Althouse: If the Occupy Wall Street movement became for the Democratic Party what the Tea Party is to the Republican Party...

October 13, 2011

If the Occupy Wall Street movement became for the Democratic Party what the Tea Party is to the Republican Party...

... what would that be like?

I can't imagine that it would help the Democratic Party to become infused with Occupy Wall Street spirit to the degree that the Tea Party has taken over the Republican Party. I mean, think of Christine O'Donnell and Sharron Angle, who were Republican Party candidates in Senate elections. Now, try to picture their counterparts: Democratic Party candidates who are as Occupy Wall Street as O'Donnell and Angle were Tea Party.

If that scenario came to pass, I think the Tea Party side would win overwhelmingly... which is another way of saying that the Democratic Party should not wish for too much OWS momentum. But the energy is so exciting, isn't it? And they always wanted their very own Tea Party.

353 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 353 of 353

Love said...: The most important story of year...according to the Althouse Gang: Solyndra.

What a hoot.; 10/13/11, 2:36 PM
SPImmortal said...: (The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)

Who loaned Solyndra 535 Million dollars, Love? Bush or Obama?

---------

She just tried to claim there was initial funding by the Bush administration.

She can't even read her own links because that's not what the Thinkprogress timeline says at all.; 10/13/11, 2:36 PM
Love said...: May 2005: Just as a global silicon shortage begins driving up prices of solar photovoltaics [PV], Solyndra is founded to provide a cost-competitive alternative to silicon-based panels.

July 2005: The Bush Administration signs the Energy Policy Act of 2005 into law, creating the 1703 loan guarantee program.

February 2006 – October 2006: In February, Solyndra raises its first round of venture financing worth $10.6 million from CMEA Capital, Redpoint Ventures, and U.S. Venture Partners. In October, Argonaut Venture Capital, an investment arm of George Kaiser, invests $17 million into Solyndra. Madrone Capital Partners, an investment arm of the Walton family, invests $7 million. Those investments are part of a $78.2 million fund.

December 2006: Solyndra Applies for a Loan Guarantee under the 1703 program.

Late 2007: Loan guarantee program is funded. Solyndra was one of 16 clean-tech companies deemed ready to move forward in the due diligence process. The Bush Administration DOE moves forward to develop a conditional commitment.

October 2008: Then Solyndra CEO Chris Gronet touted reasons for building in Silicon Valley and noted that the “company’s second factory also will be built in Fremont, since a Department of Energy loan guarantee mandates a U.S. location.”

November 2008: Silicon prices remain very high on the spot market, making non-silicon based thin film technologies like Solyndra’s very attractive to investors. Solyndra also benefits from having very low installation costs. The company raises $144 million from ten different venture investors, including the Walton-family run Madrone Capital Partners. This brings total private investment to more than $450 million to date.

January 2009: In an effort to show it has done something to support renewable energy, the Bush Administration tries to take Solyndra before a DOE credit review committee before President Obama is inaugurated. The committee, consisting of career civil servants with financial expertise, remands the loan back to DOE “without prejudice” because it wasn’t ready for conditional commitment.; 10/13/11, 2:38 PM
Scott M said...: The most important story of year...according to the Althouse Gang: Solyndra.

Nobody here has said that. Doing so in the face of contrary evidence shows that you're bluffing with a pair of two's.; 10/13/11, 2:38 PM
SPImmortal said...: The most important story of year...according to the Althouse Gang: Solyndra.

What a hoot.

--------

No that would be 1)the unsustainable weight of future entitlement spends 2) the fact that there has been no recovery under jugears and he has actually lost jobs since the bottom of the reccession if you consider the birth/death model 3) Obamacare is still the worst piece of legislation since prohibition 4) Fast and Furious

.........

Solydra is way down the list.; 10/13/11, 2:39 PM
Joe said...: (The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)

Administration tries to take Solyndra before a DOE credit review committee before President Obama is inaugurated. The committee, consisting of career civil servants with financial expertise, remands the loan back to DOE “without prejudice” because it wasn’t ready for conditional commitment

So, Bush DIDN’T loan Solyndra any money, then…your own link demonstrates this…and we’re the hacks?; 10/13/11, 2:41 PM
SPImmortal said...: *garbage from Love*

We read your link.

Do you understand that the loan program was created under Bush but Solyndra was rejected for a loan?

Do you read the stuff you copy/paste?; 10/13/11, 2:41 PM
Michael said...: Love: How nice you can cut and paste. If you dug a bit further you would find that the final loan was made despite going concern warnings from E&Y. You do, of course, know what "going concern" means and who E&Y is do you not? What a hoot, indeed.; 10/13/11, 2:43 PM
Lance said...: OWS wasn't around in 2010. They are now.

Nonsense. OWS is just the latest reincarnation of the Code Pink, Cindy Sheehan, and General Betrayus crowd.; 10/13/11, 2:47 PM
SPImmortal said...: Hey, Love, here's a nice article by the Washington Post on what the Obama administration was up to regarding Solydra:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-pushed-500-million-loan-to-solar-company-now-under-investigation/2011/09/13/gIQAr3WbQK_story.html

"The Obama White House tried to rush federal reviewers for a decision on a nearly half-billion-dollar loan to the solar panel manufacturer Solyndra so Vice President Biden could announce the approval at a September 2009 groundbreaking for the company’s new factory, newly obtained e-mails show…

The August 2009 e-mails, released toThe Washington Post, show White House officials repeatedly asking OMB reviewers when they would be able to decide on the federal loan and noting a looming press event at which they planned to announce the deal. In response, OMB officials expressed concern that they were being rushed to approve the company’s project without adequate time to assess the risk to taxpayers, according to the e-mails, which were provided by Republican congressional investigators…"

Basically Obama pushed through a bad loan to a flailing company for the sake of political optics.; 10/13/11, 2:48 PM
coketown said...: Let's stop comparing OWS to the Tea Party. They are different movements entirely. OWS is a post-modern movement: a shapeless, structureless abstraction, defined only as a general airing of grievances against The System--a nebulous concept in itself. All the protest signs are the same: We took out student loans; we had a 4.0 GPAs; we have $50,000 in debt; we jumped through the hoops and there was no doggie bone waiting for us at the end. And like dogs who cannot explain or comprehend the system by which they are rewarded for their efforts, OWS offers NO solutions to their problems. They only know that at some point in the Goldberg machine known as Society, Wall Street failed and the rest of The System stalled with it.

