LJWorld.com weblogs Satirical

Wall Street Protesters Support A Second Holocaust

Advertisement

The Wall Street Protesters [hereinafter referred to as “Fleabaggers,” (like the Teabaggers, but because these protestors are unclean…you get the joke)] and Texas Governor Rick Perry [hereinafter referred to as “Rick ‘Everything’s Bigot-er in Texas’ Perry”] have been busy fearmongering this week.

The Fleabaggers, spurred by Obama’s call for class warfare, have been busy this week coveting what others have. Some on the Right claim they don’t have a clear and consistent message yet, but I think their message is clear – we live in a America and were brought up to believe that everyone deserves a trophy for participating, not just those who succeed, so now we want our trophy http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.com/ i.e. we are entitled and someone is to blame for our failure.

But who are to blame for the lack of success for these Communication and Philosophy majors? Not themselves! Why would you even think that you capitalistic pig!?! Someone must be to blame, but whom? Not the government because that makes too much sense, so the answer must be the wealthy; those who were able to succeed in the current system. The wealthy must have created inherit inequalities in the system which rewards what society (i.e. the market) deems valuable. That’s the ticket! To support this they will provide evidence of the gap between the rich and poor widening http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2011/oct/08/reducing-poverty-should-be-top-priority/. So what is the Fleabagger solution to eliminate this gap? Envy, fear, covet, and attack the rich. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203633104576625081679793052.html

But what does this have to do with the holocaust you ask? Easy, Jews are the ones that are succeeding financially, so they must be more to blame then other groups. “Jews’ median net worth was $423,500 according to a 2004 U.S. Department of Labor survey analyzed in the book, nearly five times higher than the population’s median net worth of $86,000, and nearly 19 times higher than black Protestants’ median net worth of $22,800.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/study-religion-can-affect-your-soul-_-and-your-wallet/2011/10/11/gIQAVAU3cL_story.html But who am I kidding; no one would ever blame one group for all the problems of another group to support their political agenda. Luckily, since political rhetoric has never turned into violence none of us has anything to fear.


Rick ‘Everything’s Bigot-er in Texas’ Perry also took his turn fearmongering, by using a surrogate to state that Christians should vote for Christians over non-Christians such as Jews. Not really. Rick ‘Everything’s Bigot-er in Texas’ Perry’s surrogate really stated Christians should vote for Christians over non-Christians such as Mormons, and claimed Mormonism is a cult.

I used subterfuge to illustrate the point that no one would ever say not to vote for a political candidate because they are a Jew or a Muslim, because Jews are a minority and historically discriminated against, and because Liberals would be like flies on you-know-what if a politician ever made disparaging remarks about voting for a Muslim or called it a cult (and rightfully so).

Mormons (members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) are a minority and historically discriminated against, and so you would imagine that Liberals who claim to support the little guy and favor equality would relentlessly attack Rick ‘Everything’s Bigot-er in Texas’ Perry. But what is ironic, is that some liberal media outlets are actually discussing the Mormon/cult issue as it if where a valid question. Liberal bigotry is even more evident when black and white statistics show Liberals are the ones least likely to vote for a Mormon http://www.gallup.com/poll/148100/hesitant-support-mormon-2012.aspx. Some would call this unusual since the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is a democrat and a Mormon. But I think it is clear that many liberals will give a pass on bigotry when it suits their political agenda (the defeat of Romney, the candidate most likely to upset Obama in 2012).

Conclusion: An ‘Us’ vs. ‘Them’ mentality is alive and well in America.

Comments

JustNoticed 3 years, 7 months ago

Idiotic and completely removed from reality.

Satirical 3 years, 7 months ago

Thank you for your specific and constructive feedback.

Satirical 3 years, 7 months ago

toe...

Okay, so you read only the headline just likeJustNoticed. Noted.

Ron Holzwarth 3 years, 7 months ago

I don't think so at all, JustNoticed.

As I read the blog, I thought of a posting I recently made on Facebook:

"All religions are a cult, except for mine, of course."

Liberty275 3 years, 7 months ago

Thank you for pointing out that liberals and the left in general are hypocrites. I suggest your next blog entry be composed of showing that zebras are black and white and have stripes. It could be the start of a series of articles regarding things that should be obvious to everyone.

:-)

TopJayhawk 3 years, 7 months ago

Voting against my best interests?

That says it all. Is it in my best interests to let anyone who makes a dollar more than me to pay my way?

Is it in my best interests to always look to someone else to take care of me?

My best interests involve a strong economy, and a strong military. Otherwise I can and will take care of myself. So I feel I am voting for my best interests.

My parents taught me to be self reliant and not envious. This is a lesson largely forgotten by a lazy society.

But obviously your best interests are for you to find a sugar daddy that will take care of you.

Liberty275 3 years, 7 months ago

Libertarians value freedom over money. Part of that freedom is making money, even obscene amounts of money, while following the law. If you think an entity is breaking the law, contact the attorney that prosecutes such crimes in their jurisdiction.

Personally, we have a low-end middle income, but we are happy with what we have and don't care if somebody else has more as it is really none of our business.

Also, who are you to tell other Americans what their "self interests" are? You don't have a say in the matter. Nose out.

If you are still having problems, I suggest you dump whatever god mumbo jumbo you believe and try to embrace the tenants if not the hocus pocus of Buddhism. Siddhartha tortured himself like you are doing until he accepted his existence and attained a state of nirvana and thus freedom.

gudpoynt 3 years, 7 months ago

and when those making obscene amounts of money influence public policy that protects their ability to make obscene amounts of money at the expense of valuable public services for all Americans?

(that whole "at the expense of" is the kicker that you economic freedom zealots have been told to forget by, whoe else, the obscenely rich)

Liberty275 3 years, 7 months ago

Are you saying people that make obscene amounts of money should not be able to influence public policy? Who else would you like to include? Would you like to include the Lawrence 100 that feebly tried to mimic the Wall Street protesters? How about George Soros and Moveon.com?

NO. You can't. Every American has first amendment rights and can ask the government to do anything. Further, everyone is allowed to contribute to political campaigns individually or through groups within limitations.

If you can point out specific cases of quid pro quo or other specific breaches of law, then go after those, not just generalities.

