Obama is landing at JFK around 5 p.m., choppering in Marine One to Wall Street
http://www.businessinsider.com/warning-do-not-try-to-drive-in-manhattan-this-afternoon-2011-11#ixzz1fDLZy8D7

Oh wait....

That's a fund raiser....

My mistake.. :^/

Michale.....
029

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-admin-seals-records-murdered-border-patrol-agent-implicated-fast-and-furious_610783.html

I saids it before and I'll says it again...

2012 can't come soon enough...

Michale....
028

On just about everything...

To clarify....

The Oowzers are right insofar as their claim of economic inequality. But that's like looking outside, seeing that it is pouring and then claiming, "I think it's going to rain today"... It's a statement that is so blatantly obvious, anyone with 2 brain cells could make the same accurate claim..

The Oowzers are wrong, however, in how the choose to address such inequality..

I mean, seriously. They protest the lack of jobs and their very protests costs hundreds of jobs..

They protest about how there is no money for social services and their very protests costs cities and municipalities tens of millions of dollars...

And yet, ya'all still claim that how the Oowzers are going about it is the RIGHT way to do it!???

Seriously????

Michale.....
013

*ALL* of the bailouts are the problem..

But let me ask you, David...

If the bailouts are the problem......?????

WHY aren't the Oowzers protesting where the bailouts came from??

Why aren't the protesting tooth and nail in Washington DC and against Democrats who pushed the bailouts over and over and over again??

Why aren't the Oowzers protesting Barney Frank, who fought against the regulation of Fannie and Freddie for years??

If protesting the bailouts was truly the goal of the Oowzers, why don't they go protest where those bailouts originated??

They didn't originate on Wall Street or in Los Angeles or Dallas or Boston...

They originated in Washington DC and the vast majority of the bailouts originated with Democrats...

I'll tell you why.. Because the Oowzers aren't really protesting the bailouts.. They aren't protesting for jobs or a better life for the 99%..

They are protesting simply to flout authority. They are protesting to prove they can violate the laws of the land with impunity and nothing can stop them.

They are finding out that they are very VERY wrong.....

On just about everything...

Michale....

010

People are now talking about things like this ...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-28/secret-fed-loans-undisclosed-to-congress-gave-banks-13-billion-in-income.html

And yes, you read that right. $7.77 trillion in bailouts. Most of it secret.

Dwarfing the size of the 700 billion asset program.

And Bloomberg had to sue to get the government to release these details.

Now I don't care which party you're from, this should make you angry.

You can gripe about hippies and liberals and communists and socialists and OWS all you want, but if you really want something to change, write your Congressman about the 7.77 trillion bailout.

The bailout which is more than half our current deficit.

This is the real problem.

-David

Tell me.. What exactly have the Oowzers accomplished???

Not a damn thing....

If there goal was to be a positive political force and to have an political impact on the country they have failed and failed miserably...

They tried to be a Left Wing Tea Party and failed...

Hardly a group to put up on a pedestal...

Especially before they bathed...

Michale.....

009

Agreed...

But, to adequately criticize, one needs to have ALL the facts..

For example, we have a protester who was at the UC incident and she emphatically stated that they put the cops in the situation where they had to use force...

The Oowzers are NOT as pure as the driven snow, despite your claims to the contrary...

Michale.....

008

Are you sure?

Seems like the very next thing you said goes against it:

You would also feel different if you have ever been a cop.

But just remember the men and women who put their lives on the line so you CAN keep fighting for that.

You bet! I respect the hell out of cops - cops that deserve it. Same goes for the military. Same goes for just about anyone.

But there are those who don't deserve it and they shouldn't be "exempt" from criticism just because they wear a uniform.

-David

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501363_162-57331142/woman-pepper-sprays-other-black-friday-shoppers/

Michale.....

003

Not a first option.

I would also ask you to ask those cops to read what I have posted and see if they disagree with anything I said.. :D

Michale.....

