Amazon.com Widgets

« Daily Show Recap - Week of 11-7 | Main | God's Away On Business »

Penn State Riots


 

Comments

As a Penn State Alum, I am of course ashamed of this whole indecent.

I would say you shouldn't judge the students too much, Rioting at Penn State is sort of a tradition, Often without any real reason, and as you can see here, almost always without any forethought. I am just saying, they aren't unfeeling, just stupid and drunk.

I've had the same impression of these Infest Wall Street protests. Can't believe the Democratic Party is hitching it's wagon to them.

http://boingboing.net/2011/10/28/how-occupy-has-shifted-the-national-debate.html

the republicans invited the teabaggers in to take over their party? and be their presidential candidates.

All the Dems are really doing is supporting a national narrative that plays in their favor and activates grassroots energy.

I don't think they are pulling senate candidates out of drum circles quite yet.

I don't think they are pulling senate candidates out of drum circles quite yet.

That made me lol.

Yeah, the Republicans aren't at all that interested in educated qualified presidential candidates such as Jon Huntsman. Oh, no... they're more interested in people such as Michele Bachmann to start out with, then they gravitated towards Rick Perry, then Herman Cain, and now perhaps Newt Gingrich. Guess they'll end up with Mitt.

All the Dems are really doing is supporting a national narrative that plays in their favor and activates grassroots energy.

Pretty much, yup. People get upset because the Occupy movement doesn't run on soundbites, and doesn't have one specific goal. A recent article puts the Occupy movement as the inheritor of SNCC.

There are a number of goals; several committees have been formed to tackle specific challenges locally and they network nationally and globally. Because the movement isn't concentrated in one city (DC or NYC), locals can get involved without the expense and inconvenience of travel. This really is a grassroots movement.

That being said, I'm not exactly sure why Des Moines is one of the few places where the occupiers and police force get along. The police are par of the 99%. It must depend on police hierarchy and how they relate to the government and respond to the local government's insistence on pushing against the movement.

I can see the left's hate for Bachmann and Cain, but I don't see why Perry or Gingrich are hated so much. If you look at their past, they've been pretty moderate - Perry used to be a Democrat, doesn't see anything wrong with illegal immigration and even campaigned for Gore. Gingrich is a global warming proslytizer, pro health insurance mandate, has a big government solutions for everything, made millions off of Fannie and Freddie, and best of all,he's a philanderer. You should love this guy!

They recanted all their moderation.

Perry is an obvious idiot, that transcends ideology.

All the things you list for why we should like newt are actually lame stereotypes. And Newt is pretty will established as an unlikable jerk.

Yeah, but I just wouldn't want to have a beer with either. Oh wait, that's a republican's criterion.

We just hope for someone that could beat us at checkers.

...or someone Obama could easily beat, and that would be Huntsman - MSNBC's favorite R

Actually I think Obama is vulnerable to any competent republican. Mit and Huntsman are the only ones left as far as I can see. Pawlenty might have been another. Too bad for the R's that the R-base can't stomach any of those folks.

Obama is vulnerable to any competent republican...

Fortunately for Obama, competence is almost a disqualification for the GOP nomination.

Does anyone think that if by some accident of history, Romney had decided to become a Democrat, he'd really be a very different president than Obama?

Perry was a Democrat when all Texas politicians were Democrats - he was a Democrat like Phil Gramm was a Democrat ... and he's made of the same cloth as that stupid son of a bitch. Opportunistic and corrupt to the core. Texas Republicans are often moderate in immigration because there is a very large Hispanic minority in Texas they're afraid will wake up someday and realize they could control state politics. And lest I forget to add, Perry is STUPID, STUPID, STUPID.

Gingrich is a sociopath - he's just not capable of keeping his true, sneering personality in folksy wrapping as many other assholes in the GOP.

Huntsman isn't worth discussing 'cause he's never going to be nominated by the morons who vcall themselves Republicans today.

Gingrich is a sociopath

I'd have to say the same about Perry. He apparently would sell his soul to save his ass. The one thing that Bachmann nailed him on was the Merck donation and vaccine mandate.

Perry has a bad record with highway tolls, hoping to sell off teacher retirement (unsuccessful), the convenient religion inclusion in his life, and the like.

I could almost stomach Ron Paul - at least you know what to expect from him! - if he believed in evolution. Why a medical doctor isn't down with that is beyond me.

Ron Paul is a loony, but is unquestionably the least corrupt and most honest of the Republicans.

