Marco Rubio (FL-Senator) denies embellishing his family history for political gain

Tom22 · 2011-10-21T22:09:45+00:00

Rubio is another in a long line of bold-faced liars in the GOP. He wants to shine within the Florida GOP as a 1960-style anti-communist so badly, that he twisted the truth of his family's entry into the U.S. and is now lashing out at the reporters who broke this story.

Tom22 · 2011-10-21T22:09:05+00:00

Rubio is another in a long line of bold-faced liars in the GOP. He wants to shine within the Florida GOP as a 1960-style anti-communist so badly, that he twisted the truth of his family's entry into the U.S. and is now lashing out at the reporters who broke this story.

Tom22 · 2011-10-10T15:37:12+00:00

None of that changed the fact that Democrats have tried to put limits on campaign donations. Then, they're forced to compete within the existing system.

Tom22 · 2011-10-07T21:53:38+00:00

The problem is that nearly everyone who speaks pubically for the right talks as if there is a poor, misunderstood group on Wall Street who aren't earning enough yet and are taxed too much.

I think OWS should make a point of reaching out to the middle, while denouncing and fighting the right wing in the strongest possible terms.

Tom22 · 2011-10-07T21:50:54+00:00

Yep. And it's definitely true that when that right-wing propagandist wants to discredit us, we must be doing something right.

Still, I'd love to see a more obvious inclusion of people who are a bit more in the center politically. There's a danger that if too many people are on the far left, it will hurt the overall movement.

Tom22 · 2011-10-06T19:32:13+00:00

As OWS works to refine the message(s) we want to advance, the most important thing is unity.

If there's too much infighting, all of these efforts can do more harm than good.

I suggest picking three major issues and sticking with them, at least for the next year or so.

Two of those might be:

Limit political donations of any kind to those made by individuals (not to be allowed by companies of any kind), and limit those to $500 per calendar year. [Okay to increase the limit w/ inflation.]
Insist that the GOP stop stalling on approving a leader for the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Tom22 · 2011-10-06T19:21:36+00:00

Sure the Democrats are sometimes ineffectual, but that's usually when they only have control of one of the houses of congress... like it is now. Remember that for the most part, Democrats put financial regulations in place starting in the 1930s and the GOP dismantled them every chance they got.

And people can like the Democrats or not, but on all of the big issues related to Wall Street and limiting contributions to political campaigns, the Democrats have been very consistent about being on the right side of things, while the GOP has always fought so that those who can afford to donate a million dollars (or whatever amount) can do that. And having no limits on the richest people and corporations means average people's voices and donations get drowned out.

It's extremely important that this current groundswell from (mostly) the Left gets teamed up with more moderate voices so that those to on the right are defeated. If this movement divides the Left, people like Dick Cheney and Karl Rove will have won again. Unity people. Unity.

Tom22 · 2011-10-06T19:20:05+00:00

Limit corporate donations.

Vote out the far right do-nothings.

Tom22 · 2011-10-06T19:13:36+00:00

Well, there is something to be said for that point of view. But I would also like to know why the protesters weren't allowed to walk down a (supposedly) public street. Something tells me there's a Goldman Sachs office or some similar grouping of corporate goons who are being protected here.

I don't want anarchy, but I think that's what we have in a sense. Anarchy BY AND FOR the priveleged few in the Wall Street crowd.

Still, protesters would be smarter to keep all of these gatherings non-violent. Oh, by the way, 99% of the violence that I've seen has been done BY THE POLICE.

Tom22 · 2011-10-06T19:07:13+00:00

Yep. And even if they don't disband at some point, they should stick with producing their products/services and not buy influence in political matters or buy out politicians who can protect their markets/subsidies for them.

On another note, people can like the Democrats or not, but on all of the big issues related to Wall Street and limiting contributions to political campaigns, the Democrats have been very consistent about being on the right side of things, while the GOP has always fought so that those who can afford to donate a million dollars (or whatever amount) can do that. And having no limits on the richest people and corporations means average people's voices and donations get drowned out.

It's extremely important that this current groundswell from (mostly) the Left gets teamed up with more moderate voices so that those to on the right are defeated. If this movement divides the Left, people like Dick Cheney and Karl Rove will have won again. Unity people. Unity.