002

No.. But treat each situation as a possible threat until evidence proves otherwise..

It's how cops stay alive in a job where staying alive is not always easy to do..

Sorry, michale. This may be your belief. But I'm gonna keep fighting for "innocent until proven guilty".

That's kewl.. But just remember the men and women who put their lives on the line so you CAN keep fighting for that..

The police officers I respect are the ones who can defuse almost any situation w/o the use if force. The ones who use force as a last resort.

Not a first option.

Nothing I have said goes against this..

You would also feel different if you have ever been a cop..

Read a book called SIGNAL ZERO.. It will be an eye opener for you..

Happy Turkey Day.. :D

Michale

001

Hope no one is out being pepper sprayed by black Friday shoppers!

Sorry, michale. This may be your belief. But I'm gonna keep fighting for "innocent until proven guilty".

Otherwise, we're simply ceding too much power to our government.

The police officers I respect are the ones who can defuse almost any situation w/o the use if force. The ones who use force as a last resort.

Not a first option.

-David

It's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6

Michale.....

The problem with NOT treating everyone as guilty is that it likely results in dead cops..

This was a tragedy, no two ways about it...

Mistakes do happen. And that rookie cop will have to live with this mistake for the rest of his life.

I can assure you with complete confidence that the poor guy will feel like crap for the rest of his life.

Michale.....

http://gawker.com/5862447/deaf-disabled-senior-citizen-on-bicycle-deemed-threat-by-police-tased-to-death

-David

Yea, sorry about that. :D

Your IRA example is indeed an example of how legitimate military actions can degenerate into terrorism..

Just as in your OWS example. Such would NOT be terrorism if the Oowzers were making threats to cops.. Cops are, by ANY definition, combatants...

But if Oowzers started threatening to attack cops' kids or family, THAT would be terrorism...

As I pointed out to David in that other thread...

I salute you for returning to sanity, and for being intelligent enough to examine your own positions rationally when you are too far out on a limb.

Minor brain-fart. Probably won't be the last one. :D

That's one reason why I like having you around, here.

And here I thought it was my movie quotes.. :D

Michale.....

Holy crap, did you just beat me to the punch?

See my KKK example, as it goes to the same logical extreme you mentioned.

Like I said, initially I thought I was tossing you a softball -- terrorism is the mechanics of instilling terror to innocents through use of (or threat of) violence. I felt sure you'd agree, to tell you the truth.

I salute you for returning to sanity, and for being intelligent enough to examine your own positions rationally when you are too far out on a limb. That's one reason why I like having you around, here.

Going out and gathering signatures and then throwing them in the trash (rather than turning them in) is despicable and dastardly and illegal. It's a political dirty trick of the purest water. But it's not terrorism. But almost by definition, when the term "death threats" arises, it is almost surely going to be terrorism.

-CW

That is still horse manure, squared.

Chelsea Clinton was not "attacked" by the media. That is hyperbole, although I fully admit I'm as guilty as anyone else of using such terms at times. Politics is full of military metaphors, which are almost always overblown: "attack, battle, nuclear option, etc."

Clinton's case of being "fair game" has nothing whatsoever to do with the case we're discussing, really. The big difference? Death threats.

This is America. You do not, in America, take your life in your hands when you enter the political realm. You just don't. You don't have to take an oath, as if you're joining the Army. You are not signing up to defend your positions to the death, and you are not expected to "kill or die" in support of your cause, and you certainly shouldn't expect death threats as par for the course of joining in the political fray. There is just no way any sane person would equate the two, other than rhetorically.

Was the KKK guilty of terrorism for its campaign of lynching "uppity" black people who tried to exercise their rights of citizenship by daring to vote?

Yes, yes they were. It was indeed terrorism. Because voting is an innocent act. The brave blacks daring to vote were, in a very real way, on the front lines in a political fight -- but the fight against them was un-American terrorism. Just because they dared to vote didn't make them legitimate targets in any way, shape, or form.