In reality, what you should be concerned about is legislators putting their names on laws penned by interest groups. And then, your anger should be directed at the politician because he can refuse out of hand to consider such drafts of potential bills.

As for "at the expense of" thing, that is irrelevant since I don't know of any law forbidding an otherwise legal activity because of who is required to foot the bill.

Think. Don't just feel and remain impotent.

jafs 3 years, 7 months ago

People with money should not be able to influence politics any more or less than people without money.

However, they can and do just that - they influence it much more.

Satirical 3 years, 7 months ago

jafs...

I would contend that a person without money could potentially influence politics just a much if not more than someone who simply writes a check. Volunteering for a campaign and converting others to your candidate can have a ripple effect and potentially make a huge impact. I believe one person can make a difference.

jafs 3 years, 7 months ago

I'd like to believe that as well.

But, to ignore the vast influence of money on politics seems unwise to me.

For example, I asked a local legislator why human services, like the dd services my wife's employer provides are over-scrutinized and over-regulated while billions, if not trillions, are overlooked in wars.

He answered "social service folks don't have a lot of money" - it was very honest, although discouraging, of course.

Satirical 3 years, 7 months ago

Jafs...

Money is a form a speech and while I support full disclosure have no issue with free speech.

Social services like many other government programs have a large potential for fraud, waste and abuse and should have significant oversight.

I disagree with your assertion that the Department of Defense (DoD) budget and the "wars" are not scrutinized and regulated. There is a ton of red-tape and internal controls. Then there is congressional oversight, and finally the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is available for any citizen to take advantage of. You disagree with how much money the DoD has available or how the money is spent, but I see plenty of oversight.

jafs 3 years, 7 months ago

I'm talking about money that's simply lost, unaccounted for, nobody knows where it went, etc. How does that happen, if war is so closely supervised?

The amounts of money involved there are astronomical compared with the tax dollars involved in my wife's work.

Yet, her work (actually, the people she supervises) involves 60-80% paperwork now, leaving a very small amount of time to actually help people.

The state and federal government also like to change the rules for no apparent reason, sometimes not explaining clearly how the agency is to follow them.

Her agency is voluntarily in compliance with CARF accreditation requirements, which are better and more sensible than most all of the government regs, and would be completely sufficient to prevent fraud/abuse, and ensure quality services.

I, and she, in fact, have no problem with government oversight, but it should be intelligent, and consistent, and clearly explained.

And, there's no good reason why the money in the first paragraph can disappear like that, while she is overscrutinized to the point of absurdity.

Finally, I disagree with the idea that money is a form of speech.

Satirical 3 years, 7 months ago

jafs....

I could be mistaken, but I think all of that unaccounted for money goes missing only after its given to foreign governments (Iraq and Afghanistan). There is tons of red tape when dealing with the U.S. Federal Government spending money. I have seen it first hand. I agree it makes me sick when I hear about so much fiscal irresponsibility and agree there should be more oversight in those situations. I fully support oversight of government spending.

As for the comparison of the oversight on your wife's employer to the wars, it reminds me of the comparison of the tracking of bovine in the U.S. to that of illegal immigrants (aliens). Every single cow is meticulously tracked from birth to death,including its location. However it seems like we can't even track more than a handful of the 10 million + illegal aliens.

Finally, the SCOTUS has ruled that money is speech a while ago; at least since Buckley v. Valeo. I am glad there is such a broad definition of 'speech' because it allows the government less control on how I choose to voice my concern when they are screwing up. I think after you read either Buckley or Citizens United, you would agree that money is a form of speech, but you might still believe in restrictions on the amount of money spent (i.e. reasonable regulation on speech). Personally I feel Americans should be vigilant against the government trying to limit our ability to voice our concerns (in any form) or change those in power.

Liberty275 3 years, 7 months ago

I could argue based on the constitution, but I'll use your own standard instead.

"People with money should not be able to influence politics any more or less than people without money."

Is that the only standard you would use? What if a man is more charismatic? What if the charismatic man was black and assassinated on a hotel balcony? Should he have more influence? How about if he is a recognized expert in a matter before government?

If you allow any reason a person might be more influential, then you have to accept them all based on the implication of equal treatment made in your post.

jafs 3 years, 7 months ago

That's not true at all.

If we are to be a democracy, then money should not be a determining factor in politics.

One person, one vote.

And, even if there are some traits that would make sense for them to influence politics, like intelligence, expertise, etc. having money isn't one of them.

ivalueamerica 3 years, 7 months ago

It is beyond me why the right prefers the corporations to to shift the tax burden to the poor and not pay an equal share, but it is counter productive.

TopJayhawk 3 years, 7 months ago

Go Herman Cain. He will fix that.

And he has actually had a real job before. And no, it was not as a community organizer.

Satirical 3 years, 7 months ago

You and I probably disagree on what on the "fair share" of corporate taxes. By the way, could you remind me what the corporate tax rate is in America? Also, what do you believe is a fair tax rate on corporations?

Finally, could you tell me how, when small businesses not large corporations are the vast majority of businesses in the country, taxing corporations more will solve the inequalities the Fleabaggers believe exist?

gudpoynt 3 years, 7 months ago

well for one, small businesses tend to employ Americans. So an economy that consists more of small business than large corporation translates to a stronger likelihood that jobs stay in American.

This reduces the unemployment rate, and since unemployment is a major factor in the continued exacerbation of wealth inequality, I think that if economic policy can manage to shift the focus of our economy from large corporation to small businessess, then that would thereby have a reducing effect on overall wealth inequality.

Could you follow that?

George Lippencott 3 years, 7 months ago

If you read the commerce web pages you will find that small business is the vast majority of American Business. Medium to large businesses are the small minority. Do you know what you are talking about??

Satirical 3 years, 7 months ago

gudpoyt...

I think you misunderstood my statement about small businesses. My comment about small businesses was in response to ivalueamerica's implied argument that taxing corporations more will alleviate burdens on the poor.

I agree that small businesses are great and should be encouraged, which is why increasing the tax burden on those making over 250k can be such a huge burden. Also, I don't believe in punishing those who succeed the most simply because they are successful. I believe they should still pay taxes of course, but it should be a reasonable amount.

fiddleback 3 years, 7 months ago

Money in campaign politics aside, these protests boil down to inchoate frustration about corporate loopholes, which both sides seem in favor of closing, and not ending the Bush tax cuts, which has kept the rate on the top bracket at about 36%. Satirical, since you got down to the specific nutmeat, I call BS on your 250 K part above.