Come on Tim, can you honestly say the Democratic Party of today is any less opportunistic and corrupt than it ever was? Watch something other than MSNBC every once in a while, and you may be in for real shock. I'd provide links, but there are just too many examples to narrow it down to just two.

The Democratic party is opportunistic and corrupt - the only thing it has going for it vs. the GOP is that if all the politicians in both parties weren't corrupt, the GOP would still suck.

BTW, I don't think I've watched even a clip from MSNBC in over a year. Even counting clips I see on-line, I watch less than an hour a month watching TV news of any type.

If you were to argue that the Democrats are more corrupt than the Republicans, I might or might not agree - it may be true. The Democrats have to sell out their beliefs to act like have - many in the GOP really believe in plutocracy, genuinely welcome the reinstatement of serfdom, and when they're assholes it is because they believe in being assholes.

... to act like they have - ...

Geez, the guys you vote for are assholes because they have to (in order to get rich and powerful), but the other guys are assholes just because the like to be assholes. You may not watch MSNBC, but you sound just like Olbermann.

Obama took hundreds of millions from wall streeters and then handed out hundreds of billions to wall streeters, but it's the Republicans that are the plutocrats? Honestly Tim, I think you've lost your mind! The amazing thing is all these OWS protesters know this, and freely admit they'll vote for him again! I really don't think any of you are in a position to be calling anyone STUPID, STUPID, STUPID.

Oho - you sound like a OWS yourself! ;~)

Not all in the movement will vote for O again, but you are right that most will cast a vote for Dems. For me, I won't be voting for Obama (like I did last election), but against someone I think would manage to be worse.

That's the very definition of slavery.

Actually that's a textbook Republic, just not a very healthy one.

Slaves don't get to vote all that often.

Sure they do. How do you think Chavez and Castro stayed in power so long?

They aren't slaves, or a republic, and they usually have no choices, where as we get a few.

Oof - when you have lame-o candidates, what cha gon' do?

THIS is part of what the OWS is pissed about.

I can't agree that it's slavery, but yeah, it sucks to feel as if you have no [good] choices.

When it comes to assisting Wall Street in looting the country, there is very little to distinguish the Democrats from the Republicans in practice. The repeal of Glass-Steagall was signed by Clinton at the urging of Bob Rubin and Larry Summers (the same asshole Obama reappointed). Democrats collaborated in passing the Commodities and Futures Modernization Act. These actions were the wet dreams of Reaganite morons - as embodied at the time by Phil and Wendy Gramm, Newt Gingrich and many other GOP accomplices. The Democrats and Republicans are pretty much equally culpable. YOU are the moron who assumes that I don't know this.

The difference is that in cooperating with the GOP, the Democrats had to destroy the stability and elements of fiduciary responsibility in the financial system that were put in place by FDR. By turning their back on FDR's policies (he really did save capitalism from itself), the Democrats turned their back on what they still pretend are their core constiuencies. Point to a Republican who supports FDR-like financial reforms and (unlike you) knows that the climate denial propaganda you swill with alacrity is just that - bullshit propaganda - I'd be thrilled to vote for him.

I don't have to vote for Obama and probably won't. I live in Texas - if there is any chance that Obama will carry Texas, then the election is obviously his. anyway. I've pretty much decided to vote Green, if possible - and I've decided not to send any money to the national Democratic party. If I donate any money to anyone, it will be directly to the campaigns of congressional candidates.

I just puked a little.

How charming.

Yet... did you just equate democrats under Obama to slaves?

No, I told GS if she feels she must vote for Obama even though she acknowledges he is the biggest plutocrat our country has ever seen, (something I expect she detests), then she has made him her master,

I suppose you're going to make this a race thing just like I predicted you would several months ago. How very opportunistic of you.

What most people here have told you is that if they vote for Obama, it won't be because they much like Obama's performance. What they've told you, and what Obama is counting on, is that his opposition are worse than he is. Despite your grandiose characterization of Obama as the "biggest plutocrat our country has ever seen", his policies vis-a-vis Wall Street are virtually indistinguishable from Bush's.

You're such a crybaby. You can't stand it that none of us are defending Obama. We're not playing the role you've scripted in your addled brain, and you conveniently ignore the challenge laid before you: tell us which of the GOP candidates would stand up to the plutocracy.

BTW, you are always the one who wants to make it about race. It is another part of the script you've written for us (or maybe it was written by Limbaugh) wherein we are all in a swoon over the magic negro.

I suppose you're going to make this a race thing just like I predicted you would several months ago. How very opportunistic of you.

You predicted this conversation months ago?

