A gallery of the occupying hordes
There’s lots of action happening in a lot of places here with this “Occupy Wall Street” stuff, and it’s coming to Roanoke’s Elmwood Park Saturday morning.
Certain right-wing talk show hosts have portrayed the crowd as dirty hippies and anarchists. There are some of those, and many other normal-looking folks in protests that are growing around the country.
In the spirit of the Tea Party gallery we ran back in 2010, here’s a gallery of some interesting “Occupy” folks in other cities. Most of these were shot by a photographer in New York named David Shankbone. To go to the next picture, click on “Next” underneath each shot. (If it’s a vertical pic, the “Next” button will be on the upper right. Enjoy!
New York City | David Shankbone | Wikimedia Commons
Next
October 11, 2011 - 8:00 AM
I’ll be in Gettysburg occupying part of the battlefield and enjoying the leaves Saturday.
Who Says Democrats Don’t Create Jobs?
by Charlotte Hays
October 11, 2011, 7:45am
Looking for meaningful work? A Powerline reader culled an intriguing employment ad from Craigslist: Working Families Party is looking to hire Occupy Wall Street protesters:
FIGHT TO HOLD WALLSTREET ACCOUNTABLE NOW! MAKE A DIFFERNENCE GET PAID!
The pay is $350 to $650 a week, depending on responsibilities and how long you work. And there’s are openings right now:
The WFP is seeking immediate hires.
You must be an energetic communicator, with a passion for social and economic justice.
Only outgoing, articulate dedicated, determined candidates will be considered for the positions.
As my friend Lucianne Goldberg observes, “Don’t say the dems haven’t come up with some jobs.”
http://www.iwf.org/inkwell/show/25621.html
I hope that the protesters here ARE peaceful and do not use the example set forth by their comrades in Boston, see link.
http://news.yahoo.com/boston-police-arrest-50-occupy-boston-073749962.html
Still having a hard time wrapping my head around how these OWS people really expect to peacefully accomplish their stated goals, huh, demands. Wait, I know, VOTE!!?? It is time to make a real positive difference. Vote Herman Cain!!!!!
You might ask yourself, which image in this photograph is out of place? If you said the American flag you’re right for several reasons. Not only do the commie’ values of these bused-in protesters directly contradict those of America, it is a tactical mistake for the left to display the flag since studies have shown a visual of the flag itself causes people to think and move to the right; to conservatism, to Republicans.
http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/07/14/the-mere-sight-of-an-american-flag-can-shift-voters-republican/
So bad move for these clowns. They hate the flag and the country anyway, but isn’t it interesting that playing this charade also drives people away from their socialist cause?
I just got back from Occupying the beach house for an extended weekend. There was a lot of beer, crabs, and cheesesteaks occupying my belly (albeit temporarily.)
It was very patriotic.
#2 Poor pammala still can’t read. Or doesn’t bother to. The people they’re hiring might in fact go down to Wall Street, but that’s not all they would be doing. Every organization, including conservative ones, hires “activists” or organizers. Big deal.
#4 Oh gosh, now suzie’s linking to a source that featured on a liberal NPR program.
#5 I’m hoping you were able to decimate those invading crabs, scott.
I have a few friends who are down that way. I have been told there are all kinds of folks including WW2 vets who want to be counted in speaking out against what Wall Street has done.
Like I have said a few days ago it is only growing, people are feed up.
“FIGHT TO HOLD WALLSTREET ACCOUNTABLE NOW! MAKE A DIFFERNENCE GET PAID!”
“The pay is $350 to $650 a week, depending on responsibilities and how long you work. And there’s are openings right now:”
Personally I wouldn’t apply for a job posted with spelling and grammar errors.
And how, gdad. I attacked several Dungeness Crabs, a stack of Snow Crabs, and an Alaskan King Crab. I know they say Baltimore is home of the Crab Cakes, but I’ve never had a plate nearly as good anywhere in Baltimore.
They were chanting “I’m part of the 99%”, but that stopped when I drowned them in butter.
