's get it right ragecage the Democrats laid out the bill for Bush to sign or veto. So, your saying now you agree with the Tea Party and me, he should have vetoed the bill?
TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) was signed into law by President George W. Bush on Oct. 3, 2008.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete4256
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trouble...Relief_Program
You really don't have any clue what you're talking about, do you?
EDIT: Bah, someone beat me to it.
@ Kobie
You son are the one lost here.
TARP 2008:
Congress authorized the Treasury Department to use up to $700 billion to stabilize financial markets through the program -- a step that inspired widespread public outrage, helping to fuel what became the Tea Party Movement, and, in the mind of most economists, one that played a crucial role in pulling the global economy back from the brink.
Bush has nothing to control with this dude expect sign what the Dems laid on his desk.
What I posted first was regarding the 2009 stimulus .. Bush signed it.
Either one ... are you now agreeing with the Tea Party and ME ... that Bush should not have signed either one of these??
YOU claimed Obama was the one who bailed out the banks, which is what TARP was. You were factually wrong. Again. This is getting old, Pete.
I figure you won't answer ... Yes or No
LOL .. as Sarah Palin often says ... GOTCHA
You edited the question in after. Nice try at a "gotcha," but you fail. Do I need to start quoting any of your posts I reply to, just to prevent you from attempting your usual dishonesty?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete4256
I was not a big fan of TARP; the stimulus was necessary.
I thought it should have been vetoed from the onset. I believe if you let a business fail, that another business that knows how to operate will come in and do a better job. Government has no business giving businesses money and if they do, they better give money to every business struggling and quit picking winners and losers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete4256
I'm too lazy to look it up, but I remember that if you take the bailout and stimulus money and give an equal portion to every citizen, that would be about $20,000. I think that would have worked a hell of a lot better than what they did do.
Pete has to be a troll, right? I mean either that or he's suffering from full on dementia. Seriously.
This only furthers that. Oy vey...Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete4256
He's either an intentional troll, or he's mindblowingly stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach Owens
I thought that he was a troll for sure at first. But he's been doing this for years. Seems like a lot of effort to put into one "character".Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobie
I, too, can't tell if Pete is trolling you guys or if he is genuinely this dumb
Edit: Nevermind, it has to be trolling.
1) Present Statement A as fact
2) Be shown that Statement A is false with concrete proof
3) Claim that the disproving of Statement A actually proves you're right
That is the blueprint for trolling. Not saying that anyone who gets they're talking points from Faux News isn't also dumb, but he is clearly trolling you guys for lulz
1. TARP was absolutely necessary at the time, though maybe not to the size that it was. Some of the initial large banks/investment firms bailed out would have had disastrous effect on our economy if they fell. How do they get so large to be "too big to fail" is an interesting and often ignored question. There did appear to be other institutions that TARP monies were given to that seemed questionable given their relationships with Geitner and others close to the Obama administration while other more deserving firms were denied and let to fail.
2. I believe Obama was one of the democratic controlled congress that did send this to Bush's desk. Petey did error in saying it was "Obama's" but the clear point he has been making is the dems passed the law which is accurate. Both sides of this spat the past page or so are being "intellectually dishonest".
huh, using your same logic then why are conservatives still whining about Clinton then? Apparently since the Republicans controlled congress for almost the entire time he was in the white house, I guess they should be blaming themselves! Since Clinton wasn't responsible for it the Repub's were.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
People always say this but that doesn't justify the government giving free money to a company. It's not like the economy is great now, it's more like a slow bleeding death. I prefer a short term depression, than a long term recession.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
91 of 199 Republican representatives and 32 of 47 Republican senators voted for H.R. 1424, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. So let's not make it seem as if the Democrats forced it to Bush's desk against staunch Republican opposition. Hell, 63 Democratic representatives and 9 Democratic senators (plus Bernie Sanders) voted against it.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll681.xml
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=2&vote=00213