Here's a FactCheck.org link: http://www.factcheck.org/2009/03/half-of-the-wealthy-own-small-businesses/ "only 27 percent of all upper-income tax filers report business income that accounts for more than half of their wages. It’s likely that a small-business owner would make most of his or her income from the small business." And even many of those 27% would be solo freelancers, consultants, passive investors, etc, not mom-and-pop shops. Arguing that raising the tax rate back to 39% for this bracket would create a major drag on the economy is just total bunk sold to you from above. And historically, rates for this top bracket have been much higher. We are truly gutting social services (and even de-criminalizing wife-beating, for God's sake) just to maintain these historically low rates, among other unsustainable absurdities. Rather than look at that history or those numbers, you appeal to oversimplified principles of fairness and dichotomized libertarian nonsense.

On top of that, the protesters on the street may seem pathetic and/or under-informed, but your "Holocaust" title and supporting section are far lower than any of their actions. To suggest that their basic and in many ways legitimate economic resentment could transform to ethnically-based genocide is truly pathetic, an abject confession of intellectual bankruptcy. Great job at getting everyone's attention in the worst possible way.

gudpoynt 3 years, 7 months ago

Also, eliminating the myriad tax loopholes would lead to a simpler tax structure, would it not?

All of the complications and loopholes are what allow some corporations to pay far less than the stated corporate tax rate. Dig?

And among small businesses and large corporations, which do you think are more capable of taking advantage of the complications and loopholes to maximum benefit?

"Fair", would mean eliminating the complications and loopholes that allow the businesses with the most resources (i.e. those large multinationals) to drastically reduce their tax burdens, thus forcing them to pay tax rates that are comparable to small business who don't have the resources to see the same level of advantages.

Dig?

Satirical 3 years, 7 months ago

gudpoynt...

"Dig?"

Yes I do. How did you know digging was my favorite pastime? : )

I agree the tax code should be revised and simplified, but I have no problem with any person, small business or large corporation engaging in the practice of tax planning. Reagan reformed the tax code, but after many years Congress desired to encourage certain behavior and discourage other behavior. One of Congress' favorite ways of doing this is to modify the tax code. Therefore I can't fault anyone for doing exactly what Congress wanted them to do.

While I disagree that tax lawyers and tax planners are cost prohibitive for small businesses (tax preparation is tax deductible), I agree that it would benefit small businesses overall if they simplified the tax code.

P.S. If you want to go digging sometime let me know!

pace 3 years, 7 months ago

Sad Sat, What a crock. please tell me , please tell me. you sound like the plant in the little shop of horrors movie. "Feed me". Are we to assume you cannot do research, you have no ideas, you haven't read a paper or listened to the news.. Open your mouth and tilting your head is your best argument?

Satirical 3 years, 7 months ago

pace...

Of course I know what the corporate tax rate is. The reason why I posed the question to ivalueamerica is to see if s/he knew it. If not, then how can s/he claim corporations don't pay their fare share.

If I were the only one talking then it wouldn't be much of a discussion. Other than to test the basis of knowledge for a poster, I sometimes ask questions to better understand the positions of other people. Are you against asking questions to learn information?

Mike Ford 3 years, 7 months ago

you know...when confronted with reality dimwits like this blogger and their agreers turn logic on it's head.....go on dimwits bring on the gulf of inequality... you will eventually suffer like the rest of us for your blind alliegience to the greed....you sure you didn't work 20 hours a day for a dollar for the Goulds or the Rockefellers in a previous life????

I love how the godlicans have hitched their wagon to the Jewish cause since Bush. Aren't these godlicans the ones who didn't want Jewish people in country clubs in the recent past???? please don't let actually history or reality get in the way of your nonsense...Michelle Bachmann doesn't let facts get in the way of her nonsense nor does Hermann Cain... Dumb people don't believe in facts....they don't need no stinkin facts...

TopJayhawk 3 years, 7 months ago

Apparently you don't let facts get in your way either.

As far as Jews in country clubs go, I think the Dems share an equal burden there. But you go ahead and believe what you want to tusch. You are very narrow in your views of the world. Could this be because you are a young student without a fully developed brain that believes whatever your liberal proffesors tell you?

Learn to think for yourself.

Jeanette Kekahbah 3 years, 7 months ago

Wow, Top, if you knew how wrong your assumptions are...this person needs no "proffesors" and is smarter than most university professors.

Do your homework. Start with spelling.

Thinking for yourself does require effort.

MarcoPogo 3 years, 7 months ago

If you're going to equate spelling with intelligence, you can let Professor Tuschie know that he should have typed "its" and the word is spelled "allegiance". While we're at it, just a smidge of punctuation usage would be helpful.

Homework indeed.

Liberty275 3 years, 7 months ago

He isn't in the ballpark with the professors I had or me. He may have some knowledge of Native American issues that are not generally known, but otherwise he appears to be nothing more than a rather unexceptional undergrad, full of hatred and with a propensity for using epithets against people that he doesn't agree with.

He may have you fooled, but you are the only one.

Satirical 3 years, 7 months ago

I have no idea how to respond to this. Could you be more clear on how any of your assertions support or contradict my claims?

Liberty275 3 years, 7 months ago

"and their agreers turn logic on it's head"

I advise you to avoid the word "logic" altogether because you rarely if ever use it.

uncleandyt 3 years, 7 months ago

For over twenty years, the loyal listeners have been told that the radio Man knows every motive, thought and desire of the radical Left. All of a sudden, the message isn't clear. What's the deal? What's going on there? Tune in tomorrow for continuing confusion. If the violent peacenicks don't get their way, we can be that much closer to the day when all of us are as Conservative as a large jar of viagra. Keep it simple. Remember when Rush bagged on McCain?? No? good Remember when Rush bagged on Romney ? yesterday? No? good, Let it all go. You'll be told what to think, tomorrow. Good night Patriots. Sleep Right. It's all about you. It's all about you

Satirical 3 years, 7 months ago

Again, not sure what your point is, and how it supports or contradicts my argument.

Satirical 3 years, 7 months ago

No one wants to touch the Rick ‘Everything’s Bigot-er in Texas’ Perry issue? Is that because everyone sees the bigotry or is because there are a lot of anti-Mormon bigots?