Are the morons making death threats to people who have done nothing more harmful than asking their fellow citizens to sign a constitutionally-protected petition for a political cause committing an act of terrorism? Yes, yes they are.

If you want to split hairs, we can talk about the Provisional IRA. The Provos attacking British police and military in Northern Ireland was, by their reasoning, a military campaign against valid military targets. But when they started bombing (and threatening to bomb) Christmas shoppers in London, they crossed the line to terrorism -- again, by anyone's definition.

Death threats to a signature-gatherer are indeed terrorism. Ask yourself: what would Fox News be calling it, if the petition-gatherers in CA to recall a Democratic governor were so threatened?

I'd bet they'd be using the "T" word, myself.

Here's another hypothetical: if the OWS folks began phoning up individual cops at home and making death threats, would that be terrorism? By your (current) definition, they would not be guilty of terrorism. I would disagree, however -- it doesn't matter to me what the "cause" is, this is an objective question of definition. And even though the target would be cops, the phoners would still be guilty of terrorism.

-CW

So, extrapolating your political worker scenario out to a logical next step, what about voters???

Voters are "taking sides" and "putting themselves in harms way" so to speak..

Attacks and threats against voters is nearly a textbook definition of terrorism..

Logically, I must concede the validity of that argument.

Such actions as you initially describe are terroristic in nature...

I stand corrected... :D

"I'm kickin' my ass!! Do ya mind!!???"
-Jim Carrey, LIAR,LIAR

:D

Michale.....

Is there a difference??? :D

What is your own definition of terrorism? Please state for the record.

Glad to.. :D

"Terrorism is defined as ongoing and systematic attacks of violence specifical­ly targeted against innocent persons or property for the purpose of furthering a political, economical or ideologica­l agenda."

In your example, the people being threatened are not "innocent", as they have willingly placed themselves in the spotlight, so to speak..

Put it another way.. Remember the discussion we had during the Dem primary about media attacks on Chelsea Clinton??

Some people were of the mind that such attacks were not warranted. But you said that, since Chelsea put herself "in harms way" (so to speak) that she made herself fair game for media attacks.. Not your exact words, but that was the gist of what you said..

In the same manner, those who pursue a political agenda, they put themselves "in harms way"...

Now I am not, in any way, shape or form, condoning the threats. I think it's despicable that people would stoop to such tactics.. That applies to whether the threats are coming from the Right towards the Left or coming from the Left towards the Right...

It's despicable, it's perverse and it should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law...

But it's not terrorism because it's not directed at "innocent" people in an effort to influence a political agenda..

Take my answer to David in the last comment in this thread...

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2011/11/16/two-suggestions-for-occupy-wall-street/#comment-17374

That would be more of terrorism than what you describe because of the possibility of innocent people being attacked..

If the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt were caught making death threats against opposition parties in the runup to an election, would you call that political terrorism?

If ONLY opposition politicians were targeted, then no,it would not be terrorism.. But you and I both know that more than likely entire families would be targeted. In that case, it would be terrorism..

Let me put it another way....

Let's say John and James are vying for the same job.. John sends death threats to James to try and scare him into not taking the job...

That's not terrorism because James is a "combatant" (or "player" if you prefer) in the whole thing..

Now let's say that James has a bunch of co-workers who are involved in helping James get the job.. John threatens them.. Not really terrorism because those co-workers put themselves on the board, so to speak...

Again, it's despicable and wrong.. No question..

But it's not terrorism..

Now, if John started attacking James wife and children in an effort to force James out of the running, THAT would be closer to terrorism...

Again, let me be clear. By not labeling it terrorism in NO WAY indicates approval for the actions described...

Michale....

You, sir, are either a hypocrite or just have a serious case of bias.

What is your own definition of terrorism? Please state for the record.

By that definition, threatening to kill a signature-gatherer is indeed terrorism. I actually thought I was tossing you a softball with this one: "at least we'll agree on this" I naively thought.