Anyway, it's SO weird that mentioning slavery would turn the conversation into a "racial thing", isn't it?

GS if she feels she must vote for Obama even though she acknowledges he is the biggest plutocrat our country has ever seen

MMM - no, O is 't the biggest plutocrat I've seen, although he's up there with the best of them.

I think jonathan becker made the point some time ago about Democrats "eating their own." This is actually a problem for us, as I have found that Democrats are more likely to point out flaws in their parties ELECTED officials than Republicans. Once a GOP member is elected, the media and republicans seem to thin s/he can do no wrong.*

Thus a Democrat gets the criticism from both sides when in office; Republicans usually get public unwavering support.

*During the election there's plenty of criticism to go around - not Christian (enough), too soft on defense (AKA military industrial complex), might raise taxes. But once elected, the general response is "RAH RAH! USA USA!"

Tim,

If I could pick one, it would be Paul Ryan but he's not running. Santorum would probably be a good choice, though I think nearly all the candidates would be better at standing up to plutocracy than Obama has.

Going back to FDR, Democrats have demanded the right of government to pick the winners and losers in the business community which is the best way I can think of to create a plutocracy. They claim this is needed to protect the public from the perils of capitalism, but it's no coincidence that the richest businessmen and women who donate the most to their campaigns are richly rewarded with massive government loans (or loan guarantees), handouts, contracts, high government positions, and variances from the regulations they pass. The bigger the company or union, the more they can donate to the Democratic Party and the more favoritism they will enjoy. This does nothing to help the little guys the Democrats claim to represent.

Most Republicans on the other hand, have tried to remove the government's ability to pick winners and losers in the business community by lowering the barriers that keep small businesses from growing. If those small businesses are allowed to grow, the community around them will enjoy economic development, lower unemployment, and a higher standard of living.

Do you think it's strange that GE pays no corporate tax, yet Immelt garners such praise from Obama? Why do you suppose that is?

"What we should be teaching are the problems and holes and I think there are legitimate problems and holes in the theory of evolution. And what we need to do is to present those fairly from a scientific point of view. And we should lay out areas in which the evidence supports evolution and the areas in the evidence that does not." -Rick Santorum

"The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire." Rick Santorum

So we have to choose between Plutocracy and Theocracy? Sounds like the definition of slavery.

Hey, you may starve to death, but dammit, you'll know who your oldest ancestors were. That's rich.

Check out Tim Dickinson's latest article in Rolling Stone. Not to worry, he cracks on some Dems, too.

I'm growing concerned you might be a liar. I've read most of the first four pages and seen nothing but praise for Democrats. When does he start cracking on them?

Keep reading. I've heard tell that most Americans don't bother to read an entire article.

I said "Not to worry, he cracks on some Dems, too." not that all he did was criticize Democrats.

In kind, I am starting to be concerned about your reading comprehension.

Okay, I've skimmed the rest and still can't find much in the way of criticism for Dems. The guy could easily sub for Wasserman-Schultz talking to Maddow on MSDNC. If he is who you're going to point me to for an objective journalist, there's really no point in reading anything you link to.

Oh - shoot; I have the hard copy. There's a sidebar included in the middle of the article there; it's a separate link online: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-enablers-democrats-on-board-with-the-party-of-the-rich-20111109

Not surprised about Ben Nelson, but a little surprised about Kay Hagan; I don't follow NC politics so closely any more, since I moved outta there. 3 more heavy hitters are in this profile.

My bad; I'm between classes and so didn't go through the entire online pagination. There is a bit of a Dem hit on p2 online and also a reference to Clinton and Glass-Steagal somewhere else (thanks a bunch Bill). I'm getting ready to head out again.

Yes, the entire piece is titled, "How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich," so it's slanted in that directions, but it ain't like it's riddled with errors. The statistics and facts are there. You can present a different set of (actual) facts to show that the Dems did something bad. In general though, taxing the wealthy and the über-cash-flush corporations has been good for the economy. Take the 20th century and chart taxation on the wealthiest and see when the biggest busts were in relation to tax percentages.

Seems that you're the only one getting your news from MSNBC, CNN and FOX. Apparently Tim and Gypsy Sister are getting their news from sources other than Cable T.V.

I still don't have cable JoAnn. Haven't we discussed this before? If their 'other source' is Rolling Stone, I'd have to say that's actually a step down which would be pretty hard to do.

Then how is it that you know so much about MSNBC and 'Wasserman-Schultz talking to Maddow on MSDNC(sic)'?