1963 Civil rights protests…………good cause
1968 anti war protests…………….good cause
2011 class warfare protests………..good joke
Ok
The “protestors” have now been videotaped:
….blocking traffic
…..defacating on police cars
….storming a senate office building
etc.
Does anyonre remember this stuff happening at the tea party rallies?
Do my eyes deceive me or is that actually Eric Cantor fourth from the bottom left in this first photo. He’s seems to bhe yelling loudly. Guess he needs to get out some of that repressed energy from being such a continuous tight ass.
Looks like a bunch of plain old ordinary screwed over Americans to me. No power suits with contrasting red or blue ties and $1000 haircuts unlike what you will see on tonights latest episode of Republican craziness. If they want to have a real debate, set up a stage in the middle of the wall street crowd and let them take actual questions from an audience representing something besides the tea party and right wing evangelicals.
Yeah but I hope you didn’t have any children holding up a crab and smiling for their picture getting taken… bad, bad, bad.. tsk tsk.
(/snark)
Anyone can put a fake ad on Craigslist about anything.
You might ask yourself, which image in this photograph is out of place? If you said the American flag you’re right for several reasons. Not only do the commie’ values of these bused-in protesters directly contradict those of America, it is a tactical mistake for the left to display the flag since studies have shown a visual of the flag itself causes people to think and move to the right; to conservatism, to Republicans.
And if it does make people think of conservatives, consciously or not, so what? This movement is not owned by any one party. The 99% represent the left, the right, the center and the fringe. We are aware we may not agree on all things political, so in order effectively communicate with one another the guidelines we follow in our organization are teaching us to avoid/identify/quash any politically polarizing arguments before they begin.
From Wikipedia: “The fifty stars on the flag represent the 50 states and the 13 stripes represent the thirteen colonies that rebelled against the British monarchy and became the first states in the Union.” If there’s anything in those pictures *more* appropriate than the flag, I don’t know what it is.
in order to*
A fleabagger just told Sean Hannity that she’s $80,000 in debt from college (btw she’s still in Columbia at age 37). Sean replied that he was also in debt when in college and had to drop out of college three times so he could work and save enough money to return.
Fleabagger then asks how he felt about paying his loans back. Hannity replies “I borrowed the money, spent it and it was my responsibility to pay it back.”
Fleabagger – No, that’s not right. If our government cut just a quarter of military spending they could pay for everyones college….”
Fleabagger is studying at Columbia University. Ivy League.
Farking Clueless!
@15- Fleabaggers can’t present arguments cogent enough to understand. You obviously haven’t been listening.
Democracy at work. Free speech and folks taking a stand against injustice.
I love america! This could be the beginning of something wonderful.
At least they’re not flying the secessionist, Don’t Tread On Me Flag. Talk about anti-American.
Re: #12 and the question posed in #13, I personally remember this stuff happening at the May, 1971 anti-war protest in D.C. (on the one year anniversary of the Kent State shootings). I also remember similar things at which I was not personally present happening many times in that era. I infer that you don’t, and therefore you’ve lesser personal reference for the arc of American politics over the past half century than many other experienced Americans.
So, let me directly inform you that the civil rights demonstrations that you acknowledge as a good cause were routinely accused by the radical right obstructionists of being Communist plots, when, unlike today, there was an actual Communist idealogical struggle in the world. And the anti-war protests that you call a good cause were continually dismissed as nothing but an inchoate mob of dirty hippies who lacked knowledge of the issues. Both movements saw their momentum recede into other forms of expression, but not before they had accomplished important goals despite false claims by the forces of regressive prejudice.
Thus when we hear the current populist crowds accused of being Communists, paid subversives, dirty hippies, and know-nothings, we recognize that it is a standard historical reaction. Almost any group of great size can contain individuals on the fringe who can be mis-represented as typical of the whole, just as happens when the whole Tea Party is characterized as being selective about their Constitutional fetishes.
