DescentBB

Oh, and Will, Thurmond was prosecuting when he was still a Democrat. In fact, he was a Democrat for over half of his Senate career, which lasted 46 years, as I recall. He was a Republican when Dad and I lunched with him, for instance, back in 1969, but had only switched parties a few years earlier. He did, however, make a very conscious effort to hire Aftrican-American staff members, and so did Byrd. Try and stick to the facts, if possible. Letting your ideology trump reality does neither a favor.

callmeslick wrote:Oh, and Will, Thurmond was prosecuting when he was still a Democrat. In fact, he was a Democrat for over half of his Senate career, which lasted 46 years, as I recall. He was a Republican when Dad and I lunched with him, for instance, back in 1969, but had only switched parties a few years earlier. He did, however, make a very conscious effort to hire Aftrican-American staff members, and so did Byrd. Try and stick to the facts, if possible. Letting your ideology trump reality does neither a favor.

What does party affiliation have to do with my calling you out for giving Byrd credit for supposedly changing his ways in contrast to Lott (obvious connection to the Thurmond birthday being the motive there) or Thurmond?

I'm not challenging anyones spin on which party was worse or when it was that way. To me they both suck and are both racist at times.
I'm saying you have partisan motivation for trying to say Byrd is somehow less of a racist than others from that same era and showed you examples of why. Those examples, and my point, still stand after your serving of red herring. Byrd was talking "white niggers" and praising the Klan long after Thurmond came around so trying to elevate him above the others is the departure from reality!
With Lott you admit all you have is perception and speculation and your perceptions are clearly suspect considering your Byrd tolerance/praise!

Cuteness from the occupy morons:



http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/10 ... -movement/

ITT TB applies anecdotes to an entire movement.

Top Gun wrote:ITT TB applies anecdotes to an entire movement.

Wow didn't some here do the same thing with the Tea Party Movement.

Heretic wrote:

Top Gun wrote:ITT TB applies anecdotes to an entire movement.

Wow didn't some here do the same thing with the Tea Party Movement.

now, I wasn't here when the Tea Party movement was at it's start, but I am astounded that a normally pretty logical bunch keeps accepting the 'No, you are" line of defense. That sort of 'they did it first' stuff is unaccepted in elementary school, so why would someone think it sounds anything but childish from an adult?

callmeslick wrote:

Heretic wrote:

Top Gun wrote:ITT TB applies anecdotes to an entire movement.

Wow didn't some here do the same thing with the Tea Party Movement.

now, I wasn't here when the Tea Party movement was at it's start, but I am astounded that a normally pretty logical bunch keeps accepting the 'No, you are" line of defense. That sort of 'they did it first' stuff is unaccepted in elementary school, so why would someone think it sounds anything but childish from an adult?

I think you are missing something.
Heretic is pointing out hypocrisy by Topgun and others not offering defense for TB. If TB was saying 'you did it first' to Topgun you would have a point but Heretic is a third party observer....
You are the champion of 'keeping ignorance in check' so lead by example.

I don't recall going around here crowing over the few people with idiotic signs at Tea Party gatherings; I may think their overall goals are misguided at best, but I know that there are a lot of reasonable people involved with that movement. But really, if you're going to pull something as absurd as "the American Socialist Party supports these guys, so they must be teh ebil," you deserve to get mocked over it.

worth reading......one of the 1% helped get this thing started. His observations are interesting, as is the fact that he also gives money to Mitt Romney's campaign:
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/ ... otests/?hp

CUDA wrote: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.

Oh, come on! Sure there are paid protestors here and there, but the WHOLE movement? All over the world? Can't conservatives get it, that just maybe most of those people are feed up with a corrupt system. That they might just happen to be unemployed and JOBLESS, or worse, went through 4 years of college, are now in debt and still living with their parents and STILL CAN'T GET A DAMNED JOB! Yes, most of these types WILL BE YOUNGER too! No coincidence.

Maybe these people realize that if this country keeps heading the way it is, with a global corporate strategy of finding the cheapest labor possible, there will be no more middle class, no more people with lots of disposable income to buy the products they want, which is the engine of any vibrant economy, and that the U.S. will turn into a nation of poor people, with a smattering of a few wealthy people.

