Occupying Wall Street

[callmeslick]

Slick, if your protestors were true to themselves they would be marching in front of Freddie and Fannie. They would be going to the homes of Barney and Chris. And most importantly they would be marching in front of the White House where the single biggest destroyer of our economy lives. Until then the protestors are manipulated dunces, string pulled by those who want to promote class warfare and keep themselves in power.

idiocy at it's best. If we had the banking regulations of the 1950s or 60s in place, nothing would have happened on the mortgage market. Fannie and Freddie had little to do with the bubble at all. It was up to the banks to lend the money. Fannie and Freddie keep the rates down, but don't guarantee payment.
And futher, how, exactly, do you have the gall to suggest that Obama is the 'single biggest destroyer of our economic lives', when anyone who knows ANYTHING about economics will readily tell you that our current state is the end product of a thirty-year long march to oblivion? Class warfare? Like I've said before, that has been going on for a long time, with predictable victors. Do you feel like one of them?

[callmeslick]

Ok now it's game over. Where is null and his bring-up-Hitler-lose-all-validity rule he's so fond of? Or TC who declares the Tea Party is what ever the worst member of the group represents?

Because following the demo-hacks logic the Wall Street Protesters are nothing but racists probably funded by the Ku Klux Klan or Rom Emanuel.

interesting that you bring up Rom Emanuel.....as he is one of the prime targets of wrath for the protesters in Chicago. Apparently, Old Rom has been doing the Union-Busting dance, and it hasn't played well. You see, this movement will, if it stays true to it's still-vague principles, not be kind to either Republicans OR Democrats. Far too many from both parties have sold out the US public. Or, looking at it from the other side, both sides can be bought by the monied elite, and generally are. Look no further than a current bill working through the Congress. It is called Win America, or some such, and would amount to a corporate tax holiday for at least one year. The premise being sold is that this would stimulate job growth. The problem is, they tried this before, last in 2002, and all that ever happens is that the corporations buy back their own stock, pushing the price up. Guess who makes out? The large investors, board members and top level execs. Not even 1/2 of 1% job growth resulted from the last tax holiday, thus close to ZERO economists support it. So, to get this mess through Congress, a massive lobbying effort is underway, employing both Democrat and Republican power brokers. Any guess how this one is going to work out?

[Top Gun]

...with a bunch of protestors to damned lazy to go out and work

So those people who have been looking for work for a solid year or two straight and can't find jack ★■◆● are "lazy" now? Man, I guess I've been using that word wrong for my entire life.

[Will Robinson]

Amazing that some people here on the DBB can look at a spontaneous grass roots uprising of political dissent and see that it has a broad spectrum of people drawn to it and recognize the only common thread between them all is an unhappiness with our political leadership.
Yet the same people can look at another similar spontaneous coalescence of diverse political protesters on another day, selectively pick out some comments from a small small hateful minority within the group and then proclaim that whole group is motivated only by racial hatred!

Weird....I wonder what the reason is they have such inconsistent judgement? Almost like a mental deficiency! Some kind of syndrome waiting to be named no doubt.

or, might it be that the latter group has had time to formulate more of a distinct persona?

I see far fewer indications of Tea Party racisim than I see signs the OWS members are clueless to the causes of the things they protest. In fact the OWS people have already surpassed the Tea Party with individual contributions to support their stereotype even though the OWS group is many thousands of days younger than the Tea Party and far fewer in number!

[dissent]

Well, it looks like the OWSers have lost the editors at TNR, though it appears it was not always so.

[Sergeant Thorne]

...with a bunch of protestors to damned lazy to go out and work

So those people who have been looking for work for a solid year or two straight and can't find jack **** are "lazy" now? Man, I guess I've been using that word wrong for my entire life.

Anyone looking for a job that long needs to learn how to look or readjust their priorities. That's either lazy, bull★■◆●, or stupid.

[Top Gun]

No, that's reality. Unless you're suggesting that one is able to support a family by flipping burgers.

[Tunnelcat]

We've been down this road before. and you made a fool out of yourself the last time you tried to take us there. are you really attempting to go at it again?
You continually accuse the Tea-Party of being Racist. and you have accused people that don't agree with Obama as being racist. its seems to me you like calling people racist. you do it enough.
I've found that those that scream racist the loudest are usually the biggest offenders. and you constantly scream racist.
In regards to you accusations about the tea party, I'm sure you'll claim that Herman Cains getting tea party support is just a ploy to cover up their Inherent racism, or that Cain is an Uncle Tom, like many of the liberal blacks out there. of course I'm sure you agree with what Harry Belafonte said this week. if your a black conservative your a Bad Apple (not a true black). who's the racist with that comment?

