Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
I am Anomaly
14740 Followers
Bluebillion
3901 Followers
Comgen & Dr. Socks' love child
12547 Followers
upnorthgirlFeb 22, 2012
One more for the cookie jar "The price of apathy is to be ruled by evil men - Plato."
novenatorFeb 22, 2012Submitter
"The only thing required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" -Burke
"The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who stand by and do nothing" -Einstein
mrjoshuancFeb 23, 2012
All due respect to Einstein, but the evil guys really do help the cause ;P
jpurdyFeb 23, 2012
"With the apathy that exists today, a well organized minority can influence the selection of candidates to an astonishing degree." Pat Robertson 1990
http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2007/04/08/scandal_puts_spotlight_on_christian_law_school/?page=full
jpurdyFeb 23, 2012
Get enough brainwashed Regent U grads in government, especially in the Justice Dept, and a few of them will become legislators and/or judges.
anomaly100Feb 22, 2012
This article is a really good read. I need to get the book.
barackalypseFeb 23, 2012
Can I recommend you check out The Wheel of Time series since you seem to enjoy reading fantasy?
anomaly100Feb 23, 2012
You may but I won't read it:-P
comgenFeb 23, 2012
I think I just poohedededed myself.....WoT !
Barackalypse, ref.: The Wheel of Time series
Granted not the best in this genre, though I would/will highly recommend the series.
http://www.dragonmount.com/Books/index.php
Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time is a story that takes place both in our past and our future. In his fantasy world, the Dark One, the embodiment of pure evil, is breaking free from his prison. The overall plot is about a man who learns that he is the reincarnation of the world's messiah and is once again destined to save the world from the Dark One -- but possibly destroy it in the process. This saga is not only his story, but the story of an entire world's struggle to deal with war and change, destruction and hope.
Jordan's will be missed....
-- best regards
anomaly100Feb 23, 2012
Well if you recommend it....wait a sec, you murdered Anomaly! Fergetaboutit!
upnorthgirlFeb 22, 2012
I will never forget these protests, and they still go on. You should have seen the rally around the Capital at the Recall Walker kick-off. And you should see the protest signs still in the windows of homes and snow banks around Madison. This has not gone away.
superkendallFeb 23, 2012
And all of it paid by the taxpayers as everyone there was certified "sick" by a doctor.
How ironically accurate all the doctors really were...
Your movements real problem is that taxpayers will not stand being fleeced any longer. Union members are the new 1%, living high above the taxpayers that support them. How long can taxpayers really stand that?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mikelistFeb 23, 2012
union members are the new 1%? seriously? hyperbole much?
waveman56Feb 23, 2012
Superkendall said;
"taxpayers will not stand being fleeced any longer. Union members are the new 1%, living high above the taxpayers that support them."
OK, it seems ridiculous that anyone could make that claim with a straight face. But what the hell lets take a look at the stats;
I have some good data up to 2008.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, between 1979 and 2007 incomes of the top 1% of Americans grew by an average of 275%. ...
Since 1979 the average pre-tax income for the bottom 90% of households has decreased by $900, while that of the top 1% increased by over $700,000, as federal taxation became less progressive.
From 1992-2007 the top 400 income earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% and their average tax rate reduced by 37%
on the other hand unions;
From 1983 to 2007 union membership has fallen from 20.1 to 12.1. Since 2007 it's dropped to it's lowest rate at 11.8%.
If you look at the numbers above it's pretty obvious where the wealth is going and it's not to the unions.
In fact unions suffered greatly due to Republican legislature, (it's a major theme of the subject the article discusses). It's amazing that they only lost .1% last year, the loss coming from 61,000 workers in the Gov sector.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States
It's the Inequality, Stupid By Dave Gilson and Carolyn Perot in Mother Jones, March/April 2011 Issue
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:2Hnm6v9KcGgJ:www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2008/10/art3full.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESg-3kjawouXeBbcpKHT9RIEb-GJNFRmVUGTYciLzB8qyX4sQbrc2uCbwIqBJbWHOFYvs1mD8pOM1KwnHhqsi04P5ZUGX1MQCT-s48K17OSfmIkUOdFt5D9qBgSIrrd3d6o6i6w_&sig=AHIEtbTF7jAXnWp4KV9Tql0-a4c7d1CssQ
http://www.usatoday.com/money/workplace/story/2012-01-27/union-membership-growing/52817346/1
rixar13Feb 22, 2012
"The Tea Party went to the ship that had the tea of the British East India Company. There was a sense of corporate power linked directly to political power. And Jefferson and Madison understood that really well, Madison especially."