Something to ponder. Would you want to be a rich person living in a poor country? Think carefully before you answer.

Like Herman Cain said, if you're not rich, it's your fault.

tunnelcat wrote:[Would you want to be a rich person living in a poor country? Think carefully before you answer.

well, having pondered it for about 20 years, and answering NO, I think I've thought it through pretty well. It would suck, consisting of the sort of life led by wealthy folks in Mexico, if one needs an example. Paid guards, high security housing, overall suckage. I don't want that for my descendents, hence my consistent line of reasoning here and elsewhere.What remains infuriating is that SO many Americans, who will NEVER have a snowball's chance in hell of amassing anything, let alone passing an estate of any size to their heirs, cling to some bizarre notion that they have to defend the unequal playing field that allows the rich to get richer and themselves to sink further.

Well at least we have those cozy safety nets.

by the wag,TC, that was a great linked article. Amazing how few people in America understand that thinking. I think that a lot of the older folks with inherited money understand, but the nouveaus really don't see it. And, from the old families, a lot of the younger generation has been slipping into the greedy thinking as well.

Zuruck wrote:Like Herman Cain said, if you're not rich, it's your fault.

And you think it is someone elses fault ?

woodchip wrote:

Zuruck wrote:Like Herman Cain said, if you're not rich, it's your fault.

And you think it is someone elses fault ?

I suspect the truth is more nuanced than either of you would suggest. The economic facts in the US are pretty clear: if you weren't born wealthy, you have a VERY, VERY low chance of dying wealthy. Sure some folks beat those odds, but the vast majority haven't got a prayer. The core problem,as I see it, is this: Traditionally, if you weren't born wealthy, you at least had the opportunity to attend good public schooling, better yourself at bit, send your kids to even better schooling and so on. Thus, there was a steady upward progression through the economic strata. Did most poor folks still die poor? Sure, but the percentage that moved upward was massively higher than it currently is, or has been for a few decades. Now, you are seeing a downward mobility, with folks who at least THOUGHT they were middle, or upper-middle class losing most of their assets, and their children dropping out of school at alarming rates(up 300% in PA over the past 5 years). Hence, you are looking at a generation that likely will be poorer than their parents, for the first time since before the Civil War. The economic policies which have flowed from Ronnie Rayguns' Trickle Down Economics have caused this reality, and the political trends of the moment don't exactly reassure one that anything is going to change.

Why stop at Reagan?

Damn Slick…I think you REALLY enjoy rubbing that in.

Enjoying what? Saying that the status quo sucks, and that the policies of the past however many years are directly responsible for it sucking?

callmeslick wrote:...The economic policies which have flowed from Ronnie Rayguns' Trickle Down Economics have caused this reality, and the political trends of the moment don't exactly reassure one that anything is going to change.

Too bad you didn't share this info with the Democrats because they had the Whitehouse and a majority in the Senate and the House of Representatives and we all know they would have fixed things! I mean seriously! If it was simply the policy of Reagan, who left office in 1988 and did his evil deeds and never even had his party in the majority of both House and Senate....surely the Democrats could have changed policy to set us back on track considering their hat trick majority!
Why didn't you tell them it was all the old Reagan policy that was screwing things up?!?

dissent wrote:Are You Smarter Than a Wall Street Occupier?

This was interesting

The correct answer is “health care and pensions,” which accounted for 43 percent of government outlays in 2010. Defense accounted for 20 percent.

Ronnie Raygun! Damn that made my day Slick! Fuuuuunny!

But Will's right. The Dems have been infected by that nasty, greedy, "Money fixes all things" virus that seems to run around Washington. Can't trust most of the Dems either. But Will, I'm certainly not going to trust the "Let's just gut Washington" tea party solution either. But Ronnie Raygun (snurk) was the President that actively started tearing down of all things FDR (with the Dems own damned help) and enshrined the greed we have today, although I think the beginnings of today's problems were under Little Ol' "I'm not a crook" Nixon. Mr. Clinton was the icing on the cake.

dissent, there are a few questions could be asked of tea partiers that would make them look a little stupid. Like:

Was our President born in the U.S.?

Is Obama a Muslim?

Is Obama a Socialist?