Politics is not a war. It is not a battle. There are no "valid military targets" in politics. Period. End of sentence. Anyone working legally to change our politics in ANY LEGAL FORM WHATSOEVER -- from anti-abortion folks legally picketing a sidewalk, to boycotting, to petition-gathering, to voting, to petitioning the government for redress, to demonstrating peacefully -- ALL of it is entirely innocent. In ALL senses of the word -- legally, morally, and militarily. Equating being a valid military target and a signature-gatherer is simply horse manure.

Using threats of death (or even violence) against such innocents -- to futher a political goal -- is indeed terrorism. Shooting abortion providers to death is terrorism. Bombing a building in OK City is terrorism. Sending anthrax to politicians is terrorism.

This is a concerted effort, too -- there are folks out there who are collecting signatures for the recall, and then destroying them (which is illegal).

By any sane definition -- even by yours -- death threats against innocent political workers is terrorism.

Don't believe me? Let me put it another way, which you WILL likely agree with:

If the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt were caught making death threats against opposition parties in the runup to an election, would you call that political terrorism?

I would, and I see no difference whatsoever.

Hmmph.

-CW

There is absolutely no way of completely removing the opportunity for corruption. It simply cannot be done. It's like building a dam with no turbines or spillway for the water to go through or over. One way or another, it's going to get to the downhill side.

It's also necessary to reduce the temptation. We're not going to make them as rich as the people they're trying to deal with, the big money that's affected by the laws. But we can easily afford to pay them enough that the super-rich can't make the legislators feel like utter paupers if they refrain from corruption. A legislator should be able to have lunch with a powerful constituent, at as fancy a restaurant as the constituent would otherwise be eating at, without putting themself in the awkward position of being unable to pay for their own lunch.

As I am wont to do...

"Welcome to the party, pal!!!
-John McClane, DIE HARD

:D

All Tea Party candidates should pledge to convert their pensions to 401k style pensions starting with Senator Rand Paul and his father congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul!

I am right behind you in encouraging that...

RIGHT AFTER people like Pelosi and Reid and Obama et al do the same..

What!??? You want to exempt Democrats from that???

:D

CW,

I prefer to think of it as Michale channeling his inner Chris. Hmmph.

Hehehehehehehe

As for "congresscritters", well, I've been using that one for years... when I feel its justified, of course.

Yea, like it's ever not... :D

Obama said he'd change the rules for his White House (re: lobbyists). He has. He instituted stricter rules than any previous president.

That's a load of felgercarb...

The only "stricter rule" he has implemented is that meetings with Lobbyists are at Blair House and not at the White House..

Serving the letter of the promise while totally demolishing the spirit of the promise..

Sure, he had some exemptions, but he's still tougher on lobbyists than any previous president, bar none.

I see no evidence of this and plenty of evidence to the contrary.. So I gots ta call BS on that.. :D

. As for Congress, well, Obama doesn't make the rules for Congress, so feel free to blast away at them, but I don't believe they made any promises to change things (as Obama did).

"This will be the most transparent and ethical Congress in history"
-Nancy Pelosi

Sheeya right.. And monkees fly outta my butt too!!

Are those who make death threats to a petition gatherer terrorists or not by your definition? I'd have to say they would be, by mine.

I would have to say "no" and here's why..

We are talking about a political endeavor.. A "battle" if you will...

The aides and workers that are working the "battle" are "soldiers" and are, as such, legitimate "combatants"...

Surely other laws come into effect. Death threats, extortion, etc etc are all legitimate prosecutions that could result from these activities..

But terrorism??

For it to be considered terrorism, there would have to be threats against innocent people in an attempt to sway the workers and aides actions..

Example, if a worker was told that their family will be killed or their friends will be killed if they don't stop working on the Recall, then that would be more of a terroristic threat than threats to the worker themself...

But, in the Recall "battle" the workers and aides would not be considered "innocent"..

That's an objective, logical and emotion-less assessment of the issue..

Michale.....

This is totally off subject, I warn everyone.