What experience teaches us is that the party that grasps at such inaccurate and dismissive labeling is in one of the early stages of grief: denial. The grieving process is always triggered by a loss, and the party suffering the loss may at first only sense it sub-conciously. If the current protests are more broad based than the cartoon stereotypes given by the radical regressives, we will know that they spring from a dread of not having a position that can ultimately prevail. And indeed, for many of us, it is quickly seeming like todays dismissive labels have that familiar ring to them.
CORRECTION: I’m afraid I allowed my subject to become reversed in the last paragraph. I meant that the labelers will sense that they face a loss, not the ones they label. I suppose I can expect the original mis-written sentence to now be used as a blunt instrument against my post, but I hope with this correction my intent is clear.
I think these kids are waking up to the fact that students loans were set up not to enable an affordable education, but another questionable banking tool used to fleece americans and make the rich richer.
However, the kids seem to be in the minority if the picture is any gage of who is protesting. I see a wide cross section of americans raising cain and pissed off about being trickled down on for 40 years. Better late than never…
“Fleabagger”. LMAO. Love it!
“FIGHT TO HOLD WALLSTREET ACCOUNTABLE NOW! MAKE A DIFFERNENCE GET PAID!”
“The pay is $350 to $650 a week, depending on responsibilities and how long you work. And there’s are openings right now:”
Good find, Debbie. These dimwits don’t know what they’re ‘protesting’ and don’t care. I guess it beats selling plasma. Or maybe not.
#12 AS ppo9uted out by Warren, terps, your “good causes” were definitely not seen as such my many, many people early on. Anti-war protesters were seen as traitors, in fact.
Elizabeth Warren predicts OWS. For gods sake elect this woman and dump Brown and the teabaggers back in the Boston Harbour where they belong.
Elizabeth Warren May Have Predicted Occupy Wall Street in 2009 Interview:
“Elizabeth Warren is many things—champion of the people, righteous scholar, role model, etc.—but could she also be psychic? In a 2009 interview now making the rounds, Warren essentially predicted that OWS would go down, pointing to cycles in the economy and disruption of the middle class as a precursor to uprising.”
http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/678020/elizabeth_warren_may_have_predicted_occupy_wall_street_in_2009_interview/
BRING BACK GLASS-STEAGALL
Aren’t conservatives cute?
In the Revolutionary War days, the conservatives were Tories, and they were against the revolution. Now they believe it was “a good cause.”
Conservatives fought to preserve slavery. Now their descendants believe its abolition was “a good cause.”
They fought women’s right to vote. And now they (most of them, at least) defend that as “a good cause.”
They fought desegregation of lunch counters, seating on buses, schools and neighborhoods. And now most of them believe those causes were “good causes.”
Conservatives were against voting rights for minorities. Now they claim to be for them, because they are “a good cause.”
Conservatives hated the anti-war protests of the 1960s. Now right here terps, a conservative, is admitting voting rights were “a good cause.”
If there’s one thing conservatives are consistent about, it’s that they are against something good before they become for it.
For that reason, I predict that 20 to 30 years hence, terps will look back on the Occupy Wall Street protests and label them “a good cause.”
A point of style: When you protest, you protest AGAINST something. For that reason (although terps didn’t grasp this when he wrote it) the term “class warfare protests” is the right one.
The demonstrators are protesting against the class warfare that has been waged by the rich against on middle- and lower-income Americans since the early 1980s.
“BRING BACK GLASS-STEAGALL”
Amen to that!
31 Dan often uses his bully pulpit to spread the lie that the founders were liberal, and we’ve debunked it every time.
The simple fact is, the framers abhorred a strong central government and that’s why they escaped England to come here. It’s why the Constitution is one of negative liberties. It outlines the things government cannot do. Today’s Tea Party truly is an offshoot of that same thinking. It’s the Left who are the Tories. They want big government, they want a welfare state. These are the OWS kooks that want the status quo furthered. Liberals were the ones who who claimed blacks were 3/5 human. They wanted that race chained up and held down, and their policies still do that. The left is the ideology that has shunned freedom for decades. They were and are the Communist regimes that built walls to keep people from escaping. They are the grisly abortionists. They hate life, liberty, and self-determination; everything this country was founded on.
