Posted by Tina
Tolerance, patience and in some cases sympathy for the so-called 99% is wearing thin as the habits of protesting mobs begin to create health and safety issues:
From coast to coast, there were signs Wednesday that the Occupy demonstrations, which began in a Lower Manhattan park to protest corporate greed and other economic issues, face a growing backlash over concerns ranging from issues such as noise and sanitation to public safety and general cleanliness.
Poor food storage exacerbated a rat infestation in Oakland. Inspectors found open human waste in Philadelphia. Hypothermia cases developed in Denver after a snowstorm hit.
The President and many prominent politicians are taking the drummers, chanters, and dancers seriously…as if they had nothing to do with the problems on Wall Street and as if they were helpless to do anything about it. Will it mark the end for them in the next election? Is it a campaign blunder to align with such irresponsible citizens? Shouldn’t they be condemning the filth and lack of respect for citizen neighbors in the area?
I don’t expect anyone to ask these questions of Obama or the Dems who openly support them…after all this isn’t a Tea Party event!
Oh well, at least we can have some fun with this while it lasts:
Video by a Breitbart.tv follower using Todd Rundgrens, “Bang the Drum All Day” and inspired by comments made by Rush Limbaugh.
Here’s another amusing wrinkle in this now months long street drama.
OWS volunteer kitchen workers have a bone to pick with the OWS management that makes them sound like the filthy capitalists they condemn. Read all about it in The New York Post:
The Occupy Wall Street volunteer kitchen staff launched a “counter” revolution yesterday — because they’re angry about working 18-hour days to provide food for “professional homeless” people and ex-cons masquerading as protesters.
For three days beginning tomorrow, the cooks will serve only brown rice and other spartan grub instead of the usual menu of organic chicken and vegetables, spaghetti bolognese, and roasted beet and sheep’s-milk-cheese salad.They will also provide directions to local soup kitchens for the vagrants, criminals and other freeloaders who have been descending on Zuccotti Park in increasing numbers every day.
Isn’t this the same crowd of kiddies that thinks we are all in this together…share and share alike regardless of contribution, investment or sacrifice? Don’t some of them like the idea of others working to pay their student loan debt?
Enough with the coddling already! They are making a business out of this protest movement. I’m thinking a visit from OSHA might be in order…the fines alone would wipe out that fat bank account they’ve accumulated…pronto!
Love it.
Police shot Scott Olsen in the head with a rubber bullet. He is an Iraq war veteran who was peacefully protesting when the police initiated violence in Oakland. I’m sorry but I think our country may need some drastic changing if that is how we treat our heroes.
Re Don (Helter Skelter) Q’s: when are you going to come down and see for yourself?
Been there, done that. FAIL.
Occupy Chico is a third rate farce compared to other OWS mobs. When are you folks going to get real?
Oh, and when are you going to put your Sarah Palin video back up on YouTube Don Q? The people love that sort of thing. It is a real hoot.
Q, like many of our readers I’ve already been down there and talked with people. It’s one of the reasons I withheld my opinion on the OWS. Of course I didn’t base my opinion on just one group like Chico, I based it on the collection of news from cities all over the USA.
Quentin Colgan seems to have been appointed as spokesman for Occupy Chico. Hes written two dissertations on his reasons for the occupation. His letter to the ER was his most public shot at enlightening us. The one thing he was clear on in that letter was that he wanted us all to share in the American Dream. I fully support that wonderful goal. I wish he had been a little more specific about how he planned to work that out.
Quentin also gave an oration before his fellow occupiers, and then shared those golden words through his highly popular blog. Joe Shaw, another well-known blogger, celebrated out-of- the- box thinker and all-around scholar, proclaimed his friends speech to be something that should be shared with the whole world.
I read Quentins Why I Occupy, and was also struck with a deep emotional reaction. Im still recovering:
Quentin, an admitted wordsmith, has a talent for finding just the right words to convey his thoughts. Many of those words were found through his research as a well-known historian. He found and updated quotes from Georges Santayana, Nathan Hale, Martin Niemoller, Barry Goldwater, and Benjamin Franklin. He actually gave credit to Niemoller for borrowing some of his words. I think I also recognized a few statements lifted from Cindy Sheehan, Stokely Carmichael, and Pee Wee Herman speeches.
I was a little bit surprised that Quentin shared with the world his fear of violence for his heroic stand, out there in the open, in Chico City Plaza. He compared his, and his brave comrades heroism to several historic examples. He spoke of Mt. Suribachi, Sean Connery (in The Untouchables,) Kent State students, black martyrs in Mississippi, North Vietnamese soldiers using their living bodies as roadfill for vehicles, and Russians at the Siege of Leningrad.
I think most of us were unaware of the great risk these brave occupiers are facing for us every day.
After reading his speech, I had trouble carrying on with my day-to-day existence, but a few Tums got me through the worst of it.
I can now understand why Quentin occupies Chico. He does it for us. Im hoping he will write again soon and give us a few details, like what he and the other heroes think it is that needs changing, and how they think those changes could be accomplished.
One positive outcome of the Occupy Chico protest is all the downtown panhandlers and street people are now congregated in and around one area instead of spread out all over the downtown. Given that, I hope they continue to “Occupy”.
Isn’t that what this is really all about? The group is a bunch of panhandling whiners that have decided that life is unfair because it requires a little effort. It’s much easier to accuse Wall Street, the bankers, and Corporations for their failures than it is to accept that you are going to fail if you don’t try! It’s easier to accuse Wall Street, the bankers, and Corporations than it is to do a little research and determine who was really behind the economic collapse, ie. Congress!
As far as Quentin is concerned, his support for “Occupy” and his mindless spew he calls a blog makes him a great candidate for “poster boy” against alcohol abuse. Don’t abuse alcohol, kiddies, or you too will pickle your brain!