How does this shapeless movement translate into political influence? The various Occupy groups are making a point of avoiding structure. They abhor representatives. It's a prototypical People's Assembly! They sit around airing grievances, writing tracts, and wallowing in self-pity. It's a movement in search of its Lenin.; 10/13/11, 2:50 PM
garage mahal said...: Who loaned Solyndra 535 Million dollars, Love? Bush or Obama?

Have we ever gotten to the bottom of that 10 BILLION "lost" in Iraq? I find it impossible to believe someone is concerned about 500 million, but not 10 billion.; 10/13/11, 2:50 PM
Joe said...: (The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)

Have we ever gotten to the bottom of that 10 BILLION "lost" in Iraq? I find it impossible to believe someone is concerned about 500 million, but not 10 billion

1) That $10 Billion was only a small portion of the money spent, unlike Solyndra where the 535 Million is 100% of the Federal Money spent…
2) We succeeded in Iraq…Solyndra went bankrupt, taking my money with it.
Beyond that we can talk.; 10/13/11, 2:53 PM
Sue D'Nhym said...: Dennis Kucinich. A post-election-defeat Al Gore. Nancy Pelosi.; 10/13/11, 2:54 PM
garage mahal said...: 1) That $10 Billion was only a small portion of the money spent, unlike Solyndra where the 535 Million is 100% of the Federal Money spent…

oh, okay!; 10/13/11, 2:54 PM
Joe said...: (The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)

Oh and Garage did we get out of Iraq within 18 months of Obama’s Inauguration? And why isn’t HE worried about that $10 Billion?; 10/13/11, 2:54 PM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: We're down millions of jobs and we're out trillions of dollars. Vast cutbacks in government have to be made because too much money was wasted on... what? That's the story of the year.

Watching people latch on to meaningless trivia while these huge problems go unsolved is frustrating.

I don't care about Solyndra. I care a bit more about the ATF letting guns go to kill Mexicans. I care a lot more about the 9% unemployment and the 14 trillion dollar debt.

There's a real crisis, and the current leadership is simply unable to deal with it. They've had enough time to turn it around and they've completely failed. That's enough for me.

People need to stop being apologists for incompetence. The details of this or that scandal don't matter. Eighteen percent of Americans think the country is on the right track. Let's deal with our real problems. That means voting out these idiots.

Excuses abound, but results are hard to escape. The Obama administration is a failure. It has not solved the problems it was elected to fix.; 10/13/11, 2:55 PM
Sue D'Nhym said...: They are different movements entirely. OWS is a post-modern movement: a shapeless, structureless abstraction, defined only as a general airing of grievances against The System

A general airing of grievances in support of The System, to be precise. Begging and pleading for even more of the same.; 10/13/11, 2:55 PM
Brian Brown said...: Love said...
SPImmortal - Google it and get back to me.

The immortal words of the lying left, "google it"

Hilarious.; 10/13/11, 2:55 PM
Joe said...: (The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)

Yepper garage…we spent several HUNDRED Billion in Iraq…but by all means focus on the minority of the money…but ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of the money loaned to Solyndra is gone.; 10/13/11, 2:56 PM
Scott M said...: The details of this or that scandal don't matter.

Scooter Libby would disagree. As would Monica Lewinsky. I agree, it sucks, but dems da cards we dealt wit. The details do matter. Besides, such behavior is often indicative of more unreported such goings-on. Tip of the iceberg and all that.; 10/13/11, 2:57 PM
Brian Brown said...: Love said...
The most important story of year...according to the Althouse Gang: Solyndra.

Of course nobody said any such thing, you silly little liar.; 10/13/11, 2:57 PM
Brian Brown said...: garage mahal said...
Have we ever gotten to the bottom of that 10 BILLION "lost" in Iraq? I find it impossible to believe someone is concerned about 500 million, but not 10 billion.

Translation, you can't possibly bring yourself to criticize Obama.; 10/13/11, 2:58 PM
Joe said...: (The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)

In fact, Obama spent more than we spent on Iraq in the Porkulus Bill and I can’t see much of anything that came from that…

What happened to “Love?” Batteries run out on the Ipad in Zucotti Square, was there a new drum circle starting, some organic vegan pizza arrive…the facts get too brutal?; 10/13/11, 2:59 PM
coketown said...: Actually, Joe and Garage, the missing Iraq funds (which as of the final audit is $6.6 billion, and not $10 billion) came from Iraqi oil revenues, sale of assets, and surplus U.N. oil-for-food funds. That is why Iraq is threatening to take the US to court to reclaim the money; it wasn't ours to lose in the first place! But the US may still be on the hook for it. And either way, it is a gross display of incompetence and both the Left and Right should be outraged by it.

My beef with Solyndra isn't that $500 million (at least) was lost. As Garage says, it's small potatoes so far as the government is concerned. But $500 million to ONE COMPANY--a start-up no less!--is huge. And the whole quid pro quo angle, whether true or not, leaves a sour taste in my mouth.; 10/13/11, 3:01 PM
SPImmortal said...: Have we ever gotten to the bottom of that 10 BILLION "lost" in Iraq? I find it impossible to believe someone is concerned about 500 million, but not 10 billion.

---------

but but something kinda sort not really similar at all happened under Bush!; 10/13/11, 3:06 PM
Automatic_Wing said...: What happened to “Love?” Batteries run out on the Ipad in Zucotti Square, was there a new drum circle starting, some organic vegan pizza arrive…the facts get too brutal?

I think he's gone back to being Jeremy for a while. Or maybe Raul.; 10/13/11, 3:08 PM
SPImmortal said...: My beef with Solyndra isn't that $500 million (at least) was lost. As Garage says, it's small potatoes so far as the government is concerned. But $500 million to ONE COMPANY--a start-up no less!--is huge. And the whole quid pro quo angle, whether true or not, leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

---------

Oh, it's true all right. The white house emails prove they were trying to not so subtly lean on the regulators.; 10/13/11, 3:10 PM
Christopher said...: Yep, nobody cares about Solydra or Fast and Furious outside of those evil rightwing blogs.

You know, like CBS, ABC, or CNN.

Why, those organizations will report on anything just to make the President look bad.

200 dead Mexican civilians? Potential destruction of evidence by federal officials? Hundreds of millions given to clearly failing companies that just happen to have major political ties to the current administration? Clearly these are non-stories.; 10/13/11, 3:10 PM
Michael said...: SPImmortal: In Garage's mind you cannot talk about this until you talk about that. There is always a that that precedes a this. Thus we end up talking about the efficacy of decimation during the Roman Republic or whether Cicero's head was placed on a pike.