No Tea, coffee for me please....
akronFeb 23, 2012
I'm from Wisconsin, and I don't see any change. The unions lost, and people are split 50/50 over Walker. It's sort of like 10,000 people with guns pointing at 10,000 people with guns.
Who wins?
macparrotFeb 23, 2012
The people who make the guns
craig1958Feb 23, 2012
Why do some people believe that every minor event occurring near them, or during their lifetime, will "change america"? Guess what, almost nothing really changes. This stuff comes and goes with every generation, every decade, every administration, every year. In 50 years these current events (the occupy movements, the tea baggers, etc.) won't even merit a footnote.
This isn't the civil rights movement, it's not women's suffrage, it's not the civil war, it's not 9/11, it's not Watergate; it's not even the Teapot Dome scandal.
miklkitFeb 23, 2012
I beg to differ. In the 1960s we dirty hippies toppled a popular President and changed the national dialog.
Former McCarthyite Nixon became a moderate and quit chasing "communists".
This is where a new national movement began and the good people of Wisconsin are doing it right. OWS is following in their footsteps, but staggering slightly. I am so ashamed of those anarchists in Oakland.
Walker is gone, and soon the governors in Ohio, Michigan and elsewhere will be too. This is a seminal moment.
craig1958Feb 23, 2012
Yup, I also remember the 60s; and I can see the differences very clearly. I remember the anti-war movement being national news every day in a country where everyone sat down and watched (and believed) the evening news at 6 o'clock; complete with body counts and video of protests. By the late 60s, almost everyone had come to the same conclusion and LBJ declined to run for another term. That was actually a national movement. That nation no longer exists.
What we have today is a very fragmented society that happens to live in the same country. There are news sources tailored to every sub-culture in the nation. Most people only listen to those who agree with them. The teabaggers and the occupiers both actually believe that they are on the leading edge of a major change and that the represent the majority of the population. In reality, each of those groups represents a very small, but vocal, percentage of the population. Neither group is formed around a core issue; they are both temporary alliances of groups that happen to have similar goals at the moment. Members of both groups spend most of their time talking to themselves while the national media and most of the country ignores them. Both groups are really just reactions to a temporary economic situation, similar to the US socialist movement during the first half of the 20th century. They will both cause some disruption it their little corners of the world, and both will disappear as soon as the economy recovers and they discover that their members have very little in common. Most americans will not even notice.
superkendallFeb 23, 2012
FYI use of the sexual slang "teabaggers" marks you as someone of low intellect; your writing was otherwise intelligent so I thought you might want to correct this.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
craig1958Feb 23, 2012
Thanks for the advice, but that term is really too descriptive to pass up. I'm not really trying to impress anyone with my intellect. Besides, it always worked for Kurt Vonnegut. (-;
jpurdyFeb 23, 2012
The term is appropriately descriptive of what those on the extreme right are trying to do to the American people.
publiclurkerFeb 23, 2012
When you consider that that's what they called themselves until someone told them why everyone was laughing at them, I'd consider the name perfectly descriptive, as it points to the level of cluelessness that they all possess.
StanPFeb 23, 2012
Damn! That was well said! We live in the most liberal and free society in the world and those with entitlement issues still have the gall to complain.
stevanoskiFeb 23, 2012
Agree completely.
macparrotFeb 23, 2012
LBJ? Not that popular.