Rex: “He is an Iraq war veteran who was peacefully protesting when the police initiated violence in Oakland.”
You need to see this MSNBC video interview of an Oakland protestor saying they threw bottles, etc. at the police before the police responded. Hope you’re not saying the police didn’t have the right to use legal defense against their attackers.
==========
“Did you see people throwing bottles and rocks at the police before they used those tactics? ODonnell asked a protester.
Umm, yeah. People were doing that, the protester told the MSNBC host.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHlHiNEZ1wA&feature=player_embedded
The dirt bags are supposedly protesting Wall Street, turns out they have panhandled a half million dollars or more and are putting that money into a bank. How does that work? You kick the dog, kick the dog, kick the dog and then the dog protects you and then you kick the dog again? Q did they send you any of that money? Isn’t that what your bs is all about? Aren’t you protesting the few with money for not sharing?
Re Cherokee Jack’s: “Joe Shaw, another well-known blogger, celebrated out-of- the- box thinker and all-around scholar, proclaimed his friends speech to be something that should be shared with the whole world.”
Yeah, I saw that too and thought, “Well, that explains things.”
Great minds think alike.
You have to admit Don Q has really turned on the juice to garner himself a little more attention in this town. He has practically usurped Occupy Chico. And here we thought OWS was nothing but a bunch of losers craving attention.
So let me get this right, Scott Olsen was just standing around minding his own business when out of the blue, no warning at all, a cop shot him in the head with a rubber bullet? If those are the facts, that is #@$%&* up. The people to blame are the mayors of the cities that stood by and let these “protests” turn into stinking shantytowns. I would have sent in water cannons and tear gas. It is my understanding rubber bullets are used as a last result of “non-lethal” means. It kind of sounds like things escalated rapidly and the cops felt threatened.
Why would anyone risk getting killed occupying Oakland? Kind of odd this happened in the Bay area. Lots of weird stuff about this. Hope some details surface so we can judge for ourselves who was right and who was wrong. I hope Mr.Olsen makes a speedy and full recovery.
By the way, has anyone besides me noticed the distinct tenor in the titles of Joe Shaw’s and Quentin Colgan’s blogs? “From outside the box” and “The Uncomfortable Truth” respectively.
Compare them with the rest of the blog titles. Get what I mean?
This just in: Occupy Madison loses permit. Protesters publicly masturbating.
Yep, nothing like the Tea party. Not anywhere near it.
I wonder where Don Quentin comes down on this issue? Is the right to abuse yourself in public in the official list of demands?
http://www.dailycardinal.com/news/occupy-madison-loses-permit-1.2669111#.Tqrn3PQr2sr
Lord Of The Fleas
Fights have been occurring between OWS Fleabaggers in New York and violence has been erupting from downtown Oakland to Zuccotti Park.
Occupy Atlanta has broken down into violence and overseas Rome’s Occupy Wall Street turned into a bloody riot.
Neo-Nazis have been patrolling Occupy Phoenix and Occupy Atlanta with AK-47s and AR-15s to protect protesters.
Oh yeah, the Fleas’ bowel movement are the progressive answer to the Tea party movement alright. The similarities are endless.
Will Occupy Chico soon degenerate into violence too? Who was it who wrote in reference to the Tea party, “We need to take them out before they take us out–quite simple when you get right down to it. Ask a combat veteran what he was thinking about when he was pulling the trigger.”
Who will “pull the trigger” at Occupy Chico?
I forwarded my critique of Quentins Why I Occupy Chico to his humorously named The Uncomfortable Truth yesterday, with a note suggesting he share my comments with his comrades, assuring him they would think he was being complimented.
I guess The Truth of my critique was too Uncomfortable for him to allow in his blog. As of this morning he hasnt posted it.
I thought he was proud of being the biggest blowhard since Foghorn Leghorn. Maybe he had second thoughts about comparing himself to all those historic heroes. Personally, I can see definite similarities between the marines taking Mt. Suribachi and the occupiers braving Chico traffic in their Volvos to supply the troops with cappuccinos and biscotti.
Or maybe he thought no one would notice that he had cribbed all those quotes from real speeches, in the hope that they would legitimize his oration to the City Plaza martyrs. That could be embarrassing, I guess.
Cherokee Jack: Your post made my day….oh geez, almost spilled my morning coffee…I’m laughing so hard I’m getting a side ache! lol
Pie, first of all I should probably thank you for constantly promoting my blog. Lately I have been writing about one blog a month and still getting over a thousand hits a month. A thousand hits a blog! Not bad eh? No doubt in part to your relentless reminders to PS readers that I am out there. So again, thank you. However, due to your comment, “By the way, has anyone besides me noticed the distinct tenor in the titles of Joe Shaw’s and Quentin Colgan’s blogs? “From outside the box” and “The Uncomfortable Truth” respectively.”, I feel an explanation is in order as to the title of my blog. I have always noticed that when it comes to controversial subjects, like religion, politics, etc., most people’s point of view falls right in line with the popular points of view of their particular religion, political party, etc. that they subscribe to. I have always believed that truth is often relative and there can be many ways of looking at any idea or “fact”. It has also been my experience that conservatives lean towards the “popular” opinion on just about everything while liberals seem to be more open to other “possibilities”. You and Tina for instance are very predictable in your opinions. It’s like Wally Herger and Clarence Thomas, you can always predict how they are going to vote on any issue. Jack on the other hand is more open minded than you and Tina, although he leans conservative on just about any subject, he is at least willing to entertain and explore other ideas. I remember one time Jack and Tina were going back and forth about creationism versus evolution. Tina’s beliefs were strictly bible based while Jack was arguing the point that, at least in this instance, evolution might make more sense. Don’t get me wrong here, you and Tina both come across as very educated and your points of view seem to be well thought out (except when you go into your attack mode, then you just sound angry and that’s when you quit making any sense….and I’ve done the same thing myself….a lot). I’m just saying you two seem to always be in line with popular “conservative thought”. For me, that just don’t work. The typical liberal mind set as well as their agenda pisses me off and pushes my buttons as much as anything that conservatives stand for. I believe that there are countless possibilities in every issue and every idea. That’s why I came up with the title “From Outside The Box”. I know, it’s a little lame because it is, or was, a popular and perhaps over used cliche’ but it seemed to fit so I grabbed it. Another point about blogging….there are no rules when it comes to writing a blog. Some, like Jack and Tina, do research and write their blogs based on facts, kind of like they are writing a newspaper article. Others tell stories or share information about things they love to talk about. I just like to put my ideas out there. I rarely use google or do any research, I just write what’s on my mind. Of course this often leaves me wide open for ridicule and correction. But in the end, I do it because it’s fun. Isn’t that why you respond to PS so often? Although your comments are often predictable and malicious, I enjoy reading them as I enjoy responding to this blog site from time to time. If I could offer you one little piece of advice Pie, I would suggest that every now and then you offer a point of view that isn’t so darn predictable. Maybe you could try thinking more outside the box?