The only retort is to ask why a Democratic president dropped two atomic devices on our friends the japanese. Explain that and then we can talk about the 10 billion in Iraq or the 250 million in Solar bullshit or whether Nero was nice to pets.; 10/13/11, 3:14 PM
Joe said...: (The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)

Via NRO and the WSJ

However, a just-released Wall Street Journal/NBC poll paints a different picture, finding unfavorable opinions of the Tea Party to be statistically unchanged from the results of a similar poll taken October 28-30 of last year, on the eve of the 2010 mid-term elections (and we all know how well those turned out for Schumer’s party):
• October 2010 — 32 percent favorable, 40 percent unfavorable
• October 2011 — 28 percent favorable, 41 percent unfavorable
o Margin of error: 3.1 percent
So the TEA Party is no worse off than it was in 2010, and that was a TEA Party Wave year….wonder how it’s going to go this year, considering Solyndra, Fast & Furious, and most of all the dismal economic conditions? But Garage/Love/Raul/Jeremy wrap yourselves in a Time Magazine Poll and tell yourself, “there’s no place like home”.; 10/13/11, 3:16 PM
Love said...: What critics fail to mention is that the Solyndra deal is more than three years old, started under the Bush Administration, which tried to conditionally approve the loan right before Obama took office. Rather than “pushing funds out the door too quickly,” the Obama Administration restructured the original loan when it came into office to further protect the taxpayers’ investment.

(http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/09/13/317594/timeline-bush-administration-solyndra-loan-guarantee/); 10/13/11, 3:16 PM
Joe said...: (The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)

which tried to conditionally approve the loan right before Obama took office. Rather than “pushing funds out the door too quickly,” the Obama Administration restructured the original loan when it came into office to further protect the taxpayers’ investment

Repeating the lie doesn’t make any less a lie…and TRYING and DOING are two separate things, just ask Yoda. Tell me who actually OK’d the loan, Bush or Obama?; 10/13/11, 3:18 PM
Michael said...: Love: What ignorant Democrats do not note is that the loan that was put under application during the Bush administration was funded during the Obama administration despite warnings during the Obama administration that the loan would likely go bad. A hoot!!; 10/13/11, 3:19 PM
Scott M said...: Love, I apologize. It was wrong of me to say that you were bluffing with a pair of two's.; 10/13/11, 3:26 PM
Alex said...: I don't buy it that OWS is against government corruption. They are against capitalism and are in favor of the old-style USSR government mafia.

OWS = Democrats = Socialists = Communists = Marxists.

All the SAME OLD SHIT PEOPLE!; 10/13/11, 3:29 PM
Joe said...: (The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)

Love, I apologize. It was wrong of me to say that you were bluffing with a pair of two's

I think you give Love way too much credit…Love is playing with “Uno” cards.; 10/13/11, 3:30 PM
Lem the artificially intelligent said...: OWS is nothing like the tea parties..

Somebody boos at a presidential debate and it got played up all over the blogs and the MSM..

While antisemites find a home at Occupy Wall St.; 10/13/11, 3:33 PM
Matt said...: Meanwhile:

Time released a poll today:
54 percent view the Wall Street protests favorably.

27 percent have a favorable view of the Tea Party

The most populist positions espoused by Occupy Wall Street — that the gap between rich and poor has grown too large; that taxes should be raised on the rich; that execs responsible for the meltdown should be prosecuted — all have strong support.; 10/13/11, 3:46 PM
Calypso Facto said...: By my count, Matt is now the third lefty to weigh in with that already discredited poll? He wouldn't want to take the time to read the comments on it above before flinging more poo.

TIME obviously hit a home run with that one among the feeble-minded.; 10/13/11, 3:58 PM
Calypso Facto said...: garage, with all your "repub's did it toooooo!" hysteria, let me just ask you: how'd that work out for them in 2008? Is that the comparison you want to draw with Demo's and the next election?; 10/13/11, 4:00 PM
Michael said...: Matt: Time magazine? No shit. Time? Let me guess that those polled are in favor of the ideas of the OWS as articulated by Time magazine and not by the participants in the OWS. Should our fair readers get a look at the participants in the OWS I believe that Time magazine would have a different result with their "poll."; 10/13/11, 4:01 PM
Matt said...: Calypso Facto

Discredited by whom? You and a few wealthy republicans? I know most people only like polls when they are favorable to their views and discredit polls when they don't agree with their views.

I don't view the Tea Party or OWS as negatives. Both are positive in their own way and ask people to consider changing both government and Wall Street. These are legit concerns.; 10/13/11, 4:04 PM
Calypso Facto said...: Matt, you're jumping to lots of conclusions about my beliefs that I didn't say anything about. But to summarize (since you still can't be bothered to read): A TIME Magazine poll, with a leading question, of 1,000 adults (as opposed to voters), made up 2:1 of self-identified Democrats is not going to gain you any credibility. They should have just waded into the OWS crowd itself and got an even BETTER directed result!; 10/13/11, 4:24 PM
Sue D'Nhym said...: Q8. ON ANOTHER ISSUE, IS YOUR OPINION OF THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT VERY FAVORABLE, SOMEWHAT FAVORABLE, SOMEWHAT UNFAVORABLE, VERY UNFAVORABLE, OR DON’T YOU KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THE TEA PARTY TO HAVE AN OPINION?

Q11. IN THE PAST FEW DAYS, A GROUP OF PROTESTORS HAS BEEN GATHERING ON WALL STREET IN NEW YORK CITY AND SOME OTHER CITIES TO PROTEST POLICIES WHICH THEY SAY FAVOR THE RICH, THE GOVERNMENT’S BANK BAILOUT, AND THE INFLUENCE OF MONEY IN OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM. IS YOUR OPINION OF THESE PROTESTS VERY FAVORABLE, SOMEWHAT FAVORABLE, SOMEWHAT UNFAVORABLE, VERY UNFAVORABLE, OR DON’T YOU KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THE PROTESTS TO HAVE AN OPINION?