Mike Ford 3 years, 7 months ago

don't even make me bring up the Morman-Native American issue..... black market adoptions which caused the federal ICWA of 1978... what americans don't know....

MarcoPogo 3 years, 7 months ago

Okay, we won't make you do that. You're off the hook.

Satirical 3 years, 7 months ago

tuschkahouma...

Looks like someone just outed themselves as a bigot.

whats_going_on 3 years, 7 months ago

Since when have the protesters chosen Obama as their "leader?"

grammaddy 3 years, 7 months ago

Before you start trashing the OWS movement, why don't you find out what it's really about? Get a clue.

Satirical 3 years, 7 months ago

grammaddy...

"Get a clue"

I supplied the link to the We Are The 99% folks (above). I only started trashing them after I looked at the website and realized they were protesters and not waiting for tickets to a Phish concert. Review the website yourself and if you disagree with my analysis of the protesters, I would be interested in hearing the specifics of where you believe my argument is flawed.

jafs 3 years, 7 months ago

Ok.

And, I'm sure you can find T-Party folks with "Keep your government hands off my Medicare".

What's the point?

Satirical 3 years, 7 months ago

jafs...

I believe rockchalk1977's point was not an independent one. It was to counter the argument from grammaddy that conservatives don't really know what the OWS movement (aka Fleabaggers) is "really about."

jafs 3 years, 7 months ago

Looks like he takes one person and generalizes from that, finding the least legitimate looking one.

See his response above.

I could do that with the T-Party too, but what good does that do?

His overgeneralization and attempt to dismiss it suggests to me he doesn't know what it's "really about", anymore than I would if I dismissed the T-Party based on a guy with "Keep your government hands off my Medicare" signs.

Satirical 3 years, 7 months ago

jafs..

I understand your argument now. Again, I don't like to speak for others, but rockchalk1977 would probably counter that he was giving a representative sample, not overgeneralizing.

jafs 3 years, 7 months ago

1 person can't be a "representative sample".

Also, you may give him too much credit - he tends not to respond to questions for the most part at all.

acg 3 years, 7 months ago

Now, now, grammaddy, you can't expect them to get a clue and do any research. It's so much easier to point fingers, coin nifty little phrases like Fleabaggers and pretty much swallow whatever the right is pouring down their greedy little gullets. Personally, I almost can't wait til this whole thing goes in the pooper just so they'll finally know, once and for all, that a working person that votes for a Republican is like a chicken who supports Col. Sanders.

Satirical 3 years, 7 months ago

acg... "It's so much easier to point fingers, coin nifty little phrases like Fleabaggers..."

Thanks, I thought it was pretty witty myself.

"a working person that votes for a Republican is like a chicken who supports Col. Sanders" - acg

While I could never begrudge a chicken who supports Col. Sanders (they guy was really convincing), I suppose you believe it is better to support an ideology which believes the only way to get ahead in life is to take from others, and discourages self-reliance? I would rather support an ideology that doesn't pick winners and losers, but simply wants to make sure the rules are fair. I think it is wiser to fear government than corporations.

jafs 3 years, 7 months ago

It's a misstatement of liberal ideas to state that the idea is to discourage self-reliance.

And, liberals are in fact very interested in "fair rules", and equal opportunity.

I'm a bit afraid of both of those, and especially the unholy alliance between them that we seem to have right now.

Satirical 3 years, 7 months ago

jafs.. "It's a misstatement of liberal ideas to state that the idea is to discourage self-reliance"

I never used the word "liberal." Although one could easily make that argument that an ideology such as liberalism which encourages voter turnout by promising to give voters free stuff, and wants a safety net so large no one can fail doesn't encourage self-reliance as much as an ideology which holds opposite positions.

"And, liberals are in fact very interested in "fair rules", and equal opportunity." - jafs

I don't disagree that they want what they believe to be "fair rules," but I think it is also clear their policies also want to pick the winners and losers.

jafs 3 years, 7 months ago

Again, I think you do liberal thought an injustice with your characterizations.

It is an unfortunate and unintended consequence that some dependence may be encouraged - liberals want to help people that need help.

All politicians promise to reward those that vote for them - that's not a particularly liberal thing.

Also, many politicians like to pick winners and losers, not just liberal ones. Bush was the one who set up TARP, after all.

Satirical 3 years, 7 months ago

jafs... "It is an unfortunate and unintended consequence that some dependence may be encouraged - liberals want to help people that need help."

In my opinion that is the perfect summary of liberalism: Good intentions, unintended consequences.

Personally, I support sustaining life, not sustaining a lifestyle. Many liberals will claim the same thing, but the volume of "assistance" to the poor too often leads to dependence on the government which doesn't help anyone.

"All politicians promise to reward those that vote for them - that's not a particularly liberal thing." - jafs

I disagree. Many conservatives don't promise to tax one group to give to another. They promise to help the country. I am a conservative not because it is in my self-interest to do so (I won't be taxed less). I am a conservative because it least to the best results for the country.

"Also, many politicians like to pick winners and losers, not just liberal ones. Bush was the one who set up TARP, after all." - jafs

Bush and other politicians may like to pick winners and losers (TARP was a mistake), but I am not talking about a particular candidate, I am talking about an ideology. I don't like ideologies or candidates which pick winners and losers.

jafs 3 years, 7 months ago

Conservatives absolutely pander to those voting for them, just as liberals do - if you vote for us, we'll lower your taxes. Or, we'll make sure that your values are represented in government, via anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, etc.

You may think it's the better philosophy for the country, but many voters don't have a broad view like that at all.

And, I disagree that it's better for the country.

Conservative ideology also picks winners and losers, by allowing the market free run, and not considering the various inequities in our society, their ideology favors those with wealth and privilege.

I'm glad that you can see some good intentions to liberal thought - many conservatives can't seem to do that.

I'd say the same may be true for some conservatives as well, like yourself - I'm sure it's not your intention to favor those born with a leg up, but it's the consequence of conservative policies.

beatrice 3 years, 7 months ago

Wow, what a heaping pile of hate all wrapped in nonsense and untruths.