RE: our discussion of what constitutes "terrorism," what do you think of this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/21/scott-walker-recall-threats_n_1105115.html?ref=politics

Are those who make death threats to a petition gatherer terrorists or not by your definition? I'd have to say they would be, by mine.

-CW

I prefer to think of it as Michale channeling his inner Chris. Hmmph.

Seriously, though, I'm all for ending the trading nonsense, too. Just like presidents and cabinet members have to do, I think Congress should be forced to put their holdings in a "blind trust" where a money manager makes their investment decisions with NO INPUT or even knowledge by the politician. There is indeed a precedent for this sort of thing, in other words.

As for "congresscritters", well, I've been using that one for years... when I feel its justified, of course.

:-)

Michale [8] -

Obama said he'd change the rules for his White House (re: lobbyists). He has. He instituted stricter rules than any previous president. Sure, he had some exemptions, but he's still tougher on lobbyists than any previous president, bar none. As for Congress, well, Obama doesn't make the rules for Congress, so feel free to blast away at them, but I don't believe they made any promises to change things (as Obama did).

dsws [9] -

Hey, I said it'd be symbolic deficit reduction, and not tangible. But if you're doing the math, you should add in the extra 47 percent (or, multiply the salaries by 1.88 to get the full cost), as referenced in the letter in the above column. Benefits cost money, too.

I refuse to show any pity for someone making $175K a year -- plus an additional $150K+ in perks), that they're too "poor", sorry. Anyone sleeping on a cot in his office is doing so by choice, not financial need.

[And, amazingly, the cent sign did show up correctly, on my browser...]

Kevin [11] -

I will check it out.

David [12] -

You forgot to add "see: Newt Gingrich"

Heh.

-CW

Just wanted to say welcome to the site!

Your first comment was held for confirmation, and my apologies for being so slow about approving it (this can happen, over the weekend).

From now on, however, any comments you post will appear immediately. Unless you post two or more links in a single comment, which automatically means the comment will be held for moderation (to cut down on "comment spam").

Again, welcome to the site, and sorry for the delay.

-CW

Forgive the redundancy....

http://nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/democratic-pollsters-obama-should-abandon-run-for-second-term-20111120

Couldn't have said it better myself.

If Obama really cared about this country *AND* the Democratic Party, he would step aside...

Michale.....

If we cut their pay to the point where they have a choice of corruption or sleeping on a cot in their office, all the rules we can come up with wouldn't stop them from being corrupt. If we have the current situation, where corruption is perfectly legal, all the pay we can throw at them wouldn't stop them from being corrupt.

So, in terms of the importance of their job, where should members of Congress fall on the income scale? Governors should be paid more. So should the president and cabinet, and a few hundred other key people in the executive branch. So should, let's say, the top hundred highest-paid the thousand biggest firms, and the top fifty at the next thousand, five top bosses at the next thousand, and one person each at the next five thousand. Call it a hundred seventy thousand people, out of three hundred million, or about .06%. About four hundred people a typical district would be higher-paid than its representative in Congress. That would have them being less rich than most of the people who expect favors of them, but richer than the flunkies sent to bring them the message.

That's supposing that representing us in Congress is more important than being the boss of the local dog-food factory, or whatever the fiftieth-biggest business in the district might be. Most Americans apparently don't share that supposition.

CW- To some extent I do believe the first argument, that we should potentially pay these people better to help them avoid the "filthy money".

But if we're going to do this, we need to have better bans on the second part, the filthy money.

As Jack Abramoff said recently, all you had to do to get a Congressman in your pocket was to start talking about offering them a job at your lobbying firm once they stepped down from office. Once this happened, they would do anything you wanted.

-David

Thank you for that, Kevin!

:)

http://www.stonekettle.com/2011/11/ever-heard-of-irving-you-know-irving.html

I really recommend this for a smile...

"No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen."
Article I section 3

Being an inhabitant of the state they represent is required. It's just that people have been ignoring the requirement.