Q is having a rough day, it must remind him of high school. Pie gave him a verbal sweerly and Cherokee Jack verbally shoved him in his locker. With all that pent up frustration of occupying space or whatever he is doing, he needs some “special” alone time, don’t want him getting arrested for flogging the ol banker in public.
I too have posted a couple comments to Don Q’s site along the same line. I have also had Don Q alter my posts to suit is pleasure when he posted them.
Contrast Don Q’s behavior to that of Post Scripts which seems to never refuse an HSQ (Helter Skelter Quentin) post, no matter how execrable, and puts them through unaltered except to snip or alter a few bad words now and then.
Thank you Post Scripts! You kids are the best.
Yep, Don Q, for all his braggadocio, is pretty much a stinking coward and sniveling rat when it comes to criticism on his own blog site. So much for tolerance. He doesn’t have the time for it, right? It would severely cut into his drive-by snot time in Posts Scripts. HSQ has historically spent more time on derogatory attacks in Post Scripts than his own blog. How funny is that? How weird is that?
Possibly I am being a bit too hard on HSQ. Evidently he gets flummoxed when challenged or criticized. Perhaps this “Neo-Renaissance” man of so many occupations and talents gets a tad edgy and annoyed when confronted with his own blow.
“This boy is as subtle as a hand grenade in a barrel of oatmeal.”
– Foghorn Leghorn
Occupy Los Angeles has been split into two hostile camps. Will Occupy Chico soon follow?
I have heard some significant grumblings that Occupy Chico may itself break into two camps — those who follow the leadership and self-aggrandizement of Quentin Colgan, and those who do not.
From my salad days at KPFA in Berzerkley I recall three progressive Marxist lesbian groups who had three different radio shows. The members of each group absolutely hated the members of the other two groups. It was simultaneously hilarious and spooky.
Can the progressives at Occupy Chico maintain solidarity or will they too be splintered into warring factions?
We will see.
Re Joe Shaw’s: “Pie, first of all I should probably thank you for constantly promoting my blog.”
Huh? Really? Is that what I have been doing? I have mentioned you in what, three sporadic posts to Post Scripts? Holy Cow! I had absolutely no idea I had such power over your readership! Damn, I must be good.
Could your effulgent accolades be misplaced? Frankly I think you should thank HSQ for your magnificent suck-up, “This speech needs to be spread around the internet, one of the finest I have ever read!”
That was classic Joe Shaw.
Actually, that was a great speech by Quintin. Some of you PS readers have made fun of Quintin (as well as my response)for that speech but for some reason, you offered no specifics. Which part of that speech do you disagree with?
A fair question.
Re Joe Shaw’s: “Actually, that was a great speech by Quintin. Some of you PS readers have made fun of Quintin (as well as my response)for that speech but for some reason, you offered no specifics. Which part of that speech do you disagree with?”
The least a supplicant Colgan suck-up like Joe Shaw could do is spell Quentin’s name correctly. Fair enough. What do do think was particularity compelling about “Quintin’s” speech Joe?
Please expound. Here is your chance to shine!
The following is the response I got to my email to Quentin (above.) Somehow hes able to send me emails, but nothing else in any medium that might be read by others.
Quentin replies that
1. the wi fi in the plaza isn’t too good. Posting responses is an iffy proposition.
2. you could drag your cowardly ass down there and ask him in person!
Q!
This is to respond to Quentin as well as to you, Joe.
Well spoken, Mr. Wordsmith. You wrote that maudlin Why I Occupy and managed to get it posted OK, and was even able to respond, in your blog, to others who criticized it. For some reason the technology hasnt been good enough to get my thoughts posted in your backyard.
You still havent told anyone why youre squatting in a public park, other than that youre seeking the American Dream, with a couple of grumbles about corporatism thrown in.
As I have already indicated, your speech was filled with stolen clichs. If youre going to misquote others, at least give them credit for the original thoughts.
The rest of your speech compared your silly little occupation to fallen heroes of the past. It definitely takes a lot of guts put yourself in the company of marines at Iwo Jima, North Vietnamese martyrs, black civil rights martyrs, and the heroic fighters at Leningrad. Personally, Id put you somewhere below the Christmas early birds at Best Buy.
Im not interested in coming down to that menagerie to ask you anything, but if you would like to discuss my cowardice, send me another email telling me if youre interested in a private meeting.
