This is a long article by a MIT computer science grad, and a must-read if you want to be prepared for the predicted outcome of the Occupy Wall Street movement.
A little further than halfway down the article is a section titled "Days of Rage / Kill the Rich" . . . and that section details the origin of the present 'Days of Rage'. The leading man of BOTH 'Days of Rage' movements is Bill Ayers, Obama's friend who, in the 1960s and 1970s, bombed the Pentagon and other public buildings. If you have never heard of Bill Ayers, you can read about him at Wikipedia.
The author (writing under a pseudonym) has included several videos. If you don't read a word of this article, just watching its first video will provide sufficient warning.
>>The author (writing under a pseudonym) has included several videos. If you don't read a word of this article, just watching its first video will provide sufficient warning [about Occupy Wall Street].<<
Yes, I've been calling it Obamaturf from the beginning. You read their list of demands and it's pretty much Marxism with a trace of the revolution and of course Obama was a Marxist revolutionary and remains at least a Marxist.
>>Yes, I've been calling it Obamaturf from the beginning. You read their list of demands and it's pretty much Marxism with a trace of the revolution and of course Obama was a Marxist revolutionary and remains at least a Marxist.<<
Does Marxism include this brutality (emphasis mine)?
<. . . During an interview with Chicago Mag, Ayers, with no regrets, summed up his [1969 Chicago "Days of Rage"] riot’s intended purpose, stating, ”KILL ALL THE RICH PEOPLE. BREAK UP THEIR CARS AND APARTMENTS. BRING THE REVOLUTION HOME, KILL YOUR PARENTS—that‘s where it’s really at.”>
Right after that, the author has a video of a segment of Dave Wooten's radio show, and then he quotes Wooten. Except where noted, the emphasis is mine:
<Talk show host Dave Wooten Radio notes that the “Days of Rage” organizers met with President Obama FOUR [emphasis author's] times in White House, and linked Weathermen co -founder BILL AYERS and Steven Lerner of the SEIU International Leader and Acorn Founder Wade Rathke to this “leaderless” movement. He believes they want Obama to DECLARE MARSHALL LAW and onto “Fundamentally Transforming” America so that “Socialists, communists, Islamists, Unions and the Radical Left in America” can “Fundamentally Change” Western Culture to create “The One World Order” that Alynsky & Karl Marx would be proud of.>
PE, I can't urge you strongly enough to watch/listen to that video. You cannot imagine what the Occupy Wall Street ORGANIZERS have in store — and it is spreading FAST — and if you aren't prepared, you will imperil yourself more than you already are.
PLEASE. I love the right wing marketing. They will label someone with a term like Marxist and the people that see it and use it don’t know what it means. But they believe it cause Fox News said so.
Open your minds and think for yourselves. If you don’t make more than $250,000 a year you should never vote Republican.
What is really happening in American is corporate greed is manipulating the American people for their own benefit. They will use words like liberal and socialist and say: see, they are to blame for your trouble. They are to blame for the debt crisis we are in.
The real reason the US is in financial trouble is we used a credit card to fight 2 wars (one war, Iraq, with 5000 US dead was TOTALLY unnecessary), fund a Medicare prescription drug program that was a boondoggle for the Pharm companies and give tax cuts to the most wealthy without revenues to back it up. That’s it.
The Occupy movement is protesting the fact that not one person was indicted or sent to prison for the raping of the middle class in the fall of 2008. That’s it. Everything else is made up or irrelevant.
Go ahead, sell FEAR. That is what they want you to do. Go to www.ralphnader.org for the REAL truth.
>>The Occupy movement is protesting the fact that not one person was indicted or sent to prison for the raping of the middle class in the fall of 2008. That’s it. Everything else is made up or irrelevant. <<
They're right, someone ought to go to jail but they're accusing the banks, mortgage industry and Wall Street. It's not their fault, it's the fault of federal government policy going back to Jimmy Carter. Carter was responsible for the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) which encouraged banks to lend money to people in poor neighborhoods. Clinton put the CRA on steroids by establishing quotas for lending in such neighborhoods at the penalty of preventing any further growth of the lending institution. The lenders complained because the people they had to loan to couldn't pay them back. Government responded by creating Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae backed by the government to buy up the bad loans. Now the banks and mortgage companies could loan to anyone without fear of losing money. The flood gates were open. For their part Fannie and Freddie rebundled the bad loans, got the rating agencies to label them AAA and sold them on the open market as asset backed securities at huge profits. The banks, mortgage companies and Wall Street weren't doing anything the government hadn't enabled them to do, in fact required them to do. As long as the housing market was booming there was no problem because homes were becoming more valuable than the mortgages on them so they could be sold for a profit. When the housing bubble popped all those asset base securities became worthless and the whole house of cards collapsed. On multiple occasions George Bush tried to reform Fannie and Freddie but Barney Frank and Chris Dodd blocked any reform right up until the bubble popped. The government then bailed out all those institutions holding the now worthless bad asset backed securities. Now just who ought to go to jail?