“BRING BACK GLASS-STEAGALL”
The irony is it was government abandoning its own regulatory authority that undermined the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Had Fannie Mae (completely controlled by Democrats) not loosened lending standards for the banks, the entire economic crisis we’re in would have been avoided.
“Elizabeth Warren is many things—champion of the people, righteous scholar, role model, etc.—but could she also be psychic?
More like psycho. The reason libs could predict these fake protests is because they orchestrated them. Duh.
Some data on why Occupy Wall Street may be happening.
http://www.alternet.org/economy/152601/5_facts_you_should_know_about_the_wealthiest_one_percent_of_americans/
Conservatives who take credit for the American Revolution display their typical lack of any grasp of the meaning of the word “conservative”. And “progressive”.
If this country is going to improve, it will be because of the efforts of the progressive left. The right is always more than happy to have us wallowing exactly where we are.
It’s only “class warfare” when the poor fight back.
Dan, you touched on a subject which is extremely effective at demonstrating what is wrong with conservatism. I recall the advice given to conservatives years ago in a newspaper column written by an African-American columnist who had been asked by a conservative friend why conservatives get so little support from minorities: “Be on time!”
Conservatives are late to EVERY major step in progress. It is their nature to oppose change; they “conserve” the old ways. This isn’t always bad, but it results in always opposing progress at the time when support for that progress is most needed.
An example of where conservatism, in my opinion, got something right (where liberals got it wrong) was in opposing open-ended welfare checks which resulted in incentivized chronic laziness instead of just helping someone get through a temporary rough time. But for every example of where conservatism got something right, there are many more examples of where it got something horribly wrong, as Dan started to chronicle above.
Subprime loans were the problem. Fannie and Freddie didn’ buy subprimes. Ergo, the problem wasn’t F&F.
Subprime loans were the problem. Fannie and Freddie didn’ buy subprimes. Ergo, the problem wasn’t F&F.
As usual, Dan has no idea what he’s talking about. Fannie and Freddie were heavily involved in the subprime market. From wiki:
In 1995, the GSEs like Fannie Mae began receiving government tax incentives for purchasing mortgage backed securities which included loans to low income borrowers. Thus began the involvement of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with the subprime market.[120] In 1996, HUD set a goal for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that at least 42% of the mortgages they purchase be issued to borrowers whose household income was below the median in their area. This target was increased to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 2005.[121] From 2002 to 2006, as the U.S. subprime market grew 292% over previous years, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac combined purchases of subprime securities rose from $38 billion to around $175 billion per year before dropping to $90 billion per year, which included $350 billion of Alt-A securities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis
Pretty nice smoking gun, huh? LOL. Someday you clowns will learn.
38. Dan – the Right keeps pushing loan standards and Fanny and Freddie as thecause of the bank crisis to cover for the fact that it was just pure fraudulent greed by the banks and had nothing to do with loan standards or loan guarantees.
For instance Wachovia bought Golden West Mtg Company and began making mortgage loans where you could choose your payment, It could actually be less than the interest alone. Bank America bought Countrywide Mtg at a huge price. Both buys was to acquire the big money maker = subprime mtgs. These mtgs paid a high rate of interest with collateral and could be packeages as CDOs and sold immediately. Because of dervatives, and AIG insurance of the CDOs the banks making the mortgages never thought they would have to collect on them. It was simply crank out the mtg. and sell it. The number of subprime mtgs. went way beyond any government loan requirements, it went way beyond any reduction in standards, in fact, the banks took virtually all standards off as has been shown by AIG in their lawsuits against the banks. The Conservatives don’t want to recognise the fact that the lack of regulations on the banks caused the problem, not Fannie, not Freddie, not government regulation, but the lack thereof.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/18/AR2008081802111.html
“Discussing the company’s successes, Mudd said one of Fannie Mae’s achievements in 2006 was expanding its involvement in the market for subprime and other nontraditional mortgages. He called it a step “toward optimizing our business.”