Q, those are fighting words, you should look before you leap. Jack would kick your ass up one side of the park and down the other. As far as the rest of your dribble, you couldn’t shine Jacks boots.
Quentin:
I noticed that you used the term “REMF.” I am familiar with that from my own military experience on the DMZ in 1969. You seem young, but is it possible that you are also a former combat veteran from an overseas hostile fire zone? Is it possible that you are suffering from PTSD? If so, I urge you to apply for help and disability compensation from the VA. They are much more accommodating these days, and PTSD is nothing to be ashamed of. It doesn’t mean you are a raving lunatic and a danger to society. If you find your thinking is impaired, if you feel a bit paranoid, if you have trouble making and keeping close friends (and Jack is a good friend, whether you recognize it or not), then you might have PTSD symptoms. Based on your comments, I think it is likely. I am not trying to be mean here. I really think your country owes you something for what you have endured. Apply to the VA. It is a simple process. For a PTSD claim, you might have to attend a few counseling sessions once a week, but that would be a cinch. You just sit in a group and spout off about how pissed off you are. You are already doing that anyway.
Pie, ok, I’ll bite….As I read over the many responses to Quentins blog, as well as this one, I realize that one of Quentin points is being made right here in the fact that we (the 99% of us who are not rich but make it possible for the top 1% to be rich) are playing right into their hand by quibbling amongst ourselves, when in reality, we all have more in common than we differ on. What do we have in common? Well for starters, the vast wealth of our country, the once richest country on earth, the same wealth that would have allowed me to use my house towards my retirement had I been able to keep it, the same wealth that would have allowed my brilliant 18 year old son to go to a college that would have challenged his abilities but who will probably have to settle for an education at a community college, that wealth has been and is being siphoned off to the top 1% all in the name of phony wars (which set the stage for lucrative government contracts), phony bailouts, and God knows what else. The trillions we have borrowed have not been for the good of our country, it has been for the good of the top 1%! You folks on the right have rightly placed your anger onto the government. But you have been duped by the capitalist elitist into believing that you are one of them, and they are one of you, that what you do to them you do to yourselves, that they are the real job creators, that whatever benefits them will trickle down and benefit you. And you refuse to see that connection between government and the top 1% who control the government. Those two forces are united and they understand that the only way they can maintain their power and continue to bleed our national wealth is by keeping the other 99% (the rest of us) at each others throat….like we are doing right here, right now, on these blog sites.
Soaps, I think Quentin was referring to Cherokee Jack, or at least I think he was? I’ve not had any issues posting on Q’s site and we get along ok even though we disagree on most things, we also agree on a few things. The guy Quentin is ranting about is Cherokee Jack, He’s is a local writer, often humor is his weapon of choice when it comes to politics. He’s known for his witty comments and eagerness to take on the liberal establishment. The way it sounds is Q has not been allowing his post over on his own blog site called the Uncomfortable Truth.
As for me and our OWS, I’ve already visited the local protesters and I intend to do so again soon and see how its going and sort of get an update. I like to interact with them and see what we can agree on and what we can debate on.
Whenever we have protests here I visit with them. In fact, I was a guest speaker one stage with their own mike at one of their anti-war rallies in the downtown plaza. Of course I gave them a different point of view, but it was okay and they were respectful.
I enjoy talking with the opposite side because we at least have our political activism in common. Its one of the reasons for this blog. They may be misguided most of the time, (I’m sure they feel the same about me) but they care about their world and want to make positive changes and I like that. We just have different ways of going about it.
Joe: “I have always believed that truth is often relative and there can be many ways of looking at any idea or “fact”.
If you are viewing a multicolored box from one side, and I the other, and if the three sides you can see from your position are red, white and black and the sides I can see are red, green and white we might argue the color of the box forever unless we are willing to change our position and discover what the other person is seeing. Ultimately, if we are willing, we can each examine all six sides to discover the truth about the color scheme of the box. We are then armed with the facts or the truth.
I’d be interested in whether you think this statement is relative:
Are the truths expressed here simply a matter of religious conviction or did the men who wrote these words give this particular box a thorough going over prior to writing them? In other words, had they discovered truth or were they just expressing a point of view?
You don’t need to answer unless you want to Joe. I bring this up to preface what I have to say about another of your statements:
“I remember one time Jack and Tina were going back and forth about creationism versus evolution. Tina’s beliefs were strictly bible based while Jack was arguing the point that, at least in this instance, evolution might make more sense.”
I recall the exchange and I don’t intend to argue the same points so you can relax…lol. What I would like to say, however, is that I argue for creationism, or intelligent design, for a distinct reason. Intelligent Design has been locked away in the basement and the key has been thrown away. Neither of these theories can be proven absolutely but all evidence that would support intelligent design has been suppressed or worse, scoffed at as ridiculous fantasy. Students are not presented with information about both theories and allowed the privilege of examining them on their own but are being encouraged to accept evolution as absolute fact. This is not education but indoctrination.
I don’t discount science and I realize that resolving the two difinitively would take a point of view and brain power much greater than mine or that of any other human.
Despite the findings of scientists, I cannot discount the fact that every single thing in our universe has design. Even a blob of scum when viewed under a microscope is found to have a blueprint…a design factor. I can think of nothing that, once thoroughly examined, looks like it just came about gradually or by accident. It’s very difficult to imagine that life, and in fact the entire universe, is an accident given the intricacies, the complexities, and sheer design genius in the human body and nature. The ultimate question of course is one that modern science ignores, “What came before the scientific explanation of the day?”
I wouldn’t expect or want our school system to eliminate science and replace it with creationist teaching but I do think our students would be better served to be offered both theories to ponder…isn’t that how people learn to think for themselves?