Q14. PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS BEEN AN INSPIRATIONAL, TRANSFORMATIONAL POLITICIAN OF RARE ABILITY AND ACCOMPLISHMENT. COMPARED TO THE ARGUABLY RACIST REPUBLICAN OPPOSITION, ARE YOU MORE LIKELY TO VOTE FOR OBAMA'S RE-ELECTION, OR TO VOTE AGAINST OBAMA'S OPPONENT?; 10/13/11, 4:46 PM
Methadras said...: J said...

Jefferson opposed Hamilton's and the federalists' finance schemes (mostly derived from the Bank of England).

That isn't even remotely correct. Jefferson absolutely vehemently hated Hamilton. With a passionate hatred like that Jefferson opposed anything Hamilton did, whether it was right or wrong.; 10/13/11, 4:58 PM
garage mahal said...: By my count, Matt is now the third lefty to weigh in with that already discredited poll?

By "discredited", I think you mean, "I don't like the results".; 10/13/11, 5:08 PM
ampersand said...: Al Gore has come out in favor of the OWS protesters,expect six more weeks of (early) winter.; 10/13/11, 5:13 PM
Calypso Facto said...: No, I mean I don't like a poll with obviously biased methodology presented as being representative or meaningful.

Especially when posted in such a gleeful rush of validation that the commenter doesn't take the time to read that it's already been presented TWICE and hashed over. At least you get credit for being the FIRST one here to try to pass it off, g.; 10/13/11, 5:20 PM
garage mahal said...: Calypso
There were two polls (PPP/Reuters.Ipsos) preceding this one showing majority support for OWS. Lots of undecideds to be sure. I'm too lazy to link, but I will if you want to see them. I know you trust PPP as you referred to them a few days ago ;-); 10/13/11, 5:31 PM
Matt said...: Calypso Facto

Not true that the TIME poll had a2:1 Democrats lean.
Here is what Mediaite says about the Time Poll:

30% identified with Democrats, while 17% said Republicans and 12% went with the Tea Party.(30% left to 29% right)... A whopping 39% of the respondents identified with no party.

So a poll that is 30% Dem and 29% Rep is not a 2:1 ratio. I can't speak for those who identify with no party. I am pretty sure you cannot either.; 10/13/11, 5:33 PM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)

Hey have you Althouse Smurf-tards seen the LATEST Time Magazine poll? People HATE the TEA Party and love OWS! Neener-neener-neener we’re going to win BIG in 2012!!!; 10/13/11, 5:35 PM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)

ADULTS, not “Voters” much less “Likely Voters.”; 10/13/11, 5:39 PM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)

Again let me point out the much more likely more valid WSJ poll shows NO CHANGE in TEA Party support, from this year to the last….; 10/13/11, 5:40 PM
coketown said...: @Garage: That PPP poll showed that 35% support the OWS movement, vs. 36% opposed; the Tea Party showed 39%/45%. That's not really "a majority support." And even you have to admit that the phrasing of the Time prompts was absurd regarding OWS and the Tea Party.; 10/13/11, 5:46 PM
Paddy O said...: "Who signed the bank bailout bill?"

WHo is in office now?! SHAME ON YOU! You use real problems to pursue partisanship! SHAME! You explote the needy to gain political advantage!! SHAME!! You hate poor people and would sacrifice them before you would conceive of putting pressure on this President, on this Senate, on Democratic Representatives! SHAME!!!! Who writes the bills, who signs the bills, who gets lobbied for bills? Politicians!! Where is the OWS protesting? Not the politicians.

They're, you are!, willfully ignoring the depths of corruption in a shame filled way! You want to point every other direction except at those people who hold the actual, corrupting power! Where's the protest against Dodd or Frank? SHAME ON YOU!! You should be absolutely embarrassed how you despise the needy so much that you will use them as tools for your own partisan wrangling.

SHAME!! SHAME!!! SHAME!!!; 10/13/11, 5:48 PM
coketown said...: And that's because the PPP poll identified both movements by name. The Time poll identified OWS with vague platitudes and the Tea Party by name. It's no wonder the PPP numbers for both groups are closer than the Time numbers. Kind of like comparing Obama to "generic Republican" versus Obama to a specific candidate. The idea polls differently than the specific.; 10/13/11, 5:49 PM
Sue D'Nhym said...: So a poll that is 30% Dem and 29% Rep is not a 2:1 ratio. I can't speak for those who identify with no party. I am pretty sure you cannot either.

You are double-counting. The 12% was a subset of the 17%.; 10/13/11, 5:50 PM
garage mahal said...: Public Policy Polling for Daily Kos & SEIU. 10/6-9. Registered voters. MoE 3.1% (no trendlines):

Q: Do you have a favorable, unfavorable, or neutral opinion of the Occupy Wall Street movement, or have you not heard of it?

Favorable: 35
Unfavorable: 31
Neutral: 19
Haven't heard of it: 14
----------------------

Rueters/Ipsos. 10/6-10/10. Adults. MoE 3.0%

Favorable: 38
Unfavorable: 24
Undecided: 35; 10/13/11, 5:50 PM
garage mahal said...: Sorry, don't have time to link, although I certainly will when i get home if anyone wants it.; 10/13/11, 5:56 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: Some of the people responding here were the same as those who said Donald Trump was really onto something with the birther thing...; 10/13/11, 6:12 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: Garage, arguing with irrational people is a waste of time.

All you have to remind yourself is that these people are essentially arguing in defense of Wall Street.

No one with a brain in 2011 America thinks that a defense of Wall Street's antics is a winning political strategy.

Which is why the Rethuglicans are left with Mittens SayAnything as their man.; 10/13/11, 6:15 PM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)
”Down Sparkles” To Ritmo; 10/13/11, 6:22 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: Tee-hee! That was funny, Mr. Parentheses Name!!; 10/13/11, 6:24 PM
Brian Brown said...: Matt said...

Meanwhile:

Time released a poll today:
54 percent view the Wall Street protests favorably.

27 percent have a favorable view of the Tea Party

Watching you stagger into this thread with this stupid poll is laugh out loud funny given what already took place.

By the way bozo, if OWS is so popular, which candidate from the left will run on their ideas in the next election?; 10/13/11, 6:29 PM
Brian Brown said...: garage mahal said...

Sorry, don't have time to link, although I certainly will when i get home if anyone wants it.

And then what?

If OWS is so popular, which candidate from the left will run on their ideas in the next election?; 10/13/11, 6:30 PM
Brian Brown said...: garage mahal said...
By "discredited", I think you mean, "I don't like the results".