Name-calling, ridiculous claims about class warfare waged by Obama (by wanting to raise the highest tax rate to a level well below what it was under Reagan -- oh my! -- all because we have a massive debt and have fought wars without raising the money to pay for them. How could he?), accusations about "liberal" media trying to sway the Republican voters away from Romney for -- get this -- an evangelical Christian governor from Texas(!) who some Republicans are trying to label as too liberal, all because it is clear to most that he likely would not win a national election. Wow. Nice stretch of the imagination there. Blame the "liberal" media for a slipping in the polls Republican questioning another Republican's religion. Yes, blame the liberals for this.

The most blatant, of course, is the call for monetary equality in the system being compared to the Holocaust. Talk about your Godwin flag! (Small point of clarificatin: it isn't a call to actually KILL the rich, which kind of is what Hitler's whole point was when it came to the Jews. (Thought you might like to know that detail about the Holocaust for future reference.)

Seeing who the candidates are now, with no more potential shining knights to ride in and save the day, it appears that some on the Right are starting to panic just a bit as they see what they imagine should be a slam dunk vote against Obama for not magically fixing the crashed economy he was handed in like, you know, no time at all, slipping away in the Republican debates.

"Conclusion: An ‘Us’ vs. ‘Them’ mentality is alive and well in America." Yep, thanks for making that point perfectly clear, Satirical.

Satirical 3 years, 7 months ago

beatrice... "Name-calling, ridiculous claims about class warfare waged by Obama..."

I agree I engaged in name calling (I am entitled to some fun aren’t I?), but I can’t believe you deny the claim that Obama hasn’t been using the US vs. THEM political rhetoric by claiming Millionaires and Billionaires aren’t paying their fair share. You might believe his rhetoric is justified, but Beatrice I find it hard to believe an intelligent person such as yourself hasn't figured out the game that is politics. Both sides play the same cards, just wrapped in different rhetoric. Obama tried to same approach when trying to get Republicans to fold and increase the Federal debt limit – including as a conditions that Republicans remove a tax break for yachts, etc.

"...accusations about "liberal" media trying to sway the Republican voters away from Romney for -- get this -- an evangelical Christian governor from Texas(!)...: - beatrice

Beatrice, again, do you really think the democrats don’t care who the Republicans choose? Really? You don’t think they would want a Palin or another polarizing figure to get the nomination to increase the odds Obama is elected? Polls have consistently shown Romney as having the best chance to be Obama. Don’t blame me for the fact many Liberals are bigots and would refuse to vote for a Mormon. I didn’t invent that fact. Don’t shoot the messenger.

"Talk about your Godwin flag!" - beatrice

The whole comparison to the Holocaust was an extreme way to make my argument that when you play the US vs. THEM game it has the potential to lead to disastrous results. Of course I don’t believe Liberals or the Fleabaggers are targeting Jews(although on a side note, it is somewhat inconsistent they don't) but it proved my point that politically targeting a group simply because they are wealthy is naïve. Therefore the Fleabaggers with their US vs. THEM mentality, fueled by Obama are both naïve and potentially (although unlikely) dangerous.

Thank you for being the first to allow me to make my implicit argument very explicit. (I do miss playing this game).

beatrice 3 years, 7 months ago

I'll agree it is politics, but it isn't class warfare to recognize that we need to pay down the debt and that the "temporary" tax cuts under Bush helped the wealthy far more than others. Helping the wealthy is more an example of class warfare.

"Polls have consistently shown Romney as having the best chance to be Obama."

Why do you want to elect someone who has the best chance to BE Obama? I thought you didn't like Obama. (I know it is a typo, but a freudian slip, perhaps? It gave me a chuckle.)

If you believe liberals and the "liberal media" wants to see Perry running for office, that is just laughable. Anyone running could win. As you say, it is politics. Romney would clearly be the liberal's choice of the two. Given that he created the healthcare plan adopted by Obama and has, in the past, supported abortion, it is very clear that he would be the choice. If he doesn't agree with your opinions on the issues now, give him time -- chances are he will change his mind. (Expect a lot of "flip-flopper" talk should Romney get the nod. Republicans used it so well on Kerry, I'm sure it will work the other way around.)

Regarding liberals not voting for Mormons, you might be correct. I know there are many right-wing Christians who want to make a stink about it, as well. Too bad. Mormonism seems no more extreme to me than Christianity. Neither is a deal breaker in my opinion, as long as it isn't what someone says they would rule the country on. However, for you to paint it strictly a liberal bias is disengenuous, at best -- and you know it. It seems like something Tom might do, but your use of this surprised me.

Yes, the use of a Godwin is almost always extreme. That is the point.

Satirical 3 years, 7 months ago

beatrice... “...that the "temporary" tax cuts under Bush helped the wealthy far more than others.”

But Obama is proposing much more than just ending the Bush tax cuts.

“Helping the wealthy is more an example of class warfare.” – Beatrice

A person wanting to keep more of their own money by definition is not class warfare. If they wanted to tax the poor to make-up for the lost revenue, then it would be class warfare. Rather, conservatives are requesting to reduce the size of government rather than take what rightfully belongs to one group and give it to another. You and I may even disagree on the definition of class warfare, but what is clear is the Obama and the Wall Street Protesters are using an US vs. THEM approach to coerce their political agenda. As I stated before I believe that tactic is naïve and dangerous.

“Why do you want to elect someone who has the best chance to BE Obama?” – Beatrice

I think Obama should be cloned, to avoid the pesky Constitutional limit on two terms, so he can ALWAYS be our President : )

“If you believe liberals and the "liberal media" wants to see Perry running for office, that is just laughable.” – Beatrice

I think Obama would rather go up against a guy who constantly puts his foot in his mouth than someone who has a better chance of beating him. I agree if Liberals were forced to choose between only Perry and Romney they would pick Romney as POTUS, but that is what also gives Romney a better chance of beating Obama. During the last Presidential election I was rooting for Hillary because I knew she was a much more polarizing figure. Axelrod (or was it another Obama adviser) just today was attacking Romney (but not any other Republican candidate). I would do the same thing if I were advising the POTUS.

“However, for you to paint it strictly a liberal bias is disengenuous, at best -- and you know it.” – Beatrice

I never claimed it was only a liberal bias. The statistics I linked also show the many Republicans would have a hard time voting for a Mormon, and I directly referred to a Rick Perry and his surrogate who are also bigoted. However the statistics also show Liberals are even more biased, which I think is relevant.

