StrangeSox

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 17, 2012 -> 02:58 PM) Frankly yeah, I'm going to hate seeing ads about how bad it would be to vote for a Mormon if they do show up, and that ought to be considered out of bounds. TDS had a great segment on this the other day, how some in the media are already asking really dumb, biased questions to Romney supporters and team members about Mormonism that they've never asked about Reid or any other Mormon public official. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c Mormon, Mo' Problems www.thedailyshow.com Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

The Rev. Wright stuff was a bunch of silly nonsense that didn't work in 2008 and certainly isn't going to work in 2012 after Obama's been President for nearly 4 years. Pew found in 2008 that most people thought the Wright story was overcovered, including half of Republicans. There's also some pretty disgusting wording in the proposal like what gatnom quoted and the whole idea that Obama is some radical black separatist bent on destroying the nation to get reparations. This proposed media strategy is rightfully being attacked for the vile crap that it is. Ads that attack Mormonism should be equally admonished as bigoted. Ads that attack someone Romney worked with decades ago will likely be even less effective than the Wright/Ayers stuff was on Obama. Billionaires who are funding expensive political campaigns are not off limits. They are choosing to insert themselves into national politics in a very real way and deserve to be criticized by people who oppose what they're spending lavishly on (both left and right!) Ricketts is funding an anti-Obama "stop wasteful spending!!!" campaign while turning around and begging a broke state and a broke city for $150M. Of course it's not out of bounds.

Metrosexual black Abe Lincoln will be a popular Halloween costume, I predict.

The irony of Ricketts b****ing about wasteful government spending isn't even dependent on this particular proposal. The fact that he wants to "End Spending" while his family is begging for public funds for their ballpark is enough.

The Justice Department put out a memo the other day stating that they believe the 1st Amendment protects citizens' rights to videotape police activities. I believe it is still illegal in Illinois, though someone would seem likely to win a lawsuit over this if they were arrested for it.

He's the main source of funds for the ESAF, which had this hilarious/depressing plan drafted. I don't think anyone said he was the actual author of it. Even with the quick attempts to disown this, KEEP YOUR GOVERNMENT HANDS OFF MY TAX PAYER-FUNDED RENOVATIONS Ricketts doesn't come out looking good.

I'll say unequivocally that this sounds really dumb! http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/05/16/clo...ng-nato-summit/ (from SexiAlexi)

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 17, 2012 -> 01:30 PM) Right, and IMO people today remember King more than they remember Malcolm X. They remember the message of a dream over the acts of the black panthers. If anything, all of that violent stuff fed racism even more ("look, we give them a little and they become unruly and violent!"). Many of the non-violent protests were met with violent resistance, which is the exact sort of thing you're saying "ho hum" about in the UC Davis case. Using police powers to arrest non-violent protesters is still a use of state-backed force to enforce injustice.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 17, 2012 -> 01:26 PM) Regardless of the legal authority, your average American who reads that story thinks "so kids were sitting down on a sidewalk, arms locked, and they were told to leave repeatedly but didn't? And they got pepper sprayed to leave? Yeah, they probably deserved it." So again, the issue is completely lost and it becomes about whether that response was justified. That's a deep problem with the American psyche*, but you are correct in that when the unjust use of force isn't directly tied to the primary cause of the protest, the cause can take a back seat to discussions over police violence. Would you imagine the response was similar in the 60's to this? But what's the correct response to a quasi-legal order to stop your free speech, completely 100% non-violent protest? "Oh, sorry officer, I'll just be moving along!" The whole point is that you're fighting to change the current structure, so of course you're going to face resistance. *I found this poll that shows 53% disapproved of the actions, 34% approved and 13% had no opinion. I think it's safe to assume that political ideology plays a role in legitimizing actions against ideological opponents, accounting for at least some of the 35%.