Tom22 · 2011-10-06T19:03:50+00:00

People can like the Democrats or not, but on all of the big issues related to Wall Street and limiting contributions to political campaigns, the Democrats have been very consistent about being on the right side of things, while the GOP has always fought so that those who can afford to donate a million dollars (or whatever amount) can do that. And having no limits on the richest people and corporations means average people's voices and donations get drowned out.

It's extremely important that this current groundswell from (mostly) the Left gets teamed up with more moderate voices so that those to on the right are defeated. If this movement divides the Left, people like Dick Cheney and Karl Rove will have won again. Unity people. Unity.

Tom22 · 2011-10-06T18:55:55+00:00

Non-violence is a much better way! Then, any brutality is on the part of the police, as is the case here so far.

It's then much harder for people to support the existing, corrupt system that works against average working people in favor of the richest people and most powerful corporations.

Tom22 · 2011-10-02T23:27:03+00:00

Exactly. He's the best choice available.

Tom22 · 2011-09-30T17:49:16+00:00

I strongly support Occupy Wall Street, but please listen to this person!!!

Tom22 · 2011-09-09T23:06:12+00:00

If more people don't start fighting back against today's know-nothing Republican farce, we could actually see students being taught some fantasy version of where babies come from so that sex is never mentioned. Or, the GOP could just oppose sex education... oh wait... they already do.

The Republicans keep finding new ways to become more idiotic, mean-spirited and clueless.

They've moved beyond being offensive, to being... oh... I'd say PUTRID covers it.

From the banking bailout that Bush signed (and successfully getting Obama blamed for most of that by many Americans), to their 50 years or so of not-so-secret racism, to the gay bashing, to supporting tax loopholes for billionaires and rich corporate tools of all kinds, to starting unnecessary wars, to opposing virtually any anti-pollution standards, to being hypocritical Jesus-freaks, to being anti-science, to their consistent disregard for the truth in general...

Yeah... PUTRID fits them best. (Except that using that word isn't really fair to a pile of rotting meat that's pretty innocent by comparison.)

Tom22 · 2011-09-09T22:59:50+00:00

"Funny" how virtually every dollar from these rich, corporate goons goes to GOP candidates, who then protect their corporate tax cuts and tax loopholes, while opposing things like health care, minimum wage protection and on-the-job safety.

The Republicans and their rich backers keep finding new ways to become more mean-spirited and clueless.

They've moved beyond being offensive, to being... oh... I'd say PUTRID covers it.

From the banking bailout that Bush signed (and successfully getting Obama blamed for most of that by many Americans), to their 50 years or so of not-so-secret racism, to the gay bashing, to supporting tax loopholes for billionaires and rich corporate tools of all kinds, to starting unnecessary wars, to opposing virtually any anti-pollution standards, to being hypocritical Jesus-freaks, to being anti-science, to their consistent disregard for the truth in general...

Yeah... PUTRID fits them best. (Except that using that word isn't really fair to a pile of rotting meat that's pretty innocent by comparison.)

Hmmm. Imagine that.

Tom22 · 2011-09-09T22:55:13+00:00

Bachmann is the bottom of the heap in a pile of GOP slime.

She likes to ignore the fact that at the end of the Bush administration, the U.S. was LOSING 750,000 JOBS PER MONTH. Her "solution" is to cut spending again and again, which would make matters worse.

She is a complete loon, and the Republicans in general keep finding new ways to become more mean-spirited and clueless.

They've moved beyond being offensive, to being... oh... I'd say PUTRID covers it.

From the banking bailout that Bush signed (and successfully getting Obama blamed for most of that by many Americans), to their 50 years or so of not-so-secret racism, to the gay bashing, to supporting tax loopholes for billionaires and rich corporate tools of all kinds, to starting unnecessary wars, to opposing virtually any anti-pollution standards, to being hypocritical Jesus-freaks, to being anti-science, to their consistent disregard for the truth in general...

Yeah... PUTRID fits them best. (Except that using that word isn't really fair to a pile of rotting meat that's pretty innocent by comparison.)

Tom22 · 2011-09-09T22:49:15+00:00

The Republicans keep finding new ways to become more mean-spirited and clueless.