“Yes, the use of a Godwin is almost always extreme. That is the point.” – Beatrice

I know, which is why I used it right off the bat. It attracts a lot of attention and the only way to go from there is up. Rhetoric is all about manipulation : )

tomatogrower 3 years, 7 months ago

Get a clue. They want a government run by the people, not by corporations. Yes, it's the government's fault and yes it's the big corporation's fault. They are one of the same anymore. Corporations have been given the same rights as an individual. So if they take jobs out of the country and ruin our economy, shouldn't they be arrested for treason? economic terrorism?

The robber barons of the past created communism. If they had "trickled down" the wealth, then the workers would be content and would never have given Marx a second look. We are in the same situation now. You have rich corporations who have destroyed our economy by moving jobs to other countries in the name of making bigger profits, not big profits, bigger. You have companies that are considered failures, because they didn't grow enough; they grew, but not enough. You have companies who showed false profits and growth by cutting the work force to the bone and cutting worker benefits. Never mind the profit would still be quite large, it just wouldn't be large enough. If a company is making a nice profit for their investors, while providing good jobs for many people, so what if the profits only grow 1% every year? It's still a profit. You have rich corporations who could get people back to work, and give the workers who still have a job a lighter load to bear, but they won't. Why? Because they don't really care about you. They may earn a couple of million a year, but they want to earn 5 million a year. Their greed is going to backfire in the end.

How many jobs could be created if the corporations would quit spending money to buy politicians?

beatrice 3 years, 7 months ago

Don't forget, those who make their living off of dividends by investing in those very companies that produce products overseas also pay a much lower tax rate than middle-class workers. Earning your living by investing your time by working is discredited, but investing only money is praised (all the while, we condemn "greedy" teachers for wanting the pensions they were promised when hired). Up is down, back is front.

Satirical 3 years, 7 months ago

beatrice...

Those teachers pension funds are probably investing in corporations who produce products overseas. Don't blame the average investor for wanting the best return on his or her investment.

beatrice 3 years, 7 months ago

Correct, yet the teachers get branded as "greedy" by many on the right, including people on these boards for wanting the full return on their investments, but investors who aren't in a group are called "job creators" for investing in these same companies. Got it.

Satirical 3 years, 7 months ago

beatrice...

I am not sure I understand your entire argument.

The teachers union was thought of as greedy because their benefits were better than for those in the private sector and they still felt they were entitled to more. For many they saw that the average government worker isn't suffering like the average private sector worker and viewed their complaining as whining.

Satirical 3 years, 7 months ago

tomatogrower... “They (government and big corporations) are one of the same anymore.”

Nope. Corporations can’t take away rights from people or take away your life and liberty (without consequence). Governments historically have. I am not saying Corporations should be given a pass, but you should not fear them even 1/10 as much as a bad/corrupt Government.

“Corporations have been given the same rights as an individual.” – tomatogrower

It is amazing to me how many liberals fail to understand the Citizens United case, and how little it changed the idea of corporations being a “person.” That idea goes back over 100 years. If corporations weren’t people then they couldn’t be sued or have the right to have their contracts recognized. Do you really want that? Should you and I have free speech, but once we form an organization have that right stripped away?

Tangential arguments and distractions are not productive, which is why even though I responded to the argument above, I will only respond to the rest of you post by stating that corporations moving jobs overseas is not the only, or even the primary reason the economy is failing.

If you want to support or contradict either of my arguments above I will be happy to continue this discussion, otherwise have a nice day.

jafs 3 years, 7 months ago

That's partly true, in that the "legal fiction" of corporate personhood goes back a while.

But, it's not at all true that it is necessary in order to guarantee the things you mention.

The main reason corporations were set up was to limit personal liability. Without incorporation the people involved in an organization would be more liable.

If what you are saying is true, then business partnerships can't make contracts, get sued, etc. and that's just not the case, as far as I know.

There's a tremendous hypocrisy in the law - when they want to limit liability, corporations want to be considered a separate entity, but when they want to exercise "rights", they want to be considered a group of people.

I'd say you can't reasonably have it both ways.

Satirical 3 years, 7 months ago

jafs...

Because I don't want to belabor this tangential discussion, I will simply say this:

First, I recommend you research the history of corporates being defined as a person and the reasoning. Next, I recommend you research the reasons why they government created the entity known as a corporation and why protect their shareholders from liability. The creation of the corporations is a major reason our country and economy has been so successful since its inception.

And as far as the shareholder liability issues, I suggest you research "piercing the corporate veil."

Liberty275 3 years, 7 months ago

"Corporations have been given the same rights as an individual."

See if you can find a picture of a corporation sliding it's ballot into the box.

Mike Ford 3 years, 7 months ago

I'll do you one better on calling those ows people fleabags....what happens when the tea partiers have a rally???? does rush lose listeners....do churches go unattended... do trailer parks and small town cafes become abandoned....do people stop watching All in the Family reruns where Archie wishes for segregation and the past....don't stereotype others without looking in the mirror rockchalk.

Satirical 3 years, 7 months ago

tuschkahouma...

I had two primary reasons for the name calling:

(1) I thought it was really funny (some of your were funny too)

(2) I like showing the hypocrisy of those who called members of the tea party pejorative terms like "Teabaggers" and call them racists. The fact so many liberals are upset at my alleged name calling and (mis)characterization of the Wall Street Protesters but lambasted the Tea Party protesters means you have fallen into my trap and outed yourselves as hypocrites.

Thanks to you and beatrice I believe I have now accomplished two of my primary objectives for writing this piece. Have a nice day!

esteshawk 3 years, 7 months ago

(1) No matter how hard you work, how smart you are, how well educated you are, luck will always play a large factor in your life outcome. (did you win the genetic lottery at birth? were you raised in a household where you were taught proper life skills? did you pick the right stock in 1988?)

(2) Capitalism is by nature a system where money flows to the top, thus ensuring not everyone will be able to "succeed."

(3) Plain and simple fact is that for many people, their employment prospects top out at "would you like fries with that?" Not everyone has the intellectual ability and personality to earn much money.

Satirical 3 years, 7 months ago

esteshawk....

(1) I believe there are many self-made individuals who can easily prove this claim false.

(2) Capitalism is a meritocracy and you are correct by claiming it produces both winners and losers. But with many other "isms" there are only losers.