A month later, Fannie Mae outlined plans to further expand its activities in the subprime market. The company recognized the already weak performance of subprime loans but predicted that they would get better in 2007, according to another Fannie Mae document.
Internal documents show that even late in the housing bubble, Fannie Mae was drawn to risky loans by a variety of temptations, including the desire to increase its market share and fulfill government quotas for the support of low-income borrowers.”
wrong again danny
furthermore…
“In an interview, Fannie Mae Executive Vice President Thomas A. Lund said the company pursued the purchase of subprime loans in 2006 and 2007 at the request of lenders, who wanted Fannie Mae to take the loans off their books. He said Fannie Mae hoped to bring higher standards to the market, and he added that the loans helped the company in its struggle to meet goals the government had set for Fannie Mae’s advancement of affordable housing.”
Yep Pammala. Fannie and Freddie’s involvement is well-documented. And it was ALL Democrats running it. That’s why they’re so desperate to pin the crisis on the private sector.
“The simple fact is, the framers abhorred a strong central government and that’s why they escaped England to come here.”
What a bunch of baloney. Most of the framers ancestors came for 1 of 3 reasons. (Mostly 1 and 2, however as many as 1 in 7 soldiers who fought for the continentals were african americans.)
1. To make money
2. Religious freedoms
3. Enslavement
Most families had divided loyalties and the revolution looked a lot more like a civil war than a revolution against England, particularly in the south. Most of the soldiers who fought for the British in the war were native americans known as the “Kings Friends” or “Tories” At least 1/3 of the colonists sided with the king, oddly about the same percentage of folks who define themselves as conservative today. Coincidence? or ignorance?
http://www.state.de.us/facts/ushist/revfacts.htm
“The simple fact is, the framers abhorred a strong central government and that’s why they escaped England to come here.”
http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/constitution/bio.htm
Um…complete history fail. “Escaped England to come here”?
“Most of the group were natives of the 13 Colonies. Only seven were born elsewhere: four (Butler, Fitzsimons, McHenry, and Paterson) in Ireland, one (Robert Morris) in England, one (Wilson) in Scotland, and one (Hamilton) in the West Indies. ”
The signatories to the Constitution were born here. They werent “escaping” anything.
And they were liberals.
“Three (Baldwin, Gilman, and Jenifer) were lifetime bachelors.
And we all know what THAT means….
Pigs must be flying, suzie uses wiki to back her up. LMAO.
Of course, colonists had been fleeing big government for 150 years, so it wasn’t done overnight.
More evidence that the colonists were conservatives: Notice they didn’t sit around England and whine and protest. They took action, then relied upon THEMSELVES to move to a far-away unfamiliar land and carve out a new free life. Just like conservatives today are self-reliant and achieve. Cut from the same cloth.
But leftwingers still can’t explain why, if the framers had been government-loving liberals, they wouldn’t have enacted a whole slate of big-government provisions in the Constitution. Hell, many of the colonists didn’t even want a centralized government, but in the end, they ensured that it was a weak one.
Suzie always has to school you clods on EVERYTHING. It’s tiresome, but a cross I’ve been chosen to bear.
@ Kristen 10:50 AM: ROFLMFAO I love it when presenting historical facts to refute a conservative’s nonsense is both effective and humorous.
Regarding the Founding Fathers’ being liberals: I think it speaks well of liberalism that what qualifies one as a liberal changes (improves) so much over time. These radical liberals of the late-1700s were staunch conservatives by today’s standards. Something tells me many of them, especially Thomas Jefferson, would be glad to see that we have come so far that he would be viewed as a conservative by today’s standards.
John, when shown up as spectacularly wrong, their response is to change the question. But we’re used this.
uPretty sure we didn’t have any 150 year olds signing the Constitution.
Again there is a rewriting of history by some. They tend to forget about the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. These articles preceded the Constitution and weree found to not give enough power to the central government. As a result, the Constitution was written to do just that, to give power to the central government. Our forefathers did indeed understand that the central governemnet had to have control over the states. The Civil War backed up that control and dominion.