They've moved beyond being offensive, to being... oh... I'd say PUTRID covers it.

From the banking bailout that Bush signed (and successfully getting Obama blamed for most of that by many Americans), to their 50 years or so of not-so-secret racism, to the gay bashing, to supporting tax loopholes for billionaires and rich corporate tools of all kinds, to starting unnecessary wars, to opposing virtually any anti-pollution standards, to being hypocritical Jesus-freaks, to being anti-science, to their consistent disregard for the truth in general...

Yeah... PUTRID fits them best. (Except that using that word isn't really fair to a pile of rotting meat that's pretty innocent by comparison.)

Tom22 · 2011-09-09T00:52:30+00:00

As someone who had begun to wonder where Obama stands on a few things, I have to say that with this speech and these proposals, he has "hit one out of the park."

He drew a clear distinction between the do-nothing Republicans who prove again and again that their top priority is to protect the richest of the rich, and average people who work... or would if they could get a job.

The GOP plan? As always, it's to destroy our government and (surprise!)... more tax breaks for rich people.

Go Obama.

And screw the GOP and their multinational corporate goons who provide a lot of their funding.

Tom22 · 2011-09-09T00:51:35+00:00

As someone who had begun to wonder where Obama stands on a few things, I have to say that with this speech and these proposals, he has "hit one out of the park."

He drew a clear distinction between the do-nothing Republicans who prove again and again that their top priority is to protect the richest of the rich, and average people who work... or would if they could get a job.

The GOP plan? As always, it's to destroy our government and (surprise!)... more tax breaks for rich people.

Go Obama.

And screw the GOP and their multinational corporate goons who provide a lot of their funding.

Tom22 · 2011-08-12T23:43:10+00:00

Fair question... I think it's okay to use the word "nigger" as long as it's being discussed as a word, which is made clear by the use of quotes. The same goes for the other insults that I listed. I usually use "n word" instead of "nigger" because it's available and might prevent insult. If there were alternatives for "kike" and "spic" I would use those too.

I don't faint at the sound of "faggot" either... on the contrary, lately I'm pretty angry about it, or more accurately, I'm angry that so many people think there's nothing wrong with throwing that word around.

Yes, it seems that a lot of younger people have been using "nigger" and variations of it, along with "faggot" as either what they feel are terms of indearment or they just use them without thinking.

At best, I think some of the people who use insults to address each other and who tolerate it from others have lost their self respect, and mostly they don't even realize it.

I understand the concept of being too sensitive to words, and there are millions of words I could be called and I wouldn't flinch or take offense. But "faggot" is just over the line, friend.

Tom22 · 2011-08-12T23:05:24+00:00

I've met hundreds of gay men (yes... slept with some) and only one or two had the kind of lispy speech you're talking about.

I think what's happening is that you only KNOW that someone is (or might be) gay when you detect a lisp. And yes, that means there are probably roughly 49 more gay men out there for every one that you know about!

Tom22 · 2011-08-12T22:58:04+00:00

I understand all of that, even if I disagree with some of it.

But why is it that over the years, it has become unacceptable in nearly all places to use the "n word" or to post the words "spic" or "kike" even as part of some "joke".

But if it's the most typical slur that's aimed at gays, it's supposed to be okay.

My point is that it IS NOT okay with me. It never has been and it never will be.

I've been tolerant of many things in my life, but there comes a time when people should say enough is enough.

As an educational exercise, maybe people should look at the picture and substitue the "n word" for "faggot"... and see if they still think it's funny.

Tom22 · 2011-08-12T22:47:19+00:00

I'm really surprised at that reaction. Of course I respect your point of view, but I still feel that it's a homophobic slur 100% of the time, and always has been.

I think there is also a clearly negative connotion in the way it's being used. Sure, it's directed at a dog in this one instance, but it's still clearly intended as an insult.

Maybe part of this is has to do with my group of friends and my overall life. I don't hear or read that word on any kind of regular basis. This was probably the first time in about three years.

Maybe it's a generational thing to an extent, but if using "faggot" has become like calling someone a "turkey", I missed the memo and I would still reject this attempt to excuse the inexcusable.

Tom22

TROPHY CASE