Nine times out of ten, you'll get "no", "yes" and "yes" in that order, none of which are the correct answer, if you'd asked those questions of any of those smart tea party "protesters" when they were out there in large groups during their "protests". How many of them were older seniors that were out there protesting that bad old "government" and that evil "Socialistic Obama", not realizing until now that they were attacking their own social safety nets, Medicare and Social Security?

I've also seen some "smart" Occupiers that were holding up signs that said; "Reinstate Glass Steagall", so some of them know a thing or two about what's going on.

And to answer my own posted question: "Would I like to be rich and live in a poor country?" Certainly not. I don't like the idea of having to watch over my car, my house, my possessions, my loved ones and myself, constantly like a scared gazelle standing in the middle of the veld, waiting for those hungry lions that want to attack and take what I have in property and life. Our strong middle class has kept that scenario at bay, and I see it disappearing now by degrees. I don't mind giving up some of my wealth to keep our country strong and functioning. We are a "society", a group that depends on one another in a cruel world, not a bunch of predators out for themselves. If you're worried about the slackers, drug users and leeches, deal with that problem only. Don't destroy those social safety nets that have kept many from falling into poverty because some weird "resentment".

Wall Street and Washington now represent the "predators", which in my mind are the global corporations and ruling elite, and their power needs to be reigned in for our own self-preservation as a nation. I don't see giving rich "job creators" more tax breaks as a solution. It hasn't worked for over 10 years and those Republicans constantly saying it it will work is a just lie. Republicans need to quit pushing this mantra as that magic solution the "American people" want. Mitt Romney's wrong, corporations are NOT people. Corporations have no soul or allegiance to our country. Cain's 999 crap of an idea is a transparent regressive attempt to further trounce the middle class and poor. They are all out of "touch".

For some reason, I got a big kick out of those random one-person answers that generally involved cursing someone out.

I don't know where I saw it, but there was a picture of one protester with this ten-line sign going into detail about the whole toxic-mortgages-cause-recession thing. I was impressed that they were able to fit all of it onto a single piece of cardboard.

I saw one gal who had made a sign out of a pizza box. Couldn't tell what brand the pizza was though.

I wonder how many of the protesters understand how much money Obama gave the fat cat bankers and wall streeters just so they could stay in business. I wonder how many of the protestors understand where Geitner hails from and where Obama got a bunch of his campaign donations from ? When I said they should really be marching around the white house there was a reason.

Has it occurred to anyone that not everyone in the 99% rallies is some kind of mouth-breathing Democrat shill?

Nope...

Spidey wrote:Nope...

Glad to see logical consistancy is alive and well at the DBB.

flip wrote:Why stop at Reagan?

he set the current greed-mode into motion. Or rather, he did the bidding of his puppet masters and did so.

woodchip wrote:I wonder how many of the protesters understand how much money Obama gave the fat cat bankers and wall streeters just so they could stay in business. I wonder how many of the protestors understand where Geitner hails from and where Obama got a bunch of his campaign donations from ? When I said they should really be marching around the white house there was a reason.

you realize, do you not, that most of those protesters are every bit as pissed-off at the Obama administration as they are at the GOP? Have you ever bothered to go to one of these rallies? Talked to participants, directly, as opposed to some filtered video clips from Conservative Loon-Sites?

Oh, and in response to some earlier replies, I am WELL aware that the Dems have played along with the sell-out. Notably, parts of the Clinton administration. My citing of Reagan was to mark the starting point of the slide we currently see resulting in a real mess for a lot of folks. Deregulation, Bad Trade Deals, more Deregulation, dropping of taxes on the wealthy, pushing a housing boom,
it all is part of a policy on the part of Washington which does the bidding of the folks that buy the elections.

Hilarious. Greed is as old as the species. Reagan didn't invent it, phoenix-like from the ashes of the mythical sixties-based proto-utopia.