(3) I apparently have more faith in the cognitive faculties and social skills of the human race than you.

jafs 3 years, 7 months ago

It's not a meritocracy.

Unless you remove all inherited wealth, social biases, historical discrimination, etc.

Which, interestingly enough, sounds more like a liberal idea than a conservative one.

Satirical 3 years, 7 months ago

jafs...

Conservatives agree that social biases (i.e. stereotypes) should be removed but would disagree that inherited wealth should be removed (you can't change history or historical discrimination).

Stereotyping leads to less productivity since you may not have the person (or people) best capable of doing a particular job in that position. It is economically irrational.

However removal of inherited wealth isn't a necessary condition for the cream rising to the top. It simply gives advantages to some. You couldn't remove all of life's advantages if you tried; and it wouldn't be the job of government to do it, even if you could.

jafs 3 years, 7 months ago

It's not a meritocracy unless you remove all of the inequalities I mentioned (and I may have missed some as well).

And, conservatives frequently argue against policies that counter the various inequalities in our society.

You can favor whatever policies you like as far as inheritance, etc. but unless starting conditions, as well as other biases, are removed, we don't have a meritocracy.

For example, until public schools are as good as private ones, anybody with enough money to attend a private school has an obvious advantage over anybody attending a public school because they can't afford private ones.

gl0ck0wn3r 3 years, 7 months ago

I looked at the tumblr site. The vast majority of the people posting can be broken down into a prototype story that is something like:

1) I spent a lot of money on an education that may or may not have been useful 2) I made a bad decision or two 3) Now I do not have a job and I have quite a bit of debt.

Yes, there are some people who have problems that were not of their own making but these people are hardly the 99%.

Mike Ford 3 years, 7 months ago

I know teabaggers are racist....my ex grandfather is one of them satirical. Racist his whole life. Dixiecrat after Harry Truman integrated the military. Wouldn't shake the hand of one my late mother's friends at Baker University in the 1960's. Made fun of one of my late mother's Black classmates to her face as they graduated at KSU in 1985. Referred to the NBA as nothing but Africans as I offered to take him to a New Orleans Hornets game once. Made racist jokes all the time to get a rise out of people just like some of the dimwits on here. Had the tea bags out a couple of weeks after Obama's victory. Double crossed me on my mom's funeral plans in July 2009 and I cut all ties with him and my mom's surviving family. He sounded like the arguement baiting dimwits on here. He and Hurricane Katrina are part of the reason my mom died. He was a 24/7 Fox watcher and he believed all of it and started arguements after we drove a thousand miles down there to the Gulf Coast over politics. As heartless as some of the people on here. I'm not a hypocrite... I've seen the best example of you all in person for 35 of my 41 years.

Satirical 3 years, 7 months ago

tuschkahouma... "I know teabaggers are racist....my ex grandfather is one of them satirical. Racist his whole life."

And here I thought you were stereotyping everyone who supports the Tea Party. Obviously I was mistaken...

"I'm not a hypocrite..." - tuschkahouma

So what would you call someone who stereotypes one group of protesters and is opposed to the stereotyping of another group?

And I think I called you a bigot, not a hypocrite. But thank you for correcting my error. You are clearly both.

Satirical 3 years, 7 months ago

vertigo...

I think it is interesting how the media is shaping the message of the protesters and telling them what they are protesting about. Simply because the protesters are upset, and some independent person can articulate a legitimate gripe, doesn't mean they are one and the same. I don't believe every talking head who claims to know what the protesters are all about. Most likely they are just trying to claim support for their own gripes. Although I suspect the protesters will be influenced by the media to find a more coherent message.

Clearly there are valid reasons to be upset in this country with the economy. The questions which these protesters should be asking is who is at fault and who can fix the problems?

bearded_gnome 3 years, 7 months ago

But who am I kidding; no one would ever blame one group for all the problems of another group to support their political agenda. Luckily, since political rhetoric has never turned into violence none of us has anything to fear.

---well said Satirical.
the antisemitism of the left, and the occuhippies is well documented.

note when they had their little march on millionaires' homes, they miraculously didn't stop at George Soros' place! and, the media outnumbered the pawltry 500 marchers on that.
the rest of the rabble hung out with the Raving, free condoms, pooping in public, and maundering about across dozens of other causes besides the antisemitism.

violence, arrests, Raving, etc., these are not 99%, more like less than 10%, thank God.

and ... they're turning average americans against them with their "progressive causes" in droves. like in '68.

bye-bye

beatrice 3 years, 7 months ago

Oh burn!!!!!!! What a snappy retort there BAA. To think, the "libs" are now down by 65 points to Ssatirical. Oh no!

I assumed you would like Sati's use of name calling. I also love seeing so many conservatives giving up already on Perry. Thank goodness.

Satirical 3 years, 7 months ago

Only 15 points? My toe was behind the three point line. It should be 16. Where's the instant replay. I was robbed!

Mike Ford 3 years, 7 months ago

my experience also involves watching a C-Span episode where then US Representative Gene Taylor had to get a police escort out of his own town hall meeting in Moss Point Mississippi concerning the health care bill because your people don't know how to behave especially when egged on by astroturf people like freedomworks headed up by bigot Dick Armey from Texas who referred to Barney Frank as Barney Fag on the senate floor...want to defend your nonsensical statements now??? do you admit that states rights had it's beginnings in South Carolina's attempt at secession in 1829? do you admit that state rights also reared it's ugly head in the effort to illegally remove the Cherokee Nation from Georgia when states rights and ancestor of modern tea party racists Andrew Jackson ignored a US Supreme Court ruling and removed the Cherokees and others by force...do you admit that state rights was a calling card of the southerners who objected to FBI interference into their terrorizing of African, Native, Jewish, and Catholic Americans 50 years ago....better yet do you deny this history like others of your ilk deny evolution and make crazy assertions about riding dinosaurs? I like the way you duck culpability through circular arguements... nine year olds use that tactic also...

beatrice 3 years, 7 months ago

Well, perhaps the OWS folks aren't displaying the same type of questionable behavior or racially insensitive signs as those at some Tea Party events. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S38Vio...