Kristen, so true. Can’t just admit they were wrong. Then they would have to admit they might be wrong on other topics too, which might result in stress as they would have to question their big-government positions on gay rights, abortion rights, drug laws, and a host of other issues where modern conservatives support much bigger government than liberals do. It’s simpler to ignore facts.
51. Leaders like Alexander Hamilton of New York and James Madison of Virginia criticized the limits placed on the central government, and General George Washington is said to have complained that the federation was “little more than a shadow without substance.” http://www.barefootsworld.net/aoc1777.html
“…which might result in stress as they would have to question their big-government positions on gay rights, abortion rights, drug laws, and a host of other issues where modern conservatives support much bigger government than liberals do. ”
At which point, their pointy little heads would start spinning around and they’d be levitating off the Barcaloungers.
Cold n P, Kristen, and John, thanks for saving the rest of the intellectually honest readers of this blog the trouble of having to point out what nonsense Post #33 was.
Still, I’d like to point out a couple more things beyond the absurd inaccuracies that were volunteered by the poster. The scope of federal government was just one of the issues that was closely debated in creating the Constitution, and one reason is because the framers hadn’t much to compare their visions with. They were seeking independence from the sovereign crown, not just from his administrative apparatus, and THAT is the reason that the Declaration of Independence, NOT the Constitution, mentions God and the natural rights of man. And there were simply no existing democratic governments in the world in what would come to be called the American model. Monarchies, theocracies, and constantly warring fiefdoms were the most common organizational social models then, and the framers knew the profound problems with all of them. They wanted to progress to a new model,and it did indeed make the Revolution almost as much a domestic civil struggle as an escape from colonial status.
The same poster who thinks the framers of the Constitution were English emigres also volunteers the Orwellian claim that “Liberals…claimed blacks were 3/5 human” with the posters’ usual lack of substantiation. It is telling, then, that this same fount of historical nonsense also recently used the following phrase volutarily, seriously and without a hint of irony: “slavery birthright”. Think about that phrase for a moment. Then ask yourself what credibility in interpreting the founders’ intent such a mind can possibly have.
“modern conservatives support much bigger government” Not only support, but put it in place. Just look back at Bush – no need to look any further.
That being said, here and there some from the right (like Jerry Ford) have some substance, but they are few and far between.
Warren, they also like to bunch the Pilgrims in with the FFs. Another fail.
As I opened my emails and such this afternoon I noticed one from a friend who is on Wall Street and she has a photo of a young US Marine with a sign that says, I fought for my county, not Wall Street” and he is smiling from ear to ear. There is something so much more going on here, not just us lefty’s but all kinds of folks who see the cow for what it is too fat and getting all the hay and it’s not sharing.
Dan that was very good as to pointing out in time the right wing always seemed to be on the “right” side of history. Which, if one reads the Texas form of history well then, their right, maybe like Disney World, it’s all not real.
@ Ken 12:54 PM: And just look at Bill Clinton’s record. The number of federal employees shrank during his two terms. Conservatives seem to HATE facing this fact and are predictable in their response.
@ Warren 12:54 PM: Thanks for the kind words. I agreed with all you said, and would like to add that although a contemporary template for the American model did not exist, the example of ancient Greece, from thousands of years earlier, served as an approximate model for the American model of representative government. It’s deliciously ironic that the liberal educational backgrounds of some founders resulted in their producing a work which conservatives would love to claim–a sustainable-but-evolving work which subsequent liberals (abolitionists, suffragists, civil rights activists, etc.) improved to guarantee even more freedom for even more people.
I hate it when folk insist all political issued fall along a single, old one-dimensional continuum with over simplified categories of ‘right’ and ‘left’, established for the seating arrangement of the French National Assembly of 1789. Such thinking was are overly simplistic back then.
Using it today to describe today’s complex political landscape shows a true lack of under standing.