My friends on the left refuse to see that this is what most people who argue for teaching creationism in schools want. Instead they reject the theory out of hand and proceed to demonize religion in general. They reduce deep faith in the Creator to a clich; “believing in the big man in the sky” as a means of dismissing anyone who has given serious thought to the idea of creationism. Does that seem reasonable or open minded to you?
I’m just saying you two seem to always be in line with popular “conservative thought”.
You might consider the idea that we have arrived at this place through a process of discovery and pursuit of the truth.
My own process begins with grounding principles my parents taught me: basic morality, personal responsibility, and a deep love and appreciation of others. I have examined the political parties and rejected various ones for various reasons. The Republican Party isnt perfect but it most closely aligns with my own values and ideas. My participation in it doesnt mean I am cemented or married to every conservative proposal or candidate but it does mean that more often than not I would choose a Republican over any other candidate and reject progressive or isolationist proposals, for instance. Its called being certain about ones ideals and beliefs. That grounding doesnt stop me from being open to new ideas, but it does mean I have rejected the old ideas that have been proven a failure. It absolutely means that I am fiercely committed to challenging ideas I believe are harmful or that dont work.
Joe I want to thank you for the kind and encouraging words you have for Jack and me and for Post Scripts. For the record, I liked your blog title from the moment I first saw it. If there were more hours in the day Id be a frequent visitor but keeping up here is about all I can handle.
Readers who would like to view a video on intelligent design, presented by scientists and philosophers, are invited to look for Unlocking the Mystery of Life. This is a video I think would be acceptable in the public school curriculum without stepping on separation sensitive toes.
http://www.unlockingthemysteryoflife.com/
http://www.amazon.com/Unlocking-Mystery-Life-Michael-Behe/dp/B00007KLDW
Re Joe Shaw’s Remarkable Statement: “But you have been duped by the capitalist elitist into believing that you are one of them, and they are one of you, that what you do to them you do to yourselves, that they are the real job creators, that whatever benefits them will trickle down and benefit you.”
Uh, no I haven’t.
By the way Joe, regarding a recent blog entry of yours — the 800 billion in stimulus is gone. If you are expecting some sort of “trickle down” over the years you can forget it. Sorry Joe, but there will be no “trickle down” from the “stimulus” to workers or anyone else in years to come. Nearly all of that 800 billion plus has already evaporated.
Why, you might ask? Where did it go, you might ask? Those would be excellent questions if you had the curiosity to ask them in the first place Joe.
Instead of states using Obama’s enormous federal windfall to create those highly touted mythical “shovel ready” infrastructure projects, the vast majority of the 0.8 trillion was spent to pay down a fraction of the debt states had already incurred from of control budgets.
In effect, all Obama’s “stimulus” did was to transfer nearly a trillion dollars in debt from the state level to the federal level. Some stimulus. Can anyone tell me exactly how the transfer of debt from the state level to the federal level creates jobs? Where are those jobs?
Moreover, any real infrastructure projects were not bogged down by your obscure “red tape” complaint. They were effectively halted by environmental impact reviews that can, over time, consume more money than the projects themselves.
For some projects that did actually spend “stimulus” funds and create a few jobs, the Obama administration stepped in and made them unnecessarily more expensive in order to create the illusion that stimulus dollars were moving rapidly out the door. For me, that constitutes fraud, but I do not know if it meets the legal definition.
It would be nice if Joe Shaw and others started facing facts and getting informed before the next election cycle. We might actually get an honest government willing to take on these problems and find some real solutions.
But I fear that as long as people like Joe Shaw vote, it just taint gonna happen.
Pie, if you are referring to the last blog I wrote, what is in that blog that makes you think that I supported that stimulus? And if you have read any of my other blogs you would know that I have no intention of voting for Obama in 2012.
Tina, thank you for the heart felt response. I know that in many of my blogs I have done more than my fair share of criticizing religion, however, from time to time I have also touched upon some of my spiritual beliefs. You and I agree in a sense that there is, there must be, some kind of intelligent design in the universe. No I don’t believe that God created the earth in seven days, but I don’t see why He, or the powers that be, could not have used intelligent design in conjunction with evolution. Personally, I see the universe as being full of intelligence, in fact, my personal belief is that when you get to the bottom of quantum physics, when you get past string theory, pure light and pure energy, you will find pure consciousness as the underlying cause to everything that exists. And I believe it is pure consciousness that binds all things, and that we indeed are a part of and connected to that consciousness. Guess you can call that God….I do.
Re Joe Shaw’s: “Pie, if you are referring to the last blog I wrote, what is in that blog that makes you think that I supported that stimulus? And if you have read any of my other blogs you would know that I have no intention of voting for Obama in 2012.”
What, is English your second language?
I didn’t say a durn thing about your position on the stimulus. Moreover, I don’t give a hoot what your position is or who you plan to vote for.
Try reading my post again before having a couple bong hits. I only addressed your ignorant, wrongful expectations there will be some stimulus “trickle down” in years to come while clarifying and adding an important detail to your obscure “red-tape” statement.
I didn’t say a dang thing about whatever your position on the stimulus may be. I only tried to share some information you obviously are completely ignorant of or refuse to acknowledge.
Yes, I have not read the rest of your blog. Only that entry. And after that entry (and your latest nonsense in this thread) I see no reason whatsoever to bother reading anything else you write.
Joe, you are just like every other liberal ignoramus I have ever known. You are an arrogant doofus who goes around calling people a******s and dupes while experiencing weird hallucinations reading things into something that are not there. Perhaps this behavior characteristic is so common amongst left-wing anti-capitalists is because they need to fill in the blanks between the vastly remote sections of cells in their brains that actually do work.
