ThePlayDrive
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2011
- Messages
- 19,610
- Reaction score
- 7,647
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Meh, I wouldn't say that W.E.B. DuBois or Angela Davis "sucked", but even if they did, the point still remains that a movement does not become less legitimate simply because communists are involved.that's true, there were Commies in the CRM... and they sucked then too.
Meh, I wouldn't say that W.E.B. DuBois or Angela Davis "sucked", but even if they did, the point still remains that a movement does not become less legitimate simply because communists are involved.
So do you think it's valid opinion that Civil Rights movement was illegitimate because communists were a part of it?to some folks it doesn't become less legitimate... to others, it does.
to some folks it doesn't become less legitimate... to others, it does.
#38 still skipped and ignored by Cons.
I wouldn't wait for a rational response to this post from conservatives/libertarians. It ain't gonna happen.
#38 still skipped and ignored by Cons.
Also my post at #41. I wish I'd put some money on that.
So do you think it's valid opinion that Civil Rights movement was illegitimate because communists were a part of it?
Oh yeah? Well, I'm rubber and you're glue.... :2razz:
There, I've replied to post 38 with all the seriousness and comtemplation as that post warranted.
Let's put it this way. Just because you have communists in your movement doesn't make your cause any less just or legitimate. If people think OWS or the civil rights movement don't have a legitimate message, that's on them. Just like the Tea Party's message about government spending and waste isn't irrelevant just because there's some idiots with racist signs at tea party rallies.
it's a personal decision whether or not to assign more or less legitimacy to a movement based on it's participants... people have every right to decide for themselves whether commies in the midst cheapen the movement... or even Conservatives in the midst.. or whatever.
FWIW, I don't associate myself with the Tea Party or the OWS... primarily because of their participants... i think they are both chock full of people I can only describe as .. nucking futs.
populist emotions don't move me.
So, you're okay with moral hazard, bailing out failed business institutions, but people who think their entitled to a bail-out..excuse me, hand-out...are garbage?
Sure, it's a personal decision. But saying "That movement's message is full of **** because they have commies in their midst" isn't a sound argument, is the point.
Go back and look at post 38 (I quoted it in my post) and tell me what about it specifically should be answered. I didn't call anyone 'garbage' but I do think people should work to advance themselves rather than count on the government. I also believe that businesses that cannot compete should fail, like Solyndra for example.
Wait, wait, wait... Hold it AC.
It would seem some people think the country owes them a bail-out.
The winners, the job-creators, ran the system into the ground and then blackmailed the treasury into giving them money to pay off bad debts $1:1.
Too big to fail? Please tell me the ultra-conservative memory isn't that short....
Those really successful people at AIG, Leman Bros, GM, Chrysler...
Wait, wait, wait... Hold it AC.
It would seem some people think the country owes them a bail-out.
The winners, the job-creators, ran the system into the ground and then blackmailed the treasury into giving them money to pay off bad debts $1:1.
Too big to fail? Please tell me the ultra-conservative memory isn't that short....
Those really successful people at AIG, Leman Bros, GM, Chrysler...
We just found out the treasury has secretly continued giving banks loans at 0.01%...
I wouldn't wait for a rational response to this post from conservatives/libertarians. It ain't gonna happen.
#38 still skipped and ignored by Cons.
Wait, wait, wait... Hold it AC.
It would seem some people think the country owes them a bail-out.
The winners, the job-creators, ran the system into the ground and then blackmailed the treasury into giving them money to pay off bad debts $1:1.
Too big to fail? Please tell me the ultra-conservative memory isn't that short....
Those really successful people at AIG, Leman Bros, GM, Chrysler...
We just found out the treasury has secretly continued giving banks loans at 0.01%...
I don't get it...#38 was not your post???? There was no question in #38. And further what is the question in #37? Too big to fail? If so what year did this bank bail-out occur?...2008? Who writes the checks? Congress? And which party held the majority in Congress in that year?
Ending child labor: "self entitled monsters"
Women can vote: "self entitled monsters"
Civil rights for blacks: "self entitled monsters"
Didn't the democrats vote against the civil rights bill? just sayin....
I'm thinking you are confused.
OWS Argument: I deserve a Bailout
Conservative Argument: No One deserves a Bailout.
Hazlnut, a two legged retarded turtle is quicker than you. I've been trying get you to figure out that post 38 is not the one you think it is. I believe it's post 37 that you think is your masterpiece.To dodge with a snide remark is not to answer.
You did not answer. You avoided and hid from the post like many in this thread.
What about business that over leverage themselves and then can't pay their debts?
Should they be allowed to fail?
Who exactly? People with underwater mortgages? Students with $100k in debt? Please be more clear on who thinks the country owes them a bail-out.
Gross oversimplification. Plenty of "winners, job-creators" who had nothing to do with the 2008 financial crisis. Blackmailed the treasury? Banks were forced to take TARP funds even though many of them opposed it.
Non-sequitur? You're losing coherence fast.
Sure, plenty of successful people at all of those companies. Plenty of incompetent people as well.
Treasury had nothing to do with these loans. It's call the Federal Reserve. Kind of a big difference.
A ton of money-wealth was transferred upward so that over-leveraged businesses could pay off debt. Self-centered monsters?
2010, who took over the house?... After we bailed them out, they continue to make huge profits… Because rolling back taxes to Clinton era rates (you know, when we had tremendous growth) would hurt small businesses??
The bulk of the 2010 New Kids economic platform has been debunked and deboned by economists, fact-checkers, and the CBO. But they still persist. The wealthiest 1% is still untouchable.
Again, the funds were mostly paid back with interest.Those who paid themselves bonus compensation from Treasury funds.
The OWS protestor who wants a lot of the same things the Tea Party protestor wants -- accountability, no bail-outs, no moral hazard, no free lunches... Why are the OWS protestors the monsters?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?