Nixon was a master politician (probably the only one his equal in modern times was Clinton) and went with where the wind was blowing on the conservative side. If you look at his actions during McCarthyism, he was one of the first to slowly back away once it was clear that McCarthy had gone way too far with something that never shuld have been started in the first place.For want of a better makeup job he very well could have won in 1960
craig1958Feb 23, 2012
LBJ was popular until he became associated with vietnam, then he became the symbol for the "establishment." It's really too bad that his civil rights work became overshadowed by the war. To his credit, he knew when it was over and not to run in 1968. Unfortunately for the democrats, he did not give his party enough notice and they just couldn't get it together before the convention.
LBJ was a pretty good back-room politician in his own right, but he wasn't what you would call "subtle." Nixon was actually a moderate, but he did know how to avoid the traps.
I always wonder if JFK would have let vietnam get out of hand.
stevanoskiFeb 23, 2012
LBJ was the biggest crook since the Grant administration.
craig1958Feb 23, 2012
Crook?
stevanoskiFeb 23, 2012
LBJ was as dishonest as they come.
http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2009-07-13.asp
http://greedybastardsclub.blogspot.com/2009/07/mcnamara-and-lbj-crooks-liars-murderers.html
superkendallFeb 23, 2012
As it turned out though, we know now there really WERE communist agents. So really you were a force for evil... but eventually your influence diminished, your ideas proven unsound. These days there is but a whisper of what you have done, your influence squandered.
So you affected a few decades, that means nothing in the long run.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
barackalypseFeb 23, 2012
Interesting that they consider anything changed what with Prosser being elected to the State Supreme Court and casting his vote to declare the law that started the whole protest in the first place valid. And then to add insult to injury Walker's Gubernatorial rival, Democrat Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barret went and used the negotiating powers that Walker's law granted when making the latest city budget.
Oh, there were 2 recalled Republican Senators, out of a total of 6, which did nothing to change the Senate balance of power. Oh, and Walker will have to face a re-election, but he's leading all challengers in the poll.
GoodGuyGregFeb 22, 2012
The Wisconsin Uprising stared the quick death process for The Tea Party.
barackalypseFeb 23, 2012
Uh huh, just last September quintessential Tea Party Republican Bob Turner beat a Jewish Democrat in New York City for Weiner's vacated House seat. Maybe when the Tea Party stops winning elections like this it will be easier to read your statements without laughter.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/14/nyregion/ny-democrats-try-to-avoid-upset-in-special-election.html?pagewanted=all
waveman56Feb 23, 2012
Barackalypse said;
" Maybe when the Tea Party stops winning elections like this it will be easier to read your statements without laughter."
Don't think you'll have to worry about that. A poll in Aug found the tea party ranks lower than 23 other traditionally maligned groups. They rank lower than Muslims, Atheists and even Sarah Palin.*
In Sept a CNN poll found they were viewed favorably by just 28 percent of Americans and negatively by 53%.
The tea party congress has the lowest approval rating in history (they started asking the question in 1977). It was at a record 82% disapproval after the debt talks. ***. They ended the year with a approval rating of 11%.****
So I don't think it's a stretch to predict the next election cycle isn't going to reflect very favorably on the tea party.
I think that people now have a more comprehensive understanding of what the tea party stands for. They show the strongest predictor of Tea party affiliation was Republican affiliation and a desire to see religion play a prominent role in politics.*****
I believe that once people began to see these were the same far right social conservatives, who had been claiming they were non-partisan politic neophytes, they lost a lot of credibility and support.
*http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/17/opinion/crashing-the-tea-party.html?_r=1&ref=teapartymovement
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2011/08/26/study-tea-party-is-least-popular-american-political-entity/
**http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-09-27/politics/30207187_1_approval-rating-favorability-rating-wrong-direction
***http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/05/us/politics/05poll.html?ref=us
****http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/wonkbook-the-least-popular-congress-in-history/2011/12/20/gIQA8mGp6O_blog.html
*****David E. Campbell and Robert D. Putnam's book "American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us". Great book check it out.
CNN poll, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2784414/posts
superkendallFeb 23, 2012
Liberal polls do not help your cause. Elections are what REALLY matter, and there the Tea Party is winning all over.
waveman56Feb 23, 2012
Superkendall said; Liberal polls do not help your cause." Liberal polls?