No, you never responded or commented on that picture of the exulted tea party leader and his clearly racist sign. Do tea party members really follow their leader? I'm not the only person in this country to see the racism either, so don't paint me as the solo crazy person here. Where there's smoke, there's fire.

Congressional records show it was Democrats that strongly opposed the passage of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments. These three Amendments were introduced by Republicans to abolish slavery, give citizenship to all African Americans born in the United States and, give Blacks the right to vote.
Congressional records show that Democrats were opposed to passing the following laws that were introduced by Republicans to achieve civil rights for African Americans:

Civil Rights Act 1866
Reconstruction Act of 1867
Freedman Bureau Extension Act of 1866
Enforcement Act of 1870
Force Act of 1871
Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871
Civil Rights Act of 1875
Civil Rights Act of 1957
Civil Rights Act of 1960

And during the 60's many Democrats fought hard to defeat the

1964 Civil Rights Act
1965 Voting Rights Acts
1972 Equal Employment Opportunity Act
Court records shows that it was the Democrats that supported the Dred Scott Decision. The decision classified Blacks and property rather than people. It was also the racist Jim Crow practices initiated by Democrats that brought about the two landmark cases of Plessy v Ferguson and Brown v. The Board of Education.

On December 15, 1994, federal Judge David V. Kenyon issued a court order to the Clinton Administration in the Case of Fairchild v Robert Reich Secretary of Labor (#CV92-5765 Kn). The order demanded that Secretary Reich and the Clinton Administration force 100 west coast shipping to develop an Affirmative Action plan to stop discrimination against, African Americans, Hispanics, Female and Disabled Workers. Female employees were being sexually harrassed, Hispanic were being denied promotions and training, Disable Workers were being laid off, and African Americans were being force to work in an environment where they had job classification called " ★■◆● Jobs." Clinton left office six years later and never complied with the court order. The companies still do not have an Affirmative Action Plan.

one has to wonder who the real party of the racists are don't we?

I can go on about more FACTS about the racism through out the history and even currently in the DNC if you'd like, there's a TON of proof out there.
but as of yet you've not proved 1 thing about racism in the Tea-Party, you've shown us a pic or two of some one claiming to be a Tea-party member with a racist sign. but no evidence of ANYONE elected in the Tea-party with any connections to anything racist, just your incessant spewing of unsubstantiated claims

Your forgetting that those Dems who opposed those amendments were mostly Southern Democrats, who are now pretty much part of the Republican Party, thanks to Nixon and his southern strategy. I guess the Dems should thank Nixon for purging the party of those southern racists and sexists. But to be fair to your point, both parties have changed their opinions and platforms over time to suit their needs and the whims of the voters, all to get more of those precious votes.

By the way, who's doing voter suppression NOW? Why, that whole new bunch of new Republican and tea party governors.

http://www.examiner.com/democrat-in-phi ... uppression

http://prospect.org/csnc/blogs/adam_ser ... on_and_jim

[woodchip]

Ummm TC, you forgetting which party had Robert KKK Byrd as a long time member?

[CUDA]

We've been down this road before. and you made a fool out of yourself the last time you tried to take us there. are you really attempting to go at it again?
You continually accuse the Tea-Party of being Racist. and you have accused people that don't agree with Obama as being racist. its seems to me you like calling people racist. you do it enough.
I've found that those that scream racist the loudest are usually the biggest offenders. and you constantly scream racist.
In regards to you accusations about the tea party, I'm sure you'll claim that Herman Cains getting tea party support is just a ploy to cover up their Inherent racism, or that Cain is an Uncle Tom, like many of the liberal blacks out there. of course I'm sure you agree with what Harry Belafonte said this week. if your a black conservative your a Bad Apple (not a true black). who's the racist with that comment?

No, you never responded or commented on that picture of the exulted tea party leader and his clearly racist sign. Do tea party members really follow their leader? I'm not the only person in this country to see the racism either, so don't paint me as the solo crazy person here. Where there's smoke, there's fire.