Ditto, throwing around terms like “reactionaries”,”conservatives”, “progressives”, “liberals”, etc.
Do you see do difference between economically leaning Stalin and Gandhi? Gerome W. bush was more to the Right on economic issues than Hitler. Does that make Hitler a moderate? The one dimension myopia totally misses left-wing reactionaries like Robert Mugabe and Pol Pot.
At a minimum, issues of economic/financial freedom v. economic/financial control needs to be separated from issues of personal / individual freedom v. personal / individual control. Repeatedly there are folk who strongly support economic/financial freedom yet also strongly oppose personal / individual freedom. Some of them post here.
Then we have opinions on issues such as religious freedoms, freedom of speech, having a truely free press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of association, as well as the right to keep and bear arms. None of these necessarily align exclusively with one side or the other of the old “right” v. “left” dictum established in 1789.
Next add in issues such a universal education / free public education.
How about, freedom of travel.
Again, neither end 1798 “right” v. “left” dictum has a consistent monopoly on the issues of confidentiality, privacy, anonymity, etc v. the “needs of the goverment”
Then add to that the issue of Hierocles’ circle model of identity that states that we should regard ourselves as concentric circles, the first one around the self, next immediate family, extended family, local group, citizens, countrymen, humanity. There is no agreement right to left as to how all these various freedoms are championed across the Hierocles’ circles of identity. Take a look at the issue of education for children of undocumented residents.
Hence, I go al la carte, ignoring the bobble heads, and picking and choosing on the individual issues based on principle, values, and logic – not labels.
“Believe nothing merely because you have been told it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be kind, conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings — that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide.” – Buddha
Re: #51
Bingo!
And as confirmed at #’s 54 & 56.
———
Well done!
IMHO, our current so-called RW love “big government” when it is doing what they want done to suppress the freedoms of others, which they don’t like — either the others as people or the particular way a freedom is being practiced, which they don’t like. Foe example, they would support theocratic freedom in one case but support it in another. Rather the old saw, “Where one sits determines where one stands.”
OTOH, they denounce it when the suppression is on their inter Hierocles-circles-of-identity. OIOW, it’s all “NIMBY” and they are not like us.
Many of the so-called RW’ers, who post here, are all about moi, moi, moi and care less about being “kind, conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings.”
there’s been some discussion about the influences on the “founding fathers,” whoever they were, in coming up with the Constitution. As others have suggested here, the influences include Greek philosophers, as well as more modern thinkers like Rousseau and Locke. However, more modern historians have suggested that economics had a lot to do with shaping the thinking of people like, George Washington, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, et.al. Below is a link to an article suggesting economic influences. It is an academic article and may be more than many want to read. Nonetheless, if you can get all the way through it you will have better insight into the thinking of many of our founding fathers as they drew up the 1787 Constitution that was ratified in 1789.
http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/mcguire.constitution.us.economic.interests
OWS spreads to Blacksburg. Rally and March this Saturday, 2pm College Ave and N. Main St. Spreading like wildfire. Go 99!
Three counterprotestors in DC. The one holding the “slob” sign has a heck of a lot of nerve.
http://suspectdevice.net/three-bros-on-a-mission-probably-paid-in-beer
The serial-womanizer who calls himself Newt Gingrich had the tiny little balls last night to suggest that Chris Dodd and Barney Frank be imprisoned for causing the financial meltdown. What color is the sky in WingnutWorld?
“Three counterprotestors in DC.”
From Politicusa.
The one-percenters are becoming frightened. Murdoch has been ordered to
release the hounds.
For those of you so confused about Fannie and Freddie and subprime mortgages. First of all. Fannie and Freddie were publically held corporations responsible to their stickholders for profits. They were originally established as quasi-government entities used to guarantee mortgages. They still did this on a limited basis after becoming publically held companies, but on a limited bais and only for highly rated mortgages, not subprime.
