The hosts at KFI have done a decent job of pointing out the lack of actual substance within the protests. I missed this exchange, but knowing that William Kristol is behind the accusations hurled towards the protestors, Obama, and Pelosi, seems like a dirty trick pulled out of the asses of Kristol and his ilk. All it takes is 2-3 guys holding anti-semetic signs out of a crowd of thousands to make a "damning" photo-op. This whole element seems like a set-up to undermine the protestors, and the politicians lending their support.
Well, while there are some merits to this (balancing Israel, slapping Iran in the face), I don't think it will happen. Politically, this would be a death-sentence.
That is true enough, but just because a group organizes and protests saying they are pissed off doesn't mean all their goals or motives are honorable and would make for positive change. The thing with the Occupy Wall Street movement is the sheeple of the nation are blindly getting behind them and in lemming-like fashion are ready to follow them off a cliff thinking that when they hit bottom it won't hurt and won't kill them.
The part about hurt or kill them was not meant literally. It was in reference to the amount of damage some of their proposed demands would result in if they grew to the point where they could pressure the government to enact them. It would be disastrous, but I doubt that many of the sheeple who blindly follow the leaders understand that, and that is why how in a lemming-like fashion they are willing to jump into the abyss.
Political talk radio is nothing more than political based entertainment, just as the political based entertainment TV shows on CNN and PMSNBC and FOX News and the Sunday morning political arguing TV shows are.
Maybe half of them should go down there. That seems about right.
Your point sounds valid enough on the surface, but wouldn't it make them look like even bigger imbeciles than they already look like if they called themselves Occupy Wall Street and instead of targeting financial districts around the nation they instead targeted D.C.'s governmental sector?
Actually he didn't ignore it, he offered a plan that was rejected by the house Republicans but would've been absolutely sufficient to stave off a downgrade (over 4 trillion in deficit reduction, which the credit agencies said would be the threshold needed). Also, it's only one of three credit agencies that downgraded the U.S. and they even specifically cited Washington gridlock as their reasoning for a "negative outlook" going forward.
No they didn't, I already proved this beyond any doubt, we don't need to argue this again. They downgraded the USA because the USA government cannot get a handle on the spending. Gridlock was only icing on the cake.
Coming from the guy who posted "Obama's first 1000 disastrous days" by Nile friggin' Gardiner.