Pie, I would really appreciate that you don’t read anything I write. And then, hopefully, you’ll quit leaving your angry comments. It’s people like you and Toby and Cherokee whoever who keep bringing these discussions down to this level of anger and sarcasm. Have you ever considered just starting your own blog? You really should because then you would have a place to vent all your unresolved childhood issues and Post Scripts would elevate a few notches. I see Post Scripts in part as a place, an opportunity, for folks to discuss their different points of view, however there are a few of you who make it really hard for anybody you happen to disagree with to offer OUR points of view. I guess you woulf prefer that Jack and Tina only preach to the choir, but I don’t believe that they would want to limit this blog to being just a big mutual admiration society. Anyway, this is the last response I will ever do to any of your juvenille attacks and it would be nice if you ignored me as well. If this doesn’t work, I’ll have to quit posting any comments at PS….which I’m sure you’d prefer.
Joe, you have to be kidding trying to pose as taking the high road at this point.
In my above comment it should have read, “You are a condescending, arrogant, hypocritical hipster doofus who goes around calling people he disagrees with a******s and dupes while experiencing weird hallucinations reading things into something that are not there.
The thing is, Joe, you get your panties in a bunch when folks like me reject your mindless spew. I won’t venture to say what the psychology may be behind your behavior, I leave it to experts like you, Joe. The bottom line is this, you think you can dish it out but you can’t take it. Run along and lick your wounds. Try examining the childhood you never grew out of instead of making lame, psycho-babble projections about mine.
You are welcome for the information and details I provided about the stimulus and “red tape”. No thanks necessary! I was happy to provide it. I like to share. Undoubtedly you have already struck it from your mind.
Joe, please feel free to continue your career of suck-ups and prostration to Quentin Colgan. That last was was truly magnificent! Quentin feeds on people like you. But Joe, you should read Cherokee Jack’s review of Colgan’s speech above, the guy is an unabashed plagiarist. Uh, Joe, wasn’t it you who called me a dupe? Who is the dupe? Eh?
Have fun with that huge readership you have on your blog, Joe. And thanks for the quintessentially left-wing-lame and genuinely smarmy praise that I actually may have had anything to do with it. That gave me a huge belly laugh! I almost even believe that you believe it. But no one could be that dumb. Not even you, Joe. Could you?
By the way, Joe, I have a lot of fun with my comments. Mirthful in fact. Guys like you are a great source of humor for me.
Anger? Look to yourself, bud. Try examining yourself calling me an a******e and dupe. Those sounded pretty angry to me. In fact, you were steaming hot, no?
A little self-reflection is good for the soul, Joe. Even one as vacant as yours appears to be.
The unexamined life is not worth living.
– Socrates
Pie Guevara: “The thing is, Joe, you get your panties in a bunch when folks like me reject your mindless spew. I won’t venture to say what the psychology may be behind your behavior, I leave it to experts like you, Joe. The bottom line is this, you think you can dish it out but you can’t take it. Run along and lick your wounds. Try examining the childhood you never grew out of instead of making lame, psycho-babble projections about mine.”
Is this what passes for civility with you? Really?
One last comment to you Pie and then I’ll let you have the last word, because if there’s one thing I’ve learned about guys like you who talk s..t all the time is….you always have to have the last word. Pie have you ever tried reading the rants and rave section on Craigslist? It’s a bunch of Chickens..t loud mouth guys bantering back and forth and talking mean trash to each other while hiding behind phony names. You remind me of these guys, maybe you’re one of them, wouldn’t surprise me. I am checking out of PS, not because people like you disagree with me, but because too many of you guys on here are just too insulting. Geez, if I wanted to get insulted all the time I never would have left my last wife! I enjoy, in fact I thrive on debating ideas and discussing different opinions…..but doing it respectfully. I purposely do it here on PS rather than my blog for reasons you could read about in one of my recent blogs….but don’t bother. You are right about one thing….I did loose it with you once and left a pretty negative response, and if I had to keep reading your insults, I admit, I would probably loose it again….not worth it. Now I gotta tell you something else Pie, I don’t claim to know for a fact that what I believe in is the truth, I have mentioned several times that what ever I espouse is only my opinion. For all I know, you may very well be smarter and more enlightened than I am, you might even be right all the time and I might be wrong all the time (although you seem to have more insults than solutions), but there is one difference between us that is a FACT….and that is the fact that I do not hide behind a fake name. I have never said anything to or about anybody on Nor Cal blogs that I would not say to their face, including you. I use my real name and that name is in the yellow pages under my quarter page add with my picture, phone number, and address. If anybody ever wanted to say something to my face, I am certainly not hard to find. Perhaps if everybody knew who YOU were, you would be a little more respectful of other people’s opinions. It’s easy to talk s..t when your hiding behind the Internet, isn’t it? And on that note, I’ll let you have the last word, take your best shot, however, I won’t be checking back to read it.
One last note to Jack and Tina….you folks have been doing this a lot of years now and having several hundred blogs under my belt, I can appreciate the time and effort that you have both put towards developing your blog site. I myself do not care about numbers when it comes to how many read my blogs, in fact, I have purposely cut back on blogging because my blog was starting to take off. Like I told Pie, the reasons for me doing so are in one of my recent blogs, but that’s not important. My point is, as your numbers have increased I started to see this as sort of blog central, a place where other bloggers, as well as your other readers, could share ideas and have some spirited debate, and I think that has always been your intention too. But you have three or four very mean spirited guys here who are keeping your blog in a Jerry Springer zone. I’m not going to advise you as what to do, maybe this works fine for you, after all, you have the largest following on Nor Cal. I know that sometimes, when responses get mean spirited, they lead to 30-40 responses on one blog, but you folks could do better. You both write and present your views, for the most part, in a very professional manner and you are both courteous to those who take issue with you. Many times I have changed my point of view about something because of the way one of you presented your point of view about the issue. What I’m saying is, I see the potential of your blog as having hundreds of thousands, if not millions of readers, and possibly hundreds of responses to each blog. But with the few immature guys you have here insulting everybody that does not share the popular conservative opinion on any given issue, I don’t think it’s gonna happen. Anyway, it’s your baby, do what you will, and I wish you the best of luck. A former reader signing off, Joe Shaw
Re Joe Shaw’s Complaint: “my brilliant 18 year old son to go to a college that would have challenged his abilities but who will probably have to settle for an education at a community college, that wealth has been and is being siphoned off to the top 1% all in the name of phony wars (which set the stage for lucrative government contracts), phony bailouts, and God knows what else.
