#occupywallstreet Or Bourbonstreet Or Sesamestreet

[CaneBrain 95]

Uh... yeah. If you said, here are two people, one of them born in the US, the other not. One is a regular guy, loves the US, stays out of trouble. The other hangs out with anti-American radicals and hates the American system of free enterprise. Which one do you think was born outside the US?So yeah, if I were a conspiracy nut, his anti-American past would be high on the list of reasons to believe he was born outside the US.AGAIN NOTE: I think birthers are crazy, I'm pointing out why your logic is flawed, not why birthers are correct.

it's your logic that is screwy. You and Zealous are providing lots of reasons to distrust Obama but still not one reason to distrust Hawaii, the former GOP governor of Hawaii, the current Democrat governor of Hawaii, the US Dept of State, et cetera. The logic that citizenship derives from personal beliefs is so ****ing stupid that I'm losing respect for you which saddens me greatly. Citizenship rests solely on provable facts determined by outside bodies (in this case the state of Hawaii and the US Dept of State). It has zero to do with anything else. And that's GRANTING you all this nonsense about Obama hating free markets and palling around with terrorists.I mean this is a summary judgment issue. Even if for the sake of argument I grant everything you and Zealous have said, it still doesn't amount to ANY evidence that Hawaii or the Dept of State helped foster a 50 year conspiracy.The fact that you think any of this impacts the birther movement is hilarious while condemning my logic. The fact that you keep comparing something 50 percent of GOP voters believed to something that has been extremely isolated is even more hilarious.And in response to the other posts, I'm not being dishonest, I am perfectly happy to admit I can't prove birthers are racist. It's just when you examine the arguments, they are all either racist, xenophobic or stupid. If you want me to say it's possible 50% of the GOP was just being really, really stupid, I'm fine with that.

[hblask 1]

it's your logic that is screwy. You and Zealous are providing lots of reasons to distrust Obama but still not one reason to distrust Hawaii, the former GOP governor of Hawaii, the current Democrat governor of Hawaii, the US Dept of State, et cetera. The logic that citizenship derives from personal beliefs is so ****ing stupid that I'm losing respect for you which saddens me greatly. Citizenship rests solely on provable facts determined by outside bodies (in this case the state of Hawaii and the US Dept of State). It has zero to do with anything else. And that's GRANTING you all this nonsense about Obama hating free markets and palling around with terrorists.I mean this is a summary judgment issue. Even if for the sake of argument I grant everything you and Zealous have said, it still doesn't amount to ANY evidence that Hawaii or the Dept of State helped foster a 50 year conspiracy.The fact that you think any of this impacts the birther movement is hilarious while condemning my logic. The fact that you keep comparing something 50 percent of GOP voters believed to something that has been extremely isolated is even more hilarious.And in response to the other posts, I'm not being dishonest, I am perfectly happy to admit I can't prove birthers are racist. It's just when you examine the arguments, they are all either racist, xenophobic or stupid. If you want me to say it's possible 50% of the GOP was just being really, really stupid, I'm fine with that.

I can't explain why the birthers think like they do; but I can't explain why people who are protesting bailouts are protesting the recipients instead of the people who controlled the money, or why banker bailouts are bad but auto bailouts are good, or why they think because the past bailouts failed that they (the protestors) should be bailed out. Lots of people are stupid; that's a different question than racist.50% of GOP believed birthers; a poll at the same time showed MORE Democrats believed in the truther crap -- an equally stupid theory.So, is your logic consistent or not? If it is, show it; if not, at least admit your beliefs are immune to facts.

[CaneBrain 95]

I can't explain why the birthers think like they do; but I can't explain why people who are protesting bailouts are protesting the recipients instead of the people who controlled the money, or why banker bailouts are bad but auto bailouts are good, or why they think because the past bailouts failed that they (the protestors) should be bailed out. Lots of people are stupid; that's a different question than racist.50% of GOP believed birthers; a poll at the same time showed MORE Democrats believed in the truther crap -- an equally stupid theory.So, is your logic consistent or not? If it is, show it; if not, at least admit your beliefs are immune to facts.