I'm assuming you never read that article and just looked at the picture

Dale Robertson, a Tea Party activist who operates TeaParty.org, is getting stung for an old photo — taken at the Feb. 27, 2009 Tea Party in Houston — in which he holds a sign reading “Congress = Slaveowner, Taxpayer = Niggar.”

PLEASE show us where it says anything about him being a Tea-Party leader. making stuff up to try to bolster your argument saying he was a leader in the Tea-Party just makes you look foolish.

Update: Josh Parker of the Houston Tea Party Society tells me that Robertson was booted out of the event for this sign.

seems like they dealt with the issue at the time.. and while the sign is stupid no doubt. it was not addressed towards African Americans. is was meant to reflect on the way our Government is treating it's citizens. but the man was foolish to use that way to express it.

Congressional records show it was Democrats that strongly opposed the passage of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments. These three Amendments were introduced by Republicans to abolish slavery, give citizenship to all African Americans born in the United States and, give Blacks the right to vote.
Congressional records show that Democrats were opposed to passing the following laws that were introduced by Republicans to achieve civil rights for African Americans:

Civil Rights Act 1866
Reconstruction Act of 1867
Freedman Bureau Extension Act of 1866
Enforcement Act of 1870
Force Act of 1871
Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871
Civil Rights Act of 1875
Civil Rights Act of 1957
Civil Rights Act of 1960

And during the 60's many Democrats fought hard to defeat the

1964 Civil Rights Act
1965 Voting Rights Acts
1972 Equal Employment Opportunity Act
Court records shows that it was the Democrats that supported the Dred Scott Decision. The decision classified Blacks and property rather than people. It was also the racist Jim Crow practices initiated by Democrats that brought about the two landmark cases of Plessy v Ferguson and Brown v. The Board of Education.

On December 15, 1994, federal Judge David V. Kenyon issued a court order to the Clinton Administration in the Case of Fairchild v Robert Reich Secretary of Labor (#CV92-5765 Kn). The order demanded that Secretary Reich and the Clinton Administration force 100 west coast shipping to develop an Affirmative Action plan to stop discrimination against, African Americans, Hispanics, Female and Disabled Workers. Female employees were being sexually harrassed, Hispanic were being denied promotions and training, Disable Workers were being laid off, and African Americans were being force to work in an environment where they had job classification called " ★■◆● Jobs." Clinton left office six years later and never complied with the court order. The companies still do not have an Affirmative Action Plan.

one has to wonder who the real party of the racists are don't we?

I can go on about more FACTS about the racism through out the history and even currently in the DNC if you'd like, there's a TON of proof out there.
but as of yet you've not proved 1 thing about racism in the Tea-Party, you've shown us a pic or two of some one claiming to be a Tea-party member with a racist sign. but no evidence of ANYONE elected in the Tea-party with any connections to anything racist, just your incessant spewing of unsubstantiated claims

Your forgetting that those Dems who opposed those amendments were mostly Southern Democrats, who are now pretty much part of the Republican Party, thanks to Nixon and his southern strategy. I guess the Dems should thank Nixon for purging the party of those southern racists and sexists. But to be fair to your point, both parties have changed their opinions and platforms over time to suit their needs and the whims of the voters, all to get more of those precious votes.

WOW you did every type of dance but the blame Bush one there. all without EVER addressing the history of racism in the DNC. so be a big girl and hold yourself to the same standards that you want me to be held to.

[Top Gun]

Historical comparisons don't really mean much, considering that the Republican and Democratic parties have just about flip-flopped in nature since their origins.

[CUDA]

Historical comparisons don't really mean much, considering that the Republican and Democratic parties have just about flip-flopped in nature since their origins.

proof

[dissent]

The Occupy Wall Street protesters have a point, sort of ...

[callmeslick]

The Occupy Wall Street protesters have a point, sort of ...

well, they do, but it sure isn't what the writer of Faux News' WSJ suggests. That is just shilling for the victors of the class war there.

[callmeslick]

Ummm TC, you forgetting which party had Robert KKK Byrd as a long time member?

I didn't read where TC said every last racist type left the party, but to Byrd's credit, he did sort of come around on the civil rights thing......as opposed to, say, Trent Lott.

[dissent]

well, they do, but it sure isn't what the writer of Faux News' WSJ suggests. That is just shilling for the victors of the class war there.

So does that mean you are absolving the government of any responsibility for the state the economy has been in? That seems to be the point of the WSJ article.

[Will Robinson]

The Occupy Wall Street protesters have a point, sort of ...

well, they do, but it sure isn't what the writer of Faux News' WSJ suggests. ...