Do you really believe that requiring them to sleep on a cot (unless they're already wealthy, or find some corrupt way of making money off the job) is the best way of getting good representatives and getting them not to find corrupt ways of making money off the job?

The population clock at census.gov says there are 312,635,074 of us. There are 435 representatives and 100 senators. Doing the arithmetic, we pay 30¢ per person per year for congressional salaries. In case the software won't show the symbol, that's a cent sign. Thirty cents. For the whole year.

You want to do away with insider trading? Fine, make it illegal for and Congress person to hold more and different stocks than what was listed upon entering the Congress. And maybe up to 5 years afterward.

Didn't you read the TPs???

Congress makes laws and then exempts themselves from the laws...

Make it illegal for Congresspersons to be a registered lobbyist, or accept $$$ from any entity that does business with the Feds, at a rate higher than what they had before they went in.

Yea, that's what Obama and the Democrats said they would do...

Howz THAT workin' out??? :D

Michale....

You're channeling your inner Michale ... and that alone should make you re-think.

Just what in the world is reducing the pay of Congress going to do about the rampant insider trading? What is this going to accomplish?

You want to do away with insider trading? Fine, make it illegal for and Congress person to hold more and different stocks than what was listed upon entering the Congress. And maybe up to 5 years afterward. Make it illegal for Congresspersons to be a registered lobbyist, or accept $$$ from any entity that does business with the Feds, at a rate higher than what they had before they went in.

You say that would be too hard? So what, find a way to doit.

And really, congresscritters?

All Tea Party candidates should pledge to convert their pensions to 401k style pensions starting with Senator Rand Paul and his father congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul!

Let's get petitions going now!

It's funny how life imitates art, eh? :D

Your talking points are dead on, CW... I especially like the "NASCAR Jacket" idea.. I would love to see Pelosi and Reid and Bohner and McConnell decked out in digs that show just how many corporations and lobbyists have a piece of their souls...

I seem to remember some prominent CongressCritter promising that the Congress would be the most transparent one in history..

I guess we couldn't see the transparency thru all the smoke and mirrors...

Great commentary.. One I can get behind 1000%...

Michale....

The majority of elected representatives come to Washington as the middle class..

Within a few years, they are millionaires...

It's not the pay that makes them that way.. It's all the legal bribes that make them that way..

I am with CW..

Cut their pay...

Michale.....

Back in the day, Congresscritters moved to Washington and kept their primary residence in the district. They moved their whole families, and their kids went to school in DC.

Now, they feel entitled to have two homes. That's not my problem. They can't rent an apartment in one place or the other, on $175K a year? My heart bleeds...

dsws -

See above. It isn't "required" for the job, and it certainly didn't used to be. Some freshmen tea partiers came to DC in 2010 vowing to sleep on cots in their office. They have a gym with full shower facilities (as a perk), so what's the problem? Wonder how many of them are still doing so...

On $175K a year, I could keep up a primary residence AND an apartment. When Congress hiked their pay through the roof a few decades ago, this was the explanation they gave: they were instituting such tight ethics restrictions on what they were allowed to accept from lobbyists and the like that they needed a princely sum each year to avoid the taint of all that filthy money. From where I sit, they now have both -- the filthy money, AND the salary which places them in the top 5% of all American workers. My "BS-o-meter" is ringing off the scale, sorry.

-CW

By taking away the pay for congress, you don't hurt the standing congresspeople they ALREADY are rich. You only hurt those who might actually need the $$$.

That's pretty much what I was going to say. I'll just add that maintaining two homes (one in DC and one in the home state) is required for the job, and housing in DC isn't cheap. And that as long as there's a Congress there will always be congressional staff: the only question is whether the staff will be on our payroll or the lobbyists'.

By taking away the pay for congress, you don't hurt the standing congresspeople they ALREADY are rich. You only hurt those who might actually need the $$$.

Like Anne Richards, who famously ran for Texas Governor rather than State Treasurer because it paid more.