When I'm thinking about "is initiation of violence ever justified," I'm thinking back to Gilded Age-era union crackdowns by private 'investigator' firms and sanctioned by the government. Or the 60's civil rights movement, of which there was a violent element in addition to King's non-violent movement.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 17, 2012 -> 01:17 PM) Name me a single violent/disruptive protest that has led to some new progressive change. Civil Rights Era protests often became violent and/or disruptive. Most large-scale, sustained protest movements do because fighting to change the power structure always meets heavy resistance. Have you had a chance to read King's letter yet?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 17, 2012 -> 01:15 PM) I dunno, IMO the arrests/violence aspect of it does nothing but detract from the message and embolden those people against it. Can you tell me what the UC protestors were protesting for/against? I have no clue. It was part of the OWS protests. Police were clearing tents off the quad and a group of students formed a line on the sidewalk by interlocking arms and sitting down. You can read that report that I linked to several times that discusses the entirety of the known facts surrounding the incident, including the days leading up to it. The report found that the order to leave is not even well-established as a legal order, let alone the excessive use of force by deploying chemical weapons officers were not trained to use and didn't use correctly on non-violent protesters who posed no threat to person or property. "Not obeying a police command unquestioningly" does not justify any police response that follows.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 17, 2012 -> 01:11 PM) But those policemen turning firehoses on the marchers were just enforcing the law. Obviously they were doing the right thing and those marchers should have gone back and done something else. That's what's so silly about saying direct-action, unjust-police-response-inducing protests are ineffective or that this strategy somehow legitimize injustice. You don't have to label the 60's civil rights movement with any modern political labeling since what's being questioned is the efficacy of a certain type of protesting. Those protesters knew that they were going to face violent police action when they engaged in their non-violent direct-action protests. They knew the dogs would literally be released, that they'd be beaten and blasted with fire hoses, that they might even get killed. And though they strove to remain non-violent throughout, their intention was to draw attention to the violence inherent in the system of oppression. That's why some of these photographs are so powerful to this day. Even within the civil rights movement, there was disagreement over this strategy, less-confrontational strategies and more extreme confrontational strategies. It was ultimately a mix of them that worked.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 17, 2012 -> 01:06 PM) Well, you can't deny which style ends up with the change the respective group wants. Plenty of leftist and liberal protest movements have been successful, plenty have been unsuccessful. The same is true of rightist and conservative protests.

Underlying this is still the assumption that whatever force the police use that these protesters supposedly desire is actually justified. Even if protesters organize a sit-in fully anticipating being sprayed in the face with pepper spray and welcome the media attention it brings to whatever their cause is, it still doesn't excuse unjust use of force. Yeah, those women who were arrested in NC fully expected to be handcuffed and detained for filing for a marriage license. Yeah, the marchers in Birmingham fully expected to be beat by police and sprayed with fire hoses. That doesn't make their protest less legitimate or ineffective or legitimize injustices. Now, in the case of the NC couple or the 60's civil rights marchers, the link between their cause and the police action was direct--being removed from the court house or from the lunch counter that they're trying to gain equal access to. In a case like UC Davis, the students aren't primarily protesting for access to the quad. In that instance it is clear that they did not expect the use of chemical weapons before the protest began, but even if they had the police aren't suddenly justified.

"My guys do it right while their guys do it wrong!"

*awaits Balta post about independent voters*

But either way, it shows again that the net effect of government spending across all levels has been a drag on the economy for several years now. Obama is proudly highlighting this, but it's not something anyone should really be happy about when we still have high unemployment and widespread economic suffering. If the federal government had covered state and local budget cuts and give us a net-zero effect, we'd be much better off right now, let alone real and sustained positive demand effects.

The link goes into some more detail and does show that the % debt is substantially lower in 10 years.

Ever the optimist!

Possibly.

QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ May 17, 2012 -> 11:52 AM) All of your answers are in this thread: Both sides are going in HOPING nothing happens, but EXPECTING it to happen. No one wins in this scenario as it is a vicious circle... I won't disagree with this.

It's a fashion statement to an extent.

What will happen next year if all the Bush tax cuts expire and all spending cuts kick in:

Well there's your other way to do it right there: independent score-keeping.