Pew Research; 36% favorable vs 43 negatively Aug*
CNN/ORC; 28% favorable vs 53% negatively Sept**
Time magazine; 27% favorable Oct***
Or perhaps to you everything except a fox viewers poll is liberal? BTW you can see a clear pattern/trend, care to guess what it is (hint: it's chronological)?
I bet if you look, you can find a lot more polls with similar results.
"Elections are what REALLY matter, and there the Tea Party is winning all over."
That's why I'v posted these polls showing the tea parties popularity, it's a predictor of their electability right now. During the time they took the house their popularity was significantly different. But hey don't let the actual facts slow you down.
*http://www.pollwatchdaily.com/2011/09/02/poll-tea-party-movement-loses-popularity-as-it-gets-better-known/ http://www.people-press.org/2011/08/25/section-3-congress-the-political-parties-and-the-tea-party/
**http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/09/27/sept27.poll.pdf
***http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-tea-partys-popularity-problem/2011/08/25/gIQATsBjhL_blog.html
barackalypseFeb 23, 2012
You forgot the poll where they rank higher than Occupy Wall Street. Even more amusing is its Public Policy Polling, not Rasmussen or anything you guys will blame a conservative bias on...
"But asked whether they have a higher opinion of the Tea Party or Occupy Wall Street movement the Tea Party wins out 43-37, representing a flip from last month when Occupy Wall Street won out 40-37 on that question"
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011/11/occupy-wall-street-favor-fading.htmlComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
waveman56Feb 23, 2012
Barackalypse said;
"You forgot the poll where they rank higher than Occupy Wall Street."
I forgot teh poll on occupy when we are discussing whether the tea party will be winning elections (ie *their* popularity)? Hmmm...might want to check your critical thinking skills there....
jpurdyFeb 23, 2012
assuming the presence of any such skills....
barackalypseFeb 23, 2012
Except elections aren't decided based on the popularity of just one group or candidate, they're based on the popularity of one side in relation to opposing side. So you can't say "most Americans don't support the Tea Party" and conclude that means they'll lose elections, because it depends who the other side in the election in, and in this case, if its OWS they would have the advantage.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
waveman56Feb 24, 2012
Barackalypse said;
"Except elections aren't decided based on the popularity of just one group or candidate, they're based on the popularity of one side in relation to opposing side."
The opposing side is the democrats. OWS doesn't field or endorse a candidate.
Your line of thinking along this thread has been really fubar'd.
You make a claim that they (the tea party) are going to be winning elections. I show you that the Tea party's popularity has dropped precipitously in the last few months.
Your response is OWS is less popular. Then you say it's relevant because;
"they'll lose elections, because it depends who the other side in the election in, and in this case, if its OWS they would have the advantage."
OWS doesn't have or endorse a candidate....as active as you are in the political threads on Digg, it's difficult to believe you don't know this.
Base your beliefs on facts not the other way around, because your ideology is really F'n up your logic.
barackalypseFeb 24, 2012
Actually, the full timeline went more like:
1. GoodGuyGreg says the Wisconsin uprising started a quick death for the Tea Party.
2. I respond with the Tea Party's isn't dead as long as its winning elections and point to their candidate winning the House seat in Weiner's old district months after the Wisconsin uprising started.
3. You post some articles about Tea Party approval rating being low. Three of these articles are from August and then in September the Tea Party's candidate wins Weiner's vacated House seat. I can't think of a stronger rebuttal to your point than that.
4. I respond by showing the Tea Party enjoys greater support than the other big political movement at the moment, OWS.
I picked OWS because they are sort of an ideological opposite of the Tea Party in certain ways (though in others like the bailouts they mgiht agree). As far as OWS not being affiliated with a party, consider that of the OWS people that voted in 2008, 74% voted for Obama. Can you really imagine any of those people voting for a guy like Romney that worked in private equity or a religious nut like Santorum? Me either, effectively making OWS Democrats in any election they vote in.
