Let's compare today with yesterday...

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by bhunter

You don't remember Pelosi on the Tea Party?

I don't remember her making a statement that the tea party must be stopped or controlled. I found comments by her that Bush must be stopped, and violent raids on workers must be stopped, but nothing that the the tea party must be stopped. I did find her comment about the tea party being an astroturf movement, because of it's top down funding. That was brilliant. Perhaps you mistook her statement that the tea party was being controlled with a suggestion that it must be controlled. As it stands now, I haven't been able to find anything to suggest that your paraphrase was accurate.

Regards,

D-Ray

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

I don't remember her making a statement that the tea party must be stopped or controlled. I found comments by her that Bush must be stopped, and violent raids on workers must be stopped, but nothing that the the tea party must be stopped. I did find her comment about the tea party being an astroturf movement, because of it's top down funding. That was brilliant. Perhaps you mistook her statement that the tea party was being controlled with a suggestion that it must be controlled. As it stands now, I haven't been able to find anything to suggest that your paraphrase was accurate.

Regards,

D-Ray

It was in response to the town hall meetings in 2009 amid the healthcare debate. She made a weak attempt at comparing the Tea Party sentiment towards the House members at town halls to what happened in San Francisco to Harvey Milk and Mayor Moscone.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by bhunter

It was in response to the town hall meetings in 2009 amid the healthcare debate. She made a weak attempt at comparing the Tea Party sentiment towards the House members at town halls to what happened in San Francisco to Harvey Milk and Mayor Moscone.

Don't think that translates into the statement attributed to her here - particularly without the benefit of the actual quote identified above. I would expect that you might find plenty of reasons to disagree with positions that Pelosi has taken without having to distort or magnify the meaning of her other statements.

Whatever differences one might have with her policies, I would imagine that she did not reach her office by being stupid. More than likely she would know that the First Amendment would not support her taking a position that a particular series of demonstrations must be suppressed.

On the other hand there is absolutely no constitutional impediment or lack of democracy for a public official to suggest that a group should exercise self restraint.

Regards,

D-Ray

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by bhunter

Except people back in the depression had to scratch out a living by hard labor for their family's welfare. They lacked most of the luxuries, including time, that the OWS appear to have. It is a question of absolute versus relative wealth. I'd like the OWS people to trade places with some Sub-Saharan Africans so they could understand the difference. The OWS people are still better off than most anyone during any period in history. Guess what did that? It sure the hell wasn't fanciful socialist ideology.

Just because someone else is wealthier doesn't mean that you've suffered a harm commensurate with the wealth differential. The illusory tenet of left wing ideology is based on that absolutist perspective on wealth. As such, it explains both the homogeneity of protest movements over time and the concomitant class warfare rhetoric that exists in such movements. There is indeed a reason that the OWS group looks similar and promotes issues similar to the anti-free traders.

You need to crack a real history book some time, my friend. During the Great Depression we had Communists---real ones---marching in the streets. We had Nazis---real ones, not the imaginary ones Beck dredges up---openly organizing in the heartland. We stood on the brink of violent revolution. And right many Americans were ready to follow anyone who promised three squares a day and a roof over their heads.

The OWS folks have a far more realistic view of what the future holds than you apparently do. The people you defend will end up learning the hard way that no one really wants to be their step-n-fetchit bitch, if they don't stop pushing. You think protesters in the streets is bad, in most revolutions the wealthy elite end up with their heads in a basket. Hopefully things here will not escalate to that.

A friend of mine quoted Ayn Rand and asked me what I thought of her words, just a few days ago. I responded, "The real question lies in how much freedom and material benefit you are willing to give up in order to keep them happy. Assuming such a thing is even possible."

Old saying---"What's good for the mine is good for the miner."---Several decades ago, people discovered this is only true up to a point. What? Do we have to go through it all again?

Dave

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

You need to crack a real history book some time, my friend. During the Great Depression we had Communists---real ones---marching in the streets. We had Nazis---real ones, not the imaginary ones Beck dredges up---openly organizing in the heartland. We stood on the brink of violent revolution. And right many Americans were ready to follow anyone who promised three squares a day and a roof over their heads.

The OWS folks have a far more realistic view of what the future holds than you apparently do. The people you defend will end up learning the hard way that no one really wants to be their step-n-fetchit bitch, if they don't stop pushing. You think protesters in the streets is bad, in most revolutions the wealthy elite end up with their heads in a basket. Hopefully things here will not escalate to that.

A friend of mine quoted Ayn Rand and asked me what I thought of her words, just a few days ago. I responded, "The real question lies in how much freedom and material benefit you are willing to give up in order to keep them happy. Assuming such a thing is even possible."

Old saying---"What's good for the mine is good for the miner."---Several decades ago, people discovered this is only true up to a point. What? Do we have to go through it all again?

Dave

I did not state that no one protested. I said that people have more leisure today than they did then largely because of the capitalist system. And according to the whiz folks at the OWS, what does the future hold? Weren't those the same arguments that were put forth back then?

The OWS hopefully will be intelligent enough not to turn towards violence. They'll quickly lose support and be suppressed by law enforcement.

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Don't think that translates into the statement attributed to her here - particularly without the benefit of the actual quote identified above. I would expect that you might find plenty of reasons to disagree with positions that Pelosi has taken without having to distort or magnify the meaning of her other statements.

Whatever differences one might have with her policies, I would imagine that she did not reach her office by being stupid. More than likely she would know that the First Amendment would not support her taking a position that a particular series of demonstrations must be suppressed.

On the other hand there is absolutely no constitutional impediment or lack of democracy for a public official to suggest that a group should exercise self restraint.

Regards,

D-Ray

Her implication was clear. I was amazed that a Speaker of the House would make such inferences. She may not have reached her office by being stupid, but once there, she's made some truly idiotic statements. Remember the "pass it to know what's in it" statement.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by bhunter

I did not state that no one protested. I said that people have more leisure today than they did then largely because of the capitalist system. And according to the whiz folks at the OWS, what does the future hold? Weren't those the same arguments that were put forth back then?

The OWS hopefully will be intelligent enough not to turn towards violence. They'll quickly lose support and be suppressed by law enforcement.

People have more simply because the middle class grew. Since war was declared on the middle class that has/is changing. What you and I have is not attributable to some benificent free market. I worked for what we have but must acknowledge that I do owe thanks to the people who paid good money to hear my lectures.