Monday, November 28, 2011

In response 11-28-2011

Get your facts straight about Roosevelt:

"....The first thing to consider is that FDR was nothing if not a pragmatist. He spent much of his early career going after the abuses of Tammany Democrats, who were almost as corrupt as Republicans today. But when it came time to run for Governor of New York, and then President, he embraced Tammany in order to win election. In other words, FDR knew that the only way to get things done was to get elected to the office, and the only way to get elected is to appeal to as many people as possible. Sometimes, a candidate has to embrace points of view you don’t always agree with. That doesn’t mean you’re adopting their views; it means that you’re flexible, and willing to try to build a consensus...."

"....During his run against Hoover for president, FDR took what some progressives might find to be surprising positions. One of his main complaints against Hoover in the 1932 campaign was the Republican's “huge budget deficits.” Given that most latter-day progressives, myself included, would like to see more stimulus to get us out of our current economic mess, which is not nearly as dire as FDR faced when he was running, doesn’t it seem strange that a presidential candidate who is seen as a “liberal icon” of sorts by today’s progressives, complained about budget deficits when more than a quarter of the population was unemployed? That sounds more like a Republican than a Democrat, doesn't it?....."

".....Even if you don’t think his railing about deficits during a depression disqualifies him from “good progressive” status on its own, you should know that Roosevelt campaigned on the Democratic platform in 1932, which, among other things called for "immediate and drastic reductions of all public expenditures," (huge spending cuts), the abolishment of "useless commissions and offices” and the "[consolidation] of departments and bureaus (small government) and “eliminating extravagances" (again, huge spending cuts). He also campaigned on a balanced budget, although he fell short of calling for an amendment to the Constitution....."


In other words, the socialists and liberals of that day hated on FDR more so than you're hating on Obama.

So "Occupy", let me get this straight,....

John Lewis, Black Civil Rights icon, Wallenburg Medal recipient, and champion of civil and human rights all over the not allowed to speak AT your events...


Glenn Greenwald, Libertarian who lives part time in Brazil, and who infamously defended White Supremacist Matthew allowed to speak FOR the movement?

...and you wonder why you have trouble attracting African Americans?

Sunday, November 27, 2011

In response 11-27-2011

"....Plants, of all things that really bother me about the Obama loyalist, the thing that bothers me the most is their tendency to smear people they disagree with, and their affinity for demagoguery in their writings and commentary. When I went and viewed some of the extremely bias commentary/ragings of this Obama loyalist who refers to herself as "Angry Black Lady" , I told myself that I couldn't imagine any reasonably intelligent person using her as a source for anything....."

Imani Gandy (aka Angry Black Lady) is an accomplished lawyer from Los Angeles. If ever there was a debate between her and Yvette Carnell, she'd run circles around Yvette. And since you haven't been paying attention, the "source" Naomi linked to was debunked two weeks ago. So was Naomi willfully spreading debunked information?

"...Even a prestigious, usually reasonable-minded professor like Melissa Perry-Harris degenerated into her own brand of mudslinging when she tried to pre-accuse White Liberals of racism with her "Obama is as competent as a Clinton" piece in "The Nation"; she, a political scientist by nature, glossed over so many significant facts in order to smear, bully and guilt White Liberals in a very slimy way. It was embarrassing...."

Not nearly as embarrassing as so-called black liberals playing house niggers for the white liberal elite. You'd think people like you, Yvette, Commie Ford, and a whole slew of blacks from the "so-called left" would welcome a debate on this subject even if you don't agree with the premise.

".....I find it interesting that Obama loyalist so cavalierly use underhanded tactics against people they strongly disagree with about the President, yet, they are the very first to rant, scream and moan when places like Fox News, right-wing blogs and right-wing talk radio use these tactics against the President. it seems with them (the Obama loyalist), very little is about decency or respect or how things are done, and everything is about shilling for the President in every way imaginable--even if it includes dirty tactics....."

Project much, kid? Remember this all started with the tweet from one percenter Michael Moore.

Friday, November 25, 2011

In response 11-25-2011

In response to Lavarrock:

".....These are demands that are currently being voting on democratically by the people as opposed to in backroom deals with corporations....."

CORRECTION: These are "demands" being voted on FOR the masses by a select privileged few in the lobby of the Deutshce Bank Building (60 Wall Street). But at least you're admitting that after damn near 3 months, there's still no cohesive demand structure that average people can rally behind.

"....Occupy actions are taking place in over 100 US cities. Which is quite impressive for a young, growing movement...."

Significantly big drop from the 2000 number you threw out there, isn't it? Now how many are those cities are in Red States? Find that out for me.

"....Even if the movement wasn’t popular it wouldn’t make any difference. The Civil Rights movement was extremely unpopular in America when it arose...."

The only similarity between the Civil Rights movement and "Occupy" is that they stated getting press coverage when brutality started to happen and sympathy was gained. All the "support" Occupy enjoyed was majorly based on sympathy to their "cause"

The biggest differences (and the key factors) between the Civil Rights Movement is that people knew exactly what they were fighting for.

They had leaders (or at least credible representatives).

And MOST IMPORTANTLY........they worked with the politicians in Washington at the time.

"....The mere fact that Obama and the democrats are trying to co-opt the movement as much as the Republicans did the Tea Party shows just how worried they are....."

And now Tea Partiers have pull and influence in Washington today. You have a problem with Occupiers having that same sort of pull and influence.....why exactly?

"....Switching to a credit union and fraudulent bank charges were some of the things OWS has been preaching since day one....."

Then you need to have a talk with Congressman Brad Miller, who seems to deserve a little more credit than OWS on this:

"....After BofA announced the fees, Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.) introduced legislation urging consumers to move their deposits from BofA to smaller, more consumer-friendly institutions. Miller's move, not surprisingly, prompted outrage from big banks. "Great, now we have a member of Congress encouraging a run on a major U.S. bank," one bank lobbyist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said at the time....." LINK

And by your own logic, the president deserves, at least, as much credit as OWS on the debit card issue.

(YES, I'm using HuffPost since you like it so much) ;)

"...Also, considering that JP Morgan donated 4.2 million to the NYPD and then a couple hours later the NYPD arrested 400 protesters proves that they are obviously influencing someone...."

Assuming that's true, how does that prove that OWS had any significant influence on BofA changing their minds on the $5 debit card fee?

"...Read the actual article. Not just the title...."

I did read it, and from what I gather Van Jones' only crime is that he's a democrat, he supports the president, and he wants people to vote. In other words, he's like tens of million of people in this country. Tens of million of people who evidently can't join the little social club that is the Occupy movement. If that's the case, they don't represent 99% of anybody