If your point is OWS people might also be stupid or incoherent or inconsistent, that's fine.But, I'm not backing off the idea that the birther movement was based on racism/xenophobia or stupidity and that it encompassed WAY WAY more people than the few lone anti-semites you have cited at OWS rallies. I really don't think they are comparable situations. The Birther movement was a widespread thing that actually put Donald effing Trump at the top of the polls for a week.I've never seen a poll that said 50% of Democrats voters believed 9/11 was a hoax. If you link me to that poll and it is a real poll, I will be the first to say "wow, that's incredibly disappointing and those people are stupid."I think I already made it clear that it was unfair to say birthers can only be explained by racism when responding to Dread a while back. Stupidity is definitely valid. But, I will not go along with the idea that the birther movement was at any point based on anything "reasonable."

[brvheart 1,752]

I checked out the OWS-Lincoln on halloween while waiting for a movie to start, and I have to say that I was shocked at how old the OWS'ers are. Like, it's been portrayed as an angry student movement in the media, and maybe it is, but most of the people I saw in Lincoln were 30+, and honestly most of them looked like vagrants. That could be the product of living in a camp for a month, but I really think that most of the "demonstrators" are just homeless people who are using the OWS as an excuse to make their camps brazenly in public and have food brought to them. And I can't hate their game, seems like a smart play for a homeless guy.

95% of the protesters on the Iowa State campus were older than 40, most with gray hair and Mao hats.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

I can't explain why the birthers think like they do; but I can't explain why people who are protesting bailouts are protesting the recipients instead of the people who controlled the money, or why banker bailouts are bad but auto bailouts are good, or why they think because the past bailouts failed that they (the protestors) should be bailed out. Lots of people are stupid; that's a different question than racist.50% of GOP believed birthers; a poll at the same time showed MORE Democrats believed in the truther crap -- an equally stupid theory.So, is your logic consistent or not? If it is, show it; if not, at least admit your beliefs are immune to facts.

http://periodicals.faqs.org/201101/2274226211.html

This paper reports on a study of members in a group that advocates 9/11 conspiracy. It examined members who demonstrated different levels of commitment to the belief. A low commitment group was marginally involved in promoting the idea, having only joined a Facebook group A high commitment group, on the other hand, was composed of members involved in a public demonstration of this belief. Despite the differences in their level of commitment to the idea, both groups were very similar in composition. Both groups were overwhelmingly young males. The low commitment group contained many marginally employed members. Members with better jobs seemed to be drifting away. The highly committed group contained more well-educated members and, in this group, drifting away seemed connected to growing family commitments. It is not clear from this analysis if education levels reflect characteristics of believers in 9/11 conspiracies or differences between followers and their leadership. Both groups were largely affiliated with a formalized organization that has a name (We Are Change) and leadership positions with titles. The deeper involvement of a more educated group may be a result of qualification and preparation for leadership roles. More significant results pertained to political affiliations. Earlier research on 9/11 conspiracies described the belief as appealing to supporters of the Democratic Party. In addition, discussions I have seen on such venues as the James Randi Educational Foundation Forum describe 9/11 conspiracy as a non-partisan issue with no specific appeal to either the left or right. This was not confirmed by my samples. The individuals surveyed here were overwhelmingly involved in right-wing politics, particularly with Ron Paul, the Constitution Party and the Libertarian Party. What has happened to Democrats and other left-wing proponents of 9/11 conspiracies? Several contacts who read earlier drafts of this manuscript suggested they are still around but belong to other 9/11 conspiracy groups, such as Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth10 and thus were not counted in my study. While this is possible, another explanation seems more likely. Democratic and left-wing supporters have generally lost interest or even forgotten their commitment to 9/11 conspiracies now that Barack Obama is in the White House. Many prominent Hollywood personalities were among the most vocal of the original voices challenging government explanations for the events of September 11. For example, Barbara Streisand and particularly her husband Josh Brolin11, as well as Sean Penn12 and Michael Moore13 are all on record as doubting official explanations for the 9/11 attacks originating from the Bush Administration. Despite their vocal opposition, I have been unable to find any statements made by them about 9/11 since the 2008 Presidential election. There are other reasons to believe the left has become inconsequential to 9/11 conspiracy groups. We Are Change appears to be the only 9/11 conspiracy organization able to mount significant public demonstrations. Increasingly individuals interested in speaking on this topic must align themselves with WAC to attract an audience. Outside of Hollywood, only a few prominent left-wing figures that have built reputations around the concept of a 9/11 conspiracy seem unwilling to give it up. They can now be found speaking at WAC sponsored events. Sander Hicks14, Cynthia McKinney15 and Cindy Sheehan16 are among the prominent left-wing supporters of a 9/11 conspiracy who remain vocal. The last two spoke at the 9/11 memorial organized by WAC in 2010. Sander Hick's recent attempt to inaugurate a new political party based around a 9/11 conspiracy claims was attended by prominent members of We Are Change, and the party's website states the event was co-hosted by the group. 17 Much of the confusion found among observers of the 9/11 conspiracy movement about the political affiliation of its members may stem from the fact that movement members have an orientation that falls outside the traditional two party political structure of the United States. None of those surveyed in this study, either in the high the low commitment group, reported affiliation with either of the major parties. Many reported seeing little difference between the two because both were seen as clearly involved in the secretive New World Order and subsequently the government conspiracy that destroyed the World Trade Center buildings. As such, it may be difficult for some to accurately label the situation. Those involved with 9/11 conspiracy beliefs, however, identify with labels and personalities that clearly affiliate them as right-wing. The patterns found in this data do not support the contention that affiliation with the Democratic Party predicts belief in 9/11 conspiracy theories. While it is understandable that Democrats could have supported a conspiracy theory that placed a Republican president at the center, with the election of a Democratic president, a 9/11 conspiracy has disappeared as an important issue for all but the most committed. Even relatively low commitment to 9/11 conspiracy theories is associated with affiliations to groups and individuals with extreme right-wing political beliefs. Greater commitment found a correspondingly larger affiliation to these ideas with no meaningful exception to this pattern. It would appear that patterns of belief in 9/11 conspiracies have changed dramatically with the changing political landscape of America, and now belief is localized almost exclusively among right-wing supporters of parties and personalities outside traditional bipartisan politics.