I'll take your word for it, maybe you read between the lines better than most and have deciphered something salient from within their rantings but the interviews I've seen of them all come off making the Tea Partiers look like the honor roll from Mensa by comparison!

[woodchip]

Ummm TC, you forgetting which party had Robert KKK Byrd as a long time member?

I didn't read where TC said every last racist type left the party, but to Byrd's credit, he did sort of come around on the civil rights thing......as opposed to, say, Trent Lott.

Aww, you still trying desperately to read reacism in Trents statement honoring a aging Strom Thurmond ?

[Top Gun]

Historical comparisons don't really mean much, considering that the Republican and Democratic parties have just about flip-flopped in nature since their origins.

proof

Any high-school history textbook, for one, but it's not exactly hard to do the research yourself. You don't even necessarily have to even read that much, if you just think about a few basic points. The Republican Party was originally founded as a coalition of abolitionists and "free-soils" who opposed the expansion of slavery into territories, extremely progressive ideas at the time, and its draw was almost exclusively in the North. The South was a Democratic stronghold for more than a century, and the early 1900s saw it perform extremely poorly in Northern cities, which is obviously where it is very strong today. It wasn't really until the start of the civil rights movement in the 50s that Southern conservatives, particularly evangelical Protestants, started to abandon the Democratic Party in droves and vote Republican. In other words, the two parties as they exist today are very different from their original forms.

More on-topic, here's a fantastic infodump from Business Insider that breaks down a lot of the numbers behind the issues appearing on those protest signs. It's some pretty depressing stuff when you stop and think about it.

[CUDA]

Historical comparisons don't really mean much,

Any high-school history textbook,

so history doesn't mean anything, but you want me to look at history for your proof

I know what the history books say about the "Southern Strategy"
But where is the Proof about the Racism.

and here is a different opinion on the "Southern Strategy"

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magaz ... b.t-4.html

The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’


By CLAY RISEN
Published: December 10, 2006

Everyone knows that race has long played a decisive role in Southern electoral politics. From the end of Reconstruction until the beginning of the civil rights era, the story goes, the national Democratic Party made room for segregationist members — and as a result dominated the South. But in the 50s and 60s, Democrats embraced the civil rights movement, costing them the white Southern vote. Meanwhile, the Republican Party successfully wooed disaffected white racists with a “Southern strategy” that championed “states’ rights.”

It’s an easy story to believe, but this year two political scientists called it into question. In their book “The End of Southern Exceptionalism,” Richard Johnston of the University of Pennsylvania and Byron Shafer of the University of Wisconsin argue that the shift in the South from Democratic to Republican was overwhelmingly a question not of race but of economic growth.

[Will Robinson]

Regardless of what the motives for political maneuvering just look at which party has been the self proclaimed champion of the black american and notice that same party is the ruling party for the inner cities where the black vote is concentrated and look at the horrible quality of life that has been created for those black americans. Look at the industry of the victim status and who creates it, who profits from it and who needs it to stay as it is. Who calls every black american who talks about breaking free from victimhood using conservative values as his or her foundation an Uncle Tom. Look at the way that party has to maintain within the black mindset the premise that without the party the black american would be dragged behind the white mans pickup truck, couldn't pass a test in school, couldn't get a job, couldn't start a business, etc. etc..

There is only one party that is stuck back in 'good old days' of racial divide and it is the one that maintains the 'plantation' but the slaves aren't picking cotton they are farming votes and racism.

Black Americans are to the democrat party what the Palestinians are to the Islamo-fascists.

[callmeslick]

Thanks, Top Gun for providing an easy link to those charts. I wonder how many folks who dismiss the Wall Street(now nationwide in 145 cities and towns, over 38 states) will take the time to absorb the information.
Further, I might add, those charts don't address the current VERY low tax burden upon those with predominantly dividend/cap gains income. Even those making less than $1million are getting a true sweetheart deal, and the current darling of the GOP has a tax plan to eliminate ANY taxes on them, and further, eliminate any taxes upon their estates when they pass. Essentially, Cain proposes to make the old money families into perpetual money machines, with ZERO responsibility to the society in which they exist.