This is the opinion of Joe Duarte, financial newsletter writer and known nationally in the stock/financial arena.
Please read what he wrote in this morning's newsletter. (And be aware that it won't be available to read tomorrow, but his full version will be free to read in his archive in a few days.)
<Europe, the Election, and the Economy, the three E's that are driving the markets are once again exerting their influence. . . . the interaction between the three are becoming increasingly entwined and increasingly important. The U.S. election in 2012 is also moving toward a new level. The anti Wall Street protests are becoming global. But there seems to be infiltration from anarchists, at least in Europe, and there are now some reports that suggest that some in the media may be trying to organize the protests.
To be sure, president Obama has made it clear that he support the protestors . . . . We suspect that there will be violence at some point.>
>> . . . The anti Wall Street protests are becoming global. But there seems to be infiltration from anarchists, at least in Europe, and there are now some reports that suggest that some in the media may be trying to organize the protests. . . .<<
Duarte has it right. These shapeless blobs of protest are being molded into agitators for Obama's socialist policies: spend money, soak the rich, spread the wealth, punish the banks, kill the corporations and grow the government. It won't succeed because these protestors don't really give a damn . . . many of them are from the wealthiest elements of our society. They're just spouting words put into their mouths by the organizers. They're having a good time pretending to be 60s radicals on a tear. They'll quit when it gets cold or someone gets hurt (which is likely to happen because the organizers know they need a Kent State moment to go on).
My ex MIT prof, friend now designing drones for Mercury systems said this in Sept at barbie. "pshhh Obama isn't a business man, we need a biz grad". When informed that neither Reagan/Clinton/FDR/TedRoo/Ike Trunman were bizness grads nor are any business grads except the master of disater George Bush he winced in MIT ignorance.
>>My ex MIT prof, friend now designing drones for Mercury systems said this in Sept at barbie. "pshhh Obama isn't a business man, we need a biz grad". When informed that neither Reagan/Clinton/FDR/TedRoo/Ike Trunman were bizness grads nor are any business grads except the master of disater George Bush he winced in MIT ignorance.<<
I'm not following your train of thought because I can't figure out to which post you've replied. Want to quote something from it?
>>Try this. Go to thread 646692 and read the reply that says "Please do not post in this manner. Replies are for YOUR ideas, not quotes. . . ." and then compare that reply against reply #19 and reply #35. Equal treatment as to what IS allowed and what is DISallowed?<<
Weird, someone has it in for you. Since when isn't one allowed to quote? Doesn't make sense.
>>Ah, so you did something more recently that set them off. It's probably something of which you aren't even aware or considered insignificant.<<
Actually I can think of two things, though nothing that would bother a male staffer (they don't get territorial and they don't get PMS).
Anyway, all at once last night I realized something when I was trying to craft a description of evidence for a post there. As I mentioned yesterday, her (their?) stringent rules (no bold, no italic, no quoting, no links . . . a crafty attempt to box me in, to dilute my posts) makes it tough for me, but in striving to overcome her restrictions, I've been able to clarify my points, make them more sharply (I hope). And last night, all it once it came to me, and I just giggled and giggled . . . that staffer had thrown me into the br'ar patch! I was bo'n and bred in the br'ar patch! For how many years have I honed my editorial skills? And how many reams of both my primary and secondary research have I written up? LOL
BTW, have you read reply #87 (posted at 12:40) in 647262? I consider it a must read. That poster does his homework, I learned from something he said in another thread. You might come across other things worth thinking about if you browse that page, too.
>>That's interesting. It provides a short term test for WHI's accuracy. He predicts a massive PR campaign for bringing the soldiers "Home For Christmas." We'll know if that's true within two months.<<
Hasn't the (alleged) destabilizer of Egypt and Libya already mentioned destabilizing Iraq? But you're right, he hasn't mentioned a specific date.
How do you like the _unconscionable_ plan the Obama campaign has been contemplating . . . fake an attempt on O's life to rake in the sympathy vote?!
Want to see a really sharp completed test of WHI's accuracy?
Published 21 August:
<Insider: . . . and the other thing…it relates to a staffing issue. The loss of a critical member of the Obama staff. A resignation that will further the growing perception that the Obama White House is a place of internal disarray – which it absolutely is. And this event will also be a signal to those in the Democratic Party that Barack Obama’s re-election is not in their best future interests. . . .>
On 11 October the media reported that CHIEF OF STAFF Bill Daley announced he will leave the White House after the 2012 election.