Read more: http://periodicals.faqs.org/201101/2274226...l#ixzz1cViAcloZ

[CaneBrain 95]

yeah, that claim by Henry seems specious. It took me two seconds to find this:http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington...-in-hawaii.htmlok I did find this: http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/republica...e-911-truthers/that's not quite as strong as believing America was behind 9/11 but it does suggest that Dems thought Bush might have let it happen as a pretext for an oil war. God, we are a stupid country.

[hblask 1]

If your point is OWS people might also be stupid or incoherent or inconsistent, that's fine.But, I'm not backing off the idea that the birther movement was based on racism/xenophobia or stupidity and that it encompassed WAY WAY more people than the few lone anti-semites you have cited at OWS rallies. I really don't think they are comparable situations. The Birther movement was a widespread thing that actually put Donald effing Trump at the top of the polls for a week.I've never seen a poll that said 50% of Democrats voters believed 9/11 was a hoax. If you link me to that poll and it is a real poll, I will be the first to say "wow, that's incredibly disappointing and those people are stupid."I think I already made it clear that it was unfair to say birthers can only be explained by racism when responding to Dread a while back. Stupidity is definitely valid. But, I will not go along with the idea that the birther movement was at any point based on anything "reasonable."

More truthers among Dems than birthers among RepublicansLink to the pollSo, let the insults of the Dems begin. Be sure to throw in racism, considering the Dems long and current history of racism.

[CaneBrain 95]

More truthers among Dems than birthers among RepublicansLink to the pollSo, let the insults of the Dems begin. Be sure to throw in racism, considering the Dems long and current history of racism.

see above. Also, truthers believe America actually did 9/11 not let it happen. And this is clearly a case of stupidity, not racism. And it's one poll, not countless polls.But yeah, this is sad.

[hblask 1]

Look, it's working already!

New data from the University of Chicago’s Steven Kaplan shows that, despite government bailouts, in 2008 and 2009 the adjusted gross income of the top 1 percent—a disproportionate number of whom work in the financial industry—fell to 1997 levels. All in all, the fat cats took a 20 percent income hit, compared with the 7 percent lower earners suffered in the aggregate. Few economists believe that the super-rich will ever reclaim all their pre-bubble earnings.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

More truthers among Dems than birthers among Republicans

You can't trust that article since it came from Politico that noted biased website that broke the Herman Cain story. Oh nevermind.

[CaneBrain 95]

You can't trust that article since it came from Politico that noted biased website that broke the Herman Cain story. Oh nevermind.

ha.