[CUDA]

well it seems like some of those "Protesters" are actually being Paid to protest. so much for being a movement of the people. so the questions are WHO is paying them and WHY are they getting paid?


http://www.breitbart.tv/dc-organizer-ad ... rotesters/

http://articles.businessinsider.com/201 ... -new-light

here's the Craig's list ad looking for protesters to hire.

http://newyork.craigslist.org/brk/gov/2618821815.html

Edit: the Craig's list ad does say they are not Hiring for OWS. but one has to wonder since there is evidence that someone is clearly paying people to protest at OWS.

[null0010]

I want to get paid to protest, how do I get in on this?

[Ferno]

2600 a month? yeah I want a piece of THAT action.

[Top Gun]

Historical comparisons don't really mean much,

Any high-school history textbook,

so history doesn't mean anything, but you want me to look at history for your proof

What I said was that historical comparisons to which specific party did what wouldn't really hold up, since the actual ideals and compositions have said parties have changed so drastically over time. Lrn 2 context clues. And I never said that there was a sole reason for the demographic changes in the parties.

(Haa, Brietbart.)

[CUDA]

And I never said that there was a sole reason for the demographic changes in the parties.

we weren't talking about party demographics. we were talking about racism and racists in the parties. and who historically has shown those tendencies.

(Haa, Brietbart.)

so are you just dismissing it without comment because who wrote it? because I don't see you disputing the post

[callmeslick]

well it seems like some of those "Protesters" are actually being Paid to protest. so much for being a movement of the people. so the questions are WHO is paying them and WHY are they getting paid?


http://www.breitbart.tv/dc-organizer-ad ... rotesters/

http://articles.businessinsider.com/201 ... -new-light

here's the Craig's list ad looking for protesters to hire.

http://newyork.craigslist.org/brk/gov/2618821815.html

Edit: the Craig's list ad does say they are not Hiring for OWS. but one has to wonder since there is evidence that someone is clearly paying people to protest at OWS.

actually, Breitbart has been paying folks to show up and be disruptive. You have it backwards. Why do you insist that a movement that clearly seems to be both legitimate and nationwide is somehow not legitimate?
Scared of something? For what it's worth, the ad you cited was for field directors and research staff at the organization's office, and that organization has absolutely no connection to the OWS protests. You could have followed the link in the ad and found that out as I did, but it was far to easy for the lazy critic to eat the spoon fed crap from the right-wing loons, huh?

[Tunnelcat]

(Haa, Brietbart.)

so are you just dismissing it without comment because who wrote it? because I don't see you disputing the post

Anything from Brietbart is just a suspect as anything from George Soros. Biased sources are biased sources.

As for the "Southern Strategy", I'm afraid I just don't agree with that NY Times article. The evidence that the Southern Strategy was racist-based is just too blatant and evident. The whole South was a hotbed of racism back then, and many people may be ashamed of that fact and are trying to scrub history. I think Michael Steele actually has it right.

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/repub ... r-decades/

It looks like the Occupy Wall Streeters are getting far more favorable public opinions of their movement than that of the tea party.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/time-pol ... tea-party/

And this movement is going worldwide. No one could PAY enough people to join in these numbers and nationalities. I guess A LOT of people are pissed off at the proper thieves this time. Namely the bankers and investors who gambled away everybody else's money for their own gain, and the politicians who let them get away with it scott free.

[CUDA]

actually, Breitbart has been paying folks to show up and be disruptive. You have it backwards.

proof???

Why do you insist that a movement that clearly seems to be both legitimate and nationwide is somehow not legitimate?

I never said anything of the sort. don't put words in my mouth.

Scared of something?

HARDLY I've never been afraid of the truth when I see it. and the truth will be revealed in this matter eventually.

and that organization has absolutely no connection to the OWS protests.

I do believe that I did mention that fact. did you choose to ignore it??

but it was far to easy for the lazy critic to eat the spoon fed crap from the right-wing loons, huh?

that's why I quoted more than just one source. I could have quoted the 5-6 other sources that are reporting the same thing. but I guess it was far to easy for you to be a lazy critic and eat the spoon fed crap from the left-wing loons, without doing your own research huh?

No one could PAY enough people to join in these numbers and nationalities

you don't need to pay a large number of people. it only takes a few to incite a riot. especially when your dealing with people in their 20's who tend to already be idealistic in nature. and a Majority of those protesting are younger

so the questions still remain. if they are getting Paid, which it appears may be the case. WHO is paying them and WHY are they getting paid.