I'll grant you that there are a whole new set of tools with which to manifest the same old human greed. And there are a lot more humans to possibly make use of those tools. But don't worry, after our Government betters "fix" the tools we have now, that they (humans and their human governors) will come up with a new set 10 years, 20 years, 50 years and 500 years from now.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:I wonder how many of the protesters understand how much money Obama gave the fat cat bankers and wall streeters just so they could stay in business. I wonder how many of the protestors understand where Geitner hails from and where Obama got a bunch of his campaign donations from ? When I said they should really be marching around the white house there was a reason.

you realize, do you not, that most of those protesters are every bit as pissed-off at the Obama administration as they are at the GOP? Have you ever bothered to go to one of these rallies? Talked to participants, directly, as opposed to some filtered video clips from Conservative Loon-Sites?

Are they now? Then where is the Occupy White House group. Oh and conservative sites are loon sites but liberal ones are doing good journalism ?

woodchip wrote:conservative sites are loon sites but liberal ones are doing good journalism

Straight from the mouth of woodchip, everyone!

Woodchip, there is a huge 99% group in DC. Mjolnir (remember him?) is there.

null0010 wrote:

woodchip wrote:conservative sites are loon sites but liberal ones are doing good journalism

Straight from the mouth of woodchip, everyone!

Woodchip, there is a huge 99% group in DC. Mjolnir (remember him?) is there.

"By the time they got to Woodstock, they were half a million strong. But by the time they assembled on Freedom Plaza on Tuesday morning to plan the day’s civil disobedience, they numbered only 53." Oct 11

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html

"On Monday morning, about a hundred people could be found both in McPherson Square and Freedom Plaza. " Oct 10

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65554.html

I'm thinking your use of the word "huge" may be a bit melodramatic.

woodchip wrote: Are they now? Then where is the Occupy White House group. Oh and conservative sites are loon sites but liberal ones are doing good journalism ?

There IS an Occupy DC.....just because they(rightly) focus on the legislators and not the President doesn't mean there haven't been marches past the White House(2 so far, I think). As for conservative sites, and their integrity on this issue:

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninsca ... g_site.php

so you want me to use a Liberal opinion blog as evidence that Conservative sites have no integrity??

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:now, I wasn't here when the Tea Party movement was at it's start, but I am astounded that a normally pretty logical bunch keeps accepting the 'No, you are" line of defense. That sort of 'they did it first' stuff is unaccepted in elementary school, so why would someone think it sounds anything but childish from an adult?

I think you are missing something.
Heretic is pointing out hypocrisy by Topgun and others not offering defense for TB. If TB was saying 'you did it first' to Topgun you would have a point but Heretic is a third party observer....
You are the champion of 'keeping ignorance in check' so lead by example.

Yes Will I resigned my self to watching and reading but Sir-Brags_lot has missed this point twice.

I have said this before on other sites. Wealth is in the eye of the beholder. Sure people with wealth might survive the coming melt down but it's usually the man with power that comes and take the wealthy man stuff. Gold confiscation any one. I still think any Richie Riches who want more money taken from them so the can pass it down the line to the middle and poor class is blowing it out their asses.

I for one live paycheck to paycheck. I consider my self wealthy. I have no debt and I own my own modest house free and clear. A life time to achieve the real American dream. Not this greedy piggish life style the elite want. A place to call your own. Even got the survey hanging on my office wall. Hard work and dedication will payoff in the long run.

Define wealth. It appears Slick defines it as how much money and assets you have. What about family and friends. Experiences you may accrue. How about your health? You can have all the money in the world and without some of what I pointed out, you are really poor.

Heretic wrote:I for one live paycheck to paycheck. I consider my self wealthy. I have no debt and I own my own modest house free and clear. A life time to achieve the real American dream. Not this greedy piggish life style the elite want. A place to call your own. Even got the survey hanging on my office wall. Hard work and dedication will payoff in the long run.

sure it will.....and the rich get richer. Proof?
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles ... 0in%202010

therein lies the key issue. As this gap grows, your naive assumption above will prove as ludicrous as it is short-sighted.
As to your equally goofy prediction for the 'future meltdown', history shows that often enough wealth IS power. Also, that
history also shows that the wealthy survive upheavals just fine.....the only question will be whether they reside here, or
elsewhere. Examples? Look no further than Marco Rubio, whose wealthy family fled to Florida, and has survived just fine
even though the Castro regime later came to power. Too bad for Marco that he had to embellish the rtory and tell the voters
that they fled after the revolution, but he can answer for that next time he runs....