[Zealous Donkey 0]

If your point is OWS people might also be stupid or incoherent or inconsistent, that's fine.But, I'm not backing off the idea that the birther movement was based on racism/xenophobia or stupidity and that it encompassed WAY WAY more people than the few lone anti-semites you have cited at OWS rallies. I really don't think they are comparable situations. The Birther movement was a widespread thing that actually put Donald effing Trump at the top of the polls for a week.I've never seen a poll that said 50% of Democrats voters believed 9/11 was a hoax. If you link me to that poll and it is a real poll, I will be the first to say "wow, that's incredibly disappointing and those people are stupid."I think I already made it clear that it was unfair to say birthers can only be explained by racism when responding to Dread a while back. Stupidity is definitely valid. But, I will not go along with the idea that the birther movement was at any point based on anything "reasonable."

Well I was responding to the claim that the birther movement was racist. I don't think a lot the people polled fall into the catagory of stupid, the hard core leaders of the movement definately were some sort of conspiricy nuts, but I am defending those polled. You can say they were uninformed or that they were unduly influenced by the right leaning websites, blogs, though none of the right leaning blogs I read ever gave any credence to the birther movement. In fact some of them apparently agree with me, that, at least those pushing the movement were crazy conspiricy nuts.

[Zealous Donkey 0]

You can't trust that article since it came from Politico that noted biased website that broke the Herman Cain story. Oh nevermind.

Hey LLY even said they were lefty. I actuallly critisized them because they claim to be mainsteam even though a bunch of them were involved in the journolist scandal. If they would admit to being left wing propadanda tool, I wouldn't have a problem with the hit piece, it is just business as usual.

[Zealous Donkey 0]

It is human nature to beleive the worst about those you don't trust or don't like. I don't think stupidity plays as big a part as you do Cain, but I agree, that kind of thinking is not healthy and helps add to the toxic political discourse we now have in this country.

[AmScray 355]

In retirement, Hayes was troubled by the disparity between the rich and the poor, saying in an 1886 speech that "free government cannot long endure if property is largely in a few hands and large masses of people are unable to earn homes, education, and a support in old age."[192] The following year, Hayes recorded his thoughts on that subject in his diary: "In church it occurred to me that it is time for the public to hear that the giant evil and danger in this country, the danger which transcends all others, is the vast wealth owned or controlled by a few persons. Money is power. In Congress, in state legislatures, in city councils, in the courts, in the political conventions, in the press, in the pulpit, in the circles of the educated and the talented, its influence is growing greater and greater. Excessive wealth in the hands of the few means extreme poverty, ignorance, vice, and wretchedness as the lot of the many. It is not yet time to debate about the remedy. The previous question is as to the danger—the evil. Let the people be fully informed and convinced as to the evil. Let them earnestly seek the remedy and it will be found. Fully to know the evil is the first step towards reaching its eradication. Henry George is strong when he portrays the rottenness of the present system. We are, to say the least, not yet ready for his remedy. We may reach and remove the difficulty by changes in the laws regulating corporations, descents of property, wills, trusts, taxation, and a host of other important interests, not omitting lands and other property."

[mrdannyg 274]

I checked out the OWS-Lincoln on halloween while waiting for a movie to start, and I have to say that I was shocked at how old the OWS'ers are. Like, it's been portrayed as an angry student movement in the media, and maybe it is, but most of the people I saw in Lincoln were 30+, and honestly most of them looked like vagrants. That could be the product of living in a camp for a month, but I really think that most of the "demonstrators" are just homeless people who are using the OWS as an excuse to make their camps brazenly in public and have food brought to them. And I can't hate their game, seems like a smart play for a homeless guy.

If you go when it is really cold or raining, the only people at our local OWS is the homeless. In decent weather, it is full of students and other people.I also do not fault one bit any homeless guys taking advantage of this.

see above. Also, truthers believe America actually did 9/11 not let it happen. And this is clearly a case of stupidity, not racism. And it's one poll, not countless polls.But yeah, this is sad.

It could be argued that it is racist against rich white Texans.I'm taking a step back from posting on the politics forum (I know, will be missed). Good discussion on the last page from almost everyone. 5 points each to Cane and HB.

[SilentSnow 1]

I will never bring up media bias again in these forums if you will admit that almost all of the main stream media(I would be glad to get more specific) selectively run stories that are slanted(very much so) to put forth their own agenda which is pretty much in lockstep with the far left views of the democratic party.