[CUDA]

I don't know the validity OR affiliation and leanings of this site, and it appears extreme. and I'm not saying I believe it. but it's an interesting read none the less

OWS Protesting Corrupt Banks Points Straight To SEIU, Democrats Protecting Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac in 2004, And To the Obama White House Today

http://alternativenewsreport.net/2011/1 ... -protests/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/seiu-plan ... -commense/

[Top Gun]

(Haa, Brietbart.)

so are you just dismissing it without comment because who wrote it? because I don't see you disputing the post

I've read a couple of articles about Brietbart. The man is a massive egotistical scumbag, and a proven liar. So no, I wouldn't put any stock whatsoever in what he claims, no more than I would Glenn Beck's drooling rants.

[CUDA]

I've read a couple of articles about Brietbart. The man is utterly **** insane, and a massive scumbag to boot. So no, I wouldn't put any stock whatsoever in what he claims, no more than I would Glenn Beck's drooling rants.

so you've read article about the man written by others. never read anything from the man himself, and with that information you base your judgement of the man talk about a biased opinion

[Duper]

well it seems like some of those "Protesters" are actually being Paid to protest. so much for being a movement of the people. so the questions are WHO is paying them and WHY are they getting paid?

Possibly KGB?

(I'm being serious)

This is going on in more than the US. It's going on all over. Vancouver has their set going on. Of course these guys are payed. They come equipped for riot or police action. They were masks and eye protection. We had them here in the NW in Seattle and Portland with they had the world summit conference. .. maybe not the same group.. maybe so.. no telling. I'm not going to dig into that. They were/are professional protesters.

[woodchip]

If the movement is legit, then I expect to see protestors in Russia, China and Venezuela

[Will Robinson]

Ummm TC, you forgetting which party had Robert KKK Byrd as a long time member?

I didn't read where TC said every last racist type left the party, but to Byrd's credit, he did sort of come around on the civil rights thing......as opposed to, say, Trent Lott.

I'd love to see you look into Byrd and Lott (as well as Thurmond if you are using him to indict Lott with guilt-by-association) and show us all just how much Byrd came around compared to Lott and Thurmond. Once you strip away the unsubstantiated Democrat talking points and start using the actual deeds and words of the men themselves you quickly see who was still a Klansman at heart! I think if you give Byrd credit for renouncing his racist bent then you should try to have Thurmond canonized by comparison.

At the same time Robert Byrd was writing letters to the Klan asking them to 'step it up because the State needed them' and then defending them during his Senate campaign Strom Thurmond was prosecuting them for lynching in South Carolina! But of course Thurmond was an R and Byrd was a D so that alters reality...right?

[vision]

If the movement is legit, then I expect to see protestors in Russia, China and Venezuela

China has had a number of similar protests this year.

[Top Gun]

Russia has an opposition movement as well, which includes among its notable figures Garry Kasparov (yes, the chess guy), and Venezuela has also seen protests over the past couple of years.

[callmeslick]

[I'd love to see you look into Byrd and Lott (as well as Thurmond if you are using him to indict Lott with guilt-by-association)

well, never met Lott, but did meet the other two. Byrd and Thurmond BOTH were old-school southerners.
And, sadly, that meant that they were men brought up with racism. I have a soft spot for Strom Thurmond, as he was the first major politician I ever had a long sit-down with(my dad and I went to lunch with him, down in Charleston, when I was 14). He was gracious and kind, but then again, I was white and from an old Southern family. Byrd, whom I first met at his office in DC when I was 16, struck me similarly, but showed a keen awareness of the vagaries of life. He knew that without benevolent adoptive parents, his life would have been far different, and likely far more bleak. Like I say, I never met Lott personally, but he sort of came off as the same sort of overt racist as many I know from Missisippi and Alabama. It is simply tightly ingrained in the well-to-do Southern gentry, and it is rare to have encountered someone from that generation who has escaped that fact to any extent.

[callmeslick]

Oh, and CUDA, I had my zealous conservatives confused:it was the fellow from the American Spectator,
who fired up the incident at the Air and Space Museum:

from the article--An assistant editor with a right-wing magazine admitted in a column Saturday evening to posing as part of the 99 Percent Movement in D.C. “in order to mock and undermine” it. Patrick Howley, an assistant editor for the American Spectator, was committed enough to his deception to be at the vanguard of a demonstration......"

Once again, why are Conservatives scared of this thing? Free speech, individual liberties? I guess it doesn't pertain if one disagrees from their twisted little world-view, huh?