No, idiot, meaning the poll doesn't mean what you think it means nor does it support your ongoing disphit assertions.; 10/13/11, 6:31 PM
Brian Brown said...: Ritmo Re-Animated said...

No one with a brain in 2011 America thinks that a defense of Wall Street's antics is a winning political strategy.

Hi stupid.

So does that mean Obama is going to give back all those Goldman Sachs donations?; 10/13/11, 6:32 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: If Toxic Derivatives Traders and other assorted Corporate Whores are being defended by someone as dumb as "Jay", you know they're fucked.

Hilarious.; 10/13/11, 6:33 PM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)
Tee-hee! That was funny, Mr. Parentheses Name

You’re welcome. I mean by all means line up behind the folks who communicate akin to a kindergarten class.; 10/13/11, 6:34 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: So does that mean Obama is going to give back all those Goldman Sachs donations?

If he were as dumb as the typical Republican, he might. But thankfully, he's not.

But that was a fascinating non-sequitur. Fascinating, in its stupidity.

Only Republicans think that everyone wants to sell their morality to the highest bidder.; 10/13/11, 6:36 PM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)
If Toxic Derivatives Traders and other assorted Corporate Whores are being defended by someone as dumb as "Jay", you know they're fucked.

Hilarious

argumentum ad hominem That’s all you got Ritmo…who took the overwhelming share of Wall Street money, McCain or Obama? Who was a “Friend of Angelo” Chris Dodd or McCain?; 10/13/11, 6:36 PM
Brian Brown said...: If he were as dumb as the typical Republican, he might. But thankfully, he's not.

Right.

Because he's the Wall Street candidate whom you will vote for while absurdly claiming No one with a brain in 2011 America thinks that a defense of Wall Street's antics is a winning political strategy.

Don't worry, everyone reading knows coherence isn't your strong suit.; 10/13/11, 6:38 PM
garage mahal said...: Just think this whole Occupy camping phenomena surely at least was inspired by a few brave UW TA's when they took the Rotunda last Feb.

Now the peasants are revolting everywhere. LOL; 10/13/11, 6:38 PM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)
But that was a fascinating non-sequitur. Fascinating, in its stupidity

Why is it a non sequitur? Who is defending Wall Street if not Obama? He got the money? The TEA Party oppose(d) TARP and Porkuulus…keep trying, though.; 10/13/11, 6:38 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: Well Joe, I might've responded in a more stuffisticated way, but I never heard anyone over the age of 12 use strange phrases like "down sparkles". What the heck is that anyway, when Kesha's glitter face make-up is oriented toward her cleavage or sumpin?; 10/13/11, 6:38 PM
Brian Brown said...: But that was a fascinating non-sequitur.

I think you should go on telling yourself that.

Really. I do.; 10/13/11, 6:39 PM
Brian Brown said...: Ritmo Re-Animated said...

If Toxic Derivatives Traders and other assorted Corporate Whores are being defended by someone as dumb as "Jay", you know they're fucked.

You don't know what a "derivative trader" is or does.

But hey, you keep on voting for the Wall Street candidate while pretending you have authenticity and coherence.; 10/13/11, 6:41 PM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)
Now the peasants are revolting everywhere

Oh yeah they’re “Revolting” alright…so you’re claiming Madison inspired OWS…If I were an OWS person I’d run from you screaming…’cuz those TA’s have only managed to LOSE, time-after-time, and spend a lot of Democratic money in the process…but hey if it makes you feel better about yourself.; 10/13/11, 6:41 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: The Toilet Party believes that money should talk. They are pro-corruption (or at least, are too stupid to point it out). You make the mistake of thinking that whomever Obama gives money to or receives it from, is who he will allow to get away with anything. But I think you may be wrong.; 10/13/11, 6:41 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 10/13/11, 6:41 PM
Brian Brown said...: garage mahal said...

Just think this whole Occupy camping phenomena surely at least was inspired by a few brave UW TA's when they took the Rotunda last Feb.

Now the peasants are revolting everywhere. LOL

Yes, "LOL" about sums up your political fortunes.

I love how "popular" to you means answers in a skewed poll, and a few hundred people camping out.

Why, it is almost as if you're a moron or something.; 10/13/11, 6:42 PM
Brian Brown said...: Ritmo Re-Animated said...

The Toilet Party believes that money should talk. They are pro-corruption (or at least, are too stupid to point it out). You make the mistake of thinking that whomever Obama gives money to or receives it from, is who he will allow to get away with anything

Yeah, it isn't like Obama supported a bail out of Wall Street or anything.

You are a silly parody.; 10/13/11, 6:43 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: But hey, you keep on voting for the Wall Street candidate while pretending you have authenticity and coherence.

Lol. While you go holding your nose and sending Smiley McSayAnything all the way to the Nominating Convention! Hahaha. Principal of Bain Capital. I guess it'd be pretty hard for Obama to run against a community organizer of Mittens McSayAnything's caliber.

Although it's funny to make fun of Jay's incoherence, he unfortunately makes an example of the holes in Republican thinking generally.; 10/13/11, 6:44 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: Jay doesn't understand the difference between preventing the financial markets from dissolving entirely and arguing for their tighter regulation.

Hilarious.; 10/13/11, 6:46 PM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)
but I never heard anyone over the age of 12 use strange phrases like "down sparkles"

Then as usual, you don’t know Sh!te about your own side…”Up Sparkles” we agree, “down sparkles” we disagree…didn’t you watch your team ‘diss Rep. John Lewis?; 10/13/11, 6:46 PM
Brian Brown said...: Although it's funny to make fun of Jay's incoherence, he unfortunately makes an example of the holes in Republican thinking generally.

Except there is no "incoherence" you illiterate bozo.

See, you're here railing against "Wall Street" while supporting the candidate of Wall Street donations.

You imbecile.; 10/13/11, 6:48 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: Never heard about this supposed John Lewis debacle, Crypto-Commenter. But then, I'm not a Republican so I pay more attention to present-day reality than to symbols from long ago.

But I get it. Take your distraction medicine however it goes down easiest.; 10/13/11, 6:49 PM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)
The Toilet Party believes that money should talk. They are pro-corruption (or at least, are too stupid to point it out

Really so the TEA Party guaranteed a big-time “Bundler” in George Kaiser for Solyndra? Funny, it’s the TEA Party that seems to oppose “Corruption.” YOUR team just wants their piece of the pie.; 10/13/11, 6:49 PM
Brian Brown said...: Ritmo Re-Animated said...

