Are we watching the start of a revolution that will rival the civil war?

[TwixVoy]

If you have read the history of King George III you will likely be reminded of something he once wrote.

"Nothing happened today"

The date on the top of that page was July 4th 1776. The American revolution had started. He was so out of touch with the common person he had no clue how bad things had gotten.

I am also reminded of King Louis XVI who on July 14th 1789 also wrote in his diary that nothing of interest had happened that day. The Bastille was stormed that day. Again, a person so out of touch he was completely unaware a revolution was about to occur and the mob would soon have him executed.

Do I think we are looking at an imminent revolution in the united states? No I do not.

However, just because things may be going well with you and I does not mean they are going well for many of our fellow citizens. Our country is now built on a premise that corporations absolutely WILL NOT increase wages. You are expected to be paid slave wages, and make up the difference by borrowing from the bankers. All the while the corporations send the real money to the top 1%.

This is not a system that can continue. The media tells us the solution is to un-freeze the consumer credit markets. Why? So people can borrow more money to live? People have already borrowed to the max. That is why the system has started to break apart. To make matters worse with bankruptcy reform having passed a few years ago now many people can not even restart to process of borrowing again.

The REAL solution is to create jobs - jobs that produce things that pay living wages. This is NOT happening. There are no plans in place to do this. The only plans are to throw money at the banks and pray to god they will lend to the same people who can not pay the bills as it is.

Ask your self this. Do you believe corporations will bring back manufacturing jobs? Do you believe they will cut executive pay and pass on higher wages to the average worker? If you are realistic enough to know the answer to that question is NO then how can you believe we are looking at anything less than a very angry, very poor population coming down the pipe?

These tea parties may be a sign that people are getting restless. Let's be honest. Americans don't like to get off their ass and protest anything anymore. The mere fact these protests occured even in small numbers is telling. As more and more jobs are lost and more people become either unemployed or "under employed" (making far less than they need to survive and/or not getting full time work) what will be the end result? The corporations are NOT going to do the right thing on their own I can tell you that much.... and the executives at these corporations are so completely out of touch like our two kings above they likely have no clue what is building up.

What these tea party protests show us is that their is a growing number of poor people who don't understand fully what is going on and are VERY angry. That is never a good combination.

So now the market is up and the media says things are great. Why? Because the banks are showing a profit of course! They damn well better be when the tax payer is shoving cash up their ass. Is there anyone who would NOT be showing a profit in such a situation?

So, the market doesn't care that we continue to bleed jobs. People continue to have trouble paying daily expenses in large numbers.

I wonder what shape the country will be in over the 1-3 years. It will be very interesting to see.

[TheKentuckian]

1. I'd give the thought more credence if the protesters weren't mostly

the same morans that put the foxes in charge of the hen house repeatedly. A revolution with an end game of putting the same folks that just screwed everything up for a generation + is a doomed waste of energy. 90+ percent of this is outrage that the brown shirts are out of power.

[Pale Blue Dot]

3. The American people can be fooled.

Especially if they're feeling helpless and scared.

History has shown us this time and time again.

[Ex Lurker]

9. As bad as things, are, "Most" people still have jobs

"most" people are still in their homes and have no real risk of losing them. Things would have to get a lot worse before there's even a remote chance of some kind of insurrection. Rasmussen polled Texans this week and 75% were against secession, despite the usual suspects trying to drum up support for it.

[originalpckelly]

20. Secession is SO 1860.

Look at Lebanon or Israel, that's how these nuts will fuck it up.

Those jobs are shitty jobs, not good ones making shit.

[roguevalley]

87. 250k people. if it was 23.5 million I would be worried.

[originalpckelly]

16. South America called, they want their political discourse back.

That's what happens down there, unfortunately. I have only a passing understanding, I don't live there. However, it seems that people just never learn from history.

They will literally have revolutions to put the same old fuckers back in charge. Don't underestimate the power of people who blindly follow someone and are enraged. Some of these people think George Bush was selected by God to be President. When you get into messing with religion, you start getting into reasons people will kill themselves for nothing.

This is not at all hypothetical, they are already starting violence. Just look at the RW nut who killed those Detroit PD officers. That's the kind of shit that's going to happen.

Today when people have revolutions, they do not line up on a battlefield like sitting ducks, they blow things up and kill unarmed civilians.

Either that, or they go the peaceful non-violent route.

Do you think the Republicans are non-violent? I don't think so.

[Stellabella]

19. Republicans are very violent. The loudmouths on radio are fomenting violence.

They're always talking about killing, and guns, and shooting people, and armed revolt. Since their pea-sized brains aren't capable of much thought, they swallow what they're told by the lowest of the low. I'm really scared for prominent people in this country.

[originalpckelly]

21. Fuck that shit, I'm scared for the rest of us.

At least the prominent people have security guards, we're stuck actually going places that are soft targets. If just one of these people attacks a mall, they could take out tons of people.

All they need is 19 guys to figure out how to kill people en masse like 9/11, and they will have fucked this country permanently. In a world like ours, it is unfortunately possible for a small group of psychos to kill a lot of people.

Can you imagine the shit that would happen in response to that? Look at what 9/11 did. Only make it actual Americans, people with an America oriented political philosophy.

We must cut this shit off at the pass before it even happens, to do otherwise is to invite totalitarianism in for dinner, and it's going to stay a while. This government is hanging on by a thread already, it would be so fucked up if they do this shit.

[Stellabella]

39. I know.

It's just sick. But I am scared for President Obama.

[Retired AF Dem]

31. Links?

[tabasco]

37. You're either deaf and blind or on the wrong site.

http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2008/04/isnt-there-law-against-advocating.html

http://digg.com/d1oBJN

http://wallack.us/2009/03/seditious-words-from-republican-who.html

http://justanothercoverup.com/?p=600

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/4/8/717716/-Compendium-of-Right-Wing-Websites

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/bomb_obama.php

I think you're on the wrong site. Get a life.

[Stellabella]

38. Huh? Just listen to talk radio.

[Retired AF Dem]

71. I have and I have never heard

"They're always talking about killing, and guns, and shooting people, and armed revolt." Shit if they did it would be the end of the problem, they would be jailed.

[Stellabella]

75. Oh really? You're not listening closely enough.

How about Ann Coulter saying she wished the NYT building had been bombed instead of the Murray building in OK?

How about Glenn Beck predicting an armed revolution?

How about teabaggers proclaiming 'there's nothing better than a dead liberal'?

http://rackjite.com/archives/44-The-Only-Good-Liberal-is-a-Dead-Liberal.html

That's just a very very small sample off the top of my head.

And for God's sake, read the other reply to you. There are excellent examples of repukes calling for liberals being killed.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/4/8/717716/-Compendium-of-Right-Wing-Websites

[geek tragedy]

2. Tea Parties=Sarah Palin supporter reunions. n/t

[stuntcat]

24. ^^ this here! EXACTLY

shit-brain get-togethers

[Deja Q]

4. No, but we're hoping the people in the peoples' republic of Texas would get laid more often.

:shrug:

[Mz Pip]

5. Nah,

real revolutionaries don't whine about forgetting to get a permit to dump their tea bags. Real revolutionaries don't use a back up plan of taking them to the 12 floor of a willing participants office building and dropping them off there.

Real revolutionaries are not wusses. These idiots are just riled up because their guy lost. They had their day of stomping around and will crawl back under their rocks.

[CJCRANE]

6. Bush had a disapproval rating of 75%.

Nothing happened.

[emulatorloo]

7. OFF TOPIC: It is always interesting to note that Obama has a disapproval rating of 25%

The same 25% that thought Bush was soooooooo damnnnnn great at the end of his term. You may know them as "tea baggers".

[originalpckelly]

18. That's because the people who opposed Bush are non-violent.

I know I thought he was a douchebag and I'm committed to non-violence. I don't think I'm alone. The progressive cause has more than its fair share of non-violent types. This is probably the reason nothing happened in reverse.

[inwiththenew]

46. What was Clinton's approval rating?

Didn't stop McVeigh. I don't think we will have a revolution, but you could still have the lunatics who try to start something or strike at the government like McVeigh.

[comrade snarky]

82. I agree, I'm not concerned with a revolution

But I am worried about what some of the dead-enders will do when the revolution they want doesn't happen.

The Oklahoma bombing was supposed to start the fight. Sadly I expect to see more of that.

[Ex Lurker]

8. News of the Declaration wouldn't have reached Engladn for 3 months n/t

[TwixVoy]

10. Very true

but it was obviously coming LONG before then. Anyone who wasn't completely out of touch would have seen it coming at least a year ahead of time.

[Occam Bandage]

41. The problems with the American colonies had been slowly but exponentially growing for decades.

George was convinced, with some degree of justification, that a mixture of diplomacy and harsh retribution for lawbreaking would force the colonials back in line. The American Revolution was by no means inevitable, even in 1773. It was only through shockingly incompetent handling of Colonial affairs, beginning with the French and Indian war and sustained throughout the remainder of century, that Britain managed to lose her colonies.

[elocs]

27. Oh, picky, picky, picky. But true.

How easy it is to have perfect historical 20/20 hindsight and insight. It's quite easy to say now exactly what should have been done in 1776.

[walldude]

11. You can't revolt against a legally elected democratic government.

You can become... insurgents. Let the freepers call themselves that.

[originalpckelly]

17. One person's legally elected government is another's dictatorship.

What about those electronic voting machines? Did they just magically become trustworthy?

If people on DU accused Bush of fixing the election because of e-voting, then the opposite seems plausible, that the other side will de-legitimatize the results via questioning whether or not the voting machines were accurate.

If they can do that, they can get their fanatical followers to believe it, that's not good.

Once the door is open to those kinds of claims, then the shit hits the fan.

Pandora called, she wants to know why we keep opening up her fucking box.

[che man]

44. got news for you - the e-voting machines are rigged already

they could not pull it off this time due to the overwhelming
difference in the polls and we would have smelt a rat

[Occam Bandage]

47. They matched the pre-election phone polls exactly in 2002, 2004, 2006, and 2008.

I'm not really seeing evidence for "rigging."

[rhett o rick]

34. Our founding fathers were insurgents. If good enough for them, good enough for me. nm

[Occam Bandage]

42. They also strongly believed that no right to rebellion existed within a representative government.

All of the Founding Fathers endorsed a quick and bloody end to both the Whiskey Rebellion and Shays' Rebellion.

[rhett o rick]

74. Agree but they also rationalized that their government, which claimed to represent them,

didn't. We can again make that claim.

[Occam Bandage]

76. They "rationalized" it because it quite literally did not. They did not have representation

in parliament. We do have representation now. It may well be that you yourself do not find your ideas represented; that is natural and acceptable in a representative republic. That only means that you were in the minority in the previous election.

[rhett o rick]

92. Our representation is as good as theirs was. We are not represented by Congress.

The Congress is made up of rich members of the ruling class. Most rarely heed what we want. My two Senators just voted to give the rich a huge tax break. This isn't what their middle class constituents want.

We have a representative government on paper, so did our founding fathers who were represented by the British Parliment.

[Duer 157099]

12. There's still anothe step - moving jobs to prison inmates

I just read another DU thread today about how in Ohio, they plan to replace laid off janitorial workers with INMATE LABOR. Giving union jobs to prison inmates.

So, the goal is to get more people into prison (which, when they have no jobs and no options, isn't hard to do -- either that or the military) and then use the prison (i.e., slave) labor.

Race to the bottom, baby.

[OHdem10]

13. Serioous Commmentators on all Cable News Channels have explained

that these so-called profits at the Banks should be viewed
with skepticism.

Business commentators have pointed out there is some "creative accounting"
going on at the banks.

They do not appear to have learned any lessons from their recent
disaster.

The Media leave themselves open to wide criticism when they just
repeat talking points or spin.

[Hannah Bell]

14. not a great example. how would he instantaneously know the american revolution

started that day? most of america didn't even know.

how fast *was* communication in 1776?

[TwixVoy]

23. Read your American history

No one is saying he should have instantly known. However, it was obvious at least a year before hand the shit was getting out of control. King George had no idea a revolution was even close to happening, when the average person on the street saw it coming well ahead of time.

[Hannah Bell]

25. the complaint is by writing nothing happened today on the day of the revolution

he showed he was out of touch. "Nothing happened today"

The example is specifically about the entry for the day, not some general out of touchness. Not a good example to illustrate out-of-touchness, since no one in england knew.

[Occam Bandage]

45. So, er, you think King George was unaware that a revolution was close to happening in July 1776?

That's funny, because open war had broken out in April 1775, the Battle of Bunker Hill was in June 1775, and in August 1775 King George III issued the Proclamation of Rebellion declaring that the Colonies were now considered to be in a state of "open and avowed rebellion" and no negotiation or compromise could possibly occur with "the traitors."

So I think he had figured it out, yes. In fact, he believed that outright war was inevitable far before the Americans did; there was a considerable and powerful contingent of moderates in the Continental Congress who believed (before the proclamation) that the crisis was one being handled in good faith on both sides, and that the impartial hand of the Crown could draw on cooler heads in London and America to bring about a fair and equitable end to the whole mess.

George was far more "in touch" by your definition than those Americans were: he believed that the American Revolution was at its heart not a political but a military affair, that the differences had become irreconcilable, and that the goals of the Colonials in arms were not their professed aims of expansion of political rights and equality as subjects of the British Crown, but rather that they were fighting for complete, total, and treasonous independence (which they had yet to declare for fear of the hangman's noose). It seems he was right on all counts. Of course, a great part of the reason he was right was that he managed to force the Colonies into the black-and-white, treason-or-submission dichotomy the hardliners on both sides desired; had he believed that the Colonials were earnest in their claims and had he put his full effort towards reasonable and equitable compromise, the American Revolution might have remained a political one, and our national history might read much more like Canada's.

[IDemo]

15. These weren't tea parties, they were whine parties

The 'taxation without (or with?) representation' theme seemed to be almost an afterthought. It was primarily a hate fest against Democrats and Obama.

[Laelth]

22. Um, no.

But it's not fair to pick on George III. No way for news to cross the Atlantic on the very day an event happened in 1776.

:dem:

-Laelth

[burning rain]

26. With the tea partiers....

we are witnessing the birth of a movement that will culminate with loudmouthed conservative lumpens backing down and doing nothing, thereby proving themselves -- yet again -- feckless fantasists.

[lostnotforgotten]

28. Some Of Us Agree With The Sentimental Anger Represented By The Tea Parties

eom

[Occam Bandage]

43. You're angry at taxation imposed by a liberal government?

Or do you actually buy Newt Gingrich's bogus spin attempts?

[lostnotforgotten]

48. No, The General Unspecified Angst Caused By Declining Expectations While The Plutocrats Run Amok

eom

[Occam Bandage]

51. Do you believe the Teabaggers are upset at "the plutocrats?"

That does not seem to square with the fact that they are specifically angry that the wealthiest Americans are going to experience a tax hike in order to pay for social programs for the majority of Americans.

[anonymous171]

54. That's not what the teabaggers are about. nt

[Caliman73]

100. I don't know about that.

If the teabaggers were upset at plutocrats then they would have spent the last 8 years protesting. The Bush administration concentrated wealth into the hands of the elite and widened the gap between the rich and the rest of and there was not protest. No, this is racism and conservative fear dressed up as a protest over taxes. Most of the population is waiting to see if our economic situation will improve. If things continue to get worse then there will most likely be more discontent and danger, but it will be televised. The media would jump all over a pending revolution. It would sell airtime like nobody's business.

[lostnotforgotten]

113. The Proles Are Now Paying Attention - They Were Asleep During Bush

I'll grant that a "black president" probably woke then to change a foot.

[Mr. Hyde]

49. yes, some of us do indeed.

[AllieB]

73. The teabaggers are angry we have a black president. 2.5 months ago

where was that anger toward the trillions in debt that the Bush admin left us? Where was the anger during the profligate spending of the last 8 years? The TARP bailouts were passed while Bush was still in office, and there was no anger back then. The only difference is that the teabaggers' candidate lost and that they are freaked out by an African-American in the Oval office.

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HughMoran]

29. I don't agree with most of your post

Some of the warning signs are indeed issues we should be worried about, but that's about it as far as agreement. The credit market issue is not simply for consumer lending, it's also for capital infusion for new businesses, lines of credit for small businesses to pay their employees and large business need cash for expansion (i.e., new jobs.) The tea baggers are nothing more than a bunch of right-wing morans who are still stinging after losing 2 elections cycles badly - nothing more, nothing less. I know it's tempting to see ourselves living during a turning point in history, but we're at least a decade from anything significant happening. There may be more right-wing violence - they are prone to this and this is not abnormal for these morans, but a revolution in the making this isn't IMO.

[jberryhill]

30. We are witnessing proof that 1.3% of the adult population is schizophrenic /nt

[anigbrowl]

32. July 4 1776

"The date on the top of that page was July 4th 1776. The American revolution had started. He was so out of touch with the common person he had no clue how bad things had gotten."

Out of touch or not, it would have taken several weeks for the news to cross the Atlantic. I don't think the tea-bagging phenomenon is nearly as significant as you suggest.

[rhett o rick]

33. It is difficult to recognize the "start". But there will be a revolution. But things will have to

get much worse first. That may not be too far away, it can happen quickly. There is a snow ball effect. I don't think some people realize what a precarious balance we have here. High unemployment will reduce the taxes raised and services causing more unemployment, etc.

And what may happen, is that the protests that the moran teabaggers started may get taken over by a populace movement, protesting the unfair distribution of wealth, like in the late 1800's. This may carry over into a bigger movement.

[BlooInBloo]

35. Heh. People and their need to be a part of something important via apocolyptic fantasy...

Another example of my sig, in other words.

[Spider Jerusalem]

36. Er....

in 1776 it took about three months for a ship to cross the Atlantic; from the perspective of George III, nothing he would've known about happened on 4 July 1776.

[Occam Bandage]

40. No. nt

[KillCapitalism]

50. Anger over lack of employment may cause unrest.

Just as the OP said, when unemployment hit extreme numbers like 30% or more that's probably about the time when civil unrest will occur. I'm shocked that there hasn't been any large scale job marches on Washington DC yet.

The tea baggers are just right-wing idiots who are angry about things since past November. I find it funny that none of them seemed to have any complaints about paying their taxes from 2001-2008.

[MajorChode]

67. Considering it's only 8.5% now it still has quite a chasm to cross to get to your 30% number

Even if you project out the current rate of unemployment change, it will still take years to get there (and that scenario is so unlikely as to be considered by only the wildest speculators).

So much to the chagrin of those who lust for revolution, they still have a ways to go before they should be getting their hopes up too high. I'd hate to see them in such a depressed state when the economy does actually turn around that they might crawl in the bathtub and open up a vein.

[MajorChode]

52. A few batshit crazy wingnuts does not a revolution make

In order to get any farther they have to get the mainstream on board, and they are going to have a great deal of problems trying to convince anyone who isn't at least 2 standard deviations to the left on the bell curve.

[Mr. Hyde]

53. I agree with the OP, not you. eom

[Occam Bandage]

55. History is not littered

with successful revolutions carried out by an unpopular and unsupported handful. Those are generally called "coups d'etat."

[Mr. Hyde]

59. unpopular and unsupported? That's a matter of opinion.

These events are occurring nation wide and in evert state and they are growing, not declining in popularity.

[Occam Bandage]

60. Not really, no.

Teabaggers are one-tenth of one percent of America, even going by the highest realistic attendance reports. Obama has extraordinarily high personal approval ratings and trust ratings, and the right-track/wrong-track polls are now showing a majority right-track for the first time in years. Teabaggers are an increasingly vocal group, but part of an ever-shrinking demographic.

It is true that their teabag fests have increased in popularity. Endless Fox News promotion does tend to cause that. Fox News did give them literally tens of millions of dollars' worth of free advertisement. Considering that, the paltry attendance figures they've been able to boast ought explode any myth of their popularity.

[Mr. Hyde]

63. Bush's popularity was around 90% at one point. It fell to less than 30%.

when it became evident that his policies had failed miserably. And then he and his party paid the price for it. There is a growing sentiment that the policies of this administration are failing. Key economic indicators support this sentiment. Time will tell the whole story. I agree with the OP in the assertion that offering more debt to the public will not lead to increased American prosperity though and I'm placing my bets with that in mind. Again, time will tell. If the economy continues along its spiraling trajectory for a few more months, and as the memory of GWB fades, popular support for the administration will begin to slide and then a rag tag group of discontents known as "teabaggers" will be waiting to embrace the disaffected supporters of a once popular President and history will repeat itself. having said this, know that it's all business to me as I haven't particularly cared for any politicians since Ross Perot. I'm looking at the effects of the policies, not the effectors.

[Occam Bandage]

65. "There is a growing sentiment that the policies of this administration are failing."

This is the opposite of what polling shows. As I already said, the right-track/wrong-track charts have hit positive for the first time in years, and are climbing.

"well maybe things will get worse" is not a compelling explanation for what is happening now. Things do not occur because maybe something will make them occur later.

[MajorChode]

66. Spoken like a true wingnut

You should call in to Limbaugh's show. I bet he wouldn't even hang up on you. Or better yet, give your boy Ross a call and tell him it really is time now for another run.

And before you place too much of your hard earned money on the notion that "more debt to the public will not lead to increased American prosperity", you might want to read up on something called the New Deal. Fortunately the mainstream isn't as completely stupid as you Perot cheerleaders would have everyone believe. The economy continued to "spiral out of control" after Roosevelt got elected, yet the public was smart enough not to blame him for it and trusted him enough to see his policies through. This was even as people were going hungry and a few actually starved to death (compared to today where people are getting their cable disconnected in about the same proportions). He remains in the top three (if not at the very top) of all surveys from people who actually do know shit from beans about presidents.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents#Scholar_survey_results

[Mr. Hyde]

68. LOL at you.

We'll see what happens after a few more months of declining indicators.

[MajorChode]

69. I'm sure you and Limbaugh will keep your hopes up for failure

[geek tragedy]

70. You are sooo CONCERNED.

LMAO.

[Mr. Hyde]

81. go take out a mortgage then. Let us all know how it works out for after you've lost your job.

concern troll! Is that what you call people when you don't have an argument left to make? Bwaaahahahaha!!! Over 1.5 million Americans have joined the ranks of the unemployed in the past two months. In the two months before that, over 1 million people joined the ranks of the unemployed. In the two months before that, about a million people joined the ranks of the unemployed. Go offer them another mortgage. Tell them how good it will be for the US economy. Tell them how things will get better if they can just have access to another loan. ignore the fact that most of them already had homes and mortgages and are now in the process of foreclosure contributing to another US foreclosure epidemic. While you're ignoring that, ignore the fact that the first run of foreclosures lead to the collpase of our economy and necessitated the creation of over a trillion dollars worth of new debt which, as near as I can tell, did nothing except turn a 5,000 point drop in the DJIA into a 4,000 point drop in the DJIA. That'll help. Go ahead and defend this bullshit. Put your faith and your money into this scheme. For my part, I have other plans. I think I'll pay my debt off while I'm still fortunate enough to have the means to do so.

[AllieB]

86. And whose fault is that? Obama's?

He inherited this mess.

[Mr. Hyde]

88. That's certainly one way of looking at it

but it's by no means the only way of looking at it and incessant finger pointing is great for winning elections but it won't win any re-elections. It won't bring back 3 million lost jobs any time soon either.

[AllieB]

89. So this economy is Obama's fault in your opinion?

[Mr. Hyde]

90. It becomes his economy more and more with each passing month.

And, it isn't all about Obama either. The Democrats have held majority positions in both legislative houses since 2006. The senate typically wields way more influence over the economy than the President. Prior to the 2006 mid-term election (when I voted straight ticket democrat), the economy was growing nicely. What happened? I never voted for Bush btw and I criticized his policies harshly when they called for it. I was dead set against Iraq too and I voted for Kerry. So, I'm not a republican although I frequently agree with the fiscal conservatives of that party. There's plenty that I agree with Democrats about too but this whole bailout business isn't one of them. NAFTA wasn't one ofthem either incidentally nor did I agree with forcing freddie mac and fannie mae to reduce their lending stanards so people could get loans for houses that they couldn't afford.

[AllieB]

99. It took more than 2.5 years of Democrats in power to get to this point.

Repubs controlled congress for 12 years and the White House for 8. Deregulation began under Reagan, and was cemented by Repubs in Congress with Gramm-Leach-Bliley (no Dems voted for that bill, BTW) in 1999. So why your RW pals and Fox News may tell you that Obama 'owns' this mess, it is a creation of the Republicans.

[Mr. Hyde]

102. You're blaming Reagan for this mess?

Reagan's deregulation and tax cuts ultimnately led to one of the longest sustained periods of US economic growth in American history. No, this mess is a direct result of NAFTA (which was signed into law by Bill Clinton)and the loosening of lending standards (via the community reinvestment act changes) by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which originated with Bill Clinton also. Bush attempted to tighten up the lending Criteria in 2003 and congressional Democrats along with their lobbyists shot him down. Furthermore, nearly every Democrat at the time voted for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (including: Edwards, Biden, Feingold, Feinstein, Kerry, Kennedy, Pelosi, etc) and Bill Clinton signed it into law. I'm not laying this mess squarely at the feet of any one person or party. I have always contended that there was plenty of blame to go around. But, too frequently, I hear the argument that "it's Bush's fault" and, therefore, we are blameless and unaccountable, I'm sorry, but that is disingenuous. This is, largely, a result of the "giant sucking sound" that Ross Perot warned about back in 1992 combined with the loosening of lending standards for low income and minority borrowers in 1999.

[AllieB]

105. You're completely wrong about every Dem voting for Gramm-Leach Bliley

Although your pals on RW websites quote that meme, the Senate record doesn't lie. The split was 54-44 down party lines:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00105

Your meme about Reagan is also a typical RW myth. Do you have any links to back up your assertion about Reagan that don't come from a RW source? I guess you forgot about the Savings & Loan crisis, and the fact that Reagan appointed Greenspan, who is architect of de-regulation. Look up Milton Friedman.

From a Nobel prize winning economist:

"For it did fail. The Reagan economy was a one-hit wonder. Yes, there was a boom in the mid-1980s, as the economy recovered from a severe recession. But while the rich got much richer, there was little sustained economic improvement for most Americans. By the late 1980s, middle-class incomes were barely higher than they had been a decade before -- and the poverty rate had actually risen.

When the inevitable recession arrived, people felt betrayed -- a sense of betrayal that Mr. Clinton was able to ride into the White House."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,529850,00.html

I'm not here to educate you in economic history. I suggest you begin an orginal thread with the post that I'm responding to and see what kind of facts with real links and not assertions are posted. Because your responses sound like RW talking points from talk radio.

[AllieB]

116. Too bad you're not around to answer.

Your talking points were sadly obvious.

[geek tragedy]

72. Which Fox News anchor are you in real life?

Your pimping of the Teabaggers is duly noted.

[MajorChode]

57. Good for you

I soundly reject the notion that the anger of the teabaggers are indicative of the political unrest of "poor people". Call me crazy.

[Mr. Hyde]

61. what is it indicative of then?

[Occam Bandage]

62. Of the organizational power of Fox News among hardcore Republican partisans. nt

[MajorChode]

64. And a few extremely wealthy GOP puppetmasters abilities to orchestrate astroturf organizations

That's it and nothing more.

Although I do find the concept that a few people who lust for revolution are looking to Faux news as their messenger bit more than mildly entertaining.

[toadzilla]

56. sorry, but we have to hit rock bottom, we're no where near that.

we've still got a long way to go down, before we can re-group and start climbing out of this fundamentalist capitalist shit hole.

also, the tea party protests were pretty pitiful compared to all the anti war/bush protests ive seen over the last few years. the teevee news covered them for reasons other than their significance.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

58. I believe we are. And it will be fought by forty-somethings living in mom's basement with these:

[MajorChode]

77. Oh come on, do you think they don't own computers or copies of "Call of Duty"?

[chrisa]

94. They probably think COD = training for the "upcoming civil war"

Like half of the people that play that game.

[Fendius]

78. Very well put, Debt=slavery, How does it change though??

I'd love to disagree, but your post is very on point and true, and unfortunately, some may not agree, but i believe we are learning that Capitilism, or any other econism for that matter, will fail... Debt=slavery.........

[golda_2003]

79. SOME People Want A Civil War - Badly

i'm new here so, i can't start a thread yet - i hope this isn't a hijack of your thread but, i need to put this in front of alot of people

this was sent to me in an email and i've been looking for a public place to air it:




Ethnic Cleansing Operations Manual


"This is a manual that tells white people to organize and kill blacks, hispanics, etc.

The beginning of it is typical white power garbage - but, it gets VERY detailed in how to kill blacks and which ones to kill, etc.


It's being freely distributed on MANY sites:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22fm+6-2003%22&bt...


Please send this around - they need to be shut down now - not allowed to continue to organize

I usually don't take silly haters seriously - but, if you read this, you will have to take it seriously - you have to be mature enough to ignore the racism and look at what this is teaching

In today's climate, the haters are SO stirred up about Obama and Rush and Hannity are pushing them - something like THIS needs the FBI involved - It HAS TO BE ILLEGAL to instruct people to kill fellow Americans - and, this does exactly that in extreme, precise detail - even how to dispose of the bodies and how to avoid pacifists that will testify against you later

And, it has to be illegal to distribute such dangerous material


If you know any civil rights attorneys, please send them a copy"




i wonder if Olbermann would air this - or, if the ACLU would care - this is SO PUBLIC that i don't see how they or the FBI don't already know about it

but, these are American terrorists and the manual is the most chilling thing i've ever seen

isn't THIS what the Dept. of Homeland Security is for?

[golda_2003]

83. I Need A Link To Email Lists

i have the media but, i can't find a list of civil rights orgs all in one place

i have to send that email i got around to see if anyone cares

[tekisui]

84. You say it to send it around, and then say it must be illegal to distribute it?

This looks like a fringe hate group. Send it to authorities if you are worried, instead of posting it on public discussion boards.

[golda_2003]

107. Well, I'd Hoped To Get Other People Involved

this is a big problem

and, i didn't send the actual document to anyone (other than the media and FBI)


looks like no one here cares - i think it deserves it's own thread

all the talk of terrorism i hear - well, this is the full plan for taking over the US and killing blacks, hispanics, Jews, gays, etc.

i had hoped to start something grassroots to try to find out WHO the author is

it's no fringe group, it's being downloaded all over

[AlinPA]

80. We are getting close. The rightwing hatred level is very high now and with two

TV channels (CNN, Fox "News") doing their bidding, rightwing people could get cheered on to violence. There are enough guns out there for a serious armed revolution.

[dysfunctional press]

85. "The date on the top of that page was July 4th 1776"...

perhaps nothing did happen that day when he wrote it. what with satellite/transatlantic cable communications being what they were at the time- non-existent, he probably didn't hear about any shots being fired in anger for at least a couple weeks or so.

just sayin'...:shrug:

[ACTION BASTARD]

91. The difference is that teabaggers just talk. They don't have the courage of their convictions

to take ACTION and do something about it. When progs and Libs get pissed off enough we march. We show up by the hundreds of thousands and better.

The repukes are cowards that hide behind their stockpiles of gun-porn weapons, christian death cult and rage against the machine--from the comfort of their recliners. They lack the balls to pull those triggers on anything other than a target or the occasional defenseless deer/bear.

Revolution from the pukes? I not fear it. Now revolution from a Democrat/Prog or Libs? Awwww hell no, the shit just hit the fan.

[chrisa]

93. A bunch of Barney Fifes...

They couldn't hit the broad-side of a barn, and too dumb to do anything meaningful.

[cagesoulman]

95. Twix Voy, you're right.

As "nothing is happening", we are on our way to the Amero, the loss of sovereignty (begun by NAFTA and an unelected NAFTA board running the economy), and regional governments like the European Union. Whether it's for the best or the worst, I don't know, but it not "nothing."

[chrisa]

97. The "Amero" is an unsubstantiated myth.

And as for the loss of sovereignty, it wouldn't be by the UN / EU / NAFTA. People have been saying that for years, and it never happened - just like the Super Highway that was supposed to flood us with illegal immigrants.

[golda_2003]

108. The Amero Has Been Minted

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=amero&btnG=Search+Images&gbv=2&aq=f&oq=

[WeDidIt]

112. Here, I think you're missing this

[cagesoulman]

114. I'll bet you my first Amero that we're on our way there.

:p

[Blue-Jay]

96. King George didn't use Twitter.

[bemildred]

98. Not yet, and not these bozos. nt

[TTUBatfan2008]

101. Abolish the Federal Reserve...

The banking cartels own the media, the politicians, and they hold absolute power over everyone so long as we allow a private central bank to issue money out of thin air with interest automatically tacked on as soon as it's printed. This money is worth nothing because the gold standard has been thrown out the window. It's a huge transfer of wealth that has been going on ever since 1913 when the Fed was established. Every single dollar the Fed prints has interest tacked on that We The People are expected to pay back at some point.

[Fendius]

106. I agree with you up to a point..

Abolishing the Federal Reserve needs to happen, past that though, I believe we are eventually stumbling upon the same path.. Money, is where this all comes from.. Humans have made countless mistakes throughout our evolution.. I think any kind of monetary system where ones life is more valuable than the next, is eventually doomed. Money is at the top of this whole debate.. The Fed needs to go, but what from there??

[TTUBatfan2008]

109. Well...

There is no perfect solution but preventing the bankers from taking everyone hostage is at least a step in the right direction. They should not be allowed to contribute political donations. That's how the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 came along in the first place! They should not be allowed to print worthless paper and call it "valuable money" with no commodity as insurance for We The People. Money is the root of all evil, but at least with a gold standard, there is actual value in the gold itself. Value comes from scarcity and gold is a scarce commodity. Printed paper with no commodity backing it up as insurance is about as worthwhile as the toilet paper that we use to wipe our asses.

[Fendius]

111. The gold standard had us better off, but still not out of debt.

I think it would be a step in the right direction to either go back to the gold standard or show some value for our currency.. My worries lie in the abuse that continues manipulating any currency we wish to create.. At some point, either by man or not, we will find or be forced on resources being our currency....

[cherokeeprogressive]

104. Nope.

[LanternWaste]

110. I imagine that since we've...

I imagine that since we've weathered worse crises, we'll weather this one too.

As it took more that a dozen years to drag ourselves out of the great depression (with all its concomitant social unrest), I imagine that it may take more than four or five months to drag ourselves out of this one.

[bluedawg12]

115. Your extolling rightwing, fake, grassroots activism, Repig activism.

"What these tea party protests show us is that their is a growing number of poor people who don't understand fully what is going on and are VERY angry. That is never a good combination." - TwixVoy


http://www.prwatch.org/node/8334

FreedomWorks Behind Tax Day Tea Party Protests
activism astroturf right wing
Source: Atlantic.com, April 13, 2009

The Tax Day Tea Party protest movement is not as spontaneous as its organizers would like you to think. Chris Good writes, "Here is the organizational landscape of the April 15 tea party movement, in a nutshell: three national-level conservative groups, all with slightly different agendas, are guiding it. All are quick to tell you that the movement is a bottom-up affair and that its grassroots cred is real. They are: FreedomWorks, the conservative action group led by Dick Armey; dontGO, a tech savvy free-market action group that sprung out of last August's oil-drilling debate in the House of Representatives; and Americans for Prosperity, an issue advocacy/activist group based on free market principles. Conservative bloggers, talk show hosts, and other media figures have attached themselves to the movement in peripheral capacities. Armey will appear at a major rally in Atlanta, FreedomWorks said. All three groups vehemently deny that the movement is a product of AstroTurfing -- fake grassroots activism organized from the top down -- as some on the left have claimed."

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

117. If you believe that, you're insane

The local tea party here was organized by a millionaire.