Lol. Your extreme ideology guarantees that you would think this way. Let's suppose for arguments sake that the truth lies in the middle(it doesn't) and the media is completely unbiased. It's pretty safe to say that you are on the extreme right end of American politics. Just about everything you see would be to the left of your opinions. But this doesn't remotely mean that the media is biased- it just means that your viewpoint is an extreme one. Because of your extreme viewpoint bias your claims of media bias are extraordinarily weak. If you want to convince us that your extreme views are correct, then you will have to give specifically quantifiable facts that show your positions are correct. Any nebulous claims about conspiracies or bias will just work against you since the reason why you would incorrectly believe them is so obvious.As for the general discussion over the last few pages, it isn't productive since people are just talking past each other and using far too many vague assertions. Two good ways to solve this--First find a point that you both agree on. If you don't do this, then the discussion usually is nonproductive. -Talk about specific and verifiable facts. People's opinion about what a fact is varies, but a claim that isn't at all verifiable is usually pointless.

[Balloon guy 158]

Lol. Your extreme ideology guarantees that you would think this way. Let's suppose for arguments sake that the truth lies in the middle(it doesn't) and the media is completely unbiased. It's pretty safe to say that you are on the extreme right end of American politics. Just about everything you see would be to the left of your opinions. But this doesn't remotely mean that the media is biased- it just means that your viewpoint is an extreme one. Because of your extreme viewpoint bias your claims of media bias are extraordinarily weak. If you want to convince us that your extreme views are correct, then you will have to give specifically quantifiable facts that show your positions are correct. Any nebulous claims about conspiracies or bias will just work against you since the reason why you would incorrectly believe them is so obvious.

Attempts at logic require reality to establish credibilityWe could do this all dayBut somehow, I don't think it will matter

[SilentSnow 1]

Attempts at logic require reality to establish credibilityWe could do this all dayBut somehow, I don't think it will matter

Even if this study were correct, then it doesn't prove what you think it does. You could just as easily claim that congress is conservative, as shown by it's voting patterns over the last 30 years. Besides, I don't believe that the majority determines truth. Even if the media really were "liberal", it's quite possible that they are perceived to be liberal because they correctly point out facts in an unbiased way that the majority of "conservative" Americans ignore. Also, not to go too ad hominem on that professor, but when you make an absurd claim such as "Without liberal media bias, “the average American voter would start thinking and voting about like the average Texan voter.” then I think it's justifiable to question the veracity of his study.

[Balloon guy 158]

Yea, I knew it was a waste of time.Liberals cannot accept reality no matter how slowly you spell it out for them.but thanks for admitting that the majority of this country is conservative, it shows how your ideas are not believed by most.

[SilentSnow 1]

Yea, I knew it was a waste of time.Liberals cannot accept reality no matter how slowly you spell it out for them.but thanks for admitting that the majority of this country is conservative, it shows how your ideas are not believed by most.

Obviously it's pointless to argue with your non-responses. But just for the record, I don't agree that the majority of this country is conservative. On some issues the majority of Americans are conservative. On these issues they usually get their way. On some issues the majority of Americans are liberal. On these issues they rarely get their way since our government has been corrupted to favor conservative interests.

[CaneBrain 95]

Yea, I knew it was a waste of time.Liberals cannot accept reality no matter how slowly you spell it out for them.but thanks for admitting that the majority of this country is conservative, it shows how your ideas are not believed by most.

from the third link: Without liberal media bias, “the average American voter would start thinking and voting about like the average Texan voter.” 'the slanted columnist for the National Review concluded : 'if only.'My reaction: "thank god for the media."Oh, and the majority of this country won't be conservative by 2030. Enjoy it while you can, old man.

[akoff 0]

from the third link: Without liberal media bias, “the average American voter would start thinking and voting about like the average Texan voter.” 'the slanted columnist for the National Review concluded : 'if only.'My reaction: "thank god for the media."Oh, and the majority of this country won't be conservative by 2030. Enjoy it while you can, old man.

i will have been long retired by 2030 and laughing about stupid you guys are...the cycle never stops. hell by 2030 you may realize how silly you are and have become a conservative!!What is the old line if you are young and not a liberal you don't have a heart, if you are old and not consevervative you don't have brain? something like that and i know you have a brain!

[brvheart 1,752]

SILENT SNOW IS BACK!!! YEAH!

[CaneBrain 95]

i will have been long retired by 2030 and laughing about stupid you guys are...the cycle never stops. hell by 2030 you may realize how silly you are and have become a conservative!!What is the old line if you are young and not a liberal you don't have a heart, if you are old and not consevervative you don't have brain? something like that and i know you have a brain!

Yes, a wonderful line, bravo. I'm really more talking about the shifting demographics of our country.