Fannie and Freddie as Public corporations became the biggest buyer of mortgages in the Country and then repackaged the mortgages into CDOs. In 2006, they saw the profits being made in the subprime market, and decided to enter that market; not making loans, but buying mortgages, repackaging them, and selling them as CDOs. They transformed the loans into three groups, those that were low risk, medium risk, and high risk subprime loans. This was called transformation. The low risk loans weere sold at a high price, the medium somewhat less, and the high risk packages at the lowest price. The hedge funds and investment banks bought these packages and sold them to their investors. The investment banks also bought insurance from AIG to insure the collectibility of the mtgs in the packages. The investment banks realized that they could exponentially leverage the investments by selling derivatives against the mtgs betting against collectibility of the loans. Goldman Sachs has been under investigation for this as they sold the packages to their clients as good investments while betting against the collectibility of the mtgs. A conflict of interest in a fiducuary relationship.
The point of all of this is Fannie and Freddie did not make government guaranteed subprime loans. Fannie and Freddie in fact did not make subprime loans at all. They did buy and resell the subprimes to make highe profits. they were two of the hottest publically held corporations whose stock was selling very high. The government backed mortgages had nothing to do with any of this. However, the two companies had become the latgest marketer of CDOs to the investment market. Had they failed , trillions of purchasers of CDOs, retirement plans, hedge funds, elderly, banks, foundations would have lost everything. Congress was forced to bail them out to protect the investors, not the subprime mortgaggees.
Those of you trying to make Fannie and Freddie look like Democratic fall guys are just wrong. These were public companies selling a product to the wealthiest of investors. It was the hottest investment scheme going for the wealthy. They made huge profits for their shareholders until the bubble burst. This was the ultimate in capitalism,nothing government about it except for the lack of oversite by the SEC and bank regulators.
@Art 7:53 PM: We knew this spin would happen sooner or later, didn’t we? It’s still pathetic when it does.
#67 I’m guessing that suzie is the assigned minion for this blog.
Richard, please do not confuse the intellectually-challenged with facts. It hampers their efforts to muddy the waters with Fox’s bullshirt.
Crickets from the Corporate Media. From Truthout, 7000 protest Mortgage Bankers Association meeting.
The point of all of this is Fannie and Freddie did not make government guaranteed subprime loans.
Fannie Mae did guarantee subprime loans and were heavily invested in instruments backed by subprimes. As for the claim that they get no government backing, to date they’ve received $317 billion from the government.
I love it. We’ve gone from “Fannie wasn’t involved in subprimes” to “Well, but they were 100% private corporations”. Both of these lies have been busted completely to hell.
I get it now. Richard’s “CPA” stands not for what we expect. It;sr “Crapola Purveyors and Asshats”.
I think Art linked the wrong source by mistake. I guess malt liquor and keyboards don’t mix. He clearly didn’t read what he posted. From his link, the skinny about what these “protests” are really about.
Wanted for burglary, the drug-addled fugitive said some of his hard-partying pals clued him in that the protest was a good place to be fed, get wasted and crash. “I’ve been smoking and drinking in here for eight days now,” said Dave, booze on his breath and his eyes bloodshot as he lay sprawled on a tattered sheet of cardboard. “I need to get some methadone. Every day, I wake up, and I’m f–ked up.” Drugs can be easy to score — a Post reporter was offered pot for $15 and heroin for $10.
The free chow offered to protesters was boosting the crowd.
Priceless. LOL. Anybody who thinks these hired shill dirtbags are in any way comparable to hard-working serious Tea Party members is self-delusional.
Perhaps some of you cannot read. I plainly said Fannie and Freddie bought subprime mmortgages and lots of them as publically held corporations. When the subprimes failed, they were at risk of bankruptcy which would have brought down the whole mortgage industry since they were so large and most all CDOs were being made by them. Therefore the Government took them over. They did not guarantee subprime mortgages, period. Your TP line is plainly false, they never was a connection with regulations requiring loans to the poor, and there was no problem with loans “made” by Freddie and Fannie.
By the way, your insults are infantile and your dogma stupid. Perhaps you should find a TP member with some financial background to sugar feed the explaination to you.