Just to clarify, it appears that in the world according to Joe, our intervention in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq are the result of the wealthy manipulating our government (and necessarily not only our government, but governments across the globe) to involve them in phony wars in order to make a profit.
I think that speaks for itself and no further comment is necessary.
As for the bailouts, some have worked, some have not. For example, it appears that GM has paid back the taxpayer funds that kept it afloat. (I still have serious issues with that bailout but won’t delve into them here.)
Re Joe Shaw’s Whine: “Anyway, this is the last response I will ever do to any of your juvenille [sic] attacks and it would be nice if you ignored me as well. If this doesn’t work, I’ll have to quit posting any comments at PS….which I’m sure you’d prefer.”
Sorry Joe, but I could not care less if you post here or not. It makes no difference to me. I have no preference.
I would encourage you to continue posting, just on general principles. If you don’t do it for yourself, why not do it simply to amuse me now and then? Tina enjoys your contributions, do it for her. After all, it is her blog, not mine.
But if you want to go sulk, who am I to argue with that?
Re Chris’: “Is this what passes for civility with you? Really?”
Butt out Chris, I was having a conversation with Joe. He brought up the psycho-ANALysis, I simply replied. You have a problem with that? Go discuss it with Jack or Tina.
Re Joe Shaw’s Remarkable Statement: “in fact I thrive on debating ideas and discussing different opinions…..but doing it respectfully.”
Oh, really?
Joe Shaw in a previous blog thread repeatedly called me an a*****e.
JOE SHAW QUOTES FROM THIS THREAD —
“It has also been my experience that conservatives lean towards the “popular” opinion on just about everything while liberals seem to be more open to other “possibilities”.
Translation: Conservatives stoopid sheep, liberals creative and open minded.
“Jack on the other hand is more open minded than you and Tina”
Comment: Huh? How would you know how open minded I am or not you condescending jerk.
Translation: Unnecessary
“If I could offer you one little piece of advice Pie, I would suggest that every now and then you offer a point of view that isn’t so darn predictable.”
Translation: You stoopid simpleton, Pie, me smart liberal guy.
Comment: What could be more dripping with condescension? Anyone?
“You folks on the right have rightly placed your anger onto the government. But you have been duped by the capitalist elitist into believing that you are one of them …”
Comment: Well, I have already been over this. It should be pretty obvious by now.
“…you refuse to see that connection between government and the top 1% who control the government.”
Translations: Conservatives are stoopid and blind dupes.
Comment: Well, that is just plain silly.
I suppose I could go on with more of Joe Shaw’s “respectful” comments from other blog threads, but why bother?
Joe Shaw’s real problem is that am far more eloquent in throwing his sneers back at him than he is throwing them in the first place and it just galls him that I have the effrontery to confront him.
Isn’t that right, Joe?
Re Joe Shaw’s: “I have never said anything to or about anybody on Nor Cal blogs that I would not say to their face, including you.”
Oh really? You go around telling people to their faces that they are stupid a****** dupes and cowards? Better be careful with that, Joe.
As my preference for anonymity, I do this for several reasons, not the least of which is to avoid any face to face confrontation with people who have a few loose screws and go around yelling, “You are an a****** cowardly dupe!”
Another main reason is so I can continue walk amongst folks like you and observe without my presence influencing your natural habitat and behaviors. It is a sort of hobby of mine, observing the behavior of left-wing lunatics in their natural habitats. So I use a nome-de-Post Scripts to so I can maintain my studies uninterrupted and have the least effect upon the subjects under observation.
Lastly: Could this guy be anymore of a self-aggrandizing and oblivious hypocrite? I mean really! Anyone?
Jack and Tina, I usually wouldn’t come to you about another poster unless they were making threats of violence, but when you have one person here who spends over half his time writing lengthy diatribes full of nothing but personal attacks towards other posters, it creates a hostile and unwelcoming environment. This commenter constantly feels the need to inform us how worthless and inconsequential our posts are, while hypocritically writing paragraphs upon paragraphs about us. He provokes us with taunts and ad hominem attacks and whenever someone responds to his provocations, he acts like we were the aggressors and he the victim. Other posters here are able to disagree vehemently yet respectfully, yet Pie Guevara seems unable to do so. No one else here has treated me with the same amount of venom that he constantly does. You have already apparently lost one frequent visitor because of Pie Guevara’s extreme behavior, and if he doesn’t cut it out, you might lose another.
Chris you make good points and we are not unsympathetic. This is why I say to those who post comments here, we encourage everyone to take part, but please be respectful and peak on the issues. Make your comments succinct and without personal insults.
Our greatest goal is to host a forum where people can share thoughts, opinions, learn and inform, regardless of one’s political ideology.
However, those who choose to participate must realize that if you post something that challenges the heartfelt beliefs of another (and we do that regularly) you’re bound to get a strong response from someone.
We tolerate that to a degree because of our deep respect for the 1st amendment. So, it does get a little rough at times and we really don’t like to see that. Like I said, we’re here for dialog, not ad hominem attacks.