Believe it or not, Rolling Stone is a good place to go for in-depth political reporting. They don't have a word count issue like news papers, and the ad copy is guaranteed for the rock and roll articles. This has been going on for at least 2 years, much to my (then - 2009) surprise. Hell; I've even read things in GQ that provided good political info, for similar reasons. However, NPR and web research are my mainstays for news.

If you can provide a consistent conservative primary source outlet (direct quotations, backed-up statistics, and the like; I know that reporters can pick and choose what they insert in a story) for reporting, please do so.

Gah - I've been away doing other crap and want to catch up on the suggested reading here, but it's still on the back burner.

Matt Taibbi's articles on Wall Street in Rolling Stone were good. Less fun to read, but I think more informative is Robert Scheer's The Great American Stickup: How Reagan Republicans and Clinton Democrats Enriched Wall Street While Mugging Main Street. I think it is harder on Democrats than Republicans.

Agreed on Taibbi. It's weird about Rolling Stone, though, they tend to headline his op-eds and not his investigative journalism.

P.S. Will have to get to the Scheer article later.

Aaah - so it's a book, not an article - grist for the mill.

Do you think it's strange that GE pays no corporate tax, yet Immelt garners such praise from Obama? Why do you suppose that is?

Do you think that it is strange that year after year multibillion dollar tax breaks for oil companies are rammed through with mostly GOP support? The bullshit by which this is justified is always the same: it help them poor oil companies find more oil. Meanwhile, Exxon-Mobil has spent $175 billion over the past decade buying back their own stock - I'm still trying to figure out how buying back your stock helps you find oil. Look, your beating a dead horse. Obama is a corporate Democrat - very nearly indistinguishable from corporate Republicans. They share many of the same paymasters, some are different – we've stipulated this. If you think that the GOP has taken less from rich businessmen than Democrats over the years, you're absolutely nuts!

Your boilerplate about "picking winners" is a non sequitur with respect to the FDR-like Wall Street reforms I mentioned. The Glass-Steagall act had absolutely nothing to do with picking winners. Repeal of the Commodities and Futures Modernization Act would have absolutely nothing do do with picking winners. Glass-Steagall separated Investment banking from mortgage banking and when the "Financial Services Modernization Act" (repeal of Glass-Steagall - they use such lovely euphemisms) was passed there were dissenters like Democrat Byron Dorgan and Republican William Safire who understood that Glass-Steagall had been huge in stabilizing the Financial system. Almost all of both parties voted to repeal - it was a disaster. The Commodities and Futures Modernization Act was equally disastrous.

Exxon-Mobil paid over 21 billion dollars in federal tax last year. All businesses get to deduct for R&D, why should energy companies be the only exception?

Exxon-Mobile's R%D expenses are all of 0.3% of revenues. Oil companies get breaks lot's of things that aren't "R&D", including tax credits for royalty payments made to foreign governments - presumably for oil they produce elsewhere. You are silent about the stock buybacks. Could it be that you are having a hard time justifying why the US taxpayer should be subsidizing a company that seeks to improve shareholders value by simply concentrating the value of their shares?

I don't really care if they use their profits to buy back their shares just like I don't really care if you use your income to pay off your mortgage early. They're buying those shares from people who are presumably making a profit, and will be paying tax on their profits, and probably use that money to buy something else like shares in Solyindra or GM, or maybe even pay tuition for their college bound children or grandchildren. Aweful isn't it?!?! Please give me a source (not agitprop like Rolling Stone) to explain how Exxon-Mobil should not be allowed to deduct expenses like royalties to foreign countries from their income, and it can't be because their an evil oil company that makes too much money on the backs of SUV drivers..

So many goalpost switches, so little time. They don't much spend on R&D after all? What the hell, throw something else out there. Royalty payments are expenses of doing business, and are therefore legitimate deductions thatalready are accounted for in that they pay taxes on their profits. They get tax credits.

The point was that GOP politicians are owned as much as Democratic politicians - and that's why they get the tax breaks. Any other reasons you offer are the result of your being unable to let go of your "GOP = small government" fantasy. Do you really think that the long history of corporate largesse to and extensive lobbying of GOP politicians is because they are just so philosophically virtuous? And you're the one who thinks the OWS protestors are deluded.

Yeah, don't use a source like Rolling Stone magazine. Use reliable sources such as the Daily Mail which is one of Syngas' most often cited sources. ☺

...and he uses the Daily Mail as a source when arguing science to a scientist.

Navigation

Support this site

Google Ads


Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson

Contact


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives