Jo-Joe Politico: WHY?

Monday, October 17, 2011

WHY?

PEACE IN TIMES SQUARE

PEACE IN PORTLAND

INTELLIGENCE IN PORTLAND

ANTISEMITISM IN LA

Now, I'm just a poor, lower middle class person with very few significant material possessions.

Somebody please explain to me how one single solitary Wall Street billionaire is hurting me one iota.

What do I care that he/she has billions?

There is not a finite amount of money in America.

If I'm willing to do what they (the rich) did to become rich, why shouldn't I be rich if I want to be?

If you want to be rich and I don't, how are you hurting me?

Sombody explain this idiocy!

60 comments:

Craig said...: There is not a finite amount of money in America.

There's an infinite amount of money in the U.S.?

If I'm willing to do what they (the rich) did to become rich, why shouldn't I be rich if I want to be?

They were willing to give a ton of risky loans, bundle them up and pay a ratings Co. to give it a AAA rating, sell them off to unsuspecting buyers where they are sold and resold until the last person holding them has paid 40 times they're actual value. Then, knowing they sold junk in the first place, they bet against those securities in the unregulated derivatives market.

Then, when the whole thing crashes, causing a global financial meltdown and sucking $20 Trillion out of U.S. economy, they get the Govt. (tax payers) to bail them out with $800B, no strings attached TARP money and $13T in interest free loans from the Fed.

Because they and their paid lackeys in D.C. rigged the system so well they get a multi-million $ bonus and only pay 15% because it counted as Capital Gains. To top it off, they haven't created one damn thing. They destroyed millions of jobs, forced thousands into bankruptcy and thousands more out of their homes.

No skin off your nose, eh Jo Jo?; October 17, 2011 at 7:12 AM
sue hanes said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; October 17, 2011 at 7:44 AM
sue hanes said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; October 17, 2011 at 7:47 AM
sue hanes said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; October 17, 2011 at 7:51 AM
Joe said...: Craig: The defect in the liberal thought process is two-fold: it is narrow minded and it is myopic.

There is, indeed, an infinite amount of money in the U.S. in practical terms.

As long as there are people producing and people wanting what is produced, there will be financial resources to buy the products and created the jobs to make and distribute the products.

It is when the government FORCES by law the large financial institutions to make loans that they KNOW the borrower will NEVER be able to pay back that a back-up occurs, the financial pressures increase and the whole thing explodes (Think Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac).

The bail-outs only exacerbated the problem, because, first of all, they did not get where they were supposed to go and secondly, they did not addres the underlying poor management and decision making that made them "necessary" in the first place.

So, it was not the rich that hurt you and me, it was the government.

As long as you continue to let them, they will continue to hurt you and me.

sue hanes: Do you think you could gather your thoughts into one coherent comment instead of the scattered incoherent style you are currently using?

And yes, I can drum up as much hostility as he earns.; October 17, 2011 at 8:34 AM
Ducky's here said...: Here's what Joe supports

9% sales + 9% VAT --- Joes' gonna shuffle real nice for his masters.; October 17, 2011 at 10:53 AM
sue hanes said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; October 17, 2011 at 11:39 AM
tha malcontent said...: And here's what Ducky Supports.

http://www.thejerusalemconnection.us/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Occupy-Wallstreet-anti-Semitism-II-280x230.jpg; October 17, 2011 at 12:20 PM
Ducky's here said...: Malcontent shuffles real nice also.

That your best game? You toy soldiers are a stitch.; October 17, 2011 at 2:55 PM
Xavier Onassis said...: Jo Joe Said: "Somebody please explain to me how one single solitary Wall Street billionaire is hurting me one iota."

Well first of all, it's not one billionaire it is hordes of billionaires who own and operate some of the biggest, wealthiest corporations on Earth.

I can tell you exactly how they hurt you.

These billionaires and corporations pay little or no U.S. Taxes Joe. They use tricks like the Double Irish [http://intltax.typepad.com/intltax_blog/2010/05/double-irish-structure-time-for-a-new-tax-penalty.html] and the Dutch Sandwich [http://www.vcc.columbia.edu/content/new-dutch-sandwich-issue-treaty-abuse] to siphon billions of dollars of profit out of America into foreign holding companies to avoid paying U.S. taxes.

These are taxes owed by U.S. Corporations that should be used to paydown the national debt, support our Armed Forces, contribute to Social Security and Medicare. But they aren't paying their fair share of the American infrastructure because they don't care about America, they don't care about American citizens and they sure don't care about you, Joe.

And that's where it hurts you. Maybe some of your readers don't know this, but you are a regular consumer of taxpayer funded Government Health Care. Those Big Corporations should be chipping in their fair share to help keep you healthy, but they aren't.

Me and Ducky are (and we're happy to do it by the way...you're welcome), but that 1% that you defend so vociforously would just as see you curl up in aball and die. They straight up do not care.

So why do you care about them?; October 17, 2011 at 4:46 PM
Ducky's here said...: Read this Joe, pretty much nails it; October 17, 2011 at 6:00 PM
Breaking news said...: I’m sure you’ve seen this video of the woman at OWS L.A. saying all Zionist Jews should be thrown out of the country

http://politicsandfinance.blogspot.com/2011/10/occupy-wall-street-video-zionist-jews.html

No surprises here, this is what the Fleabag party does when their backs are up against the wall.

And Obama is silent as is Chuck Schummer .; October 17, 2011 at 6:47 PM
Craig said...: It is when the government FORCES by law the large financial institutions to make loans that they KNOW the borrower will NEVER be able to pay back that a back-up occurs, the financial pressures increase and the whole thing explodes (Think Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac).

The govt. did not force anyone to make those bad loans. You are regurgitating the Righty talking point that it was all due to the Community Reinvestment Act. Here's the facts.

A comprehensive study by the Federal Reserve Bank of Mpls. concluded that,

Two basic points emerge from our analysis of the available data. First, only a small portion (6%) of subprime mortgage originations is related to the CRA. Second, CRA-related loans appear to perform comparably to other types of subprime loans. Taken together, the available evidence seems to run counter to the contention that the CRA contributed in any substantive way to the current mortgage crisis.

The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission concluded,

The captains of finance and the public stewards of our financial system ignored warnings and failed to question, understand, and manage evolving risks within a system essential to the well-being of the American public...There was an explosion in risky subprime lending and securitization, an unsustainable rise in housing prices, widespread reports of egregious and predatory lending practices, dramatic increases in household mortgage debt, and exponential growth in financial firms’ trading activities, unregulated derivatives, and short-term “repo” lending markets, among many other red flags. Yet there was pervasive permissiveness; little meaningful action was taken to quell the threats in a timely manner...Financial institutions made, bought, and sold mortgage securities they never examined, did not care to examine, or knew to be defective; firms depended on tens of billions of dollars of borrowing that had to be renewed each and every night, secured by subprime mortgage securities; and major firms and investors blindly relied on credit rating agencies as their arbiters of risk.

I'll add, in the mid aughts I was getting calls from mortgage lenders every other day wanting me to refinance my mortgage. Up to 95% of the over inflated value of my home. The govt. wasn't making them do it.

Jo, you're getting scr..(violated) in a very nasty way. Instead of getting mad, you want to leave the creeps a tip. You're smarter than that. I just know you are.; October 17, 2011 at 7:39 PM
Ducky's here said...: What can you say, Craig.

Joe just enjoys a good bitch slapping by the invisible hand now and again.; October 17, 2011 at 7:57 PM
sue hanes said...: Joe - I'm feeling much better now and I hope you will read my only slightly incoherent post about G. Washington.; October 17, 2011 at 8:46 PM
Joe said...: Ducky: I never have, do not now and never will support a 9% sales tax or a 9% VAT or any other tax of that kind.

On that point, Mr. Cain and I disagree.

But I DO support a flat tax across the board for every earned dollar, both individual and corporate, with no deductions of any kind for any reason.

I also know that will never happen because it removes graft and corruption from the system, which the system won't allow.

That said, you and XO and Craig are all wrong about the effect of the rich on me or anybody else.

Sorry, but your facts are fabrications of the left.; October 17, 2011 at 9:34 PM
Xavier Onassis said...: Oh Joe. Joe, Joe, Joe. Do the depths of your self-delusion know no bounds?

Presenting you with incontrovertible, independently verifiable, unquestionable facts is like trying to get a dog to look at what you are pointing at. He just sets there staring at your finger with his tongue hanging out, failing to grasp the concept.

The world is a much more complex and nuanced place than you seem to be capable of comprehending.

There are times when I actually feel sorry for you, locked away in your philosophical cave, hugging your flag and your bible, fending off the encroaching reality of the world as it actually exists.

Those of us on the outside will stop by from time to time to make sure you are well stocked in venison and water.

Maybe someday you'll come out and join the rest of humanity.; October 17, 2011 at 10:24 PM
Joe said...: XO: "Maybe someday you'll come out and join the rest of humanity."

If you are its example,no thanks...I'll pass.; October 18, 2011 at 8:56 AM
Craig said...: That said, you and XO and Craig are all wrong about the effect of the rich on me or anybody else.

Sorry, but your facts are fabrications of the left.

I guess if your sole guiding principal is, "It's govt's fault, it's always govt's fault", there's no need to try and refute contrary evidence with evidence to support your position. Just dismiss it as Lefty conspiracy.

I cited the Mpls. Federal Reserve and the 10 member Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, five of whom where Repubs. Real America hating Marxists.

Defend yourself or admit you're wrong. Show some integrity.; October 18, 2011 at 11:38 AM
Scotty said...: Yep, big corporations don't pay taxes. In ducky's and XO's myopic view taxing the corporations will fix everything not knowing, evidently, that it's they that will be paying those taxes via the price hikes of a service and product, to pay those taxes.

We DON'T have a taxation problem. What we have is a SPENDING problem. I'll be than more happy to pay more in taxes as soon as I see a REAL effort in controlling spending and the wasteful things that cost us all money out our own pockets.

President Obama isn't going to raise taxes on corporations or reign in wall street. They are some of his biggest contributors.

Even if President Obama decides to do something in that area he also knows, unless he's really stupid, the you and I will ultimately pay for this.....

Corporations need to operate at a profit. Those that don't will die on the vine, unless you have somebody in Washington bails you out.

And just so ya know I do have a heart, ducky and XO. I never bought into the too big to fail line that President Bush and President Obama laid out there. The too big to fail corporations were the very corporations that helped put them in office via the many donations. That speaks volumes.

The sooner the government stops tinkering with economy, the sooner it will recover.; October 18, 2011 at 11:51 AM
Xavier Onassis said...: Scotty - I don't believe taxing corporations will solve "everything". But I do think that corporations, just like you, me and everyone else I know, should be required to pay the taxes they actually owe and not be able to hoard their profits in off-shore holding companies to keep from meeting their legal obligations.

Also, keep in mind that those profits they are withholding because they don't want to pay taxes on them also represents capital that could be reinvested in this country to create jobs and grow the economy. But they aren't doing that. They are sitting on their money like Scrooge McDuck while America crumbles.

I agree that corporations need to operate at a profit. But I don't think they need to generate OBSCENE profits, pay no taxes on those profits while firing American workers.

The American system and infrastructure is what enabled those companies to succeeed. They owe it to America to give back some of what they have taken.; October 18, 2011 at 12:43 PM
Scotty said...: I agree that corporations need to operate at a profit. But I don't think they need to generate OBSCENE profits, pay no taxes on those profits while firing American workers.

What are OBSCENE profits?; October 18, 2011 at 1:20 PM
Lone Ranger said...: Craig. Yes, there is an infinite amount of money in America. No matter how rich some people get, you will always have the opportunity to earn money by getting a job or starting a business -- even if it's a shoeshine business. There is nothing the richest person in the country can do to prevent you from earning money.

Banks weren't "willing" to give a ton of risky loans. They were threatened by the odious Barney Frank and Chris Dodd to grant those risky loans or be sued by the government. Rules for lending practises were loosened during the Clinton administration. McCain co-sponsored a bill in 2005 that would have tightened up the rules again, but Democrats blocked it. After all, isn't it wonderful that the poor can get into a home of their own? That's Democrat, not Republican thinking.

Truth #3. You can always tell what liberals are up to by what they accuse conservatives of doing.; October 18, 2011 at 2:06 PM
Ducky's here said...: They were threatened by the odious Barney Frank and Chris Dodd to grant those risky loans or be sued by the government.

--------
You delusional liar. That's a complete smelly fringe right pantload.

Prove it you liar.; October 18, 2011 at 3:37 PM
Snappy Dan said...: Ducky's here said...
"You delusional liar. That's a complete smelly fringe right pantload."

Oh good god, he didn’t actually say that, did he?
Leftwingers are usually smelly, but Ducky Here takes first prize.
He even beats all the left-wing radicals protesting on the street.; October 18, 2011 at 4:38 PM
Xavier Onassis said...: Tonto's Boyfriend - "Banks weren't "willing" to give a ton of risky loans. They were threatened by the odious Barney Frank and Chris Dodd to grant those risky loans or be sued by the government."

I'm with Ducky. I would like to see your proof that the Federal Government put a gun to the head of the lenders and forced them to make risky loans against their better judgement.

Cough it up. Let's see it.; October 18, 2011 at 5:06 PM
Scotty said...: I would like to see your proof that the Federal Government put a gun to the head of the lenders and forced them to make risky loans against their better judgement.

HERE'S. One place you can start. And in a attempt to try and not have too much bias on the opinion, this one is from England.

If ya want more I can keep 'em comin'; October 18, 2011 at 5:41 PM
Ducky's here said...: ... that it's they that will be paying those taxes via the price hikes of a service and product, to pay those taxes.

--------

I really get tired of explaining this to the fringe right.

Your theory is ridiculous. Any corporation that can raise prices without losing share is going to eventually raise them regardless of taxes paid.
You don't seem to understand that in some industries we still have competitive pricing.

Really, you guys have to stop listening to Rush or wherever it is you get these moronic aphorisms.; October 18, 2011 at 7:52 PM
Ducky's here said...: Hey Scott, couple things.

1. The primary cause of the downturn was not mortgage defaults. It was the fact that the dumbest guys in the room at Goldman, Lehman and others had a leveraged liabilities at 50-1 all betting the price of housing would continue to rise.

2. The institutions such as Countrywide and Ameriquest who were feeding the dumbest guys in the room the bad paper WERE NOT REGULATED BY THE GOVERNMENT.

Got that bobo? They were not subject to any regulation whatsoever. The CRA meant diddly.

They did nothing against their better judgement. They were making money hand over fist selling the stuff.; October 18, 2011 at 7:58 PM
Ducky's here said...: Tonto's boyfriend - damn I'm still laughing.

Notice that Tonto's boyfriend and a couple others don't know the difference between a regulated commercial bank and an independent mortgage vendor like Countrywide.

Chris Dodd was forcing Countrywide to write subprime 750K jumbos and sell them to Lehman's.

Man, fish in a barrel.; October 18, 2011 at 8:03 PM
Joe said...: Ducky, XO and Craig:

http://www.ffiec.gov/cra/

Read it and learn.; October 18, 2011 at 9:23 PM
Xavier Onassis said...: Joe - Nothing, repeat NOTHING, in the CRA created Credit Default Swap Derivitives. It was the greedy investment bankers who created those instruments and they are what caused the entire crisis.

The CRA was designed to mitigate what had been absolute, institutionalized racism in mortgage landing. Loaning money to black folks to own their own homes isn't what got us in this mess.

It was the bankers, pure and simple.; October 18, 2011 at 9:36 PM
Ducky's here said...: Joe, the banks making CRA loans were REGULATED. They weren't writing the junk under the CRA and those loans had a normal default level.

Again, did the CRA force Lehman's to leverage Coutrywide's (an UNREGULATED institution) junk paper at 50-1.

Again, do you believe that there was not enough liquidity in our financial system to support the default rate of regulated CRA loans?

Tonto's road buddy, jump in any time.

Scotty?; October 18, 2011 at 10:35 PM
Craig said...: Banks weren't "willing" to give a ton of risky loans. They were threatened by the odious Barney Frank and Chris Dodd to grant those risky loans or be sued by the government.

Nonsense. As Ducky has pointed out, 60% of subprimes were issued by nonbank mortgage lenders. They aren't subject to CRA and can't be sued by the govt. 6% of subprimes originated from CRA mortgages. Alan Greenspan was praising subprimes and securitization in 2005.

Deregulation and consolidation have also cultivated the expansion of the financial services marketplace, as evidenced by the proliferation of many nonbank entities that provide the credit and transaction services that were once mainly the province of depository institutions...With these advances in technology, lenders have taken advantage of credit-scoring models and other techniques for efficiently extending credit to a broader spectrum of consumers. The widespread adoption of these models has reduced the costs of evaluating the creditworthiness of borrowers, and in competitive markets cost reductions tend to be passed through to borrowers. Where once more-marginal applicants would simply have been denied credit, lenders are now able to quite efficiently judge the risk posed by individual applicants and to price that risk appropriately. These improvements have led to rapid growth in subprime mortgage lending; indeed, today subprime mortgages account for roughly 10 percent of the number of all mortgages outstanding, up from just 1 or 2 percent in the early 1990s.

Greenspan was touting the market driven "innovations" that supposedly were more efficient at assessing risk. Marvelous innovations like robo-underwriting, where risk wasn't even considered. All made possible by deregulation.

McCain co-sponsored a bill in 2005 that would have tightened up the rules again, but Democrats blocked it.

Sorry. The Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act was never brought to the floor by the Republican controlled Senate. Dems never had a chance to block it. The Act was meant to look at accounting practices at Fannie and Freddie. Not a peep in all those hearings about the quality of mortgages they were buying. Also, too, F&F's share of the secondary mortgage market fell from 2002 to 2006. Far from causing the problem, they were late to the party.

After all, isn't it wonderful that the poor can get into a home of their own? That's Democrat, not Republican thinking.

G.W. Bush, 2004

“Thanks to being the most productive workforce in America, and I might say, thanks to good policies, this economy is strong and it’s getting stronger. … Home sales were the highest ever recently. That’s exciting news for the country....Home ownership is at an all-time high now in America. That’s fantastic news. Isn’t it wonderful to have somebody for the first time be able to say: welcome to my home; I’m glad you’re here at my piece of property."

We were gonna have an ownership society.; October 19, 2011 at 4:32 AM
Scotty said...: Scotty?

Yep, I guess you showed me a thing or two, Ducky. /s

Listen, there's is nothing that you say is going to make me change my opinions and there's nothing I'm going to say to change yours or anybody else's viewpoint.

I don't comment often on blogs for that very reason. It's not unlike having a discussion about religion or politics in a barroom full of drunks. I don't have the time nor most times do I have the energy.

I'm very active, politically on the local level so that's where most my time and energy is spent.

I'd rather work in more fertile ground.

Craig, you mentioned the republicans not bringing legislation to vote. More time than not, that's how it works. Legislation, most times, is not brought to a vote in either house unless they thing there's a chance that it would pass.

Other times, when it is brought to a vote, it's done purely for political reasons, to expose how others vote so that it can be used in the many campaigns.; October 19, 2011 at 11:00 AM
Xavier Onassis said...: Scotty said "Listen, there's is nothing that you say is going to make me change my opinions..."

This is the problem with the Right. Even when presented with ACTUAL FACTS, they still cling to their predjuicial fantasies about who the good guys and bad guys are.

As Scotty so eloquently stated, facts don't matter. Facts won't change his opinion. So one must wonder, if his opinion is not based on facts, what is it based on?

This is why Republicans CANNOT be allowed to lead. They don't base their decision making process on facts! We don't know what they base it on. Gut feelings? Instinct? Women's intuition? Magic 8 balls? Who knows?

But clearly conservatism is not a fact based philosophy.

Thanks for clearing that up for us, Scotty.; October 19, 2011 at 11:11 AM
Scotty said...: As Scotty so eloquently stated, facts don't matter. Facts won't change his opinion. So one must wonder, if his opinion is not based on facts, what is it based on?

I'm here to help it what ever way I can to help you feel better about yourself, XO.

If that's all you came away with for what I said, that's sad.

Bottom line my facts are your fiction as your facts are my fiction.

I was stating the fact.....it always amazing how people can look at something and come away with two different viewpoints.

I've got facts too, XO and on occasion I offer them up. I can come up with reams of facts and your going to dismiss them, that's all I was saying. But, you question my sources and I willingly admit I'll question yours.

I watch it continually on the various blogs, more times than not neither side is convinced of the viewpoints, regardless of facts or not.

It's NOT going to change, so why try to buck the system. As I said I've got better things to do.

If somehow you want to claim that as a victory on your part? Be my guest, I can handle it.

I'm just a low brow here, hell, I'm still trying to figure out what obscene profit is! :-); October 19, 2011 at 11:47 AM
Ducky's here said...: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/44938917#44938917

Check this one out Joe.

A blessing on that brother.; October 19, 2011 at 11:58 AM
Xavier Onassis said...: Scotty - Facts aren't really open to interpretation or spin. That's what makes them facts.

The rotation of the earth on it's axis makes it appear to people on the surface that the sun always rises in the east. That's a fact. There is no other way to interpret that or spin it. It is simply true.

Facts are objective, not subjective.

You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.; October 19, 2011 at 12:11 PM
Scotty said...: The rotation of the earth on it's axis makes it appear to people on the surface that the sun always rises in the east. That's a fact. There is no other way to interpret that or spin it. It is simply true.

Facts are objective, not subjective.

Meaning, MY facts aren't spin but, yours are. Something I'm not willing to say to you, XO.

There is some middle ground to be had.; October 19, 2011 at 1:10 PM
Xavier Onassis said...: Allow me to present, The 99% Declaration":

https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/

Far from going away or weakening (like the astroturf Tea Party), the grass roots Occupy movement will be a substantial force to be reckoned with in the 2012 election and beyond.; October 19, 2011 at 3:03 PM
Ducky's here said...: Joe, the antisemitic teacher was fired as a result of her statement.

There is no movement to demand she be given her job back.

Any comment?; October 19, 2011 at 4:18 PM
Lisa said...: That kid with the hand signals is very serious about the importance of finger wiggling.

Thank God for the liberal elite that wackademia produces stupid liberal kids.; October 19, 2011 at 4:33 PM
Joe said...: Ducky: "the antisemitic teacher was fired as a result of her statement."

Well she should have been.

But she represents the scattered thought patterns of OWD.

Out of every 20 people participating in OWS, there are 20 different "goals."

The guy with the finger signs represents the highest intellectual level present at OWS.; October 19, 2011 at 5:56 PM
Ducky's here said...: Well, Joe it's true that the message is amorphous. You've got Ron Paul fans, Communists and everything in between, fact.
The commonality is that they all lack political power. All in the same boat and it's good they are talking to one another.

You should visit Occupy Boston and check out the low level of intelligence.

There is a power generator tent with pedal powered generators set up by M.I.T. students that are powering laptops, phones, lights and other items.

We have a library with an active book exchange.

Serving over a thousand meals a day including kosher, vegan and halal meals.

Had some homeless guys come in and lecture on how to stay warm and dry as the colder weather starts to move in.

Got a medical tent going, unfortunately we also need a legal tent.

There is a Sukkot tent celebrating the holiday. A rabbi drops in for prayer service.

The whole space is completely Wifi enabled.

Now, does that sound like one of your little astroturfed bus-ins to hear Sarah Palin talk for a half hour. Just who is organized here and how can you possibly compare Occupy to a simple Tea Party afternoon?; October 19, 2011 at 7:58 PM
Joe said...: Ducky: That is all very interesting.

Where do these disenfranchised people get laptops, iPhones, etc.?

And where does the food come from?

Where did the generator come from?

Te tents and the sleeping bags...where did they come from?

Chances are, all of these items were made by capitalist companies.

I know the laptops and the iPhones were, as were the cell phones and generators.

I imagine most of the medicines came from capitalists.

And the books in the library were most likely published by capitalists.

Too bad they couldn't find all of those products made by companies that didn't seek to make a profit.; October 19, 2011 at 8:26 PM
Ducky's here said...: Joe, behave.

I have stated that the commonality is a LACK of POLITICAL POWER.

Now from there economic questions would naturally flow but as it is we have no chance to discuss it.

Step 1. Learn to differentiate political and economic systems. They are not necessarily synonymous although that has became the case in America to our disadvantage.

I shouldn't have to mention that laissez-faire capitalism is not the only system that can produce goods.; October 19, 2011 at 8:53 PM
Xavier Onassis said...: Joe - If you bothered to read The 99% Declaration or any of the other information put forth by the OWS movement you would see that no one is calling for an end to Capitalism or to outlaw the making of a profit.

You are choosing to remain willfully ignorant of the facts because they might dilute your visceral hatred for anyone who dares to point out that America and the Free Enterprise System might be less than perfect.; October 19, 2011 at 9:44 PM
Lisa said...: see what you get when there's big money behind you. As long as it's money earned by manipulating and devaluing currency ,speaking of doing it off the backs of the Middle Class.; October 19, 2011 at 10:49 PM
Joe said...: XO: Nah. I never read anything. I make everything up.

I photoshopped all of those pictures.

I developed special websites for my links to make people think OWS actually wrote what they wrote about CAPI-TOL-ISM (their spelling, not mine).

I misquote people in the earnest hope that nobody will check to see what they REALLY said.

When I copy and paste, I alter the results to seem more authentic.

Boy, oh boy! I am just awful.

Why, my great-great grandparents came over from another country, so they are the same as illegal aliens (only deader - no longer a drain on society).

I've been to your website many, many times, Mr. Hip, suburban White Guy (no racism there...no sir) and I know the rotten road-kill you write and your inability to be man enough to control your language or smart enough to know why you should.; October 20, 2011 at 10:13 AM
Xavier Onassis said...: Joe - You apparently ONLY read web sites that already agree with your point of view and therefor offer a skewed view on world events. No doubt you think Fox News and James O'Keefe are objective journalists.

You should try opening your mind to other points of view. You just may find that your myopic philosophy of divinely inspired capitalism has a few chinks in in it.

As far as the name of my blog, there is nothing racist about it at all! I am a white guy, I do live in the suburbs, and I'm incredibly hip! That's just truth in advertising!

As for your opinion of what I write, it may surprise you to learn that you are not exactly my target demographic.

If you bother to read my profile, it clearly states that I am "...a cranky, old, white guy spewing often ill-informed opinions about whatever the Hell he wants, just because he can. Deal with it...".

As for the language I use on my blog, well, it is MY blog and I tend to use ALL of the words in the English language.

When I am in your home (your blog) I respect your rules and curtail myself.

In my home, I do as I please and those that don't like it are free to leave. I find that a well executed expletive, properly used and precisely placed help with emphasis and serve to drive home the true meaning and import of a comment.

Limit yourself if you like. But I will do as I please.; October 20, 2011 at 11:30 AM
Joe said...: XO: You do not need my permission (and I certainly would not withhold it)to use your blog any way you want to.

I made reference to it as it is, and voiced my opinion of it.

I assume you give me permission (without reservation) to express my opinion of it, hence your statement about its purpose.

It is, however, the evidence of the abject depravity of your mind, as is your response to my critique.

I truely believe your blog accurately represents who and what you are.

Does it?; October 20, 2011 at 12:48 PM
Joe said...: XO: "...I tend to use ALL of the words in the English language."

That's going to take a while...there are a lot of words in the English language.

I can hardly wait to see your use of "pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis" or "honorificabilitudinitatibus."; October 20, 2011 at 12:54 PM
Xavier Onassis said...: Ah, Joe.

First of all, you certainly do not need my permission to express your opinion about my blog.

I had to chuckle at your characterization of my "abject depravity" LOL!

I suppose from the point of view of someone who wraps his life and mind in the shackles of millenia-old, superstitious, mumbo-jumbo invented by a bunch of illiterate nomads trying to create meaning where there is none, yes, I must seem quite depraved.

But the word depravity implies an impairment of virtue and moral principles and I do take issue with that. Just because I do not adhere to your narrow, prehistoric moral code does not mean that I am without morals or virtue.

I am very much a creature of my time. I live in THIS century. Like most of my contemporaries I am a Free Thinker and I do not look to the Reward of Eternal Life or the threat of Eternal Torment to inform my judgement as to what is right and what is wrong.

True morality is exhibited by who you are and what you do when no one is looking...not even a Supernatural Sky Daddy.

I would submit that my moral compass is much stronger than those I see exhibited by many on the Right who call themselves Christians.

I certainly have more compassion for the least fortunate members of our society than I have seen from ANY Republican.

If Jesus were walking among us today, do you REALLY think he would be voting a Republican ticket? REALLY????; October 20, 2011 at 2:27 PM
Xavier Onassis said...: Joe - Oh, and thank you for expanding my vocabulary. I shall certainly try to work them into a future blog post, but I will have to bracket them with some choice obscenities just to put them in the proper context and add emphasis.; October 20, 2011 at 2:29 PM
sue hanes said...: Xo - Jesus is walking among us today.; October 21, 2011 at 11:11 PM
Xavier Onassis said...: Sue - Wow. OK. Thanks for sharing,; October 21, 2011 at 11:46 PM
sue hanes said...: No problem, XO.

You know I think I spotted Him
in one of those OWS pictures.

:-); October 21, 2011 at 11:57 PM
sue hanes said...: He's real - and he's spectacular.; October 22, 2011 at 12:15 AM
sue hanes said...: XO - I apologize to you for my comment about Jesus - for breaking into a serious discussion with a stupid remark.

Now what I said was not stupid - for I believe that Jesus does walk among us - but it was not smart of me to make that disruptive comment at that time.

I'm sorry.; October 22, 2011 at 6:42 PM