Jay doesn't understand the difference between preventing the financial markets from dissolving entirely and arguing for their tighter regulation.

You don't understand that the Wall Street bailout did not prevent any financial market from dissolving entirely.

Though this is just another example of a lie you have to tell yourself in order to be a leftist.

(Note: the OWS crowd is protesting the bailouts, hence the name, hence the location)

What is comical is your continued incoherence.; 10/13/11, 6:49 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 10/13/11, 6:50 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: Jay can't construct thoughts that are greater than two sentences in length.

Hilarious.; 10/13/11, 6:51 PM
Brian Brown said...: Ritmo Re-Animated said...

Jay doesn't understand the difference between preventing the financial markets from dissolving entirely and arguing for their tighter regulation.

Uh, actually I do.

You're the one pretending that giving Wall Street federal funds is preventing some sort of financial disaster.

I'm not.

You're not that bright and easily misled, however.; 10/13/11, 6:51 PM
Brian Brown said...: Ritmo Re-Animated said...

Jay can't construct thoughts that are greater than two sentences in length.

Pointing out your imbecilic drivel isn't that difficult, you know.; 10/13/11, 6:52 PM
Brian Brown said...: Ritmo Re-Animated said...

Never heard about this supposed John Lewis debacle,

Of course you didn't.

Ignorance is a virtue for you.; 10/13/11, 6:52 PM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)
Never heard about this supposed John Lewis debacle, Crypto-Commenter. But then, I'm not a Republican so I pay more attention to present-day reality than to symbols from long ago

Happened last FRIDAY…Lewis tried to speak to Occupy Atlanta crowd…couldn’t get to speak….

Funny, how when Lewis was called a “n!gger” by a Teabagger it was big news…betcha you were paying attention to symbols from long ago.; 10/13/11, 6:53 PM
Brian Brown said...: Ritmo Re-Animated said...

Jay can't construct thoughts that are greater than two sentences in length.

You mean like this?

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

Tee-hee! That was funny, Mr. Parentheses Name!!

OOPS!; 10/13/11, 6:53 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: No Joe, they just oppose solar energy. But let's watch you keep kidding yourself by thinking that Solyndra was the engine upon which the economy rested, and upon which it was destroyed. That ripsnorting brainfart will surely last long enough to entertain your own attention span.; 10/13/11, 6:53 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: With the Toilet Paper Party, it's about nothing other than symbols.

But when they get to rational substance, you'll be sure to let us know.; 10/13/11, 6:55 PM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)
No Joe, they just oppose solar energy. But let's watch you keep kidding yourself by thinking that Solyndra was the engine upon which the economy rested, and upon which it was destroyed. That ripsnorting brainfart will surely last long enough to entertain your own attention span

Who wouldn’t oppose “Solar Power” it doesn’t work economically…Funny I don’t think Solyndra is the engine upon which the economy rests(ed)…OBAMA DID…remember what he said when he spoke there? Or was that too long ago for you to remember?; 10/13/11, 6:56 PM
Brian Brown said...: Ritmo Re-Animated said...

With the Toilet Paper Party, it's about nothing other than symbols

Hysterical.

Um, the Tea Party drove one of the largest electoral victories in decades.

The OWS crowd are the ones in masks, with pink hair, and holding up illegible diatribes.

In other words, you're projecting you silly little moron.; 10/13/11, 6:58 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: Joe, I see a future in store for Jay as the Speaker of the Tea Party.

Wouldn't you say he's a powerful writer? He's direct and to-the-point, just like FaceRipper monkey. No, no thoughtfulness and articulateness for him! Republicans don't have no time to waste on thinking and speaking!! They have a country to (try to) run!!!; 10/13/11, 6:58 PM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)
With the Toilet Paper Party, it's about nothing other than symbols

Sees a man whose side relies upon drum circles and giant papier mache puppets…oh and hand written signs on card board…; 10/13/11, 6:58 PM
Brian Brown said...: But when they get to rational substance, you'll be sure to let us know.

Do you mean like blaming "Wall Street" for not having a job as a teacher?

Or do you mean like blaming "Wall Street" for having such high student loan debt?

"Substance" like that, dumbass?; 10/13/11, 6:59 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: Gee Joe, it looks like you think industries either just exist or spring up from thin air overnight. Which must make you one hell of an investor.; 10/13/11, 7:00 PM
Brian Brown said...: Jay doesn't understand the difference between preventing the financial markets from dissolving

I think you should wade through the OWS camp outs telling all those people that the bailout prevented a financial catastrophe.

Really, that would be fantastic.; 10/13/11, 7:00 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: Yes, Joe. We know that if longer words were involved, you'd just get distracted.

See, we're on to you.

But then, let's get back to that Jay guy. He's got to be the next spokesperson for your movement.; 10/13/11, 7:01 PM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)
Wouldn't you say he's a powerful writer? He's direct and to-the-point, just like FaceRipper monkey. No, no thoughtfulness and articulateness for him! Republicans don't have no time to waste on thinking and speaking!! They have a country to (try to) run

Well I can say is that he has presented facts and you’ve presented nasty snark…I know which I’d go with…; 10/13/11, 7:02 PM
Brian Brown said...: Ritmo Re-Animated said...

Gee Joe, it looks like you think industries either just exist or spring up from thin air overnight.

Ah yes, because as we know government must support every "industry" in order for it to be successful!

You are an idiot of epic proportions.; 10/13/11, 7:02 PM
Brian Brown said...: whose side relies upon drum circles and giant papier mache puppets…oh and hand written signs on card board…

Oh Joe, they've gotten around to weep video diaries about their tales of woe too...; 10/13/11, 7:03 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: Jay has added a word to his lexicon.

Now, it's not just "hilarious", "dumbass", "idiot", thrown into a few snarls. It's "worse". As in, THE REPUBLICANS DON'T HAVE THE CONCEPT OF WORSE.

They live in an absolutist world where things just are, or they aren't. Nothing is relative, there are no scales for measuring anything. And Jay knows it, dammit.; 10/13/11, 7:04 PM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)
Gee Joe, it looks like you think industries either just exist or spring up from thin air overnight. Which must make you one hell of an investor

Gee if there were all those investors, how come they needed MY money? Oh that’s right I WAS an investor, an unwilling one…the people who made money contributed to Obama…all I get is two empty factories in Cali…

Say Ritmo, for such a smart guy how come you seem to use few facts or little logic, but are so long on “snark?” Would that be because really that’s all you got?; 10/13/11, 7:06 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: Well I can say is that he has presented facts and you’ve presented nasty snark…I know which I’d go with…

Lol. Make that one or two facts (not checked for accuracy), connected to each other with a whole bunch of "dumbass", "idiot", "hilarious", and straw men all over the place. I'm sure he'll pave the road to the White House with that powerful potion.