It isn't just because a large majority of any group is white, but if they carry signs and say things that are highly questionable then charges of racism will follow. That doesn't mean it should then be assigned to the entire group, of course, but if the group isn't speaking out against the questionable behavior then they are complicit in that behavior.

Mike Ford 3 years, 7 months ago

change the subject to duck your own innacurate comments..good.....

Satirical 3 years, 7 months ago

I have a questions for everyone...

Is 'tuschkahouma' really 'merrill' when he decides to make an independent thought? Is this why merrill mainly sticks to his copying and pasting?

tuschkahouma...

Hey fella, you aren't doing your side ANY favors. I suggest you quit while you are behind.

Satirical 3 years, 7 months ago

Thank you to everyone who took part of this discussion. It was all over the place for a while, but one must expect that on the LJWorld. I may stop by again to argue/opine, but since I am often busy I can't make any promises. Not that my permission is necessary, but please feel free to continue any topics you desire, even though my return is uncertain.

Satirical 3 years, 7 months ago

I almost forgot...

Since no one ever drove the discussion far enough, or maybe because my implicit argument was clear enough. The main reason I used the headline about the OWS protesters wanting a second holocaust is because it illustrates the point that -- if it is wrong to target jews because of their wealth and prosperity (which it is), then why is it not also wrong to target all the wealthy? Arguments can be made that the bailouts were a bad idea, or the rich aren't paying their fair share, without this US vs. THEM garbage.

tbaker 3 years, 7 months ago

The Republicans couldn’t ask for a better group of campaigners against Barack Obama than the various groups of bed-wetters doing these “occupy” protests. We need to support them and keep them going as long as possible. Of course the ObamaMedia is trying to promote the protests with drivel on how the country is embracing the protesters. I wonder which part of these children’s agenda is really resonating with most Americans? Who thinks a $20 p/hr minimum wage is good idea? How about the guaranteed living wage for every American – actually working for it is optional? How about the open all our borders idea? Free college for all? Forgive everyone’s debt on the whole planet? These clowns are little more than juvenile delinquent, idealistic brats who have really never had to stand on their own at any time in their lives. Besides having the skill to sleep in a park, none of them are creative or industrious enough to do this on their own, so the experienced activists from labor, ecological, socialist, communist, etc are really the ones behind the wheel here. Sad really…young, spoiled and lazy minds ripe for exploitation.

Mike Ford 3 years, 7 months ago

man the IQ sure runs amongst these mentalists....I hear whining....is ows bothering you....mission accomplished

fiddleback 3 years, 7 months ago

fiddleback (anonymous) replies…

Money in campaign politics aside, these protests boil down to inchoate frustration about corporate loopholes, which both sides seem in favor of closing, and not ending the Bush tax cuts, which has kept the rate on the top bracket at about 36%. Satirical, since you finally got down to the specific nutmeat with gudpoynt above, I call BS on your worries about raising taxes on the top bracket (250K+).

Here's a FactCheck.org link: http://www.factcheck.org/2009/03/half... "only 27 percent of all upper-income tax filers report business income that accounts for more than half of their wages. It’s likely that a small-business owner would make most of his or her income from the small business." And even many of those 27% would be solo freelancers, consultants, passive investors, etc, not mom-and-pop shops. Arguing that raising the tax rate back to 39% for this bracket would create a major drag on the economy is just total bunk sold to you from above. And historically, rates for this top bracket have been much higher. We are truly gutting social services (and even de-criminalizing wife-beating, for God's sake) just to maintain these historically low rates, among other unsustainable absurdities. Rather than look at that history or those numbers, you make appeals to oversimplified principles of fairness and dichotomized libertarian nonsense.

On top of that, the protesters on the street may seem pathetic and/or under-informed, but your "Holocaust" title and supporting section stoop far lower than any of their actions. To suggest that their basic and in many ways legitimate economic resentment could transform into ethnicity-based genocide is truly pathetic, an abject confession of intellectual bankruptcy. Great job at getting everyone's attention in the worst possible way.

jafs 3 years, 7 months ago

I generally agree, but it's true that people, when frustrated and upset, and the economy is bad, seem to have a tendency to want to blame somebody, and are often drawn to "scapegoating" groups like Jewish people.

Hitler's great popularity stemmed from a variety of causes, but one of them was the fact that Germany was in a terrible state economically.

And, he found somebody to blame for it.

fiddleback 3 years, 7 months ago

Don't even start to tell me about Hitler. Yes, duh, scapegoating and oversimplification are inevitable when desperation mounts and emotions run high. But not only is there a huge difference between where we are and Weimar Germany, the author's comparison is the worst sort of partisan hyperbole. Can you imagine him writing a post titled "Tea Baggers Support Lynch Mobs to String Up Minority Welfare Recipients." Of course not. But he can't see that his "logic" is resulting in exactly that type of indefensible vitriol. He can't pull back to see the obvious that Tea Partiers and OWS are parallel protest movements, one placing more blame on the public sector, and the other on the private (and specifically financial) sector. Both sectors contributed to our economic mess. And yet he writes stereo-typing trash akin to Ann Coulter, garbage even worse than the "all Tea Partiers are racist" arguments I'm sure he was railing against the past few years. His post was totally myopic, an embarrassment to his presumed political persuasion, and an epic FAIL. He and the LJW should be ashamed.

jafs 3 years, 7 months ago

His blog is clearly exaggerated and sarcastic - it seems that many people can't get the tone of written stuff these days.

I agree about the similarity between the movements, and have said so a number of times on here.

fiddleback 3 years, 7 months ago

Good satire makes not only makes you laugh, it also usually has enough broader awareness to keep its hyperbole from sounding nakedly hateful and hypocritical. Clearly this kid won’t be getting job offers from the Onion. Beyond that, I wonder how many readers outside the usual circles of libertarian curmudgeons and stunted Ayn Rand sycophants even cracked a smile trudging through his dreck. I’ve read high schoolers’ satirical columns that had far more wit. Again, EPIC FAIL.

jaywalker 3 years, 7 months ago

Sat,

I sure am sorry I missed this string! Excellent blog piece, keep 'em comin'! I know you said you were just stopping by the other day, don't be a stranger. I truly enjoy the fact you hung around and responded to as many as you did. Well done all the way around.

On a side note, I certainly hope merrill and tusch aren't one in the same. The personality shift from mindless spambot to psychotic misanthrope is too scary to consider.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.