>>Yes I can see something like that happening. The unions are the organizers behind much of this and they'll supply the thugs when violence becomes the strategy.<<
Do you remember that on 9/11 AQ made sure the tunnel leading to the WTC was blocked so that emergency vehicles such as fire trucks couldn't get to it? I wonder if Leo has that in mind along with the bridges.
>>Probably [Nielsen's trend numbers] move a little towards Apple since the 4S is out.<<
I still haven't looked into what is different about the 4S. What do you know about it?
>>I doubt it's a takeover thing this time. AKAM has simply broke the 40 point downward momentum and has well exceeded dead cat bounce territory. It's OK to buy AKAM again.<<
AKAM's gain today is puzzling. Even if reversing its months of downward momentum, why is it up when its two main competitors (except for Amazon) are likely merging?
I'm still in the middle of replying to your 12:35 PM post yesterday. It's longer than I expected it to be.
>>Probably to Nov 23 when the supercommittee reports. Then if it looks like the military is going to be gutted things could come apart.<<
Isn't that pretty much a done deal since the Dems _want_ to gut the military? The Dems would even have the bonus of claiming that _their_ budgeting saved the day.
>>Yes that's what I was commenting on.<<
About the possible significance of the two flotillas? I don't think we're on the same page.
I can't copy the entire paragraph because its length may exceed copyright fair use and I was told that publication sues copyright infringers. The paragraph begins with:
<For example, it is known that Ayers, Dohrn, and Jodi Evans of Code Pink form the driving force behind the so-called 'Peace Flotilla' that is aimed at breaching Israel's blockade of Gaza and provoking attacks. . . .>
That's not all. There's more.
>>Don't know but as much as I've heard of recent polls Gingrich is way ahead of Romney nationally.<<
On InTrade, Romney has gradually been declining while Gingrich has been rising.
>>For sure [there are many more poor than rich] but the rich pay by far the largest amount of the tax burden:
That I knew, and of course the rich also have the largest amount left over after they pay their taxes. This caught my attention (italics original):
<But Americans _did_ respond to the [Bush] tax cuts. There was more investment, more hiring by businesses, and a stronger stock market. When we compare the taxes paid under the old system with those paid after the Bush tax cuts, the rich are now actually paying a higher proportion of income taxes. . . .>
In its simplest denominator, that response proves the country NEEDS the poor to have more money left after paying taxes, evidently because the poor are the masses. It takes MASSIVE spending injected into an economy to juice it . . . therefore MASSES of spendERS are required. There are not masses of wealthy people, and it would be _impractical_ for them to spend most of their after-taxes money.
>>What I want is for the Fair Tax to get implemented (it will work best) <<
After seeing what the Bush tax cuts did for the economy, including for employment, I'm not so sure the Fair Tax is the answer. The economy needs MASSES of people SPENDING to rev it, like a steamboat engine needs masses of steam to propel the boat. But you've studied economy; I'm just looking in through one window. So it's likely you're right about the Fair Tax. My problem is being unable to see it working as fast as it did with Bush's impetus.
>> and the only path to that I see is through Cain. It seems a moot point now since Cain is talking about getting out of the race due to the last bimbo eruption. She's a Bialek carbon copy but with a more believable story and it will probably do Cain in.<<
It appears that bimbos were the Baptist minister's choice. And you were right. Remember you said a man going through a rocky period in his marriage would take a mistress instead of harassing fellow(ette) workers and others? And you observed the accusations [and settlements] were all confined to his NRA employment period? Maybe his mistress providing the relief he needed in that time period was also the reason he stopped (if he did) his more aggressive behavior.
GreatPlains (652905) posted some logic based on what Cain told Blitzer:
<. . .
Gloria Cain did not know she existed or that she was her husband's special friend.
. . .
Decent and honorable married men don't have secret friendships with women
behind their wive's backs for 13 years.
Nor do they take money from the family budget and secretly give it to another woman
. . .>
It was Cain's lawyer who clinched it for me. Did you read what he said . . . that avoided perjuring himself?
<. . . This is not an accusation of harassment in the workplace – this is not an accusation of an assault - which are subject matters of legitimate inquiry to a political candidate.
Rather, this appears to be an accusation of private, alleged consensual conduct between adults - a subject matter which is not a proper subject of inquiry by the media or the public. No individual, whether a private citizen, a candidate for public office or a public official, should be questioned about his or her private sexual life. The public's right to know and the media's right to report has boundaries and most certainly those boundaries end outside of one's bedroom door.>
And one more paragraph.