Ask that fucker what a straw man is. He won't even have a clue. And then he'll call you a "dumbass" for even asking.

Hilarious.

Dude, he's totally Jeremy, Right-Wing Version.; 10/13/11, 7:07 PM
Alex said...: What Ritmo is saying is that sometimes it's important for government to show vision in infrastructure like it did in the past.

F.e.,

- Tennessee Valley Authority
- Hoover Dam
- national highway project

Private industry does not have the resources and coordination to engage in massive national infrastructure that is long-term view instead of short-term profits. Now you have corporations making massive profits on the backs of those who built the dams, roads, bridges, internet, etc...; 10/13/11, 7:08 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: Joe, argue more honestly (and convince your friends to) and then I'll be sure to discard the snark for more facts and logic. Just like your thoughtful friend Jay does. Oh, wait...

Hilarious.; 10/13/11, 7:09 PM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)
Joe, argue more honestly (and convince your friends to) and then I'll be sure to discard the snark for more facts and logic. Just like your thoughtful friend Jay does

Oh it’s the Ritmo version of “Bush did it too” Jay is mean to you and so you won’t be able to respond until the evil Booosh/Jay changes….; 10/13/11, 7:11 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: There was NEVER any government subsidizing of coal! Ever, never and forevermore!!!! It was ALL privately developed.

In RepublicanFantasyLand.; 10/13/11, 7:12 PM
Alex said...: Ritmo - given that you believe the private sector gigantic profits are built upon government infrastructure, I suppose you favor a 50% corporate tax or maybe even to go further?; 10/13/11, 7:13 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: Well, of course, one bootlicker can never criticize another so if you prefer to let that mosquito-brain Jay buzz around and crowd out any sane conversation then I'm sure you'll find a way to blame me for that.

So, what happened to all the productive conversations you wanted to conduct with Jeremy?; 10/13/11, 7:14 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 10/13/11, 7:14 PM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)
There was NEVER any government subsidizing of coal! Ever, never and forevermore!!!! It was ALL privately developed.

In RepublicanFantasyLand

Funny, coal makes money…Solar costs more to produce than a kilowatt/hour of electricity from coal…let’s see Solyndra was creating power at $6 per kilowatt, and selling it at $3 per kilowatt…of course, it makes sense for me to have “invested” %535 million in that program.; 10/13/11, 7:16 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: I don't give a shit, Alex. For me, it's not an ideological problem. Cut taxes, lower them, raise them, whatever works. But if you want to lower anyone's taxes in order to cut the entitlements, you're going to have a problem. People will see how disingenuous you are about your real motives.

Which is what the Republicans will never in their life admit out loud. It's their Achilles heel.; 10/13/11, 7:17 PM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)
Well, of course, one bootlicker can never criticize another so if you prefer to let that mosquito-brain Jay buzz around and crowd out any sane conversation then I'm sure you'll find a way to blame me for that

Well I’d LEAVE were I you..after all no argument can be had…I guess you’re just a sad little person who can only “prove” their existence, by screaming at his/her neighbors? Because obviously you have issues making a cogent case.; 10/13/11, 7:18 PM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)
But if you want to lower anyone's taxes in order to cut the entitlements, you're going to have a problem. People will see how disingenuous you are about your real motives

Much better the entitlement go bankrupt a la Jefferson County MS or Falls Rive RI or Greece, leaving the recipients with NOTHING….rather than reform them today, and effect no one over 55’s benefits.; 10/13/11, 7:20 PM
Alex said...: Ritmo - guess what? More and more people want to slash & burn the welfare state. It's not longer political death to advocate doing so!; 10/13/11, 7:21 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: Only if you confuse what I said to Jay with what I said to you, Joe.

But I'm not a Republican so I can differentiate between two different people and what they're capable of.; 10/13/11, 7:23 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: Yeah, that's right Alex. Go Ron Paul!; 10/13/11, 7:24 PM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)
But I'm not a Republican so I can differentiate between two different people and what they're capable of

Well said, and amazingly well-reasoned….; 10/13/11, 7:24 PM
Alex said...: Ritmo - it has nothing to do with Ron Paul. More people, especially younger ones are against the welfare state on principle. People are tired of cradle-to-grave programs. They want more individual initiative, more local control.; 10/13/11, 7:25 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: Joe, wouldn't it be awesome if what were true today and yesterday were true for tomorrow and ALL TIME??!!!

Yes, then the Republicans would have a point. Why yes, it IS dangerous to develop new markets.

But unfortunately for them, progress seems to happen every now and then.

Bummer.

Just don't let the government know, ok?

wv: prick. Lol.; 10/13/11, 7:27 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: And I'm sure you have incredibly super-awesome citations to back those confident assertions up, Alex.; 10/13/11, 7:28 PM
DADvocate said...: Now you have corporations making massive profits on the backs of those who built the dams, roads, bridges, internet, etc...

We all benefit from "the dams, roads, bridges, internet, etc." While I pay taxes, I probably get far more than my share. Sunday I drove 60 miles to work. Left earl at 2:00 PM. Drove 170 miles to watch my son play football. Then drove 170 miles home after eating dinner with him and taking him back to his college. LOVE those interstates, couldn't have done it without them.

Grew up a quarter of mile from one of those TVA lakes. Wonderful. Fishing. Boating. Swimming.

Etc, etc.

So somebody makes more money than you. What are you greedy AND jealous? You can be just as greedy without having a lot of money. And, envious too. BTW - private corporations provided the manpower, equipment and know how for virtually all those projects.

Your examples are examples of corporations and government working together as they should, except when corruption is involved (which we're seeing plenty of in the Obama administration).

Buy some shares in those corporations.; 10/13/11, 7:30 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: You think so, Joe?

Well super.

Now tell me that you speak for your fellow Republicans when you oppose lumping all Muslims together into a single group that is zealously interested in imposing sharia law on the American citizenry.