http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/10/occupy-wall-street-demographic-survey-results-will-surprise-you.phpComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
hchampagneFeb 23, 2012
The recall effort is aimed at re-establishing the unions' ability to have dues collected from paychecks. If the unions lose this, they know that they are toast. Hence they will do anything necessary to win.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
superkendallFeb 23, 2012
Yep. In the end this is not about altruism but money and power for the unions. Not even the union members mind you... since many jobs were saved. Unions don't care about jobs, just power and money.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
javaroastFeb 23, 2012
If by saved you mean a huge net job loss you'd be accurate. Since you don't... you aren't.
crashdvisFeb 23, 2012
Auto-buried for alternet spam and BS.
markoloFeb 24, 2012
Teclast A10T Tablet PC
http://www.openbluebox.com/teclast-a10t-tablet-pc-9-7-inch-android-2-3-8gb-1g-ram-hdmi-2160p-aluminum-shell-camera.html
davidnivenFeb 23, 2012
Laughable article. The Wisconsin uprising failed. If anything, it galvanized the non-liberals to take action.
Now, the Tea Party did result in demonstrable changes...and still is. It is the only reason we're having a discussion about the national debt at all.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kasha34Feb 23, 2012
It's almost cute how, to the lefty/libs, the words "uprising" and "protest" and "renegade" are instantly cool.
superkendallFeb 23, 2012
Wisconsin is the last gasp of a dying liberal system fighting to keep living off the taxpayer. There's no way it can last because we are out of money.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
waveman56Feb 23, 2012
No, were a very wealthy nation, it's just the majority of our wealth is owned by the richest Americans;
In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States
StanPFeb 23, 2012
The quote below sums up the "Wisconsin Uprising" and similar actions.
"The current Occupy Wall Street movement is the best illustration to date of what President Barack Obama's America looks like. It is an America where the lawless, unaccomplished, ignorant and incompetent rule. It is an America where those who have sacrificed nothing pillage and destroy the lives of those who have sacrificed greatly.
"It is an America where history is rewritten to honor dictators, murderers and thieves. It is an America where violence, racism, hatred, class warfare and murder are all promoted as acceptable means of overturning the American civil society.
"It is an America where humans have been degraded to the level of animals: defecating in public, having sex in public, devoid of basic hygiene. It is an America where the basic tenets of a civil society, including faith, family, a free press and individual rights, have been rejected. It is an America where our founding documents have been shredded and, with them, every person's guaranteed liberties.
"It is an America where, ultimately, great suffering will come to the American people, but the rulers like Obama, Michelle Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, liberal college professors, union bosses and other loyal liberal/Communist Party members will live in opulent splendor.
"It is the America that Obama and the Democratic Party have created with the willing assistance of the American media, Hollywood , unions, universities, the Communist Party of America , the Black Panthers and numerous anti-American foreign entities.
"Barack Obama has brought more destruction upon this country in four years than any other event in the history of our nation, but it is just the beginning of what he and his comrades are capable of.
"The Occupy Wall Street movement is just another step in their plan for the annihilation of America . "Socialism, in general, has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it."
Thomas SowellComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
waveman56Feb 23, 2012
Did Sowell forget to take his meds the day he wrote that?
"It is the America that Obama and the Democratic Party have created with the willing assistance of the American media, Hollywood , unions, universities, the Communist Party of America , the Black Panthers and numerous anti-American foreign entities.
Looks like the typical far right spank bank list.....
It's so ridiculous it's hard to know where to even start addressing the insanity.
StanPFeb 23, 2012
hmmmm....... once we get to the point of defunding programs that support "waveman56" and his ilk we can sit back and enjoy the increased whining of "where's my free s**t". it's about time to wash the trash off the streets and let people go back to work "if" they want to. i'm f**king tired of hearing "can you hold this job until my UI payments run out.....Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
waveman56Feb 23, 2012
I don't get a penny from any Gov program, but don't let the facts get in the way of your ideology.
If you support someone that sees the Communist Party of America and other far right boogymen behind OWS, then facts probably arn't your strong suit.
As far as the claim that your tired of hearing people waiting for their unemployment to run out before going to work, I'd be surprised if that was true. I did a quick scan on various states UI benefits and it looks like they get paid a 1/3 to 1/4 what they were making in the last year or so.
So yeah it totally makes sense they'd forgo work, to live on that princely sum........