Chris, how would you suggest we handle censorship? I’m serious. If you were the moderator how would you change things here to make it more appealing? Because virtually every blog site I have ever visited does get some pretty rough comments, much rougher in fact than here at PS.
We would welcome your suggestions and give them serious consideration.
Jack, I know this will never be a heavily moderated blog and I see the value in that, so I say just handle these problems on a case by case basis. Pie is the type of guy who plays well with his own people, so I think if you just asked him to calm down a little with the personal attacks he would most likely listen to you. Whereas when he hears these suggestions from those of us on the other side of the political fence, he just becomes even more aggressive.
Re Chris’: “Other posters here are able to disagree vehemently yet respectfully, yet Pie Guevara seems unable to do so.”
Dude, are you serious? Have you ever read any of your own posts?
Tell you what, just as soon as you think you are able to engage in a real debate (and that includes Joe Shaw) I may consider it.
Re Chris’: You have already apparently lost one frequent visitor because of Pie Guevara’s extreme behavior, and if he doesn’t cut it out, you might lose another.
My extreme behavior? I am extreme? Compared to you, Chris? Really? Are you as much a coward on your supposed beliefs on the freedom of speech as is Joe Shaw?
Yes, of course you are. Jack and Tina and Steve are not. But then Jack and Tina and Steve are not Chris, Quentin Colgan, or Joe Shaw.
I have your number Chris. Go ahead and sulk and pose.
Re Chris’: Jack and Tina, I usually wouldn’t come to you about another poster unless they were making threats of violence, but when you have one person here who spends over half his time writing lengthy diatribes full of nothing but personal attacks towards other posters, it creates a hostile and unwelcoming environment.
No comment necessary.
By the way Chris, I have never seen you complain about Quentin Colgan once. Why is that?
Final Observations:
Chris and Joe are so much like two peas in a pod you have to wonder if there is a factory somewhere churning out cookie-cutter liberals.
Both enter this forum loaded for bear and when a bear grabs their rifle and bloodies their noses with the butt they whine and sulk and then run from what they thought was their personal hunting ground.
Both enter this forum convinced of their intellectual and moral superiority packing condescension, calumny, prejudice, presumption, and personal attack. When they are not putting words into other people’s mouths, misrepresenting what has been said, or diverting into strings of non-sequiturs they are reading things into posts that were never said.
The true difference between people like Joe and Chris and myself may simply boil down to two facts:
I don’t go whining and sulking to the blog owners when suffering their slings and arrows.
I don’t make feeble attempts to pose as taking the high road as they both so love to do when they are confronted with their own tactics and fallacies.
What Joe and Chris want is to engage in airing their prejudices, stereotypes, and arrogance without consequence. That is what they deem “opinion”. They don’t like it when the bear fights back. In fact, it so shocks them they pick up their skirts and hightail it away from the “hostile environment”.
I have been over this with Chris so many times it has become tiresome. So I have invited him to confine his comments to wonderful folks who run Post Scripts. Evidently it has not sat well with him. He still wants to poke the bear.
Joe was fresh meat. Admittedly I threw the first stone, of sorts, praising his truly magnificent suck-up to Quentin Colgan. But when I asked him to elaborate and expound on why he thought Colgan’s speech was so wonderful his basic nature took hold and he launched into a diatribe of imagined grievances and insults against conservative dupes like me.
So it goes.
By the way, I am not “pissed off”. I rather enjoyed it. I enjoy introducing people to themselves on occasion and observing what happens. It is called “stirring the pot”. Maybe the spoon I used this time was a bit on the cudgel side.
I am also somewhat disappointed that Joe and now apparently Chris have decided to do their hunting elsewhere. Bears enjoy bagging a few hunters every now and then. Y’all come back now, hear?
http://files.meetup.com/444077/Gary%20Larson%27s%20cartoon.jpg
Pie, you do bring up one good point when you say, “By the way Chris, I have never seen you complain about Quentin Colgan once. Why is that?”
I think Jack and Tina can attest to the fact that I have criticized Quentin many times in the past. Most of these comments were probably written before you started posting regularly here. In fact, if I recall, one time I even asked them to remove a comment from Quentin because it seemed to be a call for violence. I do think he is quite often unnecessarily disrespectful to other posters here. Earlier today, perhaps inspired by your question, I criticized him for comparing conservatives to Nazis (which is neither accurate nor civil). I do think that he has some valid points to make, but unfortunately most of the time he drowns them out by being a giant blowhard. At other times, when asked to back up his arguments, he responds as if he’s too good to do so. (Libby does this a lot too.) I probably agree with him on most political issues, but the way he presents them here leaves a lot to be desired. I don’t feel like he puts out the best progressive arguments, and at times he seems like a bit of a caricature.
But you’re right, most of the time I let his comments go and don’t say anything. That’s partially because I’ve given up on getting him to change his style, and partially because I feel like it’s repetitive for me to respond to his posts when so many others have or are going to. His comments always draw tons of attention and derision, and often rightfully so, from the conservative members of this site. I don’t have time to comment on every thread here, so I often don’t see the point in me piling on about Quentin when everyone else is already arguing against him. Whereas there are only a few of us who tend to argue with you, and even fewer who argue well. So that’s why I usually feel the need to respond to your points more than I do Quentin’s.
That said, I can see why, since there are so few liberal regulars on this blog, you might see it as tacit approval if I do not call out others when they are rude and extreme. So from now on I will try to do that more often. And if you feel that I have been rude and extreme, I will do my best to avoid such behavior in the future (though sometimes I feel like you overreact, such as in the Cain thread).
I won’t respond to the rest of your comments on this thread, because I don’t feel that would be very productive. But this was a valid question, and I hope we understand each other a little better on this one issue.