Yes, I was waiting to hear that.; 10/13/11, 7:31 PM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)
Yes, then the Republicans would have a point. Why yes, it IS dangerous to develop new markets

Like the government developed the personal PC market…or the Internet? Look no one denies that the government has played a role in the US economy and its development…but it has done it’s best in asking for PRODUCTS, not in picking and choosing technologies and specific companies a la Solyndra.; 10/13/11, 7:32 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: That sounds like an arbitrary distinction between products and technologies, Joe. Not that you're wrong, but you're applying that principle too broadly, as if it were a transcendent, religious truth.

Only, it's not. And BTW, have you heard of Arpanet?

Be careful how broadly you apply that brush. Was coal subsidized because it was a product or a technology? Wrong answer either way. It was abundant energy, and so is the sun.; 10/13/11, 7:36 PM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)
Only, it's not. And BTW, have you heard of Arpanet?

Be careful how broadly you apply that brush. Was coal subsidized because it was a product or a technology? Wrong answer either way. It was abundant energy, and so is the sun

So the “Sun” is abundant, sadly…Solyndra had such a poor business plan to exploit it no PRIVATE investors would bite and until the Obama Administration, neither would the Federal Government….; 10/13/11, 8:15 PM
Sue D'Nhym said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 10/13/11, 8:27 PM
Sue D'Nhym said...: OWS should have as it's platform these 25 points.

1) Our government is corrupt.
2) The corporations they bail out are corrupt.
3) The Republicans, who say they support capitalism, support the corporations over people.
4) So we need to elect more Democrats
5) Who believe in doing more for the people
6) And therefore need to fund more government.
7) And the only way to do it is with the help of the money of corporations
8) And especially the corporations that run the banks that own our debt
9) Who support the Democrats who back us
10) Which is nothing but a distraction the Republicans are throwing out to distract the people
11) In a cynical attempt to stop us from helping people by growing government
12) Because they want to keep the people poor
13) Because they are the power of the rich
14) Even though by creating more poor, it helps Democrats, because they are the party of the poor.
15) And the people.
16) So it is imperative for us to overthrow the system by backing Democrats so they can grow the system to help us and to make sure no one is ever above us.
17) And we can trust that government to make sure that rule applies to them
18) Even as we ignore the evidence being thrown out about Democrats' corruption
19) Including throwing away public money to their corporate ties
20) Because they needed the money to help us
21) And because those corporations support things that we think are important
22) Like protecting the environment from corporations
23) Which needs more government
24) Which supports those corporations that supported their campaigns
25) So they could get elected to help us.; 10/13/11, 8:31 PM
Paco Wové said...: "there is a common ground between the anger of the Left and the anger of the Right: That common ground is a political system that does not work."

Maybe, but the anger directed at the failed system pales in comparison to the anger directed at each other.; 10/13/11, 8:34 PM
MadTownGuy said...: Chilean students are protesting to end for-profit higher education in their country, or at least to guarantee a free post-secondary education for all. Now some of the principals in the protest movement are flying to France (article is in Spanish but you all know how to translate web pages if you can't read it outright). The junket is financed by a European organization, the International Institute for Research and Education (IIRE) whose board includes Noam Chomsky and other left-leaning luminaries. Wonder how hard it would be to find a connection between these protests and those of the "occupiers."; 10/13/11, 8:36 PM
Paco Wové said...: "Wonder how hard it would be to find a connection between these protests and those of the "occupiers.""

Well, everybody likes free stuff.; 10/13/11, 8:37 PM
Sue D'Nhym said...: Maybe, but the anger directed at the failed system pales in comparison to the anger directed at each other.

Yes, because they each blame each other for the failed system. Republicans, who want to kill off the system as failed. And Democrats, who think the system has failed because the Republicans won't let them do it right and complete enough.

Ironically, the so-called Anarchists support the Democrats in this.; 10/13/11, 8:42 PM
Sue D'Nhym said...: Hell, they are the ones out there protesting. With the full support of the usual suspects here.; 10/13/11, 8:43 PM
sorepaw said...: I find it impossible to believe someone is concerned about 500 million, but not 10 billion.

Finally, the unit has received a reprogramming tweet that includes the string "Solyndra."; 10/13/11, 8:45 PM
sorepaw said...: But I'm not a Republican so I can differentiate between two different people and what they're capable of.

You tell 'em, Ritmo.

After all, you can differentiate between me and Greg Nyquist.

Right?; 10/13/11, 8:50 PM
sorepaw said...: Only Republicans think that everyone wants to sell their morality to the highest bidder.

If that's the case, Ritmo, why does Barack Obama profess such horror at the Citizens United decision?

Why did a bunch of Democrats in Congress (before they lost their House majority) try to push through legislation—the so-called DISCLOSE Act—that would have attempted to nullify that decision?; 10/13/11, 8:57 PM
sorepaw said...: Garage, arguing with irrational people is a waste of time,

said the fool to the 'bot.; 10/13/11, 9:00 PM
Big Mike said...: @Sue d'Nhym, your post at 8:31 is dead on the mark.; 10/13/11, 9:27 PM
sorepaw said...: Rather than “pushing funds out the door too quickly,” the Obama Administration restructured the original loan when it came into office to further protect the taxpayers’ investment.

Oh yeah...

The Obama administration restructured the Solyndra loan to further protect the taxpayers' investment.; 10/13/11, 10:09 PM
sorepaw said...: Ironically, the so-called Anarchists support the Democrats in this.

That's why Mark Steyn calls the OWSers "anarchists for Big Government."; 10/13/11, 10:24 PM
Brian Brown said...: Here is the "popular" movement in action:

The Coast Guard in Boston confirmed that a woman in uniform was harassed and spat upon by Occupy Boston protesters. The woman was walking to the train and said protesters spit on her twice, called her foul names and even threw a water bottle at her.”

Lovely people, these losers.; 10/14/11, 4:19 AM
Brian Brown said...: Ritmo Re-Animated said...

Joe, argue more honestly (and convince your friends to) and then I'll be sure to discard the snark for more facts and logic. Just like your thoughtful friend Jay does. Oh, wait.

This is the equivalent of "google it"!

You're not capable of facts or logic, clown.

But you should go on pretending you are.

Really. You should.; 10/14/11, 4:22 AM
Brian Brown said...: Ritmo Re-Animated said...

There was NEVER any government subsidizing of coal! Ever, never and forevermore!!!! It was ALL privately developed.

Please list 2 examples of any coal company getting a DOE or any other federal government loan to get established.

Can't wait to see your examples.; 10/14/11, 4:23 AM